Fascinating study on Ravenol 0w16 vs 5w30 in fleet of similar autos

Higher TBN and good shear stability...How is this Fascinating?
It does have good Seq IVA (Moly)...What was it for the 5W30?
 
Last edited:
Ah I thought they were using their own 5w30 C3 grade. I missed that. All good points above.
 
Originally Posted by RDY4WAR
More marketing mumbo jumbo. Are people really gullible enough to believe this crap?




Is there any oil company or any company for that matter that doesn't do the same?
 
Originally Posted by PimTac
Originally Posted by RDY4WAR
More marketing mumbo jumbo. Are people really gullible enough to believe this crap?




Is there any oil company or any company for that matter that doesn't do the same?


I agree with your point. I call it out as BS all the time. I just can't wrap my head around how someone couldn't see through such obvious marketing nonsense.
 
Originally Posted by RDY4WAR
Originally Posted by PimTac
Originally Posted by RDY4WAR
More marketing mumbo jumbo. Are people really gullible enough to believe this crap?




Is there any oil company or any company for that matter that doesn't do the same?


I agree with your point. I call it out as BS all the time. I just can't wrap my head around how someone couldn't see through such obvious marketing nonsense.


Many don't know enough to question the "data"provided. For others it is easy to let confirmation bias allow you to believe something.
 
The first and mandatory step in showing that your oil is better than a different ACEA C3 oil would be to show that your oil fully meets ACEA C3 too.

Otherwise we're in the "one armed bandit" territory where one could show that shampoo is better than oil.
 
Holy molybdenum, Batman. I just thought it was interesting in the general comparison of a decent modern 5w30 to the new 0w16 viscosity.

All sorts of variables, metrics, and perspectives the brief video does not detail, no doubt.
 
Begins with the ends in mind, one shall arrive at 'targeted' whatever.
Adverts are adverts.Period.
 
Originally Posted by StevieC
... Paging all the "Thicker is better" folks. ...


lol.gif
thicker folks are so shocked with x16 they don't know what to say!
also we thought we had assimilated almost all u guys!
shocked2.gif

kind of disapointed, we need to work harder!
grin2.gif
 
Originally Posted by dbias
I run the Ravenol SSL 0W-40 in the Audi and it also has some really great numbers HTHS 3.7, NOACK 8.5, VI 182 and the right formal factory approvals Porsche A40 VW 502 BMW Longlife-01. That being said i have nothing I'd put 0W-16 in.
C3 5W-30 are some pretty stout oils so I'd say they were wanting the comparison against one of the tougher standards to meet?

They should have compared the 0w-16 to the 0w-40 A3/B4 you mentioned, then, particularly in trying to compare TBN.
wink.gif
I won't say this 0w-16 is garbage or doesn't have good anti-wear. There is a reason, however, that a C3 was chosen as an example with which to compare TBN.

Originally Posted by Indyfan
Is Ravenol considered to be one of the best out there, or parallel to a mass market synthetic?

They're certainly working hard to be considered a top product.
 
Originally Posted by FordCapriDriver
Well that's it, i'm switching all my cars to 0W-16
lol.gif


Wait, please wait and looking out for a fully PAO/ester 15W40 fortified with 200 ppm each of Mobybdenum, Titanium and Boron for fuel efficiency and various forms of organic anti-oxidants/whatever and you are good to go to beat the h.ell out of this 0W16.

Edit: So much for selective posturing, by the money making oil marketers for the simple minded.
 
Last edited:
The oil-club.ru had an analysis of this oil. It was made in 2015. Here it is:

[Linked Image]


And this is an FTIR of the oil:
[Linked Image]


This is the oil that was tested:
[Linked Image]


The analysis is no longer available in the oil-club.ru, as the discussion of the Ravenol's oils in this forum was forbidden - a conflict between the oil-club.ru and the company Ravenol.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by emod
The oil-club.ru had an analysis of this oil. It was made in 2015. Here it is:

[Linked Image]


And this is an FTIR of the oil:
[Linked Image]


This is the oil that was tested:
[Linked Image]


The analysis is no longer available in the oil-club.ru, as the discussion of the Ravenol's oils in this forum was forbidden - a conflict between the oil-club.ru and the company Ravenol.


Thanks for posting.

Ravenol SN 0W16 ; Moly 133 ppm; Boron 100 ppm a  ;Capture.PNG
 
Almost all Synthetic tds I've read say something to the effect of how stout they are "when compared to Conventional Oil" etc. I don't see this as any different.

The validity of the testing is absolutely open to question since only their "results" are published, but the comparison oil, in general, is at the very least a tougher spec'd oil than the ones used in the generic wording most brands use when discussing their syn.
 
Originally Posted by emod
The oil-club.ru had an analysis of this oil. It was made in 2015. Here it is:

[Linked Image]


And this is an FTIR of the oil:
[Linked Image]


This is the oil that was tested:
[Linked Image]


The analysis is no longer available in the oil-club.ru, as the discussion of the Ravenol's oils in this forum was forbidden - a conflict between the oil-club.ru and the company Ravenol.


Why was it a conflict?
 
The only reason this grade was developed is for fuel economy.
I will never put mpg over engine protection.
I don't understand why some get a charge out of seeing how thin they can go.
Is any perceived mpg gain that important to you?
 
I'm interested to find out more why the oil club was stopped from discussing Ravenol. Did Ravenol threaten them with lawsuits for posting the analysis?


TWBT
 
Back
Top