The perfect question for BITOG, the OCD's will be in like robbers dogs.
Oil weight and Oil Grade
- Thread starter Snagglefoot
- Start date
- Status
Use of colloquial terms is not an indication of anything.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Snagglefoot
So there you have it folks. Grade is correct.
"Viscosity Grade" ... to be more accurate.
Indeed.
SAE J300 is entitled "Engine Oil Viscosity Classification" and within the document refers to "viscosity grade".
I consider the use of "weight" to be a largely American colloquialism and as such any party addressing an American audience might want to use language that is understood or carries the right message, even if not technically correct. If I hear "weight" used in the context of oils I know what it means, even if I wouldn't use the term myself.
Originally Posted by Snagglefoot
So there you have it folks. Grade is correct.
"Viscosity Grade" ... to be more accurate.
Indeed.
SAE J300 is entitled "Engine Oil Viscosity Classification" and within the document refers to "viscosity grade".
I consider the use of "weight" to be a largely American colloquialism and as such any party addressing an American audience might want to use language that is understood or carries the right message, even if not technically correct. If I hear "weight" used in the context of oils I know what it means, even if I wouldn't use the term myself.
dnewton3
Staff member
Grade is correct. Weight is not the accurate term.
But ... that doesn't matter to most folks. We have to accept the fact that, for most folks who are not BITOGers (oil snobs and lube afficianados), it's a moot conversation. Some have brought up "colloquialism" and I have to agree with them 100%.
In fact, let's turn the table and be critical of ourselves. How many times even on this site do people use the wrong terms? How about the word "motor"? Hey - that's a fine motor in your car. That word has been around for decades, but is really only appropriate now with the insurgence of hybrid cars, because a "motor" is most accurately defined as an electrically driven prime mover, whereas an "engine" is the prime mover run on (typically for our purposes) fossil fuels. But that does not stop many of us from saying "the motor in that old car ..." or "happy motoring ..." etc. There's a slew of other words we misuse here; nearly all of us do it.
So are we no worse or better than others?; those whom say "oil weight"? There are times when we're having technical conversations and the proper terminology is appropriate to more accurately define and refine the conversation. And then there're times when just good ol' fashioned jaw-talk is OK. I accept the fact that the vast majority of civilization isn't into lubes like we are. I don't fault them for it.
But ... that doesn't matter to most folks. We have to accept the fact that, for most folks who are not BITOGers (oil snobs and lube afficianados), it's a moot conversation. Some have brought up "colloquialism" and I have to agree with them 100%.
In fact, let's turn the table and be critical of ourselves. How many times even on this site do people use the wrong terms? How about the word "motor"? Hey - that's a fine motor in your car. That word has been around for decades, but is really only appropriate now with the insurgence of hybrid cars, because a "motor" is most accurately defined as an electrically driven prime mover, whereas an "engine" is the prime mover run on (typically for our purposes) fossil fuels. But that does not stop many of us from saying "the motor in that old car ..." or "happy motoring ..." etc. There's a slew of other words we misuse here; nearly all of us do it.
So are we no worse or better than others?; those whom say "oil weight"? There are times when we're having technical conversations and the proper terminology is appropriate to more accurately define and refine the conversation. And then there're times when just good ol' fashioned jaw-talk is OK. I accept the fact that the vast majority of civilization isn't into lubes like we are. I don't fault them for it.
Originally Posted by dnewton3
Grade is correct. Weight is not the accurate term.
But ... that doesn't matter to most folks. We have to accept the fact that, for most folks who are not BITOGers (oil snobs and lube afficianados), it's a moot conversation. Some have brought up "colloquialism" and I have to agree with them 100%.
In fact, let's turn the table and be critical of ourselves. How many times even on this site do people use the wrong terms? How about the word "motor"? Hey - that's a fine motor in your car. That word has been around for decades, but is really only appropriate now with the insurgence of hybrid cars, because a "motor" is most accurately defined as an electrically driven prime mover, whereas an "engine" is the prime mover run on (typically for our purposes) fossil fuels. But that does not stop many of us from saying "the motor in that old car ..." or "happy motoring ..." etc. There's a slew of other words we misuse here; nearly all of us do it.
So are we no worse or better than others?; those whom say "oil weight"? There are times when we're having technical conversations and the proper terminology is appropriate to more accurately define and refine the conversation. And then there're times when just good ol' fashioned jaw-talk is OK. I accept the fact that the vast majority of civilization isn't into lubes like we are. I don't fault them for it.
+1
Grade is correct. Weight is not the accurate term.
But ... that doesn't matter to most folks. We have to accept the fact that, for most folks who are not BITOGers (oil snobs and lube afficianados), it's a moot conversation. Some have brought up "colloquialism" and I have to agree with them 100%.
In fact, let's turn the table and be critical of ourselves. How many times even on this site do people use the wrong terms? How about the word "motor"? Hey - that's a fine motor in your car. That word has been around for decades, but is really only appropriate now with the insurgence of hybrid cars, because a "motor" is most accurately defined as an electrically driven prime mover, whereas an "engine" is the prime mover run on (typically for our purposes) fossil fuels. But that does not stop many of us from saying "the motor in that old car ..." or "happy motoring ..." etc. There's a slew of other words we misuse here; nearly all of us do it.
So are we no worse or better than others?; those whom say "oil weight"? There are times when we're having technical conversations and the proper terminology is appropriate to more accurately define and refine the conversation. And then there're times when just good ol' fashioned jaw-talk is OK. I accept the fact that the vast majority of civilization isn't into lubes like we are. I don't fault them for it.
+1
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Originally Posted by dnewton3
Grade is correct. Weight is not the accurate term.
But ... that doesn't matter to most folks. We have to accept the fact that, for most folks who are not BITOGers (oil snobs and lube afficianados), it's a moot conversation. Some have brought up "colloquialism" and I have to agree with them 100%.
In fact, let's turn the table and be critical of ourselves. How many times even on this site do people use the wrong terms? How about the word "motor"? Hey - that's a fine motor in your car. That word has been around for decades, but is really only appropriate now with the insurgence of hybrid cars, because a "motor" is most accurately defined as an electrically driven prime mover, whereas an "engine" is the prime mover run on (typically for our purposes) fossil fuels. But that does not stop many of us from saying "the motor in that old car ..." or "happy motoring ..." etc. There's a slew of other words we misuse here; nearly all of us do it.
So are we no worse or better than others?; those whom say "oil weight"? There are times when we're having technical conversations and the proper terminology is appropriate to more accurately define and refine the conversation. And then there're times when just good ol' fashioned jaw-talk is OK. I accept the fact that the vast majority of civilization isn't into lubes like we are. I don't fault them for it.
All ICE oil containers say "motor oil"
Grade is correct. Weight is not the accurate term.
But ... that doesn't matter to most folks. We have to accept the fact that, for most folks who are not BITOGers (oil snobs and lube afficianados), it's a moot conversation. Some have brought up "colloquialism" and I have to agree with them 100%.
In fact, let's turn the table and be critical of ourselves. How many times even on this site do people use the wrong terms? How about the word "motor"? Hey - that's a fine motor in your car. That word has been around for decades, but is really only appropriate now with the insurgence of hybrid cars, because a "motor" is most accurately defined as an electrically driven prime mover, whereas an "engine" is the prime mover run on (typically for our purposes) fossil fuels. But that does not stop many of us from saying "the motor in that old car ..." or "happy motoring ..." etc. There's a slew of other words we misuse here; nearly all of us do it.
So are we no worse or better than others?; those whom say "oil weight"? There are times when we're having technical conversations and the proper terminology is appropriate to more accurately define and refine the conversation. And then there're times when just good ol' fashioned jaw-talk is OK. I accept the fact that the vast majority of civilization isn't into lubes like we are. I don't fault them for it.
All ICE oil containers say "motor oil"
Maybe I'll just use the word Viscosity to clarify.
Ed
Ed
Originally Posted by aquariuscsm
Originally Posted by dnewton3
Grade is correct. Weight is not the accurate term.
But ... that doesn't matter to most folks. We have to accept the fact that, for most folks who are not BITOGers (oil snobs and lube afficianados), it's a moot conversation. Some have brought up "colloquialism" and I have to agree with them 100%.
In fact, let's turn the table and be critical of ourselves. How many times even on this site do people use the wrong terms? How about the word "motor"? Hey - that's a fine motor in your car. That word has been around for decades, but is really only appropriate now with the insurgence of hybrid cars, because a "motor" is most accurately defined as an electrically driven prime mover, whereas an "engine" is the prime mover run on (typically for our purposes) fossil fuels. But that does not stop many of us from saying "the motor in that old car ..." or "happy motoring ..." etc. There's a slew of other words we misuse here; nearly all of us do it.
So are we no worse or better than others?; those whom say "oil weight"? There are times when we're having technical conversations and the proper terminology is appropriate to more accurately define and refine the conversation. And then there're times when just good ol' fashioned jaw-talk is OK. I accept the fact that the vast majority of civilization isn't into lubes like we are. I don't fault them for it.
All ICE oil containers say "motor oil"
Funny you mention that. In shop class back in the 70's if you called an car/truck engine a motor you'd get an "F" and fail the class..........
Originally Posted by dnewton3
Grade is correct. Weight is not the accurate term.
But ... that doesn't matter to most folks. We have to accept the fact that, for most folks who are not BITOGers (oil snobs and lube afficianados), it's a moot conversation. Some have brought up "colloquialism" and I have to agree with them 100%.
In fact, let's turn the table and be critical of ourselves. How many times even on this site do people use the wrong terms? How about the word "motor"? Hey - that's a fine motor in your car. That word has been around for decades, but is really only appropriate now with the insurgence of hybrid cars, because a "motor" is most accurately defined as an electrically driven prime mover, whereas an "engine" is the prime mover run on (typically for our purposes) fossil fuels. But that does not stop many of us from saying "the motor in that old car ..." or "happy motoring ..." etc. There's a slew of other words we misuse here; nearly all of us do it.
So are we no worse or better than others?; those whom say "oil weight"? There are times when we're having technical conversations and the proper terminology is appropriate to more accurately define and refine the conversation. And then there're times when just good ol' fashioned jaw-talk is OK. I accept the fact that the vast majority of civilization isn't into lubes like we are. I don't fault them for it.
All ICE oil containers say "motor oil"
Funny you mention that. In shop class back in the 70's if you called an car/truck engine a motor you'd get an "F" and fail the class..........
Originally Posted by Snagglefoot
So there you have it folks. Grade is correct. Weight is a term that was used for many years and and is still kicked around, even by those who should know better.
That takes a weight (I mean grade) off my shoulders.
Add some 30 weight oil to the engine and some high test gas to the gas tank.
So there you have it folks. Grade is correct. Weight is a term that was used for many years and and is still kicked around, even by those who should know better.
That takes a weight (I mean grade) off my shoulders.
Add some 30 weight oil to the engine and some high test gas to the gas tank.
Originally Posted by Donald
Originally Posted by Snagglefoot
So there you have it folks. Grade is correct. Weight is a term that was used for many years and and is still kicked around, even by those who should know better.
That takes a weight (I mean grade) off my shoulders.
Add some 30 weight oil to the engine and some high test gas to the gas tank.
Wait, is it fuel, gas or petrol..I forget.
Originally Posted by Snagglefoot
So there you have it folks. Grade is correct. Weight is a term that was used for many years and and is still kicked around, even by those who should know better.
That takes a weight (I mean grade) off my shoulders.
Add some 30 weight oil to the engine and some high test gas to the gas tank.
Wait, is it fuel, gas or petrol..I forget.
Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter
Originally Posted by Donald
Originally Posted by Snagglefoot
So there you have it folks. Grade is correct. Weight is a term that was used for many years and and is still kicked around, even by those who should know better.
That takes a weight (I mean grade) off my shoulders.
Add some 30 weight oil to the engine and some high test gas to the gas tank.
Wait, is it fuel, gas or petrol..I forget.
Originally Posted by Donald
Originally Posted by Snagglefoot
So there you have it folks. Grade is correct. Weight is a term that was used for many years and and is still kicked around, even by those who should know better.
That takes a weight (I mean grade) off my shoulders.
Add some 30 weight oil to the engine and some high test gas to the gas tank.
Wait, is it fuel, gas or petrol..I forget.
How about unleaded gas. We haven't had leaded gas at the pumps in 45 years. I often stop at a station and fill up with regular unleaded gas and get an un-creamed coffee.
Last edited:
Is it the correct time to bring up the error of saying "VIN number"?
Originally Posted by LotI
Is it the correct time to bring up the error of saying "VIN number"?
You mean the vehicle identification number number?
Is it the correct time to bring up the error of saying "VIN number"?
You mean the vehicle identification number number?
Originally Posted by Imp4
I then popped off 5 or 6 well respected industry players that use the terms 'weight' and 'grade' interchangeably. My examples ranged from an oil major to an OEM to trade groups to enthusiasts.
We all know that the technically correct term is 'grade' because that's how the standard defines it. We all also know that many (most?) well respected professionals use the terms interchangeably in business environments and both are readily accepted.
You're not establishing yourself as smarter than everybody else by making holier than thou statements about other people's knowledge base.
Just because they are "well respected" doesn't mean they are always technically correct in every area. Kind of like posters to this board,
I then popped off 5 or 6 well respected industry players that use the terms 'weight' and 'grade' interchangeably. My examples ranged from an oil major to an OEM to trade groups to enthusiasts.
We all know that the technically correct term is 'grade' because that's how the standard defines it. We all also know that many (most?) well respected professionals use the terms interchangeably in business environments and both are readily accepted.
You're not establishing yourself as smarter than everybody else by making holier than thou statements about other people's knowledge base.
Just because they are "well respected" doesn't mean they are always technically correct in every area. Kind of like posters to this board,
Originally Posted by Snagglefoot
How about unleaded gas. We haven't had leaded gas at the pumps in 45 years. I often stop at a station and fill up with regular unleaded gas and get an un-creamed coffee.
I filled up with high test and went in and asked for a flat white coffee and they looked puzzled.
How about unleaded gas. We haven't had leaded gas at the pumps in 45 years. I often stop at a station and fill up with regular unleaded gas and get an un-creamed coffee.
I filled up with high test and went in and asked for a flat white coffee and they looked puzzled.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by kschachn
Just because they are "well respected" doesn't mean they are always technically correct in every area. Kind of like posters to this board,
I completely agree. The whole point is that they are not technically correct, and that it is still OK.
Just because they are "well respected" doesn't mean they are always technically correct in every area. Kind of like posters to this board,
I completely agree. The whole point is that they are not technically correct, and that it is still OK.
LOL them switching back and forth.
Although....perhaps the term "weight" is a carryover from before oils were tested as they are today.
Many similar parallels in language, there are NUmerous examples in English of terms that, while not technically correct, are used interchangeably.
Although....perhaps the term "weight" is a carryover from before oils were tested as they are today.
Many similar parallels in language, there are NUmerous examples in English of terms that, while not technically correct, are used interchangeably.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Originally Posted by LotI
Is it the correct time to bring up the error of saying "VIN number"?
Kind of like calling a water heater a "hot water heater" haha.
Is it the correct time to bring up the error of saying "VIN number"?
Kind of like calling a water heater a "hot water heater" haha.
Originally Posted by aquariuscsm
Kind of like calling a water heater a "hot water heater" haha.
LOL. Never thought of that, since technically it is a cold water heater.
Kind of like calling a water heater a "hot water heater" haha.
LOL. Never thought of that, since technically it is a cold water heater.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked