0W16 instead of 0w20?

[Rmay635703]

Originally Posted by Shannow
I'd personally rather a 0W16, which is nearly a monograde over an uber high VII 0W20, for reasons that I've explained previously.


You'll have to wait for 5w16, it's a spec no one has used yet and as close as you'll get in the next few years.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted by Rmay635703
Originally Posted by Shannow
I'd personally rather a 0W16, which is nearly a monograde over an uber high VII 0W20, for reasons that I've explained previously.
You'll have to wait for 5w16, it's a spec no one has used yet and as close as you'll get in the next few years.

You will wait for a long time. 5W-16 is not an allowed viscosity in ILSAC GF-6B. Only 0W-16 is allowed. This is for fuel-economy reasons, as the idea of 0W-16 is to maximize the fuel economy, and lower-VI 5W-16, with little or no VII, will have inferior fuel economy, despite having better wear protection.

See page 135 in the official API document.

API 1509, Engine-Oil licensing and certification system, 18th edition, June 2019

However, API SP without ILSAC GF-6B (without Resource Conserving) allows 5W-16.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted by Gokhan
However, API SP without ILSAC GF-6B (without Resource Conserving) allows 5W-16.

Correction: You can have an API SP Resource Conserving 5W-16. However, ILSAC GF-6B doesn't allow SAE 5W-16 at all but allows SAE 0W-16 only, as I stated earlier.

To avoid confusion ILSAC GF-6B oils will have the SAE 0W-16 shield in contrast to the ILSAC-GF6A oils having the starburst. Oils that neither satisfy ILSAC GF-6A nor GF-6B will have neither the starburst nor the shield -- they will only have the donut, with or without Resource Conserving.

Until API SN PLUS/ILSAC GF-5, all oils that were Resource Conserving also had the starburst. It looks like SAE 5W-16 will be the only exception now for having Resource Conserving but no API certification mark (like the shield and starburst). Therefore, I expect SAE 5W-16 will not be recommended by the OEMs and few oil blenders will make it if any.

 

[OilUzer]

as far as I know, we can have 5W20 dino and iirc, we can also have dino 0W20. If I EVER use x20, the last thing I would want it to be is dino at least based on my current knowledge and subject to change ... lol
I am not afraid of higher viscosity dinos.

Just curious, are there any dino 0W16? Is it chemically possible?

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by Rmay635703
Originally Posted by Shannow
I'd personally rather a 0W16, which is nearly a monograde over an uber high VII 0W20, for reasons that I've explained previously.


You'll have to wait for 5w16, it's a spec no one has used yet and as close as you'll get in the next few years.

The Ravenol had a Harman Index of 100...

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted by OilUzer
as far as I know, we can have 5W20 dino and iirc, we can also have dino 0W20. If I EVER use x20, the last thing I would want it to be is dino at least based on my current knowledge and subject to change ... lol
I am not afraid of higher viscosity dinos.

Just curious, are there any dino 0W16? Is it chemically possible?

No, it's not possible to have a dino (Group I) or a conventional (Group II/II+) 0W-xx oil because of the maximum Noack limit (15% for API/ILSAC and 12.5% for GM dexos1 Gen 3). Noack is what determines what base oil is possible or not, and as the CCS decreases when the SAE cold viscosity spec gets lower, Noack increases for a given base-oil quality (roughly determined by the API group).

However, it is possible to have a conventional (Group II/II+) 5W-16.

It just occurred to me that this is exactly why ILSAC GF-6B only allows 0W-16 but not 5W-16. By only allowing 0W-16, they are indirectly requiring the oil to be synthetic, which is needed to endure the OEM-specified oil-change intervals.

It was a good question.

 

[Luftmasse]

Originally Posted by Shannow
I'd personally rather a 0W16, which is nearly a monograde over an uber high VII 0W20, for reasons that I've explained previously.


Even with Mobil 1 EP 0W20 with mostly PAO is not sufficient enough?

 

[Luftmasse]

Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by Shannow
I'd personally rather a 0W16, which is nearly a monograde over an uber high VII 0W20, for reasons that I've explained previously.

SAE 0W-16 oils on the market are not necessarily monograde-like. Here is some data:

Code
Oil HTHS base-oil viscosity at 150 °C VII content



M1 AFE 0W-16 2.3 cP 1.8 cP 3.9%

M1 AFE 0W-20 2.7 cP 2.0 cP 4.6%

M1 EP 0W-20 2.7 cP 2.1 cP 3.8%



PP 0W-16 2.3 cP 1.8 cP 3.3%

PP 0W-20 2.7 cP 2.0 cP 4.2%



TGMO 0W-20 2.6 cP 1.6 cP 8.7%



VAS 0W-16 2.35 cP 2.2 cP 0.64%

VAS 0W-20 2.66 cP 2.3 cP 2.1%

Estimated base-oil viscosity (BO DV150) and VII content of selected oils


So according to your chart, VAS 0w-16 has the best specs compared to the other 0w16s?

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted by painfx
So according to your chart, VAS 0w-16 has the best specs compared to the other 0w16s?

In has the best specs in terms of the VII content. In other words it's the most monograde-like ILSAC oil sold on the shelves in the US. It is unusual because ILSAC oils try to improve the fuel economy by increasing the VII content and VI.

However, the overall quality of the oil also depends on the quality of the additive package and base oil and the type of the VII, which is impossible to determine through a few specs. The application is also important. For example some applications like full-SAPS oils while others like mid-SAPS oils.

 

[CourierDriver]