Charger Forums banner

0w8 and 0w16 engine oils!

27K views 15 replies 6 participants last post by  370 HEMI 
#1 ·
We have been working for 9 months on the new ILSAC GF6 API SK engine oils that will be coming for the proposed 2016 and 2017 engines.

These will be a 0w8 and 0w16 weight oils. There is only one reason for it and that is for fuel economy. While we will have them available when the time comes, we will recommend heavier weights and oils with more additives to protect the engines compared to these water weight lubricants.

We will companion the better oils we blend with the QuantumBlue Ultra HP Oil filters so that the EPA and economy police will not have the opportunity to damage these new cars when they arrive.

Just thought I would mention that now as we will be ready when the new specs are put forth.;)

Regards,
Brian
BND Automotive LLC:driving:
440-821-9040
www.bndautomotive.com
 
#6 ·
Could you help explain how light weight oils improve fuel economy?

The thinner oils have less viscosity and therefore less film between the components. This ends up pumping with less force (parasitic loss) as it is more like water than oil. This gives the engine and drive line components more power to the wheels and less in sliding, turning and moving parts. All ILSAC GF-5 oils (API SN) are designed to shear within the first 500 miles of introduction to pump like water now. It will be even more so when we get the thinner oils. They have been doing low viscosity fluids in the transmissions for years and also reducing the gear lubricant viscosity as well.

Based on your post above I assume light weighted oils offer lesser protection which in turn leads to increased friction/wear/tear on engine components over time?
30% of your heat is taken away by your engine oil. It has to have enough covalency or maintaining it's shape and integrity under higher and higher heat conditions without coming apart. It is harder and harder to do so with smaller and smaller molecule sizes and viscosity.

We have found that taking an engine that is supposed to run a 5w20 for instance and introduce a 7.5w23 to it instead. We have found that we get better fuel economy than the 5w20, less wear, and longer drain intervals from it. Same with what we would suggest with the 0w16 weight oils. We are looking at a 5w18 or a 5w23 instead. Still be able to pump like it is supposed to but with much more integrity and "richness" of the lubricant. Kinda like 1% milk vs skim. There is some difference if you want it on your cereal! LOL.

Here is an article that they talk about the 0w16 oils:



Basically they are telling you that the thinner is better and has less deposits. Newer is always better. Well, we have seen over the many years that there is the law of diminishing returns. Too thin, too water like too little protection, more and more damage. As long as it lasts for the warranty then who cares after that. Well a lot of us do care and intend to keep our cars as long as we choose not what they choose. :bigthumb:

Regards,
Brian
BND Automotive LLC:driving:
440-821-9040
www.bndautomotive.com
 
#3 ·
0wXX oils are zero weight when cold (just like my SRT uses). The second number is the operating temperature weight. Lower numbers mean less viscosity and pump resistance. This is part of where the increased fuel economy comes from. Current oil technology requires higher weight to compensate for higher engine abuse of the fluid.

Also bear in mind that the 5.7L hemi already uses a 20 weight operating temp oil so a 16 really isn't that much of a drop...but 8 is.

The real question is in the oil technology itself. Weight isn't anywhere near as significant as friction and surface protection properties. Half the weight at twice the friction reduction is the same net. OEM engine manufacturers are placing high demands on oil technology to meet their needs.

The OEM engine manufacturers won't be able to release these new engines unless the oil industry can give them products to work with to meet the demands of a 250k engine service life. Both have a vested interest in succeeding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: POWERMAN
#4 ·
This is ridiculous! 0W-8? That's like the equivalent viscosity of WD40. What is this world coming to? Oil technology is getting to the point where I think logically it would make sense for non-multiweight oils to make a comeback eventually. If engine oil requirements are pushing for thinner, more lightweight lubricants, I don't see why it wouldn't make sense for say an SAE 10 or SAE 15 oil to arrive. I understand that it's all about fuel economy nowadays, but at what cost?
 
#5 ·
You still need multi-viscosity to allow start up lubrication in cold climates. A straight 15w wouldn't let my SRT start in winter without starving the engine for oil flow until it got warm. Multi-viscosity is critical to the full range of engine protection.

As far as the statement "I understand that it's all about fuel economy nowadays, but at what cost?" you need to consider that OEMs must make these engines work with these oils and make them last for 250k miles. As long as the engines last, what cost is there?

None.
 
#10 ·
The SRT engineers stated it here clearly back in 2009 in a chat session that the factory service life of the 5.7L engine is 250K miles.

Also consider that they offer a "Lifetime" powertrain warranty on these cars. That's waaay beyond the base warranty period of 36k miles and MaxCare extended warranty period of 100k miles, so you know that they are setting a high mile service life for the drive train if they are offering that.
 
#9 · (Edited)
You can see by the chart that the new 0w16 weight oil at 150 degrees C (302 F)....... the standard of 2.6 minutes has been reduced to 2.3 minutes. The high temperature and high shear is not going to be able to withstand the long term temperatures on a stock engine let alone modding it for performance. This is what we are saying is that OEM is strictly for mileage and emissions and the rest of it is going to be at the expense of longevity. There is a 13% reduction in kinematic viscosity at 100 degrees C (212 deg F) While viscosity isn't film strength, there is a limit to what additives can be added to these lubricants.


"High temperature high shear (HTHS) viscosity of engine oils is a critical property that relates to the fuel economy and durability of a running engine. The drivers behind lowering HTHS viscosity are new global governmental regulations to improve fuel economy (FE) and lower greenhouse gases (GHG) in new vehicles. Lower HTHS viscosity tends to improve FE and lower GHG but higher HTHS viscosity affords better wear protection so a careful balance must be found when formulating an engine oil. Sufficient HTHS viscosity is critical in preventing engine wear in the critical ring/liner interface area by maintaining a protective oil film between moving parts. One method used to measure HTHS viscosity is ASTM D4683. Oil is introduced between a rotor and a stator at the test temperature of 150°C. The rotor experiences a reactive torque to the oils resistance to flow (viscose friction) and this torque response level is used to determine the HTHS viscosity. HTHS viscosity by ASTM D4683 has been found to relate to the viscosity providing hydrodynamic lubrication in light duty and heavy duty engines. HTHS viscosity has also been found to relate to fuel economy. Think of the protective oil film as if you are trying to swim. If the film is too thick like molasses you can barely move and have to expend a lot of energy; too thin and you sink to the bottom. What you want is the right balance of support and ease of movement. The oil has to be thick enough to maintain separation of the critical moving parts but thin enough to allow for fuel efficient operation."

http://www.hddeo.com/hthsarticle.html

We are working constantly to update our own materials to exceed all the specs that are coming out without losing the critical balance necessary for protection. We have proven that a slightly more viscous fluid with better film strength can actually get better economy while reducing emissions (with ACES IV) to extreme levels!

Basically we have everyone's back on this. We will make sure that there will not be failures due to lubricity in any engine oil we make. Never have had ONE and not going to start now.

Adding ACES IV to the mix also is important as it will reduce ring and bore wear from the topside down instead of from the bottom side up like normal lubricity oils. The combination produces the significant gains we have shown in oil analysis results posted on this forum! :beerchug:

Regards,
Brian
BND Automotive LLC:driving:
440-821-9040
www.bndautomotive.com
 
#11 ·
The OEM engine manufacturers won't be able to release these new engines unless the oil industry can give them products to work with to meet the demands of a 250k engine service life. Both have a vested interest in succeeding.
This is where I think you are wrong. They will release the engines because they must meet the requirements set by the EPA and it will cost engine life, or extra costs of production/R&D. Chrysler's interest is in producing/selling cars and meeting the regulatory obligations that allow them to do so not making them last 250k miles.

The SRT engineers stated it here clearly back in 2009 in a chat session that the factory service life of the 5.7L engine is 250K miles.

Also consider that they offer a "Lifetime" powertrain warranty on these cars. That's waaay beyond the base warranty period of 36k miles and MaxCare extended warranty period of 100k miles, so you know that they are setting a high mile service life for the drive train if they are offering that.
Do they still offer the lifetime warranty? It looks like they dropped it in 2009. More importantly I would argue that the EPA does not care how long our engines last. I do not believe the engines will last and all manufacturers will have to accept this, we will be the ones paying the cost, not the manufacturer, oil companies, or the EPA.

Back to the point, I'm glad to see BND trying to help us deal with these issues. It seems like everyone has an agenda and none of them are looking out for the consumer.
 
#13 ·
This is where I think you are wrong. They will release the engines because they must meet the requirements set by the EPA and it will cost engine life, or extra costs of production/R&D. Chrysler's interest is in producing/selling cars and meeting the regulatory obligations that allow them to do so not making them last 250k miles.

Do they still offer the lifetime warranty? It looks like they dropped it in 2009. More importantly I would argue that the EPA does not care how long our engines last. I do not believe the engines will last and all manufacturers will have to accept this, we will be the ones paying the cost, not the manufacturer, oil companies, or the EPA.

Back to the point, I'm glad to see BND trying to help us deal with these issues. It seems like everyone has an agenda and none of them are looking out for the consumer.
Don't confuse warranty with service life, they are two different things. The powertrain warranty is a sales tool, not a reflection of engine service life. My point about them adding a lifetime powertrain warranty without changing anything about the engine speaks volumes for the true service life. Read that link carefully about the new powertrain warranty and you will see that they state clearly that the lifetime warranty was a sales tactic.

No vehicle manufacturer is going to let their engine service lives be suddenly shortened because they are rushing to meet an CAFE requirement. They would lose massive reputation if their engines suddenly started dying at 100k miles.

Resale values would plummet and no one would buy new ones from them because they wouldn't trust how long they would last. Who would finance a car for 60 months that would always be upside-down on value and nearly worthless when it was paid off? It would destroy the manufacturers sales across the board. Even leases would take a hit since the residual value would drop so fast that the lease prices would become ridiculous.

Certainly no oil company is going to want their products associated with shortened engine service lives either for all of the same reasons.

Reality is that the OEMs and the Oil Companies will work together to make this work.

That said, I'm sure Brian will work diligently to make something that works even better...just like he always has.
 
#14 ·
Different mfg have different life calculations and even for different vehicles in the fleet.

CAFE requirements are getting to the point of being ridiculous. OEM's are getting desperate in trying everything to squeeze every last drop of economy out of that they can find. Thinner fluids have less parasitic drag than thicker fluids.

It's not just the engines, but transmissions and differentials too. Transmissions will become an even bigger issue as the components will be redesigned to work with thinner fluids, and if someone were to put in the wrong fluid, it could quite possible lead to failure. Look at how well MDS works with wrong viscosity... as in it doesn't. With transmissions going all electric shift, the valve bodies are going to be very picky.
 
#15 ·
Different mfg have different life calculations and even for different vehicles in the fleet.

CAFE requirements are getting to the point of being ridiculous. OEM's are getting desperate in trying everything to squeeze every last drop of economy out of that they can find. Thinner fluids have less parasitic drag than thicker fluids.

It's not just the engines, but transmissions and differentials too. Transmissions will become an even bigger issue as the components will be redesigned to work with thinner fluids, and if someone were to put in the wrong fluid, it could quite possible lead to failure. Look at how well MDS works with wrong viscosity... as in it doesn't. With transmissions going all electric shift, the valve bodies are going to be very picky.
Yep, with tolerances becoming tighter this is when the edge gets sharper.

Fluid requirements will be extremely tight and OEM testing will only cover a very narrow range. This will put a lot of pressure on anyone making fluids outside of OEM spec to prove that they won't cause damage or suffer the lawsuits if they do. It will also make owners extremely wary of all aftermarket fluids suppliers if any failures do occur from any of them.

It's a potential minefield for anyone making products that aren't specifically recommended by the OEM.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top