0w16 oil...C'mon!

civicls · Oct 15, 2018

andromeda said:
Slightly wrong oil is not going to have an effect in the short or even intermediate term. You can get by with it. I think it's in the very long term where you'll see a significant difference.

You just said in your above posts that even a 0w-30 or a 5w-20 will have a drastic effect and break down your engine in a matter of days. Now your saying its ok. :confused1:

Civics4Ever · Oct 15, 2018

I water my oil to get it to 0w 15. I'm getting 65 mpg!

civicls · Oct 15, 2018

Civics4Ever said:
I water my oil to get it to 0w 15. I'm getting 65 mpg!

Better yet, use water! I personally got 66 MPG but my engine stalled shortly thereafter.

andromeda · Oct 17, 2018

civicls said:
You just said in your above posts that even a 0w-30 or a 5w-20 will have a drastic effect and break down your engine in a matter of days. Now your saying its ok.

I said nothing about any "drastic effect", only that these oils, recommended by the 1st poster, were out of spec.

charleswrivers · Oct 17, 2018

We'll see how the 16 weight oils pan out with regard to widespread adoption. I wouldn't doubt we'll see it getting used. I don't get the doom and gloom with 20 weight oils. Ford went to 20 weights, from 30 weights about 20 years ago with, to my knowledge, no other changes to the engine design at the time, claiming, yes, improved economy.

The 20 weight oil fight is old and tired. If you want 30 weight... 40 weight... whatever. It's your car. If they go to 16, keep using 30. Maybe it'll help. Maybe it won't. It's likely you'll never know, because it'll keep running until you get rid of it. The junkyard is filled with a lot of cars with fine, high mileage engines... and they're not there because of engine trouble. Many of these ran 20 weight oils their whole life.

There's a lot of articles saying this and that. The Amsoil article is nothing but another sales pitch. You know what I don't generally see? Quantifiable data. Long term tests. That old POS F-150 I have sitting out front has 5w-20 on it's cap and has always used 5w-20, despite it's 5w-30 spec that it would have had had it been a couple years earlier. 17 years and 200k miles later... it still runs.

Until there is long term testing with data of several engine types using different oil viscosities for end-of-life levels of wear and tear that completely vilify thin oils, I'll keep on using the recommendation. If someone wants to use thicker oil because they think it provides more protection based on internet reading or other standards outside the US... that's great. I've heard a lot of logical and passionate debate... but no data to back it up.

I think we're seeing the last couple decades of pure ICE engines anyways. There's a lot of other things that can be complained about that are out there for efficiency. CVTs/stupid amount of gear transmissions... direct injection... tiny displacements with turbos (the J-series is almost out to pasture) tons of dissenting threads. They all help though. They all culmunated in 40 mpgs (highway) being the standard most ICE cars are hitting, compared to 30 being 'the number' when I was a kid. Big economy numbers do sell... especially during times where gas is high.

Looking back at a few generations of non-Si Civics...
10th gen 35 combined (41 hwy)
9th gen 33 combined (35 hwy)
8th gen 29 combined (35 hwy)
7th gen 29 combined (34 hwy)
6th gen 27 combined (32 hwy)

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/index.shtml

Mine you, these are all base engines with an automatic transmission (I did use the 1.5 for the 10th gen)... but there is a continued upward trend in economy. To our benefit, there's also been power improvements along the way. Our Civic's actually beat out a 90s Geo Metro with the 1.3 manual and almost match one with a 1.0 manual on the modern cycle. And that's comparing a light little death can with a mid-sized car thats the size of an Accord a few generations ago. The base Civics have similar straight line performance to K24Z7 powered 9th gen Sis... (Those only got 25 mpg combined, about the same as a 8th gen Si as well). The R18 engines were dull by comparison to either NA K20 or L15B7 we get now.

Using a little L-series, turboing it... adding DI... maybe throwing in a CVT and sticking with the same light oil Honda's been using for years and other automakers have been using for even longer has allowed for an engine with a substantially more power and still greater fuel economy. The cycle by which it has measured has changed as well. Many other MPG ratings that were higher in the past would be much lower by today's standard.

Could 16 weight oil add another 1-2% worth of fuel economy? Maybe. Does it provide enough protection. Probably... if the automaker is willing to slap their name on it and warranty it. May it not provide enough protection? I can accept it doesn't... given years of service history. We don't have that on 16 weight. I see a lot of back and forth internet debates with the 20 weight stuff... little quantifiable data, but given we have a pile of Ford's that are essentially at EOL and one can poke around the internet, there isn't a lot of doom and gloom about 20 weight oil causing early deaths. I've looked.

If someone wants to provide some quantifiable data to show 16 vs 20 or 20 vs 30 weight oils doing a EOL (say... 200k mile) tear down in lab conditions... showing bearing wear... ring/bore wear... compressions changes, then that may be of some use. The rest is feelings and opinions... and it looks like there's been a lot of hurt feelings on this thread.

If someone wants to share links... because I looked for a few and found nothing that seemed very definitive, I'd be interested in seeing the difference. The few I've seen are done by oil manufacturer's, are little more than advertisements and provide little to no data. The argument that a 20 weight oil doesn't provide enough protection is baseless without the data to back it up. I have little doubt that Honda has engines running 24/7 on 16 weight (or lighter) oils and will do teardowns... or has already done so.

They're 1/2 way through gen 10, which they knocked out of the park, but need an incremental improvement in power and economy for gen 11. If they don't get something, they'll have a repeat of gen 8 to 9. Gen 8 was a car of the year when it came out... and 9 was panned. Power and economy numbers, amongst other things, sell cars.

They've already pulled a lot of tech cards for gen 10. Without something more extravagant (ie HCCI/variable compression), there likely won't be a big bump. Gearing and oil might give them a little. There's been noise about allowing higher than 91/93 as a for greatly advanced timing which could lead to a more efficient car designed around that... but I think that's years away, if it ever happens.

Every change that has a hand in improving economy is met with a dissenting argument. DI can cause carbon buildup. CVTs have poor feel or questionable durability (when tuned). Turbos have lag. No VTEC!? Only 1.5 liters? 0w-20 won't protect my engine. I think 1/2 the posts on this forum are related to these arguments with no data to back it up. We're only a few years in... and most of the answers to these questions won't be known until long after gen 10 production is done. Wouldn't it be crazy if, other than a little bump in fuel economy, the difference between 16, 20, 30 and 40 weight oils, with regard to engine wear on a passenger car driven as such was... no difference at all? People's heads would explode.

I did find this... I'm trying to get the full version but it's late and I don't want to join one of a number of sites to get the full version.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301679X15003709

It's a fleet test, using low viscosity oils. It's findings were, "The results showed that, with a correct oil formulation, there is no significant difference when using LVO in terms of engine wear, HTHS viscosity variation and oil consumption". This was done using 39 fleet vehicles over 30000 kms. Still a pretty short period of time.

civicls · Oct 17, 2018

charleswrivers said:
We'll see how the 16 weight oils pan out with regard to widespread adoption. I wouldn't doubt we'll see it getting used. I don't get the doom and gloom with 20 weight oils. Ford went to 20 weights, from 30 weights about 20 years ago with, to my knowledge, no other changes to the engine design at the time, claiming, yes, improved economy.

The 20 weight oil fight is old and tired. If you want 30 weight... 40 weight... whatever. It's your car. If they go to 16, keep using 30. Maybe it'll help. Maybe it won't. It's likely you'll never know, because it'll keep running until you get rid of it. The junkyard is filled with a lot of cars with fine, high mileage engines... and they're not there because of engine trouble. Many of these ran 20 weight oils their whole life.

There's a lot of articles saying this and that. The Amsoil article is nothing but another sales pitch. You know what I don't generally see? Quantifiable data. Long term tests. That old POS F-150 I have sitting out front has 5w-20 on it's cap and has always used 5w-20, despite it's 5w-30 spec that it would have had had it been a couple years earlier. 17 years and 200k miles later... it still runs.

Until there is long term testing with data of several engine types using different oil viscosities for end-of-life levels of wear and tear that completely vilify thin oils, I'll keep on using the recommendation. If someone wants to use thicker oil because they think it provides more protection based on internet reading or other standards outside the US... that's great. I've heard a lot of logical and passionate debate... but no data to back it up.

I think we're seeing the last couple decades of pure ICE engines anyways. There's a lot of other things that can be complained about that are out there for efficiency. CVTs/stupid amount of gear transmissions... direct injection... tiny displacements with turbos (the J-series is almost out to pasture) tons of dissenting threads. They all help though. They all culmunated in 40 mpgs (highway) being the standard most ICE cars are hitting, compared to 30 being 'the number' when I was a kid. Big economy numbers do sell... especially during times where gas is high.

Looking back at a few generations of non-Si Civics...
10th gen 35 combined (41 hwy)
9th gen 33 combined (35 hwy)
8th gen 29 combined (35 hwy)
7th gen 29 combined (34 hwy)
6th gen 27 combined (32 hwy)

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/index.shtml

Mine you, these are all base engines with an automatic transmission (I did use the 1.5 for the 10th gen)... but there is a continued upward trend in economy. To our benefit, there's also been power improvements along the way. Our Civic's actually beat out a 90s Geo Metro with the 1.3 manual and almost match one with a 1.0 manual on the modern cycle. And that's comparing a light little death can with a mid-sized car thats the size of an Accord a few generations ago. The base Civics have similar straight line performance to K24Z7 powered 9th gen Sis... (Those only got 25 mpg combined, about the same as a 8th gen Si as well). The R18 engines were dull by comparison to either NA K20 or L15B7 we get now.

Using a little L-series, turboing it... adding DI... maybe throwing in a CVT and sticking with the same light oil Honda's been using for years and other automakers have been using for even longer has allowed for an engine with a substantially more power and still greater fuel economy. The cycle by which it has measured has changed as well. Many other MPG ratings that were higher in the past would be much lower by today's standard.

Could 16 weight oil add another 1-2% worth of fuel economy? Maybe. Does it provide enough protection. Probably... if the automaker is willing to slap their name on it and warranty it. May it not provide enough protection? I can accept it doesn't... given years of service history. We don't have that on 16 weight. I see a lot of back and forth internet debates with the 20 weight stuff... little quantifiable data, but given we have a pile of Ford's that are essentially at EOL and one can poke around the internet, there isn't a lot of doom and gloom about 20 weight oil causing early deaths. I've looked.

If someone wants to provide some quantifiable data to show 16 vs 20 or 20 vs 30 weight oils doing a EOL (say... 200k mile) tear down in lab conditions... showing bearing wear... ring/bore wear... compressions changes, then that may be of some use. The rest is feelings and opinions... and it looks like there's been a lot of hurt feelings on this thread.

If someone wants to share links... because I looked for a few and found nothing that seemed very definitive, I'd be interested in seeing the difference. The few I've seen are done by oil manufacturer's, are little more than advertisements and provide little to no data. The argument that a 20 weight oil doesn't provide enough protection is baseless without the data to back it up. I have little doubt that Honda has engines running 24/7 on 16 weight (or lighter) oils and will do teardowns... or has already done so.

They're 1/2 way through gen 10, which they knocked out of the park, but need an incremental improvement in power and economy for gen 11. If they don't get something, they'll have a repeat of gen 8 to 9. Gen 8 was a car of the year when it came out... and 9 was panned. Power and economy numbers, amongst other things, sell cars.

They've already pulled a lot of tech cards for gen 10. Without something more extravagant (ie HCCI/variable compression), there likely won't be a big bump. Gearing and oil might give them a little. There's been noise about allowing higher than 91/93 as a for greatly advanced timing which could lead to a more efficient car designed around that... but I think that's years away, if it ever happens.

Every change that has a hand in improving economy is met with a dissenting argument. DI can cause carbon buildup. CVTs have poor feel or questionable durability (when tuned). Turbos have lag. No VTEC!? Only 1.5 liters? 0w-20 won't protect my engine. I think 1/2 the posts on this forum are related to these arguments with no data to back it up. We're only a few years in... and most of the answers to these questions won't be known until long after gen 10 production is done. Wouldn't it be crazy if, other than a little bump in fuel economy, the difference between 16, 20, 30 and 40 weight oils, with regard to engine wear on a passenger car driven as such was... no difference at all? People's heads would explode.

I did find this... I'm trying to get the full version but it's late and I don't want to join one of a number of sites to get the full version.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301679X15003709

It's a fleet test, using low viscosity oils. It's findings were, "The results showed that, with a correct oil formulation, there is no significant difference when using LVO in terms of engine wear, HTHS viscosity variation and oil consumption". This was done using 39 fleet vehicles over 30000 kms. Still a pretty short period of time.

Oh boy, you have a lot of time on your hands...
Heck I would never put this much effort to an English paper...just saying imho-but I do agree with your points. Oil arguments are quite senseless and you'll also find the occasional old timer who uses straight 30 in a 0-20 engine. I guess you could say - MEOLO:
"my engine only lives once" - Civic forum author (me) :headbang:

charleswrivers · Oct 17, 2018

civicls said:
Oh boy, you have a lot of time on your hands...
Heck I would never put this much effort to an English paper...just saying imho-but I do agree with your points. Oil arguments are quite senseless and you'll also find the occasional old timer who uses straight 30 in a 0-20 engine. I guess you could say - MEOLO:
"my engine only lives once" - Civic forum author (me)

I've been taking college courses and just wrapped up Ethics and American Gov't last month. Nothing to bust out a 10 page paper in 2-3 hours. This might have taken 15-30 minutes... and half of it was looking at random articles trying to come up with any damning evidence. It doesn't appear to exist.

civicls · Oct 17, 2018

charleswrivers said:
I've been taking college courses and just wrapped up Ethics and American Gov't last month. Nothing to bust out a 10 page paper in 2-3 hours. This might have taken 15-30 minutes... and half of it was looking at random articles trying to come up with any damning evidence. It doesn't appear to exist.

Most people don't have that kind of writing talent... :respect:

Civicguy1206 · Oct 26, 2018

absolude said:
Do you even know what "speck" is when it comes to oil or how to spell it at least?

I thought it was spec not speck. A speck is a small particle of something.

civicdabest-foo · Oct 27, 2018

I volunteer to try out 0w8 on my 1.5L Touring. Wonder how much mpg boost I will get.

From Googling: https://global.rakuten.com/en/store/indies-mc/item/ultra-next-20/

SCOPESYS · Oct 28, 2018

civicdabest-foo said:
I volunteer to try out 0w8 on my 1.5L Touring. Wonder how much mpg boost I will get.

From Googling: https://global.rakuten.com/en/store/indies-mc/item/ultra-next-20/

One potential advantage of 0W20 oil .. Old changes should take less time, as the thinner oil should drain out quicker. !!!
Since Dealer's Labor Rates are so high, this saving in time should have a significant effect of the time taken to do the oil change, and that SHOULD reflect is a lower Bill for the oil change !!! :wave:

(Yeah .. sure !! :rofl:

)

Gruber · Oct 29, 2018

The "small bearing clearances" people and all those thinking that 20 weight oil is a "newfangled thing", possible only thanks to the bleeding-edge 21st century technology :bow:

should read the link below.

It turns out that 20 weight oil (that is 20W20, there was no 0W20 at that time) was recommended for Ford Model T, (1908-1927) which of course was described at that time as having "closely fitted bearings". :headbang:

So all Civicx owners, at least in warmer climate, could just as well fill their engines with Gargoyle Mobiloil "E" or White Star Extra Quality Oil, which were sold about 100 years ago and called at the time "light" oils with the viscosity of about SAE 20 oil.

The blog article linked below says that the scale of viscosities for crankcase oil was then about the same as it is today - 20 -light, 30-medium, 40-heavy. But of course Model T had very modern, "closely fitted bearings," :yes:

so the manufacturer recommended the "light" oil.

The things that changed since then are the development of multi-viscosity oils, anti-wear compounds, and detergents. So you don't need to change oil every 1000 miles. And, thanks to these, plus some improvements in engine technology you also don't need to dump your factory oil after 500 miles. The viscosity of the oil though, remains the same.... because a bearing is a bearing and a piston ring is a piston ring.

"The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun." Eccl. 1:9 (KJV)

https://modeltfordfix.com/care-and-feeding-what-kind-of-oil-should-i-use-in-my-model-t-ford/

Honda Civic 10th gen 0w16 oil...C'mon! 0BiEl9NHYcc1_BjntzFCfXlV7mIm1-0Qk-TaeHUhyw-TDVvh35ayH2CUmeYQQ?width=483&height=480&cropmode=none

David Harper · Nov 1, 2018

this past summer during the hot months I switched to M1 0w30 and my engine (N.A. 2.0) did seem to be smoother and quieter. I went back to 0w20 for the winter but next summer I'll go back to 0w30.

civicls · Nov 1, 2018

David Harper said:
this past summer during the hot months I switched to M1 0w30 and my engine (N.A. 2.0) did seem to be smoother and quieter. I went back to 0w20 for the winter but next summer I'll go back to 0w30.

It's perfectly fine, don't listen to these goons loo.

absolude · Nov 1, 2018

David Harper said:
this past summer during the hot months I switched to M1 0w30 and my engine (N.A. 2.0) did seem to be smoother and quieter. I went back to 0w20 for the winter but next summer I'll go back to 0w30.

Calling "out of spek".

lol

0w16 oil...C'mon!

civicls

Senior Member

Civics4Ever

Rally Red EXT

civicls

Senior Member

andromeda

Senior Member

charleswrivers

Senior Member

civicls

Senior Member

charleswrivers

Senior Member

civicls

Senior Member

Civicguy1206

Senior Member

civicdabest-foo

Senior Member

SCOPESYS

Senior Member

Gruber

Senior Member

David Harper

Senior Member

civicls

Senior Member

absolude

Senior Member

Similar threads