Which Motor Oil Viscosity Brand Wins?
A head-to-head test of 4 motor oil viscosity options with the measured results for each. See how they ranked and watch the full test video. Shoppers cross-shopping 0w 20 full synthetic oil, 0w20 oil, 0w20 and 0w20 engine oil land here for the head to head that settles it.
Pennzoil Platinum full synthetic 0W-16
Price shown in test: around $26 for a 5-quart container
Affiliate link. We may earn a commission at no extra cost to you.
The measured results
Every number below is read straight from the test. Scroll sideways to see all measurements. Products are listed in the order they finished.
| Product | Certifications | Room temperature flow race, uncooked oil (all four) | Thermal breakdown/evaporation (200g heated to 410F for 2 hours) | Lubricity/wear scar test vs 5W-30 (cooked oil) | Room temperature flow race, cooked oil (all four) | Cold flow test at -40F, uncooked oil | Cold flow test at -40F, cooked/heat-exposed oil | Independent oil analysis lab report | Lubricity/wear scar test vs 0W-16 (cooked oil) | Lubricity/wear scar test vs 5W-20 (cooked oil) | Lubricity/wear scar test vs 0W-20 (cooked oil) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1Pennzoil Platinum full synthetic 0W-16around $26 for a 5-quart container | API SP; does not have a Dexos1 certification (the 5W-30 does); Pennzoil claims carbon neutral, made from natural gas | 1st place, fastest of the four | started 412.12 g, ended 405.76 g, a loss of 4.36 g, the highest evaporative loss of the four oils; visibly darkened quickly and produced more vapor than the 5W-30 during the test | wear scar about 8 percent larger than the 5W-30's, meaning worse anti-wear/film-strength performance in this pairing | 1st place, fastest of the four | crossed the finish line before any other oil was even out of the gate, described as unfazed by the cold; fastest of the four, exact time not given for this run | 43.6 seconds, still the fastest of the four despite losing some speed after heat exposure | highest detergent/dispersant (barium, boron, calcium, magnesium) content of the four at just over 1,800 parts per million combined versus about 1,300 ppm for the other three; small advantage in anti-wear additives; highest total base number (TBN) at 7.1, the best acid-neutralizing capacity of the four; only trace levels of wear metals (aluminum, iron, tin) like the other three oils | not tested | not tested | not tested |
| 2Pennzoil Platinum full synthetic 5W-30$24 for a 5-quart container, about $2 less than the 0W-16 | API SP; has a Dexos1 certification (the 0W-16 does not) | 4th (last) place, trailing the leaders by about an inch | started 404.67 g, ended 401.08 g, a loss of 3.59 g, the lowest evaporative loss of the four oils and the best resistance to thermal breakdown; appeared visually unaffected by the heat | not tested | 4th (last) place | slowest of the four at close to 2 minutes 30 seconds, described as really lagging behind the other three | needed almost 43 seconds longer than its own uncooked run (roughly 3 minutes 13 seconds), still the slowest of the four | detergent/dispersant content around 1,300 ppm, evenly matched with the 0W-20 and 5W-20 (all lower than the 0W-16); only trace levels of wear metals | wear scar about 8 percent smaller than the 0W-16's; per the video's closing summary this was also the best overall wear protection of all four oils tested | not tested | not tested |
| 3Pennzoil Platinum full synthetic 0W-20 | Dexos1 certified, API SP, Platinum full synthetic | 2nd place, barely edging out the 5W-20 | started 394.64 g, ended 390.67 g, a loss of 3.97 g, the second-worst evaporative loss of the four; got slightly darker than the 5W-20 at the 30 minute mark | not tested | 2nd place, close behind the 0W-16 | 1 minute 54 seconds, barely ahead of the 5W-20, after both needed about a 45 second warm-up before starting to flow | 2 minutes 22 seconds, almost 30 seconds slower than its own uncooked run, but took a much stronger and faster lead over the 5W-20 throughout this particular race | detergent/dispersant content around 1,300 ppm, evenly matched with the 5W-20 and 5W-30; only trace levels of wear metals | not tested | wear scar about 7 percent larger than the 5W-20's; performed almost the same as the 0W-16 on the energy-use meter at the start of the test, with definitely more wear than the 5W-30 | not tested |
| 4Pennzoil Platinum full synthetic 5W-20 | Dexos1 certified, API SP, Platinum full synthetic | 3rd place, very close behind the 0W-20 | started 429.83 g, ended 425.91 g, a loss of 3.92 g, the second-best (second-lowest) evaporative loss of the four, just behind the 5W-30 | not tested | 3rd place | 1 minute 57 seconds, just behind the 0W-20 | almost 40 seconds slower than its own uncooked run (roughly 2 minutes 37 seconds) | detergent/dispersant content around 1,300 ppm, evenly matched with the 0W-20 and 5W-30; only trace levels of wear metals | not tested | not tested | wear scar about 7 percent smaller than the 0W-20's; performed a little better than the 0W-20 with similar bearing noise during the test; per the closing summary, performed almost as well as the 5W-30, the best overall wear protection |
How it was tested
- room temperature (about 70F) oil flow race, all four viscosities simultaneously, both before and after heat exposure
- thermal breakdown/evaporation: 200g of oil heated to 410F for 2 hours, weighed before and after (run as two pairs: 0W-16 vs 5W-30, then 0W-20 vs 5W-20)
- lubricity/film strength: wear scar comparison using heat-exposed (cooked) oil on a lubricity tester (run as the same two pairs)
- cold flow race at -40F in a freezer, both uncooked and heat-exposed (cooked) oil
- independent oil analysis lab report: wear metals, detergent/dispersant content, anti-wear additive levels, and total base number (TBN)
Data notes and caveats
This video myth-tests whether thinner motor oil sacrifices engine protection, comparing four viscosities of the same brand and product line (Pennzoil Platinum full synthetic: 0W-16, 0W-20, 5W-20, 5W-30) rather than competing brands. No single winner is declared: the video's conclusion is a nuanced trade-off (thinner oils flow faster, especially in the cold, which helps fuel efficiency, but offer somewhat less wear protection than thicker oils), and the narrator's closing advice is to simply use whatever viscosity the vehicle manufacturer specifies rather than picking a best overall oil, so winner/runnerUp/budgetPick/verdictQuote are left null rather than forced. The evaporation and lubricity/wear-scar tests were each run as two separate pairs (0W-16 vs 5W-30, then 0W-20 vs 5W-20), not as one simultaneous four-way test, though the closing summary does compare wear protection across all four ('the 5W-30 oil performed the best, but the 5W-20 oil performed just about as well'). Only two of the four products have a stated price in the transcript (0W-16 at about $26, 5W-30 at $24 for 5-quart containers); 0W-20 and 5W-20 prices are never given. A real-world anecdote comparing oil pressure at idle between a 2020 Chevrolet (0W-20) and a 2003 Chevrolet with over 300,000 miles (5W-30) is included as color commentary, not a controlled comparative test, and was not scored as a result.