Which Motor Oil Viscosity Brand Wins?
This head-to-head test of 4 motor oil viscosity options has 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 quick take
No single winner was declared in this test. Here is where the top-ranked pick landed, straight from the measured results.
Best in 2 of 4 measurements, including Room temperature flow race, uncooked oil and Room temperature flow race, cooked oil.
The measured results
Every number below is read straight from the test. Products are listed in the order they finished.
Certifications
- 1Pennzoil Platinum full synthetic 0W-16
API SP; does not have a Dexos1 certification (the 5W-30 does); Pennzoil claims carbon neutral, made from natural gas
- 2Pennzoil Platinum full synthetic 5W-30
API SP; has a Dexos1 certification (the 0W-16 does not)
- 3Pennzoil Platinum full synthetic 0W-20
Dexos1 certified, API SP, Platinum full synthetic
- 4Pennzoil Platinum full synthetic 5W-20
Dexos1 certified, API SP, Platinum full synthetic
Room temperature flow race, uncooked oil (all four)
- 1Pennzoil Platinum full synthetic 0W-161st place
fastest of the four
- 2Pennzoil Platinum full synthetic 5W-304th
(last) place, trailing the leaders by about an inch
- 3Pennzoil Platinum full synthetic 0W-202nd place
barely edging out the 5W-20
- 4Pennzoil Platinum full synthetic 5W-203rd place
very close behind the 0W-20
Thermal breakdown/evaporation (200g heated to 410F for 2 hours)
- 1Pennzoil Platinum full synthetic 0W-16
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
- 2Pennzoil Platinum full synthetic 5W-30
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
- 3Pennzoil Platinum full synthetic 0W-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
- 4Pennzoil Platinum full synthetic 5W-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
Room temperature flow race, cooked oil (all four)
- 1Pennzoil Platinum full synthetic 0W-161st place
fastest of the four
- 2Pennzoil Platinum full synthetic 5W-304th
(last) place
- 3Pennzoil Platinum full synthetic 0W-202nd place
close behind the 0W-16
- 4Pennzoil Platinum full synthetic 5W-203rd place
Cold flow test at -40F, uncooked oil
- 1Pennzoil Platinum full synthetic 0W-16
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
- 2Pennzoil Platinum full synthetic 5W-30
slowest of the four at close to 2 minutes 30 seconds, described as really lagging behind the other three
- 3Pennzoil Platinum full synthetic 0W-201 minute 54 seconds
barely ahead of the 5W-20, after both needed about a 45 second warm-up before starting to flow
- 4Pennzoil Platinum full synthetic 5W-201 minute 57 seconds
just behind the 0W-20
Cold flow test at -40F, cooked/heat-exposed oil
- 1Pennzoil Platinum full synthetic 0W-1643.6 seconds
still the fastest of the four despite losing some speed after heat exposure
- 2Pennzoil Platinum full synthetic 5W-30
needed almost 43 seconds longer than its own uncooked run (roughly 3 minutes 13 seconds), still the slowest of the four
- 3Pennzoil Platinum full synthetic 0W-202 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
- 4Pennzoil Platinum full synthetic 5W-20almost40 seconds
slower than its own uncooked run (roughly 2 minutes 37 seconds)
Independent oil analysis lab report
- 1Pennzoil Platinum full synthetic 0W-16
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
- 2Pennzoil Platinum full synthetic 5W-30
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
- 3Pennzoil Platinum full synthetic 0W-20
detergent/dispersant content around 1,300 ppm, evenly matched with the 5W-20 and 5W-30; only trace levels of wear metals
- 4Pennzoil Platinum full synthetic 5W-20
detergent/dispersant content around 1,300 ppm, evenly matched with the 0W-20 and 5W-30; only trace levels of wear metals
All measurements (4 more)+
Lubricity/wear scar test vs 5W-30 (cooked oil)
- 1Pennzoil Platinum full synthetic 0W-16
wear scar about 8 percent larger than the 5W-30's, meaning worse anti-wear/film-strength performance in this pairing
- 2Pennzoil Platinum full synthetic 5W-30not tested
- 3Pennzoil Platinum full synthetic 0W-20not tested
- 4Pennzoil Platinum full synthetic 5W-20not tested
Lubricity/wear scar test vs 0W-16 (cooked oil)
- 2Pennzoil Platinum full synthetic 5W-30
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
- 1Pennzoil Platinum full synthetic 0W-16not tested
- 3Pennzoil Platinum full synthetic 0W-20not tested
- 4Pennzoil Platinum full synthetic 5W-20not tested
Lubricity/wear scar test vs 5W-20 (cooked oil)
- 3Pennzoil Platinum full synthetic 0W-20
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
- 1Pennzoil Platinum full synthetic 0W-16not tested
- 2Pennzoil Platinum full synthetic 5W-30not tested
- 4Pennzoil Platinum full synthetic 5W-20not tested
Lubricity/wear scar test vs 0W-20 (cooked oil)
- 4Pennzoil Platinum full synthetic 5W-20
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
- 1Pennzoil Platinum full synthetic 0W-16not tested
- 2Pennzoil Platinum full synthetic 5W-30not tested
- 3Pennzoil Platinum full synthetic 0W-20not tested
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.
