Saw dealership using this oil for 2017 CX5

[bmninada]

Due to recent snow was in the dealership. I saw a technician pouring https://www.amazon.com/dp/ (commissions earned) into definitely a 2017 CX-5. I see 0W-16 is just 4 points from recommended 0W-20 but after checking I see it's the same company who actually makes the Mazda oil and also this one seem to be GF-6B vs GF-5 and in my dummies mind I think is more recent?
Question is - does anyone have any opinion positive or negative w.r.t. to 0W-16 vs 0W-20 and also GF-5 vs GF-6B specifically against CX-5 non-turbo?

 

[dunhillmc]

Are you sure it wasn't the 0W-20? The bottles look almost identical

 

[cz5gt]

for very cold weather I suppose you can go with it. Although I dont see the reasoning for 0w16.
If I am not mistaken this is used for some of the new Toyotas as OEM.
Stick with 0w20.

 

[bmninada]

I specifically asked and he showed me the empty can. I actually took a photo and then using Google Image search landed to the link. He told me its good to go and gives better mileage. BUT, when I dug deep (via Google) the GF-6B thing seems to be NOT backward compatible. In other words, in an engine taking GF-5 GF-6B should NOT be used. GF-6 is fine, that's backward compatible. I am just surprised. Also, usually I have seen dealers use DRUMS, not canisters like us, consumers.
Personally, I'll stick to Mazda GF-5 Moly and that's what I have used always till date. However, I am raising this solely because of 2 things
-> is it really that big a difference between 0w20 and 0w16 that mileage will noticeably improve (supposedly)
-> am I right to assume that it's wrong what they are doing , i.e. for CX5 2017 and probably even later years its not good for the engine?

 

[sm1ke]

I'm not sure about mileage improvement, but I would be comfortable saying that it's wrong, just based on the fact that Mazda specifies the oil to be used in the manual. To save the hassle of arguing with Mazda over a warranty claim due to the "wrong" engine oil being used, I stick with what's specified for the duration of the warranty. If GF-6B is indeed not backwards-compatible, I think that could put the engine at risk - but no idea how it would affect it, or how long it might take before any issues arise. Definitely safer to just use 0W-20 over getting a slight improvement in mileage, IMO.

I wonder if it's possible that the customer brought their own oil in, and that's why the tech was using a jug instead of pumping from a drum barrel.

 

[ruthrj]

From what I’ve researched over the last year:

The Skinny on OW-16 Oil

Coming soon to the USA; Poured in Japan Since the Late 1990s The new ILSAC specification for passenger car motor oils, GF-6, is expected to have a first license date of...

www.noln.net

https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/2017-01-0881/?PC=DL2BUY (unfortunately this one is behind a pay wall)

0w-16 was engineered to provide the same film thickness as 0w-20 but provide better efficiency due to lower viscosity. This would potentially allow 0w-20 engine designs to run 0w-16 without changes. Engineers were able to achieve this through additives that prevent the oil film from shearing under normal operating temps, granted the threshold at which the oil shouldn’t shear is lower for 0w-16 vs 0w-20 (0w-16 will shear at a lower temperature than 0w-20). If a manufacturer wanted to look back at previous model years and add 0w-16 as compatible, it would be a possibility.

However, I’m not aware of any manufacturers looking back and saying 0w-16 is ok in their 0w-20 vehicles. I have both a ‘19 RAV4 that requires 0w-16 and a ‘13 CX-5 that requires 0w-20. I fill both with what is printed on the oil cap. I don’t see the benefit of putting 0w-16 in my CX-5 as I can’t find anything published saying that’s a good move. I don’t want to screw with a perfectly good engine : )

 

[minnesotaart]

Saw this.

https://360.lubrizol.com/Specifications/ILSAC/ILSAC-GF-6/ILSAC-GF-6A-and-GF-6B