Toyota's reasoning for 0w20 viscosity engine oil
- Thread starter Artem
- Start date
- Status
People can draw a lot of unsupported conclusions from scientific studies and it looks like that's happened in this thread.
Originally Posted By: JAG
People can draw a lot of unsupported conclusions from scientific studies and it looks like that's happened in this thread.
LOL How dare a scientific study can support a conclusion!
People can draw a lot of unsupported conclusions from scientific studies and it looks like that's happened in this thread.
LOL How dare a scientific study can support a conclusion!
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Here's a VOA on the latest SN GF-5 Toyota 0W-20.
Only 12 ppm of Mg but over 2800 ppm Ca:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2430500&page=1
Thanks, that's a good link.
It looks like Toyota/Eneos hasn't jumped into the Mg bandwagon yet. They also reduced their moly -- perhaps they switched to Infineum's highly potent trinuclear moly but you would never know what they are using. It's strange that it was certified for GF-4/GF-5 with 900 ppm P (the limit is 800 ppm) -- but then more ZDDP is great for wear protection.
Here's a VOA on the latest SN GF-5 Toyota 0W-20.
Only 12 ppm of Mg but over 2800 ppm Ca:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2430500&page=1
Thanks, that's a good link.
It looks like Toyota/Eneos hasn't jumped into the Mg bandwagon yet. They also reduced their moly -- perhaps they switched to Infineum's highly potent trinuclear moly but you would never know what they are using. It's strange that it was certified for GF-4/GF-5 with 900 ppm P (the limit is 800 ppm) -- but then more ZDDP is great for wear protection.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: JAG
People can draw a lot of unsupported conclusions from scientific studies and it looks like that's happened in this thread.
LOL How dare a scientific study can support a conclusion!
I'm not talking about the conclusions in the paper but instead many of the conclusions you posted in this thread. I mean no offense...just saying I disagree with those conclusions. I don't have time to elaborate now.
Originally Posted By: JAG
People can draw a lot of unsupported conclusions from scientific studies and it looks like that's happened in this thread.
LOL How dare a scientific study can support a conclusion!
I'm not talking about the conclusions in the paper but instead many of the conclusions you posted in this thread. I mean no offense...just saying I disagree with those conclusions. I don't have time to elaborate now.
This got blown totally out of proportion in the sense Gokan posted the topic of magnesium being an important ingredient in TBN retention and reduction of wear in the long run. The Other side being, to BE CAREFUL because magnesium can form harder deposits. So oils being formulated with lots of mag. probably are best in the application of longer OCI's.
We have known on here in various threads by molekule and others that magnesium does have some downsides (those being stubborn deposits [if they form]). For a person like me who really does not do long OCI's it is good to know I should probably use a different formulation of oil with less mag in it than the current EDGE I am using, where mag levels are as high or higher than calcium levels.
Toyota oil with 12ppm mag is not going to hurt your engine!!! I will speak for Gokan and JAG, that was not to be taken from this post.
We have known on here in various threads by molekule and others that magnesium does have some downsides (those being stubborn deposits [if they form]). For a person like me who really does not do long OCI's it is good to know I should probably use a different formulation of oil with less mag in it than the current EDGE I am using, where mag levels are as high or higher than calcium levels.
Toyota oil with 12ppm mag is not going to hurt your engine!!! I will speak for Gokan and JAG, that was not to be taken from this post.
Keep in mind ALL of the formulations I mentioned were SN/GF-5, so the trend towards higher Mg is hardly universal; it seems limited to Mobil1 and Edge exclusively.
With that said, I think you have to be careful to draw a hard and fast conclusion about the composition of additive packs, for several reasons: while interesting, that was a study on some very specific oil formulations in a diesel engine. Both of those variables are, well, variable. In particular, I wouldn't underestimate the impact of the other additives to buffer the detrimental effects of high Mg. Bottom line: the proof is ultimately in the performance of the finished product.
I get what you're saying in that lubricants are designed to meet many different and sometimes competing parameters (drain intervals, deposit control, COF, engine wear, cost), but the standards set forth by the API, ILSAC, the ACEA etc are such that any approved lubricant is going to be suitable for use.
I do disagree pretty strongly though with your contention that the Japanese are behind the times on the finished lubricant front. Both the OEM's and Nippon and been at the forefront of finished lube technology, IMO.
With that said, I think you have to be careful to draw a hard and fast conclusion about the composition of additive packs, for several reasons: while interesting, that was a study on some very specific oil formulations in a diesel engine. Both of those variables are, well, variable. In particular, I wouldn't underestimate the impact of the other additives to buffer the detrimental effects of high Mg. Bottom line: the proof is ultimately in the performance of the finished product.
I get what you're saying in that lubricants are designed to meet many different and sometimes competing parameters (drain intervals, deposit control, COF, engine wear, cost), but the standards set forth by the API, ILSAC, the ACEA etc are such that any approved lubricant is going to be suitable for use.
I do disagree pretty strongly though with your contention that the Japanese are behind the times on the finished lubricant front. Both the OEM's and Nippon and been at the forefront of finished lube technology, IMO.
Gokan's comments about Mg and and the 0W-20 grade if not outright wrong certainly doesn't apply to the Toyota Brand 0W-20 and therefore to this thread.
In fact the whole premise of the thread is incorrect as Buster pointed out. Artem's suggestion that the reason for the move to the 0W-20 grade by Toyota was primarily to save on fuel mileage and reduced emmissions at the possibility of increased wear is misleading.
The three other main reasons were in fact reduced wear on cold starts and high idle, also improved resistance to oxidation, thermal breakdown and oil sludge and extended oil drains.
In fact the whole premise of the thread is incorrect as Buster pointed out. Artem's suggestion that the reason for the move to the 0W-20 grade by Toyota was primarily to save on fuel mileage and reduced emmissions at the possibility of increased wear is misleading.
The three other main reasons were in fact reduced wear on cold starts and high idle, also improved resistance to oxidation, thermal breakdown and oil sludge and extended oil drains.
Well, none of the claims by Toyota are justified because all GF-5 oils satisfy the claims made by Toyota, not only the 0W-20 grade.
Regarding fuel economy, 0W-20 and 5W-20 have identical fuel-economy criteria under GF-5. So, you aren't guaranteed at all to see any fuel-economy improvement whatsoever over 5W-20. A tiny (around 0.1 MPG) improvement may result under certain conditions, assuming the 0W-20 and 5W-20 oils have very similar additive packages. A 5W-20 oil with a better friction-modifier package can easily beat a 0W-20 oil in fuel economy.
There is really no cold-start benefit either unless you live in extremely cold climates (Canada, Alaska, etc.), as the cold viscosity is not that different from 5W-20.
Regarding 10,000-mile OCIs and longer, I think you should use an oil with high initial TBN as well as good Mg content for TBN retention if you choose to go that way. Mobil 1 0W-20 is a good choice in that respect, as well as Mobil 1 EP and Castrol Edge and any HDEO (if you need higher viscosities). It's surprising that Toyota 0W-20 doesn't have Mg. Chances are that TBN will be OK for 10,000 miles without Mg, but then whenever it gets below 3.0, you should start to worry, as it may start increasing wear. Blackstone guys will say TBN is OK if it's over 1.0, but I think 3.0 is about the lowest you should go for better wear protection.
Regarding fuel economy, 0W-20 and 5W-20 have identical fuel-economy criteria under GF-5. So, you aren't guaranteed at all to see any fuel-economy improvement whatsoever over 5W-20. A tiny (around 0.1 MPG) improvement may result under certain conditions, assuming the 0W-20 and 5W-20 oils have very similar additive packages. A 5W-20 oil with a better friction-modifier package can easily beat a 0W-20 oil in fuel economy.
There is really no cold-start benefit either unless you live in extremely cold climates (Canada, Alaska, etc.), as the cold viscosity is not that different from 5W-20.
Regarding 10,000-mile OCIs and longer, I think you should use an oil with high initial TBN as well as good Mg content for TBN retention if you choose to go that way. Mobil 1 0W-20 is a good choice in that respect, as well as Mobil 1 EP and Castrol Edge and any HDEO (if you need higher viscosities). It's surprising that Toyota 0W-20 doesn't have Mg. Chances are that TBN will be OK for 10,000 miles without Mg, but then whenever it gets below 3.0, you should start to worry, as it may start increasing wear. Blackstone guys will say TBN is OK if it's over 1.0, but I think 3.0 is about the lowest you should go for better wear protection.
I may be way out in left field.....
I have read a number of posts by CATERHAM about how "thin" the Toyota 0W-20 oil is in cold temperatures, with its high Viscosity Index over 200.
I think of Toyota's hybrid vehicles where the gasoline engine is starting and stopping a lot, which would be a great application for a oil that has a higher resistance to "thickening" up at temperatures below 100 degrees.
By nature, does a hybrid vehicle's gasoline engine not spend a significantly greater percent of its operating time below the ideal temperature for most motor oils?
If I'm correct, then the 0W-xx oil would be a better fit for the hybrid vehicle than the 5W-xx.
The other thing to consider in comparison of a 0W-20 oil to a 5W-20 oil would be the HTHS specification of these oils....as they could be different, even from the same "brand" oil.
There is a Minimum value that a oil needs to have, but not a maximum.
So one needs to look at the full specifications of the 2 "grades" in making comparisons.
It has taken me a while to realize this, and I'm still learning from my reading on this forum (and other places, but mostly here).
I have read a number of posts by CATERHAM about how "thin" the Toyota 0W-20 oil is in cold temperatures, with its high Viscosity Index over 200.
I think of Toyota's hybrid vehicles where the gasoline engine is starting and stopping a lot, which would be a great application for a oil that has a higher resistance to "thickening" up at temperatures below 100 degrees.
By nature, does a hybrid vehicle's gasoline engine not spend a significantly greater percent of its operating time below the ideal temperature for most motor oils?
If I'm correct, then the 0W-xx oil would be a better fit for the hybrid vehicle than the 5W-xx.
The other thing to consider in comparison of a 0W-20 oil to a 5W-20 oil would be the HTHS specification of these oils....as they could be different, even from the same "brand" oil.
There is a Minimum value that a oil needs to have, but not a maximum.
So one needs to look at the full specifications of the 2 "grades" in making comparisons.
It has taken me a while to realize this, and I'm still learning from my reading on this forum (and other places, but mostly here).
Originally Posted By: tig1
Artem,
Beside the two obvious claims they make on the bottle there are several other bennifits that are listed as well.
Right. Why ignore the others?
And also don't forget cooler running oil and better ring lubrication with X-20s.
Artem,
Beside the two obvious claims they make on the bottle there are several other bennifits that are listed as well.
Right. Why ignore the others?
And also don't forget cooler running oil and better ring lubrication with X-20s.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Well, none of the claims by Toyota are justified because all GF-5 oils satisfy the claims made by Toyota, not only the 0W-20 grade.
well, it's a marketing claim... that said, a thinner oil at startup is going in increase FE, and not all GF-5 oils will be the same in that regard, they all just have to meet a minimum standard. You're right though, some 5W20's may beat some 0W20's--you have to look at more than just weight. Still, a low COF 0W20 offers the best opportunity for highest efficiency.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
There is really no cold-start benefit either unless you live in extremely cold climates (Canada, Alaska, etc.), as the cold viscosity is not that different from 5W-20.
Again, "it depends". Toyota's 0W20 is significantly thinner at start-up than many 5W20's, like 20% (or more) thinner at 100F. M1's 0W20, OTOH, isn't that thin until it gets really, really cold. So it's probably best to avoid blanket statements.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Regarding 10,000-mile OCIs and longer, I think you should use an oil with high initial TBN as well as good Mg content for TBN retention if you choose to go that way.
There are different ways to skin a cat. You seem to be dismissing the base oils being used and just focusing on the additive packs. Amsoil has consistently been a great performer for extended drains, and they use very little Mg in their formulations. Fuchs 507 oil is probably one of the best extended drain oils available, with almost no Mg. Maybe it's just cheaper to make an extended drain oil with a bunch of Mg?
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Chances are that TBN will be OK for 10,000 miles without Mg, but then whenever it gets below 3.0, you should start to worry, as it may start increasing wear. Blackstone guys will say TBN is OK if it's over 1.0, but I think 3.0 is about the lowest you should go for better wear protection.
I haven't seen much, if any evidence to support that idea. I'm using an oil with a starting TBN of 5.2-6.2 (depending on who's measuring). Given the non-linear drop in TBN, based on your logic I should probably be doing 2K OCI's! Again, I don't think there's a "one size fits all" approach which really works with respect to TBN.
Well, none of the claims by Toyota are justified because all GF-5 oils satisfy the claims made by Toyota, not only the 0W-20 grade.
well, it's a marketing claim... that said, a thinner oil at startup is going in increase FE, and not all GF-5 oils will be the same in that regard, they all just have to meet a minimum standard. You're right though, some 5W20's may beat some 0W20's--you have to look at more than just weight. Still, a low COF 0W20 offers the best opportunity for highest efficiency.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
There is really no cold-start benefit either unless you live in extremely cold climates (Canada, Alaska, etc.), as the cold viscosity is not that different from 5W-20.
Again, "it depends". Toyota's 0W20 is significantly thinner at start-up than many 5W20's, like 20% (or more) thinner at 100F. M1's 0W20, OTOH, isn't that thin until it gets really, really cold. So it's probably best to avoid blanket statements.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Regarding 10,000-mile OCIs and longer, I think you should use an oil with high initial TBN as well as good Mg content for TBN retention if you choose to go that way.
There are different ways to skin a cat. You seem to be dismissing the base oils being used and just focusing on the additive packs. Amsoil has consistently been a great performer for extended drains, and they use very little Mg in their formulations. Fuchs 507 oil is probably one of the best extended drain oils available, with almost no Mg. Maybe it's just cheaper to make an extended drain oil with a bunch of Mg?
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Chances are that TBN will be OK for 10,000 miles without Mg, but then whenever it gets below 3.0, you should start to worry, as it may start increasing wear. Blackstone guys will say TBN is OK if it's over 1.0, but I think 3.0 is about the lowest you should go for better wear protection.
I haven't seen much, if any evidence to support that idea. I'm using an oil with a starting TBN of 5.2-6.2 (depending on who's measuring). Given the non-linear drop in TBN, based on your logic I should probably be doing 2K OCI's! Again, I don't think there's a "one size fits all" approach which really works with respect to TBN.
Originally Posted By: Artem
I agree that 20 grade oils do not necessarily cause more engine wear but the reasoning behind it's use are clearly stated...
"improved fuel economy and to help meet emission standards"
You're confusing marketing with engineering. They are highlighting what they think will sell the most cars when people read the window sticker, not what the best properties of the oil are.
I agree that 20 grade oils do not necessarily cause more engine wear but the reasoning behind it's use are clearly stated...
"improved fuel economy and to help meet emission standards"
You're confusing marketing with engineering. They are highlighting what they think will sell the most cars when people read the window sticker, not what the best properties of the oil are.
They I am sure make more money with this oil! The old bottom line. Oil has so far with a few uoas shown so so results. It has super star # but not knocking us out. Time will tell. I like the back up with this thread,
as said with that paper. Wonder how many really read it???
Originally Posted By: jca
Originally Posted By: Artem
I agree that 20 grade oils do not necessarily cause more engine wear but the reasoning behind it's use are clearly stated...
"improved fuel economy and to help meet emission standards"
You're confusing marketing with engineering. They are highlighting what they think will sell the most cars when people read the window sticker, not what the best properties of the oil are.
Originally Posted By: jca
Originally Posted By: Artem
I agree that 20 grade oils do not necessarily cause more engine wear but the reasoning behind it's use are clearly stated...
"improved fuel economy and to help meet emission standards"
You're confusing marketing with engineering. They are highlighting what they think will sell the most cars when people read the window sticker, not what the best properties of the oil are.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Regarding fuel economy, 0W-20 and 5W-20 have identical fuel-economy criteria under GF-5. So, you aren't guaranteed at all to see any fuel-economy improvement whatsoever over 5W-20. A tiny (around 0.1 MPG) improvement may result under certain conditions, assuming the 0W-20 and 5W-20 oils have very similar additive packages. A 5W-20 oil with a better friction-modifier package can easily beat a 0W-20 oil in fuel economy.
There is really no cold-start benefit either unless you live in extremely cold climates (Canada, Alaska, etc.), as the cold viscosity is not that different from 5W-20.
So is it also possible and true then that a super-high-quality 15w40 oil with "more effective friction modifiers" can have a very similar (or just slightly lower) fuel economy as the 5w20 or 0w20 ?
Regarding fuel economy, 0W-20 and 5W-20 have identical fuel-economy criteria under GF-5. So, you aren't guaranteed at all to see any fuel-economy improvement whatsoever over 5W-20. A tiny (around 0.1 MPG) improvement may result under certain conditions, assuming the 0W-20 and 5W-20 oils have very similar additive packages. A 5W-20 oil with a better friction-modifier package can easily beat a 0W-20 oil in fuel economy.
There is really no cold-start benefit either unless you live in extremely cold climates (Canada, Alaska, etc.), as the cold viscosity is not that different from 5W-20.
So is it also possible and true then that a super-high-quality 15w40 oil with "more effective friction modifiers" can have a very similar (or just slightly lower) fuel economy as the 5w20 or 0w20 ?
Originally Posted By: fpracha
So is it also possible and true then that a super-high-quality 15w40 oil with "more effective friction modifiers" can have a very similar (or just slightly lower) fuel economy as the 5w20 or 0w20 ?
No. While friction modifiers are important, hths dominates the equation with respect to FE.
So is it also possible and true then that a super-high-quality 15w40 oil with "more effective friction modifiers" can have a very similar (or just slightly lower) fuel economy as the 5w20 or 0w20 ?
No. While friction modifiers are important, hths dominates the equation with respect to FE.
Additionally their are no "super-high quality 15W-40 oils". It's a dino grade and as others have mentioned the synthetic 5W-40 grade has replaced it.
But even the 5W-40 grade for the reason JOD mentioned, can't provide the same fuel economy as a lighter oil, particularly one 2 grades lighter.
But even the 5W-40 grade for the reason JOD mentioned, can't provide the same fuel economy as a lighter oil, particularly one 2 grades lighter.
- Status
Similar threads
