Mobil 1 0w-20 SN vs. Toyota 0w-20 SN

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: JOD
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
They both have high magnesium (Mg) for TBN retention for extended drain intervals.


The Toyota isn't a high-Mg oil: http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2464388&page=1

Yes, I meant both Mobil 1 0W-20 AFE and 5W-20 EP are high-Mg oils.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: teddyboy
Thanks for the reply. I'm wrestling with which to use in wife's 07 4 cyl Camry at 10K oci. I realize that either will probably work fine, but going 10K is a new and big step for me.

I am guessing this engine isn't certified for 10k OCIs by Toyota. But Mobil 1 EP 5W-20 will give you warranty until 15k I believe. Since Mobil 1 EP 5W-20 (and also AFE 0W-20) is a high-Mg oil, TBN will probably be OK after 15k, TBN being OK meaning the oil will still be able to neutralize the acids formed in the engine. 5W-20 is probably better for long OCIs as the NOACK is likely lower, which means less oil cook-off and boil-off. With TGMO, you might want to run a UOA with TBN after a 10k OCI.

Therefore, for long OCIs, I think M1 EP 5W-20 is probably the best choice, followed by M1 AFE 0W-20, and then followed by TGMO 0W-20. But then all three oils might perform really well even after 15k. Again, it might be a good idea to run a UOA with TBN, especially with TGMO. Perhaps simply go with TGMO rather than M1 because you will be using it on a Toyota and it has a really good additive package, specifically designed for Toyotas, and you can get cheap and easy oil changes at your local Toyota dealer if you don't want to do it yourself.

PS: I don't know why for example a 2010 Corolla is certified for 5k and a 2011 Corolla is certified for 10k OCIs, while both cars having virtually the identical engine. Perhaps there is a small difference in the PCV system or such but then chances are that it could be only an unimportant logistic reason such as the maintenance reminder set for 5k instead of 10k in the 2010 engine.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: teddyboy
Any thoughts on how M1 0W20 compares to M1EP 5W20?

I've answered this question before but the quick answer is that the 0W-20 is lighter at all temp's due to it's lower HTHSV of 2.7cP vs 2.75cP and it's higher V1 of 173 vs 161 for the 5W-20.

 

[buster]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: buster
However, it only meets API SN where the M1 meets ACEA-08, GM 4718M.

That's because it meets ILSAC GF-5, which is an American - Japanese oil category. An oil that is specifically sold for a Japanese car has no need to be certified for European cars or GM cars, even if it may well exceed such categories, possibly more so than Mobil 1. Not going through unnecessary certification processes also helps keep the price of the oil low. In addition, TGMO is not heavily advertised as Mobil 1, which helps keep the price even lower.


You assume to much and have no proof though of anything you said above.

 

[Bryanccfshr]

Originally Posted By: The Critic
Let's discuss.

Which one is better and why. Let's lay out all of the facts, opinions and experiences.


I don't think there is enough real world difference to seek one over the other. I am happy with whichever one my dealer chooses to use and refuse to twist myself in knots, or in any way inconvenience myself about two oils that do the same thing. In the end There are some interesting specs but my two Toyotas run fine on both.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: buster
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: buster
However, it only meets API SN where the M1 meets ACEA-08, GM 4718M.

That's because it meets ILSAC GF-5, which is an American - Japanese oil category. An oil that is specifically sold for a Japanese car has no need to be certified for European cars or GM cars, even if it may well exceed such categories, possibly more so than Mobil 1. Not going through unnecessary certification processes also helps keep the price of the oil low. In addition, TGMO is not heavily advertised as Mobil 1, which helps keep the price even lower.


You assume to much and have no proof though of anything you said above.

Well, all I said was TGMO doesn't need any certification other than the ILSAC GF-x (American - Japanese) category, as it's produced for a Japanese car.

 

[Gokhan]

When I had a 2009 Corolla for two and a half years, I used Mobil 1 AFE 0W-20. If I knew about TGMO 0W-20 at the time, I would use the TGMO 0W-20 in hindsight.

There is absolutely no need to use Mobil 1 in new Toyotas while there is a very good synthetic oil (TGMO), which is specifically made for new Toyotas, ensuring a generous amount of ZDDP and moly, which is crucial for valvetrain-wear control, as well as magnesiumfree formulation, which eliminates concerns about corrosive-wear damage to metal parts. It's cheap, of high quality, and readily available in Toyota dealers. There is no reason to experiment with Mobil 1, Valvoline Synpower, or any other 0W-20 if you own a newer Toyota.

Regarding OCIs, my 1985 Corolla owner's manual specifies 10k OCIs on API SF dino oil. Apart from a generous amount of ZDDP, API SF was a somewhat poorly formulated oil, probably with little protection against acidity (little TBN retention). I think there is minimal concern for 10k OCIs with API SN oil, especially with a synthetic oil. At the end of the day, no matter what kind of oil you use, you will probably be OK, likely even with a dino. There is little chance that any API SN synthetic will fail in 10k miles in any Toyota engine. Therefore, rest assured with any SN synthetic. As for the choice of the brand, at the present moment, I would definitely pick up TGMO from the information available out there and also simply for convenience, peace of mind, and OEM certification, not to say that it's definitely the best 0W-20 out there, which is something that's always hard to judge and prove.

 

[buster]

I agree, there is no need to use M1. The TGMO is very good, but your comments aboug mg free doesn't mean anything, and it has the same level of ZDP of any other SN oil. It's also probably using the same friction modifier as M1. Other than that, I agree, go with the Toyota 0w20. It is lighter than the M1.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: buster
it has the same level of ZDP of any other SN oil. It's also probably using the same friction modifier as M1. Other than that, I agree, go with the Toyota 0w20. It is lighter than the M1.

I got the numbers from two VOAs posted here. I don't know how accurate they are:

Code:


TGMO 0W-20 SN M1 0W-20 SN



P (ppm) [ZDDP] 906 543

Mo (ppm) 124 60

Ti (ppm) 0 0

B (ppm) 1 73

Ca (ppm) 2829 844

Mg (ppm) 12 629

TBN 6.8 8.0

100 C vis (cSt) 8.54 9.02

 

[teddyboy]

The year model of my wife's Camry wasn't certified for 10K ocis, but the same engine was a few years later. I've always believed that extending the oci for these and other Toyota engines (with full syn of course) had little or nothing to do with engine modifications. I always figured that Toyota had been burned by the sludge problem, having to replace beaucoup engines, a few years before. It seems logical that they would make conservative oci recommendations for awhile following that experience.

 

[buster]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: buster
it has the same level of ZDP of any other SN oil. It's also probably using the same friction modifier as M1. Other than that, I agree, go with the Toyota 0w20. It is lighter than the M1.

I got the numbers from two VOAs posted here. I don't know how accurate they are:

Code:


TGMO 0W-20 SN M1 0W-20 SN



P (ppm) [ZDDP] 906 543

Mo (ppm) 124 60

Ti (ppm) 0 0

B (ppm) 1 73

Ca (ppm) 2829 844

Mg (ppm) 12 629

TBN 6.8 8.0

100 C vis (cSt) 8.54 9.02


That oil can't meet the API spec with that level of ZDP.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: buster
That oil can't meet the API spec with that level of ZDP.

This is not necessarily true.

Both the phosphorus minimum and maximum fall under "This is a noncritical specification as described in ASTM D3244."

Given that ASTM D4951 -- plasma spectroscopy -- used to measure P, S, etc. has 10% accuracy, this translates as follows:

The minimum allowed P is 600 - 600*10%*.593 = 564 ppm
The maximum allowed P is 800 + 800*10%*.593 = 847 ppm

If it was a "critical" specification, these would have been the allowed values:

The minimum allowed P would have been 600 + 600*10%*.593 = 636 ppm
The maximum allowed P would have been 800 - 800*10%*.593 = 753 ppm

If you also take into account that the Blackstone values have an accuracy of 10%, TGM P level is 815 - 997 ppm and the M1 P level is 489 - 597 ppm. Therefore, it's quite possible that both the TGMO and M1 still fall into the P range allowed, which is 564 - 847 ppm.

The bottom line is that the TGMO ZDDP level is at least 37% more than the M1 ZDDP level, assuming that the former was overestimated by 10% and the letter was underestimated by 10%. If you simply take the measured values, it comes to 67% more. In most likeliness, TGMO ZDDP level (P level) is about 45% more than that in M1, as the maximum allowed (847 ppm) is 50% more than the minimum allowed (564 ppm).

For me the far superior amount of ZDDP and moly in TGMO in comparison to that in M1 is already more than enough reason to pick TGMO instead of M1, as the ZDDP and moly levels greatly determine the wear, especially in the valvetrain (boundary lubrication) and to a certain extent piston rings and cylinder linings (a combination of boundary, mixed, and hydrodynamic lubrication).

 

[buster]

So your basic point is that because the TGMO may have 37% or more ZDP, and more moly, the Toyota is therefore better. In other words, comparing additive levels determines what is better. Sorry, it's not that simple. I will agree with you that the TGMO may be better overall or in some specific areas, but it's just not possible to determine that based on comparing varying additive levels. Notice Mobil uses the words "Precisely balanced component system". More is not always better.

 

[ltslimjim]

^I agree here. Both are good oils, some have some strength according to specs and add packs we can see, but it's hard to really compare oils.

It's more, IMO, an effort to determine what's best BASED ON what an application needs.

 

[CATERHAM]

buster and Gokhan, a good discussion.

Yes I would conclude that the TGMO has a slight additive advantage over AFE but in terms of their viscosities they are very different oils. Which is better is very much determined by the application. For extreme cold start-up performance at temp's below -20F or so, AFE has no equal with it's 9,200cP MRV.
At more typical start-up temp's, TGMO has no equal; it's the lightest oil you can buy with it's 216 VI and HTHSV of 2.6cP.
It you want a heavier 20wt oil because high operating temp's may be suspected or you're using a 0W-20 for it's superior extreme cold performance in a 30wt application, then AFE would be a good choice because of it's higher HTHSV of 2.7cP and GM 4718M spec'.