New Pennzoil Platinum 0w20 SN PDS -2012

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: FoxS
Here's a link where XOM state that the higher VI leads to reduced wear.

http://www.motor-talk.de/forum/aktion/Attachment.html?attachmentId=695007

They made it the first point in the first slide so it must be the most important one

The next most important thing is low temp properties, again for reduced wear

According to XOM, Volatility is related to oil consumption not directly to wear


That's a great presentation, but keep in mind they are also comparing it to conventional oil.

I didn't reply to the other post where you replied to me, because in general, we are mostly in agreement, however I do believe we need to touch on the "all things being equal" statement, because all things can't be equal, as lubricants are a compromise. As per the discussion with CATERHAM, to get these ultra high VI's, you need to use more polymer, as the native VI of the synthetic basestocks and the AW package is only going to get it so high. This is where the issue of shear comes into play, as even though, as CATERHAM mentioned, the newer VII's are more shear resistant, his experience with these lubricants shows that they do very quickly shear notably in use before stabilizing.

This of course isn't factored into the presentation.

And this is also where that convenient adage "As thin as possible, as thick as necessary" comes into play again. As long as the amount the oil shears is acceptable for the application, you benefit from the higher VI and more consistent lubricant performance during the temperature swing. However, if the level of shear is not acceptable for the application, then while cold temperature performance is increased, hot performance is compromised.

I am confident that this is the reason XOM doesn't have VI's of 200+ even in their AFE lineup. Because the lubricant needs to be acceptable for use in a wide range of applications, including the Ford one we've noted, whilst the Toyota lubricant, designed and tested for Toyota, does not

 

[buster]

Well said OVERKILL.

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
This is where the issue of shear comes into play, as even though, as CATERHAM mentioned, the newer VII's are more shear resistant, his experience with these lubricants shows that they do very quickly shear notably in use before stabilizing.


Keep in mind that he was using the SM version of Toyota's oil. The limited VOA's on the SN version don't seem to show as much shearing, and not all high-VI oils shear initially as much as the Toyota SM 0W20.




Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
I am confident that this is the reason XOM doesn't have VI's of 200+ even in their AFE lineup. Because the lubricant needs to be acceptable for use in a wide range of applications, including the Ford one we've noted, whilst the Toyota lubricant, designed and tested for Toyota, does not

I think your confidence is misplaced. Ford specifies a 5W20 SN-rated oil and its own spec allows for use of a conventional oil with an hths of 2.6--and 0W20 and 5W20 oils have to meet the same API standards for shear stability. What am I missing here?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: JOD

Keep in mind that he was using the SM version of Toyota's oil. The limited VOA's on the SN version don't seem to show as much shearing, and not all high-VI oils shear initially as much as the Toyota SM 0W20.


Why would a VOA show shear? Unless you meant UOA?

And we aren't talking about high-VI oils. M1 0w20 is a high VI oil. We are talking specifically about the ultra-high VI oils with the VI of over 200.

Originally Posted By: JOD
I think your confidence is misplaced.


And that doesn't surprise me.... but anyway.

Quote:
Ford specifies a 5W20 SN-rated oil and its own spec allows for use of a conventional oil with an hths of 2.6--and 0W20 and 5W20 oils have to meet the same API standards for shear stability. What am I missing here?


Ford specifies an oil meeting one of their WSS specs, not just an SN 5w20. CATERHAM's experience with the Toyota lube shows that it becomes 2.4cP almost immediately. You don't see that as an issue?

Perhaps Ford's standards for shear stability are more stringent than the API's?

PP 0w20 doesn't carry the Ford spec, but their 5w20 does. We know a 5w20 is generally going to be more stable than a 0w20, let alone an ultra-high VI 0w20 that leverages more polymers to get that VI.

 

[Cup of Joe]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
First, the 200+ VI oils are only possible due to the recent development of a new type of multi-branched polymer. Lubrizol has one called "Asteric" which has a star like architecture:

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2827429&page=1

This new polymer technology has many advantages including the fact that less actual polymer is required and they are very shear resistant.
Yes the Nippon Oil made Toyota 0W-20 did exhibit some initial oil shear but then stabilizes for the balance of the OCI.
The highest VI oil, Sustina 0W-20 (229 VI) exhibits the same trait of some initial shear but then stabilizes for the balance of the OCI as the following 10,400 mile UOA demonstrated:

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2827429&page=1

The natural VI of all synthetic light base oils are no higher than 140 (that's what it is for the GP III+ base oil used in the Sustina 0W-20, with most GP III oils in the 120-130 range.
The DI package will increase the final VI some since the dispersants are polymer based plus the final polymer VIIs to achieve the viscosity spec's of the finished oil.

The bottom line is that the new high VI oils are actually less shear prone than most multi-grade oils and we have plenty of UOAs of the Toyota and Idemitsu 0W-20s as evidence of that.


Asteric is not being used in engine oils sold in north america. Lubrizol stated this technology is still in "development" for engine oils.

From an email I received last month.

Quote:
Keith,

Generally speaking the Asteric products we are now making are too shear stable to be used in conventional engine oil formulations. The VMs most often used in engine oils are high molecular weight elastomeric VMs i.e. solid polymers like ethylene propylene or styrene diene which are dissolved in oil. These are cost effective, have the appropriate performance and have the base oil coverage for engine oil formulations. You generally want to be able to get API & ILSAC credentials which are more readily done with a broadly applicable VM. Also there are cost and performance disadvantages to using very shear stable VMs in engine oils.



There are 2 cases we are looking at using Asteric VMs – certain SAE 0W-20 oils being developed by Asian OEMs; and 4 cycle motorcycle oils also in development with an Asian OEM. Both of these cases are still in development but could find their way to the US at some point.

Best Regards,

Bill
____________________
William * **********
Business Manager Viscosity Modifiers
Lubrizol Corporation Wickliffe Ohio 44092 USA

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL


Ford specifies an oil meeting one of their WSS specs, not just an SN 5w20. CATERHAM's experience with the Toyota lube shows that it becomes 2.4cP almost immediately. You don't see that as an issue?

Perhaps Ford's standards for shear stability are more stringent than the API's?

PP 0w20 doesn't carry the Ford spec, but their 5w20 does. We know a 5w20 is generally going to be more stable than a 0w20, let alone an ultra-high VI 0w20 that leverages more polymers to get that VI.


Yep, sorry--I meant UOA. Caterham's experience w/the Toyota oil shearing is based on the SM version. The SN doesn't appear to shear that much in use--not as much as M1 0W20 (though the M1 starts out thicker).

I don't think we know that a conventional 5W20 is going to be more shear stable than a synthetic 0W20 (high VI or otherwise), and they both have to meet the same specifications for shear stability. While I don't know if Ford's spec has shear stability guidelines over and above SN/GF-5, it's worth noting that to maintain warranty compliance one only has to use an oil that meets the API specs, and the Ford spec is "recommended". That's how my owner's manual reads, and how the wording reads in other Ford manuals I've seen. So, I still don't see how an API SN certified oil isn't suitable.

 

[buster]

Originally Posted By: TaterandNoodles
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
First, the 200+ VI oils are only possible due to the recent development of a new type of multi-branched polymer. Lubrizol has one called "Asteric" which has a star like architecture:

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2827429&page=1

This new polymer technology has many advantages including the fact that less actual polymer is required and they are very shear resistant.
Yes the Nippon Oil made Toyota 0W-20 did exhibit some initial oil shear but then stabilizes for the balance of the OCI.
The highest VI oil, Sustina 0W-20 (229 VI) exhibits the same trait of some initial shear but then stabilizes for the balance of the OCI as the following 10,400 mile UOA demonstrated:

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2827429&page=1

The natural VI of all synthetic light base oils are no higher than 140 (that's what it is for the GP III+ base oil used in the Sustina 0W-20, with most GP III oils in the 120-130 range.
The DI package will increase the final VI some since the dispersants are polymer based plus the final polymer VIIs to achieve the viscosity spec's of the finished oil.

The bottom line is that the new high VI oils are actually less shear prone than most multi-grade oils and we have plenty of UOAs of the Toyota and Idemitsu 0W-20s as evidence of that.


Asteric is not being used in engine oils sold in north america. Lubrizol stated this technology is still in "development" for engine oils.

From an email I received last month.

Quote:
Keith,

Generally speaking the Asteric products we are now making are too shear stable to be used in conventional engine oil formulations. The VMs most often used in engine oils are high molecular weight elastomeric VMs i.e. solid polymers like ethylene propylene or styrene diene which are dissolved in oil. These are cost effective, have the appropriate performance and have the base oil coverage for engine oil formulations. You generally want to be able to get API & ILSAC credentials which are more readily done with a broadly applicable VM. Also there are cost and performance disadvantages to using very shear stable VMs in engine oils.



There are 2 cases we are looking at using Asteric VMs – certain SAE 0W-20 oils being developed by Asian OEMs; and 4 cycle motorcycle oils also in development with an Asian OEM. Both of these cases are still in development but could find their way to the US at some point.

Best Regards,

Bill
____________________
William * **********
Business Manager Viscosity Modifiers
Lubrizol Corporation Wickliffe Ohio 44092 USA




Excellent info, thank you!

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: JOD
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL


Ford specifies an oil meeting one of their WSS specs, not just an SN 5w20. CATERHAM's experience with the Toyota lube shows that it becomes 2.4cP almost immediately. You don't see that as an issue?

Perhaps Ford's standards for shear stability are more stringent than the API's?

PP 0w20 doesn't carry the Ford spec, but their 5w20 does. We know a 5w20 is generally going to be more stable than a 0w20, let alone an ultra-high VI 0w20 that leverages more polymers to get that VI.


Yep, sorry--I meant UOA. Caterham's experience w/the Toyota oil shearing is based on the SM version. The SN doesn't appear to shear that much in use--not as much as M1 0W20 (though the M1 starts out thicker).

I don't think we know that a conventional 5W20 is going to be more shear stable than a synthetic 0W20 (high VI or otherwise), and they both have to meet the same specifications for shear stability. While I don't know if Ford's spec has shear stability guidelines over and above SN/GF-5, it's worth noting that to maintain warranty compliance one only has to use an oil that meets the API specs, and the Ford spec is "recommended". That's how my owner's manual reads, and how the wording reads in other Ford manuals I've seen. So, I still don't see how an API SN certified oil isn't suitable.


I posted the exact wording (and a link to the manual) from the 2011 Ford F-150 manual a few pages back. It reads to me like they require a lubricant that meets the spec for warranty compliance

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: JAG
Originally Posted By: buster
Quote:
An oil with a higher viscosity (one with a
higher value) may be better suited if the vehicle is operated at high
speeds, or under extreme load conditions.

Indeed. Caterham, do you not agree with this? The engine management safety systems will keep the engine from self destructing but it won't keep it from increasing the wear rate of one or more types of engine parts if driven in conditions stated in the quote with the 0W-20 oil mentioned in the manual.

That advisory is in every Toyota manual that I know of and the key phrase is "better suited" not actually required from a pure lubrication perspective and quite frankly I agree with the statement. For example I still only need a high VI 20wt oil to maintain adequate oil pressure with the higher than normal oil temp's I see in my track car at the track. But if I was going to be driving a very high speeds with very high rev's, all the time, day in day out, such as cruising on the autobahn, particularly in the hot summer months, I would likely want to run a heavier oil grade (a light 30wt). It would probabily reduce the oil consumption that's often associated with constant high rev's, and the disadvantages of running the heavier oil on start-up and during warm-up would be mitigated, representing only a tiny fraction of actual engine running time.
Of course that scenerio is rarer than hens teeth in North America.

With regard to the engine management safety systems; it's all about reducing the possibility of accelerated engine wear.
The safety systems prevent the combination of oil temp's that are too high for the engine power that is being produced. Consiquently the maximum engine power is progressively curtailed reducing the engine's viscosity demands while capping the maximum oil temp's. When the oil temp's drop to what the engineers consider to be acceptable for the use of maximum power again, then full power (or the ability to access it) will be progressively restored.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: JOD
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL


Ford specifies an oil meeting one of their WSS specs, not just an SN 5w20. CATERHAM's experience with the Toyota lube shows that it becomes 2.4cP almost immediately. You don't see that as an issue?

Perhaps Ford's standards for shear stability are more stringent than the API's?

PP 0w20 doesn't carry the Ford spec, but their 5w20 does. We know a 5w20 is generally going to be more stable than a 0w20, let alone an ultra-high VI 0w20 that leverages more polymers to get that VI.


Yep, sorry--I meant UOA. Caterham's experience w/the Toyota oil shearing is based on the SM version. The SN doesn't appear to shear that much in use--not as much as M1 0W20 (though the M1 starts out thicker).

I don't think we know that a conventional 5W20 is going to be more shear stable than a synthetic 0W20 (high VI or otherwise), and they both have to meet the same specifications for shear stability. While I don't know if Ford's spec has shear stability guidelines over and above SN/GF-5, it's worth noting that to maintain warranty compliance one only has to use an oil that meets the API specs, and the Ford spec is "recommended". That's how my owner's manual reads, and how the wording reads in other Ford manuals I've seen. So, I still don't see how an API SN certified oil isn't suitable.

That's correct, the Toyota oil was not just the SM version but also the original Nippon Oil version, not the Mobil made oil.
Besides the main point was that the oil stabilized without any further shear for the balance of the OCI; the total amount of oil shear was not excessive.
The Idemitsu 0W-20 I ran subsiquently did not exhibit the same initial oil shear as the Nippon Oil but did shear somewhat very gradually over the OCI; only about 5% by the time the oilo was changed.

Regarding the assumption that the lower VI M1 AFE 0W-20 is more shear stable than the high 200+ VI 0W-20 oils such as the Toyota 0W-20; well that simply isn't the case. A quick survey of UOAs of both oils will show that if anything the Toyota oil is the more shear stable.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: JOD
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL


Ford specifies an oil meeting one of their WSS specs, not just an SN 5w20. CATERHAM's experience with the Toyota lube shows that it becomes 2.4cP almost immediately. You don't see that as an issue?

Perhaps Ford's standards for shear stability are more stringent than the API's?

PP 0w20 doesn't carry the Ford spec, but their 5w20 does. We know a 5w20 is generally going to be more stable than a 0w20, let alone an ultra-high VI 0w20 that leverages more polymers to get that VI.


Yep, sorry--I meant UOA. Caterham's experience w/the Toyota oil shearing is based on the SM version. The SN doesn't appear to shear that much in use--not as much as M1 0W20 (though the M1 starts out thicker).

I don't think we know that a conventional 5W20 is going to be more shear stable than a synthetic 0W20 (high VI or otherwise), and they both have to meet the same specifications for shear stability. While I don't know if Ford's spec has shear stability guidelines over and above SN/GF-5, it's worth noting that to maintain warranty compliance one only has to use an oil that meets the API specs, and the Ford spec is "recommended". That's how my owner's manual reads, and how the wording reads in other Ford manuals I've seen. So, I still don't see how an API SN certified oil isn't suitable.

That's correct, the Toyota oil was not just the SM version but also the original Nippon Oil version, not the Mobil made oil.
Besides the main point was that the oil stabilized without any further shear for the balance of the OCI; the total amount of oil shear was not excessive.
The Idemitsu 0W-20 I ran subsiquently did not exhibit the same initial oil shear as the Nippon Oil but did shear somewhat very gradually over the OCI; only about 5% by the time the oilo was changed.

Regarding the assumption that the lower VI M1 AFE 0W-20 is more shear stable than the high 200+ VI 0W-20 oils such as the Toyota 0W-20; well that simply isn't the case. A quick survey of UOAs of both oils will show that if anything the Toyota oil is the more shear stable.


You said it sheared down to a final HTHS of 2.4cP. While that may not be excessive for you, or your application, that doesn't magically make it suitable for every 5w20/0w20 application out there.

Now, assuming the Toyota oil is thinner in the first place (which I believe it is) then it has less distance to shear to reach its equalization point

And I would bet that even in applications that the AFE shears more percentage-wise, it is still heavier in the end.... as it is heavier to begin with. Which again, is my point with regards to minimum acceptable HTHS for a broad range of applications versus a manufacturer specific set of criteria with a lubricant tailored around them.

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL

You said it sheared down to a final HTHS of 2.4cP. While that may not be excessive for you, or your application, that doesn't magically make it suitable for every 5w20/0w20 application out there.

Now, assuming the Toyota oil is thinner in the first place (which I believe it is) then it has less distance to shear to reach its equalization point

And I would bet that even in applications that the AFE shears more percentage-wise, it is still heavier in the end.... as it is heavier to begin with. Which again, is my point with regards to minimum acceptable HTHS for a broad range of applications versus a manufacturer specific set of criteria with a lubricant tailored around them.


Ford's spec has no additional requirements for minimum hths or shear stability over and above what the API requires for SN certification: WSS-M2C930-A. Additionally, Pennzoil conventional, with has the minimum hths of 2.6 and a lighter 100C viscosity claims to meet Ford's specs. So I still don't understand how Toyota's 0W20 isn't of suitable viscosity for Fords which call for 5W20 (with the exception of turbos which spec 5W20 which also meet TEOST 33).

I don't think it's "magic" that makes it suitable, I think it's the API certification process.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: JOD
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL

You said it sheared down to a final HTHS of 2.4cP. While that may not be excessive for you, or your application, that doesn't magically make it suitable for every 5w20/0w20 application out there.

Now, assuming the Toyota oil is thinner in the first place (which I believe it is) then it has less distance to shear to reach its equalization point

And I would bet that even in applications that the AFE shears more percentage-wise, it is still heavier in the end.... as it is heavier to begin with. Which again, is my point with regards to minimum acceptable HTHS for a broad range of applications versus a manufacturer specific set of criteria with a lubricant tailored around them.


Ford's spec has no additional requirements for minimum hths or shear stability over and above what the API requires for SN certification: WSS-M2C930-A. Additionally, Pennzoil conventional, with has the minimum hths of 2.6 and a lighter 100C viscosity claims to meet Ford's specs. So I still don't understand how Toyota's 0W20 isn't of suitable viscosity for Fords which call for 5W20 (with the exception of turbos which spec 5W20 which also meet TEOST 33).

I don't think it's "magic" that makes it suitable, I think it's the API certification process.


That's the 930 spec you linked to (which is a GF-4 spec BTW), the AFE meets 945:

http://www.mobil.com/USA-English/Lubes/PDS/GLXXENPVLMOMobil_1_0W-20_Advanced_Fuel_Economy.aspx,

which supersedes 930. Any details on 945?

What's the VI on PYB 5w20? Low enough that it won't shear to an HTHS of 2.4cP?

 

[OVERKILL]

As a follow-up, it is notable that both the 929 and 930 spec require the following above and beyond the basic API cert:

Originally Posted By: Ford 929/930

ASTM Sequence VG Test
Follower Pin Wear, average 30 mm, max.
(Cyl #8 intake and exhaust)
Ring Gap Increase, average 225 mm, max
(Cyl #1 and #8)
The following photographs of the VG test engine are required:
· Rocker arm cover and camshaft baffle
· Oil pan and baffle
· Oil pick-up screen
· Cylinder block underside
· Cylinder head valve decks
· Cylinder block front
· Timing chain cover
· Average and worst piston skirts, thrust sides
· Rear seal housing


And:

Originally Posted By: Ford 929/930

3.3.1 Copper Corrosion 1b max
(ASTM D 130 or ISO 2160, 3 h at 100 °C) (Dark Orange)
3.3.2 High Temperature Deposits, mg 30 max
(TEOST MHT-4)
3.3.3 Physical Appearance and Odor
Shall be clear and bright with no objectionable odor.
3.3.4 Contaminants
Shall be free of carcinogens, toxins, metals not removed in refining or from previous
use.


And:

Originally Posted By: Ford 929/930

3.4.3 Fleet Testing
Materials which constitute a significant departure from conventional formulations,
whether in base stocks, refining processes or additive packages, must be fleet tested,
in addition to the requirements outlined herein. These tests must include the type(s) of
service judged to be affected by the difference in formulation technology. Fuels and
Lubricants Engineering should be consulted prior to testing.


And:

Originally Posted By: Ford 929/930

Shear Stability (ASTM D 445), mm2/s at 100 °C
After ASTM D 3945 or CEC L-14A-78 _________ ________
After 10 hr in "L-38" Test 5W-20 5.6 - After 10 hr in "L-38" Test 5W-30 9.3 -


Which is an ACEA spec, NOT API.......

And while they do list a minimum HTHS of 2.6cP for the 5w20, they also have a field for it after ASTM D 3945, but they don't list a minimum value, which is interesting.....

Anyways, this certainly allows for some doubt that the GF-4 formula (Idementsu) would have passed Ford's 930 spec given the above criteria. You can argue that it might have passed it, but it doesn't carry the approval, and subsequently isn't suitable for use in a Ford vehicle because its performance is UNKNOWN in that application.

The same logic can be extended to the current 945 spec and the Toyota "brew" we are discussing here. Ford certainly is demanding more than the basic API certification and I think that is significant.


*waits to have his points marginalized by the proponents of the ultra Nippon Juggernaut power brew*

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
What's the VI on PYB 5w20? Low enough that it won't shear to an HTHS of 2.4cP?


PYB 5W-20 has a VI of 150. Can you use that to predict how much it'd shear from a starting HT/HS viscosity of 2.6 cP?

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
What's the VI on PYB 5w20? Low enough that it won't shear to an HTHS of 2.4cP?


PYB 5W-20 has a VI of 150. Can you use that to predict how much it'd shear from a starting HT/HS viscosity of 2.6 cP?

You can't, but what we do know is that even low VI dinos still shear, but they do shear less than there 5W-30 counterparts.
The same applies to most 5W-20/30 synthetics.
The reason is that their 5W-20 and 5W-30 formulations are identical except for the VII content.

The same thing can't be said for low VI and high VI 0W-20 oils; their formulations are as different as night and day. They use different weight base oils, different types of polymer VIIs and often their AW additives are different.
The very high VI 0W-20's have been around for about four years now and the assumption that they must be more shear prone than the lower VI 0W-20s has been proven to be untrue.
But they are because of their high VI nature very light oils, and this viscosity difference is most noticeable at lower oil temp's; as evidenced by their 10cSt lower KV40 spec's.

If one has a vehicle for which a high VI 0W-20 is specified, it's my opinion that that's the oil most suitable to use. You can use a low VI 0W-20 and while they are lighter than most 5W-20s they are heavier than necessary primarily on start-up and during the warming up period.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
If one has a vehicle for which a high VI 0W-20 is specified, it's my opinion that that's the oil most suitable to use. You can use a low VI 0W-20 and while they are lighter than most 5W-20s they are heavier than necessary primarily on start-up and during the warming up period.


And on this point we are in COMPLETE agreement

 

[buster]

I agree with that too. I think we agree on more than we disagree really.....

 

[Trav]

Originally Posted By: Caterham
If one has a vehicle for which a high VI 0W-20 is specified

Which vehicle is that? Any publication from an OEM that say the oil must have a VI of XXX?
What specs does this super duper Toyota oils meet? Do any other oils like PP or Mobil 1 also meet the spec?

If so the spec has nothing to do with a high VI does it.
Edit: If Any other oil meets Toyota spec then it can be thicker than necessary can it or is that just you opinion?

 

[Trav]

Originally Posted By: Trav
Originally Posted By: Caterham
If one has a vehicle for which a high VI 0W-20 is specified

Which vehicle is that? Any publication from an OEM that say the oil must have a VI of XXX?
What specs does this super duper Toyota oils meet? Do any other oils like PP or Mobil 1 also meet the spec?

If so the spec has nothing to do with a high VI does it.
Edit: If Any other oil meets Toyota spec then it can be thicker than necessary can it or is that just you opinion?


To late to edit: I should have said. If any other oil meets Toyota spec then it cant be thicker than necessary can it or is that just you opinion?