Is Toyota 0W-20 SN made in heaven?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Blue_Angel
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
The other main difference is that TGMO is using a very high VI multi-branched PMA type polymer VM.


Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Therefore, my current thinking is that TGMO 0W-20 SN is a mix of Group III (perhaps Group III+) with Group V alkylated naphthalene. If it's true that TGMO 0W-20 SN has Group V alkylated naphthalene, this is yet another huge quality advantage of TGMO 0W-20 SN over other synthetics in the market, making it a uniquely top-quality oil.


So if all these thoughts about TGMO are true, how do we feel it would stand up to high shear applications like turbocharging? Are the VII's suspect as a weak point? Does the Group V content add stability?

Curious as one application of mine is a turbocharged engine that is traditionally a little hard on oil's viscosity (Cruze 1.4T). Toyota isn't into turbos.

A typical 0W-30 certainly has a lot more VIIs than a typical 0W-20. A typical 0W-20 should have a little less VIIs than a typical fully synthetic 5W-30.

TGMO 0W-20 SN seems to be a very shear-stable oil according to the UOAs.

Regarding Group V alkylated naphthalene, if TGMO 0W-20 really has it, it would increase its oil-film thickness in the elastohydodynamic-lubrication (EHL) region (the critical region right before metal-to-metal contact starts) greatly. This is thanks to the really large pressure - viscosity coefficient of Group V alkylated naphthalene. Group V alkylated naphthalene also increases the cleaning ability of a Group III oil greatly.

I think you can use it in a turbo application with excellent results. NOACK seems to be very good from the very little oil consumption I have with it.

For some reason ILSAC excluded the 0W-20 grade from the turbo specs in GF-5 but I don't know the reason and it seems silly. Perhaps they think no one uses 0W-20 for turbo applications.

Incidentally, my second UOA results for TGMO 0W-20 SN will be available soon.
 
Originally Posted By: Gokhan

TGMO 0W-20 SN seems to be a very shear-stable oil according to the UOAs.

Regarding Group V alkylated naphthalene, if TGMO 0W-20 really has it, it would increase its oil-film thickness in the elastohydodynamic-lubrication (EHL) region (the critical region right before metal-to-metal contact starts) greatly. This is thanks to the really large pressure - viscosity coefficient of Group V alkylated naphthalene. Group V alkylated naphthalene also increases the cleaning ability of a Group III oil greatly.

I think you can use it in a turbo application with excellent results. NOACK seems to be very good from the very little oil consumption I have with it.

Incidentally, my second UOA results for TGMO 0W-20 SN will be available soon.

Would be interesting to see your latest UOA, how many miles so far ?
But do you know the NOACK % of the 5-cst(at 100C) AN base oil ?

As for the EHL region lubrication capability, is there a chart/graph for the AN grp V available ?
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
TGMO is reputed to have a top secrete additive pack that is shipped to Mobil by Toyota for the construction of this oil...


Made from corn by ADM and the corn lobby.
 
Originally Posted by fpracha
Originally Posted by Gokhan

TGMO 0W-20 SN seems to be a very shear-stable oil according to the UOAs.

Regarding Group V alkylated naphthalene, if TGMO 0W-20 really has it, it would increase its oil-film thickness in the elastohydodynamic-lubrication (EHL) region (the critical region right before metal-to-metal contact starts) greatly. This is thanks to the really large pressure - viscosity coefficient of Group V alkylated naphthalene. Group V alkylated naphthalene also increases the cleaning ability of a Group III oil greatly.

I think you can use it in a turbo application with excellent results. NOACK seems to be very good from the very little oil consumption I have with it.

Incidentally, my second UOA results for TGMO 0W-20 SN will be available soon.

Would be interesting to see your latest UOA, how many miles so far ?
But do you know the NOACK % of the 5-cst(at 100C) AN base oil ?

As for the EHL region lubrication capability, is there a chart/graph for the AN grp V available ?

UOA with TBN/TAN/oxidation tests are currently being performed on the 254,205M/5,170M/335d sample. Results should be available by next week.

From the previous formulation guide that's no longer available online (and ExxonMobil doesn't allow me to post online), Synnestic 5 NOACK is 12.7%. VI is 74.

Regarding the EHL regime, oil-film thickness, pressure - viscosity coefficients, and a discussion of synthetic base oils, I'll repeat some of previous posts:

Elastohydrodynamic-lubrication (EHL) film thickness is given by (reference):

Backup_200403_lubselect-form2.gif


Here H_c is the EHL film thickness, alpha is the pressure - viscosity coefficient, and eta_0 is the high-shear (HTHS) viscosity.

The goal is to have the pressure - viscosity coefficient as high as possible, as well as the HTHS viscosity, to achieve a higher EHL film thickness.

Unfortunately, Group IV (PAO) has the smallest pressure - viscosity coefficient, followed by Group III, which is followed by Group II. Group I has the largest pressure - viscosity coefficient. Here is why (from page 180 of the reference):

(images removed; copyright)

Therefore, synthetic oils will give smaller oil film thickness than Group II oils and Group II oils will give smaller oil film thickness than Group I oils in the EHL regime. EHL regime and boundary-lubrication regime both apply to the valvetrain.

One advantage of synthetic oils is that, due to their use of lower concentration of viscosity-index improvers, their HTHS viscosity will shear less than for conventional oils over the OCI. Higher HTHS viscosity is good for oil-film thickness. Therefore, synthetic oils will maintain their oil-film thickness better than conventional oils over the OCI.

After all this said, am I worried about using synthetic oil? No, I am not. I believe the most important protection against wear in the valvetrain is ZDDP, moly, and other antiwear additives. So, if you have a decent concentration of quality (mostly secondary kind) ZDDP, the trinuclear kind of moly, and some additional quality AW/EP/FM additives, you should have good wear protection in the valvetrain regardless of the viscosity or the pressure - viscosity coefficient. This is not a proven statement though but more my current understanding. Engine tests are always the most authoritative in reaching a conclusion.

I expect the GTLs to have poor oil film thickness in the EHL regime like the PAO oils, as they also have very uniform long molecular chains. Alternatively stating the same thing, I expect the GTLS to have very small pressure - viscosity coefficients like the PAO oils, as they also have very uniform long molecular chains.

Here is an excellent article (PDF link) on challenges of using more refined base oils, such as Group II, III, IV, and GTL, as well as esters.

Challenges are great, as Group III, IV, and GTL base oils are regarded as "dry oils" with poor solubility and lubricity. Esters have excellent lubricity but they passivate the metal surfaces and block the AW/EP/FM additives and may therefore increase the wear greatly.

The article doesn't seem to discuss the pressure - viscosity coefficient, which is also important for wear protection but the synthetic base oils have poor pressure - viscosity coefficents as well. Despite this apparent omission, the article is excellent and discusses some great disadvantages and challenges of synthetic base oils and how to possibly overcome these challenges and disadvantages.

(images removed; copyright)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Challenges are great, as Group III, IV, and GTL base oils are regarded as "dry oils" with poor solubility and lubricity. Esters have excellent lubricity but they passivate the metal surfaces and block the AW/EP/FM additives and may therefore increase the wear greatly.

Of course, we do have to ensure we aren't worrying about nothing. There are no Group I SN/GF-5 oils out there, and even oils that are very high in PAO or esters certainly have other base stocks blended in to minimize disadvantages and maximize advantages of the ingredients.

Lubricity of PAO and polarity of esters aren't even remotely issues for the average person, considering the number of high PAO and high ester content oils on the average retail shelf, combined, can be counted on one hand. Even they have been finessed with blending.

Readers would be well served to go back a substantial period of time in posts and see what the professionals here on the site have said about handling these issues when blending lubricants in general. There are also some very illustrative anecdotes about specific lubricants. The technology and knowledge that has gone into these lubes is truly staggering.
 
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Group V alkylated naphthalene also increases the cleaning ability of a Group III oil greatly.
...
Challenges are great, as Group III, IV, and GTL base oils are regarded as "dry oils" with poor solubility and lubricity. Esters have excellent lubricity but they passivate the metal surfaces and block the AW/EP/FM additives and may therefore increase the wear greatly.

Do these AN type grp V oils not have these limitations of Esters (esters block metal surfaces and induce higher wear) and PAOs/GrpIII oils (dry oil behavior and poor lubricity) ?

Any independent references along with your highly technical explanations will be much appreciated, please.

If indeed the alkylated naphthalene oils increase the cleaning ability of Grp III and PAO base oils, then there must be a maximum % required to maximize this improvement in cleaning ability. Is this maximum % known ?
 
I believe the main limitations of the 5 cSt alkylated naphthalene Group V are VI (74) and volatility (12.7%).

It's supposed to have excellent pressure - viscosity coefficient (= extremely thick oil film in the EHL region), good lubricity, good solvency, and good oxidative stability.

I think the references I gave above are fairly good.

ExxonMobil synthetic-oil formulation guide (publicly available on the Web) examples using AN Group V have 10% AN Group V in Group IV PCMO formulations and 20% AN Group V in a Group III HDEO formulation.

The guide says that AN Group V is better than ester Group V:

an.png


I hope this helps.
 
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
The guide says that AN Group V is better than ester Group V:

Gokhan, Yes thanks it is helpful.
Can we deduce from this that AN Group V oil at 10% & 20% formulated into a mainly GroupII base oil formulation will also provide similar improvements as it does in the PAO / GroupIII oils ?
 
Originally Posted By: fpracha
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
The guide says that AN Group V is better than ester Group V:

Gokhan, Yes thanks it is helpful.
Can we deduce from this that AN Group V oil at 10% & 20% formulated into a mainly GroupII base oil formulation will also provide similar improvements as it does in the PAO / GroupIII oils?

One problem with mixing Group II with AN Group V is that the resulting the VI would be even lower than the Group II VI. Group II also has OK lubricity and solvency and its pressure - viscosity coefficient (= oil-film thickness in the EHL region) is second only to naphthalene, despite being a distant second. I am repeating the chart again, the top curve being for the naphthalene:

presssure-viscosity_graph.jpg


Nevertheless, AN Group V should also provide great improvements to Group II. In fact, look at my UOAs. I've done far better with the Group III & (possibly) AN Group V TGMO 0W-20 SN than with the Group II PYB 5W-20 SN. Of course, TGMO 0W-20 SN also has 100 ppm trinuclear moly as opposed to the dump of cheap moly in PYB, which is another reason why the wear is even lower:

Two TGMO 0W-20 SN UOAs and a PYB 5W-20 SN UOA

Also notice how TAN stayed low with the TGMO 0W-20 SN, showing that it oxidizes very little, in addition to engine being in condition and fuel used (California-formula Chevron 87 octane) being high-quality (low-sulfur).
 
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: fpracha
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
The guide says that AN Group V is better than ester Group V:

Gokhan, Yes thanks it is helpful.
Can we deduce from this that AN Group V oil at 10% & 20% formulated into a mainly GroupII base oil formulation will also provide similar improvements as it does in the PAO / GroupIII oils?
One problem with mixing Group II with AN Group V is that the resulting the VI would be even lower than the Group II VI. Group II also has OK lubricity and solvency and its pressure - viscosity coefficient (= oil-film thickness in the EHL region) is second only to naphthalene, despite being a distant second.

Nevertheless, AN Group V should also provide great improvements to Group II.

Thank you Gokhan. Perhaps the GrpII + AN Grp V combination can produce an even better formulated engine oil than the GrpIII + AN Grp V base oils ?
Yes i will agree that 0w-20 TGMO is your best choice and as mentioned in your other post, no need to use a 0w-40 oil unless the wear numbers and TBN are not at acceptable levels. Cheers
smile.gif
 
Originally Posted By: fpracha
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: fpracha
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
The guide says that AN Group V is better than ester Group V:

Gokhan, Yes thanks it is helpful.
Can we deduce from this that AN Group V oil at 10% & 20% formulated into a mainly GroupII base oil formulation will also provide similar improvements as it does in the PAO / GroupIII oils?
One problem with mixing Group II with AN Group V is that the resulting the VI would be even lower than the Group II VI. Group II also has OK lubricity and solvency and its pressure - viscosity coefficient (= oil-film thickness in the EHL region) is second only to naphthalene, despite being a distant second.

Nevertheless, AN Group V should also provide great improvements to Group II.

Thank you Gokhan. Perhaps the GrpII + AN Grp V combination can produce an even better formulated engine oil than the GrpIII + AN Grp V base oils ?
Yes i will agree that 0w-20 TGMO is your best choice and as mentioned in your other post, no need to use a 0w-40 oil unless the wear numbers and TBN are not at acceptable levels. Cheers
smile.gif


With Group II, you can't make 0W-xx of course, as the Group II NOACK would be too high for such a thin base stock.

Assuming you're making a 5W-20, the obvious disadvantage of Group II is its high oxidization, which means shorter OCIs because the oxidized oil is acidic and the acid level (TAN) increases, increasing the wear. Oxidized oil also loses its lubrication capabilities.

Another disadvantage of Group II is its lower viscosity index (VI). Since AN Group V has even a lower VI (74), the resulting oil may require too much viscosity-index improvers.

So, if you limit your OCI to shorter intervals, then a Group II & AN Group V semisynthetic should be good with good pressure - viscosity coefficient (oil-film strength).

Overall, I would probably prefer a Group III & AN Group V mix over a Group II & AN Group V mix. However, the latter may find applications where higher oil-film strength is needed.
 
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: fpracha
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
The guide says that AN Group V is better than ester Group V:

Thank you Gokhan. Perhaps the GrpII + AN Grp V combination can produce an even better formulated engine oil than the GrpIII + AN Grp V base oils ?
Cheers
smile.gif


Overall, I would probably prefer a Group III & AN Group V mix over a Group II & AN Group V mix. However, the latter may find applications where higher oil-film strength is needed.
Thanks again Gokhan.
BTW if AN Group V oil is mixed into PAO synthetic base oil, will it provice any distinct performance improvements beyond what is possible with the Grp III + AN Group V combination ?
 
Originally Posted By: fpracha
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: fpracha
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
The guide says that AN Group V is better than ester Group V:

Thank you Gokhan. Perhaps the GrpII + AN Grp V combination can produce an even better formulated engine oil than the GrpIII + AN Grp V base oils ?
Cheers
smile.gif


Overall, I would probably prefer a Group III & AN Group V mix over a Group II & AN Group V mix. However, the latter may find applications where higher oil-film strength is needed.
Thanks again Gokhan.
BTW if AN Group V oil is mixed into PAO synthetic base oil, will it provice any distinct performance improvements beyond what is possible with the Grp III + AN Group V combination ?

Group IV can't be used alone because it lacks solvency and stability; so, you mix it with Group V AN (alkylated naphthalene) or Group V ester, or with Group III or Group II.

Regarding Group III + Group V AN mix vs. Group IV + Group V AN mix, the latter will have less NOACK and will allow longer OCIs because it will have less oxidation / less TAN increase (longer oil life), as well as less evaporation (less top-offs).

Group V AN offers the highest level of wear protection by far among all base stocks because it has the highest oil-film strength (highest pressure - viscosity coefficient) by far. Therefore, oils mixed with Group V AN will show the lowest cam wear by far, regardless of their viscosity. The downside of Group V AN is that it has a very low viscosity index; therefore, you can't use it in very high concentrations -- used typically 10 - 20%.
 
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: fpracha
Thanks again Gokhan.
BTW if AN Group V oil is mixed into PAO synthetic base oil, will it provice any distinct performance improvements beyond what is possible with the Grp III + AN Group V combination ?

Group IV can't be used alone because it lacks solvency and stability; so, you mix it with Group V AN (alkylated naphthalene) or Group V ester, or with Group III or Group II.

Regarding Group III + Group V AN mix vs. Group IV + Group V AN mix, the latter will have less NOACK and will allow longer OCIs because it will have less oxidation / less TAN increase (longer oil life), as well as less evaporation (less top-offs).

Group V AN offers the highest level of wear protection by far among all base stocks because it has the highest oil-film strength (highest pressure - viscosity coefficient) by far. Therefore, oils mixed with Group V AN will show the lowest cam wear by far, regardless of their viscosity. The downside of Group V AN is that it has a very low viscosity index; therefore, you can't use it in very high concentrations -- used typically 10 - 20%.

Ok... is there any proof/evidence to show that Group V AN base oil has been used at 20% even, in any quality engine oil, and resulted in LONGER OCI's ?
And does the use of Group V AN base oil allow the formulation to use LESS of the total additive concentration (thereby reducing the total additive chemicals % in the finished engine oil), when compared to engine oils that do not use any appreciable % of the Group V AN base oil ?
 
Originally Posted By: fpracha
Ok... is there any proof/evidence to show that Group V AN base oil has been used at 20% even, in any quality engine oil, and resulted in LONGER OCI's ?
And does the use of Group V AN base oil allow the formulation to use LESS of the total additive concentration (thereby reducing the total additive chemicals % in the finished engine oil), when compared to engine oils that do not use any appreciable % of the Group V AN base oil ?

Yes, ExxonMobil tested HDEO with Group IV PAO + Group V ester + 0% Group V AN (standard Group IV synthetic oil with the standard Group V ester as stabilizer/solvent) and Group IV PAO + 0% Group V ester + 20% Group V AN (Group IV synthetic oil with Group V AN as the stabilizer/solvent instead of the standard Group V ester) and found out that the addition of Group V AN instead of Group V ester results in a cleaner engine and less cam wear. See my first post on this page with the comparison table.

Antiwear additives are supplemental to the protection of the oil film. You still want the highest oil-film strength (highest pressure - viscosity coefficient) so that you make the best out of the elastohydrodynamic-lubrication regime before metal-to-metal contact begins (boundary-lubrication regime). Besides, the level of ZDDP is fixed to 600 - 800 ppm P and you aren't allowed to change it. Therefore, that's where the strength of the Group V AN lies -- it has the highest pressure - viscosity coefficient by far and hence the highest oil-film strength by far.
 
I am sending a virgin oil sample from a recent batch of TGMO 0W-20 SN to WearCheck. I should get the results by the end of next week.

Stay tuned for the latest specs on the TGMO 0W-20 SN, including its unsurpassed viscosity index!
 
Interesting info....I looked in to the TGMO 0w20 for my Honda civic sI...The parts guy told me they don't sell it in 5 q. amounts..but only sell it by the quart. (7.25)
He then said....his Toyota "rep" told him...TGMO is the same as Mobil super synthetic.
Some on here have already stated that....some disagree, but it was interesting that that statement came from a dealership. Super synthetic 0w20 goes for around 5.00 i believe at AAP. Which is inline with the Toyota branded 0w20 at 7.25
hmm i wonder
 
Originally Posted By: disneyfire
Interesting info....I looked in to the TGMO 0w20 for my Honda civic sI...The parts guy told me they don't sell it in 5 q. amounts..but only sell it by the quart. (7.25)
He then said....his Toyota "rep" told him...TGMO is the same as Mobil super synthetic.
Some on here have already stated that....some disagree, but it was interesting that that statement came from a dealership. Super synthetic 0w20 goes for around 5.00 i believe at AAP. Which is inline with the Toyota branded 0w20 at 7.25
hmm i wonder

TGMO 0W-20 SN and Mobil Super Synthetic 0W-20 SN are entirely different as obvious from the VOAs/UOAs.

TGMO is an ultra-high-viscosity-index oil; Mobil Super is a regular-viscosity-index oil. TGMO contains (trinuclear) moly; Mobil Super contains no moly at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top