Toyota TGMO 0W-20 SN VOA with VI, TBN, and TAN

[Gokhan]

Consider this the official VOA of TGMO 0W-20 SN.

I just got the VOA results for the latest batch of Toyota TGMO 0W-20 SN/GF-5. The results are stunning for this top-ranked oil.

Viscosity index (VI) is a whopping 236, even shadowing JX Nippon Oil Eneos Sustina 0W-20 SN (VI 229) that boasts about its VI as its main selling point. This is showing that it's made of ExxonMobil's Visom Group III+ base stocks and very high-quality viscosity-index improver (VII).

KV @ 100 C is a very high, 5W-30-ish 8.79 cSt, very close to the 5W-30/10W-30 range (9.3 cSt or higher). Therefore, with its high viscosity, it's suitable for xW-30 applications.

Oil shear is only 1.3% according to my UOA. Therefore, it's an extremely shear-stable oil, showing that it's made of the highest quality viscosity-index improver (VII).

Additive package is extremely strong. ZDDP at 773 ppm P is near the 800 ppm maximum P limit. ExxonMobil/Shell (Infineum) trinuclear moly is at a very large 116 ppm.

There is a large dose (2431 ppm) of calcium detergent. There is no potentially harmful magnesium detergent (only 12 ppm).

TAN is very low at 1.08, showing that the concentration of potentially harmful succinimide dispersants is low.

Low TAN and low Mg contrasts with many of the newer oils like Mobil 1 SN, which have high Mg and high TAN that are potentially harmful to the engine.

TBN retention and TAN arrest is excellent according to my UOA. TBN decreased only to 5.25 from 6.20 and TAN increased only to 3.33 from 1.08 in 5170 miles. However, the low-sulfur gasoline in California helps keep TBN high and TAN low as well.

The sample was taken from one of the latest batches of TGMO 0W-20 SN. I chose the bottles with the latest date-code stamp on the Toyota-dealer shelf. I shook the bottle very well before I poured the sample so that the additives would be fully mixed.

This is the summary:

Fe 0.8
Ni 0.6
Cr 0.1
Ti 0.2
Cu 0.1
Al 1.5
Sn 0.0
Pb 0.2

Si 11
K 0.0

B 0.2
Ba 0.0
Ca 2431
Mg 12
Mo 116
Na 0.8
P 773
S 3543
Zn 866

KV40 36.16
KV100 8.79
VI 236
TAN 1.08
TBN 6.20

This is a truly exceptional oil that has no match to its top ranks.

 

[Klutch9]

Phenomenal!

 

[A_Harman]

Looks great. Too bad I don't have a car requiring 20-weight, but it does make me more interested in trying the Caterham blend.
Why doesn't anybody make a similar 0w30?

How much did you pay for this oil?
How much was the analysis to include TBN, TAN, Particle Count, KV40, and KV100?

 

[Gokhan]

I got the TGMO 0W-20 SN for $5.65 a quart at a local Toyota dealer. They have a parts Web site I can order from that gives 22% off MSRP and then I go there and pick it up will-call.

You can call WearCheck USA and set up a personal account. Their "MOB II with TBN/TAN" UOA/VOA is very affordable, comprehensive, and accurate.

 

[EddieCairns]

How can you tell a Phosphorus of 773 ppm directly relates to 773 ppm of ZDDP.

Seems a bit of an assumption as ZDDP is a complex compound.

 

[Jasper8146]

Thanks for going to the trouble and expense of doing this analysis and then posting it for fellow BITOGers to see. Given the results here, would this oil be suitable, or even preferable, in most situations where 5W-20 is specified by the manufacturer? Do these results mean that this oil is at the level of say Amsoil 0W-20 or Pennzoil Ultra 0W-20 or would those oils still have some advantages over this Toyota oil?

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
KV @ 100 C is a very high, 5W-30-ish 8.79 cSt, very close to the 5W-30/10W-30 range (9.3 cSt or higher). Therefore, with its high viscosity, it's suitable for xW-30 applications.


First thanks for this comprehensive VOA.

Remember this oil has a HTHSV of 2.6cP which overrides it's KV100 spec'. The KV100 spec' tell one more about the oils chemistry than anything else. This oil is not suitable XW-30 applications that require a HTHSV of at least 2.9cP. Make no mistake, TGMO is a very light 20 grade oil.

Yes I'm impressed by the VI, higher moly level and Phos levels than what we've seen lately in TGMO UOAs but it's just one VOA. I would like to see atleast one other VOA from another lab to confirm Wearcheck's figures.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: EddieCairns
How can you tell a Phosphorus of 773 ppm directly relates to 773 ppm of ZDDP.

Seems a bit of an assumption as ZDDP is a complex compound.

I didn't say 773 ppm ZDDP. I said "ZDDP at 773 ppm P", which meant whatever ppm of ZDDP that corresponds to 773 ppm of P.

Phosphorus only comes from ZDDP and what I said was that the phosphorus was close to the 800 ppm maximum limit imposed by GF-5; therefore, they put nearly the maximum amount of ZDDP they could put.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Remember this oil has a HTHSV of 2.6cP

That's something no one knows, as no one has tested for HTHSV of TGMO 0W-20 SN. 2.6 cP is only the minimum limit imposed by SAE and HTHSV is allowed to be 2.6 cP or any number that is higher, with no maximum limit.

I doubt it's at the very minimum. It's probably more like 2.7 cP. Also note that this is a very shear-stable oil. Your oil pressure readings are probably reflecting the high VI (lower colder viscosity). What does your oil-temperature gauge show?

 

[Blue_Angel]

Thanks for posting. It would be good to see a backup VOA from another lab to confirm, but still encouraging none the less.

I got my first oil sample kit from Toromont CAT a week ago anticipating my next OCI (much cheaper than my last WearCheck UOA, they're local and include postage). I may call their lab and see if they're able to test all parameters as you've had done for comparison sake. If the cost isn't astronomical for a comparable analysis I may send in a VOA as well.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Remember this oil has a HTHSV of 2.6cP


Given the comprehensiveness of Gokhan's report, are you stating the HTHS as a known fact, or continuing to infer that it's that because it is the min spec for a 20.

If fact, then a link to the source would be good.

It's important when discussing facts and data are being discussed that facts are facts, and inferred values given a lesser, known status.

 

[Blue_Angel]

How is TGMO doing for oil consumption in DI engines? Trying to get a feel for NOACK volatility, if that's possible...

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: Blue_Angel
How is TGMO doing for oil consumption in DI engines? Trying to get a feel for NOACK volatility, if that's possible...

My oil consumption, which was already low to begin with, is slightly lower with TGMO 0W-20 SN than it was with PYB 5W-20 SN.

This could partly be due to lower NOACK (most likely). However, TGMO 0W-20 SN is a little thicker than PYB 5W-20 SN as well. Typical Group III oils show less than 13% NOACK and I expect TGMO 0W-20 SN to have less than 13% NOACK.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Remember this oil has a HTHSV of 2.6cP

That's something no one knows, as no one has tested for HTHSV of TGMO 0W-20 SN. 2.6 cP is only the minimum limit imposed by SAE and HTHSV is allowed to be 2.6 cP or any number that is higher, with no maximum limit.

I doubt it's at the very minimum. It's probably more like 2.7 cP. Also note that this is a very shear-stable oil. Your oil pressure readings are probably reflecting the high VI (lower colder viscosity). What does your oil-temperature gauge show?

About 99% of the API 0W/5W-20 oils on the market have a 2.6cP HTHSV according to company PDS.
The whole purpose of TGMO 0W-20 is to be as light as possible to maximize fuel economy and this means the lowest HTHSV allowed for the grade.
Honda and Toyota have been pushing for even lighter grades; hence the SAE 16 grade, so it would make sense that their 0W-20s are as light as allowed.
If I was a betting man and had to wager the exact HTHSV for TGMO, knowing first hand how light the oil actually is in service, I'd say 2.55cP.
Now if you want to think TGMO's 0W-20 has a HTHSV any higher than 2.6cP be my guest, but the evidence is to the contrary.

 

[buster]

There are no issues with Ca/Mg combinations. It's actually a very good additive system.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2089814#Post2089814

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
About 99% of the API 0W/5W-20 oils on the market have a 2.6cP HTHSV according to company PDS.
The whole purpose of TGMO 0W-20 is to be as light as possible to maximize fuel economy and this means the lowest HTHSV allowed for the grade.
Honda and Toyota have been pushing for even lighter grades; hence the SAE 16 grade, so it would make sense that their 0W-20s are as light as allowed.
If I was a betting man and had to wager the exact HTHSV for TGMO, knowing first hand how light the oil actually is in service, I'd say 2.55cP.
Now if you want to think TGMO's 0W-20 has a HTHSV any higher than 2.6cP be my guest, but the evidence is to the contrary.


Again, assertion rather than evidence...your "evidence to the contrary" is assertion.

If what you say IS true, then Toyota have failed in their original design brief with the TGMO.

By chasing VI above all else, they have increased the KV100 for a given HTHS...that's the basis of your assertion.

Therefore in the pursuit of a spectacular VI, they using more fuel than if they had gone to a lower VI. lower KV100, with the same HTHS...

As you know, some of the power losses are viscous in nature, during the "first Newtonian" phase...and extra cst here and there adds up, and certainly do cost power and fuel.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: buster
There are no issues with Ca/Mg combinations. It's actually a very good additive system.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2089814#Post2089814

Mg is not harmful directly. However, it's not effective at neutralizing certain types of acids; therefore, it takes up detergent space that would otherwise be useful to keep the TAN low.

Ca on the other hand is effective on the entire spectrum of acids.

Some Mg may be beneficial as it could help keep a TBN buffer, as it doesn't work as hard Ca; so, it's not depleted as quickly as Ca. Nevertheless, I don't like detergents packs that are too high in Mg. I prefer mostly Ca or all-Ca detergent packs for wide-spectrum acid neutralization.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: Shannow

By chasing VI above all else, they have increased the KV100 for a given HTHS...that's the basis of your assertion.

Therefore in the pursuit of a spectacular VI, they using more fuel than if they had gone to a lower VI. lower KV100, with the same HTHS...

As you know, some of the power losses are viscous in nature, during the "first Newtonian" phase...and extra cst here and there adds up, and certainly do cost power and fuel.

That's your summation not mine.
Fuel economy correlates with HTHSV not KV100.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
About 99% of the API 0W/5W-20 oils on the market have a 2.6cP HTHSV according to company PDS.

Come on, CATERHAM, this is not true at all. 2.6 cP is nothing but the minimum HTHSV spec by SAE, not the actual HTHSV spec of the oil.

Here are some examples:

M1 AFE 0W-20 SN: 2.7 cP
M1 EP 0W-20 SN: 2.7 cP
Amsoil OEZ 0W-20 SN: 2.7 cP
Amsoil ASM 0W-20 SN: 2.8 cP
Redline 0W-20 SN: 2.9 cP

I gave 5 common counterexamples to the 2.6 cP, and they average to about 2.8 cP. If it's 99% 2.6 cP as you say, you need to find 495 different examples of PDSs that have HTHSV 2.6 cP.

 

[gregk24]

Such a great oil! Glad its in the sump of my 2006 Accord 2.4 =) Thanks for the time and $$ you put into this.