I purchased a case of TGMO 0W-20 in Madison Wisconsin at the dealer for $6 a quart. This information for reference purposes.
TGMO 0W-20 - FAQ
- Thread starter Shannow
- Start date
- Status
Gokhan's excellent VOA thread.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3356846/Toyota_TGMO_0W-20_SN_VOA_with_
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3356846/Toyota_TGMO_0W-20_SN_VOA_with_
Hmmm, I'm still owed $100 site sponsor from Gokhan's excellent VOA thread...anyway, there are more facts and data have come to light recently regarding the "oil that we no more about than any other"
TGMO has a NOACK in the 10% range
It's more expensive to make than M1 (which contains expensive PAO), and Toyota are essentially running a motor oil charity bringing it to market so cheaply.
TGMO has a NOACK in the 10% range
It's more expensive to make than M1 (which contains expensive PAO), and Toyota are essentially running a motor oil charity bringing it to market so cheaply.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Shannow
TGMO has a NOACK in the 10% range
Source confirming this:
http://www.oil-club.ru/forum/topic/8410-toyota-genuine-0w-20-kanistra-plastik/
However, I'm not 100% sure the oil they tested is the same as what we get here in North America.
TGMO has a NOACK in the 10% range
Source confirming this:
http://www.oil-club.ru/forum/topic/8410-toyota-genuine-0w-20-kanistra-plastik/
However, I'm not 100% sure the oil they tested is the same as what we get here in North America.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: Shannow
TGMO has a NOACK in the 10% range
Source confirming this:
http://www.oil-club.ru/forum/topic/8410-toyota-genuine-0w-20-kanistra-plastik/
However, I'm not 100% sure the oil they tested is the same as what we get here in North America.
Right. Because we lack a PDS with any really useful data for the product.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
TGMO has a NOACK in the 10% range
Source confirming this:
http://www.oil-club.ru/forum/topic/8410-toyota-genuine-0w-20-kanistra-plastik/
However, I'm not 100% sure the oil they tested is the same as what we get here in North America.
Right. Because we lack a PDS with any really useful data for the product.
Thanks QP, previously, the part number for the Russian TGMO was a match for the Oz, made in Japan, not Mobil USA
http://www.parttrade.ru/search/0888083325/2161/
But that's the metal tin 5 litre version, not plastic 1L bottles shown in that thread.
http://www.parttrade.ru/search/0888083325/2161/
But that's the metal tin 5 litre version, not plastic 1L bottles shown in that thread.
Hi all, second post. I just bought a 2011 Camry XLE with the 2.5.
I joined yesterday after reading up on TGMO. I bought a case of 0w20 from the dealer for around 6 bucks a quart. plus the oil filter and crush washers. And the special wrench, was surprised at the 0w20 spec but from what I read it kicks tail.
the place I bought it from put in 5w30 when I asked.
hope that was not bad.
I joined yesterday after reading up on TGMO. I bought a case of 0w20 from the dealer for around 6 bucks a quart. plus the oil filter and crush washers. And the special wrench, was surprised at the 0w20 spec but from what I read it kicks tail.
the place I bought it from put in 5w30 when I asked.
hope that was not bad.
Originally Posted By: buster
No PDS
XOM MSDS (shows Pour Point as -17F)
Quote:
IMPORTANT HEALTH, SAFETY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
Relative Density (at 15 °C): 0.851
Flash Point [Method]: 219°C (426°F) [ASTM D-92]
Flammable Limits (Approximate volume % in air): LEL: 0.9 UEL: 7.0
Autoignition Temperature: N/D
Boiling Point / Range: > 316°C (600°F)
Vapor Density (Air = 1): > 2 at 101 kPa
Vapor Pressure: < 0.013 kPa (0.1 mm Hg) at 20 °C
Evaporation Rate (n-butyl acetate = 1): N/D
pH: N/A
Log Pow (n-Octanol/Water Partition Coefficient): > 3.5
Solubility in Water: Negligible
Viscosity: 36.1 cSt (36.1 mm2/sec) at 40 °C | 8.5 cSt (8.5 mm2/sec) at 100°C
Oxidizing Properties: See Hazards Identification Section.
OTHER INFORMATION
Freezing Point: N/D
Melting Point: N/A
Pour Point: -27°C (-17°F)
DMSO Extract (mineral oil only), IP-346: < 3 %wt
No specs known other than API SN/GF-5 and Toyota recommends it.
VOA/UOA's are available.
Wait, a pour point of -17...is this not HORRIBLE? or am I missing something? Just bought 5 quarts for my next oil change on the Accord (not that it matters here in FL).
No PDS
XOM MSDS (shows Pour Point as -17F)
Quote:
IMPORTANT HEALTH, SAFETY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
Relative Density (at 15 °C): 0.851
Flash Point [Method]: 219°C (426°F) [ASTM D-92]
Flammable Limits (Approximate volume % in air): LEL: 0.9 UEL: 7.0
Autoignition Temperature: N/D
Boiling Point / Range: > 316°C (600°F)
Vapor Density (Air = 1): > 2 at 101 kPa
Vapor Pressure: < 0.013 kPa (0.1 mm Hg) at 20 °C
Evaporation Rate (n-butyl acetate = 1): N/D
pH: N/A
Log Pow (n-Octanol/Water Partition Coefficient): > 3.5
Solubility in Water: Negligible
Viscosity: 36.1 cSt (36.1 mm2/sec) at 40 °C | 8.5 cSt (8.5 mm2/sec) at 100°C
Oxidizing Properties: See Hazards Identification Section.
OTHER INFORMATION
Freezing Point: N/D
Melting Point: N/A
Pour Point: -27°C (-17°F)
DMSO Extract (mineral oil only), IP-346: < 3 %wt
No specs known other than API SN/GF-5 and Toyota recommends it.
VOA/UOA's are available.
Wait, a pour point of -17...is this not HORRIBLE? or am I missing something? Just bought 5 quarts for my next oil change on the Accord (not that it matters here in FL).
gragk24,
the only "official" figures that we have are the MSDS (not Product Data Sheet), and for the purposes of VI, the MSDS (not Product Data Sheet) is infallible.
Every other item on the MSDS is apparently either typo or oversight, and therefore capable of being overlooked...except of course the KV40/KV100, as once again, for those purposes, the MSDS is infallible.
the only "official" figures that we have are the MSDS (not Product Data Sheet), and for the purposes of VI, the MSDS (not Product Data Sheet) is infallible.
Every other item on the MSDS is apparently either typo or oversight, and therefore capable of being overlooked...except of course the KV40/KV100, as once again, for those purposes, the MSDS is infallible.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
gragk24,
the only "official" figures that we have are the MSDS (not Product Data Sheet), and for the purposes of VI, the MSDS (not Product Data Sheet) is infallible.
Every other item on the MSDS is apparently either typo or oversight, and therefore capable of being overlooked...except of course the KV40/KV100, as once again, for those purposes, the MSDS is infallible.
This thread won't die.
HAHA do you mean we are to believe what we want to believe and toss everything else that's not good on the MSDS? I agree with you man, I'd use good ole' Mobil 1 0W20 and call it a day. I got better things to do than try and hunt that stuff down, and then pay dealership prices for it, sorry no thanks. Don't even get me started on buying it from the bulk tank.-RD
gragk24,
the only "official" figures that we have are the MSDS (not Product Data Sheet), and for the purposes of VI, the MSDS (not Product Data Sheet) is infallible.
Every other item on the MSDS is apparently either typo or oversight, and therefore capable of being overlooked...except of course the KV40/KV100, as once again, for those purposes, the MSDS is infallible.
This thread won't die.
HAHA do you mean we are to believe what we want to believe and toss everything else that's not good on the MSDS? I agree with you man, I'd use good ole' Mobil 1 0W20 and call it a day. I got better things to do than try and hunt that stuff down, and then pay dealership prices for it, sorry no thanks. Don't even get me started on buying it from the bulk tank.-RD
Originally Posted By: rockydee
Originally Posted By: Shannow
gragk24,
the only "official" figures that we have are the MSDS (not Product Data Sheet), and for the purposes of VI, the MSDS (not Product Data Sheet) is infallible.
Every other item on the MSDS is apparently either typo or oversight, and therefore capable of being overlooked...except of course the KV40/KV100, as once again, for those purposes, the MSDS is infallible.
This thread won't die.
HAHA do you mean we are to believe what we want to believe and toss everything else that's not good on the MSDS? I agree with you man, I'd use good ole' Mobil 1 0W20 and call it a day. I got better things to do than try and hunt that stuff down, and then pay dealership prices for it, sorry no thanks. Don't even get me started on buying it from the bulk tank.-RD
Well, its easily obtainable and affordable in my area. Five quarts has always been in between $25-$30, not bad at all for TGMO in my opinion. I love the specs it has, its a perfect short tripper oil. I was just shocked when I saw that pour point.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
gragk24,
the only "official" figures that we have are the MSDS (not Product Data Sheet), and for the purposes of VI, the MSDS (not Product Data Sheet) is infallible.
Every other item on the MSDS is apparently either typo or oversight, and therefore capable of being overlooked...except of course the KV40/KV100, as once again, for those purposes, the MSDS is infallible.
This thread won't die.
HAHA do you mean we are to believe what we want to believe and toss everything else that's not good on the MSDS? I agree with you man, I'd use good ole' Mobil 1 0W20 and call it a day. I got better things to do than try and hunt that stuff down, and then pay dealership prices for it, sorry no thanks. Don't even get me started on buying it from the bulk tank.-RD
Well, its easily obtainable and affordable in my area. Five quarts has always been in between $25-$30, not bad at all for TGMO in my opinion. I love the specs it has, its a perfect short tripper oil. I was just shocked when I saw that pour point.
No, the referenced document is an MSDS...the things that fire fighters use to determine the strategy at a building, not the VI of a lubricant...not a Product specification.
A PDS at least purports to have information on the performance aspects of a product...it can still be wrong, but except for TGMO, I have NEVER seen people design a lubrication system off an MSDS...reverse engineer their lubes as a hobby maybe...but nobody uses an MSDS for designing anything other than a dangerous goods depot.
At least the MSDS got one thing right...
Quote:
Static Accumulator: This material is a static accumulator.
Yet another benefit of TGMO !!!
A PDS at least purports to have information on the performance aspects of a product...it can still be wrong, but except for TGMO, I have NEVER seen people design a lubrication system off an MSDS...reverse engineer their lubes as a hobby maybe...but nobody uses an MSDS for designing anything other than a dangerous goods depot.
At least the MSDS got one thing right...
Quote:
Static Accumulator: This material is a static accumulator.
Yet another benefit of TGMO !!!
The numbers look reasonable for an oil that claims high VI. Of course the pour point looks meaningless.
I think your disagreement with Caterham's logic / point of view, is going a little too far when you mock those who use the MSDS to confirm product specs.
If you want to declare there is a hard and fast rule about when to rely on an MSDS, then there are several other posters using them to determine whether the Euro oils are fully PAO or not. Indeed, I think you have been in those threads and never mentioned they should not be relying on such information because it came from an MSDS.
I think your disagreement with Caterham's logic / point of view, is going a little too far when you mock those who use the MSDS to confirm product specs.
If you want to declare there is a hard and fast rule about when to rely on an MSDS, then there are several other posters using them to determine whether the Euro oils are fully PAO or not. Indeed, I think you have been in those threads and never mentioned they should not be relying on such information because it came from an MSDS.
Fair cop...but what about when actual, measured values of KV40 and KV100 are put on here, and are rejected, as they are not what the Materials Safety Data Sheet said that they should be...surely actual measurement of a bottled product is more worthy of merit than an MSDS
An MSDS that states the possible percentages of PAO, and precautions against is a bit more in keeping with the nature of the document.
An MSDS that states the possible percentages of PAO, and precautions against is a bit more in keeping with the nature of the document.
I agree with you. The proof is in the pudding.
Having said that, in threads on Euro oils (that again I think you've been in), the Blackstone VOAs were at odds with Castrol's PDS and they retested. Elsewhere, Blackstone have taken plenty of flack for their accuracy.
From what I understand, KV is simply tested by heating the oil to temperature and measuring the time it travels a small fixed distance. Blackstone is going to do that measurement once per sample but many times a day for $20 oil tests. Are the (possibly stoned chemistry undergrads) employees performing the test reliably enough each and every time? Did they follow the procedure accurately enough for the single test they do? They are probably running a few of these tests simultaneously so do they note the time down correctly for each and every one?
If we had several VOAs of any oil that contradicts the official numbers, then, as with Purolator tears, I would take notice.
Does that exist?
Having said that, in threads on Euro oils (that again I think you've been in), the Blackstone VOAs were at odds with Castrol's PDS and they retested. Elsewhere, Blackstone have taken plenty of flack for their accuracy.
From what I understand, KV is simply tested by heating the oil to temperature and measuring the time it travels a small fixed distance. Blackstone is going to do that measurement once per sample but many times a day for $20 oil tests. Are the (possibly stoned chemistry undergrads) employees performing the test reliably enough each and every time? Did they follow the procedure accurately enough for the single test they do? They are probably running a few of these tests simultaneously so do they note the time down correctly for each and every one?
If we had several VOAs of any oil that contradicts the official numbers, then, as with Purolator tears, I would take notice.
Does that exist?
I have just started a run of TGMO in my 2.4 Mitsu.
First thing I noticed, there is almost no more top end sound, was loud told its normal for engine.
With TGMO nearly silent. Just needs the right lubrication I guess.
Cheers.
First thing I noticed, there is almost no more top end sound, was loud told its normal for engine.
With TGMO nearly silent. Just needs the right lubrication I guess.
Cheers.
Originally Posted By: aa1986
Blackstone is going to do that measurement once per sample but many times a day for $20 oil tests. Are the (possibly stoned chemistry undergrads) employees performing the test reliably enough each and every time? Did they follow the procedure accurately enough for the single test they do? They are probably running a few of these tests simultaneously so do they note the time down correctly for each and every one?
I work in a calibration and investigative metrology lab. Everything we do, every report we write, has every data point backed up by an uncertainty statement, usually at a 95% confidence level (two standard deviations). Our reports have to stand up in court, if necessary. We measure a minimum of three times and report our final results as an average of those three, with errors and corrections factored into the final numbers and confidence. If the three runs do not produce extremely consistent results, we change our approach until our results are repeatable.
It would be very interesting to see a similar analysis of Blackstone (or any other lab) processes, factoring all potential sources of error and uncertainty. To my knowledge, their reports do not show an uncertainty value. Has anyone seen this? Without a way of quantifying confidence, it's almost impossible to say how accurate their reports are.
Blackstone is going to do that measurement once per sample but many times a day for $20 oil tests. Are the (possibly stoned chemistry undergrads) employees performing the test reliably enough each and every time? Did they follow the procedure accurately enough for the single test they do? They are probably running a few of these tests simultaneously so do they note the time down correctly for each and every one?
I work in a calibration and investigative metrology lab. Everything we do, every report we write, has every data point backed up by an uncertainty statement, usually at a 95% confidence level (two standard deviations). Our reports have to stand up in court, if necessary. We measure a minimum of three times and report our final results as an average of those three, with errors and corrections factored into the final numbers and confidence. If the three runs do not produce extremely consistent results, we change our approach until our results are repeatable.
It would be very interesting to see a similar analysis of Blackstone (or any other lab) processes, factoring all potential sources of error and uncertainty. To my knowledge, their reports do not show an uncertainty value. Has anyone seen this? Without a way of quantifying confidence, it's almost impossible to say how accurate their reports are.
- Status
