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

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: Blue_Angel
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
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.

Do you have full faith in the VI reading they claim for this seemingly unbelievable oil??

It is VERY rare that an oil tests BETTER than the specs claimed by the actual manufacturer.

AFAIK, there are no manufacturer specs to go from, no PDS.

Exactly.

I even called ExxonMobil Industrial Lubricants, which manufacturers TGMO. They said, they cannot publish any PDS because then Toyota might not like what they published. They told me to contact Toyota, but of course, that would have been equally futile.

So, VOAs and UOAs are our only specs.


OK, somehow, I always thought that 216 VI level everyone always quotes was an actual claimed spec, not just a VOA result!

I guess I am going to have to find an inexpensive (less than the ~$8.50/qt.+ the local dealers want for it) source for this stuff to blend with, and thin out, either M1 0W-40 or Red Line 0W-40, since it now seems to KICK 0W-20 Sustina's a**!!

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Do you have full faith in the VI reading they claim for this seemingly unbelievable oil??

Just to clarify, VI is not a reading. There is no lab test for VI. VI is just a calculated value based on 40C and 100C viscosity.

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Do you have full faith in the VI reading they claim for this seemingly unbelievable oil??

Just to clarify, VI is not a reading. There is no lab test for VI. VI is just a calculated value based on 40C and 100C viscosity.


Yes, sorry, I should have said "value", just could not think of it at the time.

 

[buster]

Also, the comments about Mg are not entirely true. Misleading.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3358085/Re:_Calcium_VS_Magnesium#Post3358085

 

[JAG]

Repeatability and reproducibility come into play here. The latter applies when comparing different labs. The standard deviation (error margin) of measurements taken by different labs typically is higher than the standard deviation of the same lab taking multiple measurements. In case I did not explain it clearly, here is what ASTM says about it.
http://www.astm.org/SNEWS/MA_2009/datapoints_ma09.html

Thank you for the VOA, Gokhan.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: dailydriver
[/quote]
OK, somehow, I always thought that 216 VI level everyone always quotes was an actual claimed spec, not just a VOA result!

I guess I am going to have to find an inexpensive (less than the ~$8.50/qt.+ the local dealers want for it) source for this stuff to blend with, and thin out, either M1 0W-40 or Red Line 0W-40, since it now seems to KICK 0W-20 Sustina's a**!!

Until this one VOA can be confirmed I wouldn't assume for a second that TGMO has a higher VI than Sustina.
As I pointed out earlier this is not the first time Wearcheck came up with a 130+ VI testing TGMO and that proved to be wrong.

My recommendation to Gokhan is to ask Wearcheck to re-test the KV40 and KV100 values. They should do this a no cost since the calculated VI is higher than what Mobil claims. He should also make note of the batch number on the bottle. If someone is going to send a sample into another lab it would be good to know that it's the most current product from Mobil.

In the meantime I'm going to rely on the two VOA's we already have on the US Mobil made SN TGMO 0W-20 with a 215-216 VI.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: dailydriver
I guess I am going to have to find an inexpensive (less than the ~$8.50/qt.+ the local dealers want for it) source for this stuff to blend with, and thin out, either M1 0W-40 or Red Line 0W-40, since it now seems to KICK 0W-20 Sustina's a**!!

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
He should also make note of the batch number on the bottle. If someone is going to send a sample into another lab it would be good to know that it's the most current product from Mobil.

Here you go, the latest batch of the one and only TGMO 0W-20 SN up close.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: dailydriver
[/quote]

OK, somehow, I always thought that 216 VI level everyone always quotes was an actual claimed spec, not just a VOA result!

I guess I am going to have to find an inexpensive (less than the ~$8.50/qt.+ the local dealers want for it) source for this stuff to blend with, and thin out, either M1 0W-40 or Red Line 0W-40, since it now seems to KICK 0W-20 Sustina's a**!!

Since we're comparing oils with the same nominal HTHSV many put more significance on the KV40 spec'. The lower it is for a given HTHSV the less the relative viscosity change with temperature will be.
This makes sense since VI is kinematically based which doesn't take temporary shear into consideration.
So even assuming for the sake of argument that the lower 36.16cSt KV40 figure of this VOA is correct it's still higher than MGMO 0W-20 (35.85cSt) and Sustina 0W-20 (32.69cSt).
As a result Sustina is lighter at all start-up temp's.

 

[Capa]

Since we have so many experts on this thread, would someone please explain why Toyota back specced my Lexus GS400 for their dino 5W-20 but not their synthetic 0W20???

 

[kschachn]

Nope, I have never seen a plausible explanation. Same applies to my 1MZ-FE.

Originally Posted By: Capa
Since we have so many experts on this thread, would someone please explain why Toyota back specced my Lexus GS400 for their dino 5W-20 but not their synthetic 0W20???

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: dailydriver


OK, somehow, I always thought that 216 VI level everyone always quotes was an actual claimed spec, not just a VOA result!

I guess I am going to have to find an inexpensive (less than the ~$8.50/qt.+ the local dealers want for it) source for this stuff to blend with, and thin out, either M1 0W-40 or Red Line 0W-40, since it now seems to KICK 0W-20 Sustina's a**!!

Since we're comparing oils with the same nominal HTHSV many put more significance on the KV40 spec'. The lower it is for a given HTHSV the less the relative viscosity change with temperature will be.
This makes sense since VI is kinematically based which doesn't take temporary shear into consideration.
So even assuming for the sake of argument that the lower 36.16cSt KV40 figure of this VOA is correct it's still higher than MGMO 0W-20 (35.85cSt) and Sustina 0W-20 (32.69cSt).
As a result Sustina is lighter at all start-up temp's.




How do the MRVs compare between these two oils and also M1's AFE/EP 0W-20, for extreme cold weather use??

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Nope, I have never seen a plausible explanation. Same applies to my 1MZ-FE.

Originally Posted By: Capa
Since we have so many experts on this thread, would someone please explain why Toyota back specced my Lexus GS400 for their dino 5W-20 but not their synthetic 0W20???

A 2.6cP HTHSV 5W-20 is heavier than the high VI TGMO 0W-20 at normal operating temp's. It's one of the reasons I think the HTHSV of TGMO may be slightly below 2.6cP, say 2.55cP rounding up to 2.6cP. The other reason Toyota may spec' the 5W-20 is to offset possible higher oil consumption in what are now older,
presumably higher mileage engines.
That said, if you want to run TGMO without issue just add a pint of M1 0W-40 to boost the HTHSV. This will only marginally increase your cold start viscosity over TGMO alone and of course will be much better than a 5W-20.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: dailydriver


OK, somehow, I always thought that 216 VI level everyone always quotes was an actual claimed spec, not just a VOA result!

I guess I am going to have to find an inexpensive (less than the ~$8.50/qt.+ the local dealers want for it) source for this stuff to blend with, and thin out, either M1 0W-40 or Red Line 0W-40, since it now seems to KICK 0W-20 Sustina's a**!!

Since we're comparing oils with the same nominal HTHSV many put more significance on the KV40 spec'. The lower it is for a given HTHSV the less the relative viscosity change with temperature will be.
This makes sense since VI is kinematically based which doesn't take temporary shear into consideration.
So even assuming for the sake of argument that the lower 36.16cSt KV40 figure of this VOA is correct it's still higher than MGMO 0W-20 (35.85cSt) and Sustina 0W-20 (32.69cSt).
As a result Sustina is lighter at all start-up temp's.




How do the MRVs compare between these two oils and also M1's AFE/EP 0W-20, for extreme cold weather use??

My friend your memory is slipping.
You got all the spec's for Sustina 0W-20 a while ago and it's MRV is pretty much on par with M1 AFE/EP 0W-20 at 9,630cP..
We don't know what it is for the other OEM 0W-20s but for the original Nippon Oil made version of TGMO it's MRV was 18,000cP.
The intention of the OEM 0W-20s like TGMO is to be as light as possible at more typical start-up temp's, not extreme cold.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
A 2.6cP HTHSV 5W-20 is heavier than the high VI TGMO 0W-20 at normal operating temp's. It's one of the reasons I think the HTHSV of TGMO may be slightly below 2.6cP, say 2.55cP rounding up to 2.6cP. The other reason Toyota may spec' the 5W-20 is to offset possible higher oil consumption in what are now older,


So you are saying now that TGMO doesn't even START in grade ?

 

[Capa]

Thanks, Caterham. I did wonder if the 5W-20 was possibly thicker when hot. I am running 4 quarts of Toyota 0W-20 and 1 quart of Mobil 0W-40. I have seen a slight increase in MPG. I'm on the second week of a yearly OCI and this 15 year old car is running strong.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: Capa
Thanks, Caterham. I did wonder if the 5W-20 was possibly thicker when hot. I am running 4 quarts of Toyota 0W-20 and 1 quart of Mobil 0W-40. I have seen a slight increase in MPG. I'm on the second week of a yearly OCI and this 15 year old car is running strong.

In my experience, PYB 5W-20 SN was thinner than TGMO 0W-20 SN but I got better mileage with TGMO 0W-20 SN. Perhaps it's due to higher VI, synthetic base oil, and trinuclear moly with the TGMO 0W-20 SN.

Since PYB 5W-20 SN was thinner than TGMO 0W-20 SN, oil consumption with PYB was higher than with TGMO: 0.4 qt in 5000 miles with PYB vs. 0.3 qt in 5000 miles with TGMO -- mostly due to s small leak at the oil pan. TGMO has lower NOACK and this may be part of the reason.

Overall, the performance is noticeably better with TGMO than it was with PYB.

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: dailydriver


OK, somehow, I always thought that 216 VI level everyone always quotes was an actual claimed spec, not just a VOA result!

I guess I am going to have to find an inexpensive (less than the ~$8.50/qt.+ the local dealers want for it) source for this stuff to blend with, and thin out, either M1 0W-40 or Red Line 0W-40, since it now seems to KICK 0W-20 Sustina's a**!!

Since we're comparing oils with the same nominal HTHSV many put more significance on the KV40 spec'. The lower it is for a given HTHSV the less the relative viscosity change with temperature will be.
This makes sense since VI is kinematically based which doesn't take temporary shear into consideration.
So even assuming for the sake of argument that the lower 36.16cSt KV40 figure of this VOA is correct it's still higher than MGMO 0W-20 (35.85cSt) and Sustina 0W-20 (32.69cSt).
As a result Sustina is lighter at all start-up temp's.




How do the MRVs compare between these two oils and also M1's AFE/EP 0W-20, for extreme cold weather use??

My friend your memory is slipping.
You got all the spec's for Sustina 0W-20 a while ago and it's MRV is pretty much on par with M1 AFE/EP 0W-20 at 9,630cP..
We don't know what it is for the other OEM 0W-20s but for the original Nippon Oil made version of TGMO it's MRV was 18,000cP.
The intention of the OEM 0W-20s like TGMO is to be as light as possible at more typical start-up temp's, not extreme cold.


So, for someone in a VERY cold climate, for a WINTER OCI, you would suggest either the Sustina, or the M1 EP/AFE over the TGMO??

Just how cold does the ambient temp have to be for the TGMO to have a flow/pumping problem as compared to the M1 and Sustina products??

(I guess I cannot grasp the concept of MRVs vs. V.I.

)

 

[Capa]

Very informative, Gokhan. I am very impressed with this Toyota 0W-20---its specs are off the chart! I'm sure that the insanely high VI coupled with the equally impressive trunuclear moly numbers will ensure that I get great MPG.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan

In my experience, PYB 5W-20 SN was thinner than TGMO 0W-20 SN but I got better mileage with TGMO 0W-20 SN. Perhaps it's due to higher VI, synthetic base oil, and trinuclear moly with the TGMO 0W-20 SN.

Since PYB 5W-20 SN was thinner than TGMO 0W-20 :

And what is the basis of that experience?
You don't have oil guages to compare actual operational viscosities and comparing new and used KV100 values is a totally misleading fools game.

Based on my first hand experience, TGMO is lighter at operating Temp's than every 0W/5W-20
I've used and that includes a 5W-20 Dino.
The only oil that is lighter is Sustina; i haven't tried the Idemitsu made MGMO.