Why no 0W/30?

[Skid]

It's not self evident because it isn't true. Myths keep being perpetuated. There are repeated posts, but they get ignored. I'll try to summarize.

1. Startup as defined by automotive engineers, is the time it takes for your engine to reach EQUILIBRIUM temperature. Temperature. This takes about 20 minutes.
2. The wear that occurs during startup is caused by acid etching. The byproducts of combustion are H20 and CO2, and they combine to form carbonic acid (there's also sulfur, which can be in old oil). When your engine is cold, this stuff condenses inside it like water on the outside of a cold beer bottle. That's the cause of engine wear (during startup).
3. If you want to reduce engine wear, don't sit there idling after you start your car up. Start driving. Get some heat into the engine. Engine oil temperature is a better indicator of equilibrium temperature than water temperature. Equilibrium temperature is reached when the last part of the engine stops getting any warmer.
4. That being said, don't run such a thick oil that your oil pickup is starved or the oil doesn't drain back to the pan.
5. Of course, stay within the manufacturer's recommendations unless you're racing or something extreme.
6. The higher HTHS oils should be more protective of an engine's bearings. My engines won't see an HTHS oil under 3.5. If I were going racing, I think I'd use a minimum of 4.5 or so.

 

[cp3]

Aren't #s 5 & 6 contradictory? Or will you just not buy a car that's specs 5w30 SN or less?

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Another example. Mobil obviously didn't designed their 0W-30 and 0W-50 race oils to be able to pump at -40 degrees. The 0W rating is just a result of using light high VI base oils to get a high VI finished oil which is what they want.


I'm not sure what Mobil were doing when they designed the 0W50...looks more like an oil for bragging rights on the VI than a proper race oil.[/quote]
Right Mobil's race oil is formulated for VI "bragging rights", nothing to do with performance.
And what would you know what constitutes a proper race oil?
The last time you made a track use oil recommendation you suggest a mono grade dino HDEO!
Your delusional adversion to high VI oils knows no bounds.

I would take the published PDS HTHSV of M1 R 0W-50 with a grain of salt (which one should do with all PDS info). The previous PDS had the HTHSV at 4.1cP with the same KV spec's.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: Shannow

I'm not sure what Mobil were doing when they designed the 0W50...looks more like an oil for bragging rights on the VI than a proper race oil.

The quote is of course not mine.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: cp3
Aren't #s 5 & 6 contradictory? Or will you just not buy a car that's specs 5w30 SN or less?

Good catch!
Not only are they contradictory but the writer clearly doesn't understand HTHSV. Not wanting to use an oil with a HTHSV less than 4.5cP which is of course the viscosity of a pretty heavy 50 grade oil (for example M1 15W-50). In most applications you'd likely need oil temp's of at least 120C before the oil pump is even out of by-pass mode.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
The bottom line is that AFE is way heavier than the Nippon oil developed TGMO 0W-20. And Nippon Oil makes a big deal about the development of their own high VI oil brands. A light high VI oil is what Toyota obviously wanted.


That was sort of my point. AFE 0w-20 doesn't align with what Toyota had developed and I doubt they even looked at it. They had already invested heavily in the extensive testing and development of TGMO and simply wanted Mobil to reproduce it.

M1 0W-20 is an old formulation that predates TGMO 0W-20 by at least 5 or 6 years. It is intended primarily for 5W-20 applications.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
The bottom line is that AFE is way heavier than the Nippon oil developed TGMO 0W-20. And Nippon Oil makes a big deal about the development of their own high VI oil brands. A light high VI oil is what Toyota obviously wanted.


That was sort of my point. AFE 0w-20 doesn't align with what Toyota had developed and I doubt they even looked at it. They had already invested heavily in the extensive testing and development of TGMO and simply wanted Mobil to reproduce it.

M1 0W-20 is an old formulation that predates TGMO 0W-20 by at least 5 or 6 years. It is intended primarily for 5W-20 applications.


Yes, it is, and that's what Mobil recommends it for, including Ford applications calling for the relevant Ford spec. Just another reason why it likely wasn't even on Toyota's radar when they started working with Mobil.

 

[Skid]

Originally Posted By: cp3
Aren't #s 5 & 6 contradictory? Or will you just not buy a car that's specs 5w30 SN or less?


I should note that I live in L.A. and #6 is personal to me, whereas #5 is general. Former auto engineer (electrical side), btw (9 years). Then startup fever took hold.

 

[Skid]

Perhaps I should explain what I don't like about VII more.

When you buy a bottle of oil, you don't know a lot about it. You don't often even know what group the base oil is, you don't know how much VII it has, if any, and you don't know the type of VII. Usually, you can't even get an HTHS spec.

There are shear stable VIIs like olefin copolymer, but then there are types like polymethacrylate as well (the ones that "nest" when you need them the most, LOL). Usually, if a bottle has that energy star on it, it isn't using a shear stable VII.

So, I try to avoid high VI oils since I don't know what I'm getting in the bottle. Plus I live somewhere warm. 45F is probably the coldest it gets here.

Anyway, plenty of choices out there if you want > 3.5 HTHS oil. GC, T5, M1 HM, Euro this and that...

 

[CATERHAM]

Wow, you've brought a whole lot of erroneous outdated baggage with you to this forum.

All 0W-XX oils are reasonably shear stable and there are 5W-XX and even 10W-XX oils that are not.
Most oils today use olefin copolymer VIIs and some are more shear stable than others. But the highest VI 0W-20s use multi-branched or star type PMA which have a very high VI and are very shear stable. They are used with a lower treat rate tthan copolymer and other polymer VII types.
The bottom line when it comes to shear stability
is to have the finished oil tested. There are hundreds of UOAs to review which prove that your academic concerns are a thing of the he past.

Regarding HTHSV. It is very much a newbie mistake to talk about a preference for 3.5+Cp oils without referencing oil temperature.
Most cars on the road are not spec'd for a 30 grade or heavier oil that heavy and it would be
counterproductive to use such an unnecessarily heavy oil.
The lubrication tenet that should at the back of
of one's mind any motor oil is, "as thin as possible, as thick as necessary".

My track car is spec'd for 4.2cP 5W-50 but I have learned from experience that a 2.7-2.8cP is all that's necessary on since my oil temps are well contained. As a result the engine runs so much better on the lighter oil with improved drivability and power.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM


Case in point. When Mobil took over the formulation of the TGMO 0W-20 from Nippon Oil in NA, Toyota wasn't interested in Mobil's AFE 0W-20 with it's very low MRV and 2.7cP HTHSV but had them formulate a copy of the Nippon Oil with it's much less impressive MRV but very high VI and lower HTHSV and of course it's much lower KV40 of 37cSt vs 45.8cSt for M1.



TGMO is also likely cheaper to manufacturer given its G3 base vs the 30+% PAO that the AFE product is made from.


The evidence would suggest that TGMO is a more expensive oil to make than M1 0W-20.
Why doesn't Mobil sell an OEM version of what they make for Toyota? I'm sure Toyota wouldn't mind. Nippon Oil certainly did in their ENEOS 0W-20 at twice the price of TGMO.
No the reason would appear to be that to price is profitably they would have to charge more than what they already charge for M1 0W-20. And that just wouldn't work for a host of reasons.

No I think one can safely conclude that TGMO 0W-20 is an expensive oil to make, not just because Mobil doesn't sell it under their own name but also because very few formulators who make an API 0W-20 choose to make a high VI version.

It's a business decision, and the cheaper you can make it, the higher the profit.

 

[dailydriver]

^^^This makes one wonder, where do they source the asteric PMAs which they use in the TGMO from, and wouldn't the price of these come down IF they chose to use it in their AFE/EP 0W-xx, and 0W-40 line ups, to the point where they COULD market an affordable, VERY HIGH VI product??

 

[CATERHAM]

Whatever the source it's certainly more expensive than a typical copolymer and there may be other expenses associated with formulating TGMO to Toyota's requirements. Mobil undoubtedly
makes money making TGMO, it's just that there's no requirement for Toyota to make a whole lot of money if anything on selling TGMO to it's vehicle customers. They are in the business of selling cars and trucks not motor oil.

As I've pointed out, I can see no business reason at all for Mobil to reformulate their 0W oils. M1 0W-40 already has a higher VI than any OTC 30 and 40 grade oil.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM

The evidence would suggest that TGMO is a more expensive oil to make than M1 0W-20.


What evidence? The AFE oil has trinuclear moly and is 30+% PAO, both of which aren't cheap. In comparison, TGMO uses (inexpensive) group 3 bases and we have no PDS for it so we don't know what the other specs for the product are.

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Why doesn't Mobil sell an OEM version of what they make for Toyota? I'm sure Toyota wouldn't mind. Nippon Oil certainly did in their ENEOS 0W-20 at twice the price of TGMO.


Well, ENEOS is Japanese (like Toyota) and likely shares the same VI fixation, which as I noted earlier, appears to be a Japanese thing.

I don't think Mobil sees a compelling reason to produce another 0w-20 that is thin enough that it probably can't be recommended for Ford and Chrysler applications, which their current 0w-20 products CAN, for no other reason than it having a higher VI.

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
No the reason would appear to be that to price is profitably they would have to charge more than what they already charge for M1 0W-20. And that just wouldn't work for a host of reasons.


Based on what? Both Mobil 0w-20 products are heavy in PAO, which is expensive. TGMO is entirely group 3. How can you posit that it is a more expensive product here? Unicorn tears that Mobil buys on the black market from Russian operatives who secretly run a farm in Siberia?

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
No I think one can safely conclude that TGMO 0W-20 is an expensive oil to make, not just because Mobil doesn't sell it under their own name but also because very few formulators who make an API 0W-20 choose to make a high VI version.

It's a business decision, and the cheaper you can make it, the higher the profit.


It's a business decision and aside from people on BITOG, nobody has a friggin' clue about VI. I doubt it is more expensive to make, and you seem to be pulling that "factoid" straight out of the air IMO. Based on base stocks alone, it is significantly cheaper to base TGMO than it is the two Mobil 1 0w-20 products. I think the fact that it is too bloody thin to recommend for many 5w-20 applications is likely the reason Mobil doesn't make a product like it, and this is also likely why their own excellent 0w-20 products are intentionally heavier.

 

[Shannow]

Looks like we now have a lot more "facts and data" to go into the TGMO FAQ.

While nearly everything in the FAQ appears to be stuff that people made up, "posited", or was "clearly evident".

 

[sicko]

Some 5w-30's have cold flow properties that are close to being 0w's. Check out the cold flow numbers on PP and some of the other big name 5w-30s.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: sicko
Some 5w-30's have cold flow properties that are close to being 0w's. Check out the cold flow numbers on PP and some of the other big name 5w-30s.


Close, yes. But if they were actually capable of 0w performance, they would be labelled by such, as that's a requirement.

 

[Garak]

The biggest factor in lack of 0w-30 grades is that they're so rarely specified and Mobil is about the only one that will back their SN/GF-5 0w-30 for SN/GF-5 5w-30 applications (Petro-Canada probably does, too, but they don't have near the visibility on shelves that Mobil 1 des). Few enough people venture off the reservation with the backing of the oil company, let alone without it. Castrol and SOPUS don't even have an SN/GF-5 0w-30 to my knowledge, and if they did, they'd be sheepish about where it should be used. It would be the Rotella in a gasser thing all over again.

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
It's a business decision and aside from people on BITOG, nobody has a friggin' clue about VI. I doubt it is more expensive to make, and you seem to be pulling that "factoid" straight out of the air IMO. Based on base stocks alone, it is significantly cheaper to base TGMO than it is the two Mobil 1 0w-20 products. I think the fact that it is too bloody thin to recommend for many 5w-20 applications is likely the reason Mobil doesn't make a product like it, and this is also likely why their own excellent 0w-20 products are intentionally heavier.


But would it HAVE TO BE thinner (in HTHSV) in order to have a higher VI, or could they just use more of the same, more expensive, asteric PMA VIIs that they already use to blend the TGMO?

Yes, I know that they most likely NEVER would, since as you say, most outside of this forum (and even MOST?? on here) DO NOT give a rat's *** about high VIs.
But I believe it COULD be done, with the same HTHSV as their AFE and 0W-20 EP products.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
It's a business decision and aside from people on BITOG, nobody has a friggin' clue about VI. I doubt it is more expensive to make, and you seem to be pulling that "factoid" straight out of the air IMO. Based on base stocks alone, it is significantly cheaper to base TGMO than it is the two Mobil 1 0w-20 products. I think the fact that it is too bloody thin to recommend for many 5w-20 applications is likely the reason Mobil doesn't make a product like it, and this is also likely why their own excellent 0w-20 products are intentionally heavier.


But would it HAVE TO BE thinner (in HTHSV) in order to have a higher VI, or could they just use more of the same, more expensive, asteric PMA VIIs that they already use to blend the TGMO?

Yes, I know that they most likely NEVER would, since as you say, most outside of this forum (and even MOST?? on here) DO NOT give a rat's *** about high VIs.
But I believe it COULD be done, with the same HTHSV as their AFE and 0W-20 EP products.

Thing is, if we go by CCS/MRV, the M1 products are both superior (due to their PAO bases). I think Mobil makes them heavier at regular temperatures so that they can safely be used to replace 5w-20, which makes perfect sense in the context of trying to make the most money off of their products that they can.