M1 afe vs toyota 0w20
- Thread starter swirlparanoid
- Start date
- Status
Thanks again!
Courtesy of CMMeadAM:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2409059
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2409059
Originally Posted By: JeremyInMT
There are usually about two weeks where I live where we never see anything above zero for the day.
Do you live there under duress? LOL!
There are usually about two weeks where I live where we never see anything above zero for the day.
Do you live there under duress? LOL!
This was a very civil thread on two popular 0W-20 oils and I think it deserves a bump.
What wasn't discussed was the lower friction coefficient of TGMO vs M1 pointed out in following Nippon Oil comparison:
http://www.eneos.us/files/products/0W20_comparison.pdf
The lower the CoF the lower the engine wear.
What wasn't discussed was the lower friction coefficient of TGMO vs M1 pointed out in following Nippon Oil comparison:
http://www.eneos.us/files/products/0W20_comparison.pdf
The lower the CoF the lower the engine wear.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Neat document but I love how the reference oil for fuel savings is a 20w-30, LOL!!
Also, while I'm sure this test is valuable in determining CoF I think wear may be better determined by tests actually designed for wear, like Sequence IV-A. Wear appears to be an extrapolation of CoF in this test, rather than an actual measurement FWIW.
That's based on this statement from the PDF:
Quote:
A recorder plots a coefficient of friction diagram of the friction parameters throughout the test. By analyzing coefficient of friction profile along with other optical measurements, the lubricant can be assessed for its anti-wear and fuel efficiency characteristics.
Still very interesting nonetheless, thanks for sharing
Also, while I'm sure this test is valuable in determining CoF I think wear may be better determined by tests actually designed for wear, like Sequence IV-A. Wear appears to be an extrapolation of CoF in this test, rather than an actual measurement FWIW.
That's based on this statement from the PDF:
Quote:
A recorder plots a coefficient of friction diagram of the friction parameters throughout the test. By analyzing coefficient of friction profile along with other optical measurements, the lubricant can be assessed for its anti-wear and fuel efficiency characteristics.
Still very interesting nonetheless, thanks for sharing
To be more complete on what they say:
Quote:
Test Description:
SRV Oscillation Friction & Wear Test is a standard method used in testing effective of oil and additives in
oil with respect to coefficient of friction, wear and fretting corrosion (tribocorrosion).
Default test consist of 2 hours oscillating of a ball on a disk with 300 N force. Approximately 2 to 3 drops
of the test oil are spread between the 2 contacting surface.
Someone more versed in testing design and their relevance to real world conditions will need to tell us how relevant such a test is.
What I would say is that if the OEM's consider this a relevant test, then that speaks more to their usefulness than industry standard tests. The fact the Eneos' results are as per OEM oil are either suggestive that such a test matters or pure marketing on their part. Given that they are not a major name and their marketing is obscure to the mainstream, I tend to believe the former.
Which in turn backs up the assertion that the best oil for Japanese vehicles is the OEM oil.
Quote:
Test Description:
SRV Oscillation Friction & Wear Test is a standard method used in testing effective of oil and additives in
oil with respect to coefficient of friction, wear and fretting corrosion (tribocorrosion).
Default test consist of 2 hours oscillating of a ball on a disk with 300 N force. Approximately 2 to 3 drops
of the test oil are spread between the 2 contacting surface.
Someone more versed in testing design and their relevance to real world conditions will need to tell us how relevant such a test is.
What I would say is that if the OEM's consider this a relevant test, then that speaks more to their usefulness than industry standard tests. The fact the Eneos' results are as per OEM oil are either suggestive that such a test matters or pure marketing on their part. Given that they are not a major name and their marketing is obscure to the mainstream, I tend to believe the former.
Which in turn backs up the assertion that the best oil for Japanese vehicles is the OEM oil.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
This was a very civil thread on two popular 0W-20 oils and I think it deserves a bump.
What wasn't discussed was the lower friction coefficient of TGMO vs M1 pointed out in following Nippon Oil comparison:
http://www.eneos.us/files/products/0W20_comparison.pdf
The lower the CoF the lower the engine wear.
Interesting link, and thanks for sharing, but aren't you on the record as stating that boundary and mixed aren't operating modes that are typical of modern engines on thinner oils ?
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3077004/Re:_GF-5,_economy,_Striebeck_c#Post3077004
The test that you quoted is a boundary lubrication test, much like the current discussion on the 4 ball wear test. In order to provide "lower wear", you have to be in boundary or mixed, which is automatically "higher wear" than hydrodynamics...the lubricant has to have allowed the parts to contact, and the boundary lubricants are functioning (BTW, which version of TGMO, it's not the Mobil 1 is it ?)
As to "lower wear", these tests are used in the gear and hydraulic (not engine oil) field, and while useful, aren't terribly accurate in representing wear rates in the components that they are even supposed to represent....see opening paragraph in the following.
http://www.nfpa.com/tech_papers/1996/i96-2_5.pdf
Some other persepctives of the same issue
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3390995/Why_designers_allow_mixed_lubr
Reduced frictional drag (fuel efficiency) in engine oils is NOT equal to lower wear...there seems to be some confusion on the board around that.
This was a very civil thread on two popular 0W-20 oils and I think it deserves a bump.
What wasn't discussed was the lower friction coefficient of TGMO vs M1 pointed out in following Nippon Oil comparison:
http://www.eneos.us/files/products/0W20_comparison.pdf
The lower the CoF the lower the engine wear.
Interesting link, and thanks for sharing, but aren't you on the record as stating that boundary and mixed aren't operating modes that are typical of modern engines on thinner oils ?
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3077004/Re:_GF-5,_economy,_Striebeck_c#Post3077004
The test that you quoted is a boundary lubrication test, much like the current discussion on the 4 ball wear test. In order to provide "lower wear", you have to be in boundary or mixed, which is automatically "higher wear" than hydrodynamics...the lubricant has to have allowed the parts to contact, and the boundary lubricants are functioning (BTW, which version of TGMO, it's not the Mobil 1 is it ?)
As to "lower wear", these tests are used in the gear and hydraulic (not engine oil) field, and while useful, aren't terribly accurate in representing wear rates in the components that they are even supposed to represent....see opening paragraph in the following.
http://www.nfpa.com/tech_papers/1996/i96-2_5.pdf
Some other persepctives of the same issue
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3390995/Why_designers_allow_mixed_lubr
Reduced frictional drag (fuel efficiency) in engine oils is NOT equal to lower wear...there seems to be some confusion on the board around that.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Neat document but I love how the reference oil for fuel savings is a 20w-30, LOL!!
That's the viscosity of the standard "Baseline" reference oil for the sequence VI testing for the Energy Conserving oils. 20W30 mineral, no friction modifiers....that's how the 10W30 can be "energy conserving" (IIRC, the previous reference was a 40 of some description).
Interesting that it supports the M1AFE claims of "up to 2.1% over the most commonly specified grades" (i.e. 10W30)
Neat document but I love how the reference oil for fuel savings is a 20w-30, LOL!!
That's the viscosity of the standard "Baseline" reference oil for the sequence VI testing for the Energy Conserving oils. 20W30 mineral, no friction modifiers....that's how the 10W30 can be "energy conserving" (IIRC, the previous reference was a 40 of some description).
Interesting that it supports the M1AFE claims of "up to 2.1% over the most commonly specified grades" (i.e. 10W30)
Originally Posted By: aa1986
What I would say is that if the OEM's consider this a relevant test, then that speaks more to their usefulness than industry standard tests. The fact the Eneos' results are as per OEM oil are either suggestive that such a test matters or pure marketing on their part. Given that they are not a major name and their marketing is obscure to the mainstream, I tend to believe the former.
Which in turn backs up the assertion that the best oil for Japanese vehicles is the OEM oil.
ENEOS is the main house brand of JX Nippon Oil & Energy which is the largest oil company in Japan. They were the original formulator Toyota worked with to develop the original TGMO 0W-20 to deal with the particular engine demands of the Toyota "Hybrid Synergy Drive".
Other Japanese formulators such as Idemitsu were concurrently working on a similar lubrication solution for other Hybrid based engines such as for the Civic Hybrid and Insight.
Of course since then these specially developed 0W-20s have been specified pretty much across the companies entire model line.
It's interesting how similar the Japanese OEM 0W-20s are regardless of who the formulator is, whether it's JX Nippon Oil, Idemitsu, Castrol or Mobil.
What I would say is that if the OEM's consider this a relevant test, then that speaks more to their usefulness than industry standard tests. The fact the Eneos' results are as per OEM oil are either suggestive that such a test matters or pure marketing on their part. Given that they are not a major name and their marketing is obscure to the mainstream, I tend to believe the former.
Which in turn backs up the assertion that the best oil for Japanese vehicles is the OEM oil.
ENEOS is the main house brand of JX Nippon Oil & Energy which is the largest oil company in Japan. They were the original formulator Toyota worked with to develop the original TGMO 0W-20 to deal with the particular engine demands of the Toyota "Hybrid Synergy Drive".
Other Japanese formulators such as Idemitsu were concurrently working on a similar lubrication solution for other Hybrid based engines such as for the Civic Hybrid and Insight.
Of course since then these specially developed 0W-20s have been specified pretty much across the companies entire model line.
It's interesting how similar the Japanese OEM 0W-20s are regardless of who the formulator is, whether it's JX Nippon Oil, Idemitsu, Castrol or Mobil.
The conclusion says the bench tests don't accurately predict wear rates in a Sperry Vickers vane pumps test setup, the physical properties are so different that they were not taken into correlation properly, it said the tests didn't even correlate properly with each other.
It talked about load carrying and wear properties, tribocontact geometry, using TAN for wear indication, accelerated tests are not indicators for actual in service wear . I don't see where its says reduced frictional drag does not correlate to lower wear.
Please show me my errors.
Which para is your reference for your statement.
Thank You.
Ref http://www.nfpa.com/tech_papers/1996/i96-2_5.pdf
It talked about load carrying and wear properties, tribocontact geometry, using TAN for wear indication, accelerated tests are not indicators for actual in service wear . I don't see where its says reduced frictional drag does not correlate to lower wear.
Please show me my errors.
Which para is your reference for your statement.
Thank You.
Ref http://www.nfpa.com/tech_papers/1996/i96-2_5.pdf
Originally Posted By: Koz1
The conclusion says the bench tests don't accurately predict wear rates in a Sperry Vickers vane pumps test setup, the physical properties are so different that they were not taken into correlation properly, it said the tests didn't even correlate properly with each other.
It talked about load carrying and wear properties, tribocontact geometry, using TAN for wear indication, accelerated tests are not indicators for actual in service wear . I don't see where its says reduced frictional drag does not correlate to lower wear.
Please show me my errors.
Which para is your reference for your statement.
Thank You.
Ref http://www.nfpa.com/tech_papers/1996/i96-2_5.pdf
As I said:
* the quoted test is NOT AN IC ENGINE TEST...just like the 4 ball wear, the 1 armed bandit, and the Rat504 papers. It's a gear/hydraulic test.
* the quoted test isn't very good at predicting the field that it's specified in, making it's applicability to engines even more specious;
The test is a boundary lubrication test, which is where hydrodynamics have broken down, either intentionally, because hydrodynamics simply isn't possible like camshafts etc. or the viscosity is too low to support hydrodynamics.
And for that there ARE industry standard tests for wear such as the sequence IV, which is actually representative of what happens in an engine, because it IS IN an engine.
You may well be convinced that a 4 ball/1 armed bandit variant is applicable to engine wear, but a little time looking at the UOAs of oils that did well in Rat504s tests, or are advertised on their 4 ball tests versus those that did poorly will show how well it correlates.
Only other reason that I can see for ENEOS using it, and the conclusion that it results in less wear, is if they are recommending it for hydraulic application...but they seem to be targeting motor vehicle users, and seem to be convincing some.
The conclusion says the bench tests don't accurately predict wear rates in a Sperry Vickers vane pumps test setup, the physical properties are so different that they were not taken into correlation properly, it said the tests didn't even correlate properly with each other.
It talked about load carrying and wear properties, tribocontact geometry, using TAN for wear indication, accelerated tests are not indicators for actual in service wear . I don't see where its says reduced frictional drag does not correlate to lower wear.
Please show me my errors.
Which para is your reference for your statement.
Thank You.
Ref http://www.nfpa.com/tech_papers/1996/i96-2_5.pdf
As I said:
* the quoted test is NOT AN IC ENGINE TEST...just like the 4 ball wear, the 1 armed bandit, and the Rat504 papers. It's a gear/hydraulic test.
* the quoted test isn't very good at predicting the field that it's specified in, making it's applicability to engines even more specious;
The test is a boundary lubrication test, which is where hydrodynamics have broken down, either intentionally, because hydrodynamics simply isn't possible like camshafts etc. or the viscosity is too low to support hydrodynamics.
And for that there ARE industry standard tests for wear such as the sequence IV, which is actually representative of what happens in an engine, because it IS IN an engine.
You may well be convinced that a 4 ball/1 armed bandit variant is applicable to engine wear, but a little time looking at the UOAs of oils that did well in Rat504s tests, or are advertised on their 4 ball tests versus those that did poorly will show how well it correlates.
Only other reason that I can see for ENEOS using it, and the conclusion that it results in less wear, is if they are recommending it for hydraulic application...but they seem to be targeting motor vehicle users, and seem to be convincing some.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Reduced frictional drag (fuel efficiency) in engine oils is NOT equal to lower wear...there seems to be some confusion on the board around that.
I agree. Reduced friction and reduced wear do not always come together. ZDDP is an example, more friction, less wear.
There's a lot of sales puffery in Eneos's stuff. Caveat emptor, Caterham, you're looking at an advertisement.
Unfortunately, in the U.S., it's difficult to sue for false advertising. The only people that have standing are those with a competitive injury. I don't think the Exxon Mobils, SOPUSes, etc. of the world will care about advertisements from small timers like Eneos, Redline... just not worth the legal expense.
Reduced frictional drag (fuel efficiency) in engine oils is NOT equal to lower wear...there seems to be some confusion on the board around that.
I agree. Reduced friction and reduced wear do not always come together. ZDDP is an example, more friction, less wear.
There's a lot of sales puffery in Eneos's stuff. Caveat emptor, Caterham, you're looking at an advertisement.
Unfortunately, in the U.S., it's difficult to sue for false advertising. The only people that have standing are those with a competitive injury. I don't think the Exxon Mobils, SOPUSes, etc. of the world will care about advertisements from small timers like Eneos, Redline... just not worth the legal expense.
Originally Posted By: Skid
Unfortunately, in the U.S., it's difficult to sue for false advertising. The only people that have standing are those with a competitive injury. I don't think the Exxon Mobils, SOPUSes, etc. of the world will care about advertisements from small timers like Eneos, Redline... just not worth the legal expense.
While I do agree for the most part with your assessment, let's not forget that BP (Castrol) not too long ago called out Royal Purple's bluff and won:
http://www.imakenews.com/lng/e_article001398592.cfm
Unfortunately, in the U.S., it's difficult to sue for false advertising. The only people that have standing are those with a competitive injury. I don't think the Exxon Mobils, SOPUSes, etc. of the world will care about advertisements from small timers like Eneos, Redline... just not worth the legal expense.
While I do agree for the most part with your assessment, let's not forget that BP (Castrol) not too long ago called out Royal Purple's bluff and won:
http://www.imakenews.com/lng/e_article001398592.cfm
Originally Posted By: Capa
Originally Posted By: Skid
Unfortunately, in the U.S., it's difficult to sue for false advertising. The only people that have standing are those with a competitive injury. I don't think the Exxon Mobils, SOPUSes, etc. of the world will care about advertisements from small timers like Eneos, Redline... just not worth the legal expense.
While I do agree for the most part with your assessment, let's not forget that BP (Castrol) not too long ago called out Royal Purple's bluff and won:
http://www.imakenews.com/lng/e_article001398592.cfm
This, in particular, stood out for me in the citation:
"In fact, no Royal Purple products are certified to current ILSAC specifications."
Amazing
Originally Posted By: Skid
Unfortunately, in the U.S., it's difficult to sue for false advertising. The only people that have standing are those with a competitive injury. I don't think the Exxon Mobils, SOPUSes, etc. of the world will care about advertisements from small timers like Eneos, Redline... just not worth the legal expense.
While I do agree for the most part with your assessment, let's not forget that BP (Castrol) not too long ago called out Royal Purple's bluff and won:
http://www.imakenews.com/lng/e_article001398592.cfm
This, in particular, stood out for me in the citation:
"In fact, no Royal Purple products are certified to current ILSAC specifications."
Amazing
That article is from 2009 when RP didnt have certified oil.
- Status
Similar threads
