0W20 vs 0W30 UOAs in the same engine?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: tig1
It's not a question of "needs" but a question of preferred. There is no down side to 0 wt oils, only upside benefits.IMMHO.


You keep saying that but never back it up.

0W will likely be a thinner basestock, with a lot more VII than a 5W or 10W...that's a downside, instantly and automatically.

e.g a 5W30 is likely to have 30% greater basestock viscosity, and less than half the VII of a 0W30...less polymers to shear, and when they do, more robust basestocks to back it...(0W20 will have slightly higher basestock viscosity and much less VII than the 30 also)

OP, I'd be inclined to 5W30 (or 5W20 synth) if you want more protection...If you want to stay with 0W, and you are using an ILSAC oil rather than one of the European style A3/B4, stay with say Mobil 0W20 rather than one of the Unicorn "Japanese" brews.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: tig1
It's not a question of "needs" but a question of preferred. There is no down side to 0 wt oils, only upside benefits.IMMHO.


You keep saying that but never back it up.

0W will likely be a thinner basestock, with a lot more VII than a 5W or 10W...that's a downside, instantly and automatically.

e.g a 5W30 is likely to have 30% greater basestock viscosity, and less than half the VII of a 0W30...less polymers to shear, and when they do, more robust basestocks to back it...(0W20 will have slightly higher basestock viscosity and much less VII than the 30 also)

OP, I'd be inclined to 5W30 (or 5W20 synth) if you want more protection...If you want to stay with 0W, and you are using an ILSAC oil rather than one of the European style A3/B4, stay with say Mobil 0W20 rather than one of the Unicorn "Japanese" brews.


If M1 0-40 is a downside compared to a 5-10-40, then why does Porsche recommend M1 0-40 in all their models that I know of? Just asking.
 
Originally Posted By: Trav
Unless someone is running a Toyota 3.5 V6 any claims made about being "flawless" is absolutely meaningless.
Being the best oil for any given engine depends on many things, if the engine is an older design originally designed for xw30 oil and just back spec'd its probably not.


i have the same engine in my RAV4 and it has been always specified 5w30 till it was discontinued in 2012 (no V6 in new RAV4 anymore).

however, this is due to 3500 lbs towing allowance and no engine oil cooler. Highlander can tow even more but has oil cooler, hence 0w20.

0w20 should be no problem unless one somehow manages to use 100% of this engine's 269HP (very difficult to do).

now, after saying all that, mine developed a funny knocking engine noise after it was serviced by a clueless dealer with 5w20. the dealer claimed backspeced compatibility and was clearly wrong. i replaced the oil with 5w30, but the noise remained. it could be a coincidence, but i found a similar anecdote in a Sienna forum.
 
Yes is an older design, some VW also uses a oil cooler but remains a xw40w engine.
An oil cooler isn't the magic ingredient, sure it helps but crankshaft flex, crankshaft machined finish, bearing width, oil pump type and block rigidity play a more important part in the equation.

Sure the xw20 work in in some back spec designs in the NA market but the engines are not really stressed.
Notice on some Fords that were back spec'd as soon as the GVW exceeded a certain amount xw30 was required. and some like the 4.0 because of design issues were never back spec'd.

IMO This would indicate they are on the very edge of engine reliability with some of these specs.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow


0W will likely be a thinner basestock, with a lot more VII than a 5W or 10W...that's a downside, instantly and automatically.

e.g a 5W30 is likely to have 30% greater basestock viscosity, and less than half the VII of a 0W30...less polymers to shear, and when they do, more robust basestocks to back it...(0W20 will have slightly higher basestock viscosity and much less VII than the 30 also)



Quality basestocks or what you're calling "robust" base stocks have inherent VII. I don't know why you think that's a bad thing. You are extremely old school. I guess you'd have supported the SAE30 mineral oil policy I had to sign when I bought the Grand National. Glad I was smarter than that and used M1 15w-50.
 
see, that's when I get annoyed...people telling me what I'm saying.

Reread my post, and tell me where I advocated SAE 30 ?

Yes, GrIII can have 140 VI, TGMO has 220...where does that last 80 come from ?
 
Some thinner 0W-xx oils will use less VII due to a higher quality base-stock (with more Group IV & V properties) and are more shear-stable than standard Group III base-stocks, which might thin-out more as their polymer chains break down more easily as the miles rack up. This is why most of the longer extended drain oils have more Group IV & V in order to preserve viscosity.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: tig1
It's not a question of "needs" but a question of preferred. There is no down side to 0 wt oils, only upside benefits.IMMHO.


You keep saying that but never back it up.

0W will likely be a thinner basestock, with a lot more VII than a 5W or 10W...that's a downside, instantly and automatically.



So extrapolating a straight weight must be best. And you've said such before.

Or maybe you're just a poor communicator. Look down the page where you say you'd run SAE30 if you had a stock of it.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: turtlevette


Quality basestocks or what you're calling "robust" base stocks have inherent VII.



There is no such thing as "inherent VII".


http://www.exxonmobil.com/files/PA/AP/SuperSynBrochure.pdf
Mobil 1 synthetic motor oils have an
inherently higher Viscosity Index
than conventional motor oils.




Then you're saying you're smarter than me and Exxon Mobil. I don't think so.
 
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: turtlevette


Quality basestocks or what you're calling "robust" base stocks have inherent VII.



There is no such thing as "inherent VII".


http://www.exxonmobil.com/files/PA/AP/SuperSynBrochure.pdf
Mobil 1 synthetic motor oils have an
inherently higher Viscosity Index
than conventional motor oils.




Then you're saying you're smarter than me and Exxon Mobil. I don't think so.





VI - Viscosity Index
VII - Viscosity Index Improvers
 
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: tig1
It's not a question of "needs" but a question of preferred. There is no down side to 0 wt oils, only upside benefits.IMMHO.


You keep saying that but never back it up.

0W will likely be a thinner basestock, with a lot more VII than a 5W or 10W...that's a downside, instantly and automatically.



So extrapolating a straight weight must be best. And you've said such before.

Or maybe you're just a poor communicator. Look down the page where you say you'd run SAE30 if you had a stock of it.


Reading and comprehension not your strong point ?

Or do you just plain like making stuff up with hafl quotes, when I said...

Originally Posted By: Shannow
I'd run it if I had it, but wouldn't go out of my way to obtain it...as mentioned before a 10W30 owuld be more advantageous.

the SAE30 will have an HTHS around the 3.5 mark (or higher), as that's the "natural" HTHS for an SAE 30.

If your cars are specced around ILSAC energy conserving, that's 10%+ higher viscosity in the bearings, and a drain on your fuel tank and wallet.

(If you want to go straight in an ILSAC specced vehicle, a 20W20 is closer to the mark)...but I'd only do it for giggles.
 
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: turtlevette


Quality basestocks or what you're calling "robust" base stocks have inherent VII.



There is no such thing as "inherent VII".


http://www.exxonmobil.com/files/PA/AP/SuperSynBrochure.pdf
Mobil 1 synthetic motor oils have an
inherently higher Viscosity Index
than conventional motor oils.




Then you're saying you're smarter than me and Exxon Mobil. I don't think so.





VI - Viscosity Index
VII - Viscosity Index Improvers


I'd guess the communication stakes leave you a little out of your depth too Turtle.
 
I saw lots of notifications that I was getting responses. Should've known the thread turned into a [censored] match. :-/
 
Sounds like there is no hard data for what you're looking for, mrdctaylor.

Up for testing it with UOAs on your vehicle?
 
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: turtlevette


Quality basestocks or what you're calling "robust" base stocks have inherent VII.



There is no such thing as "inherent VII".


http://www.exxonmobil.com/files/PA/AP/SuperSynBrochure.pdf
Mobil 1 synthetic motor oils have an
inherently higher Viscosity Index
than conventional motor oils.




Then you're saying you're smarter than me and Exxon Mobil. I don't think so.





Inherent VI? On a pseudo synthesized product? Even Xom is full of it. You know, Marketing Depts ... Sheese.

Turtle I think you said VII instead of VI - we've all done that.

By definition oil basestocks I-III are grouped/marginalised by VI and PPM sulphur amongst other factors; Poly Olefins have their own grp. IV; V is "other" and I hear there are new cats coming.

XOM pseudosyn is now predominantly built from refinery wax waste product. Not saying its "bad", RDS had Helix Ultra with XHVI slack wax long before XOM VISOM.

All kinds of phunny stuff going on out there, boyz ... .
 
Originally Posted By: mrdctaylor
I saw lots of notifications that I was getting responses. Should've known the thread turned into a [censored] match. :-/


From Mobil's synthetic basestock blending guidelines.
Mobil%20Viscosity%20Mix.jpg


Note, these are NOT Mobil 1 recipes, just some guidance for potential purchasers of their products.

Can see clearly from this that the "recipe" has thicker basestock, and far less VI for the 0W20 than the 0W30 (or the 40), and the 5W30 steps up a gear in terms of basestock inherent viscosity.

Thus my recommnedation that if you are playing with ILSAC 20s and 30s, stay with the 0W20.

If you are after "more protection", got to a 5W30, (or a 5W20 that would pass every test they threw at it if a warranty failure occurred)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top