2015 Lexus NX 200t - New turbo using TGMO 0W-20?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ok, good reference and logical. I think though, CAFE has been around since 1975 I believe...? Oil and Auto manufacturers know what to expect and engineer towards that end. Just like Grop III is comparable on many levels with Group IV now. The engineering and science keeps improving.
 
I have no problem with the performance of group III oils as long as they don't price it with group IV and V oils which in some places they do. The US consumer gets a good deal.
I think there is more to the fuel economy angle than some want to believe. I don't know what the US spec oil is for the N20 but this is one example of a light approved oil for some engines.
Quote:
Longlife-01 FE oils
Because of their particularly low viscosity, these oils are able to favourably influence fuel consumption.
However, they are only to be used in engines that have been specially designed to run with such low viscosity oils (spark-ignition engines with Valvetronic).


Here is the question. If they spec a high HTHS oil elsewhere for these engines how is the engine built specifically for the FE HTHS 3.0 oil?
IMHO its still a multi viscosity engine that can run on a wide range of viscosities. The question is does the optimal oil for economy sacrifice any engine life?
Will running the higher HTHS oil wear more under certain operating conditions?

Now we are right back to the thick vs thin debate, the merry go round continues.
 
Originally Posted By: Trav
I have no problem with the performance of group III oils as long as they don't price it with group IV and V oils which in some places they do. The US consumer gets a good deal.
I think there is more to the fuel economy angle than some want to believe. I don't know what the US spec oil is for the N20 but this is one example of a light approved oil for some engines.
Quote:
Longlife-01 FE oils
Because of their particularly low viscosity, these oils are able to favourably influence fuel consumption.
However, they are only to be used in engines that have been specially designed to run with such low viscosity oils (spark-ignition engines with Valvetronic).


Here is the question. If they spec a high HTHS oil elsewhere for these engines how is the engine built specifically for the FE HTHS 3.0 oil?
IMHO its still a multi viscosity engine that can run on a wide range of viscosities. The question is does the optimal oil for economy sacrifice any engine life?
Will running the higher HTHS oil wear more under certain operating conditions?

Now we are right back to the thick vs thin debate, the merry go round continues.


Groundhog Day.
 
crackmeup2.gif
Yep.
 
Another day of posits
Another day of zero actual facts and data to support those posits
Another day of ignoring requests facts TO support the posits
Another day of vitriol and calling people ignorant neanderthals.

Yep, it's Groundhog day.
 
BMW LL-14FE+ is for 0W-20 and 5W-20 and only for the new N20 engined vehicles. You can still used older LL01 + LL04 oils though. LL01 engine test requirements are identical to LL14FE+ except for addition of a Fuel economy test on BMW hardware.

LL14FE+ has a min HTHS of 2.6cP and min TBN of 9.5.

For an oil to claim this it has to pass the N20 approval test which is very challenging looking at all aspects of oil performance including sludge and cleanliness on special BMW fuel. As mentioned the N20 has been desiged for 2.6cP HTHS oils, so no issues running it on these sort of oils. BMW wouldnt give approvals to oils that don't meet their performance requirements. Not sure why BITOG thinks it knows better than an OEM who develops an engine with thin oils in mind. Jaguar have been running 0W-20 and 5W-20 in there 5.0 V8 supercharged engines for years.

LL-12FE is the other new spec and is 2.9 HTHS min, mainly targeting diesels as it is mid SAPs
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Blue_Angel
From the Lexus Press Release page:

https://www.pressroom.com.au/press_kit_detail.asp?kitID=355&clientID=3&navSectionID=6

"Lexus developed a new 0-20W viscosity lubricating oil without calcium content to remove the chance of engine knock at low engine revolutions."

Calcium = knock? I wonder how so?


The concern is low speed pre-ignition of oil residue collecting on the cylinder walls. Some indications that the calcium sulphonates used as detergents (and some other functions) can contribute to this issue. It is why Low SAPS oils are being developed and you may continue to see a trend in this direction with new ashless detergents become more common in PCMO (they are already used in many HDDEO applications).
 
Originally Posted By: bobbydavro
BMW wouldnt give approvals to oils that don't meet their performance requirements.

It would be nice if it were true but they and other manufacturers have a history of changing those requirements as soon as warranty claims start accumulating.

What happened here? They gave approvals to oils that supposedly met their spec for the OCI.
http://www.autoevolution.com/news/bmw-modifies-oil-change-intervals-for-my2014-cars-63788.html

They are not alone, Nissan went so far as to spec a new ester based oil for some engines, Ford back spec'd some vehicles but put weight limitations on some, GM changed their OCI requirements, etc.

Sometimes their testing and real world testing are two different things.
 
As I have posted before, I used 20wt oils including M1 5-20 in engines of that era(70's before CAFE) without any signs of engine wear. Has anyone seen an engine that prematurely failed solely because of using 20wt oils? More and more engine builders(Euros as well it seems) are coming on board with lighter oils. It seems the Asian and American builders(Ford has recommended 20wt for 15 years are so) may be ahead of the curve on this. Just sayin. Of course there are always exceptions to the rule.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: tig1
As I have posted before, I used 20wt oils including M1 5-20 in engines of that era(70's before CAFE) without any signs of engine wear. Has anyone seen an engine that prematurely failed solely because of using 20wt oils? More and more engine builders(Euros as well it seems) are coming on board with lighter oils. It seems the Asian and American builders(Ford has recommended 20wt for 15 years are so) may be ahead of the curve on this. Just sayin. Of course there are always exceptions to the rule.
Anyone see an engine that failed because of the use of 5W-30 instead of 0W-20?
 
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Originally Posted By: tig1
As I have posted before, I used 20wt oils including M1 5-20 in engines of that era(70's before CAFE) without any signs of engine wear. Has anyone seen an engine that prematurely failed solely because of using 20wt oils? More and more engine builders(Euros as well it seems) are coming on board with lighter oils. It seems the Asian and American builders(Ford has recommended 20wt for 15 years are so) may be ahead of the curve on this. Just sayin. Of course there are always exceptions to the rule.
Anyone see an engine that failed because of the use of 5W-30 instead of 0W-20?


Thank you for making my point. There seems to be no difference in wt of oil to pre mature engine wear. For the most part.
 
Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Originally Posted By: tig1
As I have posted before, I used 20wt oils including M1 5-20 in engines of that era(70's before CAFE) without any signs of engine wear. Has anyone seen an engine that prematurely failed solely because of using 20wt oils? More and more engine builders(Euros as well it seems) are coming on board with lighter oils. It seems the Asian and American builders(Ford has recommended 20wt for 15 years are so) may be ahead of the curve on this. Just sayin. Of course there are always exceptions to the rule.
Anyone see an engine that failed because of the use of 5W-30 instead of 0W-20?


Thank you for making my point. There seems to be no difference in wt of oil to pre mature engine wear. For the most part.
Except at the upper and lower temperature extremes. Example straight 30 during the summer as compared to straight 30 at 0f
 
Although certain auto manufacturers have indeed changed their oil recommendations (midstream for certain engine platforms) in the past, this is a very small percentage and in no way would i consider it significant enough to alter my choice to something outside the Owner's Manual options.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Trav
Originally Posted By: bobbydavro
BMW wouldnt give approvals to oils that don't meet their performance requirements.

It would be nice if it were true but they and other manufacturers have a history of changing those requirements as soon as warranty claims start accumulating.

What happened here? They gave approvals to oils that supposedly met their spec for the OCI.
http://www.autoevolution.com/news/bmw-modifies-oil-change-intervals-for-my2014-cars-63788.html

They are not alone, Nissan went so far as to spec a new ester based oil for some engines, Ford back spec'd some vehicles but put weight limitations on some, GM changed their OCI requirements, etc.

Sometimes their testing and real world testing are two different things.


This was due to concerns with fuel, acids, TBN depletion and sludge. Other OEMs may have found hardware issues that is easily fixed by changing the oil application/ ODI rather than retooling new parts and carrying out recalls

Not a weakness of the engine test
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Solarent
Originally Posted By: Blue_Angel
From the Lexus Press Release page:

https://www.pressroom.com.au/press_kit_detail.asp?kitID=355&clientID=3&navSectionID=6

"Lexus developed a new 0-20W viscosity lubricating oil without calcium content to remove the chance of engine knock at low engine revolutions."

Calcium = knock? I wonder how so?


The concern is low speed pre-ignition of oil residue collecting on the cylinder walls. Some indications that the calcium sulphonates used as detergents (and some other functions) can contribute to this issue. It is why Low SAPS oils are being developed and you may continue to see a trend in this direction with new ashless detergents become more common in PCMO (they are already used in many HDDEO applications).


So the message is: if you have a DI or Turbo/DI engine, using an oil with lower levels of calcium is a good thing to do? Hard to find comprehensive information, but, for example, Castrol Edge EP with around 700 ppm of calcium in 0w/20 would be a better choice than QSUD in the same viscosity at around 2,400 (per PQIA)?

DI DI/turbo engines do place different demands on motor oil, but it's awfully hard to get get information from any manufacturer (auto or oil) about what oil characteristics best match these demands. I used to think low Noack was the thing; now maybe it's low calcium. Or maybe there's something else or it doesn't matter at all. Sheesh, maybe just go to SuperTech conventional and call it a day.
 
Last edited:
http://papers.sae.org/2014-32-0092/

Supercharged direct-injection engines are known to have a tendency toward abnormal combustion such as spontaneous low-speed pre-ignition and strong knock because they operate under low-speed, high-load conditions conducive to the occurrence of irregular combustion. It has been hypothesized that one cause of such abnormal combustion is the intrusion of engine oil droplets into the combustion chamber where they become a source of ignition. It has also been reported that varying the composition of engine oil additives can change susceptibility to abnormal combustion. However, the mechanisms involved are not well understood, and it is not clear how the individual components of engine oil additives affect autoignition.

In this study, abnormal combustion experiments were conducted to investigate the effect on autoignition of a calcium-based additive that is typically mixed into engine oil to act as a detergent. The experiments were performed with a single-cylinder 4-cycle gasoline engine using a primary reference fuel (PRF 50) into which the calcium salicylate (CaSa)-based detergent was mixed at various ratios.

The experimental results showed that autoignition occurred increasingly earlier with a higher concentration of the CaSa-based engine oil additive, giving rise to severe abnormal combustion. This indicates that the addition of a CaSa-based detergent to engine oil tends to promote autoignition and abnormal combustion.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: bobbydavro


Not a weakness of the engine test

No one said it was. Controlled operating conditions are never real world.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: wemay


http://papers.sae.org/2014-32-0092/

Supercharged direct-injection engines are known to have a tendency toward abnormal combustion such as spontaneous low-speed pre-ignition and strong knock because they operate under low-speed, high-load conditions conducive to the occurrence of irregular combustion. It has been hypothesized that one cause of such abnormal combustion is the intrusion of engine oil droplets into the combustion chamber where they become a source of ignition. It has also been reported that varying the composition of engine oil additives can change susceptibility to abnormal combustion. However, the mechanisms involved are not well understood, and it is not clear how the individual components of engine oil additives affect autoignition.

In this study, abnormal combustion experiments were conducted to investigate the effect on autoignition of a calcium-based additive that is typically mixed into engine oil to act as a detergent. The experiments were performed with a single-cylinder 4-cycle gasoline engine using a primary reference fuel (PRF 50) into which the calcium salicylate (CaSa)-based detergent was mixed at various ratios.

The experimental results showed that autoignition occurred increasingly earlier with a higher concentration of the CaSa-based engine oil additive, giving rise to severe abnormal combustion. This indicates that the addition of a CaSa-based detergent to engine oil tends to promote autoignition and abnormal combustion.


Good find Wemay. This is pretty much what I was going to say in response to DanH. The role traditional CaSa detergents play in di low speed preignition is not yet fully understood, but yes, lower calcium could possibly help if you are experiencing the issue described with your DI engine.

Also if you have a DI engine, regular use of a fuel system cleaner is also a good idea. In one of the new engine tests being developed for GF-6 they have found that use of a good cleaner help them obtain more consistent results. It's also being recommended by some OEMs as a part of the regular maintenance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top