Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict

Messages
28,129
Location
Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Yes, Shannow, and I posted a spreadsheet ages ago with error analysis, as you recall, that showed the same thing. If I can't tell the difference between very high HTHS CJ-4 Delvac 1 versus an ILSAC 5w-30, then this won't wash, either.
 
Messages
5,180
Location
Paramount, California
Thread starter
Originally Posted by ekpolk
Thirteen pages . . . and still in search of a "final verdict"! Our court system does better than this!!! This one's officially nominated for the "Most Ironic Thread Name Ever on BITOG" award.
Yes, the eternal thin vs. thick debate. Plus, a new debate also covered in this thread -- Thin vs. thin: PAO vs. inferior base oils.
 
Messages
5,180
Location
Paramount, California
Thread starter
Originally Posted by Shannow
You can't claim that resolution tank to tank... Here's my Colorado, all 2.5 tonnes of it, filled typically at the same bowser, with the same "run to click", count to 20 to release air bubbles, then run half speed to next click...every time). As you can see the variability is far beyond the resolution that you are claiming tank to tank.
I would certainly not argue against it. These are good MPG numbers. Do you have the 4-cylinder or V6? Mostly highway driving, I assume? Here is my data, since I started recording it. I try to use the same pump and park in the same position as much as I can. Then, when done, I wait for ten seconds and push the nozzle in a couple of times. [Linked Image] TGMO 0W-20 SN vs. M1 0W-40 SN MPG comparison is probably misleading because my driving conditions were somewhat more short trips and city driving with TGMO 0W-20 SN than with the M1 0W-40. The MPG study is definitely not a controlled one and the average numbers shouldn't be interpreted absolutely. One thing that is striking tough, you don't see as many data points with TGMO 0W-20 below 20 MPG than you do with M1 0W-40. It seems to indicate that when it comes to city driving and short trips, a thinner oil is a clear winner. There is probably not a striking difference in highway driving though. Yes, so far only two data points with M1 EP 0W-20 and the car saw more highway driving than typically seen with TGMO 0W-20. However, I'm really familiar with this car and there seems to be an improvement in fuel economy. The new air filter (and spark plugs, although the old spark plus were still in good shape) may also be affecting it somewhat.
 
Messages
14,413
Location
...
This thread is like a Godzilla movie. Just when you thought you killed it, it returns. PAO versus inferior base oils. Was that before or the sequel to this thread? Inferior is a harsh word. PAO is not the end all to be all.
 
Last edited:
Messages
8,791
Location
Houston, TX
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by Gokhan
I got a very nice 29.0 MPG in mixed driving in my first tank.
Update: 27.0 MPG in mostly city mixed driving in my second tank. This is far better than what I was getting before. Sure, the new air filter could have made a difference, but the PAO-based M1 EP 0W-20 SN PLUS is a very low-friction oil from how the engine sounds and feels.
Since this was not conducted in a laboratory under controlled, repeatable conditions, we can safely assume that as a minimum the following variables exist: -- Climate (temperature, relative humidity, barometric pressure) -- Driving conditions (traffic patterns, time of day, your driving skills, locations) -- Fuel (different batches, average octane, fill levels) -- Vehicle (tire pressure, load, condition) So with all of that as a minimum in the number/types of variations, you are stating the air filter may have made a difference, but more certainly, the oil did because it is low-friction (suggesting it is lower friction than other xW-20 oils) based on how the engine sounds and feels and the oil is the primary reason your MPG increased?
 
Messages
24,512
Location
PNW
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Here is my data, since I started recording it. I try to use the same pump and park in the same position as much as I can. Then, when done, I wait for ten seconds and push the nozzle in a couple of times. [Linked Image]
Two data points with M1 EP 0W-20 ... clearly not enough data yet with that oil. Also no real difference seen between M1 0W-40 and TGMO 0W-20... too much scatter to make any real trend conclusions.
 
Messages
28,129
Location
Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
I'd also add that the only figure I'd have real confidence with respect to having four significant figures is the price spent at the pump, given that the uncertainty should only be rounding up or down to the nearest penny. Everything else is a stretch beyond 2 or 3.
 
Messages
411
Location
West Yorkshire, UK
Originally Posted by ekpolk
Thirteen pages . . . and still in search of a "final verdict"! Our court system does better than this!!! This one's officially nominated for the "Most Ironic Thread Name Ever on BITOG" award.
Not forgetting this started as a which protects better but is now talking about which gives better MPG.
 
Messages
450
Location
California
I have found M1 EP 0W20, with its high PAO base stock, to cause my engine to be the noisiest. Conversely, Pennzoil Gold 0W20, with its Group II & Group III, not even GTL base stock, to cause my engine to be the quietest. Good add pack & meet the specs for the win.
 
Messages
42,924
Location
Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted by Direct_Rejection
I have found M1 EP 0W20, with its high PAO base stock, to cause my engine to be the noisiest. Conversely, Pennzoil Gold 0W20, with its Group II & Group III, not even GTL base stock, to cause my engine to be the quietest. Good add pack & meet the specs for the win.
So your engine prefers the sound deadening effects of plastic grin In all seriousness though, the VII treat rate on M1 EP will be a small fraction of what it is in that Pennzoil Gold product because it will be blended with heavier bases. It's quite possible that the acoustic characteristics of VII polymers are favourable in this scenario and is the reason for your observations.
 
Messages
8,791
Location
Houston, TX
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Also no real difference seen between M1 0W-40 and TGMO 0W-20... too much scatter to make any real trend conclusions.
Agreed; 1/10 of a point between a xW-20 and a xW-40 oil from a single comparison related to MPG is statistical background noise at best and goes a long way in pointing out what this "experiment" and the "results" actually are.
 
Messages
5,180
Location
Paramount, California
Thread starter
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
So your engine prefers the sound deadening effects of plastic grin In all seriousness though, the VII treat rate on M1 EP will be a small fraction of what it is in that Pennzoil Gold product because it will be blended with heavier bases. It's quite possible that the acoustic characteristics of VII polymers are favourable in this scenario and is the reason for your observations.
Here is my latest A_Harman index table. The column labeled "VII" is equal to 1 - A_Harman index and it's an approximate measure of the viscosity-index improver (VII) content, even though technically it represents the VII temporary shear at 150 C temperature and 1,000,000 per second shear rate. [Linked Image] Now, surprisingly, Pennzoil Gold 0W-20 virtually ties with M1 EP 0W-20 in (lack of) VII. In fact, I assumed HTHSV = 2.6 cP for it and if HTHSV is higher, it would readily beat M1 EP 0W-20. M1 EP 0W-20 is only second to M1 ESP x2 0w-20 (an MB 229.71/ACEA C5 oil), which, along with M1 AP 5W-20, has less VII than any oil listed here except for the monograde Amsoil 30 (also qualifies as a 10W-30), VAS 5W-20, and Delvac Super 1300 15W-40. So, it's hard to believe that Pennzoil Gold 0W-20 is a synthetic blend. It's possibly a full synthetic. It readily beats PPPP 0W-20 and PUPPP 0W-20 in VII content. Regarding how the engine sounds, well... I really like how M1 EP 0W-20 SN PLUS sounds in my engine. Who knows, perhaps I'm hearing the metal grinding away, but I like the sound. wink It sounds like the engine has lower friction with it in my perception but if some interpret it as the engine being louder, which I didn't notice, it could be more of a perception issue than a scientific observation, until people grab sound-level meters and start scientific observations.
 
Messages
42,924
Location
Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Now, surprisingly, Pennzoil Gold 0W-20 virtually ties with M1 EP 0W-20 in (lack of) VII. In fact, I assumed HTHSV = 2.6 cP for it and if HTHSV is higher, it would readily beat M1 EP 0W-20. M1 EP 0W-20 is only second to M1 ESP x2 0w-20 (an MB 229.71/ACEA C5 oil), which, along with M1 AP 5W-20, has less VII than any oil listed here except for the monograde Amsoil 30 (also qualifies as a 10W-30), VAS 5W-20, and Delvac Super 1300 15W-40. So, it's hard to believe that Pennzoil Gold 0W-20 is a synthetic blend. It's possibly a full synthetic. It readily beats PPPP 0W-20 and PUPPP 0W-20 in VII content. Regarding how the engine sounds, well... I really like how M1 EP 0W-20 SN PLUS sounds in my engine. Who knows, perhaps I'm hearing the metal grinding away, but I like the sound. wink It sounds like the engine has lower friction with it in my perception but if some interpret it as the engine being louder, which I didn't notice, it could be more of a perception issue than a scientific observation, until people grab sound-level meters and start scientific observations.
I think we need to hit pause here for a second. Does it not strike you as odd that M1 EP 0w-20 would have a 5.5% VII treat rate and its sibling, AP 0w-20, which has the same amount of PAO, is 10%? Both have almost identical VI's too. Doesn't smell right to me shrug Also, AP Flash point: 242C, EP? 235C. I'm guessing the HTHS for both of these lubes is rounded. AP could be 2.64 and EP could be 2.65 for example, and that's skewing the calculations. Playing around with the calculator using the above theory: EP: A_Harman Index: 0.926 AP: A_Harman Index: 0.913 BTW, I noticed you used the KV40 for AP 0w-20 from the MSDS. I'd be hesitant to do that and here's why: The MSDS for EP 0w-20 lists: KV100: 8.4cSt KV40: N/A Flash: 235C Pour: -45C The MSDS for AP 0w-20 lists: KV100: 8.7cSt KV40: 45.7cSt Flash: >200C Pour: -45C We know that the Pour Point is wrong for both of them. KV100 is wrong for EP and KV40 isn't even listed. So I'd be skeptical of that number IMHO. I'd wager both have basically the same VII content and the deviation we are seeing here is the result of rounding. For Pennzoil Gold "blend" 0w-20 BTW, I think your sniffer is working properly. The MSDS shows 70-90% GTL LOL I'm going to say that the lack of digits after the decimal for the KV values is, at the resolution we are trying to achieve here, screwing us, for example, using the Gold w/HTHS 2.6: KV100 8.44, Index becomes 0.937. If rounding is allowed in HTHS, IE 2.58 can be rounded to 2.6 then that adds another layer of fudge factor here smile
 
Messages
5,180
Location
Paramount, California
Thread starter
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Does it not strike you as odd that M1 EP 0w-20 would have a 5.5% VII treat rate and its sibling, AP 0w-20, which has the same amount of PAO, is 10%? ... BTW, I noticed you used the KV40 for AP 0w-20 from the MSDS. I'd be hesitant to do that and here's why:
You're absolutely right. I took it from the MSDS and I don't have good data for M1 AP. Also, as you said, there is a lot of roundoff error etc. Nevertheless, M1 EP and M1 AP are entirely different formulations, despite the 0W-20 grades having similar amounts of PAO -- likely in different ratios for the 4cSt and 6cSt base stocks though. If you look at the 5W-30 grades, not even the PAO ratios are anywhere close.
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
For Pennzoil Gold "blend" 0w-20 BTW, I think your sniffer is working properly. The MSDS shows 70-90% GTL LOL
Ha! We not only think but now we know that Pennzoil Gold 0W-20 is a GTL-based full synthetic! MSDS tells us: "Synthetic base oil and additives. The highly refined mineral oil is only present as additive diluent." And then it goes to say that the synthetic base oil is Fischer - Tropsch (GTL) with CAS # 848301-69-9, same as in Exxon Mobil MSDSs, which must be the Shell Pearl PurePlus GTL.
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
BTW, another thing I find interesting is that for the Gold 0w-20, the Pour Point is -48C. Given it is basically entirely GTL based, that points to a very light base oil and a significant dose of PPD. Even Yubase 4+ only has a PP of -15C: https://www.repsol.com/imagenes/global/en/base_oils_gii_giii_tcm14-19328.pdf Would be really nice if we had Noack...
Since pour points are primarily controlled by the PPD, I'm usually not worried about them. Yes, if we had the Noack, then we could have calculated the BOQI. wink It wouldn't give us any new information though, only confirming that the base oil is very similar or identical to that of PPPP. However... We can do a reverse BOQI II calculation to estimate the Noack for Pennzoil Gold. If we assume the same BOQI II for both, then we have:
Code
Oil              Noack           CCS             Note

PPPP 0W-20       10.3 or 10.1    5884 or 6068    (2017 or 2015 POIA data, respectively)
PG   0W-20       12.4 - 12.6     4881            (extrapolated using the BOQI II concept from the 2017 or 2015 POIA data, respectively)
So, the idea is simple: for the same base-stock slate, Noack x CCS should be the same for a given HTHSV. If HTHSVs are different, then HTHSV/(Noack x CCS) should be the same. Therefore, since Pennzoil Gold uses a thinner GTL base oil than Pennzoil Platinum, it has a higher Noack; however, it's still below the 13% maximum for dexos1 Gen 2.
 
Messages
42,924
Location
Ontario, Canada
- Yes, I don't think they are blended the same from an additive perspective, but I'd assume that they'd have similar VII treat-rates and if anything, the higher FP of AP points to a heavier blend which should theoretically result in a lower VII treat rate than EP shrug - Regardling PPD's, I am sure there's some method to calculate their range of efficacy relative to base oil visc for Group 3 and lower. I know that they push down the crystal formation point, but I believe their ability to do that decreases as visc increases. You look at Super Synthetic for example, and its PP is only -39C. So there's something there I think. - We are thinking the same thing about Noack, as it's a nice tell for base oil visc. - So, one would necessarily conclude that the Gold product has more VII than we calculated, if the reverse BOQI calculation is correct. This yielded the higher Noack, pointing to a lighter base oil blend and thus more VII. It likely also explains the lower Pour Point.
 
Messages
5,180
Location
Paramount, California
Thread starter
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
- So, one would necessarily conclude that the Gold product has more VII than we calculated, if the reverse BOQI calculation is correct. This yielded the higher Noack, pointing to a lighter base oil blend and thus more VII. It likely also explains the lower Pour Point.
I think the A_Harman index and VII content for the two oils are roughly the same. The 5 cSt GTL base stock has almost double the CCS of the 4 cSt GTL base stock. So, even if the KV100 of the two GTL base oils aren't that different, the CCS could be very different: Dewaxing challenging paraffinic feeds in North America So, it's fairly complicated. shrug
 
Messages
42,924
Location
Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
- So, one would necessarily conclude that the Gold product has more VII than we calculated, if the reverse BOQI calculation is correct. This yielded the higher Noack, pointing to a lighter base oil blend and thus more VII. It likely also explains the lower Pour Point.
I think the A_Harman index and VII content for the two oils are roughly the same. The 5 cSt GTL base stock has almost double the CCS of the 4 cSt GTL base stock. So, even if the KV100 of the two GTL base oils aren't that different, the CCS could be very different: Dewaxing challenging paraffinic feeds in North America So, it's fairly complicated. shrug
Indeed, I'd say it is. And unfortunately with the amount of rounded data we are dealing with, I think approximations are about as close as we are going to get. Thanks for the link BTW! The data provided is why I think there may be something we aren't accounting for here when comparing say EP to Gold. Using the two examples you noted, the 4cSt and 5cSt GTL bases, we see typical properties are: 4cSt: KV100: ~4cSt CCS @ -30C: 1,000cP Pour Point: -30C Noack: 12% Flash: 215C 5cSt: KV100: ~5.1cSt CCS @ -30C: 1,860cP Pour Point: -24C Noack: 9% Flash: 232C 8cSt: KV100: ~8cSt CCS @ -30C: 5,300cP Pour Point: -15C Noack: 2% Flash: 240C The 8cSt version throws CCS out the window, but could be blended with these two. Contrarily, if we look at the SpectraSyn products in the same visc range: 4cSt: KV100: 4.1cSt CCS @ -30C: 910cP CCS @ -35C: 1,424cP Pour Point: -66C Noack: 14% Flash: 220C 5cSt: KV100: 5.1cSt CCS @ -30C: ~1,200cP (not listed) CCS @ -35C: 2,420cP Pour Point: -57C Noack: 6.8% Flash: 240C 6cSt: KV100: 5.8cSt CCS @ -30C: 2,260cP Pour Point: -57C Noack: 6.4% Flash: 246C 8cSt: Kv100: 8.0cSt CCS @ -30C: 4,800cP Pour Point: -48C Noack: 4.1% Flash: 260C It would seem one could, logically, use the heavier PAO bases there and use less VII to achieve our final product here shrug Which seems to be supported by one of the XOM blending guides I'm sure you have on-hand as well, that shows a VII treat rate of just 2.6% for a PAO-based 0w-20, which leverages the 6cSt PAO as the primary base: [Linked Image] The 8cSt GTL also likely explains the wickedly low Noack's we saw on the earlier GTL lubes from Shell when Pearl first came online. This is where knowing the Noack's of the lubes in question would prove valuable, even knowing they will be skewed by the additives, it would help. Your 12% figure for the Gold product points to liberal use of the 4cSt base I would think shrug If we look at AMSOIL's 0w-20, which we can assume is PAO-based, using the SpectraSyn product line: KV100: 8.8cSt [email protected] -35C: 5,122cP Pour Point: -53C Noack: 8.5% Flash: 220C That Noack figure again points to a heavier base oil blend than the Gold product if the 12% figure is correct, meaning a lower VII treat-rate, which runs contrary to the figures that the chart has yielded. This is fun stuff, but I think there's something we aren't accounting for perhaps that's screwing up the results?
 
Messages
14,413
Location
...
It wasn't all that long ago that Pennzoil Gold was a bit of a unicorn here. For the price point it is a great value. Then it started to become scarce. There was a theory that Pennzoil was using it mainly for their quick lube outlets. I haven't seen it for a while a Wally's.
 
Top