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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tig Shannow's point is that the Mobil 5w20 back then was very, very stout with no viscosity index improvers and extremely stable. It is not the same type of 20s we have today. Not that the 0w20 or 5w20s of today are poor performers. They clearly are very good in the right applications. It is that the HTHS of today's 20s are 2.5-2.8 whereas the old school Mobil 1 5w20 was around 3.0.
 
Last edited:
Could some of the wear metals come from different cleaning additive from the second oil, thereby releasing slight wear metals increase from some dissolved sludge? So many variables changing here to state such a stark declaration.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Vlad_the_Russian
I am with the OP. I used Magnatec 0w20 and got 2ppm of iron in 4k miles. Then I used Amalie EURO 5w40 and got 17ppm of iron in 4k miles.


Do you know whether that was due to wear, or chemistry on all the exposed ferrous components inside the engine ?

If so, how ?

All I know is that Magnatec has some kind of ester-like additives that attach to the metal. So if it attaches to the metal and detaches crud and sludge (which there is none, engine is spotless, no varnish), then it is actually Magnatec that is supposed to have higher iron numbers. But in reality it is Magnatec that shows less wear...
 
Originally Posted By: 6starprez
I miss my little '86 Nova CL 5sp. I agree, that engine is as simple as you can get. I used 5W-30 exclusively up until I let it go in 2009 with 235k. I never even thought about putting 20 weight in it since it spec'ed 30 and up.

Actually it recommends 10W-30 or thicker (5W-30 not recommended in warm weather); so, you ran a little thinner than recommended.

Originally Posted By: Astro14
You've run UOA on a 30+ year old engine with mechanical problems and 260,000 miles on it?

There are so many uncontrolled variables here that your UOA don't demonstrate anything. Certainly, a few PPM on one metal in this older, failing engine are not the "final verdict".

The engine consumes very little oil (no top-offs needed between 10,000-mile OCIs) and runs very well. I think it could easily last 1,000,000 miles. It's definitely not failing.

Originally Posted By: Virtus_Probi
Iron went up by 50%, but chromium went down by 62%, so M1 0W40 wins.

EOD

You missed the coolant contamination with the last TGMO 0W-20.

Originally Posted By: kr_bitog
Did you replace PCV valve and piston ring when valve-stem oil seals replaced ?

There is nothing wrong with the PCV valve or rings. The car can drive 12,000 miles/20,000 kilometers without need for oil top-off.

Originally Posted By: Hyrde
It is clear OP is biased towards thinner oils being better, and his analysis of his data reflects that.

I'm not biased. If I was biased, I would stick with only one type of oil. In fact, I ran 15W-40 HDEO for many years in the past.

Originally Posted By: Vlad_the_Russian
I am with the OP. I used Magnatec 0w20 and got 2ppm of iron in 4k miles. Then I used Amalie EURO 5w40 and got 17ppm of iron in 4k miles. Y'all can cry all you want about variables and uncontrolled environment, but these are real life results and you can't just ignore them because it was not done by a lab. Guess what? Your car will spend it's life on the roads, not in the lab. Therefore the testing is valid since it was performed in the real world, real time, real roads. 0w20 wins.

Great to hear.

I will repost the three newest UOAs and post two older UOAs. The 03/24/2013 UOA is TGMO 0W-20 SN and the 6/27/2012 UOA is Pennzoil yellow bottle (PYB) conventional 5W-20 SN. Note that before the Pennzoil 5W-20 SN, I ran 15W-40 HDEO, mostly Mobil Super 1300 15W-40 CJ-4, for about six years. Before that it was 10W-30 conventional, and before that it was 10W-40 conventional.

JMP3aOl97s1ZkA7KGVGgn_W6D1u85mY1KAuSB92WEV1Ds91aBEjA-G9DWE8wy-r7qIP_HDivdjRBFTBR--VY7g3qtIdlSpmN6FwMGrDz60lAh9mX0hG1u9jFHITpms2IJOmxOHcudhRJb-o3y-0HRt_L6t1oBFNxWWnhUTSgdlLggBNGdrPKhW4MjZ-mS2OvCCRbQSEs4GnnxCXJhc3ARe7gqV-nqE-jul-pa17stsGkkvn1LywjeXdUSJMLe593fPemPpMB8isUiICXoeKcNeivPl7Esoq-uh1kGBVCLpYxz5nWtik1SP-7XNuoq8JA9EpgU2HUVEMNI0GSJa3ufLPVX-Oz7ltgU_XdRne9B-CSECnnpDm-9efer2Iqex1SoQVy96GHVT_hy9dk7fBNVQhYy9PYWlerr-0BJt_xUlyZCHTSv9i0FVqXcp83AO8CsH3kq0DNMeMthfTOmK7xqE_msTPsAvw1xWgMFIZi796ADqpSaEhdEH9cBtGObiUeoSP5OUMABATYbqF00l87KOaYAZkWRmko_u8YL3-yk91GYov8nb_p7RLm6Rp-I6BwvEusj3NzNeMk3tVEF8e_RiZQPseFXuv-uFQek0rJoRB0cujYWtwChA=w756-h1579-no
-ZtZ1OciX7kVvyUBVxg1CkzGCTEgiDceYUTKx2jeVEFmmcnfaeg2axXAEi4v5gZjFg31P9CplvfpRvW0TpWqxHEWg411p-54oehjdSY9u1RXaIjkO1NCssTidsdaOp4wTI1MExnonkiKP2WNSEV0h8zlbgk0aI51hk4kE32VKFX9SLURWBo0fisJqhUp0bvYHNz7GDeNg9mhYHEQ0UlSbChjP3uHHupU4qfOCw9MM9wYjVCFmcN4kc1SMNHPrbrLzuGlE3j16oIPVsf2TAW2azaM2aqTY39m5-8H3W_wOAn5ZQJlAUTE1cwQodZ4hLXbqlxOtkXH7emO-WzS1wSZmHkdaCQMVTaxgdZyGVZCnHZU1c3jFRbb4FTvOu8EP5-IVTlJ7GClFqr-nTdhSvIoXJ9e2-HcR55ZNMppm3YI03tfcmyt1rGu0oHHxoIj_oVmg5W-pOHBWDBr6xMHlTbLKmFxS4xTUahoyVbyTo0lJGOwS53Ag-3aBsfrYir2zs6M1oYbazmXbqRUG_dEfh3G3_LIcXVw0IzsH5wnJmjA0Gi6SwExJfav_y0URivU0MAsu41Vs-5ZIIjKK-k_BhudwfGLAA1Lic9pglPr6D1e-JNCFe6LIFp21Q=w800-h1038-no


One interesting trend is that the iron decreased after I switched from PYB 5W-20 to TGMO 0W-20 and kept decreasing until it became stable at 12 ppm. However, it jumped again when I switched to M1 0W-40. This doesn't necessarily mean that PYB was a bad oil. As I said, before PYB, I was running 15W-40 HDEO for six years. It could be that HDEO was causing more valvetrain wear because of less oil flow and the effect carried into the OCI with PYB.

Another thing we cannot rule out is that TGMO 0W-20 SN may have the excellent trinuclear moly antiwear/extreme-pressure additive and lots of it (116 ppm), which may be reducing the valvetrain wear, rather than more oil flow reducing the valvetrain wear.

Regarding sludge being dissolved and giving fake results, this is a fairly well-maintained engine that had three OCIs of TGMO 0W-20 before and I can't believe cleaning effects would alter the wear metals in the oil much.

Regarding the chromium, it's probably being caused by glycol (antifreeze) in the oil. Note that the viscosity of the last TGMO 0W-20 was 9.55 cSt, showing a lot of glycol thickening over the 8.79 cSt of virgin oil. I used the ACDelco cooling-system seal tabs just before I switched to M1 0W-40, which decreased or perhaps eliminated the glycol contamination.

One advantage of M1 0W-40 is its TBN. It can perhaps do longer OCIs thanks to higher TBN, although the difference from TGMO was only about 2 after 5,000 miles.

I was also surprised that the base oil of M1 0W-40 seems to be no better than the base oil of TGMO 0W-20. The two oils have nearly identical TAN after 5,000 miles, indirectly showing similar oxidation.

I have little doubt that TGMO 0W-20 works better than M1 0W-40 in this engine. With the coolant-contamination reduced, I think lead and chromium will both come down in the next OCI. TGMO 0W-20 certainly has less iron wear. This could be because of better oil flow, a higher concentration of trinuclear moly, or cooler-running oil thanks to lower viscosity. In any case, M1 0W-40 doesn't seem to show any benefits over TGMO 0W-20. Last but not least, why waste fuel and sacrifice performance with thicker oil if thinner oil works, in fact works better.
 
Gokhan, you of all people know far better than this. I'm not even going to address most of the engineering or lubrication matters, just some methodology and mathematics.

You know, first off, that UOAs cannot directly be used to compare or assess wear. Throwing in at least two different oils, not to mention possible coolant intrusion and then it subsequently being addressed, just makes things worse. And a sample size of three really isn't enough to give us a verdict on anything. And, we know what jumping around with oils means, and we have no VOAs of your particular batches.

That being said, I do appreciate seeing the UOAs and discussion. What I do see, and what my verdict is, is that you did three UOAs, and at each UOA, each lubricant was suitable for continued use. Oh, and there was evidence of coolant intrusion, and that decreased, which fits what you stated in your narrative.
 
With two different brands and formulations in your uoa comparison,I wonder what they would've looked like,say,if you did one uoa with M1 0W20 and then another one with M1 15W50?
 
Originally Posted By: Gokhan

Another thing we cannot rule out is that TGMO 0W-20 SN may have the excellent trinuclear moly antiwear/extreme-pressure additive and lots of it (116 ppm), which may be reducing the valvetrain wear, rather than more oil flow reducing the valvetrain wear.


Actually my earlier point. You have chosen to conclude it was the thinner oil...with the same data I could easily conclude it was differences in the add packs affecting iron. And both of us would be reaching quite a bit to get there with so few data points.
 
Originally Posted By: Vlad_the_Russian
I am with the OP. I used Magnatec 0w20 and got 2ppm of iron in 4k miles. Then I used Amalie EURO 5w40 and got 17ppm of iron in 4k miles.

Why iron ppm numbers are NOT good wear indicators.

Originally Posted By: Garak
Gokhan, you of all people know far better than this. I'm not even going to address most of the engineering or lubrication matters, just some methodology and mathematics.

You know, first off, that UOAs cannot directly be used to compare or assess wear. Throwing in at least two different oils, not to mention possible coolant intrusion and then it subsequently being addressed, just makes things worse. And a sample size of three really isn't enough to give us a verdict on anything. And, we know what jumping around with oils means, and we have no VOAs of your particular batches.

That being said, I do appreciate seeing the UOAs and discussion. What I do see, and what my verdict is, is that you did three UOAs, and at each UOA, each lubricant was suitable for continued use. Oh, and there was evidence of coolant intrusion, and that decreased, which fits what you stated in your narrative.

01.gif


Sometimes it's a good idea to go back and read Doug Hillary's article to put this all into perspective.

Quote:
Firstly, it is important to realize that you get what you pay for. The most common forms of UOA are limited in their scope. It is a case of if you pay more you get more. So my comments here relate primarily to the “simple” UOAs – the cornerstone of those appearing on BITOG.

Secondly, it is easy to assume that by carrying out a UOA you will be able to determine how quickly the engine is wearing out. As well, if you change lubricant Brands you will be able to compare the wear metal uptake results and then make a balanced best lubricant choice to make your engine last longer.
Sadly that logic is seriously flawed.

Single pass (random) UOAs will provide some information regarding wear metals but unless you have a history of your engine’s performance up to around 1 million miles the results are simply that – UOA results! As an example a limit of 150ppm of Iron is a reality – after say 100k it means the lubricant should be changed and all is well. But what is the situation if you have 150ppm of Iron at 5k? Where would you look what would or could you do? So UOAs are really a diagnostic tool – one of many!

https://bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis/

19.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Gokhan

Originally Posted By: Virtus_Probi
Iron went up by 50%, but chromium went down by 62%, so M1 0W40 wins.

EOD

You missed the coolant contamination with the last TGMO 0W-20.


I did notice it, but maybe I'm out of my depth concerning the connection to chromium.
I'm pretty sure that element is not from the coolant itself, is the idea that the contamination leads to extra wear and higher chromium readings?
Why wouldn't the iron be higher due to the contamination as well, then?
The UOA primer on here indicates that chromium is generally from ring wear, does the coolant in the oil affect rings in particular?
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
What I do see, and what my verdict is, is that you did three UOAs, and at each UOA, each lubricant was suitable for continued use.

It's true that either oil is acceptable in this engine.

My point is that thicker oil doesn't automatically result in less wear. In fact, the wear seems to have increased with thicker oil in this application.

I think I will go back to TGMO 0W-20 and the next UOA could really tell us what is going on.

Originally Posted By: Virtus_Probi
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: Virtus_Probi
Iron went up by 50%, but chromium went down by 62%, so M1 0W40 wins.

EOD

You missed the coolant contamination with the last TGMO 0W-20.

I did notice it, but maybe I'm out of my depth concerning the connection to chromium.
I'm pretty sure that element is not from the coolant itself, is the idea that the contamination leads to extra wear and higher chromium readings?
Why wouldn't the iron be higher due to the contamination as well, then?
The UOA primer on here indicates that chromium is generally from ring wear, does the coolant in the oil affect rings in particular?

This is a good question. Glycol (antifreeze) contamination seems to affect chromium, aluminum, and lead most. I don't know the reason. Glycol apparently forms oil bubbles that explode under intense vibration in cylinders. Glycol also forms acids that etch certain metals such as lead (and perhaps chromium and aluminum as well). Acids could also act stronger in cylinders and rings due to high temperatures that increase the reaction rates.
 
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
My point is that thicker oil doesn't automatically result in less wear. In fact, the wear seems to have increased with thicker oil in this application.

I think I will go back to TGMO 0W-20 and the next UOA could really tell us what is going on.

I don't think you can make that determination with the data we have, and one more UOA (nor ten more) won't change that. There are still too many variables that cannot be accounted for, not the least being the difference in the PI packages of the oils in question leading to different, yet statistically insignificant, "wear metal" results.

If you're chasing UOA results, well, that can certainly be done. Translating that to wear results on a sample size of one simply cannot be done.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
My point is that thicker oil doesn't automatically result in less wear. In fact, the wear seems to have increased with thicker oil in this application.

I think I will go back to TGMO 0W-20 and the next UOA could really tell us what is going on.

I don't think you can make that determination with the data we have, and one more UOA (nor ten more) won't change that. There are still too many variables that cannot be accounted for, not the least being the difference in the PI packages of the oils in question leading to different, yet statistically insignificant, "wear metal" results.

If you're chasing UOA results, well, that can certainly be done. Translating that to wear results on a sample size of one simply cannot be done.

Are you referring to single test car by sample size of one? Well, sometimes that's all there is and what matters.
wink.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Vlad_the_Russian
I am with the OP. I used Magnatec 0w20 and got 2ppm of iron in 4k miles. Then I used Amalie EURO 5w40 and got 17ppm of iron in 4k miles.


Do you know whether that was due to wear, or chemistry on all the exposed ferrous components inside the engine ?

If so, how ?

The wear in question here comprises of at least 2 types/components, namely:
a )corrosion wear typically of major proportion - which does NOT corelate with operating viscosity/film thickness, and
b )adhesion wear and/or abrasion wear in minority - which corelates with operating viscosity/film thickness.
Hence our above discussion on wear , without this critical differentiation ...... is generally flawed!
 
... and is an old - low powered engine the best way to test and reach any conclusions on this subject ?
 
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
This is a good question. Glycol (antifreeze) contamination seems to affect chromium, aluminum, and lead most. I don't know the reason. Glycol apparently forms oil bubbles that explode under intense vibration in cylinders. Glycol also forms acids that etch certain metals such as lead (and perhaps chromium and aluminum as well). Acids could also act stronger in cylinders and rings due to high temperatures that increase the reaction rates.


I could see the lead (possibly from solder in an older car) and aluminum being from the cooling hardware itself, introduced into the oil by the leaking coolant. Not sure about chromium, but I'm sure it's possible...
 
Originally Posted By: Virtus_Probi
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
This is a good question. Glycol (antifreeze) contamination seems to affect chromium, aluminum, and lead most. I don't know the reason. Glycol apparently forms oil bubbles that explode under intense vibration in cylinders. Glycol also forms acids that etch certain metals such as lead (and perhaps chromium and aluminum as well). Acids could also act stronger in cylinders and rings due to high temperatures that increase the reaction rates.

I could see the lead (possibly from solder in an older car) and aluminum being from the cooling hardware itself, introduced into the oil by the leaking coolant. Not sure about chromium, but I'm sure it's possible...

The heater core is copper/brass/solder (lead/tin) and the A-series engine block may be nickel - chromium cast iron (Toyota history -- casting [link]).

However, given the tiny amount of coolant that could be seeped into the engine, I would more or less rule out any wear metals in the UOA coming from the corrosion metals in the coolant, which was replaced not too long ago.
 
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Not thick or thin but the right viscosity.

Didn't anyone learn anything from "Goldilocks and the Three Bears"

Engines want what THEY want, not what YOU want them to have
smile.gif



There you go. Oil needs to fit the current bearing clearances, the condition of the timing set and the valve train. Run what works, not some brand loyalty of stuck on some advertised viscosity.

If the coolant leak is truly fixed, I might suggest Delo 400 15W-30 SD (severe duty) and see what results you get. The number will be different. The add pak is different. The reaction with deposits will be different and that will toss off ions that have been trapped behind varnish and stuck in corners.

Most Fe metal comes from cylinder wear, or timing sets coming apart. Can't tell just based on UOA ...
 
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Are you referring to single test car by sample size of one? Well, sometimes that's all there is and what matters.
wink.gif


Yes, there is one car for a sample size, and even the sample size of tests is low. The glycol business didn't help any. Residual oil from one change to the last didn't help. Besides, you know how I feel about switching batch numbers, let alone viscosities, product lines, and brands.
wink.gif
 
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Not thick or thin but the right viscosity.

Didn't anyone learn anything from "Goldilocks and the Three Bears"

Engines want what THEY want, not what YOU want them to have
smile.gif




Engines want what THEY want, not what YOU want them to have
I likethat one ARCO--maybe you could repost this statement over, & over, & over, & over like TIG1 does with M1 0-20
Steve
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top