Looks like BITOG is on the radar of a few companies...interesting indeed.
Toyota TGMO 0W-20 SN VOA with VI, TBN, and TAN
- Thread starter Gokhan
- Start date
- Status
By the way, WearCheck USA is an accredited laboratory:
"The appearance of the Laboratory Accreditation Bureau ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation logo is meant to certify that WearCheck USA has met requirements for those parameters related to its accreditation."
"The appearance of the Laboratory Accreditation Bureau ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation logo is meant to certify that WearCheck USA has met requirements for those parameters related to its accreditation."
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
So, it looks like TGMO 0W-20 SN is the viscosity-index champion with its VI = 236, easily beating Eneos Sustina 0W-20 SN.
I cannot find it now, does anyone know the MRVs of these two oils above??
So, it looks like TGMO 0W-20 SN is the viscosity-index champion with its VI = 236, easily beating Eneos Sustina 0W-20 SN.
I cannot find it now, does anyone know the MRVs of these two oils above??
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Could they give an estimate of their error band in measurement ?
As I stated before, with error banding, the "correct" answer is a range.
I've asked him about the uncertainty. It's ±0.5 cSt for both KV40 and KV100 for virgin oil. For used oil, it's ±2 cSt. Note that this is an absolute, not percentage, uncertainty. Uncertainty is less for virgin oil because they do more than one measurement for virgin oil.
So, using the uncertainty,
TGMO 0W-20 SN VI = 236 ± 24
or TGMO 0W-20 SN VI = 212 - 260 (range).
Eneos Sustina 0W-20 SN manufacturer reported VI = 229. Nevertheless, it will also have an uncertainty; so, take that number with a grain of salt as well.
Both oils have industry-best VIs, arguably TGMO being a little higher. However, I definitely prefer TGMO in my application because it's thicker then Sustina, which appears very thin, and I don't want to go too thin in an engine that originally specifies viscosities in the 10W-30 - 20W-50 range.
Could they give an estimate of their error band in measurement ?
As I stated before, with error banding, the "correct" answer is a range.
I've asked him about the uncertainty. It's ±0.5 cSt for both KV40 and KV100 for virgin oil. For used oil, it's ±2 cSt. Note that this is an absolute, not percentage, uncertainty. Uncertainty is less for virgin oil because they do more than one measurement for virgin oil.
So, using the uncertainty,
TGMO 0W-20 SN VI = 236 ± 24
or TGMO 0W-20 SN VI = 212 - 260 (range).
Eneos Sustina 0W-20 SN manufacturer reported VI = 229. Nevertheless, it will also have an uncertainty; so, take that number with a grain of salt as well.
Both oils have industry-best VIs, arguably TGMO being a little higher. However, I definitely prefer TGMO in my application because it's thicker then Sustina, which appears very thin, and I don't want to go too thin in an engine that originally specifies viscosities in the 10W-30 - 20W-50 range.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Could they give an estimate of their error band in measurement ?
As I stated before, with error banding, the "correct" answer is a range.
I've asked him about the uncertainty. It's ±0.5 cSt for both KV40 and KV100 for virgin oil. For used oil, it's ±2 cSt. Note that this is an absolute, not percentage, uncertainty. Uncertainty is less for virgin oil because they do more than one measurement for virgin oil.
So, using the uncertainty,
TGMO 0W-20 SN VI = 236 ± 24
or TGMO 0W-20 SN VI = 212 - 260 (range).
That's what I said back in page 2 or three of the thread, and was getting $hitbagged for.
My estimate of 0.5cst error was obviously on the low side.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Take the Mobil MSDS figures, and say they are on the same machine for argument's sake, to rule out a variable.
Say that the machine has a full scale of 50, as if it can measure way more than the viscosities in question, it's accuracy at KV100 will be worse...each measurement is therefore +/- 0.5cst.
KV40 of 36.1 can be 35.6, or 36.6...will be somewhere in between,
KV100 of 8.5 can be 8, or 9. Similarly, it will be somewhere in between.
VI can therefore be anywhere from 200-249, and still be correct.
Looks like someone owes me a $100 membership...
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
And I'd be interested something worthwhile from your other than you typical pedantic harping. So what do you think the HTHSV is, you who has never used the oil or any other 20 grade for that matter. Not a clue just as I thought.
As far as the VI is concerned, since you seem to think the 236 figure is accurate, why don't you put your money where you mouth is and have the oil re-tested by another lab of your choosing.
The looser then makes a $100 donation to BITOG?
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Could they give an estimate of their error band in measurement ?
As I stated before, with error banding, the "correct" answer is a range.
I've asked him about the uncertainty. It's ±0.5 cSt for both KV40 and KV100 for virgin oil. For used oil, it's ±2 cSt. Note that this is an absolute, not percentage, uncertainty. Uncertainty is less for virgin oil because they do more than one measurement for virgin oil.
So, using the uncertainty,
TGMO 0W-20 SN VI = 236 ± 24
or TGMO 0W-20 SN VI = 212 - 260 (range).
That's what I said back in page 2 or three of the thread, and was getting $hitbagged for.
My estimate of 0.5cst error was obviously on the low side.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Take the Mobil MSDS figures, and say they are on the same machine for argument's sake, to rule out a variable.
Say that the machine has a full scale of 50, as if it can measure way more than the viscosities in question, it's accuracy at KV100 will be worse...each measurement is therefore +/- 0.5cst.
KV40 of 36.1 can be 35.6, or 36.6...will be somewhere in between,
KV100 of 8.5 can be 8, or 9. Similarly, it will be somewhere in between.
VI can therefore be anywhere from 200-249, and still be correct.
Looks like someone owes me a $100 membership...
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
And I'd be interested something worthwhile from your other than you typical pedantic harping. So what do you think the HTHSV is, you who has never used the oil or any other 20 grade for that matter. Not a clue just as I thought.
As far as the VI is concerned, since you seem to think the 236 figure is accurate, why don't you put your money where you mouth is and have the oil re-tested by another lab of your choosing.
The looser then makes a $100 donation to BITOG?
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
This is getting interesting!
I believe this is wby sae single weight oil has the 150 degree test to meet(probably to acertain oil stability)
Originally Posted By: Garak
When I get some time in a while (after the year end of my businesses), I'm going to see if I can simplify that function a bit. Aesthetically, that could give a mathematician a stroke.
Wasnt sparse fast fourier 2014 created espacialy with simplification in mind?
When I get some time in a while (after the year end of my businesses), I'm going to see if I can simplify that function a bit. Aesthetically, that could give a mathematician a stroke.
Wasnt sparse fast fourier 2014 created espacialy with simplification in mind?
Originally Posted By: Blue_Angel
Just a thought/question regarding the real world (ie high shear) VI of an oil. IF (and a big if) journal bearings represent the main contribution to the operating oil pressure of an engine, could we not plot oil pressure vs temperature for different oils in the same engine and get a sort of HTHS plot?
For example, plotting for two different oils (example Mobil 1 5w-30 and TGMO 0w-20), one having a much higher VI than the other, would we not be able to use a trend line from gathered data to see at which temperature those two oils would have effectively the same viscosity? It would require strict engine RPM control (like a vehicle on stands in gear with the cruise control set), and for the vehicle to have both oil temperature and pressure gauges.
We would be able to plot the ACTUAL viscosity change with temperature in high shear conditions.
any reason oil maker stop using 6 and 7 and replace with equal measure of graphene?
Just a thought/question regarding the real world (ie high shear) VI of an oil. IF (and a big if) journal bearings represent the main contribution to the operating oil pressure of an engine, could we not plot oil pressure vs temperature for different oils in the same engine and get a sort of HTHS plot?
For example, plotting for two different oils (example Mobil 1 5w-30 and TGMO 0w-20), one having a much higher VI than the other, would we not be able to use a trend line from gathered data to see at which temperature those two oils would have effectively the same viscosity? It would require strict engine RPM control (like a vehicle on stands in gear with the cruise control set), and for the vehicle to have both oil temperature and pressure gauges.
We would be able to plot the ACTUAL viscosity change with temperature in high shear conditions.
any reason oil maker stop using 6 and 7 and replace with equal measure of graphene?
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Looks like someone owes me a $100 membership...
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
And I'd be interested something worthwhile from your other than you typical pedantic harping. So what do you think the HTHSV is, you who has never used the oil or any other 20 grade for that matter. Not a clue just as I thought.
As far as the VI is concerned, since you seem to think the 236 figure is accurate, why don't you put your money where you mouth is and have the oil re-tested by another lab of your choosing.
The looser then makes a $100 donation to BITOG?
[/quote]
So you're still asserting that the VI is 236?
Looks like someone owes me a $100 membership...
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
And I'd be interested something worthwhile from your other than you typical pedantic harping. So what do you think the HTHSV is, you who has never used the oil or any other 20 grade for that matter. Not a clue just as I thought.
As far as the VI is concerned, since you seem to think the 236 figure is accurate, why don't you put your money where you mouth is and have the oil re-tested by another lab of your choosing.
The looser then makes a $100 donation to BITOG?
[/quote]
So you're still asserting that the VI is 236?
Originally Posted By: yvon_la
Wasnt sparse fast fourier 2014 created espacialy with simplification in mind?
I wouldn't be working off of raw data unless it were absolutely necessary, so straightening it out by hand would be the simplest.
Wasnt sparse fast fourier 2014 created espacialy with simplification in mind?
I wouldn't be working off of raw data unless it were absolutely necessary, so straightening it out by hand would be the simplest.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
So, CATERHAM is probably right that bearings are where the oil pressure is mostly determined.
You can see this paper for some info but there is not much detail.
I disagree... that paper shows in GREAT detail where the oil flow is most prominent!
On the last page there is a graph showing oil flow distribution in the lubrication system vs. RPM. Reading the values at 4000RPM (linear up to that point, just before the bypass valve starts diverting flow), the total oil pump flow is about 14 L/min. Out of that 14, about 7.5 is going to the main bearings and about 2.5 is going to the camshaft bearings (cam bearings are journal bearings too).
So in total, about 10/14 L/min is flowing through journal bearings, or over 70%.
Now it seems the only argument between KV and HTHSV WRT journal bearings would be; what percentage of bearing flow is side leakage at the wide end, and what percentage is flow at the wedge?
Based on Shannow's comments (ie the bearing will take what it needs), for a given supply temperature I would think the side leakage at the wide end will be more dependant on the supply pressure and the oil's KV, and flow at the wedge will be more dependant on bearing load/RPM and HTHSV.
Shannow, am I on the right track?
So, CATERHAM is probably right that bearings are where the oil pressure is mostly determined.
You can see this paper for some info but there is not much detail.
I disagree... that paper shows in GREAT detail where the oil flow is most prominent!
On the last page there is a graph showing oil flow distribution in the lubrication system vs. RPM. Reading the values at 4000RPM (linear up to that point, just before the bypass valve starts diverting flow), the total oil pump flow is about 14 L/min. Out of that 14, about 7.5 is going to the main bearings and about 2.5 is going to the camshaft bearings (cam bearings are journal bearings too).
So in total, about 10/14 L/min is flowing through journal bearings, or over 70%.
Now it seems the only argument between KV and HTHSV WRT journal bearings would be; what percentage of bearing flow is side leakage at the wide end, and what percentage is flow at the wedge?
Based on Shannow's comments (ie the bearing will take what it needs), for a given supply temperature I would think the side leakage at the wide end will be more dependant on the supply pressure and the oil's KV, and flow at the wedge will be more dependant on bearing load/RPM and HTHSV.
Shannow, am I on the right track?
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Viscosity index (VI) is a whopping 236, even shadowing JX Nippon Oil Eneos Sustina 0W-20 SN (VI 229) that boasts about its VI as its main selling point. This is showing that it's made of ExxonMobil's Visom Group III+ base stocks and very high-quality viscosity-index improver (VII).
Based on the VOA showing a NOACK of 10.3%, if it is using Visiom base stock could we assume then that it is Visiom 6 based on Mobil's reported 8.0 NOACK here:
http://www.exxonmobil.com/UK-English/Basestocks/PDS/GLXXENBSKEMVisom.aspx
If so, what else can we learn from the base stock specs? They list the KV100 as a range of 6.4-6.8, does this indicate a higher or lower percentage of VIIs needed compared to other lower VI oils? The base stock VI is listed at 142, a ways off the 214-236 VIs being shown from VOAs.
Viscosity index (VI) is a whopping 236, even shadowing JX Nippon Oil Eneos Sustina 0W-20 SN (VI 229) that boasts about its VI as its main selling point. This is showing that it's made of ExxonMobil's Visom Group III+ base stocks and very high-quality viscosity-index improver (VII).
Based on the VOA showing a NOACK of 10.3%, if it is using Visiom base stock could we assume then that it is Visiom 6 based on Mobil's reported 8.0 NOACK here:
http://www.exxonmobil.com/UK-English/Basestocks/PDS/GLXXENBSKEMVisom.aspx
If so, what else can we learn from the base stock specs? They list the KV100 as a range of 6.4-6.8, does this indicate a higher or lower percentage of VIIs needed compared to other lower VI oils? The base stock VI is listed at 142, a ways off the 214-236 VIs being shown from VOAs.
Mobil wouldn't be using Visom 6 as the base oil in TGMO as it's too heavy, they would be using Visom 4 (KV100 3.9-4.1cSt) which still has an impressive 136 VI if they are using it at all, even the most mundane GP III oil must have a VI of at least 120.
The base oil Sustina uses has a KV100 of 4.0cSt and a 140 VI.
It's the very high VI PMA type polymer VMs that result in the nominal 220 finished VIs of these oils.
The base oil Sustina uses has a KV100 of 4.0cSt and a 140 VI.
It's the very high VI PMA type polymer VMs that result in the nominal 220 finished VIs of these oils.
Thanks CATERHAM. I was just wondering based on the NOACK of the TGMO VOA at 10.3%. Mobil states the NOACK of Visiom 4 at 14.8%, I was assuming (not a good idea) that NOACK would increase with additives... guess not!
Yes I've been somewhat skeptical of that low Noack value that came from a single European VOA of TGMO.
Sustina's Noack is 13%.
Sustina's Noack is 13%.
Originally Posted By: Blue_Angel
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
So, CATERHAM is probably right that bearings are where the oil pressure is mostly determined.
You can see this paper for some info but there is not much detail.
I disagree... that paper shows in GREAT detail where the oil flow is most prominent!
On the last page there is a graph showing oil flow distribution in the lubrication system vs. RPM. Reading the values at 4000RPM (linear up to that point, just before the bypass valve starts diverting flow), the total oil pump flow is about 14 L/min. Out of that 14, about 7.5 is going to the main bearings and about 2.5 is going to the camshaft bearings (cam bearings are journal bearings too).
So in total, about 10/14 L/min is flowing through journal bearings, or over 70%.
Now it seems the only argument between KV and HTHSV WRT journal bearings would be; what percentage of bearing flow is side leakage at the wide end, and what percentage is flow at the wedge?
Based on Shannow's comments (ie the bearing will take what it needs), for a given supply temperature I would think the side leakage at the wide end will be more dependant on the supply pressure and the oil's KV, and flow at the wedge will be more dependant on bearing load/RPM and HTHSV.
Shannow, am I on the right track?
Shannow, any insight?
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
So, CATERHAM is probably right that bearings are where the oil pressure is mostly determined.
You can see this paper for some info but there is not much detail.
I disagree... that paper shows in GREAT detail where the oil flow is most prominent!
On the last page there is a graph showing oil flow distribution in the lubrication system vs. RPM. Reading the values at 4000RPM (linear up to that point, just before the bypass valve starts diverting flow), the total oil pump flow is about 14 L/min. Out of that 14, about 7.5 is going to the main bearings and about 2.5 is going to the camshaft bearings (cam bearings are journal bearings too).
So in total, about 10/14 L/min is flowing through journal bearings, or over 70%.
Now it seems the only argument between KV and HTHSV WRT journal bearings would be; what percentage of bearing flow is side leakage at the wide end, and what percentage is flow at the wedge?
Based on Shannow's comments (ie the bearing will take what it needs), for a given supply temperature I would think the side leakage at the wide end will be more dependant on the supply pressure and the oil's KV, and flow at the wedge will be more dependant on bearing load/RPM and HTHSV.
Shannow, am I on the right track?
Shannow, any insight?
- Status
