Who makes Toyota Synthetic 0 W 20???

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: dailydriver
CATERHAM;

Do you still hold to the claim that the SN, XOM made TGMO cannot possibly have the Sustina beating, 236 VI which others claim, and one oil analysis company has tested it at??

The 236 VI is just one VOA from a lab that's been wrong before and Toyota doesn't even claim it's that high.
If we had a second VOA from another lab confirming the VI that would get my attention. As it stands the evidence points in the direction of Sustina having a higher VI than SN TGMO.

Here are some observations:
-The base oil Sustina uses has a VI of 140. Even if XOM is using their best GP III+ Visom 4 base oil, it's VI is 136. Not a big difference but a difference nonetheless. That means it up to the polymer VII to make up the difference and them some. Certainly not impossible but unlikely.
-Sustina has a considerably lower KV40 spec' of 32.69cSt and the WearCheck VOA came in at 36.15cSt. Assuming both oils have the same nominal HTHSV of 2.6cP (that's what Sustina claims) then Sustina has a lower viscosity change between those two temperature points.
-And not directly connected to VI but Sustina has a very low MRV (9630cP) and CCS (3550cP) stat's. We don't know what it is for the latest SN TGMO but the original had a MRV of 18,000cP.

But this really is an unfair comparison since Sustina 0W-20, Nippon Oil's flag ship product, is considerably more expensive than TGMO. If the comparison is based on value, TGMO 0W-20 is the obvious winner.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
CATERHAM;

Do you still hold to the claim that the SN, XOM made TGMO cannot possibly have the Sustina beating, 236 VI which others claim, and one oil analysis company has tested it at??

The 236 VI is just one VOA from a lab that's been wrong before and Toyota doesn't even claim it's that high.
If we had a second VOA from another lab confirming the VI that would get my attention. As it stands the evidence points in the direction of Sustina having a higher VI than SN TGMO.

Here are some observations:
-The base oil Sustina uses has a VI of 140. Even if XOM is using their best GP III+ Visom 4 base oil, it's VI is 136. Not a big difference but a difference nonetheless. That means it up to the polymer VII to make up the difference and them some. Certainly not impossible but unlikely.
-Sustina has a considerably lower KV40 spec' of 32.69cSt and the WearCheck VOA came in at 36.15cSt. Assuming both oils have the same nominal HTHSV of 2.6cP (that's what Sustina claims) then Sustina has a lower viscosity change between those two temperature points.
-And not directly connected to VI but Sustina has a very low MRV (9630cP) and CCS (3550cP) stat's. We don't know what it is for the latest SN TGMO but the original had a MRV of 18,000cP.

But this really is an unfair comparison since Sustina 0W-20, Nippon Oil's flag ship product, is considerably more expensive than TGMO. If the comparison is based on value, TGMO 0W-20 is the obvious winner.

Even individual samples of TGMO and Sustina will have variations (easily 5 - 10%), and it hardly matters if one has a slightly VI than the other. VI of 220 vs. 230 makes little difference and, as I said, it's well within the margin of individual sample variation to claim that one oil has higher VI than the other.

WearCheck is one of the best oil labs around and their numbers are to be trusted within the margin of error. As I said, within the margin of test error and sample error, it's impossible to claim victory on just a sample or two and there is no guarantee that your sample will have a higher VI because of sample variations.

 

[CATERHAM]

The actual VI doesn't vary much from what the formulator claims if the final KV100 of the oil is in line with the what's claimed.
Your claiming a higher VI than what Toyota states which frankly makes no sense particularly based on just one VOA.
Asserting that WearCheck is one of the best labs around means nothing. As I pointed out in your VOA posting, WearCheck was totally out to lunch on their VOA of the original TGMO.
We have three other VOAs on the SN TGMO with VIs at 216, 215 and 220 that I've seen

I appreciate you think TGMO is a great motor oil and I do as well but lets not exaggerate the fact with unconfirmed claims.

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
CATERHAM;

Do you still hold to the claim that the SN, XOM made TGMO cannot possibly have the Sustina beating, 236 VI which others claim, and one oil analysis company has tested it at??

The 236 VI is just one VOA from a lab that's been wrong before and Toyota doesn't even claim it's that high.
If we had a second VOA from another lab confirming the VI that would get my attention. As it stands the evidence points in the direction of Sustina having a higher VI than SN TGMO.

Here are some observations:
-The base oil Sustina uses has a VI of 140. Even if XOM is using their best GP III+ Visom 4 base oil, it's VI is 136. Not a big difference but a difference nonetheless. That means it up to the polymer VII to make up the difference and them some. Certainly not impossible but unlikely.
-Sustina has a considerably lower KV40 spec' of 32.69cSt and the WearCheck VOA came in at 36.15cSt. Assuming both oils have the same nominal HTHSV of 2.6cP (that's what Sustina claims) then Sustina has a lower viscosity change between those two temperature points.
-And not directly connected to VI but Sustina has a very low MRV (9630cP) and CCS (3550cP) stat's. We don't know what it is for the latest SN TGMO but the original had a MRV of 18,000cP.

But this really is an unfair comparison since Sustina 0W-20, Nippon Oil's flag ship product, is considerably more expensive than TGMO. If the comparison is based on value, TGMO 0W-20 is the obvious winner.


So in other words, (taking cost/value completely out of the equation) if one is looking for a COLD winter use oil (or oil to blend with a higher HTHSV oil), go with the Sustina.

If being used for a summer OCI, or a summer OCI blend, the TGMO might actually be preferred, correct?

 

[Shannow]

So what DOES Toyota claim as the VI in the absence of an actual specification document ?

or is it simply the VI CALCULATED from the KV40/KV100 on the MSDS (which is not even a specification sheet in reality) ?

In the TGMO thread we discussed lab testing error, and how the results for KV40/100 are well within measurement bands, and how VIs ranging over a spread of 30-40 are still "correct"...

In fact, Mobil probably have exactly the same levels of error in their batch to batch quality testing.

 

[BISCUT]

Originally Posted By: gregk24
Originally Posted By: BISCUT
Originally Posted By: gregk24
Yes, TGMO 0w20 is manufactured by Exxon Mobil, but its a much different oil than M1 0w20. Both are great oils, but in everyday driving I think TGMO has the edge. Thats what I would use.


I'm not badgering but asking to learn something. Can you explain? What edge does it have over M1 0-20?


Well in everyday driving it will be lighter at all start up temps vs the M1, does that make a difference in longevity? Idk, but its a plus for sure. I like the fact that it has a lot more calcium than M1, again does that make a real world difference, no one could tell you. I also like the fact that it might have the Trimer Infinium Moly (that is the general consensus of some on here) most likely M1 also has this type of moly, even if they both do...TGMO has more. I take all of these as advantages, again, weather or not it will make a difference in the long run, no one could tell you. I am also impressed with the TBN retention of TGMO. I did 5 months of short trips (and I mean less than 1 mile trips, multiple times a day...during the winter) in my Accord, and the TBN went from 6.? to 4.1, that in my eyes is nothing short of excellent. I know 5 months is not THAT long, but thats 5 months of short trips. So thats why I think TGMO has the edge over M1. Use either, your car will probably rust out before the engine gives because you used 1 over the other, but hey this is BITOG we obsess about this stuff =P


Thanks for taking the time to elaborate on your position. 5 months of 1 mile short trips under winter temps can be harsh.

 

[KitaCam]

Originally Posted By: BISCUT

Thanks for taking the time to elaborate on your position. 5 months of 1 mile short trips under winter temps can be harsh.


Greg's winter is in Florida....so not so harsh...

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
CATERHAM;

Do you still hold to the claim that the SN, XOM made TGMO cannot possibly have the Sustina beating, 236 VI which others claim, and one oil analysis company has tested it at??

The 236 VI is just one VOA from a lab that's been wrong before and Toyota doesn't even claim it's that high.
If we had a second VOA from another lab confirming the VI that would get my attention. As it stands the evidence points in the direction of Sustina having a higher VI than SN TGMO.

Here are some observations:
-The base oil Sustina uses has a VI of 140. Even if XOM is using their best GP III+ Visom 4 base oil, it's VI is 136. Not a big difference but a difference nonetheless. That means it up to the polymer VII to make up the difference and them some. Certainly not impossible but unlikely.
-Sustina has a considerably lower KV40 spec' of 32.69cSt and the WearCheck VOA came in at 36.15cSt. Assuming both oils have the same nominal HTHSV of 2.6cP (that's what Sustina claims) then Sustina has a lower viscosity change between those two temperature points.
-And not directly connected to VI but Sustina has a very low MRV (9630cP) and CCS (3550cP) stat's. We don't know what it is for the latest SN TGMO but the original had a MRV of 18,000cP.

But this really is an unfair comparison since Sustina 0W-20, Nippon Oil's flag ship product, is considerably more expensive than TGMO. If the comparison is based on value, TGMO 0W-20 is the obvious winner.


So in other words, (taking cost/value completely out of the equation) if one is looking for a COLD winter use oil (or oil to blend with a higher HTHSV oil), go with the Sustina.

If being used for a summer OCI, or a summer OCI blend, the TGMO might actually be preferred, correct?

For the reasons I've mentioned there is no doubt in my mind that Sustina has a higher VI than TGMO, as minor as that might be, but it's a benefit that applies both year round.
If you're not concerned with cost I'd choose Sustina over TGMO. Remember it has other advantages such as it's sulfur free ZP AW additive.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
CATERHAM;

Do you still hold to the claim that the SN, XOM made TGMO cannot possibly have the Sustina beating, 236 VI which others claim, and one oil analysis company has tested it at??

The 236 VI is just one VOA from a lab that's been wrong before and Toyota doesn't even claim it's that high.
If we had a second VOA from another lab confirming the VI that would get my attention. As it stands the evidence points in the direction of Sustina having a higher VI than SN TGMO.

Here are some observations:
-The base oil Sustina uses has a VI of 140. Even if XOM is using their best GP III+ Visom 4 base oil, it's VI is 136. Not a big difference but a difference nonetheless. That means it up to the polymer VII to make up the difference and them some. Certainly not impossible but unlikely.
-Sustina has a considerably lower KV40 spec' of 32.69cSt and the WearCheck VOA came in at 36.15cSt. Assuming both oils have the same nominal HTHSV of 2.6cP (that's what Sustina claims) then Sustina has a lower viscosity change between those two temperature points.
-And not directly connected to VI but Sustina has a very low MRV (9630cP) and CCS (3550cP) stat's. We don't know what it is for the latest SN TGMO but the original had a MRV of 18,000cP.

But this really is an unfair comparison since Sustina 0W-20, Nippon Oil's flag ship product, is considerably more expensive than TGMO. If the comparison is based on value, TGMO 0W-20 is the obvious winner.


So in other words, (taking cost/value completely out of the equation) if one is looking for a COLD winter use oil (or oil to blend with a higher HTHSV oil), go with the Sustina.

If being used for a summer OCI, or a summer OCI blend, the TGMO might actually be preferred, correct?

For the reasons I've mentioned there is no doubt in my mind that Sustina has a higher VI than TGMO, as minor as that might be, but it's a benefit that applies both year round.
If you're not concerned with cost I'd choose Sustina over TGMO. Remember it has other advantages such as it's sulfur free ZP AW additive.

I wouldn't use the Sustina even if it was available for cheap. I don't trust the Japanese oil-additive companies as much as the US oil-additive companies. There isn't nearly as much oil research taking place in Japan as in US. Besides, I doubt any oil can match the performance I am getting out of the TGMO 0W-20 SN.

 

[dailydriver]

 

[dbvettez061]

good grief, did not mean to start a war! lol Soooo, i deduce from some of this that if i where to use Mobil 1 it would be about the same as the very expensive dealership oil??

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: dbvettez061
good grief, did not mean to start a war! lol Soooo, i deduce from some of this that if i where to use Mobil 1 it would be about the same as the very expensive dealership oil??


Those who either do not care about VI, or don't think it is important in the least, might actually think the M1 0W-20s are better than the XOM made TGMO product.

Those who place MUCH importance on VI will always say that the TGMO is vastly superior to the on the shelf M1 0W-20s.

IF one goes by quart bottle prices (depending on where each is bought), the cost differences are NOT that great between the TGMO and the M1 0W-20s, even when the Mobil 1 is on sale at NAPA in quart bottles for $5.99 (ONLY the AFE, as NAPAs do not even carry the EP, around here at least).

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: dbvettez061
good grief, did not mean to start a war! lol Soooo, i deduce from some of this that if i where to use Mobil 1 it would be about the same as the very expensive dealership oil??

It's not very expensive. List price of TGMO 0W-20 SN is $7.22 and some dealers will give you discount if you negotiate and will go down to $5 - 6. You may get a discount if you buy a whole case.

The only place where M1 is cheap is at Wal-Mart. However, most Wal-Mart stores don't carry the 0W-20. Auto store price for M1 AFE 0W-20 SN is $9.19 for the quart bottle and $37.99 for the 5 qt jug. So, M1 AFE 0W-20 SN is more expensive than TGMO 0W-20 SN's list price, except if you can find the 5 qt jug at Wal-Mart. Besides, it's generic oil versus the custom-made TGMO.

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: dbvettez061
good grief, did not mean to start a war! lol Soooo, i deduce from some of this that if i where to use Mobil 1 it would be about the same as the very expensive dealership oil??

It's not very expensive. List price of TGMO 0W-20 SN is $7.22 and some dealers will give you discount if you negotiate and will go down to $5 - 6. You may get a discount if you buy a whole case.

The only place where M1 is cheap is at Wal-Mart. However, most Wal-Mart stores don't carry the 0W-20. Auto store price for M1 AFE 0W-20 SN is $9.19 for the quart bottle and $37.99 for the 5 qt jug. So, M1 AFE 0W-20 SN is more expensive than TGMO 0W-20 SN's list price, except if you can find the 5 qt jug at Wal-Mart. Besides, it's generic oil versus the custom-made TGMO.


Where did you get the info that "most Wms don't carry the M1 0-20"? Around these parts all do. Just sayin. Also parts stores like AZ, AA, O'Reilly's, and Pep Boys often put sales on M1 0-20. And you don't have to negotiate. Just sayin.

 

[Gokhan]

Perhaps it's not carried as much in California because Walmart folks think it's too thin for warmer weather. Who knows.

You don't have to negotiate but wait for a sale, which is even worse.

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Perhaps it's not carried as much in California because Walmart folks think it's too thin for warmer weather. Who knows.

You don't have to negotiate but wait for a sale, which is even worse.

I know around here parts houses often put oils on sale. However since all WMs sell M1 0-20(and it gets very hot here. Often summer temps in the 95 to 105 and above)I always buy M1 their. For the record, M1 0-20 is a great 0-20 for hot temps.

 

[Gokhan]

M1 0W-20 was impossible to find in California Walmart's a year or two ago. Things have probably changed.

While it's a no - no to use generic antifreeze (Prestone, Zerex, etc.) in most newer engines, oil is much more standardized and it won't make much difference to use generic oil like Mobil 1 or it won't even make much difference if you don't follow the precise viscosity or certification specs. This said, I still prefer the custom-made TGMO over generic Mobil 1 in my Toyota. Amount of VIIs, amount and type of the AW/EP/FM/AO additives, and type of detergents and dispersants are all determined by the Toyota engineers. TGMO is also proven in field tests by the BITOG users.

 

[KrisZ]

Hate to burst your bubble Gokhan, but TGMO was not custom-made to fit the needs of your 85 Corolla engine.

 

[steveh]

Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Hate to burst your bubble Gokhan, but TGMO was not custom-made to fit the needs of your 85 Corolla engine.

I don't know how his Toyota made it for almost 30 years and 250,000 without TGMO.

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
It's not very expensive. List price of TGMO 0W-20 SN is $7.22 and some dealers will give you discount if you negotiate and will go down to $5 - 6. You may get a discount if you buy a whole case.


IF that is the actual national list price for TGMO, then some of the dealers in my area, and where I used to live, are blatantly ripping Toy owners off, since many charge $8.50-$9.00+ per quart, and will NOT budge from that price, even on case lots or more.