Home

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

Posted By: Gokhan

Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/18/17 02:41 AM

This is the ultimate question asked on BITOG. What protects better -- thin or thick oil? Of course, if you say you should follow the recommendation in your owners' manual, you shouldn't be on this site to begin with.

There are many folks here who think that they are better off filling their engine with water than with anything thinner than SAE xW-40. On the other hand, there is also the Dr. Haas school, who believe that thin oil protects better because it flows better. So, why is there still no consensus on this? Which is it?

To experiment with this, what is better than a simple but very well-built 1980s engine that was built before even multigrade xW-20 existed. In fact, it doesn't even recommend 5W-30 in warm temperatures. 10W-30, 10W-40, 10W-50, 15W-40, 20W-40, and 20W-50 are the recommended grades, with the 10W-xx grades covering the widest temperature range.

I was already getting good results with TGMO (Toyota) 0W-20 SN made by ExxonMobil. There was apparently some antifreeze seep problem and I used ACDelco cooling-system seal tabs before the last oil change, which seems to have alleviated the problem.

Oil consumption with TGMO 0W-20 SN was small thanks to new valve-stem oil seals -- about 0.3 quarts in 5,000 miles. The last fill was Mobil 1 (M1) 0W-40 SN (older, non-FS formula). Oil consumption stayed the same or perhaps increased slighly to about 0.4 quarts in 5,000 miles. I was surprised that thicker oil didn't improve the consumption -- in fact made it slightly worse. So, TGMO 0W-20 won over M1 0W-40 in the consumption department or perhaps it was a near tie.

Sodium (Na) in fact went down thanks to the seal tabs. However, I still have some coolant loss, probably seeping externally.

Wear numbers were the real surprise, even though they were something I long feared and suspected about thicker oil.

Iron went from 12 ppm to 18 ppm when I switched from TGMO 0W-20 to M1 0W-40 -- a 50% increase in iron wear when switching from thin to thick.

With M1 0W-40, all of a sudden nickel (Ni) appeared, which was near nonexistent with TGMO 0W-20.

Aluminum, lead, and copper were similar with either oil.

Chromium has improved with M1 0W-40 SN, but I attribute that to ACDelco cooling-system seal tabs rather than the oil, as antifreeze (glycol) is known to cause ring wear.

TAN was similar with either oil.

M1 0W-40 TBN was expectedly higher, as it has a very high starting TBN.

ZDDP (phosphorus [P]) levels were similar in either oil.

TGMO 0W-20 had a lot more moly (probably the trinuclear type) than M1 0W-40.

Fuel economy was a lot better with TGMO 0W-20 than with M1 0W-40.

Engine idled somewhat smoother with TGMO 0W-20 than with M1 0W-40 due to less viscous drag.

Conclusion: TGMO 0W-20 SN protects better against wear than M1 0W-40 SN. Iron wear is a lot less. This is probably due to better oil flow of thinner 0W-20, which helps more oil to get to critical parts, such as the valvetrain.

TGMO may also have some additive advantages over M1, such as higher moly. In fact other grades of M1, such as M1 0W-20 SN, worry me even more as they have very skinny additive packages.

Fancier base stocks (PAO and ester in addition to Group III) in M1 may also have contributed to higher wear in comparison to the Group III TGMO, as esters for example are well known to increase wear by competing for the surfaces with the antiwear additives.

Less wear and better fuel economy makes TGMO 0W-20 a clear better choice over M1 0W-40. TGMO 0W-20 may be even better for less oil consumption. However, M1 0W-40's higher TBN might help in extended OCIs (over 10,000 miles). Last but not least, not all engines are the same and there may be some engine that really needs thicker oil.

I have also lost my trust in European (ACEA) oils after this. Perhaps that BMW would run better with TGMO 0W-20 SN than with ACEA A3/B4 Mobil 1 0W-40 or German Castrol 0W-40.

TGMO once again has reinforced my trust.

I think we should give Dr. Haas the credit he deserves. Thin wins.



Posted By: 901Memphis

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/18/17 02:44 AM

Let's say the iron was from using an ExxonMobil product and Castrol Edge 0w40 wouldn't have done that?
Posted By: Brybo86

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/18/17 02:59 AM

I wish this was done on an engine without coolant loss.

Try a different Xw40 next
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/18/17 03:03 AM

http://www.substech.com/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=effect_of_low_viscosity_oils_on_engine_bearings

Of course thick protects better than thin, because with thick you have a greater MOFT which helps prevent wear from metal-to-metal contact. That the main reason why every manufacturer of high performance cars say to run a thicker oil if tracking the car. The oil will get much hotter on the track than in normal street driving, and that could thin it down to a dangerous level.

So "thin" can also be created by heating the oil up too much for the intended purpose. I would say most xW-20 motor oils would protect well if used in non-demanding applications (ie, never seeing over 210~220 deg F), but not so much in a harsh use case like track use or heavy towing, etc.
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/18/17 03:17 AM

Where would nickel come from in an engine?
Posted By: aquariuscsm

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/18/17 03:39 AM

I've done three uoa's so far. RP Synerlec SJ rated 20W50,M1 10W40HM,and GTX 20W50. The 10W40 M1 had slightly higher wear metals than the two 20W50s,with the GTX 20W50 being the best of the bunch. My next uoa will be Pennzoil Platinum HM 10W30. I'm highly anticipating those results to compare to the previous three.
Posted By: OPR4H

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/18/17 03:45 AM

Coins in the sump, rsrsrs, or Cr-Ni-Mo steel alloy.
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/18/17 03:53 AM

Not very helpful.

I did find this. https://bobistheoilguy.com/engine-oil-analysis/

Looks like the main bearings might be a source. I noticed the lead numbers as well. This is an old engine which probably explains these findings.

I wonder what the analysis would show with a good 5W-30? That might be the ideal weight.
Posted By: y_p_w

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/18/17 03:57 AM

Originally Posted By: PimTac
Where would nickel come from in an engine?

Maybe a steel alloy or bearing material. Blocks are aluminum. Maybe some exotic aluminum alloy using some nickel?
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/18/17 04:02 AM

I don't think Toyota was manufacturing aluminum blocks in 1985. Most likely cast iron block with aluminum heads.
Posted By: 4WD

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/18/17 04:05 AM

And there were 20's ...
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/18/17 04:29 AM

Originally Posted By: PimTac
I don't think Toyota was manufacturing aluminum blocks in 1985. Most likely cast iron block with aluminum heads.

Correct.

Originally Posted By: PimTac
I don't think Toyota was manufacturing aluminum blocks in 1985. Most likely cast iron block with aluminum heads.

Unlikely, as that was older Group IV/V formulations (with esters fighting for the surfaces with antiwear additives) of M1. In addition M1 0W-40 never had that issue.

Originally Posted By: Brybo86
I wish this was done on an engine without coolant loss.

Try a different Xw40 next

Coolant loss (sodium) has improved a lot after the ACDelco tabs, which were added just before the M1 0W-40 SN oil change. This seems to show as better chromium (ring wear) numbers and possibly better lead numbers as well.

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
http://www.substech.com/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=effect_of_low_viscosity_oils_on_engine_bearings

Of course thick protects better than thin, because with thick you have a greater MOFT which helps prevent wear from metal-to-metal contact. That the main reason why every manufacturer of high performance cars say to run a thicker oil if tracking the car. The oil will get much hotter on the track than in normal street driving, and that could thin it down to a dangerous level.

So "thin" can also be created by heating the oil up too much for the intended purpose. I would say most xW-20 motor oils would protect well if used in non-demanding applications (ie, never seeing over 210~220 deg F), but not so much in a harsh use case like track use or heavy towing, etc.

Bearing wear (lead) doesn't seem to have improved with 0W-40. Therefore, viscosity of 0W-20 seems sufficient for this application to prevent bearing oil-film breakdown.

Originally Posted By: PimTac
Where would nickel come from in an engine?

This is a very good reference on UOAs:

http://machinerylubrication.com/Read/854/oil-analysis-tests

Top-end-wear (engines): Characterized by increased levels of Fe (cylinder liner), Al (pistons), and Cr (rings). The presence of Ni usually indicates camshaft/cam follower wear.

Nickel (Ni) seems to be coming from the camshaft. I think iron is coming mostly from the camshaft, too. I have sliding, not rolling, rocker arms, which increases camshaft wear.

My understanding is that it's hard for the oil to reach the valvetrain, which sits all the way at the top of the engine. 0W-20 is producing a better oil flow than 0W-40 and valvetrain is getting more oil and therefore better lubrication with 0W-20. Since valvetrain works in the boundary lubrication regime (metal-to-metal contact), antiwear/extreme-pressure additives play the most important part and viscosity is not as critical in providing an oil film (as there is hardly an oil film). Better oil flow of 0W-20 seems to lubricate the valvetrain better in this application.

Since the viscosity of 0W-20 seems to be sufficient to protect the bearings and it seems to lubricate the valvetrain better, I see no reason to run anything thicker than 0W-20 in this application. Thicker oil is not only increasing wear but also obviously hurting the fuel economy and performance.
Posted By: OPR4H

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/18/17 04:31 AM

Besides cam, the cylinder sleeves I was talking about its steel, most Fe, some Ni, Mo and Cr. Head lubrication will depend on oil pump pressure. Do you have on in spec or not.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/18/17 04:49 AM

Originally Posted By: OPR4H
Besides cam, the cylinder sleeves I was talking about its steel, most Fe, some Ni, Mo and Cr. Head lubrication will depend on oil pump pressure. Do you have on in spec or not.

Everything is stock.
Posted By: 6starprez

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/18/17 06:11 AM

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.
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/18/17 08:58 AM

Wow...
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/18/17 09:27 AM

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Bearing wear (lead) doesn't seem to have improved with 0W-40. Therefore, viscosity of 0W-20 seems sufficient for this application to prevent bearing oil-film breakdown.


Seems a bit inconclusive since the levels for chromium (rings), aluminum (pistons & cam journals) and lead (main & rod bearings) went up in the 0W-20 run dated 9/7/15 compared to the 0W-20 run dated 2/22/14. The 0W-20 run dated 9/7/15 also shows higher in those same metals compared to the 0W-40 run.
Posted By: Timo325

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/18/17 10:07 AM

Originally Posted By: 4WD
And there were 20's ...



I want!

Heads are rolling over this thread.
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/18/17 10:26 AM

flow doesn't lubricate...AEHaas never ever could provide any supportive evidence on flow=lubrication, nor could one of his keenest adherants.

As the the test methodology here, there's no back to backs, or even repeat testing, i.e. 0W20, 0W40, 0W20. 0W40, 0W20 to see if the correlations even hold...without a possible (or confirmed) coolant leak...then there's the assumptions on what the metals in the oil actually mean.

Pretty conclusive conclusion given the above, eh ?
Posted By: KL31

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/18/17 10:37 AM

I'm with Shannow on this. Regardless of whether the test showed 0w40 better or 0w20 better, it's very hard to prove anything with such small sample sizes.

Just too many variables. I encourage the OP to make this thread on going. Give us more results and try to stay neutral. One scenario is that they both end up being rather equal and you pick 0w20 for fuel economy. But just one run off each.... give us more. Switch brands if you desire but keep it 0w20 vs 0w40.
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/18/17 10:45 AM

http://machinerylubrication.com/Read/518/motor-oils
Posted By: demarpaint

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/18/17 10:53 AM

Interesting read. I always thought you needed to run at least two to three runs of the same oil/grade, in a mechanically sound engine then make the switch and repeat before coming to any conclusions. The problem is it would take a very long time for most of us to complete the testing. I'm with Shannow on this as well.
Posted By: Astro14

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/18/17 11:13 AM

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".
Posted By: BigD1

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/18/17 11:22 AM

Some people claim that Mobil 1 UOA have more iron. Cleaning out what lesser oils leave behind possibly.
Posted By: doyall

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/18/17 11:53 AM

Amazing, simply amazing.
Posted By: KrisZ

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/18/17 12:00 PM

All I see is extremely strong conclusions in light of very weak "evidence".
Posted By: Virtus_Probi

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/18/17 12:08 PM

Iron went up by 50%, but chromium went down by 62%, so M1 0W40 wins.

EOD
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/18/17 12:17 PM

Here's some extended UOAs with the same viscosity, different make-up and add packs....

http://www.brianschreurs.org/neptune.spacebears.com/cars/stories/mobil1.html
http://www.brianschreurs.org/neptune.spacebears.com/cars/stories/amsoil.html
Posted By: Virtus_Probi

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/18/17 12:31 PM

Originally Posted By: Shannow


Did you not note my End Of Discussion post...hmmmm???
;^)

The copper levels in those UOAs look horrifying to me, particularly with the M1 when the engine is new. I know some engines will read high copper when new, but they still look nuts with Amsoil when the engine has over 30kmiles on it. Was that just the nature of that engine, maybe due to an oil cooler or something like that?
Interesting that they found that Amsoil thickened so much...M1 has the (deserved?) reputation for shearing, and it seemed that even the promotional materials for M1 AP showed it losing viscosity faster than the oils to which it was being compared. But, XOM claimed that the catastrophic thickening would occur much later with the AP, hence the 1 year/20kmile claims.
Posted By: kr_bitog

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/18/17 12:32 PM

Quote:
Oil consumption with TGMO 0W-20 SN was small thanks to new valve-stem oil seals -- about 0.3 quarts in 5,000 miles. The last fill was Mobil 1 (M1) 0W-40 SN (older, non-FS formula). Oil consumption stayed the same or perhaps increased slightly to about 0.4 quarts in 5,000 miles. I was surprised that thicker oil didn't improve the consumption -- in fact made it slightly worse.


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

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/18/17 12:34 PM

Originally Posted By: Virtus_Probi
Did you not note my End Of Discussion post...hmmmm???
;^)


Sorry, was not familiar with that TLA... sick
Posted By: Virtus_Probi

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/18/17 12:44 PM

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Virtus_Probi
Did you not note my End Of Discussion post...hmmmm???
;^)


Sorry, was not familiar with that TLA... sick



I had to look that one up and now I feel dumb...
:^(
Posted By: tig1

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/18/17 01:00 PM

Originally Posted By: 4WD
And there were 20's ...



I used M1 5-20 in an engine calling for 10-40 in 1978. Engine started much better in cold temps and ran smoother as well in all temps.
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/18/17 01:09 PM

Originally Posted By: tig1
I used M1 5-20 in an engine calling for 10-40 in 1978. Engine started much better in cold temps and ran smoother as well in all temps.


AND we've been over (and over) that the M1 5W20 was VII free, all basestock, and was more like Redline 5W20 n reality, with it's 2.9HTHS (which some would call "really a 30, including Dr Haas and CATERHAM, in spite of what J300 states)...and that was in an Era when 10W40 had no HTHS minimum, and may of them were woefuly inadequate....which lead to some OEMs decrying 10W40, and denying warranty should such oil be used.

Industry then started investigating "apparent" viscosity in high shear, and assigned 0W, 5W, and 10W 40s the same HTHS minimum of 2.9 as they assigned the 30s...that's how "good" the 10W40s were back then.

And so, when Mobil stated that their 5W20 monograde (no VIIs) gave the same protection as a 10W40, they weren't telling fibs...but they aren't (and we've been over this more than a dozen times) the same measures...and TGMO has nearly nothing to do with M1 5W20 the way it was originally made, in any way that you cut it....
Posted By: Kuato

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/18/17 01:26 PM

Interesting results, and I agree more testing is needed. I am currently performing a thick vs thin test of my own; it will be awhile before it is finished but I'll try to remember to post here when I have the results.
Posted By: KCJeep

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/18/17 02:04 PM

Tig has about 3 posts over and over again don't even bother.

Gokhan, great information and very interesting post. Thank you for taking the time to do so. I personally don't think you have the data to make the conclusions you did, but I am not going to sit here and throw internet rocks either.

It would have been nice to have seen the exact same oil brand and formulations compared against each other except in different weights.
Posted By: ARCOgraphite

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/18/17 02:05 PM

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
Posted By: pbm

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/18/17 02:19 PM

When in doubt...why not split the difference and run a thin 5w30 like Havoline syn. or even PP.....that's what I would do....in fact, that's what I do on my 2008 Corolla with the 1ZZFE.
Posted By: robertcope

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/18/17 02:36 PM

Final Verdict! LOL. C'mon, this isn't enough samples to begin to begin to draw conclusions from.
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/18/17 02:50 PM

Just like thick or thin crust pizza, there will never be agreement. In my opinion, both have their advantages depending on the application.
Posted By: HKPolice

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/18/17 03:12 PM

These results make a lot of sense because you only drove 5K miles over 2 years which means mostly short trips?

If you were racing or have a lead foot, the 5w40's wear numbers would probably be the same as 0w20 or slightly better.
Posted By: FlyPenFly

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/18/17 03:58 PM

The differences seem to be within the margin of error.
Posted By: harryberry

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/18/17 04:21 PM

Awesome! Very interesting!
Posted By: doyall

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/18/17 04:25 PM

Originally Posted By: FlyPenFly
The differences seem to be within the margin of error.


Why let statistical mumbojumbo get in the way?
Posted By: Nickdfresh

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/18/17 04:27 PM

Originally Posted By: 4WD
And there were 20's ...



Yup. But the conventional 5W-20's formulated with Group I were awful...

And the reason why 5W-30 was often not recommended in the 80's or not recommended with the caveat about "high speed" highway usage was the same reason, the poor quality of the era's Group I base oils...
Posted By: Nickdfresh

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/18/17 04:34 PM

Originally Posted By: BigD1
Some people claim that Mobil 1 UOA have more iron. Cleaning out what lesser oils leave behind possibly.


That doesn't seem to be as true as it once was, but I do wonder if there is a correlation between (slightly) higher iron numbers and PAO in formulations. I've noticed that Redline seems to show higher iron numbers as well...
Posted By: Nickdfresh

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/18/17 04:35 PM

My the thick oil crowd is in a bit of a tizzy:
Posted By: Nickdfresh

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/18/17 04:51 PM

I do agree a few UOA's are hardly conclusive, but this is interesting...
Posted By: Nissan101

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/18/17 05:18 PM

What if my car recommends 20w50 for my temperature or should i put a 0w20 no matter what.....-_-
Posted By: wemay

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/18/17 05:24 PM

Thanks for the all the work on this, Gokhan.
Posted By: Hyrde

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/18/17 06:27 PM

Originally Posted By: Nissan101
What if my car recommends 20w50 for my temperature or should i put a 0w20 no matter what.....-_-


No, if you live in a very warm area and your manufacurer recommends 20W50 you should stick with thick oils.

Please do not take OP's post as anything conclusive. He has coolant in the engine oil which he used some sort of quick fix on, then had slightly elevated levels of Ni and Fe on one run of M1 0W40. It is clear OP is biased towards thinner oils being better, and his analysis of his data reflects that.

Theoretically both oils should protect sufficiently from wear under normal operating conditions. The problem is your operating condition is high temperature, and while a modern 0W20 is probably thick enough to leave a functional lubricating film even in your conditions, why risk it?

From "THE ESTIMATION OF LUBRICITY AND VISCOSITY OF ENGINE OILS", which compares wear between different oil weights and syn/semi/dino:
Quote:


All the tested mineral oils, semisynthetic and
synthetic ones are characterized by the similar
resistance to wear. Only Shell Helix Super
15W-40 SJ/CF stands out as it shows the worst
resistance to wear and the highest resistance to
motion.

The progress that took place in the new
generation of engine oils on semisynthetic and
synthetic bases counteracts excessive wear of
elements at variable conditions of work and
simultaneously decreases the resistance to
motion in the whole range of operation.
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/18/17 06:40 PM




"No, if you live in a very warm area and your manufacurer recommends 20W50 you should stick with thick oils. "

"Please do not take OP's post as anything conclusive. He has coolant in the engine oil which he used some sort of quick fix on, then had slightly elevated levels of Ni and Fe on one run of M1 0W40. It is clear OP is biased towards thinner oils being better, and his analysis of his data reflects that. "

"Theoretically both oils should protect sufficiently from wear under normal operating conditions. The problem is your operating condition is high temperature, and while a modern 0W20 is probably thick enough to leave a functional lubricating film even in your conditions, why risk it?"




I'm not convinced on this statement. The temperatures of the oil and the engine itself will be hotter than the temperature outside. Many drivers use 0w-20 oil in places like Arizona, Florida, Nevada, etc. For normal driving , 0w-20 will do well. If the demands on the engine are hard like tracking, towing, etc then the argument for a thicker grade is plausible.

Pointing out Gohkan's bias (if there actually is one) is overruled as I sensed a bias in your comment towards thick oils.

Am I wrong here? Feel free to correct me.
Posted By: Hyrde

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/18/17 07:07 PM

Originally Posted By: PimTac

Many drivers use 0w-20 oil in places like Arizona, Florida, Nevada, etc. For normal driving , 0w-20 will do well. If the demands on the engine are hard like tracking, towing, etc then the argument for a thicker grade is plausible.


Yes, but does the owners manual of their vehicles specify 20W50? Like I said in my other post it's probably no problem running a quality 0W20, I just don't see any meaningful benefit in doing so engine wear wise, so why risk it?

Originally Posted By: PimTac

Pointing out Gohkan's bias (if there actually is one) is overruled as I sensed a bias in your comment towards thick oils.

Am I wrong here? Feel free to correct me.


I just tend to go with what the manufacturer recommends, so OP sort of made an enemy in his bolded statements near the top of his post smile
I run TGMO 0W20 in my Prius.

I am not an expert on oils at all, I just don't want people to think they will improve engine wear protection by switching to a 0W20. If this was the case it would surely be documented in some sort of scientific study [Edit: and manufacturers would use this actively in marketing!], but I have not been able to find anything of such nature. The papers I found pretty much state that all normal viscosity grades protect the engine sufficiently under normal operating conditions.
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/18/17 08:42 PM

Originally Posted By: Shannow
flow doesn't lubricate...AEHaas never ever could provide any supportive evidence on flow=lubrication, nor could one of his keenest adherants.


In the basic sense of keeping two surfaces from contacting, that's true. But to add beyond that, increased oil flow does help keep the localized oil film temperature down, which in turn keeps the MOFT a little higher to give added wear protection.
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/18/17 08:42 PM

Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
My the thick oil crowd is in a bit of a tizzy:


who and where ?
Posted By: tig1

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/18/17 10:50 PM

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: tig1
I used M1 5-20 in an engine calling for 10-40 in 1978. Engine started much better in cold temps and ran smoother as well in all temps.


AND we've been over (and over) that the M1 5W20 was VII free, all basestock, and was more like Redline 5W20 n reality, with it's 2.9HTHS (which some would call "really a 30, including Dr Haas and CATERHAM, in spite of what J300 states)...and that was in an Era when 10W40 had no HTHS minimum, and may of them were woefuly inadequate....which lead to some OEMs decrying 10W40, and denying warranty should such oil be used.

Industry then started investigating "apparent" viscosity in high shear, and assigned 0W, 5W, and 10W 40s the same HTHS minimum of 2.9 as they assigned the 30s...that's how "good" the 10W40s were back then.

And so, when Mobil stated that their 5W20 monograde (no VIIs) gave the same protection as a 10W40, they weren't telling fibs...but they aren't (and we've been over this more than a dozen times) the same measures...and TGMO has nearly nothing to do with M1 5W20 the way it was originally made, in any way that you cut it....


So what. M1 5-20 worked great for me in my 1978 Dodge in 1978 and M1 0-20 works great in my 2007 Fords today. What's your point?
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/18/17 11:08 PM

"Many drivers use 0w-20 oil in places like Arizona, Florida, Nevada, etc. For normal driving , 0w-20 will do well. If the demands on the engine are hard like tracking, towing, etc then the argument for a thicker grade is plausible. "


"Yes, but does the owners manual of their vehicles specify 20W50? Like I said in my other post it's probably no problem running a quality 0W20, I just don't see any meaningful benefit in doing so engine wear wise, so why risk it?"




For the most part the recommendations for heavier grades are from countries other than the US. The CAFE regulations here push the 20 weights while the same engine in Australia for example would have a recommendation for a much heavier oil.


Posted By: Vladiator

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/18/17 11:47 PM

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.
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/19/17 12:24 AM

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 ?
Posted By: SatinSilver

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/19/17 12:30 AM

I had a UOA done recently on the 2012 Camry 4 cyl with TGMO 0w20. After 10k miles, 5 ppm of Iron. Prob a 50/50 mix of city/hwy driving.
Posted By: bbhero

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/19/17 12:42 AM

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.
Posted By: dbias

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/19/17 12:49 AM

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.
Posted By: Vladiator

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/19/17 01:00 AM

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...
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/19/17 01:17 AM

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.



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.
Posted By: Garak

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/19/17 01:17 AM

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.
Posted By: aquariuscsm

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/19/17 02:43 AM

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?
Posted By: KCJeep

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/19/17 02:47 AM

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.
Posted By: bluesubie

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/19/17 03:35 PM

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.

approved

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 engines 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/

drive
Posted By: Virtus_Probi

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/19/17 03:42 PM

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?
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/19/17 10:57 PM

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.
Posted By: Garak

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/20/17 12:13 AM

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.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/20/17 12:55 AM

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
Posted By: zeng

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/20/17 12:32 PM

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!
Posted By: 4WD

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/20/17 12:45 PM

... and is an old - low powered engine the best way to test and reach any conclusions on this subject ?
Posted By: Virtus_Probi

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/20/17 12:52 PM

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...
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/20/17 10:46 PM

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.
Posted By: BrocLuno

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/21/17 02:09 AM

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


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 ...
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/21/17 02:13 AM

BrocLuno, good advice there...
Posted By: Garak

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/21/17 03:08 AM

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

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
Posted By: steve20

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/21/17 03:36 PM

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



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
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/21/17 08:53 PM

Originally Posted By: BrocLuno
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

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 ...

This engine has sliding, not rolling, rocker arms, resulting in more iron wear in the valvetrain than newer engines with rolling rocker arms. I think about half the iron is coming from the camshaft as a result. There is a timing belt, not a timing chain.

As I said, I used HDEO for six years. I am no longer a fan of HDEOs in gasoline engines. First and most, they are too thick for gasoline engines. Second, it's a myth that HDEOs are cleaning oils. Some people believed that because HDEOs contained more dispersants to dissolve soot, it results in more cleaning. However, API SN oils are loaded with dispersants to fight sludge. They are specifically made to clean gasoline engines. Also, I don't think more ZDDP in HDEOs translates to less wear in gasoline engines. Modern PCMOs have excellents AW/EP additives (trinuclear moly etc.) synergistic to ZDDP that greatly enhance the AW/EP performance.

Excerpt from my post that mentions my HDEO use:

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
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.

(See the post in previous page for the UOA images.)

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.
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/22/17 12:50 AM

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
This engine has sliding, not rolling, rocker arms, resulting in more iron wear in the valvetrain than newer engines with rolling rocker arms. I think about half the iron is coming from the camshaft as a result.


How do you come to that value ?

As to cams and sliding, it's known that these areas are most heavily affected by additives, not viscosity...again not aligning with your thin versus thick final verdict.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/22/17 01:05 AM

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
This engine has sliding, not rolling, rocker arms, resulting in more iron wear in the valvetrain than newer engines with rolling rocker arms. I think about half the iron is coming from the camshaft as a result.

How do you come to that value?

As to cams and sliding, it's known that these areas are most heavily affected by additives, not viscosity...again not aligning with your thin versus thick final verdict.

More the oil flow, more replenishing supply of additives you get in there, don't you? Also, this would be an area that would be most negatively affected by cold oil, which is way too thick to be a good lubricant, and that's where 0W-20 excels.
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/22/17 02:24 AM

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
More the oil flow, more replenishing supply of additives you get in there, don't you? Also, this would be an area that would be most negatively affected by cold oil, which is way too thick to be a good lubricant, and that's where 0W-20 excels.


Um....no...

The thicker when cold is more likely to be closer to (or BE) hydrodynamic.

The additives don't rely on flow to form the tribofilms.

The tribofilms don't disappear in the few seconds that it takes for oil to get there (in the pumpable range, the variance in time is virtually non existant).

The Industry standard Sequence IVA (cam wear during warm-up) takes place with full volume oil flow, but at a temperature and time that doesn't effectively activate the additives...and has zero viscosity dependence. i.e. the "20s" don't out lubricate the 40s.

So assuming that your posit that half the iron is cam/lifter interface, the conclusion that lower viscosity improves this wear is not supported by evidence.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/22/17 08:30 AM

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
More the oil flow, more replenishing supply of additives you get in there, don't you? Also, this would be an area that would be most negatively affected by cold oil, which is way too thick to be a good lubricant, and that's where 0W-20 excels.

Um....no...

The thicker when cold is more likely to be closer to (or BE) hydrodynamic.

The additives don't rely on flow to form the tribofilms.

The tribofilms don't disappear in the few seconds that it takes for oil to get there (in the pumpable range, the variance in time is virtually non existant).

The Industry standard Sequence IVA (cam wear during warm-up) takes place with full volume oil flow, but at a temperature and time that doesn't effectively activate the additives...and has zero viscosity dependence. i.e. the "20s" don't out lubricate the 40s.

So assuming that your posit that half the iron is cam/lifter interface, the conclusion that lower viscosity improves this wear is not supported by evidence.

Not that simple. AW/EP/FM/AO films are under equilibrium, constantly being scraped by moving parts while being replenished at the same time. If you don't reach maximum oil immersion, the equilibrium AW/EP/FM/AO film will be thinner.

Cold oil does not lubricate better because the engine is oil-starved due to cold oil flowing too slowly. When they say the most wear happens when the engine is cold, believe it. This is where ultra-high-VI oils like TGMO 0W-20 SN triumph.
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/22/17 08:41 AM

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Cold oil does not lubricate better because the engine is oil-starved due to cold oil flowing too slowly. When they say the most wear happens when the engine is cold, believe it. This is where ultra-high-VI oils like TGMO 0W-20 SN triumph.


Rubbish...I refer you again the the Industry Standard sequence IVA test...there is absolutely ZERO advantage to the 0W20 viscosity grade in this test, as what you cite as fact is anything but fact...

This test is carried out with full oil flow (immersion if you will), but at a temperature that's not conducive to additive function...it's purposely held there for a long time, at depressed temperatures. We on this board have heard from Oil Formulators who describe the temperature that it is held at a "the perfect storm" for wear...again with FULL oil flow (immersion if you will).

As to your "immersion" theory, it doesn't need to be flooded for additives to activate, and the difference between TGMO and SAE30 at anything above freezing is going to be minuscule.

But, as always, I'm happy to be convinced by facts and data, so if you can come up with something that demonstrates that TGMO type oils "triumph" in start up wear, then please share with us.

Would also like some stuff on "maximum immersion" if you've got it.
Posted By: zeng

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/22/17 09:07 AM

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
When they say the most wear happens when the engine is cold, believe it. This is where ultra-high-VI oils like TGMO 0W-20 SN triumph.

Agree with you most wear happens when engine is cold, majority of which is however corrosion wear according to SAE.
Corrosion wear does NOT corelate with either lower operating viscosity/film thickness or higher VI's.

Oops, miss Shannow's post.
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/22/17 09:32 AM

Re sequence IVA...and the premise that
a) 50% of the iron is due to Gokhan's Camshaft/lifters
b) viscosity fixes it...


SAE paper on the development of the Sequence IVA camshaft/warmup test.
http://papers.sae.org/2000-01-1820/

http://oil-additives.evonik.com/sites/li...mulation-EN.pdf
EVONIK on the subject...
Quote:
Valve train scuffing and wear tests (Sequence IV or TU3) are boundary lubrication tests that are relatively insensitive to viscosity but respond positively to the addition of antiwear additives such as ZDDP. Detergents and friction modifiers that compete with ZDDP for metal surfaces sometimes exacerbate wear.


http://www.api.org/~/media/files/certification/engine-oil-diesel/publications/annf-rev-03-2015.pdf?la=en
Is the API "read-across guidelines", for if a given oil package is tested, what other grades can be certificated based on that test.

Table F6 gives the read across for the wear tests...note that not a single oil that passes IVA, the warmup and camshaft wear test can be "read across" for certification to a lower viscosity engine oil grade...(bar the 10W40 and 15W40 used to certify a 10W30)....in all cases, a proven additive package can be used to certify a thicker oil, but not a thinner.

Does the API not understand the benefits of "full immersion" ?
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/22/17 02:13 PM

I thought I read somewhere on BITOG that one reason for increased wear during cold starts is that some additives need heat to activate them and start working. True or false?
Posted By: oil_film_movies

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/22/17 02:18 PM

Originally Posted By: PimTac
I thought I read somewhere on BITOG that one reason for increased wear during cold starts is that some additives need heat to activate them and start working. True or false?

Right, ZDDP doesn't get working until hot and under pressure. Other additives like esters, moly, etc. help out cold.
Posted By: BobFout

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/22/17 02:22 PM

UOA, and single ones at that, to determine engine wear difference between lubricants. LOL

Let me find Doug Hillary's professional opinion on that.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis/
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/22/17 02:28 PM

Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
Originally Posted By: PimTac
I thought I read somewhere on BITOG that one reason for increased wear during cold starts is that some additives need heat to activate them and start working. True or false?

Right, ZDDP doesn't get working until hot and under pressure. Other additives like esters, moly, etc. help out cold.




Thanks for that explanation.
Posted By: dole

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/22/17 02:28 PM

My two cents:

Common belief: gentle driving 20 wins, rough 40 wins.

the experiments should be 4 sets: gentle/20 rough/20 gentle/40 rough/40.
Posted By: fdcg27

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/22/17 02:46 PM

Try this simple test, which would be as useful as the limited dataset you've posted.
Email Toyota and PM Dr. Haas and Caterham asking whether you should be using a 0W-20 grade oil in your old Corolla.
Care to guess which of the three would respond in the negative?
Posted By: FlyPenFly

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/22/17 03:53 PM

Really don't think you can make conclusions either way on a old tired engine with coolant loss (sample contamination) and wear number differences that are definitely within the margin of error for your sample size and lab.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/22/17 07:38 PM

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Cold oil does not lubricate better because the engine is oil-starved due to cold oil flowing too slowly. When they say the most wear happens when the engine is cold, believe it. This is where ultra-high-VI oils like TGMO 0W-20 SN triumph.

Rubbish...I refer you again the the Industry Standard sequence IVA test...there is absolutely ZERO advantage to the 0W20 viscosity grade in this test, as what you cite as fact is anything but fact...

This test is carried out with full oil flow (immersion if you will), but at a temperature that's not conducive to additive function...it's purposely held there for a long time, at depressed temperatures. We on this board have heard from Oil Formulators who describe the temperature that it is held at a "the perfect storm" for wear...again with FULL oil flow (immersion if you will).

As to your "immersion" theory, it doesn't need to be flooded for additives to activate, and the difference between TGMO and SAE30 at anything above freezing is going to be minuscule.

But, as always, I'm happy to be convinced by facts and data, so if you can come up with something that demonstrates that TGMO type oils "triumph" in start up wear, then please share with us.

Would also like some stuff on "maximum immersion" if you've got it.

What does real-life driving have to do with Sequence IVA? The coolant temperature is 50 - 55 C, which is neither cold nor hot. Moreover, I don't see any data in any case.

Perhaps you should get your own empirical results instead of making speculations based on theory. The whole idea of this thread is about real-life observations, not theoretical speculations.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/22/17 08:04 PM

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Re sequence IVA...and the premise that
a) 50% of the iron is due to Gokhan's Camshaft/lifters
b) viscosity fixes it...

SAE paper on the development of the Sequence IVA camshaft/warmup test.
http://papers.sae.org/2000-01-1820/

http://oil-additives.evonik.com/sites/li...mulation-EN.pdf
EVONIK on the subject...
Quote:
Valve train scuffing and wear tests (Sequence IV or TU3) are boundary lubrication tests that are relatively insensitive to viscosity but respond positively to the addition of antiwear additives such as ZDDP. Detergents and friction modifiers that compete with ZDDP for metal surfaces sometimes exacerbate wear.


http://www.api.org/~/media/files/certification/engine-oil-diesel/publications/annf-rev-03-2015.pdf?la=en
Is the API "read-across guidelines", for if a given oil package is tested, what other grades can be certificated based on that test.

Table F6 gives the read across for the wear tests...note that not a single oil that passes IVA, the warmup and camshaft wear test can be "read across" for certification to a lower viscosity engine oil grade...(bar the 10W40 and 15W40 used to certify a 10W30)....in all cases, a proven additive package can be used to certify a thicker oil, but not a thinner.

Does the API not understand the benefits of "full immersion" ?

Again, it boils down to theoretical speculations vs. real-life results. These are just guidelines to uniform oil certification -- they don't mean anything else. Read-across guidelines are based on primitive knowledge on lubrication theory ("thicker oil improves boundary or elastohydrodynamic lubrication"). Development of the IVA test mentions some correlation with field-tests (real life) in extreme cases but it doesn't go beyond that.

Real-life results go beyond very restricted bench testing done at temperatures inapplicable to real life and certainly way beyond theoretical speculations. You should obtain your own empirical results. That's far more interesting to members here than endless theoretical speculations.
Posted By: edhackett

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/22/17 08:20 PM

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
It's a circle!
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/22/17 08:20 PM

For what it's worth, Blackstone Laboratories' take on oil viscosity and wear:

http://www.blackstone-labs.com/oil-viscosity.php

Which viscosity to use?

Engine owners often stray from manufacturers' recommendations regarding viscosity of oils. The engine builders dyno-test their engines using a specific viscosity oil, so when you use the viscosity they recommend, you are working with a known result. Going to another viscosity is an experiment, but it's usually a harmless one. For the sake of efficiency you want to run the lightest grade oil in your engine possible, within limits. We are seeing that trend for newer engines, for which the recommended grade is getting progressively lighter. The common 10W/30 has become a 5W/30, and some manufacturers even recommend 5W/20 oil. On the other hand, we can't see (in oil analysis) where it hurts anything to run heavier 10W/30s or even 10W/40s in modern automotive engines. The heavier oils provide more bearing film, and that's important at the lower end. If your oil is too light, the bearing metals can increase. If the oil is too heavy, the upper-end metals can increase. The trick is to find the right viscosity for your particular engine, which is why we suggest following the manufacturer's recommendation.
Posted By: CR94

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/22/17 08:38 PM

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
For what it's worth, Blackstone Laboratories' take on oil viscosity and wear:

... If the oil is too heavy, the upper-end metals can increase. ...
Interesting! Is that statement "down to theoretical speculations" or to "real-life results"?
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/22/17 08:44 PM

Originally Posted By: CR94
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
For what it's worth, Blackstone Laboratories' take on oil viscosity and wear:

... If the oil is too heavy, the upper-end metals can increase. ...

Interesting! Is that statement "down to theoretical speculations" or to "real-life results"?

Well, certainly, they have a lot of empirical results at hand, being an oil-analysis laboratory.
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/22/17 11:51 PM

Originally Posted By: Gokhan

Real-life results go beyond very restricted bench testing done at temperatures inapplicable to real life and certainly way beyond theoretical speculations. You should obtain your own empirical results. That's far more interesting to members here than endless theoretical speculations.


OK...three UOAs, and YOU formed conclusions
* 20 lubricates better than 40
* half of the iron is cam lifter interface
* the 20 improved lubrication in these areas
* through cold start flow
* and through better "immersion" and thus replenishment of additives.

With absolutely NOTHING to back any of it...is THAT real life proof of your statements ?

I, with the papers are pointing out that your cam wear/viscosity assertions are flawed.

Others are pointing out that the limited data set, replete with component failures do not support your conclusions.

Given your data set, if you concluded that oils that come in black bottles protect Ferarris better than silver or gold, you'd still rebut criticism of your "real world findings"
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/22/17 11:55 PM

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
What does real-life driving have to do with Sequence IVA? The coolant temperature is 50 - 55 C, which is neither cold nor hot. Moreover, I don't see any data in any case.


It's the industry standard for camshaft wear during warm-up....which is where the majority of the wear occurs...held specifically at warmup temperatures for accelerated aging.

Entirely pertinent to your assertion on camshaft wear in your case, and rebutting your statement that it's the couple of seconds after start until oil flows to the most remote location.

Again, ALL of the papers relate to the first MINUTES of operation, not that few seconds.
Posted By: Nickdfresh

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/23/17 02:41 AM

Originally Posted By: zeng
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
When they say the most wear happens when the engine is cold, believe it. This is where ultra-high-VI oils like TGMO 0W-20 SN triumph.

Agree with you most wear happens when engine is cold, majority of which is however corrosion wear according to SAE.
Corrosion wear does NOT corelate with either lower operating viscosity/film thickness or higher VI's.

Oops, miss Shannow's post.


The "corrosion" is the result of colder oil not burning out the moisture that results from combustion in a cold sump at startup. There is a school of thought that the flow of thinner oils removes contaminates a bit faster initially...

In anycase, I posted this in another thread from a link provided here back in the early 2000's as Ford explained the reasoning behind going to thinner (5W-20) oils:

"Why 5W20 Oil?
Some customers are reluctant to follow Ford's recommendation to use 5W-20 oil in their engines based on the incorrect assumption that Ford and other Auto Manufacturers only recommend 5W-20 oil in order to increase fuel economy. Using 5W-20 oil can increase fuel economy by about 6/10ths of a percent compared to 5W-30 and more if you are currently using a higher viscosity oil. This equates to an additional savings of 125 million gallons per year when used in all applicable Ford vehicles. Since its introduction in the 2001 MY, 5W-20 oils have saved up to 640 million gallons of gasoline in the U.S. or an equivalent 5.6 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions.

5W-20 oil is a thinner oil with lighter viscosity that creates less drag on the crankshaft, pistons and valvetrain. Additionally, the oil pump can pump thinner oil more easily, improving oil circulation. Any increase in fuel economy may not be noticed by the average motorist. Machined internal engine parts are more precise than the parts of 20 years ago. This means that clearances between moving parts are smaller and more exact. Thinner oil such as 5W-20 can flow more freely through the engine while still filling the spaces. Thicker oil is harder to push through the spaces between the parts. This causes the oil pump to work harder, which in turn increases oil pressure while simultaneously decreasing oil volume. A lack of oil volume results in a decrease of lubrication and cooling, which may decrease engine part life.

The lighter viscosity of 5W-20 oil flows faster at start-up compared to higher viscosity oils, which helps reduce engine wear in critical areas by lubricating parts faster. Valvetrain components at the top of the engine require immediate lubrication at start-up.

Oil additives are not recommended as noted in the owners manual. The American Petroleum Institute (API) certifies that oils such as Motorcraft 5W-20 already contain the necessary additives for friction, detergent, etc... The addition of additives may interfere and react with the additives already present in the certified oil."


https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ub...amp;type=thread
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/23/17 02:46 AM

That ford "advertisement" is full of inaccuracies...e.g.

* oil's not pumped through clearances to remove heat, the heat is typically generated within the shear space of the clearances.
* valvetrains don't start dry...and the tribofilm is always there except for the first few operations on new equipment.
* clearances, as we've discussed ad nauseum don't appear to be materially different in the last 30 years, and certainly the average oil molecule is going to make it into just about anywhere.

but as you posted earlier with the X-Files ad...people want to believe
Posted By: Nickdfresh

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/23/17 02:59 AM

Originally Posted By: Shannow
That ford "advertisement" is full of inaccuracies...e.g.


So are you apparently, because you cannot tell the difference between "adverts" and technical bulletins. Who are the "adverting" too?????..

Quote:
* oil's not pumped through clearances to remove heat, the heat is typically generated within the shear space of the clearances.


They never specifically said that? Are you quoting them?

Or are you just gonna strawman and second guess automotive engineers?

Quote:
* valvetrains don't start dry...and the tribofilm is always there except for the first few operations on new equipment.


Again, where do they say valvetrains are dry? Yes they are coated with a very thin film of oil.

Quote:
* clearances, as we've discussed ad nauseum don't appear to be materially different in the last 30 years, and certainly the average oil molecule is going to make it into just about anywhere.


That seems to be a rather general, overweening statement...

Quote:
but as you posted earlier with the X-Files ad...people want to believe


Yes, like 'the only reason that Dr. Haas' Ferrari doesn't blow up on 0W-20 is that he must drive it like a 1940's grandmother caricature.' I mean I'm sure you know his exact driving habits...

Or that all Fords and Hondas from 2001 are dead in a secret 5W-20 Graveyard behind the elephants...
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/23/17 03:16 AM

Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Or that all Fords and Hondas from 2001 are dead in a secret 5W-20 Graveyard behind the elephants...


Every time you come back to that strawman... Again, find where I Ever suggested same...
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/23/17 06:07 AM

Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Originally Posted By: Shannow
That ford "advertisement" is full of inaccuracies...e.g.


So are you apparently, because you cannot tell the difference between "adverts" and technical bulletins. Who are the "adverting" too?????..


Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
[i]"Why 5W20 Oil?
Some customers are reluctant to follow Ford's recommendation to use 5W-20 oil in their engines based on the incorrect assumption that Ford and other Auto Manufacturers only recommend 5W-20 oil in order to increase fuel economy. Using 5W-20 oil can increase fuel economy by about 6/10ths of a percent compared to 5W-30 and more if you are currently using a higher viscosity oil. This equates to an additional savings of 125 million gallons per year when used in all applicable Ford vehicles. Since its introduction in the 2001 MY, 5W-20 oils have saved up to 640 million gallons of gasoline in the U.S. or an equivalent 5.6 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions.


Clearly they are trying to influence the recalcitrant customers who mistakenly beleive that Ford did it for economy, which they then go on to espouse the great benefits of this imptoved fuel economy...

Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Originally Posted By: Shannow
* oil's not pumped through clearances to remove heat, the heat is typically generated within the shear space of the clearances.


They never specifically said that? Are you quoting them?

Or are you just gonna strawman and second guess automotive engineers?


Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Machined internal engine parts are more precise than the parts of 20 years ago. This means that clearances between moving parts are smaller and more exact. Thinner oil such as 5W-20 can flow more freely through the engine while still filling the spaces. Thicker oil is harder to push through the spaces between the parts. This causes the oil pump to work harder, which in turn increases oil pressure while simultaneously decreasing oil volume. A lack of oil volume results in a decrease of lubrication and cooling, which may decrease engine part life.


Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Originally Posted By: Shannow
* valvetrains don't start dry...and the tribofilm is always there except for the first few operations on new equipment.


Again, where do they say valvetrains are dry? Yes they are coated with a very thin film of oil.


Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
The lighter viscosity of 5W-20 oil flows faster at start-up compared to higher viscosity oils, which helps reduce engine wear in critical areas by lubricating parts faster. Valvetrain components at the top of the engine require immediate lubrication at start-up.


Well they are clearly exaggerating this "flow" thing to their target audience in their advertorial...if that's not the case, then why emphasize that the valvetrain needs oil "instantly", and that 5W20 flows better ???


Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Originally Posted By: Shannow
* clearances, as we've discussed ad nauseum don't appear to be materially different in the last 30 years, and certainly the average oil molecule is going to make it into just about anywhere.


That seems to be a rather general, overweening statement...

Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Machined internal engine parts are more precise than the parts of 20 years ago. This means that clearances between moving parts are smaller and more exact. Thinner oil such as 5W-20 can flow more freely through the engine while still filling the spaces. Thicker oil is harder to push through the spaces between the parts. This causes the oil pump to work harder, which in turn increases oil pressure while simultaneously decreasing oil volume. A lack of oil volume results in a decrease of lubrication and cooling, which may decrease engine part life.


either the engineers are mistaking/misquoting clearances and tolerances in their advertorial, or they are implying that 5W30 simply can't get places with their new improved machining techniques...

But, the advertorial has nothing whatsoever with Gohkan's assertion that his camshaft wear is reduced by the "full immersion" provided by 0W20, does it ?
Posted By: Garak

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/23/17 07:32 AM

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Clearly they are trying to influence the recalcitrant customers who mistakenly beleive that Ford did it for economy, which they then go on to espouse the great benefits of this imptoved fuel economy...

I must admit that the paragraph is one of the most ridiculous in the field. It's not all about fuel economy, but here are all the fuel economy benefits. whistle
Posted By: Nickdfresh

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/24/17 12:50 AM

Originally Posted By: Shannow
...

But, the advertorial has nothing whatsoever with Gohkan's assertion that his camshaft wear is reduced by the "full immersion" provided by 0W20, does it ?


Shannow me boy, I'm not going to nitpick everything here again because in the end, overall I think we agree on more of the typical, redundant topics that come up here than we disagree.

But if you read my comments, I actually agree (more or less) with you that hard conclusions can hardly be drawn on a few UOA's, which I think have very limited value in typical passenger car/light truck applications...

But nevertheless, if the shoe were on the other foot and if the 0W-20 weight oil showed higher "wear numbers" (whatever conclusion can be drawn from them), I doubt you'd be quite as dismissive of the data...
Posted By: Nickdfresh

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/24/17 12:54 AM

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Clearly they are trying to influence the recalcitrant customers who mistakenly beleive that Ford did it for economy, which they then go on to espouse the great benefits of this imptoved fuel economy...

I must admit that the paragraph is one of the most ridiculous in the field. It's not all about fuel economy, but here are all the fuel economy benefits. whistle


That's fine, but they clearly stated that the average owner would hardly notice them. Hardly a ringing endorsement of CAFE for the average Ford jockey...
Posted By: fdcg27

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/24/17 02:09 AM

True, but on a corporate average basis, every little bit helps.
For the average owner, the extra couple of bucks left in his jeans each month in fuel savings is also nice even if hardly noticed.
What's important here is that the fleet reduction in fuel c0onsumption was achieved using thinner grades without any apparent compromise in engine life.
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/24/17 03:59 AM

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Ford explained the reasoning behind going to thinner
The lighter viscosity of 5W-20 oil flows faster at start-up compared to higher viscosity oils, which helps reduce engine wear in critical areas by lubricating parts faster. Valvetrain components at the top of the engine require immediate lubrication at start-up.

Well they are clearly exaggerating this "flow" thing to their target audience in their advertorial...if that's not the case, then why emphasize that the valvetrain needs oil "instantly", and that 5W20 flows better ???


+1 ... Ford is embellishing the whole thin is better angle to convince people it's superior in certain ways. If a 5W-20, 5W-30 and 5W-50 all had the same basic viscosity at room temperature, then they should all flow the same at start-up, especially with a positive displacement oil pump. But when fully hot (200+ F), the thicker oil is going to provide better wear protection, especially in the journal bearings because the MOFT will be greater. And the thicker oil will definitely be a plus to prevent wear in engines pushed very hard under extreme conditions like heavy towing and track use where the oil temperatures can get 275+ F.
Posted By: OPR4H

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/24/17 04:17 AM

https://youtu.be/FONN-0uoTHI
Posted By: Garak

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/24/17 07:57 AM

Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
That's fine, but they clearly stated that the average owner would hardly notice them. Hardly a ringing endorsement of CAFE for the average Ford jockey...

Agreed, but it hardly makes a convincing argument to claim that it's not about fuel economy, then to spend the rest of the paragraph explaining why small improvements in fuel economy are important.
Posted By: FordCapriDriver

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/24/17 12:29 PM

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: BrocLuno
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

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 ...

This engine has sliding, not rolling, rocker arms, resulting in more iron wear in the valvetrain than newer engines with rolling rocker arms. I think about half the iron is coming from the camshaft as a result. There is a timing belt, not a timing chain.

As I said, I used HDEO for six years. I am no longer a fan of HDEOs in gasoline engines. First and most, they are too thick for gasoline engines. Second, it's a myth that HDEOs are cleaning oils. Some people believed that because HDEOs contained more dispersants to dissolve soot, it results in more cleaning. However, API SN oils are loaded with dispersants to fight sludge. They are specifically made to clean gasoline engines. Also, I don't think more ZDDP in HDEOs translates to less wear in gasoline engines. Modern PCMOs have excellents AW/EP additives (trinuclear moly etc.) synergistic to ZDDP that greatly enhance the AW/EP performance.

Excerpt from my post that mentions my HDEO use:

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
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.

(See the post in previous page for the UOA images.)

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.

" First and foremost, they are too thick for gasoline engines "
So you are saying that say a 15W-40 HDEO is too thick for any gasoline engine in any circumstance? If so, that is ridiculous.
Posted By: harryberry

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/24/17 07:25 PM

Wow, incredibly interesting!
Posted By: camrydriver111

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/24/17 10:52 PM

Haven't logged onto BITOG for a while looks like I've been missing out!
Posted By: BobFout

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/24/17 11:35 PM

Originally Posted By: BobFout
UOA, and single ones at that, to determine engine wear difference between lubricants. LOL

Let me find Doug Hillary's professional opinion on that.

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


Quoting myself so it doesn't get lost at the top of the page. cool
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/25/17 09:41 AM

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
+1 ... Ford is embellishing the whole thin is better angle to convince people it's superior in certain ways. If a 5W-20, 5W-30 and 5W-50 all had the same basic viscosity at room temperature, then they should all flow the same at start-up, especially with a positive displacement oil pump. But when fully hot (200+ F), the thicker oil is going to provide better wear protection, especially in the journal bearings because the MOFT will be greater. And the thicker oil will definitely be a plus to prevent wear in engines pushed very hard under extreme conditions like heavy towing and track use where the oil temperatures can get 275+ F.


Here's the directive that the EPA gave Ford and Honda when they applied to have 5W20 accepted...for CAFE reasons.

https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=14177&flag=1

Same as in the Transport Safety Bureau CAFE regs, they must make every endeavour to have the end user USE the oil that they certified the vehicle on..."anti backsliding" rules
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/25/17 08:44 PM

Regarding coolant contamination, if you regard oil thickening (increase in KV100) as the main indicator, previous TGMO 0W-20 SN fill seems to be the worst and it seems to have been gone in the M1 0W-40 SN fill after GM-tabs treatment.

Virgin KV100 for M1 and TGMO are 13.5 cSt and 8.79 cSt, respectively.

So, M1 ran clean without contamination and still seems to have done worse in Fe and Ni wear (valvetrain?). I think Cr and Pb are mostly a result of the coolant contamination and that's why the previous TGMO with the highest KV100 (most thickened due to coolant) was the worst.

I've done a second GM-tabs treatment and the next OCI should definitely be free of coolant contamination as well. I expect the next TGMO fill to beat M1 easily but we will see.

Also, before the PYB fill, it was Mobil Delvac 1300 Super 15W-40 CJ-4 and I blame that very thick oil for the high Fe with PYB.

Also, it will be nice to restore the fuel economy back with TGMO 0W-20. M1 0W-40 seems to have hit the fuel economy quite a bit.

Still keep complaining about CAFE if you want. Neither wear nor fuel economy numbers are on your side. They sell the outdated xW-40 and xW-50 grades in some countries while the US and Japan enjoy the better, modern viscosity grades. It's the economics of the world, as they need to sell the thicker base stocks coming out of the refinery somewhere. They may get the 0W-20 when the US and Japan get the 0W-8, 0W-12, and 0W-16.

By the way, the new M1 formulation, named M1 FS 0W-40 SN, is practically a 0W-30, with KV100 being 12.9 cSt. If it was 12.4 cSt, it would be officially a 0w-30. Mobil 1 also knows that 0W-40 is becoming outdated.


Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/25/17 09:27 PM

Originally Posted By: Gokhan

Neither wear nor fuel economy numbers are on your side.


Then how come the people who administer CAFE state that low viscosity lubricants are the least cost, and simplest way to improve the numbers ?

Are they dreaming as well ?

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Also, it will be nice to restore the fuel economy back with TGMO 0W-20. M1 0W-40 seems to have hit the fuel economy quite a bit.


duh duh duh duh duh duh

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
They sell the outdated xW-40 and xW-50 grades in some countries while the US and Japan enjoy the better, modern viscosity grades. It's the economics of the world, as they need to sell the thicker base stocks coming out of the refinery somewhere.


Now you are just making stuff up...nonsensical stuff...oh wait, that's a major premise of this thread isn't it ???
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/25/17 09:40 PM

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Gokhan

Neither wear nor fuel economy numbers are on your side.

Then how come the people who administer CAFE state that low viscosity lubricants are the least cost, and simplest way to improve the numbers ?

Are they dreaming as well ?

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Also, it will be nice to restore the fuel economy back with TGMO 0W-20. M1 0W-40 seems to have hit the fuel economy quite a bit.

duh duh duh duh duh duh

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
They sell the outdated xW-40 and xW-50 grades in some countries while the US and Japan enjoy the better, modern viscosity grades. It's the economics of the world, as they need to sell the thicker base stocks coming out of the refinery somewhere.

Now you are just making stuff up...nonsensical stuff...oh wait, that's a major premise of this thread isn't it ???

I said fuel-economy numbers are on the CAFE's side, not on the side of the thin-oil deniers. If they do sell anything thinner than 15W-40 in Australia, give it a try and you will see the fuel-economy benefits yourself and save some money.
Posted By: Garak

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/25/17 10:05 PM

He'll save fuel, but he'll never be able to "see" those benefits, as you point out. They'll be there, definitely, but they'll disappear within the statistical noise.
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/26/17 12:39 AM

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
+1 ... Ford is embellishing the whole thin is better angle to convince people it's superior in certain ways. If a 5W-20, 5W-30 and 5W-50 all had the same basic viscosity at room temperature, then they should all flow the same at start-up, especially with a positive displacement oil pump. But when fully hot (200+ F), the thicker oil is going to provide better wear protection, especially in the journal bearings because the MOFT will be greater. And the thicker oil will definitely be a plus to prevent wear in engines pushed very hard under extreme conditions like heavy towing and track use where the oil temperatures can get 275+ F.


Here's the directive that the EPA gave Ford and Honda when they applied to have 5W20 accepted...for CAFE reasons.

https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=14177&flag=1

Same as in the Transport Safety Bureau CAFE regs, they must make every endeavour to have the end user USE the oil that they certified the vehicle on..."anti backsliding" rules


Interesting ... looks like Ford sold their soul to the EPA.
Posted By: edhackett

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/26/17 03:46 AM

Originally Posted By: Gokhan

Also, before the PYB fill, it was Mobil Delvac 1300 Super 15W-40 CJ-4 and I blame that very thick oil for the high Fe with PYB.

Hard to argue with that logic, but I would blame Bush.

Ed
Posted By: FordCapriDriver

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/26/17 05:39 AM

Gokhan on a earlier post you claimed that HDEO's ( i assume you mean in 15W-40 grade ) are too thick for gasoline engines.
Are you saying that they are too thick for ANY gasoline engine in ANY circumstance? because if you are saying that you need to put don the crack pipe LOL
Posted By: FordCapriDriver

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/26/17 05:40 AM

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Gokhan

Neither wear nor fuel economy numbers are on your side.


Then how come the people who administer CAFE state that low viscosity lubricants are the least cost, and simplest way to improve the numbers ?

Are they dreaming as well ?

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Also, it will be nice to restore the fuel economy back with TGMO 0W-20. M1 0W-40 seems to have hit the fuel economy quite a bit.


duh duh duh duh duh duh

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
They sell the outdated xW-40 and xW-50 grades in some countries while the US and Japan enjoy the better, modern viscosity grades. It's the economics of the world, as they need to sell the thicker base stocks coming out of the refinery somewhere.


Now you are just making stuff up...nonsensical stuff...oh wait, that's a major premise of this thread isn't it ???

+1 That is just B-S, Gokhan
Posted By: SonofJoe

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/26/17 07:59 AM

I've been following this thread with interest, watching the debate go back and forth.

I'm sort of coming to the conclusion that everyone is right and no-one is wrong because this discussion is as much about what you believe in, as much as it about what is technically right. In the absence of definitive information (which believe me, DOESN'T exist and even if it did, The Industry would never share it with you), one opinion is just as valid as any other.

Interestingly, even if we had an abundance of perfect engine test/field trial data, I suspect the thin vs thick debate would still rage on. It's worthwhile for a moment contrasting the market for engine oils (where almost nothing is truly known) with the market for smartphones.

Want a smartphone? Just go to GSMArena. It will give you chapter and verse on every smartphone ever sold. Dimensions, chipsets, memory, screen specs; it's all there to read and compare. If you want more information then just hit Google or YouTube for reviews. If, like me, you're a miserly git who would rather drink poison than pay 700 for an iPhone, details on cheap phones are everywhere so it's easy to make an informed balance of price vs performance. I recent got my daughter a Doogee Shoot 1 for a measly 77 because it was the cheapest 5.5" phone I could find with a 1080p screen!

Now here's the thing. All smartphones, from the cheapest to the most expensive let you make phone calls. They all let you access the internet. They all have Bluetooth. They all have a clock and a calendar. Most of them even let you take a half decent photo or short video. So in terms of their basic functionality, you could argue that ALL SMARTPHONES ARE IDENTICAL and logic might suggest you buy the cheapest (like the Doogee Shoot 1). However I have yet to find anyone (apart from my daughter) that agrees with that premise! My son (who has a 700 iPhone) thinks I'm completely 100% wrong and lectures me on the myriad joys of Apple OS (while at the same time moaning constantly about how rubbish iTunes is!).

Smartphones or engine oil, the definition of what is best, is based on what you believe in and don't ever expect logic to win the argument...



Posted By: SonofJoe

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/26/17 08:30 AM

Is this the Thick vs Thin debate, Monty Python style?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iS-0Az7dgRY
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/26/17 08:57 AM

Couple of papers...
https://www.hondarandd.jp/e-book/16-2e/_SWF_Window.html
Cam wear was reduced in Honda's 0W20 development by the addition of Mo...but the test was the now (as of this thread) discredited sequence IVA wear test.

https://www.hondarandd.jp/point.php?sid=2&pid=72&did=72&lang=en
Viscosities lower than 20 were developed...surprisingly cam wear was additive dependent rather than viscosity, and as viscosity and MOFT dropped, big end wear increased, which can be stabilised by increasing bearing projected surface areas.

Interesting in both papers that they state WHAT they are trying to achieve (economy), and what they are doing to maintain the wear protection as they drop viscosity...again, OP's conclusions are flawed.
Posted By: zeng

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/26/17 08:59 AM

Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Originally Posted By: zeng
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
When they say the most wear happens when the engine is cold, believe it. This is where ultra-high-VI oils like TGMO 0W-20 SN triumph.
Agree with you most wear happens when engine is cold, majority of which is however corrosion wear according to SAE.
Corrosion wear does NOT corelate with either lower operating viscosity/film thickness or higher VI's.
Oops, miss Shannow's post.

The "corrosion" is the result of colder oil not burning out the moisture that results from combustion in a cold sump at startup. There is a school of thought that the flow of thinner oils removes contaminates a bit faster initially...

Nick, I don't get it ... in the context of corrosion wear vs adhesion/abrasion wear.
Here is my take, not trying to be argumentative though ..... on Ford's seemingly convincing statements ....

Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
In anycase, I posted this in another thread from a link provided here back in the early 2000's as Ford explained the reasoning behind going to thinner (5W-20) oils:
[i]"Why 5W20 Oil?
Some customers are reluctant to follow Ford's recommendation to use 5W-20 oil in their engines based on the incorrect assumption that Ford and other Auto Manufacturers only recommend 5W-20 oil in order to increase fuel economy. Using 5W-20 oil can increase fuel economy by about 6/10ths of a percent compared to 5W-30 and more if you are currently using a higher viscosity oil. This equates to an additional savings of 125 million gallons per year when used in all applicable Ford vehicles. Since its introduction in the 2001 MY, 5W-20 oils have saved up to 640 million gallons of gasoline in the U.S. or an equivalent 5.6 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions.

Hmm.... sounds to me like adverts/ 'ism propaganda.

Originally Posted By: Ford
5W-20 oil is a thinner oil with lighter viscosity that creates less drag on the crankshaft, pistons and valvetrain. Additionally, the oil pump can pump thinner oil more easily, improving oil circulation.

Pumping thinner oil is said to be easier (for the prime mower) .... in that it requires reduced input power from prime mower at similar pump rpm delivering similar volume of oil flow through the constant volume pump.
It does NOT improve oil circulation in the sense that there is no increased oil flow rate for similar pump rpm.
Thinner oil at lower operating viscoisty, in itself , does not reduce adhesion/abrasion wear.

Originally Posted By: Ford
Any increase in fuel economy may not be noticed by the average motorist. Machined internal engine parts are more precise than the parts of 20 years ago. This means that clearances between moving parts are smaller and more exact.

This modern production methodology allow the use of thinner xW20 (which previously would not work with those 'old' methodology products), a thicker oil in xW40/50 works just as fine in engines that calls for xW20 as in my community and possibly in Oz/Euro.
This modern methodology do not make xW20 producing lesser (adhesion/abrasion) wear than a xW40.

Originally Posted By: Ford
Thinner oil such as 5W-20 can flow more freely through the engine while still filling the spaces. Thicker oil is harder to push through the spaces between the parts.

This in itself does not make xW20 at lower operating viscosity produces reduced adhesion/abrasion wear.

Originally Posted By: Ford
Thicker oil is harder to push through the spaces between the parts. This causes the oil pump to work harder, which in turn increases oil pressure while simultaneously decreasing oil volume.

Thicker oil ....
Oil pump works harder, yes.
Increased oil pressure, yes.
Hence pumping thicker oil requires 'marginally' higher input power (as in ten's or hundreds of watts[?] in a 70,000 to 200,000 watts engine) from the prime mower.
"While simultaneously decreasing oil volume" ........ hmm ....
laws of physics says No Way, in a fixed displacement constant volume pump !
Anyway , reduced oil flow rate at 1000 engine rpm does not necessarily result in increased engine wear rate, than in the very same engine operating at 2000 rpm.

Originally Posted By: Ford
A lack of oil volume results in a decrease of lubrication and cooling, which may decrease engine part life.

This is false conjectures, as explained above.

Originally Posted By: Ford
The lighter viscosity of 5W-20 oil flows faster at start-up compared to higher viscosity oils, which helps reduce engine wear in critical areas by lubricating parts faster.

Laws of physics dictates that adhesion/abrasion wear with 5W20 of lower operating viscosity can Only be higher against a thicker oil at higher operating viscosity.
Having said this, efficacies of additives package could influence respective wear rates though.
Originally Posted By: Ford
Valvetrain components at the top of the engine require immediate lubrication at start-up.

I'm afraid it's not valid, more so in modern lubes.
Think residual anti wear films and add packs.

Do not ignore/under estimate the power of (modern day) additives package in mitigating components wear in engines! blush
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/26/17 11:33 AM

This paper gives some insight on how different oil viscosity can effect the minimum oil film thickness (MOFT) and the friction losses in engine components.

http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~jacksr7/SAE2002013355.pdf

The only real benefit of thinner oil is a reduction in shearing friction and therefore power loss, which ties into the main CAFE goal to achieve better fuel economy.

As long as the MOFT is still satisfactory (along with whatever anti-wear additives are at play), the wear should be held down to an acceptable level. Thinner oil results in less oil film thickness for engine components to work with (ie, less "safety factor") before metal-to-metal contact occurs. And as mentioned before, if the engine is heavily stressed to elevate the oil temperature well above the "normal" level, then the oil film thickness suffers even more.
Posted By: KrisZ

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/26/17 12:04 PM

In light of this scientific evidence I'll stick to my thick 5w30 oils, thank you very much.
Posted By: KitaCam

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/26/17 12:56 PM

Miniscule improvement in MPG with thinner oil is only significant in the totality of cars using it...that's why the "C" in CAFE is for Corporate.
Posted By: dblshock

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/26/17 02:23 PM

Most engines today have timing chains, this antiquated engine does not represent the sheering present in today's technology rendering the argument moot.
Posted By: FlyPenFly

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/26/17 05:34 PM

Originally Posted By: dblshock
Most engines today have timing chains, this antiquated engine does not represent the sheering present in today's technology rendering the argument moot.


What? You mean there's a difference between this tired old engine with coolant leaks and extremely underwhelming specs and a new Porsche turbo flat six or twin turbo BMW M engine? /sarcasm.

Yeah, this pseudo science thread is pretty nonsense.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/26/17 07:22 PM

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
This paper gives some insight on how different oil viscosity can effect the minimum oil film thickness (MOFT) and the friction losses in engine components.

http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~jacksr7/SAE2002013355.pdf

The only real benefit of thinner oil is a reduction in shearing friction and therefore power loss, which ties into the main CAFE goal to achieve better fuel economy.

As long as the MOFT is still satisfactory (along with whatever anti-wear additives are at play), the wear should be held down to an acceptable level. Thinner oil results in less oil film thickness for engine components to work with (ie, less "safety factor") before metal-to-metal contact occurs. And as mentioned before, if the engine is heavily stressed to elevate the oil temperature well above the "normal" level, then the oil film thickness suffers even more.

The only benefit of thin oil is fuel economy? Really?

The argument that thicker oil has larger MOFT and less wear and thinner oil has smaller MOFT and better fuel efficiency but more wear is primitive and aims to stall the discussion before it gets anywhere. Besides, it's not even correct.


Where should I begin?

Primitive argument: Thicker the oil, larger the MOFT, less the wear.
Reality: Oil too thick = engine damage, as it can result in oil starvation if clearances are not large enough for the viscosity,

Read this thread about the countless engines that had their bearings damaged by running 10W-60, even though it was recommended by the manufacturer. Going down to 0W-40 corrected the problem.

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=911030

Primitive argument: Thicker the oil, larger the MOFT.
Reality: Perhaps usually true at the bearings but false in general.

Research by Shell indicates thinner oil results in larger MOFT at top piston rings. The reason is that thinner oil flows faster through the ring gaps:



PDF link for the Shell research article

Primite argument: There is no benefit other than fuel efficiency with thinner oil.
Reality: What about more oil flow with thin oil, which results in more oil reaching critical engine parts?
Reality: What about high oil temperature, which is detrimental to engine parts, and the fact that thin oil runs a lot cooler than thick oil thanks to less viscous friction?
Reality: What about cold engine, in which even the thinnest oil is too thick?
Posted By: FlyPenFly

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/26/17 07:27 PM

Originally Posted By: Gokhan

Read this thread about the countless engines that had their bearings damaged by running 10W-60, even though it was recommended by the manufacturer. Going down to 0W-40 corrected the problem.


No, it's not. I had an E46 M3 running the S54 engines. These had a massive recall because of rod bearing failures due to a defect from parts supplier of the rod bearing. BMW changed their oil recommendations TO 10w60 at the time of the recall to better protect these extremely high revving inline six engines.

BMW gave out free oil changes and shifted everyone OUT of 5w30 to a 10w60 and that stayed the recommendation to better protect the engines.
Quote:
Of minor interest, in mid 2001, BMW ordered an oil change on the M3 - the 5W30 oil which had been shipping on all cars was ordered changed to a new special BMW-only 10w60. New cars came with the new oil, and 5w30 cars were asked to come in for a free change to 10w60. This seemed to be some kind of reaction to concerns over long term high RPM running ability, and the oil having enough high temperature capacity to hold together on such autobahn blasts.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/26/17 07:51 PM

Originally Posted By: FlyPenFly
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Read this thread about the countless engines that had their bearings damaged by running 10W-60, even though it was recommended by the manufacturer. Going down to 0W-40 corrected the problem.

No, it's not. I had an E46 M3 running the S54 engines. These had a massive recall because of rod bearing failures due to a defect from parts supplier of the rod bearing. BMW changed their oil recommendations TO 10w60 at the time of the recall to better protect these extremely high revving inline six engines.

BMW gave out free oil changes and shifted everyone OUT of 5w30 to a 10w60 and that stayed the recommendation to better protect the engines.

Quote:
Of minor interest, in mid 2001, BMW ordered an oil change on the M3 - the 5W30 oil which had been shipping on all cars was ordered changed to a new special BMW-only 10w60. New cars came with the new oil, and 5w30 cars were asked to come in for a free change to 10w60. This seemed to be some kind of reaction to concerns over long term high RPM running ability, and the oil having enough high temperature capacity to hold together on such autobahn blasts.

I don't know about your particular case. The case I pointed out was about the S65 engine, and from what I read, the problem was that the clearances by a particular bearing supplier (out of several) were too small for Castrol TWS 10W-60 and going down to M1 0W-40 corrected the problem, and the people on the thread were cheerful about correcting the problem by going from 10W-60 down to 0W-40. Or, perhaps, recommendation of 10W-60 only by BMW didn't solve the problem and people were able to solve it themselves by using 0W-40 instead.
Posted By: FordCapriDriver

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/26/17 08:07 PM

BMW changed the recomendation for the engines TO 10w-60 after they realised some engines were chewing throuh their rod bearings in under 100k miles, they also redesigned the bearingsi think.
This largely solved the problem.
And once your rod bearings are shot no oil will cure that.
Posted By: FordCapriDriver

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/26/17 08:13 PM

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
This paper gives some insight on how different oil viscosity can effect the minimum oil film thickness (MOFT) and the friction losses in engine components.

http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~jacksr7/SAE2002013355.pdf

The only real benefit of thinner oil is a reduction in shearing friction and therefore power loss, which ties into the main CAFE goal to achieve better fuel economy.

As long as the MOFT is still satisfactory (along with whatever anti-wear additives are at play), the wear should be held down to an acceptable level. Thinner oil results in less oil film thickness for engine components to work with (ie, less "safety factor") before metal-to-metal contact occurs. And as mentioned before, if the engine is heavily stressed to elevate the oil temperature well above the "normal" level, then the oil film thickness suffers even more.

The only benefit of thin oil is fuel economy? Really?

The argument that thicker oil has larger MOFT and less wear and thinner oil has smaller MOFT and better fuel efficiency but more wear is primitive and aims to stall the discussion before it gets anywhere. Besides, it's not even correct.


Where should I begin?

Primitive argument: Thicker the oil, larger the MOFT, less the wear.
Reality: Oil too thick = engine damage, as it can result in oil starvation if clearances are not large enough for the viscosity,

Read this thread about the countless engines that had their bearings damaged by running 10W-60, even though it was recommended by the manufacturer. Going down to 0W-40 corrected the problem.

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=911030

Primitive argument: Thicker the oil, larger the MOFT.
Reality: Perhaps usually true at the bearings but false in general.

Research by Shell indicates thinner oil results in larger MOFT at top piston rings. The reason is that thinner oil flows faster through the ring gaps:



PDF link for the Shell research article

Primite argument: There is no benefit other than fuel efficiency with thinner oil.
Reality: What about more oil flow with thin oil, which results in more oil reaching critical engine parts?
Reality: What about high oil temperature, which is detrimental to engine parts, and the fact that thin oil runs a lot cooler than thick oil thanks to less viscous friction?
Reality: What about cold engine, in which even the thinnest oil is too thick?

This argument just does not hold any water, that thinner oils are better at high temperature because they flow more and have lower oil temps.
There was a guy on here that i think fell for that argument, and used 0W-20 in his Turbo MX-5, the result was a horrible UOA with very high iron.
GM recomends 15W-50 M1 for their Z06 corvettes when being used on the track, and Ford recomend 5W-50 oils for their sportiest cars.
Just recently i saw a Youtube video where a guy ran Redline 0W-20 in a Subaru BRZ i think, and used it on the track, once the engine was getting hotter and hotter, the engine basically did not have any oil pressure, that could not have done anything good for his engine, had he been using say Redline 5W-30 or 0W-40, His oil pressure would have been better, despite probably having slightly higher oil temps.
models, who am i going to trust more, GM amd Ford or some guy on an internet board trying to convince me otherwise...
Posted By: FlyPenFly

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/26/17 09:16 PM

Thinner oils definitely have their place. Don't make it a crusade. There's example after example of high end cars pushing the boundaries of consumer engineering switching to thicker oils because the applications demand it.

Maybe a thin oil works for you but it's crazy to think that it's the general rule. Maybe you know better than the engine designers and engineers who design and troubleshoot these engines but I doubt it.

It's funny that the example you brought up of BMW directly contradicts the point you're making. BMW had thin oil and then they had to switch to a thicker oil because of reliability problems partially exacerbated by the thin oil. BMW started actively denying warranty claims if you didn't make the switch to 10w60 from the original recommended 5w30 fill.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/26/17 09:45 PM

Originally Posted By: FlyPenFly
Thinner oils definitely have their place. Don't make it a crusade. There's example after example of high end cars pushing the boundaries of consumer engineering switching to thicker oils because the applications demand it.

Maybe a thin oil works for you but it's crazy to think that it's the general rule. Maybe you know better than the engine designers and engineers who design and troubleshoot these engines but I doubt it.

It's funny that the example you brought up of BMW directly contradicts the point you're making. BMW had thin oil and then they had to switch to a thicker oil because of reliability problems partially exacerbated by the thin oil. BMW started actively denying warranty claims if you didn't make the switch to 10w60 from the original recommended 5w30 fill.

First, regarding BMW, you're misrepresenting the facts. The fix by BMW was not only to increase the viscosity but also to increase the bearing clearance. People actually got far better UOAs by switching to 10W-40 from 10W-60 before they replaced their bearings. You can read it here:

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=911030

Second, it's crazy to suggest that I recommend 0W-20 for anything from a lawnmower to a locomotive or container-ship engine. Of course, FordCapriDriver's antique car or an 18-wheeler may require thicker oil because the oil pump and oil clearances may not be designed to produce sufficient oil pressure and flow with thinner oil. Also, for certain extreme-load applications, thicker oil may be needed to prevent oil-film collapse at the bearings.

My main point is that most modern engines see no benefit from using thicker oil and in fact they may be worse off with thicker oil in all respects, including both fuel economy and wear.
Posted By: 53' Stude

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/26/17 10:10 PM

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: FlyPenFly
Thinner oils definitely have their place. Don't make it a crusade. There's example after example of high end cars pushing the boundaries of consumer engineering switching to thicker oils because the applications demand it.

Maybe a thin oil works for you but it's crazy to think that it's the general rule. Maybe you know better than the engine designers and engineers who design and troubleshoot these engines but I doubt it.

It's funny that the example you brought up of BMW directly contradicts the point you're making. BMW had thin oil and then they had to switch to a thicker oil because of reliability problems partially exacerbated by the thin oil. BMW started actively denying warranty claims if you didn't make the switch to 10w60 from the original recommended 5w30 fill.

First, regarding BMW, you're misrepresenting the facts. The fix by BMW was not only to increase the viscosity but also to increase the bearing clearance. People actually got far better UOAs by switching to 10W-40 from 10W-60 before they replaced their bearings. You can read it here:

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=911030

Second, it's crazy to suggest that I recommend 0W-20 for anything from a lawnmower to a locomotive or container-ship engine. Of course, FordCapriDriver's antique car or an 18-wheeler may require thicker oil because the oil pump and oil clearances may not be designed to produce sufficient oil pressure and flow with thinner oil. Also, for certain extreme-load applications, thicker oil may be needed to prevent oil-film collapse at the bearings.

My main point is that most modern engines see no benefit from using thicker oil and in fact they may be worse off with thicker oil in all respects, including both fuel economy and wear.


I highly disagree with most of your nonsense and am like KCJEEP and others. You either show facts, and proof that "thicker oils" are bad or stop trying to preach "thin oils are godly"

Thank you and have a good night wink
Posted By: CharlieBauer

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/26/17 10:24 PM

Originally Posted By: Gokhan


Research by Shell indicates thinner oil results in larger MOFT at top piston rings. The reason is that thinner oil flows faster through the ring gaps:



PDF link for the Shell research article


That's a real interesting study. Old as well! Thanks for sharing.
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/26/17 10:29 PM

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
because the oil pump and oil clearances may not be designed to produce sufficient oil pressure and flow with thinner oil.


Flow and pressure AREN'T providing lubrication...
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/26/17 10:35 PM

Originally Posted By: Gokhan

The only benefit of thin oil is fuel economy? Really?

The argument that thicker oil has larger MOFT and less wear and thinner oil has smaller MOFT and better fuel efficiency but more wear is primitive and aims to stall the discussion before it gets anywhere. Besides, it's not even correct.


Where should I begin?

Primitive argument: Thicker the oil, larger the MOFT, less the wear.
Reality: Oil too thick = engine damage, as it can result in oil starvation if clearances are not large enough for the viscosity.
Primitive argument: Thicker the oil, larger the MOFT.
Reality: Perhaps usually true at the bearings but false in general.

Larger MOFT is certainly a good thing with respect to journal bearings because they are soft and sacrificial when metal-to-metal contact occurs. The main goal in a journal bearing is to always have adequate hydrodynamic lubrication with a safe margin in MOFT so contact rarely or never occurs.

Keep in mind that wear rate also has a lot to do with anti-wear additives, especially on boundary or mixed boundary lubricated parts (pistons, rings, cams, chains, etc). If you took away all AW additives and only looked at the wear as a function of viscosity's resulting MOFT, you would see that a larger MOFT is a good thing.

Originally Posted By: Gokhan

Research by Shell indicates thinner oil results in larger MOFT at top piston rings. The reason is that thinner oil flows faster through the ring gaps:

PDF link for the Shell research article

But is the piston ring's MOFT differences enough to make or break what viscosity should be used? Whereas, is the protection difference in other parts of the engine more critical to the oil viscosity and resulting MOFT (ie, journal bearings), and therefore become the main determination on what viscosity is best?

As eluded to before (and mentioned in the paper you linked), it's a balance that should be determined based on the engine's design and the use conditions. Would you run xW-20 in a car used on the track where the oil temperature was constantly in the 275~300 F range? Or would you instead run a xW-50 like so many manufactures of high performance cars recommend for track use, for an obvious reason. Even the simple "what viscosity to use vs expected ambient temperature" chart in your owner's manual is a simple way of the manufacturer saying they recognize that adequate MOFT needs to be maintained to protect the engine when oil temperatures run hotter in hotter climates, even in just normal street driving conditions.

It all boils down to "what's adequate protection" ... so using a xW-20 in a street car designed around xW-20 that never sees oil temperatures above 210~220 F is probably giving "adequate" engine wear protection, but just how much protection margin is left if the engine is pushed much harder?

If you read the "Impact on Durability" section starting on page 20 of the same paper you linked, it says:

Impact on Durability
Durability in Gasoline Engines
The potential disadvantage of moving to lower viscosity lubricants is the thinner oil film that
is expected to exist between lubricated contacts within the engine. However, it should be
remembered that in Europe, current oils have a relatively high viscosity (>3.5 mPa.s)
compared to those marketed in the US and Japan. The move from oils that have High
Temperature High Shear Viscosities (HTHSV) of 3.5 mPa.s to oils with a HTHSV of 2.9
mPa.s is not expected to have a major effect on engine durability for modern gasoline
engines. Indeed, some of these engines may well be running on 2.9 mPa.s oils in the USA or
Japan. Durability may well be of more concern when moving from oils with a HTHSV of
2.9 mPa.s to lower values (e.g. to 2.6 mPa.s).


"In our laboratory, it has been observed that in a modern gasoline engine, well designed
automotive bearings can be lubricated with oils as thin as 2.3 mPa.s without any observable
wear on either con-rod or main bearings."


I think on main reason thicker oils are used in Europe is because the cars there are driven faster and harder in general (ie, Autobahn type use) compared to the US and Japan. Note that engine design is part of the equation on just how well a thinner oil would perform. But on the flip side, using a higher viscosity oil isn't going to hurt in everyday normal street driving. The main drawback would be more shearing friction which slightly hurts fuel economy.
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/26/17 11:47 PM

^ +1...what Zee0Six said.
Posted By: Nickdfresh

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/27/17 12:18 AM

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: FlyPenFly
Thinner oils definitely have their place. Don't make it a crusade. There's example after example of high end cars pushing the boundaries of consumer engineering switching to thicker oils because the applications demand it.

Maybe a thin oil works for you but it's crazy to think that it's the general rule. Maybe you know better than the engine designers and engineers who design and troubleshoot these engines but I doubt it.

It's funny that the example you brought up of BMW directly contradicts the point you're making. BMW had thin oil and then they had to switch to a thicker oil because of reliability problems partially exacerbated by the thin oil. BMW started actively denying warranty claims if you didn't make the switch to 10w60 from the original recommended 5w30 fill.

First, regarding BMW, you're misrepresenting the facts. The fix by BMW was not only to increase the viscosity but also to increase the bearing clearance. People actually got far better UOAs by switching to 10W-40 from 10W-60 before they replaced their bearings. You can read it here:

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=911030

Second, it's crazy to suggest that I recommend 0W-20 for anything from a lawnmower to a locomotive or container-ship engine. Of course, FordCapriDriver's antique car or an 18-wheeler may require thicker oil because the oil pump and oil clearances may not be designed to produce sufficient oil pressure and flow with thinner oil. Also, for certain extreme-load applications, thicker oil may be needed to prevent oil-film collapse at the bearings.

My main point is that most modern engines see no benefit from using thicker oil and in fact they may be worse off with thicker oil in all respects, including both fuel economy and wear.


This is pretty much what I believe. But I would be hesitant to use a, say, 0W-20 in anything not specifically calling for a 20W, I did run 0W-20 in my Opel over the winter...
Posted By: Nickdfresh

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/27/17 12:28 AM

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
...

I think on main reason thicker oils are used in Europe is because the cars there are driven faster and harder in general (ie, Autobahn type use) compared to the US and Japan. Note that engine design is part of the equation on just how well a thinner oil would perform. But on the flip side, using a higher viscosity oil isn't going to hurt in everyday normal street driving. The main drawback would be more shearing friction which slightly hurts fuel economy.


They Autobahn is only in one country, although I think there are other high speed motorways elsewhere...

I was under the impression that longer drain intervals and high oil costs are the biggest reasons that Europeans tend to have thicker oils in their sumps. When oils moved to SJ and the first 5W-20's came out, a Valvoline engineer stated in an interview in a trade publication that she always recommended using thinner oils where appropriate because the base oils (in "conventionals") the 5W-XX were receiving the most R&D...
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/27/17 12:53 AM

Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
... regarding BMW, you're misrepresenting the facts. The fix by BMW was not only to increase the viscosity but also to increase the bearing clearance.

I would be hesitant to use a, say, 0W-20 in anything not specifically calling for it.


As seen in this graph, a thicker oil will always give a greater MOFT in bearings regardless of their clearance. But a xW-20 is sensitive to the correct bearing clearance in order to maximize the MOFT.

This is why using xW-20 in engines not specifically designed for it could be bad, and why using a thicker oil in engines specifying Xw-20 isn't as critical.

http://www.substech.com/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=ecological_aspects_of_engine_bearings

Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/27/17 01:07 AM

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
"In our laboratory, it has been observed that in a modern gasoline engine, well designed automotive bearings can be lubricated with oils as thin as 2.3 mPa.s without any observable wear on either con-rod or main bearings."

Which is one of the main points of this thread, the other main points being the lubrication advantages for the upper end of the engine (such as the top piston ring in the article or similarly the valvetrain as in my UOA) and fuel-economy benefits of thinner oil.
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/27/17 01:12 AM

More info on thin vs thick: http://machinerylubrication.com/Read/518/motor-oils
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/27/17 01:15 AM

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
"In our laboratory, it has been observed that in a modern gasoline engine, well designed automotive bearings can be lubricated with oils as thin as 2.3 mPa.s without any observable wear on either con-rod or main bearings."

Which is one of the main points of this thread, the other main points being the lubrication advantages for the upper end of the engine (such as the top piston ring in the article or similarly the valvetrain as in my UOA) and fuel-economy benefits of thinner oil.


Look at what I posted above about MOFT vs oil viscosity vs bearing clearance. Using xW-20 in an engine not specifically designed for it (like yours) might not be the best idea in terms of wear protection in certain engine components like the journal bearings - especially if the engine is ever pushed hard.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/27/17 01:16 AM

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
... regarding BMW, you're misrepresenting the facts. The fix by BMW was not only to increase the viscosity but also to increase the bearing clearance.

I would be hesitant to use a, say, 0W-20 in anything not specifically calling for it.


As seen in this graph, a thicker oil will always give a greater MOFT in bearings regardless of their clearance. But a xW-20 is sensitive to the correct bearing clearance in order to maximize the MOFT.

This is why using xW-20 in engines not specifically designed for it could be bad, and why using a thicker oil in engines specifying Xw-20 isn't as critical.

http://www.substech.com/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=ecological_aspects_of_engine_bearings


Most modern engines, including my 85 Corolla and a BMW M3, which were "designed" for 10W-30 to 20W-50 and 10W-60, respectively, have a bearing clearance of about 0.001 in. Moreover, you didn't realize that the bottom of that graph is not 0 but 20 in. Therefore, there isn't a huge difference between 0W-20 vs. 10W-60 -- about 25 vs. 30 in -- each providing adequate lubrication -- assuming this graph applies to pertinent engines and RPM/torque regimes.

Heavy-duty (18-wheeler etc.) engines require large bearing clearance and large MOFT, therefore high oil viscosity, because of abrasive soot particles, which may otherwise be larger than the MOFT. Older, dirty-running gasoline engines, especially with bad bearing designs, may be similar to heavy-duty engines in this respect.
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/27/17 01:43 AM

^^^ Never said the bottom of the scale was 0, so how would you know what I realized or not. In journal bearings, a 50 to 100% increase in MOFT could mean the difference between contact or not, especially if oil temps are well above normal.
Posted By: FlyPenFly

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/27/17 01:46 AM

Lol 85 Corolla, modern M4, same 0w20 oil no problem. If you believe that there's no further discussion necessary.
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/27/17 01:53 AM

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Research by Shell indicates thinner oil results in larger MOFT at top piston rings. The reason is that thinner oil flows faster through the ring gaps.

PDF link for the Shell research article


I forgot to mention earlier ... apparently it didn't help reduce the ring wear because your chromium showed higher particle counts with the 0W-20 vs the 0W-40.

0W-40 = 2.1 ppm Cr
0W-20 = 2.6 & 5.5 ppm Cr


Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/27/17 01:58 AM

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
^^^ Never said the bottom of the scale was 0, so how would you know what I realized or not. In journal bearings, a 50 to 100% increase in MOFT could mean the difference between contact or not, especially if oil temps are well above normal.

Well, that's only about a 30% increase or less in that plot for the relevant bearing clearances of modern engines (10 - 50 m = 0.4 - 2 in).

Also, see this thread below. Thicker oil (10W-60) can increase MOFT collapse and bearing damage over thinner oil if the bearing clearance is too small. Real physics (real world) is more complicated than that simple graph and thicker oil starts hurting at one point toward the left of the graph instead of helping. That's why empirical data is more valuable than simple theory.

Castrol Edge 10w-60, 14k,'09 BMW M3

"I know my lead is high at 18. I'm hoping my switch to castrol 0w40 will improve my lead count. Other M3 drivers have switched to a 0w40 oil and cut their lead levels in half. I'm going to pull a sample at 5k and see if my numbers improve."

...
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/27/17 02:06 AM

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Research by Shell indicates thinner oil results in larger MOFT at top piston rings. The reason is that thinner oil flows faster through the ring gaps.

PDF link for the Shell research article

I forgot to mention earlier ... apparently it didn't help reduce the ring wear because your chromium showed higher particle counts with the 0W-20 vs the 0W-40.

0W-40 = 2.1 ppm Cr
0W-20 = 2.6 & 5.5 ppm Cr


As I mentioned before, addition of the ACDelco cooling-system seal tabs before the M1 0W-40 fill stopped the oil thickening, which means it stopped the coolant contamination with glycol, leading to better Pb and Cr numbers. The last TGMO run had the worst oil thickening due to coolant contamination and worst Pb and Cr numbers as a result. Glycol is especially corrosive with certain metals such as Pb and Cr and it also creates explosive bubbles at the cylinders. Na, coming from a coolant additive, is another indicator of the coolant contamination. So, M1 0W-40 ran without any coolant contamination.

Next fill will be TGMO 0W-20 and coolant-contamination-free, and this should be verified.
Posted By: Nickdfresh

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/27/17 02:20 AM

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix


Just a bad op-ed piece...
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/27/17 02:29 AM

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Which is one of the main points of this thread, the other main points being the lubrication advantages for the upper end of the engine (such as the top piston ring in the article


That chart is the MOFT at mid stroke, maximum piston speed.

OTR OEMs are busy trying to develop thermal barrier coatings precisely to reduce viscosity and MOFT AT mid stroke because it's a huge waster of power.

Have you ever seen (rhetorical question I know) where cylinders and rings wear ?

(It's not mid stroke, it's at the zero speed reversal position, where boundary/mixed reigns, with maybe a bit of squeeze film).

Mid stroke MOFT tells you nothing about ring protection.

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
or similarly the valvetrain as in my UOA) and fuel-economy benefits of thinner oil.


I've gone over and over and over and over that Cam lifters are additive, not viscosity dependent.

And you haven't even justified your case that half the iron is from that source.

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Most modern engines, including my 85 Corolla and a BMW M3, which were "designed" for 10W-30 to 20W-50 and 10W-60, respectively, have a bearing clearance of about 0.001 in. Moreover, you didn't realize that the bottom of that graph is not 0 but 20 in. Therefore, there isn't a huge difference between 0W-20 vs. 10W-60 -- about 25 vs. 30 in -- each providing adequate lubrication -- assuming this graph applies to pertinent engines and RPM/torque regimes.


You've got thousands of an inch and micro inches messed up for starters.

Bearing design parameters have in the Somerfeld Calculation the ratio of radial clearance to shaft diameter (r/c) as one of the fundimental parameters....to quote (made up) clearances as the determining factor demonstrates lack of understanding.


Pick the L/D of 4 (for example), and see why Honda are changing their bearing sizes and clearances as they pursue thinner oils in the name of economy (their words)...i.e. change a parameter and watch what happens to MOFT.

Now have a look at Mahle's catalogue, and see why even for your engine, your recommendation might not be the best
http://www.mahle-aftermarket.com/media/local-media-north-america/pdfs/eb-10-07.pdf
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/27/17 02:35 AM

Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix


Just a bad op-ed piece...


Care to elaborate?
Posted By: Nickdfresh

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/27/17 02:47 AM

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix


Just a bad op-ed piece...


Care to elaborate?


He's just repeating the same clichs from the early 2000's and basically contradicts himself. "Who cares about fuel economy when everyone is buying SUV's"? I dunno, maybe the people that sold them in droves in 2008?

If thicker is better, shouldn't we just go back to 10W-40? Why is 5W-30 okay for "thicker oil people" when it too was "sewing machine oil" in from the 70's to the 90's and wasn't "recommended for sustain high speed driving" up until about 1990?
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/27/17 02:53 AM

Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
If thicker is better, shouldn't we just go back to 10W-40? Why is 5W-30 okay for "thicker oil people" when it too was "sewing machine oil" in from the 70's to the 90's and wasn't "recommended for sustain high speed driving" up until about 1990?


surely you've been here long enough to know when high shear viscosmetry, the nature of temporary and permanent shear were investigated, and AS A RESULT HTHS, and the various shear stability requirements were inserted in J300...and it's therefore a rhetorical question, isn't it ?

Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
He's just repeating the same clichs from the early 2000's and basically contradicts himself. "Who cares about fuel economy when everyone is buying SUV's"? I dunno, maybe the people that sold them in droves in 2008?


Still LOLing about Ford's emotionally charged advertorial/TSB...
Posted By: Nickdfresh

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/27/17 03:05 AM

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
If thicker is better, shouldn't we just go back to 10W-40? Why is 5W-30 okay for "thicker oil people" when it too was "sewing machine oil" in from the 70's to the 90's and wasn't "recommended for sustain high speed driving" up until about 1990?


surely you've been here long enough to know when high shear viscosmetry, the nature of temporary and permanent shear were investigated, and AS A RESULT HTHS, and the various shear stability requirements were inserted in J300...and it's therefore a rhetorical question, isn't it ?


Right, exactly!!

Quote:


Still LOLing about Ford's emotionally charged advertorial/TSB...


Beats your cherrypicked, outdated papers..

And the fact that you seem to think it's rather insidious that Honda admits thinner oils are at least partially for fuel economy when they've marketed themselves as one of the highest fleet fuel economy lines (and more often than not, the highest) since at least the 1970's and one of the main reasons they crushed US manufacturers in the 70's, when to buy an Accord, you had to wait for your city's consignment to come in, pay above sticker, and have every possible costly option done to the car...

I said I agree that a few UOA's don't tell the whole story, but these are starting to trend with lower, or at least on par, wear numbers with thinner oil in a reasonable, passenger car application. Seems to rather bother you..
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/27/17 04:34 AM

Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
I said I agree that a few UOA's don't tell the whole story, but these are starting to trend with lower, or at least on par, wear numbers with thinner oil in a reasonable, passenger car application.


I don't think anyone is arguing that xW-20 doesn't work in today's modern vehicles designed to use xW-20 with normal everyday driving conditions. However, technical information does show that a thicker oil can provide a higher level of engine protection "safety margin" (ie, thicker MOFT), and that's certainly true for applications that push oil temperatures well above the normal 200~220 F range.

Go put xW-20 in a high performance engine and go run it hard on the track every weekend for 6 months, then compare that UOA to a UOA using xW-20 in the same engine, but just driving it in normal street conditions. Or do the same track time with a thicker oil like xW-40 or xW-50 and compare UOAs to the same track time using xW-20. Of course you'd need 2 or 3 UOAs of each condition to confirm the trend. Long drawn out process for sure. Maybe Blackstone or similar has some kind of data bank of such information.

There's no doubt today's modern xW-20 oils are satisfactory for modern vehicles used in normal street driving conditions. If they weren't, you'd hear of engines wearing out way before their time. But claiming that xW-20 results in less engine wear than the thicker oils when much of the technical information out there doesn't parallel that premise makes it hard to believe. Maybe someone can go dig up an SAE paper or something that backs up the premise with real experimental data that thinner oil results in less engine wear - or on the flip side backs up that thicker results in less engine wear - or that there is no real measurable difference.
Posted By: FordCapriDriver

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/27/17 04:38 AM

Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
...

I think on main reason thicker oils are used in Europe is because the cars there are driven faster and harder in general (ie, Autobahn type use) compared to the US and Japan. Note that engine design is part of the equation on just how well a thinner oil would perform. But on the flip side, using a higher viscosity oil isn't going to hurt in everyday normal street driving. The main drawback would be more shearing friction which slightly hurts fuel economy.


They Autobahn is only in one country, although I think there are other high speed motorways elsewhere...

I was under the impression that longer drain intervals and high oil costs are the biggest reasons that Europeans tend to have thicker oils in their sumps. When oils moved to SJ and the first 5W-20's came out, a Valvoline engineer stated in an interview in a trade publication that she always recommended using thinner oils where appropriate because the base oils (in "conventionals") the 5W-XX were receiving the most R&D...

True, not all of Europe has Autobahns, just Germany, some Americans seem to think we have them in all of Europe.
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/27/17 04:49 AM

Yes, we all know there is only one Autobahn. I said "Autobahn type use", implying high speed driving for extended periods of time.
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/27/17 04:51 AM

So here's something to ponder. There is not one motorcycle that I know of that specifies xW-20 motor oil. Every bike I've owned (even 2016 models) or worked on specifies 10W-40 as the thinnest oil to use, and it then goes up from there to 20W-50.
Posted By: zeng

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/27/17 06:55 AM

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
But claiming that xW-20 results in less engine wear than the thicker oils when much of the technical information out there doesn't parallel that premise makes it hard to believe.

I'm speculating there may well be such a 'proper' test comparing (gross) engine wear (inclusive of adhesion/abrasion/corrosion wear among others) between an xW20 and an xW30/40 ..........

under 'chosen and selective' operating test parameters (conducive to thinner oils and its add packs, for sure ) to tip test results towards the 'target'.........

and possibly with a 'paper' by stake holders of commercial interests (thus ruling out the likelihood of an SAE paper) ........

that is NOT peer-reviewed , to serve the (likely business) agenda of the paper proponent(s) ....in their marketing endeavours ........

by misleadingly portraying that it's solely the lower operating viscosity (and by extension lower MOFT) in an xW20 today (..and an xW16 in moons to come) vis-a-vis a thicker oil, that produces reduced (gross) engine wear .........

knowingly and intentionally hiding away from the general public and the 'learned' Bitog community the 'facts' that the two thin and thick oil samples in question may have vastly different additives packages and are of substantial difference in efficacies in engine wear mitigations ......


Quote:
Maybe someone can go dig up an SAE paper or something that backs up the premise with real experimental data that thinner oil results in less engine wear - .....

I attempted, but no luck! sleep
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/27/17 08:30 AM

http://papers.sae.org/932782/

It's not "Fresh", but is still referenced in papers as recently as 2016 that I've found...it supports that piston rings and cam faces are immune to viscosity...(because they are predominantly additive controlled wear faces as I keep saying).

Note what the Toyota engineers admit that their drivers and concerns are in the summaries.

And apparently nobody bothered to click on the "Fresh" Honda papers...

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Couple of papers...
https://www.hondarandd.jp/e-book/16-2e/_SWF_Window.html
Cam wear was reduced in Honda's 0W20 development by the addition of Mo...but the test was the now (as of this thread) discredited sequence IVA wear test.

https://www.hondarandd.jp/point.php?sid=2&pid=72&did=72&lang=en
Viscosities lower than 20 were developed...surprisingly cam wear was additive dependent rather than viscosity, and as viscosity and MOFT dropped, big end wear increased, which can be stabilised by increasing bearing projected surface areas.

Interesting in both papers that they state WHAT they are trying to achieve (economy), and what they are doing to maintain the wear protection as they drop viscosity...again, OP's conclusions are flawed.
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/27/17 08:38 AM

Originally Posted By: Shannow
And apparently nobody bothered to click on the "Fresh" Honda papers...

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Couple of papers...
https://www.hondarandd.jp/e-book/16-2e/_SWF_Window.html
Cam wear was reduced in Honda's 0W20 development by the addition of Mo...but the test was the now (as of this thread) discredited sequence IVA wear test.

https://www.hondarandd.jp/point.php?sid=2&pid=72&did=72&lang=en
Viscosities lower than 20 were developed...surprisingly cam wear was additive dependent rather than viscosity, and as viscosity and MOFT dropped, big end wear increased, which can be stabilised by increasing bearing projected surface areas.

Interesting in both papers that they state WHAT they are trying to achieve (economy), and what they are doing to maintain the wear protection as they drop viscosity...again, OP's conclusions are flawed.


Looks like you have to register and then log-in to see the papers.
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/27/17 08:47 AM

Also interesting that a couple of players in the major oil industry are so ill informed on the facts presented in this thread...

https://passenger.lubrizoladditives360.c...ear-challenges/

Quote:
GF-6B, on the other hand, forgoes the requirement to be backwards compatible with GF-5 applications and opens the door for the development of ultra-low viscosity lubricants (i.e., SAE 16) that will push the industry into areas of formulation that have never before been encountered. These lubricants will produce significant fuel economy benefits for many engine applications, but because of their low viscosity grade, there is the potential for wear or other durability related issues.
When asked about the implications that SAE XW-16 will have on passenger car motor oil (PCMO) performance requirements, Lubrizols PCMO Product Manager, Jon Vilardo, said:
While it is generally accepted that lower viscosity brings an improvement in fuel economy performance, it can have a negative impact on durability; the protective oil film is less robust, or under the most extreme loading conditions, non-existent. In terms of performance requirements, this translates to a set of standards that will ensure fuel economy is improved via lower viscosity, but durability will not be compromised. The future proposed ultra-low viscosity GF-6B specification requires the same durability performance as the proposed GF-6A. This may require enhanced fortification of specific additive components or a different formulation shape to deliver the required durability in SAE XW-16 fluids.


https://www.infineuminsight.com/insight/jun-2014/delivering-fuel-economy?alttemplate=PDF

Quote:
Two PC-11 sub-categoriesFor the first time the PC-11 category will be split into two sub-categories. The first, PC-11A offersincreased engine protection at traditional viscosities, like SAE 15W-40, at 3.5 centiPoise (cP) HTHS(high temperature high shear) or greater. These oils will be recommended by on and off-road OEMsand will be fully backward compatible.The second, PC-11B, the so called fuel economy grade', is designed to meet the evolving marketneeds for fuel economy through lower limits of HTHS (2.9 3.2 cP) in SAE XW-30 grades. Thedurability requirements will be the same for all grades to ensure these new fuel economy grades arerisk-free.The fuel economy grade presents a new set of challenges for engine oil formulators as they mustensure low HTHS oils still deliver the same level of engine protection as defined in current APICJ-4 engine tests and also in the upcoming PC-11 engine tests.


Why aren't these experts in the field hailing the new low viscosity lubes as being designed for "superior flow", "improved wear", with economy as a side benefit ?

Why is EVERY paper around "improving economy" (or CO2 emissions depending on the bent), while modifying lubricants to at least maintain adequate (or the same) wear ?

As an aside, it's pretty hard to find Fresh research on the gravitational constant, so citing a 1970s textbook is pretty well as relevent as going and buying one today...claiming that 1970s data is "wrong" or "outdated" because it's not fresh is plain stupid.
Posted By: SR5

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/27/17 09:59 AM

Originally Posted By: Shannow
As an aside, it's pretty hard to find Fresh research on the gravitational constant, so citing a 1970s textbook is pretty well as relevent as going and buying one today...claiming that 1970s data is "wrong" or "outdated" because it's not fresh is plain stupid.


Nature (307, February 1984)
"A new mine determination of the newtonian gravitational constant"

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v307/n5953/abs/307714a0.html


As we all know the universal gradational constant "G" has only ever been measured at either laboratory (small) scale or at astronomical (large) scale. In the 70's, 80's and 90's a push was on to measure G at the medium scale, which has never been done before.

Just saying....

Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/27/17 10:08 AM

What is this latest spin about? Did I name the thread "Thinnest oil is the best?" I was only comparing 0W-20 and 0W-40 in an engine with typical bearing design and sliding rocker arms.
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/27/17 10:12 AM

Originally Posted By: SR5
Originally Posted By: Shannow
As an aside, it's pretty hard to find Fresh research on the gravitational constant, so citing a 1970s textbook is pretty well as relevent as going and buying one today...claiming that 1970s data is "wrong" or "outdated" because it's not fresh is plain stupid.


Nature (307, February 1984)
"A new mine determination of the newtonian gravitational constant"

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v307/n5953/abs/307714a0.html


As we all know the universal gradational constant "G" has only ever been measured at either laboratory (small) scale or at astronomical (large) scale. In the 70's, 80's and 90's a push was on to measure G at the medium scale, which has never been done before.

Just saying....


LOL, thanks. thumbsup
Posted By: SR5

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/27/17 10:26 AM

Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
If thicker is better, shouldn't we just go back to 10W-40? Why is 5W-30 okay for "thicker oil people"


5W30 is Not OK to this thick oil person, it's a thin oil to me. And yes I do like a good 10W40 thankyou very much.

My mate at work thinks I'm taking a big risk using a 40 grade. He runs M1 5W50 in every car and motorcycle he owns.

He has a Subaru for sale right now, ~ 100,000 miles, tip-top condition, and doesn't burn a drop.

Just saying ....
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/27/17 10:30 AM

Given some of the rhetoric on BITOG, Aussies shouldn't be able to get anywhere at all...

All that "overly" thick oil, destroying engines everywhere, the roads should look like the opening scene to I am Legend (Will Smith movie)...but they don't...
Posted By: FordCapriDriver

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/27/17 10:54 AM

Lol yeah, i wonder how the [censored] my engine survives on 20W-50 better known as molasses.
Posted By: SR5

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/27/17 10:55 AM

I'm sure Mad Max ran GTX 20W50 or more likely Penrite HPR 30 (20W60) as the go-to performance oil of that day.

You will never find me entering a post-apocalyptic waste land on an ILSAC oil.
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/27/17 10:58 AM

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
What is this latest spin about? Did I name the thread "Thinnest oil is the best?" I was only comparing 0W-20 and 0W-40 in an engine with typical bearing design and sliding rocker arms.


It's a natural discussion spin based on your UOA 'final verdict' that 0W-20 gives better wear protection than 0w-40.

Seems they have xW-20 down pretty good for normal/non-extreme use conditions since it's been around for many years now. But going even lower in motor oil viscosity (xW-16 and xW-8 are in the development stages) to gain ever increased fuel mileage is going to relying more on new types of anti-wear additives to make up for the loss of wear protection that was traditionally obtained from higher viscosity/film thickness. From what I'm reading, it sounds like developing even thinner than xW-20 oils that kept wear down to the current levels will be big challenge in the AW additive realm.
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/27/17 11:02 AM

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Given some of the rhetoric on BITOG, Aussies shouldn't be able to get anywhere at all...

All that "overly" thick oil, destroying engines everywhere, the roads should look like the opening scene to I am Legend (Will Smith movie)...but they don't...


I was thinking more along the lines of "Road Warrior" ... but I guess they ran out of gas before the engine had a chance to smoked itself with thick oil.
Posted By: zeng

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/27/17 11:57 AM

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
I was only comparing 0W-20 and 0W-40 in an engine with typical bearing design and sliding rocker arms.

No, that's what you perceive ...... quite rightly.
In a way,I consider you're comparing primarily (differential) efficacies of relevant:
a )TGMO add packs of 18 months (comprising 1 winter season) usage, as opposed to
b )M 1 add packs of 22 months (comprising 2 winter seasons) usage .......
where respective viscosity grades appears to be of lesser significance in relation to additives packages of major significance ..........
in your 'Final verdict', I speculate.
Posted By: Virtus_Probi

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/27/17 12:30 PM

Originally Posted By: SR5
I'm sure Mad Max ran GTX 20W50 or more likely Penrite HPR 30 (20W60) as the go-to performance oil of that day.

You will never find me entering a post-apocalyptic waste land on an ILSAC oil.


Yeah, I know from DVDs that Aussies only get away with thick oil because they generally only drive about 100 miles before getting in a fiery crash while being pursued by ultraviolent and barbaric, yet well-costumed, gangs. Those that manage to survive more than 500 miles or so get a complete engine rebuild ordered by Fifi.
The collector's edition of Mad Max does have that famous deleted scene in which Max and Toecutter discuss the HTHS of Penrite 20W50 and Max kindly gives the hooligan a Repco coupon for it...the latter's reign of terror begins after he is infuriated to find it had expired 3 months before.

EDIT- I have to admit that I could never take Toecutter seriously because he reminded me so much of Benny Hill...
Posted By: Jetronic

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/27/17 06:46 PM

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
This paper gives some insight on how different oil viscosity can effect the minimum oil film thickness (MOFT) and the friction losses in engine components.

http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~jacksr7/SAE2002013355.pdf

The only real benefit of thinner oil is a reduction in shearing friction and therefore power loss, which ties into the main CAFE goal to achieve better fuel economy.

As long as the MOFT is still satisfactory (along with whatever anti-wear additives are at play), the wear should be held down to an acceptable level. Thinner oil results in less oil film thickness for engine components to work with (ie, less "safety factor") before metal-to-metal contact occurs. And as mentioned before, if the engine is heavily stressed to elevate the oil temperature well above the "normal" level, then the oil film thickness suffers even more.


I would like to note that the MOFT is likely quite a bit overstated in this work, especially in the bearings. The authors acknowledge this, but it bears repeating imo.
Posted By: KL31

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/27/17 08:07 PM

Originally Posted By: Virtus_Probi
The collector's edition of Mad Max does have that famous deleted scene in which Max and Toecutter discuss the HTHS of Penrite 20W50 and Max kindly gives the hooligan a Repco coupon for it...the latter's reign of terror begins after he is infuriated to find it had expired 3 months before.


LOL
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/27/17 08:59 PM

Originally Posted By: Jetronic
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
This paper gives some insight on how different oil viscosity can effect the minimum oil film thickness (MOFT) and the friction losses in engine components.

http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~jacksr7/SAE2002013355.pdf

The only real benefit of thinner oil is a reduction in shearing friction and therefore power loss, which ties into the main CAFE goal to achieve better fuel economy.

As long as the MOFT is still satisfactory (along with whatever anti-wear additives are at play), the wear should be held down to an acceptable level. Thinner oil results in less oil film thickness for engine components to work with (ie, less "safety factor") before metal-to-metal contact occurs. And as mentioned before, if the engine is heavily stressed to elevate the oil temperature well above the "normal" level, then the oil film thickness suffers even more.

I would like to note that the MOFT is likely quite a bit overstated in this work, especially in the bearings. The authors acknowledge this, but it bears repeating imo.


Yes, I saw that too ... but the paper does give good insight to what's going on with different engine components with respect to the oil viscosity. Readers should at least come away with the understanding that thicker oil results in greater MOFT which helps keep metal-to-metal contact down, but at the expense of more power loss due to increased frictional shearing. And from other info posted in this thread, using a thin oil in bearings with relatively large clearances (above 0.002") will cause MOFT to suffer compared to using a thicker oil.

Also worth noting is that higher engine RPM helps increase the MOFT and oil flow in bearings, so lugging the engine at WOT (high load) and low RPM isn't a good thing to do ... especially if using thin oil.
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/27/17 09:28 PM

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix

Also worth noting is that higher engine RPM helps increase the MOFT and oil flow in bearings, so lugging the engine at WOT (high load) and low RPM isn't a good thing to do ... especially if using thin oil.


Per the empirical charts I keep posting...pick a MOFT, and change the variables around to see what parameters you can change but keep the same MOFT...
Posted By: SR5

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/27/17 09:53 PM

Originally Posted By: Virtus_Probi
.... while being pursued by ...... well-costumed, gangs.

- The collector's edition of Mad Max


One must have personal standards, even in the outback wastelands.
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/27/17 11:01 PM

We've had TGMO for ages...well one of the formulae, in a metal tin...
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/27/17 11:10 PM

Originally Posted By: Shannow
We've had TGMO for ages...well one of the formulae, in a metal tin...

That does sound like the Mad Max wasteland. smile
Posted By: SR5

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/27/17 11:25 PM

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
The next OCI will be TGMO 0W-20 SN "Sinttico."...... I can imagine people coming from overseas and smuggling this stuff in their suitcases to places like Australia, where it's gold.


No need mate, my local auto store, which I pass on the way to work everyday, carries ample Shell Helix Ultra 0W-20 full synthetic. It's API SN. ILSAC GF-5 and ACEA A1/B1 so it carries more specs than your Gold TGMO, which would make the GTL SHU 0W20 my preferred choice, if I wanted a 20 grade oil.

Just because we don't use it, please don't assume we can't get it.
Posted By: KL31

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/28/17 12:01 AM

There is a guy in NSW with a website that sells tgmo 0w20. But for $10.50 a quart... plus postage if you aren't in NSW.
Posted By: dblshock

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/28/17 01:53 AM

motor probably rattles like an old wash machine on that 0/20...upgrade that, live a little, motor should sound best too.
Posted By: kschachn

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/28/17 01:58 AM

Originally Posted By: dblshock
motor probably rattles like an old wash machine on that 0/20...upgrade that, live a little, motor should sound best too.


Merkava, is that you?
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/28/17 02:04 AM

So TGMO stands for The Gold Motor Oil?

It's good oil for sure but to put it on a pedestal? No. Too many other good oilsout there in the 0w-20 flavor.
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/28/17 02:30 AM

Originally Posted By: PimTac
So TGMO stands for The Gold Motor Oil?

It's good oil for sure but to put it on a pedestal? No. Too many other good oilsout there in the 0w-20 flavor.


TGMO, it's all the certifications that it DOESN'T have that makes it so special.
Posted By: dblshock

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/28/17 03:06 AM

that's a very pedestrian engine, not much if any stress...perfect for a thin motor oil.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/28/17 03:10 AM

Originally Posted By: PimTac
So TGMO stands for The Gold Motor Oil?

It's good oil for sure but to put it on a pedestal? No. Too many other good oilsout there in the 0w-20 flavor.

I don't think anything beats TGMO 0W-20 SN in the UOAs as far as I know. You can research around but to my knowledge TGMO 0W-20 SN gives the best UOAs by far.

Here is one example out of many out there:

https://www.clublexus.com/forums/ls-4th-...experiment.html

Regarding certifications, Toyota doesn't have any Toyota oil certification like GM's dexos etc. Instead, they trust ILSAC, which is the general oil certification system for US and Japan oil companies. On top of that, TGMO is a full synthetic that was custom-developed for Toyota and tested by Toyota; so, you are actually getting more than a simple certification stamp as with other oils.
Posted By: dblshock

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/28/17 03:12 AM

if you just drive back/forth to work, bought the 85hp base model, tires last 100k, do 3k OCI's and no police citations this is your oil.
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/28/17 03:16 AM

Originally Posted By: dblshock
motor probably rattles like an old wash machine on that 0/20...upgrade that, live a little, motor should sound best too.




My brother has a '15 Civic running 0w-20. The engine is so quiet you hardly know it's running.
Posted By: dblshock

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/28/17 03:22 AM

Can you upgrade this TGMO to 10/30?
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/28/17 03:27 AM

if you had the ability to purchase TGMO made by Idemitsu then you are looking at a great oil, comparable with Mazda Moly oil and even Eneos Sustina. In the US doesn't Mobil make TGMO? Europe would have another company perhaps.

In any case, the way companies change formulations to meet new specs or whatever means today's TGMO is most likely different than the one five years ago.

Again, it's good oil but so is Valvoline Synpower, Mobil1 AFE, Castrol Edge etc.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/28/17 03:29 AM

Originally Posted By: PimTac
Originally Posted By: dblshock
motor probably rattles like an old wash machine on that 0/20...upgrade that, live a little, motor should sound best too.

My brother has a '15 Civic running 0w-20. The engine is so quiet you hardly know it's running.

I thought the engines sounded better with thinner oil, too. Very thick oil (such as 15W-40) makes my engine hum on the freeway and also makes the idles more rough due to more friction. Thinner oil results in less friction and less friction results in less noise. This is espcially true for deep, humming or moaning noises I mentioned.

However, friction can also damp certain vibrations. So, certain metallic noise, such as valvetrain noise, that could be damped by high-friction, thick oils could actually be a bad thing, as your engine likes less friction, not more.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/28/17 03:33 AM

Originally Posted By: PimTac
if you had the ability to purchase TGMO made by Idemitsu then you are looking at a great oil, comparable with Mazda Moly oil and even Eneos Sustina. In the US doesn't Mobil make TGMO? Europe would have another company perhaps.

In any case, the way companies change formulations to meet new specs or whatever means today's TGMO is most likely different than the one five years ago.

Again, it's good oil but so is Valvoline Synpower, Mobil1 AFE, Castrol Edge etc.

Oh, no, not the Japanese (Idemitsu) version of TGMO... ExxonMobil co-owns Infineum, which makes the secret ingredient in the US version of TGMO 0W-20 SN: trinuclear moly.
Posted By: CR94

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/28/17 03:35 AM

Originally Posted By: PimTac
... In the US doesn't Mobil make TGMO? ...
Yes, but per Toyota's recipe. It's not the same as any Mobil product.
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/28/17 03:41 AM

What is so secret about tri-nuclear moly? It's just another form of the additive used by many oil manufacturers.

This is turning into a brand fanatic thread. Later.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/28/17 03:44 AM

Originally Posted By: PimTac
What is so secret about tri-nuclear moly? It's just another form of the additive used by many oil manufacturers.

This is turning into a brand fanatic thread. Later.

Trinuclear moly is only the best AW/EP/FM/AO additive that has ever been invented. smile
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/28/17 03:48 AM

Originally Posted By: CR94
Originally Posted By: PimTac
... In the US doesn't Mobil make TGMO? ...

Yes, but per Toyota's recipe. It's not the same as any Mobil product.

That's exactly so and hence M1 AFE/EP/AP 0W-20 SN has only about half the trinuclear moly TGMO 0W-20 SN has (116 ppm).
Posted By: WhizkidTN

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/28/17 03:53 AM

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
What is this latest spin about? Did I name the thread "Thinnest oil is the best?" I was only comparing 0W-20 and 0W-40 in an engine with typical bearing design and sliding rocker arms.


It's a natural discussion spin based on your UOA 'final verdict' that 0W-20 gives better wear protection than 0w-40.

Seems they have xW-20 down pretty good for normal/non-extreme use conditions since it's been around for many years now. But going even lower in motor oil viscosity (xW-16 and xW-8 are in the development stages) to gain ever increased fuel mileage is going to relying more on new types of anti-wear additives to make up for the loss of wear protection that was traditionally obtained from higher viscosity/film thickness. From what I'm reading, it sounds like developing even thinner than xW-20 oils that kept wear down to the current levels will be big challenge in the AW additive realm.


Best comment I've read over several pages of this thread. Kudos sir.
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/28/17 04:16 AM

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Oh, no, not the Japanese (Idemitsu) version of TGMO... ExxonMobil co-owns Infineum, which makes the secret ingredient in the US version of TGMO 0W-20 SN: trinuclear moly.


again, it's ASSumed to be trinuclear moly...no-one can state that for certain.

According to one advocate, Toyota provides Mobil with the additive package that Toyota made themselves.

There is so much speculation about this product based on assumptions and theories that NONE of us could no.

TGMO, it the things that we don't know, and can't know that make it what it is...
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/28/17 04:17 AM

Originally Posted By: CR94
Originally Posted By: PimTac
... In the US doesn't Mobil make TGMO? ...
Yes, but per Toyota's recipe. It's not the same as any Mobil product.


Why then, are the half dozen different TGMOs from different manufacturers so markedly different then ?

If it's Toyota's secret sauce and spices, why are they all not the same ?
Posted By: CR94

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/28/17 04:49 AM

Originally Posted By: Shannow
... Why then, are the half dozen different TGMOs from different manufacturers so markedly different then ? ...
Of that half-dozen, how many are currently sold in the US as 0W-20?
Posted By: SonofJoe

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/28/17 05:03 AM

Sorry to rain on the parade but Moly is Moly.

Infineum's tri-nuclear Moly exists purely to escape prior Moly patents (an IP minefield is ever there was one!) and provide them with legitimate 'freedom to practice'. I got this straight from the horse's mouth. The same source also told me that this stuff is eye-wateringly expensive; even more so that the usually expensive standard Molys. Given that even the most top-tier oils have limits on their cost, it can be economically sensible to use more of a standard Moly than a lesser amount of TNM.
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/28/17 05:03 AM



"Why then, are the half dozen different TGMOs from different manufacturers so markedly different then ?"

"If it's Toyota's secret sauce and spices, why are they all not the same ?"



Good question. If I recall correctly from another thread long ago, a UOA performed on a Canadian customer was very different from the US reports. Petro Canada has the contract up there.

Who is to say that next year the US contract goes to ConocoPhillips or Chevron or whoever?
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/28/17 05:10 AM

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Sorry to rain on the parade but Moly is Moly.

Infineum's tri-nuclear Moly exists purely to escape prior Moly patents (an IP minefield is ever there was one!) and provide them with legitimate 'freedom to practice'. I got this straight from the horse's mouth. The same source also told me that this stuff is eye-wateringly expensive; even more so that the usually expensive standard Molys. Given that even the most top-tier oils have limits on their cost, it can be economically sensible to use more of a standard Moly than a lesser amount of TNM.





This statement is spot on. Thanks SOJ. I have never seen any evidence that one form was better than another. Also, as of lately it seems oil manufacturers have been putting less moly in and most likely using other friction modifiers that do not show on analysis reports.
Posted By: SonofJoe

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/28/17 06:00 AM

Just to broaden this discussion out a bit...

This debate has largely focussed on the wear performance of a 0W20 vs a 0W40 with the implication that the 0W20 might be the better oil of the two. I'm sort of neutral on this point. I use 0W20 in my car (I think the factory fill is from Idemitsu but it will shortly get changed to Petronas 7000 0W20 when I take it into it's first service). I suspect if you look for difference, you'll find a difference but most oil formulators would take the view that these days, wear, relative to other things, isn't such a big deal on modern engines with half decent oils.

However if you look at other properties of the oil, I'd expect a 0W40 to be significantly WORSE than a 0W20. Although it depends on what VII you use, I might expect a 0W40 to contain about 70% more VII rubber than a 0W20. High levels of VII are not your best friend in any oil as they are the primary source of most piston deposits. What's more, the cold-flow properties of any VII are so poor that to accommodate that extra VII, you'll need to lighten up your base oil mix and take a hit on Noack. But that's just the 'direct' effect. To pass any piston cleanliness limited test, you'll generally need to add significantly more ashless dispersant to mitigate the effects of the extra VII. The cold-flow properties of ashless (particularly in a 0W-xx oil) are horrendous so you'll need to take a secondary (and almost certainly more severe) hit on Noack. And because your base oil mix is now far lighter, you're going to have to 'top-up' with a tad more VII to make up the viscometric deficit. And so it goes...

For most boring drivers (like me), that extra VII and higher Noack isn't such a big deal, but if you run hot and hard (or have a diesel) then it potentially is in all sorts of unwelcome ways. The risks of oil consumption, higher varnish, late onset oil ring sticking, hotter piston crowns all tick upwards in moving from a 0W20 to a 0W40. Yes you can mitigate these effects by using more polymerically efficient VIIs or subbing PAO for Group III but in both cases, you're talking about serious increases in the cost of manufacture.

Me, I'd avoid 0W40's like the plague. The only engine test program I ever failed was a 0W40 (admittedly it was the first one I'd ever run but it opened my eyes!). If I was specifically concerned about wear, I'd use an ACEA A3/B4 5W30 as there's often not a lot of difference HTHS-wise between that and a 0W40 and you don't get all that nasty rubber.

Finally, can I say that while I agree that not all drivers will see the fuel economy benefits of 0W20, I do. I'm consistently getting 70+ mpg out of my little car; something I've never ever seen in 40 years of driving.
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/28/17 08:05 AM

SonofJoe,
in this particular case, the US TGMO has a VI well over 200 (220 IIRC)...the Japanese OEMs used ultra high VIs, lots of VII, one of the lowest ratios of HTHS versus Newtonian HTHS (TSS)...It's a part of the mythical status of this miraculous oil (and a few others)

They did this in the period prior to the 16 and lower grades coming on line for warm-up fuel economy (their words), and from CATERHAM's testing to drop in HTHS pretty markedly (clearly not for improved big end function, so it must be for "the other reason").

The Japanese OEMs included moly, and if you have a look at the API Requirements, they (the Japanes OEMS) lobbied the API to drops the TEOST tests for the 0W20 grades (*)...aka want uber high VI, AND bucketloads of moly, our oils can't meet the TEOST that is required of every other oil grade in the API arsenal.

(*) so much for the argument that Toyotas run on standard API specs, when they and Honda lobbied to remove the deposit test from that and that grade only.
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/28/17 08:33 AM

Originally Posted By: CR94
Originally Posted By: Shannow
... Why then, are the half dozen different TGMOs from different manufacturers so markedly different then ? ...
Of that half-dozen, how many are currently sold in the US as 0W-20?


Pretty sure that there were at least three TGMO 0W20s (all made to Toyota's exact secret sauce) over the year that were all different.

There's another couple of TGMO 0W20s elsewhere...and if Toyota are shipping the secret sauce to Mobil (as has been claimed), then it would seem pretty simple to send a drum of sauce somewhere else, wouldn't it ?
Posted By: CharlieBauer

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/28/17 09:09 AM

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe

Me, I'd avoid 0W40's like the plague. The only engine test program I ever failed was a 0W40 (admittedly it was the first one I'd ever run but it opened my eyes!). If I was specifically concerned about wear, I'd use an ACEA A3/B4 5W30 as there's often not a lot of difference HTHS-wise between that and a 0W40 and you don't get all that nasty rubber.


Say I can't get a Euro 5w30. What's the next best choice? 5w40 or 0w30?
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/28/17 09:12 AM

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3356846/2

for those interested, Gokhan had a really comprehensive VOA of TGMO a few years ago.
Posted By: SonofJoe

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/28/17 10:33 AM

Originally Posted By: Shannow
SonofJoe,
in this particular case, the US TGMO has a VI well over 200 (220 IIRC)...the Japanese OEMs used ultra high VIs, lots of VII, one of the lowest ratios of HTHS versus Newtonian HTHS (TSS)...It's a part of the mythical status of this miraculous oil (and a few others)

They did this in the period prior to the 16 and lower grades coming on line for warm-up fuel economy (their words), and from CATERHAM's testing to drop in HTHS pretty markedly (clearly not for improved big end function, so it must be for "the other reason").

The Japanese OEMs included moly, and if you have a look at the API Requirements, they (the Japanes OEMS) lobbied the API to drops the TEOST tests for the 0W20 grades (*)...aka want uber high VI, AND bucketloads of moly, our oils can't meet the TEOST that is required of every other oil grade in the API arsenal.

(*) so much for the argument that Toyotas run on standard API specs, when they and Honda lobbied to remove the deposit test from that and that grade only.



The Japanese (and almost no-one else) like Poly-Methacrylate (PMA) VIIs in their engine oils. One of the peculiarities of PMA is that for a fixed KV100 and fixed CCS, it will always give you a lower KV40 (or KV '0 to 40' if you want to go even lower) than the equivalent oil made with bog standard OCP VII (regardless of SSI) or slightly more exotic Hydrogenated Styrene-Diene (Shellvis) VIIs. So PMAs automatically give you higher than usual Viscosity Index (VI). Unfortunately oil specs never contain limits on VI or KV40 so no-one generally is interested in this peculiar quirk of PMA. However.....

... if you happen to live in a densely populated country that is 95% mountain, that has no indigenous oil reserves, that has bitingly cold winters and everywhere you drive involves sitting in long traffic jams (so your engine oil can potentially take ages to get up to it's 100C operating temperature) then under such circumstances, I can imagine that an engine oil with a low KV40 (or more accurately, a lower aggregate KV during the start-up/warm-up phase) would give you a decent, measurable fuel economy credit. Hello PMA VII!!

So why don't we all use PMA? Well for starters, it's horribly polymerically inefficient (think for every 1% of conventional VII rubber, you'll probably need 3% of PMA). That makes it very costly and potentially very 'dirty' (forget using PMA for diesel). You've already alluded to it's other weakness; it's garbage on the HTHS test and any other shear test. I don't know but would also hazard a guess that it's as much the high VII rubber loading that stuffs up Japanese oils on the TEOST test as much as high levels of Moly.

I might also think that you can only get away with PMA VII in relatively narrow cross-grade oils (like a 0W20) containing a lot of very high VI base oil (PAO?). Both things would bring the VII loading to something approaching a normal level. A 0W40 Group III PMA oil would be potentially awful for piston cleanliness.

Finally regarding the TEOST test, if it was up to me I'd take the test out of ALL specs everywhere. After that I'd take it outside, shoot it several times, drown it, cut it up into bits and then burn what was left! The test has no connection to any automotive reality I recognise. However it is excellent test for maintaining high levels of antioxidant in engine oils, even if they dont otherwise need it, so someone's benefitting from it; just not you and me.
Posted By: plaguef

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/28/17 12:35 PM

Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe

Me, I'd avoid 0W40's like the plague. The only engine test program I ever failed was a 0W40 (admittedly it was the first one I'd ever run but it opened my eyes!). If I was specifically concerned about wear, I'd use an ACEA A3/B4 5W30 as there's often not a lot of difference HTHS-wise between that and a 0W40 and you don't get all that nasty rubber.


Say I can't get a Euro 5w30. What's the next best choice? 5w40 or 0w30?


Mobil 1 has a 0W-30 and it and Pennzoil and Castrol have 0W-40 Euro...
Posted By: SR5

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/28/17 01:29 PM

Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe

Me, I'd avoid 0W40's like the plague. The only engine test program I ever failed was a 0W40 (admittedly it was the first one I'd ever run but it opened my eyes!). If I was specifically concerned about wear, I'd use an ACEA A3/B4 5W30 as there's often not a lot of difference HTHS-wise between that and a 0W40 and you don't get all that nasty rubber.


Say I can't get a Euro 5w30. What's the next best choice? 5w40 or 0w30?


I'm not Joe, but you can get M1 10W30 High Mileage which is A3/B3 which is fairly close. It's a full synthetic, narrow viscosity range so low on VII, and since you live in CA it should have all the cold starting ability you need.

If you want better cold starting M1 5W30 HM has a HTHS of 3.3 cP which is better than the regular M1 5W30 at 3.1 cP.

You should also be able to get a semi-synthetic mixed fleet HDEO 10W30 with a HTHS of 3.5 or more that's probably rated Euro ACEA E7 or E9 plus some API specs. That should be a nice oil.

But I'm not Joe, just chatting.
Posted By: 4WD

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/28/17 01:31 PM

Excellent post - makes one rethink some comments here wrt to 'stronger add packs', arbitrary measures like vscosity index, and all that. The really wide spreads don't feel right in my mind - me? have to live really cold to consider - but my friend has it in his 911s in Houston. (Well, changes 3k though- not on tracks). On the other end of things folks push running 5w40 truck oil in almost everything when the long standing leader in boat racing stays away from VII - and there are 15w40 Dino products with a lower NOACK.
Posted By: SR5

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/28/17 01:43 PM

Originally Posted By: SR5
Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe

Me, I'd avoid 0W40's like the plague. The only engine test program I ever failed was a 0W40 (admittedly it was the first one I'd ever run but it opened my eyes!). If I was specifically concerned about wear, I'd use an ACEA A3/B4 5W30 as there's often not a lot of difference HTHS-wise between that and a 0W40 and you don't get all that nasty rubber.


Say I can't get a Euro 5w30. What's the next best choice? 5w40 or 0w30?


I'm not Joe, but you can get M1 10W30 High Mileage which is A3/B3 which is fairly close. It's a full synthetic, narrow viscosity range so low on VII, and since you live in CA it should have all the cold starting ability you need.

If you want better cold starting M1 5W30 HM has a HTHS of 3.3 cP which is better than the regular M1 5W30 at 3.1 cP.

You should also be able to get a semi-synthetic mixed fleet HDEO 10W30 with a HTHS of 3.5 or more that's probably rated Euro ACEA E7 or E9 plus some API specs. That should be a nice oil.

But I'm not Joe, just chatting.

Oh yeah, and a 5W30 C3 (or Dexos2) rated oil.
C3 is like a low SAPS version of A3/B4. Good for moderate OCI.
Posted By: SonofJoe

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/28/17 02:38 PM

I was going to suggest a 10W30 (Amsoil's) but you beat me to it...
Posted By: CharlieBauer

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/28/17 02:55 PM

What if the only choice is between a 0w30 or a 5w40 for Euro car warranty / approved oil purposes?
Posted By: 4WD

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/28/17 03:00 PM

M1 Formula M 5w40 etc, etc, in some cases ...
Posted By: zeng

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/28/17 03:07 PM

Originally Posted By: zeng
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
I was only comparing 0W-20 and 0W-40 in an engine with typical bearing design and sliding rocker arms.

No, that's what you perceive ...... quite rightly.
In a way,I consider you're comparing primarily (differential) efficacies of relevant:
a )TGMO add packs of 18 months (comprising 1 winter season) usage, as opposed to
b )M 1 add packs of 22 months (comprising 2 winter seasons) usage .......

where respective viscosity grades appears to be of lesser significance in relation to additives packages of major significance ..........
in your 'Final verdict', I speculate.

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: CR94
Originally Posted By: PimTac
... In the US doesn't Mobil make TGMO? ...
Yes, but per Toyota's recipe. It's not the same as any Mobil product.
That's exactly so and hence M1 AFE/EP/AP 0W-20 SN has only about half the trinuclear moly TGMO 0W-20 SN has (116 ppm).

Originally Posted By: Shannow
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3356846/2
for those interested, Gokhan had a really comprehensive VOA of TGMO a few years ago.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3356846/1
Yes, you are comparing TGMO additive package against M 1 additive package.Period.
It's not about 0W20 vs 0W40!
Finally, the cat is ......https://www.google.com/search?q=the+cat+is+out+of+the+bag+meaning&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b
...... after a long, long 16 pages of .....
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
But claiming that xW-20 results in less engine wear than the thicker oils when much of the technical information out there doesn't parallel that premise makes it hard to believe. Maybe someone can go dig up an SAE paper or something ................

Did OP write this SAE paper ?
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/28/17 03:26 PM

How many times has it been said here that you cannot judge a oil solely by its additive package? Plus, the formulations of motor oils are fluid (pun) and changing all the time.
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/28/17 03:37 PM

I just read a few comments on that other thread and it opened more questions than answers for me.

Zinc is the only source of phosphorus in motor oil? Is that really true?

There is a difference between brand loyalty and brand fanaticism. I'm seeing the latter here.
Posted By: kschachn

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/28/17 03:49 PM

Originally Posted By: PimTac
I just read a few comments on that other thread and it opened more questions than answers for me.

Zinc is the only source of phosphorus in motor oil? Is that really true?


I don't know if this is 100% completely correct, but I ran across it a while back. I think it is pretty good:

http://www.wearcheck.co.za/downloads/bulletins/bulletin/tech47.pdf

Also, it wouldn't be that "zinc is the only source of phosphorus", since they are two different elements. Zinc dithiophosphate contains both and is decomposed in the ICP plasma to give an indication for both elements (although not at the same sensitivity).
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/28/17 03:58 PM

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: PimTac
I just read a few comments on that other thread and it opened more questions than answers for me.

Zinc is the only source of phosphorus in motor oil? Is that really true?


I don't know if this is 100% completely correct, but I ran across it a while back. I think it is pretty good:

http://www.wearcheck.co.za/downloads/bulletins/bulletin/tech47.pdf





Thanks for that info. It confirmed my suspicions. A lot of formulations use phosphate as the salt or the ion. For ex., calcium phosphate, sodium phosphate, and so forth. I'm no expert so I don't know the exact additive formulations except where specified as in the case of ZDDP.
Posted By: kschachn

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/28/17 04:06 PM

Well they aren't salts since they are soluble in the non-polar oil. I only have a minor in chemistry so this is rapidly starting to run out of what I know, but the central metal ion is zinc in ZDDP. However, like most coordination compounds you can often substitute another metal ion and not radically affect the function of the remainder of the molecule. I think that is what they do when they substitute titanium for zinc, the overall anti-wear function remains similar but you don't have the zinc to poison a catalyst.
Posted By: SonofJoe

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/28/17 04:31 PM

ZDDP isn't necessarily the only source of Phosphorus in oil. The Moly anologue of ZDDP contains it as do sundry phosphorylated organics.

However given that the Phos level for so many oils is restricted these days, a formulator will tend to use up his 'full Phosphorus allowance' with ZDDP and look to use non-Phos versions of other stuff (like P-free Moly Dithio Dialkyl Carbamate).
Posted By: SonofJoe

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/28/17 04:51 PM

Interesting take on things but not quite right...

In ZDDP, it's the Phosphorus (and Sulphur) bits that you really need for preventing wear and preventing oil oxidation. The Zinc (or more strictly Zinc Oxide) is really just a convenient way of linking two thio acid molecules together. Likewise it's just the Phos, and to a much lesser extent, the Sulphur in oil that poison cats. Zinc is sort of guilty only by association!

The Titanium you see in oils is not a ZDDP anologue (according to most published patents, it's Titanium Neodeconate). Titanium trioxide lacks the basic character of Zinc Oxide so the reaction with thio acid doesn't work. However one might possibly speculate that whoever first thought of using Titanium in oil, might have initially conceptually imagined it as a TiTDP (Titanium Tri-thio Dialkyl Phosphate)...
Posted By: kschachn

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/28/17 04:55 PM

Ahha, well thanks I stand corrected. A minor in some subject is usually just enough to be dangerous.

Catalyst poisoning is complicated, that much I know, it has everything to do with what the catalyst is and how it functions. I always thought it was the zinc that did it.

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Interesting take on things but not quite right...

In ZDDP, it's the Phosphorus (and Sulphur) bits that you really need for preventing wear and preventing oil oxidation. The Zinc (or more strictly Zinc Oxide) is really just a convenient way of linking two thio acid molecules together. Likewise it's just the Phos, and to a much lesser extent, the Sulphur in oil that poison cats. Zinc is sort of guilty only by association!

The Titanium you see in oils is not a ZDDP anologue (according to most published patents, it's Titanium Neodeconate). Titanium trioxide lacks the basic character of Zinc Oxide so the reaction with thio acid doesn't work. However one might possibly speculate that whoever first thought of using Titanium in oil, might have initially conceptually imagined it as a TiTDP (Titanium Tri-thio Dialkyl Phosphate)...
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/28/17 08:34 PM

Originally Posted By: dblshock
if you just drive back/forth to work, bought the 85hp base model, tires last 100k, do 3k OCI's and no police citations this is your oil.

This is a good point. The twin-cam, fuel-injection 4A-GEC engine produces more than 50% more power than my 4A-LC engine. 10W-30, which has an HTHSV of about 3.1 cP, is the recommended oil for both engines. Since the lubrication factor (in the Stribeck curve) is proportional to (RPM x viscosity / power), this means I could safely go down to an HTHSV of about 2.0 cP. So, according to Toyota, it's safe to use SAE 0W-12 in my engine. Chances are that even SAE 0W-8 (HTHSV = 1.7 cP) would work.

However, there is a caveat. This argument assumes that the RPM/power curve is similar in both engines. If my less powered engine produces a better power curve at low RPMs, the lubrication factor wouldn't be as strong at low RPMs and the argument wouldn't hold.

So, yes, the Toyota 4A engine was built very sturdily to be capable of much higher powers and it's a valid point that since I have a very low-powered version of it, I can get away with very thin oil, perhaps as thin as 0W-8, without the oil film (MOFT) collapsing at my bearings.
Posted By: SonofJoe

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/28/17 09:25 PM

I had a 1990 Toyota Carina II which had the 1.6 4A-FE engine in it.

From about 1999 onwards work became manically busy and I had zero time for stuff like car maintenance. As a result, I ran it for over 18,000 miles without changing the oil. I only realised something might be amiss when the red warning light came on! So I just turned the car around, drove back to the lab, grabbed the first can of oil I could lay my hands on (probably a prototype 10W40 GTX I was developing), filled up the engine (didn't seem any point in draining the sump as there probably wasn't much oil there) and just drove on!

Those old Toyota engines were as tough as old boots and could take some serious abuse and still keep going. I sort of recall I gave it away for free after 12 years of use with about 170,000 miles on the clock. Happy days...
Posted By: SR5

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/28/17 09:43 PM

Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
What if the only choice is between a 0w30 or a 5w40 for Euro car warranty / approved oil purposes?


Still not Joe, but going by what Joe says, I would look for the lowest Noack.

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Although it depends on what VII you use, I might expect a 0W40 to contain about 70% more VII rubber than a 0W20. High levels of VII are not your best friend in any oil as they are the primary source of most piston deposits. What's more, the cold-flow properties of any VII are so poor that to accommodate that extra VII, you'll need to lighten up your base oil mix and take a hit on Noack. But that's just the 'direct' effect. To pass any piston cleanliness limited test, you'll generally need to add significantly more ashless dispersant to mitigate the effects of the extra VII. The cold-flow properties of ashless (particularly in a 0W-xx oil) are horrendous so you'll need to take a secondary (and almost certainly more severe) hit on Noack. And because your base oil mix is now far lighter, you're going to have to 'top-up' with a tad more VII to make up the viscometric deficit. And so it goes...

..... Yes you can mitigate these effects by using more polymerically efficient VIIs or subbing PAO for Group III but in both cases, you're talking about serious increases in the cost of manufacture.

Me, I'd avoid 0W40's like the plague..... I'd use an ACEA A3/B4 5W30 ....
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/28/17 11:45 PM

Thanks Joe et al for bringing some useful facts to the table.
Posted By: CR94

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/29/17 05:56 AM

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
... Finally regarding the TEOST test, if it was up to me I'd take the test out of ALL specs everywhere. ...
Given your low opinion of that requirement, two questions:

1) What do you think of the Honda HTO-06 coking test, which (I thought) purports to measure more-or-less the same characteristic by a different method?
2) Was exempting 0W-20 from (both?) TEOST tests such a bad thing for cars that use 0W-20?
Posted By: FordCapriDriver

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/29/17 06:21 AM

Hmmm.... looks like this thread is never going to reach a final verdict
Posted By: SR5

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/29/17 06:39 AM

Originally Posted By: FordCapriDriver
Hmmm.... looks like this thread is never going to reach a final verdict


Happy Birthday FCD !!!!
Posted By: FordCapriDriver

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/29/17 06:48 AM

Originally Posted By: SR5
Originally Posted By: FordCapriDriver
Hmmm.... looks like this thread is never going to reach a final verdict


Happy Birthday FCD !!!!

Thanks
Posted By: SonofJoe

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/29/17 08:14 AM

Originally Posted By: CR94
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
... Finally regarding the TEOST test, if it was up to me I'd take the test out of ALL specs everywhere. ...
Given your low opinion of that requirement, two questions:

1) What do you think of the Honda HTO-06 coking test, which (I thought) purports to measure more-or-less the same characteristic by a different method?
2) Was exempting 0W-20 from (both?) TEOST tests such a bad thing for cars that use 0W-20?



I don't have any personal experience of this Honda HTO-6 coking test. However that wouldn't stop me saying it too should be shot, drowned, tortured and dissolved in acid. We should then nuke the test site from orbit (it's the only way to be sure...)

My hostility to these tests is not so much to do with the test itself but the philosophy that underpins them, the less-than-worthy reasons why these tests get 'pushed' and the (mis)use of said tests for commercial advantage.

In my book, oil is oil. It's a brown, slippery, industrial fluid like any other industrial commodity. It should satisfy a pre-defined duty (for the sake of argument say a OCI of 7,500 miles) for 95% of drivers, 95% of the time. It's price, through the wonderful mechanism of a competitive market should reflect it's cost. You can argue that the numbers should be 95% or 99% but it's hard to argue that the objective should be to satisfy 100% of the people, 100% of the time because that last percent always comes at a disproportionate cost and it's unfair to lumber the 99% of the people who don't need 'that thing' that the last 1% need, with those extra costs.

Yet this is exactly what the engine oil market does, and the mechanism for doing it has always been to 'introduce a new test'. These tests all seek to provide 'differentiation' (usually between a bad oil and a good oil) but that bit of the process that says 'this means this in reality' is often totally absent. Often the reality of why a test is pushed and introduced is 'unspoken but understood'. The introduction of the Sequence IIIF test was done with the objective of killing off Group I base oils in the US. When that didn't work, the ante was upped by the introduction of the IIIG. The introduction of the Teost MHT-4 was to make Daimler-Chrysler happy. It was said the test correlated with 'high temperature deposits'. Did it bollocks! The introduction of low SAPs testing in Europe was clearly to the commercial advantage of one particular AddCo. I could go on and on and on...

This is no way to run a circus! Most of us are all paying over the odds for stuff we generally don't need.
Posted By: Y_K

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/29/17 12:00 PM

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
.. Most of us are all paying over the odds for stuff we generally don't need.

And we tend to argue about which un-needed quality is more desirable. Worthy of Mr J Swift's pen!
Posted By: ndfergy

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/29/17 03:46 PM

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Originally Posted By: CR94
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
... Finally regarding the TEOST test, if it was up to me I'd take the test out of ALL specs everywhere. ...
Given your low opinion of that requirement, two questions:

1) What do you think of the Honda HTO-06 coking test, which (I thought) purports to measure more-or-less the same characteristic by a different method?
2) Was exempting 0W-20 from (both?) TEOST tests such a bad thing for cars that use 0W-20?



I don't have any personal experience of this Honda HTO-6 coking test. However that wouldn't stop me saying it too should be shot, drowned, tortured and dissolved in acid. We should then nuke the test site from orbit (it's the only way to be sure...)

My hostility to these tests is not so much to do with the test itself but the philosophy that underpins them, the less-than-worthy reasons why these tests get 'pushed' and the (mis)use of said tests for commercial advantage.

In my book, oil is oil. It's a brown, slippery, industrial fluid like any other industrial commodity. It should satisfy a pre-defined duty (for the sake of argument say a OCI of 7,500 miles) for 95% of drivers, 95% of the time. It's price, through the wonderful mechanism of a competitive market should reflect it's cost. You can argue that the numbers should be 95% or 99% but it's hard to argue that the objective should be to satisfy 100% of the people, 100% of the time because that last percent always comes at a disproportionate cost and it's unfair to lumber the 99% of the people who don't need 'that thing' that the last 1% need, with those extra costs.

Yet this is exactly what the engine oil market does, and the mechanism for doing it has always been to 'introduce a new test'. These tests all seek to provide 'differentiation' (usually between a bad oil and a good oil) but that bit of the process that says 'this means this in reality' is often totally absent. Often the reality of why a test is pushed and introduced is 'unspoken but understood'. The introduction of the Sequence IIIF test was done with the objective of killing off Group I base oils in the US. When that didn't work, the ante was upped by the introduction of the IIIG. The introduction of the Teost MHT-4 was to make Daimler-Chrysler happy. It was said the test correlated with 'high temperature deposits'. Did it bollocks! The introduction of low SAPs testing in Europe was clearly to the commercial advantage of one particular AddCo. I could go on and on and on...

This is no way to run a circus! Most of us are all paying over the odds for stuff we generally don't need.


Your railing that the oil industry is the tail wagging the dog in the transportation infrastructure seems a little misplaced. There's plenty of market forces such as EPA, CAFE, OPEC, Market Trading, Manufacturing that have a major influence on cost, oil dependency and environmental concerns.

Certain tests to ensure the quality of engine oil may be flawed but are constantly evolving to meet the demands of above.
Posted By: SR5

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/29/17 10:59 PM

Quote:
We should then nuke the test site from orbit (it's the only way to be sure...)


Laugh !!!
It sounds like your big oil experience, is similar to Ripley's with her employers at the Weyland-Yutani Corporation in Aliens
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/29/17 11:22 PM

"Your railing that the oil industry is the tail wagging the dog in the transportation infrastructure seems a little misplaced. There's plenty of market forces such as EPA, CAFE, OPEC, Market Trading, Manufacturing that have a major influence on cost, oil dependency and environmental concerns."




EPA and CAFE are government. One is a agency, the other is a policy mandate. OPEC is a mix of government and royal Middle East families. The term market forces usually refers to corporate industry and consumers.
Posted By: ndfergy

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/29/17 11:30 PM

Semantics. Forces nonetheless.
Posted By: Garak

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/30/17 01:12 AM

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
I don't think anything beats TGMO 0W-20 SN in the UOAs as far as I know. You can research around but to my knowledge TGMO 0W-20 SN gives the best UOAs by far.

I'm not so sure about that, but okay, let's assume that's true, and also that you're talking about the best "wear metals" and the like, not the best extended drain oil out there. Of course, that's while UOAs are about, after all, lubricant condemnation, but we'll set that aside right now.

If you're making an oil selection to chase low numbers on paper, that's up to you. The first low number on paper I'm interested in is the price on the till receipt. Other writings on paper I'm interested in are the specifications in question.

SonofJoe: I had to be a base stock snob, but the most readily available 5w-30 A3/B4 here is seemingly a Group III, whereas the 0w-40 A3/B4 from the same supplier is a Group IV. I would assume that this matter, too, would affect VII content.

CharlieBauer: You should be able to get Castrol 5w-30 A3/B4 in the States now. I can't answer how readily available it would be. Shell also has a Pennzoil Euro 5w-30 A3/B4. As SR5 pointed out, there are also 5w-30 HDEOs back on the shelves.
Posted By: SonofJoe

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/30/17 06:18 AM

Garak,

I'd hazard a guess that a 5W30 Group III OCP VII oil will contain roughly the same level of VII as a 0W40 PAO (+ a bit of ester?) oil. Generally OW40's are based around Shellvis VII. Put this together and there's probably not much of a difference in Noack between the two oils. However the 0W40 will be significantly more expensive to manufacture.
Posted By: SonofJoe

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/30/17 06:25 AM

Originally Posted By: SR5
Quote:
We should then nuke the test site from orbit (it's the only way to be sure...)


Laugh !!!
It sounds like your big oil experience, is similar to Ripley's with her employers at the Weyland-Yutani Corporation in Aliens



Glad you spotted my cribbed quote from Aliens. The film is over thirty years old now so not everyone remembers these things...
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/30/17 09:38 PM

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Garak,

I'd hazard a guess that a 5W30 Group III OCP VII oil will contain roughly the same level of VII as a 0W40 PAO (+ a bit of ester?) oil. Generally OW40's are based around Shellvis VII. Put this together and there's probably not much of a difference in Noack between the two oils. However the 0W40 will be significantly more expensive to manufacture.

Modern Group III+ and GTL base stocks have higher VI than PAO. Therefore, a PAO base oil requires more VII than a Group III base oil.

NOACK has nothing to do with the VII. It's entirely determined by the base oil. PAO and GTL both excel in NOACK. Non-GTL Group III has higher NOACK than PAO and GTL.
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/30/17 09:49 PM

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Modern Group III+ and GTL base stocks have higher VI than PAO. Therefore, a PAO base oil requires more VII than a Group III base oil.


But we DO know that TGMO has a far greater apparent temporary shear loss (ratio of HTHS to theoretical newtonian viscosity at 150C), so we know that TGMO has one of the highest VII impacts out there.


Originally Posted By: Gokhan
NOACK has nothing to do with the VII. It's entirely determined by the base oil. PAO and GTL both excel in NOACK. Non-GTL Group III has higher NOACK than PAO and GTL.


By VII, do you mean VI ?

The point is that to get a given KV100 with the lowest KV40 (which is what Joe was pointing out, and the Japanese are doing by their own admission), you need to go to thinner basestocks, and more VII to get the VI that they want...therefore more NOACK in a higher VI oil with the same KV100 end point.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/30/17 09:55 PM

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Garak,

I'd hazard a guess that a 5W30 Group III OCP VII oil will contain roughly the same level of VII as a 0W40 PAO (+ a bit of ester?) oil. Generally OW40's are based around Shellvis VII. Put this together and there's probably not much of a difference in Noack between the two oils. However the 0W40 will be significantly more expensive to manufacture.

Modern Group III+ and GTL base stocks have higher VI than PAO. Therefore, a PAO base oil requires more VII than a Group III base oil.

NOACK has nothing to do with the VII. It's entirely determined by the base oil. PAO and GTL both excel in NOACK. Non-GTL Group III has higher NOACK than PAO and GTL.


Got any examples of VI's for these base stocks? I see Mobil's SpectraSyn 10 for example has a VI of 132, SpectraSyn 40 is 147, SpectraSyn 100 is 169. The mPAO products are even higher.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/30/17 10:15 PM

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Garak,

I'd hazard a guess that a 5W30 Group III OCP VII oil will contain roughly the same level of VII as a 0W40 PAO (+ a bit of ester?) oil. Generally OW40's are based around Shellvis VII. Put this together and there's probably not much of a difference in Noack between the two oils. However the 0W40 will be significantly more expensive to manufacture.

Modern Group III+ and GTL base stocks have higher VI than PAO. Therefore, a PAO base oil requires more VII than a Group III base oil.

NOACK has nothing to do with the VII. It's entirely determined by the base oil. PAO and GTL both excel in NOACK. Non-GTL Group III has higher NOACK than PAO and GTL.


Got any examples of VI's for these base stocks? I see Mobil's SpectraSyn 10 for example has a VI of 132, SpectraSyn 40 is 147, SpectraSyn 100 is 169. The mPAO products are even higher.

The numbers after SpectraSyn indicate KV100 in cSt. These are extremely thick base stocks that are not used in motor oil or used in very small quantities.

With any type of base stock, VI increases dramatically with KV100.

You should compare typical KV100 viscosities, such as 4, 6, or 8 cSt used in motor oil. Google Shell XHVI, Mobil Visom, and Shell GTL. You will see that Group III overwhelmingly beat their PAO counterparts in VI for the same KV100.
Posted By: 4WD

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/30/17 10:28 PM

They make SpectaSyn Elite 65 mPAO
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/30/17 10:39 PM

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Google Shell XHVI, Mobil Visom, and Shell GTL. You will see that Group III overwhelmingly beat their PAO counterparts in VI for the same KV100.


Visom 6
VI 142

Spectrasyn 6
VI 138

scarcely overwhelming, and demonstrative of your claims....

Visom 6
NOACK 8
FlashPoint 210C
Pour Point -18C

Spectrasyn 6
NOACK 6.4
Flashpoint 246C
Pour point -57C

I can see why you advocates of viscosity index trumps all other measures are so keen here...

Spectr
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 04/30/17 10:55 PM

Originally Posted By: Gokhan

The numbers after SpectraSyn indicate KV100. These are extremely thick base stocks that are not used in motor oil or used in very small quantities.
I'm aware, that's why I went in the order I did with them. The heavier bases are usually blended into the lower visc bases to bump up visc, but the artifact of that is also higher VI.

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
With any type of base stock, VI increases dramatically with KV100.

You should compare typical KV100 viscosities, such as 4, 6, or 8 cSt used in motor oil. Google Shell XHVI, Mobil Visom, and Shell GTL. You will see that Group III overwhelmingly beat their PAO counterparts in VI for the same KV100.


Well, that's basically what I was asking you for. I know what the XOM VI's are, based on the data readily available on the XOM Chemical site. What I'm looking for is data on the GTL product, as it doesn't seem to be readily available from what I could find in a quick search.

I don't see big differences in these VI's however shrug
XHVI 4.0 has a VI of 136.7 (calculated, it is listed as 141 interestingly enough)
Spectrasyn 4 has a VI of 126

XHVI 8.2 has a VI of 147
SpectraSyn 8 has a VI of 139

However, what is worth mentioning is that for the same base oils above:
XIVI 8.2 has a pour point of -15C
SpectraSyn 8 has a pour point of -48C

XHVI 4.0 has a pour point of -18C
SpectraSyn 4 has a pour point of -66C

In case we were forgetting there are other metrics in determining the performance characteristics of a finished lubricant other than VI in play here wink

You can blend a PAO-based product to meet the 0W-xx designation without PPD's and as long as you aren't shooting for some ridiculous VI, you'll use very little VII. On the other hand, you'll need PPD's and a lot more VI, using lighter bases, to do the same with a non-GTL Group III as the above numbers demonstrate.

Meeting the cold temp performance target with PAO has historically always been much easier. That's always been its strong point. Given VI's calculated nature I'm not sure how you can conclude that a PAO base oil requires more VII for a finished product. It doesn't, it just will simply have a lower final VI.

You can easily blend a VI-free 5w-30 from the SpectraSyn products for example.

That's why that statement strikes me as a bit of a logical leap, as it is predicated on the premise that the final products ability to meet both sides of the performance envelope depends on the VI of the base shrug Within reason, that's not the case.
Posted By: SonofJoe

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/01/17 06:16 AM

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Garak,

I'd hazard a guess that a 5W30 Group III OCP VII oil will contain roughly the same level of VII as a 0W40 PAO (+ a bit of ester?) oil. Generally OW40's are based around Shellvis VII. Put this together and there's probably not much of a difference in Noack between the two oils. However the 0W40 will be significantly more expensive to manufacture.

Modern Group III+ and GTL base stocks have higher VI than PAO. Therefore, a PAO base oil requires more VII than a Group III base oil.

NOACK has nothing to do with the VII. It's entirely determined by the base oil. PAO and GTL both excel in NOACK. Non-GTL Group III has higher NOACK than PAO and GTL.



'Noack has nothing to do with the VII'. Well that's a BOLD statement if ever I heard one! One might even describe it as being a tad rash...

Okay, click on the link below.

https://www.google.com/patents/EP1637580A1?cl=en

It's a published patent containing an 'equal viscometrics' comparison of four VIIs. Locate Table 1 which contrasts the properties of four nominally identical 22 SSI OCP VIIs. Might you compare columns 1 and 3? Paratone 8006 (column 3) is a high ethylene OCP VII which means it has better CCS cold flow properties that the amorphous OCP in column 1. This fact allows you to put more heavy Esso 600SN into the oil and less light Esso 150SN. As a consequence, the Noack of the oil drops from 11.4% to 10.1%. So while solid VII doesn't in itself contribute much to Noack (it's essentially non-volatile), it's the properties of the VII that set the base oil ratio which DIRECTLY impacts on Noack. Do you get it now?

One might idly speculate that whoever put this data together might not just have limited himself or herself to looking at OCPs? Maybe they tested a load of other commercial VIIs like Hydrogenated Styrene-Dienes (Shellvis-type) or PMAs (Viscoplex-type)? Who knows what insights they might have discovered about the impact of VIIs on Noack????

Oh and one other thing. If you're going to talk so authoritatively about Group III's, you might want to mention that the world biggest selling Group III is not Shell's GTL or Exxon's VISOM but humble old Yubase which despite the odd improvement, hasn't changed that much in two decades. You could say much the same for Neste's Nexbase. These popular commercial Group IIIs aren't better than PAO are they? In fact they are measurably worse. Just sayin'...
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/01/17 07:04 AM

I think with the advent of Group III+ and GTL base stocks, PAO may be headed to become a thing of the past for motor oil.

It's absolutely right that the biggest advantage of PAO is its extreme-temperature capabilities. For that reason, in my opinion, it may be more desirable for specialty lubrication than automotive motor oil.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/01/17 07:23 AM

For CAFE-conspiracy believers:

I feel like using thicker oil where thinner oil works is like letting your engine horsepower and MPG be robbed.

TGMO 0W-20 SN is back in and I feel a significant difference with smoother idles and better acceleration at low throttle. For my low-power engine, the difference is easily noticeable. I'm glad that thick oil is gone and it was reassuring that it not only stole performance but also made the wear worse. Thin oil is a win - win in my application.
Posted By: SonofJoe

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/01/17 10:17 AM

I had a quick look for TGMO 0W20 on Amazon UK. The cheapest I could find it for was 56.61 ($US 73) for 5 litres. Ouch!! That's not exactly cheap especially when I see you can get Petronas 5000 synthetic 5W20 for half that. We can't get US-style mineral Group II 5W20's in the UK but if I could, I suspect they would be even cheaper still.

The point I'm making is that any fuel savings you make in buying TGMO aren't exactly 'free'. It would be interesting to see what minimum fuel savings you have to make in the US, over say a 5,000 mile OCI, just to cover the extra cost of TGMO 0W20 over a supermarket mineral 5W20. In the land of cheap gasoline, big sumps and low OCIs, I can imagine that minimum break-even point might be rather higher than a lot of folks realise.
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/01/17 10:36 AM

But Joe, look at the convincing lower wear numbers, in particular the conclusive camshaft/lifter wear that Gokhan is experiencing, with his Visom based, Trinuclear moly fortified, and Asterik VII laden mix...

(well those last 3 are BITOG "facts" that have been made up from scratch, but the benefits are clear).
Posted By: Garak

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/01/17 02:09 PM

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
The point I'm making is that any fuel savings you make in buying TGMO aren't exactly 'free'. It would be interesting to see what minimum fuel savings you have to make in the US, over say a 5,000 mile OCI, just to cover the extra cost of TGMO 0W20 over a supermarket mineral 5W20. In the land of cheap gasoline, big sumps and low OCIs, I can imagine that minimum break-even point might be rather higher than a lot of folks realise.

Apparently, here in Canada, this TGMO is supposed to be quite attractively priced at the dealer. Of course, I've never had the opportunity to verify that, having nothing that calls for a 5w-20 or a 0w-20.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/01/17 05:56 PM

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
I had a quick look for TGMO 0W20 on Amazon UK. The cheapest I could find it for was 56.61 ($US 73) for 5 litres. Ouch!! That's not exactly cheap especially when I see you can get Petronas 5000 synthetic 5W20 for half that. We can't get US-style mineral Group II 5W20's in the UK but if I could, I suspect they would be even cheaper still.

The point I'm making is that any fuel savings you make in buying TGMO aren't exactly 'free'. It would be interesting to see what minimum fuel savings you have to make in the US, over say a 5,000 mile OCI, just to cover the extra cost of TGMO 0W20 over a supermarket mineral 5W20. In the land of cheap gasoline, big sumps and low OCIs, I can imagine that minimum break-even point might be rather higher than a lot of folks realise.

Oh, no, that's not affordable at all to say the least. That's because they don't export it there. I got it for only $5.19 a US quart. It doesn't get much cheaper than that for a synthetic.
Posted By: CharlieBauer

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/02/17 01:41 AM

Reading a few posts here, I'm interpreting that VII's are not in and of themselves bad. It's just that the more VII used, the more likely that the base stock used is lighter and thus has a higher NOACK.

So if a 0w40 has a Noack of 8.1% and a VI of 181 (Valvoline Synpower 0w40), is it more desirable than a 5w30, 0w30, 5w40 which carry the same approvals that have a Noack higher than 8.1%?

Or should I also look at any other specs apart from Noack?
Posted By: 4WD

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/02/17 02:08 AM

But so many base oils might get used and it is not so linear:
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/02/17 03:12 AM

It's interesting in the above chart that 0W-20 uses the thickest base oil (hence has the least NOACK) and the least amount of VII among all 0W-xx grades, including 0W-30 and 0W-40.
Posted By: dblshock

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/02/17 03:17 AM

the 0W-40 and up offer much larger add packs.
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/02/17 03:25 AM

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
It's interesting in the above chart that 0W-20 uses the thickest base oil (hence has the least NOACK) and the least amount of VII among all 0W-xx grades, including 0W-30 and 0W-40.


However, TGMO is clearly not built the same way.

The Japanese OEMs (have published) their different methodologies, and are chasing low HTHS (not 2.8, per the chart, 2.6 per CATERHAM's testing, and the idemistu one dropping to 2.4 in 400 miles), and ultra high VI (162 in the chart).
Posted By: WhizkidTN

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/02/17 03:36 AM

Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
Reading a few posts here, I'm interpreting that VII's are not in and of themselves bad. It's just that the more VII used, the more likely that the base stock used is lighter and thus has a higher NOACK.

So if a 0w40 has a Noack of 8.1% and a VI of 181 (Valvoline Synpower 0w40), is it more desirable than a 5w30, 0w30, 5w40 which carry the same approvals that have a Noack higher than 8.1%?

Or should I also look at any other specs apart from Noack?


Hmm. According to Valvoline's PDF for SynPower 0W-40 oil, the NOACK is 9%, not 8.1%. Where did you get that figure?
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/02/17 03:39 AM

Originally Posted By: dblshock
the 0W-40 and up offer much larger add packs.

You mean detergent/TBN? That's more of an ACEA A3/B4 thing than viscosity thing.

TGMO 0W-20 SN beats M1 0W-40 SN in moly for example.
Posted By: dblshock

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/02/17 03:41 AM

zink?
Posted By: 4WD

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/02/17 03:59 AM

I use mostly 5w30 - looking at that chart, that's a good oil - and what they don't add looks good to me ... (VII) ...
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/02/17 04:13 AM

Originally Posted By: WhizkidTN
Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
Reading a few posts here, I'm interpreting that VII's are not in and of themselves bad. It's just that the more VII used, the more likely that the base stock used is lighter and thus has a higher NOACK.

So if a 0w40 has a Noack of 8.1% and a VI of 181 (Valvoline Synpower 0w40), is it more desirable than a 5w30, 0w30, 5w40 which carry the same approvals that have a Noack higher than 8.1%?

Or should I also look at any other specs apart from Noack?


Hmm. According to Valvoline's PDF for SynPower 0W-40 oil, the NOACK is 9%, not 8.1%. Where did you get that figure?





That PDF has two pages, ILSAC and non-ILSAC oil. It's easy to get the values mixed up.
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/02/17 04:15 AM

This thread is turning into a commercial for TGMO.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/02/17 04:20 AM

Originally Posted By: dblshock
zink?

Too much ZDDP is bad for your emissions systems. On top of that, with modern AW/EP/FM/AO additives, it doesn't help to have too much ZDDP. TGMO 0W-20 SN has about 773 ppm phosphorus (P), which I consider sufficient.
Posted By: zeng

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/02/17 04:38 AM

Originally Posted By: PimTac
This thread is turning into a commercial for TGMO.

It's about add packs TGMO vs M 1.
Not 0W20 vs 0W40.
Posted By: SonofJoe

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/02/17 07:09 AM

Originally Posted By: 4WD
But so many base oils might get used and it is not so linear:




Just a couple of comments on this table...

First, it shows that even mighty Exxon makes the occasional cock-up! No way is the KV40 of the 5W30 32.3 cst. It will be way higher (why did no-one spot this glaring mistake???). Second, someone should have got the TBN on the 5W40 rechecked. If the DI treat is bring held constant, the TBN won't change much from 8.4 (BTW, this holds lessons for all BITOG members who question why the numbers quoted on PDSs vary. It's often just 'what came back from the lab' and the marketing folks don't query what might be a bum number).

Third, there's something strange with the 5W50. No way can you get more PAO8 into a blend when you're upping the VM from 8.7 to 11.6%. This only makes sense if they used a different VM for the 5W50 (which is fine but maybe make it explicit Mr Exxon?). Had things been made consistent, then the 5W50 would have contained less PAO8 than the 5W40, had a higher Noack and possibly an even higher still polymer loading.

There are a couple of things that I hope the more eagle-eyed of you have spotted. First, MRV tends to rise with VM treat. Second, if you compare a fixed weight of oil, the one with the lowest W-rating will usually have a marginally lower HTHS. For example, the 0W30 and 5W30 have HTHSs of 3.1 vs 3.2 whilst the 0W40 vs 5W40 have HTHSs of 3.6 vs 3.8. It's basically a reflection of the reduced level of VM in the oil.
Posted By: SR5

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/02/17 07:30 AM

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
if you compare a fixed weight of oil, the one with the lowest W-rating will usually have a marginally lower HTHS. For example, the 0W30 and 5W30 have HTHSs of 3.1 vs 3.2 whilst the 0W40 vs 5W40 have HTHSs of 3.6 vs 3.8. It's basically a reflection of the reduced level of VM in the oil.


I've always thought, you only want as much W-rating as you need, but no more. Otherwise the volatility goes up, but now I also realise that the HTHS goes down as well.

I find the following Noack data interesting

Originally Posted By: SR5

http://content.valvoline.com/pdf/valvoline_full_synthetic_with_maxlife_technology.pdf

For Valvoline Full Synthetic with MaxLife (2016)
noack % for ILSAC grades
0W20 = 11.4 %
5W20 = 9.3 %
5W30 = 10.2 %
10W30 = 6.3 %
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/02/17 08:01 AM

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
There are a couple of things that I hope the more eagle-eyed of you have spotted. First, MRV tends to rise with VM treat. Second, if you compare a fixed weight of oil, the one with the lowest W-rating will usually have a marginally lower HTHS. For example, the 0W30 and 5W30 have HTHSs of 3.1 vs 3.2 whilst the 0W40 vs 5W40 have HTHSs of 3.6 vs 3.8. It's basically a reflection of the reduced level of VM in the oil.


Similarly, MRV is low shear, while CCS is high shear, so also shows temporary viscosity loss just like HTHS and HTHS100 in some data sheets.

For a Newtonian oil, the MRV should be pretty close to double the CCS, the "doubling per 5C" rule of thumb.

Can see here that the VII's bump up the low shear viscosities, as you say...the bigger the ratio between MRV and CCS (above 2) the more VII interaction that there is.

So for the
0W20 and 5W30, the ratio is 2 and a bit
0W30 and 5W40, the ratio is closer to 2.7
0W40 and 5W50, the ratio is closer to 3.
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/02/17 08:17 AM

Here's another for a syn blend...

Posted By: SonofJoe

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/02/17 08:21 AM

SR5,

I had a look through your Valvoline numbers and they are entirely logical.

It helps if you first focus on the 5W20 and then pivot downward (to the 0W20) and pivot upwards (to the 5W30). Relative to the 5W20, both steps will result in more VM going into the oil. As a result, for the first pivot, the Noack increase from 9.3 to 11.4% while second pivot pushes the Noack from 9.3 to 10.2%.

There's a secondary (albeit limited) pivot you can do by shifting up from the 5W30 to the 10W30. Valvoline don't disclose any details of their formulations but my guess is that this shift sheds a lot of VM from the oil and allows a lot more heavy base oil use. As a result the Noack drops like a brick from 10.2 to 6.3%. HTHS numbers aren't provided but I'd expect a big kick up in the HTHS of the 10W30 vs the 5W30.

If this does anything, it suggests you don't necessarily benefit from 'extreme' engine oils. If you don't need 0W, don't buy it. If (like me) you don't race and you're okay with a 20-weight oil (and don't have any worries about wear), then don't go and buy 30-weight, 40-weight or 50-weight because it can potentially hurt the oil.

One day I might find my cheap but decidedly not nasty 10W20 on sale and I will be happy!
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/02/17 08:36 AM

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
There's a secondary (albeit limited) pivot you can do by shifting up from the 5W30 to the 10W30. Valvoline don't disclose any details of their formulations but my guess is that this shift sheds a lot of VM from the oil and allows a lot more heavy base oil use. As a result the Noack drops like a brick from 10.2 to 6.3%. HTHS numbers aren't provided but I'd expect a big kick up in the HTHS of the 10W30 vs the 5W30.



So there's a couple of ways to skin a cat...not exactly apples and nashi fruit.


Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
One day I might find my cheap but decidedly not nasty 10W20 on sale and I will be happy!


I found a 10W20 in Australia (not in real life, on the net) the other day...it's a good thing IMO...2.9HTHS to boot.
Posted By: SonofJoe

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/02/17 09:33 AM

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Here's another for a syn blend...




This table is interesting but at the same time very silly (duh! It's Infineum's so no surprise there).

Again it shows that as you step up from 0W30 to a 0W40, the VM increases considerably (from 5.7 to 9.4%). As a consequence they drop out all the PAO6 (Noack 6.4%) and primarily back-fill with PAO4 (Noack 14.0%) to regain the viscometric balance. So the Noack should logically increase, yes? Errrr...not according to this table where the Noack increases from 10% to errr...10%! Real or fake? Maybe the actual measured numbers were 9.5% and 10.5% and they thought let's just round these up and down to 'avoid confusing the customer'!

Also the numbers point to one of my pet hates about Infineum's 0W40 Shellvis VM based, formulation style. Look at that KV100 of 12.7 cst (so only just above the 12.5 min spec) and this junk doesn't even make 3.5 HTHS (it's 3.4 and maybe that's 3.35 cP rounded-up!). You might as well stick with an ACEA 30-weight oil if HTHS bothers you). The 40 number is meaningless.

Finally, can I ask what kind of plank makes a Group II/Group IV blend and thinks it's good formulation??? PAO is horribly expensive. Just do the logical thing that everyone else does and make it primarily from cheap Group III and trim with PAO if you need to. Why make something expensive just because you can. Daft!
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/02/17 09:43 AM

yep, that HTHS was pre 2013 thing when 0W40 could have 2.9
Posted By: SR5

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/02/17 11:32 AM

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Errrr...not according to this table where the Noack increases from 10% to errr...10%!

.......

Finally, can I ask what kind of plank makes a Group II/Group IV blend and thinks it's good formulation??? .........Daft!


Laugh !!!
Posted By: CharlieBauer

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/02/17 08:33 PM

Originally Posted By: WhizkidTN
Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
Reading a few posts here, I'm interpreting that VII's are not in and of themselves bad. It's just that the more VII used, the more likely that the base stock used is lighter and thus has a higher NOACK.

So if a 0w40 has a Noack of 8.1% and a VI of 181 (Valvoline Synpower 0w40), is it more desirable than a 5w30, 0w30, 5w40 which carry the same approvals that have a Noack higher than 8.1%?

Or should I also look at any other specs apart from Noack?


Hmm. According to Valvoline's PDF for SynPower 0W-40 oil, the NOACK is 9%, not 8.1%. Where did you get that figure?


I got it from the Russia oil club but sure if it's 9%, my question still stands.

Is a 0w40 with a 9% NOACK and a VI of 181 better than 0w30 / 5w30 / 5w40 oils with the same approvals but higher NOACK?

Is NOACK the be all and end all or are there other published specifications that we should consider?
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/02/17 09:36 PM

Another thing I noticed is that the radiator-fan off cycles at idle seem to be 50% longer with the TGMO 0W-20 SN than with the M1 0W-40 SN, indicating much more efficient engine cooling with the 0W-20.

Therefore, 0W-20 seems to flow a lot more than 0W-40 even at idle. Of course, 0W-20 also has a lot less viscous friction (drag), which reduces the bearing temperatures, leading to even more cooling.
Posted By: fdcg27

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/02/17 11:14 PM

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
The point I'm making is that any fuel savings you make in buying TGMO aren't exactly 'free'. It would be interesting to see what minimum fuel savings you have to make in the US, over say a 5,000 mile OCI, just to cover the extra cost of TGMO 0W20 over a supermarket mineral 5W20. In the land of cheap gasoline, big sumps and low OCIs, I can imagine that minimum break-even point might be rather higher than a lot of folks realise.

Apparently, here in Canada, this TGMO is supposed to be quite attractively priced at the dealer. Of course, I've never had the opportunity to verify that, having nothing that calls for a 5w-20 or a 0w-20.


Here, one can often find TGMO on CL for under four bucks a quart.
I found eleven quarts of it on CL that I paid $40.00 for just because I wanted to try it.
From what I later learned here, TGMO appears to be a miracle of high VII treat rates yielding a high VI from a mediocre basestock blend.
The cold performance numbers are telling and TGMO is not in the same league as either M1 0W-20, not that this would matter to someone living in LA.
For Toyota to tell XOM how to blend a motor oil is exactly like XOM telling Toyota how to design a hybrid car.
Posted By: kschachn

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/02/17 11:41 PM

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Another thing I noticed is that the radiator-fan off cycles at idle seem to be 50% longer with the TGMO 0W-20 SN than with the M1 0W-40 SN, indicating much more efficient engine cooling with the 0W-20.

Therefore, 0W-20 seems to flow a lot more than 0W-40 even at idle. Of course, 0W-20 also has a lot less viscous friction (drag), which reduces the bearing temperatures, leading to even more cooling.


If the oil is cooling the engine more efficiently, where is it rejecting all that new heat?
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/03/17 12:06 AM

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
From what I later learned here, TGMO appears to be a miracle of high VII treat rates yielding a high VI from a mediocre basestock blend.

Is a Group III base oil considered a mediocre base-stock blend? If that's the case, Mobil 1 and most full-synthetic oils are also mediocre base-stock blends.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/03/17 12:27 AM

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Another thing I noticed is that the radiator-fan off cycles at idle seem to be 50% longer with the TGMO 0W-20 SN than with the M1 0W-40 SN, indicating much more efficient engine cooling with the 0W-20.

Therefore, 0W-20 seems to flow a lot more than 0W-40 even at idle. Of course, 0W-20 also has a lot less viscous friction (drag), which reduces the bearing temperatures, leading to even more cooling.

If the oil is cooling the engine more efficiently, where is it rejecting all that new heat?

Flowing engine oil acts as a heat-transfer fluid like the engine coolant, carrying heat from hotter parts of the engine to the cooler parts. If you didn't have that, the hotter parts would have to run even hotter to pass the heat through conduction. Some guy is claiming that oil accounts for half of the engine's cooling.

http://www.hendonpub.com/resources/article_archive/results/details?id=3965

On top of that, thicker oil creates more viscous friction and generates more heat, adding to engine heating.
Posted By: kschachn

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/03/17 12:36 AM

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Flowing engine oil acts as a heat-transfer fluid like the engine coolant, carrying heat from hotter parts of the engine to the cooler parts. If you didn't have that, the hotter parts would have to run even hotter to pass the heat through conduction. Some guy is claiming that oil accounts for half of the engine's cooling.

http://www.hendonpub.com/resources/article_archive/results/details?id=3965

No doubt, but it has to reject the heat somewhere. Where?

If it is carrying it to the cooler parts then it is transferring it there. How is it getting out to the environment?
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/03/17 01:19 AM

Heat from the oil being transferred to the coolant. That's my guess.
Posted By: kschachn

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/03/17 01:35 AM

Originally Posted By: PimTac
Heat from the oil being transferred to the coolant. That's my guess.

Right, but he said this:

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Another thing I noticed is that the radiator-fan off cycles at idle seem to be 50% longer with the TGMO 0W-20 SN than with the M1 0W-40 SN, indicating much more efficient engine cooling with the 0W-20.

I took that to mean it was off 50% longer. Perhaps he meant on 50% longer.
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/03/17 01:43 AM

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: PimTac
Heat from the oil being transferred to the coolant. That's my guess.

Right, but he said this:

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Another thing I noticed is that the radiator-fan off cycles at idle seem to be 50% longer with the TGMO 0W-20 SN than with the M1 0W-40 SN, indicating much more efficient engine cooling with the 0W-20.

I took that to mean it was off 50% longer. Perhaps he meant on 50% longer.





Interesting. I'm not a mechanic nor a engineer so correct me if I'm wrong. A engine produces a certain amount of heat. The oil and the coolant are heat transfers that move the heat out to the radiator where air disperses the heat. The only way to know if the oil was cooling the engine would be to install an accurate temperature gauge. Without that it's guesswork and hypothesis.

The idea that a 0w-20 oil would help cool an engine better than a thicker oil seems like a stretch to me. Even if it proves true, how would anyone be able to tell without instrumentation?
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/03/17 02:09 AM

I meant fan off longer, meaning engine heating less or being cooled more efficiently. Fan coming on more often means engine heating more (more heat energy being generated) or cooling system not being efficient (less coolant circulation etc.).

Of course, this is not scientific at all and there may be other factors like the ambient temperature.

Yes, circulating coolant would collect the heat from the oil. Some heat would also be given out to the ambient through the oil pan etc.

If the oil flow was less, that would certainly increase the bearing temperatures, as the oil is the primary heat-transfer media for the bearings -- coolant can't get there directly.
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/03/17 02:13 AM

If the oil is running cooler, then it's transferring LESS heat to the environment through the sump walls...obviously. Fixed external surface area, lower temperature, less heat transfer...can't get much simpler thermo than that.

NifckedFresh brough Mulder and Sculley into the thread, I think the OP needs to call them ASAP.
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/03/17 02:17 AM

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Some guy is claiming that oil accounts for half of the engine's cooling.

http://www.hendonpub.com/resources/article_archive/results/details?id=3965


some guy's facts aren't even supported in his "article"...besides that fact that his "facts" are wrong...

LOLing at his "conservative" 10,000 miles life reduction (again, not based on anything)...how long after the car is in the dumpster does he need his engine to last...that's basically Honda's argument about achieving "acceptable' longevity with the greater wear potential of thinner oils that I get lambasted for (when it's Honda's claim)
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/03/17 02:34 AM

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
I meant fan off longer, meaning engine heating less or being cooled more efficiently. Fan coming on more often means engine heating more (more heat energy being generated) or cooling system not being efficient (less coolant circulation etc.).

Of course, this is not scientific at all and there may be other factors like the ambient temperature.

Yes, circulating coolant would collect the heat from the oil. Some heat would also be given out to the ambient through the oil pan etc.

If the oil flow was less, that would certainly increase the bearing temperatures, as the oil is the primary heat-transfer media for the bearings -- coolant can't get there directly.


You'd have to have some thermocouples inside the sump to accurately measure the oil temperature while using different oils under the same exact engine use conditions (including ambient temperature) to verify the hypothesis.

It's true that journal bearings will hydrodynamicly flow a little more oil volume with thinner oil (Qh factor), but also realize you have a PD oil pump that's also force feeding them too which adds to the oil flow (Qp factor).

As engine speed increases, the shearing and heat production delta in the journal bearings between thick and thin oil becomes more pronounced. At idle, I think it would be hard to distinguish a real difference.
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/03/17 02:38 AM

Half? Hard to believe. Coolant has a better heat transfer rate than oil if I guess correctly plus the volume of coolant versus oil and the fact that coolant goes through a radiator make me scratch my head on that one. I know some vehicles have oil coolers but still. I'm going to also guess that coolant moves through the engine faster than oil. I might be stretching my luck on that one.
Posted By: WhizkidTN

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/03/17 03:02 AM

Originally Posted By: PimTac
Originally Posted By: WhizkidTN
Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
Reading a few posts here, I'm interpreting that VII's are not in and of themselves bad. It's just that the more VII used, the more likely that the base stock used is lighter and thus has a higher NOACK.

So if a 0w40 has a Noack of 8.1% and a VI of 181 (Valvoline Synpower 0w40), is it more desirable than a 5w30, 0w30, 5w40 which carry the same approvals that have a Noack higher than 8.1%?

Or should I also look at any other specs apart from Noack?


Hmm. According to Valvoline's PDF for SynPower 0W-40 oil, the NOACK is 9%, not 8.1%. Where did you get that figure?





That PDF has two pages, ILSAC and non-ILSAC oil. It's easy to get the values mixed up.


Agreed. The 0W-40 oil is at 9%. I just checked it again to be sure. Still a good value in my opinion.
Posted By: dblshock

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/03/17 03:25 AM

I know Toyota has developed another new oil for LSPI issues..it was on some random oil convention speech vid floating around couple six months ago...haven't really heard anything since.
Posted By: FlyPenFly

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/03/17 04:30 AM

Pretty sure the next claim will be that TGMO 0w20 cures cancer.
Posted By: CT8

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/03/17 04:45 AM

Originally Posted By: FlyPenFly
Pretty sure the next claim will be that TGMO 0w20 cures cancer.
It does !
Posted By: SonofJoe

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/03/17 08:03 AM

Shannow,

I didn't think 10W20 was out there but you're right, it is! Here's a Dutch outfit offering a 10W20 HDDO....

http://www.maxoline.com/our-products/product-listing/item/hd-fleet-oil-sae-10w20

Looking at the product details, this oil isn't so great. I'm guessing it's an all Group I pseudo mono-grade with not a lot of additive in it. Its Noack isn't quoted but it won't be far off 13% which is too high. However the Widman predicted KV150 of this oil was 3.56 cst. Yes I know this needs correcting for density to convert to cP but given that this oil absolutely won't shear, the HTHS should be good.

10W20 makes far more sense if it's made from primarily Group II for oxidation stability, some (10%?) heavy 500N Group II for piston cleanliness, contains some Group III (10% say) for Noack reduction and (importantly) very little Ashless Dispersant but did contain 1000 ppm of Phos and maybe 10TBN's worth of Detergent.

This very cheap, very low Noack, reasonably fuel efficient engine oil wouldn't be good for truly cold climates but probably would for 95% of users, 95% of the time. The only thing that would potentially ruin it is if the API, ILSAC, ACEA and the OEMs got their grubby little mitts on it!

Posted By: fdcg27

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/03/17 10:35 AM

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
From what I later learned here, TGMO appears to be a miracle of high VII treat rates yielding a high VI from a mediocre basestock blend.

Is a Group III base oil considered a mediocre base-stock blend? If that's the case, Mobil 1 and most full-synthetic oils are also mediocre base-stock blends.


M1 AFE and EP 0W-20s both have significant fractions of PAO in their basestock blends.
TGMO doesn't.
Also, as was posted above by members more knowledgeable than you or I, not all Grp III basestocks are created equal.
Posted By: SonofJoe

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/03/17 11:40 AM

Originally Posted By: SR5
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
if you compare a fixed weight of oil, the one with the lowest W-rating will usually have a marginally lower HTHS. For example, the 0W30 and 5W30 have HTHSs of 3.1 vs 3.2 whilst the 0W40 vs 5W40 have HTHSs of 3.6 vs 3.8. It's basically a reflection of the reduced level of VM in the oil.


I've always thought, you only want as much W-rating as you need, but no more. Otherwise the volatility goes up, but now I also realise that the HTHS goes down as well.

I find the following Noack data interesting

Originally Posted By: SR5

http://content.valvoline.com/pdf/valvoline_full_synthetic_with_maxlife_technology.pdf

For Valvoline Full Synthetic with MaxLife (2016)
noack % for ILSAC grades
0W20 = 11.4 %
5W20 = 9.3 %
5W30 = 10.2 %
10W30 = 6.3 %



Just thought I'd add something else based on the numbers in SR5's Valvoline table (if some kind person could cut and paste the table into this thread, it would be very helpful) ...

Most folks 'get' why low viscosity oils might potentially be good for fuel economy. However what they may not realise is there are two parts to this arguement and one isn't always obvious.

In the Valvoline table, it shows a 10W30 and a 5W30 both with nominally the same KV100 (10.9 & 11.0 cst). Once these oils are up to operational temperature (for the sake of argument, say that's 100C), both oils will give essentially the same fuel economy.

That the 5W30 gives better FE than a 10W30 isn't always obvious because the W rating is generally considered to be all about low temperature startability. The 10W30 is designed to pump at -30C (-22F) and crank at -25C (-13F). A 5W30 is designed to go even lower at -35C (pump) and -30C (crank). [actually both the Valvoline oil should work a few C below the formal limits]. So on the surface, the W rating has naff all to do with better fuel economy!

However for a fixed KV100 (or oil weight), dropping the W rating has the side effect of dropping the oil's KV40. In the Valvoline table, in moving from the 10W30 to the 5W30, the KV40 of the oil drops from 70.5 cst to 62.8 cst. If you go even lower to a 'typical' start-up temperature (say 10C for the UK), the 10W30 has a KV10 of 351.5 cst while the 5W30 has a KV10 of 271.7 cst. Now a 30% higher oil KV does not worsen fuel economy by 30%! I've forgotten most of the fluid dynamics I learnt at uni but I do recall that viscosity is a minor factor in Reynolds Number and Prandtl Number. However lower oil viscosity, as the oil warms-up from say 10C to 100C, should yield a couple percent fuel economy benefit.

Now if you contrast the 5W30 with the 5W20 in the Valvoline table, not only does the KV100 drop (from 11.0 cst to 8.6 cst) but the KV40 also drops (from 62.8 cst to 48.9 cst). The 'start-up' KV10s also drop (from 271.7 and 217.5 cst).

So here's the thing.... if you drop an oil weight (but not the W rating) you get two fuel economy savings; one during start-up/warm-up and one when your oil's up to operational temperature. If you just drop a W rating (but keep the weight the same) you only get one saving (during start-up/warm-up).

Now contrast the 5W20 with the 0W20 in the Valvoline table. The KV100's are nominally the same (8.6 vs 8.7), the KV40 drops but not by much (48.9 to 45.2) while the calculated KV10 drops from 217.5 to 181.2). This is very interesting. Given the way thermo-dynamics works, the RATE at which the temperature of your oil increases should be fastest between 10C and 40C, slower between 40C and 70C and slower still between 70C and 100C (after which it notionally reaches steady state). If this is the case, on an time-aggregated basis, I would not expect the 0W20 to give much of a fuel economy benefit over and above what you see with the 5W20 during the warm-up phase and no benefit at operational temperature.

So in relative terms, oil weight probably trumps W-rating in delivering tangible fuel economy.

Which is interesting because lower W-rating usually comes with more problems; more expensive base oil, more VII, more Ashless and higher Noack). Just dropping an oil weight does exactly the reverse.

So 10W20? Wherefore art thou??
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/03/17 11:45 AM

Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/03/17 11:49 AM

Joe,
it's been posited here on BITOG that the "0W" is an artifact of the chemistry used to produce both TGMO, and Mobil 1 racing 0W50.

In your experience, is 0W an accidental byproduct of making a superior GrIII, or a 0W50 with an HTHS of 3.8 ?
Posted By: SonofJoe

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/03/17 01:16 PM

Shannow,

Very many thanks for attaching the Valvoline table. Things always make more sense when you can see the numbers laid out logically.

Regarding your TGMO and 0W question, I'd say that it's 95% a base oil thing as opposed to a 'chemistry' thing.

Generally speaking, if you're going after 0W (and specifically a max CCS-35 of 6,200 cP) you've generally committed yourself to using primarily PAO (with a smidge of ester to avoid drying out seals), good Group III (eg GTL) or most likely these days, a mix of both. Group I & II oil just don't cut it viscometrically. There may be a new super-duper base oil out there I haven't heard about but most base oil tech is decades old now so I doubt that's the case.

VII-wise, it generally depends how wide a cross-grade you want to make. If you want a relatively narrow 0W20, then you can probably use any VII chemistry (OCP, HSD, PMA) because while ALL VIIs are relatively bad on cold-flow, you don't need a lot of VII in a high VI base oil mix and the problems they cause in a 0W20 can be contained. However go for a 0W50 and the amount of VII you need really clobbers your cold-flow and you would probably find that only Hydrogenated Styrene-Diene (Shellvis) VII cuts the viscometric mustard. It will be very bad on HTHS though for a 50-weight oil. Oh, and expect a very dirty engine especially if you drive your car hot and hard.

DI-wise, the easiest way to make a 0W oil is not to put any additive in! That's right. Almost every additive you can think of, ZDDP, Antioxidants, Metallic Detergents and especially Ashless Dispersants, will make the job of formulating a 0W oil more difficult, not less. Usually these problems manifest themselves as increasing Noack. Maybe that's why TGMO is so cheap in the US, it doesn't contain any DI! (joke).

I've been out of the game for several years now but my gut feel is that if I had to, I could go back in the lab and make a decent Chinese copy of TGMO with conventional junk and not break sweat. The idea of 'secret sauces' might be reassuring for some people but at the end of the day, it's just a case of rearranging the same old stuff to meet another set of numbers...
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/03/17 02:36 PM

Originally Posted By: Shannow






Just to clarify, this table is for Valvoline Full Synthetic with Maxlife Technology.

Looking at the specs for the 5w-20, that could be a very good alternative to 0w-20 if one is so inclined. NOACK takes a big drop there.
Posted By: turboseize

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/03/17 03:03 PM

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Shannow,

Very many thanks for attaching the Valvoline table. Things always make more sense when you can see the numbers laid out logically.

Regarding your TGMO and 0W question, I'd say that it's 95% a base oil thing as opposed to a 'chemistry' thing.

Generally speaking, if you're going after 0W (and specifically a max CCS-35 of 6,200 cP) you've generally committed yourself to using primarily PAO (with a smidge of ester to avoid drying out seals), good Group III (eg GTL) or most likely these days, a mix of both. Group I & II oil just don't cut it viscometrically. There may be a new super-duper base oil out there I haven't heard about but most base oil tech is decades old now so I doubt that's the case.

VII-wise, it generally depends how wide a cross-grade you want to make. If you want a relatively narrow 0W20, then you can probably use any VII chemistry (OCP, HSD, PMA) because while ALL VIIs are relatively bad on cold-flow, you don't need a lot of VII in a high VI base oil mix and the problems they cause in a 0W20 can be contained. However go for a 0W50 and the amount of VII you need really clobbers your cold-flow and you would probably find that only Hydrogenated Styrene-Diene (Shellvis) VII cuts the viscometric mustard. It will be very bad on HTHS though for a 50-weight oil. Oh, and expect a very dirty engine especially if you drive your car hot and hard.

DI-wise, the easiest way to make a 0W oil is not to put any additive in! That's right. Almost every additive you can think of, ZDDP, Antioxidants, Metallic Detergents and especially Ashless Dispersants, will make the job of formulating a 0W oil more difficult, not less. Usually these problems manifest themselves as increasing Noack. Maybe that's why TGMO is so cheap in the US, it doesn't contain any DI! (joke).

I've been out of the game for several years now but my gut feel is that if I had to, I could go back in the lab and make a decent Chinese copy of TGMO with conventional junk and not break sweat. The idea of 'secret sauces' might be reassuring for some people but at the end of the day, it's just a case of rearranging the same old stuff to meet another set of numbers...


If I recall correctly, Ravenol make both a 0w-20 and a 20w-60 without added VII. (Should be these two: 0w-20 and 20w-60 oil.)

Fully synthetic (german definition!), no VII, low Noack. Not cheap though...
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/03/17 09:24 PM

Originally Posted By: turboseize
If I recall correctly, Ravenol make both a 0w-20 and a 20w-60 without added VII. (Should be these two: 0w-20 and 20w-60 oil.)

Fully synthetic (german definition!), no VII, low Noack. Not cheap though...


Their 0W16 is similar, Harman Index of 1.

with 2.4 HTHS, I'd take it over plastic enanced GrIII any day.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/03/17 09:35 PM

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
From what I later learned here, TGMO appears to be a miracle of high VII treat rates yielding a high VI from a mediocre basestock blend.

Is a Group III base oil considered a mediocre base-stock blend? If that's the case, Mobil 1 and most full-synthetic oils are also mediocre base-stock blends.

M1 AFE and EP 0W-20s both have significant fractions of PAO in their basestock blends.
TGMO doesn't.
Also, as was posted above by members more knowledgeable than you or I, not all Grp III basestocks are created equal.

Yet, anyone who uses the TGMO 0W-20 SN gets nothing short of the best UOA ever.
Posted By: fdcg27

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/03/17 09:59 PM

A walk through the UOA section will help to disabuse you of this notion.
Also, as has been noted time and again by members more knowledgeable than you or I, wear metal levels in a UOA are not a valid measure of engine wear and cannot be used in comparing one oil to another.
You want to compare UOAs?
Okay, find mine from August 2012 using Nextgen Maxlife 10W-40 in my old BMW. It blows away anything you'll find with TGMO, so I guess that those really concerned about engine wear should switch to that thicker oil.
Posted By: SR5

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/03/17 10:09 PM

Here is a good UOA
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4325388/

Only 1 ppm Iron, no Cr, no Ni, no Cu, etc
The oil is GTX 20W-50
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/03/17 10:19 PM

TGMO...apparently you can smoke the stuff too...
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/03/17 10:42 PM

Originally Posted By: SR5
Here is a good UOA
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4325388/

Only 1 ppm Iron, no Cr, no Ni, no Cu, etc
The oil is GTX 20W-50

1 ppm iron? It almost sounds like magnetic oil drain plug.
Posted By: demarpaint

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/03/17 10:48 PM

Originally Posted By: SR5
Here is a good UOA
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4325388/

Only 1 ppm Iron, no Cr, no Ni, no Cu, etc
The oil is GTX 20W-50


Imagine that, and from a thick dino juice.
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/03/17 11:21 PM

Here's one of those devastating 10W60 oils...
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthr..._10#Post4387829
Posted By: Nickdfresh

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/04/17 05:36 AM

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Here's one of those devastating 10W60 oils...
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthr..._10#Post4387829


Well, at least you're not cherry picking UOA's.. smile
Posted By: SonofJoe

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/04/17 08:17 AM

Gokhan,

I was thinking about your low wear metal numbers. Yes, this might be due to the miraculous properties of TGMO but there is an alternative explanation.

Your 1985 Toyota has now put on 267,000 miles. Whilst your engine clearly isn't knackered, it has probably reached that point where it has essentially stopped wearing out. All engines display the greatest levels of wear (and show the highest levels of wear metals in oil) when they are new. High initial levels of ring & bore wear are an essential part of the bedding-in process. I suspect the same is true of bearings and cam lobes. I've never personally designed an engine but my understanding is that the mechanical engineers that do, deliberately add a micron or two of sacrificial metal to the rings so that they purposely wear towards an optimum thickness.

As you clock up the miles, wear continues but providing you change your oil regularly and don't drive like a maniac (something Corolla drivers aren't noted for!), the rate of wear progressively slows down. After 267,000 miles, there is probably not that much metal left to wear off as all the sliding surfaces float on what must be a very thick film of oil.

Your numbers do suggest a difference between TGMO and Mobil's 0W20 but to me both are extremely good. It maybe heresy to say it on BITOG but in my experience, you don't really have to worry about wear metals until you see Fe levels going above 300 ppm!
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/04/17 08:37 AM

Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Here's one of those devastating 10W60 oils...
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthr..._10#Post4387829


Well, at least you're not cherry picking UOA's.. smile


I don't usually give a Rat's about UOAs, as they are a lubricant condition/condemnation tool rather than what they are attributed to on BITOG, just given the rant against that grade in BMWs in this thread, and the "fact" that every UOA is better on TGMO it seemed fitting.
Posted By: kschachn

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/04/17 11:09 AM

So you don't suppose that all the UOAs here on BITOG that focus on "wear metals" has a lot more to do with engine condition, design, age or operating conditions rather than the oil? That you might just as well get statistically identical results using any appropriate oil?

Really? Hmm...

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Gokhan,

I was thinking about your low wear metal numbers. Yes, this might be due to the miraculous properties of TGMO but there is an alternative explanation.

Your 1985 Toyota has now put on 267,000 miles. Whilst your engine clearly isn't knackered, it has probably reached that point where it has essentially stopped wearing out. All engines display the greatest levels of wear (and show the highest levels of wear metals in oil) when they are new. High initial levels of ring & bore wear are an essential part of the bedding-in process. I suspect the same is true of bearings and cam lobes. I've never personally designed an engine but my understanding is that the mechanical engineers that do, deliberately add a micron or two of sacrificial metal to the rings so that they purposely wear towards an optimum thickness.

As you clock up the miles, wear continues but providing you change your oil regularly and don't drive like a maniac (something Corolla drivers aren't noted for!), the rate of wear progressively slows down. After 267,000 miles, there is probably not that much metal left to wear off as all the sliding surfaces float on what must be a very thick film of oil.

Your numbers do suggest a difference between TGMO and Mobil's 0W20 but to me both are extremely good. It maybe heresy to say it on BITOG but in my experience, you don't really have to worry about wear metals until you see Fe levels going above 300 ppm!
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/04/17 01:54 PM

Originally Posted By: kschachn
So you don't suppose that all the UOAs here on BITOG that focus on "wear metals" has a lot more to do with engine condition, design, age or operating conditions rather than the oil? That you might just as well get statistically identical results using any appropriate oil?

Really? Hmm...

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Gokhan,

I was thinking about your low wear metal numbers. Yes, this might be due to the miraculous properties of TGMO but there is an alternative explanation.

Your 1985 Toyota has now put on 267,000 miles. Whilst your engine clearly isn't knackered, it has probably reached that point where it has essentially stopped wearing out. All engines display the greatest levels of wear (and show the highest levels of wear metals in oil) when they are new. High initial levels of ring & bore wear are an essential part of the bedding-in process. I suspect the same is true of bearings and cam lobes. I've never personally designed an engine but my understanding is that the mechanical engineers that do, deliberately add a micron or two of sacrificial metal to the rings so that they purposely wear towards an optimum thickness.

As you clock up the miles, wear continues but providing you change your oil regularly and don't drive like a maniac (something Corolla drivers aren't noted for!), the rate of wear progressively slows down. After 267,000 miles, there is probably not that much metal left to wear off as all the sliding surfaces float on what must be a very thick film of oil.

Your numbers do suggest a difference between TGMO and Mobil's 0W20 but to me both are extremely good. It maybe heresy to say it on BITOG but in my experience, you don't really have to worry about wear metals until you see Fe levels going above 300 ppm!





Joe's comment makes great sense. I'm sure many of us have experience with a older car that just keeps going on and on. One vehicle I owned did exactly that with a steady diet of Castrol GTX. Furthermore, consistent oil changes with any approved oil should achieve the same results, even conventional oil. I agree that while there may be certain oils that might perform better by looking at their specs, that difference might not be as large as we think. Moly is the supreme additive here on BITOG but some of the best uoa's have been with Valvoline that has no moly.
Posted By: SonofJoe

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/04/17 02:48 PM

I am still Googling away trying to get more info on TGMO.

I found Gokhan's original TGMO 0W20 VOA here....

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3356846/1

The telling numbers are the KV100 of 8.79 cst & the KV40 of just 36.16.

Contrast these with Volodymyr's recent table of 0W20s (Table 7 near the bottom of the page)...

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4178880/1

So what I see are three oils (Gokhan's TGMO, Idemitsu Zeppo and Mazda Original Oil) all of which have a very low KV40 relative to their KV100, or put it another way, all of which have a disproportionately high VI. This to me classic PMA VII behaviour. Also note that really high 13.2% Noack on the Mazda 0W20. Yuk!

Now finding detailed engine oil blend data with PMA VII isn't easy because it's so rarely used but I did find one. If you type 'Palmer Holland Viscoplex 6-850' into Google, it will take you to the 6-850 Product Data Sheet PDF, but the salient info is shown below...

Viscoplex 6-850 is a functionalised liquid PMA VII with an Shear Stability Index of 45. This has been used to make the following blend,

Oil grade: 0W20

GF-4 DI pack: 10.72%
Group III: 85.93%
Viscoplex 6-850: 3.35%

KV100: 9.2 cst
KV40: 43.2 cst
VI: 202
CCS-35: 5560 cP
MRV-40: 18720 cP
Pour Point: -42C
HTHS: 2.64 cP
KV100 (after KO30 shear): 7.9 cst
KV100 loss after shear: 13.8%
Noack: no number provided

This is a very interesting blend. The KV100 at 9.2 cst is only a tiny smidge under the 20-weight 9.3 max limit. Even at this relatively high KV100, the HTHS, at 2.64 is only a squeak over the 2.6 min HTHS limit for a 0W20. This is what I remember most about PMA VIIs; they're bad on shear.

If you go back to Volodymyr's table, both of the very high VI oils (4 & 6) have KV100s of 8.14 and 8.25 cst; way lower than 9.2 The table doesn't show HTHSs but I'd guess these oils would struggle to meet 2.6 min HTHS. With a KV100 of 8.79 cst, the TGMO is probably just okay against the 2.6 min HTHS limit but with very little head room. Overall, my gut feel is while PMA VII based oils might look good with their high VIs and provide good fuel economy, this doesn't come cheap and their shear performance needs property scrutiny.

Of course these oils could be using a complete different PMA altogether. If someone can show the data, I'd happy change my mind.
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/04/17 03:07 PM

That TGMO VOA is from 2014. It's likely that the product formulation has changed since then.
Posted By: SonofJoe

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/04/17 03:52 PM

Sorry about banging on about this but...

Here's a 2012 Lubrizol patent with some 0W20 PMA VII blend data in it...

https://www.google.com/patents/US20120135902

The little table on page 7 shows a comparison of Viscoplex 6-850 (incorrectly shown in the table as 6-860) with two experimental Lz PMA VIIs in a 0W20. Note the following...

All three oils have VIs of 200+

All three oils have relatively low KV40s

Two of the oils struggle to meet 2.6 min HTHS (in fact they DON'T meet the spec!). The other oil does by a whisker.

The first blend uses 4.3% of LIQUID Viscoplex 6-850. This liquid contains 42% of 'neat' (ie solid) PMA polymer so the first 0W20 contains 1.8% of 'neat' VII (as do the other two blends). Typically 1.8% solid VII would equate to about 18% of liquid OCP or HSD VII which is HUGE!!!! This illustrates just how inefficient PMA is as a VII and why you should worry about piston cleaniless if you use this type of oil in your engine.

Posted By: Jetronic

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/04/17 04:11 PM

And why xw-20 oils are exempt from teost testing: to allow this to happen.
Posted By: SonofJoe

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/04/17 04:32 PM

Originally Posted By: Jetronic
And why xw-20 oils are exempt from teost testing: to allow this to happen.


Yep, that would figure.

My longstanding objections to the Teost test are that it fails perfectly good oils too (especially heavy ones) and forces you to put in extra (expensive) juice to fix a non-existent problem. It's supremely ironic that the one time the Teost test picks up a problem that might have some basis in reality, it gets zapped!!!
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/04/17 04:46 PM

Didn't the Japanese manufacturers get a variance from that TEOST test due to the fact they use tons of moly in their 0w-20 oils which would fail? Has there been a connection between high moly content and increases in build up? It would seem that piston cleanliness especially rings and lands are the most susceptible in engines today.
Posted By: SonofJoe

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/04/17 04:48 PM

Originally Posted By: PimTac
That TGMO VOA is from 2014. It's likely that the product formulation has changed since then.


Personally I rather suspect the product HASN'T materially changed since 2014.

Once an oil is defined by it's test program (let's say it's GF-5) it tends to get cast in tablets of stone until a new spec comes along that might require a change. Even if a new spec does come along, there's usually quite a lot of pressure to try and make the old stuff conform, rather than develop something wholly new because engine test programs cost an arm and a leg and you're never quite sure if once you start a new one, you can get to the end of it! This last bit has been especially true in the last few years with various specification tests dying off through lack of parts or going weird (which they always do when you get to the bottom of the parts barrel!).

Although I'm now out of the loop, I occassionally get folks telling me that Product X which I developed back in 2004 is still going strong. That's pretty good longevity in the engine oil market!
Posted By: SonofJoe

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/04/17 05:17 PM

Originally Posted By: PimTac
Didn't the Japanese manufacturers get a variance from that TEOST test due to the fact they use tons of moly in their 0w-20 oils which would fail? Has there been a connection between high moly content and increases in build up? It would seem that piston cleanliness especially rings and lands are the most susceptible in engines today.


I don't have an inside track on this one. The Japanese push to remove Teost on 0W20s probably happened after I escaped from the asylum.

However I am wondering if Moly got blamed from a problem it didn't actually cause? I say that because although I never tested Moly at the kind of levels (1000 ppm-ish) you sometimes find in Japanese oils, if I ever did run into Teost problems, Moly was always one of the additives I'd reach out for first as a fix.

Maybe just maybe, high levels of Moly got conflated with high levels of neat PMA VII and Moly got the blame because PMA doesn't flag itself up up on a standard oil analysis. Interesting...
Posted By: 4WD

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/04/17 05:27 PM

I always thought Proof of Performance testing was expensive - so how can getting OEM approval be cheap ?
Posted By: Jetronic

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/04/17 05:50 PM

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe


Although I'm now out of the loop, I occassionally get folks telling me that Product X which I developed back in 2004 is still going strong. That's pretty good longevity in the engine oil market!


That's good to hear!

I invested heavily in an oil for my car that's isn't the lastest and de facto greatest offering. It ticks most of the boxes I wanted, and the least of the boxes I didn't want. I bought enough of it at a low enough price that I can use it for the next 15 years...
Posted By: SonofJoe

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/04/17 06:13 PM

Industry standard proof of perform testing is expensive and OEM approval programs even more so. I never did that much with the Japanese OEMs on lubes but I did spend three years of my life traipsing over to Tokyo trying to interest them in fuel additives. What a dispiriting, mind-numbing waste of time that was!
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/04/17 08:36 PM

It couldn't have been too bad. You didn't check out Kabuchiko or Ginza while you were in Tokyo?
Posted By: CR94

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/04/17 09:36 PM

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
... Typically 1.8% solid VII would equate to about 18% of liquid OCP or HSD VII which is HUGE!!!! This illustrates just how inefficient PMA is as a VII and why you should worry about piston cleaniless if you use this type of oil in your engine. ...
Any chance that's a clue why we can find on the internet so many complaints from unhappy owners of fairly recent Toyota (and Honda, Subaru, and other) vehicles that are guzzling oil due to coked-up rings, etc., despite regular oil changes at their dealers?
Posted By: SR5

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/04/17 11:17 PM

Originally Posted By: CR94
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
... Typically 1.8% solid VII would equate to about 18% of liquid OCP or HSD VII which is HUGE!!!! This illustrates just how inefficient PMA is as a VII and why you should worry about piston cleaniless if you use this type of oil in your engine. ...
Any chance that's a clue why we can find on the internet so many complaints from unhappy owners of fairly recent Toyota (and Honda, Subaru, and other) vehicles that are guzzling oil due to coked-up rings, etc., despite regular oil changes at their dealers?

Or the lack of these stories in Australia where until recently the default dealer fill was most likely 10W40 A3/B4 semi-synthetic. This has probably recently changed to a 5W30 full synthetic.
Posted By: SR5

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/04/17 11:25 PM

Originally Posted By: PimTac
It couldn't have been too bad. You didn't check out Kabuchiko or Ginza while you were in Tokyo?

The neon jungle of Shinjuku
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/04/17 11:33 PM

Originally Posted By: SR5
Originally Posted By: PimTac
It couldn't have been too bad. You didn't check out Kabuchiko or Ginza while you were in Tokyo?

The neon jungle of Shinjuku



Ah yes. It never sleeps there. 24/7 people. Lots of otaku there as well as Akihabara
Posted By: fdcg27

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/04/17 11:41 PM

Originally Posted By: CR94
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
... Typically 1.8% solid VII would equate to about 18% of liquid OCP or HSD VII which is HUGE!!!! This illustrates just how inefficient PMA is as a VII and why you should worry about piston cleaniless if you use this type of oil in your engine. ...
Any chance that's a clue why we can find on the internet so many complaints from unhappy owners of fairly recent Toyota (and Honda, Subaru, and other) vehicles that are guzzling oil due to coked-up rings, etc., despite regular oil changes at their dealers?


Since you can find lots of complaints about everything on the internet, this may not mean much.
The 1% complain while the 99% who have no problems don't bother to answer them.
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/05/17 12:04 AM

Originally Posted By: CR94
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
... Typically 1.8% solid VII would equate to about 18% of liquid OCP or HSD VII which is HUGE!!!! This illustrates just how inefficient PMA is as a VII and why you should worry about piston cleaniless if you use this type of oil in your engine. ...
Any chance that's a clue why we can find on the internet so many complaints from unhappy owners of fairly recent Toyota (and Honda, Subaru, and other) vehicles that are guzzling oil due to coked-up rings, etc., despite regular oil changes at their dealers?




I have read some of these stories about coked up rings on relatively low mileage vehicles (<50k miles) on various forums. The problem of course is that it's hard to pinpoint any single source of the problems. Drivers habits? Oil? Engine design?

Joe's mention of a certain oil component caught my eye. Normally I wouldn't suspect oil unless the owners maintenance was lacking like failing to change the oil regularly. Also, GDI and TGDI engines are running hotter thus another possible source.
Posted By: SonofJoe

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/05/17 06:38 AM

Originally Posted By: CR94
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
... Typically 1.8% solid VII would equate to about 18% of liquid OCP or HSD VII which is HUGE!!!! This illustrates just how inefficient PMA is as a VII and why you should worry about piston cleaniless if you use this type of oil in your engine. ...
Any chance that's a clue why we can find on the internet so many complaints from unhappy owners of fairly recent Toyota (and Honda, Subaru, and other) vehicles that are guzzling oil due to coked-up rings, etc., despite regular oil changes at their dealers?



I hadn't made the connection but thinking about it, yes, PMA VII based oils could be contributing to the ring deposit problem. Just remember, when you do an oil change, piston cleaniless is the one thing that doesn't get re-set back to zero. Piston cleanliness is a CUMULATIVE problem that gets worse over time. Also remember that when you buy an oil that is labelled API this or ACEA that, all of the engine testing that's done to get that approval effectively just reflects one OCI! Any problems that develop cumulatively will be missed.
Posted By: SonofJoe

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/05/17 06:50 AM

I see there's some more analysis of US 5W20s that's just been published by PQIA.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4396402/1

Some of these oils have Noacks that I would regard as appallingly high (even if they do conform to the spec). This is what happens when you push Group II use way too far and have nutty ILSAC fuel economy tests which encourage you to drop the CCS to beat the test (the Havoline oil is halfway to being a 0W20!).

If ever there was a set of technical data that illustrated why properly formulated 10W20 would be a good idea, this is it!
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/05/17 01:52 PM

Son of Joe, If you had a choice between 0w-20 or 5w-20, which one would you go with in a typical naturally aspirated 4 or 6 cylinder engine ? The climate would be mild.
Posted By: FordCapriDriver

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/05/17 02:27 PM

Always, the less difference between the 2 numbers the better.
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/05/17 02:36 PM

I thought about that since I remember the 10w-40 problems way back and that was something I heard then. Another is price. 0w-20 tends to run a few $$ more than 5w-20 or 30.

Throughout this long thread there has been some bits of evidence that going with a 5w would be prudent. I'm not a thick nor a thin fanatic, but rather go by what the manufacturers recommend. In a warranty situation they would be hard pressed to tell the difference between 5w and 0w.
Posted By: SonofJoe

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/05/17 03:09 PM

Originally Posted By: PimTac
Son of Joe, If you had a choice between 0w-20 or 5w-20, which one would you go with in a typical naturally aspirated 4 or 6 cylinder engine ? The climate would be mild.





My longstanding view of US engine oils is that generally speaking they are extremely good oils (wear, oxidation stability, etc) except for three things...they are unnecessarily & artificially thin and as a consequence, their Noack is way too high & they contain too much shearable VII.

My advice is in the US, always buy synthetic (not 'synthetic blend' or 'synthetic technology'; just straightforward synthetic). It won't be 'better' oil in the broader sense of the word but in the US, you have to go synthetic just to get the Noack & VII loading down. I would also say that if you have a choice, always buy an API SN oil over an ILSAC GF-5 oil and avoid that label that says 'Energy Conserving'. It's the ILSAC fuel economy tests that so bend GF-5 oils out of shape. Ironically, both oils will probably give you more or less the same fuel economy!

If I lived in a mild part of the US, I personally would go for a 5W20 synthetic over a 0W20. 0W20 is something that the US OEMs benefit from but the oil buying public don't. I might consider a 10W30 but the crazy way things work in the US generally means that a 10W30 is half way to being a 5W30, so there's Noack benefit to be gained (especially if they are full Group IIs).

I guess I'll get some stick for saying this but this is truly how I see things....
Posted By: FlyPenFly

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/05/17 04:03 PM

I found MB229.5 a good certification to have on any oil to look at because they have to be under a 10% NOACK. Really annoying that Mobil, Pennzoil, and Castrol don't make NOACK figures easy to find in their most popular oils.

Must commend Valvoline and Redline on being straight forward and up front about all their specs. Makes me trust them more.
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/05/17 04:16 PM

Thanks for your response SOJ. One thing that steers my choice towards the 5w oil are the NOACK numbers. Most of the specs are very close but the NOACK on 5w-20 runs lower that its 0w counterpart. Valvoline is one of my go to brands. Per their PDS, 0w-20 Synpower is 12% NOACK while the 5w-20 comes in at 10%. Looking at their Full Syn with MLT, the 0w-20 is 11.4% while the 5w-20 comes in at 9.3%. Those are substantial differences.
Posted By: wemay

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/05/17 04:33 PM

Concerning 5w20 or 0w20...
All things being equal, 0w20 has better numbers all-around (except for maybe Noack). It would depend what matters more to the informed consumer. Of which, i doubt there are many.


Example:

Posted By: CharlieBauer

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/05/17 04:50 PM

Motorcraft oil NOACK is near 15% and who knows what TGMOs is.

Don't all manufacturers perform extended vehicle testing out to 100,000 miles or so? As part of that wouldn't they use their own recommended oil and tear down the engine afterwards?
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/05/17 05:00 PM

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Originally Posted By: PimTac
Son of Joe, If you had a choice between 0w-20 or 5w-20, which one would you go with in a typical naturally aspirated 4 or 6 cylinder engine ? The climate would be mild.





My longstanding view of US engine oils is that generally speaking they are extremely good oils (wear, oxidation stability, etc) except for three things...they are unnecessarily & artificially thin and as a consequence, their Noack is way too high & they contain too much shearable VII.

My advice is in the US, always buy synthetic (not 'synthetic blend' or 'synthetic technology'; just straightforward synthetic). It won't be 'better' oil in the broader sense of the word but in the US, you have to go synthetic just to get the Noack & VII loading down. I would also say that if you have a choice, always buy an API SN oil over an ILSAC GF-5 oil and avoid that label that says 'Energy Conserving'. It's the ILSAC fuel economy tests that so bend GF-5 oils out of shape. Ironically, both oils will probably give you more or less the same fuel economy!

If I lived in a mild part of the US, I personally would go for a 5W20 synthetic over a 0W20. 0W20 is something that the US OEMs benefit from but the oil buying public don't. I might consider a 10W30 but the crazy way things work in the US generally means that a 10W30 is half way to being a 5W30, so there's Noack benefit to be gained (especially if they are full Group IIs).

I guess I'll get some stick for saying this but this is truly how I see things....


What about an oil like M1 EP 0w-20, which is majority PAO?
Posted By: SonofJoe

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/05/17 05:28 PM

Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
Motorcraft oil NOACK is near 15% and who knows what TGMOs is.

Don't all manufacturers perform extended vehicle testing out to 100,000 miles or so? As part of that wouldn't they use their own recommended oil and tear down the engine afterwards?



I can put my hand on my heart and say in the past, I've gone from conception to testing to approval to full commercial implementation in a matter of months with ZERO on-the-road testing. This is not with some dodgy, back street blender but with a global oil company whose name you will have heard of. I would say this isn't uncommon either.

Yes, when OEMs are developing new engines, they will run extensive field trials but the oils they tend to use will be very high quality, factory fill synthetics, usually supplied by a high profile oil company partnered with one of the big AddCo's. I don't think they run 100,000 mile trials on the kind of high Noack oils you get off-the-shelf. If they did, they might be horribly surprised!
Posted By: Lex94

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/05/17 06:51 PM

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
I see there's some more analysis of US 5W20s that's just been published by PQIA.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4396402/1

Some of these oils have Noacks that I would regard as appallingly high (even if they do conform to the spec). This is what happens when you push Group II use way too far and have nutty ILSAC fuel economy tests which encourage you to drop the CCS to beat the test (the Havoline oil is halfway to being a 0W20!).

If ever there was a set of technical data that illustrated why properly formulated 10W20 would be a good idea, this is it!


Exactly.

It is just best to use a A3/B3 10w30 oil...Like Mobil 1 High Mileage 10w30.

https://www.mobil.com/English-US/Passenger-Vehicle-Lube/pds/NAXXMobil-1-High-Mileage-Oils
Posted By: wemay

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/05/17 08:19 PM

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Originally Posted By: PimTac
Son of Joe, If you had a choice between 0w-20 or 5w-20, which one would you go with in a typical naturally aspirated 4 or 6 cylinder engine ? The climate would be mild.





My longstanding view of US engine oils is that generally speaking they are extremely good oils (wear, oxidation stability, etc) except for three things...they are unnecessarily & artificially thin and as a consequence, their Noack is way too high & they contain too much shearable VII.

My advice is in the US, always buy synthetic (not 'synthetic blend' or 'synthetic technology'; just straightforward synthetic). It won't be 'better' oil in the broader sense of the word but in the US, you have to go synthetic just to get the Noack & VII loading down. I would also say that if you have a choice, always buy an API SN oil over an ILSAC GF-5 oil and avoid that label that says 'Energy Conserving'. It's the ILSAC fuel economy tests that so bend GF-5 oils out of shape. Ironically, both oils will probably give you more or less the same fuel economy!

If I lived in a mild part of the US, I personally would go for a 5W20 synthetic over a 0W20. 0W20 is something that the US OEMs benefit from but the oil buying public don't. I might consider a 10W30 but the crazy way things work in the US generally means that a 10W30 is half way to being a 5W30, so there's Noack benefit to be gained (especially if they are full Group IIs).

I guess I'll get some stick for saying this but this is truly how I see things....


What about an oil like M1 EP 0w-20, which is majority PAO?


This is where i was headed too.
Posted By: CharlieBauer

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/05/17 08:48 PM

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Yes, when OEMs are developing new engines, they will run extensive field trials but the oils they tend to use will be very high quality, factory fill synthetics, usually supplied by a high profile oil company partnered with one of the big AddCo's. I don't think they run 100,000 mile trials on the kind of high Noack oils you get off-the-shelf. If they did, they might be horribly surprised!


Ford did their Ecoboost torture test using Motorcraft syn blend 5w30 which pqia have tested to have a noack of 14.3% and 15.2%.

Don't know how realistic the torture test was.

https://social.ford.com/en_US/story/sust...ture-tests.html

http://www.pqiamerica.com/January2012A/January2012R2/motorcraft.htm

http://www.pqiadata.org/MotorCraftSAE5W30.html
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/06/17 08:29 AM

No wonder TGMO is so good...

Here's another Mobil patent, on microencapsulation of additives...

http://www.google.com/patents/WO2014046876A1?cl=en

Quote:
Provided is a lubricating oil including a nonpolar lubricating oil base stock as a major component and microcapsules as a minor component. The microcapsules includes (i) a core containing a polar solvent and one or more polar lubricating oil additives having solubility in the polar solvent, and (ii) optionally a shell or membrane enclosing the core. The solubility of the polar lubricating oil additives in the nonpolar lubricating oil base stock is improved as compared to solubility achieved using a lubricating oil containing polar lubricating oil additives in a nonpolar lubricating oil base stock and not containing the microcapsules. A method of improving solubility of polar lubricating oil additives in a nonpolar lubricating oil base stock is also provided. The lubricating engine oils of this disclosure can be useful in automotive, marine, aviation, and industrial engine and machine components.
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/06/17 08:34 AM

oooh, and it's got nanocarbon...

http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US20130324447.pdf
Posted By: zeng

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/06/17 01:06 PM

Originally Posted By: Shannow
No wonder TGMO is so good...

Here's another Mobil patent, on microencapsulation of additives...

http://www.google.com/patents/WO2014046876A1?cl=en

Quote:
Provided is a lubricating oil including a nonpolar lubricating oil base stock as a major component and microcapsules as a minor component. The microcapsules includes (i) a core containing a polar solvent and one or more polar lubricating oil additives having solubility in the polar solvent, and (ii) optionally a shell or membrane enclosing the core. The solubility of the polar lubricating oil additives in the nonpolar lubricating oil base stock is improved as compared to solubility achieved using a lubricating oil containing polar lubricating oil additives in a nonpolar lubricating oil base stock and not containing the microcapsules. A method of improving solubility of polar lubricating oil additives in a nonpolar lubricating oil base stock is also provided. The lubricating engine oils of this disclosure can be useful in automotive, marine, aviation, and industrial engine and machine components.

It's interesting to note the capability of additives in microcapsules in improving a lubricating oil's performance of:
a)anti-wear;
b)anti-corrosion/anti-oxidation, and
c)enhanced film thickness for EHL regimes .....
in (very) low viscosity environments of oils..... gravitating towards fuel economy CAFE(?) mandates.

Quote:
[0011] This disclosure yet further relates in part to a method of improving surface performance (e.g., anti-wear and anti-corrosion performance) of a lubricating oil in an engine lubricated with the lubricating oil.

[0013] This disclosure further relates in part to a method of improving elastohydrodynamic lubrication (EHL) film formation at lubricating oil contacts in an engine lubricated with a lubricating oil.


I'm of the belief that improvement in anti-corrosion performance plays a substantially major role vis-a-vis other improvements in OP's application.
Posted By: SonofJoe

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/06/17 01:21 PM

Originally Posted By: Shannow


I had a read of the patent. Sounds like they are using something sort of akin to Shellvis VII polymer to stabilise graphene suspensions in base oil.

All very good as far as it goes but I would point to two things...

First, getting some interesting results on an MTM friction rig is absolutely NOT the same thing as putting an oil through the usual parade of API/ILSAC/ACEA/OEM tests (where the nano-particles might do more harm than good). Nor is it the same as demonstrating genuine, measurable benefits in the field. Can someone point me in the general direction of that data as I think it might be important.

Second, according to Mr Google, at the end of 2015 the cost of graphene was reported as being $US 100 per GRAM!!!!! Now last time I looked, there were 1000 grams in a kilogram and 1000 kilograms in a metric tonne. So let's say very roughly guess that base oil cost $US 600/MT, a conventional DI/VI mix cost about $US 3000/MT and finished oil probably retails off-the-shelf for about $US 4000/MT. Now into this commodity, you want to use something that cost $US 100 million per MT!!! Errrr...hang on a bit???

Of course you could add a teensy-weeny tiny amount of graphene to make a bold marketing claim but then cynic that I am, I might have to declare a Code Red 'Funny' Alert...
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/06/17 01:34 PM

From a pharmaceutical viewpoint, encapsulation of different components sometimes is done for several reasons. One, the product is not stable when the additives are mixed directly together. Two, there is a reaction between some of the additives that could be harmful. (Similar to one). Three, a time release effect is desired. I don't see a need for that in motor oil, in the old Contac cold capsules, yes.
Posted By: BrocLuno

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/06/17 05:25 PM

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe

I had a read of the patent. Sounds like they are using something sort of akin to Shellvis VII polymer to stabilize graphene suspensions in base oil.

All very good as far as it goes but I would point to two things...

First, getting some interesting results on an MTM friction rig is absolutely NOT the same thing as putting an oil through the usual parade of API/ILSAC/ACEA/OEM tests (where the nano-particles might do more harm than good). Nor is it the same as demonstrating genuine, measurable benefits in the field. Can someone point me in the general direction of that data as I think it might be important.

Second, according to Mr Google, at the end of 2015 the cost of graphene was reported as being $US 100 per GRAM!!!!! Now last time I looked, there were 1000 grams in a kilogram and 1000 kilograms in a metric tonne. So let's say very roughly guess that base oil cost $US 600/MT, a conventional DI/VI mix cost about $US 3000/MT and finished oil probably retails off-the-shelf for about $US 4000/MT. Now into this commodity, you want to use something that cost $US 100 million per MT!!! Errrr...hang on a bit???

Of course you could add a teensy-weeny tiny amount of graphene to make a bold marketing claim but then cynic that I am, I might have to declare a Code Red 'Funny' Alert...


You said it so much better than I could have laugh
Posted By: CharlieBauer

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/06/17 05:51 PM

So, after 25 pages, do we have a final verdict yet?

grin
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/06/17 05:58 PM

Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
So, after 25 pages, do we have a final verdict yet?

grin




Depends on which poster here agrees. It all depends on what the meaning of final is.
Posted By: FordCapriDriver

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/06/17 07:59 PM

Bets on how many pages this will have before it ends?
Posted By: WhizkidTN

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/06/17 09:03 PM

Originally Posted By: FordCapriDriver
Bets on how many pages this will have before it ends?


I'm betting that the thread get very "thick"! See what I did there? LOL!
Posted By: FordCapriDriver

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/07/17 06:11 AM

Originally Posted By: WhizkidTN
Originally Posted By: FordCapriDriver
Bets on how many pages this will have before it ends?


I'm betting that the thread get very "thick"! See what I did there? LOL!

Very funny LOL ... not really, really bad joke
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/07/17 10:21 PM

In my car, 0W-20 makes a big difference on the freeway. 0W-40 and similar thick grades make my engine hum and moan more in high-speed driving. I really feel a significant improvement with 0W-20 in reducing the high-speed hum.

I think it's really a waste in performance, fuel economy, and engine drivability if you put thicker oil than needed. You probably don't need thick oil unless you have high-powered turbo or an antique engine.
Posted By: FordCapriDriver

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/08/17 04:40 AM

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
In my car, 0W-20 makes a big difference on the freeway. 0W-40 and similar thick grades make my engine hum and moan more in high-speed driving. I really feel a significant improvement with 0W-20 in reducing the high-speed hum.

I think it's really a waste in performance, fuel economy, and engine drivability if you put thicker oil than needed. You probably don't need thick oil unless you have high-powered turbo or an antique engine.

What is your definition of a thick oil though?
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/08/17 04:54 AM

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
In my car, 0W-20 makes a big difference on the freeway. 0W-40 and similar thick grades make my engine hum and moan more in high-speed driving. I really feel a significant improvement with 0W-20 in reducing the high-speed hum.

I think it's really a waste in performance, fuel economy, and engine drivability if you put thicker oil than needed. You probably don't need thick oil unless you have high-powered turbo or an antique engine.




Besides performance, fuel economy, and engine driveability, there is mechanical durability which is the main reason for motor oil in the first place. That is usually the main point also in any thick versus thin debate. I believe that running the proper oil for the equipment on hand allowing for the type of usage that equipment will get. 0w-20 will suffice in most cases where it is recommended by the manufacturer. In the case of towing or other severe use scenarios, the user might go with the heavier grades.

It would be fascinating to take your car Gokhan, and perform a blinded case study using various grades of oil. I wonder if you would still be able to choose the 0w-20 from the others, not knowing what was in the sump? Food for thought.
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/08/17 08:49 AM

Originally Posted By: PimTac
Besides performance, fuel economy, and engine driveability, there is mechanical durability which is the main reason for motor oil in the first place. That is usually the main point also in any thick versus thin debate. 0w-20 will suffice in most cases where it is recommended by the manufacturer. In the case of towing or other severe use scenarios, the user might go with the heavier grades.


+1 ... and that basic statement has been make about a dozen times in this thread. It's a fact that as oil thins down from heat that the film thickness gets smaller and smaller in the engine components until the oil can't prevent metal-to-metal contact anymore. That's why Ford and GM recommends running a xW-50 for track use in their new and modern cars that are normally specified to use xW-20 or xW-30. They know using a thinner oil on the track which can cause oil temps in the 280~300 deg F range can put the engine in danger of damage. xW-20 in normal everyday driving use where oil temps remain at 200~220 deg F work fine, but not so much in extreme use conditions.
Posted By: bbhero

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/08/17 09:34 AM

Great point Zee0six.

Has to how long will this thread go on??? 35-40 pages at least. I am impressed that it has not been locked down due to people getting mad. I am very glad to see how well everyone has been handling this. Good job guys.
Posted By: SonofJoe

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/08/17 10:08 AM

My thoughts are that if BITOG had its own court of law, after much discussion of 'Thin Or Thick: The Final Verdict', the BITOG jury would return a verdict of 'case not proven'.

In his summing up, I rather think that the judge might rebuke The Plaintiff for even bringing said case to court in the first place. Assertion in itself is not argument. Repeating said assertion over and over does not make it fact. Failure to acknowledge or debate alternative reasons for The Plaintiff's observed data, seriously weakened his case. Failure to acknowledge that The Plaintiff's favoured oil might have serious inherent weaknesses undermined his technical credibility. Also, stating as fact, things that The Plaintiff could under no circumstances have any definitive knowledge of, pointed to a weakness of character that bordered on the delusional.

So there you have it. Onto the next thread...
Posted By: CharlieBauer

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/09/17 09:54 PM

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Assertion in itself is not argument. Repeating said assertion over and over does not make it fact.

....

Also, stating as fact, things that The Plaintiff could under no circumstances have any definitive knowledge of, pointed to a weakness of character that bordered on the delusional.


Don't worry, the UK will catch up to US eventually. grin
Posted By: demarpaint

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/09/17 10:24 PM

Originally Posted By: bbhero
Great point Zee0six.

Has to how long will this thread go on??? 35-40 pages at least. I am impressed that it has not been locked down due to people getting mad. I am very glad to see how well everyone has been handling this. Good job guys.


I agree.
Posted By: Kuato

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/10/17 12:18 AM

Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Assertion in itself is not argument. Repeating said assertion over and over does not make it fact.

....

Also, stating as fact, things that The Plaintiff could under no circumstances have any definitive knowledge of, pointed to a weakness of character that bordered on the delusional.


Don't worry, the UK will catch up to US eventually. grin


Did you mean that the other way 'round? whistle

I'm in the beginning stages of my own thick vs thin test. I wonder if my results will be similar to Gokhan's, completely opposite or somewhere in the inconclusive range? Only time and about 37,000 more miles will tell...
Posted By: Nickdfresh

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/10/17 05:30 AM

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Gokhan,

I was thinking about your low wear metal numbers. Yes, this might be due to the miraculous properties of TGMO but there is an alternative explanation.

Your 1985 Toyota has now put on 267,000 miles. Whilst your engine clearly isn't knackered, it has probably reached that point where it has essentially stopped wearing out....


An excellent point and I've thought the same thing actually...
Posted By: Nickdfresh

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/10/17 05:32 AM

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Here's one of those devastating 10W60 oils...
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthr..._10#Post4387829


Well, at least you're not cherry picking UOA's.. smile


I don't usually give a Rat's about UOAs, as they are a lubricant condition/condemnation tool rather than what they are attributed to on BITOG, just given the rant against that grade in BMWs in this thread, and the "fact" that every UOA is better on TGMO it seemed fitting.


I couldn't agree with you more, actually...

But he is getting his UOA's from a reputable source IMO...
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/10/17 06:02 AM

Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
I couldn't agree with you more, actually...

But he is getting his UOA's from a reputable source IMO...


:falls off chair:

cheers
Posted By: Kuato

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/10/17 07:32 AM

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
I couldn't agree with you more, actually...

But he is getting his UOA's from a reputable source IMO...


:falls off chair:

cheers


In all seriousness, what source(s)/service(s) should be utilized to insure accuracy? I am trying to eliminate any bias from my own study.
Posted By: FlyPenFly

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/10/17 09:06 PM



If you look at the BMW M4 manual for international markets, you'll see they primarily recommend a 40w oil. I think this pretty much confirms that lighter oil requirements in the US are due to fuel efficiency standards not really engine protection. In the US, they recommend a 30w and make no mention of a 40w.
Posted By: kschachn

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/10/17 09:10 PM

Originally Posted By: FlyPenFly
If you look at the BMW M4 manual for international markets, you'll see they primarily recommend a 40w oil. I think this pretty much confirms that lighter oil requirements in the US are due to fuel efficiency standards not really engine protection. In the US, they recommend a 30w and make no mention of a 40w.

No, they require an oil that meets a specification. I don't read that to say BMW feels LL-01 is inferior to LL-01 FE. It is this spec that (among other things) defines the HTHS.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/10/17 10:25 PM

Originally Posted By: FlyPenFly


If you look at the BMW M4 manual for international markets, you'll see they primarily recommend a 40w oil. I think this pretty much confirms that lighter oil requirements in the US are due to fuel efficiency standards not really engine protection. In the US, they recommend a 30w and make no mention of a 40w.

If more than one SAE viscosity grade is recommended for a gasoline engine, the rule of thumb is to go with the lightest recommended SAE viscosity grade, which will provide best of all worlds: least engine friction, most oil flow, most horsepower, most fuel economy, and so on. For a gasoline engine, if the viscosity grade isn't too thin to cause bearing oil-film breakdown under the largest torque/RPM ratios the engine experiences, it's adequately thick. Heavy-duty diesel engines are a different story as they benefit from thicker oil film because it separates the surfaces more from the abrasive soot particles in the oil.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/10/17 10:44 PM

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: FlyPenFly
If you look at the BMW M4 manual for international markets, you'll see they primarily recommend a 40w oil. I think this pretty much confirms that lighter oil requirements in the US are due to fuel efficiency standards not really engine protection. In the US, they recommend a 30w and make no mention of a 40w.

No, they require an oil that meets a specification. I don't read that to say BMW feels LL-01 is inferior to LL-01 FE. It is this spec that (among other things) defines the HTHS.

For LL-01 minimum HTHSV is 3.5 cP and for LL-01 FE it's 3.0 cP. It's interesting that BMW recommends both thin and thick oils for the same engine. I would go with the thin one.
Posted By: fdcg27

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/10/17 11:14 PM

From where did you pull this "rule of thumb", one of which I've never heard nor has anyone else here?
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/10/17 11:26 PM

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
From where did you pull this "rule of thumb", one of which I've never heard nor has anyone else here?


That's CATERHAM's rule of thumb, echoed by Dr Haas...
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/10/17 11:41 PM

So, not a official recommendation?
Posted By: fdcg27

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/11/17 12:18 AM

I think you've got it backward.
Haas boasted of running a twenty grade in his Ferrari long before Caterham showed up and boasted of running the same in his 328i.
Neither seems to be seen here anymore, so it appears that Gokhan has taken up the torch.
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/11/17 12:51 AM

This thread can close if everyone came to the agreement that there is room for all grades if oil depending on use, climate etc. This thin oil or nothing argument will keep going on and on as evidenced by this thread.
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/11/17 01:02 AM

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
I think you've got it backward.
Haas boasted of running a twenty grade in his Ferrari long before Caterham showed up and boasted of running the same in his 328i.


The recommendation to use the thinnest oil in the manual first came from CATERHAM, along with the "5W20 was specified in my girlfriend's 510 Datsun" (factually it was, but only up to 18F), and his (pinto ??) was specced for 20W20.

Haas, I agree was the first to run modern ILSAC 20s in applications which weren't in the manual.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/11/17 02:07 AM

Come on, guys, 0W-20 is hardly thin. SAE 20 viscosity grade is old-school. Who is going to run the really thin stuff, preferably in a BMW?

Road version:



Racing version:



The full thin line:

Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/11/17 03:00 AM

Well given your final verdict, and the attributes that you've espoused in getting to that conclusion...run it and post the results.
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/11/17 03:08 AM

I would like to see a UOA of that 0w-8 in the Corolla.
Posted By: zeng

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/11/17 05:13 AM

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Well given your final verdict, and the attributes that you've espoused in getting to that conclusion...run it and post the results.

I would be interested in xW20 results operating under :
a) Extreme duty (which I believe a xW20 isn't fit for it); or
b) Heavy duty (ditto ?) ; or
c) Medium duty.

I'm afraid I wouldn't be interested in results operating under :
d) Light duty in relation to one's (designed) capabilities , where a vast , vast majority of operating vehicles fall under.

Having said this, I'm real keen on Dr Haas' Porsche (?) current residual mechanical conditions and begging for updates.. blush
Posted By: NGRhodes

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/11/17 09:50 AM

Originally Posted By: zeng
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Well given your final verdict, and the attributes that you've espoused in getting to that conclusion...run it and post the results.

I would be interested in xW20 results operating under :
a) Extreme duty (which I believe a xW20 isn't fit for it); or
b) Heavy duty (ditto ?) ; or
c) Medium duty.

I'm afraid I wouldn't be interested in results operating under :
d) Light duty in relation to one's (designed) capabilities , where a vast , vast majority of operating vehicles fall under.

Having said this, I'm real keen on Dr Haas' Porsche (?) current residual mechanical conditions and begging for updates.. blush


I wonder if VW 508 rated xW20 would satisfy c, possibly b in your list ?
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/11/17 09:59 PM

Originally Posted By: PimTac
I would like to see a UOA of that 0w-8 in the Corolla.

Given that there are more than twice as powerful of the 4A-xxx engines out there that still specify 10W-30 like my 4A-LC, I think mine would be OK with as low as 0W-12 but I don't know about 0W-8.

Needless to say the goal of my experiment wasn't to show that 0W-8 is better than 20W-60 but to see how common viscosity grades that have been available for many, many decades (SAE 20 through 50) perform and compare in my engine.
Posted By: ndfergy

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/11/17 11:19 PM

Thanks for your efforts Gokhan. Whether one agrees or not you maintained your objectivity in the face of some pretty harsh criticism. Being an oil newbie myself you gave me pause although I still fall on the thicker side of thin within the GF-5 spec. I would love to see you try a plain Jane 5W20 dino for a few runs and see how that compares. Regardless, thinner oils seem to be the future so we might as well get used to it.
Posted By: Kuato

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/13/17 01:36 PM

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: FlyPenFly
If you look at the BMW M4 manual for international markets, you'll see they primarily recommend a 40w oil. I think this pretty much confirms that lighter oil requirements in the US are due to fuel efficiency standards not really engine protection. In the US, they recommend a 30w and make no mention of a 40w.

No, they require an oil that meets a specification. I don't read that to say BMW feels LL-01 is inferior to LL-01 FE. It is this spec that (among other things) defines the HTHS.


In addition to the specification; "ensure that the engine oil belongs to the engine grade SAE 0-40, or engine malfunctions and damage may occur" is right there in the image.

I also see that as an alternative, 0w30 may be used. Seems like BMW prefer 40 weight outside the US.
Posted By: LubeFiner

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/14/17 05:27 PM

Reading through the numerous pages of this thread I have come to one determination as how resolve this: Someone needs to buy 3-4 brand new cars, all the same make/model/options, and equip each vehicle with drivers that have nearly identical driving styles. After the initial break-in has occurred, drain the factory fill/break-in oil from each engine, tear apart the engines to spec all components, reinstall said engines in their respective vehicle, and then fill each with one brand and grade of oil per vehicle, i.e. M1 5W20, 5W30, 5W40, and 5W50. Each vehicle shall be driven in a follow-the-leader scenario for the sum of 50,000 miles in 1 year with UOA's done at every 7,5000 miles. At the 50K mark, each engine is to be removed, broken down, and full specs taken of all components. This is the only way IMHO that a true engine wear analysis can be full filled.

I just do not see anyone doing the above scenario to prove which is the best. Otherwise, just buy the brand/weight you like and run with it. laugh
Posted By: kschachn

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/14/17 05:39 PM

Originally Posted By: LubeFiner
Reading through the numerous pages of this thread I have come to one determination as how resolve this: Someone needs to buy 3-4 brand new cars, all the same make/model/options, and equip each vehicle with drivers that have nearly identical driving styles. After the initial break-in has occurred, drain the factory fill/break-in oil from each engine, tear apart the engines to spec all components, reinstall said engines in their respective vehicle, and then fill each with one brand and grade of oil per vehicle, i.e. M1 5W20, 5W30, 5W40, and 5W50. Each vehicle shall be driven in a follow-the-leader scenario for the sum of 50,000 miles in 1 year with UOA's done at every 7,5000 miles. At the 50K mark, each engine is to be removed, broken down, and full specs taken of all components. This is the only way IMHO that a true engine wear analysis can be full filled.

I just do not see anyone doing the above scenario to prove which is the best. Otherwise, just buy the brand/weight you like and run with it. laugh

Actually that wouldn't be necessary nor would it be definitive. You wouldn't use entire vehicles and the driving styles couldn't be "nearly identical".
Posted By: Nickdfresh

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/14/17 05:54 PM

Originally Posted By: zeng
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Well given your final verdict, and the attributes that you've espoused in getting to that conclusion...run it and post the results.

I would be interested in xW20 results operating under :
a) Extreme duty (which I believe a xW20 isn't fit for it); or
b) Heavy duty (ditto ?) ; or
c) Medium duty.

...


Ford has already done this, including a tow-test through America's hottest point in Death Valley...
Posted By: BobFout

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/14/17 05:59 PM

What LubeFiner and kschachn describe IS done by way of engine test cells.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/14/17 09:37 PM

Originally Posted By: ndfergy
Thanks for your efforts Gokhan. Whether one agrees or not you maintained your objectivity in the face of some pretty harsh criticism. Being an oil newbie myself you gave me pause although I still fall on the thicker side of thin within the GF-5 spec. I would love to see you try a plain Jane 5W20 dino for a few runs and see how that compares. Regardless, thinner oils seem to be the future so we might as well get used to it.

Thank you ndfergy.

I would call 5W-30 and 10W-30 thin grades. Thick grades are 0W-40 and thicker.

I think the best oil suitable for your 2015 Toyota Yaris is TGMO 0W-20 SN. It's a full synthetic and very cheaply available in Canada. You can do longer OCIs with it than with conventional 5W-30 and 10W-30 and get all the benefits of a full synthetic. Remember that I run it in a much older Toyota with great success.

The performance difference between 0W-20 and 0W-40 in my application is like day and night. I feel like my engine is purring with 0W-20 and I felt like it was moaning with 0W-40. Thicker oil really steals your horsepower and makes your engine sluggish. On top of that, the oil pump and lubrication system has to work harder with thicker oil.

If some people think that they can make their wear less by going to a thicker oil in a car that specifies 10W-30 or thinner, they are fooling themselves. There is no such thing. The only engines for which you see wear benefits are high-performance engines driven hard that were designed for such oils or some older engines. In fact my application may be showing even less wear with thinner oil according to my UOAs.

Given that you don't see any wear benefits from using thicker oil, it's really silly to run thicker oil in engines that don't need it, as it results in sluggish performance and lower fuel economy and steals from the thrill of driving as you feel your engine putting more effort for the same driving conditions.
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/14/17 10:08 PM

NickdFresh

Was that done using Motorcraft oil or another brand? It's interesting that Ford did that rather than one of the oil companies.
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/14/17 10:12 PM

". Thicker oil really steals your horsepower and makes your engine sluggish."

Interesting. At what percentage? Do you have a source?

If a test comparing 20w to 40w is done running a 200hp engine I would guess the hp loss is very minimal, maybe a couple of horsepower or so. It wouldn't be noticeable.
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/14/17 10:37 PM

Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Ford has already done this, including a tow-test through America's hottest point in Death Valley...


Is that why they have moved back to 30s on some models ?
Posted By: demarpaint

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/14/17 11:01 PM

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Well given your final verdict, and the attributes that you've espoused in getting to that conclusion...run it and post the results.


I'd love to see someone run it and post the results. Me I'll pass, and stick with 5W30.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/14/17 11:06 PM

Originally Posted By: PimTac
". Thicker oil really steals your horsepower and makes your engine sluggish."

Interesting. At what percentage? Do you have a source?

If a test comparing 20w to 40w is done running a 200hp engine I would guess the hp loss is very minimal, maybe a couple of horsepower or so. It wouldn't be noticeable.

You see less difference at high power outputs because the minimum oil-film thickness (MOFT) gets smaller, which reduces the viscous drag (hydrodynamic friction) by the oil. You see the biggest increase in horsepower and fuel economy during gentle cruising, when the MOFT is large and therefore the engine benefits from reducing the MOFT. From 0W-40 to 0W-20, I think you see about 5 - 7% benefit in horsepower and fuel economy during gentle cruising. Harder you drive, less you will benefit.

This guy studied it for high power outputs for a really old engine (Ford Y-block V8) and he saw a significant drop in power even in that case when he used 20W-50. Note that his statement in the introduction that the power loss comes from the oil pump, not the oil itself, is wrong. It does mainly come from the oil itself (viscous drag in the bearings).

http://www.eatonbalancing.com/2015/02/01/oil-viscosity-and-its-effect-on-engine-power/
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/15/17 12:17 AM

Interesting read. I think the author may have some credence in claiming the oil pump is the source. While it may not be the only source, there has to be some drag there. This was a typical oil pump driven off the engine. Mazda with their SkyActiv engines have changed the oil pump to a electric driven one with no connection to the engine mechanically. It's also a two stage pump. I assume other car makers are doing the same thing.

The test would have been better had they changed out the old Valvoline oil for a fresh batch with the same grade just to be fair.
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/15/17 12:46 AM

Originally Posted By: PimTac
Interesting read. I think the author may have some credence in claiming the oil pump is the source. While it may not be the only source, there has to be some drag there. This was a typical oil pump driven off the engine.


Typical PD oil pump, the difference between 60 and 80 psi (lower pressure with thinner oil) is of the order or 50 watts...you get more drag turning your lights on. If there's no change in oil pressure, there's no difference in power consumption.

The difference in the bearing areas (bearings and piston skirts) can be many hundreds...whole numbers of KW between cold and fully warmed oil.

The Oil Pump is the focus of too many people because they don't get what's going on there.
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/15/17 02:03 AM

Thanks for that clarification Shannow
Posted By: FordCapriDriver

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/15/17 04:40 AM

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: PimTac
I would like to see a UOA of that 0w-8 in the Corolla.

Given that there are more than twice as powerful of the 4A-xxx engines out there that still specify 10W-30 like my 4A-LC, I think mine would be OK with as low as 0W-12 but I don't know about 0W-8.

Needless to say the goal of my experiment wasn't to show that 0W-8 is better than 20W-60 but to see how common viscosity grades that have been available for many, many decades (SAE 20 through 50) perform and compare in my engine.

So you are accepting you are biased, because you want the results of your "experiments" to go a certain way...
Posted By: zeng

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/15/17 05:36 AM

You hit the nail, FCD.
Posted By: FordCapriDriver

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/15/17 05:45 AM

Oh wait i think i misread Gokhan's post, i thought he said that he wanted to show that 0W-8 is better than 20W-60, nevermind.
Posted By: zeng

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/15/17 05:54 AM

Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Originally Posted By: zeng
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Well given your final verdict, and the attributes that you've espoused in getting to that conclusion...run it and post the results.

I would be interested in xW20 results operating under :
a) Extreme duty (which I believe a xW20 isn't fit for it); or
b) Heavy duty (ditto ?) ; or
c) Medium duty.

...


Ford has already done this, including a tow-test through America's hottest point in Death Valley...

So does the test demonstrates a xW20 provides 'numerically' lower (adhesion and abrasion) wear than a xW40 ...... never mind corrosion wear and add packs difference,if any for now ?
Btw, no luck with google so far.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/19/17 11:16 PM

It's been great to go back from M1 0W-40 SN to TGMO 0W-20 SN. I've been enjoying having gone back to significantly better fuel economy (about 8% percent better) and an effortlessly running, great-sounding engine. Thanks to TGMO 0W-20 SN, driving is fun again. smile

On its Web page (link), Valvoline PRO-V RACING 0W-20 states: 'Designed for engines with clearances under 0.0020".'

0.0020 in = 51 microns

Is 51 microns (0.0020 in) the rule of thumb for using 0W-20?

The following are the bearing clearances for my 1985 Corolla 4A-LC and the BMW S65 engines.

1985 Toyota Corolla 4A-LC engine standard bearing clearances for new bearings:

Main bearing: 12 - 49 microns
Connecting bearing: 20 - 51 microns
Main journal diameter: 48.0 mm

BMW S65 engine standard bearing clearances for new bearings::

Main bearing: 31 - 51 microns
Connecting bearing: 15 - 53, 29 - 51, 20 - 36, 38 - 55, 41 - 56 microns (depending on the bearing type)
Main journal diameter: 60.0 mm
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/19/17 11:29 PM

I would dump that TGMO and run with the Valvoline. grin
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/20/17 12:39 AM

8% ????

Here's my early ownership of my old Nissan Turbodiesel...


It was on a Novated Lease, and I had a fuel card, so nearly every single fill was the same station, and same pump...
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/20/17 04:36 AM

My guess is that driving is fun again because the winter grade gasoline has been switched to summer grade. No oil is going to make that much difference in performance or in fuel economy.

I'm starting to suspect the OP is stretching out this thread for personal enjoyment rather than discuss facts.

My last comment on this thread. Thanks to all those who made some good and informative comments.
Posted By: TheKracken

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/20/17 04:57 AM

So ive read most of these pages and I am still undecided on thin or thick haha. I am running 0w20 in my 275k mile sienna and then I am running 0w40 in my 240k mile truck.

The sienna was actually back spec compatible with 0w20. The truck called for 10w30. Thinking about trying 0w20 in it though...any ideas if that is okay? I usually take it easy, doesn't get driven much and occasionally goes off roading
Posted By: nap

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/03/18 03:01 PM

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
[...]
On its Web page (link), Valvoline PRO-V RACING 0W-20 states: 'Designed for engines with clearances under 0.0020".'

0.0020 in = 51 microns

Is 51 microns (0.0020 in) the rule of thumb for using 0W-20?
[...]


Apparently yes, Fig 9 in the document below indicate that clearances beyond 0.002 would dramatically affect MOFT for thinner oils at medium - high RPM.

http://www.substech.com/dokuwiki/doku.ph...f_oil_viscosity

The nice side effect of those charts is to dispel the "your clearances were optimized for 0W20 and are too small for 5W30" myth / argument here. As one can notice from the charts, for all practical values of clearances, you cannot chose any point where 0W5 would beat 10W30 in MOFT.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/03/18 03:56 PM

Originally Posted By: nap
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
[...]
On its Web page (link), Valvoline PRO-V RACING 0W-20 states: 'Designed for engines with clearances under 0.0020".'

0.0020 in = 51 microns

Is 51 microns (0.0020 in) the rule of thumb for using 0W-20?
[...]


Apparently yes, Fig 9 in the document below indicate that clearances beyond 0.002 would dramatically affect MOFT for thinner oils at medium - high RPM.

http://www.substech.com/dokuwiki/doku.ph...f_oil_viscosity

The nice side effect of those charts is to dispel the "your clearances were optimized for 0W20 and are too small for 5W30" myth / argument here. As one can notice from the charts, for all practical values of clearances, you cannot chose any point where 0W5 would beat 10W30 in MOFT.


I'm concerned that the author referenced an oil grade that doesn't exist... Particularly given that 0w-8 would have been an official SAE grade that could have been worked into the test instead, given the dates on the sources/supporting documentation.
Posted By: nap

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/03/18 04:21 PM

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL

I'm concerned that the author referenced an oil grade that doesn't exist... Particularly given that 0w-8 would have been an official SAE grade that could have been worked into the test instead, given the dates on the sources/supporting documentation.


Possible cause: the research and article were written before January 2015, when those grades were officially named. And they used an unofficial, internal denomination for their research oils.
Posted By: nap

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/03/18 05:12 PM

Some other papers that have attracted my attention:

Exhibit A:

Page 8 of http://www.ravenol.de/fileadmin/content/documents/pdfs/Ravenol_EFE_SAE_0W-16__en.pdf

where Ravenol plots various oils on the Stribeck curve. One may note that, according to the chart, 0W30 is the absolute minimum to stay in hydrodynamic mode, with 0W20 slightly going into boundary mode (and thus calling for some EP additives in order to work nicely), and 0W16 going even further.

Exhibit B:

Page 2 of http://www.eneos.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/0W-16-Brochure.pdf

where Eneos also confirms that a 0W16 w/o additives would work in boundary mode, and that it's relying on EP additives in order to work nicely.

The conclusion could be that, once you go below 0W30, you're stepping into boundary lubrication, and the thinner the oil, the more its role gravitates towards "additive carrier" than "intrinsic lubricant".
Posted By: Y_K

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/03/18 06:33 PM

Thank you for your research work
Posted By: Jim Allen

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/03/18 06:57 PM

Interesting. If the wear numbers are to be believed (I do not disbelieve, just wonder if there is an "optimization factor" involved), that for the right engine this oil should be perfectly fine. Probably not the thing for a flat-tappet 'Merican V8 but if anti-wear and friction modifiers can now deal better with boundary lubrication, why not. I guess. I'm not as "thin oil" averse as some, but still, this is a bias-challenger in some ways to me.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/03/18 09:20 PM

Originally Posted By: nap
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL

I'm concerned that the author referenced an oil grade that doesn't exist... Particularly given that 0w-8 would have been an official SAE grade that could have been worked into the test instead, given the dates on the sources/supporting documentation.


Possible cause: the research and article were written before January 2015, when those grades were officially named. And they used an unofficial, internal denomination for their research oils.





The references for the article are from 2015. SAE J300 was ratified to include 0w-16 in 2013 and 0w-8 and 0w-12 very early in 2015. There would have been no standard defining the parameters for 0w-5 (note the dash) then as there isn't now, because the grade is fictitious. Either it was a 0w-20 if the oil/testing pre-dates the J300 updates, or it is one of the other grades if it doesn't.

So then the question becomes, since SAE 0w-5 doesn't exist, what are the viscosity characteristics of this product? The results in the graph, which are tied to the cited grades, become less useful when one of the grades is made up and has no binding parameters for visc, HTHS...etc due to not being a part of the SAE J300 rating system.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/03/18 09:25 PM

Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
Interesting. If the wear numbers are to be believed (I do not disbelieve, just wonder if there is an "optimization factor" involved), that for the right engine this oil should be perfectly fine. Probably not the thing for a flat-tappet 'Merican V8 but if anti-wear and friction modifiers can now deal better with boundary lubrication, why not. I guess. I'm not as "thin oil" averse as some, but still, this is a bias-challenger in some ways to me.


Shannow has covered this in GREAT detail in previous threads. In fact I think he made one about the topic specifically, as this was referenced as the intentional move, to get into boundary, by one of the Honda papers. The idea was about controlling wear, not avoiding it, with wider bearings to deal with it in the hydrodynamic area, whilst additives would deal with areas that were now in boundary, that wouldn't have before, with heavier lubes.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/03/18 09:33 PM

Originally Posted By: nap
Some other papers that have attracted my attention:

Exhibit A:

Page 8 of http://www.ravenol.de/fileadmin/content/documents/pdfs/Ravenol_EFE_SAE_0W-16__en.pdf

where Ravenol plots various oils on the Stribeck curve. One may note that, according to the chart, 0W30 is the absolute minimum to stay in hydrodynamic mode, with 0W20 slightly going into boundary mode (and thus calling for some EP additives in order to work nicely), and 0W16 going even further.

Exhibit B:

Page 2 of http://www.eneos.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/0W-16-Brochure.pdf

where Eneos also confirms that a 0W16 w/o additives would work in boundary mode, and that it's relying on EP additives in order to work nicely.

The conclusion could be that, once you go below 0W30, you're stepping into boundary lubrication, and the thinner the oil, the more its role gravitates towards "additive carrier" than "intrinsic lubricant".




That information is pretty in-line with some of the stuff Shannow has spoken about. If you haven't seen the threads, they are probably worth digging up. Thanks for the links though thumbsup
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/03/18 09:53 PM

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
So then the question becomes, since SAE 0w-5 doesn't exist, what are the viscosity characteristics of this product? The results in the graph, which are tied to the cited grades, become less useful when one of the grades is made up and has no binding parameters for visc, HTHS...etc due to not being a part of the SAE J300 rating system.


The other oils in those graphs don't list exact viscosity, HTHS, etc either. What the article is showing is those graphs are trends so the reader can see which way things go depending on what oil "viscosity" is used with respect to journal bearing clearance and engine RPM. 0W-5 would obviously be the most viscous oil at operating temperature in the bunch.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/03/18 09:55 PM

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
So then the question becomes, since SAE 0w-5 doesn't exist, what are the viscosity characteristics of this product? The results in the graph, which are tied to the cited grades, become less useful when one of the grades is made up and has no binding parameters for visc, HTHS...etc due to not being a part of the SAE J300 rating system.


The other oils in those graphs don't list exact viscosity, HTHS, etc either. What the article is showing is those graphs are trends so the reader can see which way things go depending on what oil "viscosity" is used. 0W-5 would obviously be the most viscous oil at operating temperature in the bunch.


No, but we know, due to J300, what range of visc those oils fall within. That 0w-5 could be anything below the upper limit for 0w-20, giving us a pretty wide spread to contrast to the 10w-30 for example. And I think you mean the least viscous wink
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/04/18 12:28 AM

Yeah, least viscous of course. thumbsup The article is to just show what the trends are when viscosity changes. They probably did show "0W-5" (real or not) so the difference was drastic enough to show the trend. Same reason they probably used a 10W-60 on the upper end.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 05/04/18 12:52 PM

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Yeah, least viscous of course. thumbsup The article is to just show what the trends are when viscosity changes. They probably did show "0W-5" (real or not) so the difference was drastic enough to show the trend. Same reason they probably used a 10W-60 on the upper end.


For sure, and I'm not disputing that. I would just have liked to have a real grade represented so I knew the parameters.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/23/19 03:49 AM

Back to thin or thick.

I got the results for the OCI with TGMO 0W-20 SN after the OCI with M1 0W-40 SN. They are similar. The verdict could be that the oil viscosity doesn't matter that much. I may try a 15W-40 HDEO this time to see what happens. This will be a very long trial.

UOA (link): TGMO 0W-20 SN (Toyota), TBN/TAN, 5142 M, 85 Corolla 4A-LC

1985 Toyota Corolla LE, 4A-LC engine
Mobil 1 Extended Performance M1-103 oil filter
5142 miles and 622 days on oil (yes, almost two years)
Mostly short trips (probably hard on oil)
Sampled through the dipstick using the Blackstone vacuum pump
Oil level was about 0.3 quart low, slightly more consumption than the previous 0.2 quarts
No makeup oil used
UOA by Wear Check
Oil used was TGMO 0W-20 SN ©2015. It turned out that it had no high moly and probably no GTL either!

The results are similar to those in the past, including for M1 0W-40, except for copper, which came almost twice as much this time. Lead was low. Aluminum was low. Chromium is still a tad bit high. Iron is normal. TAN and TBN are both good.

It's hard to say whether thick or thin is better. However, M1 had the best results on chromium. Perhaps I'll try a thick 15W-40 this time to see what it does.

I'm not sure if the premium, high-efficiency oil filter helped but lead was good.

I also don't know where the extra copper came from but perhaps there was some bearing wear.

It looks like the coolant seep has stopped.

[Linked Image]
[Linked Image]
Posted By: badtlc

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/23/19 01:11 PM

any noticeable impact on startup, engine noise or MPGs?
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/23/19 07:28 PM

Gohkan,
for your next experiment, rather than going all the way to a 15W40 and changing a heap of variables, how about Amsoil ACD..."straight grade 30, no VIIs, still 3.6 HTHS, so comparable to M1 0W40, and still a synth ???
Posted By: SatinSilver

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/23/19 07:41 PM

^ That's not a bad idea from the poster above. ^
Posted By: ChemLabNL

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/23/19 08:03 PM

Originally Posted by Shannow
Gohkan,
for your next experiment, rather than going all the way to a 15W40 and changing a heap of variables, how about Amsoil ACD..."straight grade 30, no VIIs, still 3.6 HTHS, so comparable to M1 0W40, and still a synth ???


Agreed. That one looks like a great oil.
Posted By: dave1251

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/23/19 11:22 PM

The premise of this thread is meaningless at best. If the oil tempatures are too high to thin a 20 grade to the point it can't protect then a 40 grade is better. In everyday American commutes this is not going to happen unless there is an mechanical failure and the least important factor is having a 40 grade in the sump. If the oil is not getting up to tempature either grade will work with the 20 grade gaining the advantage in the same amount as it's difference in thinness compaired to a 40 grade which is really very miniscule.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/24/19 12:03 AM

Originally Posted by badtlc
any noticeable impact on startup, engine noise or MPGs?

Certainly, 0W-20 runs smoother, quieter, and gets better MPG than an xW-40.

Originally Posted by Shannow
Gohkan,
for your next experiment, rather than going all the way to a 15W40 and changing a heap of variables, how about Amsoil ACD..."straight grade 30, no VIIs, still 3.6 HTHS, so comparable to M1 0W40, and still a synth ???

It's an interesting oil -- a VII-free SAE 10W-30 that is also a SAE 30. The downsides are that it costs four times as much as an off-the-shelf HDEO and the additive package is an outdated CI-4 PLUS/SJ. I doubt I would see much benefit from it.

The results of the current TGMO 0W-20 SN UOA are good (for iron [valvetrain] and lead [bearings]) except chromium (ring wear) is still somewhat high and copper (bearings?) also got somewhat high this time. I want to see if the chromium issue can be corrected by a really strong HTHSV, around 4.2 cP or so. It could be that there is a part of the cycle in which the rings need more hydrodynamic support.

Any objections to Delo SDE 15W-40 CK-4/SN conventional (HTHSV = 4.2 cP, phosphorus = 760 ppm) for the next fill?

Other options are M1 15W-50 SN full synthetic (really high phosphorus), Delo XLE 5W-40 CK-4/SN PLUS full synthetic, or a ten-year-old jug of Delvac 15W-40 CJ-4/SM conventional.
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/24/19 01:23 AM

Gokhan, you are worried about the chromium levels but in a engine with that kind of mileage, a reading of 4ppm in over 5000 miles is actually pretty good and your trend is stable.

I’m not sure I would worry about anything. This is a very good report.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/24/19 04:06 AM

Originally Posted by PimTac
Gokhan, you are worried about the chromium levels but in a engine with that kind of mileage, a reading of 4ppm in over 5000 miles is actually pretty good and your trend is stable.

I’m not sure I would worry about anything. This is a very good report.

You're right. The universal averages shown in the last column of the Blackstone report are for 2,600 miles. I ran for twice the mileage as that and also close to two years.

Since the lead is low, the copper probably came from the bushings/thrust washers. It could be some transient effect or even some measurement error.

I would like the chromium to go down to 2 ppm though. I don't if M1 0W-40 helped or it was just coincidence that it gave the least chromium.

Another choice is PPPP Euro 5W-40 A3/B4/SN. It's expensive though.
Posted By: Bryanccfshr

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/24/19 04:48 AM

As an uncommon alternative to test the low VII finished lube option, you could consider Delo 15w30 severe duty.

Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by PimTac
Gokhan, you are worried about the chromium levels but in a engine with that kind of mileage, a reading of 4ppm in over 5000 miles is actually pretty good and your trend is stable.

I’m not sure I would worry about anything. This is a very good report.

You're right. The universal averages shown in the last column of the Blackstone report are for 2,600 miles. I ran for twice the mileage as that and also close to two years.

Since the lead is low, the copper probably came from the bushings/thrust washers. It could be some transient effect or even some measurement error.

I would like the chromium to go down to 2 ppm though. I don't if M1 0W-40 helped or it was just coincidence that it gave the least chromium.

Another choice is PPPP Euro 5W-40 A3/B4/SN. It's expensive though.
Posted By: batook

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/24/19 09:57 AM

I've been following this thread with quite some interest given that I also run several old Toyota motors with thinner-than-recommended oils. In my 91 Previa, I've been running M1 0W-20 for over 7 years and 50k miles with great results, but I've never run a UOA on it. I do however run oil pressure and temp gauges to make sure the oil never gets too hot and thin to provide adequate protection. The naturally aspirated Previa has a rather tall 4.30 gear ratio at the diff, resulting in pretty high revs of around 4k at 75 mph in 5th gear. However, cruising at these speeds and rpms never causes the oil to exceed 210-220F, or PSI to drop below ~45-50, providing the requisite 10 PSI for every 1k rpms. In fact, the only time I've ever gotten close to trouble was when I was aggressively climbing a mountain pass on I-70 trying to hold 70+ mph in 4th gear with the rpms over 4500. In this case the oil did get too hot, exceeding 230-240F, and the PSI fell to around 38-40, which was too low for comfort, so I backed off and let it cool to normal operating temperatures. My takeaway was that it's totally safe to run the 0W-20 in this motor year-round, even in the manual transmission version, provided you aren't towing a trailer or racing the engine up mountain passes, and if you find yourself in the latter situation, just take it easy and back it off a little.

I'm interested if the OP has ever used an oil temp/pressure gauge during any of the 0W-20 runs in the Corolla? Even if not, by my tests you are probably safe even with sustained freeway driving up to 4,000-4200 rpm. I've been tempted to try lighter weight oil in the 4Y-EC motor of my 88 Toyota van, which like the Corolla, also specs 10W-30 or heavier oil, but with 241k miles, was concerned about increased oil consumption and bottom-end bearing wear. Your results have given me more confidence to give 0W-20 a go in the 88 TV. I think I'll even switch to the TGMO instead of the M1 to benefit from the better add pack. Thanks for all your posts on this topic; it's been interesting.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/24/19 12:09 PM

Good feedback, batook.

My Corolla specs 36 - 71 psi @ 3000 RPM. I run into similar situations with high RPM with the 19-mile-long 6 - 8% grade south of Las Vegas on I-15. I don't have a gauge.

M1 0W-20 has a better base oil (PAO) than TGMO (Group III).

You can't run xW-20 or xW-30 if you have bad valve-stem oil seals. You would have to opt for xW-40 or thicker to control the oil consumption. I replaced them a while back and it stopped the oil consumption.

Wonders of valve-stem oil seal replacement
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/24/19 12:29 PM

Looking at my UOAs, I am suspecting that the chromium (ring wear) is not a result of low viscosity but low TBN and/or extended drains. When I ran over a year, it looks like the low-TBN TGMO 0W-20 didn't do too well with chromium but when I ran for a shorter time period, it did better. See my UOA history. M1 0W-40 with its high TBN did well.

Here is a scholarly article on this:

Mechanism of Wear Control by the Lubricant in Diesel Engines

Abstract: At today's low oil consumption rates, high speed diesel engines with chromium-faced rings have experienced corrosive wear problems. This report defines the alkalinity required to prevent these wear problems; and the appropriate oil drain interval. In addition, the mechanisms of chromium-faced ring wear are identified. The study is based on three different engine types—direct injection two-cycle (DDA 8V-71TA), direct injection four-cycle (Mack ETAZ 673), and precombustion chamber four-cycle (Caterpillar 1Y73).

So, perhaps I need a thin synthetic oil with high initial TBN. Synthetic base oil and high initial TBN will assure that TBN will stay high throughout the OCI. Any recommendations?
Posted By: edyvw

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/24/19 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by Gokhan
Good feedback, batook.

My Corolla specs 36 - 71 psi @ 3000 RPM. I run into similar situations with high RPM with the 19-mile-long 6 - 8% grade south of Las Vegas on I-15. I don't have a gauge.

M1 0W-20 has a better base oil (PAO) than TGMO (Group III).

You can't run xW-20 or xW-30 if you have bad valve-stem oil seals. You would have to opt for xW-40 or thicker to control the oil consumption. I replaced them a while back and it stopped the oil consumption.

Wonders of valve-stem oil seal replacement

That part of the road you are talking about has 6-8% grade ONLY at certain locations. 6-8% grade over 19 miles would give you elevation between 6-8000ft.
Highest point at I15 between LA and LV is 4,800ft. It is unremarkable part of the road (difficulty wise) and really not challenging. If you have issues there than you need to check things out in your engine.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/24/19 01:12 PM

OK, fine, not 6 - 8% throughout but it's a tough grade. It sounds like you've never been there. Read the comments here:

http://wikimapia.org/24673889/Baker-Grade
Posted By: ChemLabNL

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/24/19 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by badtlc
any noticeable impact on startup, engine noise or MPGs?

Certainly, 0W-20 runs smoother, quieter, and gets better MPG than an xW-40.

Originally Posted by Shannow
Gohkan,
for your next experiment, rather than going all the way to a 15W40 and changing a heap of variables, how about Amsoil ACD..."straight grade 30, no VIIs, still 3.6 HTHS, so comparable to M1 0W40, and still a synth ???

It's an interesting oil -- a VII-free SAE 10W-30 that is also a SAE 30. The downsides are that it costs four times as much as an off-the-shelf HDEO and the additive package is an outdated CI-4 PLUS/SJ. I doubt I would see much benefit from it.

The results of the current TGMO 0W-20 SN UOA are good (for iron [valvetrain] and lead [bearings]) except chromium (ring wear) is still somewhat high and copper (bearings?) also got somewhat high this time. I want to see if the chromium issue can be corrected by a really strong HTHSV, around 4.2 cP or so. It could be that there is a part of the cycle in which the rings need more hydrodynamic support.

Any objections to Delo SDE 15W-40 CK-4/SN conventional (HTHSV = 4.2 cP, phosphorus = 760 ppm) for the next fill?

Other options are M1 15W-50 SN full synthetic (really high phosphorus), Delo XLE 5W-40 CK-4/SN PLUS full synthetic, or a ten-year-old jug of Delvac 15W-40 CJ-4/SM conventional.


The Delo is a fine choice if not the Amsoil ACD.

Hey Shannow! Just look at the Four-Ball numbers on that ACD! Half a freakin millimeter! Can you believe it!?
Posted By: edyvw

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/24/19 06:07 PM

Originally Posted by Gokhan
OK, fine, not 6 - 8% throughout but it's a tough grade. It sounds like you've never been there. Read the comments here:

http://wikimapia.org/24673889/Baker-Grade

I have drove that part numerous times. I actually hit 130mph going that grade with VW CC (well, that was limiter). It is absolutely unremarkable difficulty.
Bring your car to Pikes Peak, and than go drive that I15 route. It is not grade that is an issue, it is low elevation that allows still very good heat transfer between cooling system and environment. Once you are above 9,000ft, that is where things can get dicy if your engine has even small problem (or some other weakness will show). Here on I70 in CO, you have grades between 6 and 9%. Nothing remarkable, however, problem is some of those parts of I70 are close to 11,000ft (around Vail area for example) where things better be good in your oil sump and radiator. On top of that, for every 1,000ft you loose 3% of power in your naturally aspirated engine (on average). That is why people like me, who live in high altitude (my house is at 6,864ft) prefer turbo chargers. So at 11,000ft you are looking at some 33% drop in power, much less heat exchange and lower atmospheric pressure.
As for comments, write comment back and tell them to go and get to know their country.
Posted By: OilUzer

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/24/19 06:09 PM

PYB had twice moly shocked2 grin2
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/24/19 06:20 PM

Why this has turned into a my hill is bigger than yours thread is just plain dumb. That grade between LA and Vegas is significant. Of course there is always another grade that is steeper or longer. Who cares?
Posted By: edyvw

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/24/19 06:41 PM

Originally Posted by PimTac
Why this has turned into a my hill is bigger than yours thread is just plain dumb. That grade between LA and Vegas is significant. Of course there is always another grade that is steeper or longer. Who cares?

Well, every thread he is part of, ends up with: when I drove on I15 between....
I have a feeling that is only road he ever drove on. He does not understand that mountain passes are difficult not because of grade, but because of elevation, and that part of I15 is not that high in reality.
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/24/19 08:44 PM

Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by PimTac
Why this has turned into a my hill is bigger than yours thread is just plain dumb. That grade between LA and Vegas is significant. Of course there is always another grade that is steeper or longer. Who cares?

Well, every thread he is part of, ends up with: when I drove on I15 between....
I have a feeling that is only road he ever drove on. He does not understand that mountain passes are difficult not because of grade, but because of elevation, and that part of I15 is not that high in reality.




I’ve never been to Colorado so I guess I missed out. I’ve been on some hairy passes though including that Mojave grade in 115F heat.

Add some twists and bends and the engine gets a workout. Deadman’s Pass in eastern Oregon is dangerous as well.


I do agree that at your altitudes your are running into a unique situation.
Posted By: batook

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/24/19 08:46 PM

Originally Posted by Gokhan

You can't run xW-20 or xW-30 if you have bad valve-stem oil seals. You would have to opt for xW-40 or thicker to control the oil consumption. I replaced them a while back and it stopped the oil consumption.


Interesting. That's probably why I see zero oil consumption on the 0W-20 in the Previa, since I replaced the motor with a low-mileage (~50k mile) JDM engine about 50k miles ago, so at ~100k miles it's still fairly low mileage for a Toyota. The valve stem seals are likely still very good.

Not the case on the 241k original miles of the 4Y in my 88 Van. I suppose I could try the thinner oil and see if consumption goes up, and replace the valve stem seals if necessary. Currently I've been running either 5W-30 or 0W-30 and it doesn't need much topping off between 5k OCIs.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/24/19 09:04 PM

Originally Posted by PimTac
Why this has turned into a my hill is bigger than yours thread is just plain dumb. That grade between LA and Vegas is significant. Of course there is always another grade that is steeper or longer. Who cares?

Exactly. It's always edyvw who starts these things. The only thing I did was to reply to batook's comment below and share my own frequent mountain-pass experiences:

Originally Posted by batook
In fact, the only time I've ever gotten close to trouble was when I was aggressively climbing a mountain pass on I-70 trying to hold 70+ mph in 4th gear with the rpms over 4500. In this case the oil did get too hot, exceeding 230-240F, and the PSI fell to around 38-40, which was too low for comfort, so I backed off and let it cool to normal operating temperatures. My takeaway was that it's totally safe to run the 0W-20 in this motor year-round, even in the manual transmission version, provided you aren't towing a trailer or racing the engine up mountain passes, and if you find yourself in the latter situation, just take it easy and back it off a little.

Originally Posted by edyvw
Well, every thread he is part of, ends up with: when I drove on I15 between....
I have a feeling that is only road he ever drove on. He does not understand that mountain passes are difficult not because of grade, but because of elevation, and that part of I15 is not that high in reality.

You really think that I put about 200,000 miles on I-15 alone?

In fact, I did cross-country twice, about 2500 miles each way, with my Corolla. In the second one, I drove on I-70 through Denver. Yes, on the way, I filled in the low-octane high-altitude gas (I believe 85, 87, and 89 instead of the usual 87, 89, and 91) because that's the only gas they had in these locations. My Corolla engine has federal emissions and as a result it has an HAC (high-altitude compensation) system that puts more air into the carburetor circuits and advances the ignition timing by 8 degrees above 3930 ft.

I didn't find keeping up with the speed limit on I-70 mountain passes challenging. The only difficulty I had there was the constantly changing left and right curves in pitch dark at night, which was unnerving. I think the heat and dryness of the I-15 Baker Grade makes it more challenging in terms of the stress on the engine and cooling system. However, as PimTac said, who cares.

I'm sure we'll now hear from you saying that you did more cross-country trips than I did.
Posted By: edyvw

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/24/19 09:06 PM

Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by PimTac
Why this has turned into a my hill is bigger than yours thread is just plain dumb. That grade between LA and Vegas is significant. Of course there is always another grade that is steeper or longer. Who cares?

Exactly. It's always edyvw who starts these things. The only thing I did was to reply to batook's comment below and share my own frequent mountain-pass experiences:

Originally Posted by batook
In fact, the only time I've ever gotten close to trouble was when I was aggressively climbing a mountain pass on I-70 trying to hold 70+ mph in 4th gear with the rpms over 4500. In this case the oil did get too hot, exceeding 230-240F, and the PSI fell to around 38-40, which was too low for comfort, so I backed off and let it cool to normal operating temperatures. My takeaway was that it's totally safe to run the 0W-20 in this motor year-round, even in the manual transmission version, provided you aren't towing a trailer or racing the engine up mountain passes, and if you find yourself in the latter situation, just take it easy and back it off a little.

Originally Posted by edyvw
Well, every thread he is part of, ends up with: when I drove on I15 between....
I have a feeling that is only road he ever drove on. He does not understand that mountain passes are difficult not because of grade, but because of elevation, and that part of I15 is not that high in reality.

You really think that I put about 200,000 miles on I-15 alone?

In fact, I did cross-country twice, about 2500 miles each way, with my Corolla. In the second one, I drove on I-70 through Denver. Yes, on the way, I filled in the low-octane high-altitude gas (I believe 85, 87, and 89 instead of the usual 87, 89, and 91) because that's the only gas they had in these locations. My Corolla engine has federal emissions and as a result it has an HAC (high-altitude compensation) system that puts more air into the carburetor circuits and advances the ignition timing by 8 degrees above 3930 ft.

I didn't find keeping up with the speed limit on I-70 mountain passes challenging. The only difficulty I had there was the constantly changing left and right curves in pitch dark at night, which was unnerving. I think the heat and dryness of the I-15 Baker Grade makes it more challenging in terms of the stress on the engine and cooling system. However, as PimTac said, who cares.

I'm sure we'll now hear from you saying that you did more cross-country trips than I did.

I can actually feel my brain cells dying.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/24/19 09:08 PM

Originally Posted by batook
Originally Posted by Gokhan
You can't run xW-20 or xW-30 if you have bad valve-stem oil seals. You would have to opt for xW-40 or thicker to control the oil consumption. I replaced them a while back and it stopped the oil consumption.
Interesting. That's probably why I see zero oil consumption on the 0W-20 in the Previa, since I replaced the motor with a low-mileage (~50k mile) JDM engine about 50k miles ago, so at ~100k miles it's still fairly low mileage for a Toyota. The valve stem seals are likely still very good.

Not the case on the 241k original miles of the 4Y in my 88 Van. I suppose I could try the thinner oil and see if consumption goes up, and replace the valve stem seals if necessary. Currently I've been running either 5W-30 or 0W-30 and it doesn't need much topping off between 5k OCIs.

In my experience, the oil consumption was 2.5 qt per 1000 miles with 5W-30 and 1.0 qt per 1000 miles with 15W-40 before I replaced the valve-stem oil seals. Currently, the oil consumption is about 0.3 qt per 5000 miles with 0W-20. There are small leaks; so, part of it is due to the leaks. Nevertheless, thicker oil will leak less as well.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/24/19 09:12 PM

Originally Posted by edyvw
I can actually feel my brain cells dying.

Enough with the trolling, OK?

You mentioned that you used to live in Bosnia. And I thought people there were nice.
Posted By: edyvw

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/24/19 09:20 PM

Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by edyvw
I can actually feel my brain cells dying.

Enough with the trolling, OK?

You mentioned that you used to live in Bosnia. And I thought people there were nice.

What do you want me to say?
Shannon already explained you that moisture levels does not affect oil temperatures or cooling. It is air density that matters, and with higher elevation air density drops (FYI moisture levels in the Rockies are usually lower than for example Las Vegas or that part of I15, if that interests you. Colorado is officially high desert, do not get confused with snow in winter).
I am not trolling you, you are spewing nonsense. Some people come here to read advice and not this hit or miss opinion thread.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/24/19 09:26 PM

Originally Posted by edyvw
What do you want me to say?
Shannon already explained you that moisture levels does not affect oil temperatures or cooling. It is air density that matters, and with higher elevation air density drops (FYI moisture levels in the Rockies are usually lower than for example Las Vegas or that part of I15, if that interests you. Colorado is officially high desert, do not get confused with snow in winter).
I am not trolling you, you are spewing nonsense. Some people come here to read advice and not this hit or miss opinion thread.

OK, so, the claim is that the humidity in the air has no effect on the cooling efficiency of the radiator? Perhaps you're right, not that it matters to most people. You cherry-pick one word from a long post and you troll me about it?

However, this study (on electronics cooling) says otherwise:

https://www.researchgate.net/public...idity_on_effectiveness_of_heat_sink_work

I'm surprised you haven't told us how many times you've done cross-country.
Posted By: 53' Stude

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/24/19 09:29 PM

Gokhan: I vote you run M1 0w30 as its DEXOS 1 GEN2 approved smile
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/24/19 09:31 PM

Originally Posted by 53' Stude
Gokhan: I vote you run M1 0w30 as its DEXOS 1 GEN2 approved smile

I'm now inclined toward M1 EP 0W-20, which is PAO-based. HTHSV = 2.7 cP is a little higher than the TGMO HTSV = 2.6 cP and it should shear less during the OCI.
Posted By: Bryanccfshr

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/24/19 09:32 PM

That’s why most automakers consider high altitude driving as severe service. I spent the last 10 years in sw Colorado and travels a lot around the state and tried to traverse every trail I had time for. Comparing a lower altitude grade climb to a high altitude operation is dense.pun intended.

Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by edyvw
I can actually feel my brain cells dying.

Enough with the trolling, OK?

You mentioned that you used to live in Bosnia. And I thought people there were nice.

What do you want me to say?
Shannon already explained you that moisture levels does not affect oil temperatures or cooling. It is air density that matters, and with higher elevation air density drops (FYI moisture levels in the Rockies are usually lower than for example Las Vegas or that part of I15, if that interests you. Colorado is officially high desert, do not get confused with snow in winter).
I am not trolling you, you are spewing nonsense. Some people come here to read advice and not this hit or miss opinion thread.
Posted By: edyvw

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/24/19 09:33 PM

Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by edyvw
What do you want me to say?
Shannon already explained you that moisture levels does not affect oil temperatures or cooling. It is air density that matters, and with higher elevation air density drops (FYI moisture levels in the Rockies are usually lower than for example Las Vegas or that part of I15, if that interests you. Colorado is officially high desert, do not get confused with snow in winter).
I am not trolling you, you are spewing nonsense. Some people come here to read advice and not this hit or miss opinion thread.

OK, so, the claim is that the moisture in the air has no effect on the cooling efficiency of the radiator? Perhaps you're right, not that it matters to most people. You cherry-pick one word from a long post and you troll me about it?

I'm surprised you haven't told us how many times you've done cross-country.

I do not need to tell people that. It is irrelevant. You read something on internet and you develop assumption.
Also, heat is not major factor as elevation is. Colorado is tourist destination all year, but winter is peak. Drive between Denver and Vail and you will see at least one car with overheated engine while ambient temperature is 0f.
Posted By: StevieC

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/24/19 09:35 PM

I vote for Unicorn tears and fairy dust. It's a high mileage Toyota I'm not sure it's fussy.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/24/19 09:36 PM

Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by Gokhan
I'm surprised you haven't told us how many times you've done cross-country.
I do not need to tell people that. It is irrelevant.

OK, so, the answer is none. You have one more thing for your bucket list then.
Posted By: edyvw

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/24/19 09:38 PM

Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by Gokhan
I'm surprised you haven't told us how many times you've done cross-country.
I do not need to tell people that. It is irrelevant.

OK, so, the answer is none. You have one more thing for your bucket list then.

Lol, most importantly, I did this famous I15 stretch.
Should I drive there if moisture level is below 15%, or you think Gatorade and Pedialyte mixture added to coolant might save the day?
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/24/19 09:45 PM

Originally Posted by edyvw
Lol, most importantly, I did this famous I15 stretch.
Should I drive there if moisture level is below 15%, or you think Gatorade and Pedialyte mixture added to coolant might save the day?

Check your battery electrolyte level and coolant condition. You will probably need Gatorade and Pedialyte yourself if you are in Las Vegas in the summer, where the temperatures are over 110 F (43 C).
Posted By: edyvw

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/24/19 10:15 PM

Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by edyvw
Lol, most importantly, I did this famous I15 stretch.
Should I drive there if moisture level is below 15%, or you think Gatorade and Pedialyte mixture added to coolant might save the day?

Check your battery electrolyte level and coolant condition. You will probably need Gatorade and Pedialyte yourself if you are in Las Vegas in the summer, where the temperatures are over 110 F (43 C).

I actually live there part time, so I am aware of that. I am now afraid my car might blow up because, you know, I-15.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/24/19 10:25 PM

Originally Posted by edyvw
I actually live there part time, so I am aware of that. I am now afraid my car might blow up because, you know, I-15.

No worries, just get a Toyota if it blows up. A Toyota will never leave you stranded. wink
Posted By: edyvw

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/24/19 10:29 PM

Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by edyvw
I actually live there part time, so I am aware of that. I am now afraid my car might blow up because, you know, I-15.

No worries, just get a Toyota if it blows up. A Toyota will never leave you stranded. wink

Yeah, right.
But I am afraid I will boil up inside considering it is thick as cheap beer can.
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/24/19 10:42 PM

I’ve driven over the Siskyous complex several times. It’s a common sight to see many cars and trucks along the way pulled over with hoods up. The Siskyous is not a high pass like in Colorado but it’s a series of passes that starts way back around Roseburg Oregon and ends in Redding Ca is headed south.

Any decent pass can be a workout for a engine and vehicle. Altitude is just one factor.
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/25/19 01:18 AM

Dry air has more thermal conductivity than humid air.

The Thermal Conductivity of Moist Air
https://www.electronics-cooling.com/2003/11/the-thermal-conductivity-of-moist-air/

Attached picture Thermal Conductivity of Air vs Humidity.JPG
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/25/19 01:27 AM

Originally Posted by PimTac
I’ve driven over the Siskyous complex several times. It’s a common sight to see many cars and trucks along the way pulled over with hoods up. The Siskyous is not a high pass like in Colorado but it’s a series of passes that starts way back around Roseburg Oregon and ends in Redding Ca is headed south.

Any decent pass can be a workout for a engine and vehicle. Altitude is just one factor.

Exactly, it's a workout for most cars. There are many factors, the ambient temperature being a crucial one.

Nevertheless, edyvw drove up the grade (or perhaps down the grade wink ) at almost twice the speed limit (70 MPH) without a sweat and getting caught. He must have the 300 hp version of the VW CC. To each his own.

Originally Posted by edyvw
I have drove that part numerous times. I actually hit 130mph going that grade with VW CC (well, that was limiter). It is absolutely unremarkable difficulty.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/25/19 01:31 AM

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Dry air has more thermal conductivity than humid air. The thermal conductivity of air also decreases with increased temperature.

The Thermal Conductivity of Moist Air
https://www.electronics-cooling.com/2003/11/the-thermal-conductivity-of-moist-air/

True, I know this reference. However, the heat capacity plays a bigger role than the thermal conductivity of the air. This paper claims that you can remove up to 35% more power with humid air, although the relative humidity is near 100%. Your results will vary if the humidity is not that high:

https://www.researchgate.net/public...idity_on_effectiveness_of_heat_sink_work

"Higher power may be dissipated in the transistor junction (about 35% according to the measurements) without increasing its temperature and size of the heat sink."

I feel like the thread has been hijacked. Can we go back to discussing the oil? mad
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/25/19 01:34 AM

Originally Posted by Gokhan
True, I know this reference. However, the heat capacity plays a bigger role than the thermal conductivity of the air. This paper claims that you can remove up to 35% more power with humid air, although the relative humidity is near 100%. Your results will vary if the humidity is not that high:


Yep, heat capacity too ... but with air rushing past a hot radiator the thermal conductivity is probably the main heat transere factor over heat capacity (fresh new air constantly coming in). Go back and look at the post I made ... added the graph and shows the curves are not linear if the humidity is above 0%.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/25/19 01:39 AM

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Go back and look at the post I made ... added the graph which shows what you describe. The curves are not linear if the humidity is above 0%.

Yes, I know that graph. We're talking about air convection here. Therefore, you need to take into account both the thermal resistance and heat capacitance of the air. The paper I linked is more informative on what happens to the cooling when the humidity is involved.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/25/19 01:42 AM

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Yep, heat capacity too ... but with air rushing past a hot radiator the thermal conductivity is probably the main heat transere factor over heat capacity (fresh new air constantly coming in).

OK, you edited your post.

Without an actual calculation, we're only speculating here. In any case, there will be some effect of the humidity.
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/25/19 01:43 AM

Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Go back and look at the post I made ... added the graph which shows what you describe. The curves are not linear if the humidity is above 0%.

Yes, I know that graph. We're talking about air convection here. Therefore, you need to take into account both the thermal resistance and heat capacitance of the air. The paper I linked is more informative on what happens to the cooling when the humidity is involved.


That paper you linked is talking about natural convection ... no mention of air blowing over the heat sink/radiator. The radiator in a car while moving is forced convection. Two different animals.
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/25/19 01:44 AM

In the end the oil held up well. That is the main point of this discussion.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/25/19 02:02 AM

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
That paper you linked is talking about natural convection ... no mention of air blowing over the heat sink/radiator. The radiator in a car while moving is forced convection. Two different animals.

Fine, here is a very good paper that studied forced-air cooling and did an actual, complex calculation, with the Reynolds number (Re) ranging into turbulent flow:

http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0120-56092015000300006

"The heat-transfer rate increased about 20% when using air with 90% relative humidity passing through a rectangular microchannel heat sink made of copper."

So, even with forced-air cooling, the humidity is your friend, not your enemy.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/25/19 02:12 AM

Originally Posted by PimTac
In the end the oil held up well. That is the main point of this discussion.

Yeah, I'm inclined to try the M1 EP 0W-20, which should be much more stout than the TGMO in terms of the initial TBN, TBN retention (Mg), and oxidation resistance (PAO). Plus, it's a little thicker (HTHSV = 2.7 cP) and I still get to enjoy all the benefits of a thin oil plus a very top-quality synthetic. I think my slightly elevated chromium and copper numbers are because of the TBN/oxidation issues, not the viscosity.
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/25/19 03:38 AM

Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
That paper you linked is talking about natural convection ... no mention of air blowing over the heat sink/radiator. The radiator in a car while moving is forced convection. Two different animals.

Fine, here is a very good paper that studied forced-air cooling and did an actual, complex calculation, with the Reynolds number (Re) ranging into turbulent flow:

http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0120-56092015000300006

"The heat-transfer rate increased about 20% when using air with 90% relative humidity passing through a rectangular microchannel heat sink made of copper."

So, even with forced-air cooling, the humidity is your friend, not your enemy.


But did they verify their modeling accuracy with actual empirical test methods? Mathematical models can be somewhat worthless without verification through accurate valid test methods. grin2

I'm sure it's a complex relationship between air temperature, density and humidity. At any rate, I agree that humidity does have an effect on convective heat transfer.
Posted By: OilUzer

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/25/19 04:45 AM

Originally Posted by Gokhan
Back to thin or thick.

I got the results for the OCI with TGMO 0W-20 SN after the OCI with M1 0W-40 SN. They are similar. The verdict could be that the oil viscosity doesn't matter that much. I may try a 15W-40 HDEO this time to see what happens. This will be a very long trial.

UOA (link): TGMO 0W-20 SN (Toyota), TBN/TAN, 5142 M, 85 Corolla 4A-LC

1985 Toyota Corolla LE, 4A-LC engine
Mobil 1 Extended Performance M1-103 oil filter
5142 miles and 622 days on oil (yes, almost two years)
Mostly short trips (probably hard on oil)
Sampled through the dipstick using the Blackstone vacuum pump
Oil level was about 0.3 quart low, slightly more consumption than the previous 0.2 quarts
No makeup oil used
UOA by Wear Check
Oil used was TGMO 0W-20 SN ©2015. It turned out that it had no high moly and probably no GTL either!

The results are similar to those in the past, including for M1 0W-40, except for copper, which came almost twice as much this time. Lead was low. Aluminum was low. Chromium is still a tad bit high. Iron is normal. TAN and TBN are both good.

It's hard to say whether thick or thin is better. However, M1 had the best results on chromium. Perhaps I'll try a thick 15W-40 this time to see what it does.

I'm not sure if the premium, high-efficiency oil filter helped but lead was good.

I also don't know where the extra copper came from but perhaps there was some bearing wear.

It looks like the coolant seep has stopped.

[Linked Image]
[Linked Image]


I thought tgmo was a very high moly oil. Is this the new version of tgmo with tri-nuclear moly?
PYB has twice the moly!
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/25/19 06:16 AM

Originally Posted by OilUzer
I thought tgmo was a very high moly oil. Is this the new version of tgmo with tri-nuclear moly?
PYB has twice the moly!

Formulation of TGMO is quite inconsistent. Yes, this is the same old version with trinuclear moly and Group III base oil. There was some GTL high-moly version at one point but I wasn't lucky to get that one. The current version may not even be ultra-high-VI as far as I know.

PYB is very old. It had the worst wear despite the mid-moly, perhaps because it was conventional.
Posted By: OilUzer

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/25/19 06:49 AM

Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by OilUzer
I thought tgmo was a very high moly oil. Is this the new version of tgmo with tri-nuclear moly?
PYB has twice the moly!

Formulation of TGMO is quite inconsistent. Yes, this is the same old version with trinuclear moly and Group III base oil. There was some GTL high-moly version at one point but I wasn't lucky to get that one. The current version may not even be ultra-high-VI as far as I know.

PYB is very old. It had the worst wear despite the mid-moly, perhaps because it was conventional.


Can the tests (e.g. Blackstone uoa) distinguish between different molys! Like if one oil has 800 old fashioned moly and another oil has 200 of more effective? moly (trinuclear?), would the voa show 800 and 200 under the moly count?
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/25/19 07:05 AM

Originally Posted by OilUzer
Can the tests (e.g. Blackstone uoa) distinguish between different molys! Like if one oil has 800 old fashioned moly and another oil has 200 of more effective? moly (trinuclear?), would the voa show 800 and 200 under the moly count?

The ppm number simply shows the amount of elemental molybdenum in the oil. It doesn't show the molecular structure, for example trinuclear meaning three molybdenum atoms per molecule.

However, it's possible to determine the type of the moly, base stocks, etc. through FTIR (Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy) by comparing the spectral lines to known samples.
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/25/19 07:33 AM

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
That paper you linked is talking about natural convection ... no mention of air blowing over the heat sink/radiator. The radiator in a car while moving is forced convection. Two different animals.

Fine, here is a very good paper that studied forced-air cooling and did an actual, complex calculation, with the Reynolds number (Re) ranging into turbulent flow:

http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0120-56092015000300006

"The heat-transfer rate increased about 20% when using air with 90% relative humidity passing through a rectangular microchannel heat sink made of copper."

So, even with forced-air cooling, the humidity is your friend, not your enemy.


But did they verify their modeling accuracy with actual empirical test methods? Mathematical models can be somewhat worthless without verification through accurate valid test methods. grin2

I'm sure it's a complex relationship between air temperature, density and humidity. At any rate, I agree that humidity does have an effect on convective heat transfer.


Sorry, I'm late for this hijacking, and send my sincerest apologies for not being earlier in the fray.

Transformer experience is that humidity in either a forced or natural convection radiator reduces effectiveness
http://www.cired.net/publications/cired2011/part1/papers/CIRED2011_0666_final.pdf

But the differences in an IC engine ???

Peak combustion temperatures are down, as is WOT power output...so I'd call it a wash.
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/25/19 07:39 AM

Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by OilUzer
I thought tgmo was a very high moly oil. Is this the new version of tgmo with tri-nuclear moly?
PYB has twice the moly!

Formulation of TGMO is quite inconsistent. Yes, this is the same old version with trinuclear moly and Group III base oil. There was some GTL high-moly version at one point but I wasn't lucky to get that one. The current version may not even be ultra-high-VI as far as I know.


There's a full half dozen TGMO formulations, varying moly both traditional and (apparently) trinuclear...shear stable, and 10% HTHS loss in 400 miles.

But interestingly, the were all designed specifically for every single Toyota engine, which in turn was designed specifically around those (six) unique oil blends.
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/25/19 08:27 AM

Originally Posted by Shannow
Sorry, I'm late for this hijacking, and send my sincerest apologies for not being earlier in the fray.

Transformer experience is that humidity in either a forced or natural convection radiator reduces effectiveness
http://www.cired.net/publications/cired2011/part1/papers/CIRED2011_0666_final.pdf

But the differences in an IC engine ???

Peak combustion temperatures are down, as is WOT power output...so I'd call it a wash.


We were focused on the cooling effectiveness of the coolant radiator as a function of air properties. And yes, air humidity does effect combustion too, as it displaces oxygen in the air charge.
Posted By: edyvw

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/25/19 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by PimTac
I’ve driven over the Siskyous complex several times. It’s a common sight to see many cars and trucks along the way pulled over with hoods up. The Siskyous is not a high pass like in Colorado but it’s a series of passes that starts way back around Roseburg Oregon and ends in Redding Ca is headed south.

Any decent pass can be a workout for a engine and vehicle. Altitude is just one factor.

Exactly, it's a workout for most cars. There are many factors, the ambient temperature being a crucial one.

Nevertheless, edyvw drove up the grade (or perhaps down the grade wink ) at almost twice the speed limit (70 MPH) without a sweat and getting caught. He must have the 300 hp version of the VW CC. To each his own.

Originally Posted by edyvw
I have drove that part numerous times. I actually hit 130mph going that grade with VW CC (well, that was limiter). It is absolutely unremarkable difficulty.

Ambient temperature is not crucial one. Elevation is crucial one because as air density drops your cooling capabilities drop too as well as power. Come to the Pikes Peak and climb to 14,112ft, and you will see bunch of cars overheated on a side regardless that they drove 10mph and hour, as 2000ft drop on a side does not look that inviting to speed, at temperatures well below freezing point, even in summer.
And for VW CC hit 130mph in that section is no sweat. For Toyota, yeah, for VW, no. But, you are our internet expert.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/26/19 12:12 AM

[Linked Image]

A decision has been made.

It will be thin vs. thin after all.

After flirting with the idea of a 15W-40 CK-4/SN HDEO, I have ordered the Mobil 1 Extended Performance 0W-20 SN PLUS ($29.98/5 qt) from Amazon along with the oversized Fram Ultra XG3614 ($8.97, I will fall back to Denso if it doesn't fit).

M1 EP 0W-20 has the highest base-oil-quality index (BOQI) of any oil, surpassing even that of Amsoil Signature Series, meaning very high oxidation resistance. Moreover, it has the Ca/Mg SN PLUS detergent and a higher amount of antioxidant (EP package). This all adds up to good TBN retention, in other words, good reserve alkalinity.

The hypothesis here is that the excess chromium and copper wear and even the excess iron wear is not caused by the lower viscosity but by the degradation (oxidation etc.) of the oil, depleting the alkalinity reserve, leading to corrosion-accelerated wear as a result. I will now test this hypothesis.

The oil change (inauguration of M1 EP 0W-20), one of my favorite pastime activities, should take place by next weekend.

[Linked Image]
Posted By: Imp4

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/26/19 12:19 AM

Originally Posted by Gokhan
After flirting with the idea of a 15W-40 CK-4/SN HDEO, I have ordered the Mobil 1 Extended Performance 0W-20 SN PLUS ($29.98/5 qt) from Amazon along with the oversized Fram Ultra XG3614 ($8.97, I will fall back to Denso if it doesn't fit).

M1 EP 0W-20 has the highest base-oil-quality index (BOQI) of any oil, surpassing even that of Amsoil Signature Series


1. Who cares?!? BOQI is a contrived joke.

2. Why not go with an XG3600 if you want to go oversize?!?


Posted By: Bryanccfshr

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/26/19 12:37 AM

There used to be a popular oil additives here that had high ep or antioxidant effectiveness. It’s initials were LC.

Been thinking of tryingnthat again, don’t remember why it fell out of favor.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/26/19 12:44 AM

Originally Posted by Imp4
2. Why not go with an XG3600 if you want to go oversize?!?

It's 1.579 in taller than the XG3614. I doubt I have enough clearance between the A/C fan shroud and oil-filter flange. Sure, if it fits, it's be a better choice, with the rest of the specs being identical.
Posted By: Imp4

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/26/19 12:49 AM

Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by Imp4
2. Why not go with an XG3600 if you want to go oversize?!?

It might not have enough radial or axial clearance. Toyotas have tight engine spaces.


Wrong!!!!
Yours is an '85 Corolla LE.
xx3600 has identical axial clearance.
Radial clearance is a non-issue as well.

Try again buddy.....

Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/26/19 12:55 AM

Originally Posted by Imp4
Wrong!!!!
Yours is an '85 Corolla LE.
xx3600 has identical axial clearance.
Radial clearance is a non-issue as well.

Try again buddy.....

See my edited post. I can go and measure the clearance again but I think it's too tall.
Posted By: Imp4

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/26/19 01:01 AM

Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by Imp4
Wrong!!!!
Yours is an '85 Corolla LE.
xx3600 has identical axial clearance.
Radial clearance is a non-issue as well.

Try again buddy.....

See my edited post. I can go and measure the clearance again but I think it's too tall.

Wrong. It fits.
Let's move on to your contrived BOQI......

Can you just admit it is not defendable or do we need to go round and round??

Remember, what comes around goes around.... cheers
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/26/19 01:13 AM

Originally Posted by Imp4
Wrong. It fits.
Let's move on to your contrived BOQI......

Can you just admit it is not defendable or do we need to go round and round??

Remember, what comes around goes around.... cheers

Perhaps, it barely fits but I would have to use the clamp wrench to remove it, as the cap wrench wouldn't fit. But then I would probably need to use the clamp wrench anyway, as I may not have the right cap wrench.

BOQI is great! It can distinguish between PAO, GTL, Group III, and Group II. Everyone should benefit from this knowledge. What other magical touchstone can tell you what base oil is inside a motor oil? If you don't believe it, that's fine -- I won't hold it against you. wink
Posted By: Imp4

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/26/19 01:14 AM

BTW, an '85 Corolla 1.6 calls for a PH2951 per Rock Auto.
The "oversized" PH3614 that you referred to is actually undersized.

But we know how facts don't get in your way.....

PH2951 - 24.07 in3 displacement
PH3614 - 23.29 in3 displacement
PH3600 - 34.31 in3 displacement

Source..... Go look it up and learn a few things...
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/26/19 01:19 AM

Originally Posted by Imp4
BTW, an '85 Corolla 1.6 calls for a PH2951 per Rock Auto.
The "oversized" PH3614 that you referred to is actually undersized.

I researched on this a while back. PH2951 and XG3614 are practically the same size, except PH2951 has a smaller-diameter gasket.

Here:

Code
Denso 150-1000/Toyota 90915-YZZF2
Gasket diameter: 5.5 x 6.2 cm (2.17 x 2.44 in, Denso 150-1000)
Gasket diameter: 5.4 x ?.? cm (90915-YZZF2)
W x H 6.8 x 7.2 cm  (2.68 x 2.83 in)

Royal Purple 10-2840
Gasket diameter: (2.13 x 2.47 in)
W x H (2.68 x 2.90 in)

Royal Purple 10-2835
Gasket diameter: (2.35 x 2.72 in)
W x H (2.98 x 3.40 in)

Fram PH2951 (recommended by Fram but hard-to-find)
Gasket diameter: 5.4 x 6.2 mm (2.13 x 2.42 in)
W x H 7.6 x 8.4 cm  (3.02 x 3.36 in)

Fram PH3614 (easier-to-find replacement for PH2951 with larger gasket)
Gasket diameter: (2.45 x 2.76 in)
W x H (2.98 x 3.43 in)

Fram PH7575
Gasket diameter: (2.45 x 2.76 in)
W x H (2.98 x 3.43 in)

Fram PH4967
Gasket diameter: (2.19 x 2.44 in)
W x H (2.69 x 2.92 in)

Fram PH4386
Gasket diameter: (2.25 x 2.50 in)
W x H (2.69 x 3.47 in)

Fram PH8A (probably too tall to fit)
Gasket diameter: (2.42 x 2.80 in)
W x H (3.80 x 5.14 in)

Fram XG3600 (probably too tall to fit)
Gasket diameter: (2.47 x 2.75 in)
W x H (2.98 x 4.92 in)

Bosch 3330
Gasket diameter: 6.1 x 7.0 mm (2.40 x 2.76 in)
W x H 7.4 x 8.4 cm ( 2.91 x 3.31 in)

Purolator L10241 (recommended by Purolator)
W x H (2.98 x 3.36 in)

Purolator L22821 (discontinued)
W x H (3.15 x 3.94 in)

Purolator L14476
W x H (2.69 x 2.93 in)

Purolator L14477
W x H (2.69 x 3.52 in)

Purolator L30001 (probably too tall to fit)
W x H (3.78 x 5.14 in)
Gasket diameter: (2.50 x 2.89 in)

Purolator L35098 (discontinued)
W x H (3.01 x 4.10 in)

Wix 51394
Gasket diameter: (2.17 x 2.48 in)
W x H (2.69 x 2.98 in)

Wix 51348
Gasket diameter: (2.43 x 2.73 in)
W x H (2.92 x 3.40 in)

Amsoil EA15K09
Gasket diameter: (2.13 x 2.47 in)
W x H (2.68 x 2.90 in)

Amsoil EA15K51
Gasket diameter: (2.39 x 2.76 in)
W x H (2.96 x 3.40 in)

Purolator Corolla oil-filter recommendations (very short list):

L22821: 86 Celica (apparently also for 83 - 87 Corolla before it was discontinued and superseded by L10241)
L10241: 83 - 87 Corolla (apparently superseded the now-discontinued L22821)
L14477: Some Corolla model years and engines after 88
L14476: Most Corolla model years and engines after 88

Inlet-hole-circle outer diameter:

Purolator L22821: 42 mm
Purolator L10241: 42 mm
Fram PH2951: 47 mm
Fram XG3614: 49 mm
Fram PH3614: 50 mm
Toyota 90915-YZZF2: 42 mm
Fram PH8A/XG8A:  52 mm
Purolator L30001: 45 mm

85 Corolla flange ID (estimated):  50 - 52 mm
85 Corolla flange OD (estimated):  73 - 75 mm

Optimal choice for 83 - 87 Corolla: Fram Ultra XG3614 (or other quality oil filters of similar size) -- however, need to measure the flange and actual oil filter
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/26/19 01:23 AM

The M1 EP is a very good oil. Can’t go wrong with that. As for the index, I’m mathematically challenged due to the schools misadventures back in the sixties.
Posted By: Imp4

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/26/19 01:25 AM

Originally Posted by Gokhan
BOQI is great!

Even if you were right, which you aren't, your other false, misleading and baseless statements subtract from your ability to stand on factual information that supports your claim.

Not only are you wrong on BOQI, you also came to an internet bulletin board that focuses on motor oil and flubbed your knowledge about oil filter fitment.

It's like tripping over your own dead body...
I didn't think it was possible, then you stepped into the room...

Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/26/19 01:32 AM

Originally Posted by Imp4
Even if you were right, which you aren't, your other false, misleading and baseless statements subtract from your ability to stand on factual information that supports your claim.

Not only are you wrong on BOQI, you also came to an internet bulletin board that focuses on motor oil and flubbed your knowledge about oil filter fitment.

It's like tripping over your own dead body...
I didn't think it was possible, then you stepped into the room...

What is wrong with you? What in the world are you talking about? Why are you so hostile?

Regarding the oil filter, see the large set of data I just posted in the code -- it's my original research. You then come and say I know nothing about oil filters?

Can you at least stop posting that huge cartoon every time? It's making the thread unreadable.
Posted By: Imp4

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/26/19 01:37 AM

Originally Posted by Gokhan
Regarding the oil filter, see the large set of data I just posted in the code -- it's my original research. You then come and say I know nothing about oil filters?
I say you don't know much about oil filter fitment because you stated that you were running an oversized 3614 in you '85 Corolla 1.6

A 3614 is, in fact, undersized given the standard application.

That is why I said you are uninformed about filter fitment. Because you proved it and I subsequently pointed it out.

Some would say "hey, cut this guy a break", yet you make other unsubstantiated claims and try to work them into overblown rhetoric.

I am here to call you on those claims.... cheers
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/26/19 01:48 AM

Originally Posted by Imp4
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Regarding the oil filter, see the large set of data I just posted in the code -- it's my original research. You then come and say I know nothing about oil filters?
I say you don't know much about oil filter fitment because you stated that you were running an oversized 3614 in you '85 Corolla 1.6

A 3614 is, in fact, undersized given the standard application.

That is why I said you are uninformed about filter fitment. Because you proved it and I subsequently pointed it out.

Some would say "hey, cut this guy a break", yet you make other unsubstantiated claims and try to work them into overblown rhetoric.

I am here to call you on those claims.... cheers

How are you an expert in Toyota oil filters all of a sudden? The Toyota OEM filter is much, much smaller than the XG3614:

Denso 150-1000/Toyota 90915-YZZF2
Gasket diameter: 5.5 x 6.2 cm (2.17 x 2.44 in, Denso 150-1000)
Gasket diameter: 5.4 x ?.? cm (90915-YZZF2)
W x H 6.8 x 7.2 cm (2.68 x 2.83 in)

Same with the M1 EP M1-103(A) oil filter recommended by Mobil 1 and I have currently installed -- it's much, much smaller, about the same size as the Toyota OEM.

Fram is one of few that recommend a larger filter. Fram Ultra XG2951 is hard-to-find -- that's why I opted for Fram Ultra 3614, which is practically the same size except for the gasket. Do you think that I didn't look at the catalog before I chose the filter? You can see how much research I did on this by looking at the info I posted in the code.

It's not nice to turn hostile on people by making assumptions, which could easily be false, as it turned out to be the case this time.

Nevertheless, you owe me an apology. Your needless and unjustified personal attacks crossed the line.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/26/19 02:00 AM

These are the filters I already own and my personal pictures of them. I already own the Fram OCD PH2951. See how the Denso 150-1000, which is the same as the Toyota OEM 90915-YZZF2, compares to it. 3614, which I own the Bosch version, is practically the same size as 2951 except it has a larger gasket.

So, I know nothing about what oil filter fits my car, ha? Does it tell you something about making assumptions about people?

[Linked Image]
[Linked Image]
[Linked Image]
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/26/19 02:18 AM

What's your main goal for running an over sized filter?
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/26/19 03:10 AM

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
What's your main goal for running an over sized filter?

Because bigger is better. wink

Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/26/19 03:13 AM

Just go one size up from OEM and go with high efficiency full synthetic media.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/26/19 03:35 AM

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Just go one size up from OEM and go with high efficiency full synthetic media.

That's basically the Toyota 90915-YZZF2 vs. Fram Ultra XG3614.

I measured it before and there is probably not enough clearance for the longer XG3600 anyway, but I can recheck.
Posted By: 1JZ_E46

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/26/19 03:49 AM

I think filter media increases in efficiency with time (as it loads up with contaminants). So, a huge filter may actually have a lower efficiency over the life of the OCI, especially with your engine, which isn’t generating near the particulates as today’s GDI engines.
Posted By: madeej11

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/26/19 03:53 AM

Wow, lots of animosity happening here. Don't understand why we can't keep it civil. Please gentlemen. Yes 90915 yzzf2 is really small. I don't like going too big though so I opt for yzzf1 which would be equal to a fram 4386.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/26/19 05:05 AM

Originally Posted by madeej11
Wow, lots of animosity happening here. Don't understand why we can't keep it civil. Please gentlemen. Yes 90915 yzzf2 is really small. I don't like going too big though so I opt for yzzf1 which would be equal to a fram 4386.

Lots of animosity only originated from a single poster -- lmp4 -- suddenly out of the blue. He was at an all-out attack and making false claims about Toyota filter sizes and wrong assumptions about me as as well. I chose not to respond with animosity, as I usually do. Unfortunately, some people are hostile. It's in their brain chemistry. There is no reason for innate hostility not to be controlled though, even in anonymous settings. Civility can be learned and it can suppress hostility.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/26/19 05:32 AM

Originally Posted by madeej11
I don't like going too big though so I opt for yzzf1 which would be equal to a fram 4386.

Yeah, OEM is small. 4386 is one of the recommendations. 3614 is the same size as the Bosch recommendation 3330 and therefore it should fit. The only difference with 2951, which is almost impossible to find in the Ultra version, is the diameters of the hole circle and gasket. If it fits at all, 3600 would barely squeeze in, almost touching the A/C fan shroud, but there may not be enough clearance to screw it on. So, I think 3614 is a good choice, considerably oversized than the OEM but not too large to cause fitting issues.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/26/19 05:35 AM

I also discovered a leaky valve-cover gasket; so, I will have to change it before the M1 EP 0W-20 SN PLUS goes in. Hopefully, no oil got on the timing belt. eek
Posted By: madeej11

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/26/19 05:48 AM

I like the choice of the M1 ep 0w20. The VII's for the TGMO in general are too plentiful imo. Don't know how Amsoil SS in 0w20 flavor would compare to the M1. Should be pretty close though. Any opinions Gokhan?
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/26/19 06:03 AM

Originally Posted by madeej11
I like the choice of the M1 ep 0w20. The VII's for the TGMO in general are too plentiful imo. Don't know how Amsoil SS in 0w20 flavor would compare to the M1. Should be pretty close though. Any opinions Gokhan?

Amsoil Signature Series is a great oil -- PAO-based and plenty of initial TBN. I think the reason why we see very low wear rates with Amsoil SS is exactly this -- plenty of reserve alkalinity throughout the OCI thanks to the slow-oxidizing (slow acid-releasing) PAO and high initial TBN. I'm starting to think most wear starts happening when the reserve alkalinity is depleted, but dnewton3 may come and say otherwise. The SN PLUS version with slow-depleting magnesium may have further improved Amosil SS's reserve alkalinity.

That said, M1 EP 0W-20 is half the price, also mostly PAO-based (at least about 80% or so of the base oil) and has great reserve alkalinity (Ca/Mg mixed detergent with decent initial TBN), which results in low wear rates. Note that EP 0W-20 is the only mostly PAO-based SAE grade, with thicker grades being not.

So, do you think you can reduce wear by going to higher viscosity? Perhaps, instead, you should think about to going to a better base oil (like PAO) and higher initial TBN with Ca/Mg mixed detergent (SN PLUS) that ensures good reserve alkalinity throughout the OCI.
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/26/19 06:10 AM

Originally Posted by 1JZ_E46
I think filter media increases in efficiency with time (as it loads up with contaminants).


Not always - it depends on how well the media retains captured particles when deta-p increases across the media. If you hang out in the oil filter forum I've shown why a few times (Mann+Hummel test data). And if you understand how the ISO 4548-12 test efficiency is defined/calculated, it says by definition that filters that are highly rated must also retain particles well as the delta-p increases across the media.
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/26/19 06:16 AM

Gokhan,
I really think you should start a thread detailing your chronology of "absolute" understanding as it has evolved and changed.

You've been emphatic in various stages about what makes a superior oil, and some months later taken another, emphatic, but nearly diametrically opposed view.

It would be interesting to see them all in the one thread...
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/26/19 06:18 AM

Originally Posted by Gokhan
So, I think 3614 is a good choice, considerably oversized than the OEM but not too large to cause fitting issues.


It's a small 4-cyl that doesn't put out a ton of GPM out the oil pump. Don't need a filter the size of a coffee can - one size up would be plenty. Use full synthetic if worried about filter flow (level of delta-p).
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/26/19 06:34 AM

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Gokhan
So, I think 3614 is a good choice, considerably oversized than the OEM but not too large to cause fitting issues.
It's a small 4-cyl that doesn't put out a ton of GPM out the oil pump. Don't need a filter the size of a coffee can - one size up would be plenty. Use full synthetic if worried about filter flow (level of delta-p).

Fram Ultra XG3614 will be delivered tomorrow and it's one or two sizes larger than the OEM but yet should fit perfectly.

I need to look up whether I used the OEM or Fel-Pro valve-cover gasket last time so that I could buy the opposite this time. eek
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/26/19 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by Gokhan
I need to look up whether I used the OEM or Fel-Pro valve-cover gasket last time so that I could buy the opposite this time. eek

It was the OEM valve-cover gasket eight years ago. This is what I get for doubting Fel-Pro. Fel-Pro will go in this time, which is also four times cheaper and much easier to get.
Posted By: ka9mnx

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/26/19 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by Gokhan
I need to look up whether I used the OEM or Fel-Pro valve-cover gasket last time so that I could buy the opposite this time. eek

It was the OEM valve-cover gasket eight years ago. This is what I get for doubting Fel-Pro. Fel-Pro will go in this time, which is also four times cheaper and much easier to get.

Eight years on an Asian valve cover gasket is pretty good. But, I use nothing but Fel-Pro.
Posted By: ka9mnx

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/26/19 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
What's your main goal for running an over sized filter?

Add me to that question. I thought the filter on my 4Runner was a bit small but after seeing the engineering that went into this vehicle, I'll trust the engineers.
Posted By: Bryanccfshr

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/26/19 03:06 PM

Primarily the purpose of doing this is Additional oil capacity. Filtration efficiency goes down, flow goes up all things being equal. In the past (2002-4 timeframe)for example I have run an oversized filter on that 3.4 Toyota engine you have. The Motorcraft FLS400. No damage occurred, but today having a better grasp, I would just run the recommended filter size.
.
Originally Posted by ka9mnx
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
What's your main goal for running an over sized filter?

Add me to that question. I thought the filter on my 4Runner was a bit small but after seeing the engineering that went into this vehicle, I'll trust the engineers.
Posted By: Bryanccfshr

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/26/19 03:09 PM

If you are changing filter sizes, you are removing a constant in your comparison by varying oil capacity and filtration. Best practice would be to limit the variable to the oil.
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Gokhan
So, I think 3614 is a good choice, considerably oversized than the OEM but not too large to cause fitting issues.
It's a small 4-cyl that doesn't put out a ton of GPM out the oil pump. Don't need a filter the size of a coffee can - one size up would be plenty. Use full synthetic if worried about filter flow (level of delta-p).

Fram Ultra XG3614 will be delivered tomorrow and it's one or two sizes larger than the OEM but yet should fit perfectly.

I need to look up whether I used the OEM or Fel-Pro valve-cover gasket last time so that I could buy the opposite this time. eek
Posted By: 1JZ_E46

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/26/19 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by ka9mnx
Eight years on an Asian valve cover gasket is pretty good. But, I use nothing but Fel-Pro.


And eight years on a German valve cover gasket is unheard of. Unicorn status.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/26/19 08:53 PM

Originally Posted by Bryanccfshr
Primarily the purpose of doing this is Additional oil capacity. Filtration efficiency goes down, flow goes up all things being equal. In the past (2002-4 timeframe)for example I have run an oversized filter on that 3.4 Toyota engine you have. The Motorcraft FLS400. No damage occurred, but today having a better grasp, I would just run the recommended filter size.
Originally Posted by ka9mnx
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
What's your main goal for running an over sized filter?
Add me to that question. I thought the filter on my 4Runner was a bit small but after seeing the engineering that went into this vehicle, I'll trust the engineers.

Hmm, ZeeOSix says the filtration efficiency does not go down when the filter size increases.
Posted By: Bryanccfshr

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/26/19 10:07 PM

Exactly, it will not decrease, But it does not go up with time as fast if you increase filtration media surface area. A known factor is that with use filters become more efficient, this gain is reduced with a larger filter, inversely a larger filter can be run longer without becoming restrictive.
.
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by Bryanccfshr
Primarily the purpose of doing this is Additional oil capacity. Filtration efficiency goes down, flow goes up all things being equal. In the past (2002-4 timeframe)for example I have run an oversized filter on that 3.4 Toyota engine you have. The Motorcraft FLS400. No damage occurred, but today having a better grasp, I would just run the recommended filter size.
Originally Posted by ka9mnx
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
What's your main goal for running an over sized filter?
Add me to that question. I thought the filter on my 4Runner was a bit small but after seeing the engineering that went into this vehicle, I'll trust the engineers.

Hmm, ZeeOSix says the filtration efficiency does not go down when the filter size increases.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/26/19 11:37 PM

Originally Posted by Bryanccfshr
Exactly, it will not decrease, But it does not go up with time as fast if you increase filtration media surface area. A known factor is that with use filters become more efficient, this gain is reduced with a larger filter, inversely a larger filter can be run longer without becoming restrictive.

This was ZeeOSix's take:

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by 1JZ_E46
I think filter media increases in efficiency with time (as it loads up with contaminants).
Not always - it depends on how well the media retains captured particles when deta-p increases across the media. If you hang out in the oil filter forum I've shown why a few times (Mann+Hummel test data). And if you understand how the ISO 4548-12 test efficiency is defined/calculated, it says by definition that filters that are highly rated must also retain particles well as the delta-p increases across the media.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/27/19 06:19 AM

Here is the list ordered by the oil-filter volume. The last two columns are the differences in fluid ounces of the filter volumes from the current (YZZF2) and original (13011) OEMs, respectively.

The current Toyota OEM sold in USA is 90915-YZZF2. The original Toyota OEM was 15601-13011. Note that the data for it is not official and may be inaccurate -- I found it from a Chinese aftermarket copy. Purolator's old recommendation was L22821 but it was discontinued. So, XG3600 seems closer to the original Toyota OEM. Note how gigantic L30001 and PH8A are. If XG3600 has enough height clearance, it will be a good size. The only other problem with it and XG3614 is that the gasket and hole-circle diameter are a little large but I think the filter holes would still face inside the flange hole.

PH8A would probably neither fit nor be necessary. wink

Code
Oil filter              W (in)	H (in)	V (cu in) V-V_YZZF2 (cu in) V-V_13011 (cu in) V-V_YZZF2 (oz) V-V_13011 (oz)

Toyota 90915-YZZF2  	2.68	2.83	15.96	0.00	-16.98	0.00	-9.41
RP 10-2840              2.68	2.90	16.36	0.39	-16.58	0.22	-9.19
Amsoil EA15K09          2.68	2.90	16.36	0.39	-16.58	0.22	-9.19
PH4967                 	2.69	2.92	16.60	0.63	-16.34	0.35	-9.06
L14476              	2.69	2.93	16.65	0.69	-16.29	0.38	-9.03
Wix 51394               2.69	2.98	16.94	0.97	-16.00	0.54	-8.87
PH4386                	2.69	3.47	19.72	3.76	-13.22	2.08	-7.32
L14477                 	2.69	3.52	20.00	4.04	-12.93	2.24	-7.17
Bosch 3330            	2.91	3.31	22.01	6.05	-10.93	3.35	-6.05
Wix 51348               2.92	3.40	22.77	6.80	-10.17	3.77	-5.64
Amsoil EA15K51          2.96	3.40	23.40	7.43	-9.54	4.12	-5.29
L10241                  2.98	3.36	23.43	7.47	-9.50	4.14	-5.27
RP 10-2835              2.98	3.40	23.71	7.75	-9.23	4.29	-5.11
PH3614                  2.98	3.43	23.92	7.96	-9.02	4.41	-5.00
PH7575                  2.98	3.43	23.92	7.96	-9.02	4.41	-5.00
PH2951                  3.02	3.36	24.07	8.10	-8.87	4.49	-4.92
L35098                  3.01	4.10	29.17	13.21	-3.77	7.32	-2.09
L22821                  3.15	3.94	30.70	14.74	-2.23	8.17	-1.24
Toyota 15601-13011      3.23	4.02	32.94	16.98	0.00	9.41	0.00
XG3600                  2.98	4.92	34.32	18.35	1.38	10.17	0.76
L30001                  3.78	5.14	57.68	41.72	24.74	23.12	13.71
PH8A                    3.80	5.14	58.29	42.33	25.35	23.46	14.05
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/27/19 06:48 AM

Originally Posted by Gokhan
Hmm, ZeeOSix says the filtration efficiency does not go down when the filter size increases.


From all the stuff I've seen about oil filters over the last 10 years, it's the larger filters are a bit more efficient than a smaller one with the same media. That's because the delta-p across a filter with more surface area is lower, which means less chance of dislodging already captured particles. Most people don't realize that one factor in the overall efficiency performance rating of the oil filter is the ability to retain the captured particles as delta-p increases across the media. Like already mentioned, pick a filter that has a high ISO 4548-12 efficiency rating, because it can't come out rated that high (by how the efficiency is calculated by the ISO test) if the media dislodged particles at a high rate.
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/27/19 06:51 AM

Originally Posted by Gokhan
Fram Ultra XG3614 will be delivered tomorrow and it's one or two sizes larger than the OEM but yet should fit perfectly.


Good choice, should work out well. Very good efficiency and low delta-p vs flow.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/27/19 07:05 AM

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Fram Ultra XG3614 will be delivered tomorrow and it's one or two sizes larger than the OEM but yet should fit perfectly.
Good choice, should work out well. Very good efficiency and low delta-p vs flow.

How does it compare to XG3600?
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/27/19 07:18 AM

Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Fram Ultra XG3614 will be delivered tomorrow and it's one or two sizes larger than the OEM but yet should fit perfectly.
Good choice, should work out well. Very good efficiency and low delta-p vs flow.

How does it compare to XG3600?


The 3600 looks to be longer, but the 3614 is still going to give essentialy the same efficiency and flow performance (difference too small to matter) on that engine. If the 3600 fits, then it's another option. I run the XG3600 on my Tacoma 4.0L V6 and its a ptetty big oil filter.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/27/19 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Fram Ultra XG3614 will be delivered tomorrow and it's one or two sizes larger than the OEM but yet should fit perfectly.
Good choice, should work out well. Very good efficiency and low delta-p vs flow.
How does it compare to XG3600?
The 3600 looks to be longer, but the 3614 is still going to give essentialy the same efficiency and flow performance (difference too small to matter) on that engine. If the 3600 fits, then it's another option. I run the XG3600 on my Tacoma 4.0L V6 and its a ptetty big oil filter.

I made a template for XG3600 (why didn't I think about that before?) and here is how it looks like:

[Linked Image]

Compared to the tiny M1-103, recommended filter by Mobil 1:

[Linked Image]

There is only about 3/4 in clearance from the A/C fan shroud, which means I probably can't use a cap wrench to remove it (I always install them by hand). It also seems to barely clear the A/C pipe. It should probably fit though, other than the need to use a clamp wrench to remove it.

The large surface area of the filter and proximity to the A/C fan shroud should also make it function like an oil cooler. In addition, it would increase the oil-sump capacity by about 1/4 qt (about 6%) or so (10 oz larger can than the Toyota 90915-YZZF2).
Posted By: demarpaint

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/27/19 11:58 AM

^^ That looks like it is going to be just fine.
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/27/19 12:01 PM

A filter, after the oil pump does NOT effectively increase sump capacity.

Think about it a little...once filled and primed, exactly the same leak will have you pumping bubbles regardless of how big your filter is.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/27/19 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by Shannow
A filter, after the oil pump does NOT effectively increase sump capacity.

Think about it a little...once filled and primed, exactly the same leak will have you pumping bubbles regardless of how big your filter is.

I mean the system oil capacity.
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/27/19 11:44 PM

But it's like putting a bigger pipe in...doesn't change the behaviour at the terminal points.
If it was an accumulator, there's be some effect, but being a fixed volume, between the oil pump and the engine, achieves nothing with respect to "active" volume. Maybe a little more surface area for cooling, but the increased oil volume is meaningless.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/27/19 11:56 PM

Originally Posted by Shannow
But it's like putting a bigger pipe in...doesn't change the behaviour at the terminal points.
If it was an accumulator, there's be some effect, but being a fixed volume, between the oil pump and the engine, achieves nothing with respect to "active" volume. Maybe a little more surface area for cooling, but the increased oil volume is meaningless.

Doesn't it increase the amount of additive reserves?

In any case, I've been filling the 3.5 qt spec, which is specced for the original OEM Toyota 15601-13011, which has no longer been available in US for a long time. The current OEM Toyota 90915-YZZF2 is much smaller, which has been resulting in about 1/4 qt overfill. XG3600 is only slightly bigger than Toyota 15601-13011, no more than about 2 oz. I will fill 3.5 qt + 2 oz with XG3600 and call it a day, which is only 1.8% more than I normally fill.
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/28/19 12:03 AM

Can't hurt to have a bit more oil volume in the system.
Posted By: edyvw

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/28/19 06:12 AM

Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by Shannow
But it's like putting a bigger pipe in...doesn't change the behaviour at the terminal points.
If it was an accumulator, there's be some effect, but being a fixed volume, between the oil pump and the engine, achieves nothing with respect to "active" volume. Maybe a little more surface area for cooling, but the increased oil volume is meaningless.

Doesn't it increase the amount of additive reserves?

In any case, I've been filling the 3.5 qt spec, which is specced for the original OEM Toyota 15601-13011, which has no longer been available in US for a long time. The current OEM Toyota 90915-YZZF2 is much smaller, which has been resulting in about 1/4 qt overfill. XG3600 is only slightly bigger than Toyota 15601-13011, no more than about 2 oz. I will fill 3.5 qt + 2 oz with XG3600 and call it a day, which is only 1.8% more than I normally fill.

The amount of oil is carefully calculated. It is not like Toyota could not increase amount if necessary. There were some screwups, like Toyota 3.0 V6 or VW 1.8T transverse engines (that was more due to wrong recommendation). But, generally companies, especially reputable manufacturers, are good in nailing volume. You have to take into consideration that more oil means longer time for oil to warm up to operating temperature. That increases consumption, wearing during cold mornings etc.
I do not also understand what is point of this on 1985 Corolla that can run on Costco olive oil and use used 7/11 coffee filter to filter it out? Not sure your experiment is applicable to any modern engine, especially those that are turbo charged.
Posted By: batook

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/29/19 07:28 AM

Originally Posted by Gokhan
[M1 EP 0W-20 is half the price, also mostly PAO-based (at least about 80% or so of the base oil) and has great reserve alkalinity (Ca/Mg mixed detergent with decent initial TBN), which results in low wear rates. Note that EP 0W-20 is the only mostly PAO-based SAE grade, with thicker grades being not.

So, do you think you can reduce wear by going to higher viscosity? Perhaps, instead, you should think about to going to a better base oil (like PAO) and higher initial TBN with Ca/Mg mixed detergent (SN PLUS) that ensures good reserve alkalinity throughout the OCI.


I also like the choice of going with M1 0W-20 EP. I'm planning on switching from M1 0W-20 AFE to EP in the Previa motor at the next oil change as well. I also use the M1-209A or FU XG3600 oversized filters. So, I really like your tests because you are using the same oil and filter I am on a very similar vintage Toyota engine. And like I said earlier, basd on my temp/pressure observations, we are good to go on the lighter 0W-20 oils in these old Toyota 4 bangers--just don't beat the snot out of them for extended periods and they'll be just fine.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/29/19 12:25 PM

I'm excited to try a PAO-based 0W-20 in this engine. Long time ago, I ran M1 0W-30 SM, which, unlike the current mostly Group III and GTL SN formulation, was PAO-based back then, and I remember the engine sounding differently, as if lubricated better.

Someone recommended the now-defunct German Castrol 0W-30 A3/B4 a while back, but that PAO-based oil came at the expense of performance-robbing high HTHSV and a questionable additive package that didn't always result in pleasant UOAs.
Posted By: oliveoil

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/29/19 11:54 PM

GC was the golden elixir for many. It provided Amazing UOA’s. It also had a sweet smell.
Posted By: kschachn

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/30/19 12:02 AM

I noticed that GC clogged up the PCV valve on my old 1MZ-FE at a much faster rate than Mobil 1. I bought into it back when it was all the rage but for me it wasn’t all that great.
Posted By: batook

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/30/19 10:34 PM

Originally Posted by Gokhan
BOQI is great! It can distinguish between PAO, GTL, Group III, and Group II. Everyone should benefit from this knowledge. What other magical touchstone can tell you what base oil is inside a motor oil? If you don't believe it, that's fine -- I won't hold it against you. wink


I'm not too familiar with BOQI and how it can be used to distinguish between the different base oil types. If you wouldn't mind, can you please explain a little further how the BOQI can be used to determine this? Also, how did you find out the BOQI of the M1 0W-20 EP? I don't see it listed on their product data sheet; is it something you have to request from them?
Posted By: Patman

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 01/30/19 10:40 PM

Originally Posted by batook
Originally Posted by Gokhan
BOQI is great! It can distinguish between PAO, GTL, Group III, and Group II. Everyone should benefit from this knowledge. What other magical touchstone can tell you what base oil is inside a motor oil? If you don't believe it, that's fine -- I won't hold it against you. wink


I'm not too familiar with BOQI and how it can be used to distinguish between the different base oil types. If you wouldn't mind, can you please explain a little further how the BOQI can be used to determine this? Also, how did you find out the BOQI of the M1 0W-20 EP? I don't see it listed on their product data sheet; is it something you have to request from them?


They won't give you that info, because it isn't a real thing. It's a made up index by Gokhan.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 02/25/19 12:05 PM

I replaced the leaking Toyota OEM valve-cover gasket set with Fel-Pro. Somehow the nuts had got loose, probably because the OEM washers were too hard. Incredibly, even to my surprise, no oil had got on the timing belt. I like the soft brass case on the Fel-Pro washers that should help not loosen. I will stick with Fel-Pro from now on. I first tightened the nuts to 10 lbf⋅ft and then realized that it was too tight and then reset them to 4 lbf⋅ft. I put Permatex Ultra Grey on the corners as usual.

I replaced the spark plugs with OEM U-groove Nippondenso W16EXR-U11 after regapping them to the 1.1 mm spec. Old spark plugs were in good condition -- no sign of oil burning and minimal wear. I replaced the air filter with Toyota OEM Made in Japan. To my delight, it came in a nice vintage-style box (see the pics).

I set the tire pressure to 37 psi.

It took forever (10 seconds or more?) for the 19.0 oz XG3600 to prime and the oil light to go off -- I was about to turn off the engine. The XG3600 installed with ample clearance.

Dino (well, Group III) TGMO 0W-20 SN and the tiny M1-103 semisynthetic filter (9.1 oz?) are out, PAO Mobil 1 Extended Performance 0W-20 SN PLUS and Fram Ultra XG3600 full synthetic (19.0 oz) are in. I drove for about 100 mi to have the new PAO-based oil work in. The car effortlessly glides with the engine sounding like a fine musical instrument. Driving is fun again.

[Linked Image]
[Linked Image]
[Linked Image]
[Linked Image]
[Linked Image]
[Linked Image]
[Linked Image]
[Linked Image]
[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]
Posted By: demarpaint

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 02/25/19 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by Gokhan
I replaced the leaking Toyota OEM valve-cover gasket set with Fel-Pro. Somehow the nuts had got loose, probably because the OEM washers were too hard. Incredibly, even to my surprise, no oil had got on the timing belt. I like the soft brass case on the Fel-Pro washers that should help not loosen. I will stick with Fel-Pro from now on. I first tightened the nuts to 10 lbf⋅ft and then realized that it was too tight and then reset them to 4 lbf⋅ft. I put Permatex Ultra Grey on the corners as usual.

I replaced the spark plugs with OEM U-groove Nippondenso W16EXR-U11 after regapping them to the 1.1 mm spec. Old spark plugs were in good condition -- no sign of oil burning and minimal wear. I replaced the air filter with Toyota OEM Made in Japan. To my delight, it came in a nice vintage-style box (see the pics).

I set the tire pressure to 37 psi.

It took forever (10 seconds or more?) for the 19.0 oz XG3600 to prime and the oil light to go off -- I was about to turn off the engine. The XG3600 installed with ample clearance.

Dino (well, Group III) TGMO 0W-20 SN and the tiny M1-103 semisynthetic filter (9.1 oz?) are out, PAO Mobil 1 Extended Performance 0W-20 SN PLUS and Fram Ultra XG3600 full synthetic (19.0 oz) are in. I drove for about 100 mi to have the new PAO-based oil work in. The car effortlessly glides with the engine sounding like a fine musical instrument. Driving is fun again.

[Linked Image]
[Linked Image]
[Linked Image]
[Linked Image]
[Linked Image]
[Linked Image]
[Linked Image]
[Linked Image]
[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

No disrespect, but I'm not impressed with the visual condition of the valve train. The oil used prior didn't do much cleaning/if any at all. hide It reminds me [only worse] of the 2000 Buick Century I owned getting 3K dino OCI;s since new. It looked something like that with just 80K miles on it and no mechanical issues.
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 02/25/19 02:58 PM

Honestly, if my engine had 272,000 miles on it I would expect some varnish.
Posted By: ka9mnx

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 02/25/19 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by PimTac
Honestly, if my engine had 272,000 miles on it I would expect some varnish.

Yep, doesn't look that bad.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 02/25/19 10:36 PM

Originally Posted by demarpaint
No disrespect, but I'm not impressed with the visual condition of the valve train. The oil used prior didn't do much cleaning/if any at all. hide It reminds me [only worse] of the 2000 Buick Century I owned getting 3K dino OCI;s since new. It looked something like that with just 80K miles on it and no mechanical issues.

Originally Posted by ka9mnx
Originally Posted by PimTac
Honestly, if my engine had 272,000 miles on it I would expect some varnish.
Yep, doesn't look that bad.

The engine has over 272,000 miles. I ran synthetic only in the last 28,000 miles -- four OCIs of a little under 6,000 miles each with TGMO 0W-20 and one with M1 0W-40. Previously, it was all dino, such as 10W-30, 10W-40, and 15W-40. Also, until in 1988, the oil available used only the 1979 API SF or SF/CC technology, with the API CC being the 1961 technology. Nevertheless, the last five synthetic OCIs seem to have made a little or no difference. I have some pictures when I was using 15W-40 and they look similar.

I don't see any sludge and the cam lobes look in excellent shape. I don't think I have any valvetrain problems; so, the varnish doesn't seem to affect anything. Note that these are sliding, not roller, rocker arms. I didn't bother to adjust the valve clearances (through the screws in the picture) this time, as it has to be done with a hot engine. I figured since the valvetrain wear is so low, they hardly change in a few 10k miles.

This picture is taken without flash and things look a little better.

[Linked Image]
Posted By: demarpaint

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 02/25/19 11:37 PM

^^My point is 28K of synthetic oil and little to no cleaning at all. I've seen HM engines here a lot cleaner, that's all I'm saying. My bet is had synthetic oil been used the entire 272k+ miles the engine would be a lot cleaner. For 80K miles on Dino my 00 Century looked like a mess to me.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 02/26/19 01:00 AM

Originally Posted by demarpaint
^^My point is 28K of synthetic oil and little to no cleaning at all. I've seen HM engines here a lot cleaner, that's all I'm saying. My bet is had synthetic oil been used the entire 272k+ miles the engine would be a lot cleaner. For 80K miles on Dino my 00 Century looked like a mess to me.

I think you're right that synthetic doesn't clean an engine that's already dirty. POE- and AN-based synthetics would be exceptions, Valvoline Restore being one. Perhaps, some Mobil 1 oils also have more ester (POE) than others. It certainly helps keep an engine clean to run a good synthetic.

Back in the 1990s, synthetic was an afterthought. Some people, including me, were scared of synthetics. I might have seen it on the official Toyota website or some other official-sounding place that they did not recommend synthetic oil. These days, synthetics are the only oils I use.

In any case, the valvetrain varnish seems be a cosmetic issue. I don't think my pistons are dirty at all.

Speaking of varnish, the carburetor was a lot worse when I rebuilt it. The thick yellow stuff was everywhere. I cleaned it thoroughly with Gumout carburetor cleaner. These days, I only use Chevron with Techron, staying with 87 octane.

Scroll to the 13:20 of the following video:

http://pixa.club/en/the-simpsons/season-14/epizod-7-special-edna
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 02/26/19 01:05 AM

Are you going to cut open your oil filter after this OCI? Be interesting if the M1 EP frees some particulate like it did with my Expedition.
Posted By: CR94

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 02/26/19 01:07 AM

I never so such heavy varnish in any of my engines that used conventional oil. That must've been neglected before you acquired it?
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 02/26/19 01:18 AM

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Are you going to cut open your oil filter after this OCI? Be interesting if the M1 EP frees some particulate like it did with my Expedition.

Perhaps, I should.

Originally Posted by CR94
I never so such heavy varnish in any of my engines that used conventional oil. That must've been neglected before you acquired it?

Yes, it was neglected and abused by the two Taiwanese graduate-student owners when I acquired it with 97,000 miles and as 10-years-old. I had to do a lot of work on it.
Posted By: Cujet

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 02/26/19 01:21 AM

Direct measurement is the only way to determine wear rates. It’s done with a scanning electron microscope, not a yardstick.
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 02/26/19 02:23 AM

Originally Posted by CR94
I never so such heavy varnish in any of my engines that used conventional oil. That must've been neglected before you acquired it?


Some conventional oils (especially back in the 80s and 90s) caused more varnish build up than others. I had a 1989 Toytoa V6 pickup that I used Toyota conventional oil in, and it had a similar varnish build up with less than 100K miles.
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 02/26/19 02:41 AM

I saw a lot of that kind of varnish back in the 80’s and 90’s running Castrol GTX.
Posted By: Triple_Se7en

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 02/26/19 02:49 AM

Originally Posted by PimTac
I saw a lot of that kind of varnish back in the 80’s and 90’s running Castrol GTX.


Me too!
Haven't purchased Castrol since, but the Black Edge and Magnatec Syn look good these days for 5-7K OCIs.
I'll never buy GTX conventional again., because of all that varnish.
Posted By: CR94

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 02/26/19 03:26 AM

Originally Posted by CR94
I never so such heavy varnish in any of my engines ...
Oops, I meant "saw much," not "so such." Sorry.

Posted By: CR94

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 02/26/19 03:34 AM

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
... Some conventional oils (especially back in the 80s and 90s) caused more varnish build up than others. ...
Back then (and earlier), I got what I called sludge (slilvery-gray clay-like deposits) with some brands of oil, not with others. I never saw much varnish of the sort in Gokhan's Corolla.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 02/26/19 04:34 AM

Originally Posted by Triple_Se7en
Originally Posted by PimTac
I saw a lot of that kind of varnish back in the 80’s and 90’s running Castrol GTX.

Me too!
Haven't purchased Castrol since, but the Black Edge and Magnatec Syn look good these days for 5-7K OCIs.
I'll never buy GTX conventional again., because of all that varnish.

In the mid-to-late 1990s and early-to-mid 2000s, Castrol GTX used to be my favorite oil. I initially used 10W-40 and later started using 10W-30 because it would give significantly better fuel economy. I used to see which oil would come up with the latest API category (SH, SJ, and SL back then, I remember SI being skipped because of SI units) and then buy it. Sometimes Valvoline would come up first but Castrol GTX was my favorite oil for most of the time.

Later I used Mobil Delvac 1300 Super 15W-40 CJ-4/SM before going synthetic SN in the last 28,000 miles, with a PYB 5W-20 OCI in between.

100,000 - 127,300 10W-40, probably Castrol GTX or perhaps some Valvoline, didn't record
127,300 Castrol GTX 10W-40
136,697 Castrol GTX 10W-40 (?)
143,744 Castrol GTX 10W-40
145,900 Valvoline 10W-40
148,450 Valvoline 10W-30
150,748 Valvoline 10W-30
154,337 Chevron Delo 15W-40 CH-4/SJ
155,010 Castrol GTX 10W-30
156,729 Castrol GTX 10W-30
162,843 Castrol GTX 10W-30
167,093 Castrol GTX 10W-30
170,200 Valvoline 10W-30
172,456 Valvoline 10W-30
174,480 Valvoline 10W-30
179,538 Valvoline 10W-30
181,669 Valvoline 10W-30
185,447 Valvoline 10W-30
188,107 Castrol GTX 10W-30
191,121 Castrol GTX 10W-30
193,802 Castrol GTX 10W-30
197,729 Castrol GTX 10W-30
200,279 Castrol GTX 10W-30
202,445 Castrol GTX 10W-30
205,445 Castrol GTX 10W-30
208,370 Castrol GTX 10W-30
210,301 Castrol GTX 10W-30
211,169 Castrol GTX 10W-30
211,489 Castrol Tection 15W-40 CJ-4/SM
213,017 Mobil Delvac 1300 Super CJ-4/SM
214,796 Mobil Delvac 1300 Super CJ-4/SM
217,508 Mobil Delvac 1300 Super CJ-4/SM
219,483 Mobil Delvac 1300 Super CJ-4/SM
219,638 Mobil 1 AFE 0W-30
220,500 Mobil Delvac 1300 Super CJ-4/SM
224,463 Mobil Delvac 1300 Super CJ-4/SM
226,406 Mobil Delvac 1300 Super CJ-4/SM
229,598 Pennzoil Yellow Bottle 5W-30
229,706 Pennzoil Platinum 5W-30
230,794 Mobil Delvac 1300 Super CJ-4/SM
232,089 Mobil Delvac 1300 Super CJ-4/SM
238,041 Mobil Delvac 1300 Super CJ-4/SM
238,297 Pennzoil Yellow Bottle 5W-20
243,729 Toyota 0W-20
249,035 Toyota 0W-20
255,194 Toyota 0W-20
261,060 Mobil 1 0W-40
266,485 Toyota 0W-20
272,206 Mobil 1 Extended Performance 0W-20
Posted By: 1JZ_E46

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 02/26/19 05:43 AM

The varnish appears to just be visual. I wouldn’t worry about it, and I wouldn’t count on a PAO oil doing much cleaning... not enough polarity.
Posted By: addyguy

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 02/26/19 07:05 PM

It looks ugly, but at that mileage and with the car running well it obviously isn't a problem. Good little car!
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 02/26/19 10:51 PM

Originally Posted by addyguy
It looks ugly, but at that mileage and with the car running well it obviously isn't a problem. Good little car!

It runs very well and consumes almost no oil, even with 0W-20.

The PAO has made a big difference -- the engine running very smooth and quiet and with very low friction and drag. Driving is indeed fun again. 2.7 cP HTHSV is only a tad bit (10%) lower than a 5W-30 with 3.0 cP. In fact, it has only about a third of the VII, meaning more shear-stable in the long run. The oversized full synthetic Fram Ultra XG3600 oil filter probably has made a difference as well.

I also don't get the anecdotes from those people who say that Mobil 1 made their engines sound louder. M1 EP 0W-20 is running as quiet as it gets.
Posted By: demarpaint

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 02/26/19 11:06 PM

Originally Posted by Gokhan


I also don't get the anecdotes from those people who say that Mobil 1 made their engines sound louder. M1 EP 0W-20 is running as quiet as it gets.

AFE 0w20 and 0w30 was nice and quiet for me in the two vehicles I used it in.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/01/19 11:23 PM

I am a PAO snob now.

I'm really pleased with how the M1 EP 0W-20 runs in my engine.

There are only three off-the-shelf PAO-based oils in USA -- M1 AFE 0W-16, M1 EP 0W-20, and M1 AP 0W-20. Even the German Castrol 0W-30 A3/B4 and German Castrol 0W-40 A3/B4 are no longer PAO-based.

We'll see if the UOA lives to the expectations.

Add the Fram Ultra oversized oil filter snob to that, too. smile
Posted By: 1JZ_E46

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/02/19 02:35 AM

Originally Posted by Gokhan
Castrol 0W-30 A3/B4 and Castrol 0W-40 A3/B4 are no longer PAO-based.


Castrol EDGE 0W-40 A3/B4 is 50-75% PAO

Castrol EDGE 0W-30 A3/B4 is 25-50% PAO or 50-75% PAO
Posted By: Garak

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/02/19 03:06 AM

So, basically, we have a 200% margin of variability, or no PAO at all. And people wonder why I'm skeptical of base oil claims or calculations or assumptions made from data sheets. wink
Posted By: 1JZ_E46

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/02/19 03:17 AM

Originally Posted by Garak
So, basically, we have a 200% margin of variability, or no PAO at all. And people wonder why I'm skeptical of base oil claims or calculations or assumptions made from data sheets. wink


Castrol has a couple different versions of EDGE 0W-30/40 depending on where their made (Germany or Belgium). Either way, EDGE 0W-40 is 50-75% PAO and Gokhan’s statement is incorrect.

Both these oils have a -57C pour points so PAO content is essentially gauranteed.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/02/19 04:00 AM

Originally Posted by 1JZ_E46
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Castrol 0W-30 A3/B4 and Castrol 0W-40 A3/B4 are no longer PAO-based.
Castrol EDGE 0W-40 A3/B4 is 50-75% PAO

Castrol EDGE 0W-30 A3/B4 is 25-50% PAO or 50-75% PAO

Originally Posted by Garak
So, basically, we have a 200% margin of variability, or no PAO at all. And people wonder why I'm skeptical of base oil claims or calculations or assumptions made from data sheets. wink

And I will add:

Castrol EDGE 0W-40 A3/B4 is 25-50% PAO or 50-75% PAO

I think they are all correct. Castrol has changed the formulations and the newest versions are only half-PAO-based, whereas the old versions that say 50 - 75% PAO were the PAO-based versions in the sense that they didn't contain any Group III or GTL at all, with the balance being made up with an ester, additive package, and VII.

Indeed, 0W-40 has lost the volsynthese label in Germany and now labeled HC synthese. Moreover, 0W-30 A3/B4 is no longer available in Germany but there is a PAO-based 0W-30 C3 version available there, which is not available in US.

Also, very interestingly, the MSDSs have codes in the beginning with the prefix apparently denoting the country of manufacture:

463737-IT01: Italian Castrol 0W-30 C3, PAO-based
463998-DE01: German Castrol 0W-40 A3/B4, PAO-based
467337-US65: American Castrol 0W-40 A3/B4, half-PAO-based
467465-DE01: German Castrol 0W-40 A3/B4, half-PAO-based
467680-BE02: Belgian Castrol 0W-30 A3/B4, half-PAO-based


It looks like all PAO-based Castrol 0W-30 A3/B4 and all PAO-based Castrol 0W-40 A3/B4 have now been discontinued and replaced with half-PAO-based versions, as evidenced by the 0W-40 A3/B4 now being labeled HC synthese instead of volsynthese and 0W-30 A3/B4 not being available at all in Germany.

Should we call them half-PAO, semi-PAO, or PAO blend? Perhaps German synthetic blend?
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/02/19 05:56 AM

Correction: 463998-DE01, the oil 1JZ_E46 was referring to, is C3 (mid-SAPS), not A3/B4 (full-SAPS).

463737-IT01: Italian Castrol 0W-30 C3, PAO-based
463998-DE01: German Castrol 0W-40 C3, PAO-based

467337-US65: American Castrol 0W-40 A3/B4, half-PAO-based
467465-DE01: German Castrol 0W-40 A3/B4, half-PAO-based
467680-BE02: Belgian Castrol 0W-30 A3/B4, half-PAO-based


Therefore, there are no PAO-based Castrol A3/B4 oils anymore.

However, there is an Italian Castrol 0W-30 C3 and a German Castrol 0W-40 C3, both of which are PAO-based.
Posted By: Bjornviken

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/02/19 06:20 AM

I think the new version off 0w-40 edge lost the BMW LL01 approval
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/08/19 05:27 AM

Originally Posted by Gokhan
I am a PAO snob now.

I'm really pleased with how the M1 EP 0W-20 runs in my engine.

There are only three off-the-shelf PAO-based oils in USA -- M1 AFE 0W-16, M1 EP 0W-20, and M1 AP 0W-20. Even the German Castrol 0W-30 A3/B4 and German Castrol 0W-40 A3/B4 are no longer PAO-based.

We'll see if the UOA lives to the expectations.

Add the Fram Ultra oversized oil filter snob to that, too. smile

Follow-up:

I got a very nice 29 MPG in mixed driving in my first tank. The PAO-based M1 EP 0W-20, oversized FU XG3600, new OEM air filter, and new Denso OEM spark plugs have made a big difference in the way the car drives -- the engine feels and sounds like clockwork really.

I've been thinking that PAO-based oils run a lot smoother. It's a pity that off-the-shelf PAO-based oils are virtually nonexistent in US, despite being abundant in Europe.

The 1985 Corolla engine shows no signs of aging -- still no oil consumption and no drop in MPG. Perhaps, it has just got broken in with the M1 EP 0W-20. Lol.

It really makes it more fun to drive when an oil results in a smoother-running engine.
Posted By: CR94

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/09/19 05:33 AM

Placebo effect, or seeing what you hope to see.

My 1981 Mazda engine "showed no sign of aging" either, and at much higher mileage---on non-synthetic 10W-40.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/12/19 05:22 AM

Originally Posted by CR94
Placebo effect, or seeing what you hope to see.

My 1981 Mazda engine "showed no sign of aging" either, and at much higher mileage---on non-synthetic 10W-40.

I've never said a conventional 10W-40 would make a significant difference on engine longevity over a PAO-based oil.

However, the PAO-based M1 0W-20 EP SN PLUS runs incredibly smooth. There is some bias because I also replaced the spark plugs and air filter at the same type but whatever there is in this low-friction oil other than PAO, it makes the engine run and sound like you're living in a slick world in which everything is covered with butter -- that's how it feels when I drive. I will take that without even seeing a UOA. The gas mileage was also great on the first tank.
Posted By: Patman

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/12/19 10:21 AM

Engines always run smoother with new plugs, and gas mileage gets better too. So you can't say for certain the oil has anything to do with what's happening here.
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/12/19 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by CR94
Placebo effect, or seeing what you hope to see.
.



Placebo effect is overused, and incorrectly on BITOG.

Placebo effect is real results (cures), without reason...while what's often portrayed here is wishful, but also without reason.
Posted By: demarpaint

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/12/19 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by Patman
Engines always run smoother with new plugs, and gas mileage gets better too. So you can't say for certain the oil has anything to do with what's happening here.

thumbsup You're right, and many times mpg also increases with adding a little air to the tires. wink Often the increased mpg from airing up the tires can exceed the increase in mpg from moving down a grade or two in the oil's viscosity.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/12/19 11:30 PM

You missed the news:

FDA approves sale of prescription placebo

This said, M1 EP 0W-20 SN PLUS has made my engine sound different. I had the same experience with M1 AFE 0W-30 SM (which was also PAO-based at the time). It's hard to describe but the engine sounds more metallic, as less low-frequency and more high-frequency sounds, and I like it. Perhaps less friction due to PAO and organic friction modifiers shifts the frequency spectrum toward higher frequencies.
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/12/19 11:35 PM

Originally Posted by Gokhan


Just eat some Good & Plenty candy ... they look like big ol' sugar pills. grin2
Posted By: CR94

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/13/19 05:12 AM

Originally Posted by Shannow
Originally Posted by CR94
Placebo effect, or seeing what you hope to see.
Placebo effect is overused, and incorrectly on BITOG. ... Placebo effect is real results (cures), without reason...while what's often portrayed here is wishful, but also without reason.
How 'bout "confirmation bias," then?
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/20/19 05:31 AM

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.
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/21/19 01:41 AM

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.


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.

Attached picture mileage.jpg
Posted By: ekpolk

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/21/19 01:46 AM

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.
Posted By: Garak

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/21/19 08:20 AM

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.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/21/19 11:05 PM

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.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/21/19 11:13 PM

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.
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/21/19 11:39 PM

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.
Posted By: 2015_PSD

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/22/19 01:09 AM

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?
Posted By: ZeeOSix

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/22/19 01:27 AM

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.
Posted By: Garak

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/22/19 09:25 AM

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.
Posted By: NGRhodes

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/22/19 09:18 PM

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.
Posted By: Direct_Rejection

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/22/19 09:51 PM

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.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/22/19 10:07 PM

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.
Posted By: 2015_PSD

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/22/19 10:24 PM

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.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/22/19 11:50 PM

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.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/23/19 01:07 AM

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
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/23/19 01:28 AM

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...
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/23/19 02:41 AM

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.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/23/19 03:22 AM

- 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.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/23/19 04:46 AM

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
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/23/19 01:53 PM

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?
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/23/19 02:54 PM

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.
Posted By: 1JZ_E46

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/23/19 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by PimTac
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.


Non-existent at WM in store, but can be purchased online with free shipping for $19.64 a jug... at least in my area. For me personally I’d rather spend the extra $3 to get the A5/B5 spec.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/23/19 08:56 PM

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
This is fun stuff, but I think there's something we aren't accounting for perhaps that's screwing up the results?

I think what's happening is that there is no linear relation between the KV100 and CCS. For example, when the KV100 for the GTL base stocks doubles, CCS is increasing by a factor of five.

For example, using the 4 cSt and 8 cSt base stocks, for KV100 = 5.0 cSt and 5.5 cSt, you get CCS = 1672 and 2098, Noack = 8.7% and 7.3%, respectively -- 10% and 25% difference in KV100 and CCS, respectively, and 19% difference in Noack -- significant difference in CCS and Noack but similar KV100 and VII treat rate.

Widman viscosity-mixing calculator:

https://www.widman.biz/English/Calculators/Mixtures.html
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/23/19 09:30 PM

Regarding the VII treat rate, 1 - A_Harman index is not really equal to that. It's representing the viscosity temporary shear, which may be larger than the percent weight of the VII. For example, according to the Exxon Mobil blending guide, 2.6% VII treat rate is increasing the viscosity by about 50%, from about 5.6 to 8.6 cSt.

However, using 0.84 for the oil specific gravity, if I calculate the A_Harman index, I am getting 1.00 (0% shear). It's possible that the HTHSV given in the table is wrong. I would expect the temporary shear to be around 5% or so. shrug
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/23/19 10:32 PM

So, according to the Exxon Mobil blending guide, you're getting a roughly 15% increase in the viscosity for every percent of VII added (not entirely linear).

If 5 - 15% of the VII temporarily shears in the HTHSV test, then

VII treat rate = (1 - A_Harman index)*constant,

with the constant being in the range 0.5 - 1.5, depending on the VII. It's probably around 0.67 for the most commonly used OCP VII, which gives:

VII treat rate ~ (1 - A_Harman index)*0.67

This would give about a 4% VII treat rate in M1 EP 0W-20 SN PLUS.
Posted By: Direct_Rejection

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/23/19 10:40 PM

Where the devil did I read that Pennzoil Gold was 50-50.
And what I recall reading is that it is not GTL at all.

But I just looked.
Had to see it for myself.

So Pennzoil Gold 0W20 is indeed 70-90% Fischer-Tropsch.
The Pennzoil chart @ BITOG does list PG as not being Pure Plus.
So the CAS number substantiates this all.

Do I have this right ?

I do hope your scientific calculations are spot on.
I do not want too much plastic in my oil.

Also, I do not wish to besmirch M1 EP.
It is great stuff...just noisier in my truck.

I always thought the business of M1
producing larger amounts of iron by 10 or 20 ppm was a joke.
No big deal.
The oil is stellar.

BTW the gold cap on my jug of PG
is just a great accoutrement.
It is all good.

Beer2
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/23/19 11:11 PM

Originally Posted by Direct_Rejection
So Pennzoil Gold 0W20 is indeed 70-90% Fischer-Tropsch.
The Pennzoil chart @ BITOG does list PG as not being Pure Plus.
So the CAS number substantiates this all.

Do I have this right ?

Yup, Pennzoil Gold 0W-20 is a Pearl PurePlus GTL full synthetic -- 70 - 90% GTL and the rest is the add pack and VII.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/23/19 11:13 PM

Originally Posted by Gokhan
So, according to the Exxon Mobil blending guide, you're getting a roughly 15% increase in the viscosity for every percent of VII added (not entirely linear).

If 5 - 15% of the VII temporarily shears in the HTHSV test, then

VII treat rate = (1 - A_Harman index)*constant,

with the constant being in the range 0.5 - 1.5, depending on the VII. It's probably around 0.67 for the most commonly used OCP VII, which gives:

VII treat rate ~ (1 - A_Harman index)*0.67

This would give about a 4% VII treat rate in M1 EP 0W-20 SN PLUS.



thumbsup

That sounds more realistic.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/23/19 11:23 PM

Originally Posted by Gokhan
So, according to the Exxon Mobil blending guide, you're getting a roughly 15% increase in the viscosity for every percent of VII added (not entirely linear).

If 5 - 15% of the VII temporarily shears in the HTHSV test, then

VII treat rate = (1 - A_Harman index)*constant,

with the constant being in the range 0.5 - 1.5, depending on the VII. It's probably around 0.67 for the most commonly used OCP VII, which gives:

VII treat rate ~ (1 - A_Harman index)*0.67

This would give about a 4% VII treat rate in M1 EP 0W-20 SN PLUS.

To give a better description:

VII treat rate = (1 - A_Harman index)/(VII viscosity-improve rate x VII shear rate)

VII viscosity-improve rate is about 15 in the XOM guide, meaning for every percent of VII added, you get about a 15% increase in viscosity. Shear rates can vary between a few percent and 20% or more, depending on the VII.

Estimating from the XOM guide again (correcting the 0W-20 HTHSV to 2.7 cP first),

VII treat rate ~ (1 - A_Harman index)*0.7

for the commonly used VII but the constant, taken to be 0.7 in this case, can vary between 0.2 and 2 if not in a wider range.

In fact, perhaps, 0.5 is a better estimate for a typical VII; then, you would get:

VII treat rate ~ (1 - A_Harman index)*0.5

This would give about a 3% VII treat rate for the M1 EP 0W-20 SN PLUS.
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/23/19 11:58 PM

I made up a spreadsheet some time ago that used the blend guide and the PDS for the base oils to give the base oil viscosities and the base oil HTHS, and reated that to the VII treat rate.

Alas, the laptop failed to undergo the latest Win 10 update, and doesn't even boot anymore, so that's gone.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/24/19 12:12 AM

Originally Posted by Shannow
I made up a spreadsheet some time ago that used the blend guide and the PDS for the base oils to give the base oil viscosities and the base oil HTHS, and reated that to the VII treat rate.

Alas, the laptop failed to undergo the latest Win 10 update, and doesn't even boot anymore, so that's gone.


Pull the drive, put it in a housing, and recover your data grin
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/24/19 02:07 AM

Originally Posted by Shannow
Alas, the laptop failed to undergo the latest Win 10 update, and doesn't even boot anymore, so that's gone.

Download the latest version of Windows 10 from the Microsoft site. It can either be put on a DVD or USB flash drive. Then, boot from the media you created and do a reinstall (upgrade, not a fresh copy).
Posted By: Nederlander75

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/24/19 06:52 AM

0w20’s the Devil.
Posted By: 4WD

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/24/19 11:19 AM

Yes … used to run 5w20 PG in our Fusion Hybrid … but no longer at Walmart here …
That 2.0L has +/- 110k now … so about to try M1 EP 5w30 to use some stash …
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/29/19 07:48 PM

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Are you going to cut open your oil filter after this OCI? Be interesting if the M1 EP frees some particulate like it did with my Expedition.

Do you think the combination of the PAO/ester-based M1 EP 0W-20 SN PLUS and oversized full-synthetic Fram Ultra XG3600 has been cleaning the carbon-deposit buildup in my engine? The improvement in the way my car drives has been surreal.

I think I have found the winning combination of oil and filter. If I had a new car that recommended thinner oil, I would use the same.

The UOA performance remains to be seen.
Posted By: 4WD

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/29/19 08:16 PM

Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Are you going to cut open your oil filter after this OCI? Be interesting if the M1 EP frees some particulate like it did with my Expedition.

Do you think the combination of the PAO/ester-based M1 EP 0W-20 SN PLUS and oversized full-synthetic Fram Ultra XG3600 has been cleaning the carbon-deposit buildup in my engine? The improvement in the way my car drives has been surreal.

I think I have found the winning combination of oil and filter. If I had a new car that recommended thinner oil, I would use the same.

The UOA performance remains to be seen.


I still wonder if the intent of M1 AP was to draw more attention to (better value) M1 EP …
I’m using the same oil as you in two 355H/383T V8’s
Posted By: edyvw

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/29/19 08:19 PM

Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Are you going to cut open your oil filter after this OCI? Be interesting if the M1 EP frees some particulate like it did with my Expedition.

Do you think the combination of the PAO/ester-based M1 EP 0W-20 SN PLUS and oversized full-synthetic Fram Ultra XG3600 has been cleaning the carbon-deposit buildup in my engine? The improvement in the way my car drives has been surreal.

I think I have found the winning combination of oil and filter. If I had a new car that recommended thinner oil, I would use the same.

The UOA performance remains to be seen.

What is it? 40hp more? 50lb-ft more?
Posted By: anndel

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/29/19 08:23 PM

Hmmm, old post but hope you still have this car. If it were mine, I would go with 20W-50 since it doesn't need thin oils for the VVTi.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/29/19 08:40 PM

Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Are you going to cut open your oil filter after this OCI? Be interesting if the M1 EP frees some particulate like it did with my Expedition.

Do you think the combination of the PAO/ester-based M1 EP 0W-20 SN PLUS and oversized full-synthetic Fram Ultra XG3600 has been cleaning the carbon-deposit buildup in my engine? The improvement in the way my car drives has been surreal.

I think I have found the winning combination of oil and filter. If I had a new car that recommended thinner oil, I would use the same.

The UOA performance remains to be seen.


I don't know, but I've had excellent results with the AFE products in our Expedition (zero consumption) and will run the EP going forward in our new RAM, which is the current fill. Do you intend on cutting your filter open? I'd suggest doing so, as that may answer your question.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/29/19 09:56 PM

Originally Posted by 4WD
I still wonder if the intent of M1 AP was to draw more attention to (better value) M1 EP …
I’m using the same oil as you in two 355H/383T V8’s

M1 AP 0W-20 has similar PAO levels as M1 EP 0W-20 but other AP grades have a lot less PAO than both the vanilla M1 and M1 EP. Looking at MSDSs alone, we can't rule out POE esters or alkylated naphthalene (AN) but I wouldn't count on the base-oil quality of M1 AP for grades other than 0W-20.

However, various studies have shown that the rate of the antioxidant treatment has an equally large effect on the oil oxidation and OCI length. Therefore, the theory has that the M1 AP has more antioxidant than the M1 EP, which in turn has more antioxidant than the vanilla M1.

Here is the table that lists the A_Harman index as well as the PAO and GTL content for selected oils. POE and AN is not shown. For Exxon Mobil oils, if everything is blank, it's mostly Group III or the balance is Group III if the base oil percentages add to less than 70% or so.

The VII column is equal to 1 - A_Harman index. Divide it by two to get the rough percentage of the VII treatment rate; however, actual VII treatment rate depends on the type of the VII -- on its ability to increase the viscosity and its resistance to temporary shear.

[Linked Image]
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/29/19 09:59 PM

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
I don't know, but I've had excellent results with the AFE products in our Expedition (zero consumption) and will run the EP going forward in our new RAM, which is the current fill. Do you intend on cutting your filter open? I'd suggest doing so, as that may answer your question.

Is it worth getting my saw dirty? Can you tell if they are the deposits removed by the oil? Do you have pictures?
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/29/19 10:59 PM

Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
I don't know, but I've had excellent results with the AFE products in our Expedition (zero consumption) and will run the EP going forward in our new RAM, which is the current fill. Do you intend on cutting your filter open? I'd suggest doing so, as that may answer your question.

Is it worth getting my saw dirty? Can you tell if they are the deposits removed by the oil? Do you have pictures?



Sure, it looked like this:
[Linked Image]
[Linked Image]
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/29/19 11:26 PM

Thanks, that looks like a lot of dirt. Do you regularly look inside your oil filters? Was it different before this OCI?
Posted By: PimTac

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/29/19 11:42 PM

That does seem like a lot but then again I’ve never cut open a filter. I always assumed any dirt would be very tiny and sludgy.

Gokhan, I am planning on running the EP on my next change coming up here soon so these assessments are interesting.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/30/19 12:29 AM

Originally Posted by Gokhan
Thanks, that looks like a lot of dirt. Do you regularly look inside your oil filters? Was it different before this OCI?

It's been like 10 years now but IIRC, there was nothing of significance until I started running M1 0w-40 in it? Don't hold me to that though. I don't recall getting much, if anything, in the filters from the Petro-Canada oils, but M1 0w-40 stirred this stuff up and it continued when I switched to the AFE 0w-30, which I ran for several OCI's and this tapered off and stopped after like 5 OCI's.
Posted By: ofelas

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/30/19 01:28 AM

AFE = the younger brother of AME ?
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 03/30/19 01:30 AM

Originally Posted by ofelas
AFE = the younger brother of AME ?


Mobil 1 Advanced Fuel Economy
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 09/07/19 07:35 PM

Update:

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/5207086/re-castrol#Post5207086
Posted By: Rav4H2019

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 09/10/19 02:44 AM

For me Toyota put an end to my concerns about thin v. thick and cafe requirements.


Page 673 of owners manual of my 2019 rav4 hybrid states that
" An oil with a higher viscosity (one with a higher value) may be better suited if the vehicle is operated at high speeds, or under extreme load conditions. "

0W16 is the preferred oil here in USA.

So a thicker oil might provide better protection at high speed's like driving 8 hours on the highway on a hot summer day.

This is further confirmed by 2019 rav4 hybrid owner manual for Australia. It allows 10w30 roughly at 0 F and 15w40 at roughly 10F.

So now I have no more concerns about vvt etc. not working properly as I use thicker oil in warmer temperatures.
Posted By: Navi

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 09/10/19 08:42 AM

My goal is to put at least 150k on my vehicles so I vote thick. No "20s" like 5W20. All I use is 5W40.
Posted By: Gokhan

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 09/10/19 10:22 PM

I think this thin/thick thing has become a moot issue now. When I was in the market for a new car, I was looking at the BMW X3, and it turns out that all new BMWs and Audis, except for the racing versions, are now using 0W-20. Every car is trying to improve its MPG and oils with HTHS viscosity ≥ 3.5 cP are becoming a thing of the past, regardless of whether you live in US or Europe. TGDI engines, hybrids and plug-in hybrids, and EVs are becoming common for the same reason.

Moreover, 0W-16 is now becoming mainstream and 0W-20 is a "thick oil" now.

If I had a new car and was worried that 0W-16 or 0W-20 was too thin, I would probably only go up to a synthetic 5W-20, which usually has a base oil as thick as that of a 5W-40 and considerably thicker than that of a 5W-30 and the HTHS viscosity should be sufficient for most applications unless you are really pushing the vehicle to extremes.

Moreover, most new cars come with free-maintenance periods and you don't get a say on the oil choice.
Posted By: painfx

Re: Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict - 09/11/19 02:46 AM

So far I have used Mobil 1 0w-16 AFE year round (snow season and hot summer) on my Camry. I don't have any oil consumption problem. It is much cheaper than the TGMO and readily available at Wal-Mart. I pair it up with Fram Ultra. Works well for me.
© 2019 Bob Is The Oil Guy