0W-20 required for emissions certification

[Nederlander75]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: JOD
Originally Posted By: Trav
Nice Green enviro weenie label.

This is the best part..
Reduced wear on both cold start and fast idle. What about the rest of the time?



Isn't it possible that it could offer the same protection the rest of the time while reducing wear at the points during which the engine experiences most of its wear?


Given that cold start is more than just how quickly oil gets to places (e.g. see the sequence IV tests, which purposely hold the oil at a temperature where the oil is too cold to activate the additives in the cam region), saying that xW-20 offers more "cold start protection" is patently a stretch, when it's the period between cold, and activated additives that's most of "cold start wear"

http://www.stlehouston.com/2HoustonSTLE/2011-2012/Program/Lubricant Additives-Heverly-2012_2_8.pdf P20


Would you please elaborate or dumb down your point Shannow?

 

[friendly_jacek]

Originally Posted By: Shannow


Given that cold start is more than just how quickly oil gets to places (e.g. see the sequence IV tests, which purposely hold the oil at a temperature where the oil is too cold to activate the additives in the cam region), saying that xW-20 offers more "cold start protection" is patently a stretch, when it's the period between cold, and activated additives that's most of "cold start wear"

http://www.stlehouston.com/2HoustonSTLE/2011-2012/Program/Lubricant Additives-Heverly-2012_2_8.pdf P20


Agree 100% that cold start wear is not oil related but rather unburnt fuel, water condensation and acids related. However, using light oils for the fast idle sequence that runs roughly 2000 RPM in Toyotas puts less stress on the engine and reduces wear. I totally buy that.

 

[tudorart]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Wouldn't a 0w-30 get the same start up pumpability as well as whatever else that fancy picture says since it's also a 0w.
I know that a 20 grade being slightly thinner will get a negligeable consumption decrease once the oil is up to operating temp but shouldn't they be equal at start up?
I suppose it depends on the oil and whether it's a "thick" 20 grade or a "thin" 30 grade right?
Our conversations must look like lunacy to outsiders looking in,on how we can split even the finest hair.


No.

The MRV requirements for a 20 weight to qualify as a 0W are different than for a 30 weight, which are different from a 40 weight...etc.

For example, using three Mobil 1 oils:

MRV @ -40C:
0w20: 9,200cP
0w30: 13,250cP
0w40: 31,000cP

You can clearly see how much lighter the AFE oils are over the 0w40, despite the fact that they are all 0Wxx.

I thought is 60000cP@-40 max with no yield stress + the CCS testing 6200max@-35C for any 0W. Is there any other documentation that adds to the SAE J300?

 

[Clevy]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Wouldn't a 0w-30 get the same start up pumpability as well as whatever else that fancy picture says since it's also a 0w.
I know that a 20 grade being slightly thinner will get a negligeable consumption decrease once the oil is up to operating temp but shouldn't they be equal at start up?
I suppose it depends on the oil and whether it's a "thick" 20 grade or a "thin" 30 grade right?
Our conversations must look like lunacy to outsiders looking in,on how we can split even the finest hair.


No.

The MRV requirements for a 20 weight to qualify as a 0W are different than for a 30 weight, which are different from a 40 weight...etc.

For example, using three Mobil 1 oils:

MRV @ -40C:
0w20: 9,200cP
0w30: 13,250cP
0w40: 31,000cP

You can clearly see how much lighter the AFE oils are over the 0w40, despite the fact that they are all 0Wxx.

Thank you for that very good explanation.
No. I'm not being sarcastic

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: tudorart
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Wouldn't a 0w-30 get the same start up pumpability as well as whatever else that fancy picture says since it's also a 0w.
I know that a 20 grade being slightly thinner will get a negligeable consumption decrease once the oil is up to operating temp but shouldn't they be equal at start up?
I suppose it depends on the oil and whether it's a "thick" 20 grade or a "thin" 30 grade right?
Our conversations must look like lunacy to outsiders looking in,on how we can split even the finest hair.


No.

The MRV requirements for a 20 weight to qualify as a 0W are different than for a 30 weight, which are different from a 40 weight...etc.

For example, using three Mobil 1 oils:

MRV @ -40C:
0w20: 9,200cP
0w30: 13,250cP
0w40: 31,000cP

You can clearly see how much lighter the AFE oils are over the 0w40, despite the fact that they are all 0Wxx.

I thought is 60000cP@-40 max with no yield stress + the CCS testing 6200max@-35C for any 0W. Is there any other documentation that adds to the SAE J300?


I can't remember who posted it originally, but it was sometime last year as we were having a discussion about the MRV differences between 0wXX oils. It is possible that it is incorrect with regards to the limits. But the trends observed with the lubricants certainly do support it.

And consider this extra data point:

PP 0w20:
MRV: 17,500cP @ -40C
CCS: 4,840cP @ -35C

PP 5w20:
MRV: 9,700cP @ -35C
CCS: 4,250cP @ -35C

Even if we double the MRV for the PP 5w20, it is still WELL under the 60,000cP ceiling you speak of. And its CCS would more than qualify for it being a 0w20 oil.

 

[Clevy]

So even pp 5w-20 would qualify under that criteria. Interesting indeed. So for the 5 degree difference it's hardly worth seeking out the pp 0w-20 since its more difficult to find in bigger jugs.
I've got afe for my next change but I'm looking forward to the next rollback and 20 buck jugs of pp. unless my engine dissolves with the afe that is.
Hehehe
Thanks Overkill

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: tudorart
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Wouldn't a 0w-30 get the same start up pumpability as well as whatever else that fancy picture says since it's also a 0w.
I know that a 20 grade being slightly thinner will get a negligeable consumption decrease once the oil is up to operating temp but shouldn't they be equal at start up?
I suppose it depends on the oil and whether it's a "thick" 20 grade or a "thin" 30 grade right?
Our conversations must look like lunacy to outsiders looking in,on how we can split even the finest hair.


No.

The MRV requirements for a 20 weight to qualify as a 0W are different than for a 30 weight, which are different from a 40 weight...etc.

For example, using three Mobil 1 oils:

MRV @ -40C:
0w20: 9,200cP
0w30: 13,250cP
0w40: 31,000cP

You can clearly see how much lighter the AFE oils are over the 0w40, despite the fact that they are all 0Wxx.

I thought is 60000cP@-40 max with no yield stress + the CCS testing 6200max@-35C for any 0W. Is there any other documentation that adds to the SAE J300?


I can't remember who posted it originally, but it was sometime last year as we were having a discussion about the MRV differences between 0wXX oils. It is possible that it is incorrect with regards to the limits. But the trends observed with the lubricants certainly do support it.

And consider this extra data point:

PP 0w20:
MRV: 17,500cP @ -40C
CCS: 4,840cP @ -35C

PP 5w20:
MRV: 9,700cP @ -35C
CCS: 4,250cP @ -35C

Even if we double the MRV for the PP 5w20, it is still WELL under the 60,000cP ceiling you speak of. And its CCS would more than qualify for it being a 0w20 oil.

I've wondered the same thing myself, except that if an oil meets the requirements of a 0W rating it MUST be labelled a 0W oil.
It's one thing for the small boutique formulators to fudge the rules but not the major players that abide by the API and ACEA SAE grading rules.

For example, who cares that M1 racing oils; their M1 R 0W-30 and M1 R 0W-50 will pump at -40 degrees? Nobody, but they're labelled as such simply because they will. The only spec's that are important are their HTHSV and VIs.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
according to Toyota:
Quote:
Q: Why do some models with a particular engine require synthetic oil and other models using the same engine do not?
A: The oil required is partly based on the emissions certification for the model/engine combination, not the engine alone. Since some models were certified to a more stringent emissions level, they have to be serviced with synthetic oil to maintain their certification, mileage, and overall performance.

http://www.toyotaofgreenville.com/ow-20-oil.htm

Now, to clarify, I'm not against 0W-20 oils, and happy about it in my Prius.

I actually agree with each of these claims about 0W-20 oils:

But, if something is not listed above, I read no improvement or worse.

Your title is misleading -- emissions standards do not require a specific oil. It would be laughable if you went to a smog-test station and they performed a UOA on your oil and checked its viscosity.

Otherwise, I agree that 0W-20 may improve the emissions by a small amount and I also agree with the other stated benefits of 0W-20. That's why I use it, specifically the Toyota 0W-20 SN made by ExxonMobil!

 

[Gokhan]

Quote:
I can't remember who posted it originally, but it was sometime last year as we were having a discussion about the MRV differences between 0wXX oils. It is possible that it is incorrect with regards to the limits. But the trends observed with the lubricants certainly do support it.

And consider this extra data point:

PP 0w20:
MRV: 17,500cP @ -40C
CCS: 4,840cP @ -35C

PP 5w20:
MRV: 9,700cP @ -35C
CCS: 4,250cP @ -35C

Even if we double the MRV for the PP 5w20, it is still WELL under the 60,000cP ceiling you speak of. And its CCS would more than qualify for it being a 0w20 oil.

First, the data posted is wrong. For 0W-xx, measurements for CCS and MRV are made at -35 C and -40 C, respectively. For 5W-xx, measurements are made at -30 C and -35 C, respectively.

The argument why this 5W-20 can't qualify as 0W-20 is equally flawed as why this 15W-40 can't qualify as 0W-40. If you decrease the temperature by even 5 C, the viscosity will increase exponentially because you are starting to reach the pour point of the oil.

It looks like Pennzoil 0W-20's are all over the place. There are at least three kinds, some with low NOACK, some with high NOACK, etc.:

http://www.epc.shell.com/Docs/GPCDOC_X_cbe_26680_key_140003301009_200909171521.pdf
http://www.epc.shell.com/Docs/GPCDOC_X_cbe_24855_key_140007466171_201212050515.pdf
http://www.epc.shell.com/Docs/GPCDOC_X_cbe_24855_key_140007054933_201202271148.pdf

It looks like the latest one (October 2012) is their best formulation, assuming that that's what's actually sold.

 

[Ram01]

Will 0w20 oil protect in the summer heat?????

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: Ram01
Will 0w20 oil protect in the summer heat?????

Which 0W-20 and compared to what?
If you're comparing to a 5W-20 dino I'd say yes to any 0W-20 with a VI not much above 170.
If you're referring to an ultra high VI OEM 0W-20 these oils are significantly lighter consiquently I'd suggest first installing an oil pressure gauge to make sure that you're maintaining your minimum hot operational viscosity. If you don't have an OP gauge but still want to use a high VI OEM 0W-20 oil but play it safe, just add a pint of something heavier such as M1 0W-40. This will raise the HTHSV rating of the oil into the 2.7cP range and still retain much of the cold start advantage over a 5W-20.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan

First, the data posted is wrong. For 0W-xx, measurements for CCS and MRV are made at -35 C and -40 C, respectively. For 5W-xx, measurements are made at -30 C and -35 C, respectively.


Excellent, than that means the data sheet I have from SOPUS is wrong. I thought the same as you as well, but the sheet says -35C for CCS for the 5w20 (and the 5w30)

I'm certainly not going to argue that the possibility that the PDS is wrong isn't a possibility.

Quote:
The argument why this 5W-20 can't qualify as 0W-20 is equally flawed as why this 15W-40 can't qualify as 0W-40. If you decrease the temperature by even 5 C, the viscosity will increase exponentially because you are starting to reach the pour point of the oil.


IIRC, MRV approximately doubles with the 5C change from -35C to -40C. There was a company or two that would post both temperatures for their lubricant. That's specifically why I said that in the statement you quoted from me. Also, for reference, the pour points for the 0w20 and 5w20 were -48C and -45C respectively.

And that STILL doesn't explain that if the limit is 60,000cP for MRV with regards to a 0wXX lubricant, why an oil like PP 5w20, which clearly wouldn't go from 9,700cP to 60,000cP within 5C, isn't a 0w20. That is, unless the 60,000cP figure is wrong, which is what I was questioning.

Quote:
It looks like Pennzoil 0W-20's are all over the place. There are at least three kinds, some with low NOACK, some with high NOACK, etc.:

http://www.epc.shell.com/Docs/GPCDOC_X_cbe_26680_key_140003301009_200909171521.pdf
http://www.epc.shell.com/Docs/GPCDOC_X_cbe_24855_key_140007466171_201212050515.pdf
http://www.epc.shell.com/Docs/GPCDOC_X_cbe_24855_key_140007054933_201202271148.pdf

It looks like the latest one (October 2012) is their best formulation, assuming that that's what's actually sold.


I was just using the one I have on hand, which has 0w20, 5w20, 5w30 and 10w30 on it. PM me your e-mail and I'll fire you off a copy if you want it, as that was the basis for the numbers I cited.

 

[Gokhan]

There are often typos in the datasheets; therefore, I wouldn't be surprised if Pennzoil had a typo with the temperature.

These are the SAE viscosity specs:

Code:


Grade CCS (cP @ C) MRV (cP @ C) KV100_min (cSt) KV100_max (cSt) HTHSV_min (cP)



0W 6200 at -35 60000 at -40 3.8 - -

5W 6600 at -30 60000 at -35 3.8 - -

10W 7000 at -25 60000 at -30 4.1 - -

15W 7000 at -20 60000 at -25 5.6 - -

20W 9500 at -15 60000 at -20 5.6 - -

25W 13000 at -10 60000 at -15 9.3 - -

20 - - 5.6
30 - - 9.3
40 - - 12.5
40 - - 12.5
50 - - 16.3
60 - - 21.9 pre>


I believe MRV values (low-temperature pumping viscosity) are easier to attain but the CCS values (low-temperature cranking viscosity) are harder to attain. This may be the answer to your question.

 

[Gokhan]

Nevertheless, if a blender labels a 0W-20 oil as a 5W-20 oil for only marketing purposes so that people who are afraid of 0W-20 or whose cars specify 5W-20 (dino) can buy it, it would still be obviously legal to do so, as 0W- can always meet the CCS and MRV specs of 5W-. The converse is (also obviously) not always legal, as 5W- cannot always meet the CCS and MRV specs of 0W-. This is another manifestation of the ever-recurring question: If you're going to buy a synthetic 5W-20, why not buy a (synthetic) 0W-20 instead and get a usually better-spec oil?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
There are often typos in the datasheets; therefore, I wouldn't be surprised if Pennzoil had a typo with the temperature.

These are the SAE viscosity specs:

Code:


Grade CCS (cP @ C) MRV (cP @ C) KV100_min (cSt) KV100_max (cSt) HTHSV_min (cP)



0W 6200 at -35 60000 at -40 3.8 - -

5W 6600 at -30 60000 at -35 3.8 - -

10W 7000 at -25 60000 at -30 4.1 - -

15W 7000 at -20 60000 at -25 5.6 - -

20W 9500 at -15 60000 at -20 5.6 - -

25W 13000 at -10 60000 at -15 9.3 - -

20 - - 5.6
30 - - 9.3
40 - - 12.5
40 - - 12.5
50 - - 16.3
60 - - 21.9 pre>


I believe MRV values (low-temperature pumping viscosity) are easier to attain but the CCS values (low-temperature cranking viscosity) are harder to attain. This may be the answer to your question.




That is EXACTLY the answer to my question with regards to the numbers, as if we assume CCS approximately doubles like MRV, that would mean that the PP 5w20, with a CCS of 4,250cP at -30C (instead of the -35C listed in the PDS) would be over 8,000cP at -35C and could NOT classify as a 0w20

 

[PandaBear]

I "think" the mandate of 0w20 has to do with forcing someone to use a synthetic rather than a viscosity benefit. You can't tell it from 5w20 under normal use anyways but they can spec a 10k OCI without concern of someone using dino.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
I "think" the mandate of 0w20 has to do with forcing someone to use a synthetic rather than a viscosity benefit. You can't tell it from 5w20 under normal use anyways but they can spec a 10k OCI without concern of someone using dino.

Not true because you're forgetting about the viscosity index, which is not part of the SAE viscosity specification. x and y in xW-y specify the viscosity only for extreme cold and 100 C.

Toyota 0W-20 SN has a viscosity index well over 200, which means it flows much thinner than a 5W-20 dino (which has a much lower viscosity index) or a typical 5W-20 synthetic at 40 C and below, as the viscosity index is a direct measure of the relation between the 40 C and 100 C viscosities.

 

[PandaBear]

But so far I've not seen any non synthetic 0w20.

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: Ram01
Will 0w20 oil protect in the summer heat?????


The last two summers we have had very hot temps, especially this year. Many days well over 100F with several 105-109F. M1 0-20 performed flawlessly in both Fords. Hot or cold, this stuff works well.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
But so far I've not seen any non synthetic 0w20.

No, that's because dino 0W-20 wouldn't meet the 15% maximum NOACK volatility imposed by API, as such thin 0W- dino base stock would be too volatile.

You're right that an important advantage of 0W-20 is that it's synthetic, which allows longer OCIs, along with providing many other benefits of synthetics. I was also also pointing out the very high viscosity indexes of many 0W-20s such as the Toyota brand, which means they have a much lower 40 C viscosity in comparison to an xW-20 with a higher viscosity index (and a comparable 100 C viscosity).