0w20 Specifications

[PSE]

First time poster.. lot's of good discussion and information on here!

I have decided to start doing my own work now that my Sienna is off of the Toyota free maintenance plan and looking for the best oil for a 10k interval.

Looking through all of the information on here, I have a question about the specification differences between 0w20's available.

There seems to be a dividing line between the auto OEM 0w20's (Toyota/Subaru, Mazda, Honda) and the big brand 0w20 specs (M1, PP, castrol...), with the auto OEM's spec'ing very high VI. The big brands going with something closer to their 5w20 spec rather than a high VI 0w20.

Does anyone know why oil companies are choosing not to make (market in the case of XOM), high VI oils, similar to Eneos or TGMO? Is it that the volume for the J-style oils is not there yet? Is this to have a product that is compatible with both 0w and 5w20 recommended engines (fuel economy play to 5w people)?

 

[Oldwolf]

I'll say stick with TMO 0W20, or go with Mobil 1. I'll be facing the same choice with my 2012 Prius one day soon.

 

[bourne]

I am in the same boat. From an economical point of view, QSUD 0w20 is an excellent oil with decent VI. M1 AFE 0w20 and PP 0w20 are a close second. I havent gotten to the point, where I start calling all Honda/Acura/Toyota/Mazda dealers to see who sells 0w20 cheapest.

Unless I can get a deal from the dealer which beats QSUD 0w20 value for money, I believe that will be what I use in the Mazda at least for the first couple of oil changes.

Here is a kicker, Mazda bulk OEM 0w20 is made by Castrol and isnt a whole lot different than Edge 0w20 in terms of VI specs. Its the bottled oil and FF thats different, has a higher VI and higher moly content. So obviously, manufacturers are ok with using a low VI 0w20 oil.

 

[Sam_Julier]

Check this post:

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2781625

 

[LeakySeals]

Ironically Toyota and PP are more similar than Toyota and M1.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

I just dumped the suprising thick in the engine SN Edge w/Ti ( due to problems when I tried LiquiMoly. I made a Franken brew just to rinse any extra moly from the sump and found the franken brew to run much nicer at all temps than any single high performance 0w20 I've run - which includes Subaru Idemitsu 0w20 ( very very thin) and the aforemnentioned Edge which felt too thick enevn in the summer (car would not pull below 2000 rpm).
The magic franken brew is:

1qt MC-SS 5w20, 1qt QSGB, 1qt Syntec(API-SM) 5w20 and the balance of 1 cup Idemitsu 0w20 and pint PP 5w20. Not recommended to blend but "fell into" Outstanding results this time around.

 

[PSE]

interesting responses. thanks!

In general, I am a fan of SOPUS products and I would like to try PP 0w20. I can get it for $8.50/qt, similar to the TGMO +/-. I'm not sure which I will go with but I have had really good luck with PU in my other vehicles. I may go that route and have it checked for wear at the end. The M1 UOA's generally look to have higher Fe content than those of PP/PU, indicating more wear. I have to take a look again at all of the TGMO UOA's to see if that is consistent.

 

[cp3]

Some will say because the auto manufacturers want you to ruin your engine so you will buy a new vehicle.

Personally, I think it is strictly a business decision. I beleive that the high VI oils are more costly to produce and would reduce profit margin for the oil manufacturers or drive selling prices up. With the vast majority of the population not even knowing what VI is let alone why high VI would be better, they would not be happy with the higher prices.

XOM, SOPUS & BP are still selling their current oils at their current proffit margin. What benefit is it to them to change to a high VI formulation and reduce profit?

 

[LeakySeals]

Check your local Walmart, the 5qt jugs of PP are $24.50. PU is thicker, closer to M1.

 

[cp3]

I have no doubt that your Sienna will live a long happy life on PP. I doubt that it would complain if you decided to go with 5w20 PYB either.

 

[bepperb]

I doubt the engine would complain, but if it does the warranty service manager will be complaining about you running 10,000 miles on a conventional 5w-20.

I don't see what benefit Mobil or SOPUS would have in making a high VI 0w-20, and it would definitely add to the cost. Even ENEOS who make sustina 0w-20 with it's ultra high VI have a lower cost full synthetic 0w-20 as well.

Personally, I can't get PP or PU in 0w-20 but our Walmart has M1 in that weight at 26.xx for 5 quarts. So that's what we're running for now.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

There are no "conventional" ILSAC PCMO anymore.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: cp3

Personally, I think it is strictly a business decision. I beleive that the high VI oils are more costly to produce and would reduce profit margin for the oil manufacturers or drive selling prices up. With the vast majority of the population not even knowing what VI is let alone why high VI would be better, they would not be happy with the higher prices.

XOM, SOPUS & BP are still selling their current oils at their current proffit margin. What benefit is it to them to change to a high VI formulation and reduce profit?

I agree that's the reason.

PSE, welcome to BITOG!
One important distinction between ultra high VI oils and their lower VI counterparts is that yes that are much lighter on start-up but also somewhat lighter at normal operating temp's.
So if your vehicle is spec'd for a high VI oil, and it is, running one of the lower VI 0W-20 oils is electing to run an oil that's clearly heavier than necessary.
The Japanese OEM high VI 0W-20 oils can usually be acquired for a pretty decent price as there are enough to choose from without having to resort to an aftermarket name brand oil. Besides, even if you have to pay a bit more, the fuel economy advantage (whether you can measure it or not it's there) will more than negate the difference.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Besides, even if you have to pay a bit more, the fuel economy advantage (whether you can measure it or not it's there) will more than negate the difference.


Maybe. If you get a 0.5% increase in fuel economy (not enough to measure), and spend $1,400/10,000 miles on fuel, you're saving $7/10,000 miles on the high-VI stuff. If you change the oil every 10,000 miles, you probably only break even on a $7 savings. If you change the oil more often, you lose money with the high-VI oil.

I'm not arguing for or against high-VI oil, just suggesting that an immeasurable fuel economy increase may not pay the difference.

 

[bepperb]

Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
There are no "conventional" ILSAC PCMO anymore.


Well that's one opinion. Problem with that is when the warranty specifies 5000 miles on conventional OR 10,000 on synthetic 0w-20... and of course you would be arguing your case in the Toyota service bay.

Maybe you're right, though I don't agree with and I doubt they would either. Owners manually is pretty specific in this regard. Plenty of group 2 motor oils out there. IMO a "synthetic" has a base stock with no group 1 or 2 oils.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

Group II is not conventional by any means and group III is not synthetic though they both "only" meet ILSAC GF5 spec which allows OLM service. If I was to run a bi-annual or annual OCI I would not run anything but a tech group iv, + oil like Amsoil or MOTUL or FUCHS or Pentosin or sim Deutsch LL spec oil. Their are also a lot of special considerations amoungst technical synthetics depending on application.
VW group and MB make oil choices easy with their approval list. Neither toyota or subaru have a specs beyond ILSAC. the term "synthetic" may imply improved performace but,note that Ashland/Valvoline have gone on record stating stating that their ILSAC "synthetic" oil was not designed for long life applications. Where does that leave you?

 

[cp3]

Originally Posted By: bepperb
I doubt the engine would complain, but if it does the warranty service manager will be complaining about you running 10,000 miles on a conventional 5w-20.


Yes, I wasn't trying to reccomend a 10k OCI on conventional, I was just refering to the oil choice.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Besides, even if you have to pay a bit more, the fuel economy advantage (whether you can measure it or not it's there) will more than negate the difference.


Maybe. If you get a 0.5% increase in fuel economy (not enough to measure), and spend $1,400/10,000 miles on fuel, you're saving $7/10,000 miles on the high-VI stuff. If you change the oil every 10,000 miles, you probably only break even on a $7 savings. If you change the oil more often, you lose money with the high-VI oil.

I'm not arguing for or against high-VI oil, just suggesting that an immeasurable fuel economy increase may not pay the difference.

Okay, using you're conservative example you'll save the equivalent of 2 bucks per quart with a 10,000 mile OCI and just a buck over 5,000 miles.
In the parts of the country that have real winters and/or your driving involves a lot of short commutes you can easily quadruple those savings and that doesn't factor in lubrication benefits of the high VI oils.

If you can pick up one of these oils for 5-6 bucks per quart, as is often the case, it really doesn't make much sense to use anything else in most situations.


And unless you do primarily long distance driving,

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
VW group and MB make oil choices easy with their approval list. Neither toyota or subaru have a specs beyond ILSAC. the term "synthetic" may imply improved performace but,note that Ashland/Valvoline have gone on record stating stating that their ILSAC "synthetic" oil was not designed for long life applications.


Absolutely. I think that's where some companies might be setting themselves up for trouble by having different OCIs for "conventional" and for "synthetic." Unless they have their own specification or use an ACEA specification, generic "synthetic" doesn't mean much. That could be anything from M1 to Delvac 1 to Amsoil or RP or whatever generic SN/GF-5 an oil company decided to slap a "synthetic" label on.

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: PSE
First time poster.. lot's of good discussion and information on here!

I have decided to start doing my own work now that my Sienna is off of the Toyota free maintenance plan and looking for the best oil for a 10k interval.

Looking through all of the information on here, I have a question about the specification differences between 0w20's available.

There seems to be a dividing line between the auto OEM 0w20's (Toyota/Subaru, Mazda, Honda) and the big brand 0w20 specs (M1, PP, castrol...), with the auto OEM's spec'ing very high VI. The big brands going with something closer to their 5w20 spec rather than a high VI 0w20.

Does anyone know why oil companies are choosing not to make (market in the case of XOM), high VI oils, similar to Eneos or TGMO? Is it that the volume for the J-style oils is not there yet? Is this to have a product that is compatible with both 0w and 5w20 recommended engines (fuel economy play to 5w people)?




You are putting a lot of stock into VIs. What are the VI #s for Toyo, Honada, PP, etc.