Interesting look at Mazda OE 0w20 SN/GF5

I should also mention that ASTM D341 fails for oils using a PMA VII. Therefore, if indeed a PMA VII is used, all bets are off.

Verification of the density and ASTM D341 extrapolation in the VII and HTFS calculation

It would be interesting if Total indeed used a PMA VII. It would be strange if they did because Mazda recommends this oil in its newest turbocharged engines as a PMA VII increases the deposits substantially, but the formulation may have changed now. If someone can find out a PMA VII was used or not in this oil, it would be great.

For what it's worth, the Pennzoil DEXRON® III/MERCON® ATF uses a PMA VII, but ATF temperatures are not nearly as high as engine-oil temperatures and the thermal stability of the VII is much less of a concern as a result.

Pennzoil DEXRON® III/MERCON® ATF
 
Originally Posted by Gokhan
I should also mention that ASTM D341 fails for oils using a PMA VII. Therefore, if indeed a PMA VII is used, all bets are off.

Verification of the density and ASTM D341 extrapolation in the VII and HTFS calculation

It would be interesting if Total indeed used a PMA VII. It would be strange if they did because Mazda recommends this oil in its newest turbocharged engines as a PMA VII increases the deposits substantially, but the formulation may have changed now. If someone can find out a PMA VII was used or not in this oil, it would be great.

For what it's worth, the Pennzoil DEXRON® III/MERCON® ATF uses a PMA VII, but ATF temperatures are not nearly as high as engine-oil temperatures and the thermal stability of the VII is much less of a concern as a result.

Pennzoil DEXRON® III/MERCON® ATF


The US spec Idemitsu oils use Methyl methacrylate as per their MSDS sheets. Both the moly (rebottled Mazda OEM) and Dex1 formulations of the ecomedalist have it.

IIRC Idemitsu holds a patent for Methyl methacrylate in oil, although that's not to say they wouldn't license it out for a price to other blenders.

I don't think the MMA is a problem, given as EcoMedalist not only meets GM Dexos specs, it was in fact the first oil to meet Dex 1 gen 2, which tests for all of that.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by littlehulkster
The US spec Idemitsu oils use Methyl methacrylate as per their MSDS sheets.

This is interesting, thanks for the info. Do the current MSDS's show PMA? It's hard to believe it would be able to pass the dexos1 Gen 2 turbocharger test with a PMA VII, as even a hydrogenated-styrene star VII has difficulty passing it.

I don't think the patent is an issue, as anyone can use any type of VII they like.
 
Thanks for the warm welcome!

Please excuse my weird german English. Actually I'm not at all into calculating this stuff myself and I would never want to be, as I had too little faith in extrapolating KV150 in the first place with obviously some VII seeing declining response, others seeing kind of "Gaussian", bell-shaped response, and then (maybe PMA-treated) oils like extreme-VI oil #10 from the Marx-papers.

Therefore I already felt some relief as you once stumbled across the Valvolines and thought about PMA for a moment, as I really appreciate your efforts nonetheless. In addition there seem's to be quite a problem of mixing measured HTHSV and plain routine numbers like 2.6 and 3.5 in the same tables.
So this VOA over here including HTHSV had made me put in the values just a day before you didn't - as you didn't have a HTHSV ready, I guessed. Now I just couldn't help myself any longer and registered :)

By now there is another Mazda Original Oil Supra X 0W-20 for Mazdas SPCCI with even higher VI around 240, more or less a sibling I'd say. Unfortunately again no reported HTHSV: https://www.oil-club.ru/forum/topic/41236-mazda-original-oil-supra-x-0w-20-%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%B5/page/9/#comments
Of course I'm aware that these can't be expected to be extreme examples of oils at least featuring GTL + Estolides etc. But in the end the calculator treats them like they were.

So I think that "true" reported HTHSV should at least be displayed in a different colour with a spread sheet lastly revealing pseudo-BO_DV not rounded for zero decimals! Half of the differences came from this, not from otherwise evolved formulations (which of course seem to change all the time, when I think of Mazdas Dexelia / Ultra 5W-30 over the years).
And then, well, I guess all is lacking transparency a little from both sides. We shouldn't think of all others except just one or two oils like Valvoline, Mazda,.. as sufficiently unproblematically calculable regarding their VM strategies. As long as no viscosity curves or additional high-shear-VI or at least DV150 become available from oily avantgarde, this is really valuable - as far as its limitations remain clear to everybody. Bad enough, when on the individual specs published we have to trust in same standards with no PQIA or else really jumping in very far.

So thank you, Gokhan!
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by littlehulkster
The US spec Idemitsu oils use Methyl methacrylate as per their MSDS sheets.

This is interesting, thanks for the info. Do the current MSDS's show PMA? It's hard to believe it would be able to pass the dexos1 Gen 2 turbocharger test with a PMA VII, as even a hydrogenated-styrene star VII has difficulty passing it.

I don't think the patent is an issue, as anyone can use any type of VII they like.


MSDS just lists Methyl methacrylate.

Here's the MSDS. It's current AFAIK.
 
Thank you for joining the discussion, blingo!

The calculator should work well, especially for the HTFS (BO DV150), if the VII type is not comb PMA. ASTM D341 doesn't work for a comb PMA VII, and it didn't work for a very high content of a star hydrogenated styrene isoprene VII, as I posted in the verification link above.

Yes, not knowing the HTHS doesn't help. HTHS can be roughly predicted for a linear OCP VII through the BO VI (from the last two columns).

Assuming the values in the German VOA and German PDS are correct, this oil must indeed be using a comb PMA VII, as an OCP or star VII would result in an ultra-high VI for the base oil, which is not possible. This is at least one useful qualitative information coming out of the calculator when things are seemingly breaking down.
 
Originally Posted by littlehulkster
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by littlehulkster
The US spec Idemitsu oils use Methyl methacrylate as per their MSDS sheets.

This is interesting, thanks for the info. Do the current MSDS's show PMA? It's hard to believe it would be able to pass the dexos1 Gen 2 turbocharger test with a PMA VII, as even a hydrogenated-styrene star VII has difficulty passing it.

I don't think the patent is an issue, as anyone can use any type of VII they like.
MSDS just lists Methyl methacrylate.

Here's the MSDS. It's current AFAIK.

Thanks. VII's are polymers as you know, and poly stands for the polymerization of the monomer methyl methacrylate; so, this is fine.

Interestingly on the Zepro website, there is another MSDS, which is almost identical, but there is no mention of methyl methacrylate.

Moreover, the percentage given for the methyl methacrylate is < 0.1%. This is nothing. You need at least around 5% if not more of solid PMA when used as a VII. It looks like methyl methacrylate is either a byproduct or contaminant, not an actual ingredient, here.

I also put the Zepro Eco Medalist Advanced Moly 0W-20 SN in my calculator, which assumes an OCP VII (and should also be useful for a star VII), and it nicely resulted in a BO VI = 151 (using the last two columns), subtracting 5-15 to account for the DDI package, this results in 136-146, which nicely points to a Group III+ base oil, as it should.

I don't think the Zepro Eco Medalist Advanced Moly 0W-20 SN uses a PMA VII. They probably experimented with PMA VII's in the early days of 0W-20's but have given up because of increased engine deposits.

Likewise I doubt the Mazda Original Oil Supra 0W-20 SN uses a PMA VII. I also doubt that the HTHS ~ 2.8 cP given in the German VOA is correct, which defeats the purpose of improving the fuel economy. I can't imagine Total would use a PMA VII in a modern engine which requires strict deposit control, but then you never know, as these Japanese-OEM oils are not subject to turbocharger tests. It's also interesting and ironic that Japanese OEM's have fought for acquired exemption for the TEOST 33C turbocharger test for SAE 0W-20 twice since the introduction of SN, even though this was because of the high moly preventing the passing of this test. This exemption and the lack of another turbocharger test in ILSAC don't help them formulating cleaner-running oils.
 
Here is a Russian VOA, and the KV40 and KV100 are incredibly identical within 0.01 cSt to the values in the Spanish VOA in the original post. It shows a slightly elevated oxidation, which means there is possibly a few percent of polyol ester (POE) in the base oil.

Mazda Original Oil Supra 0W-20 by Total VOA on Oil-Club Russia

Now, this is interesting. There is a new oil for the new Skyactiv-X engine called Mazda Supra-X Original Oil 0W-20 by Total, which curiously carries no certification--ILSAC or not--whatsoever.

Mazda Supra-X Original Oil 0W-20 by Total VOA on Oil-Club Russia

Its KV40 and KV100 are more in the lines of the German PDS for the Supra 0W-20 (without "-X"). It has a VI = 244. It almost undoubtedly uses a comb PMA VII according to the rough BO VI estimate given by my calculator (from the last two columns). Why in the world would you use a comb PMA VII extremely prone to deposit formation in an oil made for arguably the world's most advanced turbocharged engine??
crazy2.gif


I would use a GM dexos1 Gen 2/Gen 3 oil in these Mazda engines, which go through many strict engine tests. You can also use an ACEA C5/C6 Euro-OEM oil, which go through similarly strict engine tests. It's not clear what these Mazda OEM oils are tested against, especially when you see zero certifications on the bottle.
 
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by littlehulkster
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by littlehulkster
The US spec Idemitsu oils use Methyl methacrylate as per their MSDS sheets.

This is interesting, thanks for the info. Do the current MSDS's show PMA? It's hard to believe it would be able to pass the dexos1 Gen 2 turbocharger test with a PMA VII, as even a hydrogenated-styrene star VII has difficulty passing it.

I don't think the patent is an issue, as anyone can use any type of VII they like.
MSDS just lists Methyl methacrylate.

Here's the MSDS. It's current AFAIK.

Thanks. VII's are polymers as you know, and poly stands for the polymerization of the monomer methyl methacrylate; so, this is fine.

Interestingly on the Zepro website, there is another MSDS, which is almost identical, but there is no mention of methyl methacrylate.

Moreover, the percentage given for the methyl methacrylate is < 0.1%. This is nothing. You need at least around 5% if not more of solid PMA when used as a VII. It looks like methyl methacrylate is either a byproduct or contaminant, not an actual ingredient, here.

I also put the Zepro Eco Medalist Advanced Moly 0W-20 SN in my calculator, which assumes an OCP VII (and should also be useful for a star VII), and it nicely resulted in a BO VI = 151 (using the last two columns), subtracting 5-15 to account for the DDI package, this results in 136-146, which nicely points to a Group III+ base oil, as it should.

I don't think the Zepro Eco Medalist Advanced Moly 0W-20 SN uses a PMA VII. They probably experimented with PMA VII's in the early days of 0W-20's but have given up because of increased engine deposits.

Likewise I doubt the Mazda Original Oil Supra 0W-20 SN uses a PMA VII. I also doubt that the HTHS ~ 2.8 cP given in the German VOA is correct, which defeats the purpose of improving the fuel economy. I can't imagine Total would use a PMA VII in a modern engine which requires strict deposit control, but then you never know, as these Japanese-OEM oils are not subject to turbocharger tests. It's also interesting and ironic that Japanese OEM's have fought for acquired exemption for the TEOST 33C turbocharger test for SAE 0W-20 twice since the introduction of SN, even though this was because of the high moly preventing the passing of this test. This exemption and the lack of another turbocharger test in ILSAC don't help them formulating cleaner-running oils.



This patent specifically mentions the MMA in that sort of concentration and they're referencing an earlier patent which can be found here.

So the MMA is there for a reason, and does do something in the oil. The original patent holder claims MMA " has high thickening effect in comparison with a conventional acrylic lubricating oil additive; can improve a viscosity index with the addition of a small amount; and moreover can improve low-temperature characteristics, flow characteristics, and shear stability."
 
Originally Posted by littlehulkster
This patent specifically mentions the MMA in that sort of concentration and they're referencing an earlier patent which can be found here.

In that sort of concentration? Are you sure? The patent says 0.1-30%.
wink.gif


As I said you need at least around 5% PMA VII to achieve a desirable viscosity-index improvement. Sure, you can use only 0.1% if you want, but the effect would be negligible for all practical purposes. I am not sure why they even have this patent, as the PMA VII has been around forever, but I guess when you put three or more ingredients together (like the dispersants they mentioned), you want to have a patent so that others don't copy your blend. They may be trying to negate the deposit-forming effects of the notoriously dirty PMA VII using the dispersants.
 
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by littlehulkster
This patent specifically mentions the MMA in that sort of concentration and they're referencing an earlier patent which can be found here.

In that sort of concentration? Are you sure? The patent says 0.1-30%.
wink.gif


As I said you need at least around 5% PMA VII to achieve a desirable viscosity-index improvement. Sure, you can use only 0.1% if you want, but the effect would be negligible for all practical purposes. I am not sure why they even have this patent, as the PMA VII has been around forever, but I guess when you put three or more ingredients together (like the dispersants they mentioned), you want to have a patent so that others don't copy your blend. They may be trying to negate the deposit-forming effects of the notoriously dirty PMA VII using the dispersants.


No offense, but if you read the rest of the patent, they do explain why they did what they did. They claim, in fact, that the MMA prevents coking and copper release in the amounts used.

Idemitsu is a major corporation that's in the Toyota group. I trust they know what they're doing here.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by littlehulkster
No offense, but if you read the rest of the patent, they do explain why they did what they did. They claim, in fact, that the MMA prevents coking and copper release in the amounts used.

Idemitsu is a major corporation that's in the Toyota group. I trust they know what they're doing here.

That's fine. However, we don't even know if Idemitsu still uses PMA VII in significant concentrations. Mazda OEM oil is not made by Idemitsu but made by Total, and my calculator is not suggestive of significant PMA-VII use in the Idemitsu Zepro Eco Medalist Advanced Moly 0W-20 SN. There is a reason why the PMA VII is not popular. Didn't you see in the patent it says up to 30% PMA-VII concentration in the oil? Do you really want your engine oil to be made of 30% plastic?

Patents claim many things. That's what they are intended to do. However, it's also safe to ignore many claims in many patents. That's because patents are not scientific publications but more like legal documents, and the claims made usually go untested in the relevant engine tests etc.
 
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by littlehulkster
No offense, but if you read the rest of the patent, they do explain why they did what they did. They claim, in fact, that the MMA prevents coking and copper release in the amounts used.

Idemitsu is a major corporation that's in the Toyota group. I trust they know what they're doing here.

That's fine. However, we don't even know if Idemitsu still uses PMA VII in significant concentrations. Mazda OEM oil is not made by Idemitsu but made by Total, and my calculator is not suggestive of significant PMA-VII use in the Idemitsu Zepro Eco Medalist Advanced Moly 0W-20 SN. There is a reason why the PMA VII is not popular. Didn't you see in the patent it says up to 30% PMA-VII concentration in the oil? Do you really want your engine oil to be made of 30% plastic?

Patents claim many things. That's what they are intended to do. However, it's also safe to ignore many claims in many patents. That's because patents are not scientific publications but more like legal documents, and the claims made usually go untested in the relevant engine tests etc.


We know, however, from the SDS that Zepro oil DOES have MMA in it, and the patent lays out the proposed mechanism of action for MMA in concentrations as low as 0.1%.

So it is there for a reason. How well it works is of course going to be up to interpretation, but it's not just a byproduct.

And yeah, what Pim said. Total holds Mazda's euro contract, but their US and Japan oil is Idemitsu.
 
Originally Posted by littlehulkster
We know, however, from the SDS that Zepro oil DOES have MMA in it, and the patent lays out the proposed mechanism of action for MMA in concentrations as low as 0.1%.

OK, but that would be a very insignificant amount. I doubt the PMA would be the only VII they used if it is only 0.1%. Even other VII's require much higher amounts, and PMA in turn requires much higher amounts than other VII's.

See the PDF versions of the patents. In the original patent by Kuraray, they used 5% PMA VII to achieve VI = 200+. The Idemitsu patent says up to 30%, which is a gigantic amount of plastic to have in an engine oil of course. Therefore, whatever this 0.1% PMA does is a small effect in comparison to the overall viscosity improvement with the rest of the VII's used in the oil.
 
Originally Posted by PimTac
Mazda oil is made by Idemitsu for North America and Asia. Total has the contract for Europe.

Thanks. This would explain why the Spanish (Mexican or Latin American?) VOA is different than the German VOA and German PDS.

My calculator is showing that the Spanish-language version (Idemitsu?) likely uses mostly OCP or star VII, whereas the German-language version (Total) likely uses mostly comb PMA VII.
 
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by littlehulkster
We know, however, from the SDS that Zepro oil DOES have MMA in it, and the patent lays out the proposed mechanism of action for MMA in concentrations as low as 0.1%.

OK, but that would be a very insignificant amount. I doubt the PMA would be the only VII they used if it is only 0.1%. Even other VII's require much higher amounts, and PMA in turn requires much higher amounts than other VII's.

See the PDF versions of the patents. In the original patent by Kuraray, they used 5% PMA VII to achieve VI = 200+. The Idemitsu patent says up to 30%, which is a gigantic amount of plastic to have in an engine oil of course. Therefore, whatever this 0.1% PMA does is a small effect in comparison to the overall viscosity improvement with the rest of the VII's used in the oil.


Given as the Dex1 oil's VI is 205, it's possible they used a small amount of MMA to increase the VI over what it would otherwise be, and to help prevent coking and copper release, as they lay out in the patent.

It doesn't have to be your only VII, but given as a small amount can still be effective, it's logical that they would use it as such. 205 is, after all, an unusually high VI. You've got to do something special to get there.
 
Again, the patent says 0.1-30%. If it were that potent, they wouldn't go up to 30%. The viscosity-improvement effect is fairly linear in the VII concentration. PMA VII's, as the first patent says, are typically used in around 5% solid concentrations. 0.1% is about 2% of this typical use, which would mean you would see only 2% of the viscosity increase you would see with the typical use, which is fairly insignificant.

To give you an idea, see page 2 of the Nigel Marx, Hugh Spikes, et al. VII paper, which was published in 2018 and probably uses the state-of-the-art VII's.

"All blends had raw polymer concentration in the range 1-2% wt. except for oils #7 and #10, which contained 5 and 6% raw polymer, respectively."

Oil #7 uses a linear dispersant PMA VII and oil #10 uses a comb PMA VII, which is probably similar to the PMA VII used by the Japanese-OEM oils.
 
It has to have some benefit, though, given as they bother putting it there in the first place. It's not necessary and most people have absolutely no idea what it even is, so Idemitsu wouldn't put it in oil if it had no benefit.

Given as it is a VII with some other benefits, and the Zepro is an extremely high VI oil, it only makes sense that they'd do it to increase VI, as outlined in the patent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Honda earth dreams 1.5 NA strange oil recommendations
Replies
2
Views
1K
SureshR
buster
Amsoil 0w20 SN+ Noack
Replies
3
Views
2K
buster
W
Mazda 2.5T Oil Selection
Replies
2
Views
453
drtyler
E
Castrol EDGE High Mileage 0W20 Synthetic on Low Mileage
Replies
2
Views
1K
Vitamin Yoda
M
Oil for 2022 Kona N - LSPI or wear?
Replies
9
Views
2K
bhvrdr
Back
Top