Is Toyota 0W-20 SN made in heaven?

[chiks]

Originally Posted By: mechtech2
Originally Posted By: chiks
The transmission shifts better because the engine is not experiencing slow down during shifting. There is always a simple explanation.


You want MORE slow down to naturally sync the engine with the revs.
The opposite.


Let me put it this way:
When the gears engage, the engine has to either slow down or rev up depending upon whether you are upshifting or downshifting.
In any case, a slicker engine oil will allow the engine to react much faster to the change in speed needed due to the gear change and as a result little to no backlash will be felt.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: chiks
Originally Posted By: mechtech2
Originally Posted By: chiks
The transmission shifts better because the engine is not experiencing slow down during shifting. There is always a simple explanation.

You want MORE slow down to naturally sync the engine with the revs.
The opposite.

Let me put it this way:
When the gears engage, the engine has to either slow down or rev up depending upon whether you are upshifting or downshifting.
In any case, a slicker engine oil will allow the engine to react much faster to the change in speed needed due to the gear change and as a result little to no backlash will be felt.

In my experience, more engine power and/or lighter loads always result in less jerky and more smoother upshifts. So, whatever that increases the horsepower, let it be synthetic oil, better fuel, an engine tune-up, etc., will result in smoother shifts.

That's simply because when you upshift, the reaction torque applied to the engine by the transmission increases, as the RPM drops and engine needs to maintain power. (Power = torque x RPM.) The more powerful is the engine, the more quickly will it react to the higher reaction torque, and you will feel less jerk during the upshift.

 

[ottotheclown]

All of this remember we are talking about a 27yr old car with 244,000 plus miles. Please give me a break! If this car was in the rust belt guess what???? Thats right long time ago no matter what oil was used..What did it do all along 240,000 miles???

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
That's a self-contradictory statement because with that mentality in general, you would never be able to keep an older car running.


True, but that's only if your goal is to keep the car running indefinitely. If one is simply trying to keep it going until a replacement comes along, that might be a different story. Personally, I'm one to treat an old vehicle just as "properly" as I'd treat a new vehicle.

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
In my experience, more engine power and/or lighter loads always result in less jerky and more smoother upshifts. So, whatever that increases the horsepower, let it be synthetic oil, better fuel, an engine tune-up, etc., will result in smoother shifts.


How does "synthetic" oil increase horsepower? "Synthetic" oils by themselves are a poor lubricant.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
In my experience, more engine power and/or lighter loads always result in less jerky and more smoother upshifts. So, whatever that increases the horsepower, let it be synthetic oil, better fuel, an engine tune-up, etc., will result in smoother shifts.

How does "synthetic" oil increase horsepower? "Synthetic" oils by themselves are a poor lubricant.

Do you have any reference on synthetic base oils being poor lubricants? I think it's a myth rather than reality.

Regarding synthetics reducing engine friction, see Page 13 of this YUBASE article. The measured coefficients of friction for various base oils are as follows:

Group II: 0.040
Group III: 0.028
Group III+: 0.022
Group IV: 0.018

So, Group IV (PAO) has less than half the traction friction of Group II.

Synthetic base oils are better than conventional base oils in virtually all respects, including lubrication, oxidation stability, friction reduction, volatility, etc. If there is something I'm missing, please provide the reference, and I would be happy to see it.

 

[dave1251]

Like I said Gokhan in my response in this topic, I find your topic very interesting and conductive.

1) But here you go, group III/IV oils have low polarity compared to other groups of oil. Polarity is important in a PCMO because this allows oils to bond to metal surfaces. Calcium and ZDDP are also high polarity.

2) Group III/IV oils also due to low polarity and chemical stability make for a poor solvent for additives.

3) Higher polarity oils have a higher organometallic formation rate. When combined with ZDDP this provides a sacrificial layer and load carrying capacity. Now I will admit that too much organometallic formation will produce acids but if not formed a shear able and boundary lubricating film is not formed.

Now if I am full of Huey I expect a tribologist to tear me a new one.

Also if a blender is marketing a group III/IV oil on the market that meets specs the deficiencies inherent to group III/IV oils were overcame in the finished product by either organic compounds or a more soluble liquid in the formulation of the lubricant, I suspect.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
Like I said Gokhan in my response in this topic, I find your topic very interesting and conductive.

1) But here you go, group III/IV oils have low polarity compared to other groups of oil. Polarity is important in a PCMO because this allows oils to bond to metal surfaces. Calcium and ZDDP are also high polarity.

2) Group III/IV oils also due to low polarity and chemical stability make for a poor solvent for additives.

3) Higher polarity oils have a higher organometallic formation rate. When combined with ZDDP this provides a sacrificial layer and load carrying capacity. Now I will admit that too much organometallic formation will produce acids but if not formed a shear able and boundary lubricating film is not formed.

Now if I am full of Huey I expect a tribologist to tear me a new one.

Also if a blender is marketing a group III/IV oil on the market that meets specs the deficiencies inherent to group III/IV oils were overcame in the finished product by either organic compounds or a more soluble liquid in the formulation of the lubricant, I suspect.

Yes, Group IV (PAO) has some stability and solvency issues but I think they are easily solvable by mixing in some Group V.

One of the biggest advantage of synthetic base oils is oxidation stability. They continue to lubricate your engine as fresh oil much longer. I also like the low traction friction of synthetic base oils. You will notice that conventional oils try to make up for poor frictional properties by adding large amounts of friction modifiers. You see that in PYB etc., where they try to improve things by dumping a lot of cheap formulations of moly.

I think it's fairly established that synthetic base oils have better fuel economy. They try to match that with conventional oils by adding friction modifiers or perhaps reducing the viscosity etc. but especially with used oil, I think it's hard to beat a good synthetic in fuel economy. Of course, more fuel economy means reduced friction and more horsepower as well.

The nice thing about synthetic oil is that you have much more control over it when you formulate it and you can tailor a synthetic oil to much higher performance criteria than you can a conventional oil. In addition, synthetic-oil performance is much more consistent over the life of the oil than conventional-oil.

If you have some good references on comparison of conventional and synthetic oil, please feel free to share them here.

 

[GMFan]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan


I am really impressed with this oil. It's giving the least engine friction I've ever experienced.


How did you measure this?

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
One of the biggest advantage of synthetic base oils is oxidation stability. They continue to lubricate your engine as fresh oil much longer. I also like the low traction friction of synthetic base oils. You will notice that conventional oils try to make up for poor frictional properties by adding large amounts of friction modifiers. You see that in PYB etc., where they try to improve things by dumping a lot of cheap formulations of moly.

I think it's fairly established that synthetic base oils have better fuel economy. They try to match that with conventional oils by adding friction modifiers or perhaps reducing the viscosity etc. but especially with used oil, I think it's hard to beat a good synthetic in fuel economy. Of course, more fuel economy means reduced friction and more horsepower as well.

The nice thing about synthetic oil is that you have much more control over it when you formulate it and you can tailor a synthetic oil to much higher performance criteria than you can a conventional oil. In addition, synthetic-oil performance is much more consistent over the life of the oil than conventional-oil.

If you have some good references on comparison of conventional and synthetic oil, please feel free to share them here.


1) All right what is the purpose of ZDDP, Calcium, Sodium and Molybdenum? What is the relationship of these additives and different groups base oils. If group III/IV are so superior why do they needs this additives? What is the performance difference between a well formulated "conventional" oil and a synthetic?

2) Compare the film strength of the different groups of oils what is a key component to lubrication and more is not better.

3) What is the co-efficent of friction of different base oils.

4) You keep on raving about MoDTC and how brand X uses cheaper stocks but do you really believe you are going to get a quart of oil that cost 4-6 dollars from a third party supplier with tri-nuclar Molybdenum?

5) The greatest comparison anyone can make besides trying to play armchair tribologist is a engine tear down and comparisons with various motor oils. Once this is done there is no superior oil. Because if the oil used is within spec and grade they are all more than good enough.

 

[chiks]

I care about how my engine feels, alongwith a service life that does not include the fear of sludge/varnish.

Synthetic oils have always given me better feel (rev happy) as well as longer life.

The better it gets the more i like it. That is my viewpoint.

 

[Vstrom]

Originally Posted By: Indydriver
I'd say price is a better indicator of "non-standard" base oils and add packs. At $5.15/qt, I'd say that Toyota has taken a cost-cutting approach to their SN formulation.


I just ordered 5 gallons of Toyota 0w-20 for $3.59 per quart.
Seems pretty inexpensive for such renowned oil...thats less than conventional at WalMart.
5 gallons will get me through 3 oil changes.
20,000 miles on a 2011 FJ, I have noticed no real world mileage change with either the Toyota oil or 2 other brands of 5w-20 I've changed with at 5,000 mile intervals in between the free 2 dealer oil changes. I do notice fairly variable tank full mpg that I figure is mostly due to the wind's effect on the highly aerodynamic streamlined FJ body.

I have noticed no improved shifting but I do notice when running 5w-20 very highly increased dust intrusion into the interior.

Oh wait- that may have come from hundreds of miles of Southwest Colorado 4wd trails on vacation..

 

[ltslimjim]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: ledslinger
Toyota 0W20 isn't really manufactured, but collected as dew from the breasts of virgin fairies. It requires scant purification and additives save for removing the impurities accidentally introduced by elves who collect the dew drops.


OMG, I'm in stitches over here, BAH HAHAHAHHHAHA

And who said motor oil wasn't sexy? "dew from the breasts of virgin fairies". I for one am getting excited. I think I'll run to the basement and open up a fresh bottle of TGMO right now!


I'm here I'm here...just wanted to be part of the laughter at this late/early hour. Wait, I'll grab an oil filter to go to town on!!!

Fun thread.

 

[ltslimjim]

I think the only real difference in fuel economy between the two oils proposed is directly not related to full operating temp performance; whilst the full perating temp margin between the two is probably neglible for fuel economy. Instead, the anti-friction/anti-wear/film strength characteristics of the oil impact 'performance' more so once at full temp. Where as, startup 'fuel economy' (read in contrast to performance) is more of a function of the fluid's relative viscosity at any given temp; it's flow characteristics, etc.

(hopefully, for a meaningful discussion the temps at which the difference in such initial operational viscosity at start up could be actually measured, aside from full operating temp which to me is where the VI is no longer meaningful at that moment; aside from extreme events that push the improvers perhaps? or the film strength is compromised.)

Of course, the variables matter. It's all about your app, there is no blanket statement about the real world gains. The only lasting thing I gain from this knowledge is the oils function itself. The translation to my vehicle? Enter the Caterham blend. lol

 

[KrisZ]

Reading this thread I'm starting to think that some people are drinking this stuff.

 

[sir1900]

Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Reading this thread I'm starting to think that some people are drinking this stuff.



+1

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: Vstrom
I just ordered 5 gallons of Toyota 0w-20 for $3.59 per quart.

It doesn't sound right. Even the SM version cost more to the dealers. Are you sure you're not getting 5W-20?

Also, what do you mean by 5 gallons? There are no gallon bottles and they probably wouldn't sell it to you in bulk. You can only buy it as 20 quarts. The lowest cost to the dealers of the SM quart bottle was $3.78 for 48 cases minimum. So, it doesn't sound right when you say you will get 20 bottles for $3.59, much less than what it costs to the dealers.

 

[CATERHAM]

Just a guess but they could be clearing out some remaining SM stock? A terrific price nonetheless assuming he is indead getting the TGMO 0W-20.

 

[Solarent]

Gokhan, I appreciate the things that you have brought to this discussion and I also know that you have a much better understanding of the chemistry behind lubrication than many of the average members. Sometimes, though I think the way you word things in your posts are worded in such a way that makes it seem like you aren't taking into consideration the entire lubricant formulation process.

Consider the following from a chapter on Synthetic Base Stocks-
Originally Posted By: ASTM A Comprehensive Review: Lubricant Chemistry, Technology, Selection, and Design
Lubrication:
As mentioned in the earlier part of the discussion, the lubricating
advantage of a particular base fluid depends upon a
combination of factors. These include superior viscosity temperature
_VT_ and viscosity-pressure _VP_ behavior and
high affinity towards surfaces, also termed polarity. Of these,
a lubricant’s surface affinity has the most direct influence on
lubrication, the primary objectives of which are temperature
control and minimizing metal-to-metal contact to avoid
wear. The temperature control is critical since it can cause a
reduction in lubricant viscosity, facilitate its oxidative degradation,
and promote metal corrosion due to the resulting
acidic oxidation products. The temperature-related viscosity
loss can interfere in the lubricant’s second critical function,
which is to form a durable lubricating film between surfaces
to prevent metal-to-metal contact. Situations that explicitly
require effective lubrication primarily occur during the
start-up, slow down to stop, overheating, and overloading. In
such situations, the lubricating film is either not present or is
ineffective. Lubricants derived from the polar base stocks,
such as esters, have a greater affinity towards metal surfaces
than those derived from the mineral oil; hence they form
more durable surface films under all situations. The film formation
capability in elasto-hydrodynamic contacts has been
studied. The results indicate that the polar polyesters form
thicker lubricating films that are maintained in highly
loaded, high slip contacts. This was ascribed to their high
surface affinity.
Low-temperature viscosity of a lubricant is also an important
consideration. This is because during cold starts the
main cause of engine wear is the inability of the lubricant to
reach parts requiring lubrication. The lubricants that have
poor low-temperature viscometrics take too long to reach
such parts. Lubricants, especially those for automotive use,
have low-temperature viscosity specifications. These are
provided in the section on low-temperature properties and
for the engine oils in Chapter 5 on Combustion Engine Lubricants.
As stated earlier, cranking and pumping viscosities
are two of the most critical requirements for engine oils. Engine
lubricants derived from the PAOs and polyol esters have
much better cold-cranking viscosity than those derived from
the mineral oils. Part of the advantage here is the absence of
the high molecular weight linear hydrocarbons, the paraffin
wax. Incidentally, lubrication characteristics of all base
stocks can be improved by the use of the friction modifiers
and antiwear and extreme-pressure agents. Friction modifiers
adsorb on metal surfaces and associate with the oil to
keep it on the surface and extreme-pressure/antiwear agents
form more durable chemical films on metal surfaces via thermal
reaction.


When building a lubricant the consideration of coefficients of friction in base stock is not very critical. The selection of synthetic bases is always for the advanced benefits of thermal stability, oxidation resistance, volatility and physical properties such as poor point, viscosity index etc. (which you have already pointed out are benefits for synthetics.)

The formulator typically chooses the additive package that meets the performance specifications (such as those readily available from Lubrizol, Afton, Infineum etc) These packages contain everything they need in a balanced formula that when mixed with the appropriate base stocks create the finished oil. Making the right selections and blending at the correct ratios is what is the delicate science behind lubricant formulation.

 

[Solarent]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Do you have any reference on synthetic base oils being poor lubricants?


All base oils, by themselves are "poor" lubricants. Without the use of additives we cannot reach the performance requirements of engine manufacturers. There is not a lubricant handbook, ready reference or training or other reference that would recommend formulating a lubricant with synthetic base stocks alone with no additives.

You should also remember that most blenders aren't formulating custom synthetic bases for specific oils. That practice is simply not economical. The producers of synthetic bases such as XOM Chemical create base stocks that meet criteria and then market them to blenders based on their merits. Its not like Toyota went to XOM and had them make a special base stock for their one oil. It just doesn't make sense.

I think you probably already know this, and so a lot of what I have said is more for clarification. Comments on this board sometimes can quickly be misinterpreted and without some extensive reading and or training it can be difficult to understand the process that formulators go through to reach their finished product.

I am sure that the TGMO is a fantastic oil and we have already looked at some of it's great results. And they have gone to great lengths to make sure it stands up to the needs of todays synthetic market.