My truck hates TGMO

[dave1251]

The only conclusive observation that I can find is that TGMO is has a load of VII's which is not always a good thing.

What is the actual HTHS of TGMO? Because of testing from certain members TGMO is close to a run of the mill 20 grade oil viscosity wise.

I believe the whole TGMO is a really thin 20 grade oil is the product of wishful thinking.

 

[Shannow]

Dave1251,
the closest that we can get to an actual HTHS for TGMO is speculation that it starts at 2.6, the bottom of the range...there's evidence, from one of the main proponents that it may, in fact start off as a 0W16.

When the 2.6 is plugged into A Harman's calculations, it's KV/HTHS ratio is certainly indicative of lots of VII.

 

[GM4LIFE]

If the engine calls for 5W20, why run a 5W30?

 

[KrisZ]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Dave1251,
the closest that we can get to an actual HTHS for TGMO is speculation that it starts at 2.6, the bottom of the range...there's evidence, from one of the main proponents that it may, in fact start off as a 0W16.

When the 2.6 is plugged into A Harman's calculations, it's KV/HTHS ratio is certainly indicative of lots of VII.


Perhaps the fact that, depending on the region, anything meeting the viscosity requirement can be sold as TGMO has something to do with it? With already know that US and Canadian TGMO have different suppliers, I would not be surprised the same was happening in Europe, Asia and Australia.

 

[Shannow]

Those were the US TGMO and discussion from Gokhan's very useful VOA thread, so should be consistent.

I agree 'though that any of the 3 (or 4 or more) varietals could be more disparate.

 

[Garak]

In fairness to a certain poster, he has advocated caution when using TGMO in certain 5w-20 applications. As OVERKILL already indicated, a bit higher HTHS 20 grade might be a better fit, particularly one that actually lists the Ford spec.

 

[wemay]

Originally Posted By: Garak
In fairness to a certain poster, he has advocated caution when using TGMO in certain 5w-20 applications. As OVERKILL already indicated, a bit higher HTHS 20 grade might be a better fit, particularly one that actually lists the Ford spec.


+1

 

[CrawfishTails]

"Gentleman, I give you 'Science In Action', proof-positive." --- Barney Fife

TGMO having more VI means it will stay thicker at higher and higher temperatures. The lower sump temperatures, like the OP's -25 degC frigid cold, means TGMO is plenty too thick there, so forget that, its not too thin there. At operating temperature around the ring pack, the hottest area, TGMO would be thicker. Its KV100 at 8.8 means its a true 20 there. Its 2.6 HTHS means its on par with other 20's at 150 degC, the majority of the engine oil temperature. At higher than 150 degC, the VI would continue to work to keep viscosity UP. Therefore, I don't think you can blame TGMO's viscosity, as its actually thicker inside a running engine.

Hard to figure out why TGMO can't be used wherever a 20 is called for. Maybe ester content would make a difference. I truly believe polymeric esters make a difference in how the oil "slimes" a metal surface and stays there (polarity), maybe something is going on there.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: CrawfishTails
"Gentleman, I give you 'Science In Action', proof-positive." --- Barney Fife

TGMO having more VI means it will stay thicker at higher and higher temperatures. The lower sump temperatures, like the OP's -25 degC frigid cold, means TGMO is plenty too thick there, so forget that, its not too thin there. At operating temperature around the ring pack, the hottest area, TGMO would be thicker. Its KV100 at 8.8 means its a true 20 there. Its 2.6 HTHS means its on par with other 20's at 150 degC, the majority of the engine oil temperature. At higher than 150 degC, the VI would continue to work to keep viscosity UP. Therefore, I don't think you can blame TGMO's viscosity, as its actually thicker inside a running engine.

Hard to figure out why TGMO can't be used wherever a 20 is called for. Maybe ester content would make a difference. I truly believe polymeric esters make a difference in how the oil "slimes" a metal surface and stays there (polarity), maybe something is going on there.



VII's degrade, break-down and gum up. It is supposed that TGMO uses the new "uber VII" technology, but it is still a group III based product relying on PPD's and VII's to gain its VI and low temp performance.

Other oils (like AFE 0w-20 and EP 0w-20) require a lot less "propping up" with polymer due to their use of superior base oils.

Regardless, TGMO is not approved for this application. And we do not know if it would pass Ford's testing.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
[/quote]

VII's degrade, break-down and gum up. It is supposed that TGMO uses the new "uber VII" technology, but it is still a group III based product relying on PPD's and VII's to gain its VI and low temp performance.

Other oils (like AFE 0w-20 and EP 0w-20) require a lot less "propping up" with polymer due to their use of superior base oils.

The VIIs used in TGMO have a lower treat rate than oils that use more conventional VIIs hence it's shear stability despite it's outstanding 45 point higher VI.

 

[CrawfishTails]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: CrawfishTails
"Gentleman, I give you 'Science In Action', proof-positive." --- Barney Fife


VII's degrade, break-down and gum up. It is supposed that TGMO uses the new "uber VII" technology, but it is still a group III based product relying on PPD's and VII's to gain its VI and low temp performance.

Other oils (like AFE 0w-20 and EP 0w-20) require a lot less "propping up" with polymer due to their use of superior base oils.

Regardless, TGMO is not approved for this application. And we do not know if it would pass Ford's testing.


If TGMO can't pass Ford's WSS specs, and we don't know that, far from it, then it probably comes very close. Also, what source of info says Mobil1 has higher-quality base oils? MSDS?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL


VII's degrade, break-down and gum up. It is supposed that TGMO uses the new "uber VII" technology, but it is still a group III based product relying on PPD's and VII's to gain its VI and low temp performance.

Other oils (like AFE 0w-20 and EP 0w-20) require a lot less "propping up" with polymer due to their use of superior base oils.

The VIIs used in TGMO have a lower treat rate than oils that use more conventional VIIs hence it's shear stability despite it's outstanding 45 point higher VI.


And the flip side of that is that EP 0w-20 doesn't require the same VII treatment (and subsequently sports a lower VI) due to its base oil composition, which ensures more consistent low temperature performance due to it not relying on PPD's and polymer treat to achieve it. Both this lubricant, and to a slightly lesser extent, AFE 0w-20, achieve their cold temperature performance due to Mobil's base oil selection.

And while I agree that TGMO is relatively shear stable, I found some examples where it sheared a fair bit in my recent searching. M1 AFE 0w-20 also sheared in service in some applications. One particular example of it (AFE 0w-20) not shearing though was in 2010_FX4's F-150 (with a 5.4L) which is the same engine as the truck being discussed in this thread, I find that amusing

Though this may be of interest to you, but his earlier runs sheared a lot more (though not excessively) than his most recent. This would point to Mobil possibly doing a bit of a formulation change on this product.

Ultimately my position here, based on the verbiage in the manual for the OP's vehicle is to use an approved lubricant. There are a plethora of choices available so seeking out a non-approved product seems counter-productive.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: CrawfishTails
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: CrawfishTails
"Gentleman, I give you 'Science In Action', proof-positive." --- Barney Fife


VII's degrade, break-down and gum up. It is supposed that TGMO uses the new "uber VII" technology, but it is still a group III based product relying on PPD's and VII's to gain its VI and low temp performance.

Other oils (like AFE 0w-20 and EP 0w-20) require a lot less "propping up" with polymer due to their use of superior base oils.

Regardless, TGMO is not approved for this application. And we do not know if it would pass Ford's testing.


If TGMO can't pass Ford's WSS specs, and we don't know that, far from it, then it probably comes very close. Also, what source of info says Mobil1 has higher-quality base oils? MSDS?


Yes. The MSDS for EP 0w-20 lists a very high percentage of PAO. The MSDS for AFE 0w-20 also lists PAO, but at a lesser treatment level. The MSDS for TGMO lists group III as the only base oil used.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: CrawfishTails
If TGMO can't pass Ford's WSS specs, and we don't know that, far from it, then it probably comes very close.


We don't know that it's not the same recipe used in the bearings on the Hubble telescope in the hot/cold of space either...or how close to suitable it may/not have been.

 

[CrawfishTails]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: CrawfishTails
If TGMO can't pass Ford's WSS specs, and we don't know that, far from it, then it probably comes very close.


We don't know that it's not the same recipe used in the bearings on the Hubble telescope in the hot/cold of space either...or how close to suitable it may/not have been.


Wild examples aside (good "hubble" entertainment joke though), the Ford specs aren't hard to meet for any decent group III synthetic. Conventional oils meet it, like Pennzoil's cheapest one and Mobil Super 5000, for pete's sake, meets Ford WSS-M2C945-A. How high a bar can that be?

I just can't fault the rheology, chemical stability, lubricity, anything with TGMO 0w-20 that would cause problems anywhere the easy Ford WSS-M2C945-A is called for. "My truck hates TGMO" is an X-File I guess.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: CrawfishTails
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: CrawfishTails
If TGMO can't pass Ford's WSS specs, and we don't know that, far from it, then it probably comes very close.


We don't know that it's not the same recipe used in the bearings on the Hubble telescope in the hot/cold of space either...or how close to suitable it may/not have been.


Wild examples aside (good "hubble" entertainment joke though), the Ford specs aren't hard to meet for any decent group III synthetic. Conventional oils meet it, like Pennzoil's cheapest one and Mobil Super 5000, for pete's sake, meets Ford WSS-M2C945-A. How high a bar can that be?

I just can't fault the rheology, chemical stability, lubricity, anything with TGMO 0w-20 that would cause problems anywhere the easy Ford WSS-M2C945-A is called for. "My truck hates TGMO" is an X-File I guess.

CrawfishTails, a belated welcome to BITOG!
I like your way of thinking!

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL


And the flip side of that is that EP 0w-20 doesn't require the same VII treatment (and subsequently sports a lower VI) due to its base oil composition, which ensures more consistent low temperature performance due to it not relying on PPD's and polymer treat to achieve it. Both this lubricant, and to a slightly lesser extent, AFE 0w-20, achieve their cold temperature performance due to Mobil's base oil selection.

TGMO 0W-20 is an entirely different formulation to M1 EP/AFE 0W-20. It's formulated to be as light as (economically) possibly at more typical start-up temp's and in that regard it is far lighter than M1. The base oil composition is a non issue as long as it's VI is sufficiently high enough to achieve Toyota's goals. And some GP III+ base oils have higher VIs than PAOs of the same viscosity.
Since TGMO is undoubtedly using a 4 cSt base oil, likely no PPD's are used in it's formulation.

 

[userfriendly]

Thank goodness for that.
Is group 3+ base stock be superior to PAO
after a month or two of ageing, or is all this
about oil fresh out of the bottle?
....And how many of you are out in -35 to -40
weather that would make the difference in
base stock be an issue?

I'm still in school about "operating viscosity".

There may be a fuel economy gain using 0W40 instead
of SAE 40 or 15W40, but the difference between
5W20 and 0W20????

Come on now. Show me the proof.

 

[Nate1979]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL


And the flip side of that is that EP 0w-20 doesn't require the same VII treatment (and subsequently sports a lower VI) due to its base oil composition, which ensures more consistent low temperature performance due to it not relying on PPD's and polymer treat to achieve it. Both this lubricant, and to a slightly lesser extent, AFE 0w-20, achieve their cold temperature performance due to Mobil's base oil selection.

TGMO 0W-20 is an entirely different formulation to M1 EP/AFE 0W-20. It's formulated to be as light as (economically) possibly at more typical start-up temp's and in that regard it is far lighter than M1. The base oil composition is a non issue as long as it's VI is sufficiently high enough to achieve Toyota's goals. And some GP III+ base oils have higher VIs than PAOs of the same viscosity.
Since TGMO is undoubtedly using a 4 cSt base oil, likely no PPD's are used in it's formulation.

What is your reference to this information about TGMO?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM

TGMO 0W-20 is an entirely different formulation to M1 EP/AFE 0W-20.


Yes, I think we are both saying that. They've leveraged a Group III base and a healthy dose of VII's to get the product's high VI, which was their design goal. Mobil's branded products are using superior base oils and lower VII treatment rates because they obviously have different goals. A stratospheric Viscosity Index is apparently not one of them.

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
It's formulated to be as light as (economically) possibly at more typical start-up temp's and in that regard it is far lighter than M1.


As we've discussed before, you and I have two very different ideas of what constitutes "far lighter". TGMO is ~37cSt @ 40C, M1 0w-20 is 44.8/9. That 8cSt is insignificant compared to the difference between either of those oils @ -15C and your typical OTC 5w-20, which is in the hundreds of cP. And compared to even the AFE 0w-30, which is ~63cSt @ 40C, which I would have a hard time referring to as "heavy" under these circumstances given that your middle of the road 5w-40 like Delvac 1, at two grades heavier, is 102cSt @ 40C. 3x heavier? OK, yeah, D1 5w-40 is far heavier

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
The base oil composition is a non issue as long as it's VI is sufficiently high enough to achieve Toyota's goals. And some GP III+ base oils have higher VIs than PAOs of the same viscosity.
Since TGMO is undoubtedly using a 4 cSt base oil, likely no PPD's are used in it's formulation.


Well, this is BITOG and base oil composition is always an issue, LOL!

We know PAO is more expensive than Group III and generally requires less treatment to achieve the necessary viscosity characteristics for a grade split. Member bobbydavro gave a really neat example (in the following thread) of an oil with the following characteristics:

Kv100 7.72, kv40 42.42 (density 0.85) with a HTHS of 2.61. NOACK of 4.4% but a VI of 152. This is a 0w-20 with ZERO VII's in it! Pretty cool.

If you missed this image from that thread:

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3625715/Re:_High_VI_and_Base_Stocks#Post3625715

I suggest giving it a read.

You'll note your 4cSt group III base oil (or at least the one referenced above) has a pour point of ~-25C, so it would definitely need PPD's. The comparable 4cSt PAO has a pour point of -60C.

Note that Mobil's Spectrasyn Lo-Vis 4cSt PAO has a pour point of -66C and a flash of 220C. It's VI is 126. Their Spectrasyn 8cSt PAO has a pour point of -57C, a flash of 246C, and a VI of 139. Oh, and the latter has an MRV of 16,200cP @ -40C and a NOACK of 4.1%.

Now, I'm not sure how current this is but based on the CAS # for the Group III base (listed as 70-80% in the MSDS for TGMO) as "SEVERELY HYDROTREATED HEAVY PARAFFINIC DISTILLATE": 64742-54-7

Molakule posted the following:

Originally Posted By: Molakule
Mineral Paraffininc Base Oil - 64742-54-7; VI of +94 to 120, any group.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=257884

This CAS # also does NOT seem to correspond with a 4cSt base oil, FWIW