New 2023 Corolla and 0W-8 oil

[userfriendly]

What state do you live in?

State of Denial.

 

[JohnnyJohnson]

Why not do what Toyota says....They should know there cars...

Why because 0W 0r 5W 20 is easier to find and cheaper. My guess is the only place in the world that suggests this 0W-08 oil is the only country in the world that's under CAFE!

 

[hrv]

Why because 0W 0r 5W 20 is easier to find and cheaper. My guess is the only place in the world that suggests this 0W-08 oil is the only country in the world that's under CAFE!

My guess is that Toyota knows more about this then most on this forum... I will go with the manufacturer..IMO

 

[Hermann]

I'd put 20W50 in it just to see what happens.

If its above 32°F probably nothing.

 

[Rhill]

Wowza. 0w8 must be thin coming out of the bottle.

I would probably just use 0w16 for both with an eye on fuel economy.

If youre racking up miles on the Corolla Id use the 0w16 most likely.

I can believe were looking at 0w20 like its 10w40.

Times are changing

 

[02zx9r rev2]

Why not do what Toyota says....They should know there cars...

This has been covered before.

 

[OVERKILL]

My guess is that Toyota knows more about this then most on this forum... I will go with the manufacturer..IMO

Sounds like you should read that paper that @Shannow posted some excerpts from years ago.

I've never ever seen any paper by any OEM, researcher or oil company (oh, and the NHTSA) who state that thinner oils are for anything other than economy...many of the papers state up front that their goen is economy (or CO2), while still providing "acceptable" wear...not one has said for "improved wear", or "valvetrain cooling". As an engineer, I find the "valvetrain cooling" argument one of the most speculative that I've seen. Oil squirters work on pressure/density, with viscosity taking a VERY small part in the delivery volume...and Honda, in a number of papers state that the reductions in oil pressure with thinner oils can make operation of hydraulic phasors and other components less reliable..

The mixed/boundary stuff has always been referred to as the "controlled wear" regime...sans additives, friction goes up and wear skyrockets. Additives allow the contact to provide slightly lower friction than even the proper hydrodynamic, while "controlling" the wear to acceptable levels. The next problem in the discussion is that the cars make it to the graveyard, so in spite of the statements quoted about "assuming better protection", we'll be accused of claiming a pile of failed engines, and no proof of "better"...that's the way they all play. It IS better protection, but as per my arguments all along, for over a decade...if it gets to the graveyard intact, and saves the owner some fuel, then the TRADEOFF (and it is one) is worthwhile to the average consumer. Your clearcoat will last to the graveyard also...some people like theirs prettier than others, and will spend more. Your car will make it to the graveyard on OEM airfilters, and without underbody gunk...but some people feel better with the "added" protection over what's normally aacceptable

The drive for thinner oils is for Fuel Economy, CAFE, or Carbon...name whichever market you are in. The OEMs tell us that the regulators tell us that, and the oil companies tell us that. The challlenge, per the OEMs is to provide greater economy with "acceptable" increases in wear (Honda, Ford) The challenge, per the oil companies is to maintain acceptable wear, in an environment where there is less reliance on hydrodynamic lubrication (used to be defined as the "zero wear" regime, and a higher reliance on boundary/mixed, and additives. The challenge per API is developing engine wear tests that are representative of the two line above.

variations and tolerances are not "the main culprit in bearing wear"...your inference, in using both words...variations AND tolerances inferred that you were defining them separately, and both of them being (incorrectly) the main culprit. If you said clearances and tolerences, you would be defining two different things...but they are neither the main culprits in bearing wear either. Bearings have a characteristic number (Sommerfeld) number (r/c)^2*u*N/P, where r is the radius C is the radial clearance u is KV N Rotational Speed P is applied pressure to the bearing = Load/(length* diameter) (take out the (r/c)^2 as a constant for a given design, and you get the number used on the Stribeck curve...funny that...and notice that the stribeck curve, nor the Sommerfeld mention "variations and tolerances").

These are for perfect bearings in proper alignment, with no shaft flex etc... So MOFT, and the lack thereof are "the main culprit in bearing wear in real life, in this current universe, witht he laws of physics as they currently stand...in a made up universe, YMMV, but that's not here. So if you want to increase MOFT - increase the So number. * increase engine speed * increase viscosity * increase shaft diameter * reduce radial clearances * REDUCE P (+) (+) You can reduce P by * increasing shaft diameter (already included above) * reducing the load on the bearing (no likely) * increasing length. The Japanese OEMs are using lower viscosity, by their own admission to reduce operating friction, for the purposes of fuel economy and/or CO2 emissions. And they are trying to do that while maintaining (to quote Honda) "acceptable wear". So that pushes things to the left on both the So, and the Stribeck (based on So for journals)...oh, and BTW, the polymers aren't any "higher strength" than the substrates, they are softer, more embeddable, and less prone to stop start boundary lubrication...well that's what Mahle say, and Federal Mogul don't call them higher strength then the substrate either...they claim that they las longer in stop start and hybrid. So to get better MOFT, the OEMS are (per Honda papers, not adverts) * reducing radial clearances * increasing shaft diameters * increasing bearing length Which flies in the face of efficiency, but they have more to gain in piston/skirt than they lose in bearings...there WILL be a cost benefit payoff there. The changes that Honda are stating come with problems...longer length and lower clearances mean that shaft alignment needs to be better maintained. Greater journal diameter helps improve the stiffness (and alignment) of the shaft. Blocks have to be stiffer, which is why we are seeing skirted blocks, crank bearing girdles, cross bolting, and strong alloy sumps. re "variations and tolerances" being the main culprit in bearing were...it's bunk. Look at the MOFT curves I show...pick a design point, then go a little to the left, and a little to the right...the effect is virtually NIL in MOFT.

 

[tolian21]

maybe import from japan?

 

[Gyro Gearloose]

My understanding that the option to use a thicker oil but “must return to the watery stuff at next oil change” is an EPA legalese requirement when the mfg uses the thin oil to qualify their cafe numbers. My 2010 toyota had the identical wording when 0w20 was the outre’ oil.

 

[Shannow]

My understanding that the option to use a thicker oil but “must return to the watery stuff at next oil change” is an EPA legalese requirement when the mfg uses the thin oil to qualify their cafe numbers. My 2010 toyota had the identical wording when 0w20 was the outre’ oil.

Yep, in the CAFE rules that if they choose thinner lubricants to get CAFE numbers, they must take every endeavour to keep the customer compliant.

 

[USask2000]

I have a 2023 Corolla that takes 0W8. I can’t find it anywhere in Canada and the Car Care Nut says it’s not available in the US either. Apparently there was “a fire” at the blending plant.

 

[goingplacesanddoingstuff]

The differences between 0w8, 0w16, and 0w20 are pretty darned small.

 

[tchapps88]

Lake jr to the rescue

 

[DirectRejection]

The movement towards greater efficiency combined with better emission cleanliness can't help but go against the grain regarding the long established laws of physics.

Design of motor oil and engines have evolved. since Shannow made these epic posts.

Toyota's Dynamic Force has improvements in oil jet effectiveness, as one aspect. Exhaust valve timing is still controlled by oil pressure. Engine cooling is vastly improved. There is Diamond Like Carbon in hot areas.

I have personally driven the M20A-FKS and M20A-FXS for many miles, exclusively on very thin oil. I put 150,000 miles on a 2019 Lexus UX 250h F Sport, using mostly HPL HDEO 0W16, with a little bit of LGMO 0W16 and Pennzoil Platinum 0W16. I am closing in on 100,000 miles on my current 2022 Corolla Cross using HPL PP 0W8.

This is the engine OP has. Thus far, there have been no side effects.

 

[Shel_B]

I have a 2023 Corolla that takes 0W8. I can’t find it anywhere in Canada and the Car Care Nut says it’s not available in the US either. Apparently there was “a fire” at the blending plant.

I don't recall him saying that. I do remember that he said it's very hard to find right now (He was talking about TGMO at dealers) and that it was very expensive, about $20.00 per quart.

For that kind of $$, one could get HPL which offers at least two choices for that viscosity. In addition, Royal Purple offers the XPR version in 0W-8 and there's Motul 300V Power 0W-8 Ester Core Technology. Eneos has that viscosity as does Liqui Moly. Those are the only ones I remember right now. And I'm not even interested in the stuff ... maybe you can locate one of these brands. I just did a quick check and Truck Point in Canada has the Motul.

Good luck ... dig a little harder and you'll find it.

​

 

[JohnnyJohnson]

I don't recall him saying that. I do remember that he said it's very hard to find right now (He was talking about TGMO at dealers) and that it was very expensive, about $20.00 per quart.

For that kind of $$, one could get HPL which offers at least two choices for that viscosity. In addition, Royal Purple offers the XPR version in 0W-8 and there's Motul 300V Power 0W-8 Ester Core Technology. Eneos has that viscosity as does Liqui Moly. Those are the only ones I remember right now. And I'm not even interested in the stuff ... maybe you can locate one of these brands. I just did a quick check and Truck Point in Canada has the Motul.

Good luck ... dig a little harder and you'll find it.

​

Well in the moderate climate of SF my money says you'll get along just fine with 0W or 5W-20

 

[Shel_B]

Well in the moderate climate of SF my money says you'll get along just fine with 0W or 5W-20

I'm not interested in the oil, a gentleman from Canada is.

 

[USask2000]

I don't recall him saying that. I do remember that he said it's very hard to find right now (He was talking about TGMO at dealers) and that it was very expensive, about $20.00 per quart.

For that kind of $$, one could get HPL which offers at least two choices for that viscosity. In addition, Royal Purple offers the XPR version in 0W-8 and there's Motul 300V Power 0W-8 Ester Core Technology. Eneos has that viscosity as does Liqui Moly. Those are the only ones I remember right now. And I'm not even interested in the stuff ... maybe you can locate one of these brands. I just did a quick check and Truck Point in Canada has the Motul.

Good luck ... dig a little harder and you'll find it.

​

Good post. I was sloppy in relaying what the Car Nut said. Your version is correct.

I’m not worried about finding 0W8 right now. I’m simply gonna use TGMO 0W16 for the first oil change in October if TGMO 0W8 isn’t available.

 

[TomYoung]

My guess is that Toyota knows more about this then most on this forum... I will go with the manufacturer..IMO

Than

 

[OVERKILL]

The movement towards greater efficiency combined with better emission cleanliness can't help but go against the grain regarding the long established laws of physics.

Design of motor oil and engines have evolved. since Shannow made these epic posts.

Toyota's Dynamic Force has improvements in oil jet effectiveness, as one aspect. Exhaust valve timing is still controlled by oil pressure. Engine cooling is vastly improved. There is Diamond Like Carbon in hot areas.

I have personally driven the M20A-FKS and M20A-FXS for many miles, exclusively on very thin oil. I put 150,000 miles on a 2019 Lexus UX 250h F Sport, using mostly HPL HDEO 0W16, with a little bit of LGMO 0W16 and Pennzoil Platinum 0W16. I am closing in on 100,000 miles on my current 2022 Corolla Cross using HPL PP 0W8.

This is the engine OP has. Thus far, there have been no side effects.

Don't you do like delivery driving or something? I'd be curious to see what your average speed is (and how many engine hours you have). A Crown Vic getting pounded as a cruiser or a cab in NYC for 10 years to get to 200,000 miles is considerably different in terms of wear & tear than an owner/operator courier or delivery vehicle that's putting on 100,000 miles per year.

@Shannow's point was, and is, that as long as the vehicle makes it to the scrap heap by some other means, then the oil did its job. If the has more wear than an engine that was run on a heavier oil, does that really matter at that point? The thinner oil saved the owner some fuel and the manufacturer some emissions or economy credits.

We've seen posts about Toyota engines burning oil, people blaming the low tension rings, or the long intervals. Viscosity choice is another piece of that puzzle. I'm sure in the majority of situations, all three of those things work fine together and the RAV-4 makes it to the wreckers because Jimmy hits a tree or the trans drops out of it, or some uninsured yahoo plows into it at 150,000 miles and it's a goner.

BUT, none of that changes the validity of what Shannow posted.