Thin cleans better, allows longer OCI than thick!

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
In summary, the exemption for 0W-20 in TEOST 33C is only for API SN without Resource Conserving, not API SN with Resource Conserving.

That's exactly NOT what your table says...the 0W20 resource conserving IS exempt...that's what it says.

The numerical points aren't cumulative to make your argument better...whatever it is.

It says "Requirements for API SN are the same as those for API SN-RC, except as noted in the table to the right" in large print on top of the footnotes.

Looking at the API ballots out there on the Internet, this issue has been contentious. We'll see what they will decide on GF-6.

Regardless, 0W-20, 5W-20, and 5W-30 use identical add packs and are built from similar base oils for a given oil brand (such as M1, PPPP, etc.). As a result if one viscosity passes a test, all viscosities will do very similarly and pass that test. This is a very moot discussion for that matter.

 

[Bryanccfshr]

It’s really clear that the exemption is specifically for 0w20 and non energy conserving oils in separate footnotes. So 0w20 and 10w40 are exempted under different exemptions. 0w20 being the only resource conserving grade exempted.



Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: nap
Gokhan, can’t you read?

https://www.infineum.com/media/80723/api-engine-oil-classifications.pdf

Page 2, Footnotes 1 , 2 and 15. Exemption 2 and 15 are for the non RC oils as you mention. However, exemption 1 is for 0W20, regardless of whether it is RC or not. Now check the TEOST 33 line and it has exemption 1 in addition to 2 and 15.

So 0W20 is exempt solely on its viscosity, regardless of its RC or starburst status.

No, you can't.

Read carefully and pay attention so that what you read makes sense and you don't interpret things incorrectly as you did. Your eyes are reading but your brain is not paying attention the detail.

These are the requirements for API SN-RC (SN with Resource Conserving), not for API SN without RC (without Resource Conserving):

Now, this is the table of the footnotes that has been confusing you. The key sentence here that you should have paid attention to but you have not is at the very top and is in large print: "Requirements for API SN are the same as those for API SN-RC, except as noted in the table to the right." What they are saying is that the exemptions for API SN without RC (without Resource Conserving) are noted in this table. The exemptions for TEOST 33C that keep confusing you are:

Exemptions for TEOST 33C:

(1) Not required for SAE 0W-20.
(2) Not required for SN Non-ILSAC GF-5 viscosity grades (non-ILSAC viscosity grades are xW-40, xW-50, and xW-60).
(15) Not Required for SN ILSAC GF-5 viscosity grades (ILSAC viscosity grades are xW-16, xW-20, and xW-30) which do not also contain the API Certification Mark or are not SN-RC.

So, not only 0W-20 is exempt from TEOST 33C but all non-ILSAC SAE grades -- all xW-40, xW-50, and xW-60 -- are exempt from TEOST 33C.

TEOST 33C test means turbocharger protection. From the API motor-oil guide, Resource Conserving means "API SN with Resource Conserving matches ILSAC GF-5 by combining API SN performance with improved fuel economy, turbocharger protection, emission control system compatibility, and protection of engines operating on ethanol-containing fuels up to E85."

How do you expect to have the Resource Conserving certification and API Starburst on a bottle of motor oil if the requirements of Resource Conserving, including the turbocharger protection, are not met? This would make absolutely no sense whatsoever. A consumer would be sold a bottle of oil that claims to have turbocharger protection (Resource Conserving) but due to some obscure footnote regarding turbocharge protection in an Infineum brochure that is often misinterpreted by some people, it actually wouldn't? Now, how absurd that would be!

As a final note, which I emphasized before, the high-moly exemption for 0W-20 is no different than the high-ZDDP (high-phosphorus) exemption for xW-40, xW-50, and xW-60. The latter are non-ILSAC grades and are exempt from TEOST 33C and ZDDP-maximum requirements of Resource Conserving and the former (0W-20) is an ILSAC grade but it's still allowed not to have the Resource Conserving requirement of ILSAC and drop the API Starburst and Resource Conserving and satisfy API SN only if the manufacturer chooses to load it with moly. However, high-moly (700 - 800 ppm moly) 0W-20's are mostly from the API SM era, which didn't have turbocharger protection, and I'm not aware of any high-moly API SN 0W-20 that doesn't have the Resource Conserving (API Starbust) and therefore chose not to do and/or pass the TEOST 33C turbocharger-protection test.

Is this finally clear?

 

[Nissan101]

I use 20w50

 

[Gokhan]

Looking at PimTac's question on his car's (2017 Mazda CX-5 Grand Touring) oil recommendation (PDF file for owner's manual):

Clearly the recommendation for Mazda Genuine Oil (MGO?) or Castrol is marketing. It's not a moly thing. Besides, I don't know if Castrol even has moly.

They are recommending 0W-20 for North America and 5W-30 for the rest of the world. Clearly their North America recommendation is driven by the legal requirement to deliver the fuel economy they promised. Since they are recommending 5W-30 elsewhere, it looks like they don't trust 0W-20 in wear protection or oil consumption in their engine. This is somewhat bizarre.

Toyota usually recommends a thin grade but says a higher viscosity may be more suitable for high-speed driving. In international oil charts, they put all viscosity grades from 0W-20 to 20W-50 explicitly. This is well known. Chances are that the thinnest grade they recommend works very satisfactorily and may be the most optimal for most of their engines. Thicker than what you need may not be the optimal viscosity grade for your engine, even if it says it's OK to use 20W-50.

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted By: Nissan101
I use 20w50

Well good for you.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
The Japanese OEMs were stuck with 0W20, and wanted lower, so they created those unicorns with stratospheric VIs...trying to both keep the warmup viscosity down (their words), and increasing the chances of it dropping out of grade HTHS wise in use (CATERHAM had one of the Idemitsu ??? 0W20s drop to an indicated 2.4HTHS in 400 miles).

I agree, but there are more useful ways to specify a "better" oil than the basic API SN/GF-5. As an aside, the price of TGMO here, just like CATERHAM finds in Ontario, is priced so it's almost impossible to beat. Of course, "which one" is it, as you point out?

 

[Shannow]

You are deliberately misinterpreting the data that you are providing...

The table IS for grades including ILSAC GF-5.

Note 1 exempts the 0W20 grade specifically from that test.

Pure and simple.

And yes, non ILSAC grades are exempt, but that's a completely different issue unrelated to note 1, which stands on it's own.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
They are recommending 0W-20 for North America and 5W-30 for the rest of the world. Clearly their North America recommendation is driven by the legal requirement to deliver the fuel economy they promised. Since they are recommending 5W-30 elsewhere, it looks like they don't trust 0W-20 in wear protection or oil consumption in their engine. This is somewhat bizarre.


It's not bizarre when it's well known that CAFE drives what the car manufacturers recommend for oil viscosity in US applications. There are dozens of examples just like this one. And yes, those manufacturers would probably sacrifice some engine wear and longevity to get those CAFE credits since most engines are going to last well beyong the warranty period on thinner oil if driven "normally" on the street.

 

[nap]

So Gokham, which of the popular oils below do you think had to pass TEOST 33 and thus could be declared “superior” based on more stringent API defined technical merits?

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: nap
So Gokham, which of the popular oils below do you think had to pass TEOST 33 and thus could be declared “superior” based on its API defined technical merits?

They will all pass TEOST 33C. Even cheap Group II oils pass TEOST 33C and we have Group III or higher oils here. Whether they were tested or not is a moot issue. I've already told you the reason for the TEOST 33C exemption and showed you the ConocoPhillips document. It's the moly, not the viscosity or base oil. You're still trying to portray it as a viscosity-related issue.

Most 0W-20's also satisfy dexos1, which has a more stringent test on turbocharger protection than TEOST 33C:

In addition to dexos1, most also claim ACEA A5/B5, which again has more stringent tests than TEOST 33C.

Haven't you seen the M1 MSDS's? 0W-20 grades have many more times PAO than other grades. M1 AP 0W-20 is virtually all PAO. 0W-20 is usually superior to thicker viscosity grades because it must use a better base oil in order to satisfy both the NOACK and CCS requirements at the same time (this is why the BOQI works -- it looks at NOACK and CCS simultaneously) . Always use it with the absolute peace of mind knowing that you can't do better on TEOST 33C etc., regardless of they've tested it or not. I'm already using 0W-20 in a 32-year-old engine with excellent UOA's. My next car will recommend 0W-16.

However, whether 0W-20 is thick enough for your bearings in your driving conditions (high speeds, towing, etc.) is a different discussion. I'm certainly not saying that you should use 0W-20 despite what is recommended in your owners' manual.

 

[Gokhan]

It's funny that you put the picture of PYB next to the TGMO. I do have a UOA comparison for them. TGMO did far better than PYB. I don't know if the reason was the superior type of moly in TGMO (the potent trinuclear moly in TGMO vs. a high dose of cheap moly in PYB) or the superior base oil of TGMO.

TGMO also did better than M1 0W-40. However, in that case, M1 is known to have higher iron wear in UOA's and that may be less of a viscosity issue and more of an M1-specific issue (perhaps the small amount of the ester base stock in M1 is somewhat reducing the effectiveness of the AW additives).

 

[ChemLabNL]

Originally Posted By: OilUzer
Originally Posted By: ChemLabNL
I only found BITOG less than a week ago but come to realize that Shannow is the only one that knows anything real

Americans now have Mobil 1 ESP Formula 0W40 (Dexos2 specific). Just use that oil and go find something else to waste your time on

If Europe doesn't have M1 ESP Formula 0W40, America can ship some to you so you don't have to waste your time either!

But wait, we will send you 2 for price of 1 ... just pay extra shipping & handling fees

Europe already has the better "European Formula" version and you could discover that for yourself if you had a search engine

But Thaaaanks!

 

[Shannow]

Here's some Toyota research on deposits...TEOST, and the premise of this thread.

https://fuelsandlubes.com/fli-article/to...charger-coking/

Quote:
It is understood that a turbocharger coking test will need hundreds of hours of operation to cause the coking deposit formation. By taking pre-aged engine oil, the Toyota team successfully evaluated each given test condition in 40 hours and reproduced the coking deposit formation for certain test condition.

The Toyota team also conducted laboratory tests to look at when coking happens and under what conditions, evaluating both used oil and fresh oil. They found that key was the presence of insoluble materials, which in gasoline engine oils, were found to be polymerized hydrocarbons with carbonyl and ester functional groups. Lubricants with even small amounts of insolubles formed deposits relatively quickly at anything above 180o C. Those free of these external materials did not coke, even at significantly higher temperatures. For instance, fresh oil free of insolubles started to coke at 280o C, a full 100o C higher than used oils with insolubles in them.

“Excessive accumulation of insolubles causes a variety of deposit issues in the engine,” Hirano said.
The source of insolubles is degraded fuel molecules, he said. A combustion product, the degraded fuel molecules end up accumulating in the engine oil. There they polymerize, forming long molecular chains. Its thermal stability is worse than that of engine oil. When heated sufficiently, the insolubles clump up into deposits. A hot tube test was used to investigate the starting temperature of the coking phenomenon, by exposing a small amount of oil to hot air in the heated glass tube. Used oil collected from the field, oil oxidized in the lab, as well as fresh oil were used in the experiment. Only used oil from the field exhibited the level of deposit formation that can lead to coking at the temperature range related to turbocharger bearing area. Fresh oil showed none. The oils that were oxidized in the lab went through an equipment called ISOT, which allows the oil to be degraded without insoluble formation. Since there was a big difference between the coking start temperatures with the used oil and the oil that was oxidised in-lab (coking temperature is well above 200° C), Toyota was able to determine that insolubles are the main driver of lower coking start temperature. Because the starting point is degraded fuel that’s been through combustion, fresh oil doesn’t exhibit anything like the temperature sensitivity and problem that used oil does.


Note that there's a couple of words missing in the article...which still makes sense based on the previous commentary.

Quote:
It should be noted that Toyota tested both gasoline and diesel oils to investigate the coking start temperature. As mentioned, the insolubles produced by the combustion of a gasoline engine have poor thermal stability and are made of____

The study also looked at the impact of MoDTC, a friction modifier that is popular among Japanese car makers.

Toyota researchers also looked at screening tests to detect turbocharger coking, such as ASTM D6335, also known as the TEOST 33C test, which has been used in some of the ILSAC engine oil specifications. As already mentioned, the Toyota researchers found that the presence of insolubles derived from degraded fuel molecules was the key factor to reproduce the turbocharger coking phenomena. The TEOST 33C test does not involve it. Therefore, they do not think it is a good engine oil-screening test for turbocharger coking.
Interestingly, they used 98 RON gasoline, which is a high octane fuel and in Japan, contains an elevated level of aromatics.

“They are prone to form more insolubles than other hydrocarbons. Actually by taking premium fuel in the Japanese market, we are increasing stress on coking. So from that viewpoint, fuel quality is very important when we take this technical assessment of this phenomena,” Hirano said.

 

[Gokhan]

Thanks for the article.

So, one of the conclusions was that TEOST 33C is useless to evaluate turbocharger protection, despite that's being its goal.

The other conclusion was that the Japanese high-octane gas is bad for the oil and engine. I wonder if the California high-octane gas has the same problem. It's a good thing that I've been using regular gas for a long time.

 

[Shannow]

No probs.

Honda have been reasonably convincing on the Hot tube test...interesting that Toyota used it here.

 

[nap]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: nap
So Gokham, which of the popular oils below do you think had to pass TEOST 33 and thus could be declared “superior” based on its API defined technical merits?

They will all pass TEOST 33C..


That we wouldn’t really know unless they had been actually subjected to said test and got a “pass” grade.

Which only the humble PYB 5W30 needed to do, as a condition to wearing those API logos on the bottle. The “superior” 0W20’s are all exempted by sheer virtue of their viscosity class. Although otherwise they display the same API logos.

 

[nap]

And, BTW, if anyone knows of a readily available ACEA A5/B5 0W20, please kindly share the brand name.

 

[buster]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
No probs.

Honda have been reasonably convincing on the Hot tube test...interesting that Toyota used it here.


It is interesting how Toyota arrived at the same conclusion as Honda about the flawed TEOST test and turbos. Honda apparently doesn’t make good turbos but they certainly did some good research on oil and deposit formation in a turbo engine.

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
It's funny that you put the picture of PYB next to the TGMO. I do have a UOA comparison for them. TGMO did far better than PYB. I don't know if the reason was the superior type of moly in TGMO (the potent trinuclear moly in TGMO vs. a high dose of cheap moly in PYB) or the superior base oil of TGMO.

TGMO also did better than M1 0W-40. However, in that case, M1 is known to have higher iron wear in UOA's and that may be less of a viscosity issue and more of an M1-specific issue (perhaps the small amount of the ester base stock in M1 is somewhat reducing the effectiveness of the AW additives).

This analysis from 2013 is way outdated. There are new formulations already in use. The reports are here on BITOG somewhere.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
No probs.

Honda have been reasonably convincing on the Hot tube test...interesting that Toyota used it here.

Speaking of the hot-tube test, let's discuss the Russian hot-flask test (~ 380 - 400 C?).

(Use the Google Chrome web browser for automatic translation.)

Russian hot-flask oil test (Chapter VIII)

Chapter IX
Chapter X
Chapter XI
Chapter XII
Chapter XIII
Chapter XIV