Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: CR94
Originally Posted By: Shannow
... Why then, are the half dozen different TGMOs from different manufacturers so markedly different then ? ...
Of that half-dozen, how many are currently sold in the US as 0W-20?


Pretty sure that there were at least three TGMO 0W20s (all made to Toyota's exact secret sauce) over the year that were all different.

There's another couple of TGMO 0W20s elsewhere...and if Toyota are shipping the secret sauce to Mobil (as has been claimed), then it would seem pretty simple to send a drum of sauce somewhere else, wouldn't it ?

 

[CharlieBauer]

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe

Me, I'd avoid 0W40's like the plague. The only engine test program I ever failed was a 0W40 (admittedly it was the first one I'd ever run but it opened my eyes!). If I was specifically concerned about wear, I'd use an ACEA A3/B4 5W30 as there's often not a lot of difference HTHS-wise between that and a 0W40 and you don't get all that nasty rubber.


Say I can't get a Euro 5w30. What's the next best choice? 5w40 or 0w30?

 

[Shannow]

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3356846/2

for those interested, Gokhan had a really comprehensive VOA of TGMO a few years ago.

 

[SonofJoe]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
SonofJoe,
in this particular case, the US TGMO has a VI well over 200 (220 IIRC)...the Japanese OEMs used ultra high VIs, lots of VII, one of the lowest ratios of HTHS versus Newtonian HTHS (TSS)...It's a part of the mythical status of this miraculous oil (and a few others)

They did this in the period prior to the 16 and lower grades coming on line for warm-up fuel economy (their words), and from CATERHAM's testing to drop in HTHS pretty markedly (clearly not for improved big end function, so it must be for "the other reason").

The Japanese OEMs included moly, and if you have a look at the API Requirements, they (the Japanes OEMS) lobbied the API to drops the TEOST tests for the 0W20 grades (*)...aka want uber high VI, AND bucketloads of moly, our oils can't meet the TEOST that is required of every other oil grade in the API arsenal.

(*) so much for the argument that Toyotas run on standard API specs, when they and Honda lobbied to remove the deposit test from that and that grade only.



The Japanese (and almost no-one else) like Poly-Methacrylate (PMA) VIIs in their engine oils. One of the peculiarities of PMA is that for a fixed KV100 and fixed CCS, it will always give you a lower KV40 (or KV '0 to 40' if you want to go even lower) than the equivalent oil made with bog standard OCP VII (regardless of SSI) or slightly more exotic Hydrogenated Styrene-Diene (Shellvis) VIIs. So PMAs automatically give you higher than usual Viscosity Index (VI). Unfortunately oil specs never contain limits on VI or KV40 so no-one generally is interested in this peculiar quirk of PMA. However.....

... if you happen to live in a densely populated country that is 95% mountain, that has no indigenous oil reserves, that has bitingly cold winters and everywhere you drive involves sitting in long traffic jams (so your engine oil can potentially take ages to get up to it's 100°C operating temperature) then under such circumstances, I can imagine that an engine oil with a low KV40 (or more accurately, a lower aggregate KV during the start-up/warm-up phase) would give you a decent, measurable fuel economy credit. Hello PMA VII!!

So why don't we all use PMA? Well for starters, it's horribly polymerically inefficient (think for every 1% of conventional VII rubber, you'll probably need 3% of PMA). That makes it very costly and potentially very 'dirty' (forget using PMA for diesel). You've already alluded to it's other weakness; it's garbage on the HTHS test and any other shear test. I don't know but would also hazard a guess that it's as much the high VII rubber loading that stuffs up Japanese oils on the TEOST test as much as high levels of Moly.

I might also think that you can only get away with PMA VII in relatively narrow cross-grade oils (like a 0W20) containing a lot of very high VI base oil (PAO?). Both things would bring the VII loading to something approaching a normal level. A 0W40 Group III PMA oil would be potentially awful for piston cleanliness.

Finally regarding the TEOST test, if it was up to me I'd take the test out of ALL specs everywhere. After that I'd take it outside, shoot it several times, drown it, cut it up into bits and then burn what was left! The test has no connection to any automotive reality I recognise. However it is excellent test for maintaining high levels of antioxidant in engine oils, even if they dont otherwise need it, so someone's benefitting from it; just not you and me.

 

[plaguef]

Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe

Me, I'd avoid 0W40's like the plague. The only engine test program I ever failed was a 0W40 (admittedly it was the first one I'd ever run but it opened my eyes!). If I was specifically concerned about wear, I'd use an ACEA A3/B4 5W30 as there's often not a lot of difference HTHS-wise between that and a 0W40 and you don't get all that nasty rubber.


Say I can't get a Euro 5w30. What's the next best choice? 5w40 or 0w30?


Mobil 1 has a 0W-30 and it and Pennzoil and Castrol have 0W-40 Euro...

 

[SR5]

Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe

Me, I'd avoid 0W40's like the plague. The only engine test program I ever failed was a 0W40 (admittedly it was the first one I'd ever run but it opened my eyes!). If I was specifically concerned about wear, I'd use an ACEA A3/B4 5W30 as there's often not a lot of difference HTHS-wise between that and a 0W40 and you don't get all that nasty rubber.


Say I can't get a Euro 5w30. What's the next best choice? 5w40 or 0w30?


I'm not Joe, but you can get M1 10W30 High Mileage which is A3/B3 which is fairly close. It's a full synthetic, narrow viscosity range so low on VII, and since you live in CA it should have all the cold starting ability you need.

If you want better cold starting M1 5W30 HM has a HTHS of 3.3 cP which is better than the regular M1 5W30 at 3.1 cP.

You should also be able to get a semi-synthetic mixed fleet HDEO 10W30 with a HTHS of 3.5 or more that's probably rated Euro ACEA E7 or E9 plus some API specs. That should be a nice oil.

But I'm not Joe, just chatting.

 

[4WD]

Excellent post - makes one rethink some comments here wrt to 'stronger add packs', arbitrary measures like vscosity index, and all that. The really wide spreads don't feel right in my mind - me? have to live really cold to consider - but my friend has it in his 911s in Houston. (Well, changes 3k though- not on tracks). On the other end of things folks push running 5w40 truck oil in almost everything when the long standing leader in boat racing stays away from VII - and there are 15w40 Dino products with a lower NOACK.

 

[SR5]

Originally Posted By: SR5
Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe

Me, I'd avoid 0W40's like the plague. The only engine test program I ever failed was a 0W40 (admittedly it was the first one I'd ever run but it opened my eyes!). If I was specifically concerned about wear, I'd use an ACEA A3/B4 5W30 as there's often not a lot of difference HTHS-wise between that and a 0W40 and you don't get all that nasty rubber.


Say I can't get a Euro 5w30. What's the next best choice? 5w40 or 0w30?


I'm not Joe, but you can get M1 10W30 High Mileage which is A3/B3 which is fairly close. It's a full synthetic, narrow viscosity range so low on VII, and since you live in CA it should have all the cold starting ability you need.

If you want better cold starting M1 5W30 HM has a HTHS of 3.3 cP which is better than the regular M1 5W30 at 3.1 cP.

You should also be able to get a semi-synthetic mixed fleet HDEO 10W30 with a HTHS of 3.5 or more that's probably rated Euro ACEA E7 or E9 plus some API specs. That should be a nice oil.

But I'm not Joe, just chatting.

Oh yeah, and a 5W30 C3 (or Dexos2) rated oil.
C3 is like a low SAPS version of A3/B4. Good for moderate OCI.

 

[SonofJoe]

I was going to suggest a 10W30 (Amsoil's) but you beat me to it...

 

[CharlieBauer]

What if the only choice is between a 0w30 or a 5w40 for Euro car warranty / approved oil purposes?

 

[4WD]

M1 Formula M 5w40 etc, etc, in some cases ...

 

[zeng]

Originally Posted By: zeng
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
I was only comparing 0W-20 and 0W-40 in an engine with typical bearing design and sliding rocker arms.

No, that's what you perceive ...... quite rightly.
In a way,I consider you're comparing primarily (differential) efficacies of relevant:
a )TGMO add packs of 18 months (comprising 1 winter season) usage, as opposed to
b )M 1 add packs of 22 months (comprising 2 winter seasons) usage .......
where respective viscosity grades appears to be of lesser significance in relation to additives packages of major significance ..........
in your 'Final verdict', I speculate.

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: CR94
Originally Posted By: PimTac
... In the US doesn't Mobil make TGMO? ...
Yes, but per Toyota's recipe. It's not the same as any Mobil product.
That's exactly so and hence M1 AFE/EP/AP 0W-20 SN has only about half the trinuclear moly TGMO 0W-20 SN has (116 ppm).

Originally Posted By: Shannow
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3356846/2
for those interested, Gokhan had a really comprehensive VOA of TGMO a few years ago.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3356846/1
Yes, you are comparing TGMO additive package against M 1 additive package.Period.
It's not about 0W20 vs 0W40!
Finally, the cat is ......https://www.google.com/search?q=the+cat+is+out+of+the+bag+meaning&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b
...... after a long, long 16 pages of .....
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
But claiming that xW-20 results in less engine wear than the thicker oils when much of the technical information out there doesn't parallel that premise makes it hard to believe. Maybe someone can go dig up an SAE paper or something ................

Did OP write this SAE paper ?

 

[PimTac]

How many times has it been said here that you cannot judge a oil solely by its additive package? Plus, the formulations of motor oils are fluid (pun) and changing all the time.

 

[PimTac]

I just read a few comments on that other thread and it opened more questions than answers for me.

Zinc is the only source of phosphorus in motor oil? Is that really true?

There is a difference between brand loyalty and brand fanaticism. I'm seeing the latter here.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: PimTac
I just read a few comments on that other thread and it opened more questions than answers for me.

Zinc is the only source of phosphorus in motor oil? Is that really true?


I don't know if this is 100% completely correct, but I ran across it a while back. I think it is pretty good:

http://www.wearcheck.co.za/downloads/bulletins/bulletin/tech47.pdf

Also, it wouldn't be that "zinc is the only source of phosphorus", since they are two different elements. Zinc dithiophosphate contains both and is decomposed in the ICP plasma to give an indication for both elements (although not at the same sensitivity).

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: PimTac
I just read a few comments on that other thread and it opened more questions than answers for me.

Zinc is the only source of phosphorus in motor oil? Is that really true?


I don't know if this is 100% completely correct, but I ran across it a while back. I think it is pretty good:

http://www.wearcheck.co.za/downloads/bulletins/bulletin/tech47.pdf





Thanks for that info. It confirmed my suspicions. A lot of formulations use phosphate as the salt or the ion. For ex., calcium phosphate, sodium phosphate, and so forth. I'm no expert so I don't know the exact additive formulations except where specified as in the case of ZDDP.

 

[kschachn]

Well they aren't salts since they are soluble in the non-polar oil. I only have a minor in chemistry so this is rapidly starting to run out of what I know, but the central metal ion is zinc in ZDDP. However, like most coordination compounds you can often substitute another metal ion and not radically affect the function of the remainder of the molecule. I think that is what they do when they substitute titanium for zinc, the overall anti-wear function remains similar but you don't have the zinc to poison a catalyst.

 

[SonofJoe]

ZDDP isn't necessarily the only source of Phosphorus in oil. The Moly anologue of ZDDP contains it as do sundry phosphorylated organics.

However given that the Phos level for so many oils is restricted these days, a formulator will tend to use up his 'full Phosphorus allowance' with ZDDP and look to use non-Phos versions of other stuff (like P-free Moly Dithio Dialkyl Carbamate).

 

[SonofJoe]

Interesting take on things but not quite right...

In ZDDP, it's the Phosphorus (and Sulphur) bits that you really need for preventing wear and preventing oil oxidation. The Zinc (or more strictly Zinc Oxide) is really just a convenient way of linking two thio acid molecules together. Likewise it's just the Phos, and to a much lesser extent, the Sulphur in oil that poison cats. Zinc is sort of guilty only by association!

The Titanium you see in oils is not a ZDDP anologue (according to most published patents, it's Titanium Neodeconate). Titanium trioxide lacks the basic character of Zinc Oxide so the reaction with thio acid doesn't work. However one might possibly speculate that whoever first thought of using Titanium in oil, might have initially conceptually imagined it as a TiTDP (Titanium Tri-thio Dialkyl Phosphate)...

 

[kschachn]

Ahha, well thanks I stand corrected. A minor in some subject is usually just enough to be dangerous.

Catalyst poisoning is complicated, that much I know, it has everything to do with what the catalyst is and how it functions. I always thought it was the zinc that did it.

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Interesting take on things but not quite right...

In ZDDP, it's the Phosphorus (and Sulphur) bits that you really need for preventing wear and preventing oil oxidation. The Zinc (or more strictly Zinc Oxide) is really just a convenient way of linking two thio acid molecules together. Likewise it's just the Phos, and to a much lesser extent, the Sulphur in oil that poison cats. Zinc is sort of guilty only by association!

The Titanium you see in oils is not a ZDDP anologue (according to most published patents, it's Titanium Neodeconate). Titanium trioxide lacks the basic character of Zinc Oxide so the reaction with thio acid doesn't work. However one might possibly speculate that whoever first thought of using Titanium in oil, might have initially conceptually imagined it as a TiTDP (Titanium Tri-thio Dialkyl Phosphate)...