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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: dblshock
if you just drive back/forth to work, bought the 85hp base model, tires last 100k, do 3k OCI's and no police citations this is your oil.

This is a good point. The twin-cam, fuel-injection 4A-GEC engine produces more than 50% more power than my 4A-LC engine. 10W-30, which has an HTHSV of about 3.1 cP, is the recommended oil for both engines. Since the lubrication factor (in the Stribeck curve) is proportional to (RPM x viscosity / power), this means I could safely go down to an HTHSV of about 2.0 cP. So, according to Toyota, it's safe to use SAE 0W-12 in my engine. Chances are that even SAE 0W-8 (HTHSV = 1.7 cP) would work.

However, there is a caveat. This argument assumes that the RPM/power curve is similar in both engines. If my less powered engine produces a better power curve at low RPMs, the lubrication factor wouldn't be as strong at low RPMs and the argument wouldn't hold.

So, yes, the Toyota 4A engine was built very sturdily to be capable of much higher powers and it's a valid point that since I have a very low-powered version of it, I can get away with very thin oil, perhaps as thin as 0W-8, without the oil film (MOFT) collapsing at my bearings.
 
I had a 1990 Toyota Carina II which had the 1.6 4A-FE engine in it.

From about 1999 onwards work became manically busy and I had zero time for stuff like car maintenance. As a result, I ran it for over 18,000 miles without changing the oil. I only realised something might be amiss when the red warning light came on! So I just turned the car around, drove back to the lab, grabbed the first can of oil I could lay my hands on (probably a prototype 10W40 GTX I was developing), filled up the engine (didn't seem any point in draining the sump as there probably wasn't much oil there) and just drove on!

Those old Toyota engines were as tough as old boots and could take some serious abuse and still keep going. I sort of recall I gave it away for free after 12 years of use with about 170,000 miles on the clock. Happy days...
 
Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
What if the only choice is between a 0w30 or a 5w40 for Euro car warranty / approved oil purposes?


Still not Joe, but going by what Joe says, I would look for the lowest Noack.

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Although it depends on what VII you use, I might expect a 0W40 to contain about 70% more VII rubber than a 0W20. High levels of VII are not your best friend in any oil as they are the primary source of most piston deposits. What's more, the cold-flow properties of any VII are so poor that to accommodate that extra VII, you'll need to lighten up your base oil mix and take a hit on Noack. But that's just the 'direct' effect. To pass any piston cleanliness limited test, you'll generally need to add significantly more ashless dispersant to mitigate the effects of the extra VII. The cold-flow properties of ashless (particularly in a 0W-xx oil) are horrendous so you'll need to take a secondary (and almost certainly more severe) hit on Noack. And because your base oil mix is now far lighter, you're going to have to 'top-up' with a tad more VII to make up the viscometric deficit. And so it goes...

..... Yes you can mitigate these effects by using more polymerically efficient VIIs or subbing PAO for Group III but in both cases, you're talking about serious increases in the cost of manufacture.

Me, I'd avoid 0W40's like the plague..... I'd use an ACEA A3/B4 5W30 ....
 
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
... Finally regarding the TEOST test, if it was up to me I'd take the test out of ALL specs everywhere. ...
Given your low opinion of that requirement, two questions:

1) What do you think of the Honda HTO-06 coking test, which (I thought) purports to measure more-or-less the same characteristic by a different method?
2) Was exempting 0W-20 from (both?) TEOST tests such a bad thing for cars that use 0W-20?
 
Originally Posted By: FordCapriDriver
Hmmm.... looks like this thread is never going to reach a final verdict


Happy Birthday FCD !!!!
 
Originally Posted By: CR94
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
... Finally regarding the TEOST test, if it was up to me I'd take the test out of ALL specs everywhere. ...
Given your low opinion of that requirement, two questions:

1) What do you think of the Honda HTO-06 coking test, which (I thought) purports to measure more-or-less the same characteristic by a different method?
2) Was exempting 0W-20 from (both?) TEOST tests such a bad thing for cars that use 0W-20?



I don't have any personal experience of this Honda HTO-6 coking test. However that wouldn't stop me saying it too should be shot, drowned, tortured and dissolved in acid. We should then nuke the test site from orbit (it's the only way to be sure...)

My hostility to these tests is not so much to do with the test itself but the philosophy that underpins them, the less-than-worthy reasons why these tests get 'pushed' and the (mis)use of said tests for commercial advantage.

In my book, oil is oil. It's a brown, slippery, industrial fluid like any other industrial commodity. It should satisfy a pre-defined duty (for the sake of argument say a OCI of 7,500 miles) for 95% of drivers, 95% of the time. It's price, through the wonderful mechanism of a competitive market should reflect it's cost. You can argue that the numbers should be 95% or 99% but it's hard to argue that the objective should be to satisfy 100% of the people, 100% of the time because that last percent always comes at a disproportionate cost and it's unfair to lumber the 99% of the people who don't need 'that thing' that the last 1% need, with those extra costs.

Yet this is exactly what the engine oil market does, and the mechanism for doing it has always been to 'introduce a new test'. These tests all seek to provide 'differentiation' (usually between a bad oil and a good oil) but that bit of the process that says 'this means this in reality' is often totally absent. Often the reality of why a test is pushed and introduced is 'unspoken but understood'. The introduction of the Sequence IIIF test was done with the objective of killing off Group I base oils in the US. When that didn't work, the ante was upped by the introduction of the IIIG. The introduction of the Teost MHT-4 was to make Daimler-Chrysler happy. It was said the test correlated with 'high temperature deposits'. Did it bollocks! The introduction of low SAPs testing in Europe was clearly to the commercial advantage of one particular AddCo. I could go on and on and on...

This is no way to run a circus! Most of us are all paying over the odds for stuff we generally don't need.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
.. Most of us are all paying over the odds for stuff we generally don't need.

And we tend to argue about which un-needed quality is more desirable. Worthy of Mr J Swift's pen!
 
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Originally Posted By: CR94
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
... Finally regarding the TEOST test, if it was up to me I'd take the test out of ALL specs everywhere. ...
Given your low opinion of that requirement, two questions:

1) What do you think of the Honda HTO-06 coking test, which (I thought) purports to measure more-or-less the same characteristic by a different method?
2) Was exempting 0W-20 from (both?) TEOST tests such a bad thing for cars that use 0W-20?



I don't have any personal experience of this Honda HTO-6 coking test. However that wouldn't stop me saying it too should be shot, drowned, tortured and dissolved in acid. We should then nuke the test site from orbit (it's the only way to be sure...)

My hostility to these tests is not so much to do with the test itself but the philosophy that underpins them, the less-than-worthy reasons why these tests get 'pushed' and the (mis)use of said tests for commercial advantage.

In my book, oil is oil. It's a brown, slippery, industrial fluid like any other industrial commodity. It should satisfy a pre-defined duty (for the sake of argument say a OCI of 7,500 miles) for 95% of drivers, 95% of the time. It's price, through the wonderful mechanism of a competitive market should reflect it's cost. You can argue that the numbers should be 95% or 99% but it's hard to argue that the objective should be to satisfy 100% of the people, 100% of the time because that last percent always comes at a disproportionate cost and it's unfair to lumber the 99% of the people who don't need 'that thing' that the last 1% need, with those extra costs.

Yet this is exactly what the engine oil market does, and the mechanism for doing it has always been to 'introduce a new test'. These tests all seek to provide 'differentiation' (usually between a bad oil and a good oil) but that bit of the process that says 'this means this in reality' is often totally absent. Often the reality of why a test is pushed and introduced is 'unspoken but understood'. The introduction of the Sequence IIIF test was done with the objective of killing off Group I base oils in the US. When that didn't work, the ante was upped by the introduction of the IIIG. The introduction of the Teost MHT-4 was to make Daimler-Chrysler happy. It was said the test correlated with 'high temperature deposits'. Did it bollocks! The introduction of low SAPs testing in Europe was clearly to the commercial advantage of one particular AddCo. I could go on and on and on...

This is no way to run a circus! Most of us are all paying over the odds for stuff we generally don't need.


Your railing that the oil industry is the tail wagging the dog in the transportation infrastructure seems a little misplaced. There's plenty of market forces such as EPA, CAFE, OPEC, Market Trading, Manufacturing that have a major influence on cost, oil dependency and environmental concerns.

Certain tests to ensure the quality of engine oil may be flawed but are constantly evolving to meet the demands of above.
 
Quote:
We should then nuke the test site from orbit (it's the only way to be sure...)


Laugh !!!
It sounds like your big oil experience, is similar to Ripley's with her employers at the Weyland-Yutani Corporation in Aliens
 
"Your railing that the oil industry is the tail wagging the dog in the transportation infrastructure seems a little misplaced. There's plenty of market forces such as EPA, CAFE, OPEC, Market Trading, Manufacturing that have a major influence on cost, oil dependency and environmental concerns."




EPA and CAFE are government. One is a agency, the other is a policy mandate. OPEC is a mix of government and royal Middle East families. The term market forces usually refers to corporate industry and consumers.
 
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
I don't think anything beats TGMO 0W-20 SN in the UOAs as far as I know. You can research around but to my knowledge TGMO 0W-20 SN gives the best UOAs by far.

I'm not so sure about that, but okay, let's assume that's true, and also that you're talking about the best "wear metals" and the like, not the best extended drain oil out there. Of course, that's while UOAs are about, after all, lubricant condemnation, but we'll set that aside right now.

If you're making an oil selection to chase low numbers on paper, that's up to you. The first low number on paper I'm interested in is the price on the till receipt. Other writings on paper I'm interested in are the specifications in question.

SonofJoe: I had to be a base stock snob, but the most readily available 5w-30 A3/B4 here is seemingly a Group III, whereas the 0w-40 A3/B4 from the same supplier is a Group IV. I would assume that this matter, too, would affect VII content.

CharlieBauer: You should be able to get Castrol 5w-30 A3/B4 in the States now. I can't answer how readily available it would be. Shell also has a Pennzoil Euro 5w-30 A3/B4. As SR5 pointed out, there are also 5w-30 HDEOs back on the shelves.
 
Garak,

I'd hazard a guess that a 5W30 Group III OCP VII oil will contain roughly the same level of VII as a 0W40 PAO (+ a bit of ester?) oil. Generally OW40's are based around Shellvis VII. Put this together and there's probably not much of a difference in Noack between the two oils. However the 0W40 will be significantly more expensive to manufacture.
 
Originally Posted By: SR5
Quote:
We should then nuke the test site from orbit (it's the only way to be sure...)


Laugh !!!
It sounds like your big oil experience, is similar to Ripley's with her employers at the Weyland-Yutani Corporation in Aliens



Glad you spotted my cribbed quote from Aliens. The film is over thirty years old now so not everyone remembers these things...
 
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Garak,

I'd hazard a guess that a 5W30 Group III OCP VII oil will contain roughly the same level of VII as a 0W40 PAO (+ a bit of ester?) oil. Generally OW40's are based around Shellvis VII. Put this together and there's probably not much of a difference in Noack between the two oils. However the 0W40 will be significantly more expensive to manufacture.

Modern Group III+ and GTL base stocks have higher VI than PAO. Therefore, a PAO base oil requires more VII than a Group III base oil.

NOACK has nothing to do with the VII. It's entirely determined by the base oil. PAO and GTL both excel in NOACK. Non-GTL Group III has higher NOACK than PAO and GTL.
 
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Modern Group III+ and GTL base stocks have higher VI than PAO. Therefore, a PAO base oil requires more VII than a Group III base oil.


But we DO know that TGMO has a far greater apparent temporary shear loss (ratio of HTHS to theoretical newtonian viscosity at 150C), so we know that TGMO has one of the highest VII impacts out there.


Originally Posted By: Gokhan
NOACK has nothing to do with the VII. It's entirely determined by the base oil. PAO and GTL both excel in NOACK. Non-GTL Group III has higher NOACK than PAO and GTL.


By VII, do you mean VI ?

The point is that to get a given KV100 with the lowest KV40 (which is what Joe was pointing out, and the Japanese are doing by their own admission), you need to go to thinner basestocks, and more VII to get the VI that they want...therefore more NOACK in a higher VI oil with the same KV100 end point.
 
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Garak,

I'd hazard a guess that a 5W30 Group III OCP VII oil will contain roughly the same level of VII as a 0W40 PAO (+ a bit of ester?) oil. Generally OW40's are based around Shellvis VII. Put this together and there's probably not much of a difference in Noack between the two oils. However the 0W40 will be significantly more expensive to manufacture.

Modern Group III+ and GTL base stocks have higher VI than PAO. Therefore, a PAO base oil requires more VII than a Group III base oil.

NOACK has nothing to do with the VII. It's entirely determined by the base oil. PAO and GTL both excel in NOACK. Non-GTL Group III has higher NOACK than PAO and GTL.


Got any examples of VI's for these base stocks? I see Mobil's SpectraSyn 10 for example has a VI of 132, SpectraSyn 40 is 147, SpectraSyn 100 is 169. The mPAO products are even higher.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
M1 ESP 0W-30 vs M1 Euro/FS 0W-40
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
buster
cammyfive79
If CAFE/stringent fuel economy/emissions requirements didn't exist....would 0W-8/16/20 exist?
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
4K
kschachn
A
2023 BRZ (FA24); Redline 0W-40 vs Mobil 1 0W-40
Replies
19
Views
725
chris719
D
Clearing up common misconceptions with Oil weights
Replies
1
Views
728
Jetronic
J
M1 FS 0W-40, M1 FS 5W-40, D1 ESP 5W-40 Volatility Results - March 2025
2 3
Replies
54
Views
3K
edyvw
Back
Top Bottom