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

[PimTac]

Originally Posted By: WhizkidTN
Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
Reading a few posts here, I'm interpreting that VII's are not in and of themselves bad. It's just that the more VII used, the more likely that the base stock used is lighter and thus has a higher NOACK.

So if a 0w40 has a Noack of 8.1% and a VI of 181 (Valvoline Synpower 0w40), is it more desirable than a 5w30, 0w30, 5w40 which carry the same approvals that have a Noack higher than 8.1%?

Or should I also look at any other specs apart from Noack?


Hmm. According to Valvoline's PDF for SynPower 0W-40 oil, the NOACK is 9%, not 8.1%. Where did you get that figure?





That PDF has two pages, ILSAC and non-ILSAC oil. It's easy to get the values mixed up.

 

[PimTac]

This thread is turning into a commercial for TGMO.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: dblshock
zink?

Too much ZDDP is bad for your emissions systems. On top of that, with modern AW/EP/FM/AO additives, it doesn't help to have too much ZDDP. TGMO 0W-20 SN has about 773 ppm phosphorus (P), which I consider sufficient.

 

[zeng]

Originally Posted By: PimTac
This thread is turning into a commercial for TGMO.

It's about add packs TGMO vs M 1.
Not 0W20 vs 0W40.

 

[SonofJoe]

Originally Posted By: 4WD
But so many base oils might get used and it is not so linear:




Just a couple of comments on this table...

First, it shows that even mighty Exxon makes the occasional cock-up! No way is the KV40 of the 5W30 32.3 cst. It will be way higher (why did no-one spot this glaring mistake???). Second, someone should have got the TBN on the 5W40 rechecked. If the DI treat is bring held constant, the TBN won't change much from 8.4 (BTW, this holds lessons for all BITOG members who question why the numbers quoted on PDSs vary. It's often just 'what came back from the lab' and the marketing folks don't query what might be a bum number).

Third, there's something strange with the 5W50. No way can you get more PAO8 into a blend when you're upping the VM from 8.7 to 11.6%. This only makes sense if they used a different VM for the 5W50 (which is fine but maybe make it explicit Mr Exxon?). Had things been made consistent, then the 5W50 would have contained less PAO8 than the 5W40, had a higher Noack and possibly an even higher still polymer loading.

There are a couple of things that I hope the more eagle-eyed of you have spotted. First, MRV tends to rise with VM treat. Second, if you compare a fixed weight of oil, the one with the lowest W-rating will usually have a marginally lower HTHS. For example, the 0W30 and 5W30 have HTHSs of 3.1 vs 3.2 whilst the 0W40 vs 5W40 have HTHSs of 3.6 vs 3.8. It's basically a reflection of the reduced level of VM in the oil.

 

[SR5]

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
if you compare a fixed weight of oil, the one with the lowest W-rating will usually have a marginally lower HTHS. For example, the 0W30 and 5W30 have HTHSs of 3.1 vs 3.2 whilst the 0W40 vs 5W40 have HTHSs of 3.6 vs 3.8. It's basically a reflection of the reduced level of VM in the oil.


I've always thought, you only want as much W-rating as you need, but no more. Otherwise the volatility goes up, but now I also realise that the HTHS goes down as well.

I find the following Noack data interesting

Originally Posted By: SR5

http://content.valvoline.com/pdf/valvoline_full_synthetic_with_maxlife_technology.pdf

For Valvoline Full Synthetic with MaxLife (2016)
noack % for ILSAC grades
0W20 = 11.4 %
5W20 = 9.3 %
5W30 = 10.2 %
10W30 = 6.3 %

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
There are a couple of things that I hope the more eagle-eyed of you have spotted. First, MRV tends to rise with VM treat. Second, if you compare a fixed weight of oil, the one with the lowest W-rating will usually have a marginally lower HTHS. For example, the 0W30 and 5W30 have HTHSs of 3.1 vs 3.2 whilst the 0W40 vs 5W40 have HTHSs of 3.6 vs 3.8. It's basically a reflection of the reduced level of VM in the oil.


Similarly, MRV is low shear, while CCS is high shear, so also shows temporary viscosity loss just like HTHS and HTHS100 in some data sheets.

For a Newtonian oil, the MRV should be pretty close to double the CCS, the "doubling per 5C" rule of thumb.

Can see here that the VII's bump up the low shear viscosities, as you say...the bigger the ratio between MRV and CCS (above 2) the more VII interaction that there is.

So for the
0W20 and 5W30, the ratio is 2 and a bit
0W30 and 5W40, the ratio is closer to 2.7
0W40 and 5W50, the ratio is closer to 3.

 

[Shannow]

Here's another for a syn blend...

 

[SonofJoe]

SR5,

I had a look through your Valvoline numbers and they are entirely logical.

It helps if you first focus on the 5W20 and then pivot downward (to the 0W20) and pivot upwards (to the 5W30). Relative to the 5W20, both steps will result in more VM going into the oil. As a result, for the first pivot, the Noack increase from 9.3 to 11.4% while second pivot pushes the Noack from 9.3 to 10.2%.

There's a secondary (albeit limited) pivot you can do by shifting up from the 5W30 to the 10W30. Valvoline don't disclose any details of their formulations but my guess is that this shift sheds a lot of VM from the oil and allows a lot more heavy base oil use. As a result the Noack drops like a brick from 10.2 to 6.3%. HTHS numbers aren't provided but I'd expect a big kick up in the HTHS of the 10W30 vs the 5W30.

If this does anything, it suggests you don't necessarily benefit from 'extreme' engine oils. If you don't need 0W, don't buy it. If (like me) you don't race and you're okay with a 20-weight oil (and don't have any worries about wear), then don't go and buy 30-weight, 40-weight or 50-weight because it can potentially hurt the oil.

One day I might find my cheap but decidedly not nasty 10W20 on sale and I will be happy!

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
There's a secondary (albeit limited) pivot you can do by shifting up from the 5W30 to the 10W30. Valvoline don't disclose any details of their formulations but my guess is that this shift sheds a lot of VM from the oil and allows a lot more heavy base oil use. As a result the Noack drops like a brick from 10.2 to 6.3%. HTHS numbers aren't provided but I'd expect a big kick up in the HTHS of the 10W30 vs the 5W30.



So there's a couple of ways to skin a cat...not exactly apples and nashi fruit.

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
One day I might find my cheap but decidedly not nasty 10W20 on sale and I will be happy!


I found a 10W20 in Australia (not in real life, on the net) the other day...it's a good thing IMO...2.9HTHS to boot.

 

[SonofJoe]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Here's another for a syn blend...

This table is interesting but at the same time very silly (duh! It's Infineum's so no surprise there).

Again it shows that as you step up from 0W30 to a 0W40, the VM increases considerably (from 5.7 to 9.4%). As a consequence they drop out all the PAO6 (Noack 6.4%) and primarily back-fill with PAO4 (Noack 14.0%) to regain the viscometric balance. So the Noack should logically increase, yes? Errrr...not according to this table where the Noack increases from 10% to errr...10%! Real or fake? Maybe the actual measured numbers were 9.5% and 10.5% and they thought let's just round these up and down to 'avoid confusing the customer'!

Also the numbers point to one of my pet hates about Infineum's 0W40 Shellvis VM based, formulation style. Look at that KV100 of 12.7 cst (so only just above the 12.5 min spec) and this junk doesn't even make 3.5 HTHS (it's 3.4 and maybe that's 3.35 cP rounded-up!). You might as well stick with an ACEA 30-weight oil if HTHS bothers you). The 40 number is meaningless.

Finally, can I ask what kind of plank makes a Group II/Group IV blend and thinks it's good formulation??? PAO is horribly expensive. Just do the logical thing that everyone else does and make it primarily from cheap Group III and trim with PAO if you need to. Why make something expensive just because you can. Daft!

 

[Shannow]

yep, that HTHS was pre 2013 thing when 0W40 could have 2.9

 

[SR5]

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Errrr...not according to this table where the Noack increases from 10% to errr...10%!

.......

Finally, can I ask what kind of plank makes a Group II/Group IV blend and thinks it's good formulation??? .........Daft!


Laugh !!!

 

[CharlieBauer]

Originally Posted By: WhizkidTN
Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
Reading a few posts here, I'm interpreting that VII's are not in and of themselves bad. It's just that the more VII used, the more likely that the base stock used is lighter and thus has a higher NOACK.

So if a 0w40 has a Noack of 8.1% and a VI of 181 (Valvoline Synpower 0w40), is it more desirable than a 5w30, 0w30, 5w40 which carry the same approvals that have a Noack higher than 8.1%?

Or should I also look at any other specs apart from Noack?


Hmm. According to Valvoline's PDF for SynPower 0W-40 oil, the NOACK is 9%, not 8.1%. Where did you get that figure?


I got it from the Russia oil club but sure if it's 9%, my question still stands.

Is a 0w40 with a 9% NOACK and a VI of 181 better than 0w30 / 5w30 / 5w40 oils with the same approvals but higher NOACK?

Is NOACK the be all and end all or are there other published specifications that we should consider?

 

[Gokhan]

Another thing I noticed is that the radiator-fan off cycles at idle seem to be 50% longer with the TGMO 0W-20 SN than with the M1 0W-40 SN, indicating much more efficient engine cooling with the 0W-20.

Therefore, 0W-20 seems to flow a lot more than 0W-40 even at idle. Of course, 0W-20 also has a lot less viscous friction (drag), which reduces the bearing temperatures, leading to even more cooling.

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
The point I'm making is that any fuel savings you make in buying TGMO aren't exactly 'free'. It would be interesting to see what minimum fuel savings you have to make in the US, over say a 5,000 mile OCI, just to cover the extra cost of TGMO 0W20 over a supermarket mineral 5W20. In the land of cheap gasoline, big sumps and low OCIs, I can imagine that minimum break-even point might be rather higher than a lot of folks realise.

Apparently, here in Canada, this TGMO is supposed to be quite attractively priced at the dealer. Of course, I've never had the opportunity to verify that, having nothing that calls for a 5w-20 or a 0w-20.


Here, one can often find TGMO on CL for under four bucks a quart.
I found eleven quarts of it on CL that I paid $40.00 for just because I wanted to try it.
From what I later learned here, TGMO appears to be a miracle of high VII treat rates yielding a high VI from a mediocre basestock blend.
The cold performance numbers are telling and TGMO is not in the same league as either M1 0W-20, not that this would matter to someone living in LA.
For Toyota to tell XOM how to blend a motor oil is exactly like XOM telling Toyota how to design a hybrid car.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Another thing I noticed is that the radiator-fan off cycles at idle seem to be 50% longer with the TGMO 0W-20 SN than with the M1 0W-40 SN, indicating much more efficient engine cooling with the 0W-20.

Therefore, 0W-20 seems to flow a lot more than 0W-40 even at idle. Of course, 0W-20 also has a lot less viscous friction (drag), which reduces the bearing temperatures, leading to even more cooling.


If the oil is cooling the engine more efficiently, where is it rejecting all that new heat?

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
From what I later learned here, TGMO appears to be a miracle of high VII treat rates yielding a high VI from a mediocre basestock blend.

Is a Group III base oil considered a mediocre base-stock blend? If that's the case, Mobil 1 and most full-synthetic oils are also mediocre base-stock blends.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Another thing I noticed is that the radiator-fan off cycles at idle seem to be 50% longer with the TGMO 0W-20 SN than with the M1 0W-40 SN, indicating much more efficient engine cooling with the 0W-20.

Therefore, 0W-20 seems to flow a lot more than 0W-40 even at idle. Of course, 0W-20 also has a lot less viscous friction (drag), which reduces the bearing temperatures, leading to even more cooling.

If the oil is cooling the engine more efficiently, where is it rejecting all that new heat?

Flowing engine oil acts as a heat-transfer fluid like the engine coolant, carrying heat from hotter parts of the engine to the cooler parts. If you didn't have that, the hotter parts would have to run even hotter to pass the heat through conduction. Some guy is claiming that oil accounts for half of the engine's cooling.

http://www.hendonpub.com/resources/article_archive/results/details?id=3965

On top of that, thicker oil creates more viscous friction and generates more heat, adding to engine heating.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Flowing engine oil acts as a heat-transfer fluid like the engine coolant, carrying heat from hotter parts of the engine to the cooler parts. If you didn't have that, the hotter parts would have to run even hotter to pass the heat through conduction. Some guy is claiming that oil accounts for half of the engine's cooling.

http://www.hendonpub.com/resources/article_archive/results/details?id=3965

No doubt, but it has to reject the heat somewhere. Where?

If it is carrying it to the cooler parts then it is transferring it there. How is it getting out to the environment?