Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict
- Thread starter Gokhan
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: PimTac
Heat from the oil being transferred to the coolant. That's my guess.
Right, but he said this:
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.
I took that to mean it was off 50% longer. Perhaps he meant on 50% longer.
Heat from the oil being transferred to the coolant. That's my guess.
Right, but he said this:
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.
I took that to mean it was off 50% longer. Perhaps he meant on 50% longer.
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: PimTac
Heat from the oil being transferred to the coolant. That's my guess.
Right, but he said this:
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.
I took that to mean it was off 50% longer. Perhaps he meant on 50% longer.
Interesting. I'm not a mechanic nor a engineer so correct me if I'm wrong. A engine produces a certain amount of heat. The oil and the coolant are heat transfers that move the heat out to the radiator where air disperses the heat. The only way to know if the oil was cooling the engine would be to install an accurate temperature gauge. Without that it's guesswork and hypothesis.
The idea that a 0w-20 oil would help cool an engine better than a thicker oil seems like a stretch to me. Even if it proves true, how would anyone be able to tell without instrumentation?
Originally Posted By: PimTac
Heat from the oil being transferred to the coolant. That's my guess.
Right, but he said this:
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.
I took that to mean it was off 50% longer. Perhaps he meant on 50% longer.
Interesting. I'm not a mechanic nor a engineer so correct me if I'm wrong. A engine produces a certain amount of heat. The oil and the coolant are heat transfers that move the heat out to the radiator where air disperses the heat. The only way to know if the oil was cooling the engine would be to install an accurate temperature gauge. Without that it's guesswork and hypothesis.
The idea that a 0w-20 oil would help cool an engine better than a thicker oil seems like a stretch to me. Even if it proves true, how would anyone be able to tell without instrumentation?
I meant fan off longer, meaning engine heating less or being cooled more efficiently. Fan coming on more often means engine heating more (more heat energy being generated) or cooling system not being efficient (less coolant circulation etc.).
Of course, this is not scientific at all and there may be other factors like the ambient temperature.
Yes, circulating coolant would collect the heat from the oil. Some heat would also be given out to the ambient through the oil pan etc.
If the oil flow was less, that would certainly increase the bearing temperatures, as the oil is the primary heat-transfer media for the bearings -- coolant can't get there directly.
Of course, this is not scientific at all and there may be other factors like the ambient temperature.
Yes, circulating coolant would collect the heat from the oil. Some heat would also be given out to the ambient through the oil pan etc.
If the oil flow was less, that would certainly increase the bearing temperatures, as the oil is the primary heat-transfer media for the bearings -- coolant can't get there directly.
If the oil is running cooler, then it's transferring LESS heat to the environment through the sump walls...obviously. Fixed external surface area, lower temperature, less heat transfer...can't get much simpler thermo than that.
NifckedFresh brough Mulder and Sculley into the thread, I think the OP needs to call them ASAP.
NifckedFresh brough Mulder and Sculley into the thread, I think the OP needs to call them ASAP.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
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
some guy's facts aren't even supported in his "article"...besides that fact that his "facts" are wrong...
LOLing at his "conservative" 10,000 miles life reduction (again, not based on anything)...how long after the car is in the dumpster does he need his engine to last...that's basically Honda's argument about achieving "acceptable' longevity with the greater wear potential of thinner oils that I get lambasted for (when it's Honda's claim)
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
some guy's facts aren't even supported in his "article"...besides that fact that his "facts" are wrong...
LOLing at his "conservative" 10,000 miles life reduction (again, not based on anything)...how long after the car is in the dumpster does he need his engine to last...that's basically Honda's argument about achieving "acceptable' longevity with the greater wear potential of thinner oils that I get lambasted for (when it's Honda's claim)
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
I meant fan off longer, meaning engine heating less or being cooled more efficiently. Fan coming on more often means engine heating more (more heat energy being generated) or cooling system not being efficient (less coolant circulation etc.).
Of course, this is not scientific at all and there may be other factors like the ambient temperature.
Yes, circulating coolant would collect the heat from the oil. Some heat would also be given out to the ambient through the oil pan etc.
If the oil flow was less, that would certainly increase the bearing temperatures, as the oil is the primary heat-transfer media for the bearings -- coolant can't get there directly.
You'd have to have some thermocouples inside the sump to accurately measure the oil temperature while using different oils under the same exact engine use conditions (including ambient temperature) to verify the hypothesis.
It's true that journal bearings will hydrodynamicly flow a little more oil volume with thinner oil (Qh factor), but also realize you have a PD oil pump that's also force feeding them too which adds to the oil flow (Qp factor).
As engine speed increases, the shearing and heat production delta in the journal bearings between thick and thin oil becomes more pronounced. At idle, I think it would be hard to distinguish a real difference.
I meant fan off longer, meaning engine heating less or being cooled more efficiently. Fan coming on more often means engine heating more (more heat energy being generated) or cooling system not being efficient (less coolant circulation etc.).
Of course, this is not scientific at all and there may be other factors like the ambient temperature.
Yes, circulating coolant would collect the heat from the oil. Some heat would also be given out to the ambient through the oil pan etc.
If the oil flow was less, that would certainly increase the bearing temperatures, as the oil is the primary heat-transfer media for the bearings -- coolant can't get there directly.
You'd have to have some thermocouples inside the sump to accurately measure the oil temperature while using different oils under the same exact engine use conditions (including ambient temperature) to verify the hypothesis.
It's true that journal bearings will hydrodynamicly flow a little more oil volume with thinner oil (Qh factor), but also realize you have a PD oil pump that's also force feeding them too which adds to the oil flow (Qp factor).
As engine speed increases, the shearing and heat production delta in the journal bearings between thick and thin oil becomes more pronounced. At idle, I think it would be hard to distinguish a real difference.
Half? Hard to believe. Coolant has a better heat transfer rate than oil if I guess correctly plus the volume of coolant versus oil and the fact that coolant goes through a radiator make me scratch my head on that one. I know some vehicles have oil coolers but still. I'm going to also guess that coolant moves through the engine faster than oil. I might be stretching my luck on that one.
Originally Posted By: 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.
Agreed. The 0W-40 oil is at 9%. I just checked it again to be sure. Still a good value in my opinion.
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.
Agreed. The 0W-40 oil is at 9%. I just checked it again to be sure. Still a good value in my opinion.
Pretty sure the next claim will be that TGMO 0w20 cures cancer.
Shannow,
I didn't think 10W20 was out there but you're right, it is! Here's a Dutch outfit offering a 10W20 HDDO....
http://www.maxoline.com/our-products/product-listing/item/hd-fleet-oil-sae-10w20
Looking at the product details, this oil isn't so great. I'm guessing it's an all Group I pseudo mono-grade with not a lot of additive in it. Its Noack isn't quoted but it won't be far off 13% which is too high. However the Widman predicted KV150 of this oil was 3.56 cst. Yes I know this needs correcting for density to convert to cP but given that this oil absolutely won't shear, the HTHS should be good.
10W20 makes far more sense if it's made from primarily Group II for oxidation stability, some (10%?) heavy 500N Group II for piston cleanliness, contains some Group III (10% say) for Noack reduction and (importantly) very little Ashless Dispersant but did contain 1000 ppm of Phos and maybe 10TBN's worth of Detergent.
This very cheap, very low Noack, reasonably fuel efficient engine oil wouldn't be good for truly cold climates but probably would for 95% of users, 95% of the time. The only thing that would potentially ruin it is if the API, ILSAC, ACEA and the OEMs got their grubby little mitts on it!
I didn't think 10W20 was out there but you're right, it is! Here's a Dutch outfit offering a 10W20 HDDO....
http://www.maxoline.com/our-products/product-listing/item/hd-fleet-oil-sae-10w20
Looking at the product details, this oil isn't so great. I'm guessing it's an all Group I pseudo mono-grade with not a lot of additive in it. Its Noack isn't quoted but it won't be far off 13% which is too high. However the Widman predicted KV150 of this oil was 3.56 cst. Yes I know this needs correcting for density to convert to cP but given that this oil absolutely won't shear, the HTHS should be good.
10W20 makes far more sense if it's made from primarily Group II for oxidation stability, some (10%?) heavy 500N Group II for piston cleanliness, contains some Group III (10% say) for Noack reduction and (importantly) very little Ashless Dispersant but did contain 1000 ppm of Phos and maybe 10TBN's worth of Detergent.
This very cheap, very low Noack, reasonably fuel efficient engine oil wouldn't be good for truly cold climates but probably would for 95% of users, 95% of the time. The only thing that would potentially ruin it is if the API, ILSAC, ACEA and the OEMs got their grubby little mitts on it!
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: 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.
M1 AFE and EP 0W-20s both have significant fractions of PAO in their basestock blends.
TGMO doesn't.
Also, as was posted above by members more knowledgeable than you or I, not all Grp III basestocks are created equal.
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.
M1 AFE and EP 0W-20s both have significant fractions of PAO in their basestock blends.
TGMO doesn't.
Also, as was posted above by members more knowledgeable than you or I, not all Grp III basestocks are created equal.
Originally Posted By: 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 %
Just thought I'd add something else based on the numbers in SR5's Valvoline table (if some kind person could cut and paste the table into this thread, it would be very helpful) ...
Most folks 'get' why low viscosity oils might potentially be good for fuel economy. However what they may not realise is there are two parts to this arguement and one isn't always obvious.
In the Valvoline table, it shows a 10W30 and a 5W30 both with nominally the same KV100 (10.9 & 11.0 cst). Once these oils are up to operational temperature (for the sake of argument, say that's 100°C), both oils will give essentially the same fuel economy.
That the 5W30 gives better FE than a 10W30 isn't always obvious because the W rating is generally considered to be all about low temperature startability. The 10W30 is designed to pump at -30°C (-22°F) and crank at -25°C (-13°F). A 5W30 is designed to go even lower at -35°C (pump) and -30°C (crank). [actually both the Valvoline oil should work a few °C below the formal limits]. So on the surface, the W rating has naff all to do with better fuel economy!
However for a fixed KV100 (or oil weight), dropping the W rating has the side effect of dropping the oil's KV40. In the Valvoline table, in moving from the 10W30 to the 5W30, the KV40 of the oil drops from 70.5 cst to 62.8 cst. If you go even lower to a 'typical' start-up temperature (say 10°C for the UK), the 10W30 has a KV10 of 351.5 cst while the 5W30 has a KV10 of 271.7 cst. Now a 30% higher oil KV does not worsen fuel economy by 30%! I've forgotten most of the fluid dynamics I learnt at uni but I do recall that viscosity is a minor factor in Reynolds Number and Prandtl Number. However lower oil viscosity, as the oil warms-up from say 10°C to 100°C, should yield a couple percent fuel economy benefit.
Now if you contrast the 5W30 with the 5W20 in the Valvoline table, not only does the KV100 drop (from 11.0 cst to 8.6 cst) but the KV40 also drops (from 62.8 cst to 48.9 cst). The 'start-up' KV10s also drop (from 271.7 and 217.5 cst).
So here's the thing.... if you drop an oil weight (but not the W rating) you get two fuel economy savings; one during start-up/warm-up and one when your oil's up to operational temperature. If you just drop a W rating (but keep the weight the same) you only get one saving (during start-up/warm-up).
Now contrast the 5W20 with the 0W20 in the Valvoline table. The KV100's are nominally the same (8.6 vs 8.7), the KV40 drops but not by much (48.9 to 45.2) while the calculated KV10 drops from 217.5 to 181.2). This is very interesting. Given the way thermo-dynamics works, the RATE at which the temperature of your oil increases should be fastest between 10°C and 40°C, slower between 40°C and 70°C and slower still between 70°C and 100°C (after which it notionally reaches steady state). If this is the case, on an time-aggregated basis, I would not expect the 0W20 to give much of a fuel economy benefit over and above what you see with the 5W20 during the warm-up phase and no benefit at operational temperature.
So in relative terms, oil weight probably trumps W-rating in delivering tangible fuel economy.
Which is interesting because lower W-rating usually comes with more problems; more expensive base oil, more VII, more Ashless and higher Noack). Just dropping an oil weight does exactly the reverse.
So 10W20? Wherefore art thou??
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 %
Just thought I'd add something else based on the numbers in SR5's Valvoline table (if some kind person could cut and paste the table into this thread, it would be very helpful) ...
Most folks 'get' why low viscosity oils might potentially be good for fuel economy. However what they may not realise is there are two parts to this arguement and one isn't always obvious.
In the Valvoline table, it shows a 10W30 and a 5W30 both with nominally the same KV100 (10.9 & 11.0 cst). Once these oils are up to operational temperature (for the sake of argument, say that's 100°C), both oils will give essentially the same fuel economy.
That the 5W30 gives better FE than a 10W30 isn't always obvious because the W rating is generally considered to be all about low temperature startability. The 10W30 is designed to pump at -30°C (-22°F) and crank at -25°C (-13°F). A 5W30 is designed to go even lower at -35°C (pump) and -30°C (crank). [actually both the Valvoline oil should work a few °C below the formal limits]. So on the surface, the W rating has naff all to do with better fuel economy!
However for a fixed KV100 (or oil weight), dropping the W rating has the side effect of dropping the oil's KV40. In the Valvoline table, in moving from the 10W30 to the 5W30, the KV40 of the oil drops from 70.5 cst to 62.8 cst. If you go even lower to a 'typical' start-up temperature (say 10°C for the UK), the 10W30 has a KV10 of 351.5 cst while the 5W30 has a KV10 of 271.7 cst. Now a 30% higher oil KV does not worsen fuel economy by 30%! I've forgotten most of the fluid dynamics I learnt at uni but I do recall that viscosity is a minor factor in Reynolds Number and Prandtl Number. However lower oil viscosity, as the oil warms-up from say 10°C to 100°C, should yield a couple percent fuel economy benefit.
Now if you contrast the 5W30 with the 5W20 in the Valvoline table, not only does the KV100 drop (from 11.0 cst to 8.6 cst) but the KV40 also drops (from 62.8 cst to 48.9 cst). The 'start-up' KV10s also drop (from 271.7 and 217.5 cst).
So here's the thing.... if you drop an oil weight (but not the W rating) you get two fuel economy savings; one during start-up/warm-up and one when your oil's up to operational temperature. If you just drop a W rating (but keep the weight the same) you only get one saving (during start-up/warm-up).
Now contrast the 5W20 with the 0W20 in the Valvoline table. The KV100's are nominally the same (8.6 vs 8.7), the KV40 drops but not by much (48.9 to 45.2) while the calculated KV10 drops from 217.5 to 181.2). This is very interesting. Given the way thermo-dynamics works, the RATE at which the temperature of your oil increases should be fastest between 10°C and 40°C, slower between 40°C and 70°C and slower still between 70°C and 100°C (after which it notionally reaches steady state). If this is the case, on an time-aggregated basis, I would not expect the 0W20 to give much of a fuel economy benefit over and above what you see with the 5W20 during the warm-up phase and no benefit at operational temperature.
So in relative terms, oil weight probably trumps W-rating in delivering tangible fuel economy.
Which is interesting because lower W-rating usually comes with more problems; more expensive base oil, more VII, more Ashless and higher Noack). Just dropping an oil weight does exactly the reverse.
So 10W20? Wherefore art thou??
Last edited:
Joe,
it's been posited here on BITOG that the "0W" is an artifact of the chemistry used to produce both TGMO, and Mobil 1 racing 0W50.
In your experience, is 0W an accidental byproduct of making a superior GrIII, or a 0W50 with an HTHS of 3.8 ?
it's been posited here on BITOG that the "0W" is an artifact of the chemistry used to produce both TGMO, and Mobil 1 racing 0W50.
In your experience, is 0W an accidental byproduct of making a superior GrIII, or a 0W50 with an HTHS of 3.8 ?
Shannow,
Very many thanks for attaching the Valvoline table. Things always make more sense when you can see the numbers laid out logically.
Regarding your TGMO and 0W question, I'd say that it's 95% a base oil thing as opposed to a 'chemistry' thing.
Generally speaking, if you're going after 0W (and specifically a max CCS-35 of 6,200 cP) you've generally committed yourself to using primarily PAO (with a smidge of ester to avoid drying out seals), good Group III (eg GTL) or most likely these days, a mix of both. Group I & II oil just don't cut it viscometrically. There may be a new super-duper base oil out there I haven't heard about but most base oil tech is decades old now so I doubt that's the case.
VII-wise, it generally depends how wide a cross-grade you want to make. If you want a relatively narrow 0W20, then you can probably use any VII chemistry (OCP, HSD, PMA) because while ALL VIIs are relatively bad on cold-flow, you don't need a lot of VII in a high VI base oil mix and the problems they cause in a 0W20 can be contained. However go for a 0W50 and the amount of VII you need really clobbers your cold-flow and you would probably find that only Hydrogenated Styrene-Diene (Shellvis) VII cuts the viscometric mustard. It will be very bad on HTHS though for a 50-weight oil. Oh, and expect a very dirty engine especially if you drive your car hot and hard.
DI-wise, the easiest way to make a 0W oil is not to put any additive in! That's right. Almost every additive you can think of, ZDDP, Antioxidants, Metallic Detergents and especially Ashless Dispersants, will make the job of formulating a 0W oil more difficult, not less. Usually these problems manifest themselves as increasing Noack. Maybe that's why TGMO is so cheap in the US, it doesn't contain any DI! (joke).
I've been out of the game for several years now but my gut feel is that if I had to, I could go back in the lab and make a decent Chinese copy of TGMO with conventional junk and not break sweat. The idea of 'secret sauces' might be reassuring for some people but at the end of the day, it's just a case of rearranging the same old stuff to meet another set of numbers...
Very many thanks for attaching the Valvoline table. Things always make more sense when you can see the numbers laid out logically.
Regarding your TGMO and 0W question, I'd say that it's 95% a base oil thing as opposed to a 'chemistry' thing.
Generally speaking, if you're going after 0W (and specifically a max CCS-35 of 6,200 cP) you've generally committed yourself to using primarily PAO (with a smidge of ester to avoid drying out seals), good Group III (eg GTL) or most likely these days, a mix of both. Group I & II oil just don't cut it viscometrically. There may be a new super-duper base oil out there I haven't heard about but most base oil tech is decades old now so I doubt that's the case.
VII-wise, it generally depends how wide a cross-grade you want to make. If you want a relatively narrow 0W20, then you can probably use any VII chemistry (OCP, HSD, PMA) because while ALL VIIs are relatively bad on cold-flow, you don't need a lot of VII in a high VI base oil mix and the problems they cause in a 0W20 can be contained. However go for a 0W50 and the amount of VII you need really clobbers your cold-flow and you would probably find that only Hydrogenated Styrene-Diene (Shellvis) VII cuts the viscometric mustard. It will be very bad on HTHS though for a 50-weight oil. Oh, and expect a very dirty engine especially if you drive your car hot and hard.
DI-wise, the easiest way to make a 0W oil is not to put any additive in! That's right. Almost every additive you can think of, ZDDP, Antioxidants, Metallic Detergents and especially Ashless Dispersants, will make the job of formulating a 0W oil more difficult, not less. Usually these problems manifest themselves as increasing Noack. Maybe that's why TGMO is so cheap in the US, it doesn't contain any DI! (joke).
I've been out of the game for several years now but my gut feel is that if I had to, I could go back in the lab and make a decent Chinese copy of TGMO with conventional junk and not break sweat. The idea of 'secret sauces' might be reassuring for some people but at the end of the day, it's just a case of rearranging the same old stuff to meet another set of numbers...
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Just to clarify, this table is for Valvoline Full Synthetic with Maxlife Technology.
Looking at the specs for the 5w-20, that could be a very good alternative to 0w-20 if one is so inclined. NOACK takes a big drop there.
Just to clarify, this table is for Valvoline Full Synthetic with Maxlife Technology.
Looking at the specs for the 5w-20, that could be a very good alternative to 0w-20 if one is so inclined. NOACK takes a big drop there.
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Shannow,
Very many thanks for attaching the Valvoline table. Things always make more sense when you can see the numbers laid out logically.
Regarding your TGMO and 0W question, I'd say that it's 95% a base oil thing as opposed to a 'chemistry' thing.
Generally speaking, if you're going after 0W (and specifically a max CCS-35 of 6,200 cP) you've generally committed yourself to using primarily PAO (with a smidge of ester to avoid drying out seals), good Group III (eg GTL) or most likely these days, a mix of both. Group I & II oil just don't cut it viscometrically. There may be a new super-duper base oil out there I haven't heard about but most base oil tech is decades old now so I doubt that's the case.
VII-wise, it generally depends how wide a cross-grade you want to make. If you want a relatively narrow 0W20, then you can probably use any VII chemistry (OCP, HSD, PMA) because while ALL VIIs are relatively bad on cold-flow, you don't need a lot of VII in a high VI base oil mix and the problems they cause in a 0W20 can be contained. However go for a 0W50 and the amount of VII you need really clobbers your cold-flow and you would probably find that only Hydrogenated Styrene-Diene (Shellvis) VII cuts the viscometric mustard. It will be very bad on HTHS though for a 50-weight oil. Oh, and expect a very dirty engine especially if you drive your car hot and hard.
DI-wise, the easiest way to make a 0W oil is not to put any additive in! That's right. Almost every additive you can think of, ZDDP, Antioxidants, Metallic Detergents and especially Ashless Dispersants, will make the job of formulating a 0W oil more difficult, not less. Usually these problems manifest themselves as increasing Noack. Maybe that's why TGMO is so cheap in the US, it doesn't contain any DI! (joke).
I've been out of the game for several years now but my gut feel is that if I had to, I could go back in the lab and make a decent Chinese copy of TGMO with conventional junk and not break sweat. The idea of 'secret sauces' might be reassuring for some people but at the end of the day, it's just a case of rearranging the same old stuff to meet another set of numbers...
If I recall correctly, Ravenol make both a 0w-20 and a 20w-60 without added VII. (Should be these two: 0w-20 and 20w-60 oil.)
Fully synthetic (german definition!), no VII, low Noack. Not cheap though...
Shannow,
Very many thanks for attaching the Valvoline table. Things always make more sense when you can see the numbers laid out logically.
Regarding your TGMO and 0W question, I'd say that it's 95% a base oil thing as opposed to a 'chemistry' thing.
Generally speaking, if you're going after 0W (and specifically a max CCS-35 of 6,200 cP) you've generally committed yourself to using primarily PAO (with a smidge of ester to avoid drying out seals), good Group III (eg GTL) or most likely these days, a mix of both. Group I & II oil just don't cut it viscometrically. There may be a new super-duper base oil out there I haven't heard about but most base oil tech is decades old now so I doubt that's the case.
VII-wise, it generally depends how wide a cross-grade you want to make. If you want a relatively narrow 0W20, then you can probably use any VII chemistry (OCP, HSD, PMA) because while ALL VIIs are relatively bad on cold-flow, you don't need a lot of VII in a high VI base oil mix and the problems they cause in a 0W20 can be contained. However go for a 0W50 and the amount of VII you need really clobbers your cold-flow and you would probably find that only Hydrogenated Styrene-Diene (Shellvis) VII cuts the viscometric mustard. It will be very bad on HTHS though for a 50-weight oil. Oh, and expect a very dirty engine especially if you drive your car hot and hard.
DI-wise, the easiest way to make a 0W oil is not to put any additive in! That's right. Almost every additive you can think of, ZDDP, Antioxidants, Metallic Detergents and especially Ashless Dispersants, will make the job of formulating a 0W oil more difficult, not less. Usually these problems manifest themselves as increasing Noack. Maybe that's why TGMO is so cheap in the US, it doesn't contain any DI! (joke).
I've been out of the game for several years now but my gut feel is that if I had to, I could go back in the lab and make a decent Chinese copy of TGMO with conventional junk and not break sweat. The idea of 'secret sauces' might be reassuring for some people but at the end of the day, it's just a case of rearranging the same old stuff to meet another set of numbers...
If I recall correctly, Ravenol make both a 0w-20 and a 20w-60 without added VII. (Should be these two: 0w-20 and 20w-60 oil.)
Fully synthetic (german definition!), no VII, low Noack. Not cheap though...
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
