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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: turboseize
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...


Their 0W16 is similar, Harman Index of 1.

with 2.4 HTHS, I'd take it over plastic enanced GrIII any day.
 
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
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.

Yet, anyone who uses the TGMO 0W-20 SN gets nothing short of the best UOA ever.
 
A walk through the UOA section will help to disabuse you of this notion.
Also, as has been noted time and again by members more knowledgeable than you or I, wear metal levels in a UOA are not a valid measure of engine wear and cannot be used in comparing one oil to another.
You want to compare UOAs?
Okay, find mine from August 2012 using Nextgen Maxlife 10W-40 in my old BMW. It blows away anything you'll find with TGMO, so I guess that those really concerned about engine wear should switch to that thicker oil.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Here's one of those devastating 10W60 oils...
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthr..._10#Post4387829


Well, at least you're not cherry picking UOA's..
smile.gif
 
Gokhan,

I was thinking about your low wear metal numbers. Yes, this might be due to the miraculous properties of TGMO but there is an alternative explanation.

Your 1985 Toyota has now put on 267,000 miles. Whilst your engine clearly isn't knackered, it has probably reached that point where it has essentially stopped wearing out. All engines display the greatest levels of wear (and show the highest levels of wear metals in oil) when they are new. High initial levels of ring & bore wear are an essential part of the bedding-in process. I suspect the same is true of bearings and cam lobes. I've never personally designed an engine but my understanding is that the mechanical engineers that do, deliberately add a micron or two of sacrificial metal to the rings so that they purposely wear towards an optimum thickness.

As you clock up the miles, wear continues but providing you change your oil regularly and don't drive like a maniac (something Corolla drivers aren't noted for!), the rate of wear progressively slows down. After 267,000 miles, there is probably not that much metal left to wear off as all the sliding surfaces float on what must be a very thick film of oil.

Your numbers do suggest a difference between TGMO and Mobil's 0W20 but to me both are extremely good. It maybe heresy to say it on BITOG but in my experience, you don't really have to worry about wear metals until you see Fe levels going above 300 ppm!
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Here's one of those devastating 10W60 oils...
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthr..._10#Post4387829


Well, at least you're not cherry picking UOA's..
smile.gif



I don't usually give a Rat's about UOAs, as they are a lubricant condition/condemnation tool rather than what they are attributed to on BITOG, just given the rant against that grade in BMWs in this thread, and the "fact" that every UOA is better on TGMO it seemed fitting.
 
So you don't suppose that all the UOAs here on BITOG that focus on "wear metals" has a lot more to do with engine condition, design, age or operating conditions rather than the oil? That you might just as well get statistically identical results using any appropriate oil?

Really? Hmm...

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Gokhan,

I was thinking about your low wear metal numbers. Yes, this might be due to the miraculous properties of TGMO but there is an alternative explanation.

Your 1985 Toyota has now put on 267,000 miles. Whilst your engine clearly isn't knackered, it has probably reached that point where it has essentially stopped wearing out. All engines display the greatest levels of wear (and show the highest levels of wear metals in oil) when they are new. High initial levels of ring & bore wear are an essential part of the bedding-in process. I suspect the same is true of bearings and cam lobes. I've never personally designed an engine but my understanding is that the mechanical engineers that do, deliberately add a micron or two of sacrificial metal to the rings so that they purposely wear towards an optimum thickness.

As you clock up the miles, wear continues but providing you change your oil regularly and don't drive like a maniac (something Corolla drivers aren't noted for!), the rate of wear progressively slows down. After 267,000 miles, there is probably not that much metal left to wear off as all the sliding surfaces float on what must be a very thick film of oil.

Your numbers do suggest a difference between TGMO and Mobil's 0W20 but to me both are extremely good. It maybe heresy to say it on BITOG but in my experience, you don't really have to worry about wear metals until you see Fe levels going above 300 ppm!
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
So you don't suppose that all the UOAs here on BITOG that focus on "wear metals" has a lot more to do with engine condition, design, age or operating conditions rather than the oil? That you might just as well get statistically identical results using any appropriate oil?

Really? Hmm...

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Gokhan,

I was thinking about your low wear metal numbers. Yes, this might be due to the miraculous properties of TGMO but there is an alternative explanation.

Your 1985 Toyota has now put on 267,000 miles. Whilst your engine clearly isn't knackered, it has probably reached that point where it has essentially stopped wearing out. All engines display the greatest levels of wear (and show the highest levels of wear metals in oil) when they are new. High initial levels of ring & bore wear are an essential part of the bedding-in process. I suspect the same is true of bearings and cam lobes. I've never personally designed an engine but my understanding is that the mechanical engineers that do, deliberately add a micron or two of sacrificial metal to the rings so that they purposely wear towards an optimum thickness.

As you clock up the miles, wear continues but providing you change your oil regularly and don't drive like a maniac (something Corolla drivers aren't noted for!), the rate of wear progressively slows down. After 267,000 miles, there is probably not that much metal left to wear off as all the sliding surfaces float on what must be a very thick film of oil.

Your numbers do suggest a difference between TGMO and Mobil's 0W20 but to me both are extremely good. It maybe heresy to say it on BITOG but in my experience, you don't really have to worry about wear metals until you see Fe levels going above 300 ppm!





Joe's comment makes great sense. I'm sure many of us have experience with a older car that just keeps going on and on. One vehicle I owned did exactly that with a steady diet of Castrol GTX. Furthermore, consistent oil changes with any approved oil should achieve the same results, even conventional oil. I agree that while there may be certain oils that might perform better by looking at their specs, that difference might not be as large as we think. Moly is the supreme additive here on BITOG but some of the best uoa's have been with Valvoline that has no moly.
 
I am still Googling away trying to get more info on TGMO.

I found Gokhan's original TGMO 0W20 VOA here....

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3356846/1

The telling numbers are the KV100 of 8.79 cst & the KV40 of just 36.16.

Contrast these with Volodymyr's recent table of 0W20s (Table 7 near the bottom of the page)...

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4178880/1

So what I see are three oils (Gokhan's TGMO, Idemitsu Zeppo and Mazda Original Oil) all of which have a very low KV40 relative to their KV100, or put it another way, all of which have a disproportionately high VI. This to me classic PMA VII behaviour. Also note that really high 13.2% Noack on the Mazda 0W20. Yuk!

Now finding detailed engine oil blend data with PMA VII isn't easy because it's so rarely used but I did find one. If you type 'Palmer Holland Viscoplex 6-850' into Google, it will take you to the 6-850 Product Data Sheet PDF, but the salient info is shown below...

Viscoplex 6-850 is a functionalised liquid PMA VII with an Shear Stability Index of 45. This has been used to make the following blend,

Oil grade: 0W20

GF-4 DI pack: 10.72%
Group III: 85.93%
Viscoplex 6-850: 3.35%

KV100: 9.2 cst
KV40: 43.2 cst
VI: 202
CCS-35: 5560 cP
MRV-40: 18720 cP
Pour Point: -42°C
HTHS: 2.64 cP
KV100 (after KO30 shear): 7.9 cst
KV100 loss after shear: 13.8%
Noack: no number provided

This is a very interesting blend. The KV100 at 9.2 cst is only a tiny smidge under the 20-weight 9.3 max limit. Even at this relatively high KV100, the HTHS, at 2.64 is only a squeak over the 2.6 min HTHS limit for a 0W20. This is what I remember most about PMA VIIs; they're bad on shear.

If you go back to Volodymyr's table, both of the very high VI oils (4 & 6) have KV100s of 8.14 and 8.25 cst; way lower than 9.2 The table doesn't show HTHSs but I'd guess these oils would struggle to meet 2.6 min HTHS. With a KV100 of 8.79 cst, the TGMO is probably just okay against the 2.6 min HTHS limit but with very little head room. Overall, my gut feel is while PMA VII based oils might look good with their high VIs and provide good fuel economy, this doesn't come cheap and their shear performance needs property scrutiny.

Of course these oils could be using a complete different PMA altogether. If someone can show the data, I'd happy change my mind.
 
Last edited:
Sorry about banging on about this but...

Here's a 2012 Lubrizol patent with some 0W20 PMA VII blend data in it...

https://www.google.com/patents/US20120135902

The little table on page 7 shows a comparison of Viscoplex 6-850 (incorrectly shown in the table as 6-860) with two experimental Lz PMA VIIs in a 0W20. Note the following...

All three oils have VIs of 200+

All three oils have relatively low KV40s

Two of the oils struggle to meet 2.6 min HTHS (in fact they DON'T meet the spec!). The other oil does by a whisker.

The first blend uses 4.3% of LIQUID Viscoplex 6-850. This liquid contains 42% of 'neat' (ie solid) PMA polymer so the first 0W20 contains 1.8% of 'neat' VII (as do the other two blends). Typically 1.8% solid VII would equate to about 18% of liquid OCP or HSD VII which is HUGE!!!! This illustrates just how inefficient PMA is as a VII and why you should worry about piston cleaniless if you use this type of oil in your engine.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
And why xw-20 oils are exempt from teost testing: to allow this to happen.


Yep, that would figure.

My longstanding objections to the Teost test are that it fails perfectly good oils too (especially heavy ones) and forces you to put in extra (expensive) juice to fix a non-existent problem. It's supremely ironic that the one time the Teost test picks up a problem that might have some basis in reality, it gets zapped!!!
 
Didn't the Japanese manufacturers get a variance from that TEOST test due to the fact they use tons of moly in their 0w-20 oils which would fail? Has there been a connection between high moly content and increases in build up? It would seem that piston cleanliness especially rings and lands are the most susceptible in engines today.
 
Originally Posted By: PimTac
That TGMO VOA is from 2014. It's likely that the product formulation has changed since then.


Personally I rather suspect the product HASN'T materially changed since 2014.

Once an oil is defined by it's test program (let's say it's GF-5) it tends to get cast in tablets of stone until a new spec comes along that might require a change. Even if a new spec does come along, there's usually quite a lot of pressure to try and make the old stuff conform, rather than develop something wholly new because engine test programs cost an arm and a leg and you're never quite sure if once you start a new one, you can get to the end of it! This last bit has been especially true in the last few years with various specification tests dying off through lack of parts or going weird (which they always do when you get to the bottom of the parts barrel!).

Although I'm now out of the loop, I occassionally get folks telling me that Product X which I developed back in 2004 is still going strong. That's pretty good longevity in the engine oil market!
 
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
713
chris719
D
Clearing up common misconceptions with Oil weights
Replies
1
Views
695
Jetronic
J
M1 FS 0W-40, M1 FS 5W-40, D1 ESP 5W-40 Volatility Results - March 2025
2 3
Replies
47
Views
3K
JAG
Back
Top Bottom