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

[CharlieBauer]

Motorcraft oil NOACK is near 15% and who knows what TGMOs is.

Don't all manufacturers perform extended vehicle testing out to 100,000 miles or so? As part of that wouldn't they use their own recommended oil and tear down the engine afterwards?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Originally Posted By: PimTac
Son of Joe, If you had a choice between 0w-20 or 5w-20, which one would you go with in a typical naturally aspirated 4 or 6 cylinder engine ? The climate would be mild.





My longstanding view of US engine oils is that generally speaking they are extremely good oils (wear, oxidation stability, etc) except for three things...they are unnecessarily & artificially thin and as a consequence, their Noack is way too high & they contain too much shearable VII.

My advice is in the US, always buy synthetic (not 'synthetic blend' or 'synthetic technology'; just straightforward synthetic). It won't be 'better' oil in the broader sense of the word but in the US, you have to go synthetic just to get the Noack & VII loading down. I would also say that if you have a choice, always buy an API SN oil over an ILSAC GF-5 oil and avoid that label that says 'Energy Conserving'. It's the ILSAC fuel economy tests that so bend GF-5 oils out of shape. Ironically, both oils will probably give you more or less the same fuel economy!

If I lived in a mild part of the US, I personally would go for a 5W20 synthetic over a 0W20. 0W20 is something that the US OEMs benefit from but the oil buying public don't. I might consider a 10W30 but the crazy way things work in the US generally means that a 10W30 is half way to being a 5W30, so there's Noack benefit to be gained (especially if they are full Group IIs).

I guess I'll get some stick for saying this but this is truly how I see things....


What about an oil like M1 EP 0w-20, which is majority PAO?

 

[SonofJoe]

Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
Motorcraft oil NOACK is near 15% and who knows what TGMOs is.

Don't all manufacturers perform extended vehicle testing out to 100,000 miles or so? As part of that wouldn't they use their own recommended oil and tear down the engine afterwards?



I can put my hand on my heart and say in the past, I've gone from conception to testing to approval to full commercial implementation in a matter of months with ZERO on-the-road testing. This is not with some dodgy, back street blender but with a global oil company whose name you will have heard of. I would say this isn't uncommon either.

Yes, when OEMs are developing new engines, they will run extensive field trials but the oils they tend to use will be very high quality, factory fill synthetics, usually supplied by a high profile oil company partnered with one of the big AddCo's. I don't think they run 100,000 mile trials on the kind of high Noack oils you get off-the-shelf. If they did, they might be horribly surprised!

 

[Lex94]

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
I see there's some more analysis of US 5W20s that's just been published by PQIA.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4396402/1

Some of these oils have Noacks that I would regard as appallingly high (even if they do conform to the spec). This is what happens when you push Group II use way too far and have nutty ILSAC fuel economy tests which encourage you to drop the CCS to beat the test (the Havoline oil is halfway to being a 0W20!).

If ever there was a set of technical data that illustrated why properly formulated 10W20 would be a good idea, this is it!


Exactly.

It is just best to use a A3/B3 10w30 oil...Like Mobil 1 High Mileage 10w30.

https://www.mobil.com/English-US/Passenger-Vehicle-Lube/pds/NAXXMobil-1-High-Mileage-Oils

 

[wemay]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Originally Posted By: PimTac
Son of Joe, If you had a choice between 0w-20 or 5w-20, which one would you go with in a typical naturally aspirated 4 or 6 cylinder engine ? The climate would be mild.





My longstanding view of US engine oils is that generally speaking they are extremely good oils (wear, oxidation stability, etc) except for three things...they are unnecessarily & artificially thin and as a consequence, their Noack is way too high & they contain too much shearable VII.

My advice is in the US, always buy synthetic (not 'synthetic blend' or 'synthetic technology'; just straightforward synthetic). It won't be 'better' oil in the broader sense of the word but in the US, you have to go synthetic just to get the Noack & VII loading down. I would also say that if you have a choice, always buy an API SN oil over an ILSAC GF-5 oil and avoid that label that says 'Energy Conserving'. It's the ILSAC fuel economy tests that so bend GF-5 oils out of shape. Ironically, both oils will probably give you more or less the same fuel economy!

If I lived in a mild part of the US, I personally would go for a 5W20 synthetic over a 0W20. 0W20 is something that the US OEMs benefit from but the oil buying public don't. I might consider a 10W30 but the crazy way things work in the US generally means that a 10W30 is half way to being a 5W30, so there's Noack benefit to be gained (especially if they are full Group IIs).

I guess I'll get some stick for saying this but this is truly how I see things....


What about an oil like M1 EP 0w-20, which is majority PAO?


This is where i was headed too.

 

[CharlieBauer]

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Yes, when OEMs are developing new engines, they will run extensive field trials but the oils they tend to use will be very high quality, factory fill synthetics, usually supplied by a high profile oil company partnered with one of the big AddCo's. I don't think they run 100,000 mile trials on the kind of high Noack oils you get off-the-shelf. If they did, they might be horribly surprised!


Ford did their Ecoboost torture test using Motorcraft syn blend 5w30 which pqia have tested to have a noack of 14.3% and 15.2%.

Don't know how realistic the torture test was.

https://social.ford.com/en_US/story/sust...ture-tests.html

http://www.pqiamerica.com/January2012A/January2012R2/motorcraft.htm

http://www.pqiadata.org/MotorCraftSAE5W30.html

 

[Shannow]

No wonder TGMO is so good...

Here's another Mobil patent, on microencapsulation of additives...

http://www.google.com/patents/WO2014046876A1?cl=en

Quote:
Provided is a lubricating oil including a nonpolar lubricating oil base stock as a major component and microcapsules as a minor component. The microcapsules includes (i) a core containing a polar solvent and one or more polar lubricating oil additives having solubility in the polar solvent, and (ii) optionally a shell or membrane enclosing the core. The solubility of the polar lubricating oil additives in the nonpolar lubricating oil base stock is improved as compared to solubility achieved using a lubricating oil containing polar lubricating oil additives in a nonpolar lubricating oil base stock and not containing the microcapsules. A method of improving solubility of polar lubricating oil additives in a nonpolar lubricating oil base stock is also provided. The lubricating engine oils of this disclosure can be useful in automotive, marine, aviation, and industrial engine and machine components.

 

[Shannow]

oooh, and it's got nanocarbon...

http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US20130324447.pdf

 

[zeng]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
No wonder TGMO is so good...

Here's another Mobil patent, on microencapsulation of additives...

http://www.google.com/patents/WO2014046876A1?cl=en

Quote:
Provided is a lubricating oil including a nonpolar lubricating oil base stock as a major component and microcapsules as a minor component. The microcapsules includes (i) a core containing a polar solvent and one or more polar lubricating oil additives having solubility in the polar solvent, and (ii) optionally a shell or membrane enclosing the core. The solubility of the polar lubricating oil additives in the nonpolar lubricating oil base stock is improved as compared to solubility achieved using a lubricating oil containing polar lubricating oil additives in a nonpolar lubricating oil base stock and not containing the microcapsules. A method of improving solubility of polar lubricating oil additives in a nonpolar lubricating oil base stock is also provided. The lubricating engine oils of this disclosure can be useful in automotive, marine, aviation, and industrial engine and machine components.

It's interesting to note the capability of additives in microcapsules in improving a lubricating oil's performance of:
a)anti-wear;
b)anti-corrosion/anti-oxidation, and
c)enhanced film thickness for EHL regimes .....
in (very) low viscosity environments of oils..... gravitating towards fuel economy CAFE(?) mandates.

Quote:
[0011] This disclosure yet further relates in part to a method of improving surface performance (e.g., anti-wear and anti-corrosion performance) of a lubricating oil in an engine lubricated with the lubricating oil.

[0013] This disclosure further relates in part to a method of improving elastohydrodynamic lubrication (EHL) film formation at lubricating oil contacts in an engine lubricated with a lubricating oil.


I'm of the belief that improvement in anti-corrosion performance plays a substantially major role vis-a-vis other improvements in OP's application.

 

[SonofJoe]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
oooh, and it's got nanocarbon...

http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US20130324447.pdf


I had a read of the patent. Sounds like they are using something sort of akin to Shellvis VII polymer to stabilise graphene suspensions in base oil.

All very good as far as it goes but I would point to two things...

First, getting some interesting results on an MTM friction rig is absolutely NOT the same thing as putting an oil through the usual parade of API/ILSAC/ACEA/OEM tests (where the nano-particles might do more harm than good). Nor is it the same as demonstrating genuine, measurable benefits in the field. Can someone point me in the general direction of that data as I think it might be important.

Second, according to Mr Google, at the end of 2015 the cost of graphene was reported as being $US 100 per GRAM!!!!! Now last time I looked, there were 1000 grams in a kilogram and 1000 kilograms in a metric tonne. So let's say very roughly guess that base oil cost $US 600/MT, a conventional DI/VI mix cost about $US 3000/MT and finished oil probably retails off-the-shelf for about $US 4000/MT. Now into this commodity, you want to use something that cost $US 100 million per MT!!! Errrr...hang on a bit???

Of course you could add a teensy-weeny tiny amount of graphene to make a bold marketing claim but then cynic that I am, I might have to declare a Code Red 'Funny' Alert...

 

[PimTac]

From a pharmaceutical viewpoint, encapsulation of different components sometimes is done for several reasons. One, the product is not stable when the additives are mixed directly together. Two, there is a reaction between some of the additives that could be harmful. (Similar to one). Three, a time release effect is desired. I don't see a need for that in motor oil, in the old Contac cold capsules, yes.

 

[BrocLuno]

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe

I had a read of the patent. Sounds like they are using something sort of akin to Shellvis VII polymer to stabilize graphene suspensions in base oil.

All very good as far as it goes but I would point to two things...

First, getting some interesting results on an MTM friction rig is absolutely NOT the same thing as putting an oil through the usual parade of API/ILSAC/ACEA/OEM tests (where the nano-particles might do more harm than good). Nor is it the same as demonstrating genuine, measurable benefits in the field. Can someone point me in the general direction of that data as I think it might be important.

Second, according to Mr Google, at the end of 2015 the cost of graphene was reported as being $US 100 per GRAM!!!!! Now last time I looked, there were 1000 grams in a kilogram and 1000 kilograms in a metric tonne. So let's say very roughly guess that base oil cost $US 600/MT, a conventional DI/VI mix cost about $US 3000/MT and finished oil probably retails off-the-shelf for about $US 4000/MT. Now into this commodity, you want to use something that cost $US 100 million per MT!!! Errrr...hang on a bit???

Of course you could add a teensy-weeny tiny amount of graphene to make a bold marketing claim but then cynic that I am, I might have to declare a Code Red 'Funny' Alert...


You said it so much better than I could have

 

[CharlieBauer]

So, after 25 pages, do we have a final verdict yet?

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
So, after 25 pages, do we have a final verdict yet?

Depends on which poster here agrees. It all depends on what the meaning of final is.

 

[FCD]

Bets on how many pages this will have before it ends?

 

[WhizkidTN]

Originally Posted By: FordCapriDriver
Bets on how many pages this will have before it ends?


I'm betting that the thread get very "thick"! See what I did there? LOL!

 

[FCD]

Originally Posted By: WhizkidTN
Originally Posted By: FordCapriDriver
Bets on how many pages this will have before it ends?


I'm betting that the thread get very "thick"! See what I did there? LOL!

Very funny

... not really, really bad joke

 

[Gokhan]

In my car, 0W-20 makes a big difference on the freeway. 0W-40 and similar thick grades make my engine hum and moan more in high-speed driving. I really feel a significant improvement with 0W-20 in reducing the high-speed hum.

I think it's really a waste in performance, fuel economy, and engine drivability if you put thicker oil than needed. You probably don't need thick oil unless you have high-powered turbo or an antique engine.

 

[FCD]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
In my car, 0W-20 makes a big difference on the freeway. 0W-40 and similar thick grades make my engine hum and moan more in high-speed driving. I really feel a significant improvement with 0W-20 in reducing the high-speed hum.

I think it's really a waste in performance, fuel economy, and engine drivability if you put thicker oil than needed. You probably don't need thick oil unless you have high-powered turbo or an antique engine.

What is your definition of a thick oil though?

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
In my car, 0W-20 makes a big difference on the freeway. 0W-40 and similar thick grades make my engine hum and moan more in high-speed driving. I really feel a significant improvement with 0W-20 in reducing the high-speed hum.

I think it's really a waste in performance, fuel economy, and engine drivability if you put thicker oil than needed. You probably don't need thick oil unless you have high-powered turbo or an antique engine.




Besides performance, fuel economy, and engine driveability, there is mechanical durability which is the main reason for motor oil in the first place. That is usually the main point also in any thick versus thin debate. I believe that running the proper oil for the equipment on hand allowing for the type of usage that equipment will get. 0w-20 will suffice in most cases where it is recommended by the manufacturer. In the case of towing or other severe use scenarios, the user might go with the heavier grades.

It would be fascinating to take your car Gokhan, and perform a blinded case study using various grades of oil. I wonder if you would still be able to choose the 0w-20 from the others, not knowing what was in the sump? Food for thought.