Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict
- Thread starter Gokhan
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: PimTac
I would like to see a UOA of that 0w-8 in the Corolla.
Given that there are more than twice as powerful of the 4A-xxx engines out there that still specify 10W-30 like my 4A-LC, I think mine would be OK with as low as 0W-12 but I don't know about 0W-8.
Needless to say the goal of my experiment wasn't to show that 0W-8 is better than 20W-60 but to see how common viscosity grades that have been available for many, many decades (SAE 20 through 50) perform and compare in my engine.
So you are accepting you are biased, because you want the results of your "experiments" to go a certain way...
Originally Posted By: PimTac
I would like to see a UOA of that 0w-8 in the Corolla.
Given that there are more than twice as powerful of the 4A-xxx engines out there that still specify 10W-30 like my 4A-LC, I think mine would be OK with as low as 0W-12 but I don't know about 0W-8.
Needless to say the goal of my experiment wasn't to show that 0W-8 is better than 20W-60 but to see how common viscosity grades that have been available for many, many decades (SAE 20 through 50) perform and compare in my engine.
So you are accepting you are biased, because you want the results of your "experiments" to go a certain way...
Oh wait i think i misread Gokhan's post, i thought he said that he wanted to show that 0W-8 is better than 20W-60, nevermind.
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Originally Posted By: zeng
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Well given your final verdict, and the attributes that you've espoused in getting to that conclusion...run it and post the results.
I would be interested in xW20 results operating under :
a) Extreme duty (which I believe a xW20 isn't fit for it); or
b) Heavy duty (ditto ?) ; or
c) Medium duty.
...
Ford has already done this, including a tow-test through America's hottest point in Death Valley...
So does the test demonstrates a xW20 provides 'numerically' lower (adhesion and abrasion) wear than a xW40 ...... never mind corrosion wear and add packs difference,if any for now ?
Btw, no luck with google so far.
Originally Posted By: zeng
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Well given your final verdict, and the attributes that you've espoused in getting to that conclusion...run it and post the results.
I would be interested in xW20 results operating under :
a) Extreme duty (which I believe a xW20 isn't fit for it); or
b) Heavy duty (ditto ?) ; or
c) Medium duty.
...
Ford has already done this, including a tow-test through America's hottest point in Death Valley...
So does the test demonstrates a xW20 provides 'numerically' lower (adhesion and abrasion) wear than a xW40 ...... never mind corrosion wear and add packs difference,if any for now ?
Btw, no luck with google so far.
It's been great to go back from M1 0W-40 SN to TGMO 0W-20 SN. I've been enjoying having gone back to significantly better fuel economy (about 8% percent better) and an effortlessly running, great-sounding engine. Thanks to TGMO 0W-20 SN, driving is fun again.
On its Web page (link), Valvoline PRO-V RACING™ 0W-20 states: 'Designed for engines with clearances under 0.0020".'
0.0020 in = 51 microns
Is 51 microns (0.0020 in) the rule of thumb for using 0W-20?
The following are the bearing clearances for my 1985 Corolla 4A-LC and the BMW S65 engines.
1985 Toyota Corolla 4A-LC engine standard bearing clearances for new bearings:
Main bearing: 12 - 49 microns
Connecting bearing: 20 - 51 microns
Main journal diameter: 48.0 mm
BMW S65 engine standard bearing clearances for new bearings::
Main bearing: 31 - 51 microns
Connecting bearing: 15 - 53, 29 - 51, 20 - 36, 38 - 55, 41 - 56 microns (depending on the bearing type)
Main journal diameter: 60.0 mm
On its Web page (link), Valvoline PRO-V RACING™ 0W-20 states: 'Designed for engines with clearances under 0.0020".'
0.0020 in = 51 microns
Is 51 microns (0.0020 in) the rule of thumb for using 0W-20?
The following are the bearing clearances for my 1985 Corolla 4A-LC and the BMW S65 engines.
1985 Toyota Corolla 4A-LC engine standard bearing clearances for new bearings:
Main bearing: 12 - 49 microns
Connecting bearing: 20 - 51 microns
Main journal diameter: 48.0 mm
BMW S65 engine standard bearing clearances for new bearings::
Main bearing: 31 - 51 microns
Connecting bearing: 15 - 53, 29 - 51, 20 - 36, 38 - 55, 41 - 56 microns (depending on the bearing type)
Main journal diameter: 60.0 mm
My guess is that driving is fun again because the winter grade gasoline has been switched to summer grade. No oil is going to make that much difference in performance or in fuel economy.
I'm starting to suspect the OP is stretching out this thread for personal enjoyment rather than discuss facts.
My last comment on this thread. Thanks to all those who made some good and informative comments.
I'm starting to suspect the OP is stretching out this thread for personal enjoyment rather than discuss facts.
My last comment on this thread. Thanks to all those who made some good and informative comments.
So ive read most of these pages and I am still undecided on thin or thick haha. I am running 0w20 in my 275k mile sienna and then I am running 0w40 in my 240k mile truck.
The sienna was actually back spec compatible with 0w20. The truck called for 10w30. Thinking about trying 0w20 in it though...any ideas if that is okay? I usually take it easy, doesn't get driven much and occasionally goes off roading
The sienna was actually back spec compatible with 0w20. The truck called for 10w30. Thinking about trying 0w20 in it though...any ideas if that is okay? I usually take it easy, doesn't get driven much and occasionally goes off roading
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
[...]
On its Web page (link), Valvoline PRO-V RACING™ 0W-20 states: 'Designed for engines with clearances under 0.0020".'
0.0020 in = 51 microns
Is 51 microns (0.0020 in) the rule of thumb for using 0W-20?
[...]
Apparently yes, Fig 9 in the document below indicate that clearances beyond 0.002 would dramatically affect MOFT for thinner oils at medium - high RPM.
http://www.substech.com/dokuwiki/doku.ph...f_oil_viscosity
The nice side effect of those charts is to dispel the "your clearances were optimized for 0W20 and are too small for 5W30" myth / argument here. As one can notice from the charts, for all practical values of clearances, you cannot chose any point where 0W5 would beat 10W30 in MOFT.
[...]
On its Web page (link), Valvoline PRO-V RACING™ 0W-20 states: 'Designed for engines with clearances under 0.0020".'
0.0020 in = 51 microns
Is 51 microns (0.0020 in) the rule of thumb for using 0W-20?
[...]
Apparently yes, Fig 9 in the document below indicate that clearances beyond 0.002 would dramatically affect MOFT for thinner oils at medium - high RPM.
http://www.substech.com/dokuwiki/doku.ph...f_oil_viscosity
The nice side effect of those charts is to dispel the "your clearances were optimized for 0W20 and are too small for 5W30" myth / argument here. As one can notice from the charts, for all practical values of clearances, you cannot chose any point where 0W5 would beat 10W30 in MOFT.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: nap
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
[...]
On its Web page (link), Valvoline PRO-V RACING™ 0W-20 states: 'Designed for engines with clearances under 0.0020".'
0.0020 in = 51 microns
Is 51 microns (0.0020 in) the rule of thumb for using 0W-20?
[...]
Apparently yes, Fig 9 in the document below indicate that clearances beyond 0.002 would dramatically affect MOFT for thinner oils at medium - high RPM.
http://www.substech.com/dokuwiki/doku.ph...f_oil_viscosity
The nice side effect of those charts is to dispel the "your clearances were optimized for 0W20 and are too small for 5W30" myth / argument here. As one can notice from the charts, for all practical values of clearances, you cannot chose any point where 0W5 would beat 10W30 in MOFT.
I'm concerned that the author referenced an oil grade that doesn't exist... Particularly given that 0w-8 would have been an official SAE grade that could have been worked into the test instead, given the dates on the sources/supporting documentation.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
[...]
On its Web page (link), Valvoline PRO-V RACING™ 0W-20 states: 'Designed for engines with clearances under 0.0020".'
0.0020 in = 51 microns
Is 51 microns (0.0020 in) the rule of thumb for using 0W-20?
[...]
Apparently yes, Fig 9 in the document below indicate that clearances beyond 0.002 would dramatically affect MOFT for thinner oils at medium - high RPM.
http://www.substech.com/dokuwiki/doku.ph...f_oil_viscosity
The nice side effect of those charts is to dispel the "your clearances were optimized for 0W20 and are too small for 5W30" myth / argument here. As one can notice from the charts, for all practical values of clearances, you cannot chose any point where 0W5 would beat 10W30 in MOFT.
I'm concerned that the author referenced an oil grade that doesn't exist... Particularly given that 0w-8 would have been an official SAE grade that could have been worked into the test instead, given the dates on the sources/supporting documentation.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
I'm concerned that the author referenced an oil grade that doesn't exist... Particularly given that 0w-8 would have been an official SAE grade that could have been worked into the test instead, given the dates on the sources/supporting documentation.
Possible cause: the research and article were written before January 2015, when those grades were officially named. And they used an unofficial, internal denomination for their research oils.
I'm concerned that the author referenced an oil grade that doesn't exist... Particularly given that 0w-8 would have been an official SAE grade that could have been worked into the test instead, given the dates on the sources/supporting documentation.
Possible cause: the research and article were written before January 2015, when those grades were officially named. And they used an unofficial, internal denomination for their research oils.
Some other papers that have attracted my attention:
Exhibit A:
Page 8 of http://www.ravenol.de/fileadmin/content/documents/pdfs/Ravenol_EFE_SAE_0W-16__en.pdf
where Ravenol plots various oils on the Stribeck curve. One may note that, according to the chart, 0W30 is the absolute minimum to stay in hydrodynamic mode, with 0W20 slightly going into boundary mode (and thus calling for some EP additives in order to work nicely), and 0W16 going even further.
Exhibit B:
Page 2 of http://www.eneos.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/0W-16-Brochure.pdf
where Eneos also confirms that a 0W16 w/o additives would work in boundary mode, and that it's relying on EP additives in order to work nicely.
The conclusion could be that, once you go below 0W30, you're stepping into boundary lubrication, and the thinner the oil, the more its role gravitates towards "additive carrier" than "intrinsic lubricant".
Exhibit A:
Page 8 of http://www.ravenol.de/fileadmin/content/documents/pdfs/Ravenol_EFE_SAE_0W-16__en.pdf
where Ravenol plots various oils on the Stribeck curve. One may note that, according to the chart, 0W30 is the absolute minimum to stay in hydrodynamic mode, with 0W20 slightly going into boundary mode (and thus calling for some EP additives in order to work nicely), and 0W16 going even further.
Exhibit B:
Page 2 of http://www.eneos.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/0W-16-Brochure.pdf
where Eneos also confirms that a 0W16 w/o additives would work in boundary mode, and that it's relying on EP additives in order to work nicely.
The conclusion could be that, once you go below 0W30, you're stepping into boundary lubrication, and the thinner the oil, the more its role gravitates towards "additive carrier" than "intrinsic lubricant".
Interesting. If the wear numbers are to be believed (I do not disbelieve, just wonder if there is an "optimization factor" involved), that for the right engine this oil should be perfectly fine. Probably not the thing for a flat-tappet 'Merican V8 but if anti-wear and friction modifiers can now deal better with boundary lubrication, why not. I guess. I'm not as "thin oil" averse as some, but still, this is a bias-challenger in some ways to me.
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: nap
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
I'm concerned that the author referenced an oil grade that doesn't exist... Particularly given that 0w-8 would have been an official SAE grade that could have been worked into the test instead, given the dates on the sources/supporting documentation.
Possible cause: the research and article were written before January 2015, when those grades were officially named. And they used an unofficial, internal denomination for their research oils.
The references for the article are from 2015. SAE J300 was ratified to include 0w-16 in 2013 and 0w-8 and 0w-12 very early in 2015. There would have been no standard defining the parameters for 0w-5 (note the dash) then as there isn't now, because the grade is fictitious. Either it was a 0w-20 if the oil/testing pre-dates the J300 updates, or it is one of the other grades if it doesn't.
So then the question becomes, since SAE 0w-5 doesn't exist, what are the viscosity characteristics of this product? The results in the graph, which are tied to the cited grades, become less useful when one of the grades is made up and has no binding parameters for visc, HTHS...etc due to not being a part of the SAE J300 rating system.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
I'm concerned that the author referenced an oil grade that doesn't exist... Particularly given that 0w-8 would have been an official SAE grade that could have been worked into the test instead, given the dates on the sources/supporting documentation.
Possible cause: the research and article were written before January 2015, when those grades were officially named. And they used an unofficial, internal denomination for their research oils.
The references for the article are from 2015. SAE J300 was ratified to include 0w-16 in 2013 and 0w-8 and 0w-12 very early in 2015. There would have been no standard defining the parameters for 0w-5 (note the dash) then as there isn't now, because the grade is fictitious. Either it was a 0w-20 if the oil/testing pre-dates the J300 updates, or it is one of the other grades if it doesn't.
So then the question becomes, since SAE 0w-5 doesn't exist, what are the viscosity characteristics of this product? The results in the graph, which are tied to the cited grades, become less useful when one of the grades is made up and has no binding parameters for visc, HTHS...etc due to not being a part of the SAE J300 rating system.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
Interesting. If the wear numbers are to be believed (I do not disbelieve, just wonder if there is an "optimization factor" involved), that for the right engine this oil should be perfectly fine. Probably not the thing for a flat-tappet 'Merican V8 but if anti-wear and friction modifiers can now deal better with boundary lubrication, why not. I guess. I'm not as "thin oil" averse as some, but still, this is a bias-challenger in some ways to me.
Shannow has covered this in GREAT detail in previous threads. In fact I think he made one about the topic specifically, as this was referenced as the intentional move, to get into boundary, by one of the Honda papers. The idea was about controlling wear, not avoiding it, with wider bearings to deal with it in the hydrodynamic area, whilst additives would deal with areas that were now in boundary, that wouldn't have before, with heavier lubes.
Interesting. If the wear numbers are to be believed (I do not disbelieve, just wonder if there is an "optimization factor" involved), that for the right engine this oil should be perfectly fine. Probably not the thing for a flat-tappet 'Merican V8 but if anti-wear and friction modifiers can now deal better with boundary lubrication, why not. I guess. I'm not as "thin oil" averse as some, but still, this is a bias-challenger in some ways to me.
Shannow has covered this in GREAT detail in previous threads. In fact I think he made one about the topic specifically, as this was referenced as the intentional move, to get into boundary, by one of the Honda papers. The idea was about controlling wear, not avoiding it, with wider bearings to deal with it in the hydrodynamic area, whilst additives would deal with areas that were now in boundary, that wouldn't have before, with heavier lubes.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: nap
Some other papers that have attracted my attention:
Exhibit A:
Page 8 of http://www.ravenol.de/fileadmin/content/documents/pdfs/Ravenol_EFE_SAE_0W-16__en.pdf
where Ravenol plots various oils on the Stribeck curve. One may note that, according to the chart, 0W30 is the absolute minimum to stay in hydrodynamic mode, with 0W20 slightly going into boundary mode (and thus calling for some EP additives in order to work nicely), and 0W16 going even further.
Exhibit B:
Page 2 of http://www.eneos.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/0W-16-Brochure.pdf
where Eneos also confirms that a 0W16 w/o additives would work in boundary mode, and that it's relying on EP additives in order to work nicely.
The conclusion could be that, once you go below 0W30, you're stepping into boundary lubrication, and the thinner the oil, the more its role gravitates towards "additive carrier" than "intrinsic lubricant".
That information is pretty in-line with some of the stuff Shannow has spoken about. If you haven't seen the threads, they are probably worth digging up. Thanks for the links though
Some other papers that have attracted my attention:
Exhibit A:
Page 8 of http://www.ravenol.de/fileadmin/content/documents/pdfs/Ravenol_EFE_SAE_0W-16__en.pdf
where Ravenol plots various oils on the Stribeck curve. One may note that, according to the chart, 0W30 is the absolute minimum to stay in hydrodynamic mode, with 0W20 slightly going into boundary mode (and thus calling for some EP additives in order to work nicely), and 0W16 going even further.
Exhibit B:
Page 2 of http://www.eneos.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/0W-16-Brochure.pdf
where Eneos also confirms that a 0W16 w/o additives would work in boundary mode, and that it's relying on EP additives in order to work nicely.
The conclusion could be that, once you go below 0W30, you're stepping into boundary lubrication, and the thinner the oil, the more its role gravitates towards "additive carrier" than "intrinsic lubricant".
That information is pretty in-line with some of the stuff Shannow has spoken about. If you haven't seen the threads, they are probably worth digging up. Thanks for the links though
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
So then the question becomes, since SAE 0w-5 doesn't exist, what are the viscosity characteristics of this product? The results in the graph, which are tied to the cited grades, become less useful when one of the grades is made up and has no binding parameters for visc, HTHS...etc due to not being a part of the SAE J300 rating system.
The other oils in those graphs don't list exact viscosity, HTHS, etc either. What the article is showing is those graphs are trends so the reader can see which way things go depending on what oil "viscosity" is used with respect to journal bearing clearance and engine RPM. 0W-5 would obviously be the most viscous oil at operating temperature in the bunch.
So then the question becomes, since SAE 0w-5 doesn't exist, what are the viscosity characteristics of this product? The results in the graph, which are tied to the cited grades, become less useful when one of the grades is made up and has no binding parameters for visc, HTHS...etc due to not being a part of the SAE J300 rating system.
The other oils in those graphs don't list exact viscosity, HTHS, etc either. What the article is showing is those graphs are trends so the reader can see which way things go depending on what oil "viscosity" is used with respect to journal bearing clearance and engine RPM. 0W-5 would obviously be the most viscous oil at operating temperature in the bunch.
- Status
Similar threads
