Toyota SN 0W20 VOA

Messages
321
Location
IL, USA
I recd the results of the Toyota 0W20 SN Synthetic Oil VOA this morning. It is posted below: Iron 0.7 Nickel 0.0 Chromium 0.1 Titanium 0.2 Copper 0.0 Aluminum 1.5 Tin 0.7 Silicon 5.7 Potassium 0.0 Sodium 1.1 Boron 0.6 Barium 0.0 Calcium 2829 Magnesium 12 Molybdenum 124 Was 800 Sodium 1.1 Phosphorus 906 Was 687 Sulfur 3489 Was 3258 Zinc 910 Was 710 [email protected] 37.38 Was 38.2 [email protected] 8.54 Was 8.85-9.3-9.7 depending on the lab VI 216 Was 214 TBN 6.84 wAS 7.0 There have obviously been some changes informulation from the SM formulation, specifically Moly, Zinc and Phosphorus, but it looks like the Toyota 0W20 SN formulation continues to maintain it's very high VI unlike so many other SN formulations.
 

JOD

Messages
3,577
Location
PNW/WA
Thanks for posting! That looks awesome. I guess is shows that the reduction in VI has a lot more to do with cost than with the switch to SN. Who knows if the moly compound used now is the same as it was before? Regardless, I tend to leave worrying about the additive packs to the guys blending the oil... Thanks again. If I didn't have a lifetime supply of Honda SM 0W20, this would probably be my next oil.
 
Messages
10,146
Location
Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Thanks CMMead. I'm primarily glad that the VI hasn't taken a hit, in fact it is back on par with the 214 (or close enough) to the original Nippon Oil made version of the Toyota Brand 0W-20; the EOM SM version was 202 according to the Dyson VOA but then that was just one VOA so who knows. Am I reading this VOA right and the Boron level has dropped to a trace or is it 0.6 a percentage? Previously it was 77 ppm and the original Nippon Oil version was 184 ppm. The reduction in moly is a mild disappointment but as JOD alluded EOM very likely is using their own source for the moly instead of importing the Adeka-Sakura-Lube from Japan. That being the case, the Toyota Brand oil still has almost twice as much moly as M1 0W-20. And if Infineum is the source of the moly then it's the Trinuclear Moly Disulphide. I would take the high phos' level with a grain of salt. It could be a Wearcheck error. I do doubt that EOM would deliberately exceed SN requirements. We'll see if the figure is repeated in subsiquent UOAs. In the meantime I wouldn't dwell on it. On balance I'm pleased the oil.
 
Messages
10,146
Location
Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Oh and btw, the lower kinematic viscosity spec's is if anything an indication of higher quality base stocks and not the oil actually being lighter in terms of operational viscosity than the previous versions.
 

CMMeadAM

Thread starter
Messages
321
Location
IL, USA
I'm also glad the VI hasn't taken a hit as so many other of the new SN formulations. Reading directly from the report print out, Boron does read " 0.6" but I will ask about that in addition to the reported Phosphorus amd Zinc levels. Any idea how the Adeka-Sakura Moly compares to the Infinium Trinuclear Moly Disulphide? There is almost 85% less Moly in the SN formulation. Would that kind of reduction be necessary for improved deposit control in the SN formulation or is it more likely cost considerations ?
 
Messages
10,146
Location
Burlington, Ontario, Canada
According to wag123 in that thread comparing M1 0W-20 to the Toyota 0W-20 (see below): http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2409119&page=4 He claims the Infinium moly is 4-5 time more effective than other moly sources. That being the case, then the reduction in total moly may not have any negative performance consiquences, but I really don't know. This oil is certainly the best of the SN High VI 0W-20 oils that we've seen so far, but I would still hedge my bets and use the SM version as long as it is available.
 
Messages
14,505
Location
Top of Virginia
Originally Posted By: CMMeadAM
Any idea how the Adeka-Sakura Moly compares to the Infinium Trinuclear Moly Disulphide? There is almost 85% less Moly in the SN formulation. Would that kind of reduction be necessary for improved deposit control in the SN formulation or is it more likely cost considerations ?
That was my question as well. Does the Trinuclear Moly Disulphide have a more concentrated effect compared with the Adeka-Sakura Moly, requiring less for the same effectiveness? Similar to how sea salt has a saltier taste than table salt, thus requiring less of it for the same effect? Edit: never mind. Thanks for the further detail, CATERHAM.
 
Last edited:
Messages
423
Location
Minneapolis, MN
Again, thanks for posting this. It seems this oil has stood up to the SM->SN transition better than most. Any theories on why so many oils have lost so much VI in the transition? Clearly we see its now possible to have a 200+ VI in an SN oil. If Toyota (EOM) can do it, why can't anyone else? Though I haven't seen the VI of the SN Subaru oil yet, maybe it's still up there. I realize we can't tell that much about an additive package from a $25 VOA, but do we have any plausible speculation on what's being done to recoup the fuel economy and AW benefits of the moly which has been removed? Thread links appreciated.
 

CMMeadAM

Thread starter
Messages
321
Location
IL, USA
Thanks for the reference back to P3 of that thread and wag123's input. Great info ( somehow i missed that..mea culpa) and sheds a bit more light on the moly part of the topic/formulation. Perhaps XOM WAS able to convince Toyota to use Infinium's Moly product. In any case, I'm still picking up a couple more cases of the SM formulation.
 
Messages
2,372
Location
Texas
Thanks for the VOA CMMeadAM. I like what I see in the new SN formulation. The only thing that really concerns me (as it did before) is the low TBN. This combined with the very high VI would lead me to believe that there is a lot of VII in this oil.
 
Last edited:
Messages
10,146
Location
Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted By: wag123
The only thing that really concerns me (as it did before) is the low TBN. This combined with the very high VI would lead me to believe that there is a lot of VII in this oil.
Of course this oil likely has a lot of VIIs but they're high quality VIIs with minimal shearing. That is the whole purpose of this oil, to have as low a start-up viscosity as possible even with room temp' starts. In Toyota applications the recommended OCI is 10,000 miles and since this is longer than most of us go, the TBN is a non issue.
 

Patman

Staff member
Messages
22,012
Location
Guelph, Ontario
Sad to see all the boron gone, and a good chunk of moly gone too, but the most important thing to me is that the viscosity index is still the same!
 
Messages
328
Location
Pennsylvania
Thanks mucho for obtaining this information, I love to see new info on oils I'm interested in. Hopefully better financial times are ahead and I'll be able to contribute also. Is this the bottle or bulk, and could there be a difference in the two? I know some dealers offer a better price on bulk.
 

CMMeadAM

Thread starter
Messages
321
Location
IL, USA
I personally spoke with the Diagnostician who performed the analysis at Wear Check and he confrimed the 0.6 Boron reading and also stated that the Phosphorus and Zinc readings are plus or minus 10 percent. That puts them both close to if not at the SN spec range.
 
Messages
10,146
Location
Burlington, Ontario, Canada
I don't know what to make of the removal of Boron from the SN formulation. It could be an oversight and I'd like to see a VOA or UOA of a subsequent batch and see if the Boron remains out of the formulation.
 
Messages
34,393
Location
NJ
No use even trying to guess. All of these additive packages/base oil combos are balanced.
 
Messages
2,372
Location
Texas
A question for everyone reading this... Given a choice (since SM is still available), would you quickly snap up a case of Toyota 0W-20 SM, or would you buy the new Toyota 0W-20 SN as needed, or would you buy M1 0W-20 SN as needed, or would you buy PP 0W-20 as needed?
 
Last edited:
Top