Toyota's reasoning for 0w20 viscosity engine oil

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Questions:

Where is Toyota 0W-20 made? Japan, US, or some other country? In other words, what country name is actually printed on the back label of the bottle?



It's made by XOM in the US, at least if you're in the US (or CA). It was previously made by Nippon, and I believe they still make the 0W20 supplied to Asia. The moly in the SN stuff was made by Sadeka in Japan--not sure about the additives in the SN stuff.

 

[VNTS]

So any 0w-20 will have loads of magnesium? Why just 0w-20 vs 5w-20?

Also is magnesium that bad?

Note I have quite a fewqts of QS Advance Full synhtetic 0w-20 in
my stash.

First I heard about 0w-20 having high amounts of magnesium and the magnesium is not a good additive?

 

[CMMeadAM]

The moly in Toyota 0W20 SM was made by Adeka-Sakura.

 

[chevrofreak]

Originally Posted By: VNTS
So any 0w-20 will have loads of magnesium? Why just 0w-20 vs 5w-20?

Also is magnesium that bad?

Note I have quite a fewqts of QS Advance Full synhtetic 0w-20 in
my stash.

First I heard about 0w-20 having high amounts of magnesium and the magnesium is not a good additive?


Loads? No. Service Pro 0w-20 barely has a trace of magnesium.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: btanchors
Can you elaborate on your comment about Mobil 1 0W-20? Why is it an "iffy" product?

Oh, forget about it.

I was mainly referring to some past used oil analysis of Mobil 1 with high iron levels. Let's not get into again because it was discussed in all ways in the past. The SN formulation is probably a very good oil.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: JOD
It's made by XOM in the US, at least if you're in the US (or CA). It was previously made by Nippon, and I believe they still make the 0W20 supplied to Asia. The moly in the SN stuff was made by Sadeka in Japan--not sure about the additives in the SN stuff.

Thanks for the information. I will check it out next time when I am in a Toyota dealer parts department.

If it's made my Exxon-Mobil, chances are that it's Infineum's trinuclear kind -- most potent kind -- as Infineum is co-owned by Exxon-Mobil and Shell. 124 ppm in the current SN formulation is pretty good; although, Pennzoil conventional has 269 ppm -- more than twice.

Trinuclear moly has a 5:1 S:Mo atomic ratio, which translates into 1.67 S:Mo ppm ratio.

Mononuclear moly has a 2:1 S:Mo atomic ratio, which translates into 0.668 S:Mo ppm ratio.

Dinuclear moly has an 8:1 S:Mo atomic ratio, which translates into 2.67 S:Mo ppm ratio.

ZDDP has 2:1 S atomic ratio, which translates into 2.07 S ratio.

Sometimes you can see if the S ppm checks out by adding what is coming from ZDDP and moly but there is a lot of S in Toyota 0W-20; so, there must be other sources as well, perhaps their calcium detergent contains S.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: fpracha
So if you were actually mostly driving on city streets, the change from 15W40 to 5W30 should give an even higher FE improvement than the 7% you experienced, right ?

Well, my personal experience was 7% change from 15w40 to 5w30. Although, I should say that the fuel economy decreased another 5% with 15w40 after 4000 miles. I didn't kept 5w30 long enough to see the used-oil fuel economy for that.

I am hoping 10% or better gain with 5W-20.

By the way, the gain in fuel economy from the oil viscosity is most for gentle driving -- avoiding high acceleration and very high speeds.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: VNTS
Also is magnesium that bad?

According to the paper early in this thread, the best wear protection and TBN retention was seen when they used a 6:1 Ca:Mg ratio. Every detergent is different though; so, you can't say what is the optimum ratio.

Short answer to your question: Mg can be both good and bad. Mg is a TBN-retention additive and it could reduce wear substantially if the Ca:Mg ratio is chosen well. So, some Mg is actually a good thing. But then Mg also increases TAN (acidicity) and too much Mg increases wear.

So, what is the optimal Ca:Mg ratio? It's hard to say. But I think the Ca:Mg ratio of 1:1.3 in Castrol Edge is worrisome. Mobil 1 0W-20 and Mobil 1 Extended Performance are probably OK (Ca:Mg 1.3:1 and 1.4:1, respectively) -- they may even be better in protecting against wear than the Mobil 1 formulations without Mg.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: fpracha
Why do you say the 11cSt@100C is outrageous though - would it kill the FE or does it imply lower base oil quality ?

I saw one VOA with that number. If it's accurate, it's odd in the sense that it's well outside the SAE xW-20 range of 5.6 - 9.3. A number around 8.0 is probably ideal. Also, too high KV @ 100 C and low HTHS (such as 2.6 cP) would imply too much viscosity-index improvers (VIIs temporarily shear to reduce HTHS), which would be a bad thing, as you don't want too much VIIs because too much of these polymers can lead to deposits, sludge, and too much permanent viscosity shear.

 

[buster]

Gokhan, are you a formulator?

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: buster
Gokhan, are you a formulator?

Armchair formulator.

LOL

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: btanchors
Can you elaborate on your comment about Mobil 1 0W-20? Why is it an "iffy" product?

Oh, forget about it.

I was mainly referring to some past used oil analysis of Mobil 1 with high iron levels. Let's not get into again because it was discussed in all ways in the past. The SN formulation is probably a very good oil.


As was the Sm,SL,SJ,and on down the line. You see Mobil 1 oils have been outstanding since Mobil came on line with their synthetic oils in 1974. I know, as I have used their oil since 1978.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: fpracha
So Would this RP 15w40 be better in FE compared to the synthetic brands, specially the dinos?


I suppose it's possible, but I doubt if anyone's done any rigorous testing on that possibility. Personally, there are few scenarios where I'd choose to use RP 15w40. First strike against them is price. While RP is competitively priced up here (in the one litre bottles versus other one litre bottles), that advantage goes down the toilet when using the quantities required for modern diesel engines. Fifteen litres at roughly $9 per bottle is pretty hard to swallow when one can get a twenty litre pail of Chevron Delo synthetic for under $100.

Second strike is that it is a synthetic 15w40. If one is choosing synthetic, a synthetic 15w40 makes about as much sense as a synthetic straight 30 for normal applications. While the RP 15w40 has an amazing pour point, it's still a 15w40, and I'd question why one wouldn't go to a 0w-40 or a 5w-40. After all, a synthetic should be a long drain oil, and at least up here, running 15w40 synthetic in the summer only to change out to 0w-40 synthetic for the winter is an expensive proposition.

Now, I could see it having some use for some applications. It does have the latest specifications, if I recall correctly. If the climate is mild, or the oil doesn't get down to ambient, and OCIs are extended, then fine.

This is one time I'll definitely completely agree with CATERHAM on the thin oil issue. Switching from a 10w30 or 15w40 conventional to a synthetic 10w30 or 15w40 generally doesn't make a huge amount of sense, considering you're isolating yourself from a big advantage of synthetics - the possibilities of 0w30 or 0w-40.

 

[CATERHAM]

As I mentioned previously, 15w40 is a dino grade as is the 10w30 grade and to a lesser extent even the 5W-20 grade. As Garak aluded, when formulating a synthetic oil you don't need to restrict yourself to such inherently low VI oils those grades represent so why would you unless you're using inferior synthetic fluids which can happen.
But formulators do because an SAE grade has a certain cashet that goes beyond it's technical limitations and also not to be excluded from the dino market when that grade is specified by a manufacturer.
Having said that, a formulator could label a syn oil as a 15w40 for marketing reason when in fact it may technically be a 10W-40 or even a 5W-40. RLI's 15w40 is technically a 5W-40 and they have admitted to it.
In the case of RP's 15w40, I don't know what the VI is of this oil but if it's over 150 then I'd strongly suspect it is actually a 10W-40. And if the VI is over 160, it's likely a 5W-40 grade oil.

 

[Gokhan]

Choice of the basestock (Group I, II, II+, III, IV, or GTL) is driven by two things:

(1) Cold-cranking viscosity
(2) NOACK volatility

The following two graphs taken from the Chevron API basestock presentation plot the relationship between these two quantities for various basestocks and they also show the various viscosity grades on the same graph.

Note that it's not possible to make a dexos1 0W-20 or 0w30 using Group III. One would need to use PAO. A Group III 0W-20 or 0w30 can only satisfy GF-5 but not dexos1.

If one doesn't need very cold cranking and worry about a couple of percent difference in NOACK volatility, conventional Group II+ basestocks will usually perform almost equally as well as Group III or PAO basestocks.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
In the case of RP's 15w40, I don't know what the VI is of this oil but if it's over 150 then I'd strongly suspect it is actually a 10W-40. And if the VI is over 160, it's likely a 5W-40 grade oil.

The VI of RP 15w40 is 146; reference here. A buddy of mine has insisted upon using RP 15w40 in his 1993 Dodge Cummins, when the RP 0w-40 and 5w-40 (and even their 10w-40) meet the specifications required by the engine, at least in the older (non-SN) versions. That's also ignoring the fact that he can get a pail of Delo 400 LE for way, way cheaper.

I have nothing against RP, and have used their products before, and likely will again. However, fourteen quarts of the stuff gets a little expensive.

 

[Gokhan]

Diesel engines are different because they generate soot. Soot particles are very abrasive and you need as thick an oil film as possible between sliding parts to prevent the abrasive soot particles from grinding between the sliding parts. Therefore, for diesel engines, you want as thick a viscosity as possible for best wear protection and for that reason 15w40 offers better wear protection than 5W-40, as the HTHS viscosity is significantly larger for the former.

This graph is from the same reference in my previous post:

I think, for the same reason, pre-80s gasoline engines wear less with thicker oil, as they tend to generate more particles into the oil than later engines.

 

[fpracha]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
... Therefore, for diesel engines, you want as thick a viscosity as possible for best wear protection and for that reason 15w40 offers better wear protection than 5W-40, as the HTHS viscosity is significantly larger for the former.

But there are 5W-40 oils having a high hths comparable or better than the 15w40,
like the Red Line 5W40 hths is 4.6, so it depends on which brand/manufacturer your are referring to above, regards.

 

[Gokhan]

I stopped by my local Toyota parts department today and took a look at the bottle of the Toyota 0W-20 SN/GF-5. There wasn't much information on the bottle and it said made in USA from domestic and imported components. There were several concentric C's molded at the bottom of the bottle.

How is it known that it's made by Exxon - Mobil?

By the way, they were asking for $12 for a quart of it!

But then they ask for twice the online price for the parts there as well.

 

[weebl]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
There were several concentric C's molded at the bottom of the bottle.


You mean this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCC_mark It simply indicates the product is approved for sale in China, similar to the CE mark on products approved for sale in Europe. These say nothing about who makes it or where it was made.