Why no 0W/30?

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM

The evidence would suggest that TGMO is a more expensive oil to make than M1 0W-20.


What evidence? The AFE oil has trinuclear moly and is 30+% PAO, both of which aren't cheap. In comparison, TGMO uses (inexpensive) group 3 bases and we have no PDS for it so we don't know what the other specs for the product are.

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Why doesn't Mobil sell an OEM version of what they make for Toyota? I'm sure Toyota wouldn't mind. Nippon Oil certainly did in their ENEOS 0W-20 at twice the price of TGMO.


Well, ENEOS is Japanese (like Toyota) and likely shares the same VI fixation, which as I noted earlier, appears to be a Japanese thing.

I don't think Mobil sees a compelling reason to produce another 0w-20 that is thin enough that it probably can't be recommended for Ford and Chrysler applications, which their current 0w-20 products CAN, for no other reason than it having a higher VI.

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
No the reason would appear to be that to price is profitably they would have to charge more than what they already charge for M1 0W-20. And that just wouldn't work for a host of reasons.


Based on what? Both Mobil 0w-20 products are heavy in PAO, which is expensive. TGMO is entirely group 3. How can you posit that it is a more expensive product here? Unicorn tears that Mobil buys on the black market from Russian operatives who secretly run a farm in Siberia?

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
No I think one can safely conclude that TGMO 0W-20 is an expensive oil to make, not just because Mobil doesn't sell it under their own name but also because very few formulators who make an API 0W-20 choose to make a high VI version.

It's a business decision, and the cheaper you can make it, the higher the profit.


It's a business decision and aside from people on BITOG, nobody has a friggin' clue about VI. I doubt it is more expensive to make, and you seem to be pulling that "factoid" straight out of the air IMO. Based on base stocks alone, it is significantly cheaper to base TGMO than it is the two Mobil 1 0w-20 products. I think the fact that it is too bloody thin to recommend for many 5w-20 applications is likely the reason Mobil doesn't make a product like it, and this is also likely why their own excellent 0w-20 products are intentionally heavier.


Your sole case that M1 is more expensive to make is based on the up to 30% PAO content. As far as the AW additive content including moly it's higher in TGMO.
Others have postulated that Mobil is using GP III+ base oils to make the high VI TGMO and of course you've omitted the main difference which is the new (and undoubtedly expensive) very high VI PMA VIIs that TGMO is made with. The end result being that not only does TGMO have a much higher VI (and way lower KV40 spec') but it's no more shear prone if not more shear stable than M1 0W-20.

So there's that, plus the fact that only the OEMs are formulating oils with this technology. The one or two others that do charge a lot for their shear stable very high VI oils.

As to your remark that "nobody has a friggin clue about VI" you're absolutely right. But they also don't have a clue about any other oil spec' including KV40, KV100, MRV and CCS. But what people do know is that 0W-20 oils are supposed to be lighter than 5W-20 oils and they are not just at extreme cold temp's but more importantly due to their higher VIs at all start-up temp's. And although you like to dis' VI, that's the main advantage M1 0W-20 has over a 5W-20 with it's 20-25 point higher VI especially compared to a typical 5W-20 dino.

And what expert source are you relying on to conclude "the fact that (TGMO) is too bloody thin to recommend for many 5W-20 applications"? The latest version of TGMO 0W-20 packaged in the States actually mentions on the bottle it's suitable for when the 5W-20 grade is specified.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
And what expert source are you relying on to conclude "the fact that (TGMO) is too bloody thin to recommend for many 5W-20 applications"? The latest version of TGMO 0W-20 packaged in the States actually mentions on the bottle it's suitable for when the 5W-20 grade is specified.


Given that we've got a sole source for most of the facts, including the expensive PMA, Trinuclear suppositions etc., I'll defer to the expert on TGMO for this one.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3072897/Re:_CATERHAM_blend_in_4.6_Modu#Post3072897

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Hi mercuryblues,

I wouldn't recommend running TGMO straight, at least not without an OP gauge, because it is lighter at normal operating temp's than a virgin 5W-20, the grade spec'd for your car.
I'd suggest including one quart of M1 0W-40 and 4 quarts of TGMO to raise the HTHSV to 2.8cP but only lower the VI to 210. The end result will be a heavier 0W-20 that's still lighter on start-up in your climate than every OTC 0W-20.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM

Your sole case that M1 is more expensive to make is based on the up to 30% PAO content. As far as the AW additive content including moly it's higher in TGMO.


30% PAO in the AFE product, 70% on the EP product, and yup, I am. Which is significantly more to go on than what you've got at this point. And do we know what type of Moly is in TGMO? Based on the levels, IIRC, it is not the more expensive tri-nuclear stuff.

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Others have postulated that Mobil is using GP III+ base oils to make the high VI TGMO and of course you've omitted the main difference which is the new (and undoubtedly expensive) very high VI PMA VIIs that TGMO is made with. The end result being that not only does TGMO have a much higher VI (and way lower KV40 spec') but it's no more shear prone if not more shear stable than M1 0W-20.


1. We "know" that TGMO is made using Group 3 because the MSDS (which is about the only thing other than a VOA that we have to go by) states that it is based with 100% group 3.

2. I didn't omit it, I didn't think you actually A) had any proof that TGMO uses this VII, and B) you have any proof that Mobil does NOT use this VII in their own products.

3. TGMO is formulated to be a lighter oil, which is completely in-line with it having a lower KV40. The AFE and EP products likely have a heavier base oil blend. But that's just a guess, sort of like what you are doing

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
So there's that, plus the fact that only the OEMs are formulating oils with this technology. The one or two others that do charge a lot for their shear stable very high VI oils.


Only Japanese OEM's are chasing the high VI thing at this point. You have no idea who is or is not formulating an oil with this technology, assuming by technology you mean the more shear stable VII's you are lauding above.

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
As to your remark that "nobody has a friggin clue about VI" you're absolutely right. But they also don't have a clue about any other oil spec' including KV40, KV100, MRV and CCS. But what people do know is that 0W-20 oils are supposed to be lighter than 5W-20 oils and they are not just at extreme cold temp's but more importantly due to their higher VIs at all start-up temp's. And although you like to dis' VI, that's the main advantage M1 0W-20 has over a 5W-20 with it's 20-25 point higher VI especially compared to a typical 5W-20 dino.


I don't "dis" VI, I just simply don't agree with the emphasis you put on it as some singular trait that trumps all others. The "holy grail" so to speak.

The main advantage M1 AFE and EP have over TGMO is that they can be safely recommended for, because they are approved for, 5w-20 applications. A 0w-20 is not a 0w-20 is not a 5w-20 here. Toyota isn't in the business of selling TGMO to people who drive Ford, GM and Chrysler cars that spec 5w-20. That's because they aren't in the business of selling oil. Mobil is, and does. Ergo, their agenda is quite a bit different than Toyota's.

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
And what expert source are you relying on to conclude "the fact that (TGMO) is too bloody thin to recommend for many 5W-20 applications"? The latest version of TGMO 0W-20 packaged in the States actually mentions on the bottle it's suitable for when the 5W-20 grade is specified.


The fact that you posit repeatedly (including above!) that it is significantly thinner than the two Mobil 1 oils, both of which are FORMALLY APPROVED for 5w-20 applications. Your blessed TGMO product contains no GM or Ford approvals because it was not designed for those applications. This is because it is an OEM oil, blended FOR TOYOTA, and subsequently, has only been tested, BY TOYOTA, FOR TOYOTA engines. I'm sure it is fine in Toyota applications that originally specified 5w-20. And I'm sure Toyota has tested it as such.

And then there is also that post that Shannow linked (but I will re-quote for the sake of posterity) to where YOU STATED that it was possibly too thin for use in a Ford 5w-20 application

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3072682

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Hi mercuryblues,

I wouldn't recommend running TGMO straight, at least not without an OP gauge, because it is lighter at normal operating temp's than a virgin 5W-20, the grade spec'd for your car.
I'd suggest including one quart of M1 0W-40 and 4 quarts of TGMO to raise the HTHSV to 2.8cP but only lower the VI to 210. The end result will be a heavier 0W-20 that's still lighter on start-up in your climate than every OTC 0W-20.


So which is it my "expert source"? As you seem to be changing your tune to suit the argument.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
And what expert source are you relying on to conclude "the fact that (TGMO) is too bloody thin to recommend for many 5W-20 applications"? The latest version of TGMO 0W-20 packaged in the States actually mentions on the bottle it's suitable for when the 5W-20 grade is specified.


Given that we've got a sole source for most of the facts, including the expensive PMA, Trinuclear suppositions etc., I'll defer to the expert on TGMO for this one.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3072897/Re:_CATERHAM_blend_in_4.6_Modu#Post3072897

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Hi mercuryblues,

I wouldn't recommend running TGMO straight, at least not without an OP gauge, because it is lighter at normal operating temp's than a virgin 5W-20, the grade spec'd for your car.
I'd suggest including one quart of M1 0W-40 and 4 quarts of TGMO to raise the HTHSV to 2.8cP but only lower the VI to 210. The end result will be a heavier 0W-20 that's still lighter on start-up in your climate than every OTC 0W-20.



Ah, and look who's first to take the bate, the tag team buddy.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM

Your sole case that M1 is more expensive to make is based on the up to 30% PAO content. As far as the AW additive content including moly it's higher in TGMO.


30% PAO in the AFE product, 70% on the EP product, and yup, I am. Which is significantly more to go on than what you've got at this point. And do we know what type of Moly is in TGMO? Based on the levels, IIRC, it is not the more expensive tri-nuclear stuff.

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Others have postulated that Mobil is using GP III+ base oils to make the high VI TGMO and of course you've omitted the main difference which is the new (and undoubtedly expensive) very high VI PMA VIIs that TGMO is made with. The end result being that not only does TGMO have a much higher VI (and way lower KV40 spec') but it's no more shear prone if not more shear stable than M1 0W-20.


1. We "know" that TGMO is made using Group 3 because the MSDS (which is about the only thing other than a VOA that we have to go by) states that it is based with 100% group 3.

2. I didn't omit it, I didn't think you actually A) had any proof that TGMO uses this VII, and B) you have any proof that Mobil does NOT use this VII in their own products.

3. TGMO is formulated to be a lighter oil, which is completely in-line with it having a lower KV40. The AFE and EP products likely have a heavier base oil blend. But that's just a guess, sort of like what you are doing

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
So there's that, plus the fact that only the OEMs are formulating oils with this technology. The one or two others that do charge a lot for their shear stable very high VI oils.


Only Japanese OEM's are chasing the high VI thing at this point. You have no idea who is or is not formulating an oil with this technology, assuming by technology you mean the more shear stable VII's you are lauding above.

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
As to your remark that "nobody has a friggin clue about VI" you're absolutely right. But they also don't have a clue about any other oil spec' including KV40, KV100, MRV and CCS. But what people do know is that 0W-20 oils are supposed to be lighter than 5W-20 oils and they are not just at extreme cold temp's but more importantly due to their higher VIs at all start-up temp's. And although you like to dis' VI, that's the main advantage M1 0W-20 has over a 5W-20 with it's 20-25 point higher VI especially compared to a typical 5W-20 dino.


I don't "dis" VI, I just simply don't agree with the emphasis you put on it as some singular trait that trumps all others. The "holy grail" so to speak.

The main advantage M1 AFE and EP have over TGMO is that they can be safely recommended for, because they are approved for, 5w-20 applications. A 0w-20 is not a 0w-20 is not a 5w-20 here. Toyota isn't in the business of selling TGMO to people who drive Ford, GM and Chrysler cars that spec 5w-20. That's because they aren't in the business of selling oil. Mobil is, and does. Ergo, their agenda is quite a bit different than Toyota's.

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
And what expert source are you relying on to conclude "the fact that (TGMO) is too bloody thin to recommend for many 5W-20 applications"? The latest version of TGMO 0W-20 packaged in the States actually mentions on the bottle it's suitable for when the 5W-20 grade is specified.


The fact that you posit repeatedly (including above!) that it is significantly thinner than the two Mobil 1 oils, both of which are FORMALLY APPROVED for 5w-20 applications. Your blessed TGMO product contains no GM or Ford approvals because it was not designed for those applications. This is because it is an OEM oil, blended FOR TOYOTA, and subsequently, has only been tested, BY TOYOTA, FOR TOYOTA engines. I'm sure it is fine in Toyota applications that originally specified 5w-20. And I'm sure Toyota has tested it as such.

And then there is also that post that Shannow linked (but I will re-quote for the sake of posterity) to where YOU STATED that it was possibly too thin for use in a Ford 5w-20 application

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3072682

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Hi mercuryblues,

I wouldn't recommend running TGMO straight, at least not without an OP gauge, because it is lighter at normal operating temp's than a virgin 5W-20, the grade spec'd for your car.
I'd suggest including one quart of M1 0W-40 and 4 quarts of TGMO to raise the HTHSV to 2.8cP but only lower the VI to 210. The end result will be a heavier 0W-20 that's still lighter on start-up in your climate than every OTC 0W-20.


So which is it my "expert source"? As you seem to be changing your tune to suit the argument.


Well it just goes to show what little you know about high VI oils. We know TGMO and other ultra high nominal 220 VI oils are formulated with very high VI PMA polymers because that's the only way to make the product.

So when it suits your purposes you'll quote what I say as "fact" without reference, but otherwise I'm "blowing it out my a$s" to quote you're original unedited remark. That oil recommendation is over a year old.
There is a name for people that do that, and it's not complementary.

That quote of mine you've now referenced is over a year old and yes TGMO and other high VI oils are lighter for a given HTHSV not just at typical start-up temp's but even at low normal operating temp's as well. At higher than normal temp's that operational viscosity difference will diminish and of course at 150C their viscosities will be the same with the higher VI oil likely continuing to loose viscosity at a lower rate at even higher temp's.

So whether the lower viscosity at normal operating temp's is anything to be concerned about when using TGMO in a 5W-20 specified application, I don't really know, but being the conservative person that I am, in the past I've usually recommended increasing the HTHSV of TGMO by adding some
M1 0W-40. So not only are you clearly increasing the high temp' viscosity reserves, you still have an oil that is way lighter than a 5W-20 on start-up; the best of both worlds.

Now that Toyota has recently stated that the most recent version at least is suitable for 5W-20 applications, that possible concern of mine may have been unduly conservative. Nevertheless, for members who still want to use TGMO for other than Toyota, Lexus and other Japanese makes that spec a high VI 0W-20, in 5W-20 app's I think reducing the VI slightly and raising the KV40 somewhat and increasing the HTHSV of the oil by adding some M1 0W-40 is a good move if you have the any doubts about high temp' protection.

Having said all this, I'm still a big fan of M1 0W-20. It's the no-brainer choice for non Japanese 5W-20 applications if you want to move to the advantages of a full syn' oil. And Mobil says it won't void any 5W-20 specified application warranty.
M1 0W-20 is a cheap syn oil option in the States.

As to which oil is cheaper or more expensive to make which this post was originally in response to, at the end of the day it's not important, as they are both quality products, just different.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM

Well it just goes to show what little you know about high VI oils.


Ahhh yes, tell me I'm an idiot because I don't agree with you. Neither of us formulate oils for a living. Forgive me if I don't take your criticism to heart here. You are no more qualified than I am to speak on this topic.

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
We know TGMO and other ultra high nominal 220 VI oils are formulated with very high VI PMA polymers because that's the only way to make the product.


No, you STATE this, and also that this is one of the only products to receive these particular polymers. But that really isn't my hang-up (that TGMO uses these VII's, which it probably does, even if we have no data to back it up other than logic), it was the other part of what was said: That somehow TGMO using these polymers means that other products on the market that lack the same stratospheric VI's do not. Do you have information from Mobil, SOPUS or other oil companies that confirms that? I'd be elated to hear this from a factual source and if you can provide it that puts us one step further ahead.

I have no problem with these modern polymers or their use. It is your claim that there is some sort of exclusivity given to TGMO in terms of their use (which there are a myriad of ways to blend a lubricant using various quantities of VII's, various weights of base oils....etc) that I take issue with.

I think some of these things are stated (like the cost thing) to add to the product's Unicorn status, as we really don't have a lot of cold hard facts about TGMO (hence Shannow's TGMO thread). What we do have is a small cross-section of interesting information that tells us some things about the product but we lack a lot more than we know. Of course the same can be said for a a number of PCMO's with dubious or incomplete PDS's, this isn't a trait exclusive to this particular lubricant, it just happens, that since this lubricant is the topic of so much hot debate, that I think it becomes a bit more relevant regarding it.

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
So when it suits your purposes you'll quote what I say as "fact" without reference, but otherwise I'm "blowing it out my a$s" to quote you're original unedited remark. That oil recommendation is over a year old.
There is a name for people that do that, and it's not complementary.


Then feel free to use it if it makes you feel better. Bill asked to edit my post to keep the tone of the thread down and I told him I had no problem with him doing so. And it was "pulling it out of your posterior", it had nothing to do with blowing I assure you, LOL!

And what makes my post "without reference"? The thread was about a Ford engine (which was the topic I was speaking on) and there was no previous information that needed to be provided to put your quote in context. It is what you stated. The fact that it is a year old changes something here? All it shows is that you seem to have shifted your position from one that was quite cautious (and I agree with) to one that seems a bit more careless, recommending a specific OEM lubricant for applications it is not approved nor tested for.

And to be clear: I brought up that quote to show that you seemed to be contradicting yourself (and to tease you a little for doing so). I am not picking and choosing what parts of your posts are facts and what parts are fiction to suit some agenda here, though I can certainly see how you might take it that way. I think you are a very intelligent man. But I also think you tend to use a bit of hyperbole when extolling the virtues of this particular product and the various "facts" surrounding it.

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
That quote of mine you've now referenced is over a year old


Yes, you already said that above. I fail to see why that is important? Has TGMO become significantly heavier in the last year?

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
and yes TGMO and other high VI oils are lighter for a given HTHSV not just at typical start-up temp's but even at low normal operating temp's as well. At higher than normal temp's that operational viscosity difference will diminish and of course at 150C their viscosities will be the same with the higher VI oil likely continuing to loose viscosity at a lower rate at even higher temp's.


Yes, I don't think anybody is disputing that.

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
So whether the lower viscosity at normal operating temp's is anything to be concerned about when using TGMO in a 5W-20 specified application, I don't really know, but being the conservative person that I am, in the past I've usually recommended increasing the HTHSV of TGMO by adding some
M1 0W-40. So not only are you clearly increasing the high temp' viscosity reserves, you still have an oil that is way lighter than a 5W-20 on start-up; the best of both worlds.


And THAT ties into why I quoted your old post. Because that's an approach that I'm more comfortable with as well and one I'm more used to seeing you recommend in the past. It is also why, as I noted, I feel Mobil purposefully formulates the AFE and EP products to be a bit heavier.

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Now that Toyota has recently stated that the most recent version at least is suitable for 5W-20 applications, that possible concern of mine may have been unduly conservative. Nevertheless, for members who still want to use TGMO for other than Toyota, Lexus and other Japanese makes that spec a high VI 0W-20, in 5W-20 app's I think reducing the VI slightly and raising the KV40 somewhat and increasing the HTHSV of the oil by adding some M1 0W-40 is a good move if you have the any doubts about high temp' protection.


Fair approach. Personally, I'd just use an approved 0w-20 product, but for somebody who doesn't have a personal hang-up on blending, I think this is generally safe and I have said that before when we discussed that in the past.

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Having said all this, I'm still a big fan of M1 0W-20. It's the no-brainer choice for non Japanese 5W-20 applications if you want to move to the advantages of a full syn' oil. And Mobil says it won't void any 5W-20 specified application warranty.
M1 0W-20 is a cheap syn oil option in the States.

As to which oil is cheaper or more expensive to make which this post was originally in response to, at the end of the day it's not important, as they are both quality products, just different.


But that's the crux of this entire argument and lead to this "heated" debate

 

[tig1]

What I don't get is why use TGMO 0-20 and mix one qt of M1 0-40? Seems wierd to me. We used to do stuff like that in the 60s. If TGMO can't stand on it's own why use it at all? Just askin.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
And what would you know what constitutes a proper race oil?
The last time you made a track use oil recommendation you suggest a mono grade dino HDEO!
Your delusional adversion to high VI oils knows no bounds.


Was that the beater Honda on the circle track with 100-150 mile race lengths, and a known oil consumption history ?

My recommendation an SAE40 and your High VI, volatility be [censored] ?

I still maintain that the racer would have actually finished the race on my recommendation, while I'm not really so sure that he would have "first finished to finish first" on yours.

 

[Clevy]

Originally Posted By: Garak
The biggest factor in lack of 0w-30 grades is that they're so rarely specified and Mobil is about the only one that will back their SN/GF-5 0w-30 for SN/GF-5 5w-30 applications (Petro-Canada probably does, too, but they don't have near the visibility on shelves that Mobil 1 des). Few enough people venture off the reservation with the backing of the oil company, let alone without it. Castrol and SOPUS don't even have an SN/GF-5 0w-30 to my knowledge, and if they did, they'd be sheepish about where it should be used. It would be the Rotella in a gasser thing all over again.



Not that I'm an expert but I think Garak has a point.
No oem specifies a 0w-30 in anything.
Some euro Marques accept Castrol 0w-30 but I think that's because it meets the spec which it seems to me has more to do with the ht/hs value,and ACEA(I think)
And Garak definitely had a point in relation to mobil putting their money where their mouth is,and standing behind their product even though it's not technically an oem grade.
For as much as I dislike mobil as a company I will admit that I value the fact that they have the stones to stand behind their products.
As far as whether TGMO is cheaper to make than M1 0w-20 or whether it's outdated I can't really say. I don't know what their costs are to make the stuff,nor am I inclined to get really heated about it either.
I would be more inclined to believe that mobil puts their best foot forward with their flagship products. Given the advancements made in the lubrication industry why wouldn't they adjust their top line products and evolve them.
Just minor tweaks wouldn't require a new pds would it? And isn't that where we are inferring most of our info on the stuff.
And just to be clear I'm not picking any sides here. I value most every opinion here,especially a few of the guys who've posted above.
I've learned a lot from these men and I will continue to learn from these guys.
Caterham and his posts have brought me to the fence and helped elimininate my thicker is better oil bias,though I'm not quite over it yet.
Shannow....where do I even begin as far as what I've gleaned from him. Overkill,well he's an absolute wealth of information on numerous topics,and I challenge anyone to find error in his posts.
Trav is THE bitog garage as far as I'm concerned. He's forgotten more than most here will ever know. Dermapaint is what I'd call a friend.
And that's just this thread. Dnewton,Doug Hillary,molekule,these guys are the unicorns in the bitog forest and we are lucky to have them.
Anyways sorry for going off topic and rambling. I just wanted to give a shout out to the guys here that have helped me attain a new level of understanding here.
And thank you for that.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Clevy

Not that I'm an expert but I think Garak has a point.
No oem specifies a 0w-30 in anything.
Some euro Marques accept Castrol 0w-30 but I think that's because it meets the spec which it seems to me has more to do with the ht/hs value,and ACEA(I think)
And Garak definitely had a point in relation to mobil putting their money where their mouth is,and standing behind their product even though it's not technically an oem grade.


The Euro's don't generally spec by grades so that's a bit of a red herring. They call for a performance spec and you can use whatever oil meets that spec. Usually the range of lubricants that meet the common requirements are 0w-30, 5w-30, 0w-40, 5w-40. All with an HTHS >=3.5cP.

A bit different from the American and Japanese OEM's that spec a grade.

 

[Nyogtha]

A friend bought a 2005 Audi A6 recently and I've been helping him find acceptable motor oils to use for DIY.

The owner's manual specifies 0W-30 and lists 5W-30 and 5W-40 as acceptable substitutes plus the oil needs to meet API SJ and ACEA A2 or A3 requirements. (I can post a pic / scan of this in his owner's manual, it's on my phone at the moment).

I e-mailed Audi USA and the reply was now this vehicle's engine should use 5W-40 oil with 0W-40 and 5W-30 as acceptable substitutes (no 0W-30 at all) and the oil in those weights needs to meet VW 502.00 specifications.

If oil in those weights meeting VW 502.00 isn't available, for top-off only, oil meeting API SL and either ILSAC GF-3 or ACEA A3, A5, or B5 but only in those weights (5W-40, 0W-40, or 5W-30) can be used.