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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Regarding coolant contamination, if you regard oil thickening (increase in KV100) as the main indicator, previous TGMO 0W-20 SN fill seems to be the worst and it seems to have been gone in the M1 0W-40 SN fill after GM-tabs treatment.

Virgin KV100 for M1 and TGMO are 13.5 cSt and 8.79 cSt, respectively.

So, M1 ran clean without contamination and still seems to have done worse in Fe and Ni wear (valvetrain?). I think Cr and Pb are mostly a result of the coolant contamination and that's why the previous TGMO with the highest KV100 (most thickened due to coolant) was the worst.

I've done a second GM-tabs treatment and the next OCI should definitely be free of coolant contamination as well. I expect the next TGMO fill to beat M1 easily but we will see.

Also, before the PYB fill, it was Mobil Delvac 1300 Super 15W-40 CJ-4 and I blame that very thick oil for the high Fe with PYB.

Also, it will be nice to restore the fuel economy back with TGMO 0W-20. M1 0W-40 seems to have hit the fuel economy quite a bit.

Still keep complaining about CAFE if you want. Neither wear nor fuel economy numbers are on your side. They sell the outdated xW-40 and xW-50 grades in some countries while the US and Japan enjoy the better, modern viscosity grades. It's the economics of the world, as they need to sell the thicker base stocks coming out of the refinery somewhere. They may get the 0W-20 when the US and Japan get the 0W-8, 0W-12, and 0W-16.

By the way, the new M1 formulation, named M1 FS 0W-40 SN, is practically a 0W-30, with KV100 being 12.9 cSt. If it was 12.4 cSt, it would be officially a 0w-30. Mobil 1 also knows that 0W-40 is becoming outdated.


JMP3aOl97s1ZkA7KGVGgn_W6D1u85mY1KAuSB92WEV1Ds91aBEjA-G9DWE8wy-r7qIP_HDivdjRBFTBR--VY7g3qtIdlSpmN6FwMGrDz60lAh9mX0hG1u9jFHITpms2IJOmxOHcudhRJb-o3y-0HRt_L6t1oBFNxWWnhUTSgdlLggBNGdrPKhW4MjZ-mS2OvCCRbQSEs4GnnxCXJhc3ARe7gqV-nqE-jul-pa17stsGkkvn1LywjeXdUSJMLe593fPemPpMB8isUiICXoeKcNeivPl7Esoq-uh1kGBVCLpYxz5nWtik1SP-7XNuoq8JA9EpgU2HUVEMNI0GSJa3ufLPVX-Oz7ltgU_XdRne9B-CSECnnpDm-9efer2Iqex1SoQVy96GHVT_hy9dk7fBNVQhYy9PYWlerr-0BJt_xUlyZCHTSv9i0FVqXcp83AO8CsH3kq0DNMeMthfTOmK7xqE_msTPsAvw1xWgMFIZi796ADqpSaEhdEH9cBtGObiUeoSP5OUMABATYbqF00l87KOaYAZkWRmko_u8YL3-yk91GYov8nb_p7RLm6Rp-I6BwvEusj3NzNeMk3tVEF8e_RiZQPseFXuv-uFQek0rJoRB0cujYWtwChA=w756-h1579-no
-ZtZ1OciX7kVvyUBVxg1CkzGCTEgiDceYUTKx2jeVEFmmcnfaeg2axXAEi4v5gZjFg31P9CplvfpRvW0TpWqxHEWg411p-54oehjdSY9u1RXaIjkO1NCssTidsdaOp4wTI1MExnonkiKP2WNSEV0h8zlbgk0aI51hk4kE32VKFX9SLURWBo0fisJqhUp0bvYHNz7GDeNg9mhYHEQ0UlSbChjP3uHHupU4qfOCw9MM9wYjVCFmcN4kc1SMNHPrbrLzuGlE3j16oIPVsf2TAW2azaM2aqTY39m5-8H3W_wOAn5ZQJlAUTE1cwQodZ4hLXbqlxOtkXH7emO-WzS1wSZmHkdaCQMVTaxgdZyGVZCnHZU1c3jFRbb4FTvOu8EP5-IVTlJ7GClFqr-nTdhSvIoXJ9e2-HcR55ZNMppm3YI03tfcmyt1rGu0oHHxoIj_oVmg5W-pOHBWDBr6xMHlTbLKmFxS4xTUahoyVbyTo0lJGOwS53Ag-3aBsfrYir2zs6M1oYbazmXbqRUG_dEfh3G3_LIcXVw0IzsH5wnJmjA0Gi6SwExJfav_y0URivU0MAsu41Vs-5ZIIjKK-k_BhudwfGLAA1Lic9pglPr6D1e-JNCFe6LIFp21Q=w800-h1038-no
 
Originally Posted By: Gokhan

Neither wear nor fuel economy numbers are on your side.


Then how come the people who administer CAFE state that low viscosity lubricants are the least cost, and simplest way to improve the numbers ?

Are they dreaming as well ?

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Also, it will be nice to restore the fuel economy back with TGMO 0W-20. M1 0W-40 seems to have hit the fuel economy quite a bit.


33.gif
33.gif
33.gif
33.gif
33.gif
33.gif


Originally Posted By: Gokhan
They sell the outdated xW-40 and xW-50 grades in some countries while the US and Japan enjoy the better, modern viscosity grades. It's the economics of the world, as they need to sell the thicker base stocks coming out of the refinery somewhere.


Now you are just making stuff up...nonsensical stuff...oh wait, that's a major premise of this thread isn't it ???
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Gokhan

Neither wear nor fuel economy numbers are on your side.

Then how come the people who administer CAFE state that low viscosity lubricants are the least cost, and simplest way to improve the numbers ?

Are they dreaming as well ?

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Also, it will be nice to restore the fuel economy back with TGMO 0W-20. M1 0W-40 seems to have hit the fuel economy quite a bit.

33.gif
33.gif
33.gif
33.gif
33.gif
33.gif


Originally Posted By: Gokhan
They sell the outdated xW-40 and xW-50 grades in some countries while the US and Japan enjoy the better, modern viscosity grades. It's the economics of the world, as they need to sell the thicker base stocks coming out of the refinery somewhere.

Now you are just making stuff up...nonsensical stuff...oh wait, that's a major premise of this thread isn't it ???

I said fuel-economy numbers are on the CAFE's side, not on the side of the thin-oil deniers. If they do sell anything thinner than 15W-40 in Australia, give it a try and you will see the fuel-economy benefits yourself and save some money.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
+1 ... Ford is embellishing the whole thin is better angle to convince people it's superior in certain ways. If a 5W-20, 5W-30 and 5W-50 all had the same basic viscosity at room temperature, then they should all flow the same at start-up, especially with a positive displacement oil pump. But when fully hot (200+ F), the thicker oil is going to provide better wear protection, especially in the journal bearings because the MOFT will be greater. And the thicker oil will definitely be a plus to prevent wear in engines pushed very hard under extreme conditions like heavy towing and track use where the oil temperatures can get 275+ F.


Here's the directive that the EPA gave Ford and Honda when they applied to have 5W20 accepted...for CAFE reasons.

https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=14177&flag=1

Same as in the Transport Safety Bureau CAFE regs, they must make every endeavour to have the end user USE the oil that they certified the vehicle on..."anti backsliding" rules


Interesting ... looks like Ford sold their soul to the EPA.
 
Originally Posted By: Gokhan

Also, before the PYB fill, it was Mobil Delvac 1300 Super 15W-40 CJ-4 and I blame that very thick oil for the high Fe with PYB.

Hard to argue with that logic, but I would blame Bush.

Ed
 
Gokhan on a earlier post you claimed that HDEO's ( i assume you mean in 15W-40 grade ) are too thick for gasoline engines.
Are you saying that they are too thick for ANY gasoline engine in ANY circumstance? because if you are saying that you need to put don the crack pipe
lol.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Gokhan

Neither wear nor fuel economy numbers are on your side.


Then how come the people who administer CAFE state that low viscosity lubricants are the least cost, and simplest way to improve the numbers ?

Are they dreaming as well ?

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Also, it will be nice to restore the fuel economy back with TGMO 0W-20. M1 0W-40 seems to have hit the fuel economy quite a bit.


33.gif
33.gif
33.gif
33.gif
33.gif
33.gif


Originally Posted By: Gokhan
They sell the outdated xW-40 and xW-50 grades in some countries while the US and Japan enjoy the better, modern viscosity grades. It's the economics of the world, as they need to sell the thicker base stocks coming out of the refinery somewhere.


Now you are just making stuff up...nonsensical stuff...oh wait, that's a major premise of this thread isn't it ???

+1 That is just B-S, Gokhan
 
I've been following this thread with interest, watching the debate go back and forth.

I'm sort of coming to the conclusion that everyone is right and no-one is wrong because this discussion is as much about what you believe in, as much as it about what is technically right. In the absence of definitive information (which believe me, DOESN'T exist and even if it did, The Industry would never share it with you), one opinion is just as valid as any other.

Interestingly, even if we had an abundance of perfect engine test/field trial data, I suspect the thin vs thick debate would still rage on. It's worthwhile for a moment contrasting the market for engine oils (where almost nothing is truly known) with the market for smartphones.

Want a smartphone? Just go to GSMArena. It will give you chapter and verse on every smartphone ever sold. Dimensions, chipsets, memory, screen specs; it's all there to read and compare. If you want more information then just hit Google or YouTube for reviews. If, like me, you're a miserly git who would rather drink poison than pay £700 for an iPhone, details on cheap phones are everywhere so it's easy to make an informed balance of price vs performance. I recent got my daughter a Doogee Shoot 1 for a measly £77 because it was the cheapest 5.5" phone I could find with a 1080p screen!

Now here's the thing. All smartphones, from the cheapest to the most expensive let you make phone calls. They all let you access the internet. They all have Bluetooth. They all have a clock and a calendar. Most of them even let you take a half decent photo or short video. So in terms of their basic functionality, you could argue that ALL SMARTPHONES ARE IDENTICAL and logic might suggest you buy the cheapest (like the Doogee Shoot 1). However I have yet to find anyone (apart from my daughter) that agrees with that premise! My son (who has a £700 iPhone) thinks I'm completely 100% wrong and lectures me on the myriad joys of Apple OS (while at the same time moaning constantly about how rubbish iTunes is!).

Smartphones or engine oil, the definition of what is best, is based on what you believe in and don't ever expect logic to win the argument...
 
Last edited:
Couple of papers...
https://www.hondarandd.jp/e-book/16-2e/_SWF_Window.html
Cam wear was reduced in Honda's 0W20 development by the addition of Mo...but the test was the now (as of this thread) discredited sequence IVA wear test.

https://www.hondarandd.jp/point.php?sid=2&pid=72&did=72&lang=en
Viscosities lower than 20 were developed...surprisingly cam wear was additive dependent rather than viscosity, and as viscosity and MOFT dropped, big end wear increased, which can be stabilised by increasing bearing projected surface areas.

Interesting in both papers that they state WHAT they are trying to achieve (economy), and what they are doing to maintain the wear protection as they drop viscosity...again, OP's conclusions are flawed.
 
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Originally Posted By: zeng
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
When they say the most wear happens when the engine is cold, believe it. This is where ultra-high-VI oils like TGMO 0W-20 SN triumph.
Agree with you most wear happens when engine is cold, majority of which is however corrosion wear according to SAE.
Corrosion wear does NOT corelate with either lower operating viscosity/film thickness or higher VI's.
Oops, miss Shannow's post.

The "corrosion" is the result of colder oil not burning out the moisture that results from combustion in a cold sump at startup. There is a school of thought that the flow of thinner oils removes contaminates a bit faster initially...

Nick, I don't get it ... in the context of corrosion wear vs adhesion/abrasion wear.
Here is my take, not trying to be argumentative though ..... on Ford's seemingly convincing statements ....

Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
In anycase, I posted this in another thread from a link provided here back in the early 2000's as Ford explained the reasoning behind going to thinner (5W-20) oils:
"Why 5W20 Oil?
Some customers are reluctant to follow Ford's recommendation to use 5W-20 oil in their engines based on the incorrect assumption that Ford and other Auto Manufacturers only recommend 5W-20 oil in order to increase fuel economy. Using 5W-20 oil can increase fuel economy by about 6/10ths of a percent compared to 5W-30 and more if you are currently using a higher viscosity oil. This equates to an additional savings of 125 million gallons per year when used in all applicable Ford vehicles. Since its introduction in the 2001 MY, 5W-20 oils have saved up to 640 million gallons of gasoline in the U.S. or an equivalent 5.6 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions.


Hmm.... sounds to me like adverts/ 'ism propaganda.

Originally Posted By: Ford
5W-20 oil is a thinner oil with lighter viscosity that creates less drag on the crankshaft, pistons and valvetrain. Additionally, the oil pump can pump thinner oil more easily, improving oil circulation.

Pumping thinner oil is said to be easier (for the prime mower) .... in that it requires reduced input power from prime mower at similar pump rpm delivering similar volume of oil flow through the constant volume pump.
It does NOT improve oil circulation in the sense that there is no increased oil flow rate for similar pump rpm.
Thinner oil at lower operating viscoisty, in itself , does not reduce adhesion/abrasion wear.

Originally Posted By: Ford
Any increase in fuel economy may not be noticed by the average motorist. Machined internal engine parts are more precise than the parts of 20 years ago. This means that clearances between moving parts are smaller and more exact.

This modern production methodology allow the use of thinner xW20 (which previously would not work with those 'old' methodology products), a thicker oil in xW40/50 works just as fine in engines that calls for xW20 as in my community and possibly in Oz/Euro.
This modern methodology do not make xW20 producing lesser (adhesion/abrasion) wear than a xW40.

Originally Posted By: Ford
Thinner oil such as 5W-20 can flow more freely through the engine while still filling the spaces. Thicker oil is harder to push through the spaces between the parts.

This in itself does not make xW20 at lower operating viscosity produces reduced adhesion/abrasion wear.

Originally Posted By: Ford
Thicker oil is harder to push through the spaces between the parts. This causes the oil pump to work harder, which in turn increases oil pressure while simultaneously decreasing oil volume.

Thicker oil ....
Oil pump works harder, yes.
Increased oil pressure, yes.
Hence pumping thicker oil requires 'marginally' higher input power (as in ten's or hundreds of watts[?] in a 70,000 to 200,000 watts engine) from the prime mower.
"While simultaneously decreasing oil volume" ........ hmm ....
laws of physics says No Way, in a fixed displacement constant volume pump !
Anyway , reduced oil flow rate at 1000 engine rpm does not necessarily result in increased engine wear rate, than in the very same engine operating at 2000 rpm.

Originally Posted By: Ford
A lack of oil volume results in a decrease of lubrication and cooling, which may decrease engine part life.

This is false conjectures, as explained above.

Originally Posted By: Ford
The lighter viscosity of 5W-20 oil flows faster at start-up compared to higher viscosity oils, which helps reduce engine wear in critical areas by lubricating parts faster.

Laws of physics dictates that adhesion/abrasion wear with 5W20 of lower operating viscosity can Only be higher against a thicker oil at higher operating viscosity.
Having said this, efficacies of additives package could influence respective wear rates though.
Originally Posted By: Ford
Valvetrain components at the top of the engine require immediate lubrication at start-up.

I'm afraid it's not valid, more so in modern lubes.
Think residual anti wear films and add packs.

Do not ignore/under estimate the power of (modern day) additives package in mitigating components wear in engines!
blush.gif
 
Last edited:
This paper gives some insight on how different oil viscosity can effect the minimum oil film thickness (MOFT) and the friction losses in engine components.

http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~jacksr7/SAE2002013355.pdf

The only real benefit of thinner oil is a reduction in shearing friction and therefore power loss, which ties into the main CAFE goal to achieve better fuel economy.

As long as the MOFT is still satisfactory (along with whatever anti-wear additives are at play), the wear should be held down to an acceptable level. Thinner oil results in less oil film thickness for engine components to work with (ie, less "safety factor") before metal-to-metal contact occurs. And as mentioned before, if the engine is heavily stressed to elevate the oil temperature well above the "normal" level, then the oil film thickness suffers even more.
 
Miniscule improvement in MPG with thinner oil is only significant in the totality of cars using it...that's why the "C" in CAFE is for Corporate.
 
Most engines today have timing chains, this antiquated engine does not represent the sheering present in today's technology rendering the argument moot.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dblshock
Most engines today have timing chains, this antiquated engine does not represent the sheering present in today's technology rendering the argument moot.


What? You mean there's a difference between this tired old engine with coolant leaks and extremely underwhelming specs and a new Porsche turbo flat six or twin turbo BMW M engine? /sarcasm.

Yeah, this pseudo science thread is pretty nonsense.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
This paper gives some insight on how different oil viscosity can effect the minimum oil film thickness (MOFT) and the friction losses in engine components.

http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~jacksr7/SAE2002013355.pdf

The only real benefit of thinner oil is a reduction in shearing friction and therefore power loss, which ties into the main CAFE goal to achieve better fuel economy.

As long as the MOFT is still satisfactory (along with whatever anti-wear additives are at play), the wear should be held down to an acceptable level. Thinner oil results in less oil film thickness for engine components to work with (ie, less "safety factor") before metal-to-metal contact occurs. And as mentioned before, if the engine is heavily stressed to elevate the oil temperature well above the "normal" level, then the oil film thickness suffers even more.

The only benefit of thin oil is fuel economy? Really?

The argument that thicker oil has larger MOFT and less wear and thinner oil has smaller MOFT and better fuel efficiency but more wear is primitive and aims to stall the discussion before it gets anywhere. Besides, it's not even correct.


Where should I begin?

Primitive argument: Thicker the oil, larger the MOFT, less the wear.
Reality: Oil too thick = engine damage, as it can result in oil starvation if clearances are not large enough for the viscosity,

Read this thread about the countless engines that had their bearings damaged by running 10W-60, even though it was recommended by the manufacturer. Going down to 0W-40 corrected the problem.

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=911030

Primitive argument: Thicker the oil, larger the MOFT.
Reality: Perhaps usually true at the bearings but false in general.

Research by Shell indicates thinner oil results in larger MOFT at top piston rings. The reason is that thinner oil flows faster through the ring gaps:

wT_TLCbL_68FwmGMkMzPv3H1HhudjiygAR1_7BVowY3uuI04g3fvKWniLcw_GrCTIjVFAFW2lkJg4YjBumLrbc45POpTnkxvAvEq-2qUUimNNNcA596eu0ejQy1Shk18zZXYUpV0rxC5t5PEfYMYJ6geVWwXnnBXaWKN2xqfzQNMEnruVU3sA9FV916VicMsNbfWlzv5KJka5iP0mqzZFK5KFZA1bbnyMMc2QQtM4KSVlEDb5FvQ3O3bZhrYzQa3W3SmKhpmI_gC-oZ9i8s-cd-k4XOkvw9ccoReJ4jwTIGBacR-MxK7L9-BLZK7NqVPcO9Ic3p3X4-Kv5qQ9mP6nB5IkYyRPlt8ojJRxM1C2KAC0E-SEYbWwRc-0BMXA37E98eN7OM3Cpjucp3wtdLljnts_g7AL7Qf7AJ-DfEBLcMeC6Jpg5765ppl8RaoOhLy5oFPZXiwP4ex1lJ9tJNEfx5BiggQrqfuR9b8M8tR_QRPuDc-joUKKOBhIceKkfqLNnQsh7ujt_WryCmnOIwREcaI7DjwzU94lCOtxZsn95ITpzrj3onIM6Z_3_6J8sT1tTV2i3xcdk66JTojUpyc8YVTa3cvzfeFlAcqM7jQi9WPzu3T7p2h=w726-h515-no


PDF link for the Shell research article

Primite argument:
There is no benefit other than fuel efficiency with thinner oil.
Reality: What about more oil flow with thin oil, which results in more oil reaching critical engine parts?
Reality: What about high oil temperature, which is detrimental to engine parts, and the fact that thin oil runs a lot cooler than thick oil thanks to less viscous friction?
Reality: What about cold engine, in which even the thinnest oil is too thick?
 
Originally Posted By: Gokhan

Read this thread about the countless engines that had their bearings damaged by running 10W-60, even though it was recommended by the manufacturer. Going down to 0W-40 corrected the problem.


No, it's not. I had an E46 M3 running the S54 engines. These had a massive recall because of rod bearing failures due to a defect from parts supplier of the rod bearing. BMW changed their oil recommendations TO 10w60 at the time of the recall to better protect these extremely high revving inline six engines.

BMW gave out free oil changes and shifted everyone OUT of 5w30 to a 10w60 and that stayed the recommendation to better protect the engines.
Quote:
Of minor interest, in mid 2001, BMW ordered an oil change on the M3 - the 5W30 oil which had been shipping on all cars was ordered changed to a new special BMW-only 10w60. New cars came with the new oil, and 5w30 cars were asked to come in for a free change to 10w60. This seemed to be some kind of reaction to concerns over long term high RPM running ability, and the oil having enough high temperature capacity to hold together on such autobahn blasts.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: FlyPenFly
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Read this thread about the countless engines that had their bearings damaged by running 10W-60, even though it was recommended by the manufacturer. Going down to 0W-40 corrected the problem.

No, it's not. I had an E46 M3 running the S54 engines. These had a massive recall because of rod bearing failures due to a defect from parts supplier of the rod bearing. BMW changed their oil recommendations TO 10w60 at the time of the recall to better protect these extremely high revving inline six engines.

BMW gave out free oil changes and shifted everyone OUT of 5w30 to a 10w60 and that stayed the recommendation to better protect the engines.

Quote:
Of minor interest, in mid 2001, BMW ordered an oil change on the M3 - the 5W30 oil which had been shipping on all cars was ordered changed to a new special BMW-only 10w60. New cars came with the new oil, and 5w30 cars were asked to come in for a free change to 10w60. This seemed to be some kind of reaction to concerns over long term high RPM running ability, and the oil having enough high temperature capacity to hold together on such autobahn blasts.

I don't know about your particular case. The case I pointed out was about the S65 engine, and from what I read, the problem was that the clearances by a particular bearing supplier (out of several) were too small for Castrol TWS 10W-60 and going down to M1 0W-40 corrected the problem, and the people on the thread were cheerful about correcting the problem by going from 10W-60 down to 0W-40. Or, perhaps, recommendation of 10W-60 only by BMW didn't solve the problem and people were able to solve it themselves by using 0W-40 instead.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top