Lol yeah, i wonder how the [censored] my engine survives on 20W-50 better known as molasses.
Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict
- Thread starter Gokhan
- Start date
- Status
I'm sure Mad Max ran GTX 20W50 or more likely Penrite HPR 30 (20W60) as the go-to performance oil of that day.
You will never find me entering a post-apocalyptic waste land on an ILSAC oil.
You will never find me entering a post-apocalyptic waste land on an ILSAC oil.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
What is this latest spin about? Did I name the thread "Thinnest oil is the best?" I was only comparing 0W-20 and 0W-40 in an engine with typical bearing design and sliding rocker arms.
It's a natural discussion spin based on your UOA 'final verdict' that 0W-20 gives better wear protection than 0w-40.
Seems they have xW-20 down pretty good for normal/non-extreme use conditions since it's been around for many years now. But going even lower in motor oil viscosity (xW-16 and xW-8 are in the development stages) to gain ever increased fuel mileage is going to relying more on new types of anti-wear additives to make up for the loss of wear protection that was traditionally obtained from higher viscosity/film thickness. From what I'm reading, it sounds like developing even thinner than xW-20 oils that kept wear down to the current levels will be big challenge in the AW additive realm.
What is this latest spin about? Did I name the thread "Thinnest oil is the best?" I was only comparing 0W-20 and 0W-40 in an engine with typical bearing design and sliding rocker arms.
It's a natural discussion spin based on your UOA 'final verdict' that 0W-20 gives better wear protection than 0w-40.
Seems they have xW-20 down pretty good for normal/non-extreme use conditions since it's been around for many years now. But going even lower in motor oil viscosity (xW-16 and xW-8 are in the development stages) to gain ever increased fuel mileage is going to relying more on new types of anti-wear additives to make up for the loss of wear protection that was traditionally obtained from higher viscosity/film thickness. From what I'm reading, it sounds like developing even thinner than xW-20 oils that kept wear down to the current levels will be big challenge in the AW additive realm.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Given some of the rhetoric on BITOG, Aussies shouldn't be able to get anywhere at all...
All that "overly" thick oil, destroying engines everywhere, the roads should look like the opening scene to I am Legend (Will Smith movie)...but they don't...
I was thinking more along the lines of "Road Warrior" ... but I guess they ran out of gas before the engine had a chance to smoked itself with thick oil.
Given some of the rhetoric on BITOG, Aussies shouldn't be able to get anywhere at all...
All that "overly" thick oil, destroying engines everywhere, the roads should look like the opening scene to I am Legend (Will Smith movie)...but they don't...
I was thinking more along the lines of "Road Warrior" ... but I guess they ran out of gas before the engine had a chance to smoked itself with thick oil.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
I was only comparing 0W-20 and 0W-40 in an engine with typical bearing design and sliding rocker arms.
No, that's what you perceive ...... quite rightly.
In a way,I consider you're comparing primarily (differential) efficacies of relevant:
a )TGMO add packs of 18 months (comprising 1 winter season) usage, as opposed to
b )M 1 add packs of 22 months (comprising 2 winter seasons) usage .......
where respective viscosity grades appears to be of lesser significance in relation to additives packages of major significance ..........
in your 'Final verdict', I speculate.
I was only comparing 0W-20 and 0W-40 in an engine with typical bearing design and sliding rocker arms.
No, that's what you perceive ...... quite rightly.
In a way,I consider you're comparing primarily (differential) efficacies of relevant:
a )TGMO add packs of 18 months (comprising 1 winter season) usage, as opposed to
b )M 1 add packs of 22 months (comprising 2 winter seasons) usage .......
where respective viscosity grades appears to be of lesser significance in relation to additives packages of major significance ..........
in your 'Final verdict', I speculate.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: SR5
I'm sure Mad Max ran GTX 20W50 or more likely Penrite HPR 30 (20W60) as the go-to performance oil of that day.
You will never find me entering a post-apocalyptic waste land on an ILSAC oil.
Yeah, I know from DVDs that Aussies only get away with thick oil because they generally only drive about 100 miles before getting in a fiery crash while being pursued by ultraviolent and barbaric, yet well-costumed, gangs. Those that manage to survive more than 500 miles or so get a complete engine rebuild ordered by Fifi.
The collector's edition of Mad Max does have that famous deleted scene in which Max and Toecutter discuss the HTHS of Penrite 20W50 and Max kindly gives the hooligan a Repco coupon for it...the latter's reign of terror begins after he is infuriated to find it had expired 3 months before.
EDIT- I have to admit that I could never take Toecutter seriously because he reminded me so much of Benny Hill...
I'm sure Mad Max ran GTX 20W50 or more likely Penrite HPR 30 (20W60) as the go-to performance oil of that day.
You will never find me entering a post-apocalyptic waste land on an ILSAC oil.
Yeah, I know from DVDs that Aussies only get away with thick oil because they generally only drive about 100 miles before getting in a fiery crash while being pursued by ultraviolent and barbaric, yet well-costumed, gangs. Those that manage to survive more than 500 miles or so get a complete engine rebuild ordered by Fifi.
The collector's edition of Mad Max does have that famous deleted scene in which Max and Toecutter discuss the HTHS of Penrite 20W50 and Max kindly gives the hooligan a Repco coupon for it...the latter's reign of terror begins after he is infuriated to find it had expired 3 months before.
EDIT- I have to admit that I could never take Toecutter seriously because he reminded me so much of Benny Hill...
Last edited:
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.
I would like to note that the MOFT is likely quite a bit overstated in this work, especially in the bearings. The authors acknowledge this, but it bears repeating imo.
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.
I would like to note that the MOFT is likely quite a bit overstated in this work, especially in the bearings. The authors acknowledge this, but it bears repeating imo.
Originally Posted By: Virtus_Probi
The collector's edition of Mad Max does have that famous deleted scene in which Max and Toecutter discuss the HTHS of Penrite 20W50 and Max kindly gives the hooligan a Repco coupon for it...the latter's reign of terror begins after he is infuriated to find it had expired 3 months before.
The collector's edition of Mad Max does have that famous deleted scene in which Max and Toecutter discuss the HTHS of Penrite 20W50 and Max kindly gives the hooligan a Repco coupon for it...the latter's reign of terror begins after he is infuriated to find it had expired 3 months before.
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
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.
I would like to note that the MOFT is likely quite a bit overstated in this work, especially in the bearings. The authors acknowledge this, but it bears repeating imo.
Yes, I saw that too ... but the paper does give good insight to what's going on with different engine components with respect to the oil viscosity. Readers should at least come away with the understanding that thicker oil results in greater MOFT which helps keep metal-to-metal contact down, but at the expense of more power loss due to increased frictional shearing. And from other info posted in this thread, using a thin oil in bearings with relatively large clearances (above 0.002") will cause MOFT to suffer compared to using a thicker oil.
Also worth noting is that higher engine RPM helps increase the MOFT and oil flow in bearings, so lugging the engine at WOT (high load) and low RPM isn't a good thing to do ... especially if using thin oil.
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.
I would like to note that the MOFT is likely quite a bit overstated in this work, especially in the bearings. The authors acknowledge this, but it bears repeating imo.
Yes, I saw that too ... but the paper does give good insight to what's going on with different engine components with respect to the oil viscosity. Readers should at least come away with the understanding that thicker oil results in greater MOFT which helps keep metal-to-metal contact down, but at the expense of more power loss due to increased frictional shearing. And from other info posted in this thread, using a thin oil in bearings with relatively large clearances (above 0.002") will cause MOFT to suffer compared to using a thicker oil.
Also worth noting is that higher engine RPM helps increase the MOFT and oil flow in bearings, so lugging the engine at WOT (high load) and low RPM isn't a good thing to do ... especially if using thin oil.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Also worth noting is that higher engine RPM helps increase the MOFT and oil flow in bearings, so lugging the engine at WOT (high load) and low RPM isn't a good thing to do ... especially if using thin oil.
Per the empirical charts I keep posting...pick a MOFT, and change the variables around to see what parameters you can change but keep the same MOFT...
Also worth noting is that higher engine RPM helps increase the MOFT and oil flow in bearings, so lugging the engine at WOT (high load) and low RPM isn't a good thing to do ... especially if using thin oil.
Per the empirical charts I keep posting...pick a MOFT, and change the variables around to see what parameters you can change but keep the same MOFT...
Originally Posted By: Virtus_Probi
.... while being pursued by ...... well-costumed, gangs.
- The collector's edition of Mad Max
One must have personal standards, even in the outback wastelands.
.... while being pursued by ...... well-costumed, gangs.
- The collector's edition of Mad Max
One must have personal standards, even in the outback wastelands.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
We've had TGMO for ages...well one of the formulae, in a metal tin...
That does sound like the Mad Max wasteland.
We've had TGMO for ages...well one of the formulae, in a metal tin...
That does sound like the Mad Max wasteland.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
The next OCI will be TGMO 0W-20 SN "Sintético."...... I can imagine people coming from overseas and smuggling this stuff in their suitcases to places like Australia, where it's gold.
No need mate, my local auto store, which I pass on the way to work everyday, carries ample Shell Helix Ultra 0W-20 full synthetic. It's API SN. ILSAC GF-5 and ACEA A1/B1 so it carries more specs than your Gold TGMO, which would make the GTL SHU 0W20 my preferred choice, if I wanted a 20 grade oil.
Just because we don't use it, please don't assume we can't get it.
The next OCI will be TGMO 0W-20 SN "Sintético."...... I can imagine people coming from overseas and smuggling this stuff in their suitcases to places like Australia, where it's gold.
No need mate, my local auto store, which I pass on the way to work everyday, carries ample Shell Helix Ultra 0W-20 full synthetic. It's API SN. ILSAC GF-5 and ACEA A1/B1 so it carries more specs than your Gold TGMO, which would make the GTL SHU 0W20 my preferred choice, if I wanted a 20 grade oil.
Just because we don't use it, please don't assume we can't get it.
Originally Posted By: dblshock
motor probably rattles like an old wash machine on that 0/20...upgrade that, live a little, motor should sound best too.
Merkava, is that you?
motor probably rattles like an old wash machine on that 0/20...upgrade that, live a little, motor should sound best too.
Merkava, is that you?
Originally Posted By: PimTac
So TGMO stands for The Gold Motor Oil?
It's good oil for sure but to put it on a pedestal? No. Too many other good oilsout there in the 0w-20 flavor.
TGMO, it's all the certifications that it DOESN'T have that makes it so special.
So TGMO stands for The Gold Motor Oil?
It's good oil for sure but to put it on a pedestal? No. Too many other good oilsout there in the 0w-20 flavor.
TGMO, it's all the certifications that it DOESN'T have that makes it so special.
- Status
Similar threads
