Toyota Genuine Oil

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
(2) High moly (> 600 ppm) isn't for meeting any specs but for fuel economy.

Not true. High moly supports an AW cold tribofilm before ZDDP takes over under high heat and pressure. FM effects max out at under 100 ppm. This is why most oils don't go over 100 ppm of moly, since those smaller amounts max out the FM benefits at those low levels. (Mazda oil bottles state this directly on the label, and I read some technical articles years ago that said it.)

So why does Japanese oil use so much moly? They are concerned about the thinner (low HTHS) oils spending too much time in mixed and boundary lubrication regimes, and offer the extra moly to boost AW performance where pressures are too low to form ZDDP layers. Keep in mind Toyota has an eye on GF6 goals, with thinner and thinner oils that need better mixed-boundary performance. Other oil makers accomplish this with mostly esters sliming the surface, but lots of moly does it too, so they chose moly. (Think something similar to Castrol Magnatec's ester approach, but more of it as oil thins out even more in the future.)

Idemitsu 5W-30: 1,000 ppm moly (link)

So much with the conjecture that the high moly is to make up for the low HTHSV.

Nevertheless, thick-oil-is-good-and-thin-oil-is-bad guys will never stop making such conjectures.

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
(2) High moly (> 600 ppm) isn't for meeting any specs but for fuel economy.

Not true. High moly supports an AW cold tribofilm before ZDDP takes over under high heat and pressure. FM effects max out at under 100 ppm. This is why most oils don't go over 100 ppm of moly, since those smaller amounts max out the FM benefits at those low levels. (Mazda oil bottles state this directly on the label, and I read some technical articles years ago that said it.)

So why does Japanese oil use so much moly? They are concerned about the thinner (low HTHS) oils spending too much time in mixed and boundary lubrication regimes, and offer the extra moly to boost AW performance where pressures are too low to form ZDDP layers. Keep in mind Toyota has an eye on GF6 goals, with thinner and thinner oils that need better mixed-boundary performance. Other oil makers accomplish this with mostly esters sliming the surface, but lots of moly does it too, so they chose moly. (Think something similar to Castrol Magnatec's ester approach, but more of it as oil thins out even more in the future.)

Idemitsu 5W-30: 1,000 ppm moly (link)

So much with the conjecture that the high moly is to make up for the low HTHSV.

Nevertheless, thick-oil-is-good-and-thin-oil-is-bad guys will never stop making such conjectures.




Please, this is from 2011.

If you cannot find anything more recent then why even post ?

 

[oil_film_movies]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Your conclusions regarding moly are wrong. Friction-modifying effects do not saturate at 100 ppm. Where did you see this? Are you talking about trinuclear moly? There are many different moly types -- mononuclear, dinuclear, sulfur-free, etc.
Dimer and trimer types of moly follow the same trends, although trimer is generally better. .... It was a tech presentation from a few years ago, from Infineum, that basically concluded around ~75 ppm moly was enough to saturate most of the FM benefits, not all, which is consistent with our understanding of the surface moly plating we see (more is not much better once you have enough to cover the surface):



....which is the reason we see most oils having under 100 ppm moly, and more often in the range of 50-80 ppm. Most anyway. The oil makers want to pass the GF5 Sequence VID FEI tests, so they put in enough moly to get them there, working with their unique mix of viscosity, OFM's, etc., but usually 50-80 ppm moly reduces friction enough for the VID to pass.

There are complicating factors though. The same Infineum presentation showed a different activation temperature for low vs. high moly ppm's. It does look like high-moly is good at FM improvement in timing chains and cam lobes, while ring friction doesn't benefit much from high concentrations of moly.
http://elit-oil.io.ua/files/0001/21/00012167.pdf

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
If it's because Japanese are paranoid about wear in xW-20, then why do you see high moly only in 0w-20 but not in 5W-20, which has exactly the same viscosity?
First of all, 0w20 and 0w16 are Toyota's popular grades most used in 2019 models forward. ... 5w20 uses thicker base oils and less VII plastic chemicals, supporting slightly thicker oil films at high shear rates as well. No need to increase the cost of 5w20 oils now by adding a ton of moly, they think, since it already supports boundary and mixed conditionns nicely. This also relates to long drain intervals, since the high % of VII in 0w20 may shear away over time & miles, leaving even thinner oil films later in an OCI, which means the moly gets to be even more critical for wear near the end of the OCI.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
POE actually increases wear by competing for the metal surfaces with the AW/EP/FM additives. This is well-known. Higher valvetrain wear with some batches of Mobil 1 in the past may have been caused by POE. POE is for improving oxidation stability, not for antiwear. Do you really think that you can provide antiwear properties with an oil film without using a metal coating such as Zn or Mo?

Where is the reference that Magnatec is ester?


This was thoroughly debunked by Tom NJ, yet you continue to parade it out as fact:

Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
The only time esters interfere with ZDDP for camshaft wear is during break-in of a new or rebuilt engine, as is the case with the Sequence IVA test. A high dose of a highly polar ester during break-in can slow down the ZDDP's ability to lay down a protective coating. Once the ZDDP protection has been established, however, the esters do not lead to further wear.

*snip*

I designed ester molecules, formulated them, and tested them for nearly four decades in numerous automotive, aviation, and industrial applications. In general they reduced wear, even in the presence of various anti-wear and EP additives. Initial break-in of automotive engines with ZDDP is the only interference I have observed.

The ExxonMobil data compares an ester containing oil with an AN containing oil in a IVA engine test with a new camshaft in a formulation that did not have any friction modifiers. I don't know what they were trying to prove, but I would not attempt to conclude from that that esters cause engine wear in real world use.

 

[oil_film_movies]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
I just noticed your ester comment as well, which is also very wrong. POE actually increases wear ....
Polymer Esters, not POE. There is not just one kind of ester you know. Think Croda or Ketjenlube additives, not POE base oils.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Do you really think that you can provide antiwear properties with an oil film without using a metal coating such as Zn or Mo?
I never said anything like that, nor even addressed the issue. Now that you bring it up out of the blue, it is possible, as Fuchs has done in their ZDDP-free oils, but that is another discussion. I'll let you spin on that thought, tiger.

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Where is the reference that Magnatec is ester?
It is generally thought that polymer esters are in their secret sauce. It creates AW/FM benefits at low temperatures for them in that oil, used back when Castrol was looking into something to help start/stop and hybrid engines.

 

[oil_film_movies]

Gokhan was right about the gobs o' moly (>700 ppm) reducing friction overall, since the temperature of activation of the FM benefits in high-moly oil is much better than the usual 75 ppm moly amounts. I had remembered the "optimal" amount of 75 ppm that we see in most oils these days, but Infineum did say more is better at lower than peak temperatures.

Anyway, I think we are seeing Toyota (with Mobil/Infineum) attacking the problem of thinner, low film thickness oils with aggressive high treat rates of additives like moly in particular. Toyota is finally getting turbo's across their product lines too, so they are worried, but want to pass future GF6 requirements and still use low-visc oils. The high moly helps when oil films go to zero-ish.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
Gokhan was right about the gobs o' moly (>700 ppm) reducing friction overall, since the temperature of activation of the FM benefits in high-moly oil is much better than the usual 75 ppm moly amounts. I had remembered the "optimal" amount of 75 ppm that we see in most oils these days, but Infineum did say more is better at lower than peak temperatures.

Anyway, I think we are seeing Toyota (with Mobil/Infineum) attacking the problem of thinner, low film thickness oils with aggressive high treat rates of additives like moly in particular. Toyota is finally getting turbo's across their product lines too, so they are worried, but want to pass future GF6 requirements and still use low-visc oils. The high moly helps when oil films go to zero-ish.

Yeah, I kept posting that Infineum trinuclear-moly presentation here years ago.

There is a very good long Japanese moly-study paper where they go from 0 up to 1,000 ppm or so moly and try various types and combinations of moly (dinuclear, trinuclear, etc.) and ZDDP (primary, secondary, etc.) but I can't find it. If I find it, I will post it. One conclusion was that trinuclear moly wasn't as good as dinuclear, which I was surprised at. ZDDP type also makes a huge difference. I think primary ZDDP was better.

The Chevron patent about GTL and pressure - viscosity coefficient I posted here specifically says that trinuclear moly shouldn't be used, saying among other things that it has no antioxidant properties, but that could actually be because of an Oronite - Infineum fight over which moly is better.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
There is a very good long Japanese moly-study paper where they go from 0 up to 1,000 ppm or so moly and try various types and combinations of moly (dinuclear, trinuclear, etc.) and ZDDP (primary, secondary, etc.) but I can't find it. If I find it, I will post it. One conclusion was that trinuclear moly wasn't as good as dinuclear, which I was surprised at. ZDDP type also makes a huge difference. I think primary ZDDP was better.

The Chevron patent about GTL and pressure - viscosity coefficient I posted here specifically says that trinuclear moly shouldn't be used, saying among other things that it has no antioxidant properties, but that could actually be because of an Oronite - Infineum fight over which moly is better.

I dug the moly paper I mentioned and it actually turned out to be two different papers. There is a lot of information to absorb in them.

(1) (Link) Influence of the alkyl group of zinc dialkyldithiophosphate on the frictional characteristics of molybdenum dialkyldithiocarbamate under sliding conditions
Masayoshi Murakia ^a and Hisayuki Wadab ^b
^a Department of Mechanical Engineering, Shonan Institute of Technology, 1-1-25 Tsujido Nishikaigan, Fujisawa, Kanagawa 251-8511, Japan
^b Lubricants Research Laboratory, Nippon Mitsubishi Oil Corporation, 8 Chidori-cho, Naka-ku, Yokohama 231-0815, Japan

(2) (Link) Single-cam tribometer for evaluating tribological parameters and tribochemistry of valve train
S. Ashworth, K. Mistry, A. Morina and A. Neville
Institute of Engineering Thermo-fluids, Surfaces and Interfaces, School of Mechanical Engineering, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

The first article, which you may not have full access, studies three different types of ZDDP (two primary and one secondary) along with dinuclear moly for various moly concentrations. The optimal Mo concentration could be as little as 200 ppm or as high as 700 ppm, depending on the type of ZDDP. Also, different ZDDP types lead to different minimum friction coefficient (and antiwear properties, which may get better or worse as friction gets lowered).

The second article compares PAO, PAO+ZDDP, PAO+ZDDP+MoD, PAO+ZDDP+MoT, and PAO+MoD, with MoD and MoT being dinuclear moly and trinuclear moly, respectively. Dinuclear moly works better than trinuclear. However, while the lowest wear was also found for the PAO+ZDDP+MoD combination for the cam/shim test that simulates a sliding cam, the lowest wear for a pin sliding on a flat plate was found with PAO+ZDDP and addition of moly increased wear in that case.

Therefore, this antiwear/extreme pressure/friction modifier (AW/EP/FM) business is extremely complicated with many different combinations of many different compounds with different concentrations being possible, with no clear optimal material, combination, concentration, or application for a given engine part.

 

[JAG]

Thanks Gokhan, for summarizing those papers. It is so true that tribology is full of complexities. It makes it more interesting and more frustrating!

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: JAG
Thanks Gokhan, for summarizing those papers. It is so true that tribology is full of complexities. It makes it more interesting and more frustrating!

In the Japanese paper (published by Elsevier), they found that the lowest coefficient of friction was achieved with primary-C8-alkyl-chain ZDDP (1000 ppm) and ~ 700 ppm (dinuclear) moly.

They found that first, ZDDP coats the metal and forms a glass-like coating. On a fresh uncoated metal, this could take several minutes. Once the ZDDP etching/coating is complete, a very thin atomic layer of moly coats the ZDDP coating. This is a lot faster than the etching of ZDDP and could take just a few seconds.

However, the complicated part of the etching process is how ZDDP and moly fight for the surface. For primary-C8-alkyl-chain ZDDP, moly delays the etching of ZDDP, which results in more moly atoms and less ZDDP atoms on the surface of the coating and less friction (moly coating has a smooth surface with low friction and ZDDP coating has a rough surface with increased friction).

The paper didn't study other forms of moly such as trinuclear moly or sulfur-free moly. Interestingly, TGMO 0W-20 © 2015 uses sulfur-free Vanderbilt Molyvan 855 (link).

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Interestingly, TGMO 0W-20 © 2015 uses sulfur-free Vanderbilt Molyvan 855 (link).


It uses THAT product ?

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: PimTac


So now we know that TGMO is not made in heaven as your older thread stated but by Exxon Mobil.


Aye, but it still leverages the unique additive chemistry that combines Tinkerbell's earwax with Tom Thumb's belly button lint, which provides both incredibly linear viscometric characteristics and cold temperature performance. It's a proprietary WTL technology that XOM uses under license from Toyota and Disney

 

[Shannow]

 

[Onetor]

Originally Posted By: Shannow



Lol!

 

[Onetor]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
There is a very good long Japanese moly-study paper where they go from 0 up to 1,000 ppm or so moly and try various types and combinations of moly (dinuclear, trinuclear, etc.) and ZDDP (primary, secondary, etc.) but I can't find it. If I find it, I will post it. One conclusion was that trinuclear moly wasn't as good as dinuclear, which I was surprised at. ZDDP type also makes a huge difference. I think primary ZDDP was better.

The Chevron patent about GTL and pressure - viscosity coefficient I posted here specifically says that trinuclear moly shouldn't be used, saying among other things that it has no antioxidant properties, but that could actually be because of an Oronite - Infineum fight over which moly is better.

I dug the moly paper I mentioned and it actually turned out to be two different papers. There is a lot of information to absorb in them.

(1) (Link) Influence of the alkyl group of zinc dialkyldithiophosphate on the frictional characteristics of molybdenum dialkyldithiocarbamate under sliding conditions
Masayoshi Murakia ^a and Hisayuki Wadab ^b
^a Department of Mechanical Engineering, Shonan Institute of Technology, 1-1-25 Tsujido Nishikaigan, Fujisawa, Kanagawa 251-8511, Japan
^b Lubricants Research Laboratory, Nippon Mitsubishi Oil Corporation, 8 Chidori-cho, Naka-ku, Yokohama 231-0815, Japan

(2) (Link) Single-cam tribometer for evaluating tribological parameters and tribochemistry of valve train
S. Ashworth, K. Mistry, A. Morina and A. Neville
Institute of Engineering Thermo-fluids, Surfaces and Interfaces, School of Mechanical Engineering, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

The first article, which you may not have full access, studies three different types of ZDDP (two primary and one secondary) along with dinuclear moly for various moly concentrations. The optimal Mo concentration could be as little as 200 ppm or as high as 700 ppm, depending on the type of ZDDP. Also, different ZDDP types lead to different minimum friction coefficient (and antiwear properties, which may get better or worse as friction gets lowered).

The second article compares PAO, PAO+ZDDP, PAO+ZDDP+MoD, PAO+ZDDP+MoT, and PAO+MoD, with MoD and MoT being dinuclear moly and trinuclear moly, respectively. Dinuclear moly works better than trinuclear. However, while the lowest wear was also found for the PAO+ZDDP+MoD combination for the cam/shim test that simulates a sliding cam, the lowest wear for a pin sliding on a flat plate was found with PAO+ZDDP and addition of moly increased wear in that case.

Therefore, this antiwear/extreme pressure/friction modifier (AW/EP/FM) business is extremely complicated with many different combinations of many different compounds with different concentrations being possible, with no clear optimal material, combination, concentration, or application for a given engine part.


Great info. Thanks Gokhan for synopsis.