roadfrog

Did a little digging to compare Mobil 1 0W20 vs Toyota (TGMO) 0W20

Not sure if this has ever been posted anywhere else on CL. It all makes my head hurt, but perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I, will help us with the numbers.....

Mobil 1:

Iron 2
Chromium 0
Lead 0
Copper 0
Tin 2
Aluminum 1
Nickel 0
Silver 0
Silicon 3
Boron 240
Sodium 17
Potassium 1
Magnesium 35
Calcium 2625
Phosphorus 1258
Zinc 1266
Molybdenum 133

Viscosity @ 40*C 49.4 cSt
Viscosity @ 100*C 8.9 cSt
VI 162
TBN 10.1
Oxidation 24.00
Nitration 7.00
_____________________________________
TGMO:

Fe 0.8
Ni 0.6
Cr 0.1
Ti 0.2
Cu 0.1
Al 1.5
Sn 0.0
Pb 0.2

Si 11
K 0.0

B 0.2
Ba 0.0
Ca 2431
Mg 12
Mo 116
Na 0.8
P 773
S 3543
Zn 866

KV40 36.16
KV100 8.79
VI 236
TAN 1.08
TBN 6.20

Sources:




http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums...&Number=475190

Unsober1

The first part of both appear to be the composition of the oil. The mobile 1 is spelled out, while the toyota oil uses the abbreviations from the periodic table of elements. Can someone with available time please translate the appreciations.

Unsober1

My name is bob, but i an not the oil guy. I can't be much help on what the optimum numbers should be

Devh

These are two entirely different formulations and it would be hard to judge one from the other simply based on more or less anti wear additives. One formulation may trade zinc for boron where as another formulation may use more moly.

The Mobil 1 product base oil is a pure PAO where as the Toyota oil is hydrocrack. It appears that both might be using the same kind of Moly. Hard to judge based on VOA what formulation is better but one thing I do see ;

1. The Toyota oil has a much higher viscosity Index which is king in regard to reducing start up wear.
2. The Mobil 1 has a higher Mg level that probably results in a higher TBN which may allow you to run longer on the oil but perhaps not depending on how well the formulation jives together. It might also create more initial wear before the additive package levels out.

What I would like to see is a used oil comparison between these two oils. I have seen the Mobil 1 oil analysis from various members that was pointed out by Lavrishevo during an argument on another thread that showed higher iron wear using the Mobil 1 0W-20 in the context that 20wt oils are too thin. I was wrong to overlook the high iron numbers and he was right but it wasn't the thinness of the oil, it was the formulation. The Toyota product seems to be producing extremely low wear numbers.

Doublebase

I think all this proves is that they're both solid and you shouldn't be afraid to use either one.

Devh

Im not so sure. I would like to see at least two oil analysis using the Mobil 1 0W-20. My suspicion is that it's throwing out more iron then the Toyota oil. This is bad for the type of wear that would lead to consumption.
If the used oil numbers look nearly identical then I would be satisfied.

Doublebase

I don't think I've ever really seen a UOA from Mobil 1 that looked bad. It's probably the most scrutinized oil on the market, for whatever that's worth. I have it in my car right now, maybe I'll send a sample in when I'm due.

Devh

That would be great. I have seen around five 0W-20 Mobil 1 used oil analysis from various millage and they all had high iron. Not high enough for Blackstone to say it wasn't ok but generally they quiet liberal with their assessments unless there is something majority wrong.

If your analysis turns out similar to the two Toyota oil analysis we have here we can also conclude that our high oil capacity and or engine design is easy on oil.

wbrian63

Since there doesn't appear to be a way to insert a table, this is the best I could do.
Where there was no value reported on one side or the other, I used "-". For instance, the Mobil1 values show 0 for Silver, while the TGMO list doesn't show Silver at all. Of course, in this instance, 0 is equivalent to nothing, but there are other areas where there are values reported on one side and no entry on the other.

TAN relates to Oxidation - I found that clearly in online documentation. I therefore am assuming that TBM relates to Nitration, but I may be wrong.

Format:
Component or Measurement: Mobil1 / TGMO
Iron (Fe): 2 / 0.8
Chromium (Cr): 0 / 0.1
Lead (Pb): 0 / 0.2
Copper (Cu): 0 / 0.1
Tin (Sn): 2 / 0
Aluminum (Al): 1 / 1.5
Nickel (Ni): 0 / 0.6
Silver (Ag): 0 / -
Silicon (Si): 3 / 11
Boron (B): 240 / 0.2
Sodium (Na): 17 / 0.8
Potassium (K): 1 / 0
Magnesium (Mg): 35 / 12
Calcium (Ca): 2625 / 2431
Phosphorous (P): 1258 / 773
Zinc (Zn): 1266 / 866
Molybdenum (Mo): 133 / 116
Titanium (Ti): - / 0.2
Barium (Ba): - / 0
Sulfur (S): - / 3543
Viscosity @ 40C (KV40): 49.4 / 36.16
Viscosity @ 100C (KV100): 8.9 / 8.79
Viscosity Index (VI): 162 / 236
Total Acid Number - TAN (Oxidation): 24 / 1.08
Total Base Number - TBN (Nitration): 7 / 6.2