Mobil 1 5W-30 EP, SN Rated with TBN and TAN

Status
Not open for further replies.
Molekule was talking about this backin 2004

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1058942

Quote:
I would normally put this into the Interesting Articles thread, but since the topic was brought up here goes:

Detergent additives or agents contribute most of the ash deposits in IC engines. The heavier metals contribute mostly to ash deposits.

The perecent sulfated ash is the ash produced when the detegent is treated with sulfuric acid and burned. All organic material in the detergent burns leaving behind the metal sulfated ash. Sulfate ash results from the reaction of metal compounds with sulfuric acid directly, as with metal hydroxides and metal carbonates, or through the oxidative degradation of the metal sulfonate.

While detergents have the greatest contribution to ash, other compounds also contribute to ash, such as AW agents (ZDDP) and FM's such as MoDTC.

Since the metal compounds can lead to the formation of inorganic metal ashes on combustion, the formulator has to know the metal content of any additive in order to offset the effects of ash (metal) containing additives.

Having said that, there are a number of ashless detergents, and anti-wear and extreme pressure agents being developed as we speak. Many of these ashless additives are based on various phosphor compounds, esters of phosphors, and specialty esters. As others have stated, these compounds will be more expensive, at least initially.
 
I don't entirely understand the criticism of Mg-based detergents.

Organo-metallic addives only become a problem if oil is burned by an engine, and even then, it has to burn a fairly large amount of oil to actually cause a problem.

'Most' modern engines in the last 10-15 years, with some exceptions, burn very, very little oil in operation. It's been said and agreed many times that modern engines are very 'tight' on oil.

So, if Mg is an effective detergent dispersant, shouldn't it be used? Worrying about deposits from burning, when most engine don't burn much oil, seems kinda pointless - maybe XOM knows thai, and that is why they are going this way?
 
Originally Posted By: addyguy
I don't entirely understand the criticism of Mg-based detergents.

Organo-metallic addives only become a problem if oil is burned by an engine, and even then, it has to burn a fairly large amount of oil to actually cause a problem.

'Most' modern engines in the last 10-15 years, with some exceptions, burn very, very little oil in operation. It's been said and agreed many times that modern engines are very 'tight' on oil.

So, if Mg is an effective detergent dispersant, shouldn't it be used? Worrying about deposits from burning, when most engine don't burn much oil, seems kinda pointless - maybe XOM knows that, and that is why they are going this way?


Well, I suppose that is just it. Those that specifically have oil consumption of some sort or an older engine, may worry about engine cleanliness using Mg instead of Cal.
 
Here is a VOA of M1 EP from 2005.

Code:


Iron 1

Tin 2

Moly 76

Potasium 1

Boron 232

Silicon 4

Sodium 5

Calcium 3281

Magnesium 13

Phosph. 791

Zinc 958



SUS Visc. 62.3

Flash 435

TBN 13.0
 
Last edited by a moderator:
^Hmmmm... with the TBN much lower with the SN formula (from the looks of this report) it looks like maybe M1 is cutting back on the TBN to basically just barely make it to their 15k claim and then the oil is toast.
 
The TBN is rather low for an oil designed to last for 15k miles. I believe they are using newer adds that don't show up as Molekule alluded too. The lower calcium is why the TBN is lower. Question becomes whether the TBN retention is better.
 
^True, which is why we all know the fair game is when we start getting out UOA and compare that to the same apps which ran on SM.
 
I'll be curious to see how this 9.3 Tbn EP stuff holds up. Such low calcium and Mg.
 
Originally Posted By: buster
The TBN is rather low for an oil designed to last for 15k miles. I believe they are using newer adds that don't show up as Molekule alluded too. The lower calcium is why the TBN is lower. Question becomes whether the TBN retention is better.


I can't see how M1 would continue to warranty their EP oil for 15K if it can't hold up for at least that long.(I know their EP oil was tested for a much longer OCI than that)Also as you said, not all oils are created equal as TBN is concerned. I'm sure EP will retain it's TBN very well. Heck! Their regular M1 is warranteed for at least 10K. here's the link.

http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Oils/Mobil_1_Warranty.aspx
 
Last edited:
I'm sure they didn't test the SN formula as long as they tested the original EP in the taxi's, etc etc but i doubt they would sacrifice their reputation by putting out a weaker oil.

Regardless, the SN formulation should hold up better regardless of the starting TBN.
 
I'm running the 10w30 version of this SN oil
along with 8oz of Lubeguard Bio/Tech.
Most smooth oil I've used in my Hyundai yet.
Got the highest MPG's too. Previous oils were
PYB, & RP 5w20's, & M1 0w30.

jringo
 
Both the Valvoline and Mobil guarantee fall under the W,C.Fields motto "You have a moral obligation to take money from a sucker"PLEEEZE THIS IS 2011!!!! Unheard of profits records being set all the way to the banks. Yeah you could sue them when your, oh forget it!!!
hooked.gif
 
I'm going to put this in the Mazda soon and run it 1/yr/15k to see how it holds up. If it doesn't do well, I'll switch to Amsoil. Her care doesn't consume any oil.
 
Is it me or are these oils starting too look like a weaker version of a HDEO with all the magnesium?
 
Yes, on paper that is exactly what this looks like. Extremely low Ca and a bit of Mg. As Molekule said though, there are other things that won't show up on a VOA. On one of the Mobil 1 videos, one of their engineers said M1 is a blend of about 18 different base oils and additives. I'll be curious to see how the new stuff holds up.
 
I think I read in another thread that SN oils are supposed to be "more compatible" with ethanol blend fuels...Could that be one of the reasons for the formula change?
 
All GF-5 oils should handle ethanol fuel better. That is just one of the improvements.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top