Mobil 1 Severe Service Test

[redhat]

Originally Posted By: jrustles
FWIW that's an LX9 3.5L engine. Super-easy on oil- like 3800 easy on oil. We have one- never ran synthetic in it and it's still spotless under the valvecover now @ 170K KMs.

Having seen lease casualties with 50-60K on regular dino factory fill (and still running), these results aren't really eye popping. I'd expect any mid-tier synthetic to perform as well.

Also, mentioning the camshafts for "pitting" with roller followers and noting the crosshatching being present is kind of lame, esp. in just 25K simulated miles.

It's just an infomercial.


I agree. Good for Mobil 1, I tend to go with it for all of the OCs that our 3.5 powered Impala gets (plus the GF picks up her own oil and likes M1).

Basically an infomercial on how GM builds great V6s.

 

[JOD]

How did the control oil fare? Without that information, hard to draw much in the way of conclusions...

 

[OneEyeJack]

Mobil 1 has excellent marketing and it's not aimed at people like BITOG members but at their market place, everyone else. They have excellent products but even after watching their videos and looking around their Website I have no idea if their products are better in my application than Pennzoil, Castrol, Shell, Chevron, Red Line, RLI or any other engine oil. One thing is for sure, you can't go very wrong using their products that match you car manufacturer's specs and they've gone to the trouble to get the certs and clearly label their products with that information. The best thing about Mobil 1 is that you can find it anywhere and if you look around, someone has it on sale. Now, having written all that I still use Red Line and RLI.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: OneEyeJack
but even after watching their videos and looking around their Website I have no idea if their products are better in my application than Pennzoil, Castrol, Shell, Chevron, Red Line, RLI or any other engine oil.

It's a deliberate marketing tactic that some companies employ. You will not name a competitor, because that would give the competitor too much credit by recognizing him/her as a competitor, no matter how inferior. Mobil wants to be above it all, making it seem as if they are the only game in town.

 

[daves87rs]

I'd be interested to see how it does in different weather. Being indoors really does not stress the oil like when engine is really stressed from extreme heat or cold.

Unless you have a S/C'd or turbo'd car/truck or an engine that is hard on oil, it is really not that punishing...pretty common for cars to be low on oil (for many reasons)...

That being said, I think M1 could still handle tougher tests, with some pretty good results.....

 

[daves87rs]

And to add another question, what oil filter was used?


Can we assume a M1 filter?

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: jrustles
I'd be more impressed if it was third-party conducted, not reviewed and results reported via an outlet other than "mobiloil.com"

Maybe, but who is volunteering to provide Mobil with free advertising?

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: buster

Very impressive for an oil using low calcium/mg. Goes to show you VOA's and UOA's mean very little.


I agree. Most folks here really do obsess over the miniscule amounts of various additives in their oil when there are other ones that aren't even noticed.

M1 is fine oil that likely exceeds the needs of most cars when used correctly.

I also feel this was an excellent illustration of good engine design...

 

[aquariuscsm]

I'll say this for Mobil 1. I watch the uoa's here all the time,and Mobil 1 oils have been producing the absolute least amount of wear metals over all other oils used. Something tells me that they are producing their best oils ever. I'll be going back to Mobil 1 10W40HM next oci.

 

[wemay]

I don't think there's any question about M1 quality. It's that these type of tests, regardless of brand, are dubious. Again, regardless of brand.

 

[The_Eric]

Originally Posted By: wemay
Certifications, approvals and standardized industry testing...period.
These self serving 'tests' really do nothing to increase my confidence in a company's product.


Correct.


Originally Posted By: JOD
How did the control oil fare? Without that information, hard to draw much in the way of conclusions...


I agree.



That clip was nothing but marketing fluff. The tear down showed very little of the engine actual hard parts and no measurements were given. A side view of the cam and 1(!) main bearing? A glimpse of one cylinder? Big whoop!


This not to be mistaken as Mobil 1 bashing- because it's not. It's a fine product and can be judged so by the above mentioned certifications, approvals, standardized testing as well as real world user results.

 

[Durango]

Originally Posted By: buster
http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Videos/Videos.aspx

3rd party reviewed.

They purposely ran M1 5w30 in a 2008 GM 3.5L V6, 1-2qts low, for 25,000 miles.

Very impressive for an oil using low calcium/mg. Goes to show you VOA's and UOA's mean very little.



buster,

That's pretty impressive in my book as I'm a Mobil 1 user myself. However I wouln't dare myself to ever go 25K without doing an OCI when my OLM tells me at least! This is even with using a good synthetic oil these days.

I'm now just getting use to going 7500K OCI's on my two Chevy's and still get a little nervous going that far still. I guess old school habits.

Durango

 

[jrustles]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: jrustles
I'd be more impressed if it was third-party conducted, not reviewed and results reported via an outlet other than "mobiloil.com"

Maybe, but who is volunteering to provide Mobil with free advertising?


I don't think independent, third-party institutions like PQIA for instance, provide free advertising for oil companies. In fact, an entirely third-party evaluation as such would be expected to provide objective data, rather than suggestive advertising fodder TBH

 

[buster]

I'm not really impressed with the critical comments made so far.

First, of course it's marketing. What else would it be? Would you rather have a 4-ball wear scar or watch a Castrol video blowing up an engine?

Second, Mobil does field and lab testing. They have rooms that can get very cold to test cold weather pump-ability and they run these cars on simulated tracks that can vary the conditions.

I'm not trying to hype up Mobil 1 or say it's the best, but I think the overall testing they did was good.

Last, if it's not severe, then run your oil 25,000 miles 2qts low and get back to me.

Especially TGMO. And do a tear down. Has to be 2qts low too. Then compare results to M1 EP 0w20 at 210,000 miles.

Fact: the guy doing engine tear downs for 43 years said it was among the most severe testing he has ever seen. Did Mobil pay him to say that? Doubt it.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: buster
Last, if it's not severe, then run your oil 25,000 miles 2qts low and get back to me.

And that was my initial point: what does "severe" mean for them? If it was the fact that it was 1-2 qt low, that's fine.

With that said, how do they measure it? Was it 1-2 qt low from the top of the dipstick? My car can be 1qt low, and it'll still be above the "add oil" mark, which means technically the oil level is still normal. Just asking...

 

[buster]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: buster

Very impressive for an oil using low calcium/mg. Goes to show you VOA's and UOA's mean very little.


I agree. Most folks here really do obsess over the miniscule amounts of various additives in their oil when there are other ones that aren't even noticed.

M1 is fine oil that likely exceeds the needs of most cars when used correctly.

I also feel this was an excellent illustration of good engine design...


Definitely. Mobil 1 has a SA of only .8 and the fact it's keeping engines that clean with a starting Tbn of 9-10 with low Ca/Mg is impressive. People get nuts over high metallic additive levels not realizing that is old school.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: buster
Did Mobil pay him to say that? Doubt it.

Umm... pretty sure everyone in that video got paid by XOM in some way, shape, or form. Like you said, it's marketing. I fully agree.

 

[buster]

So Mobil paid him to say the test was the most severe he has seen? Umm doubt it.

 

[wemay]

Kendall GT-1 wear video....with teardown, AND all the catch phrases... '30% better wear protection than leading competitor.' 'Engine looks new... yada yada'

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: buster
So Mobil paid him to say the test was the most severe he has seen? Umm doubt it.


All I'm asking is for them to define what that severe test exactly entailed. Is it too much to ask? Unless you know the exact testing procedure, the test results you obtain are of limited benefit, no matter how good the intentions.

BTW, the marketers of Pure Green Coffee paid Dr. Oz to say that their weight loss pills are magic. Dr. Oz also has years of experience in his field. This stuff happens every day.