Mobil1 vs Amsoil European 0W-40

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Gebo
There are some very wise and savvy tribologists here.


There are, but how does that help when it comes to proprietary information?
 
Originally Posted By: Gebo


I want to know their chemical/physical differences.


Nobody on this site knows that and anybody pretending to know otherwise is lying. There are no tribologists from either company posting here.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Gebo


I want to know their chemical/physical differences.


There are no tribologists from either company posting here.


And even if there were, they would not be divulging proprietary information as they'd lose their jobs and possibly get sued.
 
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Gebo


I want to know their chemical/physical differences.


There are no tribologists from either company posting here.


And even if there were, they would not be divulging proprietary information as they'd lose their jobs and possibly get sued.



Exactly
cheers3.gif
 
Originally Posted By: tig1
Drive one car 200K and tear the engine down with one oil, then do the same with the other. Compare the difference. UOAs and stats won't help much.


That could work, assuming the cars/engines were driven identically with respect to the driver's habits, weather, road surfaces, oil changes/filters, fuel...and received identical builds with identical quality of parts from the engine factory...and identical installation quality on the assembly line.
 
Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
Originally Posted By: Gebo
This is the type of info I am looking for. THANKS! 45 pages.....

Its an interesting paper. Some oils do claim to be 100% GroupIV/V (no groupIII), and Joe Gibbs Racing Driven 5w-40 (Lubrizol and engine builder collaborative effort) claims that. Also some of Motul's oils I think, both good brands. The paper presentation basically outlines Mobil's way of meeting all the tough specs STILL while adding Group III to their formulas a while back. They sacrificed little performance really. Hardly noticeable.

Motul I think on every bottle puts 100% full synthetic. Good, PAO based etc. However, is it 100% PAO based or is it by German law 100% full synthetic?
1. If it is by German law that means it has +50% PAO or Ester. Castrol 0W30 & 0W40 falls in that category and some other oils (Pentosin SuperPento III 5W30) etc.
2. If it really has 100% PAO base or combination of PAO and Ester why is it important? Take into consideration Motul X-Clean 5W40. Pour point is -39, HTHS is 3.64 . How is that better then M1 0W40 with HTHS of 3.8 (Motul X-Cess has HTHS of 3.7)? M1 NOACK is 8.8% and not sure about Motul, but considering it is MB 229.51 it is below 10%. However, M1 5W30 ESP that I use which is VISOM, has HTHS 3.58cp and NOACK 5.6% (according to some Russian lab).
So what I am trying to say is why does it matter whether is it 100% Full Synthetic when specifications is at best average?
 
Last edited:
I just changed to Amsoil Euro 0W-40 in my new-to-me BMW 550i. I'll change at 7500km and do an oil test......these N62 motors seem to go through valve stem seals too soon if you listen to BMW's extended drain intervals.
 
Originally Posted By: 69GTX
Originally Posted By: tig1
Drive one car 200K and tear the engine down with one oil, then do the same with the other. Compare the difference. UOAs and stats won't help much.


That could work, assuming the cars/engines were driven identically with respect to the driver's habits, weather, road surfaces, oil changes/filters, fuel...and received identical builds with identical quality of parts from the engine factory...and identical installation quality on the assembly line.

Exactly.

And that's ultimately the point, isn't it? The MINIMUM level of testing required is far beyond the reach of anyone except the auto makers and the biggest oil companies -- who, unfortunately, will never tell us everything they know.

This is why I have to shake my head when people are so confident picking one oil over another based on one or two lines on a UOA, let alone a spec sheet.
 
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
This is why I have to shake my head when people are so confident picking one oil over another based on one or two lines on a UOA, let alone a spec sheet.

+1000 especially the SPEC SHEET!
 
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: Gebo
I merely want to know the meaningful physical/chemical differences between these 2 oils.

Wouldn't we all?
smile.gif


Mobil 1 is way cheaper and carries legit OE approvals. Those are the only differences that we mortals can really discern.


That's the truth. We can all guess at the composition of the products, but no one, not even the people selling the products know for sure. I'd go by price and which oil has the legit mfg.s approval for making my decision. After all that's all we really have to go by, anything else is opinion and hype.
 
Originally Posted By: deven
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
This is why I have to shake my head when people are so confident picking one oil over another based on one or two lines on a UOA, let alone a spec sheet.

+1000 especially the SPEC SHEET!


Except for the part on the spec sheet that shows which approvals the oil carries.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Gebo
I want to know their chemical/physical differences.

Nobody on this site knows that and anybody pretending to know otherwise is lying. There are no tribologists from either company posting here.


Gebo is right to ask this. Joe90_guy, molakule, bobbydavro, solarent, others etc, are insiders to some extent. They may have been involved with looking at competitor's oils. They might know or have heard an insider report.

It also goes to the debate about GroupIII+ basestocks partially supplanting PAO/Esters in formulas. I still think a superior oil isn't going to use GroupIII at all. Probably less piston deposits when you don't use GroupIII at all is the bottom line.

I know its debatable whether use of GroupIII, especially with GTL (Pennzoil) present, is a bad thing. Granted oils can be partially GroupIII and pass Euro specs.

I've wondered whether its not best to just seek out syn oils that claim NO GroupIII in them. So far I've bought oils based on
1. Company reputation
2. Specs met
3. Any tidbit of info I can find indicating it might have superior intellectual property.
4. Maybe: Must be all GroupIV/V !
 
Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
Some oils do claim to be 100% GroupIV/V (no groupIII), and Joe Gibbs Racing Driven 5w-40 (Lubrizol and engine builder collaborative effort) claims that.

If it's 100% Group IV and V, what's the point in getting Lubrizol involved at all? 100% base stock means no additives, and Lubrizol's involvement is redundant, right?
 
Gebo can ask whatever question he wants. The answers may not be what he or you wishes to hear.

Oh, and nothing you just posted below nor any other of the posts in this thread answers his question one little bit. The only thing that has been an answer so far is that one of the oils carries certifications and one doesn't.

Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
Gebo is right to ask this. Joe90_guy, molakule, bobbydavro, solarent, others etc, are insiders to some extent. They may have been involved with looking at competitor's oils. They might know or have heard an insider report.

It also goes to the debate about GroupIII+ basestocks partially supplanting PAO/Esters in formulas. I still think a superior oil isn't going to use GroupIII at all. Probably less piston deposits when you don't use GroupIII at all is the bottom line.

I know its debatable whether use of GroupIII, especially with GTL (Pennzoil) present, is a bad thing. Granted oils can be partially GroupIII and pass Euro specs.

I've wondered whether its not best to just seek out syn oils that claim NO GroupIII in them. So far I've bought oils based on
1. Company reputation
2. Specs met
3. Any tidbit of info I can find indicating it might have superior intellectual property.
4. Maybe: Must be all GroupIV/V !
 
For the record, since I am the OP, I want to state that the fact "that one of the oils carries certifications and one doesn't" means nothing to me or tells me anything about the chemical or physical differences in the oils. That answer has nothing to do with my question. I will agree that maybe nobody can answer my question to the extent I'm expecting but that won't stop me from asking. Would it upset you if asked you to please quit responding to this particular thread? You may be a nice guy but your input seems very harsh and unproductive. Actually, lubricatosaurus has helped me the most and I want to thank him. As the OP, in my opinion, he is answering my question.


\\
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Gebo can ask whatever question he wants. The answers may not be what he or you wishes to hear.

Oh, and nothing you just posted below nor any other of the posts in this thread answers his question one little bit. The only thing that has been an answer so far is that one of the oils carries certifications and one doesn't.

Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
Gebo is right to ask this. Joe90_guy, molakule, bobbydavro, solarent, others etc, are insiders to some extent. They may have been involved with looking at competitor's oils. They might know or have heard an insider report.

It also goes to the debate about GroupIII+ basestocks partially supplanting PAO/Esters in formulas. I still think a superior oil isn't going to use GroupIII at all. Probably less piston deposits when you don't use GroupIII at all is the bottom line.

I know its debatable whether use of GroupIII, especially with GTL (Pennzoil) present, is a bad thing. Granted oils can be partially GroupIII and pass Euro specs.

I've wondered whether its not best to just seek out syn oils that claim NO GroupIII in them. So far I've bought oils based on
1. Company reputation
2. Specs met
3. Any tidbit of info I can find indicating it might have superior intellectual property.
4. Maybe: Must be all GroupIV/V !
 
Originally Posted By: Gebo
For the record, since I am the OP, I want to state that the fact "that one of the oils carries certifications and one doesn't" means nothing to me or tells me anything about the chemical or physical differences in the oils.

What is the significance of knowing the differences in chemical or physical properties of these oils? Another words, if you were to find it out, how would you use this information? How will it help you?

Just curious. That's all.
 
Gebo:

The most you can probably learn about these products in terms of what is in them is to take a look at VOA's of them, which will give you an idea as to what metallic additives are in them (but not the organic ones) and the MSDS sheets for them, which may, or may not, tell you a bit about the base oil composition.

A recent M1 0w-40 MSDS listed 50-60% PAO as part of its base oil composition. Similar in appearance to this from the M1 EP 0w-20 PDS:

M1EP0w2002.jpg


Which shows 60-70% PAO. You will have to look up the CAS #'s to determine what is what.

Now, keep in mind an MSDS is not a recipe and doesn't really tell you much. They aren't designed for that purpose. But, they do give you at least a little insight as to what might be in the product as far as base oils are concerned.

This is about the most you are going to be able to find out about the two oils in terms of composition. The reason for this is that these formulations are proprietary as has already been pointed out and the companies are under no obligation to divulge how they are formulated.

This is why the sage advice offered by kschachn is indeed valid and that is that the if you are seeking out this information to get an idea as to how they will perform, looking at the approvals, which predicate on performance, is probably your best bet.

If, on the other hand, you have no interest in the performance of the products and you are solely interested in composition, then disregard the talk of the approvals mentioned here and focus on the first part I mentioned. See if you can find some VOA's (finding one for the AMSOIL 0w-40 my be problematic given how new it is) and you can at least compare the metallic additive composition, viscosity....etc.

There ARE a few formulators and industry folks that post here, however none of them have so far posted in your thread. Member lubricatosaurus has posted most of their names above, I would also add Tom NJ and Bruce to the the names he has mentioned. None of these guys as far as I know work for Mobil or AMSOIL however and even if they did, they would be unable to share product formulation details with you. What bobbydevro has shared in the past, and was extremely interesting, was how they tested their product and ran comparative testing with competitor products and how that panned out and the potential value of that kind of testing.

Anyways, this goes back to my earlier point about nobody on here is really going to be able to tell you about how these products are formulated. Only a rough idea as to what is in them via VOA and what they are potentially based with via MSDS is all you are going to find.
 
Originally Posted By: Gebo
For the record, since I am the OP, I want to state that the fact "that one of the oils carries certifications and one doesn't" means nothing to me or tells me anything about the chemical or physical differences in the oils. That answer has nothing to do with my question. I will agree that maybe nobody can answer my question to the extent I'm expecting but that won't stop me from asking. Would it upset you if asked you to please quit responding to this particular thread? You may be a nice guy but your input seems very harsh and unproductive. Actually, lubricatosaurus has helped me the most and I want to thank him. As the OP, in my opinion, he is answering my question.

What he did was offer you information that seems roughly like the same kind of thing you were asking for. That's not the same thing as answering your question.

The fact that better information isn't available doesn't make the scraps we do have any more relevant or meaningful.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
Some oils do claim to be 100% GroupIV/V (no groupIII), and Joe Gibbs Racing Driven 5w-40 (Lubrizol and engine builder collaborative effort) claims that.

If it's 100% Group IV and V, what's the point in getting Lubrizol involved at all? 100% base stock means no additives, and Lubrizol's involvement is redundant, right?


MPT now claims that it's ENTIRE line up, INCLUDING their 0W-xx oils are made with a 100% PAO/POE base stock, and absolutely NO VIIs whatsoever, no matter how far the SAE viscosity 'spread'.

I can believe them, when one looks at just how low their VIs are on most of their engine oil products.
wink.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top