Leaves out a lot of very important variables. Air cleanliness is a factor since the silica in the oil scuffs the surfaces a ton which the engines don't seem to get as just stand there and not get driven on real roads or at least get fed dirty air. They didn't include any of that whatsoever, the oil filter is also important. Oil that is constantly hot is going to clean better and also be in a tribofilm state which reduces wear significantly and heavier yet very stable loads are also helping the engine. It's varying engine loads, oil pressure, and engine speed that account for wear. And they didn't state what engine rpm the Toyota was ran at and the variable oil pump pressure and rpm data is readily available so they could just be at the sweet spot in the highest rpm with the least oil pressure to maximize either efficiency by less pressure and less drag or better wear numbers with more oil pressure
And if I'm not mistaken that Toyota is supposed to get 0w-16 and 0w-20 only once and must return to 0w-16 the next time yet there is no 0w-16 EP. There is only 0w-20 and thicker so they had to have ran either that or thicker still as they also gave zero mention of what viscosity of M1 EP they used in the Toyota as you can't assume they used the required 0w-16 as that doesn't exist and they didn't mention a disclaimer about using the wrong oil which they pretty much did. And they also gave zero mention to the speed the vehicle was driving at on the dynamometer as it could've been a more constant 70 mph which racks up that mileage faster than real world average vehicle speed per engine running hour which are like 20-40 mph in the real world as the vast majority fall into that severe category.
They also say that in their "independent testing" that the oil doesn't oxidize as much as compared to the rest in the industry but are they counting the extreme fuel dilution to lower the viscosity of the oxidized oil? The video is hogwash that no one in their right mind would take beyond a grain of salt. No one should believe such one sided baloney from a manufactures doctored testing standard which gave no real information and data being given/excluded to the public. But sadly a lot of normal consumers are gonna be amazed by the few difficult things and think that's the whole story and believe it. Mobil also gave no mention that they don't guarantee going 2x over the 10k interval and that the product user should read what it says on the bottle and also follow manufacturer maintenance intervals regardless of what they claim but they don't. They heavily imply that you should leave it in there for 20k miles until something bad happens and if you try to go after Mobil after the dealer said "lol should've done 10k intervals tops not 20K" Mobil will hit you with the "should've read what it said on the back of the bottle in fine small print which we know full well no one actually does so we get away with fooling you since the disclaimer tells you to not do what we advertised to you on the front in big bold font since we know that no car brand says to go 20k miles in their intervals" and leave you SOL with the bill.
I can't find any of Mobil's testing standard information or any actual figures of the results. They just give some generic charts with no meaningful data points on the axes.
