Not all engine oils are created equal

They were so worried about oil viscosity increasing as it wears, I thought the worry was viscosity decrease?
Oxidative thickening is an area of concern, particularly with the test protocol they were using. Mechanical shear naturally has a floor and viscosity loss is typically dominated by fuel dilution, particularly with DI engines.
 
Exactly, so if you compare, say Quaker State, to Mobil 1 in a VOA comparison, Quaker State, looks like, it has a better additive package. I'm not saying it's a better oil.. because Mobil 1 I'm sure has a better base oil.
There are plenty of compounds that don't show up in VOA's, Molakule has written on this rather extensively. You can't judge the quality of an oil just by looking at what metallics show up in a VOA.
 
XOM - we make base oils and formulate our own oils and own half of Infineum. We have the lab, R&D and 40 years of testing extended drain oils. Let's put out a little video.

BITOG - Mobil 1 sucks! Marketing! My Crown Vic ran on vegetable oil.

SuperTech introduces 20k mile oil - Good for 20k miles! No information on testing, sorry.

BITOG - SuperTech is the greatest!

:ROFLMAO::unsure:(y)
 
How else are you going to control operating conditions for two separate vehicles? While it would be nice if they did a fleet test, there are too many variables. Doing simulated daily driving on a dyno is as controlled as you are going to get with the oil being the only variable.
Nope! Fleet testing is real world. Outliers or atypical results can be set aside when fleet-wide results are reviewed. More is learned from these fleet results; they actually account for many variables, not just a selected few.

There's a reason why Chevron and others place weight on such, especially in the HD market.

To further this, I would assume most producer RDT&E covers BOTH controlled "in-house" and real world feet-wide testing from across the North American market. If it does not, something is wrong.

I place greater credence in feet testing than controlled environment testing. Our vehicle engines aren't lab rats.
 
Last edited:
Nope! Fleet testing is real world.
If you think Mobil fails on that front, you are incorrect. They have been fleet testing for many decades.

Also, as I mentioned above, Mobil understands how to test. The testing results are highly correlated with real world results.

Due to all of this, they also very clearly what works with regard to motor oils. Anybody can dump in non detergent 30 viscosity oil and keep just about any car engine alive for a good bit of time. Somewhere in between 30W and M1 are the packaging companies that package serviceable oils, many of which don't do anything to stop particular problems. Step up to boutique and/or high end manufacturers and they not only know what works, but push the limits of what's possible.
 
Nope! Fleet testing is real world. Outliers or atypical results can be set aside when fleet-wide results are reviewed. More is learned from these fleet results; they actually account for many variables, not just a selected few.

There's a reason why Chevron and others place weight on such, especially in the HD market.


Real world testing has its advantages but if you are testing for certain properties then having testing that is the same procedure and conditions with the same equipment will be better.

For example, testing a new base oil composition against a older one to measure improvement.
 
If you think Mobil fails on that front, you are incorrect. They have been fleet testing for many decades.

Also, as I mentioned above, Mobil understands how to test. The testing results are highly correlated with real world results.

Due to all of this, they also very clearly what works with regard to motor oils. Anybody can dump in non detergent 30 viscosity oil and keep just about any car engine alive for a good bit of time. Somewhere in between 30W and M1 are the packaging companies that package serviceable oils, many of which don't do anything to stop particular problems. Step up to boutique and/or high end manufacturers and they not only know what works, but push the limits of what's possible.
Did I say that Mobil fails in that regard? I did not.

If a producer/manufacturer wishes to market their RDT&E processes, they need to concisely describe both their in-house and fleet-wide testing programs and some of the involved iterations and decision-making.

Broadly speaking, Chevron has done a good job of this as of late.
 
Last edited:
Nope! Fleet testing is real world. Outliers or atypical results can be set aside when fleet-wide results are reviewed. More is learned from these fleet results; they actually account for many variables, not just a selected few.

There's a reason why Chevron and others place weight on such, especially in the HD market.

To further this, I would assume most producer RDT&E covers BOTH controlled "in-house" and real world feet-wide testing from across the North American market. If it does not, something is wrong.

I place greater credence in feet testing than controlled environment testing. Our vehicle engines aren't lab rats.
I also referenced Doug Hillary's fleet testing of Delvac 1. There is certainly significant value in fleet testing, that wasn't the point of what I was saying (to knock fleet testing), but, it introduces variables that can be eliminated in the controlled testing as shown here, which there is also value in, because you isolate the lubricant and operating conditions. If your intention is to do that, to test the lubricant for performance in a very specific manner, like was done here, fleet testing isn't the way to go about it. On the other hand, if you want to validate performance that's been observed through this sort of testing, and ensure that it correlates appropriately with real world, then you would indeed go about doing that fleet testing, which Mobil has done extensively in the past with their taxi fleet tests.
 
Great video. Even if it's sponsored, it wasn't overboard with the marketing and it provided some nice information on a few API/ILSAC testing protocols.

I don't understand why some people here act like a company isn't allowed to market their product. Or if they do, that it's all BS for the sole reason that it's marketing (especially when it's one of the mainstream oil brands). Marketing CAN have truth and good information in it and companies are allowed to market their product. Some people need to chill out and stop taking marketing as a personal insult.
 
I enjoyed the video. It reinforces, in my opinion, that the large companies really have the large budgets to do deep testing of their products. I don't know how some of the smaller blenders really compete with that. I run M1 0W-40 in everything I own at this point and feel like it's as solid of a choice as anything else.
 
It may seem like Exxon Mobil have cherry-picked the tests that were shown in this video because maybe they had a more favorable result than the competition, but rest assured they have done every possible relevant test on their oil and their competitors' oils. For the last 8 years they have had the largest R&D budget in the world, bigger than worldwide Shell, bigger than Chevron, bigger than BP, bigger than Sinopec and bigger than Total. They work directly with all major manufacturers and standards organisations to develop standards and approvals. They know how their products and their competitors' products work because they are so heavily involved in testing and analysing data. They are committed to making their shareholders shares more valuable, and their chosen way to do that is to make the best effort to produce quality products at all levels for competitive prices.

With regards to robertcope's comment above about how do the small blenders compete, it's in finding niches. If there weren't recipes for producing base oil blends for high-performance use, and additive suppliers Infineum, Oronite, and Lubrizol that supply pre-packaged additives for their exact needs, I can expect they would most likely be lost. This model relies on finding customers willing to pay 2X for proven supposedly Group 4 and 5 products that are showcased doing well in one specific area, like drag racing, motorcycle racing, road racing, light duty diesel trucks, etc., and by extrapolation can do well in your more mundane application.
 
It may seem like Exxon Mobil have cherry-picked the tests that were shown in this video because maybe they had a more favorable result than the competition, but rest assured they have done every possible relevant test on their oil and their competitors' oils. For the last 8 years they have had the largest R&D budget in the world, bigger than worldwide Shell, bigger than Chevron, bigger than BP, bigger than Sinopec and bigger than Total. They work directly with all major manufacturers and standards organisations to develop standards and approvals. They know how their products and their competitors' products work because they are so heavily involved in testing and analysing data. They are committed to making their shareholders shares more valuable, and their chosen way to do that is to make the best effort to produce quality products at all levels for competitive prices.

With regards to robertcope's comment above about how do the small blenders compete, it's in finding niches. If there weren't recipes for producing base oil blends for high-performance use, and additive suppliers Infineum, Oronite, and Lubrizol that supply pre-packaged additives for their exact needs, I can expect they would most likely be lost. This model relies on finding customers willing to pay 2X for proven supposedly Group 4 and 5 products that are showcased doing well in one specific area, like drag racing, motorcycle racing, road racing, light duty diesel trucks, etc., and by extrapolation can do well in your more mundane application.
I think I will buy it.. 🤣🤣🤣
 
I enjoyed the video. It reinforces, in my opinion, that the large companies really have the large budgets to do deep testing of their products. I don't know how some of the smaller blenders really compete with that. I run M1 0W-40 in everything I own at this point and feel like it's as solid of a choice as anything else.
They buy the addpack and price accordingly for niche application.
 
Back
Top