0W-40 Mobil 1 reviews?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jul 26, 2007
Messages
307
Location
NY
The engine builder for my Twin Turbo ZO6 said to use a 40 or 50 weight oil, so I was originally going to put in 10W-40 Mobil 1 for this oil change, but Wally World did not have any so I used the 0W-40. Figured that it'd offer good protection while it's hot and also great protection during 'cold starts' (the car may see starts near 32F or so to move it around). Just figured I'd ask what you guys thought of this product. Is it a 'thick' 40 weight or a 'thin' 40 weight?

Travis
 
Originally Posted By: saaber1
Almost a thick 30wt after a few miles



I can deal with that-the car is not driven hard for extended periods.
 
You might want to opt for M1 5w40 TDT or 15w50. Only way to know is to take a sample after a few thousand miles. The 0w40 is used in some very high performance cars, including the Nissan GT-R which I think is twin turbo as well. Fwiw, M1 5w30 is factory fill in the new ZR-1.
 
Thin 40wt. I'd go for something more robust like Redline 5W40 or 10W40. search in UOA section for Tyrolkids UOA's from his high HP turbo engine they are very impressive imo.
 
Thanks for the replys guys. I'm not too worried about it...I'll just send in a sample next time I change it. If I drove the car hard I might be concerned, but honestly it rarley sees over 80MPH. It does go from 40 to 80 in a flash often, though:)
 
I'd use D1/TDT 5W-40....a little 'tougher' of a oil.

NOT that M1 0W-40 is a BAD oil at all, it will work fine......
 
M1 TDT meets/exceeds ACEA E7/E5. It's much more shear stable oil by design. Give the 0w40 a shot. It does contain a good dose of Grp V I'm told.
 
Here is an interesting article on M1 0w40 and syns in general:

http://www.animegame.com/cars/Oil Tests.pdf

Review of Mobil 1:
The results truly speak for themselves in the case of Mobil 1. I have to say that we were truly astounded by them as well. It was out-performed by oils half the price. It took only 2lb to break through the oil film on the race, with the test leaving an 8mm scar on the test bearing and slight scorch marks from the heat caused by metal on metal friction. After seeing so much advertising over the years for this lubricant, we were extremely surprised by the results and are sure you will be, too.
 
Originally Posted By: heathenbrewing
Here is an interesting article on M1 0w40 and syns in general:

http://www.animegame.com/cars/Oil Tests.pdf

Review of Mobil 1:
The results truly speak for themselves in the case of Mobil 1. I have to say that we were truly astounded by them as well. It was out-performed by oils half the price. It took only 2lb to break through the oil film on the race, with the test leaving an 8mm scar on the test bearing and slight scorch marks from the heat caused by metal on metal friction. After seeing so much advertising over the years for this lubricant, we were extremely surprised by the results and are sure you will be, too.


that's why GM, Chrysler, Porsche, Mercedes, etc use Mobil as factory fill in their hi perf cars
they want to keep the dealer service bays full doing engine warranty rebuilds.

/sarcasm off
 
Quote:
they want to keep the dealer service bays full doing engine warranty rebuilds


LOL.gif


I keep waiting to meet someone that had a lubrication failure in one of the many high performance cars that use Mobil 1. No such luck.
grin2.gif


I ran into a friend of a friend who used to work security at Mobil R&D and he told me (fwiw) that they used to have a fleet of Mercedes for testing.
 
Originally Posted By: heathenbrewing
Here is an interesting article on M1 0w40 and syns in general:

http://www.animegame.com/cars/Oil Tests.pdf

Review of Mobil 1:
The results truly speak for themselves in the case of Mobil 1. I have to say that we were truly astounded by them as well. It was out-performed by oils half the price. It took only 2lb to break through the oil film on the race, with the test leaving an 8mm scar on the test bearing and slight scorch marks from the heat caused by metal on metal friction. After seeing so much advertising over the years for this lubricant, we were extremely surprised by the results and are sure you will be, too.


I don't agree with that test at all. Mobil 1 0w-40 has proven itself to be a great oil. In fact, it's factory fill in Porsche and Bentley. I use it in my car and am very happy with the results. The "wear" test is not good indicator of an oils performance IMHO.
 
The original poster was looking for reviews of M1 0w40, so I posted one. Sorry…I didn’t mean to upset anyone by not following the herd….Ill try to remember to do so next time.

Maybe some of you can post independent testing of M1 vs. other syns?


http://www.xs11.com/stories/croil96.shtml
"If you've been loyal to one brand, you may be surprised to learn that every oil we tested was good at doing what motor oil is supposed to do. More extensive tests, under other driving conditions, might have revealed minor differences. But thorough statistical analysis of our data showed no brand-not even the expensive synthetics-to be meaningfully better or worse in our tests."
 
Originally Posted By: JGmazda

I don't agree with that test at all. Mobil 1 0w-40 has proven itself to be a great oil. In fact, it's factory fill in Porsche and Bentley. I use it in my car and am very happy with the results. The "wear" test is not good indicator of an oils performance IMHO.


Fair enough. It was not meant to be taken as a "be-all-end-all" test, just looking at one aspect of what oil is suppose to do. Personally, I feel that just becasue a car comes from the factory with a certain oil, it does not mean it is the best for said engine.

According to UOAs, my engine shows higher iron readings with M1 when compared to other syns. Switiching away from M1 made my top end quieter as well.

Just as my 2nd link shows, most oils all do what they are suppose to do, synthetic or otherwise.
 
Originally Posted By: nascarnation

that's why GM, Chrysler, Porsche, Mercedes, etc use Mobil as factory fill in their hi perf cars...


Does that mean that brands like BMW and Toyota are inferior becasue they choose Castrol (in BMWs case) over Mobil?
 
Originally Posted By: heathenbrewing
Here is an interesting article on M1 0w40 and syns in general:

http://www.animegame.com/cars/Oil Tests.pdf

Review of Mobil 1:
The results truly speak for themselves in the case of Mobil 1. I have to say that we were truly astounded by them as well. It was out-performed by oils half the price. It took only 2lb to break through the oil film on the race, with the test leaving an 8mm scar on the test bearing and slight scorch marks from the heat caused by metal on metal friction. After seeing so much advertising over the years for this lubricant, we were extremely surprised by the results and are sure you will be, too.


These single tests are fantastic examples of what happens when somebody who has no idea what they are doing, sets out to make a point about something they really have no knowledge about.

The API, automotive engine manufacturers and the like use a VARIETY of tests to gauge an oil's performance.

Info on the Timken test:

Quote:
Timken OK Load is a qualitative measure that indicates the possible performance of extreme pressure additives (EP Additives) in a lubricating grease or oil. The units of measure are pounds-force or kilograms-force and are determined using a special test machine.

The test machine is based on a machine manufactured by the Timken Company from 1935 to 1972. It is now an industry standard test though the meaning of the qualitative measure has become less useful as the science of tribology has advanced.

The test machine consists of a bearing race mounted on a tapered arbor rotating at high speed. The race is brought into contact with a square steel test block under load. The contact area is flooded with the lubricant being tested. The Timken OK Load is the load at which the spinning bearing race produces a score mark on the test block.

Though Timken no longer manufactures the test machine, Timken OK Loads are still listed on grease and oil property charts. It was once generally assumed that the measure and the film strength of the lubricant were directly related. Today, the primary purpose of the test is to determine whether EP additives are present and functioning. A measure of 35 pounds-force (16 kilograms-force or 155 newtons) or more means that EP additives are present and working.

The Timken OK Load test specification is ASTM 2509.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timken_OK_Load"


It's an EP test. Great for testing GREASE and GEAR OIL. But I somehow doubt, all that great for testing engine oil. I'm no expert on this matter, so I'll let others who know more than I elaborate on this but I WILL say this:

It is easy to use ONE test to support or condemn a product's performance. The REAL data shows us that it's not fair to evaluate products in this manner. This is why they go through a barrage of different tests when being evaluated.

Royal Purple does extremely well on this test that these people did. Yet in Grampsinthesand's UOA, it's performance was pathetic compared to off-the-shelf Rotella! This is an example of how people could be mislead by this test data, where REAL LIFE data, where the product is actually run in an IC engine, does not perform as well as one would expect.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you want synthetic then most of the synthetics on the market will work well so take your pick. I prefer amsoil or Rotella synthetic.

Dino oils I would choose would be any of the "big" 3 aka chevron, shell or mobil.
 
Last edited:
M1 0w-40 is the finest 30 weight oil spec'd in some of the most expensive and exotic engines by OEM's worldwide.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL


These single tests are fantastic examples of what happens when somebody who has no idea what they are doing, sets out to make a point about something they really have no knowledge about.

The API, automotive engine manufacturers and the like use a VARIETY of tests to gauge an oil's performance.

Info on the Timken test:

Quote:
Timken OK Load is a qualitative measure that indicates the possible performance of extreme pressure additives (EP Additives) in a lubricating grease or oil. The units of measure are pounds-force or kilograms-force and are determined using a special test machine.

The test machine is based on a machine manufactured by the Timken Company from 1935 to 1972. It is now an industry standard test though the meaning of the qualitative measure has become less useful as the science of tribology has advanced.

The test machine consists of a bearing race mounted on a tapered arbor rotating at high speed. The race is brought into contact with a square steel test block under load. The contact area is flooded with the lubricant being tested. The Timken OK Load is the load at which the spinning bearing race produces a score mark on the test block.

Though Timken no longer manufactures the test machine, Timken OK Loads are still listed on grease and oil property charts. It was once generally assumed that the measure and the film strength of the lubricant were directly related. Today, the primary purpose of the test is to determine whether EP additives are present and functioning. A measure of 35 pounds-force (16 kilograms-force or 155 newtons) or more means that EP additives are present and working.

The Timken OK Load test specification is ASTM 2509.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timken_OK_Load"


It's an EP test. Great for testing GREASE and GEAR OIL. But I somehow doubt, all that great for testing engine oil. I'm no expert on this matter, so I'll let others who know more than I elaborate on this but I WILL say this:

It is easy to use ONE test to support or condemn a product's performance. The REAL data shows us that it's not fair to evaluate products in this manner. This is why they go through a barrage of different tests when being evaluated.

Royal Purple does extremely well on this test that these people did. Yet in Grampsinthesand's UOA, it's performance was pathetic compared to off-the-shelf Rotella! This is an example of how people could be mislead by this test data, where REAL LIFE data, where the product is actually run in an IC engine, does not perform as well as one would expect.


To be fair, the article does give a disclaimer on page 2 (or 114) of the article saying the test is but 1 factor in oil film strength.

I too am not an expert, but I have been seeking independent testing data, with little luck.

And again, there is no "best oil". The only way to know what oil is best for an individual motor is through UOAs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top