Mobil 1 0w40 VOA

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Hi,

21Rouge - You said this:

"And we have seen from UOAs that this 0W40 quickly shears to a 30wt so maybe in an engine this M1 acts much like super duper thick GC?"

This may be so but in many applications this lubricant has a very stabil viscosity over very long OCI



So Doug do you have some ideas why there is that shearing of 0W40 (as seen in many UOAs on BITOG)?
 
Last edited:
The Blackstone 100C vis of 13.36 cSt is quite a bit off the M1 PDS spec' of 14.0 cSt (used to be 14.3 in the not too distant past).
That's something to keep in mind when reviewing UOAs from this lab particularly when assessing how shear prone M1 0W-40 is reported to be.
 
So no one disputes my thought that M1 HM 10w-30 may be a better oil then the 0w-40? 10w should have less vii given the density difference = more shear stability.
 
Originally Posted By: 21Rouge
Originally Posted By: rudolphna
HECK I'd run that it in my cav which spece 5W-30.


With all the glowing talk the last several months (and more) re this oil I think that is what many are considering.
21.gif



Instead of going thicker than spec'in a modest power car like the Cavalier, especially in the winter, check out the Toyota 0W-20 VOA that's just been posted. It has the same Phos and Boron as M1 plus a killer amount of Moly.
 
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
So no one disputes my thought that M1 HM 10w-30 may be a better oil then the 0w-40? 10w should have less vii given the density difference = more shear stability.


Except that even at the end of a long OCI the 0W-40 will still have a higher VII and a higher 100C vis if that's what you need.
 
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
The Blackstone 100C vis of 13.36 cSt is quite a bit off the M1 PDS spec' of 14.0 cSt (used to be 14.3 in the not too distant past).
That's something to keep in mind when reviewing UOAs from this lab particularly when assessing how shear prone M1 0W-40 is reported to be.


I saw that difference too, I'm wondering if it really is that visco or if there is some margin of error in the analysis. /me thinks of sending a sample off to another lab for a second opinion.
 
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
So no one disputes my thought that M1 HM 10w-30 may be a better oil then the 0w-40? 10w should have less vii given the density difference = more shear stability.

I do. In fact I think that's a ridiculous conclusion, honestly.
 
Originally Posted By: BobFout
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
The Blackstone 100C vis of 13.36 cSt is quite a bit off the M1 PDS spec' of 14.0 cSt


I saw that difference too, I'm wondering if it really is that visco or if there is some margin of error in the analysis. /me thinks of sending a sample off to another lab for a second opinion.


This seems to happen far too often. I know VOA/UOA are relatively inexpensive via Blackstone but having to send out a sample to verify a sketchy result does add up. It seems the adage "you get what you pay for" does apply to oil analyses.
smirk2.gif
 
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
So no one disputes my thought that M1 HM 10w-30 may be a better oil then the 0w-40? 10w should have less vii given the density difference = more shear stability.

I do. In fact I think that's a ridiculous conclusion, honestly.
So, with the M1 10w-30 HM: GF2/3 ACEA A3/B3/4, much less vii to clog up the rings, a true full synthetic basestock, no shearing through the oci, more % EP agents, lower pour point(-65f), no excessive Ca required which is competitive with the antiwear adds, same HTHS for piston stability, slightly lower viscosity for less windage ... whats so ridiculous about that? its like the classic Amsoil ATM on your shelf at wallmart.
 
Last edited:
and the 0w-40 is not synthetic basestock? also, viscosity as published is an average value not an exact one. look at schaeffer's PDS
 
Hi,
I don’t feel inclined to defend any lubricant and its performance - or its Producer. The market place does that very well – in true Capitalistic fashion!

The characteristics of M1 0W-40 however have been disputed here on BITOG ever since I have been a Member. The issue of “shearing” was continuously described in a negative way by an Amsoil Dealer of the time – Tooslick! This was a period when the ACEA’s specifications were basically unknown here on BITOG and they were dismissed by some as irrelevant and unnecessary – after all, API rules! Really?? So here we go again.....! Boring stuff!!!

Tooslick was challenged to show the negative results of the in field performance of M1 0W-040 and he was left wanting of course. It was made out that camshafts were being trashed, that shortened engine life was inevitable and that engines would generally “fail”. Really?

There were NO negative results from using this lubricant as directed by the engine Manufacturer or indeed the Oil Company itself at that time. Millions of expensive engines around the World now do many millions of miles annually on this lubricant with extremely good results – and no negative ones that I know of!

Some Euro engine Manufacturers have been using M1 0W-40 as a FF for around a decade. More manufacturers use it now than ever before – many many more for instance than in 2002! This lubricant is at the very top of the M1 “tree” and formulated by the Company with access to the very best of base fluids, ester and PAO structures!

One Euro engine Manufacturer has very distinct viscosity requirements over and above the ACEA baseline. This requirement is based on engine design needs and met via extended duration test protocols at both 100C and 150C. M1 0W-40 is their FF – the “GC” product was one of their Approved lubricants too but hasn’t been for over ten years!! Is there a story there? – believe it!!

As for shearing this is an interesting Post:

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...rue#Post1399340

Some other Forums here on BITOG address the issue of shearing.
Articles and Papers from Molakule and others do make interesting reading on this subject. Of the in field performance results of a SAE30 or SAE40 lubricant used in modern engines I would always defer to one the lost a Grade rather the one that gained one!

Many Oil Companies and Blenders now market 0W-40 lubricants and some appear on some Euro engine Manufacturer’s Approval Lists. Some have been there for a decade or more too
The reality is that based on its Worldwide performance in the field in a variety of engine families from many Manufacturers, and in racing conditions, M1 0W-40 has proven to be an exceptional performer. It may just be one of the best engine lubricants ever made – at any price!
The Worldwide market place has proven the quality of the product – here on BITOG we can but surmise!

There is no magic lubricant and no “one size fits all” product either – IMO this is often forgotten

As for “simple” VOA and UOA Lab results, they are traditionally variable. Those from Oil Company Labs when testing their own products are certainly better. At a recent visit to Daimler AG in Unterturkheim, I was assured that they do their own VOAs on FF lubricants as a matter of course. Variances in supply quality do occur!

I do NOT work for any Oil Company and I use a variety of Shell, Castrol and Mobil products – all are used based on their performance over time! And of course by using UOAs too from Oil Company Labs!
 
Doug, you should write add copy for Exxon
wink.gif
Not doubting it's a good oil, but one that needs some extra magic pixy dust to perform its tricks - but dont they all, more or less. The 10w-30 requires less. Does this make it better? The proof is in the pudding, and I dont have such a car to trial either oil. I had only hoped over the past week to expose some to the M1 HM, and that it is a bit of a hidden gem. Cheers, and does Tooth's KB still come in the pint plus Golden Oil can? I was named after that brewery
wink.gif
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Hoosier_Daddy
and the 0w-40 is not synthetic basestock? also, viscosity as published is an average value not an exact one. look at schaeffer's PDS


That's true. They are the only ones who show that, that I know of.
 
Mobil 1 0w40 drops a bit of viscosity over a short interval in some cars due to the viscosity modifier. Most of the Euro 40 grade oils have a HT/HS of 3.7 max, to meet fuel requirements. It's just a trade-off. If you wanted a more shear stable 0w-40, you could look to Redline. HT/HS - 4.0.

I've read that Mobil makes a race version of their 0w-40 that Porsche uses on the track. I'm not sure if that is true.

What Doug said is true.
 
Too add to Buster's post. There are several 0w40 HDEOs that should be more sheer stable too, from Esso, PetroCanada, even Delvac 1 0w40.
 
Just because a oil shears some doesn't mean it stops protecting,glad i got 4 cases in stash.....thanks for posting.
 
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
much less vii to clog up the rings

What evidence do you have that deposit control is a problem with Mobil 1 0w-40?


Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
a true full synthetic basestock

Can you prove that Mobil 1 0w-40 doesn't use similarly good (or even better) base stocks?

Personally, I find it extremely unlikely that an oil with an archaic viscosity grade, formulated for high mileage vehicles, uses better base stocks than an oil specified for use in $400,000 supercars. But maybe that's just me.


Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
no shearing through the oci

When Mobil 1 0w-40 shears, fuel dilution can rarely be ruled out. Can you show that Mobil 1 10w-30 HM would have retained its viscosity under the same circumstances?

Besides, a sheared xw-40 usually is still going to be thicker than an xw-30.


Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
more % EP agents

Proof?


Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
lower pour point(-65f)

...but less pumpability in extreme cold (10w vs. 0w).


Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
no excessive Ca required which is competitive with the antiwear adds

What do you mean by "required?" What is it about 0w-40 that "requires" more Ca than 10w-30 HM does?


Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
slightly lower viscosity for less windage

...but it can't be used in applications that spec an xw-40.


Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
its like the classic Amsoil ATM on your shelf at wallmart.

And in the right application, I agree it's a great oil. But comparing it to Mobil 1 0w-40 and trying to pick which one is "better" is kind of absurd. They are just different oils.
 
Today, Mobil is showing inconsistent data on the HM 10w30; the associated MSDS which has a more recent publish date is showing differing and inferior specs to what they have on their data sheet. The HM 10w-30 being special is all out the window. Now Here is a good and valid argument for the 0w-40 meeting multiple european specs - you cant fiddle with the formula behind the curtain constantly in a cost reduction effort and make a weaker oil, as appears to have been done to the HM 10w-30, and spoiled and short lived my public trist with the darling ;(
 
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
much less vii to clog up the rings

What evidence do you have that deposit control is a problem with Mobil 1 0w-40? None. Just with the assumed vii requirement of the 0w-40 and NO vii requirement for the 10w - vii are known varnishers. The high detergency of the ow-40 may control this, but high detergency can be detrimental to improving tribo EP surface - AG


Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
a true full synthetic basestock

Can you prove that Mobil 1 0w-40 doesn't use similarly good (or even better) base stocks? I did not say it wasnt a true synthetic. I would suspect that the 0w-40 may have 10-20% esters, but its unknown-AG

Personally, I find it extremely unlikely that an oil with an archaic viscosity grade, formulated for high mileage vehicles, uses better base stocks than an oil specified for use in $400,000 supercars. But maybe that's just me. You keep ignoring the -65f pour point, that is proof of 85% majority PAO. Is pao a good lubricant - not without 15-20 % AN/PO/POE. Do $400,000- supercars have inferior engine design that require a "specialty oil"? And if you make this a viscosity requirement, Why is Dr. Haas (sucessfully?)running a thin oil in his supercars -AG


Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
no shearing through the oci

When Mobil 1 0w-40 shears, fuel dilution can rarely be ruled out. Can you show that Mobil 1 10w-30 HM would have retained its viscosity under the same circumstances?

Besides, a sheared xw-40 usually is still going to be thicker than an xw-30. Not if it shears out of grade, and the 10w-30 shouldnt with no vii - but one or more of the spec on the 0w-40 bottle prob disallow shearing out of grade. I will assume Mobil is using special shear stable vii in this 0w-40 - AG


Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
more % EP agents

Proof? Only that mobil says it has extra, the sulfated ash % of 1.3 on the datasheet; I do not know the boron % of the HM oil - I'll concede this moderate to high boron dose % FM/EP is special and welcome in the formulation of the 0w-40 - AG


Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
lower pour point(-65f)

...but less pumpability in extreme cold (10w vs. 0w). The 0w-40 has more than double the mrv of 0w-30 AFE(26kcP v. 11kcP), so not all 0w are alike. There is no -40c mrv published for the HM10w but if its 85% pao then it would have a servicable pump at -40 as the spec aloow 60KcP, IIRC - AG


Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
no excessive Ca required which is competitive with the antiwear adds

What do you mean by "required?" What is it about 0w-40 that "requires" more Ca than 10w-30 HM does? The BMW LL01 spec, not directly but oil must be long drain serviceable. I dont like excess Ca adds as its traditionally EP/AW competitive. - AG


Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
slightly lower viscosity for less windage

...but it can't be used in applications that spec an xw-40. Somewhat agree - depends on the power and time envelope in which you are operating the vehicle. Unless you are tracking the car or autobahn storming; if the "exotic" engine cant survive with 3.5 HTHS oil regardless of low shear SAE viscosity in daily sport driving, then the engine is defective. - AG


Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
its like the classic Amsoil ATM on your shelf at wallmart.

And in the right application, I agree it's a great oil. But comparing it to Mobil 1 0w-40 and trying to pick which one is "better" is kind of absurd. They are just different oils. I was trying to show they are more similar than apart, the major difference of what we can see being a small 1-2 cSt vis spread and maybe a little more boron. I will concede too that what is unseen about the oil can make it outperform, also the long list of euro spec is comforting to many - but don't ignore what has to be compromised to make a 0w-40 oil, even a true synthetic one. - AG
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top