Yeah, the little "exclusive of additive carrier oil" disclaimer disappeared from M1 labels at least a decade ago, maybe longer.
Mobil 1 - PAO and Ester
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
- Status
Hi Tom,
Yes, I have the spec sheets from EM's Synesstic™ Alkylated Naphthalenes (AN) and when taken alone and compared to POEs as basestocks, POEs in most cases will have superior properties.
However, it's the synergistic effect ANs have when used as a correction fluid, that can provide superior hydrolytic, thermal and oxidative stability compared to other Group V correction fluids. ANs also probably contribute to the cleanliness seen in most M1 fed engines.
And yes, jet engines are probably best fed with POEs but the oil in the jet engine doesn't have to deal with the contaminant load found in automobile engines. In fact, in most cases it's not until a jet engine is shut down does the oil experience extreme high temps. The high VI and PP of POEs also help at the other extreme for Arctic and high altitude conditions. In short, many different requirements from that needed in an auto/truck engine.
ANs may cost less than POEs, but if it provides superior properties for a short trip engine in cold climates, in addition to being more than sufficient for the other end of the temp spectrum, does it matter if it costs less?
Hi 427,
Yes I am aware that EM promotes an oxidation synergy for ANs in PAOs in the RBOT test. I'm not sure how that translates into PCMOs or compares to POEs, but I accept that it improves PAO. I haven't seen EM make any new claims for the M1 performance as a result of the change, which is another reason I feel it was a cost decision, but who knows.
I tend to be a bit of a cynical skeptic when it comes to these kind of formulation changes that lower cost without boosting performance claims on the bottle. I work both the science and marketing side, and tend to believe the majors with their high sales volumes are extremely cost driven, provided they don't sacrifice claims or too much performance. But then formulating philosphy is a whole nuther topic!
Yes I am aware that EM promotes an oxidation synergy for ANs in PAOs in the RBOT test. I'm not sure how that translates into PCMOs or compares to POEs, but I accept that it improves PAO. I haven't seen EM make any new claims for the M1 performance as a result of the change, which is another reason I feel it was a cost decision, but who knows.
I tend to be a bit of a cynical skeptic when it comes to these kind of formulation changes that lower cost without boosting performance claims on the bottle. I work both the science and marketing side, and tend to believe the majors with their high sales volumes are extremely cost driven, provided they don't sacrifice claims or too much performance. But then formulating philosphy is a whole nuther topic!
The MX4T is quite different than the automotive formulations.
It uses two PAO basestocks, very little VI, a different dispersant package than the automotive, it's more polar, contains more anti-corrosives, and so on.
The idea was to achieve low volatiliy, high shear resistance, provide better corrosion protection in motorcycles in winter storage, and otherwise optimize the oil for high revs, high shear, and high temperatures.
Mickey,
What are your thoughts on using 10w-40, synthetic MC oils in turbocharged gas engine cars???
I was going to try the new Amsoil 10w-40/MC oil at some point in my Audi TT, although I think it's actually too thick (HT/HS of 4.5 Cp), to provide the best fuel efficiency.
thanks!
TS
What are your thoughts on using 10w-40, synthetic MC oils in turbocharged gas engine cars???
I was going to try the new Amsoil 10w-40/MC oil at some point in my Audi TT, although I think it's actually too thick (HT/HS of 4.5 Cp), to provide the best fuel efficiency.
thanks!
TS
The MX4T should do fine.
The anti-wear package is too high in phosphorous to meet the current API specification, but if you beat the engine that's a big advantage.
It is extremely resistant to heat and shearing (the oil was formulated with motorcycle gearboxes in a shared sump engine in mind), so it should stand up well to use in a turbocharged engine.
It's a bit pricey, though.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if regular M1 now uses some Group III. They no longer will tell you that it's Group IV and V only when you ask them. M1 EP has 50% more PAO so that is probably still Group IV and V only. Doesn't make a difference one way or the other but it would be a first that is for sure....
Very interesting Tom. Supersyn PAO is very viscous so there can't be much of it in M1. If there is no other typical viscosity PAO in it, that would sure explain why you detected very little PAO. Can your GC method detect Supersyn as a PAO even though it's so different in properties than typical PAOs? Keep us informed!
...I have no proof it is using Group III. One indication that one of the board members has brought up over the years is Noak volatility. Mobil 1 used to be around 5%. The MC oils still are and in fact one of them is in the 4's. It has progressively gone up over the years. It's still very good, but this could be one reason why it's a tad higher then RL/Amsoil.
Hi Buster,
We have confirmed by GC the presence of a polyol ester in the M1-EP - looks like the same one they used in the past (TMP C8C10) and will confirm.
The PAO level looks awfully low and the mineral oil level high. I suspect Group III, but distinguishing the Grp III from the additive diluent oil is difficult by GC.
Understand, however, total performance matters more than base oil composition. Some Grp III mixed in with PAO, POE, and AN is more an issue for purists than consumers. I sometimes think this forum splits hairs in debating the physical properties of oils, especially basestocks, while the additives dominate so many critical performance characteristics.
That said, I am a purist when it comes to the definition of "synthetic", and I exclude Grp III.
Tom
We have confirmed by GC the presence of a polyol ester in the M1-EP - looks like the same one they used in the past (TMP C8C10) and will confirm.
The PAO level looks awfully low and the mineral oil level high. I suspect Group III, but distinguishing the Grp III from the additive diluent oil is difficult by GC.
Understand, however, total performance matters more than base oil composition. Some Grp III mixed in with PAO, POE, and AN is more an issue for purists than consumers. I sometimes think this forum splits hairs in debating the physical properties of oils, especially basestocks, while the additives dominate so many critical performance characteristics.
That said, I am a purist when it comes to the definition of "synthetic", and I exclude Grp III.
Tom
Hi Jag,
EM promote SuperSyn as "anti-wear technology", an "anti-wear system" and an "anti-wear agent". This is not inconsistent with SuperSyn being or containing high viscosity PAOs, but does imply it is at an additive dosage. We cannot see the high molecular weight PAOs with gas chromatography - that would take liquid chromatography which would be a lot of work that I would be hard pressed to justify. I do see PAO, POE, AN, and some mineral oil in the M1 EP.
Tom
EM promote SuperSyn as "anti-wear technology", an "anti-wear system" and an "anti-wear agent". This is not inconsistent with SuperSyn being or containing high viscosity PAOs, but does imply it is at an additive dosage. We cannot see the high molecular weight PAOs with gas chromatography - that would take liquid chromatography which would be a lot of work that I would be hard pressed to justify. I do see PAO, POE, AN, and some mineral oil in the M1 EP.
Tom
Hi Jag,
We are capable of getting estimates, but it will take some work. I'll slip it in over time.
Visually it looks like PAO and AN are the largest components and the POE minor. The mineral oil is difficult because it comes out as a broad series of peaks (distillation cut) under the other peaks and requires some baseline assumptions. We'll try an external synthetic standard to get some relative amounts.
Tom
We are capable of getting estimates, but it will take some work. I'll slip it in over time.
Visually it looks like PAO and AN are the largest components and the POE minor. The mineral oil is difficult because it comes out as a broad series of peaks (distillation cut) under the other peaks and requires some baseline assumptions. We'll try an external synthetic standard to get some relative amounts.
Tom
Hi Tom, a few years ago, Mobil's website listed all their basestocks available for purchase, but it's no longer on their website. I printed it out and have it at home. They show Group 1, 2, 3, 4 ,and 5 basestocks. That is where I saw that they sold three different "Supersyn" PAO basestocks and it also provided physical properties for all basestocks. That's how I saw that the Supersyn PAOs were extremely viscous and had really high viscosity indeces. They are thinking (perhaps correctly), that the Supersyn PAO molecules provide extra anti-wear protection by virtue of their extremely large molecular size...maybe like throwing out a bunch of large blankets over a surface instead of many more, much smaller patchworks of blanket material. That's my cheesy analogy, not theirs, but the existence of Supersyn PAO basestocks is certain. But since they can only use such small quantities of these, they could be considered more of an additive than a basestock (in a sense).
Unfortunately, it sounds like your GC method won't detect them due to their high molecular weight. I'll try to find something online to backup what the printouts I have at home say.
Unfortunately, it sounds like your GC method won't detect them due to their high molecular weight. I'll try to find something online to backup what the printouts I have at home say.
Hi Jag,
These have been around for many years under various brands. They are simply higher polymers of alphaolefins and thereby have much better VIs and lower volatility. They also exhibit a VI synergy with some lower viscosity basestocks, i.e. a blend gives a higher VI than the mathematical linear calculation would suggest. They can be used as a more shear stable viscosity builder in place of standard VI improvers. Overall a great base oil, but very expensive. If Mobil is using these in M1, I'm impressed.
Tom
These have been around for many years under various brands. They are simply higher polymers of alphaolefins and thereby have much better VIs and lower volatility. They also exhibit a VI synergy with some lower viscosity basestocks, i.e. a blend gives a higher VI than the mathematical linear calculation would suggest. They can be used as a more shear stable viscosity builder in place of standard VI improvers. Overall a great base oil, but very expensive. If Mobil is using these in M1, I'm impressed.
Tom
Cool, you got it Tom!
BTW, were you able to determine the rough percentages of how much is PAO, POE, AN, and mineral oil in M1 EP? Thanks.
BTW, were you able to determine the rough percentages of how much is PAO, POE, AN, and mineral oil in M1 EP? Thanks.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
