Delvac 1 5W-40 vs. TDT 5W-40

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
1,204
Location
Chicago
Last edited:
From M1 Q&A:

Q. What is the difference between the Mobil Turbo Diesel Truck, Mobil Delvac 1 and Mobil Delvac ESP oil?

A. Mobil 1 Turbo Diesel Truck is recommended for diesel-powered pickup trucks built by Ford, General Motors, GMC and Dodge (i.e., light-duty trucks), whereas Mobil Delvac 1 ESP is recommended for heavy-duty, commercial trucks and other on- and off-highway equipment. Mobil Delvac 1 ESP is the current name of the product in the United States, replacing Mobil Delvac 1.
 
Marketing mumbojumbo isn't going to help anyone here.
smile.gif
What are the technical differences between these two oils?
 
Last edited:
As there was another thread started here recently, Delvac 1 is not really available in US, except for a very few expensive online dealers.

It could be that the Turbo Truck Diesel and Delvac 1 are virtually the same product, except named differently for marketing reasons. Chances are that Mobil 1 TT is intended for US and Mobil Delvac 1 is intended for some other countries. There is usually slight composition variation among versions of oils sold in different countries. This is something probably impossible to verify through Mobil though.

You can contact Mobil about HTHS viscosity, but I would guess it's the same as the Turbo Truck Diesel within +/- 0.1, in the mid to upper 3.x range like most 5W-40 oils. 15W-40 oils are in the low to mid 4.x range.
 
There are several Delvac 1s:
D1 which is CI4+ but also ACEA E4/MB228.5 TBN 12
D1 LE, MB228.5/51, ACEA E6/E4/E7 TBN 12.6
D1 ESP, CJ4, ACEA E9 MB228.5/51 TBN 10.1
D1 SHC, ACEA E4/E5, MB228.5 TBN 16

Charlie
 
D1 ESP is their supreme oil, meant for commercial applications. Won't be found at typical retail outlets. Being a commercial oil, it's available from distributors, many farm-type stores and truck stops. Maybe truck repair facilities too.

It's supposed D1 ESP has better base stocks compared to TDT, by virtue of cost and performance goals. It is a different oil from TDT. D1 and TDT (TDT was called T&SUV back in the day too) were the same oil (pre-CJ-4), but not the case with the CJ-4 versions of D1 ESP and TDT.
 
Originally Posted By: BobFout
D1 ESP is their supreme oil, meant for commercial applications. Won't be found at typical retail outlets. Being a commercial oil, it's available from distributors, many farm-type stores and truck stops. Maybe truck repair facilities too.

It's supposed D1 ESP has better base stocks compared to TDT, by virtue of cost and performance goals. It is a different oil from TDT. D1 and TDT (TDT was called T&SUV back in the day too) were the same oil (pre-CJ-4), but not the case with the CJ-4 versions of D1 ESP and TDT.


Careful there... I'm not so sure that TDT was ever the same oil as Truck&SUV. There is still an M1 Truck&SUV oil on the market, but its specc'd for gasoline engines.
 
There was a M1 Truck & SUV 5W40 that was CI-4+, I only saw it at WM, still have a little bit left in a 5 qt. jug. The new Truck & SUV is a gas only oil, pretty sure it's 5W30.
 
Originally Posted By: bullwinkle
There was a M1 Truck & SUV 5W40 that was CI-4+, I only saw it at WM, still have a little bit left in a 5 qt. jug. The new Truck & SUV is a gas only oil, pretty sure it's 5W30.


Must be different from TDT. I had a pile of TDT 5w40 CI-4+. Definitely didn't say Truck and SUV on it anywhere.
 
Originally Posted By: m37charlie
There are several Delvac 1s:
D1 which is CI4+ but also ACEA E4/MB228.5 TBN 12
D1 LE, MB228.5/51, ACEA E6/E4/E7 TBN 12.6
D1 ESP, CJ4, ACEA E9 MB228.5/51 TBN 10.1
D1 SHC, ACEA E4/E5, MB228.5 TBN 16
correction:D1 ESP is only MB228.3/31

D1

Charlie
 
Disclaimer: I find this topic repetitive, but I'm as guilty as the next guy, because I cannot turn away from a train wreck about to happen, so read the following with a grain of salt if you're so inclined.

"Marketing mumbojumbo isn't going to help anyone here. What are the technical differences between these two oils?"
I'll be the first to admit that I don't have access to, or knowledge of, the technical data to be able to explain the difference, if you'll admit that there are a lot of folks who wouldn't understand it anyway.

Let me give you some background. My first "real" exposure to the world of chemistry in a business sense was cutting coolant for machining operations. I only got into lubricants after I changed jobs within my first company (Ford). But what I learned about cutting coolants is that there is a VERY diverse, specific world out there. There are times when multiple products will fit the same application, and there are times when only one product will satisfy criteria. Most often, there is a compromise of many attributes considered, and the "best" is the one with the most pro's and the least con's.

So, to the topic of Mobil 1 diesel oils ...
Perhaps (and I'm just spit-balling here) Exxon-Mobil has actually done some marketing research, teamed up with their product engineering teams, and produced lubes specific to the best intent of the target audience?

I find it interesting (or perhaps nausiating) that we see folks who would argue the merits of these nuances when they have no intent of capitalizing upon the benefits. Very few of our memebers actually run heavy OTR fleet operations, (yes, there are a couple). Most of these guys are intersted in the "best" oil for their Ram or Superduty. And while they can spell "best", they cannot accurately define "best".

TDT is aimed at the light-duty truck folks; Dodge/Cummins, PSD, Dmax, etc. These folks typically don't do extended OCIs, and have (relatively) small sumps, comparitively speaking. I don't know that the "needs" of these engines is the same as some 12L, 1300 rpm ,I-6 pulling 80k pounds. So, there are some product variations based upon API cert that are application specific. They (Mobil) are taking into account sump size, OCI duration, base stock, soot loading, etc, etc, etc. Maximum ash content. Minimum Sulphur content. Blah, blah, blah. Yada, yada, yada. THIS IS ABOUT PRODUCTS BEING MARKETED TO SPECIFIC TARGETED GROUPS; THE CONTENTS OF THE PROUDCT ARE UNIQUE TO THE APPLICATIONS.

Why cannot people accept that there are different products for different markets? I realize that it matters to some people that TDT is not the "same" as (at least one of) the Delvac 1 products. There is a fairly broad TBN range in those products Charlie listed, but that means diddly-squat when your propensity to OCI is 5k miles! Heck - most people OCI WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY before the synthetic is used up anyway. Where is the merit of a debate of what's "best oil" when there is no intent to utilize the full capability of the lubricant?

I challenge anyone to show me where TDT has failed and Delvac 1 would have succeeded, as long as they used the products for the correct application.

Charlie often does an excellent job of explaining the small differences between oil certs, and yet it becomes lost in the translation because many people cannot walk away from their concept of there being "one best oil", as if it were a broad paintbrush that could cover everything. Or conversely, they want to believe that there is one identical oil marketed seven different ways.

You have a CAT/Challenger track machine that requires a specific oil? Better use a specified lube. Got a two-cylinder Kubota generator that calls for a specific lube? Use a fluid meeting that criteria. Needing an oil for a Dmax or Ram? Find one that meets the OEM specs.

Mobil has seen fit to offer specific products unique enough to merit consideration across a broad range of OEM equipment. Why must people lust after the grass on the other side, especially when they have no intent of using the fluid to it's full capability anyway?

Oh - I forgot, we're BITOGERS; that's why.
 
Last edited:
Our fleet here gets bargain basement low bid dino oil,been that way forever! There has never,ever,ever been an oil related engine failure, I'll repeat,NEVER! GMC has the government contract for small 1 ton dump trucks,we have at least 40 of them, and at least a dozen 6.5 GM diesels. The oil gets changed once a year,thats it! Not one of them is a smoking,poorly running truck,not one! Cheap dino has kept them spinning(not running) without a hitch,some 15 years or more! I obsessed and used synthetics in everything I have,changing far too frequently and wasting my money. I am a dino guy now, do I still obsess about oil,you bet,thats why I am here! I bet most of are more worried about the oil we use than the food we fuel our own bodies with! Relax folks.
 
Originally Posted By: cheetahdriver
If you would like to see the results of Delvac1 ESP vs TDT in the same vehicle, here you go.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...032#Post1983032

My personal opinion (as opposed to knowledge) is that when they went to the ESP formula to protect the emissions equipment, they lost something. I still have 2 gallons of ESP, and may wind up using it for 3k changes on a miata.

That's a very useful comparison, thanks.

TDT did not do much worse then ESP. ESP performed better thanks to more ZDDP. ESP doesn't have much moly though. I don't think Group III vs. Group IV makes much difference, if at all.

Note how poorly 0W-40 did. Unfortunately many people are fascinated by the 0W- prefix.

Also note that how much it started to hurt going to a 15,000 OCI instead of 10,000, despite being a Group IV synthetic. I myself am not too fascinated with OCIs greater than 10,000 miles either.

You might want to look at Rotella T6 5W-40 and Delo 400 LE 5W-40 UOAs to find out if they have more ZDDP than Delvac ESP or TDT. You don't need to stick with a certain brand. Also, even though having lower concentration of ZDDP, CJ-4 oils are better for your engine in general.
 
Yes, that's extremely useful cheetahdriver. Thanks for posting those UOA's. Those are the three oils on my short list.

Gokhan, of course the 15k run of ESP produced the most wear, it was run the longest. You have to look at wear rate to be able to compare them. Below I've added ppm/1k miles in brackets next to iron and lead particle counts. While M1's 0W-40 clearly doesn't seem to work as well in this engine, the ESP 5W-40 seems to be the clear winner (though we don't know if TDT would've trended down after the 0W-40 runs). Lead wear was a bit higher on the 15k mile run, but it also produced the lowest iron wear of any so far.

Cheetahdriver, how much make up oil was added for each of the uoa's and what are the universal averages according to Blackstone for this engine? Also, where do you pick up ESP 5W-40? Did you see any fuel consumption difference between the three oils?

I'm still going to try 0W-40 first since it's a annual oci for me and we see much lower temps than Arkansas or Cali. My engine is naturally an oil burner and I'm still trying to find out what magnesium dispersants in hdeo's do when those oils burn. Also wonder about fuel mileage with hdeo's higher viscosities.

Code:
Oil Filter--------M1-109

OIL D1ESP5w40 D1ESP5w40 M1TDT5w40 M1 0w40 M1 0w40 M1 0w40

MILES IN USE ------ 15,077 10,279 9800 9986 5000 9437

MI/HR-ON-UNIT----- 106,356 101,279 91800 69627 59641 54641



ALUMINUM---------- 5 4 4 3 4

CHROMIUM---------- 1 1 1 1 (1) 1

IRON-------------- 20 (1.3) 16 (1.5) 26 (2.6) 38 (3.8) (10)(2.0) 15 (1.6)

COPPER------------ 5 3 5 3 (3) 3

LEAD-------------- 14 (0.9) 7 (0.7) 7 (0.7) 15 (1.5) (6) (1.2) 25 (2.6)

TIN--------------- 0 4 1 5 (0) 0

MOLYBDENUM-------- 6 5 19 75 (74) 87

NICKEL------------ 0 0 0 0 (0) 0

MANGANESE--------- 2 2 1 1 (0) 0

SILVER------------ 0 0 0 0 (0) 0

TITANIUM---------- 0 0 0 0 (0) 0

POTASSIUM--------- 3 3 3 3 (3) 0

BORON------------- 33 33 38 115 (124) 127

SILICON----------- 15 10 11 13 (11) 10

SODIUM------------ 7 6 5 7 (8) 10

CALCIUM----------- 1655 1436 1702 2847 (2551) 2941

MAGNESIUM--------- 1004 819 665 15 (13) 17

PHOSPHORUS-------- 1124 1011 913 823 (728) 813

ZINC-------------- 1739 1434 1150 1016 (895) 1034

BARIUM------------ 0 0 0 0



SUS-VIS@210F------ 82.6 78.2 76.9 71.3 (70.9) 70.9

cSt-VIS@100c------ 16.16 15.06 14.75 13.29 (13.19) 13.19

FLASHPOINT-IN-F--- 415 410 410 390 (420) 395

FUEL%-------------
ANTIFREEZE%-------0.0

WATER%------------0.0

INSOLUBLES%------- 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 (0.3) 0.4

TBN--------------- 1.2 2.5 3.0 3.9 (6.0) 2.4
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: BobFout
What UOAs are good for


Exactly!

Single UOAs can help you determine when a fluid it not working well. Or, they can immediately call out when something is mechanically wrong such as intrusion from dirt, fuel, coolant.

But singular UOAs CANNOT distinguish "good" from "better" from "best" oils in a unilateral sense. To get a good statistical sample, you need 30 (thirty!) data collections on the same oil brand/grade in the same engine. Hopping from oil to oil to oil does NOT give anyone the ability to statistically define which oil is "best" in any application. By doing so, you have ZERO idea of the standard deviation for the candidates; you have no "range" established and have no idea of what "trends" will develop.

UOAs are a direct indication of the health of the oil, but only an indirect indication of the health of the equipment. UOAs can tell you how suitable the oil is for continued service, when considering a large mirade of things (wear metals, vis, FP, contaminants, TBN, etc). But we can only use them as an inference as to the relative condition of the equipment (in most cases here, the engine). Still, implied engine health is MUCH cheaper and time-saving than an engine teardown for the measurement and visual inspection of bearings and surfaces!

In short, when you see a singular UOA (or a stunted short series), and all things are "universally normal" in readings, then you can presume the oil and engine are working in concert. But you CANNOT say one performer is "better" than another because you have not allowed statstically significant and insignificant criteria to work themselves out into the open. A singular good UOA simply implies that the oil is OK for continued use, and the equipment is not throwing signs of anything wrong. They are NOT telling you which product is "best".

So, to put that information into this thread topic, looking at some singular UOAs means zilch when trying to compare/contrast the performance of those Delvac lubes.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
....
So, to put that information into this thread topic, looking at some singular UOAs means zilch when trying to compare/contrast the performance of those Delvac lubes.


I must most heartily disagree. While the difference in wear metals might not signify anything (and I might contest this point in a single engine), the TBN trending DOES make a case for cost effectiveness. The Delvac1 is nearly twice the cost of TDT, and for the money, I got zilch. The Delvac had 2qts usage at 10k (and was a qt low at 15k), while the TDT was about a qt low at 10k. The 2 qt refresh of Delvac didn't seem to stem the rapidly dropping TBN as i expected it too. I am currently running the TDT out to 15k, with a 1qt refresh at 10k. The other side of this is that TDT had a higher TBN than the Delvac did at 10k (3.0 vs 2.5).

So, what can we get from this series of UOAs?

1) M1 0w40 does not appear to work as well in this application as HDEO oils. Note that this is application specific, and (from my looking over other UOAs) MAY carry over to all of the nissan VK and VQ series motors. I would accept the criticism of leaping to tall conclusions with a single fact on this, but the VK and VQ series motors both throw dirty UOAs and the HDEO oils are the only ones that seem to tame them. My Toyota Tundra V8 LOVES 0w40, so this is again, application specific.

2) The TBN numbers would indicate that Delvac1 ESP will run for no longer than TDT, at twice the price. Again, this is a bit of a leap off of one sample, but there is no way this oil is going to go 30k vs 15k in this application. Add in the additional usage, and the Delvac1 was considerably more expensive on a per mile basis. If you don't need the Emissions Protection, the Delvac1 is just a waste of money. I would project this fairly confidently to most gasoline engine applications (I have a test of this same oil in the miata that I pulled at 6k because of poor performance).

3) The Doubling of Pb/Kmile in the 10k to 15k UOAs tells me SOMETHING started to happen that I don't like. A similar situation occurred with 0w40 at the 5k to 10k transition. The VK series engines have had some known problems with the bottom end, which is one of the reasons I have monitored this engine so well.

Finally, I am currently running a 15k sample of TDT in the same engine. I have about a K left to go before pulling it, and the oil consumption has been about the same as the first TDT run. at 13.8k it is about a 1/4 qt low. I pulled a sample at 10k, but because of intrusions of regular life, it looks like i will send both in at the same time.

While I do agree that you aren't going to get any exact numbers off of this series, I do believe it gives some guidance as to what should be expected.
 
Last edited:
ALL the data points from a single UOA are just that; singular.

Even TBN wil waver from batch to batch in a VOA, and will be affected in a series of UOAs. Therefore, you cannot look at a set of singular UOAs and make an accurate analysis of the overall probability of statistical effectiveness; you know zilch of the range, trend, and standard deviation of the TBN. Yes, you can "infer" that one is likely to be higher, but you have NO ability to prove the performance to such as degree as to call one "higher" than another from a single point of view, with absolute assurance. It is reasonable to say that one is "better" only at one point in time, but that means nothing because you cannot accurately predict future performance, because you have no historical performance reference. How do you know (or not know) that one of those readings is a fluke? A bogey? A "flyer"? How do you know if there was or was not a lab error? How do you know if the product in the bottle was mixed correctly? You don't, frankly. But a long series of UOAs can root out these potential inconsistiencies, if you compare/contrast using the same brand/grade; a singular UOA cannot.

Further, TBN is ONLY a point of contention if all other indicators are good (wear metals, contamination, etc) and you're trying to milk every last measured mile (or hour) out of the fluid. With today's ULSD fuel, the TBN level has become nearly moot, because either wear metals, soot, or just plain ol' impatience will cause the fluid to be OCId before the TBN will. TBN to me has become irrelevant in many cases. It's typically the last thing to be at a level so low as to cause condemnation. Sure, it moves down with use, but it is hardly ever the cause of an OCI. Not in diesels, not in gassers. Not with today's fuels and fluids.

Lastly, I agree that performance and value are two separate metrics, but they both affect an OCI decision. I completely embrace that concept; I try to get people to understand it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top