Mobil 1 5W-30 EP, SN Rated with TBN and TAN

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Apr 10, 2004
Messages
780
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Here's a VOA of another Mobil 1 SN rated product - this time it's Mobil 1 5W-30 EP SN. Note that the additive package has changed, but very similar to Mobil 1 0W-20 SN, in that it uses a combination of Calcium and Magnesium for detergent additives. I am also shocked at the high TAN! TBN also lower than previous Mobil 1 5W-30 EP. For comparison purposes, see the link to the recent Mobil 1 0W-20 SN here. Enjoy!

E55332.jpg
 
Thanks for sharing this. Confirms the 0w20 was right. I'll be curious to see what Ultra and Amsoil look like. Using more Mg and less Calcium reduces the sulfated ash per Tbn level.
 
^I'm getting ready to send off a Virgin sample of Amsoil's new AZO 0w30

Anyone know if there's a VOA of SSO using B_S labs?

BTW, thanks for posting the report, btanchors.
 
Man I sure do not understand what all this hype about the "SN" oil is all about. Every VOA seems to show less additives, which seems like we are being sold less robust oil. Can somebody explain this confusion?


*I'm glad I have a 5qt jug of fresh "SM" EP in my garage.
 
I tend to wonder too, if the product quality drops enough after UOAs and wear metal comparisons etc. I hope Amsoil's SSO lineup didn't nose dive. Get that VOA back please, Artem! :thumbsups:
grin2.gif


19.gif
 
Huh. Kind of surprising to see a member of the EP product line have a TBN under 10. We'll see how it performs in extended use soon enough, hopefully.

Thanks for having this VOA done!
 
Its very, very simple what is happening.

Mg is a lot less expensive as a detergent than Ca-based detergents. Makes the add-pack less expensive.

As long as you have a TBN above 9, most oils will do 10-12k with ease - they assume once you get into the 14-15k range, you've had to top-off some oil, and refresh it.

Thanks for posting this!
 
I don't think it's that simple. They are reducing the SA. Mobil 1, like other advanced oils are a complex cocktail of many additives and base oils, many of which don't show up via VOA.
 
Cheapening is a poor word to use. I would suspect that these new formulations are better, not worse. Oils generally get better over time, not worse.
 
Time will tell if the TBN retention is up to par vs the initial higher TBN of years passed. Ca is on the way out.
 
I agree with some of what addguy and buster are communicating...btw, by wear metals in reality I mean actual wear not necessarily what a UOA may/may not be 'indicating'.

I question and I ponder, but I still have general faith in the product lineups, but will scrutinize. Hopefully, this 'thing' that is being under review will get a better eye to review it. I'm still learning and it's still all guess work in a lot of areas anyway, at least from my end.
laugh.gif
 
On paper, this oil obviously looks weak compared to past formulations, but additives change and improve. Many are just not showing up in these VOA's. Pennzoil and Amsoil are using 200ppm of boron and 3000ppm of calcium. That is an additive package that's been used for the last 5 years in many different oils. Assuming it's the same type of boron, which it may not be. Calcium probably is.

UOA's will be the judge.
 
If you look at the new PDS M1 EP PDS , it's evident they are thinning out the oils to meet GF-5 fuel economy requirements with lower HTHS and viscosity. This oil is now thinner than the 0w-30.
Based on the UOA they are reducing additives also. Thinner oil with less additives seems to = a less quality oil, but I ain't no expert
35.gif
 
Have you noticed EP oils are still warranteed for 15K by XM? Outside of running the oil for 200K and more, there is no way of knowing how the oil will perform in the engine.
 
Quote:
Man I sure do not understand what all this hype about the "SN" oil is all about. Every VOA seems to show less additives, which seems like we are being sold less robust oil. Can somebody explain this confusion?



There is more than "meets the eye" in these new formulations and robustness has nothing to do with the lack of metallic-based additives.

What you are NOT seeing, and as I predicted over two years ago, is that there are non-metallic, totally organic chemical compounds not being seen in these types of analyses that do the job of formerly all metallic additives.

Judge the quality by using at least three fills of the oil in question with at least three UOA's and get some trending data. Trending, not one snapshot, is what you need to see if the engine and oil are playing well together. And use no third-party additives during the trending or you will defeat the test with a third variable in which you have no idea how it affects the trending.
 
Last edited:
Molecule -

I intend to do just that - multiple UOAs with the same oil and same interval...We'll see how it does...
 
Way to go Boatanchors.

In terms of formulations, for example, consider hydraulic fluids for food processing.

I have to use vegetable-based and synthetic base oils.

There is another synthetic component, a veggy-based polymer, that is multifunctional and does the same job as formerly three metallic-based additives.

So if you sent in to Blackstone an analysis of my hydraulic fluid, you would see nothing listed but viscosity. Yet, this hydraulic fluid provides the same wear control and better deposit control than did the old ZDDP-type formulation. And, it is non-toxic.
 
The only criticism I would have of this EP formula, as a Monday morning quarterbacker/formulator, is the use of a magnesium dispersant.

There are so many good ashless dispersants out there I cannot see using a meatallic dispersant. Of course, I also assume the calcium detergent/magnesium dispersant comes as a group in the additive package. This is very similar to the days of old when almost every formulation used this mix, especially in diesel oil formulations.

Why the organo-metallic detergent/dispersant and not the ashless dispersant? Probably a bean-counter thingy.
 
Last edited:
For the record the HTHS numbers are dropping on this oil and other SN oils compared to the previous SM formulations. Another data point to show less robust oil.
 
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
The only criticism I would have of this EP formula, as a Monday morning quarterbacker/formulator, is the use of a magnesium dispersant.

There are so many good ashless dispersants out there I cannot see using a meatallic dispersant. Of course, I also assume the calcium detergent/magnesium dispersant comes as a group in the additive package. This is very similar to the days of old when almost every formulation used this mix, especially in diesel oil formulations.

Why the organo-metallic detergent/dispersant and not the ashless dispersant? Probably a bean-counter thingy.



cheers3.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top