Mobil 1 vs Liqui Moly

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: skyship
Got any proof, like averaged out UOA results. The BMW forum averaged out results for a 5K OCI showed Castrol Edge 5/40 was better than M1 0/40 and a recent UOA result in this forum showed the same.


UOA's don't show you that at all, sorry. You'd need some actual tear-downs.

I suggest reading Doug's article on the main page of this site.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: skyship
Providing factory fill oil is just one part of the engine oil business, it does not mean that Mobil make the best oil, it just means they are a cheaper source of good quality oil from the manufacturers point of view. It's very much a business decision as to whether to chase factory fill contracts or not. Liqui Moly for example don't get involved in that part of the business but concentrate on the private market. Fuchs do provide some factory fill oils and fluids but don't bother much with the private market. Different companies specialize in different sectors of the engine oil market.
I still havn't seen any evidence as to why M1 0/40 is thought by it's fans to be better than other synthetic oils.


It is certified/approved for the most applications, meaning it has been the most heavily tested by OEM's for use in their high-dollar engines.

 

[skyship]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: skyship
Providing factory fill oil is just one part of the engine oil business, it does not mean that Mobil make the best oil, it just means they are a cheaper source of good quality oil from the manufacturers point of view. It's very much a business decision as to whether to chase factory fill contracts or not. Liqui Moly for example don't get involved in that part of the business but concentrate on the private market. Fuchs do provide some factory fill oils and fluids but don't bother much with the private market. Different companies specialize in different sectors of the engine oil market.
I still havn't seen any evidence as to why M1 0/40 is thought by it's fans to be better than other synthetic oils.


It is certified/approved for the most applications, meaning it has been the most heavily tested by OEM's for use in their high-dollar engines.


M1 0/40 has been in production for a long time, so it's bound to have a lot of certs, it still does not make it the best oil and no one seems to have any evidence available in that regard. You have to pay for OEM certification, so a lot of oil companies don't try to get every OEM cert because of the cost involved.
The only evidence we have available if the different UOA results and they seem to show M1 shears faster than some other full synthetics and produces higher Fe figures, which is probably due to the large detergent content of the oil.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: skyship
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: skyship
Providing factory fill oil is just one part of the engine oil business, it does not mean that Mobil make the best oil, it just means they are a cheaper source of good quality oil from the manufacturers point of view. It's very much a business decision as to whether to chase factory fill contracts or not. Liqui Moly for example don't get involved in that part of the business but concentrate on the private market. Fuchs do provide some factory fill oils and fluids but don't bother much with the private market. Different companies specialize in different sectors of the engine oil market.
I still havn't seen any evidence as to why M1 0/40 is thought by it's fans to be better than other synthetic oils.


It is certified/approved for the most applications, meaning it has been the most heavily tested by OEM's for use in their high-dollar engines.


M1 0/40 has been in production for a long time, so it's bound to have a lot of certs, it still does not make it the best oil and no one seems to have any evidence available in that regard. You have to pay for OEM certification, so a lot of oil companies don't try to get every OEM cert because of the cost involved.
The only evidence we have available if the different UOA results and they seem to show M1 shears faster than some other full synthetics and produces higher Fe figures, which is probably due to the large detergent content of the oil.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: dparm
Liqui-Moly's Synthoil Energy 0w40 is a decent oil -- very similar specs to Mobil 1 0w40. Only problem is that it costs more.

Yes it's similar and it's VI is almost on par at 181 vs 185 for M1. LM PDS below:
http://www.liqui-moly.de/liquimoly/mediendb.nsf/gfx2/1360%20synthoil%20energy%20SAE%200w-40_EN.pdf/$file/1360%20synthoil%20energy%20SAE%200w-40_EN.pdf

But being almost on par is not good enough in my book unless it's cheaper and readily available which it's not.

 

[skyship]

Manufacturers want to use a good oil for factory fill, but they also don't like paying too much for anything at present, which is why some companies don't chase factory fill contracts.
Just because an oil is advertised for race use it does not mean much, companies make lots of strange claims in advertising and race oils are not well suited for use in normal cars. Redline has an add pack better designed for race use than M1 due to high anti wear additives, whereas M1 cleans better due to a high detergent content which is not required for a race oil.

 

[azsynthetic]

Still clueless huh?

 

[gregoron]

If we beat this topic up anymore it'll be 20 weight with a TBN of 0 by the end of the day. As someone said before, what grade are we looking at and what application? Going by just the company ain't gonna cut it.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: skyship
M1 0/40 has been in production for a long time, so it's bound to have a lot of certs, it still does not make it the best oil and no one seems to have any evidence available in that regard. You have to pay for OEM certification, so a lot of oil companies don't try to get every OEM cert because of the cost involved.


Sure, M1 has been around a long time, and has been able to gather a lot of certifications. That's evidence of some minimum quality. Lacking certifications doesn't mean an oil is junk, but lacking certification is just that - lacking some big evidence. I can even live with a claim to meet or exceed if it's a reputable company.

The product Mobil 1 and the company XOM got to where they did by doing several things properly. Getting factory fill adds credibility. We here know that's not the be all and end all, but if a fill cap says "Mobil 1" then that's going to grab a lot of sales. Making a quality product also helps. If M1 were blowing up motors for which it were recommended, we'd know it. Then, finally, actually meeting and being certified to these specifications adds credibility through manufacturers, the ACEA, and the API and/or ILSAC, as the case may be.

Some companies don't get certifications for various reasons and are rather up front about it. I understand why Amsoil, RP, and Redline do things the way they do, and they don't hide it. RP, for instance, claims certain ACEA specs in certain grades, and that's it. Redline claims suitability but makes no bones about the fact that its additive levels and viscosity are of its own choosing.

Avoiding certification simply because it's too expensive doesn't hold a lot of water with me. If you want to play with the big boys, get certified. If meeting the ACEA specifications or getting certified by the manufacturers is too much of a chore, go blend some Group II API/ILSAC stuff with the knowledge that there's a huge North American market of DIYers and quick lubes.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: skyship
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: skyship
Providing factory fill oil is just one part of the engine oil business, it does not mean that Mobil make the best oil, it just means they are a cheaper source of good quality oil from the manufacturers point of view. It's very much a business decision as to whether to chase factory fill contracts or not. Liqui Moly for example don't get involved in that part of the business but concentrate on the private market. Fuchs do provide some factory fill oils and fluids but don't bother much with the private market. Different companies specialize in different sectors of the engine oil market.
I still havn't seen any evidence as to why M1 0/40 is thought by it's fans to be better than other synthetic oils.


It is certified/approved for the most applications, meaning it has been the most heavily tested by OEM's for use in their high-dollar engines.


M1 0/40 has been in production for a long time, so it's bound to have a lot of certs, it still does not make it the best oil and no one seems to have any evidence available in that regard. You have to pay for OEM certification, so a lot of oil companies don't try to get every OEM cert because of the cost involved.
The only evidence we have available if the different UOA results and they seem to show M1 shears faster than some other full synthetics and produces higher Fe figures, which is probably due to the large detergent content of the oil.


Being in production for a long time does not automatically mean the product is going to get a lot of certifications. There are plenty of oils that have been in production even longer, yet they just have the basic API approval. M1 0w-40 has also been revised several times, with the new SN formula having a higher HT/HS than its predecessor. This means that its performance had to be demonstrated and approved all over again....

The oil has a lot of certifications because XOM has submitted for, paid for and been approved for those certifications. That is a guarantee of a specific level of performance. A level of performance that meets the criteria of Porsche, Mercedes, BMW, Nissan....etc. Your personal opinion of the oil certainly carries far less weight than those of these manufacturers. Citing UOA's as evidence? Really? Where's the tear-down data?

And with regards to shear, who really cares if the oil still is able to perform properly? Though it should be noted that the newer, slightly heavier SN version of the product is far less shear-prone than its predecessor.

On one side we have the opinion of some guy on the Internet. On the other, we have the reputation of the world's largest publicly-traded oil company, who's flagship product is the oil in question. An oil that has the approvals from some of the most prestigious marques on the planet and is certified to be used in engines with some of the highest power densities out there as well.

And then you make a point about it being unfit for race use. You should perhaps tell the Engineers at GM, who use it in their Corvette racing program. You should perhaps tell the Engineers at Porsche, who use it in their track cars on the Nürburgring, you should perhaps tell the Engineers at Mercedes-Benz, who use this lubricant in their track cars as well. I mean, what value is there to the accrued data of the lubricant in use when they could simply have asked for your opinion, right?

I'm sorry, but I'll take the MOUNTAINS of real data that are available from the long list of OEM's using this lubricant in their high dollar engines over some long-winded rhetoric born-forth from the mouth of some Internet expert who's data consists of opinion and a few UOA's.

 

[skyship]

You are over reacting as I think M1 is quite a good oil, BUT I don't understand why it is regarded as some kind of holy oil by many, because there does not seem to be any evidence in terms of real world results available to justify such opinions. When I have looked at UOA results where another good full synthetic has been used, it often comes in second place and although those results may not be as good as a full engine tear down inspection, they do seem to cast some doubt about just how good an oil it is.
I don't base my opinions on manufacturers approvals, although I do like to see an oil with at least ACEA certs as some kind of minimum standard.
If anyone has any summaries or extracts of the mountains of data on M1 that are supposed to be available it would be good to read them.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: skyship
You are over reacting as I think M1 is quite a good oil, BUT I don't understand why it is regarded as some kind of holy oil by many, because there does not seem to be any evidence in terms of real world results available to justify such opinions. When I have looked at UOA results where another good full synthetic has been used, it often comes in second place and although those results may not be as good as a full engine tear down inspection, they do seem to cast some doubt about just how good an oil it is.
I don't base my opinions on manufacturers approvals, although I do like to see an oil with at least ACEA certs as some kind of minimum standard.
If anyone has any summaries or extracts of the mountains of data on M1 that are supposed to be available it would be good to read them.


Doug Hillary has written at some length about its use by the major euro manufacturers, as he's friends with a number of the engineers at MB, Porsche....etc. If you want access to some of that data, he's the man to speak to. He's also done fleet testing for most of the major oil companies with the test he speaks of most frequently being the testing of Delvac 1 5w-40 he did in OTR trucks and trains for Exxon-Mobil. He provided tear-down pictures, as well as his condemnation limits for contamination used in his UOA's. One of those limits was 100ppm of iron.

Now, I don't think I'm overreacting at all. What REAL data do we have outside of tear-downs? The seal of approval by a manufacturer that a product meets their performance criteria, THAT is what we have. Subsequently, the oil that has the greatest number of these approvals could (and often is) claim to be the "best", or to use your words "holy grail".

You say you don't base your opinion on manufacturers approvals? why is that? Do you base them on a massive database of tear-down evidence? No? Then what do you have that provides more weight then the words of these manufacturers?

My point here is clear. Unless we are doing tear-downs, of which I've done a few BTW.... then the only REAL data we have to determine what oil is "better" is through how many of the hard-to-obtain approvals it has. The approvals above and beyond those of the ACEA and API. The Porsche approval, the MB approvals...etc.

Because M1 0w-40 has so many of these approvals, we KNOW it is a lubricant of a given performance level. We KNOW that it has been tested by these manufacturers and meets their criteria for wear, cleanliness, deposit control.....etc. Add the fact that the oil is also readily available and at a reasonable price, what BETTER oil is there that can be obtained as easily? What oil that is as easily obtained meets MORE certifications and has MORE approvals? You'll be hard pressed to find one.

And THAT is why the oil is recommended so frequently.

 

[skyship]

I would base opinions on tear down data, but none seems to be available showing comparisons with other oils. The manufacturers sometimes publish test results for the final oil approved as a factory fill, BUT then they don't publish results for any other oils tested, so we don't even know if they selected the best or just a good economic one.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: skyship
I would base opinions on tear down data, but none seems to be available showing comparisons with other oils. The manufacturers sometimes publish test results for the final oil approved as a factory fill, BUT then they don't publish results for any other oils tested, so we don't even know if they selected the best or just a good economic one.


So in this instance, which do you think is the safer bet, the oil that you have the final test data for and has gained the approval, or an oil that somebody claims is "just as good" or "better", but it lacks the approval and they are asking you to rely on their word?

That's what I'm getting at here.

BTW, Doug's pictures (and his quote):

The above components have 1.2 million Km's on them and were returned to service after being measured.

Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary

Information:
Operation = Interstate, Linehaul,Reefer - one Driver for life,
Typical use per annum = 225kkms

Detroit Diesel 12.7ltr Series 60 @ 500hp, 1650lb/ft @1200-1525rpm
Cruise revs 1650rpm, Max revs 1800
Donaldson ELF Filters + MannHummel Centrifuge
Lubricant = Delvac 1 5W-40 (from 60kkms)

OCIs
Average = 99711kms
Longest = 116227kms

Data
Soot
Average @ OCI = 3.2%
Highest @ OCI = 7.8%

Iron
Average @ OCI = 134ppm
Highest @ OCI 221ppm

Highest TAN @ OCI = 6.13
Lowest TBN @ OCI = 2.26

Centrifuge uptake rate = 0.0029g/km

Oil consumption averaged almost exactly 6kkms/ltr

The two major condemnation points were soot (3.5%) @ iron (150ppm) - viscosity was always near new

I hope this is of interest


And a point about the bearings (somebody mentioned they looked like they had some wear on them)

Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary

They measured within specification and are still in the engine. As mentioend earlier where possible it is common place to "roll" them - this was done of course

Wear metals on this engine as requested:
Average at OC in ppm;
Copper 7 (30) Max recorded 63
Lead 43 (30) Max recorded 68

The bracketed figures are the condemnation limits from DD-MTU

Roll = changing the position of the bearing shell from top to bottom


And something somebody else noted:

Originally Posted By: yannis
So , if we divide by 10 we are getting 13.4-22.1 ppm of iron every 6.000 miles on average?


Which is why I personally don't take too much stalk in people obsessing over Fe PPM in a UOA. A quick look at that liner tells me that bore wear certainly wasn't an issue.

 

[skyship]

The pictures are nice, but they still don't provide a comparison of the use of one oil against another. The one thing that is odd about the engine oil industry is that there is no independent group testing the different products. If you produce tyres the ADAC do some very good tests, but if you make an engine oil no one tests it for performance even in Germany and when the car manufacturers do any tests they don't publish anything useful.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: skyship
The pictures are nice, but they still don't provide a comparison of the use of one oil against another. The one thing that is odd about the engine oil industry is that there is no independent group testing the different products. If you produce tyres the ADAC do some very good tests, but if you make an engine oil no one tests it for performance even in Germany and when the car manufacturers do any tests they don't publish anything useful.


To quote Doug Hillary (paraphrased):

"When speaking to some engineers in Germany I asked the question as to whether there were any differences observed between lubricants used in service. I was told that in general, there were no real differences in performance between any of the lubricants shown on the approval list for a given application."

What I take away from this is that in the case of the Euro marques, if you use an approved oil for an application, it is very unlikely for you to have any issues with wear, cleanliness....etc. The engineers have already done the legwork for you.

But what I also take away from Doug's writings on this subject is that a vast number of these companies use Mobil 1 0w-40. I'm certain there is a reason for the fact that, given how many oils are on the approved products list, this lubricant continually gets chosen.

And yes, the pictures are nice. And they provide proof of performance. Can another lubricant, used in the same manner, provide comparable performance? I don't know, somebody would have to test that. For now, what we DO have is actual evidence of Delvac 1 performing in the manner indicated. The burden is not on Mobil to provide proof that a competing product can stand up as well.

 

[shell_user]

OVERKILL, please dont listen to sunkship. I dont listen to ANYTHING he posts, says, blah blah. He has no proof of anything he says. Very nice pics also OVERKILL, so thank you for posting!


M1 gets my vote

 

[FoxS]

In another thread with skyship, I realized that he reminded me of someone else who could not control what he said.

As a Brit in Germany, I advise him to not mention the war, otherwise it might end up like this:

 

[steve20]

thanks for posting----always refreshing to see actual evidence, and I don't even like M-1
I missed Doug's original post.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: steve20
thanks for posting----always refreshing to see actual evidence, and I don't even like M-1
I missed Doug's original post.


I always find Doug's posts enlightening and full of facts