When looking at UOA's of Mobil 1 AFE 0w20. The wear numbers appear to be good for most UOA's. But, looking at add pack levels like calcium and moly, they appear to be low compared to other oils. Is this oil better because of base oil, or do things like the tri nuclear moly that require lower levels equate to a better oil. Just not sure, that is why I ask......
Mobil 1 AFE 0w20 Add Pack Appears Weak!
- Thread starter Cooper
- Start date
- Status
There's a whole lot more to an oil that UOAs cannot test.
M1 cant go wrong!
Originally Posted By: Rolla07
M1 cant go wrong!
Not looking for a sarcastic Amsoil type answer...
I would like some real world reason as to why Mobil 1 add pack appears weak, but comes back with some good looking UOA's.
M1 cant go wrong!
Not looking for a sarcastic Amsoil type answer...
I would like some real world reason as to why Mobil 1 add pack appears weak, but comes back with some good looking UOA's.
Originally Posted By: Cooper
Originally Posted By: Rolla07
M1 cant go wrong!
Not looking for a sarcastic Amsoil type answer...
I would like some real world reason as to why Mobil 1 add pack appears weak, but comes back with some good looking UOA's.
Valvoline does the same. This may be the start of a trend.
Originally Posted By: Rolla07
M1 cant go wrong!
Not looking for a sarcastic Amsoil type answer...
I would like some real world reason as to why Mobil 1 add pack appears weak, but comes back with some good looking UOA's.
Valvoline does the same. This may be the start of a trend.
A voa can only see so much. Many organic adds aren't visible and no value can be tested for at a 25 dollar price point.
So like valvoline the whole picture cannot be seen because there are parts missing in the equation.
So like valvoline the whole picture cannot be seen because there are parts missing in the equation.
Originally Posted By: tinmanSC
Originally Posted By: Cooper
Originally Posted By: Rolla07
M1 cant go wrong!
Not looking for a sarcastic Amsoil type answer...
I would like some real world reason as to why Mobil 1 add pack appears weak, but comes back with some good looking UOA's.
Valvoline does the same. This may be the start of a trend.
GTX and SuperTech are following suit.
Originally Posted By: Cooper
Originally Posted By: Rolla07
M1 cant go wrong!
Not looking for a sarcastic Amsoil type answer...
I would like some real world reason as to why Mobil 1 add pack appears weak, but comes back with some good looking UOA's.
Valvoline does the same. This may be the start of a trend.
GTX and SuperTech are following suit.
Originally Posted By: Cooper
When looking at UOA's of Mobil 1 AFE 0w20. The wear numbers appear to be good for most UOA's. But, looking at add pack levels like calcium and moly, they appear to be low compared to other oils. Is this oil better because of base oil, or do things like the tri nuclear moly that require lower levels equate to a better oil. Just not sure, that is why I ask......
Frankly, so does the Pennzoil Ultra 0w40 addpack... if by "strong" you mean "full of the traditional additives in large percentages." There are other additives out there besides molybdenum, I still don't see the fascination with it in particular.
When looking at UOA's of Mobil 1 AFE 0w20. The wear numbers appear to be good for most UOA's. But, looking at add pack levels like calcium and moly, they appear to be low compared to other oils. Is this oil better because of base oil, or do things like the tri nuclear moly that require lower levels equate to a better oil. Just not sure, that is why I ask......
Frankly, so does the Pennzoil Ultra 0w40 addpack... if by "strong" you mean "full of the traditional additives in large percentages." There are other additives out there besides molybdenum, I still don't see the fascination with it in particular.
I agree with all the above statements. I am really just looking for a reason not to want to try the Mobil 1 AFE 0w20. As of right now, It will be my next fill in the Civic after I use up the Kendall that I have.
I haven't used it for a long time, and I have been against using it since it made a previous vehicles acoustics louder. I am just getting the itch to use it lately. Good UOA's and such.
I haven't used it for a long time, and I have been against using it since it made a previous vehicles acoustics louder. I am just getting the itch to use it lately. Good UOA's and such.
Does anyone have the Tribologists' Crystal Ball handy?
Originally Posted By: buster
Mobil 1 formulations are often using the latest additive/base oil technology available.
Aren't they all?
Mobil 1 formulations are often using the latest additive/base oil technology available.
Aren't they all?
This oil has 0.8% sulfated ash test result, which is lower than the maximum 1.0% allowed by the oil specs it meets. I don't know why but I suspect that they reduced metallic detergent and ZDDP in order to reduce the coefficient of friction in the attempt to reduce fuel consumption. That is good by itself but it reduces the long drain potential of the oil somewhat. ZDDP is a secondary antioxidant (peroxide decomposer). Of course they could compensate to some degree by increasing the primary antioxidant concentration. Bottom line...I think it's a very good oil for its intended applications.
Originally Posted By: JAG
This oil has 0.8% sulfated ash test result, which is lower than the maximum 1.0% allowed by the oil specs it meets. I don't know why but I suspect that they reduced metallic detergent and ZDDP in order to reduce the coefficient of friction in the attempt to reduce fuel consumption. That is good by itself but it reduces the long drain potential of the oil somewhat. ZDDP is a secondary antioxidant (peroxide decomposer). Of course they could compensate to some degree by increasing the primary antioxidant concentration. Bottom line...I think it's a very good oil for its intended applications.
Not sure what you mean by long drain, but I do 10K with ease. I spoke to a Mobil tech and he is doing 20K OCIs with M1 0-20, but changes the filter at 10K. Our own "Fisskier" has done 20K OCIs with M1 0-20 on a Ford Escort and the engine still ran excellant at 300K.
This oil has 0.8% sulfated ash test result, which is lower than the maximum 1.0% allowed by the oil specs it meets. I don't know why but I suspect that they reduced metallic detergent and ZDDP in order to reduce the coefficient of friction in the attempt to reduce fuel consumption. That is good by itself but it reduces the long drain potential of the oil somewhat. ZDDP is a secondary antioxidant (peroxide decomposer). Of course they could compensate to some degree by increasing the primary antioxidant concentration. Bottom line...I think it's a very good oil for its intended applications.
Not sure what you mean by long drain, but I do 10K with ease. I spoke to a Mobil tech and he is doing 20K OCIs with M1 0-20, but changes the filter at 10K. Our own "Fisskier" has done 20K OCIs with M1 0-20 on a Ford Escort and the engine still ran excellant at 300K.
By long drain, I mean OCIs that are well beyond factory recommendations. This formulation came out when API SN oils could be sold. While I'm not implying this formulation is worse than past 0W-20 M1 formulations, anecdotes about past ones can't be attributed to the current formulation. I think you missed the points I attempted to make about trades that are made when formulating oils. The trades are relative; the affect on long drain capability or whatever performance metric is relative. So a change that reduces long drain capability does not mean the oil cannot do well what some consider to be long drain if what it is relative to was already good enough in that metric.
Originally Posted By: JAG
By long drain, I mean OCIs that are well beyond factory recommendations. This formulation came out when API SN oils could be sold. While I'm not implying this formulation is worse than past 0W-20 M1 formulations, anecdotes about past ones can't be attributed to the current formulation. I think you missed the points I attempted to make about trades that are made when formulating oils. The trades are relative; the affect on long drain capability or whatever performance metric is relative. So a change that reduces long drain capability does not mean the oil cannot do well what some consider to be long drain if what it is relative to was already good enough in that metric.
Uh, run that by me again.
By long drain, I mean OCIs that are well beyond factory recommendations. This formulation came out when API SN oils could be sold. While I'm not implying this formulation is worse than past 0W-20 M1 formulations, anecdotes about past ones can't be attributed to the current formulation. I think you missed the points I attempted to make about trades that are made when formulating oils. The trades are relative; the affect on long drain capability or whatever performance metric is relative. So a change that reduces long drain capability does not mean the oil cannot do well what some consider to be long drain if what it is relative to was already good enough in that metric.
Uh, run that by me again.
A good low metal UOA during a manufacturer specified interval makes a good oil. It doesn't matter what's in it if it's going to produce good results. It's intended for fuel economy, if one wants extended drains they have a product for that .
Base oils are higher quality in Mobil 1 compared to regular grp III, they have Visom. Additive packs are proprietary and as stated before the voa, uoa might not show high levels but it's irrelevant if it's working as intended. It's everything working together that makes a quality product. Also keep in mind that additives deplete during use, so the uoa might show lower ppm than virgin.
It's already been discussed here how higher quality moly can do the same job at much lower ppm. Check the white papers section I think it's in there. If I recall the better moly only needs 80 ppm instead of 800 ppm that we used to see.
Base oils are higher quality in Mobil 1 compared to regular grp III, they have Visom. Additive packs are proprietary and as stated before the voa, uoa might not show high levels but it's irrelevant if it's working as intended. It's everything working together that makes a quality product. Also keep in mind that additives deplete during use, so the uoa might show lower ppm than virgin.
It's already been discussed here how higher quality moly can do the same job at much lower ppm. Check the white papers section I think it's in there. If I recall the better moly only needs 80 ppm instead of 800 ppm that we used to see.
The $25 dollar virgin Oil analysis is basically worthless these days. An analytical chemist would need samples of the additive pack(s) and Fourier transform spectroscopy to verify what is in the oil since formulations are no longer relying on simple compounds that a GC/MS shows.
If the additive packs are not given to the chemist his only choice would be complicated NMR which would cost thousands.
If the additive packs are not given to the chemist his only choice would be complicated NMR which would cost thousands.
Originally Posted By: JAG
This oil has 0.8% sulfated ash test result, which is lower than the maximum 1.0% allowed by the oil specs it meets. I don't know why but I suspect that they reduced metallic detergent and ZDDP in order to reduce the coefficient of friction in the attempt to reduce fuel consumption. That is good by itself but it reduces the long drain potential of the oil somewhat. ZDDP is a secondary antioxidant (peroxide decomposer). Of course they could compensate to some degree by increasing the primary antioxidant concentration. Bottom line...I think it's a very good oil for its intended applications.
I agree. Great points JAG.
This oil has 0.8% sulfated ash test result, which is lower than the maximum 1.0% allowed by the oil specs it meets. I don't know why but I suspect that they reduced metallic detergent and ZDDP in order to reduce the coefficient of friction in the attempt to reduce fuel consumption. That is good by itself but it reduces the long drain potential of the oil somewhat. ZDDP is a secondary antioxidant (peroxide decomposer). Of course they could compensate to some degree by increasing the primary antioxidant concentration. Bottom line...I think it's a very good oil for its intended applications.
I agree. Great points JAG.
If the proof of the pudding is in the eating, then the proof of an oil is in the UOA.
There are a number of good UOAs of AFE posted in that forum.
I'm very well set for both 0W-20 and thirty grade synthetics for the next several years, so I really don't need any oil.
If I did need oil for the next couple of changes in the various cars, I'd probably pick up a few jugs of AFE 0W-30 and a couple of the 0W-20.
Walmart's current pricing makes this an easy choice.
Incidentally, for those who prefer not to set foot in any Walmart location, Meijer has price matched Wally on M1 jugs.
There are a number of good UOAs of AFE posted in that forum.
I'm very well set for both 0W-20 and thirty grade synthetics for the next several years, so I really don't need any oil.
If I did need oil for the next couple of changes in the various cars, I'd probably pick up a few jugs of AFE 0W-30 and a couple of the 0W-20.
Walmart's current pricing makes this an easy choice.
Incidentally, for those who prefer not to set foot in any Walmart location, Meijer has price matched Wally on M1 jugs.
- Status
