Mobil 1 0W-20 Extended Performance VOA with TBN

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Messages
417
Location
ND
Curiosity got the best of me. Add pack looks a little stronger then AFE and has a higher flashpoint.

Here is the link to a VOA of Mobil 1 0W-20 AFE: http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2243763

Mobil1_0W-20_VOA.jpg
 
Thanks for your contribution. I have to say though, I am not impressed with the add pack on paper.
 
However they would have to get it (more Ca, Bn, or Mg), I would have thought this product would have a higher starting TBN than shown, unless it's TBN retention is exceptionally outstanding?
21.gif
 
Originally Posted By: R80RS
Thanks for posting. Which Amsoil is Blackstone referencing in the comments?


Signature Series 0W-20 which I had in my Accord (sold car). Amsoil and Mobil 1 aren't really that similar when it comes to additives. Amsoil uses almost no magnesium but a lot more calcium.
 
Guys,

This oil, in comparison to M1 0W-20 AFE, has about 110-120 ppm more Ca & Mg (Mobil 1 has been using the Ca/Mg combo in all of their SN oils with the exception of M1 0W-40), and 100-200 ppm more Zn and Ph.

This is for more wear control and detergency at higher OCIs.

I expect it will have excellent results, given the quality base stocks used, if users will trust it and not moan at TBNs of
I just put it in the ex-wife's 2008 R18 Civic along with a Fram Ultra 7317 filter.

Going to have her run it through two complete cycles of the MM, then sample. I am that confident in it, after seeing 2010 FX_4's results on 0W-20 AFE.

And all this talk about changing oil when the TBN crosses TAN, or is 1/3 of original is simply inaccurate, outdated HDEO methodology.

I will have Blackstone test TAN, TBN and 40C viscosity, as well.

The M1 AFE and EP oils are state of the art, but you have to use them to their full potential.

Take care,
Gary
 
Originally Posted By: Tucson Five-O
Guys,


The M1 AFE and EP oils are state of the art, but you have to use them to their full potential.

Take care,
Gary

+1......Couldn't agree with you more Gary.

M-1 0w20 AFE has worked great for me, and I will continue to use it with a Fram ULTRA filter for up to 10K OCI's.
 
Thanks for taking the trouble/time/money to do this. I was going to do it soon and you saved me the same. This looks good on paper and I suspect it will perform very well in my FX4.
 
Originally Posted By: bullwinkle
Seems they've copied Valvoline using Mg in place of high levels of Ca-it'll be interesting to see the UOA on it.


You get TWICE the TBN and detergency from Magnesium compared to Calcium. So the 750 ppm of Mg is equal to another 1500 ppm of Calcium.

Don't let the reduction of calcium and the use of magnesium fool ya.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
http://hicksoils.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/TBN-Retention.pdf


I don't agree. Not at all. This isn't a real peer-reviewed paper. Just some jibberish to promote their own products.

Here is the "science" behind me saying magnesium based detergents give you two times the acid reduction capability compared to calcium based detergents:

Acids are acidic because they possess an dissociated positive hydrogen ion. For instance, hydrochloric acid HCL is really H+ and Cl- in solution. Sulfuric acid H2SO4 is really two ions of H+ and one ion of SO4-

So, to "neutrlaize" an acid (which is what a detergent does), it requires that the H+ (the hydrogen ion) of the acid be coupled to a negative ion again. So when H+'s are present, you have an acidic solution and these H+ must be coupled to anions (negatively charged ions) in order for the acidic H+ ions to be neutrlized.

Detergents are Ca or Mg based in this example. But Ca and Mg are POSITIVELY charged!! It's the negative ion (example, sulfonates) associated with the Mg or Ca that is actually neutrlizing the acidic H+ ions. Sulfonate is negatively charged, so when it "sees" an acidic H+ ion, its negative charge cancels out the positively charged hydrogen, and the acid is "neutralized".

You follow me so far?

Here is the key difference: Calcium carries a +1 charge. Magnesium carries a +2 charge. So when you see 3000ppm of Ca in a VOA, you also are getting 3000ppm of sulfonates are well. It's the sulfonates that are able to neutrlize the acidic H+.

When you see 2000ppm of magnesium, you are actually getting 4000ppm of acid neutrlizing sulfonates....because each Mg ion is +2 charged, and it has TWO sulfonates attached to it.

Therefore, when M1, for example, uses 1000ppm Calcium and 750ppm Mg in their oils, you are getting 1000ppm sulfonates from the calcium and 1500ppm from the Mg....so that would be equal to an oil containing 2500ppm calcium and no magnesium.

This is science. Not theory. Not rhetoric. Not marketing.

This lesson is brought to by your friendly neighborhood chemist.
 
I thought that was where you are coming from...forgot the atomic mass of the two, as it's in ppm, if the analysis was in moles, you would be correct...Calcium's heavier than mag, so there should be more sulfonates/carbonates etc...i.e further along your argument.

http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/354/reserve-alkalinity-oil

Shows the Acid Number changes between Mg and Ca, and how in their testing the two, and a blend change....makes me want a Ca/Mg blend.

BTW, chemistry is only a hobby, here, so I will defer to better/more information.
 
Originally Posted By: Phishin
Originally Posted By: Shannow
http://hicksoils.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/TBN-Retention.pdf


I don't agree. Not at all.

TBN Retention - Are we missing the point?

"SUMMARY - Based on piston ring weight loss data, and TBN depletion rates, one would conclude that a magnesium only formulation detergent based oil, and a high TBN oil (Table 2, oils B and D respectively) from table 2) were, were the best performers in the Mack T-9. However, once the used oil lead content, and the TAN increase levels are taken into account, a slightly different conclusion will be drawn. The magnesium detergent based oil, although good in preventing ring weight loss, gave higher levels of bearing corrosion. Data from the other PC-7 engine tests, the Mack T-8, and the Cummins M11, support the observations from the Mack T-9 test. Overall, it seems like the best formulating approach for the PC-7 engine tests is a higher TBN mixed Calcium/Magnesium approach, taking advantage of the strengths, and avoiding the weaknesses of each of the two detergent types."

Calcium, magnesium, and barium in that order have historically been used as detergents. Barium has dropped by the wayside due its toxicity and because it creates a greater weight of ash when burned then calcium or magnesium.

Calcium has one great advantage - it is less costly than the magnesium detergents.

Historically in diesel engine oils, however, magnesium has predominated.

As the article suggests, it is more complicated in actual operation than calculating raw TBNs.
 
Originally Posted By: Phishin
Originally Posted By: Shannow
http://hicksoils.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/TBN-Retention.pdf


I don't agree. Not at all. This isn't a real peer-reviewed paper. Just some jibberish to promote their own products.

Here is the "science" behind me saying magnesium based detergents give you two times the acid reduction capability compared to calcium based detergents:

Acids are acidic because they possess an dissociated positive hydrogen ion. For instance, hydrochloric acid HCL is really H+ and Cl- in solution. Sulfuric acid H2SO4 is really two ions of H+ and one ion of SO4-

So, to "neutrlaize" an acid (which is what a detergent does), it requires that the H+ (the hydrogen ion) of the acid be coupled to a negative ion again. So when H+'s are present, you have an acidic solution and these H+ must be coupled to anions (negatively charged ions) in order for the acidic H+ ions to be neutrlized.

Detergents are Ca or Mg based in this example. But Ca and Mg are POSITIVELY charged!! It's the negative ion (example, sulfonates) associated with the Mg or Ca that is actually neutrlizing the acidic H+ ions. Sulfonate is negatively charged, so when it "sees" an acidic H+ ion, its negative charge cancels out the positively charged hydrogen, and the acid is "neutralized".

You follow me so far?

Here is the key difference: Calcium carries a +1 charge. Magnesium carries a +2 charge. So when you see 3000ppm of Ca in a VOA, you also are getting 3000ppm of sulfonates are well. It's the sulfonates that are able to neutrlize the acidic H+.

When you see 2000ppm of magnesium, you are actually getting 4000ppm of acid neutrlizing sulfonates....because each Mg ion is +2 charged, and it has TWO sulfonates attached to it.

Therefore, when M1, for example, uses 1000ppm Calcium and 750ppm Mg in their oils, you are getting 1000ppm sulfonates from the calcium and 1500ppm from the Mg....so that would be equal to an oil containing 2500ppm calcium and no magnesium.

This is science. Not theory. Not rhetoric. Not marketing.

This lesson is brought to by your friendly neighborhood chemist.


Calcium is 2+, Magnesium is 2+, both the same. Both are in the same column or group of the periodic table.
 
Nice read, but most products in the market today are mixture of Mg & Ca, I believe Amsoil Signature Series is still completely Ca with little or no Mg in it. So far, Castrol seems to have most Mg in their products then any one else.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top