Mobil 1 20-50MC oil question
- Thread starter loneryder
- Start date
- Status
All I know is that they dropped the JASO MA certification from the bottle around then.
It is still a good oil though. If you want zddp it is still loaded with a good anti wear package.
It is still a good oil though. If you want zddp it is still loaded with a good anti wear package.
Any idea why they dropped the MA rating?
According to this site, it's not listed as meeting the spec. Maybe it's the add package.
http://www.oilspecifications.org/articles/JASO_MA_JASO_MB.php
Here's a recent VOA.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...n_O#Post3685346
http://www.oilspecifications.org/articles/JASO_MA_JASO_MB.php
Here's a recent VOA.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...n_O#Post3685346
I don't believe the base oil is what it used to be, flash point is down where their car oils are 440 degrees, used to be 518 degrees.
FWIW the MSDS says "Synthetic Base Oil" - not that that means much.
With respect to the JASO MA - I suspect since the oil is marketed to the V-Twin crowd that Mobil felt whatever cost is associated with JASO MA it was not worth it for the market.
AFAIK the 10-40 is MA.
They will tell you V-Twin can be used in a HD primary (all 3 holes in fact) so I suspect it would do fine with a unit construction wet clutch application.
E-Mail them the questions they are pretty fast to answer...
With respect to the JASO MA - I suspect since the oil is marketed to the V-Twin crowd that Mobil felt whatever cost is associated with JASO MA it was not worth it for the market.
AFAIK the 10-40 is MA.
They will tell you V-Twin can be used in a HD primary (all 3 holes in fact) so I suspect it would do fine with a unit construction wet clutch application.
E-Mail them the questions they are pretty fast to answer...
The primary reason that Mobil 1 V-Twin 20W50 doesn't state they meet the JASO MA approval isn't because they don't expect it to be used in wet clutch applications and don't want the expense of the testing/approval, but because the additive package no longer meets updated maximum levels since JASO T 903:2006 was updated and implemented.
Mobil 1 states that both their motorcycle oils (10W40 & 20W50) are optimized for wet clutch performance Mobil 1 V-Twin 20W50 Product Data Sheet, but as you can see from the previously posted VOA and also from the Mobil 1 Product Guide, their 20W50 contains a nominal level of up to 1600 PPM of phosphorus. Originally in the Jaso T 903:1999 implementation manual they didn't have upper end limits of Phosphorus, they just wanted the total amount reported JASO T 903:1999 Implementation Manual; but since they updated in 2006, they decreased the upper limits of phosphorus to 1200 PPM because of the possibility that phosphorus can deteriorate the catalytic converter and reduce its effectiveness JASO T 903:2006 Implementation Manual . Mobil has since stated that they felt their additive package was extremely efficient and that they didn't want to reduce the effectiveness of their anti-wear add. pack for the engines designed to run this particular oil. Subsequently, they did alter the 10W40 version to the maximum allowable levels of 1200 PPM of phosphorus to meet the JASO MA specs.
Mobil 1 states that both their motorcycle oils (10W40 & 20W50) are optimized for wet clutch performance Mobil 1 V-Twin 20W50 Product Data Sheet, but as you can see from the previously posted VOA and also from the Mobil 1 Product Guide, their 20W50 contains a nominal level of up to 1600 PPM of phosphorus. Originally in the Jaso T 903:1999 implementation manual they didn't have upper end limits of Phosphorus, they just wanted the total amount reported JASO T 903:1999 Implementation Manual; but since they updated in 2006, they decreased the upper limits of phosphorus to 1200 PPM because of the possibility that phosphorus can deteriorate the catalytic converter and reduce its effectiveness JASO T 903:2006 Implementation Manual . Mobil has since stated that they felt their additive package was extremely efficient and that they didn't want to reduce the effectiveness of their anti-wear add. pack for the engines designed to run this particular oil. Subsequently, they did alter the 10W40 version to the maximum allowable levels of 1200 PPM of phosphorus to meet the JASO MA specs.
Mobil as well as most others "seem" to be using more group III dino oils now legally "synthetic" for of course more profit. they only use the more costly PAO + Ester oils when needed to attain a certain spec. when they say "propriety" it means we are using a cheaper formulation, but will not openly say, even Amsoil is getting similar. Redline stands alone, + you can talk to a real person if needed!
Last edited:
Group III formulations will shear more easily in shared sump bikes, but if you are running it in a unit construction bike like a big twin or sportster engine, I think the performance between a group III and a group IV will be less evident, especially when you factor in the costs.
It is a shame that Group III can be labeled synthetic in America, but they are still pretty good oils, especially compared to what we had 25 years ago.
It is a shame that Group III can be labeled synthetic in America, but they are still pretty good oils, especially compared to what we had 25 years ago.
i surely agree with the synthetic labeling in USA, it allows manufactures to sell good group III but not as good as group IV + V oils for more profit. look at Redline they proudly display their superior Ester formulations, even Penrite from australia vividly displays their base oils used! PROPRIETY is BULL sheet, sorry to see Amsoil going that route!!
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
Group III formulations will shear more easily in shared sump bikes,
I'd like to see the paper work on that assumption...
Group III formulations will shear more easily in shared sump bikes,
I'd like to see the paper work on that assumption...
Originally Posted By: BusyLittleShop
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
Group III formulations will shear more easily in shared sump bikes,
I'd like to see the paper work on that assumption...
Well I googled around and found more than one published book that mentions how true synthetic oils are more stable.
So..it is out there in published and peer reviewed literature.
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
Group III formulations will shear more easily in shared sump bikes,
I'd like to see the paper work on that assumption...
Well I googled around and found more than one published book that mentions how true synthetic oils are more stable.
So..it is out there in published and peer reviewed literature.
Last edited:
That being said....if you have taken my entire quote instead of pulling that one sentence out of context you would have seen where I said Group III oils are still very good. They approach Group IV in performance, but do not quite match or exceed it.
Group III is cheap performance...which is why Castrol fought so hard to keep it labeled as "synthetic" in court.
Group III is cheap performance...which is why Castrol fought so hard to keep it labeled as "synthetic" in court.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
