New Mobil 1 FS 0w-40

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: bobbydavro
Wow you guys.

The changes are within the repeatability of the test and you are claiming 'obvious issues' forcing formulation changes.

Also why would deposits form on the exhaust values due to it being DI?


There is Lubrizol study here somewhere (have it at work computer) with High-SAPS and Low-SAPS oil test in DI engines and carbonization of valves.
DI engines, no fuel flush over valves. First generation of VW FSI/TFSI engines were particularly problematic. In Europe it is not big of a deal due to different burn, and ULSG, which allows lower SAPS oils to be used (VW 504.00/507.00).
Add to that high NOACK oils (like Castrol 5W40 that VW uses in dealerships) and you get bill once you hit 60-80K with car for cleaning valves from carbon. Audi S4 V8 and Audi 3.2 V6 were particularly horrible when it comes to carbonization.
High TBN in FS might be mitigate with low NOACK, but we do not know what is NOACK of new FS.
Also, FS is on the market for like 6 months, and to change formulation in such short period is really strange to say the least. Not impossible, but why?
As for ESP, yes it was available in EU, but suddenly Mobil1 offered pds for the U.S. market on their web site.

 

[buster]

Quote:
Not impossible, but why?


Because BMW changed their test requirements which may have resulted in a formulation change.

 

[bobbydavro]

Originally Posted By: edyvw
Originally Posted By: bobbydavro
Wow you guys.

The changes are within the repeatability of the test and you are claiming 'obvious issues' forcing formulation changes.

Also why would deposits form on the exhaust values due to it being DI?


There is Lubrizol study here somewhere (have it at work computer) with High-SAPS and Low-SAPS oil test in DI engines and carbonization of valves.
DI engines, no fuel flush over valves. First generation of VW FSI/TFSI engines were particularly problematic. In Europe it is not big of a deal due to different burn, and ULSG, which allows lower SAPS oils to be used (VW 504.00/507.00).
Add to that high NOACK oils (like Castrol 5W40 that VW uses in dealerships) and you get bill once you hit 60-80K with car for cleaning valves from carbon. Audi S4 V8 and Audi 3.2 V6 were particularly horrible when it comes to carbonization.
High TBN in FS might be mitigate with low NOACK, but we do not know what is NOACK of new FS.
Also, FS is on the market for like 6 months, and to change formulation in such short period is really strange to say the least. Not impossible, but why?
As for ESP, yes it was available in EU, but suddenly Mobil1 offered pds for the U.S. market on their web site.


You said exhaust valves in your previous post

I think everyone is aware of the impact of DI on Inlet valves due to no fuel cleaning. Also LZ isn't the only formulate out there. I have seen oils that should do badly (on paper) do very well in FSI tests, even those with 1.1% ash levels. This ash is detergent derived and detergents tend to be good at cleaning !

I have mentioned this before, but you still keep bringing up this 5w-40 oil with a noack of 10.6 as if it's miles worse than an oil with a noack of 10.4.
Not that noack is at all linked with Valve deposits. It's far more complicated than that. The reason for a high noack could simply be a bit of group 1 which is very good at providing solubility to a formulation. This natural sulphur is also a great anti oxidant

Audis were bad for INLET valve deposit because of the [censored] breather system design and unfortunate manifold setup which allowed too many blow by gases into the engine which also tended to condense out on the valves. (Rather than manifold).

it is a massive problem in Europe too. The fuel doesn't have a significant impact compared with engine design.

 

[buster]

Great info bobby.

 

[userfriendly]

Funny, the same topic is being discussed in the Diesel section.
Diesels are DI too, and their intake valves are exposed to EGR and blow-by gasses without the cleaning action of wet fuel.
Eliminate; stuck in traffic and short tripping, events engine oils are not tested for.
Example; My brand X engine oil handles traffic jams and one block trips to the corner store for cigarettes better than your brand Y engine oil.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: bobbydavro
Originally Posted By: edyvw
Originally Posted By: bobbydavro
Wow you guys.

The changes are within the repeatability of the test and you are claiming 'obvious issues' forcing formulation changes.

Also why would deposits form on the exhaust values due to it being DI?


There is Lubrizol study here somewhere (have it at work computer) with High-SAPS and Low-SAPS oil test in DI engines and carbonization of valves.
DI engines, no fuel flush over valves. First generation of VW FSI/TFSI engines were particularly problematic. In Europe it is not big of a deal due to different burn, and ULSG, which allows lower SAPS oils to be used (VW 504.00/507.00).
Add to that high NOACK oils (like Castrol 5W40 that VW uses in dealerships) and you get bill once you hit 60-80K with car for cleaning valves from carbon. Audi S4 V8 and Audi 3.2 V6 were particularly horrible when it comes to carbonization.
High TBN in FS might be mitigate with low NOACK, but we do not know what is NOACK of new FS.
Also, FS is on the market for like 6 months, and to change formulation in such short period is really strange to say the least. Not impossible, but why?
As for ESP, yes it was available in EU, but suddenly Mobil1 offered pds for the U.S. market on their web site.


You said exhaust valves in your previous post

I think everyone is aware of the impact of DI on Inlet valves due to no fuel cleaning. Also LZ isn't the only formulate out there. I have seen oils that should do badly (on paper) do very well in FSI tests, even those with 1.1% ash levels. This ash is detergent derived and detergents tend to be good at cleaning !

I have mentioned this before, but you still keep bringing up this 5w-40 oil with a noack of 10.6 as if it's miles worse than an oil with a noack of 10.4.
Not that noack is at all linked with Valve deposits. It's far more complicated than that. The reason for a high noack could simply be a bit of group 1 which is very good at providing solubility to a formulation. This natural sulphur is also a great anti oxidant

Audis were bad for INLET valve deposit because of the [censored] breather system design and unfortunate manifold setup which allowed too many blow by gases into the engine which also tended to condense out on the valves. (Rather than manifold).

it is a massive problem in Europe too. The fuel doesn't have a significant impact compared with engine design.

LZ study found that with Low-SAPS oils carbon build up on exhaust valves (yes I know what I said) is 167% lower then with High-SAPS oil.
You misunderstood me when it comes to gas. In Europe due to ULSG you can use with no problems Low-SAPS oil which mitigates issue to certain extent (well S4 or 3.2V6 not really). I tried M1 5W30 ESP here and did UOA after 3K. TBN was below 2.
Also for S4 and 3.2 V6, it is not only them. It was TFSI in VW, and second generation (to much lesser extent). I had to change at 36K on Tiguan manifold. I bought car (flew from CA to VA to pick up car. Figured in 2557 miles car will show if there is any issue. 400 miles into trip back, CEL comes on. In San Diego VW replaced manifold that had so much build up it is ridiculous. Car was bought at VW, always serviced in VW in Virginia. Got back car from VW, dumped that POS Castrol 5W40 (still claim it is POS compare to M1 0W40, Castrol 0W30/40) and put in Castrol 0W40. Since then I used only once M1 0W40, and rest Castrol 0W40. Never had single issue with the car in 3 years.
But I know a lot of people who did.
Unfortunately Castrol does not offer 0W30 LL-04 in the U.S., otherwise I would use that. But to go back to M1 0W40, I think such high TBN (I do not think even Redline has that high TBN) is for me indication that they have issue with TBN depletion. They had that with old version too.
Personally I think mobil1 has management that is trying to cut cost and show good profits to shareholders. It would not be first time. All American auto industry went down to drain because accountants and marketing people started to run business that used to be run by engineers.

 

[bobbydavro]

Exhaust valves? Really? Where is this study? Anything that is in public domain will generally have a bias anyway. LZ are a big player in the 504 507 specification so its obvious they will try and show benefits of a 504 507 vs high ash oil. however the real question is what this comparison is.


The industry (both fuel and oil) is only really interested in inlet valve deposits. Exhaust valves are more than hot enough to burn off deposits. Ive never seen anyone talk about exhaust valves

On your oil where TBN was 2, what was the TAN? personally I like my base to neutralise engine acids rather than sit in the engine doing nothing and giving you a high TBN value in a test with a very strong acid. What TBN method was it? What was the oxidation? What was the Kv40? What was the Nitration?

You cant just look at TBN, TBN lowering is a sign of TBN doing its job. 'Sacrificing' its TBN number to protect the engine, rather than leaving weak acids to float around in the engine to protect its 'TBN in the lab' number.

I wouldn't start worrying until TAN goes over 5.

 

[Shannow]

https://www.lubrizol.com/EngineOilAdditives/ACEA/ConferencePapers/LowerSAPS.pdf

167% more of not much is a little bit more of not much.
42% more of a lot, is more of a lot.
Increased EGR pipe blockage "over 42% blocked" makes no reference to what the other blocked to...AND it restricted airflow, which is a pretty unusual feature in an EGR pipe.

And it's for Euro 4 diesels...

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: bobbydavro
Exhaust valves? Really? Where is this study? Anything that is in public domain will generally have a bias anyway. LZ are a big player in the 504 507 specification so its obvious they will try and show benefits of a 504 507 vs high ash oil. however the real question is what this comparison is.


The industry (both fuel and oil) is only really interested in inlet valve deposits. Exhaust valves are more than hot enough to burn off deposits. Ive never seen anyone talk about exhaust valves

On your oil where TBN was 2, what was the TAN? personally I like my base to neutralise engine acids rather than sit in the engine doing nothing and giving you a high TBN value in a test with a very strong acid. What TBN method was it? What was the oxidation? What was the Kv40? What was the Nitration?

You cant just look at TBN, TBN lowering is a sign of TBN doing its job. 'Sacrificing' its TBN number to protect the engine, rather than leaving weak acids to float around in the engine to protect its 'TBN in the lab' number.

I wouldn't start worrying until TAN goes over 5.

I am not going into why LZ did what they did. We are talking about Low-SAPS oils vs. High-SAPS which in case of M1 that is the case.
As for TBN 2, TAN was I think over 4 after 3K. I have my UOA somewhere in UOA section.
I agree with you that TBN depletion is sign of TBN doing its job. However, for example VW recommends 10K changes and I had old version of M1 0W40 TBN at 2.7. You cannot say: run it until 10K bcs TBN is doing its job. You might come to point where TBN will drop below 1.

 

[bobbydavro]

This LZ study is hand picked data from 10 years ago when 504 507 was in early days.

The Low Ash requirement of these formulations was actually driven by the DPF test rather than FSi tests. Since the original introduction the spec has been updated. The DPF test has changed which has allowed different formulations to be able to get 504 507. The Fsi never really drove this, and formulations at 1% have been able to pass both key tests.

In my view, this LZ study is a red herring in terms of Low Ash leading to lower valve deposits.

 

[badtlc]

Originally Posted By: edyvw

I clicked you link. Previous version had slightly lower ash level, and had issues with TBN depletion. They also increased TBN in FS version, which is probably way to fight depletion.
Anyway, after this change it is obvious M1 is having issues with cooking this oil, and American drivers are guinea pigs, considering M1 in rest of the world is still VISOM based.
The ESP version (5W30) cannot sustain 5K in DI engines. Tried it, did UOA at 3K and TBN was below 2.
Now, M1 has pds of 0W40 ESP on their web site, but nowhere to be found to buy it. I am not sure they are aware that that pds is on their web site.


ESP versions aren't going to last in the USA. You need low sulfur gasoline to extend the OCI.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: edyvw

I clicked you link. Previous version had slightly lower ash level, and had issues with TBN depletion. They also increased TBN in FS version, which is probably way to fight depletion.
Anyway, after this change it is obvious M1 is having issues with cooking this oil, and American drivers are guinea pigs, considering M1 in rest of the world is still VISOM based.
The ESP version (5W30) cannot sustain 5K in DI engines. Tried it, did UOA at 3K and TBN was below 2.
Now, M1 has pds of 0W40 ESP on their web site, but nowhere to be found to buy it. I am not sure they are aware that that pds is on their web site.


ESP versions aren't going to last in the USA. You need low sulfur gasoline to extend the OCI.

I know that man.

 

[Quattro Pete]

FYI, I submitted a question to BMW Germany if they knew anything about some recent revision to the LL-01 spec that may have precipitated this M1 0w-40 conundrum. After a month, they responded with this:

Quote:
Dear xxxxx,

Thank you very much for your e-mail.

We’re Sorry, but we’ve no information regarding to your request. Please contact Mobil to get further information.

Kind regards,
in Order of BMW Kundenbetreuung

BMW Kundenbetreuung
80788 München


Gee, thanks.

 

[buster]

LOL

there was a revision on 05/20/2016 to the MSDS so my guess is they due want to pursue the spec; probably due to consumer backlash.

 

[bobbydavro]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
FYI, I submitted a question to BMW Germany if they knew anything about some recent revision to the LL-01 spec that may have precipitated this M1 0w-40 conundrum. After a month, they responded with this:

Quote:
Dear xxxxx,

Thank you very much for your e-mail.

We’re Sorry, but we’ve no information regarding to your request. Please contact Mobil to get further information.

Kind regards,
in Order of BMW Kundenbetreuung

BMW Kundenbetreuung
80788 München


Gee, thanks.

They have hundreds of OEM approvals and as testing is carried out on formulations then they have no way to link it to brands or understand the evolution of oil company products

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: bobbydavro
They have hundreds of OEM approvals and as testing is carried out on formulations then they have no way to link it to brands or understand the evolution of oil company products

To be clear, I did not ask them about Mobil specifically. I just asked them if there was some recent change to the LL-01 specification.

 

[loneryder]

Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: edyvw

I clicked you link. Previous version had slightly lower ash level, and had issues with TBN depletion. They also increased TBN in FS version, which is probably way to fight depletion.
Anyway, after this change it is obvious M1 is having issues with cooking this oil, and American drivers are guinea pigs, considering M1 in rest of the world is still VISOM based.
The ESP version (5W30) cannot sustain 5K in DI engines. Tried it, did UOA at 3K and TBN was below 2.
Now, M1 has pds of 0W40 ESP on their web site, but nowhere to be found to buy it. I am not sure they are aware that that pds is on their web site.


ESP versions aren't going to last in the USA. You need low sulfur gasoline to extend the OCI.


MB dealers started using ESP in all their cars to avoid confusion. In the gas engines it started sludging badly when the owners followed the 10k oci. An indy MB mechanic was one of the first to spot it and called Mobil. They sent a team to his shop and looked at everything. They did every thing they could to keep it quiet. They advised MB to inform their dealers quietly to not use ESP in gas engines. So you are absolutely correct about the gas in this country and esp oils.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: loneryder
Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: edyvw

I clicked you link. Previous version had slightly lower ash level, and had issues with TBN depletion. They also increased TBN in FS version, which is probably way to fight depletion.
Anyway, after this change it is obvious M1 is having issues with cooking this oil, and American drivers are guinea pigs, considering M1 in rest of the world is still VISOM based.
The ESP version (5W30) cannot sustain 5K in DI engines. Tried it, did UOA at 3K and TBN was below 2.
Now, M1 has pds of 0W40 ESP on their web site, but nowhere to be found to buy it. I am not sure they are aware that that pds is on their web site.


ESP versions aren't going to last in the USA. You need low sulfur gasoline to extend the OCI.


MB dealers started using ESP in all their cars to avoid confusion. In the gas engines it started sludging badly when the owners followed the 10k oci. An indy MB mechanic was one of the first to spot it and called Mobil. They sent a team to his shop and looked at everything. They did every thing they could to keep it quiet. They advised MB to inform their dealers quietly to not use ESP in gas engines. So you are absolutely correct about the gas in this country and esp oils.

I think reason why M1 0W40 has such high TBN is that old version has some pretty fast TBN depletion, even at 5K OCI which I do. I did several UOA with old VISOM based M1, and TBN was at 2.7 after 5K.
That is why I always tell people to stick to 5-7.5K OCI in the U.S., especially if it is gas DI car.

 

[pscholte]

Too bad no version of M1 is made by elves

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: pscholte
Too bad no version of M1 is made by elves

Welcome back after a 2+ year break.