Since its possible to make a 5W20, 10W30 or 15W40 that are actually Monogrades and one manufacturer purportedly makes a 5W30 that's a Monograde is it possible Mobil's original 1974 M1 5W20 was a Monograde? I know it had a high HTHS simular to today's Redline 5W20 which is purportedly a Monograde.
Was the original Mobil 1 a Straight 20?
- Thread starter Gene K
- Start date
- Status
I believe it was 5W-20 about 1978
1976 as popmech mag article. It was real syn oil, much better than today's. PAO + Diesters. Group 3 not existent yet. Maybe didn't had any VII (for the "monograde" theory).
Pretty sure it originally was 5w20
he's asking if the mobil1 5w20 was VII free... it could've been if the HTHS was around 3, but how would you know? Was HTHS already defined by then?
Originally Posted By: HosteenJorje
I believe it was 5W-20 about 1978
I could have sworn I was using Mobil 1 10W30 around 1975 or 1976.
I believe it was 5W-20 about 1978
I could have sworn I was using Mobil 1 10W30 around 1975 or 1976.
My engine average bulk temperature is about 75-85C, so I'm more in NTLS, than HTHS regimen rsrsrs.
Nick1994
$100 site donor 2024
According to Wikipedia
Quote:
It was introduced in 1974 as a Multi-grade 5W20 viscosity synthetic motor oil.
Quote:
It was introduced in 1974 as a Multi-grade 5W20 viscosity synthetic motor oil.
Originally Posted By: Pontual
1976 as popmech mag article. It was real syn oil, much better than today's. PAO + Diesters. Group 3 not existent yet. Maybe didn't had any VII (for the "monograde" theory).
Ok I'll feed the troll comment..
how was m1 from 1976 better than M1 in 2016?
1976 as popmech mag article. It was real syn oil, much better than today's. PAO + Diesters. Group 3 not existent yet. Maybe didn't had any VII (for the "monograde" theory).
Ok I'll feed the troll comment..
how was m1 from 1976 better than M1 in 2016?
It was cheaper.........
I remember when it was new many of the motor rebuilders in Philly would void your warranty if you used it.
Originally Posted By: Rand
Originally Posted By: Pontual
1976 as popmech mag article. It was real syn oil, much better than today's. PAO + Diesters. Group 3 not existent yet. Maybe didn't had any VII (for the "monograde" theory).
Ok I'll feed the troll comment..
how was m1 from 1976 better than M1 in 2016?
I remember when it was new many of the motor rebuilders in Philly would void your warranty if you used it.
Originally Posted By: Rand
Originally Posted By: Pontual
1976 as popmech mag article. It was real syn oil, much better than today's. PAO + Diesters. Group 3 not existent yet. Maybe didn't had any VII (for the "monograde" theory).
Ok I'll feed the troll comment..
how was m1 from 1976 better than M1 in 2016?
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Rand
Originally Posted By: Pontual
1976 as popmech mag article. It was real syn oil, much better than today's. PAO + Diesters. Group 3 not existent yet. Maybe didn't had any VII (for the "monograde" theory).
Ok I'll feed the troll comment..
how was m1 from 1976 better than M1 in 2016?
Not trolling, can't read? The BASE now isn't fully synthetic in the technical asseption of the word as was in 76. Cheapo Group III from dino came with Castrol years later (1992), and nowadays everybody is using this frak. No wonder some of your neighbors are buying German Oil. The look after: "Voll sintetiche", not Fully synthetic anymore.
Originally Posted By: Pontual
1976 as popmech mag article. It was real syn oil, much better than today's. PAO + Diesters. Group 3 not existent yet. Maybe didn't had any VII (for the "monograde" theory).
Ok I'll feed the troll comment..
how was m1 from 1976 better than M1 in 2016?
Not trolling, can't read? The BASE now isn't fully synthetic in the technical asseption of the word as was in 76. Cheapo Group III from dino came with Castrol years later (1992), and nowadays everybody is using this frak. No wonder some of your neighbors are buying German Oil. The look after: "Voll sintetiche", not Fully synthetic anymore.
Last edited:
I'm sure we can disagree, but severely refined hydro-processed GrpIII is maybe as good as older PAO synthetics. The add-paks for all have gotten better for sure ...
Sure we can argue, no problem, since you aren't rotulating anybody as trolls. The add pack is another story, but the ZDDP content is lower today so they are using a little more boron or moly Dtc. Whata substitute!
Older Poly Alpha Olefin is as good as newer, same chemical formula, same modus operandi. Do you really think that old 5w20 wouldn't pass SN & ILSAC GF5, appart from ZDDP content? Do you think the Amzoil SS from the 1976 wouldn't do the same 25k miles as today? No mileage gains with such better technology of today. 70's statutary miles were shorter than today's? The engines was dirtier contaminaters, for sure. With group 3 how does garantee to over 15k miles on the bottle? Nobody, because they are weaker than PAO + ester or PAO + AN oils. Need to step on add pack to go along, as does GTL.
Older Poly Alpha Olefin is as good as newer, same chemical formula, same modus operandi. Do you really think that old 5w20 wouldn't pass SN & ILSAC GF5, appart from ZDDP content? Do you think the Amzoil SS from the 1976 wouldn't do the same 25k miles as today? No mileage gains with such better technology of today. 70's statutary miles were shorter than today's? The engines was dirtier contaminaters, for sure. With group 3 how does garantee to over 15k miles on the bottle? Nobody, because they are weaker than PAO + ester or PAO + AN oils. Need to step on add pack to go along, as does GTL.
Last edited:
The reason it was introduced as a 5W20 was it "acted" like a 10W30 in the bearings. To me that means high HT/HS.
Since the natural HT/HS of a SAE20 is similar to a 10W30 it made me suspect it might have been VII free.
Since the natural HT/HS of a SAE20 is similar to a 10W30 it made me suspect it might have been VII free.
Originally Posted By: Gene K
The reason it was introduced as a 5W20 was it "acted" like a 10W30 in the bearings. To me that means high HT/HS.
Since the natural HT/HS of a SAE20 is similar to a 10W30 it made me suspect it might have been VII free.
I'm confident that it was.
I'm searching for the truth, but really DO believe that was how it was built...yes it was a 5W, yes, it had KV in the 20 range, but all of this pre-dated HTHS in J300.
Shell in Oz had XMO, which was a 15W30 XHVI oil, which also I believe was a monograde.
Closest I've been able to find on anything viscometric is this paper on testing the "new" 5W20 synthetic against an SAE 30 in a volvo.
EPA website
Download it and read it, and see how it affects your opinion...I don't want to sway one way or the other.
The reason it was introduced as a 5W20 was it "acted" like a 10W30 in the bearings. To me that means high HT/HS.
Since the natural HT/HS of a SAE20 is similar to a 10W30 it made me suspect it might have been VII free.
I'm confident that it was.
I'm searching for the truth, but really DO believe that was how it was built...yes it was a 5W, yes, it had KV in the 20 range, but all of this pre-dated HTHS in J300.
Shell in Oz had XMO, which was a 15W30 XHVI oil, which also I believe was a monograde.
Closest I've been able to find on anything viscometric is this paper on testing the "new" 5W20 synthetic against an SAE 30 in a volvo.
EPA website
Download it and read it, and see how it affects your opinion...I don't want to sway one way or the other.
Originally Posted By: Rand
Originally Posted By: Pontual
1976 as popmech mag article. It was real syn oil, much better than today's. PAO + Diesters. Group 3 not existent yet. Maybe didn't had any VII (for the "monograde" theory).
Ok I'll feed the troll comment..
how was m1 from 1976 better than M1 in 2016?
It wasn't. I have used M1 since 1978 and it was 5-20, the only wt they had. However todays M1 oils are perhaps better than that of 1978. Portual doesn't know what he's talking about.
Originally Posted By: Pontual
1976 as popmech mag article. It was real syn oil, much better than today's. PAO + Diesters. Group 3 not existent yet. Maybe didn't had any VII (for the "monograde" theory).
Ok I'll feed the troll comment..
how was m1 from 1976 better than M1 in 2016?
It wasn't. I have used M1 since 1978 and it was 5-20, the only wt they had. However todays M1 oils are perhaps better than that of 1978. Portual doesn't know what he's talking about.
That's par for the course here
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Gene K
The reason it was introduced as a 5W20 was it "acted" like a 10W30 in the bearings. To me that means high HT/HS.
Since the natural HT/HS of a SAE20 is similar to a 10W30 it made me suspect it might have been VII free.
I'm confident that it was.
I'm searching for the truth, but really DO believe that was how it was built...yes it was a 5W, yes, it had KV in the 20 range, but all of this pre-dated HTHS in J300.
Shell in Oz had XMO, which was a 15W30 XHVI oil, which also I believe was a monograde.
Closest I've been able to find on anything viscometric is this paper on testing the "new" 5W20 synthetic against an SAE 30 in a volvo.
EPA website
Download it and read it, and see how it affects your opinion...I don't want to sway one way or the other.
Thanks. Cant say it convinces me, one way or the other. Interesting anyway/
PS I thought Mobil 1 was introduced in '74 but if it was '76 i stand corrected.
Originally Posted By: Gene K
The reason it was introduced as a 5W20 was it "acted" like a 10W30 in the bearings. To me that means high HT/HS.
Since the natural HT/HS of a SAE20 is similar to a 10W30 it made me suspect it might have been VII free.
I'm confident that it was.
I'm searching for the truth, but really DO believe that was how it was built...yes it was a 5W, yes, it had KV in the 20 range, but all of this pre-dated HTHS in J300.
Shell in Oz had XMO, which was a 15W30 XHVI oil, which also I believe was a monograde.
Closest I've been able to find on anything viscometric is this paper on testing the "new" 5W20 synthetic against an SAE 30 in a volvo.
EPA website
Download it and read it, and see how it affects your opinion...I don't want to sway one way or the other.
Thanks. Cant say it convinces me, one way or the other. Interesting anyway/
PS I thought Mobil 1 was introduced in '74 but if it was '76 i stand corrected.
Originally Posted By: Gene K
Thanks. Cant say it convinces me, one way or the other. Interesting anyway/
PS I thought Mobil 1 was introduced in '74 but if it was '76 i stand corrected.
I agree, it doesn't tell me enough of anything to use any of it as a premise for a debate...
but it DOES tell me that it was novel enough that they were testing it, and I might find them...one day.
Thanks. Cant say it convinces me, one way or the other. Interesting anyway/
PS I thought Mobil 1 was introduced in '74 but if it was '76 i stand corrected.
I agree, it doesn't tell me enough of anything to use any of it as a premise for a debate...
but it DOES tell me that it was novel enough that they were testing it, and I might find them...one day.
Originally Posted By: Pontual
The add pack is another story, but the ZDDP content is lower today so they are using a little more boron or moly Dtc. Whata substitute!
ZDDP may be lower, not is lower. Do note that there are phosphorus minimums, too, which didn't exist before (at least not always, I believe they did at one intermittent point). Some of the old oils had some exceedingly low additive levels, despite the fact that they didn't face these upper limits.
The add pack is another story, but the ZDDP content is lower today so they are using a little more boron or moly Dtc. Whata substitute!
ZDDP may be lower, not is lower. Do note that there are phosphorus minimums, too, which didn't exist before (at least not always, I believe they did at one intermittent point). Some of the old oils had some exceedingly low additive levels, despite the fact that they didn't face these upper limits.
- Status
Similar threads
