Alkylated Napthalene benefits

JAG · Dec 14, 2006

Some will take this as me unjustly defending Mobil 1. It's not that at all. I only want things to be known for what they are. The cliche' is "I seek the truth." When "you know who" announced that some M1 EP oils had Group 3 in it, he also announced that they had alkylated napthalenes and polyolesters (small %). "You know who" said that his equipment could not detect very large molecules such as very high viscosity PAO basestocks such as Supersyn. These are used on small percentages in M1 Supersyn oils as correction fluids. Most have forgot the last three facts and have focused only on the negative: the Group 3 content. I too wish that all M1 oils had only Groups 4 and 5 basestocks. But I'm concerned to see many people imply that oils like Pennzoil Platinum are equal to M1 "because they both have Group 3 in them". That's silly reasoning because it ignores the contribution of other baestocks in the oils and of course the additives. We don't know what PP has in it other than Group 3 so it's a big question mark. Esters do have their downsides, some of which are strong downsides. A shock to some will be that esters can allow more wear to occur than other basestocks. Alkylated napthalenes' downside is low viscosity index but that's not that big of a deal and its benefits outweigh that downside.

With all that said, enjoy the paper on alkylated napthalenes!
http://www.univar.co.uk/downloads/King_Industries_Alk_Naph.pdf

JAG · Dec 14, 2006

http://www.newmaterials.com/news/3047.asp

http://www.nyeautomotive.com/lubeletters/Vol_32_No_3.pdf

Laminar Lou · Dec 14, 2006

Good reading. Thanks for the article. I hope you have a good bunker to hide in now after defending XOM.

I've got a question. In the XOM press release, it states:

"excellent additive solubility
compatibility with a wide range of elastomers
non-emulsive properties."

Now doesn't LC20 tout that it's emulsive properties are a selling point? Forgive my ignorance, just trying to understand.

buster · Dec 14, 2006

Quote:

Most have forgot the last three facts and have focused only on the negative: the Group 3 content. I too wish that all M1 oils had only Groups 4 and 5 basestocks. But I'm concerned to see many people imply that oils like Pennzoil Platinum are equal to M1 "because they both have Group 3 in them". That's silly reasoning because it ignores the contribution of other baestocks in the oils and of course the additives

You're being objective, nothing wrong with that. Some are not. Fact is, M1 EP probably contains more antioxidants and more detergency than these other oils which is why it trounced the other's in the HT-06 test that HONDA, not XOM, performed. Has Mobil been sneaky and lied about the presence of Group III? Yes. The wording they use though gives them room to do so. I'm not happy about it and I've heard from many that have said since the merger, M1 has gone down in quality.

Regarding AN's, I've heard mixed things about them from Molekule and others. Not sure they are cracked up to be what XOM says they are.

JAG · Dec 14, 2006

Thanks buster for the support.
LL, "non-emulsive properties" means the mixture of AN and other basestocks is stable (doesn't separate naturally when the liquids sit still for long time).

Laminar Lou · Dec 14, 2006

Jag,

Thanks for the info, I think I understand now.

427Z06 · Dec 14, 2006

Quote:

Some will take this as me unjustly defending Mobil 1. It's not that at all. I only want things to be known for what they are. The cliche' is "I seek the truth." When "you know who" announced that some M1 EP oils had Group 3 in it, he also announced that they had alkylated napthalenes and polyolesters (small %). "You know who" said that his equipment could not detect very large molecules such as very high viscosity PAO basestocks such as Supersyn. These are used on small percentages in M1 Supersyn oils as correction fluids. Most have forgot the last three facts and have focused only on the negative: the Group 3 content. I too wish that all M1 oils had only Groups 4 and 5 basestocks. But I'm concerned to see many people imply that oils like Pennzoil Platinum are equal to M1 "because they both have Group 3 in them". That's silly reasoning because it ignores the contribution of other baestocks in the oils and of course the additives. We don't know what PP has in it other than Group 3 so it's a big question mark. Esters do have their downsides, some of which are strong downsides. A shock to some will be that esters can allow more wear to occur than other basestocks. Alkylated napthalenes' downside is low viscosity index but that's not that big of a deal and its benefits outweigh that downside.

Welcome to the 21st century. ANs have been discussed at length here at least a few times over the past few years.

And what makes you think that other oils, such as PP, at aren't using an alternative but equivalent strategy to impart the important properties that AN provide? After all, PP and others have to pass the same API/ACEA and manufacturer tests. And why aren't we seeing some kind of stand out performance from M1 in the UOAs?

You and buster hang onto M1 like some teenager who was dumped by his first girlfriend, standing outside her bedroom window in the cold rain with a boombox playing some corny 80's lovesong. Get over it, she's dating the rich kid who lives in the part of town where they have more money than common sense and no scruples.

Laminar Lou · Dec 14, 2006

Only 7 posts to get to the name calling?

I liked that movie "Say Anything". 80s gold.

I'll get back under my chair now

JohnBrowning · Dec 14, 2006

"Say Anything" was a good movie and the ladie's love it!!!

While I wish M1 had no GIII in it I still do not see where PP Walmart's Tech2000 Synthetic or any of the others OTC synthetics do any better then M1.

427Z06 · Dec 14, 2006

PP is passing the same API, ACEA, and manufacturer requirements and the UOAs have been as good if not better than M1, all while costing significantly less. Terry comments have also been favorable to PP unlike those for M1.

You know what they say about a fool and his money. I'm sure EOM is counting on you.

Ramjet Roger · Dec 14, 2006

I keep seeing that PP costs "significantly" less. Now that the BOGO offer is over, the price of PP is $5.68 while regular M1 is $5.88 per quart at Advanced Auto. Similar pricing is found at Autozone. Walmart pricing for quarts appears nearly the same as well. Now that PP has a "new formula" that claims Honda HT06, it appears that PP and regular M1 are equivalent in certification bragging rights. So with everything being equal price wise and certification wise, why wouldn't regular M1's better low/high temperature spec's make it a better oil for the same money?

Bryanccfshr · Dec 14, 2006

AN's are nothing special. AN's are significantly less expensive than superior POE's but are a hinderance to overall Viscosity index and volatility. I was once enamored with AN's Magic but from the posts and teachings of a respected chemist on this board I tempered that enthusiasm and now view AN as an economic move and not a performance move .

buster · Dec 14, 2006

Quote:

Terry comments have also been favorable to PP unlike those for M1.

You know what they say about a fool and his money. I'm sure EOM is counting on you.

Terry also says to use LC/FP and that a TBN of zero is ok for Redline. Go ahead, take the chance running a TBN of ZERO and waste some more money on LC which has shown to do nothing.

RL is $9qt and is the worst performing street oil across the board when considering price/performance and extended drain intervals. Redline is a phenomenal oil for high performance applications but not needed by 99% of us.

Who is that guy that discovered that Mobil 1 contains group III? Yeah...he still uses Mobil 1.

What about price? Last time I checked Castrol Syntec was $6qt at Autozone, Amsoil 0w-30 was $9qt and Royal Purple was $7qt. Of all the oil's above, only Amsoil and Mobil recommend long drain intervals with their product. So who is really ripping who off?

spiderbypass · Dec 14, 2006

I am confused about your about-face Buster. I recall in previous posts your positive comments about Redline, and negative remarks regarding amsoil 0w30 as overpriced. I also thought you used Terry's services. Why the change of thoughts and hears about those issues and Terry's opinions?

boxcartommie22 · Dec 14, 2006

iam suprised myself buster..

buster · Dec 14, 2006

Quote:

I am confused about your about-face Buster. I recall in previous posts your positive comments about Redline, and negative remarks regarding amsoil 0w30 as overpriced. I also thought you used Terry's services. Why the change of thoughts and hears about those issues and Terry's opinions?

What did I just say above? I said RL is great for high performance cars, I just don't think it's worth $9qt when it's not the best choice for LONG DRAINS. The negative comments about Amsoil 0w-30 is the price compared to ASL/ATM and even M1 EP.

I disagree with Terry on LC and additives. I also disagree about ZERO TBN's with RL based on two labs I've used. I'm aloud to form my own opinion and respectfully disagree with other members.

My point was , while XOM hasn't been straightforward about the presence of Group III in M1, it's still the only oil API approved and guaranteeing 15,000 mile drains. Am I not being clear?

I also love playing devil's advocate bc there is always the flip side of the story.

I used RL in my car. GREAT oil, but not necessary in my car. I've used Terry's services and he was very good. Thats all. If I had a 600hp Corvette, I'd use RL. PP is a great oil. I've seen it for almost $5qt here. I see Syntec for about the same price as M1. I don't really see the big deal about this.

spiderbypass · Dec 14, 2006

Playing devil's advocate is a polite term for disagreeing in a passive aggressive way. I may have misread the level of enthusiasm you displayed about your run of redline in your accord during the interval and after oil analysis. You mentioned Terry's services in the past tense, are you not using them anymore? I am asking because am looking for a more reliable analysis service as many members feel oilguard's services are subpar. I also pay attention to your posts as I have a 2004 accord and continuously change oils as I have used amsoil 0w30, castrol 0w30, mobil 1 0w30, redline 5w20, and now have motul 0w30 e-tech lite. I basically agree with your sentiments.
I found redline 5w20 ran well, but noticed more oil consumption, and only ran out 9200 miles as opposed to running amsoil 0w30 for 18,000 miles. Wear metals were lower on redline, but also did auto rx treatment prior to running redline. I found GC was not suited to accord as car felt more sluggish. Would be interested to know what other oils you have ran in your accord

buster · Dec 14, 2006

spider, Terry is great at reading reports. I personally don't know of anyone better. If you do a search on the Honda 2.4L, you'll find it really doesn't matter what oil you run it it. RL 5w-20 is a great choice, but expensive. I think for longer drains, Amsoil and Mobil 1 are better choices.

JAG · Dec 14, 2006

I read MolaKule's opinions on AN in several threads. I concluded that they disagree with the test data in the links above so those opinions are out the door. No offense meant to him personally. Everyone is wrong about something and I may be wrong too but "test data > opinion" when the data seems valid. If someone can find test data on AN that differs from what's above, go ahead and post it.

Terry · Dec 14, 2006

JAG, I am not sure what you are disagreeing with Molakule about but I can assure you that unless you are a Nuclear Physicist,Chemist,Tribologist you may want to reread or have misunderstood Molakule. The guy is a genius and is INDEPENDENT of brand loyalty. Could he have posted something wrong, sure but I doubt it. Please reference us to that post?

Many of you may be too sensitive to 427's modality but he speaks the truth. I do not like name calling but many of the more scientific minds here get tired of stupidity or lazy ignorance. I must say whether I agree with 427 or disagree he does make a concerted effort to back his opnions with science and not opinion.

My science is oil analysis and I repeat that science a hundreds times a day.

I was recently "schooled" in the presence of one of my fine oil analysis customers by a very well known Japanese branded racing engine builder in a consulting exchange. When the dust settled the builder was wrong and overeacted defending his engine building and lack of knowledge about tribology. I quietly/calmly provided him with SAE data and reports to back up the critical issue. Not to stroke my ego but REALLY assist the customer.

His problem was fuel dilution issues, and my oil analysis interpretation dealt directly with that issue no matter what the builders designs or excuses were.

In this case it is much the same. People get defensive when they have to admit they might be wrong. Good scientists in the end and allow the science to speak.

I see M1 reflect average to poorly in oil analysis results compared to our data base of results. I want to work for XOM in the future but I march to the beat of a different drummer and will always share the truth as long as my ND or secrecy agreements allow me to speak.

I don't care about lubricant brand, I care about what works and that those I deal with from that maker are sharp and friendly business people who I can trust.

Buster is a valued customer and a hack at tribology ! When the marketing wind blows he moves like cane in the fields. He is good at heart but is not a scientist.

Just because a person posts a lot at BITOG does not a oil analyst or formulator make.

I don't KNOW for sure what M1 is right now, they are changing up too quick for me. Lets take a good look at performance in the field by observation, and UOA and let that guide.

BTW LC and FP with Auto-RX are still the 3 coolest chemistries I have seen in the last 5 years and note I haven't mentioned any others publicly even though I test MANY.

Terry

Alkylated Napthalene benefits

Similar threads