Latest info on ExxonMobil synthetic base stocks

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: rooflessVW
If Mobil Delvac failed a test, it's because Shell was testing it.

Looks like a nice but of marketing.

Actually if Shell doesn't have a good backing, Mobil would easily sue Shell and win big. So, Shell can't simply make it up for marketing purposes.
 
Originally Posted By: tig1
In my 40 years of using M1 oils I have never had an engine show any sign of wear.


33 years for me, using it in lawn mowers as well as cars. I've never worn an engine out. My 1993 YJ had a diet of Mobil 1 and at 125,000 miles had compression in each cylinder that was the same as specd for a brand new one. My 99 Silverado has had nothing but Mobil 1, too. I sold it to my secretary's husband when it had 120k on it. It now has over 400k and runs fine. He continued to use Mobil 1 5w30, same as I always had. That truck will rust in half before the engine wears out.

I guess that's all just cherry picked marketing hype, though.
 
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: rooflessVW
If Mobil Delvac failed a test, it's because Shell was testing it.

Looks like a nice bit of marketing.

Actually if Shell doesn't have a good backing, Mobil would easily sue Shell and win big. So, Shell can't simply make it up for marketing purposes.

Right.

Funny how every company's marketing says their product is the best - surely they can't all be best?
 
Originally Posted By: rooflessVW
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: rooflessVW
If Mobil Delvac failed a test, it's because Shell was testing it.

Looks like a nice bit of marketing.

Actually if Shell doesn't have a good backing, Mobil would easily sue Shell and win big. So, Shell can't simply make it up for marketing purposes.

Right.

Funny how every company's marketing says their product is the best - surely they can't all be best?

Sure, they can claim their product is the best, but they can't make a false claim about the other company's product failing a test without risking litigation.
 
Didn’t Valvoline do the same thing against M1 a while back? There must be a fine line where marketing becomes slander and the oil companies know that line.
 
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: JAG
Mobil Delvac 1300 Super 15W-40 failing the Volvo T-13 rest is likely the fault of the antioxidants, not the base oils. When degradation suddenly skyrockets, it’s generally when the antioxidants were depleted to a level that causes the base stock(s) to be attacked relentlessly. No base oils are immune from the effects but they do respond differently. The antioxidants act as free radical scavengers and peroxide decomposers. The antioxidants are like the army protecting the king. When the army can no longer provide protection, the king gets assaulted.

Aren't those additive packs pretty standard though? My guess would be that the antioxidant got depleted not because it was an inferior antioxidant but the base oil was oxidizing too fast because of its low API Group # and eating it away.

The additive pacakages are not standard and have a huge effect on motor oil performance. Even Group I with plenty of effective antioxidants will prevent the base oil from oxidizing at a significant rate. In Shell’s graphs, you can see signs of degradation immediately occurring with nearly linear, low-slope, changes, and then suddenly the degradation goes high order. The antioxidants are very reactive and much more so than any base oil is. When they are too spent, base oil molecules are attacked, producing more and more reactive reaction products. Papers and books are full of information about this. Understanding how to combat the issue has been one of the biggest challenges for formulators since the dawn of modern lubrication. Wear control has been an easier nut to crack.
Here is a short article on the subject: https://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/999/lubricants-oxidation
 
Originally Posted By: IndyFan
Originally Posted By: tig1
In my 40 years of using M1 oils I have never had an engine show any sign of wear.


33 years for me, using it in lawn mowers as well as cars. I've never worn an engine out. My 1993 YJ had a diet of Mobil 1 and at 125,000 miles had compression in each cylinder that was the same as specd for a brand new one. My 99 Silverado has had nothing but Mobil 1, too. I sold it to my secretary's husband when it had 120k on it. It now has over 400k and runs fine. He continued to use Mobil 1 5w30, same as I always had. That truck will rust in half before the engine wears out.

I guess that's all just cherry picked marketing hype, though.


My old 91 Ford Ranger 3.0 had 354K when sold and the engine still performed very well. Valve covers were never removed. 1985 Escort diesel had 300K using reg M1 10-30. 218 K on a 96 Merc GM and 227K on my present 2007 Ford Fusion. Also had a 2007 Ford Focus with 175K when totaled last summer. All these engines showed no sign of any wear even with my normal 10K PCI.
 
Different API Groups oxidize at different rates. This is exactly why synthetic oil has a longer OCI -- because of the base oil, not because of the additive pack, such as the antioxidant. Slower-oxidizing base oil makes the detergent last longer, as most acids are produced through base-oil oxidation, and TBN stays high longer.

I would think the same thing with the antioxidant -- a slower-oxidizing base oil makes the antioxidant last longer. When the antioxidant is depleted, the oxidation rate would jump. That would happen at an earlier time with a lower-group base oil than a higher-group base oil, as the former simply oxidizes at a faster rate.

I can't imagine Mobil Delvac using any additive pack other than the standard Infineum CK-4 additive pack, which would also be used by Shell Rotella as Infineum is jointly owned with them, or something from a different company but of similar caliber. However, they use the cheapest base stocks they can get away with for a given certification, as those are the most expensive ingredients of the finished oil.
 
Originally Posted By: tig1
My old 91 Ford Ranger 3.0 had 354K when sold and the engine still performed very well. Valve covers were never removed. 1985 Escort diesel had 300K using reg M1 10-30. 218 K on a 96 Merc GM and 227K on my present 2007 Ford Fusion. Also had a 2007 Ford Focus with 175K when totaled last summer. All these engines showed no sign of any wear even with my normal 10K PCI.

It sounds great! I admire your loyalty to Ford and Mobil 1!
 
Originally Posted By: IndyFan
Originally Posted By: tig1
In my 40 years of using M1 oils I have never had an engine show any sign of wear.

33 years for me, using it in lawn mowers as well as cars. I've never worn an engine out. My 1993 YJ had a diet of Mobil 1 and at 125,000 miles had compression in each cylinder that was the same as specd for a brand new one. My 99 Silverado has had nothing but Mobil 1, too. I sold it to my secretary's husband when it had 120k on it. It now has over 400k and runs fine. He continued to use Mobil 1 5w30, same as I always had. That truck will rust in half before the engine wears out.

I guess that's all just cherry picked marketing hype, though.

I see that last comment was in response to what I wrote. Your success with Mobil 1 is entirely unrelated to the nature of the information in that marketing document. My comments about the document have nothing to with the performance of Mobil 1. Let’s keep the thoughts straight and the emotions out of it.
 
Originally Posted By: bbhero
So you have a very high level concerns concerning ExxonMobil oil??

I'm sure that you know TGMO is made by ExxonMobil as well.

It is not my intention to seem like I am giving you a hard time here. I do not mean this in that way.


EMCC sells base stocks to Amsoil and others … you guys reckon it gets tested outside of EM?
 
Originally Posted By: 4WD
Originally Posted By: bbhero
So you have a very high level concerns concerning ExxonMobil oil??

I'm sure that you know TGMO is made by ExxonMobil as well.

It is not my intention to seem like I am giving you a hard time here. I do not mean this in that way.


EMCC sells base stocks to Amsoil and others … you guys reckon it gets tested outside of EM?




Good question. A number of brands get their base from EM.
 
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: bbhero
So you have a very high level concerns concerning ExxonMobil oil??

I'm sure that you know TGMO is made by ExxonMobil as well.

It is not my intention to seem like I am giving you a hard time here. I do not mean this in that way.

Yes, but TGMO is Group III -- no PAO and possibly wear-inducing ester.

I did use M1 0W-40 SN recently and a lot of Mobil Delvac Super 1300 15W-40 CJ-4/SM in the past though.

I've corrected the link for the first document above.


Not long ago you mentioned the Delvac as top shelf AH index ... ?
It’s GII … both major XOM plant expansions were for GII+ production … if it actually had an issue (Shell has been busted cooking the books) ... I’d say that was anti oxidation shortage ... what have OEM’s said?
 
Originally Posted By: 4WD
Not long ago you mentioned the Delvac as top shelf AH index ... ?

Your memory is better than mine.

I just recalculated the A_Harman index for Mobil Delvac 1300 Super 15W-40 CK-4/SN to be 0.982. This beats any nonboutique oil out there. Go figure.
 
I’ve said it many times on here that esters compete with additives for metallic surface area due to their polarity, impacting wear.
 
Originally Posted By: tig1
In my 40 years of using M1 oils I have never had an engine show any sign of wear.
''


Please elaborate? Impressive.


Respectfully,

Pajero!
 
See how the one curve is shaped like Delvac’s in Shell’s paper?
http://lubetechnologies.com/assets/emerging-problem-of-lubricant-varnish-article.pdf

Quote:
Once the antioxidants in a lubricant start to degrade, the first physical impact on the lubricant is the generation of extremely small, sub-micron, contaminants. These may consist of degraded base oils, but at the early stages of development often consist of the degraded antioxidants.

 
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: turnbowm
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
...Clearly some time ago, during the API SM days, Mobil 1 was having a problem with Sequence IVA when Castrol reported their test results. This was also verified by many consumer UOA's such as on BITOG that showed very high iron numbers (excessive valvetrain wear). That could have been due to excessive use of esters in their formulations back then. This problem has been addressed and corrected by Mobil 1 since then...

Makes me all the more confident with my choice of PP with the GTL basestock.

If PAO shears, I'm sure GTL does too.

My understanding is that these (SpectraSyn Ultra™ PAO) are special very high-viscosity base stocks used in machining applications (neat oil). I doubt the PAO base stocks used in motor oil shear more than a small fraction of a percent, which would be negligible.

Yes, I think esters are a concern but I'm sure Mobil 1 is keeping their concentration at a minimum to avoid any issues with surface competition with the additives.


And if that's the case, then I would expect similar behaviour from GTL bases. JAG has covered it pretty well in the post that follows this one.
 
Originally Posted By: ENGINEER60
ALL VIs shear off eventually this is why air cooled engines use straight oils or oils with much fewer VI improvers like 20w-50.
This is also why ANY oil with a wide range should be avoided.


This thread is about base oils, not VII's.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

buster
Interesting piece on XOM's Racing Formulations
Replies
9
Views
1K
Big_B
MolaKule
Two-cycle oil Formulations
Replies
12
Views
936
Rinspeed
buster
Oil Specs & Testing Approved Lubricants
2 3 4
Replies
70
Views
7K
Nesterenko
I
  • Locked
Hopefully not a thick vs. thin thread
Replies
19
Views
4K
Gokhan
OVERKILL
HOBS base oils and implicit/inherent FM
Replies
7
Views
4K
bruce381
Back
Top