Latest info on ExxonMobil synthetic base stocks

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan


(2) Including an ester base stock in finished oil quadruples the Sequence IVA wear (API valvetrain wear test for gasoline engines)! This is especially scary as most Mobil 1 oils must include an ester base stock since PAO on its own is not stable. Lately they have possibly started using alkylated naphthalene instead of esters in some of their oils. The reason why esters increase wear so much is because they compete for the metal surfaces and they prevent the antiwear/extreme-pressure/friction-modifier additives from adhering to the metal surfaces.


The only time esters interfere with ZDDP for camshaft wear is during break-in of a new or rebuilt engine, as is the case with the Sequence IVA test. A high dose of a highly polar ester during break-in can slow down the ZDDP's ability to lay down a protective coating. Once the ZDDP protection has been established, however, the esters do not lead to further wear.

The first approved synthetic oils were based 100% on esters and did not cause wear problems in the field, and several major brand oils used 10-20% ester formulations for many years without issue. In the real world engines are broken in with conventional oils. It was only in test engines with new parts, broken in with high ester oils, that cam wear was observed, and then only for the first few hours of the test, after which the wear stopped.

Back in those early days I was responsible for monitoring UOA reports on 100% ester oils from the field, and the only times I saw high iron it was directly correlated with high silicon (dirt) in extended drain situations due to poor maintenance. Beyond those few times the oils performed very well. I also formulated very high ester dose oils for my own cars and iron levels were always low.

I designed ester molecules, formulated them, and tested them for nearly four decades in numerous automotive, aviation, and industrial applications. In general they reduced wear, even in the presence of various anti-wear and EP additives. Initial break-in of automotive engines with ZDDP is the only interference I have observed.

The ExxonMobil data compares an ester containing oil with an AN containing oil in a IVA engine test with a new camshaft in a formulation that did not have any friction modifiers. I don't know what they were trying to prove, but I would not attempt to conclude from that that esters cause engine wear in real world use.
 
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: Gokhan


(2) Including an ester base stock in finished oil quadruples the Sequence IVA wear (API valvetrain wear test for gasoline engines)! This is especially scary as most Mobil 1 oils must include an ester base stock since PAO on its own is not stable. Lately they have possibly started using alkylated naphthalene instead of esters in some of their oils. The reason why esters increase wear so much is because they compete for the metal surfaces and they prevent the antiwear/extreme-pressure/friction-modifier additives from adhering to the metal surfaces.


The only time esters interfere with ZDDP for camshaft wear is during break-in of a new or rebuilt engine, as is the case with the Sequence IVA test. A high dose of a highly polar ester during break-in can slow down the ZDDP's ability to lay down a protective coating. Once the ZDDP protection has been established, however, the esters do not lead to further wear.

The first approved synthetic oils were based 100% on esters and did not cause wear problems in the field, and several major brand oils used 10-20% ester formulations for many years without issue. In the real world engines are broken in with conventional oils. It was only in test engines with new parts, broken in with high ester oils, that cam wear was observed, and then only for the first few hours of the test, after which the wear stopped.

Back in those early days I was responsible for monitoring UOA reports on 100% ester oils from the field, and the only times I saw high iron it was directly correlated with high silicon (dirt) in extended drain situations due to poor maintenance. Beyond those few times the oils performed very well. I also formulated very high ester dose oils for my own cars and iron levels were always low.

I designed ester molecules, formulated them, and tested them for nearly four decades in numerous automotive, aviation, and industrial applications. In general they reduced wear, even in the presence of various anti-wear and EP additives. Initial break-in of automotive engines with ZDDP is the only interference I have observed.

The ExxonMobil data compares an ester containing oil with an AN containing oil in a IVA engine test with a new camshaft in a formulation that did not have any friction modifiers. I don't know what they were trying to prove, but I would not attempt to conclude from that that esters cause engine wear in real world use.


Thanks for yet another informative post!
thumbsup2.gif
 
Thanks Tom and JAG.

Those are marketing materials consisting of XOM’s portfolio of base oils. I personally have always trusted and liked Mobil 1 due to their extensive knowledge and production of synthetic base oils. While they are not the only producer, they have always been an industry leader. I tend to trust the smaller players less due to their reliance on outside support.

I don’t know of any oil today that doesn’t crush the IVA wear test. Mobil’s issue years ago will never be fully known. It’s possible it was due to Katrina/supply/formation issues.
 
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
I haven't gone through all of this -- there is lots and lots of info to absorb here!

Two things struck me though:

(1) It turns out that the base stocks, not just the viscosity-index improver (VII), also shear. This is especially true with the advanced synthetic base stocks such as SpectraSyn Ultra™ PAO ExxonMobil makes, which have complicated molecules. They shear as much as 50%!

(2) Including an ester base stock in finished oil quadruples the Sequence IVA wear (API valvetrain wear test for gasoline engines)! This is especially scary as most Mobil 1 oils must include an ester base stock since PAO on its own is not stable. Lately they have possibly started using alkylated naphthalene instead of esters in some of their oils. The reason why esters increase wear so much is because they compete for the metal surfaces and they prevent the antiwear/extreme-pressure/friction-modifier additives from adhering to the metal surfaces.

ExxonMobil Chemical advanced synthetic base stocks

Exxon Mobil synthetic lubricant base stocks formulations guide (2017)



(1) Viscosity loss due to shear is generally not a problem for engine oils. If you read the formulation guide you will also see that SpectraSyn Ultra 1000 isn't used in their engine oil formulations either. For engine oils they recommend SpectraSyn 4, 6, 40, 100, SpectraSyn Elite 65, 150, 300, Esterex NP343 and Synesstic 5. The viscosity loss of for instance Elite 300 is just a few percent over 100 hours.

(2) ExxonMobil do not make any such claims in the documents you've provided. They claim that replacing 10% esters with 10% AN in an PAO based engine oil will reduce wear in Sequence IVA from 541 to 147 μm, but this does not mean that esters increase wear in the same test. It is not possible to draw any conclusions about about how esters affect wear from these results since there is no reference oil without esters or AN in their comparison. They do however make several claims about esters increasing lubricity in these documents, which I would interpret as "wear reducing".

In the formulation guide ExxonMobil suggests several fully synthetic engine oil formulations based only on PAO and AN, so your claim that Mobil 1 must include and ester is clearly wrong.
 
Originally Posted By: Edis
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
I haven't gone through all of this -- there is lots and lots of info to absorb here!

Two things struck me though:

(1) It turns out that the base stocks, not just the viscosity-index improver (VII), also shear. This is especially true with the advanced synthetic base stocks such as SpectraSyn Ultra™ PAO ExxonMobil makes, which have complicated molecules. They shear as much as 50%!

(2) Including an ester base stock in finished oil quadruples the Sequence IVA wear (API valvetrain wear test for gasoline engines)! This is especially scary as most Mobil 1 oils must include an ester base stock since PAO on its own is not stable. Lately they have possibly started using alkylated naphthalene instead of esters in some of their oils. The reason why esters increase wear so much is because they compete for the metal surfaces and they prevent the antiwear/extreme-pressure/friction-modifier additives from adhering to the metal surfaces.

ExxonMobil Chemical advanced synthetic base stocks

Exxon Mobil synthetic lubricant base stocks formulations guide (2017)



(1) Viscosity loss due to shear is generally not a problem for engine oils. If you read the formulation guide you will also see that SpectraSyn Ultra 1000 isn't used in their engine oil formulations either. For engine oils they recommend SpectraSyn 4, 6, 40, 100, SpectraSyn Elite 65, 150, 300, Esterex NP343 and Synesstic 5. The viscosity loss of for instance Elite 300 is just a few percent over 100 hours.

(2) ExxonMobil do not make any such claims in the documents you've provided. They claim that replacing 10% esters with 10% AN in an PAO based engine oil will reduce wear in Sequence IVA from 541 to 147 μm, but this does not mean that esters increase wear in the same test. It is not possible to draw any conclusions about about how esters affect wear from these results since there is no reference oil without esters or AN in their comparison. They do however make several claims about esters increasing lubricity in these documents, which I would interpret as "wear reducing".

In the formulation guide ExxonMobil suggests several fully synthetic engine oil formulations based only on PAO and AN, so your claim that Mobil 1 must include and ester is clearly wrong.


Fundera på samma sak som du när jag läste artickeln. Håller fullständigt med dig!
 
Originally Posted By: bbhero
Good question.

I agree with PimTac.

I would bet they get tested outside of ExxonMobil.


Bet they have reps where the train cars get loaded … big dollar purchase - and the formulators reputation on the line …
 
Originally Posted By: 4WD
Originally Posted By: bbhero
Good question.

I agree with PimTac.

I would bet they get tested outside of ExxonMobil.


Bet they have reps where the train cars get loaded … big dollar purchase - and the formulators reputation on the line …





Correct me if I’m wrong here. ExxonMobil makes a variety of base oils, which are then mixed in a certain formulation to achieve the intended purpose and price point. It would be up to the end blender to test the resulting mix. Speculating here but does M1 have restrictions on the blend formulas so nobody else can just copy M1’s formulation?

I think this goes into much more detail than just testing base oils in and by themselves. Are not all oils blends of various base oils?
 
Originally Posted By: Edis
(2) ExxonMobil do not make any such claims in the documents you've provided. They claim that replacing 10% esters with 10% AN in an PAO based engine oil will reduce wear in Sequence IVA from 541 to 147 μm, but this does not mean that esters increase wear in the same test. It is not possible to draw any conclusions about about how esters affect wear from these results since there is no reference oil without esters or AN in their comparison. They do however make several claims about esters increasing lubricity in these documents, which I would interpret as "wear reducing".

In the formulation guide ExxonMobil suggests several fully synthetic engine oil formulations based only on PAO and AN, so your claim that Mobil 1 must include and ester is clearly wrong.

No, my claim is not wrong at all. On the contrary ExxonMobil clearly claims that the esters inhibit the antiwear/extreme-pressure/friction-modifier (AW/EP/FM) additives. They show other base stocks ("base oil" in the picture) as not inhibiting the additives. They claim that this is because the esters adhere to the metal surfaces and prevent the additives from adhering to them. See the following picture from their document.

Zdo4GoF9lP1TgcVsJCZm1p_NJNDZhIxkVL8qisX1V0Yu6LV4pRxVuYXnm0el4NJffAm1UZVKzitt2BJyQpW458DALCyM4J4l7AjxiduO-5BGWSWHXMfZsSZv8AxsfUWmvACFzW4x3Wmz3v2AoA31FpqojxNseQdDdYcrlNbvavz5Go_do9JicH7B-xvonjzQI_IXNeUeYD9mOr9LURWfP9lA45po0dOl8NA8W2X70O0KoKIQ-7M1QlwM72rQ6_zIEctARy_YeyjtJijdbDEHlXXiWvmGfG6acBTlTVJVxs_3SBB94FOgnLX7JJFvAYTMpnJvJINETyLUSKrYbYXGjIO0-c7sq2ugufSWmFj_h-hEXBT97WxL5sU6EhjahW6mIu-2-O95XgQ-oMw5JjMwyHvSMxKPP0meUJEiKEL3Zz73XjT3iutCgiZP-ts0o9Yika9NCdTUXIgc8vZ4-6M5O-sW3283ThwZK3VxWHrFD2JY9MGYiGT_h9iw-iPkxgixOeTDWW6832QNSpz20yEDvAOuzFyVbmtqhRVySKInZIHgdxlXdiEzd8Icc2AQSn5fsBUYrkt1koTkUA5Jhax5eR0yHfrQhEzxR04WOUXT=w1236-h359-no


It's true that they don't have a Sequence IVA wear-test result without the AN (only with PAO), but regardless, their main point is that the esters adhere to the metal surfaces and prevent the AW/EP/FM additives from doing their job.
 
Yet another reason why this inferior, so called "synthetic" oil will never go in any of my vehicles again.

Tig- your luck with vehicles has nothing to do with M1, its because you drive nothing but Fords!
 
Originally Posted By: racin4ds
Yet another reason why this inferior, so called "synthetic" oil will never go in any of my vehicles again.

Tig- your luck with vehicles has nothing to do with M1, its because you drive nothing but Fords!




What does this have to do with the thread topic?
 
Originally Posted By: PimTac
I think this goes into much more detail than just testing base oils in and by themselves. Are not all oils blends of various base oils?

To clarify, ExxonMobil sells "base stocks," not "base oil." There is a difference between the two terms, as described by API. You can contact ExxonMobil and buy whatever base stock you want -- I'm sure there is a minimum order though.

A base oil, as opposed to a base stock, is a mixture of base stocks used in making the lubricating oil. It's the oil blender's job to decide which base stocks and in what quantities to mix to make the appropriate base oil for a given application. ExxonMobil will have no say on how to mix your base oil from the base stocks they sell, other than the guide I posted here. You can also mix other companies' base stocks with ExxonMobil's base stocks into your base-oil mix. If you manage to copy Mobil 1's blend, that's fine, but it's difficult as the ingredients aren't disclosed.

ExxonMobil must test their base stocks so that they can publish data sheets for them to be used by the oil blenders. Oil blenders then can test their base oil (mix of base stocks) if they want. Of course, they definitely need to test their finished oil (with the additives) so that it can be certified.
 
Originally Posted By: racin4ds
Yet another reason why this inferior, so called "synthetic" oil will never go in any of my vehicles again.

Most synthetic oils sold in US are Group III or GTL and most conventional oils sold in US are Group II+. Therefore, the base oils are very similar, the only difference being the synthetic oils have a-little-more-refined base oil, which definitely will help and not harm your engine.

Mobil 1 is one of the few oils sold in US that has Group IV (PAO) and Group V (ester, AN, etc.) in it. These base stocks have definitely some important advantages, such as extending the OCI, cleaning the engine, and improving cold starts. Do they have disadvantages such as increasing the valvetrain wear? As we know all oils sold must pass engine tests to be certified. I am sure Mobil 1 tests just fine in Sequence IVA wear tests. I think the amount of ester that goes in, which is the main concern, is really small (~ 2%) to have a significant effect on wear. It's mainly used to stabilize the PAO.
 
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: PimTac
I think this goes into much more detail than just testing base oils in and by themselves. Are not all oils blends of various base oils?

To clarify, ExxonMobil sells "base stocks," not "base oil." There is a difference between the two terms, as described by API. You can contact ExxonMobil and buy whatever base stock you want -- I'm sure there is a minimum order though.

A base oil, as opposed to a base stock, is a mixture of base stocks used in making the lubricating oil. It's the oil blender's job to decide which base stocks and in what quantities to mix to make the appropriate base oil for a given application. ExxonMobil will have no say on how to mix your base oil from the base stocks they sell, other than the guide I posted here. You can also mix other companies' base stocks with ExxonMobil's base stocks into your base-oil mix. If you manage to copy Mobil 1's blend, that's fine, but it's difficult as the ingredients aren't disclosed.

ExxonMobil must test their base stocks so that they can publish data sheets for them to be used by the oil blenders. Oil blenders then can test their base oil (mix of base stocks) if they want. Of course, they definitely need to test their finished oil (with the additives) so that it can be certified.



I appreciate this response. Thanks for posting.
 
Respectfully, this place gets positively nutty with speculation fueled by bits of information lacking in context way too often. Do you think ExxonMobil, the biggest oil company in the world, would sell you products that were going to turn your camshaft lobes into metallic glitter? I remember a time, not even that long ago, when this place was all about Group IV and V oils. Now? People come out of the woodwork to proclaim Group III is superior, and that PAO and esters are going to harm your engine. It’s nonsense. This place goes through fads where everybody jumps on a bandwagon for awhile just because the loudest voice may have proclaimed something, or some irrelevant article planted a seed in some people’s heads, and it spirals out of control from there.

The truth is, Mobil 1 is fine. Pennzoil Platinum is fine. Boutique oils, if you want to fork over that kind of dough, are fine. Supertech is fine too.

For what it’s worth, an actual, real life tribologist (oil scientist) recommended I use a Group IV oil to clean the carboned up rings in my engine. Meanwhile, armchair quarterbacks here want to dismiss this group of oil this year, followed by some other base stock the next year, and then we’ll all use PYB for awhile, but then we’ll all ask why anybody is even using conventional oils anymore, and then we’ll all move to thinner oils, but then thinner oils will go out of fashion in favor of thicker oils, and then we’ll shun Castrol, but then one person will post a good UOA with Magnatech so we’ll all buy that up for a few months. And it goes on, and on, and on....

This forum debates and flips opinions so much that I have seen truths become myths and myths become truths. In a way, it’s like everything here is relevant, yet at the same time none of it is relevant at all.
 
Originally Posted By: cheesepuffs
Respectfully, this place gets positively nutty with speculation fueled by bits of information lacking in context way too often. Do you think ExxonMobil, the biggest oil company in the world, would sell you products that were going to turn your camshaft lobes into metallic glitter? I remember a time, not even that long ago, when this place was all about Group IV and V oils. Now? People come out of the woodwork to proclaim Group III is superior, and that PAO and esters are going to harm your engine. It’s nonsense. This place goes through fads where everybody jumps on a bandwagon for awhile just because the loudest voice may have proclaimed something, or some irrelevant article planted a seed in some people’s heads, and it spirals out of control from there.

The truth is, Mobil 1 is fine. Pennzoil Platinum is fine. Boutique oils, if you want to fork over that kind of dough, are fine. Supertech is fine too.

For what it’s worth, an actual, real life tribologist (oil scientist) recommended I use a Group IV oil to clean the carboned up rings in my engine. Meanwhile, armchair quarterbacks here want to dismiss this group of oil this year, followed by some other base stock the next year, and then we’ll all use PYB for awhile, but then we’ll all ask why anybody is even using conventional oils anymore, and then we’ll all move to thinner oils, but then thinner oils will go out of fashion in favor of thicker oils, and then we’ll shun Castrol, but then one person will post a good UOA with Magnatech so we’ll all buy that up for a few months. And it goes on, and on, and on....

This forum debates and flips opinions so much that I have seen truths become myths and myths become truths. In a way, it’s like everything here is relevant, yet at the same time none of it is relevant at all.
You just summed up Bitog very well! Lol!!
 
Originally Posted By: IndyFan
Originally Posted By: cheesepuffs
Respectfully, this place gets positively nutty with speculation fueled by bits of information lacking in context way too often. Do you think ExxonMobil, the biggest oil company in the world, would sell you products that were going to turn your camshaft lobes into metallic glitter? I remember a time, not even that long ago, when this place was all about Group IV and V oils. Now? People come out of the woodwork to proclaim Group III is superior, and that PAO and esters are going to harm your engine. It’s nonsense. This place goes through fads where everybody jumps on a bandwagon for awhile just because the loudest voice may have proclaimed something, or some irrelevant article planted a seed in some people’s heads, and it spirals out of control from there.

The truth is, Mobil 1 is fine. Pennzoil Platinum is fine. Boutique oils, if you want to fork over that kind of dough, are fine. Supertech is fine too.

For what it’s worth, an actual, real life tribologist (oil scientist) recommended I use a Group IV oil to clean the carboned up rings in my engine. Meanwhile, armchair quarterbacks here want to dismiss this group of oil this year, followed by some other base stock the next year, and then we’ll all use PYB for awhile, but then we’ll all ask why anybody is even using conventional oils anymore, and then we’ll all move to thinner oils, but then thinner oils will go out of fashion in favor of thicker oils, and then we’ll shun Castrol, but then one person will post a good UOA with Magnatech so we’ll all buy that up for a few months. And it goes on, and on, and on....

This forum debates and flips opinions so much that I have seen truths become myths and myths become truths. In a way, it’s like everything here is relevant, yet at the same time none of it is relevant at all.

You just summed up Bitog very well! Lol!!

No, he didn't sum up BITOG at all.

Yes, a few people posted in this thread that they would never use synthetic, PAO, or whatever, which is a fair statement. Then, he made the other extreme comment that anything from the cheapest to the most expensive oil in the world is fine. That statement is fair, too.

However, the whole point of BITOG is to discuss everything about oil. Therefore, let's keep the discussion open.
 
Originally Posted By: cheesepuffs
Respectfully, this place gets positively nutty with speculation fueled by bits of information lacking in context way too often. Do you think ExxonMobil, the biggest oil company in the world, would sell you products that were going to turn your camshaft lobes into metallic glitter? I remember a time, not even that long ago, when this place was all about Group IV and V oils. Now? People come out of the woodwork to proclaim Group III is superior, and that PAO and esters are going to harm your engine. It’s nonsense. This place goes through fads where everybody jumps on a bandwagon for awhile just because the loudest voice may have proclaimed something, or some irrelevant article planted a seed in some people’s heads, and it spirals out of control from there.

The truth is, Mobil 1 is fine. Pennzoil Platinum is fine. Boutique oils, if you want to fork over that kind of dough, are fine. Supertech is fine too.

For what it’s worth, an actual, real life tribologist (oil scientist) recommended I use a Group IV oil to clean the carboned up rings in my engine. Meanwhile, armchair quarterbacks here want to dismiss this group of oil this year, followed by some other base stock the next year, and then we’ll all use PYB for awhile, but then we’ll all ask why anybody is even using conventional oils anymore, and then we’ll all move to thinner oils, but then thinner oils will go out of fashion in favor of thicker oils, and then we’ll shun Castrol, but then one person will post a good UOA with Magnatech so we’ll all buy that up for a few months. And it goes on, and on, and on....

This forum debates and flips opinions so much that I have seen truths become myths and myths become truths. In a way, it’s like everything here is relevant, yet at the same time none of it is relevant at all.


One thing is certain, and it can't be denied, and that is, since I joined this site back in 2006, I have read UOA after UOA of Mobil-1 oils showing higher than average wear metals, among other things, in their UOAs.

I left the site for quite a spell but recently became active again and it was surprising to see/read, after many years, Mobil is still showing higher than average wear metals in their UOAs and is still being talked about today.

I was once a firm believer, I drank the Kool-Aid, but thanks to this site and the UOAs provided within, I no longer use Mobil in my vehicles listed below.

Like I have repeatedly stated, your engine is not going to blow/grenade using Mobil, but is it really worth paying a premium price for when many oils exist, that show far better UOAs, that can be purchased for significant less money?

I have also asked recently why that is, high wear metals in Mobil UOAs but that answer seems elusive for some reason? Maybe, finally that answer has been answered in this thread?
I know many people don't like change nor like to admit they have been had by overpaying for something for a long time after repeatedly drinking the Kool-Aid for years, but I am glad I am not one of those.

Personally, with all the info, data and other mumble jumble that only a chemist/Philadelphia lawyer can decipher, maybe, I choose the easy route and that is reading UOAs and listening to the sounds of my engines. That is all I need to make my decision and that is why I have chosen the oil I have chosen in my sig. Is it perfect oil, not likely, but it does, mostly, show far better UOAs, repeatedly, than what Mobil oils do.

I still run Mobil 0W-40 Euro in my snowmobile and will continue until the 2, 4.4 liters jugs are gone, but after that, provided I am still sledding with a 4 stroke sled, will be using a different manu's oil.
As the saying goes, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
12.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top