Mobil 1 0W-20 Annual Protection VOA, TBN/TAN

[oil_film_movies]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Back when I ran oil analysis in college, phosphorus was more challenging to detect than transition metals. Maybe things have improved since then, but Blackstone does not give tolerances so it may be within the margin of detectability.

I would have a hard time believing ExxonMobil would market a product labeled with a spec it didn't meet. They have shown themselves to be very careful about that in the past. The sheet shown here indicates 650ppm.


Phosphorus ppm is consistent with zinc ppm, both low, and both coming from ZDDP. So zinc detection must be off too. Also, mag and calc detergents are down. Moly and boron could be low too. ............. Sure we need another VOA here, yet it just looks like not enough DI package was mixed with too much base oil. New oil, new blending machines, new technicians, QA and engineering who don't want to admit mistakes, this kind of thing happens.

 

[kschachn]

That would be consistent with the conspiracy theory, yes. But I'm a hard sell to convince that ExxonMobil is unable to properly formulate a motor oil.

For the most part, "this kind of thing" does not happen.

 

[bbhero]

I agree with Buster on this. A $30 VOA is not going to reveal anywhere near the whole story here. This oil is in all likelihood a tremendously good motor oil. But it is also very high priced as well. Thus it's real job currently is dust collector.

 

[oil_film_movies]

Originally Posted By: btanchors
Nothing to see here, folks, move along....I present for your consideration a VOA of Mobil 1 0W-20 Annual Protection. Looks surprisingly normal. I suspect whatever it is that is different does not show up in a VOA.

Do you still have the bottle or jug? Please record the batch numbers on it just in case its needed.
I do think Mobil technicians are fallible, and companies don't like to recall products once they are on the shelves. The SN violations and low detergent levels may be an early batch problem.

Also, wonder if you could ask Blackstone to re-test??? Maybe send in a new sample?

Another possibility: Additives have settled out in some bottles. Did you shake before pouring?

 

[btanchors]

I do still have the bottle, and will obtain the batch number and post it here when I get home from work this evening. It is a one-quart bottle, and I did shake thoroughly for quite awhile before pouring it into the sample jar.

 

[yvon_la]

It check ail thé proper Mark so It should do well, my misgiving? A lot of métal in This oil,yes i know sulfonate are there to malt thé various métal ,i m more scared of thé time between thé métal Being melted and its actuel liquide form

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: yvon_la
It check ail thé proper Mark so It should do well, my misgiving? A lot of métal in This oil,yes i know sulfonate are there to malt thé various métal ,i m more scared of thé time between thé métal Being melted and its actuel liquide form


Say what? Please translate.

You aren't implying there are actual metal particles in the oil, are you?

 

[yvon_la]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
That would be consistent with the conspiracy theory, yes. But I'm a hard sell to convince that ExxonMobil is unable to properly formulate a motor oil.

For the most part, "this kind of thing" does not happen.
when wax thé last time hou drove your oïl for 1000 mile and time was up. You has to change It? Yep ite a very specific case but still, oïl maker gun for long term in ail value , so if one is short terme , It Can mess oïl maker expectancy

 

[btanchors]

As promised, here is the batch number from the back of the bottle. I think this can be translated into a calendar date - can someone tell me what the calendar date is from this lot number?

11017520A 6326

All the digits above are clear, except I am not certain about the '5'. It's possible it might be a 'B', not sure.

 

[oil_film_movies]

btanchors, I have an M1 Ann Prot 0w20 quart bottle too. Mine is 11017B20A 6326, the same as yours. I'm seeing a letter "B" where you see a number "5", but it could also be an "8". Maybe it is a "B", which stands for "Batch".
Looks like both our bottles were made on January 10, 2017, Batch 20A, and who knows what the "6326" means.
I'm guessing. Only Mobil really knows!
I just sent a sample to Blackstone.

If you want to, get a hold of PQIAmerica.com and show them your sample's allegedly low levels of additives which disqualify the oil if true. Then, they can pay for a test, either of your bottle or they can grab one.

 

[btanchors]

oil_film_movies,

This is great - sounds like we have the same exact batch. Please do post your VOA - since it's the same batch, and the same company doing the analysis, we'll see how similar the results are.

 

[DuckRyder]

Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
btanchors, I have an M1 Ann Prot 0w20 quart bottle too. Mine is 11017B20A 6326, the same as yours. I'm seeing a letter "B" where you see a number "5", but it could also be an "8". Maybe it is a "B", which stands for "Batch".
Looks like both our bottles were made on January 10, 2017, Batch 20A, and who knows what the "6326" means.
I'm guessing. Only Mobil really knows!
I just sent a sample to Blackstone.

If you want to, get a hold of PQIAmerica.com and show them your sample's allegedly low levels of additives which disqualify the oil if true. Then, they can pay for a test, either of your bottle or they can grab one.


That is not the correct decode of the date.

 

[oil_film_movies]

Originally Posted By: DuckRyder
That is not the correct decode of the date.
Total guess on my part. Sounds reasonable though. The "17" means 2017, right? And it seems like a new oil like that on the shelf might have been made in January.

Do you know what all those numbers mean? Of course, in a way, it doesn't matter.
It was interesting the bottle I bought had the exact same numbers stamped on the back as btanchor's bottle.
Can we assume these two bottles were of the same production batch?

 

[DuckRyder]

Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
Originally Posted By: DuckRyder
That is not the correct decode of the date.
Total guess on my part. Sounds reasonable though. The "17" means 2017, right? And it seems like a new oil like that on the shelf might have been made in January.

Do you know what all those numbers mean? Of course, in a way, it doesn't matter.
It was interesting the bottle I bought had the exact same numbers stamped on the back as btanchor's bottle.
Can we assume these two bottles were of the same production batch?


110 is the plant code (I’m not sure what plant 110 is, most if not all of mine is 101 which I think is Beaumont)
17 Year
B February
20 day
A shift

6326 is believed to be the product code

At least thats what I have been able to come up with.

 

[Bebop367]

Am I missing something?
Appears to me per SDS on Mobil One website today
M1 EP has 20->30% PAO
M1 Annual Protection 5w-30 has 5 - >10% PAO

Mobil One Annual Protection 5w-30:
1-DECENE, HOMOPOLYMER HYDROGENATED 68037-01-4 5 - < 10% H304

Mobil One Extended 5w-30:
1-DECENE, HOMOPOLYMER HYDROGENATED 68037-01-4 20 - < 30% H304

 

[DuckRyder]

Incidentally, while I appreciate the VOA/UOAs posted here the more I see the more I’ve come to the realization that consumer grade UOA/VOA are of little value beyond entertainment.

I’d be willing to bet that even another sample from the same bottle would show differing numbers. As might rerunning this sample.

For instance there exist a series of OA with approximately a 25% variation in Zinc over a ~2500 mile run plus VOA and the last UOA shows higher Zinc than the VOA.

I’m not sure what conclusion I should draw from that other than that the process itself is flawed....

I certainly would be averse to accusing Mobil of selling an out of compliance oil based on one $30.00 VOA.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: Bebop367
Am I missing something?
Appears to me per SDS on Mobil One website today
M1 EP has 20->30% PAO
M1 Annual Protection 5w-30 has 5 - >10% PAO

Mobil One Annual Protection 5w-30:
1-DECENE, HOMOPOLYMER HYDROGENATED 68037-01-4 5 - < 10% H304

Mobil One Extended 5w-30:
1-DECENE, HOMOPOLYMER HYDROGENATED 68037-01-4 20 - < 30% H304


All of which means what in terms of the finished oil performance?

 

[oil_film_movies]

Originally Posted By: DuckRyder
I’d be willing to bet that even another sample from the same bottle would show differing numbers. As might rerunning this sample. For instance there exist a series of OA with approximately a 25% variation in Zinc over a ~2500 mile run plus VOA and the last UOA shows higher Zinc than the VOA.
I've looked at a bunch of them, and the variation you see from a VOA to a UOA is very consistent with leftover oil stuck in the sump when the new oil was added. For example, you see high sodium when the previous fill was Valvoline (heavy sodium) and the current fill is Pennzoil (which doesn't use sodium). Therefore, when you see zinc go up on a UOA it usually means the previous fill had more zinc.

There is normally some measurement error variation, yet the Mobil1 Annual Protection appeared to be low on everything across multiple types of tests, like TBN and Mg/Ca amounts, etc.
One or two tests in there might be low, but all???? Doubtful its a "royal flush" of unhappy coincidences like that across multiple tests and elements. We'll see. As more results come in, its just like a medical test which gives bad results, so you run it again to find out if its a false positive for the entire set of tests as we suspect.

 

[DuckRyder]

Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
Originally Posted By: DuckRyder
I’d be willing to bet that even another sample from the same bottle would show differing numbers. As might rerunning this sample. For instance there exist a series of OA with approximately a 25% variation in Zinc over a ~2500 mile run plus VOA and the last UOA shows higher Zinc than the VOA.
I've looked at a bunch of them, and the variation you see from a VOA to a UOA is very consistent with leftover oil stuck in the sump when the new oil was added. For example, you see high sodium when the previous fill was Valvoline (heavy sodium) and the current fill is Pennzoil (which doesn't use sodium). Therefore, when you see zinc go up on a UOA it usually means the previous fill had more zinc.


I don’t think you understand what I said.

Change oil, grab VOA as oil goes in. Sample 500miles, sample 1000miles and so forth (oil not changed) all same oil... ~ 25% variation... last sample 2500 mile oil had more zinc than VOA.

Your supposition that the prior oil had more zinc is also not correct and all of the prior oil was removed (It is possible on certain designs)

It is also not the first time I have seen something like that happen.

Give Blackstone a call or e-mail and ask them how accurate the equipment is at additive levels.

 

[oil_film_movies]

Originally Posted By: DuckRyder
I don’t think you understand what I said.

I should learn to "read" what you were thinking. Instead, I tend to read what you typed. My bad. My psychic skills are off.

You never did answer the basic concern: ALL the tests in that run are low. How can all be low?

Forget it though. Doesn't matter until more results come in.