Mobil 1 and 3.6 Pentastar
- Thread starter easym
- Start date
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
No.
Engines aren't alive, they don't "like" and "dislike" things. Using an approved lubricant of the appropriate viscosity with the requisite specifications changed at a sane interval and your engine will generally live a long and event-free life.
Engines aren't alive, they don't "like" and "dislike" things. Using an approved lubricant of the appropriate viscosity with the requisite specifications changed at a sane interval and your engine will generally live a long and event-free life.
My Pentastars absolutely love Mobil 1 and their feelings get hurt if I put a lesser oil in there. I think it is a PAO addiction, honestly.
The famous 625k mile Pentastar made it mostly on Mobil 1 with some occasional runs of Valvoline Advanced Syn. Mostly 7k OCI's with some stretching out a bit longer.
My guess it the only thing here that didn't like the Mobil 1 was the Fleet manager!
Mine loves ESP 0W30 and 5W30. I think it's the fleet manager has the problem with Mobil 1, not the Pentastar engine.
Last edited:
I used Mobil Super Sythetic 5W30 in the wife's T&C w/ a 3.6L for 40K miles... It seemed to like it. At the time we bought it, Mobil Super Sythetic was the only "approved" Mobil 1 oil on their website. I don't see why any recipe of Mobil 1 wouldn't work IMO.
I have switched recently to Citgo Full Synthetic 5W30 because I found a deal at F&F for ~$2.70/quart.
just my $0.02
I have switched recently to Citgo Full Synthetic 5W30 because I found a deal at F&F for ~$2.70/quart.
just my $0.02
We run Mobil 1 0w20 EP in our 2019 wrangler. Mobil 1 also in my hemi, zero hemi tick after switching from Pennzoil
Wife's Durango has been on 5W20 & some 5w30 Mobil 1 for awhile now. No issues....
Or we're being Trolled!
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2021
- Messages
- 36
If I remember correctly pennzoil platinum was the “recommended oil” for FCA. That’s probably what he was getting at. I run whatever full synthetic 0w20 is on sale for my 17 jgc
This is the single best post/piece of advice ever given on this board.
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2023
- Messages
- 1,451
Would you say that all UOAs on the same engine, varying just the oil brand, will be the same?
Is it unreasonable to say that different engines might respond differently to different oils?
I prefer NAPA branded 0W-20 to Mobil 1 because I noticed less consumption and Mobil turns dark and nasty looking pretty quickly.
More or less yes it is. Especially when it’s the same approval or license.
There’s a myriad of variables that influence a UOA and the oil is actually pretty far down that ladder.
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2023
- Messages
- 1,451
FWIW I get significant valve train noise on my CR-V with Mobil 1 which isn’t present with PP HM, Supertech, or Amsoil. It also burns it at double the rate. My Tacoma strangely idles smoother on Amsoil and RTG than PUP. My CX-5 idled rougher on Supertech than PUP and RTG. My Yamaha shifts better on Castrol Power 1 than Yamalube. I have decades of observations of this on dozens of cars and bikes.
While this subjective experience almost certainly doesn’t correlate to less/more wear, it doesn’t mean the outside observations are totally invalid. It is not unreasonable to observe and run what seems to subjectively grant a better experience in each vehicle, if only for the fact the experience is more pleasant. Bonus to both observe and check with UOA.
Last edited:
Double the rate you say? Then I'd avoid using it. Seems like a no-brainer.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
UOA's lack the resolution to allow you to discern meaningful differences in wear performance between different oils, that's not their intended purpose, but unfortunately, believing they can results in many people chasing their tail.
Engines are complex mechanical devices with various systems in them that can indeed respond differently to different base oil blends, additive combinations, FM formulations...etc. This can result in subtle differences that may, or may not, be apparent to the end user. This could be something as simple as increased/reduced volume of consumption due to the PCV setup, or an apparent reduction/increase in NVH due to the FM interaction with something like cylinder deactivation. However, UOA's aren't going to give you any insight into this, nor does it mean wear performance is going to be any better/worse.
Personal anecdote: Years ago, I had very high levels of consumption with AMSOIL AZO 0W-30 in my Expedition 5.4L. M1 0W-30 didn't consume at all in the same vehicle, nor did Motul 0W-30. I did several OCI's to see if the consumption would taper off (which it can with a chemistry change), but it never did, so I had to stop using that oil in that vehicle. Do I know why that oil consumed? No. Do I know HOW that oil consumed? Also no. Had I done UOA's on that oil, would it have given me valuable insight into this phenomenon? absolutely not.
With something like consumption, you at least have something quite tangible, and, if it can be mitigated by using a different branded product, that seems quite reasonable. With something like noise or "feel", you start to head down the sensory rabbit hole, and, as you note in your subsequent reply, this doesn't necessarily correlate (heck, it could anti-correlate if we are throwing out theories) with the performance of the product. This is why approvals and controlled testing are valuable.
Lucas is often promoted as being "good" because, from a sensory perspective, it can reduce NVH. Well, we know it's just heavy Group I brightstock, cheap VII polymer and zero additives, effectively diluting (reducing the effectiveness) of the additive package of the host product that controls wear, handles deposit prevention...etc. All the things that we require a fully formulated oil to do, Lucas compromises. Here we have an anti-correlation, where the product "feels" like it's good, but in fact, is quite the opposite.
Last edited:
Similar threads
