Mobil 1 Classic 0W30: best cold weather oil?

Pour point: -65F. Out of character, Mobil even posted an MRV at -40F for this oil: 16200. Both numbers beat Ravenol SSO 0W-30 for a record low. This may be the best cold weather oil you can buy, especially if you need to meet a Ford specification: It is one of only three oils available in the US that “Meets or exceeds” Ford’s WSS-M2C963-A1 Spec. (the others are Mobil 1 AFE 0W30 and Castrol Edge 0W-30 DX). In comparison, Mobil 1 AFE 0W-30 currently claims only a -43F pour point, and Castrol 0W-30 DX only -42F.

 

[tbm5690]

Wind chill has no bearing on temp for oil. It’s just how cold it is. Engines don’t know anything about “ with wind chill”.

Exception being the fact that wind accelerates heat loss. But yes, for cold flow properties it has no effect.

 

[Alien]

Here is my final table of low pour-point oils, with corrections from the previous table and some additional information:

	PP (F)	MRV@-40C	CCS@-35C	API	ILSAC	WSS-M2C963-A1?	DEXOS?	Markets
Ravenol Arctic Low SAPS 0W30	-76​	15400​	5472​	No	No	No	No	Europe; USA by special order
Ravenol SSO 0W30	-76​	17400​	5580​	SN	No	No	No	USA, Europe
HPL Premium Plus 0W30	-72​	15400​	4150​	No	No	No	No	USA
M1 Classic 0W30	-65​	16100​	?	SP	GF-6a	"Meets or Exceeds"	No	China only?
Imperial Oil's M1 AFE 0W30	-65​	?	?	SP	GF-6a	"Meets or Exceeds"	Gen3 license	Canada only?
Castrol Edge Euro 0W-30 A3/B4	-65​	60000?	6200?	SL	No	No	No	USA, Europe
M1 ESP 0W30	-60​	19000​	6100​	SP	No	No	No	USA
Pennzoil Platinum Euro LX SAE 0W30	-60​	18900​	5800​	SN	No	No	No	USA
Halvoline ProDS P 0W30	-60​	?	?	No	No	No	No	Europe
49N Arctic Synthetic 0W30 Bulk	-60​	?	?	SN	No	No	No	Canada only?
Amsoil SS 0W30 AZO	-58​	?	5372​	SP "Application"	GF-6a "Application"	"Application"	"Application"	USA
Redline 0W30	-54​	?	58​	SP "Recommended for"	No	"Recommended for"	"Recommended for"	USA
M1 AFE 0W30	-44​	?	?	SP	GF-6a	"Meets or Exceeds"	Gen3 license	USA only?
Castrol Edge 0W-30 DX	-44​	?	6000​	SP	GF-6a	"Meets"	No	Europe, Canada?

 

[Alien]

This has been an interesting exercise. Conclusions:

• For people like me who want to stay within what is specified by my Ford’s owner’s manual, M1 AFE 0W30 is the only option for available cold weather oil.
• Lower pour point oils, with only a few exceptions, require moving to an expensive boutique specialist oil and ignoring the owner’s manual requirements.
• At least with Mobile 1, pour points have been moving higher in the past year. Examples: 0w40 FS, 5W30 EP, 0W30 AFE. They appear to be abandoning the low temperature market to boutique specialists who do not care about meeting standards.

 

[tbm5690]

This has been an interesting exercise. Conclusions:

• For people like me who want to stay within what is specified by my Ford’s owner’s manual, M1 AFE 0W30 is the only option for available cold weather oil.
• Lower pour point oils, with only a few exceptions, require moving to an expensive boutique specialist oil and ignoring the owner’s manual requirements.
• At least with Mobile 1, pour points have been moving higher in the past year. Examples: 0w40 FS, 5W30 EP, 0W30 AWE. They appear to be abandoning the low temperature market to boutique specialists who do not care about meeting standards.

As long as they continue to offer a 0W-XX they are not abandoning the lower temperature market...certification requirements haven't changed. No one realistically needs better than a 0W for cold weather performance.

 

[kschachn]

This has been an interesting exercise. Conclusions:

• For people like me who want to stay within what is specified by my Ford’s owner’s manual, M1 AFE 0W30 is the only option for available cold weather oil.
• Lower pour point oils, with only a few exceptions, require moving to an expensive boutique specialist oil and ignoring the owner’s manual requirements.
• At least with Mobile 1, pour points have been moving higher in the past year. Examples: 0w40 FS, 5W30 EP, 0W30 AFE. They appear to be abandoning the low temperature market to boutique specialists who do not care about meeting standards.

It’s an owner’s manual recommendation, not what’s “specified”.

You’re not ignoring owner’s manual requirements. As you already know the pour point doesn’t necessarily directly relate to cranking and pumpability.

What “standards” aren’t being met?

 

[kschachn]

As long as they continue to offer a 0W-XX they are not abandoning the lower temperature market...certification requirements haven't changed. No one realistically needs better than a 0W for cold weather performance.

Exactly.

 

[Alien]

@OVERKILL: If I recall correctly, you have run M1, Motul, Ravenol, and Amsoil engine oil in your trucks in Canada, and are currently running HPL. I am curious: how is the HPL handling Canadian cold weather starts compared to the other products you have tried?

 

[OVERKILL]

@OVERKILL: If I recall correctly, you have run M1, Motul, Ravenol, and Amsoil engine oil in your trucks in Canada, and are currently running HPL. I am curious: how is the HPL handling Canadian cold weather starts compared to the other products you have tried?

Just fine, I'm using The Super Car (OVERKILL) 0W-20 and the Super Car 0W-40, but have fantastic cold temp specs, though we haven't had a very cold winter this year.

 

[nate379]

RAVENOL Arctic Low SAPS ALS SAE 0W-30

RAVENOL Arctic Low SAPS ALS SAE 0W-30 is a PAO (Polyalphaolefin) based, full synthetic low friction motor oil with especially USVO® and proven CleanSynto® ...

www.ravenol.de

What's the point though unless you live in Siberia or somewhere in Alberta.

Gets -50* here...

 

[kschachn]

Gets -50* here...

There you go.

 

[Alien]

I came across this 2018 paper “Cold cranking viscosity of used synthetic oils originating from vehicles operated under similar driving conditions” that measured how much CCS @ -31C increased for various 5w30 oils over a 1 year period with accumulated mileages up to 15,551 km. The oils used were not identified but grouped according to their certifications. Their conclusion (edited by me to more clearly identify and distinguish the oil groups):

“All analysed oil groups showed an upward trend in the dynamic viscosity at −30°C compared with the baseline value, and the sharpest increases (69%) were observed in the [non-API C2-10] group, while the lowest in the [SN] group (36%). In all analysed cases, there was a dangerously rapid increase in the cranking viscosity, and the limits were very quickly exceeded (7000 mPa·s). The greatest intensification of changes with respect to the mileage was recorded for [SL/Dexos2], [SH/A3/B3] and [SM/A3/B3] oils. The limit values were exceeded after 3000, 4000 and 5000 km, respectively. For the engines operating with these oils, it should be taken into account that a high viscosity of the cold oil may greatly hinder its spreading on the surfaces of the co-operating parts of the engine. Especially in winter, [SN] and [non-API C2-10] might be a better option. In their case, the limit values were exceeded at 10,000 km [for SN oils] and 13,000 [for non-API C2-10 oils].”

Explanation: The CCS of the non-API C2-10 oils increased the most, but their baseline was the lowest at 4400 and their CCS values were still the lowest at 15,000 km. The SN oils had the next to lowest baseline values and increased the least, but that was not enough to give them the lowest CCS at 15,000 km.

 

[Alien]

I came across this 2018 paper “Cold cranking viscosity of used synthetic oils originating from vehicles operated under similar driving conditions” that measured how much CCS @ -31C increased for various 5w30 oils over a 1 year period with accumulated mileages up to 15,551 km. The oils used were not identified but grouped according to their certifications. Their conclusion (edited by me to more clearly identify and distinguish the oil groups):

“All analysed oil groups showed an upward trend in the dynamic viscosity at −30°C compared with the baseline value, and the sharpest increases (69%) were observed in the [non-API C2-10] group, while the lowest in the [SN] group (36%). In all analysed cases, there was a dangerously rapid increase in the cranking viscosity, and the limits were very quickly exceeded (7000 mPa·s). The greatest intensification of changes with respect to the mileage was recorded for [SL/Dexos2], [SH/A3/B3] and [SM/A3/B3] oils. The limit values were exceeded after 3000, 4000 and 5000 km, respectively. For the engines operating with these oils, it should be taken into account that a high viscosity of the cold oil may greatly hinder its spreading on the surfaces of the co-operating parts of the engine. Especially in winter, [SN] and [non-API C2-10] might be a better option. In their case, the limit values were exceeded at 10,000 km [for SN oils] and 13,000 [for non-API C2-10 oils].”

Explanation: The CCS of the non-API C2-10 oils increased the most, but their baseline was the lowest at 4400 and their CCS values were still the lowest at 15,000 km. The SN oils had the next to lowest baseline values and increased the least, but that was not enough to give them the lowest CCS at 15,000 km.

My main observation from this test is that the cold weather aspects of oils can dissipate surprisingly quickly. My lessons:

1. Change your oil as close to the period of coldest temperatures as possible.
2. In a prolonged exposure to very cold temperatures, change your OCI to as short as 2000 miles
3. To increase your odds of having cold weather protection, favor C2 and SN rated oils over A3/B3.
4. Choose oils with the lowest CCS initial values, so that they have a lot of headroom before losing their cold weather protection characteristics.

 

[Snagglefoot]

Gets -50* here...

Now, now. Coastal Alaskans are known to be pretenders. The record cold temp for Palmer, Alaska is -34 F. It you want cold, you need to drive over to Fairbanks.

 

[gfh77665]

Headed to Fairbanks on May 1.

 

[facility1]

long time ago (30 years) in eau claire wis it got -38f,,hardly anything ran,,gas line freeze ups common,,generally if a car sat outside for a few days 50/50 chance it starts,,now thanks to a good synthetic low viscosity oil your chances are much improved,,,,fuel is a concern at these temps also the battery condition

 

[KrisZ]

Thanks, but I already knew that. The problem is when you are trying to pick an oil that will lubricate your engine at temperatures below -40, the MRV number is of little help, since it is only tested at -40. The oil may be a solid brick at -41 but could still have an acceptable MRV at -40. So below -40F we have to gamble on whether the oil can lubricate the engine or not, since there is no test data. And the only data we have to help with that gamble is the reported pour point, since it assures that the oil will at least be a liquid down to that temperature.

You clearly have no idea how it all works and all you do is imagine all these bad things.
Oils don’t turn solid like water, even water doesn’t turn solid at one degree below freezing, unless it’s a very small amount.

It’s like high school physics man, but here you are making up hyperbole situations.

 

[Alien]

You clearly have no idea how it all works and all you do is imagine all these bad things.
Oils don’t turn solid like water, even water doesn’t turn solid at one degree below freezing, unless it’s a very small amount.

It’s like high school physics man, but here you are making up hyperbole situations.

Educate me: you have evidence that engine oil never enters solid state at any temperature, even though it can no longer flow? What is the difference?

 

[KrisZ]

Educate me: you have evidence that engine oil never enters solid state at any temperature, even though it can no longer flow? What is the difference?

Of course it will freeze, but that temperature is so low that it is obviously outside of operating parameters, hence we have no specifications for it.

You do understand that the oil is being sucked up by the oil pickup tube and doesn’t flow into it, right? That is why the pour point is useless. The oil may pour, but may not be sucked into the oil pickup tube.

That is why CCS and MRV tests were created. They ensure the oil will be sucked in and not cause oil pump cavitation.

 

[kschachn]

Of course it will freeze, but that temperature is so low that it is obviously outside of operating parameters, hence we have no specifications for it.

You do understand that the oil is being sucked up by the oil pickup tube and doesn’t flow into it, right? That is why the pour point is useless. The oil may pour, but may not be sucked into the oil pickup tube.

That is why CCS and MRV tests were created. They ensure the oil will be sucked in and not cause oil pump cavitation.

True, the basic problem was that under the shear of flowing to the pickup tube the oil would jell and create a cavity around the screen. The pump would starve, and there were subsequent engine failures from oils that should have been acceptable per the pour point but actually failed to be pumped.

It wasn’t just temperature however it also related to the rate of temperature decrease.

 

[Alien]

Of course it will freeze, but that temperature is so low that it is obviously outside of operating parameters, hence we have no specifications for it.

So we are in agreement then: it may not be a liquid any more at 1 degree below the point where it is still pumpable (MRV), since we "have no specifications for that" other than the Pour Point. And some companies report Pour Points that are extremely close to -40 where MRV is measured at.

I agree that MRV and CCS are much better than Pour Points, but they have problems when you are trying to select an oil for very low temperatures:

1. Some oil companies do not report them (e.g. Mobil AFE 0W30), while every oil company appears to report their product's Pour Point.
2. MRV is only measured for 0W oils at -40, and the even more important CCS at -31F, leaving it up to our imagination or experience as to what happens below those temperatures. The only data we have as to what happens below -40 is the Pour Point data. Attempting to extrapolate pumpability below -40 from MRV data assumes linearity, which may or may not be the case.