Mobil 1 vs Liqui Moly

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: slc10844
I'm anal about maintenance intervals and could use the proper rated convential motor oil and not have a problem. I just like going beyond what is recommended and have a little bit of an edge against any kind of mechanical failure. The biggest concern is the 87 Ranger and the lawn equipment. They all have flat tappet camshafts and I have read the new formula oils don't protect against wear on these engines.

The flat tappet cam concern isn't really an issue. Yes zddp has been reduced however friction modifier levels increased to compensate. Today's oils are head and shoulders above what was available in 1987,so I wouldn't worry if I were you.
 
The results I looked at were for older BMW's, they were using a lot of different oils and were averaged out so there was no Castrol bias. In reality the differences were very small between the major brand oils in the BMW survey, the VW one did have bigger differences as that engine does like heavier oils with lots of anti wear additives.
 
Originally Posted By: skyship
This seems to be what Castrol think of Mobil 1:
Castrol endurance test.
I might think they make good engine oil, but their advertising is a tad silly.


Wow, the engine overheated
smirk.gif
My Lord, I certainly hope you aren't citing that marketing tripe as evidence, that's almost as bad as whipping me with your dipstick and telling me to use Castrol.
 
Originally Posted By: skyship
The results I looked at were for older BMW's, they were using a lot of different oils and were averaged out so there was no Castrol bias. In reality the differences were very small between the major brand oils in the BMW survey, the VW one did have bigger differences as that engine does like heavier oils with lots of anti wear additives.


But they were still UOA's without tear-downs, so aside from guessing, we really don't know what was going on, do we?
 
Originally Posted By: skyship
I've got some very good anti virus et al running and that link appears clean, although Google does give a warning for it.


Google's warning is enough for me, sorry.
 
Now this is an interesting study by one member who added up some UOA results for various different oils:
Audi averaged out UOA study
Looks like the oil I use won and Mobil lost!!
Unfortuntely there were not enough different UOA results for the study to be very significant in statistical terms, but it is still interesting.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: skyship
Now this is an interesting study by one member who added up some UOA results for various different oils:
Audi averaged out UOA study
Looks like the oil I use won and Mobil lost!!
Unfortuntely there were not enough different UOA results for the study to be very significant in statistical terms, but it is still interesting.


You've just contradicted yourself there. If there are not enough UOA's to form any sort of statistical basis for a conclusion, how can you say "Looks like the oil I use won and Mobil lost!!"?

I feel like I'm in kindergarten here....
crazy.gif


And again, these aren't tear-downs, so you can cite UOA's until you are blue in the face, but it doesn't prove anything.
 
It's odd how M1 fans always say that UOA results don't matter when they see a comparison of different oils. I must go tell the chaps in the local lab that UOA results are of no interest, as they will be amused.
The M1 figures were based on 21 different UOA results, so they are accurate in statistical terms.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: skyship
It's odd how M1 fans always say that UOA results don't matter when they see a comparison of different oils. I must go tell the chaps in the local lab that UOA results are of no interest, as they will be amused.
The M1 figures were based on 21 different UOA results, so they are accurate in statistical terms.


"Accurate", 21 UOA's are "accurate"? please explain this. Accurate in what sense?

UOA results when used to compare oils and trying to determine which ones are "better" based on wear numbers is a fools errand. However, our discourse in this thread would certainly lead me to believe that this is probably spot-on
smirk.gif
You have your agenda, your opinions and your contrived facts that you've been spouting off on this board since your arrival. Nobody has been able to get through to you. You refuse to consider the points of view of others, even when provided with evidence from experts in the field.

I posted this link before:

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis/

Yet you won't even consider its subject matter because it invalidates the base of your little LM crusade here. Because you HAVE no data, you HAVE no tear downs and have subsequently resorted to citing one-off UOA's as "evidence" at this point. It is PATHETIC.

This isn't "Skyship University, brought to you by Lubro-Moly", this is BITOG, and when you post tripe that doesn't make sense or you can't back, up, you WILL be called on it.

You like LM, we get it. But you have no actual PROOF that it performs better in application than Mobil 1. THOSE good sir, are the FACTS.
 
It is the M1 one users that are always spouting off that they think it is the best oil, but when you ask them why, they have no real data including tear down comparisons and they sure do get excited if you refer to reports that show it might not be the best oil in town, as your posts demonstrate.
For the record I have now changed to using Castrol Edge, so should not be regarded as a Liqui Moly supporter.
Obviously if you think that UOA results are not valid, then you must think that all the folks that read those sections are wasting their time, although I agree that one off UOA results are less usefull than averaged out results, although the averaged out results for M1 don't look too good as far as I have seen so far.
Oddly enough one thing I did notice from looking at M1 results was that the 0/40 seems to produce worse results than some of their other grades and for some engines the various x/30 grades seemed to produce better results than the 0/40.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: skyship
It is the M1 one users that are always spouting off that they think it is the best oil, but when you ask them why, they have no real data including tear down comparisons and they sure do get excited if you refer to reports that show it might not be the best oil in town, as your posts demonstrate.
For the record I have now changed to using Castrol Edge, so should not be regarded as a Liqui Moly supporter.
Obviously if you think that UOA results are not valid, then you must think that all the folks that read those sections are wasting their time.


I am far from a mobil fan and I will/have pay/paid more not to use their products. But really UOA's do not prove more than that a oil is in a condition to continue service or not. M-1 works just as good as any other synthetic. I would like to say it does not but that would make me a liar.
 
Originally Posted By: skyship
It is the M1 one users that are always spouting off that they think it is the best oil, but when you ask them why, they have no real data and it they sure do get excited if you refer to reports that show it might not be the best oil in town, as your posts demonstrate.


Really? I cited the manufacturer's certs and approvals, something BP, SOPUS and the other majors are keen on obtaining too, because they provide PROOF OF PERFORMANCE.

This PROOF OF PERFORMANCE is a [censored] of a lot more than anything you've brought to the table at this point!

Quote:
For the record I have now changed to using Castrol Edge, so should not be regarded as a Liqui Moly supporter.


So you use another brand of oil and that magically makes you less of a shill? Do you live in the twilight zone?

Quote:
Obviously if you think that UOA results are not valid, then you must think that all the folks that read those sections are wasting their time.


You don't have a freakin' clue, do you?
crazy2.gif


I mean, based on how much you post like an expert on here, I'm surprised that you think that the sole purpose of UOA's must be to compare the performance of different lubricants.

Doug spells out in great detail (hint: I know you didn't read the link I posted... wouldn't want to see that the emperor has no clothes on eh?) the value of UOA's and their intended purpose.

Why do YOU think that commercial fleets do UOA's? It couldn't be to track oil contamination and life so that they can get the best ROI on their lubricant purchases could it? And that it could show coolant or dirt contamination so that they could check for a leaking gasket, poor intake tract seal....etc. No, that would be too logical! It must be because they buy thousands of litres of oil and then they make ONE RUN in their fleet vehicles and then quickly buy THOUSANDS of litres of a different lubricant and then compare the freakin' wear metals to see which one is better, right?

But yes, the people like YOU who are trying to use UOA's as some sort of oil divining stick, yes, you are certainly wasting your time. But I guess when you have an agenda, you have to try and justify it any way you can eh?
 
My only agenda is to see if I can figure out the best oil for my engine and I've been in the marine and auto industry long enough to know that basing descisions on manufacturers approvals and advertising might not give me the best idea, which is why I like to look at actual results and unfortunately full engine inspection reports comparing different oils are not published by either the manufacturers or oil companies, which is why I look at UOA based studies and some of the ones I see have full particle analysis figures included and are very interesting, which is why I am going to try Castrol Edge and not Mobil 1 next.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: skyship
My only agenda is to see if I can figure out the best oil for my engine and I've been in the marine and auto industry long enough to know that basing descisions on manufacturers approvals and advertising might not give me the best idea, which is why I like to look at actual results and unfortunately full engine inspection reports comparing different oils are not published by either the manufacturers or oil companies, which is why I look at UOA based studies and some of the ones I see have full particle analysis figures included and are very interesting, which is why I am going to try Castrol Edge and not Mobil 1 next.


My results (actual tear-into/tear-downs) of engines spending a great majority of their life on Mobil 1 was proof to me that the product worked. Not only in keeping the engine clean, but also with respect to wear control.

I've seen the same family of engines run on Castrol Syntec 5w-50 that had similar results. This goes to reinforce Doug's statement that I quoted earlier in the thread with respect to the observations of the Engineers and the use of approved lubricants providing comparable performance to each other.

Any of the high quality, highly certified oils are going to provide extremely similar performance in any of their approved applications (and usually even in the unapproved applications like my Ford Windsor examples). And while I have experience with M1 0w-40 performing extremely well, I wouldn't hesitate to use Castrol's new 0w-40, which has an extremely similar certs/approvals list and the same goes for the Pennzoil Euro 5w-40.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
Using Liqui-Moly 6200 0W-20 in a 2019 Subaru Impreza?
Replies
10
Views
3K
02zx9r rev2
D
Oil and Liqui Moly MoS2 for brand new 2023 Honda CRV 1.5t?
Replies
7
Views
3K
Revving2Redline
L
New Tacoma V6 Break-in and LSPI
6 7 8
Replies
159
Views
9K
Pablo
W116_036
How cold is too cold for Liqui-Moly 10W-60?
2 3
Replies
59
Views
6K
dumkid
R
Mobil 1 0W-40 Supercar vs Mobil 1 0W-40 ESP
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
RDT-G23
Back
Top