Simple question. Are all Mobil 1 oils Group IV's s

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: KW
That's why I like Shell Rotella T synthetic so much. They tell you right up front that it's group III and why their
group III is good...


Yes. Then they charge you more for a product that's cheaper to produce ($22 for a gallon jug as opposed to $26 for a five qt. jug at Wal-Mart, even with a recent M1 raise). That hardly puts RD Shell in my category of heroes...
 
Last edited:
The same guy who posted about M-1 also posted this about viscosity. Interesting read, but...what about all the guys who've gotten 200k or 300k out of an engine using the same old 10w-30 the entire time? They didn't switch to a higher visc oil and it worked fine for them.

Again, it's just an interesting read, don't take it as gospel, just thought I'd share it.

================================================================

Let me give you guys a short lesson on lubrication....especially the bottom end of the engine where everything is dependent on it being good and tight. At the main bearings and rod bearings, as the engine breaks in, the bearing will wear at a microscopic elliptical shape. This allows for a wedge of oil to form just in front of the load direction on the bearing. This is per design as attempting to have a perfect circle doesn't lend itself to good lubrication as the oil would have no place to be. It would just be squeezed out or it would take extreme amounts of pressure to keep an oil film in place. The thinner oils, like a 5w-20, are great when the engine is new. They run far cooler and do a far better job. With today's oil bases, the film strengths are enormous by comparison of the oils of your fathers. So we don't have to run the heavy viscositys like dad did when pulling a trailer or under heavy load conditions. We can still use the Xw-20 oils and do it better. BUT, and here's the meat folks, when the engine develops wear, and they all do, at the bearings, the lighter weight oils tend to run out quicker between the bearings and the crank. What this means is that the rings may be in a starvation situation as the oil is running out of the bearings instead of being sprayed in adequate amounts on the cylinder walls and bottoms of pistons. The best example of this is the Ford Vulcan 3.0. Rarely do the 3.0's go much past 100,000 miles without needing the rear main replaced. When the rear main gets worn, it beats the seal out and hence, the leak. But the rest of the bottom end is also in need of replacement as it is worn too. It's one of those things where the light should go on at the brain cells. If the bearings are worn, expect ring wear to increase dramatically as they are starving for oil. As an engine wears over time, you need to move out of the xw-20 into the Xw-30 Energy Conserving oils and if expecting long life, you probably need to move into the High Mileage oils at a later time. The heavier oils having a greater resistance to flow will bring the volume of oil back up at the rings as the heavier oil isn't going to run out of the bearings as fast. I have 87,000 miles on my 4.6. I'll be switching over to the 5w30 EC oils at the next change. If I still have this truck at 130-140,000 miles, I will be switching over to the High Mileage oils. If you have been using the heavier oils already, stay with them. As the bearings break in, they break in to the viscosity of the oil you are using. If you ran a 15w40 oil since new, there will be a larger wear gap between the crank and the bearing from the viscosity of the oil. Going to a lighter oil will surely cause excessive wear at the rings and engine failure at an early age. Hope that explains in plain english some of the issues with viscosity
 
Originally Posted By: steve40th
So if M1 EP 5W30 is not pure synthetic, how can they state all their oils are pure w/PAO synthetics?


Steve, we aren't dealing with FACTS here.

Molakule's post is about as close to the facts as you are going to get; he's a tribologist.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well I broke my engine in using Shell Rotella 15W 40. My clearances are mid 20's for bearing clearance and piston to wall clearance on my 396LT1 Chevy.
I guess I need to run a a thicker oil than the 10-40w I was going to run with M1.
 
Originally Posted By: steve40th
Well I broke my engine in using Shell Rotella 15W 40. My clearances are mid 20's for bearing clearance and piston to wall clearance on my 396LT1 Chevy.
I guess I need to run a a thicker oil than the 10-40w I was going to run with M1.


Mobil 1 Turbo Diesel Truck 5w40/Delvac 1 5w40. Mobil doesn't make a better oil.
 
Is this stuff able to handle high temperatures, as I autocross and even normal city cruising within the hilss here oil goes to 230.
 
Originally Posted By: hate2work
The same guy who posted about M-1 also posted this about viscosity. Interesting read, but...what about all the guys who've gotten 200k or 300k out of an engine using the same old 10w-30 the entire time? They didn't switch to a higher visc oil and it worked fine for them.

Again, it's just an interesting read, don't take it as gospel, just thought I'd share it.

================================================================

Let me give you guys a short lesson on lubrication....especially the bottom end of the engine where everything is dependent on it being good and tight. At the main bearings and rod bearings, as the engine breaks in, the bearing will wear at a microscopic elliptical shape. This allows for a wedge of oil to form just in front of the load direction on the bearing. This is per design as attempting to have a perfect circle doesn't lend itself to good lubrication as the oil would have no place to be. It would just be squeezed out or it would take extreme amounts of pressure to keep an oil film in place. The thinner oils, like a 5w-20, are great when the engine is new. They run far cooler and do a far better job. With today's oil bases, the film strengths are enormous by comparison of the oils of your fathers. So we don't have to run the heavy viscositys like dad did when pulling a trailer or under heavy load conditions. We can still use the Xw-20 oils and do it better. BUT, and here's the meat folks, when the engine develops wear, and they all do, at the bearings, the lighter weight oils tend to run out quicker between the bearings and the crank. What this means is that the rings may be in a starvation situation as the oil is running out of the bearings instead of being sprayed in adequate amounts on the cylinder walls and bottoms of pistons. The best example of this is the Ford Vulcan 3.0. Rarely do the 3.0's go much past 100,000 miles without needing the rear main replaced. When the rear main gets worn, it beats the seal out and hence, the leak. But the rest of the bottom end is also in need of replacement as it is worn too. It's one of those things where the light should go on at the brain cells. If the bearings are worn, expect ring wear to increase dramatically as they are starving for oil. As an engine wears over time, you need to move out of the xw-20 into the Xw-30 Energy Conserving oils and if expecting long life, you probably need to move into the High Mileage oils at a later time. The heavier oils having a greater resistance to flow will bring the volume of oil back up at the rings as the heavier oil isn't going to run out of the bearings as fast. I have 87,000 miles on my 4.6. I'll be switching over to the 5w30 EC oils at the next change. If I still have this truck at 130-140,000 miles, I will be switching over to the High Mileage oils. If you have been using the heavier oils already, stay with them. As the bearings break in, they break in to the viscosity of the oil you are using. If you ran a 15w40 oil since new, there will be a larger wear gap between the crank and the bearing from the viscosity of the oil. Going to a lighter oil will surely cause excessive wear at the rings and engine failure at an early age. Hope that explains in plain english some of the issues with viscosity


Thanks for posting, its an interesting read. Is this from a Mobil employee?

I did exactly the opposite, I have a little over 165K on a 3.0 Vulcan Engine in my 93 Aerostar. Ford back Spec'd it to 5W-20, and today I officially made the change. I don't know anything about bottom end wear in mine, it runs well and strong. I heard of a lot of people getting 300,000 miles from those engines w/o a rebuild. Time will tell if the 5W-20 kills mine.

Frank D
 
Originally Posted By: steve40th
Is this stuff able to handle high temperatures, as I autocross and even normal city cruising within the hilss here oil goes to 230.


It's designed for use in Turbo Diesels; it has fantastic heat handling.
 
Originally Posted By: steve40th
So if M1 EP 5W30 is not pure synthetic, how can they state all their oils are pure w/PAO synthetics?


Where have you seen that in print by their company? I have searched and never seen it.
 
Does it really matter what it is made of? As long as it is a great oil, isnt that all that matters? I don't care if a great oil is made from beans. Performance is what counts.
 
Originally Posted By: Jason2007
Does it really matter what it is made of? As long as it is a great oil, isnt that all that matters? I don't care if a great oil is made from beans. Performance is what counts.


Bingo.

I think what bothers people is the deception. Marketing for something it really isn't.

It's like going to the local grocery store and buying some juice. On the carton it says 100% pure orange juice. But in reality it's only 50% juiced mixed with water and coloring and artificial flavoring. But it's fortified so it's as healthy as pure juice.

Isn't that duping the customer/false advertising?

Stupid Castrol.. after all they caused all of this. Perhaps they brought over GC to 'apologize'?? :P
 
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
If their patent applications are any indication of their current formulations, then they are using predominately mixes of PAO's with smaller percentages of Group V AN's and TMP esters.


Quote:
Alkylated Naphthalenes ( AN's)
By MolaKule


Alkylated Naphthalenes (AN’s) or ”alkylnaphthalenes” are a class of fluids of “alkylated aromatics” and were first developed as Pour Point Depressants (PPD’s) in mineral oils. These were made by reacting alkylating agents with naphthalenes and suitable catalysts.

Another alkylated aromatic that has previously been used in manual transmission lubes and artic fluids are the alkylated benzenes.

As such, the AN’s fall into the Group V base oil category.

From the latest literature, there are about 20 or more different approaches to producing AN’s. In one patent application, the AN is” The hydrocarbyl aromatic is…..alkylated naphthalene (primarily mono-alkylated) having a kinematic viscosity of approximately 4.6 cSt at 100.degree. C. The primarily mono-alkylated naphthalene is prepared by the alkylation of naphthalene with an olefin primarily comprised of 1-hexadecene.”

Today, the AN’s are being used as partial replacements for esters in fully formulated synthetic and mineral based PCMO and diesel motor oils.

From the most recent patent literature, companies such as Exxon Mobil are currently using olefinic methylnaphthalenes such as is described in this and previous patents:

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Pars...enes%22&p=2&OS="alkylated+naph thalenes"&RS="alkylated+naphthalenes"

It is believed that these “higher” naphthalenes exhibit better thermal, hydrolytic, and oxidative stability than previous AN's.....


EM's brand name for these 5 and 12 cSt AN fluids are called, "Synestic."


Hmm, random internet guy or Mola..... I think I'll pick Mola....
 
Originally Posted By: Liquid_Turbo
I think what bothers people is the deception. Marketing for something it really isn't.

It's like going to the local grocery store and buying some juice. On the carton it says 100% pure orange juice. But in reality it's only 50% juiced mixed with water and coloring and artificial flavoring. But it's fortified so it's as healthy as pure juice.

Isn't that duping the customer/false advertising?

Stupid Castrol.. after all they caused all of this. Perhaps they brought over GC to 'apologize'?? :P

I hear you. The thing is, the "deception" isn't really like how most people see it because, functionally, the distinction in question doesn't really exist. The basestock might not be entirely group IV or V, but it is produced by highly sophisticated methods and performs similarly overall. The line between "synthetic" and "non-synthetic" is arbitrary.

The fuss would be understandable if the new lubes performed poorly, but they don't. Honestly, the lube formulators know a heck of a lot more than most of us do about how to make good stuff, and that has to be balanced against what they stand to gain by bending the truth and taking the necessary pains to get away with it.
 
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: Liquid_Turbo
I think what bothers people is the deception. Marketing for something it really isn't.

It's like going to the local grocery store and buying some juice. On the carton it says 100% pure orange juice. But in reality it's only 50% juiced mixed with water and coloring and artificial flavoring. But it's fortified so it's as healthy as pure juice.

Isn't that duping the customer/false advertising?

Stupid Castrol.. after all they caused all of this. Perhaps they brought over GC to 'apologize'?? :P

I hear you. The thing is, the "deception" isn't really like how most people see it because, functionally, the distinction in question doesn't really exist. The basestock might not be entirely group IV or V, but it is produced by highly sophisticated methods and performs similarly overall. The line between "synthetic" and "non-synthetic" is arbitrary.

The fuss would be understandable if the new lubes performed poorly, but they don't. Honestly, the lube formulators know a heck of a lot more than most of us do about how to make good stuff, and that has to be balanced against what they stand to gain by bending the truth and taking the necessary pains to get away with it.


I agree with Liquid Turbo. The false advertising is why I won't buy M1 even though it's a good oil.

Think of it this way, if there was nothing wrong with advertising it as a full synthitic when it's a grp III, why did Mobil sue Castrol over the same thing?
 
...because they're a corporation, looking for ways to screw their competitor?

And by the way, it wasn't a lawsuit. It was a Better Business Bureau complaint.

If you don't want to buy Mobil 1 because you feel personally offended, that's 100% fine. It's a free country, and you're not wrong to want straight shooting. Just don't argue that they're wrong on that basis.
 
Originally Posted By: hate2work
The same guy who posted about M-1 also posted this about viscosity. Interesting read, but...what about all the guys who've gotten 200k or 300k out of an engine using the same old 10w-30 the entire time? They didn't switch to a higher viscosity oil and it worked fine for them.

Again, it's just an interesting read, don't take it as gospel, just thought I'd share it.

================================================================

Let me give you guys a short lesson on lubrication....especially the bottom end of the engine where everything is dependent on it being good and tight. At the main bearings and rod bearings, as the engine breaks in, the bearing will wear at a microscopic elliptical shape. This allows for a wedge of oil to form just in front of the load direction on the bearing. This is per design as attempting to have a perfect circle doesn't lend itself to good lubrication as the oil would have no place to be. It would just be squeezed out or it would take extreme amounts of pressure to keep an oil film in place. The thinner oils, like a 5w-20, are great when the engine is new. They run far cooler and do a far better job. With today's oil bases, the film strengths are enormous by comparison of the oils of your fathers. So we don't have to run the heavy viscositys like dad did when pulling a trailer or under heavy load conditions. We can still use the Xw-20 oils and do it better. BUT, and here's the meat folks, when the engine develops wear, and they all do, at the bearings, the lighter weight oils tend to run out quicker between the bearings and the crank. What this means is that the rings may be in a starvation situation as the oil is running out of the bearings instead of being sprayed in adequate amounts on the cylinder walls and bottoms of pistons. The best example of this is the Ford Vulcan 3.0. Rarely do the 3.0's go much past 100,000 miles without needing the rear main replaced. When the rear main gets worn, it beats the seal out and hence, the leak. But the rest of the bottom end is also in need of replacement as it is worn too. It's one of those things where the light should go on at the brain cells. If the bearings are worn, expect ring wear to increase dramatically as they are starving for oil. As an engine wears over time, you need to move out of the xw-20 into the Xw-30 Energy Conserving oils and if expecting long life, you probably need to move into the High Mileage oils at a later time. The heavier oils having a greater resistance to flow will bring the volume of oil back up at the rings as the heavier oil isn't going to run out of the bearings as fast. I have 87,000 miles on my 4.6. I'll be switching over to the 5w30 EC oils at the next change. If I still have this truck at 130-140,000 miles, I will be switching over to the High Mileage oils. If you have been using the heavier oils already, stay with them. As the bearings break in, they break in to the viscosity of the oil you are using. If you ran a 15w40 oil since new, there will be a larger wear gap between the crank and the bearing from the viscosity of the oil. Going to a lighter oil will surely cause excessive wear at the rings and engine failure at an early age. Hope that explains in plain english some of the issues with viscosity


The above description appears to go against what I read on FChat about oil. Thought I'd run it by you folks to see what the collective group thinks about it. Basically what was said is that 90% of engine damage occurs at start up. To combat this, a 0W-40 weight oil should be used to deliver the oil most rapidly to all the engine parts due to the higher flow capability of the low viscosity oil. He also said that oil pressure should be 10 psi IIRC for every 1000 rpms. I have always used a 10W-40 synthetic oil usually Valvoline synthetic or Castrol synthetic [so I thought anyway], the engin has held up very well. I have switched to a 5W-40 Pennziol Platinum Synthetic Euro formula oil. At startup I'll drive at 1500 rpms and will register 90 psi on my oil pressure gauge ...that's a new one on me. My 280Z has 170k on the rebuild and I run 45psi at 3000 rpms when fully warmed up....what's going on here?

Best regards,
George
 
10 lbs pressure per 1000 RPM is a rule of thumb for MINIMUM oil pressure to support the engine.

It is a rule of thumb, not gospel. Please don't volunteer my thumb to test the pressure.
 
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: Liquid_Turbo
I think what bothers people is the deception. Marketing for something it really isn't.

It's like going to the local grocery store and buying some juice. On the carton it says 100% pure orange juice. But in reality it's only 50% juiced mixed with water and coloring and artificial flavoring. But it's fortified so it's as healthy as pure juice.

Isn't that duping the customer/false advertising?

Stupid Castrol.. after all they caused all of this. Perhaps they brought over GC to 'apologize'?? :P

I hear you. The thing is, the "deception" isn't really like how most people see it because, functionally, the distinction in question doesn't really exist. The basestock might not be entirely group IV or V, but it is produced by highly sophisticated methods and performs similarly overall. The line between "synthetic" and "non-synthetic" is arbitrary.

The fuss would be understandable if the new lubes performed poorly, but they don't. Honestly, the lube formulators know a heck of a lot more than most of us do about how to make good stuff, and that has to be balanced against what they stand to gain by bending the truth and taking the necessary pains to get away with it.


I agree with Liquid Turbo. The false advertising is why I won't buy M1 even though it's a good oil.

Think of it this way, if there was nothing wrong with advertising it as a full synthitic when it's a grp III, why did Mobil sue Castrol over the same thing?


Which oil do you buy then? It can't be Valvoline then (supposedly 4x better than Mobil1), or Amsoil.. (which supposedly can go 35k mile).

Just pick with what works, and stick with it. No need to get all caught up in semantics and terminology, etc. At least sites like this exist so you can make an informed decision.

If you're really anal about running a TRUE synthetic, then just buy Amsoil or GC. 'nuff said.
 
Originally Posted By: gcmerak


The above description appears to go against what I read on FChat about oil. Thought I'd run it by you folks to see what the collective group thinks about it. Basically what was said is that 90% of engine damage occurs at start up. To combat this, a 0W-40 weight oil should be used to deliver the oil most rapidly to all the engine parts due to the higher flow capability of the low viscosity oil. He also said that oil pressure should be 10 psi IIRC for every 1000 rpms. I have always used a 10W-40 synthetic oil usually Valvoline synthetic or Castrol synthetic [so I thought anyway], the engin has held up very well. I have switched to a 5W-40 Pennziol Platinum Synthetic Euro formula oil. At startup I'll drive at 1500 rpms and will register 90 psi on my oil pressure gauge ...that's a new one on me. My 280Z has 170k on the rebuild and I run 45psi at 3000 rpms when fully warmed up....what's going on here?

Best regards,
George


regarding startup viscosities, it really does depend on what temperature we are starting at and the oils viscosity index.
This is a cut and paste from a post I made on another forum several years ago, and the actual viscosity indexes, etc would no longer be valid, but it gets the point across.

Here's some specs for a few different oils at various temps

Mobil Delvac 1 5W-40. 14.8 cSt @ 100*C. pour point -45*C
Castrol RX Super 15w40. 14.5 cSt @ 100*C pour point -27*C
Redline 15w40. 15.1 cSt @ 100*C. pour point -45*C
Penrite HPR5 5W-40. 15.1 cSt @ 100*C. (no pour point given)
Shell Rimula Ultra 10W-40. 14.6 cSt @ 100*C. pour point -30*C
Castrol Magnatec 10W-40. 14.6 cSt @ 100*C. pour point
yet at 0*C we get

D 1= 1066 cSt
RX = 1358 cSt
RL = 1122 cSt
HPR= 1350 cSt
RU = 0809 cSt
Mag = 1182 cSt

a 10W-40 (Shell Rimula Ultra) is actually thinner than both 5W's, and a 15W (Redline) is thinner than the 10W Magnatec and the Penrite HPRD5 at 0* !

It's only when you get down to North American type winter temps that the 5W-40's really show an advantage in pumpability.



The old 10psi/1000RPM rule of thumb hot was a roughie from building up SB Chevs as that is what generally worked on them, or at least kept everything together for the everyday home builder.
As an example of the other extreme, when building little Formula Ford race engines (1600cc English Ford 'Kent' engines) I used to use 30-35 psi @ 65000RPM, sometimes using Neo 0W-5 and they survived just fine.

Every manufacturer generally has a recommended hot pressure range at a particular RPM, and a pressure range at idle.
These are all different.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

GI_GRIFF
Motul 100% synthetic?
Replies
17
Views
1K
altaylar
P
Oil for 2.0 Skyactiv - Battle of the 0w-20
3 4 5
Replies
95
Views
7K
Dave P.
B
Synthetic oil question
Replies
13
Views
926
Hohn
skippermatt
Mobil 1 FS vs ESP
Replies
9
Views
1K
skippermatt
GI_GRIFF
Liqui Moly PAO question.
Replies
8
Views
445
GI_GRIFF
Back
Top Bottom