Hey everybody. So I have been reading around, like always lol, and i heard some people saying Mobil 1 oils like the 0W40, 0W30 AFE, and the 10W30HM are "true" synthetics whereas the others are your typical group III syns. Is this true? Does M1 make a few hidden jem oils?
Which M1 oils are "true" synthetics?
- Thread starter Thomas1190
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/posts/1814195/
Read it twice and call us in the morning.
Interesting link, thanks. Im not looking into getting a group vs group war going on. I have just heard some people prasing these particular oils. Im just curious thats all. im sort of a new guy lol
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/posts/1814195/
Read it twice and call us in the morning.
Interesting link, thanks. Im not looking into getting a group vs group war going on. I have just heard some people prasing these particular oils. Im just curious thats all. im sort of a new guy lol
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
From what I`ve read (here and elsewhere),M1`s 0W40 and 15W50 (which is supposed to be a IV/V) are supposed to be their absolute best oils.
Last edited:
The 0w-40 could still be largely group III.
The point is that the composition doesn't matter as long as the oil performs, and the idea of what is a "true" synthetic is meaningless because it doesn't say anything useful any more about how the oil works.
The point is that the composition doesn't matter as long as the oil performs, and the idea of what is a "true" synthetic is meaningless because it doesn't say anything useful any more about how the oil works.
You should pay attention how a product performs rather than what in it.
I would say that the quality of the additive system can be as important if not more important than how much group III vs group IV base oil is in there. The performance of the final product in whatever application is way more important than percentage of group IV. You could certainly formulate a really poor-performing synthetic engine oil using mostly group IV base stock. I've personally noticed overall more seal leaks over the years when using a mostly group IV-based oil. I don't think it is my imagination.
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
slide over brotha
slide over brotha
What everyone is trying to say is noone has no idea which Mobil 1 oils are true synthetics. It has been said in many ways, but that's the point. Choose the one you like and OCI for your OCD then your can start looking into some M, PU, PP, QS, maybe even get in a lil deeper
It's all very good and well that these highly processed dino oils perform very well. I still don't like it that they are allowed to call a highly processed dino "Full Synthetic" right on the bottle.
Back in the days when synthetic oil was really synthetic, I used Mobil One as it was originally made to use: an OCI of one year or 25,000 miles. My usual OCI was 18,000 to 20,000 miles. I usually had to add two or three quarts of makeup oil during this OCI. Never had any oil related problem or sludge buildup up to 140,000 miles, which was about as long as I ever kept a car.
I figured that M1 had made a major change in the formula of regular M1 when they came out with the EP version, which they say is good for only 15,000 miles. I knew they had dropped the 25,000 mile claim for the regular M1 after a few years because people were not checking their oil level and were consequently running the oil too low and ruining their engines.
I have been retired since 2001. My miles per year has dropped considerably. Right after I retired, my yearly mileage fell to about 6,000 and I went back to using dino, changing every 6 months. Mileage has, the last few years, gone back to about 10,000, and I have gone back to M1, using the M1 10W30 High Mileage oil, which is still SL and has a stronger detergent and antiwear package. My last oil change was 9117 miles and the motor has used about one third quart in this mileage. Oil still looked good, but it had about 11 months on it and it was October with winter coming, so I went ahead and changed it.
Back in the days when synthetic oil was really synthetic, I used Mobil One as it was originally made to use: an OCI of one year or 25,000 miles. My usual OCI was 18,000 to 20,000 miles. I usually had to add two or three quarts of makeup oil during this OCI. Never had any oil related problem or sludge buildup up to 140,000 miles, which was about as long as I ever kept a car.
I figured that M1 had made a major change in the formula of regular M1 when they came out with the EP version, which they say is good for only 15,000 miles. I knew they had dropped the 25,000 mile claim for the regular M1 after a few years because people were not checking their oil level and were consequently running the oil too low and ruining their engines.
I have been retired since 2001. My miles per year has dropped considerably. Right after I retired, my yearly mileage fell to about 6,000 and I went back to using dino, changing every 6 months. Mileage has, the last few years, gone back to about 10,000, and I have gone back to M1, using the M1 10W30 High Mileage oil, which is still SL and has a stronger detergent and antiwear package. My last oil change was 9117 miles and the motor has used about one third quart in this mileage. Oil still looked good, but it had about 11 months on it and it was October with winter coming, so I went ahead and changed it.
1999nick,
Like you, I used M1 5-20 in the 70s and it performed very well. Frankly, I don't see any degrgation of their product through all these years. Even with the oil today, M1 continues to provide great results for me and many others I know with some long OCIs. I doubt that there are any pure oil groups today. It appears that blends of groups may in fact provide the best base oil.
Like you, I used M1 5-20 in the 70s and it performed very well. Frankly, I don't see any degrgation of their product through all these years. Even with the oil today, M1 continues to provide great results for me and many others I know with some long OCIs. I doubt that there are any pure oil groups today. It appears that blends of groups may in fact provide the best base oil.
Mobil 1 has taken a major blow over the last few years. I think they have some issues to work out.
You be the judge:
Ashland claiming M1 failed Seq IVA
BP claiming 8x better wear on Seq IVA
Higher Fe in UOA's
Complaints of oil consumption/noise in some grades.
You be the judge:
Ashland claiming M1 failed Seq IVA
BP claiming 8x better wear on Seq IVA
Higher Fe in UOA's
Complaints of oil consumption/noise in some grades.
dnewton3
Staff member
I'll never understand the basis for these complaints and the argument.
There is a performance spec, set by the OEM. Meet it, and your engine will last longer than you'll likely ever own it.
Lubricant choice is part of a maintenance plan. Unfortunately, people often put that choice at the front end of the process, and then abandon the rest of the program development. Lubricant selection should compliment your maintenance program, not dictate it!
Are PAOs different from group III? Absolutely. Are the differences seen to a degree that is easily distinguishable in everyday use? No way.
The ROI of using synthetics (regardless of base stock) is in longevity of use, not wear reduction. You will NOT see 3x less wear in short to moderate OCIs by using a group III or IV over dino oils. You might see 3x the life cycle of the lubricant (versus a dino) in some circumstances IF you are dedicated enough to push it that far. Who cares what base stock is present when PERFORMANCE is met? It's a means to an end; that's all.
I suspect that nearly 90% (or more) of people who use "full synthetic" PAOs change their oil way too often anyway, negating any reasonable advantage the lubricant would have provided. I run my dino oils longer than some of these chubs run their precious PAOs ...
You are hereby returned to the rhetoric and mythology.
There is a performance spec, set by the OEM. Meet it, and your engine will last longer than you'll likely ever own it.
Lubricant choice is part of a maintenance plan. Unfortunately, people often put that choice at the front end of the process, and then abandon the rest of the program development. Lubricant selection should compliment your maintenance program, not dictate it!
Are PAOs different from group III? Absolutely. Are the differences seen to a degree that is easily distinguishable in everyday use? No way.
The ROI of using synthetics (regardless of base stock) is in longevity of use, not wear reduction. You will NOT see 3x less wear in short to moderate OCIs by using a group III or IV over dino oils. You might see 3x the life cycle of the lubricant (versus a dino) in some circumstances IF you are dedicated enough to push it that far. Who cares what base stock is present when PERFORMANCE is met? It's a means to an end; that's all.
I suspect that nearly 90% (or more) of people who use "full synthetic" PAOs change their oil way too often anyway, negating any reasonable advantage the lubricant would have provided. I run my dino oils longer than some of these chubs run their precious PAOs ...
You are hereby returned to the rhetoric and mythology.
Last edited:
Quote:
Who cares what base stock is present when PERFORMANCE is met? It's a means to an end; that's all.
I do .
For when a oil company chooses to use a cheap base stock to get by , you will in turn get a cheap oil.
Few will realize the effects of the cheaper oil (Castrol as an example) as they will not hang on to a vehicle for 10-15-20 or more years , but that is my business not the oil companies .
If I pay over 20 dollars for 5 qt. at a discount high volume store for oil instead of 8 dollars per 5qt. I want the best, not the cheapest they can get by with in the manufacturing process.
So again to answer your question I care. One does not need a degree in chemical engineering to know Group 4/5 is better than group 3 ... just look at Amsoil as a example.
Thus endith the lesson
Who cares what base stock is present when PERFORMANCE is met? It's a means to an end; that's all.
I do .
For when a oil company chooses to use a cheap base stock to get by , you will in turn get a cheap oil.
Few will realize the effects of the cheaper oil (Castrol as an example) as they will not hang on to a vehicle for 10-15-20 or more years , but that is my business not the oil companies .
If I pay over 20 dollars for 5 qt. at a discount high volume store for oil instead of 8 dollars per 5qt. I want the best, not the cheapest they can get by with in the manufacturing process.
So again to answer your question I care. One does not need a degree in chemical engineering to know Group 4/5 is better than group 3 ... just look at Amsoil as a example.
Thus endith the lesson
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: badnews
For when a oil company chooses to use a cheap base stock to get by , you will in turn get a cheap oil.
That's like saying a pound of lead is heavier than a pound of feathers.
If the new oil meets exactly the same specs, and if the specs define what you need, then by definition you are getting the same performance.
Originally Posted By: badnews
Few will realize the effects of the cheaper oil (Castrol as an example) as they will not hang on to a vehicle for 10-15-20 or more years , but that is my business not the oil companies .
And just how do you intend to discern how the "cheapening" of the oil is affecting you? Are you performing long-term double-blind trials with each kind of oil with large groups of equipment?
I'll tell you who is doing just that: API, ILSAC, ACEA, the OEMs, and the formulators themselves. Evidently, they all think group III is great.
Originally Posted By: badnews
If I pay over 20 dollars for 5 qt. at a discount high volume store for oil instead of 8 dollars per 5qt. I want the best, not the cheapest they can get by with in the manufacturing process.
Then you want to blend your own oil, period. No responsible corporation will spend more and charge less than they have to.
And FYI, if you think $20 for 5 qts is expensive, you have some research to do. There are oils that cost four times that much for the same quantity.
Originally Posted By: badnews
So again to answer your question I care. One does not need a degree in chemical engineering to know Group 4/5 is better than group 3
Yes, actually, one does. If you don't, then you're just taking someone's word for it.
And once again, the people who DO have the degrees and ARE doing the experiments all seem to think group III is just fine.
For when a oil company chooses to use a cheap base stock to get by , you will in turn get a cheap oil.
That's like saying a pound of lead is heavier than a pound of feathers.
If the new oil meets exactly the same specs, and if the specs define what you need, then by definition you are getting the same performance.
Originally Posted By: badnews
Few will realize the effects of the cheaper oil (Castrol as an example) as they will not hang on to a vehicle for 10-15-20 or more years , but that is my business not the oil companies .
And just how do you intend to discern how the "cheapening" of the oil is affecting you? Are you performing long-term double-blind trials with each kind of oil with large groups of equipment?
I'll tell you who is doing just that: API, ILSAC, ACEA, the OEMs, and the formulators themselves. Evidently, they all think group III is great.
Originally Posted By: badnews
If I pay over 20 dollars for 5 qt. at a discount high volume store for oil instead of 8 dollars per 5qt. I want the best, not the cheapest they can get by with in the manufacturing process.
Then you want to blend your own oil, period. No responsible corporation will spend more and charge less than they have to.
And FYI, if you think $20 for 5 qts is expensive, you have some research to do. There are oils that cost four times that much for the same quantity.
Originally Posted By: badnews
So again to answer your question I care. One does not need a degree in chemical engineering to know Group 4/5 is better than group 3
Yes, actually, one does. If you don't, then you're just taking someone's word for it.
And once again, the people who DO have the degrees and ARE doing the experiments all seem to think group III is just fine.
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: badnews
For when a oil company chooses to use a cheap base stock to get by , you will in turn get a cheap oil.
That's like saying a pound of lead is heavier than a pound of feathers.
If the new oil meets exactly the same specs, and if the specs define what you need, then by definition you are getting the same performance.
Originally Posted By: badnews
Few will realize the effects of the cheaper oil (Castrol as an example) as they will not hang on to a vehicle for 10-15-20 or more years , but that is my business not the oil companies .
And just how do you intend to discern how the "cheapening" of the oil is affecting you? Are you performing long-term double-blind trials with each kind of oil with large groups of equipment?
I'll tell you who is doing just that: API, ILSAC, ACEA, the OEMs, and the formulators themselves. Evidently, they all think group III is great.
Originally Posted By: badnews
If I pay over 20 dollars for 5 qt. at a discount high volume store for oil instead of 8 dollars per 5qt. I want the best, not the cheapest they can get by with in the manufacturing process.
Then you want to blend your own oil, period. No responsible corporation will spend more and charge less than they have to.
And FYI, if you think $20 for 5 qts is expensive, you have some research to do. There are oils that cost four times that much for the same quantity.
Originally Posted By: badnews
So again to answer your question I care. One does not need a degree in chemical engineering to know Group 4/5 is better than group 3
Yes, actually, one does. If you don't, then you're just taking someone's word for it.
And once again, the people who DO have the degrees and ARE doing the experiments all seem to think group III is just fine.
Are you serious ?
You use a pound of feathers and a pound of lead analogy as if a given weight of an item means the item is of the the same . OMG ?
I am not here to word smith anyone on the internet .
And replies such as yours prove that companies such as Castrol will be around a long time.
I am done here
Originally Posted By: badnews
For when a oil company chooses to use a cheap base stock to get by , you will in turn get a cheap oil.
That's like saying a pound of lead is heavier than a pound of feathers.
If the new oil meets exactly the same specs, and if the specs define what you need, then by definition you are getting the same performance.
Originally Posted By: badnews
Few will realize the effects of the cheaper oil (Castrol as an example) as they will not hang on to a vehicle for 10-15-20 or more years , but that is my business not the oil companies .
And just how do you intend to discern how the "cheapening" of the oil is affecting you? Are you performing long-term double-blind trials with each kind of oil with large groups of equipment?
I'll tell you who is doing just that: API, ILSAC, ACEA, the OEMs, and the formulators themselves. Evidently, they all think group III is great.
Originally Posted By: badnews
If I pay over 20 dollars for 5 qt. at a discount high volume store for oil instead of 8 dollars per 5qt. I want the best, not the cheapest they can get by with in the manufacturing process.
Then you want to blend your own oil, period. No responsible corporation will spend more and charge less than they have to.
And FYI, if you think $20 for 5 qts is expensive, you have some research to do. There are oils that cost four times that much for the same quantity.
Originally Posted By: badnews
So again to answer your question I care. One does not need a degree in chemical engineering to know Group 4/5 is better than group 3
Yes, actually, one does. If you don't, then you're just taking someone's word for it.
And once again, the people who DO have the degrees and ARE doing the experiments all seem to think group III is just fine.
Are you serious ?
You use a pound of feathers and a pound of lead analogy as if a given weight of an item means the item is of the the same . OMG ?
I am not here to word smith anyone on the internet .
And replies such as yours prove that companies such as Castrol will be around a long time.
I am done here
- Status