VOA with TBN and TAN for Mobil 1 AFE 0W-20 SN

[btanchors]

This VOA was a surprise! Definite formula change. Greatly decreased Calcium, Greatly increased Magnesium. TBN lower than previous versions of M1. I thought TAN would be lower, but then, I've not had TAN performed much on engine oils.

Would love to hear comments from people more in the know about these formulations - Anyone care to speculate why they switched from Calcium to magnesium?

 

[ltslimjim]

Surprisingly a turn down, IMO. Perhaps B_S is low-balling the TBN, but still the trade of for a PCMO to magnesium from calcium is generally considered cheapening, am I right?

Curious did you give them a sample from a Quart or some from the new 5 QT AFE 0w-20 jug?

 

[buster]

I'd have them re check this. It may be right. I'll send off a sample this week to get more verification. Love this oil in the Honda.

 

[ltslimjim]

^Shake the bottle well for full effect.

 

[buster]

Originally Posted By: ltslimjim
Surprisingly a turn down, IMO. Perhaps B_S is low-balling the TBN, but still the trade of for a PCMO to magnesium from calcium is generally considered cheapening, am I right?

Curious did you give them a sample from a Quart or some from the new 5 QT AFE 0w-20 jug?


No, it's not that simple. M1 will be usingthe latest in additive and base oil technology.

 

[Tom NJ]

Looks like a possible calibration problem in that the phosphorus is below the specification for SN (although that doesn't explain the switch from calcium to magnesium). Might want to request a recheck on the metals, which they should do for free in light of the phosphorus result.

Tom NJ

 

[btanchors]

Itslimjim,

The spec sheet from Mobil 1 lists the TBN at only 8.8, so Blackstone is within 10%. Incidentally, your comment made me go to the Mobil 1 website, to look at the 0W-20 spec sheet. I noticed that it has been very recently updated, to include the SN specification. Most of the specs have changed slightly. See the spec sheet here . The Viscosity Index even increased slightly (I am sure CATERHAM will take note, although still not in the same league as the Toyota oil )

I can accept that a possible reason for moving from Calcium to Magnesium might be cost. Can someone explain why this new approach Mobil 1 is taking might not be as good as the traditional approach with more calcium?

Makes me wonder if this oil can go up to 10K in my 5.7L Tundra. Perhaps it is time to consider switching to Amsoil or RedLine?

 

[JOD]

I don't really understand the "viscosity is normal for a 0W20 oil"?

Most 5W20's are thinner at 40C? That doesn't really seem normal at all.

 

[btanchors]

Itslimjim,

Forgot to add: The sample was drawn from a new 5-quart jug purchased from Wal-Mart. I did shake the jug thoroughly before drawing the sample.

 

[buster]

Viscosity is off too.

 

[buster]

I have the 5qt jug too so I'll send a sample off but see if they will re-run it.

 

[btanchors]

The viscosity is within 3.7% of the new spec from Mobil, which is 8.7 cSt @100 deg C.

 

[tig1]

After looking at this I'm glad I have two OCs of the SM M1 0-20. I may go back to 5-20EP after the SM is gone. Who ever said GF 5 is better? Or B-S has totally missed the boat here, which I suspect happens more ofter than not. That's why I don't do UOAs. Can't depend on the results.

 

[ltslimjim]

Originally Posted By: btanchors
Itslimjim,

The spec sheet from Mobil 1 lists the TBN at only 8.8, so Blackstone is within 10%. Incidentally, your comment made me go to the Mobil 1 website, to look at the 0W-20 spec sheet. I noticed that it has been very recently updated, to include the SN specification. Most of the specs have changed slightly. See the spec sheet here . The Viscosity Index even increased slightly (I am sure CATERHAM will take note, although still not in the same league as the Toyota oil )

I can accept that a possible reason for moving from Calcium to Magnesium might be cost. Can someone explain why this new approach Mobil 1 is taking might not be as good as the traditional approach with more calcium?

Makes me wonder if this oil can go up to 10K in my 5.7L Tundra. Perhaps it is time to consider switching to Amsoil or RedLine?


From what I've read, magnesium tends to allow for more deposits and was higher in older API spec(like SJ or SL?)...not sure. Calcium is non-the-less typically regarded as more effective for longer intervals, compared to magnesium. Someone else can correct me on that. I'm still learning.

Thanks for the updated spec and the mention of TBN. I forgot we are looking at AFE, not EP.

Probably still fine to run in a Honda Fit for 7,500 and sending in a sample for fun, or if concerned about SN vs SM now for extended OCI regarding M1 AFE 0w-20. It could be I'm used to seeing a little diff. in a 0w-30 as well, FWIW.

Thanks for getting the sample, btw.

 

[addyguy]

Wow - what a change. The add-pack for this oil now looks just like a new CJ-4 HDEO - check out a VOA of RT6 to see what I mean.

This is definite cost-cutting, I suspect, to meet the 'required' OCI. Remeber, this isn't a long-drain oil - this is an oil designed to be used with Honda/Ford/Subuaru OCI's, which will be between 7.5k and about 11k (Honda OLM)...an oil doesn't actually need a lot of TBN to do that - many 7-8 TBN dino's will easily do that.

 

[Artem]

Originally Posted By: ltslimjim
Surprisingly a turn down, IMO. Perhaps B_S is low-balling the TBN, but still the trade of for a PCMO to magnesium from calcium is generally considered cheapening, am I right?

Curious did you give them a sample from a Quart or some from the new 5 QT AFE 0w-20 jug?



So does it seem like M1 is cutting costs a bit by skimping on the "good" additives?

Also, what difference does it make whether the sample came out of a Jug or Quart bottle? Its all the same oil produced at the same plant. I'm lost.

 

[addyguy]

Another thing to remember is that this type of add-pack, and the use of Mg detergent, is nothing 'new' for Mobil. Go back and look at VOA/UOA's of SH/SJ M1 - lots of MG used there, and little Ca.

 

[Spockian1]

Originally Posted By: buster
No, it's not that simple. M1 will be usingthe latest in additive and base oil technology.

My view of BITOG members evaluating an oil based upon VOA's:

Virgin Elephant Analysis

Note that the most intricate bits are inside the subject, and thus beyond probing.

 

[JasonBraswell]

Originally Posted By: tig1
After looking at this I'm glad I have two OCs of the SM M1 0-20. I may go back to 5-20EP after the SM is gone. Who ever said GF 5 is better? Or B-S has totally missed the boat here, which I suspect happens more ofter than not. That's why I don't do UOAs. Can't depend on the results.
I have a post titled "Bought SM Oil; Waiting out others to try SN first" and you recently posted: No need to wait to use SN oil. The SM M1 oil you bought may be the same as SN. If not the same then there would be little differance.
Bought SM Oil; Waiting out others to try SN first
We were discussing the 5w-30 EP but I think the same rationale applies. Tig- are you changing your position across the board?

Not trying to be confrontational... just want to understand where people stand on the SN issue. I am one to let the data tell the story and not jump to conclusions.

 

[tinmanSC]

Originally Posted By: Artem

So does it seem like M1 is cutting costs a bit by skimping on the "good" additives?

I'm weary of making this type of statement because we have not seen UOAs from this oil. VOA only tells some of the story.