Mobil 1 vs Liqui Moly

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: skyship
The pictures are nice, but they still don't provide a comparison of the use of one oil against another. The one thing that is odd about the engine oil industry is that there is no independent group testing the different products. If you produce tyres the ADAC do some very good tests, but if you make an engine oil no one tests it for performance even in Germany and when the car manufacturers do any tests they don't publish anything useful.


To quote Doug Hillary (paraphrased):

"When speaking to some engineers in Germany I asked the question as to whether there were any differences observed between lubricants used in service. I was told that in general, there were no real differences in performance between any of the lubricants shown on the approval list for a given application."

What I take away from this is that in the case of the Euro marques, if you use an approved oil for an application, it is very unlikely for you to have any issues with wear, cleanliness....etc. The engineers have already done the legwork for you.

But what I also take away from Doug's writings on this subject is that a vast number of these companies use Mobil 1 0w-40. I'm certain there is a reason for the fact that, given how many oils are on the approved products list, this lubricant continually gets chosen.

And yes, the pictures are nice. And they provide proof of performance. Can another lubricant, used in the same manner, provide comparable performance? I don't know, somebody would have to test that. For now, what we DO have is actual evidence of Delvac 1 performing in the manner indicated. The burden is not on Mobil to provide proof that a competing product can stand up as well.


The pictures seem to be for Delvac, but we were discussing M1 0/40, so are not too relevant. What we need are comparisons between different oils.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: skyship
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: skyship
Providing factory fill oil is just one part of the engine oil business, it does not mean that Mobil make the best oil, it just means they are a cheaper source of good quality oil from the manufacturers point of view. It's very much a business decision as to whether to chase factory fill contracts or not. Liqui Moly for example don't get involved in that part of the business but concentrate on the private market. Fuchs do provide some factory fill oils and fluids but don't bother much with the private market. Different companies specialize in different sectors of the engine oil market.
I still havn't seen any evidence as to why M1 0/40 is thought by it's fans to be better than other synthetic oils.


It is certified/approved for the most applications, meaning it has been the most heavily tested by OEM's for use in their high-dollar engines.


M1 0/40 has been in production for a long time, so it's bound to have a lot of certs, it still does not make it the best oil and no one seems to have any evidence available in that regard. You have to pay for OEM certification, so a lot of oil companies don't try to get every OEM cert because of the cost involved.
The only evidence we have available if the different UOA results and they seem to show M1 shears faster than some other full synthetics and produces higher Fe figures, which is probably due to the large detergent content of the oil.


Being in production for a long time does not automatically mean the product is going to get a lot of certifications. There are plenty of oils that have been in production even longer, yet they just have the basic API approval. M1 0w-40 has also been revised several times, with the new SN formula having a higher HT/HS than its predecessor. This means that its performance had to be demonstrated and approved all over again....

The oil has a lot of certifications because XOM has submitted for, paid for and been approved for those certifications. That is a guarantee of a specific level of performance. A level of performance that meets the criteria of Porsche, Mercedes, BMW, Nissan....etc. Your personal opinion of the oil certainly carries far less weight than those of these manufacturers. Citing UOA's as evidence? Really? Where's the tear-down data?

And with regards to shear, who really cares if the oil still is able to perform properly? Though it should be noted that the newer, slightly heavier SN version of the product is far less shear-prone than its predecessor.

On one side we have the opinion of some guy on the Internet. On the other, we have the reputation of the world's largest publicly-traded oil company, who's flagship product is the oil in question. An oil that has the approvals from some of the most prestigious marques on the planet and is certified to be used in engines with some of the highest power densities out there as well.

And then you make a point about it being unfit for race use. You should perhaps tell the Engineers at GM, who use it in their Corvette racing program. You should perhaps tell the Engineers at Porsche, who use it in their track cars on the Nürburgring, you should perhaps tell the Engineers at Mercedes-Benz, who use this lubricant in their track cars as well. I mean, what value is there to the accrued data of the lubricant in use when they could simply have asked for your opinion, right?
smirk.gif


I'm sorry, but I'll take the MOUNTAINS of real data that are available from the long list of OEM's using this lubricant in their high dollar engines over some long-winded rhetoric born-forth from the mouth of some Internet expert who's data consists of opinion and a few UOA's.


Did he really say its not a race ready oil. (I won't read his posts anymore)
It's the best oil Mobil makes,what an absurd comment.
Shear only matters if its affecting wear. I couldn't care less if the oil thins,heck,help fuel economy slightly. The additive pack is what matters and if its still doing its job then why does a bit thinner matter.
 
Originally Posted By: skyship
They are also a big snake oil producer although most of their additives are sold to farmers or Russians who want to use cheap bulk oil that they already have for their cars.


lol.gif
You're clueless, aren't you?
 
Originally Posted By: skyship
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: skyship
The pictures are nice, but they still don't provide a comparison of the use of one oil against another. The one thing that is odd about the engine oil industry is that there is no independent group testing the different products. If you produce tyres the ADAC do some very good tests, but if you make an engine oil no one tests it for performance even in Germany and when the car manufacturers do any tests they don't publish anything useful.


To quote Doug Hillary (paraphrased):

"When speaking to some engineers in Germany I asked the question as to whether there were any differences observed between lubricants used in service. I was told that in general, there were no real differences in performance between any of the lubricants shown on the approval list for a given application."

What I take away from this is that in the case of the Euro marques, if you use an approved oil for an application, it is very unlikely for you to have any issues with wear, cleanliness....etc. The engineers have already done the legwork for you.

But what I also take away from Doug's writings on this subject is that a vast number of these companies use Mobil 1 0w-40. I'm certain there is a reason for the fact that, given how many oils are on the approved products list, this lubricant continually gets chosen.

And yes, the pictures are nice. And they provide proof of performance. Can another lubricant, used in the same manner, provide comparable performance? I don't know, somebody would have to test that. For now, what we DO have is actual evidence of Delvac 1 performing in the manner indicated. The burden is not on Mobil to provide proof that a competing product can stand up as well.


The pictures seem to be for Delvac, but we were discussing M1 0/40, so are not too relevant. What we need are comparisons between different oils.


:facepalm:

I KNOW the pictures are of Delvac 1, I CLEARLY stated that. My point was that these companies pay to have their products tested. Mobil paid to have Doug test Delvac 1 in this operating environment. The thread was titled Mobil 1 vs Liqui Moly, not Mobil 1 0w-40 vs LM 0w-40, so I figured my example was appropriate.

We aren't going to GET comparisons between different oils, because nobody is going to pay for them. So what we DO have are the results of an oil being tested and approved by a manufacturer or manufacturers (boy, I think I've said that 100 times now......) which guarantees a specific level of performance. Like it or not, that is what we DO have. Which is a heck of a lot better than somebody's baseless opinion, wouldn't you agree?
 
Yes I agree, but I am basing my opinion only on data and the only data that seems to be available is averaged out UOA results. Approvals are good and they certainly mean an oil performs well, but in trying to determine which oil is best they don't help.
So far the only conclusions I have reached relate to M1 0/40 use vs Castrol GTX 5/30 and Castrol Edge 5/40 in the BMW 5 series over a 5K mile OCI and both Castrol oils produced better results. Unfortuntely I have not seen any data for LM Synthoil as the BMW folks were using cheaper LM products and the only data file from the VW TDI results is fairly old and does not list Castrol Edge.
With reference to another post, you can use any oil you like in a race car, particularly if you are paid to use that oil, but the best race oils have add packs designed for short duration use with high levels of anti wear additives like Zinc and Moly. You don't need detergents in them because the oil is changed too frequently and the VI improvers are also going to reduce the ultimate performance of the oil, so should be kept to a minimum.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Which is a heck of a lot better than somebody's baseless opinion, wouldn't you agree?


You do realize you are asking that question on BITOG don't you?
 
Originally Posted By: skyship
Yes I agree, but I am basing my opinion only on data and the only data that seems to be available is averaged out UOA results. Approvals are good and they certainly mean an oil performs well, but in trying to determine which oil is best they don't help.
So far the only conclusions I have reached relate to M1 0/40 use vs Castrol GTX 5/30 and Castrol Edge 5/40 in the BMW 5 series over a 5K mile OCI and both Castrol oils produced better results. Unfortuntely I have not seen any data for LM Synthoil as the BMW folks were using cheaper LM products and the only data file from the VW TDI results is fairly old and does not list Castrol Edge.


My observations with regards to the Castrol lubricants in BMW's is that they provide not-so-impressive deposit control, at least in North America (this is based on both my own under valve cover pictures as well as many from the BMW forums, many of which have cars that were dealer maintained on the Castrol/BMW oils).

Based on this, I have a theory:

One thing to keep in mind about what you see in UOA's is that this "glimpse" is what the oil has held in suspension. If you have one oil that performs (relatively speaking) poorly in holding contaminants in suspension, it is going to show fewer of those contaminants in a UOA when compared to an oil that has higher levels of deposit control/cleanliness and can hold more contaminants in suspension. Think about this with respect to two oils that have nary identical wear rates. Even though tear-downs would show extremely similar performance, UOA's would show that the oil with the higher level of detergents/dispersants to have higher "wear metals".

And of course to touch on the certifications/approvals again, these usually have actual wear criteria tied to them through before/after measurements, similar to the measurements Doug did with D1 for XOM. I mean, if we went by the uptake of iron in his UOA's, many on here would assume the engine was coming apart. Yet a quick glance at that 1.2 million kilometer liner indicates that this was clearly not the case.
 
I have read posts that suggest BMWs either do better on GC based on UOA or that the owner prefers GC.

Havent seen anything similar for other Marques / oil brands.

But the general reason M1 0w40 is held in such high regard is it is factory fill and / or recommended across so many brands, the fact it is used for racing, and its availability and price in the US. I got 10.2 quarts and 2 M1 filters for $65 after tax.

There was a great presentation that I linked to that revealed some more in depth testing results, and it is interesting that Nissan used this oil in their engine design process for the Skyline, and they make a point of recommending it for the reason that they can't guarantee another oil performing for that part of the engine.
 
Originally Posted By: skyship
One think I forgot to mention was that the results I saw for VW TDI UOA data showed that Delvac and some of the traditional HDEO's were better than M1 0/40 in that particular block.


If this was in reference to the PD TDI then I think we can look at the extremely demanding MACK spec (along with many others) that D1 meets for an explanation there. The PD TDI was known for premature wear and munching cams, so using a (heavier) oil with extremely high levels of additives to deal with the types of stresses created under the unique operating profiles of some of these diesel engines makes sense. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a better diesel oil than Delvac 1. But that doesn't automatically make it a better choice for gasoline engines, which is where the (lighter) oils like M1 0w-40 are primarily targeted (yes, I know they meet some diesel specs too).
 
Originally Posted By: FoxS
I have read posts that suggest BMWs either do better on GC based on UOA or that the owner prefers GC.

Havent seen anything similar for other Marques / oil brands.

But the general reason M1 0w40 is held in such high regard is it is factory fill and / or recommended across so many brands, the fact it is used for racing, and its availability and price in the US. I got 10.2 quarts and 2 M1 filters for $65 after tax.

There was a great presentation that I linked to that revealed some more in depth testing results, and it is interesting that Nissan used this oil in their engine design process for the Skyline, and they make a point of recommending it for the reason that they can't guarantee another oil performing for that part of the engine.


The BMW/Castrol thing is very similar to the GM/Mobil thing and the MB/Mobil thing in the sense that Castrol has been the OEM lubricant provider for BMW's cars for an extremely long time and the oil caps say "BMW Recommends Castrol" on them. Due to this, you are by default going to have an overwhelmingly large portion of the owner-base feeling that the only oil that would properly protect their engine would be a Castrol lubricant.

BTW, I remember Doug mentioning he had his only documented lubricant/engine failure on GC
wink.gif
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL

BTW, I remember Doug mentioning he had his only documented lubricant/engine failure on GC
wink.gif



that's an interesting tidbit.

I wonder if it could create enough fear to persuade someone with a stash of GC to send it to me for environmentally friendly disposal - postage paid of course.
 
Originally Posted By: FoxS
That's an interesting tidbit.

I wonder if it could create enough fear to persuade someone with a stash of GC to send it to me for environmentally friendly disposal - postage paid of course.


I don't know, but it sure made for some interesting discussion when he mentioned it
grin.gif
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
And the BMW/Castrol thing is why I took this picture
28.gif


S62oilchange05.jpg



I see a space for a "1" right next to that "M".
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
And the BMW/Castrol thing is why I took this picture
28.gif


S62oilchange05.jpg



thumbsup2.gif
 
Originally Posted By: gregoron
If we beat this topic up anymore it'll be 20 weight with a TBN of 0 by the end of the day. As someone said before, what grade are we looking at and what application? Going by just the company ain't gonna cut it.

A far as application its a mixed bag but all Mobil 1. Been using regular Mobil 1 10w-30 in gas lawn equipment and 87 Ford Ranger 2.9. Kubota Z gets 5w-40 M1 Turbo Diesel, 2002 Volvo 5w-30 and 2013 Explorer 5w-20. Switching to High Mileage because I read somewhere that the additive package was a little better. Had been using Synergyn but no one local carried it and cost was getting to be a factor when you had product cost and added shipping. Been seeing Liqui Moly on the shelves but didn't know anything about it other than it is a German product. It does cost a little more than M1 but is it better?
 
Originally Posted By: slc10844
Originally Posted By: gregoron
If we beat this topic up anymore it'll be 20 weight with a TBN of 0 by the end of the day. As someone said before, what grade are we looking at and what application? Going by just the company ain't gonna cut it.

A far as application its a mixed bag but all Mobil 1. Been using regular Mobil 1 10w-30 in gas lawn equipment and 87 Ford Ranger 2.9. Kubota Z gets 5w-40 M1 Turbo Diesel, 2002 Volvo 5w-30 and 2013 Explorer 5w-20. Switching to High Mileage because I read somewhere that the additive package was a little better. Had been using Synergyn but no one local carried it and cost was getting to be a factor when you had product cost and added shipping. Been seeing Liqui Moly on the shelves but didn't know anything about it other than it is a German product. It does cost a little more than M1 but is it better?


Better? Some oils are better in some applications than others,I doubt very much you will find that any oil is better than another when changed at a proper interval and meets the manufacturers specifications.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top