Mobil 1 European Formula 0w-40

[harrydog]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: harrydog

Well does that mean that oil can not exceed the minimum requirements needed to meet the approvals?


Of course not. An oil could do significantly better than the limits of the test and get approved. The purpose is that it at least meets those requirements. Overachievement isn't an issue.


Originally Posted By: harrydog
By no means am I implying that the approvals are worthless. Far from it. But just because an oil has gotten the approval from a manufacturer doesn't mean that it is the best oil you can get for that application.


No, but it DOES mean that the oil has been tested and approved for being suitable for that application, which is a heck of a lot better of a start than somebody's marketing claim that it "should" be better

Originally Posted By: harrydog
There are differences among oils that meet the same specs. For example some oils are already good enough to meet the next generation of manufacturers specs while others will need to be reformulated in order to meet them.


This is true, and that's why it is nice to look at an oil that has a myriad of approvals, all of which you know are demanding, as a way of perhaps divining some insight into this.

However, one also must consider that if oil "A" exceeds the performance requirements for your engine, what advantages are you going to see from running oil "B", which exceeds them by a bit more?

That is, if oil "A" is approved and will allow your engine to run happily well past the life of the chassis it is fitted in, the transmission it is mated to and on into the wrecking yard, is concerning yourself over how much better "B" might be over "A" relevant?

This is Bob is the Oil Guy, remember? If approvals were all that the forum members cared about then there wouldn't be much left to discuss. What's not relevant to some may be very relevant to others. Some of us want to extend OCI's as long as possible. Others want to minimize wear to the highest degree, even if it is a minuscule amount. And some may have other priorities.
If there is an oil out there that might be better than Mobil 1, which is my default oil, then I' want to know about it.
There are a number of oils out there that meet VW, BMW, Porsche and MB approvals. I'm fairly certain that some are better than others. There are also oils out there that do not have these approvals which very well might be even better. It costs money to get an oil approved by a manufacturer. Some of the smaller companies like Amsoil, Red Line, RLI and others can't or won't justify the expense but that doesn't automatically mean they are inferior.
Let's face it - in most cases big corporations are not going to do any more than they really have to do in order to meet approvals because the VAST majority of consumers don't look into it any deeper than that. In fact my guess is, the majority of consumers don't even care what oil is put in their engines.
Smaller boutique companies have carved out a niche by trying to formulate the highest quality oil they can because that's the only way they can stay in business. Whether these oils are really any better is definitely up for debate. The only way to prove anything one way or the other is by looking at the results of numerous UOA's.
At this point I will use Mobil 1 but I'm always looking for something better.

 

[53' Stude]

I think OVERKILL is trying to say that M1 0w40 is a good choice.

 

[lubricatosaurus]

Originally Posted By: harrydog
If there is an oil out there that might be better than Mobil 1, which is my default oil, then I' want to know about it.
There are a number of oils out there that meet VW, BMW, Porsche and MB approvals. I'm fairly certain that some are better than others. ,,,,,,,,
At this point I will use Mobil 1 but I'm always looking for something better.

LN Engineering says Lubrizol (excellent additive package company!) ran the KRL test (CEC L45-A-99) and Joe Gibbs DT40 (Lubrizol) may be a better oil than 0w-40 in some ways anyhow. Both meet the specs, and of course we know M1 0w-40 is thought to be one of the best available, but maybe Joe Gibbs and Lubrizol can outdo them.
And http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3019971

 

[Jetronic]

that's a huge decrease in viscosity for M1! Into 20 weight territory!

 

[lubricatosaurus]

Originally Posted By: Jetronic
that's a huge decrease in viscosity for M1! Into 20 weight territory!

Hard to say how that KRL test really matters relating to a typical engine.
Certainly Lubrizol knows what they are doing, and Joe Gibbs DT40 is based on Group4/5 oils, so one could draw the conclusion: "I trust Lubrizol, and DT40 is tougher on shear."
I mean if you're looking for some edge, especially in hard driving.

 

[harrydog]

Originally Posted By: car51
I think OVERKILL is trying to say that M1 0w40 is a good choice.

I appreciate that and agree that it is a good choice.

 

[harrydog]

Originally Posted By: Jetronic
that's a huge decrease in viscosity for M1! Into 20 weight territory!

Wow, I'll say. I don't like seeing that.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: harrydog

This is Bob is the Oil Guy, remember? If approvals were all that the forum members cared about then there wouldn't be much left to discuss.


The approvals are primarily specific to Euro cars though, the North American and Asian manufacturers have historically just used the API minimums and so going above and beyond that was notable and possibly even important, particularly with what you bring up next.

Originally Posted By: harrydog
What's not relevant to some may be very relevant to others. Some of us want to extend OCI's as long as possible. Others want to minimize wear to the highest degree, even if it is a minuscule amount. And some may have other priorities.


Regarding OCI length, that's one of the criteria of the Euro OEM testing protocols (and historically wasn't with the others, hence my earlier point). And you are missing my point on wear. Without a tear-down you don't know wear, ergo you have no real barometer for performance in this realm. And if oil "A" is already overkill; is already more than sufficient to minimize wear, even if oil "B" is more robust; has more "anti-wear"agents does it accomplish anything? If you've got two oils that are more than sufficient for a car lapping the 24hrs of LeMans, are either of them going to provide different wear performance over the other in a naturally aspirated lower power density inline 4 or 6?

I can kill a deer with my .308. I can also do it with my .338 Lapua. The deer is no more dead with the .338 Lapua than it is with the .308. However if I'm trying to hit a target at 2 miles the better ballistics and higher power of the Lapua round then show their relevance.

Follow?

Originally Posted By: harrydog
If there is an oil out there that might be better than Mobil 1, which is my default oil, then I' want to know about it.


But "better" is relative to your application. If they are all going to provide the same wear and OCI performance due to the OEM approvals then you are obsessing about nothing.
Originally Posted By: harrydog
There are a number of oils out there that meet VW, BMW, Porsche and MB approvals. I'm fairly certain that some are better than others.


Perhaps. Maybe one of those oils provides slightly less wear than others on the Porsche Nurburgring test rig. However that likely has zero applicability to your application. Similar to how my M5 was much harder on oil than my wife's 328i due to higher power density, compression ratio, double the amount of VANOS gear....etc. But both spec'd an LL-01 lubricant.

Originally Posted By: harrydog
There are also oils out there that do not have these approvals which very well might be even better. It costs money to get an oil approved by a manufacturer. Some of the smaller companies like Amsoil, Red Line, RLI and others can't or won't justify the expense but that doesn't automatically mean they are inferior.


No, but it doesn't automatically mean they are better either

In one instance you have a known, an approval, that guarantees a minimum level of performance. In the other, you have the word of a manufacturer who is trying to sell you a product telling you that their product does this that and the other thing but there is no seal of approval, no certificate of performance that guarantees that to be the case.

That's why AMSOIL at least is now getting a lot of their oils, primarily the Euro ones, formally approved. Because they identify with the value represented in that. And the Euro approvals are really NOT obscenely expensive.

Originally Posted By: harrydog
Let's face it - in most cases big corporations are not going to do any more than they really have to do in order to meet approvals because the VAST majority of consumers don't look into it any deeper than that. In fact my guess is, the majority of consumers don't even care what oil is put in their engines.


This is the case for all corporations, their goal is to make money. And yes, you are quite right about consumers.

Originally Posted By: harrydog
Smaller boutique companies have carved out a niche by trying to formulate the highest quality oil they can because that's the only way they can stay in business. Whether these oils are really any better is definitely up for debate.


Looked at from the other side, they can stay in business because of that attitude, that people believe that these companies are "less evil" than the big guys and that there is legitimately something special going on that sets them apart from the likes of Mobil, Castrol and Shell.

The problem is that there is no concrete proof. Some companies resort to using ridiculous tests like the one-armed bandit, something that has no industry standard associated with it. Others continue to misuse a standard test designed for a different application (the 4-ball wear test) to show "superiority".

So is dishonest marketing (which the majors do too of course) somehow different because it is a small company? If that's how they prove their product is "remarkable", through hyperbole and misrepresentation, then how valid are the claims that there is something "special" to the components they've sourced from the majors and put together. It certainly isn't proven through the standardized testing methodologies and if all we've got to stand on are anecdotes and marketing, well that's not very firm ground.

Originally Posted By: harrydog
The only way to prove anything one way or the other is by looking at the results of numerous UOA's.


If you are looking to determine how well the oil holds up, how its TBN retention is, yes. If you are trying to compare the wear performance of oils to each other, no, this cannot be done through UOA's. There is no shortcut to gleaning wear performance, tear downs are a requirement here and unfortunately beyond the scope of most who are endeavouring to "minimize wear". This is why tear downs are part of the certification and approval protocols.

Originally Posted By: harrydog
At this point I will use Mobil 1 but I'm always looking for something better.


And this is where it becomes more of an emotional decision than one driven by facts. The odds are you aren't going to, nor are you going to find somebody else who has taken a fleet of your vehicle and run them each on the different lubes available for hundreds of thousands of miles and then performed comparative tear-down analysis. So the default is then looking at marketing claims and anecdotes as "evidence" of making the "right choice".

This is why so many on this site are eager to use UOA's, as they feel they are able to quickly contrast lubes to one another and pick the "best" based on the wear metals, but that's not the purpose of the tool, it is a gross missapplication of a service designed to track lubricant health with defined condemnation limits and monitor for any anomalies that may indicate a mechanical issue with the machine.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: harrydog
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
that's a huge decrease in viscosity for M1! Into 20 weight territory!

Wow, I'll say. I don't like seeing that.


Well, they are comparing a 0w-40 to a 5w-40, so based on that fact alone the 0w-40 is going to have more VII's in it. Also, based on KV, this was the old SM version of M1 0w-40, which was much more shear prone that the current SN formulation.

 

[wemay]

Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
Originally Posted By: harrydog
If there is an oil out there that might be better than Mobil 1, which is my default oil, then I' want to know about it.
There are a number of oils out there that meet VW, BMW, Porsche and MB approvals. I'm fairly certain that some are better than others. ,,,,,,,,
At this point I will use Mobil 1 but I'm always looking for something better.

LN Engineering says Lubrizol (excellent additive package company!) ran the KRL test (CEC L45-A-99) and Joe Gibbs DT40 (Lubrizol) may be a better oil than 0w-40 in some ways anyhow. Both meet the specs, and of course we know M1 0w-40 is thought to be one of the best available, but maybe Joe Gibbs and Lubrizol can outdo them.
And http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3019971


As a disclaimer it should be noted that Lubrizol formulates the Joe Gibbs Driven motor oils.

Also, has any BITOG member ever had a UOA showing their M1 0W-40 sheared to a 20? I don't think i've ever seen one.

 

[Jetronic]

no, but I've seen repeated mentions of the engine being louder using M1.

Not sure if that was from the start or if the engine became louder as the OCI progressed. It could be related to shear (even if it's only to a 30).

My engine requires HTHS to be 2.9 minimum, so I'd be hesitant to use M1 for 22k milesbased on what I see here.

 

[harrydog]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: harrydog

This is Bob is the Oil Guy, remember? If approvals were all that the forum members cared about then there wouldn't be much left to discuss.


The approvals are primarily specific to Euro cars though, the North American and Asian manufacturers have historically just used the API minimums and so going above and beyond that was notable and possibly even important, particularly with what you bring up next.

Originally Posted By: harrydog
What's not relevant to some may be very relevant to others. Some of us want to extend OCI's as long as possible. Others want to minimize wear to the highest degree, even if it is a minuscule amount. And some may have other priorities.


Regarding OCI length, that's one of the criteria of the Euro OEM testing protocols (and historically wasn't with the others, hence my earlier point). And you are missing my point on wear. Without a tear-down you don't know wear, ergo you have no real barometer for performance in this realm. And if oil "A" is already overkill; is already more than sufficient to minimize wear, even if oil "B" is more robust; has more "anti-wear"agents does it accomplish anything? If you've got two oils that are more than sufficient for a car lapping the 24hrs of LeMans, are either of them going to provide different wear performance over the other in a naturally aspirated lower power density inline 4 or 6?

I can kill a deer with my .308. I can also do it with my .338 Lapua. The deer is no more dead with the .338 Lapua than it is with the .308. However if I'm trying to hit a target at 2 miles the better ballistics and higher power of the Lapua round then show their relevance.

Follow?

Originally Posted By: harrydog
If there is an oil out there that might be better than Mobil 1, which is my default oil, then I' want to know about it.


But "better" is relative to your application. If they are all going to provide the same wear and OCI performance due to the OEM approvals then you are obsessing about nothing.
Originally Posted By: harrydog
There are a number of oils out there that meet VW, BMW, Porsche and MB approvals. I'm fairly certain that some are better than others.


Perhaps. Maybe one of those oils provides slightly less wear than others on the Porsche Nurburgring test rig. However that likely has zero applicability to your application. Similar to how my M5 was much harder on oil than my wife's 328i due to higher power density, compression ratio, double the amount of VANOS gear....etc. But both spec'd an LL-01 lubricant.

Originally Posted By: harrydog
There are also oils out there that do not have these approvals which very well might be even better. It costs money to get an oil approved by a manufacturer. Some of the smaller companies like Amsoil, Red Line, RLI and others can't or won't justify the expense but that doesn't automatically mean they are inferior.


No, but it doesn't automatically mean they are better either

In one instance you have a known, an approval, that guarantees a minimum level of performance. In the other, you have the word of a manufacturer who is trying to sell you a product telling you that their product does this that and the other thing but there is no seal of approval, no certificate of performance that guarantees that to be the case.

That's why AMSOIL at least is now getting a lot of their oils, primarily the Euro ones, formally approved. Because they identify with the value represented in that. And the Euro approvals are really NOT obscenely expensive.

Originally Posted By: harrydog
Let's face it - in most cases big corporations are not going to do any more than they really have to do in order to meet approvals because the VAST majority of consumers don't look into it any deeper than that. In fact my guess is, the majority of consumers don't even care what oil is put in their engines.


This is the case for all corporations, their goal is to make money. And yes, you are quite right about consumers.

Originally Posted By: harrydog
Smaller boutique companies have carved out a niche by trying to formulate the highest quality oil they can because that's the only way they can stay in business. Whether these oils are really any better is definitely up for debate.


Looked at from the other side, they can stay in business because of that attitude, that people believe that these companies are "less evil" than the big guys and that there is legitimately something special going on that sets them apart from the likes of Mobil, Castrol and Shell.

The problem is that there is no concrete proof. Some companies resort to using ridiculous tests like the one-armed bandit, something that has no industry standard associated with it. Others continue to misuse a standard test designed for a different application (the 4-ball wear test) to show "superiority".

So is dishonest marketing (which the majors do too of course) somehow different because it is a small company? If that's how they prove their product is "remarkable", through hyperbole and misrepresentation, then how valid are the claims that there is something "special" to the components they've sourced from the majors and put together. It certainly isn't proven through the standardized testing methodologies and if all we've got to stand on are anecdotes and marketing, well that's not very firm ground.

Originally Posted By: harrydog
The only way to prove anything one way or the other is by looking at the results of numerous UOA's.


If you are looking to determine how well the oil holds up, how its TBN retention is, yes. If you are trying to compare the wear performance of oils to each other, no, this cannot be done through UOA's. There is no shortcut to gleaning wear performance, tear downs are a requirement here and unfortunately beyond the scope of most who are endeavouring to "minimize wear". This is why tear downs are part of the certification and approval protocols.

Originally Posted By: harrydog
At this point I will use Mobil 1 but I'm always looking for something better.


And this is where it becomes more of an emotional decision than one driven by facts. The odds are you aren't going to, nor are you going to find somebody else who has taken a fleet of your vehicle and run them each on the different lubes available for hundreds of thousands of miles and then performed comparative tear-down analysis. So the default is then looking at marketing claims and anecdotes as "evidence" of making the "right choice".

This is why so many on this site are eager to use UOA's, as they feel they are able to quickly contrast lubes to one another and pick the "best" based on the wear metals, but that's not the purpose of the tool, it is a gross missapplication of a service designed to track lubricant health with defined condemnation limits and monitor for any anomalies that may indicate a mechanical issue with the machine.

That's certainly a lot of information and I appreciate you taking the time for the detailed replies. It helps me feel better about using Mobil 1 which is a good thing because I don't want to spend more money on oil unless I think there is a definite benefit. Which brings me to my concern regarding intake deposits with the direct injection engines. It's been debated whether or not some engine oils are better than others at reducing this. What are your thoughts on that?

 

[lubricatosaurus]

Originally Posted By: harrydog
Which brings me to my concern regarding intake deposits with the direct injection engines. It's been debated whether or not some engine oils are better than others at reducing this. What are your thoughts on that?


Good topic for a new thread. I'll start one and c what happens.... Maybe minimal guff and lots of info. Just maybe.

 

[harrydog]

Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
Originally Posted By: harrydog
Which brings me to my concern regarding intake deposits with the direct injection engines. It's been debated whether or not some engine oils are better than others at reducing this. What are your thoughts on that?


Good topic for a new thread. I'll start one and c what happens.... Maybe minimal guff and lots of info. Just maybe.

Excellent.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: harrydog

That's certainly a lot of information and I appreciate you taking the time for the detailed replies. It helps me feel better about using Mobil 1 which is a good thing because I don't want to spend more money on oil unless I think there is a definite benefit. Which brings me to my concern regarding intake deposits with the direct injection engines. It's been debated whether or not some engine oils are better than others at reducing this. What are your thoughts on that?


You are quite welcome

We've discussed that before and there are two aspects of deposit formation that are generally considered to be relevant here, the one being NOACK volatility (M1 0w-40 has a NOACK volatility of 8.8%, the general limit for Euro oils is 10%, API limit is 15%) and the other is TEOST, which AMSOIL publishes some data on, which is a specific deposit test.

Volatility, in some form, is certainly one of the culprits, but then so is oil "mist" that gets through the PCV system, which isn't affected by volatility and instead the focus here would be on the oil's propensity to form deposits. So it is (at minimum) a problem with two different "prongs" to the fork so to speak and so subsequently there is some application dependency

 

[Doug Hillary]

Hi,
OVERK1LL - Thanks for your meaningful input in this Thread

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Hi,
OVERK1LL - Thanks for your meaningful input in this Thread


You are quite welcome Doug, I've learned a heck of a lot of it from you over the years so it is quite fitting that you've chosen to pop-in

Your extensive posting on the topics of UOA's and normalicy has been invaluable

 

[VR6OOM]

Lots of opinions so I'll throw mine in. When I chose an oil for my ea888, it was based on 502 approval, mid saps (505.01), enough tbn for a 5k oci, decent price, low noack and high flash point. Limiting carbon deposits is my number one goal and maintaining the warranty should the need arise.

The oil that checks all the boxes for me is Total Quartz ineo mc3 5w30. It's on Amazon. Yea I could run a 504 with lower saps and I will post powertrain warranty. But I don't want vw to deny any potential engine/turbo warranty claims.

I did use m1 0w40 for one oil change and my only comment was that my gas mileage was awful for the entire duration. I was barely getting 400 miles per tank now I'm back up to 450 or so. These cars love 5w30...as far as gas mileage is concerned and it's approved weight.

 

[zeng]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: harrydog
Which brings me to my concern regarding intake deposits with the direct injection engines. It's been debated whether or not some engine oils are better than others at reducing this. What are your thoughts on that?


You are quite welcome

We've discussed that before and there are two aspects of deposit formation that are generally considered to be relevant here, the one being NOACK volatility (M1 0w-40 has a NOACK volatility of 8.8%, the general limit for Euro oils is 10%, API limit is 15%) and the other is TEOST, which AMSOIL publishes some data on, which is a specific deposit test.

Volatility, in some form, is certainly one of the culprits, but then so is oil "mist" that gets through the PCV system, which isn't affected by volatility and instead the focus here would be on the oil's propensity to form deposits. So it is (at minimum) a problem with two different "prongs" to the fork so to speak and so subsequently there is some application dependency

Would love to hear if a lower SAPs C3 (referenced Quartz Ineo mc3 5W30 above) has advantage in this aspect over A3B4 oils?
Note:Both are subject to the same engine test specifications in High Temperature Deposits.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: zeng
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: harrydog
Which brings me to my concern regarding intake deposits with the direct injection engines. It's been debated whether or not some engine oils are better than others at reducing this. What are your thoughts on that?


You are quite welcome

We've discussed that before and there are two aspects of deposit formation that are generally considered to be relevant here, the one being NOACK volatility (M1 0w-40 has a NOACK volatility of 8.8%, the general limit for Euro oils is 10%, API limit is 15%) and the other is TEOST, which AMSOIL publishes some data on, which is a specific deposit test.

Volatility, in some form, is certainly one of the culprits, but then so is oil "mist" that gets through the PCV system, which isn't affected by volatility and instead the focus here would be on the oil's propensity to form deposits. So it is (at minimum) a problem with two different "prongs" to the fork so to speak and so subsequently there is some application dependency

Would love to hear if a lower SAPs C3 (referenced Quartz Ineo mc3 5W30 above) has advantage in this aspect over A3B4 oils?
Note:Both are subject to the same engine test specifications in High Temperature Deposits.

According to some tests they do. Now, the question is how much sulfur is in gas in Malaysia and what is fuel dilution in Malaysia? I do not know what kind of burn DI engines have in Malaysia, so all that influences dilution, deposits etc.
I used twice Low-SAPS oils (M1 5W30 ESP). It is great oil. Very good cold start, on pat with 0W40 M1 (which is not concern for you). However, due to dilution in the U.S. and high sulfur content, TBN (which starts very low) was depleted to below 2 after 3K.
On other hand, I used M1 0W40 numerous times, as well as Castrol 0W30 and now Castrol 0W40, and I never had any issues. Engine at 92,000 miles works as new, pulls as new, gets great MPG, can outpace easily cars that are have "sprot" name on like 20 places on their body etc.
So if you are not sure what gas you have, I would stick to M1 0W40 if you prefer that. You cannot make mistake.