Mobil 1 0W40 - not Dexos

[DrRoughneck]

Saw the fabbled Mobil 1 0W40 sitting on a shelf at Wallyworld, next to its 5W30, 0W20 and other brethrens. It has a number of certification medals printed on the front label.
"Dexos" is not one of them, unlike the other M1s.

How come?

 

[The_Eric]

Uhhhh.... Wrong grade?

 

[Chewie]

Dexos1 only applies to -20 and -30 weight oils.

Also, *fabled

 

[Trav]

The ESP 0w40 has dexos 2 cert.

Quote:
Mobil 1 ESP 0W-40 hat die neue dexos2™ Freigabe von General Motors, die für alle neuen GM/Opel/Chevrolet Diesel- und Benzinmodelle ab Modelljahr 2010 in Europa erforderlich ist. dexos2™

 

[Sunnyinhollister]

I thought Dexos 2 was just for diesels

 

[Trav]

It says for all GM diesel and gasoline engines from 2010 sold in Europe

 

[zeng]

Originally Posted By: Sunnyinhollister
I thought Dexos 2 was just for diesels

You're right.
Another Dexos 2 in my mind is Total Quartz Neo MC3 5W40.
Gasoline's Dexos 1, which excludes all xW40.

 

[Trav]

GM gasoline engines in Germany and may be the rest of Europe spec dexos 2.
GM wont spec high quality oil in the USA its hard enough to convince most Americans their cars need more than cheap dino swill they can buy for $2 a qt. Sad but true.

Castrol 0w30.
Quote:
API SN; ACEA C3; VW 502 00/ 505 00; MB-Freigabe 229.31/ 229.51; BMW Longlife-04; dexos2®; Renault RN0700/ RN0710

 

[RooflessVW]

GM doesn't spec Dexos2 in the US except for diesels because of the sulfur content in gasoline. High SAPS is better for wear in all situations. Low SAPS oils are only specified in vehicles equipped with DPF.

I wouldn't call Low SAPS oils superior in any sense.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: DrRoughneck
Saw the fabbled Mobil 1 0W40 sitting on a shelf at Wallyworld, next to its 5W30, 0W20 and other brethrens. It has a number of certification medals printed on the front label.
"Dexos" is not one of them, unlike the other M1s.

How come?

It also does not meet ILSAC.

It is not possible for a single oil to meet all the approvals out there as some of these approvals/specs have conflicting requirements.

 

[Trav]

I thought in 2017 we should be using low sulfur gas 10 ppm. I don't know what all the stink is about low SAPS, its better for the cats so yes it is superior in protecting the expensive emission systems on newer cars. Any evidence of low SAPS not protecting the newer engines as well as high SAPS?
VW, BMW, MB, GM etc are not reporting any shortened life in newer gas engines running low SAPS in Europe, engines seem to be living longer than ever.
True it might not protect older engines from wear as well but neither does SN. We might have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[RooflessVW]

Originally Posted By: Trav
I thought in 2017 we should be using low sulfur gas 10 ppm. I don't know what all the stink is about low SAPS, its better for the cats so yes it is superior in protecting the expensive emission systems on newer cars. Any evidence of low SAPS not protecting the newer engines as well as high SAPS?
VW, BMW, MB, GM etc are not reporting any shortened life in newer gas engines running low SAPS in Europe, engines seem to be living longer than ever.
True it might not protect older engines from wear as well but neither does SN. We might have to agree to disagree on this one.

We do not have low sulfer fuel US wide yet - producers may buy credits to keep producing and selling higher-sulfer gasoline.

TBN retention with a low SAPS oil is poor on the majority of US gasoline. There is a reason in the US manufacturers still spec LL-01, MB 236.5, A40, and 502. All are full-SAPS, or in the case of 502z at least mid-SAPS.

 

[chrisri]

Originally Posted By: Trav
I thought in 2017 we should be using low sulfur gas 10 ppm. I don't know what all the stink is about low SAPS, its better for the cats so yes it is superior in protecting the expensive emission systems on newer cars. Any evidence of low SAPS not protecting the newer engines as well as high SAPS?
VW, BMW, MB, GM etc are not reporting any shortened life in newer gas engines running low SAPS in Europe, engines seem to be living longer than ever.
True it might not protect older engines from wear as well but neither does SN. We might have to agree to disagree on this one.

+1

In fact an UK based member Weasley pointed out that wear requirements are actually more strict on C3 oils than on A3/B4.
Almost all OEMs use it, not only in Germany but in whole EU for a decade now. Obviously, in the rest of Europe, requirements may be different since those countries do not necessarily have ULSF.

Also by GM Europe, Dexos 2 is applicable in older cars that required now obsolete standards.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: chrisri
Originally Posted By: Trav
I thought in 2017 we should be using low sulfur gas 10 ppm. I don't know what all the stink is about low SAPS, its better for the cats so yes it is superior in protecting the expensive emission systems on newer cars. Any evidence of low SAPS not protecting the newer engines as well as high SAPS?
VW, BMW, MB, GM etc are not reporting any shortened life in newer gas engines running low SAPS in Europe, engines seem to be living longer than ever.
True it might not protect older engines from wear as well but neither does SN. We might have to agree to disagree on this one.

+1

In fact an UK based member Weasley pointed out that wear requirements are actually more strict on C3 oils than on A3/B4.

Not so fast. Take MB spec for example that exceed ACEA. If I remember correctly, the full saps MB 229.5 spec has stricter wear requirements than low saps MB 229.51.

But is the difference meaningful enough to matter? I don't know.

 

[Trav]

Check out the Lubrizol tool for 229.5 and 229.51 2016

https://online.lubrizol.com/relperftool/pc.html

 

[Quattro Pete]

You're right. I must have confused it with some other set of specs. My apologies.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Now I remember what it was. A while back I discussed the MB specs with an oil engineer that was involved in testing oils against these MB specs. He claimed that the full saps oils would pass these various wear tests with a lot of room to spare while the low saps oils would just barely squeeze by, but still passed. I asked him if it even mattered. He said that after 200k miles, engine wear would be measurable. His words, not mine.

 

[chrisri]

The graph shows what member Weasley said on numerous occasions. In right conditions (appropriate fuel quality) C3 will perform just as well or better than A3/B4.

QP, year ago I was firm believer that the FS are the business. In fact I've blamed the C3 for some camshaft problems in my Berlingo then.
First person that made me think was a local Mazda tech. We had a conversation, oil related, and his opinion, based on regular specialisation courses in Austria, was that C2,and especially C3 were superior to the A3/B4 lubes.

Weasley, obviously working in the industry, confirmed that too. Good enough for me.

 

[Trav]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Now I remember what it was. A while back I discussed the MB specs with an oil engineer that was involved in testing oils against these MB specs. He claimed that the full saps oils would pass these various wear tests with a lot of room to spare while the low saps oils would just barely squeeze by, but still passed. I asked him if it even mattered. He said that after 200k miles, engine wear would be measurable. His words, not mine.


You may well be right Pete I have no idea but I would think given the price of some of these MB and BMW engines if customers were experiencing any sort of accelerated wear over the life of the engine they would be complaining and the companies don't want to tarnish their reputation because of the expensive dealer changed spec oil isn't up to snuff. JMHO.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Even if there is accelerated wear, it does not mean the engine is shot at 200K miles. Possibly it will go a lot longer than 200K miles before a catastrophic failure, but most people don't keep their cars that long. So again, for an average owner, it may just not matter.