Shell vs Delvac

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Garak
It's not relevant if it's a war of the dinosaurs, as it were. Mobil got caught with their pants down on one batch, it would seem. While people don't buy an oil based upon oxidation performance, people do buy based upon SAE viscosity, service category, and possibly builder approvals.

The point is that it's very hard to maintain strict quality control over Group I base stocks. These base stocks are inherently or by definition impure. Since the oxidation rate of a base oil will greatly vary with the amount of impurities, you will get great variations from batch to batch if you use dino base stocks. This is why I expect any dino 15W-40 to fail the Volvo T-13 test occasionally for some batches, regardless of the brand. The error bars for saturates and sulfur on the Group I/dino base stocks are simply too large for it to work for all batches. Group II and higher base stocks don't have this problem by definition.
 
LOL... I don't have time to read through all this but it just proves the point I've been trying to make for years!!! Mobil oils are NOT what they used to be and you guys just can't accept that!! They are bottom tier oils with nothing but a name and old reputation for being decent. There are FAR better oils out there today that have surpassed EM, its a fact! Sorry for all you bandwagon members that you finally get some proof positive testing to chew on!

Ahhhh... I'd love to see the panic on guys like Tig1 and other Mobil fanboys! I'm sure they'll find a way or an excuse for this one but the rest of the world knows the truth...
wink.gif
 
Originally Posted By: racin4ds
LOL... I don't have time to read through all this but it just proves the point I've been trying to make for years!!! Mobil oils are NOT what they used to be and you guys just can't accept that!! They are bottom tier oils with nothing but a name and old reputation for being decent. There are FAR better oils out there today that have surpassed EM, its a fact! Sorry for all you bandwagon members that you finally get some proof positive testing to chew on!

Ahhhh... I'd love to see the panic on guys like Tig1 and other Mobil fanboys! I'm sure they'll find a way or an excuse for this one but the rest of the world knows the truth...
wink.gif



The only thing bottom tier is your self proclaimed knowledge …
 
Last edited:
Gokhan, I’m quoting part of a paper below. As I said above, antioxidants protect the base oil and in the process, get depleted. After they are depleted enough, the base oil gets attacked.
Here is the paper: http://www.mdpi.com/2075-4442/3/1/54/htm
The quote:
Quote:
Oxidation is the primary mechanism by which oil degradation occurs in an engine. The process of oxidation occurs in three stages. The first stage corresponds to the depletion of antioxidant and antiwear additives, followed by oxidative degradation of the base oil [2,3]. During this stage, the formation of polar organic compounds in oil (such as ketones, alcohols, carboxylic acids and esters) is more pronounced. The final stage corresponds to an increase in viscosity of the oil owing to polymerization. The recombination of long chain radicals, Aldol and Claisen condensation reactions of carbonyl, carboxylic acid and alcohols that are formed via oxidative degradation in the second stage are the main reactions leading to higher molecular weight molecules [21]. Besides oxidation, during combustion, with the engine running at full load or with improper air/fuel ratios, other reactions that lead to the formation of nitrogen oxides and organic nitrates may occur. Similarly, the presence of sulfur may lead to the formation of SOx, organic sulfones and sulfoxides via oxidation, and sulfurous acid esters when SOx reacts with organic compounds present in oil
 
Originally Posted By: racin4ds
LOL... I don't have time to read through all this but it just proves the point I've been trying to make for years!!! Mobil oils are NOT what they used to be and you guys just can't accept that!! They are bottom tier oils with nothing but a name and old reputation for being decent. There are FAR better oils out there today that have surpassed EM, its a fact! Sorry for all you bandwagon members that you finally get some proof positive testing to chew on!

Ahhhh... I'd love to see the panic on guys like Tig1 and other Mobil fanboys! I'm sure they'll find a way or an excuse for this one but the rest of the world knows the truth...
wink.gif

You, of course, have objective, verifiable third party information to prove your statements, right or is this simply a lesson in how much bovine scatology you can spread?
 
The msds for Shell Rotella 15w40 lists Fischer- Tropsch derived base oil,so wouldn't that point more towards Group 3,than Group 1?
 
Originally Posted By: Ether
The msds for Shell Rotella 15w40 lists Fischer- Tropsch derived base oil,so wouldn't that point more towards Group 3,than Group 1?

The product under discussion here is Shell Rotella® T4 Triple Protection 15W-40 CK-4/SN.

It does not list GTL, which would make it a synthetic blend or synthetic.

It lists "highly refined mineral oil," which usually refers to dino/Group I base stocks.

Shell Rotella® T4 Triple Protection 15W-40 CK-4/SN MSDS (PDF link)
 
I checked a lot of those CAS-numbers, and some are Group I (solvent dewaxed), some are hydrotreated (Group II or III), and at least one is GTL (cas 848301-69-9). The MSDS says “one or more of the following”, eliminating our ability to pinpoint what is in it. I do not think that oils meeting the specs. it does can pass them with only Group I base oils.
 
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
No, you're way behind the times with regards to the modern advances in the moly technology. Antiwear/extreme pressure benefits of trinuclear moly saturate around 50 ppm in Sequence IVA tests.

I'm not behind; I'm aware of trimer moly. You're reading too much into this. That's a tantalising little piece of information, but that's all it is. It's not a study; it's a slide from a presentation. What oil were they using? What viscosity? Was it even a fully formulated oil? Given that moly is syngergistic, and we're only looking at one very singular circumstance here (with many unknown variables), we had better not draw too much out of this. Where are the error bars? Do we see this wear reduction in any oil chemistry? At any temperature? Or only at Sequence IVA temperatures? So, I'm calling it a friction modifier at this concentration, at least until I see a little more information. That's not a bad thing. There's value in that. It's also interesting to note I haven't seen any specialised break in lubes forego ZDDP for tiny doses of trinuclear moly, either.

Now, noting the problems with Lubrizol's sales pitch (not a study), we're also stuck with the idea that there's more than one way to skin a cat. If one lubricant has trimer moly, that automatically means it's a better lubricant than the competitor with the same specifications that uses an alternative friction modification technology? While I think it's great if a lubricant is using trimer (we don't know that it is for certain, but I'd grant the probability is there in the Mobil), I don't wish to pick a lubricant by one ingredient.

You're going too far into the base stock matters, too. Before, it was certainly Group II, now certainly Group I? Let it go. We don't know what base stock it is; all we really know here is that one Mobil batch that Shell tested failed some testing. I'm not about to condemn one brand or an entire class of lubricants based upon it. I'm just glad the oil companies check up on each other.
 
The older Delvac MX 15W-40 interests me, it meets SL, E7 and CI-4, 1370ppm of Zinc and around 50ppm of Moly.
Does the older Delvac MX also have the trinuclear moly, anyone?
I'd love to tr it out and see if it quietens my Escort's somewhat rattly top end.
 
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: Ether
The msds for Shell Rotella 15w40 lists Fischer- Tropsch derived base oil,so wouldn't that point more towards Group 3,than Group 1?

The product under discussion here is Shell Rotella® T4 Triple Protection 15W-40 CK-4/SN.

It does not list GTL, which would make it a synthetic blend or synthetic.

It lists "highly refined mineral oil," which usually refers to dino/Group I base stocks.

Shell Rotella® T4 Triple Protection 15W-40 CK-4/SN MSDS (PDF link)



I am well aware of the product that we are discussing here.Most Hydrocracked Synthetic Products will also list ''highly refined mineral oil'' in their MSDS data,but that does not mean that they have a base derived exclusively from Group 1 stocks.The data sheet for Rotella T4 15w40 lists CAS numbers that refer to Group 1,2,and 3 Base Stocks,and also GTL IS listed under # 848301-69-9.I don't know of any major oil players that would try to formulate a quality HDEO from soley Group 1 base stock.
 
Last edited:
More garbage from Gokhan lately.

Look up the CAS numbers listed as "interchangeable"...Appendix E, base oil interchange guidelines...and yes, Ether, that number is for GTL.

Gokhan's version of "usually" should be taken as "in my head, because it strengthens my perceived position".
 
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: Ether
The msds for Shell Rotella 15w40 lists Fischer- Tropsch derived base oil,so wouldn't that point more towards Group 3,than Group 1?

The product under discussion here is Shell Rotella® T4 Triple Protection 15W-40 CK-4/SN.

It does not list GTL, which would make it a synthetic blend or synthetic.

It lists "highly refined mineral oil," which usually refers to dino/Group I base stocks.

Shell Rotella® T4 Triple Protection 15W-40 CK-4/SN MSDS (PDF link)


Shell had access to plenty G1 on the Texas coast … but with the decline in G1 sales XOM did 3 global expansions for GII production … When one see Delvac dino at 10 NOACK … go figure …
Premium conventional PCMO need GII … G1 will die a slow death … probably too slow …
 
Mobil issued a statement right after Shell published the results of Delvac Super 15W40 failing the Volvo T-13 Oxidation test. Here is an excerpt of that statement "ExxonMobil cannot address the specifics of the test results Shell produced, because we do not have the data, but we are conducting a thorough investigation.

Well, time of that statement has long passed, and Mobil has yet to publish the results of their internal investigation. It makes one wonder if Mobil even conducted an internal investigation. Or, perhaps they just want to sweep the issue under the carpet and hope the public will forget about Shell's accusation and report of Mobil Delvac 1300 Super failing the Volvo T-13 Oxidation test. Common sense dictates that the Delvac test failure was most likely limited to a production batch, but Mobil has been very quiet about this subject.

The cost of running the Volvo T-13 Oxidation test is substantial (approximately $100K) as I understand. However, seeing Mobil's validated test results would help to mitigate Shell's claim and boost confidence in Delvac 1300 Super. Alas, Mobil is not willing to provide verifiable Volvo T-13 Oxidation test results to the public which makes Shell's claim appear credible.
 
Originally Posted by skyactiv
My thoughts? I think Mobil makes the worst products of the major players.
This isn't the first a competitor called out a Mobil product.
I bet Shell is correct on calling out the oil in question and cant be held libel because the product in question is in fact a failure.



You shush!! You know you can't say anything bad about the beloved Mobil products on here!!! The Mobil fan club will hunt you down and criticize your every word! This is Blasphemy!

LOL I've been saying this exact same thing for a LONG time on here and catch heck for it every time. Mobil is JUNK, SOPUS is far superior in many ways and has been for awhile now. I didn't need a tribologist to confirm for me years ago when I seen higher oil temps/ lower oil pressures and significantly more noise in every engine I would put M1 in. I used to be a huge M1 fan but soon learned they are not what they used to be.
 
Now that the smoke has cleared, and the dust has settled re: Shell's allegation of Delvac 1300 Super failure of the Volvo T-13 oxidation test, I found a posting on Mobil's website claiming that "Mobil Delvacâ„¢ 1300 Super 10W-30 and 15W-40 are synthetic blend diesel engine oils". https://mobiloil.com/en/motor-oils/mobil-delvac/mobil-delvac-1300-super

During the Shell allegation period last year, I do not recall Mobil claiming that Delvac 1300 Super were synthetic blend HDEOs. Perhaps Mobil beefed up the base oil in Delvac 1300 Super as a result of the Volvo T-13 oxidation test failure. As most here on BITOG has surmised, the Volvo T-13 oxidation failure of Delvac 1300 Super 15W40 was most likely limited to a specific production batch and not the formulation in general. Using a better base oil in Delvac 1300 Super has the potential of providing better oxidation resistance which could allow the oil to more consistently pass the Volvo T-13 oxidation test...a means for Mobil not getting caught with their pants down. Again, not sure if this is the case, but I find interesting that Mobil is claiming Delvac 1300 Super oils are synthetic blends.
 
XOM did three global upgrades (already open) to produce EHC and that goes in Delvac Super. Some of the Mobil bashers have EHC or other XOM base stock in thier motors and just don't know it.
(over 2 dozen customers and some are majors).

Any OEM claims ?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top