All things equal...Mobil 1 versus pennzoil

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Right, but what does that have to do with the discussion of the 0w-20's which aren't?

No, the new M1 AFE 0W_20 is already half-GTL and half-PAO. Read my edited post.


Your post states it is half PAO and half Group III?

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
For example M1 AFE 0W-20 is about half-PAO and half-Group III. When they transition more into GTL, it could be mostly GTL.

 

[OVERKILL]

What is particularly interesting is that TGMO no longer shows up in the XOM MSDS search engine.

Which means that we now do not have an easy way to see if they are shuffling bases. Last MSDS was still Group III/VISOM.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Your post states it is half PAO and half Group III?

Correct -- half-PAO and half-Group-III. I made a mistake in my later post.

 

[OVERKILL]

This is from the current MSDS for Mobil 1 0w-20 (I don't see it broken out as AFE anymore on the US MSDS search engine):



Which shows 30-40% PAO, 10-20% GTL, 30-40% Group III (VISOM).

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Your post states it is half PAO and half Group III?

Correct -- half-PAO and half-Group-III. I made a mistake in my later post.


OK, that makes more sense. And yes, it has always had less PAO than EP and now the new AP product.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
This is from the current MSDS for Mobil 1 0w-20 (I don't see it broken out as AFE anymore on the US MSDS search engine):



Which shows 30-40% PAO, 10-20% GTL, 30-40% Group III (VISOM).

Oh, I missed the GTL. So, it too has GTL now after all...

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
This is from the current MSDS for Mobil 1 0w-20 (I don't see it broken out as AFE anymore on the US MSDS search engine):



Which shows 30-40% PAO, 10-20% GTL, 30-40% Group III (VISOM).

Oh, I missed the GTL. So, it too has GTL now after all...


Not surprising really. But does support them moving more of their product portfolio there where possible, which was in their original roadmap as you might recall, and is consistent with the PAO -> VISOM -> GTL transition philosophy outlined therein.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
What is particularly interesting is that TGMO no longer shows up in the XOM MSDS search engine.

Which means that we now do not have an easy way to see if they are shuffling bases. Last MSDS was still Group III/VISOM.

Actually I have two different TGMO MSDS's from 2016 - 2017, which were up there until recently, in addition to the original circa-2011 MSDS. I don't have the MSDS for the 2015 GTL formulation though.

Indeed, with the 2017 formulation, they seem to have not only downgraded to Group III again

but also got rid of the excess VII; so, it's no longer an ultra-high-viscosity-index 0W-20.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
You must have missed this in the "TGMO is the milk suckled from the breast of Aphrodite" thread:

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Regarding moly types, trinuclear moly is very potent, working fairly well in smaller doses, but I now realize that it seems to be overhyped.

I recently read a paper on a study with different moly types. I think the conclusion was that the dinuclear moly, which is the most common type of moly made by additive companies, is the best in reducing both friction and wear, as well as in having good synergy with ZDDP. This is probably especially so for high moly content. I can't readily find the link though. It's a long paper by Japanese researchers (who else?).


Oops, missed that memo

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
You must have missed this in the "TGMO is the milk suckled from the breast of Aphrodite" thread:

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Regarding moly types, trinuclear moly is very potent, working fairly well in smaller doses, but I now realize that it seems to be overhyped.

I recently read a paper on a study with different moly types. I think the conclusion was that the dinuclear moly, which is the most common type of moly made by additive companies, is the best in reducing both friction and wear, as well as in having good synergy with ZDDP. This is probably especially so for high moly content. I can't readily find the link though. It's a long paper by Japanese researchers (who else?).

Oops, missed that memo

Note that the 800 ppm moly in the TGMO © 2015 is neither trinuclear nor dinuclear -- it's a sulfur-free moly.

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
You must have missed this in the "TGMO is the milk suckled from the breast of Aphrodite" thread:

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Regarding moly types, trinuclear moly is very potent, working fairly well in smaller doses, but I now realize that it seems to be overhyped.

I recently read a paper on a study with different moly types. I think the conclusion was that the dinuclear moly, which is the most common type of moly made by additive companies, is the best in reducing both friction and wear, as well as in having good synergy with ZDDP. This is probably especially so for high moly content. I can't readily find the link though. It's a long paper by Japanese researchers (who else?).


Oops, missed that memo




Actually it’s made in heaven.

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4835743/1

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
What is particularly interesting is that TGMO no longer shows up in the XOM MSDS search engine.

Which means that we now do not have an easy way to see if they are shuffling bases. Last MSDS was still Group III/VISOM.

Actually I have two different TGMO MSDS's from 2016 - 2017, which were up there until recently, in addition to the original circa-2011 MSDS. I don't have the MSDS for the 2015 GTL formulation though.

Indeed, with the 2017 formulation, they seem to have not only downgraded to Group III again

but also got rid of the excess VII; so, it's no longer an ultra-high-viscosity-index 0W-20.


Is there an MSDS that actually shows it to be GTL? Or is this just based on that Russian oil site claim?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: PimTac
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
You must have missed this in the "TGMO is the milk suckled from the breast of Aphrodite" thread:

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Regarding moly types, trinuclear moly is very potent, working fairly well in smaller doses, but I now realize that it seems to be overhyped.

I recently read a paper on a study with different moly types. I think the conclusion was that the dinuclear moly, which is the most common type of moly made by additive companies, is the best in reducing both friction and wear, as well as in having good synergy with ZDDP. This is probably especially so for high moly content. I can't readily find the link though. It's a long paper by Japanese researchers (who else?).


Oops, missed that memo




Actually it’s made in heaven.

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4835743/1


Yeah, that's the thread I pulled the quote from. TGMO, the very nectar guzzled from the heaving breast of your Greek goddess of choice.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
What is particularly interesting is that TGMO no longer shows up in the XOM MSDS search engine.

Which means that we now do not have an easy way to see if they are shuffling bases. Last MSDS was still Group III/VISOM.

Actually I have two different TGMO MSDS's from 2016 - 2017, which were up there until recently, in addition to the original circa-2011 MSDS. I don't have the MSDS for the 2015 GTL formulation though.

Indeed, with the 2017 formulation, they seem to have not only downgraded to Group III again

but also got rid of the excess VII; so, it's no longer an ultra-high-viscosity-index 0W-20.


Is there an MSDS that actually shows it to be GTL? Or is this just based on that Russian oil site claim?

No MSDS. Only the BOQI calculation and Russian FTIR. However, there is an ExxonMobil MSDS (link) for the Nissan Genuine Motor Oil 0W-20 that shows that it's GTL.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
What is particularly interesting is that TGMO no longer shows up in the XOM MSDS search engine.

Which means that we now do not have an easy way to see if they are shuffling bases. Last MSDS was still Group III/VISOM.

Actually I have two different TGMO MSDS's from 2016 - 2017, which were up there until recently, in addition to the original circa-2011 MSDS. I don't have the MSDS for the 2015 GTL formulation though.

Indeed, with the 2017 formulation, they seem to have not only downgraded to Group III again

but also got rid of the excess VII; so, it's no longer an ultra-high-viscosity-index 0W-20.


Is there an MSDS that actually shows it to be GTL? Or is this just based on that Russian oil site claim?

No MSDS. Only the BOQI calculation and Russian FTIR. However, there is an ExxonMobil MSDS for the Nissan Genuine Motor Oil 0W-20 that shows that it's GTL.


So then we really don't know. Tom NJ could probably look at the FTIR data (if it is available) and tell you more. I saw the MSDS for the Nissan-branded product, so I'm not disputing that one.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
So then we really don't know.

Umm, you can't really "cheat" the BOQI that much. That's despite the ultra-high VI, which could increase the CCS and lower the BOQI.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
...that's certainly unlikely in the case of the "current best" Nissan Genuine Motor Oil isn't it ?

It's probably relabelled Canadian Mobil Super 3000 0w-20, a bulk shop product.

 

[PimTac]

The BOQI? The index you made that is not used by the oil companies themselves.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
So then we really don't know.

Umm, you can't really "cheat" the BOQI that much. That's despite the ultra-high VI, which could increase the CCS and lower BOQI.


I'm not diving into that trap in this thread, sorry. Without the MSDS, it could very well just have some PAO blended into it for all we know if the specs are better than on the straight Group III version.

If the product was still blended by XOM, it would be somewhat surprising for them to blend a GTL-based product for one of their contracts before they used it for their own products. My M1 0w-40 FS thread and the MSDS dated February, 2016 is the first known instance of Mobil using GTL in any of their in-house products.

It would also seem unlikely that Toyota would magically mandate the change and then flop back at a later date.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
So then we really don't know.

Umm, you can't really "cheat" the BOQI that much. That's despite the ultra-high VI, which could increase the CCS and lower BOQI.

I'm not diving into that trap in this thread, sorry. Without the MSDS, it could very well just have some PAO blended into it for all we know.

Technically, I wouldn't dispute the PAO. However, ExxonMobil using the expensive PAO for TGMO 0W-20 or other OEM oils for which the low cost to dealerships is important? Probably a chance of a snowball in Inferno. Not even the TGMO 0W-16 has PAO (but it's GTL) according to the MSDS. M1 0W-16 is PAO though.