All things equal...Mobil 1 versus pennzoil

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: 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.


If it is already VISOM, how much PAO would it need to skew the results? Probably not much. That's the problem here, it's WAY too much guesswork without any written data from the blender, which in this case, has, at least in the past, been pretty decent about breaking out the CAS #'s in their MSDS sheets.

The other possibility here is that it's just a different VISOM blend. It's not like we have extensive data on Mobil's VISOM product portfolio.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: 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.

Actually, yes, it seems very similar to the new Mobil Super 0W-20, which is also GTL.

 

[OVERKILL]

BTW, just for reference, the MSDS I have for TGMO, which is dated September 9th, 2015, shows the following:



Which is 70-80% Group III (VISOM).

FWIW.

Also of interest is the Moly....

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
BTW, just for reference, the MSDS I have for TGMO, which is dated September 9th, 2015, shows the following:



Which is 70-80% Group III (VISOM).

FWIW.

Also of interest is the Moly....

Yeah, I have the same one dated August 18, 2016. KV100 doesn't match that for TGMO © 2015. Who knows... MSDS's are notoriously inaccurate though.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
BTW, just for reference, the MSDS I have for TGMO, which is dated September 9th, 2015, shows the following:



Which is 70-80% Group III (VISOM).

FWIW.

Also of interest is the Moly....

Yeah, I have the same one dated August 18, 2016. KV100 doesn't match that for TGMO © 2015. Who knows... MSDS's are notoriously inaccurate though.

Oh, also, the moly in TGMO © 2015 doesn't have sulfur. The organo moly - sulfur complex in that MSDS must be trinuclear moly or, if not, dinuclear moly.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Actually, yes, it seems very similar to the new Mobil Super 0W-20, which is also GTL.

How long until Renault Group and Castrol put their collective feet down?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
BTW, just for reference, the MSDS I have for TGMO, which is dated September 9th, 2015, shows the following:



Which is 70-80% Group III (VISOM).

FWIW.

Also of interest is the Moly....

Yeah, I have the same one dated August 18, 2016. KV100 doesn't match that for TGMO © 2015. Who knows... MSDS's are notoriously inaccurate though.


You mean the PQIA one? Or which sample are we talking about? That MSDS was consistent I believe through all of 2015 and into 2016, perhaps beyond.

My only other thought is that perhaps the "different" version was produced by another blender. Ergo, there was more than one version of "TGMO" in circulation

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
PS: Shannow, since when VI = 174 is considered low?

When TGMO is the flavour of your month, 220+ VI is the only parameter that matters. BTW, does the jump in moly mean they've gone away from trinuclear, also another Gohkan flavour of the month.

Was just wondering how an oil with a lowly 175, which can be achieved by a C3 5W30 was now acceptable for your new flavour of the month, or have you seen the folly in your previous proselyting ?

Seems like only the other day that you were (erroneously) saying base oil and high VI meant that a 0W20 could be better for bearings than a 30 at a dangerous 170C....that's certainly unlikely in the case of the "current best" Nissan Genuine Motor Oil isn't it ?

Once again, you're beating the statements I never made but you think I should have made.

Many studies have shown that base oils such as GTL with both a high viscosity index (VI) and a high pressure - viscosity coefficient (PVC), in other words a higher "pressure - viscosity-coefficient (PVC) index" protect better against wear.

Chevron US patent WO2012087415A2 (link)
Lubricating oil (GTL) with improved wear properties (through a higher PVC index)

Here Motiva Star are Group II base stocks and FTBO (Fischer - Tropsch base oil) are GTL base stocks. Note that the Group II 15W-40 has the lowest PVC index, followed by a GTL 5W-30 with a higher PVC index, and a GTL 10W-40 with even a much higher PVC index. As the PVC index increases, the wear dramatically decreases. Therefore, modern base oils such as GTL with high PVC indexes protect much better against wear even at lower viscosities, as explicitly stated in the patent. (See the picture below and read the caption.)

Yes, regarding trinuclear moly, Oil-Club Russia has verified that they have switched from the Infineum trinuclear moly in the original TGMO formulation to the sulfur-free Vanderbilt Molyvan 855 (link).

 

[PimTac]

In the end, does it really matter what percentage of PAO or ester or AN a base contains? The important thing are the certifications on the jug. SN+ and d1G2 for example define what the oil can handle whether it is M1 AP or Chevron Havoline.

Another point; a lot of fake news these days come from single sources which are then picked up by CNN and others and reported as “news”. Citing one source such as this Russian website could and may be following that same path.

 

[ZeeOSix]

I wouldn't trust any info on an obscure Russian website without 2 or 3 other sources to cross check the info.

 

[wemay]

The Chevron Patent cited is pretty interesting though. But in the end i agree. I wouldn't trust the Russian site as my only, or number one source.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: car51
Gokhan knows nothing except how to dodge technical questions from OVERKILL, SHANNOW, 2015_PSD and other knowledgeable people
Agreed; there is more bovine scatology posted in this thread than I would find walking through the fields of my grandfather's farm back in the early 1970's. He never answered this one and it was no surprise that he did not:

Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Nevertheless, it's great that GTL is now finding its way into the budget oils, making them outperform the performance oils.
Based upon what and using what test criteria?

 

[Ether]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
Where is the proof that Mobil oils are being made with GTL? Do you a statement or document from Mobil that validates this?

GTL: DISTILLATES, HEAVY, C18-50 - BRANCHED, CYCLIC AND LINEAR -- CAS# 848301-69-9

http://www.msds.exxonmobil.com/IntApps/psims/psims.aspx



Good to see that you are now able to recognize the CAS# for GTL base Oil.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: Ether
Good to see that you are now able to recognize the CAS# for GTL base Oil.

??

 

[4WD]

Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Nevertheless, it's great that GTL is now finding its way into the budget oils, making them outperform the performance oils.
Based upon what and using what test criteria?
[/quote]

This thread is a good reminder (think MolaKule pointed this out long ago) … that Mobil uses many combinations of base stocks … one big reason that generalizations about Mobil 1 are as you stated … I’ll add some graphics

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
He never answered this one and it was no surprise that he did not:

Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
Originally Posted By: Gokhan

Nevertheless, it's great that GTL is now finding its way into the budget oils, making them outperform the performance oils.

Based upon what and using what test criteria?

That's because I didn't know which "question" you were referring to to, as you asked several.

It's based on the combined results of the ASTM-D5800 (NOACK volatility) and ASTM D-5293 (cold-crank simulator [CCS]) tests.

While it's only two tests, the combined results of these two tests mean that the base oil has a very linear and pure molecular structure. As a result, this molecular superiority translates into not only less evaporation and better cold performance but also lower base-oil oxidation rate, higher base-oil viscosity index, lower base-oil surface friction, and higher base-oil film strength, among other improved qualities.

 

[Speak2Mountain]

flip a coin

 

[1JZ_E46]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
That's because I didn't know which "question" you were referring to to, as you asked several.

It's based on the combined results of the ASTM-D5800 (NOACK volatility) and ASTM D-5293 (cold-crank simulator [CCS]) tests.

While it's only two tests, the combined results of these two tests mean that the base oil has a very linear and pure molecular structure. As a result, this molecular superiority translates into not only less evaporation and better cold performance but also lower base-oil oxidation rate, higher base-oil viscosity index, lower base-oil surface friction, and higher base-oil film strength, among other improved qualities.


You have a fanatical obsession with base oil. Base oil is but just one piece of the puzzle. End-product performance is what matters, and our best methods to determine end-product performance are manufacturer approvals and oil analyses.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
That's because I didn't know which "question" you were referring to to, as you asked several. It's based on the combined results of the ASTM-D5800 (NOACK volatility) and ASTM D-5293 (cold-crank simulator [CCS]) tests. While it's only two tests, the combined results of these two tests mean that the base oil has a very linear and pure molecular structure. As a result, this molecular superiority translates into not only less evaporation and better cold performance but also lower base-oil oxidation rate, higher base-oil viscosity index, lower base-oil surface friction, and higher base-oil film strength, among other improved qualities.
Baloney with a capital B and another attempt at deflection--my question was quoted and very clear.

But I will ask it again--you said "Nevertheless, it's great that GTL is now finding its way into the budget oils, making them outperform the performance oils."

How does any of the information you posted above translate into "budget oils outperforming the performance oils"? Are attempting to suggest that Mobil Super (because it is made with GTL) somehow will outperform synthetics which may not have GTL? If so, how does it outperform them and what criteria is being used to determine that? The tests that you quote above will not provide the necessary data to reach that conclusion.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
While it's only two tests, the combined results of these two tests mean that the base oil has a very linear and pure molecular structure.


We've been over this before...they are not "linear"...for the benefit of the casual observer, here's the "linearity" of PAO



What's the definition of "pure molecular structure" ?



Originally Posted By: Gokhan
As a result, this molecular superiority translates into not only less evaporation and better cold performance but also lower base-oil oxidation rate, higher base-oil viscosity index, lower base-oil surface friction, and higher base-oil film strength, among other improved qualities.


Aren't you claiming higher PVC from yet another Chevron Patent ?

PVC, where in Hertzian contact the oils become a near solid (more vicsous) ?

Chevron's Patent guys must love your threads and the (ab)use of their developments.