Mobil 1 and dexos1 G2

Status
Not open for further replies.

pbm

Joined
Apr 19, 2004
Messages
10,206
Location
New York
I read on here (BITOG) that Mobil 1 had lowered it's calcium levels and was meeting dexos1G2 with the regular dexos1 formula.
Does anybody have an idea when this (calcium lowering} began?
Does dexos1 (prior to G2) Mobil 1 EP and AP also meet the newer dexos1 G2 standards?
 
Originally Posted by CT8
The formula has been in use for quit a while before the label change.





Yep. Mobil 1 was ahead of the curve on this.
 
Here is a 2013 summary of synthetic 5W30 testing from the PQIA that shows that M1 5W30 already had a low Ca formula with Mg way back then.

http://pqiamerica.com/March2013PCMO/Marchsyntheticsallfinal.html

Note that the Pennzoil Platinum and Ultra shown here are not the same as the present GTL Platinum and Ultra Platinum available now.

Strangely enough, Castrol switched the Edge 5W30 formula to higher calcium right after this summary came out and then had to go back to low Ca for d1G2.

The M1 5W30 AP jug labelling used to be problematic, it had a d1G2 license # right from the time is was introduced but the jugs only said d1 because the standard was not "live" yet. d1 is a subset of d1G2 so anything with the latter meets the former, but the AP jugs on the shelves said d1 long after competing oils had jugs showing d1G2. M1 5W30 EP has shown d1G2 for a long time, but 0W30 AFE jugs with d1G2 labels only showed up recently around here...
 
If I recall correctly, the typical Mobil 1 oils changed from mostly calcium to a calcium and magnesium mix when API SN came out in October 2010.
 
Makes me wonder if the people with problematic engines such as the GM 3.6 were using Mobil 1? Because there are some people that never had an issue at all out of those, even the bad years.
 
Originally Posted by 71Chevyguy
Makes me wonder if the people with problematic engines such as the GM 3.6 were using Mobil 1? Because there are some people that never had an issue at all out of those, even the bad years.


I have been running plain vanilla M1 5W-30 for the majority in our 2011 Acadia with the 3.6 DI. Eight years later and not one issue so far with the engine but I keep the OCIs at around 5K due to fuel dilution and wear metal rates that seem to get much worse per 1k miles past that point. The only bad run I really had was with one run of Castrol EP which had thickened up to a 12.4 cST in the UOA at just 5800 mile OCI. Went back to M1 which did drop to a low 30 grade but did not thicken or oxidize like the Castrol did. Could have just been that bach of Castrol but it was enough to not run it again. PP and VSP also drop viscosity badly into the 20 grade range so again stuck with M1 for the most part. Also M1 also had the lowest wear metal showing in all UOAs done .
21.gif


Actually not one issue with the Acadia at all which, knock on wood, is amazing as these don't seem to have the best track record according to the Acadia forums. We haven't had any major mechanical issues with our 04 Grand Prix either. Just regular maintenance and wear and tear items. I just seem to be an odd ball when it comes to GM vehicles and not having any major issues with them. In fact, I have had the best luck with them out of all cars I have owned.
19.gif
 
Originally Posted by ABomb369
Originally Posted by 71Chevyguy
Makes me wonder if the people with problematic engines such as the GM 3.6 were using Mobil 1? Because there are some people that never had an issue at all out of those, even the bad years.


I have been running plain vanilla M1 5W-30 for the majority in our 2011 Acadia with the 3.6 DI. Eight years later and not one issue so far with the engine but I keep the OCIs at around 5K due to fuel dilution and wear metal rates that seem to get much worse per 1k miles past that point. The only bad run I really had was with one run of Castrol EP which had thickened up to a 12.4 cST in the UOA at just 5800 mile OCI. Went back to M1 which did drop to a low 30 grade but did not thicken or oxidize like the Castrol did. Could have just been that bach of Castrol but it was enough to not run it again. PP and VSP also drop viscosity badly into the 20 grade range so again stuck with M1 for the most part. Also M1 also had the lowest wear metal showing in all UOAs done .
21.gif


Actually not one issue with the Acadia at all which, knock on wood, is amazing as these don't seem to have the best track record according to the Acadia forums. We haven't had any major mechanical issues with our 04 Grand Prix either. Just regular maintenance and wear and tear items. I just seem to be an odd ball when it comes to GM vehicles and not having any major issues with them. In fact, I have had the best luck with them out of all cars I have owned.
19.gif








Actually you are in the majority. Very few owners have mechanical issues the very few are intensified making the issue seem larger then actual.
 
"Actually you are in the majority. Very few owners have mechanical issues the very few are intensified making the issue seem larger then actual."

I would agree with that. The car specific forums seem to be ripe with "The Sky is Falling" type threads when it comes to vehicle issues.
 
Originally Posted by JAG
If I recall correctly, the typical Mobil 1 oils changed from mostly calcium to a calcium and magnesium mix when API SN came out in October 2010.



This is correct. When Mobil 1 went to API SN they went to a Ca/Mg mix. I had emailed them back in 2012 asking them about the lower SA and TBN. Their response was basically that due to GDI and LSPI the formulation was changed.
 
Originally Posted by JAG
If I recall correctly, the typical Mobil 1 oils changed from mostly calcium to a calcium and magnesium mix when API SN came out in October 2010.



All right.. but does anyone have any publications out out by ExxonMobil stating the changes as it related to GDI and SN??

I'm not saying this was not done in response to those changes... But it would be interesting to see if ExxonMobil put out public information about this. Thus proving this hypothesis to be accurate as it relates to GDI, turbo, and SN.
 
Last edited:
"Thanks for your message, Mike. We appreciate the feedback. A slight reduction in ash is desirable for advanced engine technology such as gasoline direct injection (GDI) engine and passenger car diesel engines. With GDI engines, higher levels of ash appear to result in a higher occurrence of Low Speed Pre-Ignition. The industry is currently developing tests and specifications to address Low Speed Pre-Ignition. In the future, passenger car engine oil specifications such as ILSAC GF-6 and dexos1 (next generation) are likely to have requirements such as lower ash to address Low Speed Pre-Ignition.

As for TBN retention, it is only a single parameter that provides an indication of the used oil condition. A reduction in TBN is an indication that the overbased detergent is doing its job by neutralizing acids that form as a result of combustion. TBN should be used in combination with other used oil parameters such as oxidation, nitration, TAN (Total Acid Number), ICP metals, D4684 MRV viscosity, and D445 kinematic viscosity to determine the overall condition of the used oil.

Finally, in our experience in severe-service Las Vegas field testing, Mobil 1 engine oil TBN levels typically do not drop below 2 for vehicles with 15,000 mile oil drain intervals. Furthermore, it is our experience that those oils tend not to drop any lower when we continue to 20,000 mile oil drains."
 
Again... Is it on a PDS anywhere?? Is on a spec sheet of any sort anywhere out for public observation/reading?? Don't think so.. but could be wrong.

Also if they had figured that all out then why not make advertising touting that ability?? Did that ever happen??

"Hey if you run Mobil 1 and you have a GDI motor it will help stop low speed pre ignition" etc etc... That would have been a good way to help promote their own product. Did they ever do that?? It would interesting to find out if they ever did..
 
Originally Posted by bbhero
Again... Is it on a PDS anywhere?? Is on a spec sheet of any sort anywhere out for public observation/reading?? Don't think so.. but could be wrong.

Also if they had figured that all out then why not make advertising touting that ability?? Did that ever happen??

"Hey if you run Mobil 1 and you have a GDI motor it will help stop low speed pre ignition" etc etc... That would have been a good way to help promote their own product. Did they ever do that?? It would interesting to find out if they ever did..


It was apparent by the UOA's and VOA's and YES the PDS which showed a new SA of .8.

4. Mobil 1 motor oils are so advanced that they have met the API SN Plus performance standard since 2010.
Many Mobil 1 motor oils already meet the API SN Plus performance standard, making these full synthetic oils more than seven years ahead of their time for providing protection against LSPI.
 
Originally Posted by buster
"Thanks for your message, Mike. We appreciate the feedback. A slight reduction in ash is desirable for advanced engine technology such as gasoline direct injection (GDI) engine and passenger car diesel engines. With GDI engines, higher levels of ash appear to result in a higher occurrence of Low Speed Pre-Ignition. The industry is currently developing tests and specifications to address Low Speed Pre-Ignition. In the future, passenger car engine oil specifications such as ILSAC GF-6 and dexos1 (next generation) are likely to have requirements such as lower ash to address Low Speed Pre-Ignition.

As for TBN retention, it is only a single parameter that provides an indication of the used oil condition. A reduction in TBN is an indication that the overbased detergent is doing its job by neutralizing acids that form as a result of combustion. TBN should be used in combination with other used oil parameters such as oxidation, nitration, TAN (Total Acid Number), ICP metals, D4684 MRV viscosity, and D445 kinematic viscosity to determine the overall condition of the used oil.

Finally, in our experience in severe-service Las Vegas field testing, Mobil 1 engine oil TBN levels typically do not drop below 2 for vehicles with 15,000 mile oil drain intervals. Furthermore, it is our experience that those oils tend not to drop any lower when we continue to 20,000 mile oil drains."

Thanks for this.
thumbsup2.gif
 
Originally Posted by buster
That was back in 2012 FWIW. No problem.

It's still good insight into what they are doing / considering etc.
 
Originally Posted by StevieC
Originally Posted by buster
That was back in 2012 FWIW. No problem.

It's still good insight into what they are doing / considering etc.


I thought so too. When the formula changed and SN was approaching, people were curious (BITOG folks that is) what the VOA's would look like. Mobil 1 was probably the first that I can remember that made the change and it was something very different then their formulations from years prior, which had traditionally been mostly calcium based with the usual moly/boron etc. Mobil 1's TBN droped to 8 and the SA was now .8. They were one of the few to put that SA number on their PDS.

When I had first joined BITOG (2002), Mobil 1 contained over 3,300 ppm of Ca. At that time Amsoil was using mostly all Mg as their detergent base and little Ca. Mobil then slowly lowered Ca over time for API SM. Amsoil then moved to overbased calcium at high levels, around 3,600 ppm. Redline as well. The API licensed oils were moving in a more non-metallic additive base approach. Now we are at a point where almost all oils are using Ca/Mg combinations. I don't remember a time where the general additive systems looked so similar. Of course there are still differenes not noticeable via a UOA/VOA.

I've spoken to XOM engineers in the past and while I won't say that any one particular oil is the best, I will say XOM moves fast and updates their oils to the latest available additive chemistry they think is best. And I have to say since I've been on BITOG that's what i've noticed. It is their flagship product and being they own half of Infineum it doesn't surprise me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top