Mobil 1 0W-16

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by ekpolk
Originally Posted by OFFRD
The question that needs to be asked is: When developing an oil spec for an engine, are the manufacturer's interests and the consumer's interests the same?
(Cheat sheet: The answer is no.)


I'm sure that Toyota is just itching to have a repeat of the late 90s/early 2000s "Sludgemaker" debacle. And Honda is earnestly looking for another engine to join the 1.5L Turbo in the "Disastrous Fuel Diluter" Hall of Shame. Yep, wide-spread hosing-over of customers, that's the way to bring back repeat buyers, and ensure long-term business success!


Consider how many of those sludgers were first-owner vehicles? Most people drive till thy are paid off, and a year later trade them for new again. As long as the car can make it to 100K, they are golden and will have repeat buyers. Even the lowly crap put out by GM has people returning for more. In many cases, that "long term hosing" Of customers is paying off enough to keep them coming back. Average Joe consumer is not like the people on here who obsess over a drop of oil on the driveway. They gas, drive, and once or twice a year, wash. Then pay off, trade and repeat. OFFRD's question is legitimate. While I am sure the oil is robust and probably won't blow anything up right off, I highly doubt it's being used for longevity reasons.
 
Originally Posted by aquariuscsm
I'm curious as to why Mobil only uses a pao base stock in their 0W20 and 0W16 oils while using group three base stocks in all their others?




I thought all M1 oils had some PAO depending on the product line?
 
Originally Posted by JohnnyJohnson
LOL another Mobil 1 oil to join the Mobil 1 AP hall of fame!




I doubt it. Several new cars are already calling forvthis grade. The Camry still sells a lot despite the slowing sales of sedans.
 
Originally Posted by Propflux01
Originally Posted by ekpolk
Originally Posted by OFFRD
The question that needs to be asked is: When developing an oil spec for an engine, are the manufacturer's interests and the consumer's interests the same?
(Cheat sheet: The answer is no.)


I'm sure that Toyota is just itching to have a repeat of the late 90s/early 2000s "Sludgemaker" debacle. And Honda is earnestly looking for another engine to join the 1.5L Turbo in the "Disastrous Fuel Diluter" Hall of Shame. Yep, wide-spread hosing-over of customers, that's the way to bring back repeat buyers, and ensure long-term business success!


Consider how many of those sludgers were first-owner vehicles? Most people drive till thy are paid off, and a year later trade them for new again. As long as the car can make it to 100K, they are golden and will have repeat buyers. Even the lowly crap put out by GM has people returning for more. In many cases, that "long term hosing" Of customers is paying off enough to keep them coming back. Average Joe consumer is not like the people on here who obsess over a drop of oil on the driveway. They gas, drive, and once or twice a year, wash. Then pay off, trade and repeat. OFFRD's question is legitimate. While I am sure the oil is robust and probably won't blow anything up right off, I highly doubt it's being used for longevity reasons.

Toyota was kind of late the the XW-20 train in the US/Canada, but Honda and Ford vehicles have been seeing hundreds of thousands of trouble free miles using 5W-20. There was the problem with Honda VCM engines slugging conventional oils, but with the higher standards for 0W-20 and 0W-16 oils I doubt that will ever be an issue again.
 
Originally Posted by aquariuscsm
I'm curious as to why Mobil only uses a pao base stock in their 0W20 and 0W16 oils while using group three base stocks in all their others?


They seem to use PAO in varying quantities in all of their 0w-xx lubes from what I recall. There is less of it in the heavier ones like 0w-30 and 0w-40, likely because they can get away with it.
 
Originally Posted by PimTac
I just saw the SDS for 5w30. It has 20-30% PAO


Yes, they seem to use it in varying quantities in some of their other grades as well, but I believe it is in all of the 0w-xx's to some degree unless that's changed.
 
Originally Posted by aquariuscsm
I'm curious as to why Mobil only uses a pao base stock in their 0W20 and 0W16 oils while using group three base stocks in all their others?

When the oil gets thinner, you need to use higher-quality base stocks to be able to meet the Noack and CCS.

Mobil Super 0W-16 and Exxon Mobil TGMO 0W-16 are GTL and M1 0W-16 is PAO, apparently now with a small amount of GTL.

[Linked Image]
 
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by aquariuscsm
I'm curious as to why Mobil only uses a pao base stock in their 0W20 and 0W16 oils while using group three base stocks in all their others?


They seem to use PAO in varying quantities in all of their 0w-xx lubes from what I recall. There is less of it in the heavier ones like 0w-30 and 0w-40, likely because they can get away with it.



If they did not feel the need to "get away with it" so ferociously, and used that high PAO/GTL base stock content in their heavier weight oils (along with the ANs/esters they {still?
21.gif
} use in most of their M1 oils), I probably would swear off of all of the high zoot, costlier, PAO/POE boutique oils permanently.
wink.gif
 
I understand they use more PAO in the super light viscosities because PAOs are more thermally stable than Group 3 base. I.e. they thin out less at high temperatures, which is a very important characteristic for super light viscosities. Whereas 5w30, 0w40 and other heavier motor oils meet their required performance using less PAO and more Group 3 because they are designed to be thicker from the start, and will thin out less at high temperatures. Hope this makes sense to someone.
 
Originally Posted by DGXR
I understand they use more PAO in the super light viscosities because PAOs are more thermally stable than Group 3 base. I.e. they thin out less at high temperatures, which is a very important characteristic for super light viscosities. Whereas 5w30, 0w40 and other heavier motor oils meet their required performance using less PAO and more Group 3 because they are designed to be thicker from the start, and will thin out less at high temperatures. Hope this makes sense to someone.

You're talking about the viscosity index VI.

This is not the reason. Group III has comparable VI to that of PAO. Also, you can improve the VI with the viscosity-index improver VII. The reason is the Noack vs. CCS. See the Chevron plot I posted a few posts back.

This base-oil-quality plot, which is always done in the Noack-vs.-CCS space, summarizes it all. The smaller the CCS times Noack is (closer to the origin), the higher-quality base oil you have:

[Linked Image]


So, you need PAO or GTL if you want to be able to meet demanding CCS and Noack specs simultaneously.
 
Originally Posted by dailydriver
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by aquariuscsm
I'm curious as to why Mobil only uses a pao base stock in their 0W20 and 0W16 oils while using group three base stocks in all their others?


They seem to use PAO in varying quantities in all of their 0w-xx lubes from what I recall. There is less of it in the heavier ones like 0w-30 and 0w-40, likely because they can get away with it.



If they did not feel the need to "get away with it" so ferociously, and used that high PAO/GTL base stock content in their heavier weight oils (along with the ANs/esters they {still?
21.gif
} use in most of their M1 oils), I probably would swear off of all of the high zoot, costlier, PAO/POE boutique oils permanently.
wink.gif



Yup, this is why I bought the Ravenol, because it's majority PAO-based. A lower VII treated M1 0w-40 that's majority PAO would be the cat's posterior IMHO.
 
Originally Posted by DGXR
I understand they use more PAO in the super light viscosities because PAOs are more thermally stable than Group 3 base. I.e. they thin out less at high temperatures, which is a very important characteristic for super light viscosities. Whereas 5w30, 0w40 and other heavier motor oils meet their required performance using less PAO and more Group 3 because they are designed to be thicker from the start, and will thin out less at high temperatures. Hope this makes sense to someone.


You can blend a straight Group III 0w-20 no problem, look at TGMO with its "uber VI" for example. But volatility suffers, as Gokhan noted.

You can also blend PAO heavier than Group III and retain the superior cold temp performance because PAO has that feature. HOWEVER, this is not necessary and so you can use a percentage of light PAO to retain cold temp performance, blend it with some heavier Group III, which hurts it, but not enough to drop it out of spec, and then VII yourself up a 0w-40 because VII's are also low volatility, so it will drag down Noack below the 10% threshold that's the limit for many Euro approvals. You could also likely do this the other way (and maybe they do, I'm not a formulator) by using a light Group III dosed with some heavier PAO to bring Noack down while not destroying cold temp performance, and then use VII to make up the difference. This is all done for cost savings, because Group III is cheaper than PAO.

Contrarily, since a 0w-20 and 0w-16 require a lower VII treat rate, you can use a heavier PAO base blend that inherently has a lower volatility and superior cold temp performance, skip the PPD's and you end up with a product that's stable, low volatility and capable of extended drain durations, but it won't have a great VI, so the goals of the final product need to be considered.

Basically:
If you are looking for high VI for the purpose of fuel economy and don't have a huge concern about volatility or shear then:
- Use an extremely light Group III base (like Yubase 4) and VII it to the moon, which will drag the volatility down a bit and crank VI up to >200

If you are looking for an extremely stable low volatility product where VI isn't a huge concern:
- Use a blend of PAO bases (4, 6 ,8 cSt) with an extremely low VII treat rate. See: M1 AP and EP.
 
I just looked up US-market SDSes for M1 0W20 in both EP and non, and I don't see anywhere near as much PAO as this thread is claiming. Where are you getting those numbers from?
 
Originally Posted by bulwnkl
I just looked up US-market SDSes for M1 0W20 in both EP and non, and I don't see anywhere near as much PAO as this thread is claiming. Where are you getting those numbers from?

When you look at the percentages, don't forget that roughly 25% is for the additive package and VII and around 5% (exact amount varies between 2 - 10%) is for the polyol ester part of the base oil, both of which not shown.

So, if it says 70% PAO, chances are that the whole base oil is PAO with some polyol ester, which comes to around 75%, and the rest is the additive package and VII. The percentage of the base oil should be around 70 - 80% of the finished oil.
 
Originally Posted by bulwnkl
I just looked up US-market SDSes for M1 0W20 in both EP and non, and I don't see anywhere near as much PAO as this thread is claiming. Where are you getting those numbers from?


Just so we are on the same page, you saw these two documents, both of which show 60-70% PAO?
[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]


As Gokhan noted, you then need to factor in DI package and POE treat on top of that, which doesn't leave room for much else.
 
Originally Posted by billt460
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by billt460
Hopefully my Wal-Mart will be getting some in. Right now I'm running 0W-20 Mobil 1 in my 2018 2.5L Camry. It will be ready for it's Spring oil change next month.


Arizona in the summer ... that sounds perfect weather for keeping 0W-20 in it.
grin2.gif


Actually the manual states that for hot weather operation you can run 0W-20.


You can even run a 5/30. It's all about CAFE. Guaranteed they don't run 0/16 over seas
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Shel_B
Has Mobil 1 discontinued Mobil 1's 0W-20?
2 3
Replies
40
Views
9K
OVERKILL
W
What about Fram 0W-30 for my 2.5 Turbo
Replies
7
Views
1K
Triple_Se7en
MR 22
Quietest oil used/oil recommendation for '16 KIA Forte
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
7K
Ronin73
C
Mobil 1 Marketing Material
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
4WD
I
New Mobil 1 C40 GT 0W-40
2 3 4
Replies
74
Views
7K
930.engineering
Back
Top