Mobil 1 10W-60

Originally Posted by FordCapriDriver
You guys ( no offence ) are missing the point of the thread.

I'm not looking for oil recommendations, i'm just interested in knowing what sort of base stocks that Mobil 1 10W-60 Is made from.

Hate it when that happens. Sorry for my contribution. Wish I had something more constructive to add.

The ingredients on the SDS each comprise 5% or less of the total formulation, so there's not much to work with there. The spec sheets I'm seeing don't even list pour point, so we can't even make inappropriately confident guesses about PAO content or whatever.

If I had to guess or be shot, I'd say this is probably a blend of very high performance Group III with some PAO and ester. Not sure what that guess is worth, but there it is.
 
Originally Posted by Olas
Redline and Gulf and Fuchs and Penrite and Mannol all make ester based 10w60s - something as old and special as a Capri deserves the best
wink.gif



I thought ester based oils were bad for the seals in classic cars, you learn something new every day.
 
Originally Posted by d00df00d
Originally Posted by FordCapriDriver
You guys ( no offence ) are missing the point of the thread.

I'm not looking for oil recommendations, i'm just interested in knowing what sort of base stocks that Mobil 1 10W-60 Is made from.

Hate it when that happens. Sorry for my contribution. Wish I had something more constructive to add.

The ingredients on the SDS each comprise 5% or less of the total formulation, so there's not much to work with there. The spec sheets I'm seeing don't even list pour point, so we can't even make inappropriately confident guesses about PAO content or whatever.

If I had to guess or be shot, I'd say this is probably a blend of very high performance Group III with some PAO and ester. Not sure what that guess is worth, but there it is.


Thank you.
 
Originally Posted by FordCapriDriver
I've found a shop nearby me that sells it, very expensive, but an oil that has always interested me.

I have a long list of "want to try" oils, this is definetly one of the ones that is highest on the list.

It really looks like a stout oil both in terms of viscosity and add pack, see it by yourself down below.

TDS: file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/lubricantes-online.com%20-%20mobil%201%20motorsport%20formula%2010w60.pdf
SDS: https://www.hermann-ruettger.shop/media/products/Sicherheitsdatenblatt 10W60.pdf

However my main question would be, from the SDS can somebody tell me what type of base stock this oil would have?

How much could i expect it to shear, in a car driven fairly aggressively?

I would be using it in my Capri, it's just fine on the specified 20W-50 that is in it now, but a 10W-60 just sounds better, faster cold flow, more oil pressure when hot.
1300ppm of Phos also sounds good for my flat tappet cam.

It is much better than the VII monster Castrol TWS 10W-60 and ultimate VII monster Castrol Supercar 5W-50.

VII content is not too high for a 10W-60. As a result oil shear shouldn't be too bad. HTHS is extremely high; so, yes, your oil pressure will be as high as it gets with it. If your oil pressure is an issue, this would help.

Its base-oil viscosity is very high but not higher than that of a 20W-50, in fact probably lower; therefore, you won't see any improvement in valvetrain wear and may see some worsening, depending on how thick your 20W-50's base oil was.

It's Group III (probably Group III+) with a dash of PAO (5 - 10%). Mobil 1 oils typically have some Group V alkylated naphthalene (AN) as well, except for the FS and ESP varieties, which have 5 - 7% POE (ester). Since this is not an FS or ESP variety, it probably has AN insead of POE. The name has changed from Mobil 1 Extended Life 10W-60 to Mobil 1 10W-60; however, the formulation remains the same. There is a newer MSDS.

https://www.msds.exxonmobil.com/

Estimated base-oil viscosity (BO DV150) and VII content of selected oils
 
Thank you Gokhan for the reply, good info.
I guess i'll buy myself a jug of it for the next OCi, which will be next year anyhow, i'm not throwing away this 10.8 starting TBN 20W-50 with 600 miles i currently have in the engine.
 
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Are your bearings worn and not holding oil pressure? Why do you need an HTHS so high?


+1
 
Originally Posted by FordCapriDriver
Originally Posted by Olas
Redline and Gulf and Fuchs and Penrite and Mannol all make ester based 10w60s - something as old and special as a Capri deserves the best
wink.gif



I thought ester based oils were bad for the seals in classic cars, you learn something new every day.

Originally Posted by FordCapriDriver
Originally Posted by Olas
Redline and Gulf and Fuchs and Penrite and Mannol all make ester based 10w60s - something as old and special as a Capri deserves the best
wink.gif



I thought ester based oils were bad for the seals in classic cars, you learn something new every day.



I use ester based stuff in my 1982 with zero leaking or dampness - the age of the car is not relevant here, instead the condition of the gaskets determines wether leaks are present or not.
Less VII means less shearing and so more acceptable oil pressure, for longer!

I remember reading on here that most M1 products are mostly grp3 with a splash of PAO for good measure but this may have changed.
 
Originally Posted by demarpaint
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Are your bearings worn and not holding oil pressure? Why do you need an HTHS so high?


+1


Ford specifies 20W-50 for this engine, they have large tolerances right from the factory, so a jump to a 60 isn't that high in my opinion.

I bet the bearings are worn, however the rest of the engine is in good health as i mentioned before so i'm not pulling it apart ( for now )

On 20W-50 the oil pressure is fine, but a 10W-60, which flows faster when cold, and protects better when hot, that lasts longer too? why not?

I could even get 25W-60 locally but maybe that's a bit overkill
lol.gif


https://www.repsol.com/imagenes/global/es/RP_PERFORMANCE_HIGH_MILEAGE_25W60_tcm13-55261.pdf

TBN 5.6, Sulphated Ash 0.8%, not a whole lotta additives in there, maybe some Zinc and Phos and a dash of Calcium but that's it.

I wonder what kind of HTHS would that have, over 6?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by FordCapriDriver
I wonder what kind of HTHS would that have, over 6?

Its HTLS (high-temperature, low-shear) is lower than that of the M1 10W-60; therefore, its HTHS is likely lower as well unless it has a low VII content. Perhaps it's about the same. However, it's likely a Group I oil with a very low-VI base oil, and it has a very high VII content as a result. Therefore, I bet its HTHS is no higher than about 5.0.
 
Interesring, so it's like a 20W-50 steroids, full of ViI
I thought it would have s really thick base oil made from Grouo 1 Bright stock....
I'm not planning ro use it, just curiosity.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by FordCapriDriver
Interesring, so it's like a 20W-50 steroids, full of ViI
I thought it would have s really thick base oil made from Grouo 1 Bright stock....
I'm not planning ro use it, just curiosity.

According to my calculator, the highest possible HTHS for this oil is 6.55 cP. That would correspond to a monograde Group II oil with no VII and about a KV100 = 24 cSt base oil -- A_Harman index = 1. Therefore, the base-oil viscosity at 150 °C (BO DV150) would also be 6.55 cP.

If I assume Group I and make some extra assumptions, I get HTHS = 5.85 cP with a low-to-moderate amount of VII content (~ 5%) and about a KV100 = 15 cSt base oil. The base-oil viscosity at 150 °C (BO DV150) corresponding to that HTHS is 4.2 cP, which is very high. It is showing about 8% permanent shear in the fuel-injector shear test in the data sheet. So, it must have some VII.

Remember that the viscosity index (VI) for Group I base oil is low, around 100. Since the HTHS is measured at 150 °C, the lower-VI base oil will thin more, lowering the HTHS. As a result you would need more VII with a lower-VI base oil to boost the HTHS.
 
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by FordCapriDriver
Interesring, so it's like a 20W-50 steroids, full of ViI
I thought it would have s really thick base oil made from Grouo 1 Bright stock....
I'm not planning ro use it, just curiosity.

According to my calculator, the highest possible HTHS for this oil is 6.55 cP. That would correspond to a monograde Group II oil with no VII and about a KV100 = 24 cSt base oil -- A_Harman index = 1. Therefore, the base-oil viscosity at 150 °C (BO DV150) would also be 6.55 cP.

If I assume Group I and make some extra assumptions, I get HTHS = 5.85 cP with a low-to-moderate amount of VII content (~ 5%) and about a KV100 = 15 cSt base oil. The base-oil viscosity at 150 °C (BO DV150) corresponding to that HTHS is 4.2 cP, which is very high. It is showing about 8% permanent shear in the fuel-injector shear test in the data sheet. So, it must have some VII.

Remember that the viscosity index (VI) for Group I base oil is low, around 100. Since the HTHS is measured at 150 °C, the lower-VI base oil will thin more, lowering the HTHS. As a result you would need more VII with a lower-VI base oil to boost the HTHS.


Wow, you really are a genius and i am not kidding.
I will read that for the next hour or so trying to process that information
lol.gif
 
He really is. Qualified, too.

He also has not sufficiently validated the theory behind his predictions about base oil and VII content from spec sheets. That's just some math he came up with on his own and is putting out there like it's fact. It's a [censored] sight more sophisticated than anything you or I could do, but it's far from accepted science.

He spelled a lot of it out in some threads here a while back. The (very) few people on BITOG equally or more qualified than him thought it was overstated at best and ludicrous at worst. They and others tried pointing out the flaws in what he was saying, but he basically just repeated himself until they all realized it was no longer worth the effort.

FWIW.
 
Thank you for your your kind words, FordCapriDriver!

As for d00df00d's criticism, relative VII content was already estimated by A_Harman through his A_Harman index. My estimate is equivalent to his. Therefore, it's true that it is nothing new.

Regarding the base-oil viscosity at 150 °C, I did verify it against more than a dozen oils in the Hugh Spikes paper (see the whitepapers section on BITOG), and it works fairly well, with about 5% error. Interestingly the Hugh Spikes paper came around the same time as my original research, and I wasn't aware about it until I was done with my calculations. Therefore, this VII and base-oil viscosity calculations are all state-of-the-art research! Until last year or so, no one had bothered to think about the base-oil viscosity and the temporary-shear behavior of the VIIs. However, it has now recently become known that the base-oil viscosity and VII content is crucial in optimizing wear protection and fuel economy.

My base-oil viscosity calculation is actually a very neat one, and it's a simple but not an obvious formula, and a lot of ingenuity went into deriving it. It wasn't figured out in an afternoon. You can see the derivation, which is fairly simple, in the whitepapers section. It's the only tool we have to estimate the base-oil viscosity.

It's also true that both are estimates only and be regarded as such. There are a lot of sources of error, such as the uncertainties in the provided oil datasheets, extrapolation of the density and kinematic viscosity, and unusual VII types that could deviate substantially from the average VII types.
 
So, to sum it all up, you're saying that it's a good choice because the viscosity index is good, the HTHS is high, and it has a thick base oil without much VII ( thicker than 20W-50? ) and a healthy 1300ppm dose of ZDDP.

The engine isn't that worn, on the current Repsol Elite Super 20W-50, which is a Group II + a splash of Group III , SL,SM/CF , A3/B4, 229.1 oil, the hot idle oil pressure is just fine, and while driving it's more than good.
And i repeat, 20W-50 is the recommended oil for warm climates by the car's owner's manual!

But i repeat myself again, if i can get an oil that flows and therefore protects better when cold, and hot aswell, i'm in!

These engines have a common failure point which is the shaft that drives the oil pump from the distributor, so on cold starts it's adviseable to be as gentle as possible, as to not put strain on the shaft.

That is how the original engine in it died, June 30th 1991, on the Autobahn in Germany near Karlsruhe about 3pm in the afternoon, although to be fair the poor engine was 15 years old then and the engine lost oil pressure after driving a little too long at around 110-115 Mph ( top speed is around 124 ).

So an used engine was installed by a nearby Ford dealership, as it turns our and i discovered this yesterday, it's a 1972 engine, which means, it has 6 more horsepower than the original, 144
laugh.gif

By 1973 Ford had to modify the cam timing to meet emissions standards so horsepower dropped to 138.
 
Last edited:
The oil pump drive was common to most Fords of the era, no matter where they were made. A service item we used to check and replace. In my toolbox I keep coming across 2 oil pump shafts I welded together, so I could drive the pump with a drill to check oil pressure or prime on a rebuild.
 
By all means try the M1 10W-60. If your oil pressure feels too high, you can switch to a PCMO 20W-50 or an HDEO 15W-40 at the next oil change. It sounds like you drive at twice the speed I drive my Prius Prime.
lol.gif
 
Well, that V6 roar just encourages you to have a heavy right foot
wink.gif

I occasionally perform Italian tune-ups on it, there's a nice straight bit of road not far from where i live, wide and flat, no speed cameras, about 3 mies long.

The old girl still manages about 90Mph in 3rd gear and 115 flat out in 4th, not bad for a 48 year old engine with unknown but high mileage.
Considering the factory claimed figures are 100Mph in 3rd and around 124Mph flat out in 4th.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top