4 Mobil 1 oil viscosities compared - 0w20-5w30
- Thread starter rjacket
- Start date
- Status
Mobil 1 Advanced Fuel Economy 0w30 thicker at 0(C?) than 5w30?
Mobil 1 0w30 is thicker now than it used to be. a few years ago it was 10.6 at 100c and 56.x at 40c. I'm not sure if its the change to sn or what.
After researching, I went with the Mobil 1 5w30 over the 0w-30. That would leave the 0w-20 and the 0w-40 on both sides of it.
Originally Posted By: rjacket
I find it interesting that a 5W is thinner than a 0W at almost all temps
Me too, and I pose the question to the Mobil experts in the group, why?
I find it interesting that a 5W is thinner than a 0W at almost all temps
Me too, and I pose the question to the Mobil experts in the group, why?
And 0W-40 has viscosity of 75 @ 40c.
Either the graphing is wrong, or there is something wrong in labelling when a 0W is worse in cold temps than a 5W.
Regardless of what the second number is, I think you should be able to interpret the first number to mean something with respect to other choices, especially within the same brand.
Either the graphing is wrong, or there is something wrong in labelling when a 0W is worse in cold temps than a 5W.
Regardless of what the second number is, I think you should be able to interpret the first number to mean something with respect to other choices, especially within the same brand.
Last edited:
Thanks! that really does not surprise me about the Mobil 1 0w30. If you look at the general spec's of Mobil 1 0w30 vs. Mobil 1 5w30 the 5w30 even has a higher VI. Here in the US there probably isn't any benefit to using the Mobil 1 0w30 (even though I use it
).
Originally Posted By: chubbs1
Thanks! that really does not surprise me about the Mobil 1 0w30. If you look at the general spec's of Mobil 1 0w30 vs. Mobil 1 5w30 the 5w30 even has a higher VI. Here in the US there probably isn't any benefit to using the Mobil 1 0w30 (even though I use it
).
It's AFE so 2% better fuel economy (supposedly)
Thanks! that really does not surprise me about the Mobil 1 0w30. If you look at the general spec's of Mobil 1 0w30 vs. Mobil 1 5w30 the 5w30 even has a higher VI. Here in the US there probably isn't any benefit to using the Mobil 1 0w30 (even though I use it
It's AFE so 2% better fuel economy (supposedly)
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
IIRC, the calc is not accurate below 0C.
I understand the OP's point---but look at the diff between 0 and 10 degrees C---v cST is almost cut in half in 10 degrees-and the difference between all is reduced significantly by JUST 10 degrees?
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
IIRC, the calc is not accurate below 0C.
Apparently not since it's not giving you the answers you want to see. Mobil and their fanboys are bizarre bunch. When their facts don't add up the other facts they point somewhere else. Just more conflicting info from mobil. But it's the best,but no one can say for sure about what really in if. The formula changes quicker than bush jrs statements
IIRC, the calc is not accurate below 0C.
Apparently not since it's not giving you the answers you want to see. Mobil and their fanboys are bizarre bunch. When their facts don't add up the other facts they point somewhere else. Just more conflicting info from mobil. But it's the best,but no one can say for sure about what really in if. The formula changes quicker than bush jrs statements
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
IIRC, the calc is not accurate below 0C.
Apparently not since it's not giving you the answers you want to see. Mobil and their fanboys are bizarre bunch. When their facts don't add up the other facts they point somewhere else. Just more conflicting info from mobil. But it's the best,but no one can say for sure about what really in if. The formula changes quicker than bush jrs statements
The calculator plugs in a couple of the oil's typical values and gives you a nice curve based on that.
However, an oil's performance, and the performance of things like pour point depressants and base stocks is NOT linear.
So when you get well below the point in which the values you use to establish the graph are based on.... Well, you get an inaccurate graph!
It has nothing to do with being a a "mobil fanboy", this works the same for ANY OIL!
Try it out yourself, and you'll see what I mean, just google "Widman's Visc calc" and plug in the values of your favourite oil.
Now, if you want to verify the inaccuracy, find an oil with a published MRV value and then run your graph down to that temperature. You'll notice the value depicted by the graph does NOT match the value listed as the MRV for the oil. This is due to the behaviour of the components of the lubricant as I've indicated above.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
IIRC, the calc is not accurate below 0C.
Apparently not since it's not giving you the answers you want to see. Mobil and their fanboys are bizarre bunch. When their facts don't add up the other facts they point somewhere else. Just more conflicting info from mobil. But it's the best,but no one can say for sure about what really in if. The formula changes quicker than bush jrs statements
The calculator plugs in a couple of the oil's typical values and gives you a nice curve based on that.
However, an oil's performance, and the performance of things like pour point depressants and base stocks is NOT linear.
So when you get well below the point in which the values you use to establish the graph are based on.... Well, you get an inaccurate graph!
It has nothing to do with being a a "mobil fanboy", this works the same for ANY OIL!
Try it out yourself, and you'll see what I mean, just google "Widman's Visc calc" and plug in the values of your favourite oil.
Now, if you want to verify the inaccuracy, find an oil with a published MRV value and then run your graph down to that temperature. You'll notice the value depicted by the graph does NOT match the value listed as the MRV for the oil. This is due to the behaviour of the components of the lubricant as I've indicated above.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
IIRC, the calc is not accurate below 0C.
Apparently not since it's not giving you the answers you want to see. Mobil and their fanboys are bizarre bunch. When their facts don't add up the other facts they point somewhere else. Just more conflicting info from mobil. But it's the best,but no one can say for sure about what really in if. The formula changes quicker than bush jrs statements
The calculator plugs in a couple of the oil's typical values and gives you a nice curve based on that.
However, an oil's performance, and the performance of things like pour point depressants and base stocks is NOT linear.
So when you get well below the point in which the values you use to establish the graph are based on.... Well, you get an inaccurate graph!
It has nothing to do with being a a "mobil fanboy", this works the same for ANY OIL!
Try it out yourself, and you'll see what I mean, just google "Widman's Visc calc" and plug in the values of your favourite oil.
Now, if you want to verify the inaccuracy, find an oil with a published MRV value and then run your graph down to that temperature. You'll notice the value depicted by the graph does NOT match the value listed as the MRV for the oil. This is due to the behaviour of the components of the lubricant as I've indicated above.
What should we use to extrapolate correctly below 40c?
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
IIRC, the calc is not accurate below 0C.
Apparently not since it's not giving you the answers you want to see. Mobil and their fanboys are bizarre bunch. When their facts don't add up the other facts they point somewhere else. Just more conflicting info from mobil. But it's the best,but no one can say for sure about what really in if. The formula changes quicker than bush jrs statements
The calculator plugs in a couple of the oil's typical values and gives you a nice curve based on that.
However, an oil's performance, and the performance of things like pour point depressants and base stocks is NOT linear.
So when you get well below the point in which the values you use to establish the graph are based on.... Well, you get an inaccurate graph!
It has nothing to do with being a a "mobil fanboy", this works the same for ANY OIL!
Try it out yourself, and you'll see what I mean, just google "Widman's Visc calc" and plug in the values of your favourite oil.
Now, if you want to verify the inaccuracy, find an oil with a published MRV value and then run your graph down to that temperature. You'll notice the value depicted by the graph does NOT match the value listed as the MRV for the oil. This is due to the behaviour of the components of the lubricant as I've indicated above.
What should we use to extrapolate correctly below 40c?
Tom NJ
$100 Site Donor 2026
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
The calculator plugs in a couple of the oil's typical values and gives you a nice curve based on that.
However, an oil's performance, and the performance of things like pour point depressants and base stocks is NOT linear.
So when you get well below the point in which the values you use to establish the graph are based on.... Well, you get an inaccurate graph!
Now, if you want to verify the inaccuracy, find an oil with a published MRV value and then run your graph down to that temperature. You'll notice the value depicted by the graph does NOT match the value listed as the MRV for the oil. This is due to the behaviour of the components of the lubricant as I've indicated above.
Correct. These are Kinematic (low shear) viscosities extrapolated from the 40°C and 100°C viscosities. Flow characteristics for 0W and 5W oils are determined at -30°C to -40°C under shear. Kinematic viscosities at 0°C are just not relevant to how an oil sucks up and pumps through the engine when cold, which is why they are not part of the low temperature specification requirements for W grades.
These are just VI curves plotted on a linear/linear scale. When plotted on a log/linear scale they give the typical straight line we usually see for VI plots. This straight line, however, begins to curve at lower temperatures, and shear rates also change the relationship.
Oils are required to be labeled with the lowest W grade they satisfy, so clearly the 0W grades flowed better than the 5W grades in the official and relevant low temperature flow tests specified in the J300 specification.
Tom NJ
The calculator plugs in a couple of the oil's typical values and gives you a nice curve based on that.
However, an oil's performance, and the performance of things like pour point depressants and base stocks is NOT linear.
So when you get well below the point in which the values you use to establish the graph are based on.... Well, you get an inaccurate graph!
Now, if you want to verify the inaccuracy, find an oil with a published MRV value and then run your graph down to that temperature. You'll notice the value depicted by the graph does NOT match the value listed as the MRV for the oil. This is due to the behaviour of the components of the lubricant as I've indicated above.
Correct. These are Kinematic (low shear) viscosities extrapolated from the 40°C and 100°C viscosities. Flow characteristics for 0W and 5W oils are determined at -30°C to -40°C under shear. Kinematic viscosities at 0°C are just not relevant to how an oil sucks up and pumps through the engine when cold, which is why they are not part of the low temperature specification requirements for W grades.
These are just VI curves plotted on a linear/linear scale. When plotted on a log/linear scale they give the typical straight line we usually see for VI plots. This straight line, however, begins to curve at lower temperatures, and shear rates also change the relationship.
Oils are required to be labeled with the lowest W grade they satisfy, so clearly the 0W grades flowed better than the 5W grades in the official and relevant low temperature flow tests specified in the J300 specification.
Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
IIRC, the calc is not accurate below 0C.
Apparently not since it's not giving you the answers you want to see. Mobil and their fanboys are bizarre bunch. When their facts don't add up the other facts they point somewhere else. Just more conflicting info from mobil. But it's the best,but no one can say for sure about what really in if. The formula changes quicker than bush jrs statements
Not sure why you seem to add the Bush Jr. comment to your post. Also this site normally doesn't allow these kind of comments. You may be hearing from them soon as you are on thin ice IMO.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
IIRC, the calc is not accurate below 0C.
Apparently not since it's not giving you the answers you want to see. Mobil and their fanboys are bizarre bunch. When their facts don't add up the other facts they point somewhere else. Just more conflicting info from mobil. But it's the best,but no one can say for sure about what really in if. The formula changes quicker than bush jrs statements
Not sure why you seem to add the Bush Jr. comment to your post. Also this site normally doesn't allow these kind of comments. You may be hearing from them soon as you are on thin ice IMO.
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
The calculator plugs in a couple of the oil's typical values and gives you a nice curve based on that.
However, an oil's performance, and the performance of things like pour point depressants and base stocks is NOT linear.
So when you get well below the point in which the values you use to establish the graph are based on.... Well, you get an inaccurate graph!
Now, if you want to verify the inaccuracy, find an oil with a published MRV value and then run your graph down to that temperature. You'll notice the value depicted by the graph does NOT match the value listed as the MRV for the oil. This is due to the behaviour of the components of the lubricant as I've indicated above.
Correct. These are Kinematic (low shear) viscosities extrapolated from the 40°C and 100°C viscosities. Flow characteristics for 0W and 5W oils are determined at -30°C to -40°C under shear. Kinematic viscosities at 0°C are just not relevant to how an oil sucks up and pumps through the engine when cold, which is why they are not part of the low temperature specification requirements for W grades.
These are just VI curves plotted on a linear/linear scale. When plotted on a log/linear scale they give the typical straight line we usually see for VI plots. This straight line, however, begins to curve at lower temperatures, and shear rates also change the relationship.
Oils are required to be labeled with the lowest W grade they satisfy, so clearly the 0W grades flowed better than the 5W grades in the official and relevant low temperature flow tests specified in the J300 specification.
Tom NJ
Thanks for your explanation, Tom NJ. How low of a temperature would you say the log VI calculation can be depended on to yield +/-3% accuracy? I asked this question of our lubricant expert at work, and she said "about 20C". Would synthetic oils be more predictable to lower temperatures?
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
The calculator plugs in a couple of the oil's typical values and gives you a nice curve based on that.
However, an oil's performance, and the performance of things like pour point depressants and base stocks is NOT linear.
So when you get well below the point in which the values you use to establish the graph are based on.... Well, you get an inaccurate graph!
Now, if you want to verify the inaccuracy, find an oil with a published MRV value and then run your graph down to that temperature. You'll notice the value depicted by the graph does NOT match the value listed as the MRV for the oil. This is due to the behaviour of the components of the lubricant as I've indicated above.
Correct. These are Kinematic (low shear) viscosities extrapolated from the 40°C and 100°C viscosities. Flow characteristics for 0W and 5W oils are determined at -30°C to -40°C under shear. Kinematic viscosities at 0°C are just not relevant to how an oil sucks up and pumps through the engine when cold, which is why they are not part of the low temperature specification requirements for W grades.
These are just VI curves plotted on a linear/linear scale. When plotted on a log/linear scale they give the typical straight line we usually see for VI plots. This straight line, however, begins to curve at lower temperatures, and shear rates also change the relationship.
Oils are required to be labeled with the lowest W grade they satisfy, so clearly the 0W grades flowed better than the 5W grades in the official and relevant low temperature flow tests specified in the J300 specification.
Tom NJ
Thanks for your explanation, Tom NJ. How low of a temperature would you say the log VI calculation can be depended on to yield +/-3% accuracy? I asked this question of our lubricant expert at work, and she said "about 20C". Would synthetic oils be more predictable to lower temperatures?
- Status
