Bought some M1 5w20 HM

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jun 8, 2009
Messages
291
Location
Maryville, TN
Was at Walmart tonight and was planning on getting more PU for my next oci and saw the new M1 5w20HM and decided to try it. Will change the current fill in about 500 miles. I may get a uoa done on the M1 if there isnt one on here by that time. Its SL rated and not energy conserving.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: SubyRoo
Was at Walmart tonight and was planning on getting more PU for my next oci and saw the new M1 5w20HM and decided to try it. Will change the current fill in about 500 miles. I may get a uoa done on the M1 if there isnt one on here by that time. Its SL rated and not energy conserving.


I've noticed that some hm oils like defy in some grades and pennzoil hm are SL in some grades.
I've wondered what denies an oil as resource conserving. Is it that the oil may help the engine consume less fuel,or did the manufacture of the oil consume less resources. What exactly defines resource conserving.
I assume its SL due to extra zddp and can't carry the lessened zddp sm and SN spec.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: skyship
It's based on some kind of friction test and I don't think Zinc content effects it, but Moly can. This does not relate to engine wear, as the flow rate is involved, it is just aimed at maximum MPG figures.


So you are saying to achieve resource conserving labelling the oil has to reduce friction,yet this reduction of friction doesn't relate to engine wear.
You have to be kidding me. If friction is reduced and an engine consumes less fuel because the friction coefficient is lessened then of course that translates to less wear.
If there is less drag and the parts move with less resistance is there any scenario that would create more wear? Serious question
And what does flow rate have to do with it,unless resistance to flow is part of the "resource conserving" designation and how much extra fuel is consumed due to the oils resistance pumping through the oil passages.
And if pumpability was a factor wouldn't each grade have its own parameters that have to be met?
Serious questions
Hopefully someone who knows what they are talking about will see my questions and sunkship's answer and clarify rather than muddy the answer.
 
'Resource conserving' term regards the extraction, refining and manufacturing process.

....and possibly MPG's/efficiency,not positive on this part though.
 
Energy conserving is purely a comparison to an arbitrary reference oil. If the oil tested is deemed to have better mpg results than the reference oil in that grade, it can be considered Energy Conserving.

The API ratings have nothing to do with how they oils were manufactured.

While I am not aware of the exact properties, I would bet each grade would have max hths and 40/100 viscosity ratings to stay under in order to be considered energy conserving.
 
Originally Posted By: SubyRoo
Was at Walmart tonight and was planning on getting more PU for my next oci and saw the new M1 5w20HM and decided to try it. Will change the current fill in about 500 miles. I may get a uoa done on the M1 if there isnt one on here by that time. Its SL rated and not energy conserving.
Nice. Some high mileage oils are not rated Energy Conserving. If it is rated SL it is either older stock or because it is high mileage oil they did not intend to meet the SM specs. Was there any discount? Might have to go get some for my stash.
 
Should be a great oil based on the other M1 HM grades. Extra cleaning power, higher ZDP and a bit thicker for a 20 grade. I'll be switching my wife's 3 over to this next. She is near 75,000 miles.
 
Originally Posted By: SubyRoo
Was at Walmart tonight and was planning on getting more PU for my next oci and saw the new M1 5w20HM and decided to try it. Will change the current fill in about 500 miles. I may get a uoa done on the M1 if there isnt one on here by that time. Its SL rated and not energy conserving.

What didn't you like about PU? Or was the M1 HM on sale? That's the only reason I change brands.
 
Originally Posted By: TallPaul
Originally Posted By: SubyRoo
Was at Walmart tonight and was planning on getting more PU for my next oci and saw the new M1 5w20HM and decided to try it. Will change the current fill in about 500 miles. I may get a uoa done on the M1 if there isnt one on here by that time. Its SL rated and not energy conserving.
Nice. Some high mileage oils are not rated Energy Conserving. If it is rated SL it is either older stock or because it is high mileage oil they did not intend to meet the SM specs. Was there any discount? Might have to go get some for my stash.


It's not old stock, M1HM in 5W-20 is a brand new product. Mobil doesn't even have it on their website yet. My local Walmart just made the new space for it on the shelf, but they don't have any in stock yet. They also made a new space for 5 quart jugs of M1 0W-40. Prices for both are the same as the rest of the M1 lineup.

I'm guessing it's SL because it has higher ZDDP than allowed by SM/SN.
 
Last edited:
My Walmart here has totally changed their lube section around. They have GTX 20W50 jugs and Max Life full synth quarts now. Didn`t notice the M1 stuff though,I`ll have to stop back by.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: JavierG
Originally Posted By: SubyRoo
Was at Walmart tonight and was planning on getting more PU for my next oci and saw the new M1 5w20HM and decided to try it. Will change the current fill in about 500 miles. I may get a uoa done on the M1 if there isnt one on here by that time. Its SL rated and not energy conserving.

What didn't you like about PU? Or was the M1 HM on sale? That's the only reason I change brands.


I didnt have any complaints about the PU I have used it for the past three changes. I just happened to see the new M1 and decided to try it.
 
Originally Posted By: SubyRoo
Originally Posted By: JavierG
Originally Posted By: SubyRoo
Was at Walmart tonight and was planning on getting more PU for my next oci and saw the new M1 5w20HM and decided to try it. Will change the current fill in about 500 miles. I may get a uoa done on the M1 if there isnt one on here by that time. Its SL rated and not energy conserving.

What didn't you like about PU? Or was the M1 HM on sale? That's the only reason I change brands.


I didnt have any complaints about the PU I have used it for the past three changes. I just happened to see the new M1 and decided to try it.



Let us know what you think of it.
 
Originally Posted By: FL_Rob
'Resource conserving' term regards the extraction, refining and manufacturing process.


Not true.
 
It is SL, and it's a brand new product (see the copyright 2012 on the bottle label).

Like others have reported, the Walmarts near me have really come into the modern day in terms of their lube section. Every M1 choice seems to be offered in the 5-quart jugs now, including 0W-20, 0W-40, and the new HM 5W-20. All for $24.97 each. What a great value.
 
Originally Posted By: Coprolite
Energy conserving is purely a comparison to an arbitrary reference oil. If the oil tested is deemed to have better mpg results than the reference oil in that grade, it can be considered Energy Conserving.

The API ratings have nothing to do with how they oils were manufactured.

While I am not aware of the exact properties, I would bet each grade would have max hths and 40/100 viscosity ratings to stay under in order to be considered energy conserving.


Energy Conserving and CI-4 PLUS Designations

The bottom of the donut tells whether the oil has energy conserving properties when compared with a reference oil in an engine test or if an oil meets CI-4 PLUS requirements.

The term only seems to apply to X/20 and X/30's and the car manufacturers say the following:
When your car manufacturer refers to it as "energy conserving oil", they are referring to the actual viscosity (5W-30) as being "energy conserving". In other words, they see 10W-30 or 10W-40 as being not energy conserving because it is thicker than 5W-30.
Oils labeled as "Energy Conserving" have passed the test that measures an oil's ability to conserve energy. Widespread use of engine oils with this designation should result in an overall saving of fuel in the vehicle fleet as a whole, but a particular vehicle operator may not experience a fuel savings as a result of using these oils.
Used in conjunction with the CI-4 category, the "CI-4 PLUS" designation identifies oils formulated to provide a higher level of protection against soot-related viscosity increase and viscosity loss due to shear in diesel engines.

Now for the real silly part, because it appears the term has yet to be fully defined:

SAE Standards for Works In Progress
WIP - Not available for purchase at this time.
Document Number: J1423
Project Number: Project Initiation: October 2005
Revision Number:
Title: Classification of Energy Conserving Engine Oil for Passenger Cars, Vans, Sport Utility Vehicles, and Light-Duty Trucks

Issuing Committee:
Fuels And Lubricants Tc 1 Engine Lubrication
Scope:
This SAE Standard was developed cooperatively by SAE, ASTM, and API to define and identify Energy Conserving engine oils for passenger cars, vans, sport utility vehicles, and light-duty (3856 kg [8500 LB] GVW or less) trucks.
Rationale:
The scope of the revision to this standard is to include the API SM Energy Conserving Category (ILSAC GF-4) and also the use of the ASTM Sequence VIBSJ test for API SJ (ILSAC GF-2). The revisions bring SAE J 1423 up to date on current classification of Energy Conserving oils for passenger cars, vans, sport utility vehicles, and light duty trucks.
Return to Works In Progress List

In other words it's viscosity related, but if a 5/30 is approved when a 5/40 was previously the approved oil they often increase the Moly in particular and balance the add pack by cutting the detergents.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom