Found an old product data sheet for Mobil 1
- Thread starter SubieHo
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Okay, well, where did you get the "spec's sheet?" Because I recall being slightly obsessed in this period, and it seemed a lot of the Mobil sheets were in a mix of both metric standard measurements with the pour points almost universally in Fahrenheit and the bottles saying -55F on the back. Today they use Celsius on the stat sheet but say -53F on their website front page and some of their formulations vary...
Are we sure we're still dealing in the correct system?
I've got the 2006 Product Data Sheet, and it's -54C for the 10W-30, 0W-40, and 5W-50. -45C for the M1 ESP 5W-30, and 15W-40. (-51C for the V-Twin 20W-50)
Downloaded the 2008 Product Data Sheet, and it's -48C for the 0W-40, -42C for the 5W-30 and 5W-50, -33C for the 15W-50, and still -45C for the ESP 5W-30. V-Twin is still -51C.
Dang, had these two PDS on my comp all along, and never compared them.
Big change in 2 years.
Welp. At the US site, the product data sheets say -48C for 5W-30 (regular & EP), -45C for 10W-30 (regular & EP), -39C for 15W-50 and -42C for 15W-50EP.
http://www.mobil.com/USA-English/Lubes/PDS/GLXXENPVLMOMobil_1_Extended_Performance.asp
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Okay, well, where did you get the "spec's sheet?" Because I recall being slightly obsessed in this period, and it seemed a lot of the Mobil sheets were in a mix of both metric standard measurements with the pour points almost universally in Fahrenheit and the bottles saying -55F on the back. Today they use Celsius on the stat sheet but say -53F on their website front page and some of their formulations vary...
Are we sure we're still dealing in the correct system?
I've got the 2006 Product Data Sheet, and it's -54C for the 10W-30, 0W-40, and 5W-50. -45C for the M1 ESP 5W-30, and 15W-40. (-51C for the V-Twin 20W-50)
Downloaded the 2008 Product Data Sheet, and it's -48C for the 0W-40, -42C for the 5W-30 and 5W-50, -33C for the 15W-50, and still -45C for the ESP 5W-30. V-Twin is still -51C.
Dang, had these two PDS on my comp all along, and never compared them.
Big change in 2 years.
Welp. At the US site, the product data sheets say -48C for 5W-30 (regular & EP), -45C for 10W-30 (regular & EP), -39C for 15W-50 and -42C for 15W-50EP.
http://www.mobil.com/USA-English/Lubes/PDS/GLXXENPVLMOMobil_1_Extended_Performance.asp
No need to email me, I believe you and recall those vaguely for the Aussie site.
My point is that I think the product data sheets might reflect a more stringent (CYA) numbers that are more realistic and specific to each weight because I wouldn't doubt if these companies do VOA pour tests. If they're running each others' oils in SAE tests, then I wouldn't at all be surprised if they're "keeping each other honest" as Anderson Cooper would say by insuring that other manufacturers claims are at least in the ballpark and not blatant exaggerations...
And if you compare Mobil1 numbers to another oil universally regarded as a "true PAO" based oil, Amsoil, the numbers are pretty close with the edge usually going to Amsoil, but not by much...
Furthermore, add packs to meet new standards might also be lowering the pour points even with PAO synthetics somewhat. Who knows? But I don't think you can just generalize it as "Group III creep."
My point is that I think the product data sheets might reflect a more stringent (CYA) numbers that are more realistic and specific to each weight because I wouldn't doubt if these companies do VOA pour tests. If they're running each others' oils in SAE tests, then I wouldn't at all be surprised if they're "keeping each other honest" as Anderson Cooper would say by insuring that other manufacturers claims are at least in the ballpark and not blatant exaggerations...
And if you compare Mobil1 numbers to another oil universally regarded as a "true PAO" based oil, Amsoil, the numbers are pretty close with the edge usually going to Amsoil, but not by much...
Furthermore, add packs to meet new standards might also be lowering the pour points even with PAO synthetics somewhat. Who knows? But I don't think you can just generalize it as "Group III creep."
Last edited:
Your assertion may be correct that they are showing more stringent PP results.
But I would think (could be wrong), that would apply across the board on the sheets.
M1 V-twin is still showing -51C on both sheets. D1 is still -45 on both sheets. Delvac MX -33. Early Model 25W-60 -24C on both.
But I would think (could be wrong), that would apply across the board on the sheets.
M1 V-twin is still showing -51C on both sheets. D1 is still -45 on both sheets. Delvac MX -33. Early Model 25W-60 -24C on both.
MolaKule
Staff member
Quote:
But to say conclusively that EXOM is now using Group III in Mobil 1 based on "product data sheets" is inconclusive at best. Their current pour points really aren't that far off from -say- Amsoil in equivalent grades.
Well stated.
The increased use of alkylated naphthalenes in lieu of esters can bring up the Pour Point numbers slightly. This does not infer the use of Group III in the mix.
But to say conclusively that EXOM is now using Group III in Mobil 1 based on "product data sheets" is inconclusive at best. Their current pour points really aren't that far off from -say- Amsoil in equivalent grades.
Well stated.
The increased use of alkylated naphthalenes in lieu of esters can bring up the Pour Point numbers slightly. This does not infer the use of Group III in the mix.
Originally Posted By: tig1
Last month I called Mobil and their tech told me all M1 tagged oils are grp 4.
Did you ask them to put this in writing. If this were indeed the case, I see no reason why they wouldn't print this in their data sheets as it could only enhance the image of their product in the eyes of many. In contrast, Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) on Castrol's site clearly state oil composition, perhaps for good reason given their history with Mobil.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Downloaded the 2008 Product Data Sheet, and it's -48C for the 0W-40, -42C for the 5W-30 and 5W-50, -33C for the 15W-50, and still -45C for the ESP 5W-30. V-Twin is still -51C.
What stands out to me is their motorcycle oil. Pour point has no real practical purpose in this case because if you're riding a motorcycle anywhere close to -51C, you should be institutionalized. But again, it is an indication of base stock composition -- the majority of motorcycles will shear refined oils down in short order.
As it turns out, a 1998 PDS I have for V-Twin also shows a pour point of -51C and a flash point of 270C(!).
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Maybe, but the current website doesn't have pour point ratings for a few of their newer products, 0W-30 "Fuel Economy" included...
You can find the pour Point for M1 0W30 here:
http://www.mobil.com/USA-English/Lubes/PDS/glxxenpvlmomobil1_0w-30.pdf
With rising fuel prices, "Advanced Fuel Economy" is a good marketing tool. Ironically though, the older "non-Advanced Fuel Economy" 0W30 was actually slightly more conducive to better fuel efficiency across the entire viscosity range.
BTW, you can click on the "pdf." icon at the top of pds pages to convert the files.
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
If they're running each others' oils in SAE tests, then I wouldn't at all be surprised if they're "keeping each other honest" as Anderson Cooper would say by insuring that other manufacturers claims are at least in the ballpark and not blatant exaggerations...
And if you compare Mobil1 numbers to another oil universally regarded as a "true PAO" based oil, Amsoil, the numbers are pretty close with the edge usually going to Amsoil, but not by much..."
All the data should also list the associated ASTM tests, which in theory, should make these tests repeatable and reliable. If they're using the same tests, then it's safe to assume a difference in formulas.
As for Amsoil, I've never researched nor used their products, but I would say again that these seemingly small differences are significant markers. Pennzoil 5W30 (Group II) already has a pour point of -39C! It is at these thresholds that true synthetics can surpass their highly refined counterparts.
Last month I called Mobil and their tech told me all M1 tagged oils are grp 4.
Did you ask them to put this in writing. If this were indeed the case, I see no reason why they wouldn't print this in their data sheets as it could only enhance the image of their product in the eyes of many. In contrast, Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) on Castrol's site clearly state oil composition, perhaps for good reason given their history with Mobil.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Downloaded the 2008 Product Data Sheet, and it's -48C for the 0W-40, -42C for the 5W-30 and 5W-50, -33C for the 15W-50, and still -45C for the ESP 5W-30. V-Twin is still -51C.
What stands out to me is their motorcycle oil. Pour point has no real practical purpose in this case because if you're riding a motorcycle anywhere close to -51C, you should be institutionalized. But again, it is an indication of base stock composition -- the majority of motorcycles will shear refined oils down in short order.
As it turns out, a 1998 PDS I have for V-Twin also shows a pour point of -51C and a flash point of 270C(!).
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Maybe, but the current website doesn't have pour point ratings for a few of their newer products, 0W-30 "Fuel Economy" included...
You can find the pour Point for M1 0W30 here:
http://www.mobil.com/USA-English/Lubes/PDS/glxxenpvlmomobil1_0w-30.pdf
With rising fuel prices, "Advanced Fuel Economy" is a good marketing tool. Ironically though, the older "non-Advanced Fuel Economy" 0W30 was actually slightly more conducive to better fuel efficiency across the entire viscosity range.
BTW, you can click on the "pdf." icon at the top of pds pages to convert the files.
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
If they're running each others' oils in SAE tests, then I wouldn't at all be surprised if they're "keeping each other honest" as Anderson Cooper would say by insuring that other manufacturers claims are at least in the ballpark and not blatant exaggerations...
And if you compare Mobil1 numbers to another oil universally regarded as a "true PAO" based oil, Amsoil, the numbers are pretty close with the edge usually going to Amsoil, but not by much..."
All the data should also list the associated ASTM tests, which in theory, should make these tests repeatable and reliable. If they're using the same tests, then it's safe to assume a difference in formulas.
As for Amsoil, I've never researched nor used their products, but I would say again that these seemingly small differences are significant markers. Pennzoil 5W30 (Group II) already has a pour point of -39C! It is at these thresholds that true synthetics can surpass their highly refined counterparts.
Originally Posted By: tig1
Last month I called Mobil and their tech told me all M1 tagged oils are grp 4.
Call them again and ask how much group 4 stuff they contain.
Last month I called Mobil and their tech told me all M1 tagged oils are grp 4.
Call them again and ask how much group 4 stuff they contain.
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: tig1
Last month I called Mobil and their tech told me all M1 tagged oils are grp 4.
Call them again and ask how much group 4 stuff they contain.
You know that no oil producer will reveil the details of how their product is made. They told me their M1 oils are all GRP 4. With that said each oil producer tweeks their product to perform to their vision of a quality product. All of the major oil producers do that and all produce fine oils. A far cry from the stuff I used 45 years ago when I first started changing oil in my cars.
Originally Posted By: tig1
Last month I called Mobil and their tech told me all M1 tagged oils are grp 4.
Call them again and ask how much group 4 stuff they contain.
You know that no oil producer will reveil the details of how their product is made. They told me their M1 oils are all GRP 4. With that said each oil producer tweeks their product to perform to their vision of a quality product. All of the major oil producers do that and all produce fine oils. A far cry from the stuff I used 45 years ago when I first started changing oil in my cars.
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
But to say conclusively that EXOM is now using Group III in Mobil 1 based on "product data sheets" is inconclusive at best. Their current pour points really aren't that far off from -say- Amsoil in equivalent grades.
Well stated.
The increased use of alkylated naphthalenes in lieu of esters can bring up the Pour Point numbers slightly. This does not infer the use of Group III in the mix.
Admittedly, "conclusive" would be and overstatement, but I think compelling enough.
Just curious -- how much would a monoalkylated naphthalene lower the pour points and flash points of the formulas mentioned. In other words, how "slightly" would this substitution raise/lower these values?
Also, could you elaborate on the benefits of blending alkylated naphthalenes with GroupII/III base stocks vs. with PAOs?
Quote:
But to say conclusively that EXOM is now using Group III in Mobil 1 based on "product data sheets" is inconclusive at best. Their current pour points really aren't that far off from -say- Amsoil in equivalent grades.
Well stated.
The increased use of alkylated naphthalenes in lieu of esters can bring up the Pour Point numbers slightly. This does not infer the use of Group III in the mix.
Admittedly, "conclusive" would be and overstatement, but I think compelling enough.
Just curious -- how much would a monoalkylated naphthalene lower the pour points and flash points of the formulas mentioned. In other words, how "slightly" would this substitution raise/lower these values?
Also, could you elaborate on the benefits of blending alkylated naphthalenes with GroupII/III base stocks vs. with PAOs?
Originally Posted By: SubieHo
Originally Posted By: tig1
Last month I called Mobil and their tech told me all M1 tagged oils are grp 4.
Did you ask them to put this in writing. If this were indeed the case, I see no reason why they wouldn't print this in their data sheets as it could only enhance the image of their product in the eyes of many. In contrast, Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) on Castrol's site clearly state oil composition, perhaps for good reason given their history with Mobil.
Why would they put it in writing on the phone?
Which other oil companies would you ask to put proprietary information in writing? I think you're applying a standard here that is prosecutorial in manner more so than fact based...
Castrol also doesn't provide any "pour point" data in their PDS and they provide less data than Mobil in general in regards to oil.
Quote:
...
You can find the pour Point for M1 0W30 here:
http://www.mobil.com/USA-English/Lubes/PDS/glxxenpvlmomobil1_0w-30.pdf
With rising fuel prices, "Advanced Fuel Economy" is a good marketing tool. Ironically though, the older "non-Advanced Fuel Economy" 0W30 was actually slightly more conducive to better fuel efficiency across the entire viscosity range.
BTW, you can click on the "pdf." icon at the top of pds pages to convert the files.
Thank you for the link, but I doubt there's much difference in real world fuel economy in any variance of 0W-30...
BTW, it's still a -54C pour point, which is not unreasonable in comparison to the 5W-30. And the pdf files are identical to the HTML ones information wise on the front page..
Quote:
All the data should also list the associated ASTM tests, which in theory, should make these tests repeatable and reliable. If they're using the same tests, then it's safe to assume a difference in formulas.
Of course they "should." But these are just general "product data sheets" and Mobil actually provides more data that many of their competitors. And these data sheets are not necessarily posted by engineers. In fact, I'm pretty sure Mobil1 had a glaring error in the PDS that has only been rectified relatively recently.
Any one know what I am talking about?
Hint, it has to do with "pour points."
Quote:
As for Amsoil, I've never researched nor used their products, but I would say again that these seemingly small differences are significant markers.
So, which products have you used and regard as superior to Mobil1? It seems you don't have many other choices as this point under you seemingly high standard of proof/assertion...
Quote:
Pennzoil 5W30 (Group II) already has a pour point of -39C! It is at these thresholds that true synthetics can surpass their highly refined counterparts.
So, the thickest Mobil1 viscosity has a lower pour point than the thinnest conventional Pennzoil one(s)? Pretty much identical to the marketing claims Mobil has always stated!
Regards.
Originally Posted By: tig1
Last month I called Mobil and their tech told me all M1 tagged oils are grp 4.
Did you ask them to put this in writing. If this were indeed the case, I see no reason why they wouldn't print this in their data sheets as it could only enhance the image of their product in the eyes of many. In contrast, Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) on Castrol's site clearly state oil composition, perhaps for good reason given their history with Mobil.
Why would they put it in writing on the phone?
Which other oil companies would you ask to put proprietary information in writing? I think you're applying a standard here that is prosecutorial in manner more so than fact based...
Castrol also doesn't provide any "pour point" data in their PDS and they provide less data than Mobil in general in regards to oil.
Quote:
...
You can find the pour Point for M1 0W30 here:
http://www.mobil.com/USA-English/Lubes/PDS/glxxenpvlmomobil1_0w-30.pdf
With rising fuel prices, "Advanced Fuel Economy" is a good marketing tool. Ironically though, the older "non-Advanced Fuel Economy" 0W30 was actually slightly more conducive to better fuel efficiency across the entire viscosity range.
BTW, you can click on the "pdf." icon at the top of pds pages to convert the files.
Thank you for the link, but I doubt there's much difference in real world fuel economy in any variance of 0W-30...
BTW, it's still a -54C pour point, which is not unreasonable in comparison to the 5W-30. And the pdf files are identical to the HTML ones information wise on the front page..
Quote:
All the data should also list the associated ASTM tests, which in theory, should make these tests repeatable and reliable. If they're using the same tests, then it's safe to assume a difference in formulas.
Of course they "should." But these are just general "product data sheets" and Mobil actually provides more data that many of their competitors. And these data sheets are not necessarily posted by engineers. In fact, I'm pretty sure Mobil1 had a glaring error in the PDS that has only been rectified relatively recently.
Any one know what I am talking about?
Hint, it has to do with "pour points."
Quote:
As for Amsoil, I've never researched nor used their products, but I would say again that these seemingly small differences are significant markers.
So, which products have you used and regard as superior to Mobil1? It seems you don't have many other choices as this point under you seemingly high standard of proof/assertion...
Quote:
Pennzoil 5W30 (Group II) already has a pour point of -39C! It is at these thresholds that true synthetics can surpass their highly refined counterparts.
So, the thickest Mobil1 viscosity has a lower pour point than the thinnest conventional Pennzoil one(s)? Pretty much identical to the marketing claims Mobil has always stated!
Regards.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Which other oil companies would you ask to put proprietary information in writing? I think you're applying a standard here that is prosecutorial in manner more so than fact based...
General information concerning base stock composition is not proprietary (e.g., synthetic, highly refined).
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Thank you for the link, but I doubt there's much difference in real world fuel economy in any variance of 0W-30...
You're welcome, and I agree. Same could be said about fuel efficiency differences between "Advanced Fuel Economy" 0W30 and M1 5W30, 10W30, or even some of their heavier weights.
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Castrol also doesn't provide any "pour point" data in their PDS and they provide less data than Mobil in general in regards to oil.
True, that's why I said this in a previous post:
Originally Posted By: SubieHo
In contrast, Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) on Castrol's site clearly state oil composition, perhaps for good reason given their history with Mobil.
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
...And the pdf files are identical to the HTML ones information wise on the front page..
True, I was merely responding to this in one of your posts:
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
...and they're data was freely available on the site and not in pdf...
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
So, which products have you used and regard as superior to Mobil1? It seems you don't have many other choices as this point under you seemingly high standard of proof/assertion...
Superior in what context? All I'll say is that in my vehicles, I use German Castrol, M1 0W40, M1 5W40 TDB, vintage SH & SJ M1 15W50, and various PCMOS and HDEOs.
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
So, the thickest Mobil1 viscosity has a lower pour point than the thinnest conventional Pennzoil one(s)? Pretty much identical to the marketing claims Mobil has always stated!
I think you're conflating and confounding a couple of my separate points here. V-Twin motorcycle is used in more extreme conditions: motorcycles with air-cooled engines as well as those with a shared engine and transmission sump. According to information provided by Shannow, this formula has remained unchanged, I think, because the applications may actually demand the use of better base stocks. Issues of catalytic life are also absent for almost all motorcycles currently in production.
In referencing the SM Pennzoil "Yellow Bottle" 5W30, I wanted to highlight that the difference in pour points between it (-39C) and SM M1 5W30 (-48C) is 9 degrees centigrade. I introduced this fact in order to emphasize that this difference is statistically significant, just as are the differences between SJ and SM Mobil formulations listed in my original post.
Which other oil companies would you ask to put proprietary information in writing? I think you're applying a standard here that is prosecutorial in manner more so than fact based...
General information concerning base stock composition is not proprietary (e.g., synthetic, highly refined).
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Thank you for the link, but I doubt there's much difference in real world fuel economy in any variance of 0W-30...
You're welcome, and I agree. Same could be said about fuel efficiency differences between "Advanced Fuel Economy" 0W30 and M1 5W30, 10W30, or even some of their heavier weights.
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Castrol also doesn't provide any "pour point" data in their PDS and they provide less data than Mobil in general in regards to oil.
True, that's why I said this in a previous post:
Originally Posted By: SubieHo
In contrast, Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) on Castrol's site clearly state oil composition, perhaps for good reason given their history with Mobil.
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
...And the pdf files are identical to the HTML ones information wise on the front page..
True, I was merely responding to this in one of your posts:
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
...and they're data was freely available on the site and not in pdf...
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
So, which products have you used and regard as superior to Mobil1? It seems you don't have many other choices as this point under you seemingly high standard of proof/assertion...
Superior in what context? All I'll say is that in my vehicles, I use German Castrol, M1 0W40, M1 5W40 TDB, vintage SH & SJ M1 15W50, and various PCMOS and HDEOs.
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
So, the thickest Mobil1 viscosity has a lower pour point than the thinnest conventional Pennzoil one(s)? Pretty much identical to the marketing claims Mobil has always stated!
I think you're conflating and confounding a couple of my separate points here. V-Twin motorcycle is used in more extreme conditions: motorcycles with air-cooled engines as well as those with a shared engine and transmission sump. According to information provided by Shannow, this formula has remained unchanged, I think, because the applications may actually demand the use of better base stocks. Issues of catalytic life are also absent for almost all motorcycles currently in production.
In referencing the SM Pennzoil "Yellow Bottle" 5W30, I wanted to highlight that the difference in pour points between it (-39C) and SM M1 5W30 (-48C) is 9 degrees centigrade. I introduced this fact in order to emphasize that this difference is statistically significant, just as are the differences between SJ and SM Mobil formulations listed in my original post.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
But to say conclusively that EXOM is now using Group III in Mobil 1 based on "product data sheets" is inconclusive at best. Their current pour points really aren't that far off from -say- Amsoil in equivalent grades.
Well stated.
The increased use of alkylated naphthalenes in lieu of esters can bring up the Pour Point numbers slightly. This does not infer the use of Group III in the mix.
MolaKule is correct. Inferring base oil composition based on specifications is faulty reasoning. Additives have a major impact on published product specifications.
Quote:
But to say conclusively that EXOM is now using Group III in Mobil 1 based on "product data sheets" is inconclusive at best. Their current pour points really aren't that far off from -say- Amsoil in equivalent grades.
Well stated.
The increased use of alkylated naphthalenes in lieu of esters can bring up the Pour Point numbers slightly. This does not infer the use of Group III in the mix.
MolaKule is correct. Inferring base oil composition based on specifications is faulty reasoning. Additives have a major impact on published product specifications.
- Status