How Mobil Tested Mobil 1 Extended Performance

[buster]

I agree with 427Z06 on this. Engine builders use tear downs to determine wear, not $20 oil analysis reports. Not to mention the small differences we usually see are too small to ever notice a difference. If under the exact same conditions, for consecutive intervals, you see 20ppm differences, it might make a difference but I doubt you'd live to notice. A difference of maybe 40ppm is more significant and something to consider.

1911, was that the year you were born? It's called technology.

Why do you think so much has been invested into additive technology? To replace the lost viscosity.

 

[1911]

quote:

---

Originally posted by buster:
1911, was that the year you were born? It's called technology.

Why do you think so much has been invested into additive technology? To replace the lost viscosity.

---

All the additive technology cannot make up for the devastation caused by the communist insurgency in the US education system. And even tidal waves can't save this world from Kalifornication.

1911

 

[buster]

quote:

---

All the additive technology cannot make up for the devastation caused by the communist insurgency in the US education system. And even tidal waves can't save this world from Kalifornication.

1911

---

Hey, your from the "No child left behind state."

 

[1sttruck]

Oh goodie goodie, another thick vs thin thread.... :^)

I've run across comments from club racers who used Delvac 1 to fix cam scoring and other problems that they experienced with Mobil PCMOs, typically 30 weights. Delvac 1 does have a more robust additive pac in addition to being thicker, so it's not quite apples and apples, but it appears that you can't get the an anti-wear additive pac similar to Delvac 1 in a PCMO anyway. Big buck pro racing doesn't mean much for most of us, as engines are pretty much considered consumable items.

 

[moribundman]

I love reading all the political rhetoric, innuendo, and the references to popular music in this lovely thread.

 

[buster]

Back on track here , you have to look at the whole picture when evaluating an oil's performance. For instance, oxidative thickening. Here is what this Lab says about this:

quote:

---

When an oils viscosity increases, it means the oil is getting thicker. The most common cause of oil thickening is oxidation. Oxidation is a natural process and is the principal reason that oil changes are necessary. High operating temperatures, overloading, and water/coolant contamination are examples of conditions that can accelerate oxidation causing oil to thicken prematurely. Contamination with soot or excessive dirt can also cause increased viscosity. High viscosity can cause overheating, restricted oil flow, and can ultimately lead to catastrophic failure.

---

Amsoil shows great wear, but @ $8.70qt, this oil should clearly hold it's viscosity better IMO. That is something worth complaining about. Oxidative thickening is much worse then small differences in wear rates.

http://www.l-fp.com/articles/value_oa.html

 

[sthompson]

Mobil 1 5w30 Extended Performance 7210 OCI UOA just posted at:

http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=002737

 

[goodvibes]

Check the viscosity on that sample. Thickened out of spec in 7.5k.

 

[sthompson]

My thoughts exactly...

 

[jsharp]

quote:

---

Originally posted by sands:

quote:

---

Originally posted by jsharp:

quote:

---

Originally posted by 427Z06:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sands:
Heavier weight oils almost always show less wear on moving parts than lighter weight oils...I've seen the graphs and the difference is stunning

---

No offense, but without reading the actual test protocol and resulting test values, that statement is kinda' meaningless. For example, how does an extra 10 ppm of a wear metal translate into actual wear on a camshaft or cylinder bore? .00001"?

---

The protocol matters immensely and I suspect the statement "Heavier weight oils almost always show less wear on moving parts than lighter weight oils" would need to be prefaced with "all other things being equal" for it to be true even part of the time.

If this weren't true, we'd all be running straight 60 weights and bragging about the low wear we were seeing and how smart we all were...

---

Maybe I shouldn't assume people would understand "all things being equal" from the getgo because like I said it was a radioactive wear test . Aren't tests are conducted with defined parameters ? My work in a quality lab always conduct tests with defined test paramaters so all things being equal is pretty much a given.

I mean you can go so far as to say to just load your motor with a nice thick grease and it'll beat all oils..lol

This test was performed using compiled data using a radioactive wear test from a 10W30, 15W40, and a 20W50....If you're in a hot environment, there's no reason to run a super light weight oil...If it's super cold it's a different story..This is just not an opinion based on a used oil analysis which can be misleading but actual measured wear on cylinder bores and rings that occurs while the engine is running. This test was done by an independent oil testing facility (SWRI)that cares nothing about fancy labeling. They also test oils with engines running wide open 24-7 and the results are the same..Of course these days you can get really decent performance from lighter weights than in times past.

http://www.peterverdonedesigns.com/images/content/motorcycle/ringlinerwear.jpg

---

My point was that the test protocol or a similar application is important and it may or not translate into other test protocols or real life situations. I believe a test that consists of high temps with constant full power, WOT conditions would give a different answer than a test that consisted of many cold starts etc.

The "all things being equal" comment was directed at those who might take the "heavier oils = less wear" statement and use it out of context to make the case that a $.50 a quart oil of a heavy weight but with a marginal base stock and additive package will be a lower wearing lubricant than a premium lubricant with a premium additive package that happens to be less viscious.

I'd have to see that data to believe it.

I know who SWRI is and what they do. I've been there and used their services, but it had nothing to do with lubricants...

 

[wulimaster]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 427Z06:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Don Stevens:
Z06,

And you think this statement:

"The main thing that stands out on this, our final Amsoil sample, is the ridiculous viscosity. This 5W30 oil has now thickened out to a 15W40 -- argue whether it matters if you like, but we believe engine builders spec an oil for a reason, and this oil is far, far thicker now than intended for the LS1. Switching to our flush Mobil 1 netted a nearly instant 10% improvement in fuel economy, and the engine runs a heckuva lot smoother too."

is not subjective and biased toward Mobil 1?

---

No. Objective measurements showed the Amsoil out of grade by 8K miles when both were topped off with the same amount makeup oil. And I'll trust that he's not lying about the ~10% improvement in fuel economy, since it's sounds like a casual observation with a significant figure of one.

---

Sounds to me like he lost 10% due to increased oil pressure due to a blocked filter and running in bypass mode. I would guess the other 10% which he didn't mention at this time was due to what? Winter fuel? How come he didn't regain the 20% he was down?

 

[wulimaster]

quote:

---

Originally posted by buster:
Amsoil shows great wear, but @ $8.70qt, this oil should clearly hold it's viscosity better IMO.

---

This wasn't 0w30 Amsoil. Check your price.

 

[wulimaster]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 427Z06:

Objective measurements showed the Amsoil out of grade by 8K miles when both were topped off with the same amount makeup oil.

---

An oils grade is determined by its starting viscosity. Its failure is not determined by it going out of grade but exceeding 1 grade in viscosity up or down. That would be about 14.4cst for a 10.9cst starting weight. In case you are wondering, those are the middle of the 40w and 30w ranges respectively. It takes about 32% to move up 1 grade from a 30w to a 40w. 34% for a low 9.3cst 30w and 30% cor a high 12.4

For the test a value of 20% was set as the cutoff point. Mobil 1 would have been out spec before it went out of grade which would have required a gain of 23.76%. Amsoil would have been above grade but not out of spec at 6.84%.

 

[427Z06]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 1sttruck:
I've run across comments from club racers who used Delvac 1 to fix cam scoring and other problems that they experienced with Mobil PCMOs, typically 30 weights.

---

Oh Boy, there's some scientifically derived data one should bet there life on.

 

[427Z06]

quote:

---

Originally posted by wulimaster:
An oils grade is determined by its starting viscosity. Its failure is not determined by it going out of grade but exceeding 1 grade in viscosity up or down. That would be about 14.4cst for a 10.9cst starting weight. In case you are wondering, those are the middle of the 40w and 30w ranges respectively. It takes about 32% to move up 1 grade from a 30w to a 40w. 34% for a low 9.3cst 30w and 30% cor a high 12.4

For the test a value of 20% was set as the cutoff point. Mobil 1 would have been out spec before it went out of grade which would have required a gain of 23.76%. Amsoil would have been above grade but not out of spec at 6.84%.

---

Dude, you can stop with the silly middle school mathematics. You may be able to fool yourself with such shenanigans, but you're wasting your time here. An oil is out of grade when it's measured viscosity no longer meets the definition for the grade.

 

[427Z06]

quote:

---

Originally posted by goodvibes:
Check the viscosity on that sample. Thickened out of spec in 7.5k.

---

64.5 SUS@210F = 11.5 cSt@100C

Looks like it stayed in grade to me.

 

[sthompson]

The Mobil 1 Extended Performance 5w30 virgin spec cSt@100c is 10.25...so there was a little thickening, but still in grade. A little surprising for 7500 OCI for an Mobil 1?

 

[Bryanccfshr]

quote:

---

Originally posted by goodvibes:
Check the viscosity on that sample. Thickened out of spec in 7.5k.

---

Do the conversion...that is not out of spec.. blackstone aims low for some odd reason.

Edit to add it looks like 427SZ06 took care of it.

 

[buster]

Don you make some good points. However, the test was very good IMO. Conditions were SEVERE, period. I'd like to see more from Amsoil then 4-Ball wear tests and other "in-house" testing. Royal Purple slammed Amsoil for making foolish claims about Moly before.

Amsoil deserves all the credit when promoting long drains IMO. I tip my hat to them for staying the course as well.

 

[the_oil_dealer]

This is turning into a battle of the brands again !!