Is M1 HM 10w-30 a monograde in disguise?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Given the very moderate price of M1 HM I'd doubt that the basestock blend used would support a 10W-30 grade qualification without VIIs, but I could be wrong. Wouldn't mind were that so.
 
That is not true. You cannot use the percentages on a safety data sheet for motor oil as a basis to conclude the percentage make up of the base stocks in it. Since the formula is proprietary, they only have to list it as being present if it is hazardous. The percentages are completely arbitrary.
 
No, it's not...149 VI is too high, and it's Calculated versus posted Absolute Viscosities show some Viscosity modification in it's make-up.
 
Originally Posted By: NickT29
That is not true. You cannot use the percentages on a safety data sheet for motor oil as a basis to conclude the percentage make up of the base stocks in it. Since the formula is proprietary, they only have to list it as being present if it is hazardous. The percentages are completely arbitrary.
The percentages are a vague indication as to what should be in there, hence them being a range, that's why it is 1-5% and not 5%. For other oils that percentage is much higher, others show no PAO at all. It's not a bloody oil recipe, I think we all understand that, but it does give a very vague indication as to the amount of PAO that is in the mix, which in this case, is on the low side.
 
Originally Posted By: NickT29
The percentages are completely arbitrary.
What, then, are they for? Doesn't seem much point in publishing the numbers if they have no meaning.
 
Originally Posted By: NickT29
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: NickT29
That is not true. You cannot use the percentages on a safety data sheet for motor oil as a basis to conclude the percentage make up of the base stocks in it. Since the formula is proprietary, they only have to list it as being present if it is hazardous. The percentages are completely arbitrary.
The percentages are a vague indication as to what should be in there, hence them being a range, that's why it is 1-5% and not 5%. For other oils that percentage is much higher, others show no PAO at all. It's not a bloody oil recipe, I think we all understand that, but it does give a very vague indication as to the amount of PAO that is in the mix, which in this case, is on the low side.
No it does not have to be a range, "A statement that the specific chemical identity and/or exact percentage (concentration) of composition has been withheld as a trade secret is required". They can put whatever they want, because the mixture is a trade secret. As long as the hazardous material is listed in one form or another they meet the requirements for the regulations. https://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA3514.html
I think you and I are interpreting that very differently. Under Section 3, which is the section we are discussing, it states:
Quote:
Chemicals where a trade secret is claimed: A statement that the specific chemical identity and/or exact percentage (concentration) of composition has been withheld as a trade secret is required.
This indicates that if an exact percentage is being withheld, a statement indicating that is the case is required. Under that same section it states:
Quote:
The concentration (exact percentages) of each ingredient must be specified except concentration ranges may be used in the following situations: - A trade secret claim is made, - There is batch-to-batch variation, or - The SDS is used for a group of substantially similar mixtures.
Batch-to-batch variation is the obvious stand-out here, as it applies to Motor oil, as does a trade secret claim, which is also present here, allowing Mobil to use a range rather than the exact percentage. That doesn't mean they can use whatever they want, but they can use a suitably vague range, which they are doing.
 
I would like to know more about this oil too. I run it in my high comp. aftermarket turbo BRZ. Does fine as far as I can tell. No noticeable consumption @ 1.5k miles.
 
Originally Posted By: Ducked
What, then, are they for? Doesn't seem much point in publishing the numbers if they have no meaning.
They are for shipping of dangerous goods regulations. Basically, no one in enforcement or emergency response cares if an oil is all Group I, II, or III, given that the emergency response to a fire or spill with such products is the same. Mislabel a shipment of PYB as a compressed gas or an oxidizer, there will be a problem if you get checked. If a shipment of Red Line is labeled as pure Group I base stock, hardly anyone will notice and fewer will care. Overkill: I did dangerous goods inspections some years back. The wording of the regulations as you point out is stricter than what would actually be enforced in practice. Generally, the oil companies tend to be cautious, but trying to hammer Imperial Oil for shipping an M1 variant with 30% PAO when the sheet gave a range of 1-5% would be problematic, to say the least.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: Ducked
What, then, are they for? Doesn't seem much point in publishing the numbers if they have no meaning.
They are for shipping of dangerous goods regulations. Basically, no one in enforcement or emergency response cares if an oil is all Group I, II, or III, given that the emergency response to a fire or spill with such products is the same. Mislabel a shipment of PYB as a compressed gas or an oxidizer, there will be a problem if you get checked. If a shipment of Red Line is labeled as pure Group I base stock, hardly anyone will notice and fewer will care. Overkill: I did dangerous goods inspections some years back. The wording of the regulations as you point out is stricter than what would actually be enforced in practice. Generally, the oil companies tend to be cautious, but trying to hammer Imperial Oil for shipping an M1 variant with 30% PAO when the sheet gave a range of 1-5% would be problematic, to say the least.
Some of the ranges given are also huge, wasn't there one that was like 0-30% or something at one point? LOL
 
And not only what everyone is already saying about the MSDS, if an entity can mislead their competitors and still meet the safety requirements all the better. I know I've yapped about this before but as someone who used to write those for a living, I can tell you that NO company would ever, ever divulge trade secrets in an MSDS.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Frontier4000
O'Reilly 10W-40 High Mileage
Replies
16
Views
750
weldor
A
1970’s M1 5W-20 = HPL 10W-20?
Replies
5
Views
768
addyguy
C
0W-20 vs 5W-30 synthetics in cold temps
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
9K
ZeeOSix
92saturnsl2
High HTHS Dexos G1/3 compatible oils?
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
Revving2Redline
A
Castrol Edge 5W30 vs M1 EP 5W30 - what is the 'better' oil?
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
Thomas Campbell
Top