Originally Posted By: HARTZSKY
I wasn't aware that iron = wear.
Uh oh... Now you have said it...
I wasn't aware that iron = wear.
Uh oh... Now you have said it...
is Mobil 1 a group 4, true synthetic?
- Thread starter gmchevroletruck
- Start date
- Status
I guess it came from the oil filter.
Hmmm, virgin oil with no iron goes in, used oil with plenty of iron comes out. Yepp, gotta be the filter.....
Hmmm, virgin oil with no iron goes in, used oil with plenty of iron comes out. Yepp, gotta be the filter.....
LOL
Originally Posted By: BerndV
Originally Posted By: CompSyn
Alright, so because Red Line's marketing says stuff like this "Red Line lubricants are unique because they contain PE Polyol Ester base stocks", this means they are 100% group 5?
There's a rather large percentage of PAOs in there along with the PE.
CompSyn, Redline has never claimed that their products are 100% Group V.
I know Red Line doesn’t say that, but some still like to believe it based on how their marketing is worded.
Although nobody knows concentration levels, many of the boutique synthetics are a GroupIV/V blend.
Tom NJ has speculated before that if a 100% Group V Ester motor oil did exist it would cost something like $30 dollars a quart.
Originally Posted By: CompSyn
Alright, so because Red Line's marketing says stuff like this "Red Line lubricants are unique because they contain PE Polyol Ester base stocks", this means they are 100% group 5?
There's a rather large percentage of PAOs in there along with the PE.
CompSyn, Redline has never claimed that their products are 100% Group V.
I know Red Line doesn’t say that, but some still like to believe it based on how their marketing is worded.
Although nobody knows concentration levels, many of the boutique synthetics are a GroupIV/V blend.
Tom NJ has speculated before that if a 100% Group V Ester motor oil did exist it would cost something like $30 dollars a quart.
Originally Posted By: buster
In a car under warranty, Mobil 1.
The notion that a manufacturer would perform the necessary tests to determine that a lubrication related engine failure correlated with the use of a non-API certified oil is not credible. The extraordinary scarcity of under-warranty lubrication related engine failures in engine families not known to have such problems truly makes this a non-issue IMHO.
In a car under warranty, Mobil 1.
The notion that a manufacturer would perform the necessary tests to determine that a lubrication related engine failure correlated with the use of a non-API certified oil is not credible. The extraordinary scarcity of under-warranty lubrication related engine failures in engine families not known to have such problems truly makes this a non-issue IMHO.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: elwaylite
I guess it came from the oil filter.
Hmmm, virgin oil with no iron goes in, used oil with plenty of iron comes out. Yepp, gotta be the filter.....
You do realize it could be chemical chelation right? This topic has been covered in great detail, as I said, read Doug's article.
Dave at Redline also commentated about POE's chelation results showing up in UOA's. That doesn't mean it is "wear".
UOA's also cover a VERY SMALL range of particle sizes. What if an oil is putting MORE particles of LARGER size in the oil, but they don't show up on a UOA? Does that mean the engine is wearing less because your 20 dollar UOA shows lower PPM of Fe?
UOA's are a useful tool, but using single digit PPM variances from cheap UOA's to determine the "best" oil is simply a waste of time, money and effort.
I guess it came from the oil filter.
Hmmm, virgin oil with no iron goes in, used oil with plenty of iron comes out. Yepp, gotta be the filter.....
You do realize it could be chemical chelation right? This topic has been covered in great detail, as I said, read Doug's article.
Dave at Redline also commentated about POE's chelation results showing up in UOA's. That doesn't mean it is "wear".
UOA's also cover a VERY SMALL range of particle sizes. What if an oil is putting MORE particles of LARGER size in the oil, but they don't show up on a UOA? Does that mean the engine is wearing less because your 20 dollar UOA shows lower PPM of Fe?
UOA's are a useful tool, but using single digit PPM variances from cheap UOA's to determine the "best" oil is simply a waste of time, money and effort.
Originally Posted By: StevieC
Originally Posted By: elwaylite
I think Amsoil is a tad steep too, on the XL line, but I have a better feeling about what Im paying for.
Probably because of the API "bend the company over" licensing fees.
License fee is cheap under $2000- if I recall. I have a current API License app if you wanna read it. It's prob the certifications required to complete the app thats $$.
Originally Posted By: elwaylite
I think Amsoil is a tad steep too, on the XL line, but I have a better feeling about what Im paying for.
Probably because of the API "bend the company over" licensing fees.
License fee is cheap under $2000- if I recall. I have a current API License app if you wanna read it. It's prob the certifications required to complete the app thats $$.
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Originally Posted By: StevieC
Originally Posted By: elwaylite
I think Amsoil is a tad steep too, on the XL line, but I have a better feeling about what Im paying for.
Probably because of the API "bend the company over" licensing fees.
License fee is cheap under $2000- if I recall. I have a current API License app if you wanna read it. It's prob the certifications required to complete the app thats $$.
Aren't we getting technical.
Originally Posted By: StevieC
Originally Posted By: elwaylite
I think Amsoil is a tad steep too, on the XL line, but I have a better feeling about what Im paying for.
Probably because of the API "bend the company over" licensing fees.
License fee is cheap under $2000- if I recall. I have a current API License app if you wanna read it. It's prob the certifications required to complete the app thats $$.
Aren't we getting technical.
Motul 300V is 100% ester as is Neo. Both brands advertise as such. They can be had for about 16/qrt or ltr before shipping.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: prax
Quote:
M1 12,000Km OCI
This would explain your skepticism of UOA. Anything that makes Mobil 1 look bad must be wrong.
Sigh... I wish Terry still posted. I will not say more.
You're a real funny guy.
1. I've put close to 600,000Km (last count, I may have actually exceeded that now) on engines running M1. I've posted pictures on this board of my engine internals. Where are your pictures to prove that it DOESN'T work? Where are your tear-down results to show that the Fe shown in UOA's is ACTUALLY wear? I have visible cross-hatching, no ring ridge, and spotless internals on an engine that has seen more miles of abuse than the vast majority of posters on this board, likely including yourself. That engine still has 38psi of oil pressure hot at idle, is modified making 100HP more than stock and has outlived 4 transmissions and is now in its 2nd body.
2. I am not sceptical of UOA's. I hold the information presented by Doug Hillary in very high regard, and my opinions on the validity of UOA's is based on the information that he has been gracious enough to give us. This comes from 50 years of experience cover 10's of millions of miles, hundreds of UOA's and extensive tear-down testing for a variety of oil manufacturers doing fleet testing. He also has recognized publications, one of which I have a copy of.
3. We have had lots of experts post on this board. Bruce, Molakule, Doug and Terry. It seems they post less and less as the information they provide continues to be ignored and the same topics are re-hashed over and over and over again.
Here is the link to Doug's article:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/index.php?...h&Itemid=78
Quote:
M1 12,000Km OCI
This would explain your skepticism of UOA. Anything that makes Mobil 1 look bad must be wrong.
Sigh... I wish Terry still posted. I will not say more.
You're a real funny guy.
1. I've put close to 600,000Km (last count, I may have actually exceeded that now) on engines running M1. I've posted pictures on this board of my engine internals. Where are your pictures to prove that it DOESN'T work? Where are your tear-down results to show that the Fe shown in UOA's is ACTUALLY wear? I have visible cross-hatching, no ring ridge, and spotless internals on an engine that has seen more miles of abuse than the vast majority of posters on this board, likely including yourself. That engine still has 38psi of oil pressure hot at idle, is modified making 100HP more than stock and has outlived 4 transmissions and is now in its 2nd body.
2. I am not sceptical of UOA's. I hold the information presented by Doug Hillary in very high regard, and my opinions on the validity of UOA's is based on the information that he has been gracious enough to give us. This comes from 50 years of experience cover 10's of millions of miles, hundreds of UOA's and extensive tear-down testing for a variety of oil manufacturers doing fleet testing. He also has recognized publications, one of which I have a copy of.
3. We have had lots of experts post on this board. Bruce, Molakule, Doug and Terry. It seems they post less and less as the information they provide continues to be ignored and the same topics are re-hashed over and over and over again.
Here is the link to Doug's article:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/index.php?...h&Itemid=78
Hi,
sadly such a Thread that has a genuine question as its base turns into a "this oil is better than that oil" and etc.
It is sad because this type of Thread "deterioration" has started to destroy the credibilty of BITOG - in my opinion at least!
sadly such a Thread that has a genuine question as its base turns into a "this oil is better than that oil" and etc.
It is sad because this type of Thread "deterioration" has started to destroy the credibilty of BITOG - in my opinion at least!
Regarding the OP's question... I can only offer my opinion and reasoning.
I used to use M1 exclusively as I've done since it first appeared as a consumer product in the 70's. It saved my motorcycle from seizing during summer months when the engine ran very very hot. Conventional oils simply cooked into glue and the engine wouldn't turn.
I then used the basic 5W30 and 10W30 US M1 formulas and never had issues in my cars well past 100K miles and as recently as 2007. I always considered them "full" synthetic (as the label said)... Not Dino based. Engines stayed clean, good mileage, no mechanical issues.
Then I discovered this forum. Seems that M1 has a "European formula" thats 0W40 (theoretically based on Group IV), and I read the US 5W30 & 10W30 are not Group IV. The logic made sense with 0Wxx being real synthetic with better cold flow properties. Do I know for sure that the 0W40 is true synthetic based and 5W30 and 10W30 are not? No. I too would love some real confirmation.
So now I use only the 0W40 M1 formula - if I use M1 at all.
I am now using Castrol products too in both BMW and Volvos... and Like M1, I like the German Castrol 0W30 as opposed to the USA made Syntec products for the same reason. Appears that in Europe they are a bit more strict about what can be called synthetic and what cannot. I keep hearing GC really is Group IV. Again, no conclusive proof.
More recently I've been looking at the Castrol Edge product thinking that maybe this US made formulation is a true Group IV with excellent additive package. Is it? Again ... still don't know.
In the end, I've pretty much settled on 3 products I use or would feel comfortable using in my cars based on their Manufacturer Specs and certifiactions: M1 0W40 Euro Formula, Castrol Syntec 0W30 European Formula (AKA GC), and Castrol Edge 5W30.
I used to use M1 exclusively as I've done since it first appeared as a consumer product in the 70's. It saved my motorcycle from seizing during summer months when the engine ran very very hot. Conventional oils simply cooked into glue and the engine wouldn't turn.
I then used the basic 5W30 and 10W30 US M1 formulas and never had issues in my cars well past 100K miles and as recently as 2007. I always considered them "full" synthetic (as the label said)... Not Dino based. Engines stayed clean, good mileage, no mechanical issues.
Then I discovered this forum. Seems that M1 has a "European formula" thats 0W40 (theoretically based on Group IV), and I read the US 5W30 & 10W30 are not Group IV. The logic made sense with 0Wxx being real synthetic with better cold flow properties. Do I know for sure that the 0W40 is true synthetic based and 5W30 and 10W30 are not? No. I too would love some real confirmation.
So now I use only the 0W40 M1 formula - if I use M1 at all.
I am now using Castrol products too in both BMW and Volvos... and Like M1, I like the German Castrol 0W30 as opposed to the USA made Syntec products for the same reason. Appears that in Europe they are a bit more strict about what can be called synthetic and what cannot. I keep hearing GC really is Group IV. Again, no conclusive proof.
More recently I've been looking at the Castrol Edge product thinking that maybe this US made formulation is a true Group IV with excellent additive package. Is it? Again ... still don't know.
In the end, I've pretty much settled on 3 products I use or would feel comfortable using in my cars based on their Manufacturer Specs and certifiactions: M1 0W40 Euro Formula, Castrol Syntec 0W30 European Formula (AKA GC), and Castrol Edge 5W30.
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Hi,
sadly such a Thread that has a genuine question as its base turns into a "this oil is better than that oil" and etc.
True. My guess is that M-1 is no longer a PAO and they stopped saying it on their technical line....duuuu..there is a clue. Since their UOA's are no better than say SuperTech "FullySynthetic"...I'll pocket the change...Thank-You.
Hi,
sadly such a Thread that has a genuine question as its base turns into a "this oil is better than that oil" and etc.
True. My guess is that M-1 is no longer a PAO and they stopped saying it on their technical line....duuuu..there is a clue. Since their UOA's are no better than say SuperTech "FullySynthetic"...I'll pocket the change...Thank-You.
Here you go. Last Dec. I called Mobil Tech and ask that question. You know, the grp 4 thing. I was told that all M1 oils are grp 4. No exceptions. Now as "Buster' has stated M1 oils are a blended formulation of some 15 base stocks. Oils are compliated formulation these days and anyone banking on a single grp 3-4-5 base stock answer is only being told what their want to hear. Ain't no such thing.
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Hi,
sadly such a Thread that has a genuine question as its base turns into a "this oil is better than that oil" and etc.
True. My guess is that M-1 is no longer a PAO and they stopped saying it on their technical line....duuuu..there is a clue. Since their UOA's are no better than say SuperTech "FullySynthetic"...I'll pocket the change...Thank-You.
So M1 oils are grp3 in your opion. XM may be the largest supplier of PAO base stocks in the world but you say they don't use PAO it in their own oil. NUTS.
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Hi,
sadly such a Thread that has a genuine question as its base turns into a "this oil is better than that oil" and etc.
True. My guess is that M-1 is no longer a PAO and they stopped saying it on their technical line....duuuu..there is a clue. Since their UOA's are no better than say SuperTech "FullySynthetic"...I'll pocket the change...Thank-You.
So M1 oils are grp3 in your opion. XM may be the largest supplier of PAO base stocks in the world but you say they don't use PAO it in their own oil. NUTS.
Originally Posted By: BerndV
Originally Posted By: buster
In a car under warranty, Mobil 1.
The notion that a manufacturer would perform the necessary tests to determine that a lubrication related engine failure correlated with the use of a non-API certified oil is not credible. The extraordinary scarcity of under-warranty lubrication related engine failures in engine families not known to have such problems truly makes this a non-issue IMHO.
True, but I'd still rather stick with an oil that is officially approved, otherwise you really don't know.
When you look at all the synthetic oils on the market today, including boutique brands, only a few are worth buying. The others are outdated, overpriced and poorly balanced.
The major formulators are going to give you more current/state of the art additives that keep up with the latest OEM and industry standards. This does not mean certain oils can't outperform licensed oils in "some" areas.
Bottom line though is that most oils meeting the same specs perform similarly. And this thread is a joke.
Originally Posted By: buster
In a car under warranty, Mobil 1.
The notion that a manufacturer would perform the necessary tests to determine that a lubrication related engine failure correlated with the use of a non-API certified oil is not credible. The extraordinary scarcity of under-warranty lubrication related engine failures in engine families not known to have such problems truly makes this a non-issue IMHO.
True, but I'd still rather stick with an oil that is officially approved, otherwise you really don't know.
When you look at all the synthetic oils on the market today, including boutique brands, only a few are worth buying. The others are outdated, overpriced and poorly balanced.
The major formulators are going to give you more current/state of the art additives that keep up with the latest OEM and industry standards. This does not mean certain oils can't outperform licensed oils in "some" areas.
Bottom line though is that most oils meeting the same specs perform similarly. And this thread is a joke.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Hi,
sadly such a Thread that has a genuine question as its base turns into a "this oil is better than that oil" and etc.
True. My guess is that M-1 is no longer a PAO and they stopped saying it on their technical line....duuuu..there is a clue. Since their UOA's are no better than say SuperTech "FullySynthetic"...I'll pocket the change...Thank-You.
You do realize you just quoted the man who wrote the BITOG article on UOA's and how they are improperly used, and then used an incorrect use of a UOA in your reference!
Ahh the irony.
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Hi,
sadly such a Thread that has a genuine question as its base turns into a "this oil is better than that oil" and etc.
True. My guess is that M-1 is no longer a PAO and they stopped saying it on their technical line....duuuu..there is a clue. Since their UOA's are no better than say SuperTech "FullySynthetic"...I'll pocket the change...Thank-You.
You do realize you just quoted the man who wrote the BITOG article on UOA's and how they are improperly used, and then used an incorrect use of a UOA in your reference!
Ahh the irony.
- Status
Similar threads
