Latest info on ExxonMobil synthetic base stocks

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: nap
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: nap
Say Overkill, if this were to be your own car, would you had continued to use GC after these UOAs?

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4114899/Pennzoil_Ultra_5w-30,_7248_mi,#Post4114899


Absolutely.

I also really hope you noticed the mileage.


Good for you. Personally I would frown at that much lead past 30k.


It was down from the previous fill. Without further trending, we have no idea where it was headed, but probably back to single digits, likely just a particle streak and nothing to do with the oil. Most people here do not sufficiently trend their UOA's, they produce single snapshots with massive rifts between them with varied driving styles, climate...etc and then attempts are made to draw meaningful comparisons from this mess. That thread is a perfect example, there were FIVE YEARS and 50,000 miles between the last GC UOA and the SOPUS one and the OP states, in the opener "now driven 76 miles daily, about 27 miles local, rest highway." which is yet another data point indicating a change in driving style that has occurred at some point during those 5 years. Even then, none of the UOA's were "bad" but there were folks in there doing the Shell high-five like they just cured cancer!
smirk.gif



Exactly … an oil can be better at cleaning and take a hit in PPM when sampled … I was serious about my 3 point and 3 point tests … but got sarcastic at the end.
 
Originally Posted By: irv
Originally Posted By: Patman
So you dug up an old post of mine from 11 years ago to rub it in my face? That's super lame. People are allowed to change their minds about things you know.

mad.gif



No, not at all. I knew this topic had been talked about since I joined the site back in 2006 so in my attempt to find what had been said back then and to see how far back it went, I came across your post and it surprised me.
I can see how you would think what you said, but in all honesty, I am curious what made you change your mind or do a 180 from what you originally said back then?
21.gif






11 more years of knowledge. Haven't you ever said something and then many years later had a different opinion?
 
Originally Posted By: rooflessVW
(Reportedly) from a Redline Chemist waaaaaay back in 2009:

"Unfortunately, oil analysis is not very good at distinguishing wear between different formulations. Emission spectroscopy has a particle size limit of 3 to 5 microns, which means that particles larger will not be detected. Unfortunately, most serious wear issues generate wear particles in the range of 5 - 15 microns. Oil analysis only measures about 15-20% of the particles in the oil, and changing form one formulation to another is likely to change the particle size profile. Usually formulations with more antiwear additive will more aggressively react with the metal surface and when rubbing occurs will produce smaller particles. Generally, more antiwear additives will give greater iron spectrochemical numbers, even though the total iron can be lower. There are other techniques such as ferrography, which looks at the wear particles under a microscope, but now we are talking about analysis many times more expensive than spectrochemical analysis. The oils with the better spectrochemical numbers will be much less chemically active on the metal surface, so they will be less able to handle more severe loads. There is always a trade-off between chemical wear and adhesive wear. Chemical wear is the very small particles and soluble metals which is identified in the spectrochemical analysis, while adhesive wear is many orders of magnitude greater than the chemical wear, but much is not identified in spectrochemical analysis. But if you were using spectrochemical analysis as a maintenance tool and started seeing a deviation over the baseline, then you would know something was wrong.

It is very difficult for an individual to be able to look at numbers which will conclusively determine the best formulation, you simply have to rely on the reputation of the marketer and whether you trust the marketer's technical expertise. With most of our formulations, we rely on major additive manufacturers to do the basic API sequence testing to determine criteria such as antiwear, dispersancy, cleanliness, etc. All the oil companies rely on the additive manufacturers to do the engine test work. We will take their basic package and add additional antiwear, friction modifiers, oxidation inhibitors or whatever can be safely modified to provide superior performance. Some of the bench tests such as 4-Ball can be useful, but a blind adherance to optimize with one single test will result a less-than-optimum performing lubricant. There are always trade-offs in engine oils, and we try to enhance antiwear and friction reduction at higher temperatures and loads, while trying to maintain performance at lower and normal loads and temperatures."


I believe that was a response Dave sent me years ago. Oil analysis has limitations like any tool.

There are no wear issues with any modern oil. For example, to pass the Seq IVA you have to score below 90 microns.

For comparison sake consider this: Oil A scored a 50 on the Seq IVA. Oil B scored a 10 on the IVA. Oil A's oxidation stability is more than double oil B's. Which oil is better? It depends. In this example, I'd go with oil B personally, but the point is oils have to do may things well and you can easily cherry pick what you want to make comparisions for marketing purposes.

People are obviously free to have their brand preference. I have always maintained Mobil 1 is among the top 3 oils in the market, all things considered.

Mobil 1 has always had phenomenal oxidation stability, excellent deposit control and has been ahead of the curve with industry specs (LSPI seven years ahead) and Honda HTO-06. Most of the other brands are playing catch up....or using older additive technology.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Folks still cling to this ideal that they can UOA themselves into the golden seat of oily goodness using a tool designed to determine lubricant suitability for continued use. That it can divine them the "best" oil for their engine and we'll ignore that formulations change, wear profiles change and the fact that you aren't even measuring just wear, as the Redline quote above clearly demonstrates and experts in the subject have stated many times.

It's the allure of the $20 full-on engine tear-down substitution. The fallacy (or perhaps in this case, fantasy) that a consumer-sampled bottom-of-the-ladder analysis with all of the controls, methods and statistical rigour of an ADHD squirrel on methamphetamine, provides valuable, statistically comparable information that one can then use to "fine tune" their oil selection.... In most cases, from a list of lubricants that all passed the exact same API, OEM and often ACEA test protocols.


+1 It's a trend monitoring tool, never intended to compare and rank different oils from random uncontrolled engines.

Motor oil performance is properly measured by carefully controlled and standardized engine and fleet tests, calibrated with known reference oils and operated under severe worse-case conditions. Results from these tests are then compared to standard specifications established by industry organizations and OEMs, and the oils are ranked into performance categories such as SN, GF-5, etc. for consumers to select from according to their engines and driving conditions.

We don't have access to such engine and fleet data, so being an oil forum driven by a "Quest for the Best" mentality, we tend to try to predict relative oil performance from the published physical properties and personal UOAs. Fun and entertaining, but not scientifically valid.

Our real objective is to not suffer an oil related engine problem during the time we intend to keep our vehicles. This cannot be predicted by splitting hairs in physical properties and UOA ppm comparisons. If it could the oil companies would not be spending millions of dollars running controlled and standardized engine tests.
 
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
... Our real objective is to not suffer an oil related engine problem during the time we intend to keep our vehicles. ...


So, "my engine didn't blow up" really is the best metric. WOW!
 
Originally Posted By: doyall


So, "my engine didn't blow up" really is the best metric. WOW!


Apparently so. Yet the apostles won’t consider Supertech.

confused.gif
 
Originally Posted By: buster
I have always maintained Mobil 1 is among the top 3 oils in the market, all things considered


I am curious as to what the other two are??
 
Originally Posted By: doyall
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
... Our real objective is to not suffer an oil related engine problem during the time we intend to keep our vehicles. ...


So, "my engine didn't blow up" really is the best metric. WOW!





You could tear down your engine on a regular schedule and measure the key points for wear. That would be the defining way to measure wear.
 
Originally Posted By: PimTac
Originally Posted By: doyall
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
... Our real objective is to not suffer an oil related engine problem during the time we intend to keep our vehicles. ...


So, "my engine didn't blow up" really is the best metric. WOW!





You could tear down your engine on a regular schedule and measure the key points for wear. That would be the defining way to measure wear.



Wouldn’t it be more effective to just use a brand that doesn’t have a history of failing standardized tests?
 
Originally Posted By: nap
Originally Posted By: PimTac
Originally Posted By: doyall
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
... Our real objective is to not suffer an oil related engine problem during the time we intend to keep our vehicles. ...


So, "my engine didn't blow up" really is the best metric. WOW!





You could tear down your engine on a regular schedule and measure the key points for wear. That would be the defining way to measure wear.



Wouldn’t it be more effective to just use a brand that doesn’t have a history of failing standardized tests?


They don't have "a history", good grief! There was a claim, by a competitor, that the product, in this case M1 5w-30, didn't pass Seq IVA. Mobil demonstrated to the API that the product did. Nothing else became of it.

By this metric, you shouldn't ever use Shell gasoline because it killed people's catalytic converters at one point, or Quaker State oil because it gelled and seized engines.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL

They don't have "a history", good grief! There was a claim, by a competitor, that the product, in this case M1 5w-30, didn't pass Seq IVA. Mobil demonstrated to the API that the product did. Nothing else became of it.


I don't remember anything being "demonstrated". Can you point me to the info showing such?

As for "history", I think you missed this recent thread:

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4796828/1
 
Originally Posted By: nap
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL

They don't have "a history", good grief! There was a claim, by a competitor, that the product, in this case M1 5w-30, didn't pass Seq IVA. Mobil demonstrated to the API that the product did. Nothing else became of it.


I don't remember anything being "demonstrated". Can you point me to the info showing such?

As for "history", I think you missed this recent thread:

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4796828/1



Yeah, I'll dig it up.

Nope, did not see that thread, giving a read now. That's a big black eye (bigger than the Katrina 5w-30 thing we were just discussing), even if it is on their cheaper product line. Will be interesting to see what, if anything, their response is to that. Did you see the link posted by 4WD to Mobil's claims? If not:

https://www.mobil.com/en/mobil-delvac/improving-your-business/conventional-oil-synthetic-oil

Still, as I noted, my examples from others still stand. None of the majors have a flawless track record.
 
Originally Posted By: nap
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL

They don't have "a history", good grief! There was a claim, by a competitor, that the product, in this case M1 5w-30, didn't pass Seq IVA. Mobil demonstrated to the API that the product did. Nothing else became of it.


I don't remember anything being "demonstrated". Can you point me to the info showing such?

As for "history", I think you missed this recent thread:

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4796828/1



The statement from the API regarding the claims made by Ashland:

Originally Posted By: API

"API tests 600 licensed oils per year to confirm that they meet our requirements. This would include a variety of ExxonMobil products. We don’t merely accept an oil marketer’s word. I can’t really explain why Ashland chose to do what it did, but ExxonMobil has taken steps to confirm its product meets our requirements.

Kevin Ferrick
American Petroleum Institute
Engine Oil Licensing and Certification System"
 
And this exact wording was largely debated in the threads of the time. Let me summarize for you:

"API tests 600 licensed oils" <> API tested this exact oil

"has taken steps to confirm" <> confirmed (or "demonstrated")

"I can’t really explain why Ashland chose to do what it did" <> Ashland's claim is baseless

Then it was silence. No further statement from Mobil or API. No apologies from Ashland. No defamation lawsuit. Nothing, just silence.
 
Originally Posted By: PimTac
Thanks roofless and Overkill for bringing some sense to this thread.


Well, in the last few months there have been all kind of things thrown out there on Mobil 1 … and in the midst of the negative posts it is said “used to be good”, now the base oil is GIII only … “watered down, you name it” … or Tigs oil is not what it used to be. Well, I shop oil for 6 vehicles … cars, SUV, PU … M1 EP 0w20 is the only oil I pay full price for … it’s 60-70% PAO and I paid $25/5Q jug. (Tig’s oil) … the rest I bargain hunted.
I’m also running M1 0w40 … we think it’s GTL. edyvw has written extensively about M1 ESP, the NOACK, HTHS, and being Visom based and all kind of credentials … So, when these generalizations get tossed in about M1 and base fluids … you have to bear in mind they use GIII+/GIV/GV in all kinds of combinations … with really no two alike …
Now, before the childish “fan boy” stuff starts, full disclosure, I’m using PP, Valvoline, Chevron, Castrol, Redline, and Amsoil products too …
 
Originally Posted By: nap
And this exact wording was largely debated in the threads of the time. Let me summarize for you:

"API tests 600 licensed oils" <> API tested this exact oil

"has taken steps to confirm" <> confirmed (or "demonstrated")

"I can’t really explain why Ashland chose to do what it did" <> Ashland's claim is baseless

Then it was silence. No further statement from Mobil or API. No apologies from Ashland. No defamation lawsuit. Nothing, just silence.



Given I participated in the bloody thread, I really wish you'd do me the courtesy of not summarizing it like I'm simple and you've got this all figured out.

"Exxonmobil has taken steps to confirm its product meets our requirements" = The oil in question, Mobil confirmed to the API, met their requirements.

The 600 oils is simply demonstration of the API performing random sampling and had nothing to do with the claim. It is just a bit of chest thumping, since this sort of thing being brought up makes it look like the API isn't doing its job.

I think the reason Ashland used the material is pretty obvious. Ashland made the claim, likely legitimately based on a batch variation, possibly (the theory at the time) due to supply interruption from Katrina, which then caused Mobil to demonstrate that the oil, in its current form, passed to the test. Once that's done, the API had no further business with the issue. Mobil likely didn't pursue it with Ashland because their claim, based on the sample that they had, likely DID fail.

It all just went away at that point, as I said, nothing else became of it after Mobil's dealing with the API.
 
The storms can put you at risk … hence some global expansions have taken place … expect more and more from Europe and Asia etc … I think Shell has risk too … sharing a pond with Iran … plant shut downs, volatility of the entire region etc …
Uncle Dave covered the US Navy associated costs… may not last …
 
Any way you look at it, corporate or plain speak, "taken steps" is not the same as "completed"....

I'm surprised you can fall for this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

buster
Interesting piece on XOM's Racing Formulations
Replies
9
Views
1K
Big_B
MolaKule
Two-cycle oil Formulations
Replies
12
Views
794
Rinspeed
buster
Oil Specs & Testing Approved Lubricants
2 3 4
Replies
70
Views
7K
Nesterenko
I
  • Locked
Hopefully not a thick vs. thin thread
Replies
19
Views
4K
Gokhan
OVERKILL
HOBS base oils and implicit/inherent FM
Replies
7
Views
4K
bruce381
Back
Top