Nearly everyone here on BITOG seems to agree that the SM is superior to the SN. Clearly the MRV and VI numbers are better in the old formulation. The old SJ had a VI of 196 (http://www.ulei-mobil.ro/pdf/MobilAutoDataSheet/Mobil 1 0W-40 pds.pdf). The change to SN seems to have included switching from PAO to VISOM as the primary base oil. Doesn't this lead to the conclusion that PAO base oil formulations are still clearly superior to Grp III+ base oil formulations?
M1 0W-40 SM vs SN
- Thread starter BerndV
- Start date
- Status
I think you're splitting hairs. The switch to VISOM saw the VI drop slightly, yes, but the HTHS actually went up.
If anything, VISOM-based motor oils (which are group III+) are now able to match or beat PAO-based ones AND obtain the newer API certifications. That's impressive in my book.
(FWIW the SN blend still contains a small amount of group IV and V oil)
If anything, VISOM-based motor oils (which are group III+) are now able to match or beat PAO-based ones AND obtain the newer API certifications. That's impressive in my book.
(FWIW the SN blend still contains a small amount of group IV and V oil)
Originally Posted By: dparm
I think you're splitting hairs. The switch to VISOM saw the VI drop slightly, yes, but the HTHS actually went up.
If anything, VISOM-based motor oils (which are group III+) are now able to match or beat PAO-based ones AND obtain the newer API certifications. That's impressive in my book.
(FWIW the SN blend still contains a small amount of group IV and V oil)
The cold temperature performance dropped considerably. In which particular metrics do grp III+ base oils match and surpass PAO besides price and solvency? The best PAO base stocks appear to retain an advantage over III+ (non-GTL) in VI, NOACK, pour point, shear stability, CCS, MRV, fp, etc.
I think you're splitting hairs. The switch to VISOM saw the VI drop slightly, yes, but the HTHS actually went up.
If anything, VISOM-based motor oils (which are group III+) are now able to match or beat PAO-based ones AND obtain the newer API certifications. That's impressive in my book.
(FWIW the SN blend still contains a small amount of group IV and V oil)
The cold temperature performance dropped considerably. In which particular metrics do grp III+ base oils match and surpass PAO besides price and solvency? The best PAO base stocks appear to retain an advantage over III+ (non-GTL) in VI, NOACK, pour point, shear stability, CCS, MRV, fp, etc.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
The SN version is also more shear stable, which is an advantage. Though I remember the XOM presentation which showed more deposits in a given test with the SN version vs the SM version
Yes, the cold temp performance suffered slightly, but performance in other areas improved. Overall I'd take the new formula over the old, even in Kalispell, MT.
The Exxon/Mobil presentation OVERKILL is talking about is linked below. It discusses VISOM and GTL and the evolution of M1, particularly the 0w40. Relevant stuff starts on page 27.
http://www.motor-talk.de/forum/aktion/Attachment.html?attachmentId=695007
The Exxon/Mobil presentation OVERKILL is talking about is linked below. It discusses VISOM and GTL and the evolution of M1, particularly the 0w40. Relevant stuff starts on page 27.
http://www.motor-talk.de/forum/aktion/Attachment.html?attachmentId=695007
How is this oil marketed in Europe?
SHC Synthese?
If So, It's group III slackwax.
Not Synthesised.
I hear its good stuff or 25 bucks for 5 qts. Never had an application for it.
If I had a XXw-40 application maybe I'd run
Shell Helix Ultra 5w40 - The "original" slack wax oil
SHC Synthese?
If So, It's group III slackwax.
Not Synthesised.
I hear its good stuff or 25 bucks for 5 qts. Never had an application for it.
If I had a XXw-40 application maybe I'd run
Shell Helix Ultra 5w40 - The "original" slack wax oil
Originally Posted By: gpshumway
Yes, the cold temp performance suffered slightly, but performance in other areas improved. Overall I'd take the new formula over the old, even in Kalispell, MT.
The Exxon/Mobil presentation OVERKILL is talking about is linked below. It discusses VISOM and GTL and the evolution of M1, particularly the 0w40. Relevant stuff starts on page 27.
http://www.motor-talk.de/forum/aktion/Attachment.html?attachmentId=695007
Great link, very informative. US customers never get this kind of information. Overall, it appears that the two formulations are very similar in performance with the exception CCS, MRV (listed as 29,000, actually is 31,000), and VI. Yet, most of the M1 0W-40 fans here still seem to unequivocally prefer the SM formulation. It is undoubtedly an outstanding value proposition for what a 5 qt jug costs at WalMart. However, the paper makes it clear that the only reason for the use of Visom over PAO is the cost and limited availability of PAO and the eventual shift to GTL base stocks. I do believe that GTL base stocks will eventually eclipse PAO in every performance parameter. Pennzoil Ultra in 5W-XX weights have phenomenal NOACK, MRV, and CCS numbers.
Yes, the cold temp performance suffered slightly, but performance in other areas improved. Overall I'd take the new formula over the old, even in Kalispell, MT.
The Exxon/Mobil presentation OVERKILL is talking about is linked below. It discusses VISOM and GTL and the evolution of M1, particularly the 0w40. Relevant stuff starts on page 27.
http://www.motor-talk.de/forum/aktion/Attachment.html?attachmentId=695007
Great link, very informative. US customers never get this kind of information. Overall, it appears that the two formulations are very similar in performance with the exception CCS, MRV (listed as 29,000, actually is 31,000), and VI. Yet, most of the M1 0W-40 fans here still seem to unequivocally prefer the SM formulation. It is undoubtedly an outstanding value proposition for what a 5 qt jug costs at WalMart. However, the paper makes it clear that the only reason for the use of Visom over PAO is the cost and limited availability of PAO and the eventual shift to GTL base stocks. I do believe that GTL base stocks will eventually eclipse PAO in every performance parameter. Pennzoil Ultra in 5W-XX weights have phenomenal NOACK, MRV, and CCS numbers.
Originally Posted By: BerndV
Great link, very informative. US customers never get this kind of information.
Nobody was supposed to get this information, not Europe, not US. This is a confidential XOM document that somehow leaked into the public and started circulating on the internet.
Not that it matters much at this point.
Great link, very informative. US customers never get this kind of information.
Nobody was supposed to get this information, not Europe, not US. This is a confidential XOM document that somehow leaked into the public and started circulating on the internet.
Not that it matters much at this point.
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
How is this oil marketed in Europe?
SHC Synthese?
If So, It's group III slackwax.
In Germany, it's marketed as SHC. But it's not slackwax. It's GTL, which is not the same as traditional group III, but not fully synthetic according to the definition in Germany either.
How is this oil marketed in Europe?
SHC Synthese?
If So, It's group III slackwax.
In Germany, it's marketed as SHC. But it's not slackwax. It's GTL, which is not the same as traditional group III, but not fully synthetic according to the definition in Germany either.
I thought only Shell made GTL base oils and they aren't supplying to anyone else, let alone ExxonMobil.
Visom is not GTL.
It is a Group III+ oil produced using a wax isomerization process that has some great characteristics that mimic PAO in many formulations.
This is the basic product info from Exxonmobil on the VISOM 4 and VISOM 6 base stock.
This is a basic info sheet from them on the wax isomerization process they use to upgrade the base oils to the Group III+.
Also note, many of the characteristics of the final formula in M1 0W-40 (or any other oil) like VI, pour point, volatility etc can be influenced by additives. Having a great base oil definitely helps a great deal, but the role of the formulator is to get to the end objectives and there are often more than one way to get to the same outcomes.
It is a Group III+ oil produced using a wax isomerization process that has some great characteristics that mimic PAO in many formulations.
This is the basic product info from Exxonmobil on the VISOM 4 and VISOM 6 base stock.
This is a basic info sheet from them on the wax isomerization process they use to upgrade the base oils to the Group III+.
Also note, many of the characteristics of the final formula in M1 0W-40 (or any other oil) like VI, pour point, volatility etc can be influenced by additives. Having a great base oil definitely helps a great deal, but the role of the formulator is to get to the end objectives and there are often more than one way to get to the same outcomes.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
I thought only Shell made GTL base oils and they aren't supplying to anyone else, let alone ExxonMobil.
Doh! You're right. Brain [censored]. Sorry.
I thought only Shell made GTL base oils and they aren't supplying to anyone else, let alone ExxonMobil.
Doh! You're right. Brain [censored]. Sorry.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
I thought only Shell made GTL base oils and they aren't supplying to anyone else, let alone ExxonMobil.
You are so wrong.
I thought only Shell made GTL base oils and they aren't supplying to anyone else, let alone ExxonMobil.
You are so wrong.
As of October 2012, Shell was not selling GTL baseoils to anyone:
http://www.imakenews.com/lng/e_article002534562.cfm?x=blDGk2b,bqMdklHp
Visom (and XHVI) is made from slack wax. From what we've talked about here before, Visom is fairly close to GTL's performance.
And of course, Visom is exclusive to Mobil.
http://www.imakenews.com/lng/e_article002534562.cfm?x=blDGk2b,bqMdklHp
Visom (and XHVI) is made from slack wax. From what we've talked about here before, Visom is fairly close to GTL's performance.
And of course, Visom is exclusive to Mobil.
Originally Posted By: BerndV
The cold temperature performance dropped considerably. In which particular metrics do grp III+ base oils match and surpass PAO besides price and solvency? The best PAO base stocks appear to retain an advantage over III+ (non-GTL) in VI, NOACK, pour point, shear stability, CCS, MRV, fp, etc.
I would like to see your words posted one hundred thousand times a day on this website (and that still wouldn't be often enough).
Somehow it became in vogue to stifle PAO conversation in its tracks on here. All those condescending, "don't worry about base oils...worry about the overall performance of the product," serve no purpose other than to discourage interesting conversation. Where does that ultimately lead? To a single locked thread that states, "Look in your owner's manual. Whatever oil is specified use that. Your engine will outlive its body?"
The fact of the matter is we lost affordable mainstream access to superior synthetics. Anyone interested in motor oil should be very disappointed in that. I know quite a few are. But it astounds me how many people feel the need to insist that Group III+ is the highest peak in synthetic oils evolution.
Add packages are getting better all the time. I'm sure that's true and inevitable. So the add pack in an SQ rated, 2021, conventional oil may be superior to 2013 Mobil 1. Would anyone claim that, future dino base oil, to be superior to 2013 Mobil 1 though? How in the world could they? The same is the case with PAO Mobil of the past. A Pour point of -54C in Mobil 1 15W-50 isn't incredible? I think it's even more incredible when you consider current Mobil 1 0W-20 can't even touch that.
The cold temperature performance dropped considerably. In which particular metrics do grp III+ base oils match and surpass PAO besides price and solvency? The best PAO base stocks appear to retain an advantage over III+ (non-GTL) in VI, NOACK, pour point, shear stability, CCS, MRV, fp, etc.
I would like to see your words posted one hundred thousand times a day on this website (and that still wouldn't be often enough).
Somehow it became in vogue to stifle PAO conversation in its tracks on here. All those condescending, "don't worry about base oils...worry about the overall performance of the product," serve no purpose other than to discourage interesting conversation. Where does that ultimately lead? To a single locked thread that states, "Look in your owner's manual. Whatever oil is specified use that. Your engine will outlive its body?"
The fact of the matter is we lost affordable mainstream access to superior synthetics. Anyone interested in motor oil should be very disappointed in that. I know quite a few are. But it astounds me how many people feel the need to insist that Group III+ is the highest peak in synthetic oils evolution.
Add packages are getting better all the time. I'm sure that's true and inevitable. So the add pack in an SQ rated, 2021, conventional oil may be superior to 2013 Mobil 1. Would anyone claim that, future dino base oil, to be superior to 2013 Mobil 1 though? How in the world could they? The same is the case with PAO Mobil of the past. A Pour point of -54C in Mobil 1 15W-50 isn't incredible? I think it's even more incredible when you consider current Mobil 1 0W-20 can't even touch that.
Art, are engines suddenly dying of improper lubrication these days as a result of all these latest changes in oil formulations? Engines are becoming more and more demanding when it comes to lubricants, and these new lubricants are certainly up to the task, IMO. How many of us really care about -54C pour point?
So if the engines are happy, why are we getting riled up about these oil formulation changes?
Sure, it can make for a fun academic discussion, but what really matters is the end result. But that's just my personal opinion.
So if the engines are happy, why are we getting riled up about these oil formulation changes?
Sure, it can make for a fun academic discussion, but what really matters is the end result. But that's just my personal opinion.
I'm with Art on this. As a new member, I came here expecting to learn technical specs and all the crazy, OCD car guy stuff, not be told what I already knew ("whatever is cheap and in the manual). I would have never joined BITOG if I knew about the lame, uninformative, uninspired answers I would be getting. And when someone even considers the idea of trying a different oil just for kicks, many posters get all bent out of shape because status quo is being broken. It is hard for me to understand.
Caterham makes endless hay about the importance of VI as it relates to start-up viscosity. To state that a -54c pour point doesn't matter to most people does not take into account the superiority in start-up and cold weather flow that PAO base synthetics exhibit above the pour point. If I'm starting my vehicle on a -10 degree day, I prefer the cold temperature properties of a PAO/POE based oil over a non-GTL grp III+ any day. The fact is that economics are the only driving force behind the use of grp III+, not performance. PAO's are better now than ever. An M1 0W-40 that met SN specs and was PAO/AN based would likely be superior to the current offering.
Originally Posted By: BerndV
An M1 0W-40 that met SN specs and was PAO/AN based would likely be superior to the current offering.
Yes, it would be superior, but would the difference be meaningful to the longevity of your engine? And would you still be willing to pay extra for a PAO formulation, even though the longevity may not be affected in any meaningful way?
I realize BITOG is all about splitting hairs these days. By all means, carry on.
An M1 0W-40 that met SN specs and was PAO/AN based would likely be superior to the current offering.
Yes, it would be superior, but would the difference be meaningful to the longevity of your engine? And would you still be willing to pay extra for a PAO formulation, even though the longevity may not be affected in any meaningful way?
I realize BITOG is all about splitting hairs these days. By all means, carry on.
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: BerndV
An M1 0W-40 that met SN specs and was PAO/AN based would likely be superior to the current offering.
Yes, it would be superior, but would the difference be meaningful to the longevity of your engine? And would you still be willing to pay extra for a PAO formulation, even though the longevity may not be affected in any meaningful way?
Some people enjoy having the latest, greatest, and most advanced regardless of price. A Nissan Versa will get me from point A to point B, I mean that's what a car is for, but I drive a 550i because "adequate" just isn't enough sometimes.
Originally Posted By: BerndV
An M1 0W-40 that met SN specs and was PAO/AN based would likely be superior to the current offering.
Yes, it would be superior, but would the difference be meaningful to the longevity of your engine? And would you still be willing to pay extra for a PAO formulation, even though the longevity may not be affected in any meaningful way?
Some people enjoy having the latest, greatest, and most advanced regardless of price. A Nissan Versa will get me from point A to point B, I mean that's what a car is for, but I drive a 550i because "adequate" just isn't enough sometimes.
- Status
Similar threads
