M1 AFE 0W30 vs PP 5W30

Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
1,251
Location
Austin, TX
M1 AFE 0W30: 40*C : 63.1 cst 100*C : 11.0 cst PP 5W30: 40*C : 57.5 cst 100*C : 10.3 cst Barring some super slippery formulation compared to PP(which I doubt), it would seem the thicker M1 AFE would use more energy than PP. Does anyone have experimental data?
 
Joined
Nov 16, 2002
Messages
34,605
Location
NJ
HT/HS is the best measure of fuel economy. M1 0w-30 has a HT/HS of only 2.99 so it's possible the oil here with the higher Kv could have the better overall fuel economy.
 
Joined
Nov 16, 2002
Messages
34,605
Location
NJ
 Originally Posted By: Jonny Z
Does that also mean compromised protection?
No.
 

Jonny Z

Thread starter
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
1,251
Location
Austin, TX
Please explain. Does a low HTHS not translate to low film strength? Incidentally, (3.1 - 2.99) / 3.1 = 3.5%. Mobil claims 2% FE improvement.
 
Joined
Sep 24, 2007
Messages
466
Location
Coconut Creek Fla
 Originally Posted By: buster
HT/HS is the best measure of fuel economy. M1 0w-30 has a HT/HS of only 2.99 so it's possible the oil here with the higher Kv could have the better overall fuel economy.
Hi, Can you please enplane in more detail?
 
Joined
Aug 5, 2008
Messages
691
Location
Aridzona
 Originally Posted By: Jonny Z
Please explain. Does a low HTHS not translate to low film strength? Incidentally, (3.1 - 2.99) / 3.1 = 3.5%. Mobil claims 2% FE improvement.
1) Fuel efficiency does not scale directly with HTHS. 2) Mobil's 'potential 2%' claim is garbage since they don't specify what oil they are using as a reference. (Pretty lame, but par for the course!)
 
Joined
Nov 16, 2002
Messages
34,605
Location
NJ
Studies have shown HT/HS is the biggest factor related to fuel economy. Somewhere on here is a link to that study.
 
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
610
Location
Afghanistan
mobile's reference oil is probably dino 10w30, and is probably a worse case scenario. more misleading claims - why? - to boost profits, bonus for CEO. i just don't trust them. i prefer to buy an oil that doesn't make claims. HTHS is lower with less viscous oils, and less viscous oils get better mileage. But HTHS is not the REASON for the better mileage, it's the lower viscosity that's the reason. This is a logical error fallacy
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 11, 2003
Messages
145
Location
St.Peters, Mo
 Originally Posted By: Captain_Klink
mobile's reference oil is probably dino 10w30, and is probably a worse case scenario. more misleading claims - why? - to boost profits, bonus for CEO. i just don't trust them. i prefer to buy an oil that doesn't make claims. HTHS is lower with less viscous oils, and less viscous oils get better mileage. But HTHS is not the REASON for the better mileage, it's the lower viscosity that's the reason. This is a logical error fallacy
This should be fun
 

ctc

Joined
Nov 5, 2008
Messages
488
Location
VA
 Originally Posted By: Captain_Klink
mobile's reference oil is probably dino 10w30, and is probably a worse case scenario. more misleading claims - why? - to boost profits, bonus for CEO. i just don't trust them. i prefer to buy an oil that doesn't make claims.
Ok the claims are also implied vs their own 5W-30 or else all M1 would be labeled as AFE so I don't see how this boosts profits. Can you name an oil that doesn't make claims?
 
Joined
Dec 26, 2006
Messages
1,648
Location
Little Rock, AR
 Originally Posted By: Captain_Klink
... i just don't trust them. i prefer to buy an oil that doesn't make claims...
I think they all make claims. PP in particular cleans 45% of sludge deposits and makes your heart feel funny.
 
Joined
Nov 16, 2002
Messages
34,605
Location
NJ
Thanks for posting that. Fact is, HT/HS relates very well to fuel economy. When Amsoil went to GF-4, they lowered ASL/ATM/TSO to 3.1 for HT/HS from 3.5. This was all done for fuel economy reasons. Friction modifiers play a role, but not as much as HT/HS. This is why M1 0w-30 has such a low HT/HS. They made it that way for a reason. As far as claims go, your remark doesn't even make sense. They all make claims. Some more obnoxious than others. Mobil 1 usually is pretty good that way.
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
47,087
Location
Ontario, Canada
 Originally Posted By: buster
Thanks for posting that. Fact is, HT/HS relates very well to fuel economy. When Amsoil went to GF-4, they lowered ASL/ATM/TSO to 3.1 for HT/HS from 3.5. This was all done for fuel economy reasons. Friction modifiers play a role, but not as much as HT/HS. This is why M1 0w-30 has such a low HT/HS. They made it that way for a reason. As far as claims go, your remark doesn't even make sense. They all make claims. Some more obnoxious than others. Mobil 1 usually is pretty good that way.
It is the artist formally known as scoobie in case you didn't catch the memo ;\)
 

Jonny Z

Thread starter
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
1,251
Location
Austin, TX
So does lowering HT/HS compromise film strength hence protection under heavy load? Can one assume an FE oil is not good for towing?
 
Joined
Nov 16, 2002
Messages
34,605
Location
NJ
Too many assumptions. It's been shown that many engines don't need a HT/HS higher than 2.6, which is where most 20 grades fall. Mobil 1 0w-30 can be used in a Corvette so you won't loose any protection. * GM 6094M, GM 4718M (Corvette spec) * Ford WSS-M2C929-A * Chrysler MS-6395 * ILSAC GF-4 energy conserving * API SM/CF * ACEA A1/B1
 
Top