M1 AFE 0W30 vs PP 5W30

Status
Not open for further replies.
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?
 
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.
 
Originally Posted By: Jonny Z
Does that also mean compromised protection?


No.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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!)
 
Studies have shown HT/HS is the biggest factor related to fuel economy. Somewhere on here is a link to that study.
 
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:
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
 
Captain Klink should check out the fourth paragraph of this. It is flat out stating that fuel economy does not always correlate with viscosity, but always does with HTHS, even in different tests where HTHS was measured at different temps:

2zefrj8.jpg


You can continue for a bit here, but you'll have to buy the book to get all of it:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Fu-99Mc...nomy%22&f=false
 
Last edited:
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
wink.gif
 
So does lowering HT/HS compromise film strength hence protection under heavy load? Can one assume an FE oil is not good for towing?
 
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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top