M1 FS 0W-40, M1 FS 5W-40, D1 ESP 5W-40 Volatility Results - March 2025

[JAG]

The test was conducted on March 23, 2025. A generous and curious member sent them to me. Thank you! As always, 1.000 grams of oil were used for each oil. They are put in aluminum cups with a cutout on part of their sides that allow venting to occur despite me covering the cups with folded aluminum foil to block the radiation caused by the oven coils. Temperature was set on the oven to to ~ 400 F. The cups were lined up in a row in the oven near the window/door. I weighed them every hour, and rotated them to the right, to cause every cup to occupy every spot over the 4 hours of testing.

Quaker State Ultimate Durability 10W-30 API SN+ was also in this test. I meant to instead include QS Euro 5W-40 because I have so much past data on it and because it is a direct competitor to the two M1 oils in this test. The jugs of the two QS oils have the same color/design and I grabbed/used the wrong QS oil. I discovered it during the first hour of testing and because so much time is spent getting the right amount of oil in each cup and weighing each of them five times, I let the test proceed. The data are still useful. I will do another test with the M1, D1, and QS 5W-40 oils, hopefully within a month. QS UD 10W-30 has extremely low volatility, which is achieved by the GTL base oil(s) and relatively high base oil viscosity, possible because of very low or no VII content. It makes most relatively low volatility oils look volatile in comparison, as you will see below.

This was the second test where cardboard surrounded all 4 sides of the oven to block wind. Last time I did it, the oven was set to ~ 420 F and the evaporation rates were higher than earlier tests set to same temperature but without the cardboard present. So I chose 400 F this time to try to get evaporation rates that I used to get for any given oil. Comparing evaporation rates of QS UD 10W-30 in this test to past tests indicates that next time I should try 410 or 415 F.

QS UD 10W-30 was by far the least volatile. M1 5W-40 was the second least volatile. M1 0W-40 was 13% more volatile over 4 hours compared to M1 0W-40. D1 was by far, the most volatile. Interestingly, in a past test, Chevron Delo 5W-40 also was by far the most volatile oil in a past test. I do not know if that is a trend with 5W-40 API CK-4 oils, but it could be due to higher concentration of additive package which comes with the volatile carrier oil.

First graph shows cumulative weight losses and the second one shows cumulative weight losses, relative to QS UD 10W-30's cumulative weight losses.

 

[Glenda W.]

Great work as usual! Thanks

 

[OVERKILL]

The test was conducted on March 23, 2025. A generous and curious member sent them to me. Thank you! As always, 1.000 grams of oil were used for each oil. They are put in aluminum cups with a cutout on part of their sides that allow venting to occur despite me covering the cups with folded aluminum foil to block the radiation caused by the oven coils. Temperature was set on the oven to to ~ 400 F. The cups were lined up in a row in the oven near the window/door. I weighed them every hour, and rotated them to the right, to cause every cup to occupy every spot over the 4 hours of testing.

Quaker State Ultimate Durability 10W-30 API SN+ was also in this test. I meant to instead include QS Euro 5W-40 because I have so much past data on it and because it is a direct competitor to the two M1 oils in this test. The jugs of the two QS oils have the same color/design and I grabbed/used the wrong QS oil. I discovered it during the first hour of testing and because so much time is spent getting the right amount of oil in each cup and weighing each of them five times, I let the test proceed. The data are still useful. I will do another test with the M1, D1, and QS 5W-40 oils, hopefully within a month. QS UD 10W-30 has extremely low volatility, which is achieved by the GTL base oil(s) and relatively high base oil viscosity, possible because of very low or no VII content. It makes most relatively low volatility oils look volatile in comparison, as you will see below.

This was the second test where cardboard surrounded all 4 sides of the oven to block wind. Last time I did it, the oven was set to ~ 420 F and the evaporation rates were higher than earlier tests set to same temperature but without the cardboard present. So I chose 400 F this time to try to get evaporation rates that I used to get for any given oil. Comparing evaporation rates of QS UD 10W-30 in this test to past tests indicates that next time I should try 410 or 415 F.

QS UD 10W-30 was by far the least volatile. M1 5W-40 was the second least volatile. M1 0W-40 was 13% more volatile over 4 hours compared to M1 0W-40. D1 was by far, the most volatile. Interestingly, in a past test, Chevron Delo 5W-40 also was by far the most volatile oil in a past test. I do not know if that is a trend with 5W-40 API CK-4 oils, but it could be due to higher concentration of additive package which comes with the volatile carrier oil.

First graph shows cumulative weight losses and the second one shows cumulative weight losses, relative to QS UD 10W-30's cumulative weight losses.

View attachment 270705

View attachment 270707

Do we know if any of the diesel oil specs have a Noack limit like the Euro ones? That may be the difference.

 

[JAG]

Do we know if any of the diesel oil specs have a Noack limit like the Euro ones? That may be the difference.

Not that I am aware of, but I haven’t specifically ever looked for it. Now you have me curious! If D1 5W-40 meets a MB oil spec, perhaps we can find if that spec has any limits posted in the Afton document. Will you track that down? If not, I will.

 

[OVERKILL]

Not that I am aware of, but I haven’t specifically ever looked for it. Now you have me curious! If D1 5W-40 meets a MB oil spec, perhaps we can find if that spec has any limits posted in the Afton document. Will you track that down? If not, I will.

I haven't checked the PDS, but I don't believe it does.

 

[JAG]

For the specs that D1 5W-40 ESP meets that I could find in the Afton handbook, the Noack limits are 13%. Generous limit.

 

[OVERKILL]

For the specs that D1 5W-40 ESP meets that I could find in the Afton handbook, the Noack limits are 13%. Generous limit.

Yeah, the Euro limit is 10%.

 

[paulri]

For volatility, we're really looking at the quality of the base oils, aren't we? That is to say, additives really aren't going to impact this--correct?

 

[JAG]

For volatility, we're really looking at the quality of the base oils, aren't we? That is to say, additives really aren't going to impact this--correct?

I think that most or all additives are relatively large molecules, compared to the base oil, so I expect them to have a minor effect on volatility The boron-containing molecules clearly decrease in concentration in UOAs but I don't know if they are evaporating out or getting caught by the oil filter after coalescing with contaminants. The carrier oil for the additive package is often Group I, at least last time I checked. That is a very volatile base oil type, so more additive concentration will likely come with more carrier oil. So indirectly, additives do impact volatility if you include their carrier oil.

 

[RDY4WAR]

I think that most or all additives are relatively large molecules, compared to the base oil, so I expect them to have a minor effect on volatility The boron-containing molecules clearly decrease in concentration in UOAs but I don't know if they are evaporating out or getting caught by the oil filter after coalescing with contaminants. The carrier oil for the additive package is often Group I, at least last time I checked. That is a very volatile base oil type, so more additive concentration will likely come with more carrier oil. So indirectly, additives do impact volatility if you include their carrier oil.

The boron additive is doing the later. If you were able to scan the filter media, you'd find a proportional increase of boron in the filter to the decrease of boron in the oil analysis.

Most add packs are in a group I carrier but can be ordered in a different base oil if desired. For example, High Performance Lubricants orders their add packs in a group III carrier. The Noack of their PCMO 10W-20 is just 3.8%.

 

[JAG]

Unless the base oil is an ester, with the polarity itself decreasing the volatility, the volatility of a base oil molecule is largely inversely related to the molecular weight. Group I has a relatively large range of molecular weights, and the small molecules are what make it volatile, relative to higher group number base oils with the same viscosity.

 

[JAG]

In this test, each cup had a thin disk of freshly sandpapered steel, which was fully submerged in the oil. Each cup also had a freshly sandpapered copper cylinder which was partially submerged in the oil but fully covered in oil at the start of each hour in the test. The metals are there to be oxidation catalysts and the copper is also there to determine how corrosive the oils are to copper. I am not distinguishing copper corrosion from copper tarnishing. I use the word to apply to both.

During the first hour, D1 ESP was quite a bit more corrosive to the copper than the other oils. It corroded the copper that stayed on the cylinder and spread dissolved copper onto a large percentage of the steel disk. The dark area is copper on top of the steel. The two M1 oils were clearly less corrosive to the copper than D1 ESP. The cylinders were still slightly corroded and the part of the steel disk the cylinders sat on had dissolved copper on them. QS UD was by far the least corrosive. The cylinder looked almost like it did pre-test and no significant dissolved copper was seen on the steel.

I tested QS UD and Amsoil SS 10W-30 for their copper corrosivity in the past and Amsoil had corrosive tendencies, compared to QS UD. It disturbed me, since I use Amsoil SS, but am no longer disturbed because I see that M1 FS 0W-40 and FS 5W-40 are also quite a bit more corrosive than QS UD. As copper develops oxidation layers, they tend to become less prone to further reactions. I took pictures after every hour. These are from hour 1. The location of the cylinders are not generally where they were during the test because I purposely moved them.

 

[buster]

I wonder if QS UD 10w30 has little to no VII?

I also noticed on their comparison sheet that they list "Extreme Performance" being better for QS UD than their Euro oil.

Shell does not hold their Euro oils in a higher performance level than their top tier SP/GF-7 Extended Performance oils, which I'm not surprised at honestly.

 

[JAG]

I tested the extinct QS Ultimate Durability (UD) this time, not the currently sold Ultimate Protection. I think QS UD 10W-30 uses little to no VIIs because Gokhan’s fancy calculations indicated that, as does the VI not being well above GTL’s VI, as does the very low volatility for its viscosity and base oil type.

I don’t put too much faith in the honesty of the marketing such as the image you posted, which is partly why I test oils. I do NOT subscribe to the logic that oils meeting Euro automakers’ oil specs are likely better than top tier oils that do not meet those specs. It does weed out the not-so-great oils, but I don’t consider using those oils anyway.

In a past test, QS Ultimate Protection 5W-20 performed extremely well in a brutally long and hot test, in terms of resistance to forming deposits and deposit precursors. QS Ultimate Durability 10W-30 did very well until it suddenly did not. It formed really thick varnish. This oil is now many years old, so perhaps it is already partially degraded.

The same oils that are the subject of this thread are back on the oven for the deposit and deposit precursor formation phase of the testing.

 

[buster]

I tested the extinct QS Ultimate Durability (UD) this time, not the currently sold Ultimate Protection. I think QS UD 10W-30 uses little to no VIIs because Gokhan’s fancy calculations indicated that, as does the VI not being well above GTL’s VI, as does the very low volatility for its viscosity and base oil type.

I don’t put too much faith in the honesty of the marketing such as the image you posted, which is partly why I test oils. I do NOT subscribe to the logic that oils meeting Euro automakers’ oil specs are likely better than top tier oils that do not meet those specs. It does weed out the not-so-great oils, but I don’t consider using those oils anyway.

In a past test, QS Ultimate Protection 5W-20 performed extremely well in a brutally long and hot test, in terms of resistance to forming deposits and deposit precursors. QS Ultimate Durability 10W-30 did very well until it suddenly did not. It formed really thick varnish. This oil is now many years old, so perhaps it is already partially degraded.

The same oils that are the subject of this thread are back on the oven for the deposit and deposit precursor formation phase of the testing.

QS UD 10w30 is likely a sleeper oil. Would be great for any engine unless you're in the arctic.

Always appreciate your comments and testing @JAG

 

[JAG]

QS UD 10w30 is likely a sleeper oil.

But it is extinct! UP has replaced UD. With the current Ultimate Protection series, QS has a PDS for 10W-30 but they don't actually make or sell it.

Below are some pictures showing what I described about varnish and such. The first picture shows all of the oils and was the first time in the test when QS UD 10W-30 suddenly formed thick varnish. The last picture was at the end of the test, showing how thick that varnish got. It also shows 0W-20 UP, whose cup has much less varnish, as did the other two UP viscosity grades. I had to wipe away QS UP 0W-20 to expose half of the bottom of the cup because it had lost so much base oil that it was grease-like in viscosity. Despite that, it was so relatively clean.

 

[buster]

Oh yeah I forgot it was replaced by UP LOL.

 

[Nuclear_42]

So is QS UD the same as UP?

 

[JAG]

So is QS UD the same as UP?

No. They have different formulations as their PDSs indicate. I think UP replaced UD when API SP versions came out. My UD is API SN+.

 

[OilUzer]

Noack volatility test is for 60 min @482F and your test was for 240 min @400-420F.
But in general, shouldn't the weight loss graphs correlate with the Noack numbers which are kept secret these days?

My very imited experience with M1 FS Euro 0W-40 in only one engine (maybe 2, need to check my excel sheets) was that it burned some. Not enough tests to draw any real conclusion but enough for me to ground it pending further investigation. I have 1 or 2 jugs left to test again.

My extended experience with M1 EP 10W-30 in at least 5 different cars is that it doesn't burn any. I use this oil the most so it's over many trials. Relatively speaking, in line with your QS 10W-30 test results.

Can you add Castrol Euro 0W-40 if you tested again? It didn't burn any in the same car I tried the M1 FS but again only one jug and one test ... but enough to keep me curious.

Thanks for the reports!