Mobil 1 0W-40 'Energy Conserving'?

mormit · Nov 11, 2002

Was looking at the Mobil 1 specs and saw that the 0W-40 is now shown as energy conserving. Is this true?

Does anyone know exactly how an oil gets tagged energy conserving? I assumed the oil had to be lower than a certain viscosity, thus all the EC oils that are at the low end of the 30wt range. Could it be that it is taken from the average viscosity through a wide temperature range......so the 0-40 has a lower average viscosity between Xtemp to Xtemp than the required maximum value?

[ November 11, 2002, 07:31 PM: Message edited by: mormit ]

mormit · Nov 11, 2002

M1 spec sheet:

click here

(I'm trying to see if I can get the URL link shorter)

[ November 11, 2002, 08:07 PM: Message edited by: Patman ]

MolaKule · Nov 11, 2002

Edit: Any oil that gives more gas mileage than a standard reference oil is energy conserving. It's a relative comparison.

Mobil 1 has always been energy conserving. Back in the late seventies the Pennzoil with Z-7 was considered Energy Conserving.

[ November 11, 2002, 10:26 PM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]

WeyounDS9 · Nov 11, 2002

The thicker MOBIL1 grades haven't been energy conserving.

Also looking at this PDF (I also have it bookmarked.).

and it shows the MOBIL 1's up to 10w-30 as energy conserving.
It also doesnt list 0w-40 as oil conserving.

The only time, I have ever seen a 40 weight as oil conserving, it turned out to be a typo on further investigation.

Fred....

satterfi · Nov 11, 2002

I get 36 mpg on average using M1 15-50.

This is only for last 160K miles. Before that I got 36 mpg on 20-50 Castrol GTX for the break-in period of 40K miles.

As soon as my average mpg drops below 34 mpg I'll be looking at those "Energy Conserving" oils to conserve those precious natural resource

1988 CRX Si

diesel_fan · Nov 11, 2002

I swung by the API site and looked up the criteria for energy conserving. It states generically that the oil must provide an increase in fuel economy over a reference oil in an ASTM test - I couldn't find which particular test or what the reference oil was.

A generic internet search turned this up in exxon's oil encyclopedia
Exxon Description of Energy Conserving

[ November 11, 2002, 08:53 PM: Message edited by: diesel_fan ]

mormit · Nov 11, 2002

Palmerwmd: Last time I checked M1 spec was 6 months ago. Then only the x-30's were listed as EC.

Just checked back today. Looks like the page was updated 10/02. Now only the 15-50 does not carry an EC rating.

satterfi: Maybe if you switch to a lower grade you might get an impressive increase to 36.1mpg.

mormit · Nov 11, 2002

Thanks diesel_fan.

Quote from API: "A fuel-economy oil works by reducing the friction between moving engine parts that wastefully consumes fuel energy. There are two known means of accomplishing this goal: 1) by reducing the viscosity of the oil to decrease fluid friction and 2) by using friction-reducing additives in the oil to prevent metal-to-metal contact, or rubbing friction, between surface asperities."

I prefer the second option.

MolaKule · Nov 11, 2002

The ASTM testing document for testing Fuel Efficient oils is ASTM STP 509A.

An interesting SAE paper (951037) describes the process.

As a side topic, they also show that "organomolybdenum dithiocarbamates" are effective at improving fuel efficiency at high temperatures. "The effect of the type of FM on the fuel consumption was also studied in SAE 5W30 oils. The FM's evaluated included ester, organomolybdenum dithiocarbamate, and a mixture of these. The effects of the FM's were not significant at 66 C, whereas the use of FM's, in particular MoTDC, was beneficial at high temperatures..., where the boundary friction would play an important role."

[ November 12, 2002, 10:31 AM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]

Dr. T · Nov 12, 2002

It's true...M-1 0-40 is NOT "Energy Conserving". I think no oils over a 30 weight are API labelled as "Energy Conserving". Must be related to the CCS at 150C that corresponds to whether the oil is labelled as such.

impala_sc · Nov 12, 2002

ACEA A2 & A3 [not E.C.] HTHS > 3.5 cST@150C
ACEA A1 & A5 [E.C.] HTHS
apparently ACEA is more forgiving with the E.C. category than API/ISLAC.

If ANY 40wt should have been labled as E.C. it should have been M1 TriSyn 0W40.

[ November 13, 2002, 12:29 AM: Message edited by: impala_sc ]

MolaKule · Nov 12, 2002

Mormit is correct, it is energy conserving because it saves more energy than a similar grade
reference oil.

"Save gasoline, exceed newest Energy Conserving Requirements of ILSAC GF-3."

Eiron · Nov 12, 2002

The ILSAC sheet I've got lists specific fuel economy guidelines for 0W-20, 5W-20, 0W-30 & 5W-30. Everything else has a group spec meeting an avg efficiency improvement of 1.6%. It does not give any info regarding the reference oil.

The ACEA sheet I've got only lists fuel economy improvement requirements for the A1/B1 & A5/B5 ratings, which must equal at least 2.5%. It lists the test as CEC-L-54-T-96, & the 15W-40 reference oil as RL 191.

If an oil meets the generally-more-strict A3/B3 rating, then there's neither an implied nor required fuel economy benefit. This leaves a manufacturer to look for other ways to claim this benefit, & ILSAC is a convenient way to do this.

oilyriser · Apr 30, 2003

At a Canadian Tire store yesterday, I discovered some of their 20w50, 5w50, and 10w40 oils labelled as 'energy conserving'. This must be a mistake.

TooSlick · Apr 30, 2003

I believe the reference oil for the Energy Conserving test is a 5w-30 that does not use friction modifiers. You have to show a specific fuel savings in comparison to this oil and this fuel savings varies by the SAE grade. In other words, the requirement is more stringent for a 5w-20 than it is for a 10w-30.

TooSlick

Quick_lude · Apr 30, 2003

Well wether it is or not, I didn't notice any fuel economy loss when I switched from 5w/10w30 to the 0w40.

williar · Apr 30, 2003

My bottles of M1 0w40 show it as being "energy conserving", just like the M1 0w30. Interesting.

Nosmo King · May 3, 2003

Up here in Canada the Mobil 1 0w-40 does not show energy concerving on the bottle.
However we still get Tri Synthetic but now rated SL. Now I think this must be the new SS in the old packaging because I do not believe Mobil ever marketed and sold TS in 'SL'certification.

Patman · May 3, 2003

quote:

Originally posted by Nosmo King:
Up here in Canada the Mobil 1 0w-40 does not show energy concerving on the bottle.
However we still get Tri Synthetic but now rated SL. Now I think this must be the new SS in the old packaging because I do not believe Mobil ever marketed and sold TS in 'SL'certification.

Yep, they did. I used it and did a UOA in my sister's car and the additive package is different than SuperSyn. It includes moly, which SJ TriSyn doesn't have, but it also has a lot of magnesium, something SuperSyn has very little of. This rare SL TriSyn was only out for about a month or two. I still am puzzled as to why Mobil 1 even bothered releasing it.

quadrun1 · May 3, 2003

The first few batches of M1 SS 0W-40 here were not labeled energy conserving (and also, it was not labeled MB 229.5)

but now it is:

Mobil 1 0W-40 'Energy Conserving'?

Similar threads