Mobil 1 0w40 in Mercedes V12s
- Thread starter G-MAN
- Start date
- Status
G-man II, I agree completely with everything you said in your last post. I use Mobil 1 0W-40 in two of my cars. I do however think their 15W-50 is just too thick for a vast majority of the cars on the road in North America. If I need an OTC oil for an extended drain period I would use Mobil 1 before I would use Castrol Syntec accept for a 50 wt oil.
In the one case of the 5W-50 Castrol Syntec verses the 15W-50 Mobil 1 I think that there would be a significant difference in fuel economy and performance between these two motor oils. If I were to go racing I would use the Mobil 1 15W-50 but for almost any older car that I can think of that I might drive on the street the Syntec 5W-50 would seem to be the better choice between these two 50 wt oils in my humble opinion. The only disadvantage that I can think of would be that the Syntec might need to be changed just a little sooner. I think that this would be a good trade to make for better performance and fuel economy. Also as has been stated before the 5W-50 Syntec is an ACEA A3/B3-98 oil which most other grades of Syntec can't meet and with a TBN of about 10.5 I do think that the 50 wt Syntec must have a robust additive package which I don't think is the case with the 5W-30 and 10W-30 grades of Castrol Syntec.
As an example in my mothers old Geo Prizm with about 150,000 miles and an engine that sounds like it has a lot of wear but still seems to run well I put in the Syntec 5W-50. This car might see about 2,000 miles in the next year or so. I paid $3.97 per quart for the Castrol Syntec. I will drain the oil in about 12 months. I think either oil will need to be changed in one year or less from fuel dilution. The mobil 1 15W-50 would have cost about $4.79 at Walmart and in my opinion would need to be changed after about one year just like for the Syntec for the same reason. Which oil do you think would be better for this application?
As has been stated here before a group III motor oil can come very close in performance to a PAO if it is formulated properly. Also I would think a well formulated group III motor oil would perform much better than most group I,II, or II+ motor oils.
Sorry for such a long post.
In the one case of the 5W-50 Castrol Syntec verses the 15W-50 Mobil 1 I think that there would be a significant difference in fuel economy and performance between these two motor oils. If I were to go racing I would use the Mobil 1 15W-50 but for almost any older car that I can think of that I might drive on the street the Syntec 5W-50 would seem to be the better choice between these two 50 wt oils in my humble opinion. The only disadvantage that I can think of would be that the Syntec might need to be changed just a little sooner. I think that this would be a good trade to make for better performance and fuel economy. Also as has been stated before the 5W-50 Syntec is an ACEA A3/B3-98 oil which most other grades of Syntec can't meet and with a TBN of about 10.5 I do think that the 50 wt Syntec must have a robust additive package which I don't think is the case with the 5W-30 and 10W-30 grades of Castrol Syntec.
As an example in my mothers old Geo Prizm with about 150,000 miles and an engine that sounds like it has a lot of wear but still seems to run well I put in the Syntec 5W-50. This car might see about 2,000 miles in the next year or so. I paid $3.97 per quart for the Castrol Syntec. I will drain the oil in about 12 months. I think either oil will need to be changed in one year or less from fuel dilution. The mobil 1 15W-50 would have cost about $4.79 at Walmart and in my opinion would need to be changed after about one year just like for the Syntec for the same reason. Which oil do you think would be better for this application?
As has been stated here before a group III motor oil can come very close in performance to a PAO if it is formulated properly. Also I would think a well formulated group III motor oil would perform much better than most group I,II, or II+ motor oils.
Sorry for such a long post.
Hi,
Daimler Benz has had very rigid oil approval specifications for 50 years that I know of
They never specified a brand just had an "Approved List" of oils. If it met their specs' it was in the List
Their approval numbers ( eg 229.5 etc. ) are widely coveted/used as a marketing point by oil makers today
Porsche first factory filled with Mobil 1 5w-40 in 1992-3
Factory fill contracts are no doubt most important financially - to all parties and will be linked to car racing of course. But it is very difficult to "restrict" trade at Dealer
levels
At that level we have many no-experts as mechanics and service managers. Some may think that ACEA is a space agency or something or that A3B3 is a variance on the rock band ACDC!
Regards
Daimler Benz has had very rigid oil approval specifications for 50 years that I know of
They never specified a brand just had an "Approved List" of oils. If it met their specs' it was in the List
Their approval numbers ( eg 229.5 etc. ) are widely coveted/used as a marketing point by oil makers today
Porsche first factory filled with Mobil 1 5w-40 in 1992-3
Factory fill contracts are no doubt most important financially - to all parties and will be linked to car racing of course. But it is very difficult to "restrict" trade at Dealer
levels
At that level we have many no-experts as mechanics and service managers. Some may think that ACEA is a space agency or something or that A3B3 is a variance on the rock band ACDC!
Regards
Looking at spec. sheets alone will not always tell you how good of an oil it is. Take Amsoil for example. If you do a search on Mobil 1, all you will get is how superior Amsoil it with tons of graphs and other comparisons. But when you look at the UOA's on this board you will see that we can't even determine if it's better. Mobil 1 uses there own proprietary formulation and is different then Amsoil's approach and Redlines. They are all great oils. If you look at Schaeffers you would think it's not so great being a group III, but it turns out it is! Mobil 1 meets all of the specs here in North America and if you need a European approved oil, go with 0w-40. I really wish I could say that high end brands like Redline and Amsoil are much better, @ $6-$8qt., but we havn't seen much proof yet. If they were, I'd be using them.
[ June 22, 2003, 08:15 AM: Message edited by: buster ]
[ June 22, 2003, 08:15 AM: Message edited by: buster ]
Bwahahahaha...
I seems like the members on this board are slowly graduating from the old PAO vs group III arguements that have been going on for about 5 years.
By reading through the posts on many of the threads, members are more inclined to be concerned with a lubricant product's performance and UOA results than simply following along blindly to the PAO drummer, or synthetic drummer for that matter.
It was predicted correctly very early on that group IIIs were going to be a threat to the expensive PAOs strong hold on the high performance lubricant market.
I personally can hardly wait for Mobil to package a group III product with a "synthetic" label pasted on it just like Amsoil does now with their 7500 series engine oils.
This is what I've been thinking:
You can have your oil changed at a quick lube outlet. That used oil is then taken to a re-cycle plant and can be cleaned up back to an API SL approved engine oil.
So the problem with used engine oil is not with the base oil, but with the contaminants and additive depletion.
I have yet to be convinced from anything I have read on this web site or others, that synthetics of any descritpion provide better engine lubrication.
Synthetics MAY provide a longer service life than conventional lubricants and fluids if the additive package holds up and contaminants remain in suspension or are filtered out.
Synthetics MAY provide superior extreme heat protection than conventionals, but piston engine aircraft owners will tell you the opposite.
Synthetic based lubricants MAY provide a fuel savings, but long haul truckers remain to be convinced.
Some claim that synthetic lubricants have a higher film strength than conventional lubricants, but there is no proof of that statment either.
Synthetic lubricants MAY privide easier starting and have better flow numbers in extreme cold, but if your operation is not subject to those conditions, then synthetics offer no advantage to conventional multi-grade lubricants in that aspect.
You know, the reason the American Locomotive CO, ALCO went out of buisness was partly because they could not believe that Diesel power was the answer to the railroad's needs. Oh, they likely built the best steam engines, but were 10 years behind the competition with their Diesel program.
If my financial existance was dependent on convincing people the superiority of PAOs, I'd be worried.
By reading through the posts on many of the threads, members are more inclined to be concerned with a lubricant product's performance and UOA results than simply following along blindly to the PAO drummer, or synthetic drummer for that matter.
It was predicted correctly very early on that group IIIs were going to be a threat to the expensive PAOs strong hold on the high performance lubricant market.
I personally can hardly wait for Mobil to package a group III product with a "synthetic" label pasted on it just like Amsoil does now with their 7500 series engine oils.
This is what I've been thinking:
You can have your oil changed at a quick lube outlet. That used oil is then taken to a re-cycle plant and can be cleaned up back to an API SL approved engine oil.
So the problem with used engine oil is not with the base oil, but with the contaminants and additive depletion.
I have yet to be convinced from anything I have read on this web site or others, that synthetics of any descritpion provide better engine lubrication.
Synthetics MAY provide a longer service life than conventional lubricants and fluids if the additive package holds up and contaminants remain in suspension or are filtered out.
Synthetics MAY provide superior extreme heat protection than conventionals, but piston engine aircraft owners will tell you the opposite.
Synthetic based lubricants MAY provide a fuel savings, but long haul truckers remain to be convinced.
Some claim that synthetic lubricants have a higher film strength than conventional lubricants, but there is no proof of that statment either.
Synthetic lubricants MAY privide easier starting and have better flow numbers in extreme cold, but if your operation is not subject to those conditions, then synthetics offer no advantage to conventional multi-grade lubricants in that aspect.
You know, the reason the American Locomotive CO, ALCO went out of buisness was partly because they could not believe that Diesel power was the answer to the railroad's needs. Oh, they likely built the best steam engines, but were 10 years behind the competition with their Diesel program.
If my financial existance was dependent on convincing people the superiority of PAOs, I'd be worried.
You make some good points. The way I see it is if the industry keeps going in the "fuel efficient" direction, then will extended drains every really catch on? If the EPA thought efficiency was such a priority, why don't they start pushing for 10k + mile drains to save energy? I think this whole 20wt garbage to save practically nothing, is the wrong direction to be going. I tip my hat to Amsoil for cutting through all the BS thats out there about 20wt oils and other big oil propaganda.
Buster;
How would extending oil drain intervls to 10,000 miles (16,000km) save energy?
I would expect that the majority of the group II and IIIs can achieve that service life now.
But, if EVERYONE extended their oil drains to the maximum with UOAs, that act would kill the speciality oil market overnight. Redline, Mobil-1, LE, Amsoil, and the rest of them.
Guess which oil packagers would survive? The 10 big ones that are not dependent on the nut market.
Wally world has a $19.99 (CDN$), oil change special this week, so does Canadian Tire. That converts to $13.99 USD.
I wonder if that sounds like an energy saver for most people?
How would extending oil drain intervls to 10,000 miles (16,000km) save energy?
I would expect that the majority of the group II and IIIs can achieve that service life now.
But, if EVERYONE extended their oil drains to the maximum with UOAs, that act would kill the speciality oil market overnight. Redline, Mobil-1, LE, Amsoil, and the rest of them.
Guess which oil packagers would survive? The 10 big ones that are not dependent on the nut market.
Wally world has a $19.99 (CDN$), oil change special this week, so does Canadian Tire. That converts to $13.99 USD.
I wonder if that sounds like an energy saver for most people?
First, off, do you even read the UOA's on this site? Group III's don't last as long as PAO's and only Schaeffer's has shown good results in long drains from what I'm aware of.
People think saving energy is a simple problem, it's not. What I am saying is you have to look at the NET effect of solution. Sometimes we use MORE ENERGY from RECYCLING certain products which defeats the purpose of recylcling in the first place. Many Environmentalists sometimes get caught in a trap where they will push some type of conservation method, only to find out the conservation method used more of some other type of energy which offset the gain from conserving in the first place. We throw away so much oil and use a lot of time and energy to recycle it. Extending drains can be beneficial for many reasons. Read the David McFall article on Amsoil's web page.
Guess which ones will survive you asked? The American way is all about competition and if it comes to that, business models will be changing and products will be getting better. Nothing lasts forever.
http://www.amsoil.com/lit/lng_article/index.htm
[ June 22, 2003, 06:45 PM: Message edited by: buster ]
No, I sure don't pay much attention to the UOA section. Why? Because anyone can post mis-information. Say for example I wanted to sell brand XYZ engine oil. I could send in a sample of 5,000 mile old oil and say it had been in use for 10,000 miles.
Everyone reading the UOA post would comment on how well brand XYZ held up in UOA and purchace the product based on the information.
So G2, laugh all you like, I have nothing to lose or gain from the lubricant market or the posts in the UOA section.
By the time my engines wear out the body is falling apart and the vehicle ain't worth fixing.
Anyone want to buy a 74 Chev crew cab with the original engine for $500.00?
Everyone reading the UOA post would comment on how well brand XYZ held up in UOA and purchace the product based on the information.
So G2, laugh all you like, I have nothing to lose or gain from the lubricant market or the posts in the UOA section.
By the time my engines wear out the body is falling apart and the vehicle ain't worth fixing.
Anyone want to buy a 74 Chev crew cab with the original engine for $500.00?
And when those purchasers had UOA's done and got inferior results, the original poster would be soundly discredited. What goes around comes around.
I Forgot something. Another reason I don't pay much attention to the UOA section is because the results only pretain to the vehicle being tested.
For exmple the Chev truck I just mentioned has a 4.5 litre oil capacity including the filter in it's 350 cid engine.
The beast at best gets 10MPG when working hauling gravel, rocks, firewood, or motorcycles.
Over a 4000 mile interval the truck will consume 400 gallons of gasoline because of it's size weight and 4.10 gears.
My 95 Ford Windstar weighs less than half as much as the truck does when it is empty, burns 1/3 the fuel, has a 5 litre oil capacity which is plenty for a 3.8L engine.
Now if I put brand XYZ engine oil in both of those vehicles and do an UOA after 5000 miles, I already know the results.
I'm putting another 3500 miles on that little Ford van in the next 3 weeks. The engine oil is a month old and has 2000 miles on it. I'm not concerned about changing the oil before the trip or part way into it. I'll change it after I get back.
Nothing fancy, just a straight weight CF-2 SAE 30.
I can't understand what all the fuss is about.
For exmple the Chev truck I just mentioned has a 4.5 litre oil capacity including the filter in it's 350 cid engine.
The beast at best gets 10MPG when working hauling gravel, rocks, firewood, or motorcycles.
Over a 4000 mile interval the truck will consume 400 gallons of gasoline because of it's size weight and 4.10 gears.
My 95 Ford Windstar weighs less than half as much as the truck does when it is empty, burns 1/3 the fuel, has a 5 litre oil capacity which is plenty for a 3.8L engine.
Now if I put brand XYZ engine oil in both of those vehicles and do an UOA after 5000 miles, I already know the results.
I'm putting another 3500 miles on that little Ford van in the next 3 weeks. The engine oil is a month old and has 2000 miles on it. I'm not concerned about changing the oil before the trip or part way into it. I'll change it after I get back.
Nothing fancy, just a straight weight CF-2 SAE 30.
I can't understand what all the fuss is about.
No fuss, man. And shame on you. The oldest dodge in the book is to cast doubt on the messenger when one doesn't like the message. To question the veracity of a poster of a UOA as the reason for not reading them is patently intellectually dishonest.
You've got all the answers, that much is clear. Reading all of what is here must be a colossal waste of your time, no?
Try a little humbleness sometime. You might just learn something.
You've got all the answers, that much is clear. Reading all of what is here must be a colossal waste of your time, no?
Try a little humbleness sometime. You might just learn something.
Castrol R have a 0W40 here and just confirmed full PAO (as is the 10W60). The 5W30 is "A cheaper product" tech told me. The 0W40 tests very well on our Timken FWIW. MB 229.3, VW 505, HTHS 3.6, A3/B3/B4, pour -54c, TBN 10.3, KV @ 40c 73.6, KV @ 100C 12.9. Is that as good as M1 0W40?
- Status
Similar threads
