Mobil 1 0w40 SM vs SN

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: TXCarGeek
Some people enjoy having the latest, greatest, and most advanced regardless of price.

In this case you should be looking at boutique oils, not mainstream M1 offering. M1 is a mass market product and as such needs to meet mass market demands.

Quote:

A Nissan Versa will get me from point A to point B, I mean that's what a car is for, but I drive a 550i because "adequate" just isn't enough sometimes.

The difference between a Versa and a 550i is huge. The difference between PAO-based M1 and Visom-based M1 is miniscule. Your 550i engine will last longer than you care to keep the car, even if you run current M1 in it.

 

[Solarent]

@TXCarGeek: I agree, learning the technical stuff is important and you kinda need to learn to filter out some of the fanboy stuff and pay attention to the people who know their stuff. (after a couple of weeks of reading posts you should be able to start to recognize the names of some the ones to listen too.)

@BerndV: While I agree that it is a shame that PAO is loosing some of it's lustre in the eyes of the major oil marketers for the mass produced oils, I don't agree with the premise that a consumer would even know the difference between a Group III+ and a PAO.

I could take a really thin Group II and load it up with a decent DI package and then fill it full of VI improvers and PPD's probably get the -54 PP for the spec sheet and still give you a half decent operational viscosity. (I probably would have to fiddle with it a bit to get it up to grade but I bet it's plausible). That's we say things like the -54 PP on the spec sheet isn't as important, focusing on the base oil while completely ignoring the rest of the formula is silly.

My point is yes PAO's are awesome, but so are Gr III's and even some Gr II's. If I were to put 3 samples in front of you without telling you which one is which I bet you'd (or just about anyone else on this board except maybe MolaKule and Tom NJ) be hard pressed to tell the difference.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: TXCarGeek
I'm with Art on this. As a new member, I came here expecting to learn technical specs and all the crazy, OCD car guy stuff, not be told what I already knew ("whatever is cheap and in the manual). I would have never joined BITOG if I knew about the lame, uninformative, uninspired answers I would be getting.

What needs to be realized is there's no arcane or secret knowledge or conspiracy ongoing about oil selection. The tribologists aren't running some secret sauce that isn't available to the general public or choosing some bizarre grade we'd never touch.

There are certain exceptions, but for better or for worse, the mundane recommendation in the owner's manual tends to be the best one. You don't double your horsepower, fuel economy, or engine life by ignoring the owner's manual or switching from conventional to synthetic on a "normal" vehicle or by ensuring the oil is PAO rather than Group III.

I can be as OCD as the next guy, but if I think I'm making any statistically significant differences in my G37's engine life by my current fill over the previous Pennzoil conventional, I'd be seriously deluding myself.

 

[TXCarGeek]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: TXCarGeek
I'm with Art on this. As a new member, I came here expecting to learn technical specs and all the crazy, OCD car guy stuff, not be told what I already knew ("whatever is cheap and in the manual). I would have never joined BITOG if I knew about the lame, uninformative, uninspired answers I would be getting.

What needs to be realized is there's no arcane or secret knowledge or conspiracy ongoing about oil selection. The tribologists aren't running some secret sauce that isn't available to the general public or choosing some bizarre grade we'd never touch.

There are certain exceptions, but for better or for worse, the mundane recommendation in the owner's manual tends to be the best one. You don't double your horsepower, fuel economy, or engine life by ignoring the owner's manual or switching from conventional to synthetic on a "normal" vehicle or by ensuring the oil is PAO rather than Group III.

I can be as OCD as the next guy, but if I think I'm making any statistically significant differences in my G37's engine life by my current fill over the previous Pennzoil conventional, I'd be seriously deluding myself.


No one is saying that one oil is worlds better than another. If I ask for a recommendation, I want to hear reasons and proof for making that recommendation not, "because the manual says." I understand that most oils will run perfectly fine with most engines but I still like to get down to the nitty gritty details. I thought this is what BITOG is for?...for crazy gear heads that are overly curious.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: TXCarGeek
As a new member, I came here expecting to learn technical specs and all the crazy, OCD car guy stuff, not be told what I already knew ("whatever is cheap and in the manual).

So you came here expecting someone will tell you flat out that your owner's manual is wrong and pat you on the back for going against it? Your car manufacturer stands behind their recommendation by providing a warranty. Which BITOG member here will offer to provide a similar warranty if your engine needs work as a result of their oil recommendation?


Quote:

And when someone even considers the idea of trying a different oil just for kicks, many posters get all bent out of shape because status quo is being broken. It is hard for me to understand.

It's your car and your money. You're free to run anything you want in it. You don't need BITOG's blessing to do that.

 

[TXCarGeek]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete

As a new member, I came here expecting to learn technical specs and all the crazy, OCD car guy stuff, not be told what I already knew ("whatever is cheap and in the manual).

So you came here expecting someone will tell you flat out that your owner's manual is wrong and pat you on the back for going against it? Your car manufacturer stands behind their recommendation by providing a warranty. Which BITOG member here will offer to provide a similar warranty if your engine needs work as a result of their oil recommendation?




Nope, that is not what I said. Read again.

 

[Quattro Pete]

OK, so what was your question again with regards to Mobil 1 0w-40 SM vs SN?

 

[TXCarGeek]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: TXCarGeek
Some people enjoy having the latest, greatest, and most advanced regardless of price.

In this case you should be looking at boutique oils, not mainstream M1 offering. M1 is a mass market product and as such needs to meet mass market demands.

Quote:

A Nissan Versa will get me from point A to point B, I mean that's what a car is for, but I drive a 550i because "adequate" just isn't enough sometimes.

The difference between a Versa and a 550i is huge. The difference between PAO-based M1 and Visom-based M1 is miniscule. Your 550i engine will last longer than you care to keep the car, even if you run current M1 in it.


You are missing the point by a light-year.

Like I have already said, if I ask for a recommendation, I want valid facts, using technical specifications, to back up whatever recommendation I may get. For example, showing me used oil analysis for two different oils and explaining that they wore similarly is good evidence. Or telling me not to run a certain weight oil because its cSt or HTHS is too low or too high for a certain application is good evidence. What is so difficult to comprehend about that? Is it too much to ask for?

 

[TXCarGeek]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
OK, so what was your question again with regards to Mobil 1 0w-40 SM vs SN?

I'm not the OP.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: TXCarGeek
For example, showing me used oil analysis for two different oils and explaining that they wore similarly is good evidence.

Actually, it's not good evidence. A $20 used oil analysis is not a good tool to compare two oils against each other. It is mainly to detect issues with the engine itself (coolant contamination, fuel dilution, etc.)

Quote:

Or telling me not to run a certain weight oil because its cSt or HTHS is too low or too high for a certain application is good evidence.

That's kind of what the mfg specs are all about. For example, your 550i calls for an oil meeting LL-01 spec. This spec already ensures that an oil needs to have HTHS viscosity of at least 3.5 cP.

 

[TXCarGeek]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: TXCarGeek
For example, showing me used oil analysis for two different oils and explaining that they wore similarly is good evidence.

Actually, it's not good evidence. A $20 used oil analysis is not a good tool to compare two oils against each other. It is mainly to detect issues with the engine itself.

Quote:

Or telling me not to run a certain weight oil because its cSt or HTHS is too low or too high for a certain application is good evidence.

That's kind of what the mfg specs are all about. For example, your 550i calls for an oil meeting LL-01 spec. This spec already ensures that an oil needs to have HTHS viscosity of at least 3.5 cP.



Ahh, I didn't know that. That is the sort of info that I like.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: TXCarGeek
No one is saying that one oil is worlds better than another. If I ask for a recommendation, I want to hear reasons and proof for making that recommendation not, "because the manual says." I understand that most oils will run perfectly fine with most engines but I still like to get down to the nitty gritty details.

"Because the manual says" is proof. That's a sourced statement. Getting other evidence is rather iffy. "It works for me" or a good UOA or two are hardly evidence.

There are a few cases where the automakers have been wrong. We've seen overly optimistic oil change intervals and the wrong grade (or more accurately, less than optimal) on occasion. But those are the exceptions, rather than the rule.

The details are the issue. If you cannot demonstrate an improvement of some sort beyond statistical significance, then the price difference had better not have any statistical significance, either.

 

[Art_Vandelay]

Originally Posted By: Solarent
That's we say things like the -54 PP on the spec sheet isn't as important, focusing on the base oil while completely ignoring the rest of the formula is silly.


Who's focusing only on base oil?
Is there someone on here interested in running straight base oil with no additive package?
Give me a break.

 

[buster]

Quote:
The fact is that economics are the only driving force behind the use of grp III+, not performance.


That's not always a bad thing though. I see both sides of it. Your top tier synthetics are using PAO's, but in smaller amounts. Almost like an additive.

The Group III+/IV blends can rival and even exceed all PAO formulations in some instances. I believe Castrol/Ford came to that conclusion. If you can get say 80-90% of the the performance you want from an III+ it makes sense economically to do so. Assuming III+'s are more economical cost wise.

 

[TXCarGeek]

Originally Posted By: TXCarGeek
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: TXCarGeek
For example, showing me used oil analysis for two different oils and explaining that they wore similarly is good evidence.

Actually, it's not good evidence. A $20 used oil analysis is not a good tool to compare two oils against each other. It is mainly to detect issues with the engine itself.

Quote:

Or telling me not to run a certain weight oil because its cSt or HTHS is too low or too high for a certain application is good evidence.

That's kind of what the mfg specs are all about. For example, your 550i calls for an oil meeting LL-01 spec. This spec already ensures that an oil needs to have HTHS viscosity of at least 3.5 cP.



Ahh, I didn't know that. That is the sort of info that I like.


According to the Castrol PDS, GC has a HSHT of 2.9. How does it meet LL-01? Assuming the PDS is correct.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: buster
That's not always a bad thing though. I see both sides of it. Your top tier synthetics are using PAO's, but in smaller amounts. Almost like an additive.

And the economics is important. There isn't enough PAO production to simply change every "synthetic" on the shelf to a primarily PAO base. And, if there isn't enough production, we know what happens to pricing. And then when no one buys it, we get things like happens up here, like Edge with Titanium in SM/GF-4 on our shelves at "clearance prices" of $13.99 a quart, collecting dust.

 

[volk06]

Originally Posted By: TXCarGeek
Originally Posted By: TXCarGeek
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: TXCarGeek
For example, showing me used oil analysis for two different oils and explaining that they wore similarly is good evidence.

Actually, it's not good evidence. A $20 used oil analysis is not a good tool to compare two oils against each other. It is mainly to detect issues with the engine itself.

Quote:

Or telling me not to run a certain weight oil because its cSt or HTHS is too low or too high for a certain application is good evidence.

That's kind of what the mfg specs are all about. For example, your 550i calls for an oil meeting LL-01 spec. This spec already ensures that an oil needs to have HTHS viscosity of at least 3.5 cP.



Ahh, I didn't know that. That is the sort of info that I like.


According to the Castrol PDS, GC has a HSHT of 2.9. How does it meet LL-01? Assuming the PDS is correct.

Castrol doesn't post the actual values on most of their pdss, they list the minimum value required to pass the requirements for that viscosity grade.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: TXCarGeek
According to the Castrol PDS, GC has a HSHT of 2.9. How does it meet LL-01? Assuming the PDS is correct.

It's not. Castrol tends to provide minimums/maximums on their data sheets, rather than real data.

Bah, volk06 beat me to it.

 

[buster]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: buster
That's not always a bad thing though. I see both sides of it. Your top tier synthetics are using PAO's, but in smaller amounts. Almost like an additive.

And the economics is important. There isn't enough PAO production to simply change every "synthetic" on the shelf to a primarily PAO base. And, if there isn't enough production, we know what happens to pricing. And then when no one buys it, we get things like happens up here, like Edge with Titanium in SM/GF-4 on our shelves at "clearance prices" of $13.99 a quart, collecting dust.


Right.

 

[buster]

Actually, Group III's have better solvency than PAO's. So there are a few specific things where III's are actually a bit better. Overall though, they are slightly below PAO's in overall performance.

Within the M1 line, the Mobil 1 Advanced Fuel Economy oils appear to use the most PAO based on the MRV#'s.