Mobil-1 5W-30 Extended Performance and GF-3 or GF-4

[chucky2]

Just wanted to let anyone know who is also searching for the information that in my quest to find out if Mobil-1 5W-30 Extended Performance (EP) met Ford's WSS-M2C205-A spec (which Mobil claims to be a diesel spec. by the way

), I'd posed the question to Mobil if the Mobil-1 5W-30 EP met GF-3 (NOT GF-4, since their website already says it doesn't), and they came back with:

"Mobil 1 Extended Performace 5W-30 does not meet ILSAC GF-3 or GF-4. If you wish to discuss further please give us a call."

Again, just wanted to post this for anyone looking for the info.

Chuck

 

[MADMIKE]

Why wouldn't it meet GF-3? Is that correct? GF-4 I can understand but I'd be very surprised if it didn't meet GF-3 (and API SL).

 

[y_p_w]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MADMIKE:
Why wouldn't it meet GF-3? Is that correct? GF-4 I can understand but I'd be very surprised if it didn't meet GF-3 (and API SL).

---

In order to meet GF-3, they would also have to meet the corresponding API SL "Energy Conserving" spec.

However - there's the question as to whether one can claim to meet the "Energy Conserving" standard on less than the latest (SM) spec. There aren't many oils that don't put the latest API gasoline spec on the "donut", save HD diesel oils.

 

[chucky2]

Blue99- Before unDummy even posted that link, I'd googled it and read it. My error in reading it was thinking it was from ILMA to Ford instead of the other way around. After taking your suggestion, and reading it again, I now see that's from Ford to ILMA. So, I've had the WSS-M2C205-A spec. all along...

That spec. is:

3.2 PERFORMANCE
Shall meet all the requirements of "The ILSAC GF-3 Minimum Performance Standard For
Passenger Car Engine Oils" and shall be licensed to display the API Certification Mark.

3.3 PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL PROPERTIES

3.3.1 Copper Corrosion, max 1b (Dark Orange)
(ASTM D 130 or ISO 2160, 3 h at 100 C)

3.3.2 Physical Appearance and Odor
Shall be clear and bright with no objectionable odor.

3.3.3 Contaminants
Shall be free of carcinogens, toxins, metals from refining or previous use.

End quote from WSS-M2C205-A spec.

I have no doubt that M1 5W-30 meets all the wear specs for GF-3 (and probably GF-4 too I'm sure), and it also already is API SL logo'd...so no worries there.

What Ford's WSS-M2C205-A spec. does explicity say though is, "Shall meet all the requirements of "The ILSAC GF-3 Minimum Performance Standard For Passenger Car Engine Oils".

I guess the question now is does M1 5W-30 meet all these minimum performance standards or not? If it doesn't, then it does not meet the Ford spec. (however chickensh*t that is since we all know it's an overkill oil for 5,000 miles and any FoMoCo gasser requiring 5W-30).

This thread really wasn't to bring up my other thead...it was really a FYI for anyone doing like research.

Chuck

[ May 11, 2005, 09:37 PM: Message edited by: chucky2 ]

 

[Bryanccfshr]

Leave them alone

If they keep getting calls on spec inquiries marketiing will have them imasculate it to meet those specs. If you want something with specs on it it is there with the SM M1

 

[Blue99]

Chuck - Would you please go back & actually read the link that UnDummy posted.

http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=010741

The Ford WSS-M2C205-A spec is listed on a Ford letterhead. This spec is just a shell that refers back to the ILSAC GF-3 test sequences & the API SL requirements.

M1 EP 5W-30 does not meet ILSAC GF-4 due to the 800 ppm phosphorous cap and it does not pass the Sequence VIB fuel efficiency test.

It will pass the GF-3 1000ppm P level, but again, the Sequence VIB fuel efficiency test is a requirement even for a GF-3 rating.

 

[buster]

http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/Lubes/PDS/GLXXENPVLMOMobil1_5W-30.asp

M1 5w-30 GF-4 is thicker then the EP version. Any idea as to why?

11.3 cSt
230C Flash Point

 

[greg_J35]

Stop wasting money on Mobil1.I have tried it and found It isn't worth it. The Mobil 7500 is a good quality oil however,from an econical view even it is over priced compared to the Connoco Phillips family of oils.

[ August 26, 2005, 08:48 PM: Message edited by: 59 Vetteman ]

 

[Mickey_M]

quote:

---

greenfordtruck:

Stop wasting money on Mobil1.I have tried it and found It isn't worth it. ...

---

With 2/3 of the synthetic market, billions of test miles over three decades, and the UOAs posted over the years here, I don't think ExxonMobil would agree with you.


.

[ August 26, 2005, 08:49 PM: Message edited by: 59 Vetteman ]

 

[buster]

quote:

---

Each new product will be offered in either three or four of the more popular viscosity grades. All, except for Mobil 1 Extended Performance, are API licensed for the most current categories, ILSAC GF-4 and API SM. Mobil 1 Extended Performance is not currently licensed because it does not meet the fuel economy requirements of GF-4 as measured by the Sequence VIB engine test. It does, however, meet the engine durability and protection requirements of the specification. The company said it is doing a considerable amount of work to meet the fuel economy requirements while retaining the 15,000-mile guarantee. “Technically its doable,” said Olszewski, “We’re well under way and expect to get there.”

---

I was told by Mobil Tech that they are working on a GF-4 15k mile drain oil, as stated above. He wan't sure when but said he believes spring. He said they don't tell them much until the product is about to roll out but that is what he had heard.