Mobil 1 EP 0w-20 1970 miles 2020 Subaru Outback XT

Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
13
Location
Southwest Oregon, USA
Vehicle: 2020 Subaru Outback Limited XT (2.4l turbo)
Miles on vehicle/engine: 8747
Miles / time on oil change interval: 1970 miles / 6 months
Motor oil used: Mobil 1 EP 100% 0w-20
Oil filter used Subaru OEM
 

Attachments

  • Subaru Outback Oil UOA 8747 miles 20220603.jpg
    Subaru Outback Oil UOA 8747 miles 20220603.jpg
    137.1 KB · Views: 251
Joined
Feb 25, 2019
Messages
2,063
Location
Texas
Oil held up well. But is copper normally that high for these engines. 30ppm seems like a lot. iron was low at 6 though.
 
Joined
Dec 23, 2020
Messages
850
Location
Midwest
Only 8747 mi on vehicle. It's still breaking in, so the copper at 30ppm gets a pass. The oil is shearing though, probably could've taken it 2500 miles before it went out of grade. For short OCI you might want to save a few bucks and not get the EP oil.
 
Joined
Aug 4, 2003
Messages
2,598
Location
NJ
Only 8747 mi on vehicle. It's still breaking in, so the copper at 30ppm gets a pass. The oil is shearing though, probably could've taken it 2500 miles before it went out of grade. For short OCI you might want to save a few bucks and not get the EP oil.
There's 1.7% fuel contamination, which is pretty good for this engine, so it's difficult to know if the viscosity loss is due to shearing.
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
53,070
Location
Ontario, Canada
I am using the word "shearing" to mean "losing viscosity."
You can't though.

Shearing is a physical action that happens to the VII polymers that results in both temporary and permanent viscosity loss. Fuel dilution is another mechanism that causes viscosity loss.

Worded differently: Shear can cause viscosity loss, but it is not the only mechanism through which that is achieved, ergo, shear cannot be universally used to describe an unexpected reduction in viscosity, it should be referred to as simply viscosity loss, and, if you suspect shear as the primary mechanism, call that out separately.
 
Joined
Dec 23, 2020
Messages
850
Location
Midwest
You can't though.

Shearing is a physical action that happens to the VII polymers that results in both temporary and permanent viscosity loss. Fuel dilution is another mechanism that causes viscosity loss.

Worded differently: Shear can cause viscosity loss, but it is not the only mechanism through which that is achieved, ergo, shear cannot be universally used to describe an unexpected reduction in viscosity, it should be referred to as simply viscosity loss, and, if you suspect shear as the primary mechanism, call that out separately.
I think to most anyone who read my post, the intent was clear. But I will try harder to be more precise with my verbiage from now on.
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
53,070
Location
Ontario, Canada
I think to most anyone who read my post, the intent was clear. But I will try harder to be more precise with my verbiage from now on.
Maybe, unfortunately, since most of the discussion around UOA's on this board revolves around those from Blackstone, shear has become synonymous with viscosity loss. Basically, if you saw it in a UOA, because Blackstone doesn't properly measure fuel, the oil was referred to, incorrectly, as having sheared. Myself and a few others who noticed this trend have been working to correct it by pointing out fuel as a contributor, or even primary driver, of viscosity loss, and NOT shear, where appropriate. It takes a while to change something that has become so entrenched, so I appreciate your acknowledgement and comment on future efforts to improve language used, it will aide in these efforts.
 
Joined
Dec 23, 2020
Messages
850
Location
Midwest
Maybe, unfortunately, since most of the discussion around UOA's on this board revolves around those from Blackstone, shear has become synonymous with viscosity loss. Basically, if you saw it in a UOA, because Blackstone doesn't properly measure fuel, the oil was referred to, incorrectly, as having sheared. Myself and a few others who noticed this trend have been working to correct it by pointing out fuel as a contributor, or even primary driver, of viscosity loss, and NOT shear, where appropriate. It takes a while to change something that has become so entrenched, so I appreciate your acknowledgement and comment on future efforts to improve language used, it will aide in these efforts.
Or I will comment less often, or stop posting completely. When the oil gods swoop in pedantically to correct every verbal miscue, even if the intent is clear, it's a lot less interesting to keep coming back and contributing. Going back to read-only mode now.
 
Joined
Mar 8, 2012
Messages
16,305
Location
Colorado Springs
Or I will comment less often, or stop posting completely. When the oil gods swoop in pedantically to correct every verbal miscue, even if the intent is clear, it's a lot less interesting to keep coming back and contributing. Going back to read-only mode now.
Well, it is oil forum after all. One would think basic verbiage would be correct.
 
Joined
Dec 23, 2020
Messages
850
Location
Midwest
Well, it is oil forum after all. One would think basic verbiage would be correct.
So using the word "shear" to describe an oil losing viscosity is not using basic verbiage? Think about that for a second.

If this was an isolated situation, it wouldn't be a big deal, BUT:

-I've been corrected for using the word "weight" instead of "grade."
-I've been corrected for using "shearing" instead of "losing viscosity."
-I was corrected for disagreeing with someone that a UOA is "useless" (his words) unless you get both a TBN and a TAN.
-when Blackstone was getting bashed unfairly and I spoke up, I was accused of getting paid by Blackstone. I agree that their Fuel% method is not as accurate as GC, but this is not what I'm talking about. M1 EP 0W20 oils were widely showing low Ph and Zn levels on VOAs from multiple labs, but somehow Blackstone was still being singled out as being "inaccurate" with their spectral analysis. I showed results from other labs of the same oil (Mobil 1's own VOA of their oil showed low Ph and Zn!), and I showed posts like this: https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/t...-by-three-different-test-laboratories.344857/
yet no one accepted my correction. ;)

This "correcting" culture that has developed here is starting to border on Big Brother-ish and feels like there's always someone standing over your shoulder ready to swoop in, wag their finger at you and "tsk tsk". What's interesting is with the old timers (people with thousands of posts), I don't see this happening as much. I have seen many what would be considered inaccurate posts by old timers and you just don't see the oil gods swooping in and correcting them. Specifically, I see a lot of old timers using "weight" when they're describing an oil's grade. No big deal, I know what they mean and so do you, right? But when I did it, someone had to swoop in and correct me. All of these incidents in isolation are not a big deal to me. I'm capable of learning and growing, even if the ones doing the correcting aren't being respectful about how they correct. But when it happens over and over, I unfortunately have a breaking point. I reached it.
 
Joined
Mar 8, 2012
Messages
16,305
Location
Colorado Springs
So using the word "shear" to describe an oil losing viscosity is not using basic verbiage? Think about that for a second.

If this was an isolated situation, it wouldn't be a big deal, BUT:

-I've been corrected for using the word "weight" instead of "grade."
-I've been corrected for using "shearing" instead of "losing viscosity."
-I was corrected for disagreeing with someone that a UOA is "useless" (his words) unless you get both a TBN and a TAN.
-when Blackstone was getting bashed unfairly and I spoke up, I was accused of getting paid by Blackstone. I agree that their Fuel% method is not as accurate as GC, but this is not what I'm talking about. M1 EP 0W20 oils were widely showing low Ph and Zn levels on VOAs from multiple labs, but somehow Blackstone was still being singled out as being "inaccurate" with their spectral analysis. I showed results from other labs of the same oil (Mobil 1's own VOA of their oil showed low Ph and Zn!), and I showed posts like this: https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/t...-by-three-different-test-laboratories.344857/
yet no one accepted my correction. ;)

This "correcting" culture that has developed here is starting to border on Big Brother-ish and feels like there's always someone standing over your shoulder ready to swoop in, wag their finger at you and "tsk tsk". What's interesting is with the old timers (people with thousands of posts), I don't see this happening as much. I have seen many what would be considered inaccurate posts by old timers and you just don't see the oil gods swooping in and correcting them. Specifically, I see a lot of old timers using "weight" when they're describing an oil's grade. No big deal, I know what they mean and so do you, right? But when I did it, someone had to swoop in and correct me. All of these incidents in isolation are not a big deal to me. I'm capable of learning and growing, even if the ones doing the correcting aren't being respectful about how they correct. But when it happens over and over, I unfortunately have a breaking point. I reached it.
I probably told you that without TBN and TAN UOA is useless. I mean, what do you want me to tell you? You didn’t get two basic measurements of use oil to see how it did. That is fact. There is not alternative to it.
This is forum, people discuss things, people comment.
 
Joined
Sep 24, 2020
Messages
681
Location
New Bedford, MA
So using the word "shear" to describe an oil losing viscosity is not using basic verbiage? Think about that for a second.

If this was an isolated situation, it wouldn't be a big deal, BUT:

-I've been corrected for using the word "weight" instead of "grade."
-I've been corrected for using "shearing" instead of "losing viscosity."
-I was corrected for disagreeing with someone that a UOA is "useless" (his words) unless you get both a TBN and a TAN.
-when Blackstone was getting bashed unfairly and I spoke up, I was accused of getting paid by Blackstone. I agree that their Fuel% method is not as accurate as GC, but this is not what I'm talking about. M1 EP 0W20 oils were widely showing low Ph and Zn levels on VOAs from multiple labs, but somehow Blackstone was still being singled out as being "inaccurate" with their spectral analysis. I showed results from other labs of the same oil (Mobil 1's own VOA of their oil showed low Ph and Zn!), and I showed posts like this: https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/t...-by-three-different-test-laboratories.344857/
yet no one accepted my correction. ;)

This "correcting" culture that has developed here is starting to border on Big Brother-ish and feels like there's always someone standing over your shoulder ready to swoop in, wag their finger at you and "tsk tsk". What's interesting is with the old timers (people with thousands of posts), I don't see this happening as much. I have seen many what would be considered inaccurate posts by old timers and you just don't see the oil gods swooping in and correcting them. Specifically, I see a lot of old timers using "weight" when they're describing an oil's grade. No big deal, I know what they mean and so do you, right? But when I did it, someone had to swoop in and correct me. All of these incidents in isolation are not a big deal to me. I'm capable of learning and growing, even if the ones doing the correcting aren't being respectful about how they correct. But when it happens over and over, I unfortunately have a breaking point. I reached it.
I can definitely see your point
 
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
2,754
Location
Somewhere in time
You can't though.

Shearing is a physical action that happens to the VII polymers that results in both temporary and permanent viscosity loss. Fuel dilution is another mechanism that causes viscosity loss.

Worded differently: Shear can cause viscosity loss, but it is not the only mechanism through which that is achieved, ergo, shear cannot be universally used to describe an unexpected reduction in viscosity, it should be referred to as simply viscosity loss, and, if you suspect shear as the primary mechanism, call that out separately.
I'll bet you're a real hoot at parties.
🍻

Yes, he can do exactly what he described. And the majority of people will get it. It's a generalization that, while not technically correct, is understood by most people in casual conversation.

And that's way more than can be said for much of internet content.

To put it differently, relax man, we get it.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 26, 2005
Messages
22,969
Location
Upper Midwest
Yes, he can do exactly what he described. And the majority of people will get it. It's a generalization that, while not technically correct, is understood by most people in casual conversation.

And that's way more than can be said for much of internet content.

To put it differently, relax man, we get it.
It's wrong but it can be done, yes.

Which is typical for much of Internet content. Popular and generalized but incorrect.
 
Top