Do the esters in Mobil 1 make it a high detergency oil? Will it clean up crap left behind by other oils and act as an "engine flush" on the first interval?
Thanks!
Thanks!
Mobil 1, esters, and cleaning
- Thread starter novadude
- Start date
- Status
Mobil 1 will definitely clean out a sludged engine but it takes a while to do it. I bought a GM 305 truck at 67K and it had about 3/8" or more of sludge on top of the heads. At 97K I had the covers off to adjust the valves and the sludge showed a heavily eroded "bad lands" pattern as much of it had been removed. At about 125K covers were off again for a valve adjustment and the tops of the heads were clean as a whistle. This with 5K changes with Mobil 1 5W30.
Do the esters in Mobil 1 make it a high detergency oil?
1) Yes and No. The esters will leave the engine cleaner than group I oil. The high calcium make M1 more detergent. I'm sure the ester contributes too. But true "high detergency" oils are the diesel oils like Delo, Delvac, and Rotella.
Will it clean up crap left behind by other oils and act as an "engine flush" on the first interval?
2) Yes and No. Slowly as the previous post described. But M1 is not a flush and I'm glad it isn't. A quick "flush" could allow loose bits of gunk to clog oil passageways. That would be very bad!!
1) Yes and No. The esters will leave the engine cleaner than group I oil. The high calcium make M1 more detergent. I'm sure the ester contributes too. But true "high detergency" oils are the diesel oils like Delo, Delvac, and Rotella.
Will it clean up crap left behind by other oils and act as an "engine flush" on the first interval?
2) Yes and No. Slowly as the previous post described. But M1 is not a flush and I'm glad it isn't. A quick "flush" could allow loose bits of gunk to clog oil passageways. That would be very bad!!
I have found that Delvac 1 cleans like mad, but M-1 doesn't really do that much...but, that was with 15-50, so maybe the thinner grades clean better. IMO the cleaning comes from M-1 being a contamination-free oil, so the opposite is true after many, many, many miles...ie. it will not clean things out in 500 mi....
Patman
Staff member
I believe Redline probably has a much more aggressive cleaning action compared to Mobil 1, due to it's polyol esters.
The esters in Mobil 1 are "no more".. One of the evolutionary changes was the elimination of the ester portion of the formulation (needed for additive solubility, natural detergency, seal swell). Thus Mobil 1 is essentially all PAO now, enabled through the magic of chemistry; even superior performance without the negative aspects of the ester.
George Morrison, STLE CLS
George Morrison, STLE CLS
Patman
Staff member
Interesting info George!
Although what negative aspects do esters have?
So is the new formula still "high detergent"? Will it clean over a period of time like the old M1?
I realize my statement (Esers gone!) is a bit of a shocker. But it is true.. Mobil's latest formulation goal was to eliminate ester's from the program. Ester additization has been around since day 2 (day one found the additives at the bottom of the container: additive fallout!) and have been a cornerstone of Group IV PAO synthetic oil formulation. But, if one looks at the current MSDS for Mobil 1, you will note the absence of ester.. It took years of work to achieve a formulation that significantly outperformed the PAO/Ester blend but, Mobil did it..
This is what Sypersyn was all about; the ads about it being revolutionary, new, etc. were true..
Additive solubility, seal swell, detergency were all achieved..
George Morrison, STLE CLS
This is what Sypersyn was all about; the ads about it being revolutionary, new, etc. were true..
Additive solubility, seal swell, detergency were all achieved..
George Morrison, STLE CLS
George, with all due respect...I simply don't believe this. I'm not saying you are purposely spreading a falsehood, but if you have been told this, I think you've been misinformed. And if you got this from the Mobil tech hot line, I'm 99.9% sure you were misinformed.
The Mobil 1 web site is not as forthcoming about the formulation of SuperSyn as it was with TriSyn, but it still says that Mobil 1 is made up of "synthetic FLUIDS" (note the plural), "including PAO." So obviously, there are other synthetic compounds to the formulation besides PAO. What would they be if not esters?
For G-MAN II - Yes the 305 small block has hydraulic lifters but apparently after they have been messed with a few times they lose their locking capability. There were a couple on that truck that would work loose until they started clicking so then I would go in and screw them down. I know, I should have replaced them.
That really is big news but like Patman, I tend to take George's comments about M1's composition at face value.
G-Man II, I think you are remembering one of 'Kule's statements incorrectly. It was newer high viscosity PAOs which was the big change in the formula ... and this also gave birth to the new product name. Not esters. I think at some time they switched from a diester to a polyol ... but I sorta whipped that tidbit out of my butt. Don't quote me on that one.
As far as 'Kule's info on what esters Mobil use(d), I bet he was correct at one time. However, the veterans on this site know that as soon as we think we have a handle on a given oil's formulation, the crafty change it.
Note the recent converts to molybdenum as a barrier additive. A couple years ago Valvoline Max-Life was the only mass-market company offering moly in an automotive oil ... and now they've dropped it while nearly everyone else has added it.
Jason: "PAO doesn't appear to hold as many advantages. Mobil themselves even used to call it SHC, Synthesized HydroCarbon!"
Yep, I think that's a an accurate description of what traditional PAO has been ... a 100% synthesized (not refined/hydrocracked like Group 1, II or III) hydrocarbon. I guess I'm not sure what your point is regarding that statement.
As for tech-line staff, I know of NO PETRO-RELATED COMPANY that I would give high marks to. I think I have gotten (or heard of) half-a$$ed, dimwit answers from every one of them.
As for other compounds, I think Tri-Syn used to have an alkylated aromatic ... but I might have butchered that spelling badly.
--- Bror Jace
[ March 18, 2003, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: Bror Jace ]
G-Man II, I think you are remembering one of 'Kule's statements incorrectly. It was newer high viscosity PAOs which was the big change in the formula ... and this also gave birth to the new product name. Not esters. I think at some time they switched from a diester to a polyol ... but I sorta whipped that tidbit out of my butt. Don't quote me on that one.
As far as 'Kule's info on what esters Mobil use(d), I bet he was correct at one time. However, the veterans on this site know that as soon as we think we have a handle on a given oil's formulation, the crafty change it.
Jason: "PAO doesn't appear to hold as many advantages. Mobil themselves even used to call it SHC, Synthesized HydroCarbon!"
Yep, I think that's a an accurate description of what traditional PAO has been ... a 100% synthesized (not refined/hydrocracked like Group 1, II or III) hydrocarbon. I guess I'm not sure what your point is regarding that statement.
As for tech-line staff, I know of NO PETRO-RELATED COMPANY that I would give high marks to. I think I have gotten (or heard of) half-a$$ed, dimwit answers from every one of them.
As for other compounds, I think Tri-Syn used to have an alkylated aromatic ... but I might have butchered that spelling badly.
--- Bror Jace
[ March 18, 2003, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: Bror Jace ]
My point was that is still hydrocarbon based. Nothing to write home about. Esters have much better performance. So the "fact" that M1 is ALL PAO now, does not impress me.
EDIT: BTW I am pretty sure as well that Molakule has said on numerous occasions that newly developed ESTERS were part of the new "SuperSyn" formulation.
[ March 18, 2003, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: Jason Troxell ]
EDIT: BTW I am pretty sure as well that Molakule has said on numerous occasions that newly developed ESTERS were part of the new "SuperSyn" formulation.
[ March 18, 2003, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: Jason Troxell ]
If no more Esters, what is holding the additives? It's not the PAO.
I'm assuming a Group I or Group II oil.
[ March 18, 2003, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: jjbula ]
I'm assuming a Group I or Group II oil.
[ March 18, 2003, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: jjbula ]
I remember when Mobil 1 first posted the specs for the new SuperSyn series. The rumors were flying that M1 was no longer synthetic. So I called M1 about the changes. The tech rep said that the basestocks were unchanged from the TriSyn series. So if what George says is true it only underlines how unreliable the phone help is at Mobil 1 these days.
Incidently, I've found there are two layers of tech help at M1. The first to answer the phone may or may not be a STLE/CLE, but if the first guy can't answer your question it's passed on to a much smarter guy.
Incidently, I've found there are two layers of tech help at M1. The first to answer the phone may or may not be a STLE/CLE, but if the first guy can't answer your question it's passed on to a much smarter guy.
I just called M1 a few minutes ago and the tech rep said all M1 PCMO's contain PAO, esters, and alkylated aromatic basestocks including the new 0w-20.
Regarding the supposed advantages of ester in Mobil 1: it was merely a balancing of chemistries to achieve an end. It has always been a goal to eliminate or minimize the ester 'blend'. As previously indicated, esters are *very* hygroscopic. The last thing we need in an oil formulation is a component drawing water into the fluid, which is what esters do.. Esters are very reactive. (i.e. the natural detergency, seal swell, additive hold). So the real chemical breakthrough was the ability to have a homogeneous chemistry that enabled all the positive aspects of ester without the drawbacks: which is exactly what has taken place. And performance-wise, which has always been the Mobil standard, no compromise: just the opposite, increased performance in every parameter.
Regarding Mobil tech support: they are not going to share formulation. This formulation is multi-patentable, super secret deal!.
However, it is not rocket science: the MSDS for old formulation Mobil 1 indicated >10% ester. New formulation Mobil 1: no ester component is mentioned....
This is what Mobil was all excited about! To be able to significantly surpass the PAO/Ester blend performance without the ester.
George Morrison, STLE CLS
[ March 18, 2003, 08:48 PM: Message edited by: GeorgeCLS ]
Regarding Mobil tech support: they are not going to share formulation. This formulation is multi-patentable, super secret deal!.
However, it is not rocket science: the MSDS for old formulation Mobil 1 indicated >10% ester. New formulation Mobil 1: no ester component is mentioned....
This is what Mobil was all excited about! To be able to significantly surpass the PAO/Ester blend performance without the ester.
George Morrison, STLE CLS
[ March 18, 2003, 08:48 PM: Message edited by: GeorgeCLS ]
Nice to see you back George! seems like you've been away for ages?
- Status
