Mobil 1 Extended Performance More Engine Wear

[StevieC]

As an Amsoil user who believes in the product I don't think the 4 ball test should be used as a "marketing ploy" as it currently is being used. It is pointless and a lame attempt to show superiority through fancy graphics.

Then again all companies have their "gimmick" marketing and Mobil is no exception.

I buy the Amsoil product because I have seen fantastic results using it and that is what keeps me using it. Not some stupid chart on the back of the bottle that shows a superior test result using a test that doesn't really prove anything.

If they really want to steal the market they should brag about the Taxi test they also did some time ago and what the results were when the engines were torn down. Or do a new taxi test using all the latest synthetics and their own and see who comes up ahead. This would make more sense to me and show that they have confidence in their product.

Just my

 

[tig1]

StevieC you are right. M1 used the Lost Wages taxi demo, a multi year test, to show wear results. A much better way to advertise and test oil. See field test.

https://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Videos/TV.aspx

 

[StevieC]

Amsoil did their own Taxi fleet testing as well some time ago but it is old and needs to be updated IMO.

 

[Max_Wander]

Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Hi,
Max_wander - You raise an interesting point. I put my money on the lubricant that passed/passes the Tests conducted my the engine Manufacturer! They know best - believe me

When you have many engines costing up around $70000 each I would not - and never have - use/used any lubricant where its performance is based on a 4 ball strike test. Now if the lubricant was Approved by the Manufacturer based on real world field testing and both API and ACEA "certification".........................

Goodness - I've been doing that for years.........................


No worries mate! I wouldn't want you to do otherwise.
I doubt any cost-engineered volume EC oil grades are ones that anything in your care is certified for- and most rightfully so!

Even for my little consumer-grade rigs, I still do want what's 'best' for them, I think we all do by whatever infos available and modes of logic we must subscribe to.

 

[tig1]

Amsoil did their own Taxi fleet testing as well some time ago but it is old and needs to be updated IMO.



Thanks for the post. Good read.

 

[StevieC]

 

[d00df00d]

Max_Wander, if "friction is friction" were true, lubrication wouldn't be a science.

The test is not representative of anything that happens in an engine. It is a sealed system with point loading in a lubricant bath, like a CV joint or (sort of) a transmission: contamination is not an issue, hydrodynamic films are broken instantly, and the lube has to follow the moving parts.

An engine is an open system with almost no point loading, and the lubricant is actively pumped. Totally different scenario.

What this means is, we can make no assumptions about the performance of an engine oil based on its performance in the 4-ball wear test. It's kind of like if you asked a kid math questions to see how well he can throw a ball.

 

[Bill in Utah]

Originally Posted By: tig1
StevieC you are right. M1 used the Lost Wages taxi demo, a multi year test, to show wear results. A much better way to advertise and test oil. See field test.

https://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Videos/TV.aspx


Oh the biggest JOKE of a test shows up again. Talk about marketing ploy!

You guys are ripping Amsoil for their dumb 4 ball test (which is a joke) but then you play Mobil's joke taxi test calling it real?

I want to see the REAL test. Mobil 1 for 3 times its recommended OCI. Lets see 45k OCIs and REAL miles like 300k.

Lets show both the engines SIDE BY SIDE torn down and all the wear. Interesting they only show the Mobil 1 and for that, the deposits shown on the Mobil 1 motor were shown very quickly.

Marketing is marketing.

Lets call them both a joke that they ARE.

Bill

 

[tig1]

What about the Amsoil taxi test? If you are going to offer that kind of opinion with M1, very harsh, what about the Amsoil test? Be fair in your criticism. I thought both test were a good read and would like other oil producers to do the same kind of test.
Advertising is something all corp do to sell their products. Yes marketing is marketing, and as long as companies tell the truth I don't see anything wrong with it. Now you may have another agenda against XM besides their oil products as I don't see your enthusiasm to berate other oil companies.

 

[mechtech2]

Doesn't plain chlorine bleach do rather well in the 4 ball test?

 

[Liquid_Turbo]

Man. I wish a company would just MAN up and use real facts instead of tricked out data and claims to market their product.

No more

-4 ball wear test claims!
-adaptive molecules!
-46% sludge reduction!
-8x more protection than M1!

These companies just assume the consumer is stupid. It's kind of a bummer.

Edit:

I just watched the M1 ads for the taxis. At some point it says

"These taxis never turn off, they run for 24 hours a day". Isn't that ideal conditions for an engine to run in?

I wish there was an independent company that would run the taxi test on different oils and see if the results were the same?

Call me paranoid, but who's not to say the engine parts weren't actually from the actual engine? And the "sludged up engine" is just a taxi who's oil wasn't changed for 50,000 miles?

I guess what I'm trying to say is, unless the claims are verified by independent testing, they don't really mean squat at all. It's kind of like that Sham-wow product. It's really hard to believe claims that come from the company that makes the product.

 

[zulu]

The reason you see all the ridiculous and frivolous claims is that synthetics are marketed toward people who do have a clue (or more so than the average joe). They have to use worthless tests and statistics to "show" their product is better than their competitors. You RARELY ever see this type of cut-throat marketing for conventional oils.

Synthetic oils should be a case study in marketing behavior... it's really quite impressive.

 

[Bill in Utah]

Originally Posted By: tig1
What about the Amsoil taxi test? If you are going to offer that kind of opinion with M1, very harsh, what about the Amsoil test? Be fair in your criticism. I thought both test were a good read and would like other oil producers to do the same kind of test.
Advertising is something all corp do to sell their products. Yes marketing is marketing, and as long as companies tell the truth I don't see anything wrong with it. Now you may have another agenda against XM besides their oil products as I don't see your enthusiasm to berate other oil companies.


What part of the TRUTH is running a competitors oil 3 times the recommended OCI but NOT doing the SAME with your product?

Man step away from whatever and face the facts. Until oil companies state the real TRUTH (like 99% of the engines will do fine with their lower grade (but LESS PROFIT) products) then I'll stop "berating" them.

PS: I did not want to waste my time with Amsoils taxi test. I already called them out with the 4 ball.

 

[erogers]

In my opinion (take it or leave it), any real-world test like the Las Vegas taxi test means much more than all the other marketing gimmicks or even a used oil analysis. People obsess over the details of used oil analysis when for the most part, any engine will make it well over 100,000 miles on any modern oil with reasonable OCIs. So to me, used oil analysis are a waste of money if you're using them to see if an oil will "work" for a normal OCI. used oil analysis are fine, though, if you are experimenting with different brands and want to see results as a comparison. For the M1 taxi test to be truly convincing, it should have been conducted by an independent research group. Ultimately, real-world testing makes a lot more sense than spinning statistics to make them say what a company wants them to say.

 

[erogers]

Just one more thing. Is it just me, or is everyone else getting sick of synthetic oils being compared to conventional (or synthetic blend) oils in these experiments? Why not compare a synthetic product to a competitor's synthetic product? Synthetic oils will almost always outperform conventional oils in extended drain/extreme climate situations. Let's see a knock-down, drag-out battle amongst the synthetics! I'd love to watch that.

 

[Bill in Utah]

Originally Posted By: Liquid_Turbo

These companies just assume the consumer is stupid. It's kind of a bummer.

I just watched the M1 ads for the taxis. At some point it says

"These taxis never turn off, they run for 24 hours a day". Isn't that ideal conditions for an engine to run in?

I wish there was an independent company that would run the taxi test on different oils and see if the results were the same?


That is because the average consumer is a little

Yep, go to Las Vegas and most cabs have tons of miles and are running whatever bulk is available for lowest bid.

Most cabs all over the world are doing the same.

You are correct, the best conditions for a engine is steady operation. Next would be nice warm/hot conditions.

You notice that none of the Las Vegas Taxi cabs in the big "test"

even with FIFTEEN THOUSAND mile oil change intervals with CONVENTIONAL oil did not fail.

If even a single one did Mobil would have been all over that.

Any comments on that statement?

Originally Posted By: zulu
The reason you see all the ridiculous and frivolous claims is that synthetics are marketed toward people who do have a clue (or more so than the average joe). They have to use worthless tests and statistics to "show" their product is better than their competitors. You RARELY ever see this type of cut-throat marketing for conventional oils.

Synthetic oils should be a case study in marketing behavior... it's really quite impressive.


The real reason why the marketing towards Syn oils is they are a MAJOR profit item and people will spend/waste the $$ without too much thinking.

Agree on how impressive the marketing is.

Take care, bill

 

[Liquid_Turbo]

Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah

You are correct, the best conditions for a engine is steady operation. Next would be nice warm/hot conditions.

You notice that none of the Las Vegas Taxi cabs in the big "test"

even with FIFTEEN THOUSAND mile oil change intervals with CONVENTIONAL oil did not fail.

If even a single one did Mobil would have been all over that.

Any comments on that statement?


Well to quote the video:

"There is heavy varish and tremendous amount of sludge built up... it won't be much longer until the engine fails.. this is not a total surprise to us, if you were on a conventional oil, you would see this kind of deposit formation."

Of course you would!! The conventional oil is run at 15,000 mile OCI! And like I said before, it's possible that was a taxi in which the oil was NEVER changed... to increase the dramatic result.

I find it kind of misleading that they claim Las Vegas is the harshest conditions you could run an oil.

Call me biased, but I think many short trips in a winter is much harsher on an oil. (Which interestingly is the exact opposite conditions of the Las Vegas taxi test?)

 

[cjhepburn]

Originally Posted By: Liquid_Turbo
It's kind of like that Sham-wow product. It's really hard to believe claims that come from the company that makes the product.

Ya but come on, everyone knows the Germans make good stuff, and who doesn't need a slap-chop?

 

[tig1]

The point is that in fact Mobil 1 Extended Performance oil will run 15,000 mile OCIs with no problems. They compare that to a dino run of 15,000 miles to demonstrate the differance in the two. The public in gereral doesn't have a clue about the damage that can be done with 150000 mile OCIs on their favorite dino. The M1 in question is developed for long OCIs and much of the public could benifit from this product as they may be OC abusers.

 

[Bill in Utah]

Originally Posted By: tig1
The point is that in fact Mobil 1 Extended Performance oil will run 15,000 mile OCIs with no problems. They compare that to a dino run of 15,000 miles to demonstrate the differance in the two. The public in gereral doesn't have a clue about the damage that can be done with 150000 mile OCIs on their favorite dino. The M1 in question is developed for long OCIs and much of the public could benifit from this product as they may be OC abusers.


So did the Conventional. If the public abuses the 5k OCI to 15k then lets do the "test" of Mobil 1 Extended Performance to 45k...

Trust me, if the Conventional oils failed anywhere (and you know that they took the motors and "test" past 115k) then they would have done a 150k mile "test".

The "test" was pure marketing with no real world facts. In fact it proved to me that for a Taxi that you could run ANYTHING 10k in Las Vegas and the engine will last forever.