Mobil 1 Extended Performance More Engine Wear

[tig1]

Actually M1 did test EP for something like 90,000 miles with only 15000 mile filter changes and it performed well. But that's not the point of the taxi test. Remember this oil is guaranteed for 15,000 miles, not 50,000 miles. Again,what's wrong with marketing? My daughter is a marketing major. Everything you own has been marketed in some fashion. Marketing is not evil except if it's a lie.

 

[buster]

Quote:
"The 4-ball test (ASTM D4172) is often used as a screening test for many different lubricant types that contain antiwear additives or similar base oil properties. Other tribo-mechanical bench tests are often used as well, including the Timken Test (ASTM D2782) and the Pin and V-Block (ASTM D2670). Because engines have different contact geometry, loads, metallurgy and speeds, numerous bench tests and test protocols are needed. It is not uncommon for several oils to be tested using two such methods and to find that the performance rankings between the oils to reverse (no correlation). This is why, among other reasons, Passenger Car Motor Oils and Heavy Duty Oils (diesel crankcase) are tested in actual engines using controlled methods such as ASTM D5533 Sequence IIIE and D5302 Sequence VE.

Jim Fitch, Noria Corporation"

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: Max_Wander
Jason, the GL-5 is a gear oil. The wear tests in question only included finished motor oils. Yes, S-P EP additives are corrosive to yellow metals. GL-5 lubes are even unsuitable for some manual transmission synchros

Right, and that's kind of my point. You postulated that any oil that passed the 4-ball wear test (or whatever it is) must necessarily be superior (as an engine oil) to one that didn't pass it. I guess my point is that of some other folks who have already posted: the 4-ball wear test may not even be relevant to engine oils.

I was trying to make that analogy with the gear lubricants. By almost every measure, the GL-5 lubricants are "stronger", "stouter", "tougher", whatever adjective you want to use, compared with GL-4 lubes. This is why GL-5 is specified in axles, where those severe conditions exist. Those conditions don't exist in manual transmissions, and indeed, the EP additives are even harmful to some components. This makes a GL-4 vs. GL-5 comparison of properties completely inappropriate if we're talking about a manual transmission.

Just as comparison of performance in a 4-ball wear test for engine oils is not really relevant.

 

[ottotheclown]

Consumer Reports did their own tests and since they do not sell oil, you know what? it did not matter conventional or synthetic 3000 or 6000 OCI. In that fact lies the real truth re. Taxi tests. This is so simple even a caveman can figure it out.

 

[Liquid_Turbo]

Even PP has their own Las Vegas taxi test!!

http://pennzoil.com/#/feel-the-clean/

 

[Pablo]

As misleading as most other oil marketers including ExxonMobil.

The results are the results. M1, Doug, and the EM fan club members don't especially like the results, but they come short of saying they are falsified. I will surely agree the results do mean something, not everything - but there is correlation. Now as for Amsoil, and many of you should know by now - uses more than the 4-ball test, or just bench tests alone. So really, M1 is just dragging that red herring out as what.....dare I say...marketing speak?? Also, factory fill - that's getting just as old. Factory fill equals low bidder and special relationship, not necessarily better product.

Maybe Mobil 1 Extended Performance changed their formula since 2007.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

yes, but which oil do 4 out of 5 dentists prefer?

 

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: Hoosier_Daddy
yes, but which oil do 4 out of 5 dentists prefer?


Exactly! Just 4 of the 5.

 

[HARTZSKY]

What the test shows me, more than anything, is Pennzoil Platinum, with its rebate, is a steal of a bargain.

 

[Liquid_Turbo]

So Amsoil works well as a grease, AND an engine lubricant? That technically makes it a better product.

Joking aside, I'm still not convinced that there is ZERO correlation between the 4ball test and engine lubrication. What about areas such as the contact point between the cams and valves where there is significant pressure?

 

[Doug Hillary]

Hi,
Pablo - Frankly I don't care much at all about the 4 ball test as I purchase my lubricants based on various established mainstream results. Results that can be taken up by engine Manufacturers, API, ACEA and the other Technical bodies that matter

If I was purchasing grease then I may consider the 4 ball test results

Now if only Amsoil used "their" test on greases and compared the results I and many others make take notice

Until then, API, ACEA and the engine Manufacturers Approvals will do just fine

Oh and by the way I think Mobil are very poor Marketers!

But then I use a mix of Castrol, Shell and EM products that are purchased without any reference to 2, 3, or 4 balls. I already know that they have at least two - if they don't I don't buy them!

 

[Bill in Utah]

Originally Posted By: Liquid_Turbo
Even PP has their own Las Vegas taxi test!!

http://pennzoil.com/#/feel-the-clean/


What a joke!

What was the OCI? Time it took to get to 100k?

The engines were cleaner than the Mobil 1 run but without knowing what OCI is oh well.

Bottom line, A Las Vegas cab can make 100k with NO problem. Simple as it can get.

Why do the oil companies have to do this stuff?

Bad Mobil and Pennzoil.. BAD

Bill

 

[cjhepburn]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
Factory fill equals low bidder and special relationship, not necessarily better product.

Factory Fill = Brilliant Marketing and a lifelong customer. To top it off, it only cost XOM 5 quarts. I wouldn't be surprised if Mobil 1 was supplied to automakers free of charge.

 

[Mamala Bay]

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


When I went to the web site my anti virus popped up. It said dangerous material. So I tried it again and it popped up..dangerous material. I use avira...anyone else experience that.

 

[Bill in Utah]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
factory fill - that's getting just as old. Factory fill equals low bidder and special relationship, not necessarily better product.
So true.

Seeing how people who are interested in oil (so hopefully they have some knowledge) and they pump the factory fill line it shows how this part of the marketing is working.

Just think how the consumer takes it in....

Bill

 

[d00df00d]

If Amsoil is using the four-ball wear test to sell their products, the onus is on them to prove why it matters. Saying "it's wear" doesn't count. There has to be some sort of correlation with actual engine wear. Never mind proving it -- Amsoil doesn't even explicitly claim that there is. Why? Because they can't back it up. They are free to say their oils do better on that test, and that their oils are also good for your engine, but they can't claim those two facts are related. They just put the graphs up and let people draw the "obvious" conclusion.

Meanwhile, Mobil says "we use industry standard tests, we do actual field testing and tear-downs, and we work with the manufacturers." Yeah yeah, low bids, special relationship, blah blah... They would NOT be as successful as they are if they sucked, period. Plus, the fact that they are working with the manufacturers means they are making a product that fits, period. Everything they say has SOME correlation to actual engine wear, and they can demonstrate it.

I have been a fan of Amsoil's products for a while, and I will continue to be. I just don't think anyone from Amsoil is in a position to lecture Mobil on marketing.

 

[gmchevroletruck]

I'm glad you said that, as it is cheaper than motor oil, and I have some laying around....I may just use that instead

 

[gmchevroletruck]

years ago, Consumer Reports did a similar taxi fleet test using many different motor oils, syn and dino, and their "conclusion" was that all of the API (whatever the spec was at that time) oils did, in their conclusion, the "exact same job"...That test, to me, seemed like it couldn't possibly have been accurate, or maybe just proves that if you're operating under 'ideal' conditions, i.e., very few cold starts etc, that pretty much any API spec oil will do the job...I also think they should have ran the taxis longer (300k for example) to validate the test further. Again, this test was years ago so it wouldn't apply to current SM spec oils, but just wanted to add that, if anyone was interested. I can't find a link to it, but am 100 percent certain of the test and the above mentioned results stated by them, as I had subscribed to their magazine at the time, some years ago

 

[AzFireGuy79]

Love Mobil 1 or hate it does not matter really. They have proven over the years that their product delivers. Period. Not really much to debate here.. The Four ball wear test is an embarrassment when used to compare motor oil. And I like Amsoil. I think they make some very high quality lubes.

Why so much Mobil 1 hate on this site? If you don't like an oil, don't use it. Focus on what you do like. All the used oil analysis and 4 ball tests in the world will not bring us any closer to proving which oil is better.

 

[Doug Hillary]

Hi,
people do get "carried away" by trivial issues - and supposition and the like become virtual reality

Mobil has been working with Daimler Benz for well over 70 years!

Daimler AG has a number of FF suppliers - at the engine plant at Unterturkheim - and the "first start" oil (5w30) is a run of the mill product! Around 200 lubricants have current Approval by Daimler AG including at least one Amsoil product (Daimler AG did NOT use the 4 ball test to Approve it!)

A retired senior Director with a responsibility said that "...people waste their money on exotic lubricants!" "All Approved products perform more or less the same!"

Porsche as another engine Maker have had over 100 lubricants Approved at one time. In Stuttgart the major Dealer will add any lubricant you like - well, as long as it is on the Approved List

The real test is in the field - in the hands of the consumer - and remember that there is no Magic lubricant!