5w30 is now SM certified.
Could this mean a drop in additives from the previous formula?
This is news to me.
http://www.mobil1.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Oils/Mobil_1_Extended_Performance_FAQs.aspx#FAQs1
Mobil 1 Extended Performance now meets GF-4
- Thread starter Jonny Z
- Start date
- Status
Could this mean a drop in additives from the previous formula?
This is news to me.
http://www.mobil1.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Oils/Mobil_1_Extended_Performance_FAQs.aspx#FAQs1
Who still using cam pads in their valvetrain designs?
427, common vernacular for many engine cam wear sequence tests for ILSAC GF4 IIIG cam and lifter and IVA cam wear testing.
TU3MS still gives a pad merit rating and translates well into lower valve train wear in actual engines.
For instance GM 4718 and GF4 allow 60 um max in IIIG/ IVA allows 90 um max and the difference between results for various oils is significant and not released to the public. Only that the oil passed.
UOA is very good at tracking these test results when running a engine on long drains, fuel diluted and or high stress operation.
Terry
TU3MS still gives a pad merit rating and translates well into lower valve train wear in actual engines.
For instance GM 4718 and GF4 allow 60 um max in IIIG/ IVA allows 90 um max and the difference between results for various oils is significant and not released to the public. Only that the oil passed.
UOA is very good at tracking these test results when running a engine on long drains, fuel diluted and or high stress operation.
Terry
Thanks for clarifying Terry. It didn't occur to me you were referring to the Sequence IIIG and Sequence IVA tests. Now we know that even though M1 passes these tests, it does relatively poor in them.
In the post above, I was referring to the fact that TTBOMK, the vast majority of engines produced in the last decade use roller elements in the valvetrain.
In the post above, I was referring to the fact that TTBOMK, the vast majority of engines produced in the last decade use roller elements in the valvetrain.
Snap snap, grin grin, wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more!
I don't understand Terry's comment about the "The Basic M1 sure leaves a lot to be desired in wear control in the valve train."
I thought the context of the thread was about the new SM Mobil 1 Extended Performance not the regular(basic?) oil?
I read all the "noise" discussions. Are we now saying M1 has wear issues too including EP?
I thought the context of the thread was about the new SM Mobil 1 Extended Performance not the regular(basic?) oil?
I read all the "noise" discussions. Are we now saying M1 has wear issues too including EP?
Terry-
Your well respected in here, and I think the following statement by you has a lot of people concerned. Can you please elaborate what you meant when you said
" Good, maybe cam pad wear reductions will now be proportional to the cost of the highly touted product. The Basic M1 sure leaves a lot to be desired in wear control in the valve train. "
I use Mobil 1 10w30, so are you saying the valve train is not being well protected in my toyota V8 and nissan v6?
What synthetic do you reccomend to run?
THanks
Your well respected in here, and I think the following statement by you has a lot of people concerned. Can you please elaborate what you meant when you said
" Good, maybe cam pad wear reductions will now be proportional to the cost of the highly touted product. The Basic M1 sure leaves a lot to be desired in wear control in the valve train. "
I use Mobil 1 10w30, so are you saying the valve train is not being well protected in my toyota V8 and nissan v6?
What synthetic do you reccomend to run?
THanks
I must see/use proprietary and independent testing results to consult for many different non consumer level customers.
I bring that knowledge base to my interpretation to recommend particular chemistries for particular applications BASED ON UOA for my customers unit.
Unless you use oil analysis for YOUR SPECIFIC application you won't know for sure whether a particular product works well or not.
If you are brand loyal you'd better trust but verify with UOA and an analyst interpreting the data that knows what they are looking at.
No major lube company will disclose the actual wear readings they scored to qualify a particular test protocal. Just that they passed. However those results can pick winners and losers when it comes to my customers and my personal cars getting a particular brand to be used.
People pay me for that capability. I know of no other company able or willing to provide that service, anywhere.
I bring that knowledge base to my interpretation to recommend particular chemistries for particular applications BASED ON UOA for my customers unit.
Unless you use oil analysis for YOUR SPECIFIC application you won't know for sure whether a particular product works well or not.
If you are brand loyal you'd better trust but verify with UOA and an analyst interpreting the data that knows what they are looking at.
No major lube company will disclose the actual wear readings they scored to qualify a particular test protocal. Just that they passed. However those results can pick winners and losers when it comes to my customers and my personal cars getting a particular brand to be used.
People pay me for that capability. I know of no other company able or willing to provide that service, anywhere.
We understand that, but, in this case, you said it across the board. You did not mention a specific make or model. We all know fully well that some oils are the best for some engines, your statement, however, infers that M1 is generally bad for wear control. Please elaborate as 2005Tundra said you are a very highly respected and sought after consultant. When you make a statement that broad, it's going to perk up a lot of BITOG ears. Historically, you've been fairly unbiased in my opinion but with a statement like that unexplained, I question it.
I don't think Terry can give you the information directly and I certainly could be wrong but I am pretty quick on the uptake when I see free information. Read between the lines, he dropped a good hint about proprietary sequence test results.
From Terry, "For instance GM 4718 and GF4 allow 60 um max in IIIG/ IVA allows 90 um max and the difference between results for various oils is significant and not released to the public. Only that the oil passed."
Reread the thread and the context can't be any clearer.
From Terry, "For instance GM 4718 and GF4 allow 60 um max in IIIG/ IVA allows 90 um max and the difference between results for various oils is significant and not released to the public. Only that the oil passed."
Reread the thread and the context can't be any clearer.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked