D
Mobil 1 has (mostly) improved the HTFS viscosity and VII content with API SP
- Thread starter Gokhan
- Start date
It is quite obvious that it was a novel creation and was well described how he came up with the formulae. I fully understand it is contrived. It may or may not have any meaning whatsoever. You don't even need the spreadsheet or be a statistician to see that the very high VI oils broadly have lower HTHS for a given KV100.
I assume he would if he wasn't banned or MIA or whatever he is.
First, I didn't say anything negative about M1 or these oils. I merely asked why the high VI and KV100 for a 3.8 HTHS. You're just reading what you want into things. I won't and wouldn't dispute that they are probably the industry leader.
Second, just because XOM is a huge company with large R&D budget and a good reputation in the industry does NOT automatically mean their products are perfect, beyond reproach, or even necessarily the best in the category. There is actually ZERO objective evidence that their oils that meet standards x,y, or z are better than any of their competitors that meet the same standards. You seem to frequently confuse reputation and opinion for fact. The fact is, I'm an R&D engineer for an organization with an annual R&D budget that is approximately 11 times larger than ExxonMobil's ($14B+ last year). We also have a great reputation in certain segments, but you should never assume our products are faultless or the best without actual data. My team has found embarrassing defects / mistakes / performances in both our products and the products of other companies with similar R&D spending and reputations. For example, we identified an embarrassing issue in Intel silicon a few years back that made it to production and cost them an absolute ton of money to fix. They only have a $17.5B R&D budget and industry leading validation processes though.
I sure don't know everything, but I know when I come across someone that is a pretender that can't back up any of their statements with evidence and data rather than opinion and marketing drivel. Why don't you just drop the act and stop being a douche?
Last edited:
It cuts both ways. Obviously most boutique stuff is snake oil, but that does not mean we should blindly accept and forego trying to understand the changes the industry is making. It's not like they are faultless. There is also virtually zero published data! This is one of the only industries that is this opaque. When you don't show objective performance data but make grandiose marketing claims it leads to speculation.
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2015
- Messages
- 233
There should be something in the middle, I agree. Sometimes reading here I feel like I need a tinfoil hat though
Thank goodness for specifications, licenses and approvals that the oils meet (or don’t meet). Objective performance data that is proof of performance. Without that, yes you are at the whim of marketing unless there is some trust of the blender.
Yeah, I agree that the specifications are objective. However, they frequently claim to exceed specs and make other similar marketing claims.
If the spec is the only thing that matters we should just use Amazon Basics and forget about everything else and this site. I mean, that is probably sufficient for 98% of use cases. Why should anyone care about Pennzoil Platinum, M1, etc? Heck, why buy M1 when you can buy Mobil Super that meets the same spec for cheaper?
D
Deleted member 89374
Take a guess.
And yet, here you are, lost on a lowly oil forum, amongst us, peasants. Sure enough, you don't conduct yourself accordingly. Folks busy making fat stacks don't waste their time here, they got better things to do. When I'm here, it means that I'm tied up somewhere, waiting for something, or someone, so I can do my job. Then again, I don't make fat stack, just enough to get by.
I think you're full of it. But okay, I'll play: what's your company's name?
What was the issue?
More bragging...
What does it matter what the name is? You won't believe me anyway. There's a short list of companies with that kind of R&D budget though. I have extreme ADHD and lots of meetings.
The issue is a variant of Intel VLI89 and required a new silicon stepping and replacement of all affected parts.
Remember, I'm not the one that decided to start using reputation and annual budget as a performance metric.
Because they are not all the same. Which Amazon Basics oil has VW 504 00 approval or which one has Mercedes-Benz 229.5? They don’t as far as I know. So to me that’s the difference. One has the approval and one does not.
Fine, pick whatever cheap oil that has the approval you need. They all exist. There are even cheap-ish A40s. You are missing the point.
Well I didn’t think I was. I thought you were lamenting the opaque world of oil performance and that no one knew how you could compare them. I gave you a concrete, reliable and portable method of comparison.
The world of performance including the marketing claims and beyond the spec, yes. Why would anyone waste their time here if they only cared about the minimums guaranteed by the spec?
Because some approvals are no slouch. Some are very demanding and it becomes irrelevant if they exceed it or not. I’m not wasting my time with VW 504 00 or 511 00 approvals.
I don't have permission to view that page...?
Last edited:
You can still just buy based on approval and price though. I'd just do that if I wasn't planning on running a tune and tracking the car.
D
Deleted member 89374
I'm not that clever, but clever enough to extract Google Docs links and prevent Xenforo from unfurling them.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
I wouldn't say most boutique stuff is snake oil, but there are certainly examples of ones that are. Some of them aren't even that expensive but still get adorned with the boutique moniker due to low market penetration and outrageous marketing (like TRiAX).
As @kschachn noted, approvals are the best "solid" metric we have to go by. Oils with a laundry list of approvals, like many of the Euro oils (M1 FS 0W-40 is probably the most notorious example on here, recommended for everything) are generally proven, through those approvals, to be top notch. They typically have lower volatility, have passed tests for deposit control, oxidation resistance, shear resistance, they've had to do simulated Nuremberg lapping...etc. They've had to jump through significantly more hoops.
I'm comfortable with a company like HPL, which is boutique but doesn't make ridiculous marketing claims, taking that LL-01/A40/502 00 additive package, blending an oil with premium base oils using it, and then, through testing, improving its performance in several areas they feel are important. I think that's an honest approach that most folks don't have a hard time getting behind, assuming they trust the company. There's a relative chasm between that, and say TRiAX:
TRiAX said:
There are many others.
Of course then you have companies like Lucas shamelessly peddling bovine excrement as the nectar of the Gods, lol.
D
Deleted member 89374
Correction, HPL is an industrial blender. There is absolutely nothing botique about them.
They are Mini Mobil, if you will.
Similar threads
