Did you know that and how would you comment it?
https://www.mobil.com/en/lubricants...r oils are,SP performance standard since 2010.
Mobil 1 met API SP in 2010
- Thread starter Japanese
- Start date
Did you know that and how would you comment it?
https://www.mobil.com/en/lubricants...r oils are,SP performance standard since 2010.
If you read it closely. It looks like they met SP for LSPI only
working closely with GM on the LSPI issues I would have no problem believing they are ahead of the game with respect to it...good luck with your choice
Bill
Bill
I don't think Mobil was the only oil company.
That link is a good read! Here's my opinion on it. Since some of their oils met a higher standard than API SN, due to OEM approvals, it is reasonable to assume that it would pass the next API standard SP. Again, 2010 API SN Mobil oil would've had other OEM standards that made it better than the API Standard SN. Consequently meeting the later API SP as a result. Some of their oils may not have passed OEM approvals when SP rolled out though but they didn't claim that so.
While LSPI Is the main benefit of this SP, & they specifically call that benefit out in the answer, I think they are indeed saying it passed API SP performance as a whole.
Many Mobil 1 motor oils met the API SP performance standard before the licensed start date, making those full synthetic oils more than 10 years ahead of their time for providing protection against LSPI.
But for SP itself the LSPI is the biggest thing that it brought, most of the improvements people associate with SP in other areas are actually tied to ILSAC.
Which just goes to show that those who insist an upper tier oil, like mobil 1, only meets the specs that are on the bottle and no more,,, often will be dead wrong. Just because it displays requirements for typical North American standards doesn't mean it won't be totally fine to use in applications for the so called more stringent specs.
This is of course assuming you have matched the qualities for conditions like viscosity, cold pumpability, HTHS and so forth.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2021
- Messages
- 1,424
I agree with this. I don't believe that "oil is oil". They all have to meet minimum requirements, but I don't buy for one second that the end result is all exactly the same, especially in regard to piston and ring cleanliness.
There is a group who seems to think any and all claims over the bare minimum is solely a marketing gimmick vs an actual tangible differentiation.
I also agree. This was evident in the LSJR vid when he tested different M1 Dexos approved oils in HPL’s lab. They all performed differently even within the same brand.
This is perhaps more illustrative of how weak API standards are as much as it is of how good M1 is.
Always remember, the API doesn't update a standard until mass market oils can meet it. Valvoline Daily Protection meets API SP and SQ.
What do you think of a performance spec that an inexpensive group I/II can meet? The marketers love the weak minimums because it allows them to put out claims like "5x better protection than industry standards! 80% better wear protection! 63.4% better piston cleanliness!
Well, yes. But the effort (and cost of the product) to achieve such is quite minimal. Not because the oils are bad, but because the minimum spec is so weak relative to what the industry is capable of achieving.
Always remember, the API doesn't update a standard until mass market oils can meet it. Valvoline Daily Protection meets API SP and SQ.
What do you think of a performance spec that an inexpensive group I/II can meet? The marketers love the weak minimums because it allows them to put out claims like "5x better protection than industry standards! 80% better wear protection! 63.4% better piston cleanliness!
Well, yes. But the effort (and cost of the product) to achieve such is quite minimal. Not because the oils are bad, but because the minimum spec is so weak relative to what the industry is capable of achieving.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2021
- Messages
- 1,424
Agreed, and that's also why I think aiming for a "meets the spec" oil isn't the best path. We've seen time and time again how many engines end up with stuck rings. And that's of course majorly due to design flaws, but the best we can do to combat that is to choose a "better" oil. The minimum requirements clearly aren't enough for some situations. Some engines, they are. But we aren't all that lucky.
"Design flaws" maybe. But we have to at least acknowledge that piston ring temps are much higher when getting 100hp/L from an engine vs the 50hp or less per liter of engines of yesteryear.
Yes, the 318 in my Grandad's old 5th Avenue never stuck rings, but it had 175hp from 5.2L. Quite the difference from my 250hp Accord with only 2L.
I don't have any issue with low tension rings themselves. I only have issue with moron engineers that for some reason think having only one oil squirter and or insufficient drain holes is acceptable.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2021
- Messages
- 1,424
Gutless 1ZZ Toyotas have ring sticking issues from a design flaw. It isn't really about power density.
wemay
Site Donor 2023
This^
You can't dismiss power density because it drives operating temperatures. Say what you will about "design flaws" but most of the people using that term are not engineers and have little understanding of the tradeoffs faced.
There's a difference between not meeting the requirement and meeting insufficiently robust requirements. The latter is far more common but not really a "Design flaw" because it does what it was required to do. A 30k mile tire isn't a "design flaw" relative to a 50k mile tire. If you want a tire to last 50k, you buy the 50k tire.
Most of the time, when someone says there's a "design flaw" it's just monday morning quarterbacking of an engineering team, but done with a lot less information and knowledge about the relevant constraints.
Well, if the engineering team was allowed to run your car 100k miles in your particular duty cycle using your oils in your climate, they would have found whatever issue you are having that makes you think there is a "design flaw." But in reality, they never did that. They didn't need to and almost certainly wouldn't have been allowed to spend that much time and money. And OEMs really only require engines to last the warranty period, and some OEMs with a mostly-lease customer base might not even care that much about getting through the end of warranty miles without issue.
From the perspective of the OEM, issues that occur beyond the warranty are not design flaws. We as customers might consider them to be, but that's just our opinion vs the OEM's opinion.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2021
- Messages
- 1,424
You're overreacting. I'm speaking as the owner of a car who's engine suffered from excessive oil burning due to a known design issue of undersized piston oil return holes.
I disagree with you that issues that occur beyond the warranty period don't count as design flaws. If that were true, then we would never see automakers issue extended coverage for specific failures, but they do because they recognize their expectations from the customer weren't met.
Similar threads
- Sticky