Well sort of, the labels have at least.
Mobil 1 SN has arrived pics!
- Thread starter Troy
- Start date
- Status
Did you just buy labels?
Originally Posted By: synthetic_crazy
Did you just buy labels?
Or did you steal them?????
Did you just buy labels?
Or did you steal them?????
hey thanks for sharing man.
It may be SN/GF-5, but when it was SM/GF-4 it met Ford WSS-M2C929-A, GM 6094M, GM 4718M and Honda/Acura HTO-06. Now ExxonMobil only "recommends" the oil for applications specifying oils that meet those requirements. So EM has joined other oil companies that have been criticized in the past for use of similar language on their products.
That is hot! Wrap it around a Barbie doll.
Very good point you make. Can you ever know?? Butt dyno is the best guide me thinks
Originally Posted By: Brian Barnhart
It may be SN/GF-5, but when it was SM/GF-4 it met Ford WSS-M2C929-A, GM 6094M, GM 4718M and Honda/Acura HTO-06. Now ExxonMobil only "recommends" the oil for applications specifying oils that meet those requirements. So EM has joined other oil companies that have been criticized in the past for use of similar language on their products.
Originally Posted By: Brian Barnhart
It may be SN/GF-5, but when it was SM/GF-4 it met Ford WSS-M2C929-A, GM 6094M, GM 4718M and Honda/Acura HTO-06. Now ExxonMobil only "recommends" the oil for applications specifying oils that meet those requirements. So EM has joined other oil companies that have been criticized in the past for use of similar language on their products.
Originally Posted By: ottotheclown
Very good point you make. Can you ever know?? Butt dyno is the best guide me thinks
I would think the butt-dyno would be the worst guide, especially in the case of approval/certifications.
Very good point you make. Can you ever know?? Butt dyno is the best guide me thinks
I would think the butt-dyno would be the worst guide, especially in the case of approval/certifications.
Originally Posted By: Brian Barnhart
It may be SN/GF-5, but when it was SM/GF-4 it met Ford WSS-M2C929-A, GM 6094M, GM 4718M and Honda/Acura HTO-06. Now ExxonMobil only "recommends" the oil for applications specifying oils that meet those requirements. So EM has joined other oil companies that have been criticized in the past for use of similar language on their products.
The label states that the oil 'meets or exceeds' Ford's new WSS-M2C946-A spec. Wouldn't an oil meeting the new spec also meet or exceed the old equivalent WSS-M2C929-A spec?
It may be SN/GF-5, but when it was SM/GF-4 it met Ford WSS-M2C929-A, GM 6094M, GM 4718M and Honda/Acura HTO-06. Now ExxonMobil only "recommends" the oil for applications specifying oils that meet those requirements. So EM has joined other oil companies that have been criticized in the past for use of similar language on their products.
The label states that the oil 'meets or exceeds' Ford's new WSS-M2C946-A spec. Wouldn't an oil meeting the new spec also meet or exceed the old equivalent WSS-M2C929-A spec?
Meeting auto maker's oil requirements/approvals are a good thing, but they don't necessarily tell the whole story. In most cases I suspect the decision by an oil company to seek auto maker approvals are driven by money, market, or reputation as opposed to actual performance.
To be considered as factory or service fill for auto makers the approvals are probably required, i.e. winning the contract requires meeting the auto maker's specs. Approvals are costly, but can be justified with the award of a factory or service fill contract. Alternately, an oil manufacturer may seek auto maker approvals to protect their market share and/or product reputation.
However, as time passes on, auto maker specs are updated or superseded and some become obsolete. Eventually, it makes little economic sense to run tests and obtain approvals for oils that haven't been specified by auto makers for years and no longer apply to the majority of vehicles on the road. We are probably seeing an example of that now with GM 6094M and GM 4718M being replaced by Dexos. True approvals to GM6094M and GM4718M may no longer be possible for new formulations, like the ones that now meet SN/GF-5.
It should not be assumed (nor is it by most here) that any particular spec (either oil industry or auto maker) represents the “best”. Oils are formulated to strike a balance between many performance factors, and an oil maker may choose to market an oil that does not meet some of the more common specifications, but none-the-less meets many stringent requirements. In such cases, the oil may be “weak” on auto maker approvals or industry licenses, but strong on performance in many areas. For example, an oil might be formulated to maximize protection at the expense of failing the fuel economy or catalyst requirements of many auto maker's specs. This is an example of a niche market where auto warranties may not apply and volumes are low. In these applications, it may make no economic sense (because of the high testing and approval costs) for an oil manufacturer to seek auto maker approvals. It should be stressed that this can also be the case even if the oil would meet all of the auto maker's requirements. In either case an oil manufacturer may deem it appropriate to use “recommended for” or “suitable for” wording.
The obvious down side is that an oil maker may use the above wording even if the oil wouldn't come close to meeting the auto maker's specs (if it were tested). In that case the customer will never know that the “recommended for” oil he bought may not be what he intended to use. (Unless his butt dino tells him
)
To be considered as factory or service fill for auto makers the approvals are probably required, i.e. winning the contract requires meeting the auto maker's specs. Approvals are costly, but can be justified with the award of a factory or service fill contract. Alternately, an oil manufacturer may seek auto maker approvals to protect their market share and/or product reputation.
However, as time passes on, auto maker specs are updated or superseded and some become obsolete. Eventually, it makes little economic sense to run tests and obtain approvals for oils that haven't been specified by auto makers for years and no longer apply to the majority of vehicles on the road. We are probably seeing an example of that now with GM 6094M and GM 4718M being replaced by Dexos. True approvals to GM6094M and GM4718M may no longer be possible for new formulations, like the ones that now meet SN/GF-5.
It should not be assumed (nor is it by most here) that any particular spec (either oil industry or auto maker) represents the “best”. Oils are formulated to strike a balance between many performance factors, and an oil maker may choose to market an oil that does not meet some of the more common specifications, but none-the-less meets many stringent requirements. In such cases, the oil may be “weak” on auto maker approvals or industry licenses, but strong on performance in many areas. For example, an oil might be formulated to maximize protection at the expense of failing the fuel economy or catalyst requirements of many auto maker's specs. This is an example of a niche market where auto warranties may not apply and volumes are low. In these applications, it may make no economic sense (because of the high testing and approval costs) for an oil manufacturer to seek auto maker approvals. It should be stressed that this can also be the case even if the oil would meet all of the auto maker's requirements. In either case an oil manufacturer may deem it appropriate to use “recommended for” or “suitable for” wording.
The obvious down side is that an oil maker may use the above wording even if the oil wouldn't come close to meeting the auto maker's specs (if it were tested). In that case the customer will never know that the “recommended for” oil he bought may not be what he intended to use. (Unless his butt dino tells him
Last edited:
Great points Brian. Hard to argue with that. I like the Lubrizol spec web because it shows how all the specs compare. This is the only way I know of that one could truly compare oils. All of these companies can and do make good oils. Ultimately following your owners manual is your best bet when you break it all down. They should have done all the necessary testing for you.
It looks to me like this new Mobil 1 oil meets all of the requirements for various automakers in the USA and other countries to some degree. It would be pretty silly to produce a motor oil that meet the requirements of only one or two automakers. It would reduce your potential sales.
Last edited:
Would this be a good oil for a Honda pilot?
It has 60k , is a 2007, and up until it'sast oil change always. Got Honda conventional done at the dealer when MM signaled time for oil change.
Thinking of going full synthetic now and doing myself. Should I just use a good SN rated Dino? Or go with mobi one 5w20 SN?
It has 60k , is a 2007, and up until it'sast oil change always. Got Honda conventional done at the dealer when MM signaled time for oil change.
Thinking of going full synthetic now and doing myself. Should I just use a good SN rated Dino? Or go with mobi one 5w20 SN?
Originally Posted By: RegDunlop
Would this be a good oil for a Honda pilot?
It has 60k , is a 2007, and up until it'sast oil change always. Got Honda conventional done at the dealer when MM signaled time for oil change.
Thinking of going full synthetic now and doing myself. Should I just use a good SN rated Dino? Or go with mobi one 5w20 SN?
You'll get many different answers for this question.
Since your thinking of changing the oil/filter yourself, you could put in this Mobil 1 yourself for the same or less cost of what the dealer(or any oil change center) was charging you for regular dino oil.
Or you could save some money by doing the OCI's yourself and use really good regular dion oils(held in high reguard here at BITOG) purchaced on sale such as the 5qt/filter specials from any PepBoys, AdvanceAutoParts, AutoZones.
Our friends have an '07 Pilot with about the same miles(60K) and all they do is what I mentioned above. Regular oil/filter specials on sale. Pilot runs great in this very cold north east winter. Honda's aren't really fussy about oil!
Would this be a good oil for a Honda pilot?
It has 60k , is a 2007, and up until it'sast oil change always. Got Honda conventional done at the dealer when MM signaled time for oil change.
Thinking of going full synthetic now and doing myself. Should I just use a good SN rated Dino? Or go with mobi one 5w20 SN?
You'll get many different answers for this question.
Since your thinking of changing the oil/filter yourself, you could put in this Mobil 1 yourself for the same or less cost of what the dealer(or any oil change center) was charging you for regular dino oil.
Or you could save some money by doing the OCI's yourself and use really good regular dion oils(held in high reguard here at BITOG) purchaced on sale such as the 5qt/filter specials from any PepBoys, AdvanceAutoParts, AutoZones.
Our friends have an '07 Pilot with about the same miles(60K) and all they do is what I mentioned above. Regular oil/filter specials on sale. Pilot runs great in this very cold north east winter. Honda's aren't really fussy about oil!
Thanks char baby
I would use Honda full synthetic that they just came out with and do it myself but the Honda full synth is pricey and probably made by mobil anyway
I haven't made up my mind yet--Honda OEM filter or mobil filter
I would use Honda full synthetic that they just came out with and do it myself but the Honda full synth is pricey and probably made by mobil anyway
I haven't made up my mind yet--Honda OEM filter or mobil filter
Here is a label still on the jug.
Mobil 1 0w-20 AFE, SN GF-5
Mobil 1 0w-20 AFE, SN GF-5
how do you peel the label off nicely like that? did anyone catch you doing it?
resource conserving huh? hows that? i know theres a maxlife that is 50% recycled oil but i don't think thats what they mean by resource conserving.
resource conserving huh? hows that? i know theres a maxlife that is 50% recycled oil but i don't think thats what they mean by resource conserving.
- Status
