Mobil 1 SN Seq IIIG & IVA

[buster]

www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Synthetics/Mobil_1_Wear_Prevention.aspx

Mobil added two bar graphs showing performance in both the IIIG and IVA.

On a side note, I now have 4,400 miles on the 0w20 with barley any oil loss. I'm guessing the new formulation handles fuel dilution better or is more compatible with ethanol fuel. Will sample around 5k miles.

 

[addyguy]

Buster! You're back!

Good to see ya!

 

[OldCowboy]

GF-5 oils have improvements over GF-4 oils in the following areas:

- Emission System Durability
- Seal Compatibility
- Fuel Economy
- E85 Rust Protection
- E85 Emulsion Retention
- Engine Sludge Protection
- Piston Cleanliness
- Turbocharger Protection

The specs are the same for GF-4 an GF-5 in the following areas:

- Oxidative Thickening
- Wear Protection
- 5W-xx Volatility

 

[daman]

Awesome, picked up some AFE SN last night.

 

[Steve S]

Originally Posted By: OldCowboy
GF-5 oils have improvements over GF-4 oils in the following areas:

- Emission System Durability
- Seal Compatibility
- Fuel Economy
- E85 Rust Protection
- E85 Emulsion Retention
- Engine Sludge Protection
- Piston Cleanliness
- Turbocharger Protection

The specs are the same for GF-4 an GF-5 in the following areas:

- Oxidative Thickening
- Wear Protection
- 5W-xx Volatility
The question should be is there a real world difference between M1 GF4 and GF5.

 

[buster]

We'll know in time.

 

[Gokhan]

From the new Web page OP pointed out:

LOL Is this supposed to represent good wear? Look at all the scuffing.

When will people be over "synthetic," "Mobil 1," and other similar marketing claims? Camshafts work in the boundary-lubrication regime and the only thing that protects them from being scuffed is the ZDDP, moly, and other antiwear/extreme-pressure additives. You're probably better off in terms of camshaft protection with a high-moly oil like Pennzoil conventional than Mobil 1.

 

[buster]

I thought it looked not that impressive either.

 

[daman]

How many hrs on that cam?

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: buster
I thought it looked not that impressive either.

Yes, it's almost funny. Perhaps the Webmaster made a mistake and put the picture for an industry-standard oil instead of Mobil 1. Who knows.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
From the new Web page OP pointed out:

LOL Is this supposed to represent good wear? Look at all the scuffing.

When will people be over "synthetic," "Mobil 1," and other similar marketing claims? Camshafts work in the boundary-lubrication regime and the only thing that protects them from being scuffed is the ZDDP, moly, and other antiwear/extreme-pressure additives. You're probably better off in terms of camshaft protection with a high-moly oil like Pennzoil conventional than Mobil 1.


That's a roller cam pictured. Too much "protection" can cause the roller to skate.

 

[Gokhan]

If Mobil 1 is indeed struggling in the boundary-lubrication regime (no proof of that, only for the sake of the argument), an explanation might be that the Group IV/V basestocks used in the formulation are preventing ZDDP, moly, and other antiwear/extreme-pressure/friction-modifier additives from forming a sufficiently thick film on the metal surfaces.

Indeed, cleaning ability works against the AW/EP/FM additives. AW/EP/FM additives work by forming deposits on the wear surfaces and since Mobil 1 is known to have superior cleaning properties, this would be the explanation for the possible high wear and high iron numbers showing up with the Mobil 1 oils.

This is only a theory though and I wouldn't know whether it's true. If this were true, the solution would be to increase the level of the AW/EP/FM additives (such as Mo, B) in the Mobil 1 oils (ZDDP [P level] already being capped). I doubt Mobil 1 would do that though, as most synthetic-oil manufactures think that they need less AW/EP/FM additives than in conventional oil to begin with.

I am also curious how Mobil 1 compares in wear protection to other Group-IV/V-based oils such as Amsoil.

 

[DrDusty86]

OOOUUUTTTCH!... I'd be ashamed if I was mobil. Thats not impressive...
I used M1 in the past on the ranger 3.0 for 390k of 412k. The ranger 3.0 must have been worn out.
Dusty

 

[Ben99GT]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
If Mobil 1 is indeed struggling in the boundary-lubrication regime (no proof of that, only for the sake of the argument), an explanation might be that the Group IV/V basestocks used in the formulation are preventing ZDDP, moly, and other antiwear/extreme-pressure/friction-modifier additives from forming a sufficiently thick film on the metal surfaces.


I think it's been pretty much proven that Mobil 1 is now using Group III+ Visom base stocks in their oils. M1 is probably a III/IV/V blend now.

 

[daman]

Again i ask how many hrs on that cam? 1 or 3,000? plus what overkill said.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: DrDusty86
OOOUUUTTTCH!... I'd be ashamed if I was mobil. Thats not impressive...
I used M1 in the past on the ranger 3.0 for 390k of 412k. The ranger 3.0 must have been worn out.
Dusty


What isn't impressive? Did you mic the cam lobe before and after to measure wear or are we basing this all on just our perception of the picture?

Seq IVA Pass:

Seq IVA Fail:

Looks can be deceiving.

 

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
From the new Web page OP pointed out:

LOL Is this supposed to represent good wear? Look at all the scuffing.

When will people be over "synthetic," "Mobil 1," and other similar marketing claims? Camshafts work in the boundary-lubrication regime and the only thing that protects them from being scuffed is the ZDDP, moly, and other antiwear/extreme-pressure additives. You're probably better off in terms of camshaft protection with a high-moly oil like Pennzoil conventional than Mobil 1.


That's a roller cam pictured. Too much "protection" can cause the roller to skate.


I tell you - if that was a cam with Amsoil, some of you would be on it like stink on you know what!!

Frankly I for one cannot look at a single SMALL picture of a cam on the web and come to any stinking conclusion.

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: DrDusty86
OOOUUUTTTCH!... I'd be ashamed if I was mobil. Thats not impressive...
I used M1 in the past on the ranger 3.0 for 390k of 412k. The ranger 3.0 must have been worn out.
Dusty


My sons old 91 Ranger must have been worn out with 354K on his 3.0 and still going stong when he sold it earlier this year. All on Mobil 1 10w30 with 10-14K OCIs.

 

[daman]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
I tell you - if that was a cam with Amsoil, some of you would be on it like stink on you know what!!

And there not here?

 

[Steve S]

Originally Posted By: DrDusty86
OOOUUUTTTCH!... I'd be ashamed if I was mobil. Thats not impressive...
I used M1 in the past on the ranger 3.0 for 390k of 412k. The ranger 3.0 must have been worn out.
Dusty
It was gone at 100,000 miles you just didn't notice