Let's just say that I think they would have to REFORMULTE the stuff...and so, since the SS just came out...I think the tech line is blowing smoke here....and so is saying that A5 is essentially the same as A3....even though yes, we're referring to HT/HS....
Mobil 1 Update!!
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
- Status
they won't have to reformulate anything. It's just basically making the oil a bit thicker, which is what I'm more interested in bc it would be better for engines like the LS1 and Jeep 4.0L. BTW, Dr. T, our 30wts are very good oils. don't know what your refering too.
Call and ask for bob if your wondering.
I called him again and he said that is what he is hearing. he said he has no time frame or confirmed date but that is what he heard. bob is the only guy there that will know this information.
I called him again and he said that is what he is hearing. he said he has no time frame or confirmed date but that is what he heard. bob is the only guy there that will know this information.
Patman
Staff member
Hehe, it looks like Mobil 1 has a BOBISTHEOILGUY too!
I think it would be a bad move. Currently Mobil 1's US lineup has the following HTHS:
2.61
2.99
3.08
3.17
3.6
5.1
If they moved 5w-30 and 10w-30 to A3 they would have a big gap between 3cP and 3.5cP.in their lineup. It would take choice away from their US customers.
2.61
2.99
3.08
3.17
3.6
5.1
If they moved 5w-30 and 10w-30 to A3 they would have a big gap between 3cP and 3.5cP.in their lineup. It would take choice away from their US customers.
Don't count on it. Mobil won't want to give up the coveted Energy Conserving rating and the "starburst," so in order to make the 10w30 and 5w30 A3 and maintain the GF-3 rating they'll have to take the same route they took with the 0w40: namely, they'll have to reformulate and design these oils where they WILL shear down some initially.
I would rather have a shear stable A5 Mobil 1 than an A3 Mobil 1 that is designed to lose some of its viscosity in order to meet the fuel economy requirements of GF-3. JMO.
Knowing Mobil, the new labels will look exactly like the old ones except a fine print "meets european A3 standards" somewhere on it. And they'll have the exact same oil in the old bottle for 6 months before and after after the change. How many reformulations have there been of SuperSyn anyway, and the obvious similarities between the first versions of it and the last versions of what was labeled TriSyn.
I'll bet we see it here first by an analysis before we see the labels change, and a call to Mobil will get you a "whatever are you talking about" response...
Im pretty sure the M1 xx-30s here are not A3 rated either. However the majority of 40wt semi-syns are here.
Looking for a 30wt that is A3 rated? Im currently using Penz 15W-30, which is A3 rated. Its real weird. Says its a 'Small Car Formula' however I cant find this viscocity on Penz's site or anywhere else. And I know their other 30wts are not A3 rated..... Real miffed by this stuff. Has anyone else seen this before?!? I bought it cos it was the only A3 rated dino oil I could find with A3 specs!!
[ September 26, 2003, 10:55 AM: Message edited by: Leo ]
Ok please do not laugh out load at my next question! What is involved with getting the energy conserveing rateing???? Could this be over come with base stock and FW modifiers. I was just thinking that maybe M1 is going to step up to the plate and beat Redline and Castrol at the game. By this I mean that they might very well use the ester base stocks to make an oil that can maintain it's energy conserveing rateing and have good HT/HS and wear numbers. I am thinking that a synthetec with at least 40% TMP/TME esters and 60% PAO could do this! I also think that since they have total control of production and raw materials they could set the price lower then their competition.
We already know that Redline gives excellent milage improvments in spite of high HT/HS and heavy for wt viscosity. We also see this to a lesser extent with Delvac. I think that the ester content is the key factor. The greater the percentage the better the flow, friction reduction etc.... in spite of the given viscosity. This would also solve the solvency isue that M1 SS has. THe natural AW/EP nature of esters would also allow them to reduce the organic metallic add.'s to meet future standards.
We already know that Redline gives excellent milage improvments in spite of high HT/HS and heavy for wt viscosity. We also see this to a lesser extent with Delvac. I think that the ester content is the key factor. The greater the percentage the better the flow, friction reduction etc.... in spite of the given viscosity. This would also solve the solvency isue that M1 SS has. THe natural AW/EP nature of esters would also allow them to reduce the organic metallic add.'s to meet future standards.
Patman
Staff member
I think that with the right combination of base oil and additives, it's possible for a slightly thicker oil to acheive better MPG.
I say this because I have definitely been getting better MPG since switching to the thicker GC 0w30. In the entire time I've owned this Firebird, my MPG has never been this good. If I did more short trips I would say it was due to the thinner startup viscosity, however I typically do very long trips, so my engine spends much more time fully warmed up.
[ September 27, 2003, 05:05 AM: Message edited by: Patman ]
I say this because I have definitely been getting better MPG since switching to the thicker GC 0w30. In the entire time I've owned this Firebird, my MPG has never been this good. If I did more short trips I would say it was due to the thinner startup viscosity, however I typically do very long trips, so my engine spends much more time fully warmed up.
[ September 27, 2003, 05:05 AM: Message edited by: Patman ]
Formula Shell Synthetic 10w-30 is A3 rated.
https://thegenesisnetwork.equilon.com/genesis/prodinfopdf/out/FORMULASHELL MOTOR OIL SYNTHETIC.pdf
Anybody know what retailers typically carry it?
Buster,
I happen to agree with the Gman on this one ....
BTW, the other way to get a xw-30 to meet the ACEA A3/B3 rating is to use a PAO/Ester basestock that has a higher VI to begin with. Amsoil and Redline both do this - the only drawback is that it ends up increasing the cost of the oil.
Tooslick
I happen to agree with the Gman on this one ....
BTW, the other way to get a xw-30 to meet the ACEA A3/B3 rating is to use a PAO/Ester basestock that has a higher VI to begin with. Amsoil and Redline both do this - the only drawback is that it ends up increasing the cost of the oil.
Tooslick
Hmmm, I'm not quite following what you guys are saying about it shearing down initially? If the A3 spec meets higher high temp/ high shear, why would this happen? Your probably right I'm just not following what you are saying. So is Amsoil ATM/ASL A3 rated and yet does it shear down at first?
Buster,
The energy conserving test required for GF-3 is done using a test engine - I think the test runs for 64 hours, but I'd have to double check. The ASTM test for high temp/high shear viscosity is done using something called a "tapered bearing simulator" and is a much shorter duration test.
You tend to see much more shearing in long duration engine tests or in actual field use than you do in lab tests.
The Amsoil xw-30 oils have about the same HT/HS viscosity as the M1, 0w-40 and all these are able to pass the GF-3 requirements. However, a shear stable 5w-40 or 10w-40 like Redline will be too thick to get the energy conserving rating. By the way, we are talking about fuel savings on the order of 1%-3%, so I don't get too excited about passing GF-3. I'd rather have a slightly thicker oil and better high temp wear protection.
TS
The energy conserving test required for GF-3 is done using a test engine - I think the test runs for 64 hours, but I'd have to double check. The ASTM test for high temp/high shear viscosity is done using something called a "tapered bearing simulator" and is a much shorter duration test.
You tend to see much more shearing in long duration engine tests or in actual field use than you do in lab tests.
The Amsoil xw-30 oils have about the same HT/HS viscosity as the M1, 0w-40 and all these are able to pass the GF-3 requirements. However, a shear stable 5w-40 or 10w-40 like Redline will be too thick to get the energy conserving rating. By the way, we are talking about fuel savings on the order of 1%-3%, so I don't get too excited about passing GF-3. I'd rather have a slightly thicker oil and better high temp wear protection.
TS
- Status
Similar threads
