Mobil clean 5000?
- Thread starter Chevy Guy
- Start date
- Status
Called marketing. Home Depot sells bags of cow crap for $2 bucks a bag....call it organic fertalizer
Mobil 5000 is in the same league as TropArtic/Havoline...no better...no worse....
Mobil 5000 is in the same league as TropArtic/Havoline...no better...no worse....
Mobil Clean 5000 has a totally new additive package. It has better basestocks than the TropArtic and Havoline. The add. pack has antimony. Its a good oil, more robust than over conventional oils. Check out the VOA section and find this oil and the discussions about it.
sgtgeek - That may be your opinion but with out proof, your word is as worthless as those bags of crap that Home Depot sells for 2 bucks.
sgtgeek - That may be your opinion but with out proof, your word is as worthless as those bags of crap that Home Depot sells for 2 bucks.
These oils (Clean 5000 and Clean 7500) may have potential to be awesome performers. As the former posters said, there seems to be a unique add pack with maybe antimony and sodium sulfonate. The definite changes to these lubes (when compared to their Drive Clean predecessors) suggests something potentially more substantive than a marketing intitiative. Althoug many here think UOA's are way overrated, it will be interesting to see the results from these lubes when the UOA's start rolling in. Hopefully, that will be soon.
1911
1911
Nice burn....thanks....
In your Internet travels and as you tour and speak to the masses about oil additive packs...have you had a chance to stop and check out the additive packs in the $1 dollar TropArtic 10-30 SM or the Havoline? Hhhmmmmmm? Also if you could take a moment from your busy schedule authoring your latest book...all I know about oil....mebbe you can reread the mans post....and think about it...lemme see...is the question....Is Mobil superior to other dino's utilizing a 5000 mile OCI....my answer is you can get the same results with Havoline or Trop Artic...utilizing 5000 mile OCI's.....and use the salt from the Mobil for your margarita's at your book signing parties.
Triple_Se7en
$50 Site Donor 2024
This stuff has been out for quite a while now. No UOAs seems to indicate Mobil had to start giving it away to get folks to try it because no one appears to be purchasing it. Folks used to get this oil at Havoline pricing. Now Mobil wants folks to pay Pennzoil, Castrol pricing for Mobil & folks are leaving it on store shelves. Kinda like K-Mart trying to turn into Marshall Fields.
According to ExxonMobil's MSDSs on Mobil Clean 5000, the base oil is severely refined and is non-carconogenic in animal studies*. The latter implies little more than trace amounts of poly-cyclic aromatics: 0.1% - do call a finished motor oil using such base stocks a "full synthetic". ExxonMobil makes no such marketing claim. (perhaps to their detriment in achieving sales penetration) As good as I believe the ConocoPhillips Group II/Group III synthetic blends are, this ExxonMobil formulation is probably better, though priced commensurately higher. The classic plain-Jane over achiever - heart as good as gold, but never gets asked to the dance.
*The unadditized base stock could be drunk - it'd clean ya' out, royal, but it's pure to the point of being non-toxic. The only base stocks purer are polymerized PAOs and esters.
*The unadditized base stock could be drunk - it'd clean ya' out, royal, but it's pure to the point of being non-toxic. The only base stocks purer are polymerized PAOs and esters.
10 free quarts from Mobil's giveaway?
Lucky SOB's.
I doubt anything is wrong w/ Mobil 5000.
Chevy Guy, what type of vehicle are you putting it in?
Lucky SOB's.
I doubt anything is wrong w/ Mobil 5000.
Chevy Guy, what type of vehicle are you putting it in?
Ray H, you've got journalistic talent brother. That was all well said.
It's really a shame too with this oil because I have pointed this out before here about this clean 5000 and clean 7500 potentially being a great value in motor oil. In fact the very marketing issue made me originally doubt it could be a primarily a group III basestock since Castrol sells similar stuff for 4 to 5 bucks a quart. I guess it's hard to market fake sythetic when you are simultaneously selling real sythetic. They simply cannot compete with Castrol profit wise with this stuff when Castol sells group I and Group II for the cost of Mobil group III and sells Group III for the cost of Group IV.
As far as the additives are concerned, the different approach here is either built around saving a buck or by actually going all out to find the best package for this application. Thus far, I'm giving XOM the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.
1911
Polycyclic aromatics are highly carcinogenic compounds. Everything I've read online from the EPA about the little buggers suggests keeping them at or below 0.5% ingested or topical concentration. I got the figures for Group I and Group II base stocks from a 1999 white paper written by David C. Kramer, Senior Staff Engineer - Base Oil Technology, Brent K. Lok, Senior Product Manager - Base Oils, and Russ R. Krug, Manager - Base Oil Technology, all of Chevron Oil Co.: "The Evolution of Base Oil Technology". Group I was listed at, "10% PCAs. Group II was listed as equal to or greater than 90% saturates which would yield equal to or less than 10% PCAs. Equal to or less than 10% allows for considerably more PCA content than "less than 1%" by my understanding of mathematics. If you have more recent information indicating tighter control over PCAs in Group II base stocks, I'd certainly appreciate your posting your source.
Ray, you are right. I meant to type <10%. My point was that you can see aromatic levels in Group II that are <1% also. Look at Chevron's spec sheets for their Group II and Group III base oils. Aromatics for both are listed at <1%. That being the case, trace levels of aromatics can't be used as a definitive criteria for Group III base oil.
So, G-Man & Ray, what do you think is in the Clean 5000 in addition to GrpIII base oil?
I stated in the past that the Clean 5000 sure looks more like a Grp II formulation, when viewing the pour points & the cold crank ratings.
And possibly some additive is boosting the specific gravity up into the .860/.870 range, while the typical GF-4 Grp III formulations are more in the low .850's for specific gravity.
Grp III's typically have poor solvency & need an additional additive for this function.
Is the ExxonMobil alkylated naphthalene, with a specific gravity of .900, being used in Clean 5000?
I stated in the past that the Clean 5000 sure looks more like a Grp II formulation, when viewing the pour points & the cold crank ratings.
And possibly some additive is boosting the specific gravity up into the .860/.870 range, while the typical GF-4 Grp III formulations are more in the low .850's for specific gravity.
Grp III's typically have poor solvency & need an additional additive for this function.
Is the ExxonMobil alkylated naphthalene, with a specific gravity of .900, being used in Clean 5000?
Not me that is for **** sure....Look at the original question...then read the response from Carlos the Jeep/Internet Expert guy...I never said Havoline was superior or Mobil was inferior...I merely stated that for 5000K OCI's one could reap the same benefits with Havoline or other dino's.....
I have been a member for some time but rarely write anything, I just read. I have to chime in here. When you are calculating the cost of oil, you have to do it per mile or it is meaningless. Who cares if you pay $1 or $4 a quart, it's how long it lasts (mileage)that matters. My calculations show mobil 7500 is the cheapest way for me to go per mile. If I can get 7000mi out of a change (if OLM goes off I will change it) I have a lower cost per mile than anything else I can put in there. Plus I spend less time under the truck. Sounds like a win/win to me.
There are two possibilities: An esterfied additive package is being used, or Group I is being used as the additive carrier oil. Either would provide the necessary solvency and seal swell.
People tend to forget that the solvency of Group II is just as poor as Group III because typically Group II and Group III both have the same low levels of aromatic and napthenic compounds, the very things that give Group I its good solvency. Thus the solvency issue is something every oil maker who uses Group II has to address and this has typically been done by using esters as the additive carrier (per Molakule).
- Status
