Mobil Drive Clean 10/30

[dragboat]

Here is a clean test of that oil performed by Dyson Analysis.For kit informatiom email [email protected]

I see many of these SL oils with a trace amount of moly,,I wonder why it is added in such small amounts? Also the VI looks to show a group I base oil possibly?

Any comments?

Wear
Copper 1
Iron 3
Chromium 0
Lead 1
Aluminum 2
Silicon 3
Tin 0

Additives
Molybdenum 1
Sodium 0
Magnesium 13
Zinc 1030
Potassium 1
Phosphorus 869
Calcium 1900

TBN 9
VIS @ 100c 12.2

[ August 27, 2002, 05:12 PM: Message edited by: dragboat ]

 

[The_Oz]

Thanks for the report Dragboat. I wonder where that Iron is coming from. I'm also curious as to why they would add such a low amount of Moly

Regards,

Oz

 

[dragboat]

My guess is the iron is from rusty pipes?

 

[MolaKule]

I can see why they call it Drive Clean. The detergent/dispersant package is pretty high.

But no barrier or additives except ZDDP.

I wouldn't be so sure they even added moly. This could be from the pipes as well!

 

[bill99gxe]

quote:

---

Originally posted by dragboat:
Here is a clean test of that oil performed by Dyson Analysis.For kit informatiom email [email protected]

I see many of these SL oils with a trace amount of moly,,I wonder why it is added in such small amounts? Also the VI looks to show a group I base oil possibly?

Any comments?

Wear
Copper 1
Iron 3
Chromium 0
Lead 1
Aluminum 2
Silicon 3
Tin 0

Additives
Molybdenum 1
Sodium 0
Magnesium 13
Zinc 1030
Potassium 1
Phosphorus 869
Calcium 1900

TBN 9
VIS @ 100c 12.2

---

My only comment is the initial viscosity seems high for a conventional 30-weight Mobil 1 oil, especially considering the new SuperSyn oils baseline in the bottom of a 30-weight range (around 10), and the old Tri-Synthetic baselined in the mid-11 range.

 

[Patman]

Most synthetic 10w30s are in the low end of the 30wt scale though, and most dino 10w30s tend to be in the middle to higher end of the 30wt scale I have noticed.

According to Mobil 1's spec sheets, the TriSynthetic 10w30 is supposed to start out around the same as SuperSyn. The specs for TS 10w30 are 10.0cst at 100c, while SS 10w30 is 9.8cst at 100c.

 

[bill99gxe]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patman:
[QB]Most synthetic 10w30s are in the low end of the 30wt scale though, and most dino 10w30s tend to be in the middle to higher end of the 30wt scale I have noticed.
[QB]

---

My Castrol dino oil and synthetic baselines on my spreadsheet tend to back up your contentions.

I wonder if the dino oils "have to be" in the upper range in order to remain at true x weight viscosity for a decent period of time.

I would assume synthetics don't thin as quickly as dino oils do.....

 

[Patman]

I think there are a couple of reasons why there is a difference in the dino viscosity versus synthetic. For one, you are right, they know the dino oil will thin out, so they want it a bit higher to start with.

Also, I believe that part of it is that they want the synthetic's to be a bit thinner so that people get slightly better gas mileage. Then these people tend to say "oh ya, with synthetic I get 10% more MPG" Well, it's the thinner viscosity that's doing it. They also used to claim that thinner synthetics could protect just as well as thicker dino oils, so a 10w30 synthetic would offer the same film strength at a 10w40 dino oil for instance. Although that too can get confusing, as we've seen in the recent film strength thread on here.

 

[Brad]

O.K., I got a question. Forgive me if this sounds ignorant.

Since Mobil Drive Clean is only a Group 1 base wouldn't it be better to go with Penzoil, Chevron, or any other oil that uses a Group II basestock or higher?

I mean, Penzoil can be had for around the same price as Mobil drive clean, and Chevron is around the same price also. Wouldn't it be better to use these oils for the same price just based on the fact they use better basestock? The better basestocks should help suspend dirt better and increase overall performace of the oil, right?

Again, sorry if it seems like a dumb question.

 

[MolaKule]

I have a slightly different bent. Oils are allowed a certain variability when it comes to being in a certain viscosity range. Of course, some oils may be say on the lower end of the SAE 30 grade
scale (such as Redline and Mobil 1) while Amsoil is on the thicker side. The primary differences being in the base fluids and the ratios of PAO to esters and the type of esters used. I can't see where a few tenths of a point in viscosity can mean much in the way of observable economy.

I believe the reason why synthetic formulations "appear" thinner is because of the higher film strengths of synthetics. In other words, take two fluids with the same viscosity, but if one has a higher film strength, the one with the higher film strength will appear slightly thinner than the one that has the lower film strength AT THE SAME viscosity. I have had a running debate with my Dyno people for years, who say they will not use synthetics because they are too thin. I say it may appear thinner, but it has the same viscosity as the dino stuff.

I give them say a Mobil 1 15W50 or an Amsoil 20W50 to run in a particular race engine and the synthetic of the same viscosity always shows 5-15 more HP and torque than the same viscosity dino. (Of course, I had to pay for the DINO time, so it was my quarters). The synths show less wear than do the dinos in most cases. Why won't they use synthetics anyway, even though the results are there in front of them? Because the synth appears to be "thinner." Well, I take this as a preconceived bias and the fact they erroneously think that "thicker" is better. I suggested to them one time that if thicker is better they should run a 70 weight in all their race cars if that was case. They said no, it would be too thick. I then attempted to explain the laws of "diminishing" returns with viscous friction, but the shade-tree mentality continues with these guys.

 

[VaderSS]

Not a dumb question.

It comes down to a combination of basestock and additive package. A lower quality basestock can be combined with a high quality additive package, and perform as well or better than an oil with a higher quality basestock.

Example, if the price were the same, would you rather a Group I based oil with a good additive package, or a Group IV with no additives at all? You would take the Group I, of course.

Of course things are not that extreme.

If we had sigs, mine would say, "It's all in the application." and maybe "Analysis reveals the truth."

 

[Johnny]

Brad: I know I will get some flack over this, but my answer would be yes to your question. Some say the additives mix better with a Group I base stock, but I disagree. We're not talking about PAO synthetic base stocks. The Group II's are still made from crude oil, just more highly refined, which means most of the impurities are taken out. To help make my case, we all know Schaeffer's makes a great product, and like everyone else, they used Group I base stocks. I have found out from their technical department that their 7000 series blends now use a combination of PAO and Group II. Now why did they make the switch. Group I base stocks are less expensive to make. I figure the reason they switched was because they are a quality oil company that wanted to make a better product.

This is not saying Mobil is a bad product. As a matter of fact, it is a good product. They use a very robust additive package with their Group I. You should know that EXXON/Mobil is probably the largest producer of Group I base stock in the world. I figure when they get enough of their refineries producing the volume of Group II they need, the Mobil conventional will also be Group II.

I read somewhere, but don't remember where, when the new GF4 spec finally comes out, it will take a Group II type base stock to meet the spec.

Well, that's my opinion.

 

[Johnny]

Brad: I don't think they will listen to me. I'm just a lowly marketing rep in WI. A long way from Houston.

But, I would not worry. I really think folks will be surprised when these two technology leaders get together. I'm looking for some really good things to happen. I do know Pennzoil will be a seperate division and use it's own formulations.

 

[Brad]

Thanks Johnny. I guess the idea of Mobil using a group 1 basestock kinda scared me away. Especially when other oils are using better basestock for the same retail price.

I still probably won't try Mobil Drive Clean. Not when I can get Penzoil and Chevron for the same price.

Oh, by the way, please don't let Shell ruin Penzoil.

 

[con carne]

quote:

---

I believe the reason why synthetic formulations "appear" thinner is because of the higher film strengths of synthetics. In other words, take two fluids with the same viscosity, but if one has a higher film strength, the one with the higher film strength will appear slightly thinner than the one that has the lower film strength AT THE SAME viscosity.

---

MolaKule - can you elaborate on this?

 

[BOBISTHEOILGUY]

quote:

---

Originally posted by con carne:

quote:

---

I believe the reason why synthetic formulations "appear" thinner is because of the higher film strengths of synthetics. In other words, take two fluids with the same viscosity, but if one has a higher film strength, the one with the higher film strength will appear slightly thinner than the one that has the lower film strength AT THE SAME viscosity.

---

MolaKule - can you elaborate on this?

---

Mola, we need to step this up one notch. Better film strength, Not in the sense you are talking about. My arguments about synth's being better for wear protection by doing a switch from dino to synth is this... In your experiment with the dyno, you went from dino to synth and saw a difference. That I will not argue,BUT, You missed something VERY inportant. Did you ensure that the basic antiwear additives and such were the SAME in BOTH the DINO and the SYNTH??, So point is, was it the ADDITIVE differences or the BASE OIL that made those differences? Until you or anyone else takes a dino, and a synth with the same basic additive package and places then head to head, you'll have one tough time convicing me that the FILM strength on a full synth is protecting better.

The second notch I was reffering to is this, on the molecular level, you're looking at Carbon and Hydrogen chains. The difference in the structure of a dino, vs the synth is the assembly of these chains therefore one has a better ability of resisting oxygen molecules from destroying these chains correct? (try and keep in simple and don't spout off chemistry 301 please).

So main question is, If we were to take an ounce of motor oil, is this one chain of molecules that makes a full ounce, many chains tied together creating this one full ounce or many chains of molecules that are contained in this one full ounce?

 

[dragboat]

Something about dyno runs"engine not chassis" They usually only allow for a two minute run at best because of coolant temp,the dino oil does not get a fair shake there because it is not allowd to come up to full temp most times,yes you can cool the water temp with time and some heat will stay in the oil for second or third runs. I have many dyno sheets here showing only 150-175 oil temp,,put those motors in 25 ft Cats or other big water boats will see it shoot on up.just pointing something out that was missed in the topic.

In real world I have had straight 50wt oil coming out of the oil pan during drains right when put on the trailer flowing like a 10/30 does after three miles in a daily driver miles

Dynos measure torque only.

[ August 29, 2002, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: dragboat ]

 

[VaderSS]

33,000 foot pounds of work per minute is equivalent to one horsepower or;

code:

---

Torque * RPM



Horsepower = ------------



5252

---

[ August 29, 2002, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: VaderSS ]

 

[dragboat]

This is disturbing to me. Below is a anaylis that has been posted of the same SL Drive Clean 10/30,yet was months before I purchased a new style bottle and sent in to get the above results. Look at the moly the owner says was not added. Did my bottle have moly left out? Was moly accidently put in the other persons bottled oil?
I just don't know what to make of this? Any guesses?

Spectro (ppm):
Fe - 27
Ag ? 0
Al ? 3
Cr ? 0
Cu ? 4
Mg ? 23
Na ? 4
Ni ? 2
Pb ? 9
Si ? 9
Sn ? 0
Ti ? 0
B ? 0
Mo ? 152
Zn ? 478

[ September 02, 2002, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: dragboat ]

 

[Patman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by dragboat:


So,whatcha think about the actual post? Where did the moly go?

---

I've been secretly taking out the moly from every single bottle of oil and hoarding it in my backyard!