Mobil talks about LSPI

[wemay]

Originally Posted By: BrocLuno
LSPI is a DI thing. So I just stay with port injection, or heavens forbid, cab's

Was never a M1 hater, but have owned a lot of engines that did not get along with it sound-wise on cold start. Can't hate a company you own stock in

It's a Turbo Direct Injection thing, not Direct Injection alone.

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: njohnson
Hey everyone,

Mobil has added a section on their website where they talk about LSPI. What I thought was interesting is at the end, they say that many of the Mobil 1 oils have meet the API SN Plus performance standard since 2010.

https://mobiloil.com/en/article/why-the-...lspi_protection


Thanks for the post. Typically M1 leads and the rest follow.

 

[4wd]

Originally Posted By: PimTac
Originally Posted By: SubieRubyRoo
Originally Posted By: FermeLaPorte
Mobil 1 haters will come and say foolish things despite them not working in research.


And fanboys will believe in the absence of evidentiary proof... it's all good, to each his own.



Yep. Let’s leave the M1 hate accusations at the door for once.

I just posted a huge reply but this site just hiccuped and I lost it. Too bad.


Problem is it’s the same people ~ every time ~ with the same preformed opinions ~ both ways …

 

[PeterPolyol]

"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize"

 

[Virtus_Probi]

When I first learned about LSPI ~2015ish, the only mass market synthetic 5W30s I found that had the calcium levels well below 2000ppm and very low sodium levels were various flavors of Mobil 1. Rotella T6 5W40 had even lower calcium, but shortly after that point it was reformulated to have nearly 3000ppm of calcium.

We can argue about how prescient XOM was, but the facts are that VOAs for a lot of synthetic d1G2 5W30s look a lot like Mobil 1 vanilla/EP/ESP have for years while the XOM products don't seem to have changed recently for what we can see on a VOA.

If we want to criticize XOM, we can ask why the heck they don't share NOACK losses with us? Valvoline and Amsoil have been brave as far as that topic is concerned...

EDIT - heck, I'm going to look at Mobil 1 10W30 and the EP variant for the summer if those are going to be SN Plus...probably Pennzoil Platinum 10W30, too.

 

[Astro_Guy]

It's interesting to note that Mobil 1 Full Synthetic 0w40 didn't make the list of their oils that already conform to SN plus specifications. Interesting to me anyway, since I use it.

 

[4wd]

T6? Please share NOACK on “synthetic” T6 …still higher than Delo and Delvac dino for $12 gallon …?
Or is the new version finally better than 12?

 

[PeterPolyol]

Originally Posted By: Virtus_Probi

If we want to criticize XOM, we can ask why the heck they don't share NOACK losses with us? Valvoline and Amsoil have been brave as far as that topic is concerned...


Their current rollout of GTL seen in the premium-priced AP and probably other lines to come should help secure their volatility, like we've seen secretly used in Pennzoil Conventional circa ~2015

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted By: PeterPolyol
Originally Posted By: Virtus_Probi

If we want to criticize XOM, we can ask why the heck they don't share NOACK losses with us? Valvoline and Amsoil have been brave as far as that topic is concerned...


Their current rollout of GTL seen in the premium-priced AP and probably other lines to come should help secure their volatility, like we've seen secretly used in Pennzoil Conventional circa ~2015



But we do not know that as a fact, do we? Where is the source that says M1 is using GTLwhich is just another way of making group 3 base? Every SDS I’ve seen shows varying levels of PAO.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: PimTac
Originally Posted By: PeterPolyol
Originally Posted By: Virtus_Probi

If we want to criticize XOM, we can ask why the heck they don't share NOACK losses with us? Valvoline and Amsoil have been brave as far as that topic is concerned...


Their current rollout of GTL seen in the premium-priced AP and probably other lines to come should help secure their volatility, like we've seen secretly used in Pennzoil Conventional circa ~2015



But we do not know that as a fact, do we? Where is the source that says M1 is using GTLwhich is just another way of making group 3 base? Every SDS I’ve seen shows varying levels of PAO.


The only one that I've seen FT on is Mobil 1 Full Synthetic 0w40. The rest are, as you indicated, all treated with varying levels of PAO.

 

[Virtus_Probi]

Originally Posted By: Astro_Guy
It's interesting to note that Mobil 1 FS 0w-40 didn't make the list of their oils that already conform to SN plus specifications. Interesting to me anyway, since I use it.

The Mobil 1 0W40s for which I have seen VOAs were all quite high in calcium and I don't think that has changed...I gave up on keeping track of all the changes in that grade, though.
Originally Posted By: 4WD
T6? Please share NOACK on “synthetic” T6 …still higher than Delo and Delvac dino for $12 gallon …?
Or is the new version finally better than 12?

The NOACK results I saw for T6 were a couple of years old and also above 12%...yeah, not so great. Don't know about the latest 5W40 and 5W30 versions.
Originally Posted By: PeterPolyol
Originally Posted By: Virtus_Probi

If we want to criticize XOM, we can ask why the heck they don't share NOACK losses with us? Valvoline and Amsoil have been brave as far as that topic is concerned...

Their current rollout of GTL seen in the premium-priced AP and probably other lines to come should help secure their volatility, like we've seen secretly used in Pennzoil Conventional circa ~2015

Seems like I have generally seen ~10% NOACK loss for vanilla Mobil 1 5W30, ~9% for 5W30 EP, and now the PQIA says 8.5% for Mobil 1 5W30 AP. All pretty good numbers, but none of them are actually from XOM...

 

[buster]

"Mobil 1 motor oils are so advanced that they have met the API SN Plus performance standard since 2010."

They are always ahead of the curve.

 

[oil_film_movies]

Yep, GM, in 2018 owner's manuals, says I can use the old dexos1 M1, or any oil marked "dexos1 Gen2", so GM has noticed the old formula was indeed LSPI resistant already. I wonder if M1 even had to change their formula going to Gen2. Possibly not.

 

[PeterPolyol]

Does GM have any kind of commercial partnership with xom or are they simply testing 'a bunch of oils off shelf' to know which specific brands and trademarks to endorse in the owners manual? Every other oil must have failed the LSPI test in their Gen 1 formulas, that's what this all suggests to me! Always Mobil 1! Everything else is a second-rate copycat with no research behind it *hands waving*

 

[oil_film_movies]

Originally Posted By: PeterPolyol
Does GM have any kind of commercial partnership with xom or are they simply testing 'a bunch of oils off shelf' to know which specific brands and trademarks to endorse in the owners manual? Every other oil must have failed the LSPI test in their Gen 1 formulas, that's what this all suggests to me! Always Mobil 1! Everything else is a second-rate copycat with no research behind it *hands waving*
Non-M1 'gen1 dexos1' oils in the past almost always had high-Ca, so, yeah, they were very likely to fail LSPI tests.

I can't think of a one that used low calcium, except Castrol was going with low-Ca for a while, then got high-Ca again at some point for reasons unknown.
Now of course all the dexos1 Gen2 stuff is low-Ca. (Valvoline even got rid of their famous high-Na sauce.)

Not sure why non-ExxonMobil oils out there were so slow to jump on the low-Ca bandwagon. Resistance to change, cuz change does cost ya. Business profits say don't change until forced to (dexos1 Gen2 and SN+ are new and not required at all before).

As far as GM having some kind of business relationship with the Mobil 1 team, yes, they have collaborated in the past.
Keep in mind when the GM engineers know what exact kind of oil they used to flail the engines during durability testing in development, they really only trust that one completely. They know other oils should still work OK, but when spooky LSPI issues happen, you think of what you know works.

 

[PimTac]

It’s getting very deep in here.

 

[PeterPolyol]

That's good Pim! The alternative is far less interesting

 

[Dallas69]

Why can't GM build an engine that doesn't have to be pampered with this and that?
Special oil and gas.
What next,special air for the tires?

 

[deven]

Originally Posted By: PimTac
It’s getting very deep in here.

That's what my girlfriend said too!

 

[nap]

Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
[...]I can't think of a one that used low calcium, except Castrol was going with low-Ca for a while, then got high-Ca again at some point for reasons unknown.
Now of course all the dexos1 Gen2 stuff is low-Ca. (Valvoline even got rid of their famous high-Na sauce.)

Not sure why non-ExxonMobil oils out there were so slow to jump on the low-Ca bandwagon. [...]


Or maybe that Ca was doing something useful in there, and you shouldn't remove it unless forced to (by some novel or peculiar engine design).

Or maybe replacing what Ca does, with different additives, is more expensive and doesn't make economic sense unless you want to specifically address the Dexos1G2 market.

Or a combination of both.