New Mobil 1 0w40 Super Car

[Big_B]

I think Mobil said they tested this oil for over 2 years.
Pretty sure it will work just fine and the engine will out live the rest of the car 5 to 1.👀

 

[Gokhan]

I am saying this with the utmost respect for you, your work, and your contributions to this forum: have a little faith that the engineers and formulators at ExxonMobil and Infineum know what they are doing.

I was exaggerating. However, I will say these two things:

1. The VII contents have been increasing more and more and the base oils have been getting thinner and thinner to make the oils more fuel-efficient.
2. A 0W-40 oil is an oxymoron in general. It pretends to be thick but it isn't due to the thin base oil and the high VII content. A good ILSAC 5W-30 will run as thick as a 0W-40 and possibly even thicker with only a third of the VII content. This is because of the temporary shear at very high shear rates (well over 10⁶ s⁻¹) and also the permanent shear of the VII. Therefore, unless the OEM recommends a 0W-40, you're better off with a stout ILSAC 5W-30.

Interestingly, GM used to recommend an ILSAC 5W-30 for Corvettes as far as I know, but it appears that they wanted to jump on the 0W bandwagon, also increasing the KV100, which resulted in a two-step increment of the X–Y spread in XW-Y—or a drastic increase in the VII content.

 

[RDY4WAR]

I think Mobil said they tested this oil for over 2 years.
Pretty sure it will work just fine and the engine will out live the rest of the car 5 to 1.👀

First statement... It's possible (even probable) that 1.5 years of that was trying to figure out how to reduce production cost as much as possible while maintaining the same performance as well as going over logistical issues (especially pandemic times) with material procurement and such. Time investment =/= performance investment, in many cases. That may not be the case here, but just stating not to look at time investment only. A lot of time has been spent on R&D of products that end up being dumpsterfires because the financial and marketing departments won out over engineering in the end.

The 2nd statement, most likely true.

 

[sjw91]

I just wish one of the Mobil geniuses could figure out how to put it in a 5 quart jug.

 

[bobbyturbopants]

In that case, why go for Supercar oil, when you can have Bad A$$ racing oil!?!


View attachment 108906

Sold!

 

[buster]

I was exaggerating. However, I will say these two things:

1. The VII contents have been increasing more and more and the base oils have been getting thinner and thinner to make the oils more fuel-efficient.
2. A 0W-40 oil is an oxymoron in general. It pretends to be thick but it isn't due to the thin base oil and the high VII content. A good ILSAC 5W-30 will run as thick as a 0W-40 and possibly even thicker with only a third of the VII content. This is because of the temporary shear at very high shear rates (well over 10⁶ s⁻¹) and also the permanent shear of the VII. Therefore, unless the OEM recommends a 0W-40, you're better off with a stout ILSAC 5W-30.

Interestingly, GM used to recommend an ILSAC 5W-30 for Corvettes as far as I know, but it appears that they wanted to jump on the 0W bandwagon, also increasing the KV100, which resulted in a two-step increment of the X–Y spread in XW-Y—or a drastic increase in the VII content.

I think that is likely the case.

I would say I think GM wanted an oil slightly thicker than regular M1 5w30, which like 99% of most 5w30's on the market, are designed with fuel economy in mind and would drop to a high 20 grade in some instances. With the 0w40, you're getting a global/all climate oil that will at most drop to a high 30 grade. It also handles aeration better. So I do see some advantages in favor of the 0w40. It's not hard to make a more shear stable 0w40. It's intentionally designed as is for a reason.

Over the years I've read different things from GM engineers on Mobil 1 and they always said if there was something better, they'd be using it. Take it with a grain of salt...but they've done all the testing so....

One thing to consider as well is that it's the entire formulation that makes an oil work. The 0w40 is using a different base oil blend than the standard M1 line, at least from what we can assume based on various sources.

I've seen numerous 0w40 UOAs and they all perform very similarly, including the boutique brands.

Look at Amsoil 0w40 Powersports Oil or Red Line 0w40. Both significantly thicker.

 

[OVERKILL]

I think that is likely the case.

I would say I think GM wanted an oil slightly thicker than regular M1 5w30, which like 99% of most 5w30's on the market, are designed with fuel economy in mind and would drop to a high 20 grade in some instances. With the 0w40, you're getting a global/all climate oil that will at most drop to a high 30 grade. It also handles aeration better. So I do see some advantages in favor of the 0w40. It's not hard to make a more shear stable 0w40. It's intentionally designed as is for a reason.

Over the years I've read different things from GM engineers on Mobil 1 and they always said if there was something better, they'd be using it. Take it with a grain of salt...but they've done all the testing so....

One thing to consider as well is that it's the entire formulation that makes an oil work. The 0w40 is using a different base oil blend than the standard M1 line, at least from what we can assume based on various sources.

I've seen numerous 0w40 UOAs and they all perform very similarly, including the boutique brands.

Look at Amsoil 0w40 Powersports Oil or Red Line 0w40. Both significantly thicker.

View attachment 121066

Also, worth thinking about, but you aren't limited to the API xW-30 and below phosphorous limit with an xW-40.

 

[k1xv]

I own a 2022 Corvette, and before that, a 2015 with a dry sump engine. The 2015 came with a 5w-30 recommendation, which GM later changed to 0w-40. After the warranty period on the 2022, I think I will run 5w-30. The car is out of service all winter, so sub freezing operation never occurs. And the car is almost always under 3000 rpm.

And I am suspicious and resentful of the Dexos licensing requirement. I actually prefer Pennzoil Ultra Platinum. Shell lubrication experts are just as good as the folks at ExxonMobil. How could an oil good for a supercharged Hellcat be unsatisfactory for a direct injected, naturally aspirated Vette?

Tying a warranty to the use of products that GM collects licensing fees probably violates Moss-Magnuson.

 

[OVERKILL]

How could an oil good for a supercharged Hellcat be unsatisfactory for a direct injected, naturally aspirated Vette?

Well, the SRT 0W-40 wouldn't pass the volatility requirements for MB 229.5 for example (10% limit, the oil is 13%). API limit is 15% and dexos1 limit is 13%, not sure about dexos2 or dexosR.

GM's dexos approval does add a decent number of new tests the oil has to pass that aren't included in the basic API stuff. Their royalty arrangement is a bit gross, but it is what it is, though, IIRC, its terms changed recently.

Note that the Hellcat and SRT engines are all port injected, so DI soot handling isn't really much of a concern.

 

[Gokhan]

Well, the SRT 0W-40 wouldn't pass the volatility requirements for MB 229.5 for example (10% limit, the oil is 13%). API limit is 15% and dexos1 limit is 13%, not sure about dexos2 or dexosR.

GM's dexos approval does add a decent number of new tests the oil has to pass that aren't included in the basic API stuff. Their royalty arrangement is a bit gross, but it is what it is, though, IIRC, its terms changed recently.

Note that the Hellcat and SRT engines are all port injected, so DI soot handling isn't really much of a concern.

Does dexosR have a soot-handling test?

 

[OVERKILL]

Does dexosR have a soot-handling test?

Lubrizol doesn't have dexosR on their spider chart yet, but dexos2 did.

 

[Gokhan]

Lubrizol doesn't have dexosR on their spider chart yet, but dexos2 did.

I would think all API SP/ILSAC GF-6 oils would have excellent DI soot handling because of the new timing-chain wear test. Therefore, this is a nonissue.

 

[Gokhan]

Also, worth thinking about, but you aren't limited to the API xW-30 and below phosphorous limit with an xW-40.

High SAPS is not something you necessarily want in today's modern engines. It reduces oxygen sensor, spark plug, and catalytic converter life and increases the intake-valve deposits. Moreover, the newer AW/EP/FM additives used today, such as the organic FMs, more than make up for the reduced phosphorus.

 

[Gokhan]

I own a 2022 Corvette, and before that, a 2015 with a dry sump engine. The 2015 came with a 5w-30 recommendation, which GM later changed to 0w-40. After the warranty period on the 2022, I think I will run 5w-30. The car is out of service all winter, so sub freezing operation never occurs. And the car is almost always under 3000 rpm.

And I am suspicious and resentful of the Dexos licensing requirement. I actually prefer Pennzoil Ultra Platinum. Shell lubrication experts are just as good as the folks at ExxonMobil. How could an oil good for a supercharged Hellcat be unsatisfactory for a direct injected, naturally aspirated Vette?

Tying a warranty to the use of products that GM collects licensing fees probably violates Moss-Magnuson.

If you want a "stout" 5W-30 with little VII content and a thick base oil, the answer is probably Pennzoil Platinum 5W-30 SP/GF-6. (It used to be Valvoline Advanced Synthetic in GF-5 days, but Valvoline thinned down the GF-6 formula.) It is thicker than all of M1 FS/ESP/ESP X3/ESP Formula 0W-40 for high-revving applications (with shear rates well above 10⁶ s⁻¹); so, you will get less engine wear with it than with these 0W-40 oils. I would also stay away from the Pennzoil Ultra varieties if you want a stout oil, as they use thinner base oils even though they might have a slightly boosted additive package.

That said, M1 vanilla/M1 EP 5W-30 is OK, too, but perhaps not the optimal choice for high-revving applications, as the VII content is quite high and the base oil is thin.

 

[sjw91]

I own a 2022 Corvette, and before that, a 2015 with a dry sump engine. The 2015 came with a 5w-30 recommendation, which GM later changed to 0w-40. After the warranty period on the 2022, I think I will run 5w-30. The car is out of service all winter, so sub freezing operation never occurs. And the car is almost always under 3000 rpm.

And I am suspicious and resentful of the Dexos licensing requirement. I actually prefer Pennzoil Ultra Platinum. Shell lubrication experts are just as good as the folks at ExxonMobil. How could an oil good for a supercharged Hellcat be unsatisfactory for a direct injected, naturally aspirated Vette?

Tying a warranty to the use of products that GM collects licensing fees probably violates Moss-Magnuson.

You can use Pennzoil Platinum Euro L 5w30. It's Dexos 2. That's what I'm using in my Corvette. I'm never going to track it.

 

[OVERKILL]

High SAPS is not something you necessarily want in today's modern engines. It reduces oxygen sensor, spark plug, and catalytic converter life and increases the intake-valve deposits. Moreover, the newer AW/EP/FM additives used today, such as the organic FMs, more than make up for the reduced phosphorus.

Higher phosphorous doesn't mean high SAPS. Most of the low SAPS Mobil ESP xW-40's have phosphorous at 900ppm, which is significantly higher than the 600-800ppm the API mandates for xW-30 and below.

Phosphorous is only an issue if a lot of it ends up in the exhaust of course, and, if you have that going on, you probably have bigger issues.

Per @RDY4WAR:

ZDDP is only active in boundary lubrication and is more effective on ferrous metals where the sulfur part of ZDDP reacts with iron surfaces to form a barrier of iron sulfide. The rod and main bearings operate in hydrodynamic lubrication and ideally should never encounter boundary lubrication. The rings go through all 3 lubrication regimes and rely on ZDDP at and near TDC and BDC up to ~20* each way.

There's no anti-wear additive that can replace ZDDP in effectiveness. However, there are other additives that synergize well with ZDDP, boosting anti-wear properties.

As with most anything, more ZDDP is not always better. ZDDP is created through reacting phosphorus pentasulfide with various alcohols to make dialkyl-dithio-phosphoric acid which is then neutralized (to a degree) with zinc oxide to form zinc-dialkyl-dithio-phosphate (ZDDP). This means ZDDP is an acidic ester. (neutral and basic ZDDPs exist but aren't used in engine oils) In some cases, too much ZDDP can cause corrosive wear. As far as interaction with detergents, ZDDP is acidic and detergents are acid neutralizers. You can see how that interaction can be conflicting. The synergy of ZDDP with other anti-wear / friction modifier / extreme pressure additives is also important and has to be accounted for when blending as more of one could throw off synergy with another and actually hurt more than help. This is why proper synergy of additives is important and why playing backyard shadetree chemist with a supplement is never a good idea.

This is why we see ~1,000-1,100ppm in the Euro full-SAPS oils, despite there being no limit, so it could be much higher. And of course this is why we continue to see ~900ppm of phosphorous in the ESP oils. I firmly believe that the API limits, imposed on the lighter grades of oil (xW-40 and above are exempt) are done with the intention of allowing for higher levels of consumption with cheaper oils within the warranty period and the catalysts still surviving. The Euro marques don't have this limitation, I assume due to stricter limits on things like Noack. Even M1 ESP X2 0W-20 has 880ppm of phosphorous, above the API limits, but it has C20, JLR.51.5122, dexosD, ACEA C5/C6, MB 229.71 and VW 508 00/509 00.

 

[Gokhan]

Higher phosphorous doesn't mean high SAPS. Most of the low SAPS Mobil ESP xW-40's have phosphorous at 900ppm, which is significantly higher than the 600-800ppm the API mandates for xW-30 and below.

Phosphorous is only an issue if a lot of it ends up in the exhaust of course, and, if you have that going on, you probably have bigger issues.

Per @RDY4WAR:


This is why we see ~1,000-1,100ppm in the Euro full-SAPS oils, despite there being no limit, so it could be much higher. And of course this is why we continue to see ~900ppm of phosphorous in the ESP oils. I firmly believe that the API limits, imposed on the lighter grades of oil (xW-40 and above are exempt) are done with the intention of allowing for higher levels of consumption with cheaper oils within the warranty period and the catalysts still surviving. The Euro marques don't have this limitation, I assume due to stricter limits on things like Noack. Even M1 ESP X2 0W-20 has 880ppm of phosphorous, above the API limits, but it has C20, JLR.51.5122, dexosD, ACEA C5/C6, MB 229.71 and VW 508 00/509 00.

The difference between API/ILSAC and ACEA limits is that the former requires 600–800 ppm phosphorus, whereas the latter requires 700–900 ppm phosphorus. Note that there is no lower or upper limit in the A/B categories, and there is no lower limit in the C4 category. That's the real reason why you see more phosphorus in M1 ESP etc.—not because they would show more wear in the wear tests if they reduced the ZDPP a little but because more like a result of ACEA red tape. It's akin to Ford requiring a minimum of 1,000 ppm phosphorus for their diesel engines.

ZDDP levels used to be much higher. Did the API SL and lower oils caused less wear? Absolutely not. In fact, they API SL and lower showed more wear because they lacked the modern AW/EP/FM additives, including the organic FM additives, that are now used in combination with ZDDP. Can ZDPP be entirely eliminated? Probably not. How much ZDDP is enough? I think the 650 ppm phosphorus Mobil uses in their ILSAC 0W-20 oils might be enough. Of course, there is also the question of what type of ZDPP, which makes a huge difference, more than the amount of ZDDP used, that was discussed by me and @RDY4WAR.

 

[OVERKILL]

The difference between API/ILSAC and ACEA limits is that the former requires 600–800 ppm phosphorus, whereas the latter requires 700–900 ppm phosphorus. Note that there is no lower or upper limit in the A/B categories, and there is no lower limit in the C4 category. That's the real reason why you see more phosphorus in M1 ESP etc.—not because they would show more wear in the wear tests if they reduced the ZDPP a little but because more like a result of ACEA red tape.

I'm aware of the limits. That doesn't track though. Most of the API oils we see are in the 700-800 range. Mobil runs 760 on pretty much everything non-high mileage, 800 on the high mileage, right at the limit. This is well within the 700ppm lower limit you've indicated for ACEA, but their ACEA ESP oils that are xW-40's are all right at the upper bounds at 900ppm and right at the API upper limit of 800ppm for the xW-30's, clearly there is a reason for this.

So, the assertion that we wouldn't see more wear rings a bit hollow. Clearly, Mobil is targeting the upper boundary of the specification rather than the lower one and using more than is required to stay within the range for either.

As you've agreed, there is no limit on the A/B categories and we seem to see 1,000-1,100ppm for these oils, which I tend to think of as "optimal" in an unconstrained situation. Worded differently: They wouldn't choose to use more phosphorous than necessary with no limits on its volume and they would certainly use less if it didn't have any affect on wear.

The API situation appears to be more of a forced compromise than ACEA then, looking at those numbers.

It's akin to Ford requiring a minimum of 1,000 ppm phosphorus for their diesel engines.

But most diesel oils are well above that anyways. TDT has 1,100ppm of phosphorous for example.

ZDDP levels used to be much higher.

The limit for phosphorous under SJ was 1,000ppm for xW-20 and xW-30.
It's more similar to what we see with the Full-SAPS Euro oils.
That said, I've seen that assertion before and I'm not sure how accurate it is, having seen a number of "old" VOA's.

For example, this 2003 AMSOIL XL 5W-20 VOA (so API SL, as SM was introduced in 2004) has phosphorous at 751ppm
This Yamaha 10W-40 (designed for something with no catalysts and being an xW-40, exempt from the phosphorous limit) has phosphorous at 767ppm
This VOA of Brad Penn 20W-50 in 2004 has phosphorous at 689ppm
This 2003 VOA of Valvoline 5W-20 (API SL) has phosphorous at 798ppm
This 2003 VOA of Formula Shell 10W-30 (API SL) has phosphorous at 731ppm

Did the API SL and lower oils caused less wear? Absolutely not. In fact, they API SL and lower showed more wear because they lacked the modern AW/EP/FM additives, including the organic FM additives, that are now used in combination with ZDDP.

Redline might argue with you on that Their white bottle oil was very much an old school SL and older formula with even higher levels of phosphorous and moly.

Can ZDPP be entirely eliminated? Probably not. How much ZDDP is enough? I think the 650 ppm phosphorus Mobil uses in their ILSAC 0W-20 oils might be enough. Of course, there is also the question of what type of ZDPP, which makes a huge difference, more than the amount of ZDDP used, that was discussed by me and @RDY4WAR.

Mobil doesn't use 650ppm in their ILSAC 0W-20 though, they use 760, and 800ppm in the High Mileage version:

 

[The Critic]

Mobil doesn't use 650ppm in their ILSAC 0W-20 though, they use 760, and 800ppm in the High Mileage version:
View attachment 121134

This is a recent change. The 10/2019 copy of that document showed 650ppm of P for the EP and AFE 0W-20's.

https://www.mobil.com/lubricants/-/media/project/wep/mobil/mobil-row-us-1/files/faqs/mobil-1-oil-product-specs-guide.pdf

 

[Gokhan]

If that's true, it's very interesting. However, I take any spec Mobil 1 publishes these days with a grain of salt. A bump from 650 ppm to 760 ppm phosphorus is a huge change! It needs to be verified with VOAs.

• Mobil 1 engine-oil product guide with ZDDP specs and approvals—October 2019 (PDF file)
• Mobil 1 engine-oil product guide with ZDDP specs and approvals—May 2022 (PDF file)