Last edited:
New Mobil 1 5w30 ESP Formulation?
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
I wonder if M1 is revamping their ESP line. For ESP 0w30 and 0w40 CAS 848301-69-9 is predominant but their MSDS docs are dated 2021/22.
Or perhaps there's a geopolitical bent.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Group III doesn't provide much in the way of solubility either, but it doesn't have the seal shrink tendency that PAO does, so it's easier/cheaper to blend with.optimum additive solubility and oxidation stability and good lubrication properties and less biodegradable base oils. Will be perfect in a light duty diesel engine
We’ll have to see if they touch the X3 0w-40 or the Corvette ESP. My guess is they won’t look like this.
also doesn't biodegradable like pao, or have poor lubrication property's like pao, pros and cons with every base oil. That's why i like to see at approvals(end product)and price. But that's me
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Most base oils are poor lubricants, PAO is very similar to Group III, both bases are very "dry" having poor solvency, you are splitting hairs trying to compare something like lubrication between the two. PAO is not very biodegradable, is that what you meant?
PAO has several strengths:
- Oxidation resistance (though this can be overcome with Group III via antioxidants)
- Cold temperature performance (this is unrivalled)
- Low volatility
- High natural VI's (this is particularly true for some of the newer PAO's)
But of course it has weaknesses as well:
- Poor solubility (requiring blending with something that improves this)
- Seal shrink tendency (requires blending with something that improves this)
- Expensive
PAO can be a good choice if you are trying to blend a 0W-xx, since it will allow you to use a heavier base and reduce or eliminate reliance on PPD's. But, it also drives up the blending cost considerably as it is expensive, as is counteracting its inherent weaknesses through the addition of other components.
PAO makes far less sense in oils that aren't shooting for the 0W-xx Winter grade since Group III and PPD's can get you there for less money and antioxidants can match or even beat the oxidation resistance levels and then you don't have the struggle with seal shrink.
As Group IIIs become more refined and paraffinic / PAO-like, they end up suffering most of the same issues though as you mention. Since you still need a co-base for solvency, it seems like you’re going to need some AN or ester anyway which address the seal swell. Perhaps less, which is why I assume cost is the primary driver.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
You can get away with a lower base carrier with Group III, which has the necessary solvency, which won't work with PAO.
absolutely not, that's why i said i like approvals. Very biodegradable?what i meant? LOL. Doesn't Pao have poorest lubrication property of G1 to G3?
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Yes, approvals are ultimately what convey the performance, not the base.
You seemed to be saying that PAO is very biodegradable. It's not very biodegradable.
All the super pure bases suck, lol. Focusing on that aspect is somewhat specious, because none of them are very good. PAO has poor natural lubricity in part because it has poor solubility, but so does Group III for the same reason. Group I I believe has the highest natural lubricity along with the highest solvency, but it has high volatility, high potential to create deposits, awful VI and subsequently can't meet any modern performance requirements in a modern formulation.
But, none of this matters because the additives do all the work in this department and blending with esters and/or AN's solves those problems while still allowing for the strengths of PAO to improve the overall performance of the formulation.
ESPx3 is pretty expensive in my country, otherwise i would use it
| Excellent thermal and oxidative stability | Helps to reduce oil aging allowing extended drain interval protection |
| Meets industry latest LSPI requirements for gasoline direct injection turbocharged engines | Helps prevent engine breakdown resulting from pre-ignition occurrences at engine low speed and high torque operation |
i think that was missing from the previous blend as someone said..they had to cook a new recipy for this one and get ll04,wright?
mobil is ahead of many oil producers..we have to trust them..i think mobil and castrol and perhaps motul/total are leading the way to whats new to the market, if i am not wrong about it.
Well, the rumor was that BMW approvals were lost due to unreasonable oxidation requirements. Removing the ester would accomplish that. Whether it makes the product better or not is another question.
D
Deleted member 89374
Wow, your knowledge is truly impressive. Do you work in the industry? Are you a tribologist, mechanical engineer, or lubricant formulator?
No, although I am an engineer. If you are, perhaps you can set the record straight with information instead of snarky comments. Would prefer input from a chemical engineer rather than a mech E though.
D
Deleted member 89374
Did I offend you somehow? I haven’t even made a single unqualified claim in this thread. Always noted as a question or speculation. If you’ve got a problem then come out and say it, tough guy. Maybe we can learn something from your corrections rather than Picard memes.
In his defense the suspicion over the oxidation requirement originated from @edyvw
The same guy who said 0w oils were disallowed in newest BMW certs
Similar threads
- Locked