New sheriff in town has arrived

[hominid7]

Originally Posted By: lonestar
There is Mobil Clean and the Mobil Clean 5000. It is clearly Mobil Clean 5000 pictured in the link in Post 1.


I think it would be safe to assume that Mobil Clean Bulk oil and Exxon Superflo are very very similar.

 

[jeepman]

That is the best information anyone has posted on this board in a long time. Thanks Tom!

 

[Loobed]

Originally Posted By: Tom NJ


What makes this company different from other oil monitoring organizations is that they are dedicated to serving the consumer, rather than serving member oil companies, and all data is made public.

Tom NJ



[Thanks for posting]


If they are serving the consumer, who is paying for it?


P.S. did you see the amount of moly in Shell dino

No more need to get a VOA

 

[addyguy]

Very nice site and chart.

Thanks Tom for making this so easy for us to access!

Suprised at the TBN of the M5000 oil. Would be very happy if this were the 'Mobil Super 1000' oil in Canada.

 

[addyguy]

Wait a minute - all of these are SM oils, correct?

SM is capped at 800 ppm Zinc and 600ppm Phos.. Almost ALL oils have more than that amount of BOTH elements - what gives?

 

[BobFout]

IIRC it's GF-4 that has those limits, not SM. Regular SM oils I've seen have more.

 

[chet2]

great job, thanks for telling us

 

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: addyguy
Wait a minute - all of these are SM oils, correct?

SM is capped at 800 ppm Zinc and 600ppm Phos.. Almost ALL oils have more than that amount of BOTH elements - what gives?


It's 800. Not 600.

 

[ryan2022]

GREAT post.

thanks

 

[Tom NJ]

Keep in mind that PQIA is not trying to compare oils, or judge which oils are better than others based on bench analyses. As an oil monitoring organization, their intent is to determine, on a limited but reasonable basis, whether the oil in the bottle is consistent with the claims on the label. Their analyses will serve the consumer by exposing any oils that fail certain specifications, are clearly sub par, or make performance statements that are not supported by the ingredients.

They will cover synthetics and various oil grades over time, but since the brands for testing are selected at random by computer, you will just need to wait for your favorite brands to come up.

PQIA's testing program is very expensive, and they will need to be funded by sponsors in the lubricants industry. They will make clear to sponsors, however, that brands selected for testing are random and no analysis will be withheld from publication. The sponsors are just as pleased as the consumer to have unfair competitors publicly exposed, and up until now there has been no mechanism to do so.

Tom NJ

 

[Cup of Joe]

Tom I wish they took public donations as well.

 

[Samilcar]

Was the Kendall oil tested really a synthetic blend? I'm surprised that the -30°C viscosity isn't lower than the others tested.

 

[ottotheclown]

HAVE you noticed that the Kendall is a blend?So this is also the MC 5-30 figures. So many swear by Valvoline, and by these figures it is a loser. Yes I agree I wish they had public donations, this is really what we have been looking for for along time.

 

[Samilcar]

The tested Citgo oil is also a synthetic blend, and it also doesn't really stand out in the low temp viscosity.

 

[Johnny]

While the Kendall and Motorcraft are made by the same company, the formulations are different. Also, the three blends mentioned are a Group II/III blend with only about 15% of the blend being Group III. So it does not surprise me about their -30C vis.

 

[asamek]

I don't really see how any of the oils listed can be termed a "loser". As Tom noted - they are displaying figures to support the claims made by the manufacturers, and also minimum specifications.

So if there is enough of a given ingredient to get the job done over the course of the recommended usage, then there is enough. More isn't necessarily doing the job any better. Think of it like laundry. Using the recommended amount of detergent (surfactant) for the size of the load will get the job done. Using more than is recommended will not get the load incrementally cleaner.

Now one of those oils may end up being superior for a given application and/or oci, but I'm pretty confident that under standard US driving and up to a 5k OCI, there will be no "losing" with any of them.

 

[Johnny]

You are correct. They are all good oils.

 

[jmsjags]

Originally Posted By: asamek
I don't really see how any of the oils listed can be termed a "loser". As Tom noted - they are displaying figures to support the claims made by the manufacturers, and also minimum specifications.

So if there is enough of a given ingredient to get the job done over the course of the recommended usage, then there is enough. More isn't necessarily doing the job any better. Think of it like laundry. Using the recommended amount of detergent (surfactant) for the size of the load will get the job done. Using more than is recommended will not get the load incrementally cleaner.

Now one of those oils may end up being superior for a given application and/or oci, but I'm pretty confident that under standard US driving and up to a 5k OCI, there will be no "losing" with any of them.


well i'm sure they would all work perfectly fine over the course of a 5k OCI, but it's evident to me that a few of the ones tested stand out above the rest. so if they're all the same price at wally world why not buy the one with the best add pack for the same amount of money?

 

[ProfPS]

Here's the data but with rankings for each test except for viscosity index. I also calculated a weighted value and ranked the results (last column). There's also an attempt to rank the Visc 100C values based for each based on the average of the Visc 100C's.

As stated above all are fine PMCO's, but I was interested in how each rank among the others.

 

[WagonBoss]

I'm curious to your logic for ranking the 100C viscosity from thinnest being one to thickest being 10. In my application I would want the thicker. Were your weighted values based on something? TIA.