New XOM - Ester FE 2.X

4WD

Messages
17,292
Location
Texas
You actually don't know what they are doing … just getting more arrogant day by day.
 
Messages
5,361
Location
Paramount, California
Originally Posted by 4WD
You actually don't know what they are doing … just getting more arrogant day by day.
Nope, not arrogant, just pointed out that it's not fair to compare their VII to PMA VII, let alone call PMA VII "conventional VII." Regarding their new ester base stock, that's their business -- to make (new) synthetic base stocks -- and the article is a marketing ploy to promote it. If someone uses that new ester base stock and increases the VII content to do so, it's their choice -- it's always a compromise between fuel economy and other oil properties.
 

4WD

Messages
17,292
Location
Texas
Ok fine, don't think stuff should be called a gimmick even before it had time to stand the test of time. Shell and XOM are developing products for their own use and to sell to formulators. It remains to be seen if the independent lubricant companies get onboard based on lots of tests that have not happened in their labs of choice. They sure got onboard with EHC base stocks …
 
Messages
1,920
Location
South Carolina
OCP is a family of polymers with a wide range of effectiveness and shear resistance. Some of them are very shear stable. My only concern with high amounts of VII is the reduction in shear stress of the oil film in elastohydrodynamic lubrication which reduces additive response. PAO does the same thing.
 
Messages
2,727
Location
WY
One of these days a smart marketing person is going to publish the full testing data and total by percentage of the ingredients of their base oils and add pack, especially if it contains expensive ingredients. It will be such a breath of fresh air it would probably attract a certain type of consumer, me. XOM has repeatedly stood the test of time along with most other oils but seems determined to throw up a marketing smoke screen for the 729 different flavors of the oils they sell. A little less razzle-dazzle and a little more pertinent information from XOM and the rest would be welcomed. The cited graph/write-up from XOM from earlier in this post seems like a backward step in many ways but really just confuses people.
 
Messages
5,361
Location
Paramount, California
An earlier Nissan study concluded that a 0W-16 should keep its base oil as thick as that of a 0W-20 to protect the timing chain against wear. What I see from current formulations such as the M1 AFE 0W-16 is that they still put a lot of VII and make the base oil even thinner than for 0W-20, which is actually the opposite of what's normally done. For example typically a 5W-20 has a thicker base oil than a 5W-30. Apparently with GF-6 wear protection takes the back seat and fuel economy takes the front seat. Lowering the HTHS (high-shear viscosity) is now not satisfactory for oil blenders, and they want to lower the base-oil viscosity (full-shear viscosity) as well to squeeze a little more fuel-economy benefit, which comes at the expense of wear protection. Now, ExxonMobil is promoting to lower the base-oil viscosity of 5W-30 oils for GF-6, to make them a 0W-30 with a 5W-30 label or a wolf in sheep's clothing if you like. Perhaps with GF-6 we'll start to see many fuel-economy-centered ultra-high-viscosity-index oils like the TGMO 0W-20. Estimated base-oil viscosity (BO DV150) and VII content of selected oils
 
Top