Not all engine oils are created equal

[BMWTurboDzl]

Yeah towing and such but at what speed, what level of towing weight simulated, and frequency. They don't say what degree of the modes they use in their data, is it evenly split or is it one over the other? If they tow only once for 30 minutes and never again during that run they can still undeniably clam they still tested towing but not give data as to how much it accounted for in the overall data but use it as a prop to their narrative. It's best to not be naive when it comes to one sided data with no real information. They give no real definable criteria in their testing standards and procedures just generic info.

It doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is whether or not their oil performs better than Brand X. I suspect in reality the product from all the majors which have the same/similar specifications perform about the same. I also suspect claims of "our brand performed better than Brand X" usually entails the use of a lesser formulation from a competitor. (Ex. M1 FS vs Castrol GTX).

 

[travis8352]

Leaves out a lot of very important variables. Air cleanliness is a factor since the silica in the oil scuffs the surfaces a ton which the engines don't seem to get as just stand there and not get driven on real roads or at least get fed dirty air. They didn't include any of that whatsoever, the oil filter is also important. Oil that is constantly hot is going to clean better and also be in a tribofilm state which reduces wear significantly and heavier yet very stable loads are also helping the engine. It's varying engine loads, oil pressure, and engine speed that account for wear. And they didn't state what engine rpm the Toyota was ran at and the variable oil pump pressure and rpm data is readily available so they could just be at the sweet spot in the highest rpm with the least oil pressure to maximize either efficiency by less pressure and less drag or better wear numbers with more oil pressure

And if I'm not mistaken that Toyota is supposed to get 0w-16 and 0w-20 only once and must return to 0w-16 the next time yet there is no 0w-16 EP. There is only 0w-20 and thicker so they had to have ran either that or thicker still as they also gave zero mention of what viscosity of M1 EP they used in the Toyota as you can't assume they used the required 0w-16 as that doesn't exist and they didn't mention a disclaimer about using the wrong oil which they pretty much did. And they also gave zero mention to the speed the vehicle was driving at on the dynamometer as it could've been a more constant 70 mph which racks up that mileage faster than real world average vehicle speed per engine running hour which are like 20-40 mph in the real world as the vast majority fall into that severe category.

They also say that in their "independent testing" that the oil doesn't oxidize as much as compared to the rest in the industry but are they counting the extreme fuel dilution to lower the viscosity of the oxidized oil? The video is hogwash that no one in their right mind would take beyond a grain of salt. No one should believe such one sided baloney from a manufactures doctored testing standard which gave no real information and data being given/excluded to the public. But sadly a lot of normal consumers are gonna be amazed by the few difficult things and think that's the whole story and believe it. Mobil also gave no mention that they don't guarantee going 2x over the 10k interval and that the product user should read what it says on the bottle and also follow manufacturer maintenance intervals regardless of what they claim but they don't. They heavily imply that you should leave it in there for 20k miles until something bad happens and if you try to go after Mobil after the dealer said "lol should've done 10k intervals tops not 20K" Mobil will hit you with the "should've read what it said on the back of the bottle in fine small print which we know full well no one actually does so we get away with fooling you since the disclaimer tells you to not do what we advertised to you on the front in big bold font since we know that no car brand says to go 20k miles in their intervals" and leave you SOL with the bill.

I can't find any of Mobil's testing standard information or any actual figures of the results. They just give some generic charts with no meaningful data points on the axes.

Well **** buddy dont get to angry over a video!

 

[travis8352]

It doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is whether or not their oil performs better than Brand X. I suspect in reality the product from all the majors which have the same/similar specifications perform about the same. I also suspect claims of "our brand performed better than Brand X" usually entails the use of a lesser formulation from a competitor. (Ex. M1 FS vs Castrol GTX).

Yes! Its just like how vehicle manufacturers always show they vehicle beating the competition in a few hand selected tests where they excel.

 

[OVERKILL]

Came across this from engineering explained on youtube. Some may find it interesting so ill share it here

They covered some really good stuff here, particularly in the 2nd section with regards to Sequence IIIH. We talk about how all approved oils are supposed to perform the same within the confines of a given suite of approvals, and that's right. However, we also tend to knock the API/ILSAC approvals for being pretty weak.

So, for IIIH, the limit is 100% increase in viscosity due to oxidative thickening. That's quite an allowance! Yet that's down over SN/GF-5, which was 150%. Yet Mobil limits themselves to 10% for regular M1 and 5% for M1 EP, that's a huge difference, even over Dexos, which is 75%.

The dyno test sounds about as real-world simulation as you can get while maintaining the control that only dyno-style testing can provide. It simulated a number of different scenarios:

To allow for the simulation of a "typical" usage profile for one of these vehicles. Sounds comprehensive enough.

The tear-down testing results for engine and bearing wear closely mirror what Doug Hillary observed during his tear-down testing regimen over 1.3 million kilometres running DD powered OTR trains through the Aussie outback on Delvac 1 5w-40. Running the intervals beyond the claimed mileage makes sense from a liability perspective, though I still wouldn't recommend anybody do that without UOA's.

Ultimately, while there's definitely a bit of a plug for Mobil 1, it's good to catch a glimpse at the Standardized API/ILSAC/Dexos testing regiments, which is really what the video was about.

 

[travis8352]

They covered some really good stuff here, particularly in the 2nd section with regards to Sequence IIIH. We talk about how all approved oils are supposed to perform the same within the confines of a given suite of approvals, and that's right. However, we also tend to knock the API/ILSAC approvals for being pretty weak.

So, for IIIH, the limit is 100% increase in viscosity due to oxidative thickening. That's quite an allowance! Yet that's down over SN/GF-5, which was 150%. Yet Mobil limits themselves to 10% for regular M1 and 5% for M1 EP, that's a huge difference, even over Dexos, which is 75%.

The dyno test sounds about as real-world simulation as you can get while maintaining the control that only dyno-style testing can provide. It simulated a number of different scenarios:
View attachment 98117

To allow for the simulation of a "typical" usage profile for one of these vehicles. Sounds comprehensive enough.

The tear-down testing results for engine and bearing wear closely mirror what Doug Hillary observed during his tear-down testing regimen over 1.3 million kilometres running DD powered OTR trains through the Aussie outback on Delvac 1 5w-40. Running the intervals beyond the claimed mileage makes sense from a liability perspective, though I still wouldn't recommend anybody do that without UOA's.

Ultimately, while there's definitely a bit of a plug for Mobil 1, it's good to catch a glimpse at the Standardized API/ILSAC/Dexos testing regiments, which is really what the video was about.

Thank you! Yes its nice to see the testing and see that mobil limits their viscosity increases to such a low percent! Would be cool to see the results of other oils there as well!

Is there a thread on doug hillarys tear down testing?

 

[OVERKILL]

Yeah towing and such but at what speed, what level of towing weight simulated, and frequency. They don't say what degree of the modes they use in their data, is it evenly split or is it one over the other? If they tow only once for 30 minutes and never again during that run they can still undeniably clam they still tested towing but not give data as to how much it accounted for in the overall data but use it as a prop to their narrative. It's best to not be naive when it comes to one sided data with no real information. They give no real definable criteria in their testing standards and procedures just generic info.

You sound ridiculously petty in this thread, maybe go take a breather and come back with a fresh head? You are focussing exclusively on one small segment (the 120,000 mile tear-down testing, which Mobil is doing for internal validation of their own products, and has nothing to do with the API/ILSAC/Dexos approvals) of the video and mercilessly flogging and deriding Mobil for some perceived slight against sensibilities that only you seem to be carrying water for here.

All of the procedures, other than their internal 120,000 mile test, are API/ILSAC and Dexos standard tests defined by the ASTM/SAE.

 

[2dogs]

I'm sure Mobil makes a fine oil but it looked like a 12 minute commercial.

 

[OVERKILL]

Thank you! Yes its nice to see the testing and see that mobil limits their viscosity increases to such a low percent! Would be cool to see the results of other oils there as well!

Is there a thread on doug hillarys tear down testing?

Yep, let me find the thread, may take me a bit.

 

[Scott S]

If you look at Mobil 1 VOA it doesn't look like anything spectacular.. I know a lot depends on the base oil used not only the additive package.

 

[Brice]

They were so worried about oil viscosity increasing as it wears, I thought the worry was viscosity decrease?

Also, granted it was sponsored by Mobil so it was featured. Put it mainly points out that any GF6 or SP rated oil passes the same tests. So it's not like Mobil is doing anything special here.

 

[PimTac]

If you look at Mobil 1 VOA it doesn't look like anything spectacular.. I know a lot depends on the base oil used not only the additive package.

What are you looking at in a VOA to judge a particular oil?

 

[Tjbouwhu]

Bingo…follow the money!!!

 

[Escape08]

Nice video Explained Engineering...Mobil1 without a doubt is indeed a great oil. But how much did Mobil1 paid you?

 

[Odd_Ball]

If you look at Mobil 1 VOA it doesn't look like anything spectacular.. I know a lot depends on the base oil used not only the additive package.

VOAs are more useful at identifying really bad oils with weak/underdosed additive packages than they are good at telling you which quality oil will outperform another quality oil. You're really looking at a very limited amount of data with these tests.

 

[Scott S]

What are you looking at in a VOA to judge a particular oil?

Moly, boron, zinc. To name a few..

 

[Scott S]

VOAs are more useful at identifying really bad oils with weak/underdosed additive packages than they are good at telling you which quality oil will outperform another quality oil. You're really looking at a very limited amount of data with these tests.

Exactly, so if you compare, say Quaker State, to Mobil 1 in a VOA comparison, Quaker State, looks like, it has a better additive package. I'm not saying it's a better oil.. because Mobil 1 I'm sure has a better base oil.

 

[Cujet]

The test is to sell confidence. I can choose to believe Project Farm oil shootout or just throw a dart for any quality oil. A short OCI with a quality oil trumps all claims.

Bill, that's not the only reason. They test because it works. They've been doing this testing routine for a very long time and really do understand what works and why. They do know how to test.

I used to work in the Mobil Oil flight department and we were involved in aviation lubricant testing. The engineers were epic good. Period, end of story. The oil currently called Mobil Jet Oil 254 was the product we helped with. I spent time with the engineers and learned a bunch about high temperature testing.

It's obvious to any engineer that 20 years of real world operation can't be duplicated by a hard run on a dyno. It's also obvious that "luck" is not how oils are engineered.

There really is a reason that the use of M1 in a corolla results in no stuck piston rings and no clogged oil drain holes and a long service life. But corolla owners tend not to use it.

 

[Tkonrr]

We already know this silly "test" would be passed just the same by any basic oil.

 

[wpod]

They still have doctored testing procedures and that's not at all indicative of the real world.

It is on the internet, it must be true.

 

[OVERKILL]

Thank you! Yes its nice to see the testing and see that mobil limits their viscosity increases to such a low percent! Would be cool to see the results of other oils there as well!

Is there a thread on doug hillarys tear down testing?

OK, here are a couple good posts by @Doug Hillary:

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/t...-mean-to-stay-away.141675/page-3#post-2057527

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/interesting-mobil-1-test.103777/page-2#post-1405341

Doug's pictures (thanks to @Pablo for posting them):
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/best-synthetic-oil.99098/page-8#post-1325268

His comments follow them.