Observations on GC 0w30 and M1 0w40.

Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
313
Location
Lugoff, SC
Today, while changing the oil in my 04 S60, I do my normal routine of checking to make sure everything is staying clean and nothing is forming in the oiling system. When I first purchased the vehicle, it had 50K miles on it. The engine wasn't taken well care of, but it was far from what I would call bad. I immediately switched it to M1 0w40 and ran it to the recommend intervals of 7500 miles between changes. However, I switched to GC just to give it a try. I noticed a huge difference in the two oils. M1: -Comes out darker when drained. -Doesn't make the car feel as "held back" -leaves little hard carbon chunks in the oil filter CG: -comes out clear, has a dark red color to it after the whole 7500 mile interval -makes the car feel a little sluggish -does NOT leave any deposits in the oil filter That last line is the one that worries me. Is the M1 cleaning out [censored] from many many miles ago? Or, is it actually turning solid? The pieces are VERY small, about the size of a grain of sand. They are not attached to the walls of the oil filter housing, like I always see on a customers cars that don't get serviced properly. And they wash right out with a squirt of brake clean. Also, there are the same little pieces of hard carbon in the pleats of the oil filter. What is going on here?
 
Joined
Sep 24, 2008
Messages
94
Location
Ottawa, Ontario
In my opinion, nothing can be concluded from the evidence you've provided. Cheers, J EDIT: But I imagine that won't stop others from providing you with very definitive conclusions.
 
Last edited:

JHZR2

Staff member
Joined
Dec 14, 2002
Messages
46,629
Location
New Jersey
Ive found the same "feel" you mention, and have marked a difference in MPG, with GC being lower than M1 0w-40. I think you have nothing to fear using the M1, it is great oil, tested to many very stringent specs.
 
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
751
Location
Sarasota, FL
wow, I wanna hear more from this. I wanted to try M1 0W40.. but I found it to be TOO thick... 78cSt at 40c and 14cSt at 100c!!! I prefer GC... it is 61cSt at 40c and 12.1cSt at 100c...
 

JAG

Joined
Oct 23, 2005
Messages
5,320
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
The filter content findings are interesting.
 Originally Posted By: JHZR2
... have marked a difference in MPG, with GC being lower than M1 0w-40.
Same here in my GTI 1.8T. Mobil 1 0W-40 did some mild cleaning in the valve cover region of that engine too. Because of that, I think the carbon particles in your filter are from cleaning, not the oil itself creating carbon.
 
Joined
Nov 16, 2002
Messages
34,616
Location
NJ
Prob doing some cleaning. From the PDS:
 Quote:
Mobil 1 0W-40 keeps engines starting in Arctic-extreme cold, and it cleans deposits, sludge and varnish often formed in high temperature operating conditions.
 

KLowD9x

Thread starter
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
313
Location
Lugoff, SC
So, does this mean that GC is not good for removing junk from lazy previous owners? I am in no way saying that GC isn't a really good oil, I am just under the impression that it doesn't have the same characteristics of Mobil1.
 
Joined
Jun 17, 2005
Messages
4,942
Location
Billings, MT
I wonder if AN somehow crystalizes sludge or something? Sounds just like the particles Overkill found in his filter after using M1 5W-20.
 
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
282
Location
Central Valley, CA
"M1: -Comes out darker when drained. -Doesn't make the car feel as "held back" -leaves little hard carbon chunks in the oil filter CG: -comes out clear, has a dark red color to it after the whole 7500 mile interval -makes the car feel a little sluggish -does NOT leave any deposits in the oil filter" Interesting... been thinking about trying Mobil 1 0w40 in my 2008 4.7, but was concerned about the extra viscosity over GC. Will have to give it a try next time around. Also had noticed that M1 0w20 came out darker at 7.5k than GC at 9.5k and PP 5w20 at 6k.
 
Joined
Jun 17, 2005
Messages
4,942
Location
Billings, MT
Normally a 10W-30 makes my car feel really sluggish, but my current fill of Mobil 1 10W-30 High Mileage doesn't feel significantly more sluggish than any of the 5W-20's I've run before. No, I'm not praising Mobil 1. I'm really not. Seriously.
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
69
Location
Arizona
Are you guys driving cars with punched out Briggs & Stratton engines making 12hp? Out of all the oils I have used (M1, RP, GC, Amsoil, GTX and others) in all the difference vehicles I service (Toyota MR2 Turbo, Toyota MR2 [non turbo], Toyota Camry V6, 2.4 Nissan Frontier, 1.8 Nissan Sentra, Lexus IS300, Chevy suburban, 1.5 Mazda Protege) I have *never* felt any difference in performance or mileage. Even my weak piece of [censored] Mazda.. probably 70whp.. feels completely normal with GC in the sump and has returned consistent 35mpg city mileage with occasional spikes to 37mpg. I think it's all in your heads. Your butt dynos aren't that sensitive ;\)
 
Last edited:

KLowD9x

Thread starter
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
313
Location
Lugoff, SC
 Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Does the carbon look like this: That's what M1 5w20 left in my filter.
That looks exactly like what I found. About that same amount in the bottom of the cartridge.
 
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
9,427
Location
Pensacola & Vero Beach FL
 Originally Posted By: Epic_
Are you guys driving cars with punched out Briggs & Stratton engines making 12hp? Out of all the oils I have used (M1, RP, GC, Amsoil, GTX and others) in all the difference vehicles I service (Toyota MR2 Turbo, Toyota MR2 [non turbo], Toyota Camry V6, 2.4 Nissan Frontier, 1.8 Nissan Sentra, Lexus IS300, Chevy suburban, 1.5 Mazda Protege) I have *never* felt any difference in performance or mileage. Even my weak piece of [censored] Mazda.. probably 70whp.. feels completely normal with GC in the sump and has returned consistent 35mpg city mileage with occasional spikes to 37mpg. I think it's all in your heads. Your butt dynos aren't that sensitive ;\)
In a lot of cases, the contrast may be so slight as to be undetectable by mere human butt dynos. On the other hand, I tried an experimental fill of GC (as others have mentioned, slightly above 12 cSt), followed by a fill of PP 0w-20, only 8.4 cSt. This generated a noticeable subjective difference in the engine, but most notably, I could immediately see a jump in the mpgs as measured by the computer. I had one mostly I-10 trip on the fresh PP on which the measured mileage spiked to 39 mpgs, whereas with the much thicker GC, I was generally unable to slog out of the mid-low 30s. I guess I'll have to start again logging every-fill mpg info so I can state these things with more precision. I don't doubt that some drivers subjective observations are a result of subconscious suggestion. ON the other hand, I'm fully convinced that many others, particularly those experienced with cars and their behavior, can feel sluggishness from too thick an oil (or the lack thereof upon a move to a thinner product).
 
Joined
Aug 20, 2003
Messages
799
Location
Washington, DC
 Originally Posted By: ekpolk
 Originally Posted By: Epic_
Are you guys driving cars with punched out Briggs & Stratton engines making 12hp? Out of all the oils I have used (M1, RP, GC, Amsoil, GTX and others) in all the difference vehicles I service (Toyota MR2 Turbo, Toyota MR2 [non turbo], Toyota Camry V6, 2.4 Nissan Frontier, 1.8 Nissan Sentra, Lexus IS300, Chevy suburban, 1.5 Mazda Protege) I have *never* felt any difference in performance or mileage. Even my weak piece of [censored] Mazda.. probably 70whp.. feels completely normal with GC in the sump and has returned consistent 35mpg city mileage with occasional spikes to 37mpg. I think it's all in your heads. Your butt dynos aren't that sensitive ;\)
In a lot of cases, the contrast may be so slight as to be undetectable by mere human butt dynos. On the other hand, I tried an experimental fill of GC (as others have mentioned, slightly above 12 cSt), followed by a fill of PP 0w-20, only 8.4 cSt. This generated a noticeable subjective difference in the engine, but most notably, I could immediately see a jump in the mpgs as measured by the computer. I had one mostly I-10 trip on the fresh PP on which the measured mileage spiked to 39 mpgs, whereas with the much thicker GC, I was generally unable to slog out of the mid-low 30s. I guess I'll have to start again logging every-fill mpg info so I can state these things with more precision. I don't doubt that some drivers subjective observations are a result of subconscious suggestion. ON the other hand, I'm fully convinced that many others, particularly those experienced with cars and their behavior, can feel sluggishness from too thick an oil (or the lack thereof upon a move to a thinner product).
Don't put to much faith in computer calculated mpg...do it the old fashion way..gallons in / miles driven
 
Joined
Sep 23, 2006
Messages
11,268
Location
Bad Axe, MI
 Originally Posted By: sparkplug
More proof Mobil 1 is a great oil.
x2..it's cleaning, every filter i cut open has some of that and my engine internals are like new, don't worry.
 
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
9,427
Location
Pensacola & Vero Beach FL
 Originally Posted By: zoomzoom
 Originally Posted By: ekpolk
 Originally Posted By: Epic_
Are you guys driving cars with punched out Briggs & Stratton engines making 12hp? Out of all the oils I have used (M1, RP, GC, Amsoil, GTX and others) in all the difference vehicles I service (Toyota MR2 Turbo, Toyota MR2 [non turbo], Toyota Camry V6, 2.4 Nissan Frontier, 1.8 Nissan Sentra, Lexus IS300, Chevy suburban, 1.5 Mazda Protege) I have *never* felt any difference in performance or mileage. Even my weak piece of [censored] Mazda.. probably 70whp.. feels completely normal with GC in the sump and has returned consistent 35mpg city mileage with occasional spikes to 37mpg. I think it's all in your heads. Your butt dynos aren't that sensitive ;\)
In a lot of cases, the contrast may be so slight as to be undetectable by mere human butt dynos. On the other hand, I tried an experimental fill of GC (as others have mentioned, slightly above 12 cSt), followed by a fill of PP 0w-20, only 8.4 cSt. This generated a noticeable subjective difference in the engine, but most notably, I could immediately see a jump in the mpgs as measured by the computer. I had one mostly I-10 trip on the fresh PP on which the measured mileage spiked to 39 mpgs, whereas with the much thicker GC, I was generally unable to slog out of the mid-low 30s. I guess I'll have to start again logging every-fill mpg info so I can state these things with more precision. I don't doubt that some drivers subjective observations are a result of subconscious suggestion. ON the other hand, I'm fully convinced that many others, particularly those experienced with cars and their behavior, can feel sluggishness from too thick an oil (or the lack thereof upon a move to a thinner product).
Don't put to much faith in computer calculated mpg...do it the old fashion way..gallons in / miles driven
I pretty much agree. I got lazy after a couple months with the TCH since I was finding that the the ECU mileage was consistently closer to calculated than I expected. Unlike the Prius, the Camry does not have the infuriating elastic bladder in the fuel tank, so it's very easy to consistently fill right to the cap (so long as the pump has a "loose" click-off). I was typically seeing the ECU mileage reading as from one mpg low, to maybe two mpg high. I think I'm going to start doing manual calculations again, however, so that I can better answer questions like this one.
 
Joined
May 4, 2003
Messages
6,614
Location
southeast US
Good find on the M1 vs GC. I saw similar particles when I did AutoRX cleaning. There were rumors that M1 was based on Gr III base oil vs Gr IV in GC. Possibly, there could be small amounts of esters in M1 accounting for that cleaning (if it is cleaning).
 
Top