PP 0w20 vs M1 AFE 0w20.

[FZ1]

The reasons I stated. Thinner synthetic oils in 113,000 mile cars,in severe service,are more prone to burn ,or, find a place to leak. You are not going to wear your car out on startup,relax about that.

 

[gregk24]

Originally Posted By: FZ1
The reasons I stated. Thinner synthetic oils in 113,000 mile cars,in severe service,are more prone to burn ,or, find a place to leak. You are not going to wear your car out on startup,relax about that.


Ill have to see how it likes the 0w-20, it does have a oil pan gasket leak, but its not even enough to drip down on the driveway. Its been like that since I bought the car 1.5 years ago.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: Clevy
Originally Posted By: tig1

The application is a huge part of how an oil performs.
For example Toyota relishes their mpg's,so they custom tailored an oil that has a high viscosity index and high in friction modifiers so the engines have as little drag at start up as possible which can have a significant effect on how the EPA tests and rates fuel consumption. An oil with a lower viscosity index and less moly will consume more fuel at start up until the oil has reached operating temp,at that point the ht/hs value has more bearing on pumping resistance.

You're on the right track but HTHSV has an effect at all start-up temp's down to well below freezing.
The fact remains that M1 has superior viscosity characteristics to PP.
It is lighter on start-up and has a higher HTHSV for greater high temp' protection so you are getting the best of both worlds and M1 0W-20 is not even a high VI oil, just relative to PP which has a very low VI for a 0W-20 grade.
In fact PP 0W-20 is slightly heavier than PP 5W-20 and since PP 5W-20 is more readily available and cheaper it's actually a better choice particularly in a climate like Florida.

 

[kschachn]

So what viscosity should he use then?

Originally Posted By: FZ1
The reasons I stated. Thinner synthetic oils in 113,000 mile cars,in severe service,are more prone to burn ,or, find a place to leak. You are not going to wear your car out on startup,relax about that.

 

[DragRace]

 

[KCJeep]

Originally Posted By: tig1
Also M1 oils are not "largely Grp 3". you would have learned that if you had read all the post in this thread.


tig1 Sir you are so M1 blind the very link you posted confirms that M1 is largely Grp III. But if you want to believe Mobil is selling majority higher base stock synthetics for the same or less than the competitions Grp III you just keep on.

I am going to do us both a favor and put you on ignore. I will be spared your non-stop Mobil1 ***SPAM*** and you will be spared me calling you out on it. Win-win for both of us.

Before I go I will apologize sir, if you took anything personally that was not my intent, I value people over opinions I was contesting your opinion not you. Apologies sir not sure it came across like I intended, was not meant to be a personal attack.

 

[dgsbikes]

On a lighter note:

I have 9 and 2.5 year olds that fight over things at times. More often than not, it is something very trivial that they have a disagreement over. As a parent, I intervene and try to explain and settle it between the two ...

but then we adults are not that different either!

It's just that we have disagreements on more important things like which oil, actually not even the specific oil, but we even generalize and disagree over which brand is better; and then we even go to "war" on that sometimes!

I hope my 9 year old doesn't see this post...(she peeks over at times to check on what I am doing on the forums...maybe on her mom's directive!! )

(Edit: Not directed at anyone. I am not that different either...just reflecting )

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: KCJeep
Originally Posted By: tig1
Also M1 oils are not "largely Grp 3". you would have learned that if you had read all the post in this thread.


tig1 Sir you are so M1 blind the very link you posted confirms that M1 is largely Grp III. But if you want to believe Mobil is selling majority higher base stock synthetics for the same or less than the competitions Grp III you just keep on.

I am going to do us both a favor and put you on ignore. I will be spared your non-stop Mobil1 ***SPAM*** and you will be spared me calling you out on it. Win-win for both of us.

Before I go I will apologize sir, if you took anything personally that was not my intent, I value people over opinions I was contesting your opinion not you. Apologies sir not sure it came across like I intended, was not meant to be a personal attack.


LOL on the ignor!

I stand before you unrepentant.

 

[gregk24]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Originally Posted By: tig1

The application is a huge part of how an oil performs.
For example Toyota relishes their mpg's,so they custom tailored an oil that has a high viscosity index and high in friction modifiers so the engines have as little drag at start up as possible which can have a significant effect on how the EPA tests and rates fuel consumption. An oil with a lower viscosity index and less moly will consume more fuel at start up until the oil has reached operating temp,at that point the ht/hs value has more bearing on pumping resistance.

You're on the right track but HTHSV has an effect at all start-up temp's down to well below freezing.
The fact remains that M1 has superior viscosity characteristics to PP.
It is lighter on start-up and has a higher HTHSV for greater high temp' protection so you are getting the best of both worlds and M1 0W-20 is not even a high VI oil, just relative to PP which has a very low VI for a 0W-20 grade.
In fact PP 0W-20 is slightly heavier than PP 5W-20 and since PP 5W-20 is more readily available and cheaper it's actually a better choice particularly in a climate like Florida.


Is the PP 0w20 really thicker than PP 5w20 at start up? Really?

 

[TruckinSI12]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Originally Posted By: tig1

The application is a huge part of how an oil performs.
For example Toyota relishes their mpg's,so they custom tailored an oil that has a high viscosity index and high in friction modifiers so the engines have as little drag at start up as possible which can have a significant effect on how the EPA tests and rates fuel consumption. An oil with a lower viscosity index and less moly will consume more fuel at start up until the oil has reached operating temp,at that point the ht/hs value has more bearing on pumping resistance.

You're on the right track but HTHSV has an effect at all start-up temp's down to well below freezing.
The fact remains that M1 has superior viscosity characteristics to PP.
It is lighter on start-up and has a higher HTHSV for greater high temp' protection so you are getting the best of both worlds and M1 0W-20 is not even a high VI oil, just relative to PP which has a very low VI for a 0W-20 grade.
In fact PP 0W-20 is slightly heavier than PP 5W-20 and since PP 5W-20 is more readily available and cheaper it's actually a better choice particularly in a climate like Florida.


So your saying that for the best protection on start-up and high temp Mobil 1 AFE 0W-20 would be the way to go?

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: gregk24
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Originally Posted By: tig1

The application is a huge part of how an oil performs.
For example Toyota relishes their mpg's,so they custom tailored an oil that has a high viscosity index and high in friction modifiers so the engines have as little drag at start up as possible which can have a significant effect on how the EPA tests and rates fuel consumption. An oil with a lower viscosity index and less moly will consume more fuel at start up until the oil has reached operating temp,at that point the ht/hs value has more bearing on pumping resistance.

You're on the right track but HTHSV has an effect at all start-up temp's down to well below freezing.
The fact remains that M1 has superior viscosity characteristics to PP.
It is lighter on start-up and has a higher HTHSV for greater high temp' protection so you are getting the best of both worlds and M1 0W-20 is not even a high VI oil, just relative to PP which has a very low VI for a 0W-20 grade.
In fact PP 0W-20 is slightly heavier than PP 5W-20 and since PP 5W-20 is more readily available and cheaper it's actually a better choice particularly in a climate like Florida.


Is the PP 0w20 really thicker than PP 5w20 at start up? Really?

Yes but not a lot. It's due to it's low 164 VI vs 169 for PP 5W-20.
It's about 3% lighter at 40C, 5% lighter at room temp's and 8% lighter at 32F.

The original PP 0W-20 was lighter but the main point is that PP 5W-20 is a great oil and is cheaper but it technically won't pump at -40 degrees which based on the last time I was in Florida during the winter doesn't seem to be all that important.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: TruckinSI12
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Originally Posted By: tig1

The application is a huge part of how an oil performs.
For example Toyota relishes their mpg's,so they custom tailored an oil that has a high viscosity index and high in friction modifiers so the engines have as little drag at start up as possible which can have a significant effect on how the EPA tests and rates fuel consumption. An oil with a lower viscosity index and less moly will consume more fuel at start up until the oil has reached operating temp,at that point the ht/hs value has more bearing on pumping resistance.

You're on the right track but HTHSV has an effect at all start-up temp's down to well below freezing.
The fact remains that M1 has superior viscosity characteristics to PP.
It is lighter on start-up and has a higher HTHSV for greater high temp' protection so you are getting the best of both worlds and M1 0W-20 is not even a high VI oil, just relative to PP which has a very low VI for a 0W-20 grade.
In fact PP 0W-20 is slightly heavier than PP 5W-20 and since PP 5W-20 is more readily available and cheaper it's actually a better choice particularly in a climate like Florida.


So your saying that for the best protection on start-up and high temp Mobil 1 AFE 0W-20 would be the way to go?

I know protection is the number one thing at the back of everyone's mind in choosing a motor oil but in most applications it's just about efficiency, all premium syn' oils will ensure very long engine life. Yes M1 is somewhat lighter on start-up and has a higher HTHSV but the high temp' protection is still being more than met by PP and being heavier on start-up likely would not be measurable in terms of increased engine wear.

The truth is I'm not recommending either of these oils but rather TGMO or Mazda moly 0W-20 which are clearly more efficient motor oils while maximizing engine protection.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: richport29
Mobil 1 is no longer PAO based.

Neither is PU.

As for tig1's choice in oil, we all need to remember that he uses it for 10,000 miles as per XOM's guarantee. He's not running a synthetic for 3,000 miles and then running UOAs just to stare at them.

 

[richport29]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: richport29
Mobil 1 is no longer PAO based.

Neither is PU.

As for tig1's choice in oil, we all need to remember that he uses it for 10,000 miles as per XOM's guarantee. He's not running a synthetic for 3,000 miles and then running UOAs just to stare at them.


Your point?

He said he was worried using M1 because it was PAO..

Gregk24 wrote:
"Did read on here that PAO synthetics dont hold a film very well though, so i guess thats something i should consider if i go with mobil"

I simply relied it no longer was.

 

[Garak]

My point is that the vast majority of synthetics are blends of base stocks. Worrying about whether a modern SN/GF-5 synthetic is okay for seals or not or whether it can maintain film strength (assuming one is using an appropriate grade in the first place) is a little over the top.

 

[Cooper]

Originally Posted By: Garak
My point is that the vast majority of synthetics are blends of base stocks. Worrying about whether a modern SN/GF-5 synthetic is okay for seals or not or whether it can maintain film strength (assuming one is using an appropriate grade in the first place) is a little over the top.


Worrying about seals is the main reason I am not using a PAO motor oil. It seems as if group III oils are better suited for most seals. I really don't think that kind of thinking is over the top.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: Cooper
Originally Posted By: Garak
My point is that the vast majority of synthetics are blends of base stocks. Worrying about whether a modern SN/GF-5 synthetic is okay for seals or not or whether it can maintain film strength (assuming one is using an appropriate grade in the first place) is a little over the top.


Worrying about seals is the main reason I am not using a PAO motor oil. It seems as if group III oils are better suited for most seals. I really don't think that kind of thinking is over the top.

M1 AFE 0W-20 may still contain some PAOs in it's formulation, but regardless do you really think Mobil has formulated their oil without sufficient esters etc so that maximum seal protection is not provided?
GC is still PAO based as is the Cdn version of M1 SM 0W-40 not to mention all the boutique PAO formulations out there and needless to say seal compatibility is not an issue.

 

[Cooper]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: Cooper
Originally Posted By: Garak
My point is that the vast majority of synthetics are blends of base stocks. Worrying about whether a modern SN/GF-5 synthetic is okay for seals or not or whether it can maintain film strength (assuming one is using an appropriate grade in the first place) is a little over the top.


Worrying about seals is the main reason I am not using a PAO motor oil. It seems as if group III oils are better suited for most seals. I really don't think that kind of thinking is over the top.

M1 AFE 0W-20 may still contain some PAOs in it's formulation, but regardless do you really think Mobil has formulated their oil without sufficient esters etc so that maximum seal protection is not provided?
GC is still PAO based as is the Cdn version of M1 SM 0W-40 not to mention all the boutique PAO formulations out there and needless to say seal compatibility is not an issue.


I absolutely agree that there are plenty of protection in these oils today. I think a PAO oil may be more prone to leaking, especially in earlier PAO formulas. I once thought Amsoil was the bees knees and within 4 OCI's, I had an main seal oil leak using it. I think it was probably just coincidence, but I have stayed away from mainly PAO oils since then. I agree, there is probably no merit, but the point of my post was, as a BITOGer, it is not "over the top" to worry about anything in regard to oil.

But, yes, I agree, you are 100% correct, I don't think there is any issue with current PAO oils.

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: Cooper
Originally Posted By: Garak
My point is that the vast majority of synthetics are blends of base stocks. Worrying about whether a modern SN/GF-5 synthetic is okay for seals or not or whether it can maintain film strength (assuming one is using an appropriate grade in the first place) is a little over the top.


Worrying about seals is the main reason I am not using a PAO motor oil. It seems as if group III oils are better suited for most seals. I really don't think that kind of thinking is over the top.

M1 AFE 0W-20 may still contain some PAOs in it's formulation, but regardless do you really think Mobil has formulated their oil without sufficient esters etc so that maximum seal protection is not provided?
GC is still PAO based as is the Cdn version of M1 SM 0W-40 not to mention all the boutique PAO formulations out there and needless to say seal compatibility is not an issue.


All M1 oils contain esters. M1 also contains PAO as well.

http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Car_Care/AskMobil/Does_Mobil_1_Contain_Ester_Oil.aspx

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Cooper
Worrying about seals is the main reason I am not using a PAO motor oil. It seems as if group III oils are better suited for most seals. I really don't think that kind of thinking is over the top.

My point was that modern SN/GF-5 oils have almost no concern with seal compatibility, regardless of the base stock. As you and Caterham both mention, it's not going to be that easy to run into an oil that's primarily PAO based in the first place, and those don't tend to be SN/GF-5. I don't think there would be reason to worry with any properly speced oil, or even those trusted variants that aren't formally certified.