PQIA M1-AP results

Status
Not open for further replies.
OK, I've recalculated the A_Harman index using the PQIA values (and 0.851 for the density).

M1 5W-30 A_Harman index = 0.862
M1 EP 5W-30 A_Harman index = 0.872
M1 AP 5W-30 A_Harman index = 0.840

So, the A_Harman index is similar to the other varieties, although smaller.

My take:

(1) They used a thicker base oil to meet the dexos1 Gen 2 timing-chain test.
(2) There is a little more VII than in M1 and even more so than in M1 EP.
(3) Add pack is the same as in M1 and M1 EP.
(4) Base oil is thicker however inferior to that of M1 and even more inferior to that of M1 EP. There is probably little or no PAO.

Note that these conclusions of mine only apply to the 5W-30 viscosity grade.

And... I've just checked the ExxonMobil MSDS site and I was right!

M1 5W-30: 20% - 30% PAO
M1 EP 5W-30: 20% - 30% PAO
M1 AP 5W-30: 5% - 10% PAO

Annual protection? Hmm... This makes M1 vanilla 18-month protection and M1 EP 24-month protection then!
laugh.gif
 
How would M1 5w30 ESP fit into this index? Given it's good numbers I'm assuming it's got a pretty decent percentage of PAO too, but the MSDS I've seen on it don't say much.
 
Originally Posted By: Patman
How would M1 5w30 ESP fit into this index? Given it's good numbers I'm assuming it's got a pretty decent percentage of PAO too, but the MSDS I've seen on it don't say much.

Actually they say a lot:

M1 FS 0W-40: 40% - 70% GTL, 10% - 20% PAO
M1 ESP Formula 0W-40: 60% - 70% GTL, 5% - 10% PAO

I calculated the A_Harman indexes:

M1 FS 0W-40: A_Harman index = 0.865
M1 ESP Formula 0W-40: A_Harman index = 0.845

I'm also guessing that the M1 AP is mostly GTL. This would explain why they claim longer OCIs with it, despite me bashing it.
smile.gif
M1 vanilla and M1 EP may still use Group III + PAO instead of GTL + PAO, hence shorter OCIs with them since Group III isn't as oxidation-resistant as GTL or PAO.

But then PPPP and PUPPP are also GTL and they should also claim longer OCIs (if you want to call it annual protection) for a lot less money and without the confusion of choosing the right flavor of a full-synthetic oil out of the same brand and viscosity.
 
https://www.mobil.com/English-PT/Passenger-Vehicle-Lube/pds/GLXXMobil-1-ESP-Formula-5W30

Do the KV150 here
http://www.widman.biz/English/Calculators/Operational.html
= 5.07Cst

Do the density here
https://planetcalc.com/2834/
= 0.7499

Convert the theoretical newtonian Cst into Cp
5.07 x 0.7499 = 3.80

That would be the HTHS if the oil was newtonian

Actual HTHS according to the data sheet is 3.58, so the "index" is 3.58/3.80, which is the ratio of the actual HTHS to the theoretical...0.94...which is pretty stout.

Means that the lube (in theory), in the bearings thins by about 6%.
 
My impression is that the 0W-20 grade of M1 AP is much better than M1 AP in the 5W-30 grade. I have no real evidence to back this up, though. Anyone else have the same impression or am I insane?
 
We've already had VOAs of this oil posted here, so the metallic add pack was something we already knew.
We didn't know then and don't know now what additives are used that don't show up in these VOAs.
Bringing a couple of thought experiment indices to the table that are unknown outside of BITOG brings more heat than light to the discussion.
I've written before that we'll only know whether this oil really is better suited to longer drains than other M1 flavors when we see some reasonable number of 15K+ UOAs posted.
We can then see what the oil looks like after a decently long run and can better judge its suitability for 20K use.
Everything else is no more than speculation, maybe informed and maybe not.
 
My initial opinion on M1 AP was negative, which was primarily because I had used incorrect data while calculating the A_Harman index.

MSDS says 60 - 70%,10 - 15%, and 5 - 10% PAO for M1 AP 0W-20, 5W-20, and 5W-30, respectively. Note that the add pack is usually about 15% or more. M1 also likes to include a dash of ester, about 2%.

The rest of the base oil is probably GTL. This is what separates M1 AP from M1 and M1 EP, which used to use Group III+ instead of GTL. However, that may have become GTL now as well.

M1 AP is probably a top synthetic and offers an even better base oil than in PPPP and PUPPP because it also uses PAO in addition to GTL. M1 0W-20 grade is almost entirely PAO. I doubt you can go wrong with it as far as the base-oil quality, which dictates the oil oxidation and therefore the OCI length and engine cleaning, is concerned.
 
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
M1 also likes to include a dash of ester, about 2%.


I assume you pulled that figure from the Mobil base oil blending chart. We have absolutely no idea what percentage of POE they use in their own products. To claim otherwise is disingenuous.
 
Unless anyone here knows the full formulations of the M1 products and has reviewed all of their bench, engine, and fleet test results, please excuse me if I totally ignore all of the absurd speculation on their relative performance based on data sheets, SDSs, and made up base oil rating schemes.
 
Interesting stuff Gokhan. Been reading and rereading your posts for a while now. I'm Intrigued. Take care.
 
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Unless anyone here knows the full formulations of the M1 products and has reviewed all of their bench, engine, and fleet test results, please excuse me if I totally ignore all of the absurd speculation on their relative performance based on data sheets, SDSs, and made up base oil rating schemes.


As fdcg27 pointed out … folks will run it more at some point … for me that point might be $34.99/jug …
The 0w20 seems worth that IMO … and that’s the only grade I’m interested in …
 
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Unless anyone here knows the full formulations of the M1 products and has reviewed all of their bench, engine, and fleet test results, please excuse me if I totally ignore all of the absurd speculation on their relative performance based on data sheets, SDSs, and made up base oil rating schemes.


Nailed it! Thank you Tom for your reasoned and logical response. The rabid speculation is getting a bit out of control.
 
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
From these two sources.


Realistically, that's one source and it has nothing to do with Mobil's own product line of fully formulated motor oils.

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Of course, no one knows the actual percentage.


Then why claim one?

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
SuperSyn is PAO


Supersyn was purported to be a blend of base oils, like its precursor, Tri-syn, which was PAO, Ester and AN's, all in God knows what percentages.

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
and GTL precursor is Group III+ (ExxonMobil Visom).


Visom was designed to be the intermediate until XOM's GTL plant was online. Of course plans changed once they cancelled that plant. XOM is still using significant quantities of PAO as well as I'm sure many other components from their massive portfolio courtesy of XOM Chemical, so it is, really, just wild speculation as to the specific make up of Mobil's product lineup. Nobody knows, the best we have is some incredibly vague ranges from the MSDS sheets, which are nice in the absence of nothing else. Making up data in the presence of a vacuum doesn't do anybody any favours, I'd rather speculation, labelled as such, over such wild posit peddled as fact.
 
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Unless anyone here knows the full formulations of the M1 products and has reviewed all of their bench, engine, and fleet test results, please excuse me if I totally ignore all of the absurd speculation on their relative performance based on data sheets, SDSs, and made up base oil rating schemes.

We do have the Mobil website's test results on the 3 turbo-DI cars.
Although mysteriously not seen on Mobil's own website, the very black pistons they pulled out of those 3 engines did appear on https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4615658/1 a video recently.


What we don't have is any detailed hard data on the wear on the parts from Mobil's website on the three turbo-DI engines they tested M1 AP in.

Also, a real test would compare what you got using M1 AP to a control.
 
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Unless anyone here knows the full formulations of the M1 products and has reviewed all of their bench, engine, and fleet test results, please excuse me if I totally ignore all of the absurd speculation on their relative performance based on data sheets, SDSs, and made up base oil rating schemes.

Yes, we do have to be very, very careful. An MSDS is far from a recipe, and anything calculated based on that better have an error margin of something like +/- 100%.
wink.gif
 
Originally Posted By: mbacfp
Interesting stuff Gokhan. Been reading and rereading your posts for a while now. I'm Intrigued. Take care.

Thank you for your very kind words, mbacfp! They are much appreciated!
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
M1 also likes to include a dash of ester, about 2%.


I assume you pulled that figure from the Mobil base oil blending chart. We have absolutely no idea what percentage of POE they use in their own products. To claim otherwise is disingenuous.


In all fairness, it's probably disingenuous to claim anything at all about this oil until we see some field results.
I personally don't think that AP is a mere marketing exercise, but I could well be wrong.
The proof will be in the UOAs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top