Thank you sir.
Question about sludge formation and Group III base
- Thread starter mfisher1967
- Start date
- Status
Thank you sir.
10 qts of premium synthetic = $60 minimum.
10 qts at $0.50/qt of an oil that fits the required application (and can perform as required w/ no discernable difference from premium synthetic) = $5.
Ok, that would qualify as remarkable.
10 qts at $0.50/qt of an oil that fits the required application (and can perform as required w/ no discernable difference from premium synthetic) = $5.
Ok, that would qualify as remarkable.
Unreal. No firm evidence was ever posted that anything more than two Mobil 1 blends had Group oil in them and still this perception persists.
And many who are unhappy that the "think" Mobil 1 is Group III are happy with other oils that are known to be Group III.
Lonnie, I appreciate the detailed posts you made. Much better than the broad generalization that caused me to speak up before. The additive package of the plain jane "thin" Mobil 1 oils is very different than it was during API SL and prior. When I say the Mobil 1 lineup is diverse, I mean that there are significant formulation differences among the oils with "Mobil 1" written on the bottle. IMO, those that have something unique about them are (I won't bother going into why):
Mobil 1 0W-40
Mobil 1 Turbo Diesel Truck 5w40 = Delvac 1
Mobil 1 15W-50
Mobil 1 10w30 HM and 10W-40 HM
Mobil 1 4T 10W-40 and 20W-50
No longer made but still to be found Mobil 1 Racing 0W-30
Mobil 1 0W-40
Mobil 1 Turbo Diesel Truck 5w40 = Delvac 1
Mobil 1 15W-50
Mobil 1 10w30 HM and 10W-40 HM
Mobil 1 4T 10W-40 and 20W-50
No longer made but still to be found Mobil 1 Racing 0W-30
I call what Mobil 1 and other, large operations, do edging. And your statement about various M1 formulas is on target. Say an oil company starts selling a few thousand drums of engine oil a week and they have a formulation that passes the API sequence. Everything is going well until they start selling a hundred thousand barrels a week. Now they go back to their formulation and start pulling down some of the additives and retesting. They can afford the retest because the volume is there. Soon they have pulled down the formula and have a formulation that still passes. They absorb the cost of testing by saving a lot of money on the new improved formulation. Now you have the new improved version. In defense of this new formula, it's well tested.
True, there's a struggle of the formulators wanting to make a better oil and the executives/bean-counters telling them what the oil may cost to make. When the latter get extreme, the formulators are forced to make a weaker oil and the only constraints are that it still passes the tests it must pass and obeys the definitions of what is "synthetic" in the market it is marketed for (e.g. no Group 2 in synthetics sold in the U.S.).
When Gold GC replaced Green GC, I was concerned they cheapened the basestocks, so I accurately tested the volatility of each oil. The volatilities were nearly identical indicating it is unlikely a basestock change was made and just the additives changed. Also, bruce381 tested the aniline point of both oils and found they were the same, reinforcing the conclusion from my tests. We must keep our eye out for downgrades and test (in many ways) to determine it.
When Gold GC replaced Green GC, I was concerned they cheapened the basestocks, so I accurately tested the volatility of each oil. The volatilities were nearly identical indicating it is unlikely a basestock change was made and just the additives changed. Also, bruce381 tested the aniline point of both oils and found they were the same, reinforcing the conclusion from my tests. We must keep our eye out for downgrades and test (in many ways) to determine it.
I agree with JAG in that Mobil 1 is no consistant across the board grade for grade like it once was. Back when Mobil made Mobil 1, they were very up front about what base oils were used. I spoke with a guy that works at the Mobil R&D center in Paulsboro, NJ. Let me just say that he has no control over how M1 is marketed, or very little.
The only negative things about M1 I can think of are the average/below average wear performance and oil consumption, which IMO is due to the switch to grp III (higher volatility) in some of the formluas. Just a guess. I think the change over occured a few years ago and has only been recently exposed.
Other than that, Mobil 1 is very good at keeping an engine clean in high temps. Deposit control is excellent and only Amsoil is as good or better for extended drain intervals IMO.
The EP line is marketing, trust me. In the end though, I have no issues with the grp III in certain M1 grades. It's the final performance that matters.
The only negative things about M1 I can think of are the average/below average wear performance and oil consumption, which IMO is due to the switch to grp III (higher volatility) in some of the formluas. Just a guess. I think the change over occured a few years ago and has only been recently exposed.
Other than that, Mobil 1 is very good at keeping an engine clean in high temps. Deposit control is excellent and only Amsoil is as good or better for extended drain intervals IMO.
The EP line is marketing, trust me. In the end though, I have no issues with the grp III in certain M1 grades. It's the final performance that matters.
It might be marketing too, but browsing shelves at places like Walmart the Mobil 1 Extended Performance and 5W30 T&S have an A5/B5 rating while the 'regular' Mobil 1 oils typically don't. Very few conventional oils are rated A5/B5.
mfisher1967,
I've been using M1 for years and wether it's based on group 3 or what ever M1 never burned me. I feel very confident that Mobil 1 will carry on as my number 1 oil. Besides the issue of it's group base I would think if it was considered a conventional oil with a synthetic name on the label. the federal trade comission would say something. If one drives long or short trips it should be fine as long as the motor is hot to make the oil flow.
Durango
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
