Reply from Mobil 1 concerning basestocks

[JHZR2]

Quote:

---

I just got off the phone with an ISO 9000 lab regarding running a GC on a Mobil 1 sample. The PhD who I was referred to, who runs the GC analysis, indicated that he had been through this before, however, with a lubricant manufacturer's oil he was testing, *knowing* the oils makeup, yet got inconclusive GC results as a result of molecular weight overlap between the PAO component and the Group III component.. The company supplied several iterations of the engine oil and the GC still reported unreliable results regarding the PAO and Group III content.
Irrespective, I am going to submit some sample of Mobil 1 and see what we get.

---

This makes perfect sense. I am using an FID-equipped (Flame Ionization Detector = FID) gas chromatograph for analysis of fuels. In the end all, chromatography is merely a COMPARATIVE measure, so one has to have reasonable known standards to compare to or at least to make a good educated guess against. Someone who doesnt look at similar species in a consistent method may not be able to do direct eye comparissons, whereas someone who has done similar things for decades (like Tom) certainly may be able to.

I would gladly run samples in my GC, excxept that my understanding is that you need a column set up for at least 350C, where mine are rated only for 320. With heavy feeds, a few degrees can make a LOT of difference.

JMH

 

[Mickey_M]

Quote:

---

That's not the opinion that Terry Dyson has expressed on here ....

---

The UOAs speak for themselves.

 

[KJA426]

I'm playing it safe. I'm switching to Amsoil's ASL 5w-30 for my next oil change. I'd dump the Mobil 1 I'm currently running but I won't because it only has 500 miles on it.

 

[Tom NJ]

Quote:

---

I would gladly run samples in my GC, excxept that my understanding is that you need a column set up for at least 350C, where mine are rated only for 320. With heavy feeds, a few degrees can make a LOT of difference.

---

Hi JHZ,

You should get good results at 320C - the heavy PAOs (40+ cSt), VII solids, and organometallics will not elute but all of the base oils should. Suggest you do a programmed run from 200 to 320C at 5C/min as a start on the M1 5W-30 EP and GC 0W-30 and send me the graphs to see if you got the conditions right. Then you can take it from there in terms of running references and reporting findings. If you have no business conflicts you will quickly become the hero of BITOG, but I suggest you brace yourself and stay anonymous!

Tom

 

[JavaMan]

Maybe there should be some type of petition organized that would be sent to those that govern us that constituents of an oil be posted on the label. It would certainly help the consumer buy the product she/he desires.

 

[JHZR2]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I would gladly run samples in my GC, excxept that my understanding is that you need a column set up for at least 350C, where mine are rated only for 320. With heavy feeds, a few degrees can make a LOT of difference.

---

Hi JHZ,

You should get good results at 320C - the heavy PAOs (40+ cSt), VII solids, and organometallics will not elute but all of the base oils should. Suggest you do a programmed run from 200 to 320C at 5C/min as a start on the M1 5W-30 EP and GC 0W-30 and send me the graphs to see if you got the conditions right. Then you can take it from there in terms of running references and reporting findings. If you have no business conflicts you will quickly become the hero of BITOG, but I suggest you brace yourself and stay anonymous!

Tom

---

Tom, As GC analysis of fuels and hydrocarbon feeds (heavy) is part of my Ph.D program that Im doing in conjunction with work (ChE is my major), I have no qualms doing this. It will actually give me useful insight and learning into an analytical technique that I am finding more and more necessary for my work.

Ill try to start doing some of this just as soon as I figure out why my PFPD is working and FID is not (they split after the column).

I assume I want to run split, but what ratio? 20? 100? Given the generally heavy oil, do I want to cut it to get into the syringe? Much heavier thatn F-76 fuel, and my little 10 uL syringe/Vaian 8400 autosampler doesnt pull too well..

Thanks!

JMH

 

[JavaMan]

I still think that motor oils should have labeled.

 

[Tom NJ]

Hi JHZ,

I don't believe our instruments are using any splitters, but you will need to dilute the oil in a solvent (hexane will work). I am not involved in the analysis any longer - I just interpret the graphs. I suggest you start with a 10% solution and shoot one microliter, then adjust to get a good signal-to-noise ratio. Best to keep the peaks onscale, which you can do by injection size or through the computer.

Tom

 

[G-MAN]

 

[Bryanccfshr]

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

G-Man...ever done extensive Seq VIB testing or formulated engine oils? Apparently not. I have and I'm sorry but it is true. If you need some more in-depth reading on Seq VI and fuel economy, I point you towards SAE publications 982502 and 98503 to understand the dependence on the HTHS. As for the Seq VIB reference oil, it is a non-friction modified non-VI containing all PAO oil. So its the "bad" reference that you must be better than be able to claim the ILSAC GF-4 (or GF-3) standard.

---

Your previous post was flawed since neither I, and I'm going to guess G-Man, would assume any of the Mobil 1 formulations were ever 100% PAO. There would always be AN and/or esters, add pack fluids, etc. And VIIs would be needed for all but maybe the 10w30 grade due to the VI. Further, substituting Group IIIs for PAOs, given the realities of oil formulation just mentioned, will not by itself lower the HTHS of the formulation.

 

[deven]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

That's not the opinion that Terry Dyson has expressed on here ....

---

The UOAs speak for themselves.

---

From what i have read, Terry is not fond of regular Mobil 1 but he does like the UOA's of the EP. Thats IIRC

 

[Mickey_M]

Quote:

---

From what i have read, Terry is not fond of regular Mobil 1 but he does like the UOA's of the EP. Thats IIRC

---

Again, all that counts is results.

Compare UOAs of any Mobil 1 formula with comparably priced motor oils from other manufacturers or formulators and you'll see they are at least competitive.

 

[ekpolk]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

From what i have read, Terry is not fond of regular Mobil 1 but he does like the UOA's of the EP. Thats IIRC

---

Again, all that counts is results.

Compare UOAs of any Mobil 1 formula with comparably priced motor oils from other manufacturers or formulators and you'll see they are at least competitive.

---

I disagree. I don't like being deceived. I also don't like seeing increased prices on a product that may well be nothing more than it's "lesser" G-III competitors.

These things count too.

I agree that the "dilution" of the M1 formula is not a "settled" question. On the other hand, all Mobil needs to do is issue a simple denial. "Thanks for being a good Mobil customer -- no, we don't use any Group-III base in our products." So far, all we have are more and more wiggle words. . .

 

[tripleM]

Quote:

---

Compare UOAs of any Mobil 1 formula with comparably priced motor oils from other manufacturers or formulators and you'll see they are at least competitive.

---

So if I were to compare it to a GrpIII like PP then I would say it loses on price since supposed performance edge ain't worth 3 bucks/qt more.

 

[jfang]

Quote:

---

---

No I never assumed that Mobil 1 was 100% PAO. They woud require AN or ester for solubility/seal performance nd most add packs use Gp I as the diluant oil. I don't understand the VII comment though, of course they will have VI improver in the formulation. My point is that if you want a low HTHS with all PAO formulation(or mostly PAO if you are counting the add pack dil oil and ester/AN solubilizer), the low temp properties (CCS) are so good that you fall out of grade. You can keep a relatively constant low HTHS and in this case worsen your low temp properties (example, so you stay a 5W and don't end up a 0W) by adding a lower quality baseoil (like a Gp III or Gp II+). This would allow you to pass the Seq VIB fuel economy test as a 5W so you could market a GF-3/GF-4 oil that all the consumers would use.

 

[Terry]

Mickey, I respect you and your experience but when it comes to mixed and EP wear protection, current UOA results and some proprietary testing I have studied and used in our work shows that to be incorrect.

I could care less about BRAND baloney, its just the fully formulated chemistry and a good grp III well formulated can outperform a PAO based oil in wear control. I wonder if thats why it is POSSIBLE that M1 could have been reduced to predominantely GRP III base oils? I AM NOT SAYING THAT IS A FACT.

Please folks be careful using my name without a specific quote. I have no dog in this fight.... I work for every branded fluid that is being mentioned at one time or another or at least shell companies of them....

 

[Bryanccfshr]

This is just speculation on my part, but could the addition of Group 3 oils the formula be an attempt to correct the Corrossion iron wear that has been showing in Mobil 1 UOA's?
Yes, if the switch has indeed been made it is frustrating to purist.
A question. "What if the result is an improved product?"
I want to be fair as possible, and my participation in these threads has been mostly to try to force a point.
To the Purist, What matters and idea or results?

 

[BrianWC]

Terry, I've heard from your experience that they do fine in forms of wear control, but what about in terms of deposits in high stress situations like turbos? That's what worries me the most about this possible switch.

 

[Mickey_M]

Quote:

---

So if I were to compare it to a GrpIII like PP then I would say it loses on price since supposed performance edge ain't worth 3 bucks/qt more.

---

I think what you're saying is that you'd be better off with a conventional motor oil since the difference between a properly formulated mineral oil and a synthetic is relatively small.