Mobil 5w50 SN VOA

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Nov 5, 2010
Messages
58
Location
Akron, OH
I recently picked up four cases of M1 5w50 for the wholesale distributor near my work (Petroalliance / Cleveland). All four cases were API SN, so I sent in a sample to see what (if anything) changed in this formulation.

Good news -- Not much changed! Below is a link to a VOA I had done with API SM M1 5w50 exactly a year ago: API SM M1 5w50 VOA

Below is the VOA for the new SN 5w50:

AL, CHRM, FE, CU, PB, TIN = ALL 0 PPM. Trace of Potassium, Sodium, Silicon.
MOLY = 91
BORON = 242
CALCIUM = 3127
MAGNESIUM = 24
PHOS = 951
ZINC = 1132

kV @ 100C = 16.43 cSt
Flashpoint = 435F

I had them re-test the kV @ 100C, seemed thinner than M1 spec'd -- they verified the 16.43 cSt measurement.

Continue to use the Mobil 1 5w50 SN with confidence!

Matt
 
Looks just like the API SM sample I had tested earlier in the year. Did you have it tested for TBN? BTW what were the trace levels for the Potassium, Sodium, and Silicon?

Thanks for sharing the VOA results. I'll continue to use this oil; wish it was available locally.
 
Last edited:
WOOT!!! Thanks Matt for this. I'm now satisfied with running my 50/50 mix of M1 SN 0w40 and 5w50.

I also don't feel too bad now driving to Petroalliance to pick up my case now either. I was feeling a bit crazy, but seeing as you came up from Akron I don't feel too bad. I'm in Shaker.
 
Last edited:
kV @ 100C = 16.43c St is less than 16.5 and is this a 5w40 weight ?

Zn is about 140ppm more for the SN version. ie 14% more.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: virginoil
kV @ 100C = 16.43c St is less than 16.5 and is this a 5w40 weight ?

Zn is about 140ppm more for the SN version. ie 14% more.
It's > 16.3 cSt, which qualifies for being a 50 grade oil.
 
Last edited:
A KV100 of 16.43cSt is still a fair bit lower than the published figure of 17.5cSt.
Is not uncommon with heavier oil grades in particular to err on the low side when additizing the required amount of polymer thickener.
The result is an oil that is somewhat lighter, has a lower VI but is a more shear stable oil.
With a given HTHSV of 4.4cP it's really probably closer to 4.2cP which still a whole lot heavier than M1 0W-40.

I'd be interested to see a UOA on this oil to how well it stands up. My guess is pretty well.
 
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM

I'd be interested to see a UOA on this oil to how well it stands up. My guess is pretty well.


It has done an outstanding job for my application. I have a 2007 Porsche Cayman S that sees considerable track use in the warmer months, and is stored winters. My UOAs are based on # of track events, not mileage. I change after every two events (4-6 total days of track time, which could be anywhere from 400-700mi of operation under track conditions, plus whatever freeway miles are required to commute to/from the track)

My wear metals are always in the single digits, lowest TBN was 7.7, and kV @ 100C readings have been (most to least recent) = 15.94, 16.09, 14.90, 14.41, 14.43. NOTE -- I had an additional radiator installed two OCIs ago. The purpose of the radiator is to provide additional cooling capacity for the water cooling system, which in turn will help better manage oil temps. Judging from the improvement in kV@100C measurements (from 14.9 to 16+)in the UOAs, it seems like that investment is doing it's job.

I know I could leave the oil in longer, but it's cheap insurance. If you can score this stuff from NAPA during their annual M1 sale, it ends up being really really cheap insurance.
 
Originally Posted By: Matt_N
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM

I'd be interested to see a UOA on this oil to how well it stands up. My guess is pretty well.


It has done an outstanding job for my application. I have a 2007 Porsche Cayman S that sees considerable track use in the warmer months, and is stored winters. My UOAs are based on # of track events, not mileage. I change after every two events (4-6 total days of track time, which could be anywhere from 400-700mi of operation under track conditions, plus whatever freeway miles are required to commute to/from the track)

My wear metals are always in the single digits, lowest TBN was 7.7, and kV @ 100C readings have been (most to least recent) = 15.94, 16.09, 14.90, 14.41, 14.43. NOTE -- I had an additional radiator installed two OCIs ago. The purpose of the radiator is to provide additional cooling capacity for the water cooling system, which in turn will help better manage oil temps. Judging from the improvement in kV@100C measurements (from 14.9 to 16+)in the UOAs, it seems like that investment is doing it's job.

I know I could leave the oil in longer, but it's cheap insurance. If you ocan score this stuff from NAPA during their annual M1 sale, it ends up being really really cheap insurance.



How exactly is dumping oil that isn't depleted and replacing it with oil that isn't depleted "cheap insurance"

Sounds more like expensive insurance considering if the tbn is at 7 and starts at 9 or 10 you've effectively thrown money out the window.
Cheap insurance,right,because the oil is some kind of risk.
 
Originally Posted By: Matt_N
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM

I'd be interested to see a UOA on this oil to how well it stands up. My guess is pretty well.


It has done an outstanding job for my application. I have a 2007 Porsche Cayman S that sees considerable track use in the warmer months, and is stored winters. My UOAs are based on # of track events, not mileage. I change after every two events (4-6 total days of track time, which could be anywhere from 400-700mi of operation under track conditions, plus whatever freeway miles are required to commute to/from the track)

My wear metals are always in the single digits, lowest TBN was 7.7, and kV @ 100C readings have been (most to least recent) = 15.94, 16.09, 14.90, 14.41, 14.43. NOTE -- I had an additional radiator installed two OCIs ago. The purpose of the radiator is to provide additional cooling capacity for the water cooling system, which in turn will help better manage oil temps. Judging from the improvement in kV@100C measurements (from 14.9 to 16+)in the UOAs, it seems like that investment is doing it's job.

I know I could leave the oil in longer, but it's cheap insurance. If you can score this stuff from NAPA during their annual M1 sale, it ends up being really really cheap insurance.

Have you installed an oil pressure gauge in your Cayman?
The KV100 values in a UOA won't tell you if you actually need to run anything heavier the the spec' M1 0W-40. For M1 0W-50 to possibly be considered worthwhile you're going to have to routinely get your oil temp's over 120C.
What are your maximum oil temp's and minimum OP values at 5,000 rpm?.
 
Originally Posted By: Matt_N

Below is the VOA for the new SN 5w50:

MOLY = 91
BORON = 242
CALCIUM = 3127
MAGNESIUM = 24
PHOS = 951
ZINC = 1132



From a recent VOA for M1 0w40:
Mo = 74
B = 221
Ca = 3003
Mg = 19
P = 893
Zn = 1023

Could it be that M1 5w50 is just a thicker version of M1 0w40?
 
Does this product have Ford's actual approval yet for the Coyote (boosted or otherwise) specs which call for a 5W-50??

IT SHOULD!!
wink.gif
 
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Originally Posted By: Matt_N

Below is the VOA for the new SN 5w50:

MOLY = 91
BORON = 242
CALCIUM = 3127
MAGNESIUM = 24
PHOS = 951
ZINC = 1132



From a recent VOA for M1 0w40:
Mo = 74
B = 221
Ca = 3003
Mg = 19
P = 893
Zn = 1023

Could it be that M1 5w50 is just a thicker version of M1 0w40?

As far as the add' pac' is concerned I'd say yes.
Since M1 5W-50 is the only 50 grade oil on the Porsche A40 list it would be an ideal choice to thicken up M1 0W-40 if required (based on OP/OT). I can't see the need in most applications to running the pretty heavy M1 5W-50 straight with it's HTHSV of 4.4cP.
 
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Originally Posted By: Matt_N

Below is the VOA for the new SN 5w50:

MOLY = 91
BORON = 242
CALCIUM = 3127
MAGNESIUM = 24
PHOS = 951
ZINC = 1132



From a recent VOA for M1 0w40:
Mo = 74
B = 221
Ca = 3003
Mg = 19
P = 893
Zn = 1023

Could it be that M1 5w50 is just a thicker version of M1 0w40?

This is the BEST info I have ever seen on my screen!!! Thx a lot for these!
I like a lot M1 5w50 in my flat tappet MY98 SAAB 9-5, but I have never compared it against the 0w40 has SAAB approval - and makes me valve noise at idling by fully warmed up engine.
smile.gif
 
Nice but how might it hold up in a shared sump motorcycle with wet clutch? There's your test for sheer stability!
wink.gif
 
Originally Posted By: LoneRanger
Nice but how might it hold up in a shared sump motorcycle with wet clutch? There's your test for sheer stability!
wink.gif


Probably not that great since it's made with lighter base stocks than a 10W-40 4T oil. But there is only one way to find out, try it and report back.
 
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: LoneRanger
Nice but how might it hold up in a shared sump motorcycle with wet clutch? There's your test for sheer stability!
wink.gif


Probably not that great since it's made with lighter base stocks than a 10W-40 4T oil. But there is only one way to find out, try it and report back.



Interested in how you can work that one out CATERHAM...got a hints for dummies on how to work out which base-stock is lighter ?

I look at the PDS for either and get a different answer re basestock weight.
 
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
5W oils use lighter base stocks than 10W oils, plus the the 5W-50 has a 180 VI, a further indication that relatively light base stocks are used. Are you going to argue with that?


Yes, I am going to argue with that.

firstly, 5W requiring lighter basestocks than 10W is a myth perpetuated even on the 101 on the front page... You don't "start with a 5W, and make it act like a 40/50 at the top end.

VII work both ends of the spectrum, improving the cold perforamnce, AS WELL AS the top end.

Don't believe me, then believe AFTON...

http://www.aftonchemical.com/ProductDataSheets/Lubricant Components/HiTEC-5710_PDS.pdf

Check out the treat rates of the 150N oil.

At a treat rate of 10%, in what's basically an ISO32 mineral oil, the characteristics are in the ballpark of the M1 5W-50 (very close, with a mineral, VI 100 basestock).

Note how the pour point has dropped from -15 to -42 in that example.

Note, this was a mineral "5W-50", with an ISO32 basestock.

Another manufacturer of VIIs (these are solid, not pre-diluted)
http://www.functionalproducts.com/Catalogs/Solid_VII_Products.pdf

Lists the starting oil for their 10W-40 recipe (page 4) as also an ISO 32...

So it's entirely possible that a 10W-40 and a 5W-50 could have identical basestocks...your assertion that the 40 has to have heavier basestocks because it's a 10W is not true.

As to why I called you out in the first place, looking at the PDS' for either oil
http://www.mobil.com/Australia-English/Lubes/PDS/GLXXENPVLMOMobil1_Racing_4T.aspx
http://www.mobil.com/USA-English/Lubes/PDS/GLXXENPVLMOMobil1_5W-50.aspx

shows the 10W-40 has a flash point of 212C, while the 5W-50 has 231C...logically, the 5W-50 is made of "heavier" stuff than the 10W-40, most likely base-stocks, as the VII additives tend to be somewhat lower in FP.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top