Mobil 1 10w40 HM

[SubyRoo]

Virgin Sample tested by Blackstone on 8/16/16
Taken from an unopened quart that was shaken well before pouring into sample container.

Aluminum / 0
Chromium / 0
Iron / 0
Copper / 0
Lead / 0
Tin / 0
Molybdenum / 69
Nickel / 0
Manganese / 0
Silver / 0
Titanium / 0
Potassium / 0
Boron / 85
Silicon / 7
Sodium / 5
Calcium / 958
Magnesium / 680
Phosphorus / 794
Zinc / 914
Barium / 0

SUS Viscosity @ 210F / 77.8
cSt Viscosity @ 100C / 14.96
Flashpoint in F / 440
Fuel% / -
Antifreeze% / -
Water% / 0.0
Insolubles% / 0.0

 

[THafeez]

Thank you for the VOA

Looks pretty low on calcium for whatever reason though

 

[Garak]

The magnesium would be why.

 

[Nederlander75]

That's a pretty clean sample.

 

[OldEuroCarLover]

I just joined recently--even thought I've been reading these forums for years--and have never done an oil analysis before, so I'm no expert.

Mobil shows 1100ppm for zinc, and 1000 for phosphorous: https://mobiloil.com/~/media/amer/us/pvl/files/pdfs/mobil-1-oil-product-specs-guide-2016.pdf

Is it normal for these number to fluctuate, or am I not understanding the test?

I'm currently using this oil.

 

[SubyRoo]

There is usually some variance in the numbers so I would say those are close enough to the numbers on the Mobil link.
I had this tested as a reference for future uoas and the latest voa of this oil I could find was from 2011, it doesnt appear to have changed any since then.

 

[SonofJoe]

Never understood the logic for using combined Calcium & Magnesium detergent systems. There's no synergy between them. It's just laziness and sloppy thinking from the guy that formulated the oil.

 

[Popsy]

What is better ? Don't you get benefits of both ?

 

[SonofJoe]

Originally Posted By: Popsy
What is better ? Don't you get benefits of both ?


It's a bit like mixing white gloss paint with white matt paint. You end up with something that us subtly different but essentially just white paint!

There are reasons to prefer one detergent over another. The biggest is usually availability (Ca wins), higher TBN of the neat detergent because this impacts on DI treat rate (Mg usually wins), cost (depends) and slightly lower ash for a given TBN (Mg wins) but for what is really a simple US gasoline oil, there should be an obvious single detergent to pick (usually the one that gives the most bang for the buck). BTW, I'm assuming that Mobil aren't mixing up sulphonates, phenates and salicylates here. It might make some sense if this oil was targetting diesel engines but I don't think that's the case here.

 

[BobFout]

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Originally Posted By: Popsy
What is better ? Don't you get benefits of both ?


It's a bit like mixing white gloss paint with white matt paint. You end up with something that us subtly different but essentially just white paint!

There are reasons to prefer one detergent over another. The biggest is usually availability (Ca wins), higher TBN of the neat detergent because this impacts on DI treat rate (Mg usually wins), cost (depends) and slightly lower ash for a given TBN (Mg wins) but for what is really a simple US gasoline oil, there should be an obvious single detergent to pick (usually the one that gives the most bang for the buck). BTW, I'm assuming that Mobil aren't mixing up sulphonates, phenates and salicylates here. It might make some sense if this oil was targetting diesel engines but I don't think that's the case here.


This oil does meet ACEA B3.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Never understood the logic for using combined Calcium & Magnesium detergent systems. There's no synergy between them. It's just laziness and sloppy thinking from the guy that formulated the oil.


And I've never understood the logic of predicting the future performance of a motor oil based on a Blackstone VOA.

I know you know a lot more about oils than I ever will, but to describe an oil by a major corporation that meets ACEA A3/B3 as "laziness and sloppy thinking from the guy that formulated the oil" is a bit unbelievable to me - especially when that pronouncement is made on a $30 ICP analysis with no regard to actual performance. Is that how you evaluated the oils from where you work(ed)?

And I would make the same comments about any major producer, not just ExxonMobil.

 

[SonofJoe]

You would be surprised at what you see even in the biggest oil companies. Sloppy formulating isn't that unusual, especially if it's following a pre-determined narrative.

In my experience, the highly burnished view you see of these companies isn't always matched by what happens in reality. For example, it's well known that once upon a time, Mobil had a reputation for hyper-aggressivity that was unmatched in the industry. One guy I worked with for a long time told me how one time, one of the Mobil senior guys grabbed him by the throat, on an airplane of all places, about some minor matter or other. I also remember getting dragged along to an alcohol-fuelled retirement dinner with the Mobil 1 crowd and you could cut the sense of brooding menace with a knife. It was like talking engine oil with The Sorprano's!

Of course, feel free to think what you like. It's a free world after all...

 

[SubyRoo]

My question is what would be the reason for changing from the high calcium formula this oil had years ago to the one used now? This oil is advertised as having superior cleaning ability and yet many here suggest M1 0w40 for cleaning purposes (which I'm assuming is based on the higher calcium content.) Looking for insight from those that have a better understanding than I do.

 

[SonofJoe]

Originally Posted By: SubyRoo
My question is what would be the reason for changing from the high calcium formula this oil had years ago to the one used now? This oil is advertised as having superior cleaning ability and yet many here suggest M1 0w40 for cleaning purposes (which I'm assuming is based on the higher calcium content.) Looking for insight from those that have a better understanding than I do.


I don't know for sure but I suspect they moved from all Ca to mixed Ca/Mg to reduce the cost of the formulation. If you look at over-based metallic detergents, you will typically find 300 TBN Calcium Sulphonate and 400 TBN Magnesium Sulphonate. To make an oil with 12 TBN, you would need 4% of Ca Sulphonate but only 3% of Mg Sulphonate. Given that additives, even where there are clear raw material cost differences, tend to cost roughly the same once you factor in the allocated cost of running the plant, you can see why you might have an economic incentive to go mixed Ca/Mg.

It could also be a narrative driven thing. The industry is addicted the idea of 'synergy' (even when there isn't any) because it makes your stuff looks special (even though it isn't). It breeds a mentality where oil formulators use two or more components where one might be a more rational choice. This could be an example of this.

As regards detergents and cleaning ability, a few years back I was discussing this very subject with another industry guy. I expounded my controversial view that all detergents at equal TBN are much of a muchness. I expected him to disagree (most folks do!) but he didn't. Apparently he had run a shed load of Sequence IIIG gasoline tests to highlight the 'superiority' of their 'special' sulphur-free detergents. What he found was that at equal TBN, all detergents are roughly the same!!! Apparently his management took the hump at this highly unwelcome result...

 

[Jetronic]

Are there oils around with an all magnesium detergent package? I haven't seen them.

But I agree from a chemical standpoint that at equal TBN it doesn't matter what the chemistry is. I also don't buy into the ofte touted TBN retention as a function of the TBN chemistry, but rather that there'sless acids to neutralise in that specific sample. Base oil stability might make a differencehee, and the amount of copper used in the engine, aswell as fuel.

 

[SonofJoe]

There used to be a lot of all-Mg oils around but they would be found in the more price sensitive parts of the market like the Middle-East and Far-East where 15W40's and 20W50's abound.

 

[BigD1]

Originally Posted By: OldEuroCarLover
I just joined recently--even thought I've been reading these forums for years--and have never done an oil analysis before, so I'm no expert.

Mobil shows 1100ppm for zinc, and 1000 for phosphorous: https://mobiloil.com/~/media/amer/us/pvl/files/pdfs/mobil-1-oil-product-specs-guide-2016.pdf

Is it normal for these number to fluctuate, or am I not understanding the test?

I'm currently using this oil.


Those levels of phosphorous in the sample are SN/SM, and not SL which would be 1,000. All the jugs of Mobil 1 HM that I have looked at on the shelves are SL rated. Maybe it's an SN formula now, and the jug labeling has not caught up with the new formula. Otherwise, I am not buying a variance of phosphorous which pushes a SL rated oil into SN/SM. That's not acceptable because we are not getting what is advertised.

 

[btanchors]

Could the change in formulation of Mobil 1 from mostly Calcium to combination Calcium/Magnesium have anything to do with lowering Sulphated Ash?

 

[4WD]

Just used Mobil 1 HM in 10w30 - it is SL A3/B3

I also use regular 10w30 Mobil 1 - GL5 and A1/B1

 

[SonofJoe]

Originally Posted By: btanchors
Could the change in formulation of Mobil 1 from mostly Calcium to combination Calcium/Magnesium have anything to do with lowering Sulphated Ash?


I doubt it. If this is an A3/B3 oil, you're allowed (in theory) to go upto 1.5% max. Sulphated Ash and no-one concerned about ash plugging their Diesel Particulate Filter would countenance putting such an an oil in their engine. Just for the record, A3/B3 oils are typically way lower than 1.5% ash (1.0% isn't unusual) but the average bloke in the street won't know that so will stick with the 'official' Low SAPs oils.