Mobil 1 0w-20

Jay · May 2, 2003

The lab was Predictive Maintenance Services/AVLube.

code:

Iron 2

Chromium 0

Lead 0

Copper 0

Tin 2

Aluminum 1

Nickel 0

Silver 0

Silicon 3

Boron 240

Sodium 17

Potassium 1

Magnesium 35

Calcium 2625

Phosphorus 1258

Zinc 1266

Molybdenum 133

-

Viscosity @ 40*C 49.4 cSt

Viscosity @ 100*C 8.9 cSt

VI 162

TBN 10.1

Oxidation 24.00

Nitration 7.00

This sample was lost in the mail and I thought I would never see it. I'm very pleased that the lab has given me viscosity @ 40*C as well as 100*C and VI. I wonder if this is a mistake or something new? They usually don't do this on their reports. The oxidation and nitration values are indices not percentages and I thought I would include them for other folks, like me, who have trouble making sense of them on the UOAs.

Patman · May 2, 2003

Sure is a lot of ZDDP in there! A good amount of boron and moly too, more than the other viscosities of SuperSyn. It'll be interesting to see UOAs with this oil!

J · May 2, 2003

Hi,

Calcium is a little weak (contributing to
weak TBN), but the rest of the additives look
good.

Jae

buster · May 2, 2003

Do you think the increased levels of Boron and Moly are to make up for the lower viscosity protection? Looks very promising. Thanks J!

TooSlick · May 2, 2003

Jay,

An API licensed formula with that level of ZDDP? That's a big no no ...

The levels of calcium and the TBN look about right, but I wonder how accurate these VOA's really are sometimes.

TooSlick

G-MAN · May 2, 2003

quote:

Originally posted by J:
Calcium is a little weak (contributing to
weak TBN), but the rest of the additives look
good.

I don't think the calcium is "weak." That level is right in line with the other grades of Mobil 1. And a TBN of 10 is not bad at all.

buster · May 2, 2003

quote:

The levels of calcium and the TBN look about right, but I wonder how accurate these VOA's really are sometimes

I'm wondering the same thing. TBN's of 15 like we have seen don't seem right. This might be answer the question of "is a 20wt. too thin to protect"? Mobil might realize that they have to load up on ZDDP to maintain great wear/performace qualities with a 20wt oil.

[ May 03, 2003, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: buster ]

joee12 · May 2, 2003

Jay, I asume you will be running this oil in your RSX? -Joe

khager · May 2, 2003

Pennzoil's 5W-20 has a HTHS of 2.65 according to thier website. And Mobil 1's new 0W-20 has an HTHS of 2.61 per thier website. It looks like on paper the pennzoil has more shear strength not to mention it's a whole lot cheaper. Am I missing something here?

Kevin

buster · May 3, 2003

quote:

Pennzoil's 5W-20 has a HTHS of 2.65 according to thier website. And Mobil 1's new 0W-20 has an HTHS of 2.61 per thier website. It looks like on paper the pennzoil has more shear strength not to mention it's a whole lot cheaper. Am I missing something here?

No, I believe it. Mobil doesn't have spectacular HT/HS IMO. Schaeffer's has higher number too, and it's a blend.

M1 HT/HS: 0w-40 3.6
10w-30 3.17
5w-30 3.08
0w-20 2.61

Amsoil 5w-20 2.9

Not too good, but it doesn's seem to really hurt the oil. Mobil's oils tend to be shear stable enough, 10w-30 especially. Even the 5w-30 in the oil study has held up well. I think there is much more to an oil's ability to resist shearing then just by looking at this number.

[ May 03, 2003, 05:39 PM: Message edited by: buster ]

Jay · May 3, 2003

I spotted the "illegal" phosphorus too. In Pablo's 4-way lab comparison PMS had the highest reading for phosphorus. I believe this is the first VOA posted with trace amounts of aluminum and tin also. Iron and lead are more common contaminants.

joee12, I'm running this oil in my car now. I've burned through a couple of tanks of gas. This oil is formulated on the extreme side of fuel economy. That is, the HTHS (2.61 cP) can't get much lower and still be 20-weight.

jetfishn · May 6, 2003

Well, this VOA has sold me on using M-1 0w-20 in my new 02 CRV. After studying VOA's of 5w-20 castrol, 5w-20 penz, the 0w-20 M-1 SS wins out in my book, additive amounts look great as well as TBN. Next oil change will be M-1 for sure. Now, do I want to use a K&N or Napa Gold filter, hmmm.

buster · May 6, 2003

It does look like a well built oil. I'd like to see comparisons with this and Amsoil's 5w-20. Amsoil is probably in the works right now designing a better, group IV long drain 20wt oil. I bet it's as close to a 30wt. as possible too. If 20wts. are the future, they will have to start doing this. Sales are bad right now for 20wt oils, due to lack of demand and cars calling for them. This has to be a thorn in Amsoil's side bc many people will want to follow the warranty so when 20wts are mainstream, a long drain 20wt will have to follow.

HOndaGuy · May 7, 2003

now we just have to wait to see an oil analysis after its been used for a bit.

LubeRube · May 9, 2003

Has anyone else noticed the two conflicting spec sheets ExxonMobil has put out on this oil? Compare the specs for 0w-20 in the following two locations:

http://www.mobil.fi/USA-English/Lubes/PDS/GLXXENPVLMOMobil1_0W-20.asp

https://dallnd6.dal.mobil.com/GIS/M...61638dff7d0453b085256b8400618b40?OpenDocument

The first set of specs states that vis is 43 at 40C and 8.4 at 100C. The second set (from the official Mobil One website) shows 49.58 and 9.0, respectively, which is closer to this VOA. This is a pretty significant difference in published data, no? The first one listed is dated March of this year. The second one has been out there somewhat longer.

buster · May 9, 2003

I've noticed this but ignored it bc Mobil's spec sheets are always changeing and when you ask them about it, they give you various answers. Lousy cutomer service IMO.

Steve S · May 10, 2003

Buster, just guessing the guys on the phone aren't scientists. Redline's guys know their stuff.

[ May 11, 2003, 12:00 AM: Message edited by: Steve S ]

Jay · May 10, 2003

quote:

Originally posted by LubeRube:

...The first set of specs states that vis is 43 at 40C and 8.4 at 100C. The second set (from the official Mobil One website) shows 49.58 and 9.0, respectively, which is closer to this VOA. This is a pretty significant difference in published data, no? The first one listed is dated March of this year. The second one has been out there somewhat longer.

I believe the first set of specs is incorrect, LubeRube. The VI of 8.4 cSt and 43 cSt is 176 not 165 as listed on the newer spec sheet. It takes Mobil 1 a while to hammer out all the errors in their new specs sheets.

Good eye!

buster · May 11, 2003

I think this 0w-20 is built very well. I'm looking forward to a UOA of it.

MolaKule · May 12, 2003

quote:

Do you think the increased levels of Boron and Moly are to make up for the lower viscosity protection? Looks very promising.

They have to make up for barrier lubrication when the thin oil film goes south.

This add package appears to be fairly indicative of the better 0W20 oils.

I have acquired some Amsoil 0W20 oil for sister's new Taurus, so I will send in a sample for comparison.

Mobil 1 0w-20

Similar threads