Blackstone's comment: Looks exactly like Mobil Clean 5000
Exxon 5W-20
- Thread starter Cerbera LM
- Start date
- Status
I am curious what does Mobil 5000 sell for ? I have been getting EM Superflo for app 1.09 per quart including a 4.20 rebate.
How does it look? Does it have a good additive package? Please comment on the analysis itself--thanks!
Looks like a good oil. I just don't like the sodium additive bc it looks like coolant.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Can that Na be real??
Edit: Never mind. It appears that XOM does have some unreal Na levels in the 5000/7500 line. The only other is Brad Penn in one oil that Stinky tested.
This will surely mask some things in a UOA
Edit: Never mind. It appears that XOM does have some unreal Na levels in the 5000/7500 line. The only other is Brad Penn in one oil that Stinky tested.
This will surely mask some things in a UOA
Not bad at all. The Mobil Clean 5000 sells for over 2 bucks, doesn't it?
Okay, Ive gotta chip in with my question/comment/concern. In this thread and in lots of other VOA threads, it seems that quick reactions are drawn, both ****ing and lauding, on an oil purely based on the particle count of a few measureable ingredients. Isn't the most important factor the oil that these additives are suspended in? Isn't that why we are sometimes willing to pay $5+ per quart for a good synthetic, and way more than that for hardcore sythetic? I would gladly pay a premium for a top of the line base oil with a seemingly modest additive package. I feel that the biggest value of a VOA is to compare you UOA using the oil to see what has changed. I'm looking for the guys with more knowledge and credibility than me (I'm man enough to admit mine's a bit thin in this area) to confirm or deny my concerns.
Well... no. There is discussion about the most important portion of a fully-formulated oil, but the end result is much more important than the sum of its parts (paraphrasing Terry there).
One need only look at Schaeffer to see that base oil is less important than additives and/or the end product. Schaeffer uses very high quality base fluids, but they're still only blends. Yet they give some of the best service and results out there.
I think the only actual reason most any of us can claim as to why we're willing to spend so much on an oil (synthetics) is because we want to. We like to. We feel good when we do. I use RedLine but I don't claim it's cost-effective. I do believe I'll get better overall durability out of my engine because of it, but it's something that can never be proven because the experiment cannot be repeated. I'll stop now.
You're going to need to explain that one further, because it looks like you just confirmed my presumption. Schaeffer uses very high quality base fluids, and even though they are blends, the high quality base fluids make them great oils. Same thing with GC. It's VOA's are nothing interesting at all, but it is a killer oil.
To clarify, was that Exxon Superflo 5W20 of the SM variety?
I can answer my last question.
The answer is NO.
My last UOA of Exxon Superflo 5W20 was SL, and the Calcium was 2463 and the Phosphorous was 981. Since calcium and phosphorous don't increase between VOA and UOA, the Superflo tested at the top of this thread must be an SM formulation.
In case you don't feel like scrolling up, the original poster's oil had Calcium at 1237 and Phosphorous at 520.
My last UOA of the Superflo 5W20 SL is at http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=002786#000000
The answer is NO.
My last UOA of Exxon Superflo 5W20 was SL, and the Calcium was 2463 and the Phosphorous was 981. Since calcium and phosphorous don't increase between VOA and UOA, the Superflo tested at the top of this thread must be an SM formulation.
In case you don't feel like scrolling up, the original poster's oil had Calcium at 1237 and Phosphorous at 520.
My last UOA of the Superflo 5W20 SL is at http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=002786#000000
I've been wondering this same thing...Could we be paying too much attention to additives and not the quality of the oil these additives are suspended in ?
Manufacturing processes, equipment age, QA, maintenance, foolproof CCP's, and employees that care can make a huge difference from facility to facility.
This begs the question...Are all Group III oils the same quality ? Are all POA base oils of the same quality ?
This may be a starting point for finding the best oils ?
I'm reasonably certain not all Group I, II, III, POA or PAO oils are the same.quote:
Originally posted by sands:
SNIP
This begs the question...Are all Group III oils the same quality ? Are all POA base oils of the same quality ?
This may be a starting point for finding the best oils ?
There are an almost infinite number of ways to refine or synthesize the oils, and we know that not all blenders do things the same way.
I know for a fact that Castrol's process for making their Group III (XHVI, I think) is proprietary, and more expensive than some other Group III processes.
Reagarding your last sentence, I think that the way to find the best oils must be one of the following:
1. Wear checks based on testing. We (the BITOG members) probably can't do this enough under controlled enough situations with a large enough sample size to be effective.
2. Comparative statistics of oil-related based on a wide sample of vehicles with different oils in. Due to the rarity of oil failures outside of about 7 different modern cars I can think of, I doubt we'll ever build a good database for that.
3. Used oil analysis. We probably can't get a statistically valid sample, but we can build a LITTLE bit of confidence with enough samples for at least a few oils. For instance, we probably have enough UOAs of Mobil 1 or GC to reach *some* conclusions. For other oils, like Kendall or Mystik, we have as little as one UOA per grade, and we'll never really get a clue as to whether those oils are good or bad or indifferent.
The great part about the API, ILSAC and ACEA standards is that at least we can be guaranteed of certain traits from oils that meet them. I know any ACEA A3 oil will handle as much heat as *I'll* ever throw at it. I know any API SM oil will probably not kill my car's cat.
Also, regarding us paying too much attention to adds, and not enough to base oils, I think you're probably right. We see oils with add packs that LOOK really skinny turn out perfectly good analysis, and oils with very high additive numbers turn out analysis that isn't much better.
XHVI is Shell's process. Castrol USA buys their Group III on the open market. At one time it came from Petro Canada, but that was before BP bought them.
How can you know something as a "fact" that isn't even TRUE? Castrol does not make their own base oils. They buy them from companies like BP (which also owns them), Shell, PC, etc. When Castrol first switched from PAO to Grp III for Syntec, they did in fact use Shell's XHVI base oil, which is a wax isomerate. And while Shell's catalysts for producing their wax isomerate are "proprietary," the process itself is not. ExxonMobil also makes wax isomerate base oils which are called ExxSyn. (FYI, wax isomerate base oils are produced by isomerizing slack wax or waxy raffinate byproducts (the feedstock) into highly saturated, very high VI base oils.)
LubeOiler:
Nowhere.
Look at the UOAs, find instances of the "suspect" oil in your application, and if it worked, consider using it.
You can't base your decisions solely on base stocks. Additives DO play a part.
Nowhere.
Look at the UOAs, find instances of the "suspect" oil in your application, and if it worked, consider using it.
You can't base your decisions solely on base stocks. Additives DO play a part.
- Status