Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Comments
TriSyn: Flashpoint 470F
Pourability: -65F
Supersyn: Flashpoint 400F
Pourability: -49F
It appears to be severely degraded.
http://www.motorcraft.com/standard.asp?T=2&M=44&PageID=74
Lord knows there is a lot to evaluate. But of all the data points to compare, I wanted to see what you guys thought were the most important. I tend to zero in on flash & pour points, and the viscocity index.
Mdecamps...I noticed the same Supersyn reference to 400F on the bottle, and that figure is also mentioned in the text of the product data sheet. But, the product data sheet also claims that the Flash Point ranges from 450 to 491F depending on oil weight. What am I missing?
http://members.net-port.com/~loub/car/oil_S.htm
Or go to the Mobil 1' site at
http://mobil1.com/supersyn/index.jsp
The specs of the new oils with SuperSyn are exactly the same as the SL rated Mobil 1 Tri-Synthetic (which lived for about a month from mid-March to its replacement by the "with SuperSyn").
pepper50Syns basically give you longer drain intervals and protection under off normal conditions. So 1 quart would be better than no quarts but not as good as 2 quarts etc. In this case you truly get what you pay for. I think discussion on this board has indicated that blends are 10 to 25 percent syn(???). Probably now with the new SL standard-blends are a waste of money-but who knows.
Later,
Al
BTW I believe they screwed up the Kinematic Viscosity numbers and got them in the wrong columns.
>>
No, they did not. All numbers are correct on the new with SuperSyn site.
When they released the SL Tri-Synthetic specs, they screwed up the kinematic viscosities. But they have pullled the plug on that site.
<<
They make mistakes like that all the time on their website. They neeed to cut off some heads.
>>
How can you trust them not making this kind of mistakes in their oil? "Woops, I put all mineral oil in this SuperSyn batch."
They talked about how good the low temperature performance is of the new with SuperSyn. But the fact of matter is that the 10W30 with SuperSyn has a pour point that is 15 deg F higher (-49 deg F in SuperSyn vs. -65 deg F in Tri-Synthetic) than that of the Tri-Synthetic.
They also talked about how good the high temperature performance is of the new with SuperSyn. But the fact of matter is that the 10W30 with SuperSyn has a flash point that is 15 deg F lower (455 deg F in Supersyn vs. 470 deg F in Tri-Synthetic) than that of the Tri-Synthetic.
To meet the tough Eurp specs, the pour point of the 0W-30 and 0W-40 did not increase (suggesting the same amount of PAO in the base stock mix).
I am done with Mobil 1.
Anybody interested in buying four 5-qt jugs of Mobil 1 Tri-Synthetic 10W-30? Pick-up only please (I am in Western Michigan) or I can deliver to Grand Rapids, MI. The price is $17.88 plus 6% tax so it is $18.95 per jug (that is what I paid at Wal-Mart on 3/3/02).
If I could find objective information out there that some other oil can outperform Mobil 1, I'll switch. But right now there simply isn't any. No other company publishes their results in the SAE to the extent that Mobil does. For me that's the best place to determine what the oil can do.
Can you tell me if there is any objective information with documented-non advertising test data out there indicating that another product can do 15K oil changes with almost no engine wear after 200K??
Thanks,
Al
Mobil 1 with SuperSyn™ protects engines up to 204° C (400° F). It contains less impurities, so it protects better than conventional oils in cold weather (as shown by the pumpability limits indicated in the table below). This means that Mobil 1 with SuperSyn™ provides outstanding protection against wear at start-up, when most engine wear occurs.
Of course I went straight to my shop, pulled the machine out and went to work.
One person emailed me and said "Timken & Falex tests can be and often are manipulated by operator of machine, you can get a better "PULL"
using baby oil then Schaeffer's Best Oil by manipulation of machines"
In response to this, On this machine, you can make some oils appear not to be working when in fact they will plate up. You cannot make a lube plate up if it doesn't have some barrier properties. I have tried that with water, pb blaster, wd 40, schaeffers 131 fuel additive and many more things.
I have been using this for quite some time and know how to show what I want as long as it has some barrier properties. THIS IS NOT DOING ME ANY GOOD to try and fool myself is not practicle. Thats kind of like cheating on a test. My main purpose is not to fool myself but to examine the actual shear protection that these can produce. Alot of oils produce small amounts of resistance to shear and with a very little pressure will tear through the small amount of barrier present.
So, now that is addressed,
I took the new and improved mobil with all the great marketing info on their bottle about better protection and such and on a fresh bearing, applied minor amounts of pressure to allow any kind of barrier lube additives to bond up with the friciton/heat produced. In every instance, no matter what I did to get it to plate on the bearing, I could not get it to do it at all. No matter what i did.
The penzoil high milage oil produced a min amount of resistance but did not impress me to have much since it sheared out very easly.
MaxLife from valvoline.. I put it in, applied the same way as the other two prev oils, it went to plating up. the longer i run it the harder it became to break through. This oil has a much better protection against shearing than most all other conventional oils I have come across.
Having not run maxlife in an engine, i have not seen how it holds up under real world conditions, but given a choice between those 3, mobil is the only one api certified where as this penzoil and maxlife isn't.
For wear protection, maxlife hands down is my choice between the 3 and i would then run for a 3k test and see how it holds up in other aspects using oil analysis, and if doing well, would extend my drains in 2k increments until i saw it starting to increase in oxidation levels.
I'm not sure which 'series' each of these are. The 5W and 10W both said 'exceeds SL blah blah blah' but I don't remember if the 0W said the same. The 0W bottle had slightly different wording on it.
Just wanted to mention this since I didn't think any major chain stores carried Amsoil.
I can get a case of Mobil 1 for $21.99 at Sam's Club. Comparing that with the Murray's price, it's like paying $21.99 for the oil at Murray's and getting the filter for about 6 bucks. Not too bad.
Comments? Do you see any pitfalls?
What's MoS2?
I've been intrigued a bit about STP lately too but can't remember why. Was the consensus that STP may actually help to reduce wear, making up for that deficiency in many/most brands of today's motor oils?
schaeffers 132 is a soluble moly.
to those of you who have tried to find any of the schaeffers reps with no avail, i just found one in ark that said he will ship any quanities to where ever. I in no way get anything from this and is his deal only. And I am only posting this because I have recieved requests from some about how to obtain these products.
just email me and i'll supply you with his info if you need or want the connection.
First, the pour point and the flash point of the new SuperSyn 15W50 is actually improved over the Tri-synthetic. The 10W30 is the one that showed the greatest degradation....they also mention that it is specifically for higher mileage engines. Mobil states several times on their website that this is the "best Mobil 1 oil ever"
Does anyone have any idea what this new anti-wear package is? I'm guessing that the zinc is down, but what have they used to increase the wear protection? That seems to be their main selling point now.
Mark
bluedevils :: I was thinking in terms of using it in most any internal combustion engine-- cars, trucks, implements, motorcycles, etc. I am rather convinced that gaining moly is a worthwhile goal, now that most oils are relatively deficient in barrier protection.
here is a copy of the tech data i have on the 132..
#132 MOLY E.P. OIL TREATMENT
Moly E.P. Oil Treatment is a highly fortified extreme pressure engine oil treatment.
Moly E.P. Oil Treatment contains a highly specialized additive package. When used at the recommended treatment rate, this additive package allows Moly E.P. Oil Treatment to provide the following performance benefits:
1. Increased compression through better ring seal.
2. A reduction in oil consumption.
3. Elimination of sticking valves and lifters.
4. Reduced blow-by.
5. Increased oil pressure.
6. A reduction in engine friction and wear.
7. Increased power.
8. Better viscosity control.
9. Extreme pressure protection of the engine bearings, valve train, and pistons and piston rings.
To complement this highly specialized additive package a proven frictional modifier, Micron Moly® is further blended into Moly E.P. Oil Treatment. Micron Moly® is a liquid soluble type of moly that plates to the metal surfaces of the engine. Once plated, the moly forms a long lasting lubricant film in which prevents the metal surfaces from coming into contact with each other. By preventing metal to metal contact, damaging frictional wear is eliminated, which leads to less downtime and longer equipment life.
TREATMENT LEVEL
One pint of #132 Moly E.P. Oil Treatment to every 5 quarts of engine oil.
TYPICAL PROPERTIES
API Gravity 60°F (ASTM D-287)
Specific Gravity
Flash Point °F/°C (ASTM D-92)
Fire Point °F/°C (ASTM D-92) 29.2
.88
475°/246°
510°/265.5°
.............
What I found in scrounging around the Net' after his reference to the Valvoline Maxlife, was some very good info on the Lube, and then I ran into 'Shootout at the Amsoil Corral!
http://www.1st-in-synthetics.com/valvoline_maxlife.htm
Amsoil must be worried about losing some market share to the new kid in town, to go to this much trouble. The Valvoline is not touted as a full synthetic, or if I'm not mistaken, not a Synthetic at all, and IMHO Amsoil should start publishing some independent tests against the other Synthetic Bullies in the marketplace.
Sure, the Valvoline took a few cheap shots, but how many people need an 10-30 oil that has a pour point of more than -39....I live in the "home of 5 Stanley Cups" and I don't. And common'
Amsoil, the Valvoline only costs $1.99 a Qt! Pick on somebody your own size!
I still would not consider the STP and take the chance on either screwing up the additive package or the CarConverter. You really don't need any more protection.
I personally don't know how much truth there is to the cat contamination theory. In some instances I kinda feel like it's the 70's gas crunch conspericy all over again, hey no gas, price goes up then now that's not a gas problem but gas prices stay up. here we are again, hey cat burning out, lower antiwear addtives, now car engines won't last as long, thus allowing more engine/car sales to increase. Toyota just happen to be the first to experience the problems to engines due to this lowering antiwear effect.(no i don't buy into all of these people not doing proper drain intervals. I know some are but that many? think not. anyway, another story perhaps)
Anyway just things that go through my warped little mind at times. no proof of that, but sometimes i fall of the wagon at start left winging it.LOL
One thing struck me as absolutley hilarious. It talks about Mobil 1 being used by Roger Penske ... and then in the bullet points it says "sutiable for amateur racing".
Um, what's wrong with this picture? Why isn't it suitable for professional racing? Isn't that what they want us to believe, that the Mobil 1 in all the race cars is the same stuff that's in the bottles on store shelves? And, hey, isn't Roger Penske a professional in the racing world???
Who do these people think they are fooling!?
Thanks Bob, for the info on Max-Life. My buddy switched all of his cars from various dino oil and synthetics over to this stuff and he'll be happy to hear about your Timken results.
I don't think there is a HUGE downside to using STP in newer cars ... but it is a polymer (I have always been told) and is subject to shearing down, forming sludge and/or boiling off. As long as you don't go too long between changes, it shouldn't be a problem.
As for catayltic converters, I heard that they will be made increasing cheaper (fewer preciuos metals in them) from now on ...
--- Bror Jace
We have so many people just blindly trusting Mobil 1 oils regardless.
Mobil Delvac 1 is an excellent oil. That does not automatically mean Mobil 1 is an excellent oil.
As a matter of fact, I believe Mobil1 0W-40 and 15W-50 are excellent oils. But the 5W-30 and the 10W-30 are not excellent oils, IMHO. However, 5W-30 and 10-W-30 are the one bring Mobil $$$ in the US.
http://mobil1.com/products/faq.jsp?catId=19#faq5
Q. Red Line Oil talks about "four-ball wear," "load wear," "Falex wear" and "Timken psi load" for their synthetic oil. Are these valid tests?
A. These tests are low-cost tests generally used to determine the performance properties of grease. They do not correlate with engine performance tests. For example, the use of an additive such as lead naphthenate would yield excellent results in these bench (or lab) tests, but would cause excessive oxidation of an oil in an engine and would cause a motor oil to fail the industry standard oxidation test known as the Sequence III test.
None of the tests referenced are used by API in determining gasoline engine motor oil performance (SL is the current, most severe oil classification), nor are they used by engine manufacturers. The API approval requires the following tests:
L-38 for bearing corrosion.
Sequence IIIF for oxidation, deposits and wear.
Sequence VG for sludge, wear and varnish.
Sequence II for rust.
This slate of tests can cost over $75,000 to run – considerably more than the simple bench tests mentioned.
After 1000 miles, the dipstick showed dark brown oil and down by 1/2 a quart.
I had a bottle of 5w-30 AMSOIL with me and just threw in 1/2 a quart of it in the crankcase.
I checked the dipstick again...and what do I see?
The color of the oil had changed to near colorless. just like when u change the oil.
I started the engine and let it run for a while.
Pull the dipstick again. The oil is still colorless.
Can anybody explain where the dark brown oil from the 4.5 quarts sitting in the engine oil disappeared?
Ok, first let me state that they don't like the timken test? WHY? cause they don't hold up especially the new mobil super antiwear oil.
Ok, notice, And I love this part, as quoted...
"These tests are low-cost tests generally used to determine the performance properties of grease."
I agree, the 4 ball is a grease test, the timken can be used for both.
"They do not correlate with engine performance tests. For example, the use of an additive such as lead naphthenate would yield excellent results in these bench (or lab) tests, but would cause excessive oxidation of an oil in an engine and would cause a motor oil to fail the industry standard oxidation test known as the Sequence III test."
now if this was the case, they would fail the seq III test, so some of the oils that are being tested are api certified and did not failing the standard api seq III tests so there fore their barrier lube properties do not cause oxidation problems.
Simple explanation is, api does not test for barrier lube shear strength but does test for base oil limitations as for metal compatiblilty and base oil qualitiy for duration and oxidation resistance.
for more on TBN's I created a new page to explain how higher tbns are not a good way to determine a good oil.
let me know what you think.
bob
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/basic_lubrication_design.htm
It's embarrassing! Here's the self proclaimed Heavyweight SuperSynthetic Oil of the World, own test results, barely squeaking by on a few points, against a $1.99 a quart conventional Lube.
They even threw in a mention of a 4Ball test! Surprise suprise, Amsoil actually has one of these things. You would never know it from the lack of company 'wear' data comparing the Amsoil Lubes to the other Synthetics out there hustling for your $5+ to $9+ a quart business.
Mobile 1 takes an even Lower Road in all this. (#3281) Their site implies that Oil comparisons in all these cheap wear tests are of no concern to anyone, don't mean a thing, so, Don't Woory, Be Happy!
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com
How come a quart of new oil changes the color of old 4.5 quarts of old oil?
/* I am no scAmsoil dealer...i brought six bottles out of my own curiosity */
rear ends are normally GL-5 accross the board.
Your response is greatly appreciated. I know some shops in New york areas charge mobile-1 5-30w, 5-40w...etc (except mobile-1 0-*W) for around $4.65.
Thanks.
Your response is greatly appreciated. I know some shops in New York areas charge mobile-1 5-30w, 5-40w...etc (except mobile-1 0-*W) for around $4.65.
Thanks.
Notice they use the word 'generally'. As Bob pointed out, the Timken test can be used for both oils AND grease. I also love the way Mobil derides low-cost tests. Hey, not every company has millions of dollars to throw away every year. And, when that money is spent appeasing the EPA with ill-fated schemes like ultra-low zinc and phosphorous formulations, it does not benefit the consumers who are fooled into thinking they are buying extra protection when purchasing Mobil 1.
They do not correlate with engine performance tests.
They do not correlate EXACTLY with engine performance or other tests ... but practically no single test does. BUT the Timken shows the ability of an oil to prevent wear ... which is what we all want from a synthetic oil. One simple test that shows the ability of an oil to perform one simple (albeit critical) function. No one is saying the Timken test is the last word in lubrication testing but its results are telling.
For example, the use of an additive such as lead naphthenate would yield excellent results in these bench (or lab) tests, but would cause excessive oxidation of an oil in an engine and would cause a motor oil to fail the industry standard oxidation test known as the Sequence III test.
This sounds like a classic red herring. Who uses lead naphthenate in their motor oil? Anyone? I don't think any company currently uses this and Mobil knows this. This is a classic red herring or straw man argument. Invent an issue that doesn't exist and then solve it in order to portray your product as superior. If you assume, as I do, that most oils on the market today (especially synthetics) adequately protect against oxidation, then this is a phoney argument.
None of the tests referenced are used by API in determining gasoline engine motor oil performance (SL is the current, most severe oil classification), nor are they used by engine manufacturers.
Yes, and we know that the API are a bunch of bureaucrats first and engineers second. These are the Dilberts who couldn't even come up with a functional definition of the word 'synthetic' for the industry to use. Thanks, but you'll have to excuse me if I don't revere them as though they were gods. As for the auto manufacturers, they seem all too eager to grab their ankles in order to please the whims of the EPA at the expense of long term durability of their vehicles.
--- Bror Jace
Thanks.
As I understand it the Timken machine runs at around 850 RPM on the benchtop and you measure the pressure required to produce measurable scoring on a bearing not the stall load. I just don't see how this can tell me how an oil is going to provide protection in an engine at operating temp and 5000 RPM. Also what about testing on oil that has a few thousand miles of hard service on it??
Northern Europe is recognised as the most demanding environment in the world for
motor oils. High efficiency engines, high speed driving, tightening environmental
controls, innovative automobile manufacturers and knowledgeable consumers, all
combine to demand the very highest levels of ‘liquid engineering’.
Against this backdrop, the ‘impossible dream’ for car owners and car manufacturers alike, is for an engine
oil that offers improved fuel economy, multi-year service intervals, and is suitable for both diesel and
gasoline engines. However, within BP Castrol the word ‘impossible’ is taken as a challenge, and the recent
completion of a five-year collaborative development with the Volkswagen (VW) group means that the
‘impossible dream’ has just moved a very significant step closer.
Over the last nine months Castrol has been
supplying the VW group – VW, Audi, SEAT and
Skoda – with a service fill oil, for all makes and
models, that meets the car manufacturer’s
specifications for extended drain intervals and
increased fuel efficiency. The new oil allows the
VW group to offer its customers service intervals
of up to 50,000km for diesel engines and
30,000km for gasoline engines and is referred to
as the ‘longlife service concept’. Not only does this
offer the motorist the convenience of less
servicing, it also reduces considerably the amount
of used oil for disposal.
You can access the rest of the info by searching for ..".Castrol SLX Longlife ll"
Quite a feather in Castrols Cap to get this product in the VW crankcase before anyone else. I would love to know who the other companies were in this project , that tried, but didn't make the cut.
So of course Bob, you're method is the only valid one and companies like Amsoil have it all wrong and are performing smoke and mirror acts and misleading people right?
I have read alot of your posts here and find it quite humorous how you have developed the following that you have. Your Timken tests are extremely unscientific and as you well know, show (at best) only one of many required properties of a good motor oil. It really does not sound as though you are following any standard at all for this "Timken" test.
On your own forum you have some very good examples of equally unscientific comparison testing. Do you really think it is valid to show oil analysis data from single samples, compare them and proclaim a winner when the difference in wear metals is a few ppm? E.g.,in your Dodge Cummins example, you are showing data from single samples, one Amsoil at 14724 mi., the other Schaeffer at 13455 mi. The Amsoil wear metals were virtually identical to the Schaeffer despite the fact that it ran more than 1000 mi. more. What really suprises me is that Schaeffer did not kick the [non-permissible content removed] out of Amsoil's wear numbers given that your "lab" has shown this soluble moly technology to be so clearly superior.
By the way Bob, ASTM D 4172 (four-ball) is one of a few valid ASTM tests for lubricating fluids and you will find that many companies such as Chevron, (and others) do use it to test the anti-wear properties of compressor and hydraulic fluids, for example.
See this Test Standard Index:
http://www.plint.co.uk/at2/index/Stds.htm