Honda Car Forum

George Macdonald wrote:
> On 2 May 2005 12:50:32 -0700, "y_p_w" <y_p_w@hotmail.com> wrote:

> >BTW - going back to an ancient discussion, the third component in
> >Mobil 1's "Tri-Synthetic" oil is apparently alkylated naphthalene.
> >There's even suggestions that the current "SuperSyn" Mobil 1
> >products don't use esters in favor of alkylated napthalenes. They
> >must be doing something right, since many used oil analysis results
> >indicate that it holds its viscosity extremely well, and there's
> >speculation that the oil itself contains no VI improvers in all
> >weights.
>
> I recall bringing up the lack of VI improver here shortly after
> SuperSyn came out - Mobil never came out and said it directly but
> it was strongly hinted at in their SuperSyn docs that it had the
> same effect as VI improvers and allowed their elimination form
> the formula. My own experience, with alarming noises on low temp
> starts, indicates that the initial Mobil1 SuperSyn had (dangerously)
> insufficient high pressure friction reducer... something brought up
> in some of the Forums and which was later corrected with
> (increased ?) MoDDC.

SuperSyn is just the HVI PAO. The newer Mobil 1 EP oils are touted
as containing 50% more SuperSyn. They're also alleged to be of
slightly higher viscosity at operating temps. Makes sense to me.

BTW - I had an used oil analysis done on a sample of Mobil 1 (SL
SuperSyn) 5W-30. It's not for a Honda. It was after the 2nd time
I'd used Mobil 1 5W-30 in this car. The molydenum level was a
fairly ordinary 52 PPM, which was actually less than their
"universal" averages. Molydenum levels were really high in the
factory fill (894 PPM), although I understand it could have come
from the (moly plated) rings breaking in, assembly lube, or breakin
additive. Zinc and phosphorous levels for the Mobil 1 5W-30 seem
to be rather low too (API SL mandate?). The viscosity was also
right where it should be after 3700 miles. I've heard reports of
5W-30 oil w/ VI improver shearing down to 5W-20 after use.

><http://www.exxonmobilchemical.com/Public_PA/WorldwideEnglish/Newsroom/Newsreleases/chem_nr_280403.asp>
>
><http://www.exxonmobilchemical.com/Public_Products/Synthetics/Synthetic_Lubricants_and_Fluids/Worldwide/Grades_and_Datasheets/Syn_Grade_GradeAlkylated.asp>
>
><http://www.exxonmobilchemical.com/Public_Files/Synthetics/Synthetic_Lubricants_and_Fluids/Worldwide/Data_Sheet_Synesstic_v5.pdf>
>
><http://www.exxonmobilchemical.com/Public_Files/Synthetics/Synthetic_Lubricants_and_Fluids/Worldwide/Synthetics_GeneralBrochure.pdf>
>
> Thanks for the links.
>
> >From what I've read, the AN base oil is supposed to provide many of
> >the benefits that esters bring without lots of the drawbacks.
> >They're supposed to be cheaper, don't swell the seals as much, have
> >high detergency, and don't compete as much with additives for
> >surface area.
>
> That still leaves the polar molecule of the esters missing from the
> formula - I don't have exact details but AN is, based on my hazy
> chemistry memory, I'd think, only very mildly polar.

I thought the problem with heavily polar ester molecules is that they
"compete" with other additives for metal surface area. I was under
the impression that one would rather have ZDDP bonding to metal parts
than esters. Castrol used to advertise the polarized nature of the
esters in Syntec and alleged protection properties until the FTC shut
them down. I've heard that Castrol's new "Start Up" motor oil
contains polarized esters, and I suppose they believe the clingy
nature of esters helps with startup.

Having looked at a lot of the used oil analysis results on
www.bobistheoilguy.com, I have personally come to the view that Mobil-1 is a
greatly overrated oil. At "normal" oil change intervals it does not seem
to showed lower wear metals than do any of the good conventional oils or any
of the much-maligned Group III synthetics. In fact, in many cases Mobil-1
seems to show high iron numbers in used oil analysis than do other oils.

Those of you who think you are doing your car some big favor by changing the
oil every 3mo/3,000 miles and using Mobil-1 are in most cases just pouring
money down the drain. Turbos, sub-artic dwellers, etc. being some
exceptions.

Just my well studied personal opinion, do with it as you like .

John

George Macdonald wrote:
>
> It's no big deal - all politics and marketing IMO. If you bought one of
> those long interval cars, would you follow the umm, "directions"?:-)

yeesh. mobil1 now has a 15(?)k mile oil i saw at wallyworld. now whats
so different/better/special that they can say itll last 15k miles?

FWIW, that would be 5 years between oil changes for me.

John Horner wrote:

> Having looked at a lot of the used oil analysis results on
> www.bobistheoilguy.com, I have personally come to the view that Mobil-1 is a
> greatly overrated oil. At "normal" oil change intervals it does not seem
> to showed lower wear metals than do any of the good conventional oils or any
> of the much-maligned Group III synthetics. In fact, in many cases Mobil-1
> seems to show high iron numbers in used oil analysis than do other oils.
>
> Those of you who think you are doing your car some big favor by changing the
> oil every 3mo/3,000 miles and using Mobil-1 are in most cases just pouring
> money down the drain. Turbos, sub-artic dwellers, etc. being some
> exceptions.

Sure - can accept that. Current car has a turbo. Last car was a GS-R
with the 8000 RPM redline. The main advantage of PAO synthetics is
resistance to oxidation under extreme conditions. Mobil 1 is my choice
because it's easy to find.

I actually ran an extended drain test on an '89 Integra on SH Mobil 1
10W-30. The wear metals were fairly normal after 11K miles/1 year.
There was a borderline high lead level though. The analysis was
similar to a typical car at a 4000 mile oil change.

SoCalMike wrote:

> George Macdonald wrote:
>
>>
>> It's no big deal - all politics and marketing IMO. If you bought one of
>> those long interval cars, would you follow the umm, "directions"?:-)
>
>
> yeesh. mobil1 now has a 15(?)k mile oil i saw at wallyworld. now whats
> so different/better/special that they can say itll last 15k miles?

More "SuperSyn" (HVI PAO) which makes it slightly thicker at operating
temps. Boosted detergent and total base number. Alleged to resist
viscosity breakdown exceptionally well.

Actually the Mercedes-Benz electronic system with a 229.5 spec oil is
supposed to allow for up 25K miles depending on conditions. The only
Mobil oil that meets that spec is Mobil 1 0W-40.

> FWIW, that would be 5 years between oil changes for me.

So you walk a lot? :-)

On 3 May 2005 12:38:36 -0700, "y_p_w" <y_p_w@hotmail.com> wrote:

>George Macdonald wrote:
>> On 2 May 2005 12:50:32 -0700, "y_p_w" <y_p_w@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >BTW - going back to an ancient discussion, the third component in
>> >Mobil 1's "Tri-Synthetic" oil is apparently alkylated naphthalene.
>> >There's even suggestions that the current "SuperSyn" Mobil 1
>> >products don't use esters in favor of alkylated napthalenes. They
>> >must be doing something right, since many used oil analysis results
>> >indicate that it holds its viscosity extremely well, and there's
>> >speculation that the oil itself contains no VI improvers in all
>> >weights.
>>
>> I recall bringing up the lack of VI improver here shortly after
>> SuperSyn came out - Mobil never came out and said it directly but
>> it was strongly hinted at in their SuperSyn docs that it had the
>> same effect as VI improvers and allowed their elimination form
>> the formula. My own experience, with alarming noises on low temp
>> starts, indicates that the initial Mobil1 SuperSyn had (dangerously)
>> insufficient high pressure friction reducer... something brought up
>> in some of the Forums and which was later corrected with
>> (increased ?) MoDDC.
>
>SuperSyn is just the HVI PAO.

Yes, I was working on the understanding that we *knew* that... and that
they are high molecular weight.

> The newer Mobil 1 EP oils are touted
>as containing 50% more SuperSyn. They're also alleged to be of
>slightly higher viscosity at operating temps. Makes sense to me.

Of course. It was the SuperSyn blending agent which raised pour point on
the Mobil1 SuperSyn vs. the previous Tri-Synthetic.

>BTW - I had an used oil analysis done on a sample of Mobil 1 (SL
>SuperSyn) 5W-30. It's not for a Honda. It was after the 2nd time
>I'd used Mobil 1 5W-30 in this car. The molydenum level was a
>fairly ordinary 52 PPM, which was actually less than their
>"universal" averages. Molydenum levels were really high in the
>factory fill (894 PPM), although I understand it could have come
>from the (moly plated) rings breaking in, assembly lube, or breakin
>additive. Zinc and phosphorous levels for the Mobil 1 5W-30 seem
>to be rather low too (API SL mandate?). The viscosity was also
>right where it should be after 3700 miles. I've heard reports of
>5W-30 oil w/ VI improver shearing down to 5W-20 after use.
>
>><http://www.exxonmobilchemical.com/Public_PA/WorldwideEnglish/Newsroom/Newsreleases/chem_nr_280403.asp>
>>
>><http://www.exxonmobilchemical.com/Public_Products/Synthetics/Synthetic_Lubricants_and_Fluids/Worldwide/Grades_and_Datasheets/Syn_Grade_GradeAlkylated.asp>
>>
>><http://www.exxonmobilchemical.com/Public_Files/Synthetics/Synthetic_Lubricants_and_Fluids/Worldwide/Data_Sheet_Synesstic_v5.pdf>
>>
>><http://www.exxonmobilchemical.com/Public_Files/Synthetics/Synthetic_Lubricants_and_Fluids/Worldwide/Synthetics_GeneralBrochure.pdf>
>>
>> Thanks for the links.
>>
>> >From what I've read, the AN base oil is supposed to provide many of
>> >the benefits that esters bring without lots of the drawbacks.
>> >They're supposed to be cheaper, don't swell the seals as much, have
>> >high detergency, and don't compete as much with additives for
>> >surface area.
>>
>> That still leaves the polar molecule of the esters missing from the
>> formula - I don't have exact details but AN is, based on my hazy
>> chemistry memory, I'd think, only very mildly polar.
>
>I thought the problem with heavily polar ester molecules is that they
>"compete" with other additives for metal surface area. I was under
>the impression that one would rather have ZDDP bonding to metal parts
>than esters.

They play different roles and take effect under different conditions. The
MoDDC supposedly "plates" to cam lobes/tappets under extreme
pressure/scuffing; the polar molecule is supposed to allow the oil to cling
to upper engine parts during drainback. I don't see how the could
"compete" - one is an additive, the other a blending agent.

> Castrol used to advertise the polarized nature of the
>esters in Syntec and alleged protection properties until the FTC shut
>them down. I've heard that Castrol's new "Start Up" motor oil
>contains polarized esters, and I suppose they believe the clingy
>nature of esters helps with startup.

They've been selling under the same marketing blurb in the U.K. for several
years - Magnatec or some such name. Dunno why the FTC would have shut them
down when you see all the other snake oil claims.

BTW I'm off on vacation for a couple of weeks so won't be participating
further in this thread.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

On Tue, 03 May 2005 19:12:10 -0700, SoCalMike
<mikein562athotmail@hotmail.com> wrote:

>George Macdonald wrote:
>>
>> It's no big deal - all politics and marketing IMO. If you bought one of
>> those long interval cars, would you follow the umm, "directions"?:-)
>
>yeesh. mobil1 now has a 15(?)k mile oil i saw at wallyworld. now whats
>so different/better/special that they can say itll last 15k miles?

I believe the German mfrs are copying Porsche with their in-engine "oil
analyzer" which advises if the oil should be changed before the 15K is
up... depending, of course, on driving profile. When your oil sump
capacity is measured in gallons, it makes more sense.:-)

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

George Macdonald wrote:
> On 3 May 2005 12:38:36 -0700, "y_p_w" <y_p_w@hotmail.com> wrote:

I know George says he's on vacation, but......

> >I thought the problem with heavily polar ester molecules is that
they
> >"compete" with other additives for metal surface area. I was under
> >the impression that one would rather have ZDDP bonding to metal
parts
> >than esters.
>
> They play different roles and take effect under different conditions.
The
> MoDDC supposedly "plates" to cam lobes/tappets under extreme
> pressure/scuffing; the polar molecule is supposed to allow the oil to
cling
> to upper engine parts during drainback. I don't see how the could
> "compete" - one is an additive, the other a blending agent.

The way it was told to me by a lube chemist is that very polarized
ester molecules and antiwear compounds electrostatically bond to the
surface and that they "compete" to bond to the metal surface area.

> > Castrol used to advertise the polarized nature of the
> >esters in Syntec and alleged protection properties until the FTC
> >shut them down. I've heard that Castrol's new "Start Up" motor oil
> >contains polarized esters, and I suppose they believe the clingy
> >nature of esters helps with startup.
>
> They've been selling under the same marketing blurb in the U.K. for
> several years - Magnatec or some such name. Dunno why the FTC would
> have shut them down when you see all the other snake oil claims.

Remember the claims of Castrol Syntec with "FSX"? They had the
TV spots where several engines were run on a bench, then drained
of oil. One by one the engines quit until the one running Syntec
was the only one still working. They also had the ad where they
drained an engine of Syntec, put one quart in, and ran it. They
were told to stop those claims because it didn't represent the
way most people use motor oil, and didn't explain that there might
be damage as a result of such use even if they didn't completely
die.

On Tue, 03 May 2005 19:12:10 -0700, SoCalMike
<mikein562athotmail@hotmail.com> wrote:

>George Macdonald wrote:
>>
>> It's no big deal - all politics and marketing IMO. If you bought one of
>> those long interval cars, would you follow the umm, "directions"?:-)
>
>yeesh. mobil1 now has a 15(?)k mile oil i saw at wallyworld. now whats
>so different/better/special that they can say itll last 15k miles?

When the first introduced Mobil 1 in ~1975, they claimed it was good
for 25,000 miles.

Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On Tue, 03 May 2005 19:12:10 -0700, SoCalMike
> <mikein562athotmail@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >George Macdonald wrote:
> >>
> >> It's no big deal - all politics and marketing IMO. If you bought
> >> one of those long interval cars, would you follow the umm,
> >>"directions"?:-)
> >
> >yeesh. mobil1 now has a 15(?)k mile oil i saw at wallyworld. now
> >whats so different/better/special that they can say itll last 15k
> >miles?
>
> When the first introduced Mobil 1 in ~1975, they claimed it was good
> for 25,000 miles.

I was lusting after a Big Wheel then, but wasn't it:

A) A 5W-20 weight oil. Mobil claimed it was acceptable in place
of typical motor oil weights of the time.

B) Primarily PAO with no esters. The reports I've heard about that
initial Mobil 1 was that it would leak out of seals at an alarming
rate.