Re: MOBILE 1 10W-30
Howdy, folks.
Mobil has apparently formulated to keep more zinc-phosphorus anti-wear chemistry in the package, which is a very, very effective component. The OEMs have been trying to get the oil marketers to use less and less of this because they claim the phosphorus portion poisons catalytic converters. Because there is (still!) no engine test that demonstrates that phosphorus from oil harms catalysts, it's a continuing point of one side trying to bully the other about using it. It's much like lead in gasoline - cheap, effective octane enhancer benefit to consumers that arguably caused emissions difficulties for the OEMs.
Mobil claims to have 36% more anti-wear additive (than Mobil 1 formulation), which sounds like they have gone back to the 0.08% phosphorus level of the previous category. That might be taken wrong; these engine oil categories appear every two or three years and it might take that long for Mobil to conduct the extended drain tests. So as soon as the Mobil research is done, the latest and greatest category comes out and makes the oil with all the field data obsolete. In that regard, I applaud Mobil for the marketing guts to market a well-tested oil with a new performance claim and trying to differentiate their product rather than follow the commodity trail.
What this does, however, is disallow Mobil from a clear recommendation to use the oil in cars under warranty. You certainly could, it would be no worse than using an API SL oil (that had more phosphorus anyway) but Mobil is being honest, since the OEM requires an ILSAC GF-4 oil.
Mobil is also a global marketer and despite the reach, there are still only a handful of Mobil formulators. It is frustrating (as it was for me when doing the same thing) that one country (i.e. US) follows one lubricant development criteria and other countries (Europe) follow another. Europe is after a robust, faultless, high level of protection for the hardware oil, while the US is focused on fuel economy and emissions. So again, it could be that Mobil has taken the desirable European formulation and foregone the US emissions criteria for this product. (The API engine testing provides the API service symbol; the ILSAC GF-4 criteria adds a fuel economy and emissions criteria on top. Hence an oil can be API SL or API SM but doesn't have to be ILSAC GF-3 or ILSAC GF-4. Saying the oil meets ILSAC requirements then automatically includes API requirements.)
Now that we've touched on the API service symbol (the round "donut" on the back) and the ILSAC requirement (the "starburst" symbol on the front) let's talk about Amsoil. The ILSAC requirement costs extra time, money, testing, includes a manufacturing quality control process, and the manufacturer agrees to abide by certain manufacturing tolerances and recall provisions. It is what the OEMs point to when directing consumers to what oil to use. Therefore, falsely using it would be a slimy marketing tactic, no?
Here are a few Amsoil products. They all are viscosity grades typical for newer cars and they all seem to have the ILSAC symbol!! Surprise - only one is legal, the other three are clones of the symbol that appear to me to be there only to mislead the public. This issue is not a statement on the quality of the oil in the bottle, but that the use of a likeness will fool most people into thinking the oil has met certain performance and quality requirements. You can argue about whether you would buy something because it has the "Good Housekeeping Seal" or "Intel Inside" but at least if it says so, you expect it to be true. Sorry, Amsoil, sorry, Skip, until you clean up your customer information in your product marketing, this gives you a ********* eye.
Other comments: oils that turn dark quickly are good. The dispersants in the oil are picking up and holding soot, deposits, dust, etc in suspension so that it is removed when you change the oil. An oil that stays clear for a long time is bad, since it allows sludge to settle and stays in the engine.
Quote >The most important reason I change more frequently in the Viper is because oils loose their volatile compounds, and they tend to thicken, therefore creating drag on the engine, not to mention thicker oil harbors heat. <
Skip, all the literature about synthetic oils says that it is not volatile, that the superior thermal stability keeps the oil from thickening, and that the viscosity control keeps the oil running cooler. ????!!!!
In the end, can you go longer drains? Of course. Look at the oils in Europe that already do. Look at diesel oils in the US that go 40,000 to 80,000 miles. The oils are sometimes mineral, sometimes synthetic; it's the amount of additive that makes the difference. And if Mobil is entering the market with a Euro type oil, or increasing the additive level of a US oil, then it's no magic that drain intervals can be increased. If you want a conservative rule of thumb, take Mobil's word that they've increased the anti-wear additives by 36% and increase whatever your current drain interval is by 36%. So you guys that go 3000 miles can now go 4000 miles.
