Mobil 1 5W-20

[Matt Whiting]

[email protected] wrote:


I don't think I've ever seen it.

Mobil Delvac 1 is basically the fleet version of Mobil 1. I used it
years ago mainly because it came in 1 gallon jugs and was much easier
than messing with the loose quarts. It was designed for owners of
fleets of diesel engine vehicles, but it also met the API auto standard
of the time (this was in the late 70s).

I think Delvac 1 stopped following the gasoline engine specs sometime in
the early 80s and I haven't seen it for years so I'm not sure if they
even sell it still. They probably do, but I don't get to the Mobil
distributor very often and they only sold it throught a distributor back
in the 70s.

Matt

 

[CBX2]

Delvac is synthetic for diesels.

RIPPER
FREEDOM WILL NEVER BE FREE!
BOYCOTT CALIFORNIA SPORT TOURING!

 

[Brian Nystrom]

I agree that most oils are good enough most of the time, but I disagree
that oil is oil. About the only independent and fairly comprehensive
test of oils that I've seen was done by MCN (Motorcycle Consumer News)
magazine. They have tested oils twice in the last decade or so and the
difference between the top and bottom oils is very dramatic, often 2X or
more in tests such as the ability to maintain viscosity, etc.

Please define "2X". It's extremely important to put the differences into
context. What are the tested parameters? What are the differences in
terms of actual durability in the engine?

There is also a substantial difference between the operating parameters
of motorcycle engines and automobile engines. In particular, motorcycle
engines routinely operate at rpms that are double that of car engines.
That creates very different stresses on oils. An oil that is "superior"
to another when used in a motorcycle engine may be no better in a car
engine, in practical terms.

Cheap oils really are much worse than top rated oils.

In what regard? Specifics really matter here. Blanket statements like
that aren't helpful.

It may not make a
difference if you drive your car only 100,000 in easy conditions and
then trade it in, but if you drive 200,000 plus as I intend to (except
my last two vehicles got totaled at 143K and 182K), in a variety of
conditions from -20 to over 100, in the mountains, etc., then I'd rather
have the good stuff.

I see your point, but I'm not convinced that it makes any difference.
The length of time you intend to drive your car doesn't matter. What
does matter is how long you leave the oil in the engine. If you want to
push the envelope on oil change intervals (10K miles+), it makes sense
to use the most durable oil you can find. If you change your oil at
suggested intervals, any oil will last that long. That's been shown in
numerous studies.

It's well know and accepted that that ~90% of engine wear occurs on
startup. Oils that flow better, such as synthetics, will help reduce
wear, as they get to all parts of the engine faster. However, if you
really want to extend the life of your engine, install a pre-oiler. That
ensures that the engine is fully lubricated BEFORE you start it. That
should make much more difference in wear and long-term durability than
one's choice of oil.

 

[Matt Whiting]

Please define "2X". It's extremely important to put the differences into
context. What are the tested parameters? What are the differences in
terms of actual durability in the engine?

I don't have the magazine handy and I don't recall all of the parameters
tested, but it was things like TBN, levels of certain friction reducers,
oxidation reducers, etc. They provided bar graphs for all of the
relevant tests and the height of the best oils was twice that of the
cheap oils and sometimes even greater disparities.

There is no easy way to measure differences in engine durability in a
controlled way and it would cost millions to even attempt that. So, you
have to use surrogate measures.

There is also a substantial difference between the operating parameters
of motorcycle engines and automobile engines. In particular, motorcycle
engines routinely operate at rpms that are double that of car engines.
That creates very different stresses on oils. An oil that is "superior"
to another when used in a motorcycle engine may be no better in a car
engine, in practical terms.

They tested both car and motorcycle oils. There conclusion was that
most motorcycle oils weren't different enough from car oils to justify
the price premium. But it did appear that good oils were much better
than cheap oils. And synthetics were much better than most dino oils.

In what regard? Specifics really matter here. Blanket statements like
that aren't helpful.

Call up the folks at MCN and buy a back issue of the magazine that
contained the oil test. I'm sure they will know which issue and can
sell you a copy. I can't remember the specifics from 5-6 years ago.
And you wouldn't believe me anyway so do some research for yourself.

http://www.mcnews.com/mcn/

I see your point, but I'm not convinced that it makes any difference.
The length of time you intend to drive your car doesn't matter. What
does matter is how long you leave the oil in the engine. If you want to
push the envelope on oil change intervals (10K miles+), it makes sense
to use the most durable oil you can find. If you change your oil at
suggested intervals, any oil will last that long. That's been shown in
numerous studies.

Sure it matters how many miles you drive your car. If the engine wears
twice as fast using a cheap oil as a premium oil, then it will run half
as many miles. If the premium oil wear rate will let the engine last
250,000 miles, then the same engine with the cheap oil can be expected
to last only 125,000 miles. This isn't rocket science.

You say numerous studies, can you point me to one?

It's well know and accepted that that ~90% of engine wear occurs on
startup. Oils that flow better, such as synthetics, will help reduce
wear, as they get to all parts of the engine faster. However, if you
really want to extend the life of your engine, install a pre-oiler. That
ensures that the engine is fully lubricated BEFORE you start it. That
should make much more difference in wear and long-term durability than
one's choice of oil.

Again, any proof for your statement? I've heard this as well,
especially in the aviation industry, but I've also seen many counter
examples that suggest otherwise. For example, the airplanes that are
started most often and flown the least hours at a time are single-engine
trainers, yet their engines often last much longer than large singles
that are flown 2-3 hours at a time.

I've seen many suggestions that frequency of operation of the enigne is
more important than the number of starts and shutdowns. However, I've
seen NO data that supports either hypothesis, just anecdotal information
and observations.

Matt

 

[Mike Marlow]

Sure it matters how many miles you drive your car. If the engine wears
twice as fast using a cheap oil as a premium oil, then it will run half
as many miles. If the premium oil wear rate will let the engine last
250,000 miles, then the same engine with the cheap oil can be expected
to last only 125,000 miles. This isn't rocket science.

Hey Matt - can I jump in for a bit? Thanks.

While taking no exception to your point, I'd ask if that mysterious point of
diminishing returns plays in here. Conventional dino oil will do a fine job
of protecting a car and providing a 250,000 mile life expectancy with ease.
Folks like myself adhere to a 3,000 or 4,000 change interval and the concept
of dino oil giving this kind of performance is well established. Synthetics
are supposed to provide the same level of protection with half the oil
changes.

So my question is - is there really a useable difference between the premium
oils and a standard oil? Heck, what is a premium oil? Does that term imply
synthetic, or does it include dino oils with certain additives? I find it
easy not to argue with the notion that a super grade of oil will offer
longer protection, but my question really centers around whether that is
ever even noticeable in the life of a car. For the sake of conversation, I
assume the life expectancy of a car to be 250,000 miles. I have enough
experience getting this kind of life out of my motors with conventional dino
oil that it's no longer anecdotal to me.

Did I just stumble over a point that's already been covered in this thread,
and that I missed?

 

[Matt Whiting]

Hey Matt - can I jump in for a bit? Thanks.

While taking no exception to your point, I'd ask if that mysterious point of
diminishing returns plays in here. Conventional dino oil will do a fine job
of protecting a car and providing a 250,000 mile life expectancy with ease.
Folks like myself adhere to a 3,000 or 4,000 change interval and the concept
of dino oil giving this kind of performance is well established. Synthetics
are supposed to provide the same level of protection with half the oil
changes.

It well may. I use synthetic mainly for cold weather starts as I find
that my vehicles start much better and my batteries last much longer
using synthetics. I've gotten 8-9 years out of several batteries in
cars with synthetic oil and used to get 3-5 using dino oil.

So my question is - is there really a useable difference between the premium
oils and a standard oil? Heck, what is a premium oil? Does that term imply
synthetic, or does it include dino oils with certain additives? I find it
easy not to argue with the notion that a super grade of oil will offer
longer protection, but my question really centers around whether that is
ever even noticeable in the life of a car. For the sake of conversation, I
assume the life expectancy of a car to be 250,000 miles. I have enough
experience getting this kind of life out of my motors with conventional dino
oil that it's no longer anecdotal to me.

From a wear standpoint, I believe there is a difference, but I agree
that it may not matter in the typical lifespan of a car. However, I
don't know that any data exists on this point one way or the other. I
have seen engines taken apart with well over 100K on them, and the
engines with synthetic oil are vastly cleaner than those using dino oil.
This may or may not matter, but if a chunk of sludge breaks loose and
clogs an oil passage, then I suspect that the synthetic oil will have
been much better.


Matt

 

[Bob Adkins]

Can you point me to these tests. I've never seen the off-brand
SuperTech tested anywhere.

Matt,

I'm coming in late here, but last I heard, SuperTech is re-labeled
Penzoil/Quaker State, in turn made by Shell. I suppose that would quickly
change if Wal-Mart would get a better contract from Texaco, BP, Exxon-Mobil,
etc.

 

[Brian Nystrom]

I don't have the magazine handy and I don't recall all of the parameters
tested, but it was things like TBN, levels of certain friction reducers,
oxidation reducers, etc. They provided bar graphs for all of the
relevant tests and the height of the best oils was twice that of the
cheap oils and sometimes even greater disparities.

Unfortunately, without knowing the scale of the bar grapha, a 2X
difference is meaningless. To make an analogy, an amplifier with .002%
total harmonic distortion has 2X as much as one with .001%, but neither
is audible. In practical terms, it makes no difference. Perhaps the oil
study is different, but we have no way of knowing that.

There is no easy way to measure differences in engine durability in a
controlled way and it would cost millions to even attempt that. So, you
have to use surrogate measures.
True.


They tested both car and motorcycle oils. There conclusion was that
most motorcycle oils weren't different enough from car oils to justify
the price premium. But it did appear that good oils were much better
than cheap oils. And synthetics were much better than most dino oils.

Again, better in what regard and to what extent? It's all meaningless
without context.

Call up the folks at MCN and buy a back issue of the magazine that
contained the oil test. I'm sure they will know which issue and can
sell you a copy. I can't remember the specifics from 5-6 years ago. And
you wouldn't believe me anyway so do some research for yourself.

http://www.mcnews.com/mcn/

I don't expect you to remember, but if you had the information handy, I
would believe you.

Sure it matters how many miles you drive your car.

Agreed. "How" matters. How long you intend to keep it doesn't.

If the engine wears
twice as fast using a cheap oil as a premium oil, then it will run half
as many miles. If the premium oil wear rate will let the engine last
250,000 miles, then the same engine with the cheap oil can be expected
to last only 125,000 miles. This isn't rocket science.

You're making some ENORMOUS assumptions! I'll bet there was NOTHING in
the study you refer to that pointed to such a conclusion. The
differences in wear - if there are any at all - are more likely on the
order of a percentage point or less. To think that any oil is going to
reduce engine wear by half is laughable. If such a product existed, it
would be a revolutionary breakthrough and everybody would be clammoring
for it.

You say numerous studies, can you point me to one?

As you suggested, do a Google search. The data is out there.

Again, any proof for your statement?

Look it up. The data is out there.

I've heard this as well,
especially in the aviation industry, but I've also seen many counter
examples that suggest otherwise. For example, the airplanes that are
started most often and flown the least hours at a time are single-engine
trainers, yet their engines often last much longer than large singles
that are flown 2-3 hours at a time.

Are they using identical engines? If not, you can't make a direct
comparison. What other variables are there? To draw any conclusion, you
have to control the test parameters and only change one variable at a
time. That's the basis of the scientific method.

If you use impirical examples instead of controlled test data, it's
possible to come up with all kinds of conclusions.

I've seen many suggestions that frequency of operation of the enigne is
more important than the number of starts and shutdowns. However, I've
seen NO data that supports either hypothesis, just anecdotal information
and observations.

It's out there, if you look.

 

[Brian Nystrom]

Matt,

I'm coming in late here, but last I heard, SuperTech is re-labeled
Penzoil/Quaker State, in turn made by Shell. I suppose that would quickly
change if Wal-Mart would get a better contract from Texaco, BP, Exxon-Mobil,
etc.

Actually, SuperTech comes from Warren Oil, a large blending company that
produces oils for many labels. I didn't realize how the industry worked
until I checked into SuperTech oils. Many of the oils on the market are
not blended by the companies that sell them. Companies like Warren buy
base stocks from refiners (like Shell), blend in an additive package and
resell them to companies that put their label on them. SuperTech is
effectively "generic" oil, in that it comes from the same source and is
likely identical to some name brands, but it's sold cheaper since it's
not advertized and doesn't pass through as many hands in the supply
chain. It may well be indentical to Pennzoil and/or Quaker State.

 

[Matt Whiting]

Unfortunately, without knowing the scale of the bar grapha, a 2X
difference is meaningless. To make an analogy, an amplifier with .002%
total harmonic distortion has 2X as much as one with .001%, but neither
is audible. In practical terms, it makes no difference. Perhaps the oil
study is different, but we have no way of knowing that.

I do as I read the study. And I gave you a direct reference as to where
to obtain a copy if you are really interested in further educating
yourself. However, you seem happy using cheap oils and if you are happy
then that is all that matters, right?

Again, better in what regard and to what extent? It's all meaningless
without context.

Again, I showed you where to get the full article with the context and
assumptions they made, who made the tests, etc.

Agreed. "How" matters. How long you intend to keep it doesn't.

How long in time doesn't matter much, but I meant how long as in how
many miles driven.

You're making some ENORMOUS assumptions! I'll bet there was NOTHING in
the study you refer to that pointed to such a conclusion. The
differences in wear - if there are any at all - are more likely on the
order of a percentage point or less. To think that any oil is going to
reduce engine wear by half is laughable. If such a product existed, it
would be a revolutionary breakthrough and everybody would be clammoring
for it.

Yes, I was making a hypothetical argument to show how the number of
miles driven is directly related to whether different wear rates matter.
You had suggested that the amount of miles driven didn't matter, I was
showing that it matters greatly if the wear rates are different. I have
no data to show if the wear rates are different. And often engines
don't fail from wear per se, they fail from the rings getting stuck due
to varnish and carbon build-up, oil passages getting blocked with crud,
etc. I have seen enough engines torn down to know that synthetic oil
keeps an engine a LOT cleaner than dino oil.

As you suggested, do a Google search. The data is out there.

I have and I've not found anything other than AMSOIL sales pitches and
other questionable "data." I gave you a direct reference to my source.
If you have a source, which I doubt at this point, I'd appreciate you
returning the favor.

Look it up. The data is out there.

I've never seen any data. Lots of conjecture, but nothing even
approaching data. And I've personal experience that suggests this isn't
necessarily the case.

Are they using identical engines? If not, you can't make a direct
comparison. What other variables are there? To draw any conclusion, you
have to control the test parameters and only change one variable at a
time. That's the basis of the scientific method.

Not identical, as the trainer engines are smaller, typically 200 cubic
inches whereas most other singles are 360 cubes or larger. However, the
engine designs are virtually identical within a family (Lycoming or
Continental).

If you use impirical examples instead of controlled test data, it's
possible to come up with all kinds of conclusions.

Test data is an empirical result. You may wish to refresh your memory
on the meaning of empirical. I've never heard of impirical and don't
believe that to even be a word.

It's out there, if you look.

I have. If you had data, it wouldn't be hard to cut and paste a link.
I'm guessing you don't.


Matt

 

[Bob Adkins]

reduce engine wear by half is laughable. If such a product existed, it
would be a revolutionary breakthrough and everybody would be clammoring
for it.

That's the best point yet.

I'm sure that many oil manufacturers have set up wear tests on actual
engines over the years. Why haven't we seen the actual data from such tests?
Probably because the difference in wear is so miniscule that it's not
statistically significant. If it were significant, we would never hear the
end of it in TV commercials.

Synthetic oil can truly be useful at temperature extremes that are rarely
encountered by the average driver. I guess it is mostly bought by obsessive
types that feel compelled to use the "best" at any cost. I do not mean this
in a derogatory way. We all have our little obsessions at times.

 

[Matt Whiting]

Actually, SuperTech comes from Warren Oil, a large blending company that
produces oils for many labels. I didn't realize how the industry worked
until I checked into SuperTech oils. Many of the oils on the market are
not blended by the companies that sell them. Companies like Warren buy
base stocks from refiners (like Shell), blend in an additive package and
resell them to companies that put their label on them. SuperTech is
effectively "generic" oil, in that it comes from the same source and is
likely identical to some name brands, but it's sold cheaper since it's
not advertized and doesn't pass through as many hands in the supply
chain. It may well be indentical to Pennzoil and/or Quaker State.

The oil MAY be identical, but it may not be. Even worse is that it may
vary widely from lot to lot as often the oil is whatever is available at
the lowest price at a given time. All crude oils aren't created equal.

Also, another cost that is often less for generic oils in addition to
advertising costs is QA test costs. They very likely don't test to
nearly the level that a brand does who has a name to protect. Remember
the hit that Quaker State took back in the 70s (if memory serves) when a
bad lot of oil got out and ruined a number of people's engines. It took
decades for their sales to recover, and I don't think they ever did
fully recover. I used Quaker State at that time and haven't used it since.

Matt

 

[Matt Whiting]

That's the best point yet.

I'm sure that many oil manufacturers have set up wear tests on actual
engines over the years. Why haven't we seen the actual data from such tests?
Probably because the difference in wear is so miniscule that it's not
statistically significant. If it were significant, we would never hear the
end of it in TV commercials.

I actually don't think this has been done as the cost of doing so is
enormous. Most makers use surrogate tests such as the much vaunted (by
AMSOIL anyway) 4 ball wear test that ASTM developed. There are a few
others, but I don't think there is any good evidence of strong
correlation with real world results in real engines. It is simply too
expensive to do this.

Synthetic oil can truly be useful at temperature extremes that are rarely
encountered by the average driver. I guess it is mostly bought by obsessive
types that feel compelled to use the "best" at any cost. I do not mean this
in a derogatory way. We all have our little obsessions at times.

I find it useful be low about 20F and I encounter this for 12-16 weeks a
year on average.


Matt

 

[Matt Whiting]

Are they using identical engines? If not, you can't make a direct
comparison. What other variables are there? To draw any conclusion, you
have to control the test parameters and only change one variable at a
time. That's the basis of the scientific method.

Actually, that isn't the basis of the scientific method, at least not
for sophisticated scientists. In many "real world" situations, this
simply isn't possible, yet much science is still accomplished. Look up
Taguchi for more information.


Matt

 

[Bob Adkins]

Actually, SuperTech comes from Warren Oil, a large blending company that

There, you see? I told you it could change quickly!

Thanks for the heads up Brian.

 

[Bob Adkins]

Even worse is that it may vary widely from lot to lot as often the oil is
whatever is available at the lowest price at a given time.

Well, you are correct that it may be not be consistent. But if they promise
Wal-Mart 1 quality level of product then try to switch up on them, they'll
be in breech of contract. Wal-Mart is probably in the top 3-4 outlets for
oil. They have an audit system to ensure they get consistent quality, and
their suppliers only double cross them once!

No, I don't think anyone would want to antagonize the golden goose.

 

[Bob Adkins]

I actually don't think this has been done as the cost of doing so is
enormous.

Awww come on! The oil companies spend millions in ad's every year. Setting
up and testing 2 engines would cost less than 1 prime time TV ad.

You could arrange tests on a fleet of rental cars for chump change. Believe
me, there have been many tests. If the results were impressive and
unambiguous, they would post them on the Goodyear Blimp!

I find it useful be low about 20F and I encounter this for 12-16 weeks a
year on average.

Gah! You can have that cold weather man!

 

[Bob Adkins]

Actually, that isn't the basis of the scientific method, at least not
for sophisticated scientists. In many "real world" situations, this
simply isn't possible, yet much science is still accomplished. Look up
Taguchi for more information.

You can do controlled, high-precision tests on few parts, or take the
empirical route with many samples.

If it were me, I would test it on a fleet of 200 identical cars. 100 with,
100 without synthetic oil. After 100K miles, tear them all down and measure
all ID's and OD's. Average them up, and there you have a valid test. Even
with that many samples, you may not get a statistically significant
variation between oil types.

 

[Bob]

There, you see? I told you it could change quickly!

Thanks for the heads up Brian.

Super Tech oil is packaged by Warren Oil. They do not add or delete anything
from the oil that they repackage. I've been using Super Tech synthetic in my
vehicle for several years with no problems, and I called them to find out
what kind it was. They said it's made by specialty oil which is Pennzoil, or
Quaker State - they are the same, just different bottles.
http://www.wd-wpp.com/index.html

Just type super tech in the product name box http://msds.walmartstores.com/

 

[Matt Whiting]

Awww come on! The oil companies spend millions in ad's every year. Setting
up and testing 2 engines would cost less than 1 prime time TV ad.

Testing two engines doesn't mean squat statistically. I don't know what
sample size you would need to ensure statistical significance, but I
know it is a lot more than one for each condition being tested.

You could arrange tests on a fleet of rental cars for chump change. Believe
me, there have been many tests. If the results were impressive and
unambiguous, they would post them on the Goodyear Blimp!

But you then have no idea what driving conditions each car is seeing,
unless you heavily instrument each car. Again, this wouldn't be cheap.
And you'd have to ensure that none of the rental customers ever added
a quart of oil as that would contaminate your test.

The closest I've seen to this was a test that Consumer Reports ran with
a fleet of taxis many years ago. However, as I recall, they weren't
testing one oil against another, they were simply testing length of oil
change intervals. I believe that changed the oil in some engines every
3,000 and some every 6,000. They then tore down the engines at
something like 60,000 miles. I honestly don't remember the results now
in detail, but I seem to recall their conclusion was that 6,000 mile
change intervals were not a problem.

However, they admitted that this test had basically no correlation to
the driving that virtually all of their subscribers engage in. These
taxis ran 10 or more hours a day and rarely were shut down during the
day. Also, 60,000 miles is, in my opinion, not enough mileage to even
begin to gauge differences in engine wear unless something is very
dramatically wrong. So even this test, which they said was very
expensive, was virtually useless in the end.

Gah! You can have that cold weather man!

I don't mind it for the most part, but as I approach 50 it is getting a
little less fun each year. Then again, there is nothing like sitting in
front of a wood fire with a cup of hot chocolate or coffee in hand,
reading a good book, and watching the big snow flakes come down. It
doesn't get much better than that!


Matt