I wish XOM was more transparent about what they use in Mobil 1. Granted it's the total formulation that matters but I'd love to know if they're using alkylated naphthalene or POE. It sounds like the Triple Action Mobil 1 was born out of the Redbull Racing F1 oil, which XOM tapped into the cosmetic industry for some components. Pretty fascinating.
This is easy to figure out using Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy to look at what spikes you see when it's analyzed. They are using POE in their higher end formulations like their 20,000 mile rated engine oils. Its a great cleaner, it's a great seal sweller when not properly balanced with other additives but it's not the be-all-end-all in terms of making up the oil.
@@miscellaneous5215 It used to... It has been a while since I checked. I don't use it. I get better results with Amsoil Signature series and XL in our family of vehicles.
I'm all for friction reduction but not in place of increased wear as a trade-off. I'm tired of 20 weight oils from most oil manufacturers that increase wear as result of decreasing friction for fuel economy savings as it pertains to I.C.E's.
Yes but if one wanted to you could build a world class oil with just PAO, Esters, and AN. GI, GII and GIII are all about cost. That said you could also use GIII, GIV, and GV and builda world class Lubricant. It all comes down to more expensive base stocks, additive packages and VII's. We can largely walk away from GI and GII base stocks so long as the industry is scalling up the other base stock production and industry is able to accept a higher cost for lubricants. You can not keep pushing up drain intervals and biodegradability with out moving to more expensive products. Trying to improve effeciency and energy loss via lubricants it is clear even just looking at what automotive companies have done to improve C.A.F. E. rating. Cheap base stocks combined with thinner lower viscosity, lower hths oils and extended drain intervals is a recipe for varnish. So do we accept the varnish and focus on periodic cleaning or do we accept a more expensive lubricant?
Yes it’s all about cost and you guys really missed that point. Mobil 1 formula used to be ester + PAO then later on AN took the place of ester. Then they lost the FTC suit to Castrol and then everyone started using G4 dino oils. Esters and AN are more costly to make because they are batch processes whereas PAO is cheaper (at least in lower vis grades) because it is a continuous process. Hydrotreated G4 another continuous process is even cheaper.
I wish XOM was more transparent about what they use in Mobil 1. Granted it's the total formulation that matters but I'd love to know if they're using alkylated naphthalene or POE. It sounds like the Triple Action Mobil 1 was born out of the Redbull Racing F1 oil, which XOM tapped into the cosmetic industry for some components. Pretty fascinating.
This is easy to figure out using Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy to look at what spikes you see when it's analyzed. They are using POE in their higher end formulations like their 20,000 mile rated engine oils. Its a great cleaner, it's a great seal sweller when not properly balanced with other additives but it's not the be-all-end-all in terms of making up the oil.
@@CedroCron The current Triple Action shows no POE per FTIR. Oxidation values are all 10 now. I'm not sure about AN.
@@miscellaneous5215 It used to... It has been a while since I checked. I don't use it. I get better results with Amsoil Signature series and XL in our family of vehicles.
@@miscellaneous5215 depends on the region
JUST 2% POE (ESTEREX) TO SOLVE ADDITIVES, The group V is mostly AN.
I'm all for friction reduction but not in place of increased wear as a trade-off. I'm tired of 20 weight oils from most oil manufacturers that increase wear as result of decreasing friction for fuel economy savings as it pertains to I.C.E's.
how can reduce in friction increase wear? shear?
Yes but if one wanted to you could build a world class oil with just PAO, Esters, and AN. GI, GII and GIII are all about cost. That said you could also use GIII, GIV, and GV and builda world class Lubricant. It all comes down to more expensive base stocks, additive packages and VII's. We can largely walk away from GI and GII base stocks so long as the industry is scalling up the other base stock production and industry is able to accept a higher cost for lubricants. You can not keep pushing up drain intervals and biodegradability with out moving to more expensive products. Trying to improve effeciency and energy loss via lubricants it is clear even just looking at what automotive companies have done to improve C.A.F. E. rating. Cheap base stocks combined with thinner lower viscosity, lower hths oils and extended drain intervals is a recipe for varnish. So do we accept the varnish and focus on periodic cleaning or do we accept a more expensive lubricant?
High Performance Lubricants (HPL) out of Illinois.
Yes it’s all about cost and you guys really missed that point. Mobil 1 formula used to be ester + PAO then later on AN took the place of ester. Then they lost the FTC suit to Castrol and then everyone started using G4 dino oils. Esters and AN are more costly to make because they are batch processes whereas PAO is cheaper (at least in lower vis grades) because it is a continuous process. Hydrotreated G4 another continuous process is even cheaper.
@@duckylucky6505 I'm confused, I thought GIII were dino oils as you say and GIV was basically PAO bases?