Mobil 1 5W-20

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

Reply to
Matt Whiting
Loading thread data ...

Delvac is synthetic for diesels.

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

Reply to
CBX2

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.

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

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.

Reply to
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.

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.

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.

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.

formatting link

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?

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

Reply to
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.

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?

Reply to
Mike Marlow

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.

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

Reply to
Matt Whiting

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.

Reply to
Bob Adkins

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.

True.

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

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

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

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.

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

Look it up. The data is out there.

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.

It's out there, if you look.

Reply to
Brian Nystrom

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.

Reply to
Brian Nystrom

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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

Matt

Reply to
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.

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.

Reply to
Bob Adkins

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

Reply to
Matt Whiting

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.

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

Matt

Reply to
Matt Whiting

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

Reply to
Matt Whiting

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

Thanks for the heads up Brian.

Reply to
Bob Adkins

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. :)

Reply to
Bob Adkins

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!

Gah! You can have that cold weather man! :)

Reply to
Bob Adkins

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.
Reply to
Bob Adkins

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.

formatting link
Just type super tech in the product name box
formatting link

Reply to
Bob

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.

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.

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

Reply to
Matt Whiting

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.