I am well aware of the whole Castrol Mobil debacle. I lived through it all.

What is not plain to the public is that use of the word "synthetic" to describe lubricants has been watered down in definition & in most cases removed from the lexicon of the SAE & the API in their efforts to accommodate the rulings of the above case rather than take a stand.

This has resulted in the use of the term "synthetic" on even latest generation so called Group II Plus base oils which renders this almost meaningless. Group II Plus is ISO dewaxed & severely hydrotreated and nearly Group III. It is not Group III but has many benefits as it comes from the came process run slighly less severe. Such material comes from refineries in California, South Korea & China in the main with the technology licensed to other sites as well.

I prefer the German ruling as you know what you are getting. Basically they want every molocule in the base oil to be controlled, taylored & the same with no spurious or unstable molocules (e.g. PAO's). That is when "synthetic" means something i.e Group IV & many Group V's (Group V base stocks are basically anything that does not fall into Groups I to IV)

Result is you never know what you are getting labled synthetic & more license has been taken in this regard in the US than other markets. There are a number of countries that have loosely followed Germany's example but the cat is out of the bag generally due to loose definition subsequent to the above case.

When ExxonMobil labels a product fully synthetic they mean PAO (Group IV). I wonder if even they will continue this as it is expensive. (BTW I don't & did not work for them)

There are numerous papers by STLE members & members of the major oil industry, SAE & API that you can read that further confuse the issue.

Bottom line is "synthetic" does not mean what it used to mean on packaging.

Probably the only good thing to note is that modern engines do not require 100% synthetics (PAO's) for top lubrication performance. Decent blends that pass the MB severe testing regime are just fine.

 

OK, let's be more specific: can you name some oils that are group II+ and called synthetic (not synthetic blend) in the US? I'm not trying to bicker. I'm genuinely interested in this.


As I mentioned previously, ExxonMobil has already stopped labeling their flagship M1 0w-40 as fully synthetic in Germany as they started using VISOM (group III+) in place of PAO. It's now labelled "SHC / synthetic technology".

Yup. Since the word "synthetic" no longer means much, it is good that manufacturers have come up with their own specs that an oil has to meet to assure the required level of performance, and as such, they do not care how the oil is formulated. This effectively throws the entire oil base/group discussion out the window, and it's a good thing, IMO.

 

That would be disclosing proprietary information from a major Corporation which I'm not prepared to do on a public forum. The term "synthetic blend" is also meaningless.

I'm not trying to bicker either. Take a close look out there. It's not too difficult to find. It is evident that you have oil company connections.

BTW SHC / synthetic technology (SHC Synthese Technology TM) is also weasel wording ~ not so?

 

It is interesting to see what Mobil have done. Thanks for jogging me into doing some catching up on what old competitors are doing. I'm now retired but still consulting.

UK Label



German & sensitive country label



Mobil's German website still shows the synthetic claim/nomenclature in the product literature.

http://www.mobil.com/Germany-English...ife_0W-40.aspx


Such is the nonsense of the new synthetic regime.

Indeed I am delighted that Benz has been running it's Service Products approval process for so many years.

 

Yes ~ I'm aware of the US Gasoline sulphur level. Not great I'm afraid. We are also behind in SA & will only meet Euro4 about a year from now. It's nevertheless very low when compared with diesel & certainly does not require a high TBN oil. We do quite a few oil samples on the W203 forum & at 13K mile drain intervals (which was the norm with those cars) I have never seen a US sample from Blackstone condemned on low TBN level so it is not an issue. The most common problem one sees with M1 is shearing out of grade but not to any alarming level. It's frequently a 0W-30 at the end of it's useful life.

 

Not so. I'm just an oil nut on the side and spend way too much time on BITOG.

Yes. That is what I was trying to say.

 

Yeah, I've never seen Blackstone condemn an oil on TBN basis either. However, I have seen a few samples of low-SAPS oils that had a very low TBN only after a few thousand miles. Not sure it would have been OK to run them all the way out to 13K miles, but maybe. Other labs also take TAN into account. Once TAN starts creeping up, that can also be as an indication that the oil can't tame the acids anymore. Then there is nitration/oxidation that Blackstone doesn't even test for. I get my UOAs done by Wearcheck that provides more information for less money.

This used to be the case, but with the latest API SN formulation (now based on VISOM, not PAO), it looks like it's fairly shear stable now. I just did a UOA at 11K miles on mine and 100C viscosity was still very close to starting point, still in a 40-grade range.

 

It's nice to find somebody else taking an interest in lubrication. I'm going to keep an eye out for a used analysis with the new formulation. PAO is pretty shear stable but VI improvers (or viscosity modifiers as Americans like to call them) are still a weakness in this regard.

VISOM has a VI in the 140 range while good old ExxonMobil PAO SpectraSyn is in the 147 to 170 range so there is quite a lot of VI Improver in the new product. I hope they have chosen a good shear stable one. 10K miles never really showed the shear problem with old M1 but 13K seemed to break the camel's back.

I understand that XOM will cease production of SpectraSyn at the end of this year.

VISOM is nothing special. It is manufactured in exactly the same fashion as the Group III from my heritage company & we were the pioneers of the technology.

 

These are my last two UOAs on the wife's C300. The sample from 10/16/11 (first column) was on M1 0w-40 API SM, and after 8,800 miles it sheared more than the current sample (second column) on M1 0w-40 API SN after 11,000 miles. Not sure what ExxonMobil did, but it seems to be working...

 

The new formulation is somewhat obvious from change in additive element concentrations ~ some to preserve Cats. Samples look good. Shear stability certainly looks better. Pleased to see they are still using our additive company's Moly high temperature anti oxidant.

Typically with the M271 4 Cylinder engine with it's smaller sump & thus greater stress on the oil charge we would see slight oxidative thickening at 13K miles. With M112 & M272 6 cylinder engines it would typically shear & sometimes out of grade.

Here is a virgin sample of the previous M1 0W-40 Euro Formulation for comparison.

 

The old formulation had a starting 100C viscosity of 14.3 cSt, so this one being 13.36 is a bit on the thin side straight out of the gate, alas, these $20 oil analyses aren't always very accurate, and then there is probably batch-to-batch variation.

 

Yes there is batch to batch variation. As high viscosity base oils have risen in price so many are blending to the light end of the spectrum.

Yes ~ it should be understood that these labs are not using the sort of equipment that a development/research or forensic lab does. They are doing go ~ no go testing with ICP's, shear viscometers & the like to achieve quick mass sample turnaround. The results are accurate enough to track a trend & blow the whistle if a problem or imminent failure is detected.

 

Silly question but although its not MB229.5 approved, is Redline 5W30 ok to use on my Canadian 2010 C300?

Went for an oil change at a local indi shop, and thats what they use. Will this oil harm my engine? Can i use it till next change (20000 km) and then use MB229.5 approved after?

Thanks for the reply

 

Are you under warranty still?

 

extended warranty yes

For what it's worth, that Redline is BMW LL-01 approved. Is there any differences between LL-01 and 229.5?

 

While you will most likely be fine, I would personally feel more comfortable running an oil that's officially MB 229.5 approved, to eliminate any possibility of MB trying to weasel their way out of providing engine-related warranty coverage.

It's not. It is only "suitable for."

Yes, there is. MB 229.5 is a more stringent spec.

 

big thanks... guess I'll do another oil change. The joy