New Mobil1 15W-50 formulation? | GTAMotorcycle.com

New Mobil1 15W-50 formulation?

Vlad

Vlad

Banned
Site Supporter
Just came back from Canadian Tire with four liters of Mobil1 15W-50. On closer look, I found out that there are two slightly but obviously different oils:

IMG_0134.JPG


IMG_0133.JPG


I've been using the one on the right (the brown-ish label, for lack of a better identification) for years. There have been some changes over the years (red cap, gold cap, etc), but there was always only one type of Mobil1 15W-50. Now there's the other one (red label) that I haven't seen before and it has an obviously different formulation - the CF designation is now gone. They both cost the same and I'm sure no harm would come from using either or both, but I am a little confused.

Can anyone shed some light on this?
 
The "CF" rating is for compression-ignition (i.e. diesel) engines, and is obsolete. It's possible that the difference is not actually involving the formulation (are any of the other standards that it claims compliance with any different) but rather that they've just stopped claiming compliance with a standard that is obsolete anyway.

I used to use this oil also, and never had any issue with it, but have opted to change to Rotella T6 which (A) explicitly claims compliance with JASO-MA (important for wet clutches) and (B) has a lower viscosity which ought to be better for reducing frictional drag in the engine a little.
 
Brian P said:
The "CF" rating is for compression-ignition (i.e. diesel) engines, and is obsolete. It's possible that the difference is not actually involving the formulation (are any of the other standards that it claims compliance with any different) but rather that they've just stopped claiming compliance with a standard that is obsolete anyway.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification. I couldn't find any trace of two different 15W-50 on Mobil1 web site, so it's probably just a new package for the same old oil.

Brian P said:
I used to use this oil also, and never had any issue with it, but have opted to change to Rotella T6 which (A) explicitly claims compliance with JASO-MA (important for wet clutches) and (B) has a lower viscosity which ought to be better for reducing frictional drag in the engine a little.
Click to expand...

T6 is a very good oil, but I think you are using it for the wrong reasons. JASO is not a very reputable standard, not to mention that it's overlapping with API and largely irrelevant if the rewiews/reports I have read are to be trusted. "Wet clutch compliance" is mostly a myth - no 10W-40 oil on the market today has so called "friction modifiers" that would interfere with wet clutch operation and neither do any "diesel-specific" oils, AFAIK. Lower viscosity has some positive effect when starting up at very low temperatures, the temperatures most of us never ride at. It also means that it's made of a lower viscosity base stock with considerably more additives that break down over time. Reports for T6 state that it's viscosity break down was on par or worse than cheap mineral 10W-40. Having all that in mind I would rather use Shell Rotella triple protection 15W-40 mineral and change it slightly more often. For what it's (not) worth 15W-40 is also JASO certified.
 
The oil analysis results that I've seen for engines that I have an interest in, have indicated that Rotella T6 is giving very low wear metals, and that's all I'm concerned with. It also allows me to use a single oil for every vehicle that I own.
 
Oil analysis rules. If you find the results to your liking, go with it. All your vehicles use the same viscosity oil? Please do elaborate.
 
Vlad said:
Oil analysis rules. If you find the results to your liking, go with it. All your vehicles use the same viscosity oil? Please do elaborate.
Click to expand...

VW TDI diesel - the Rotella does not meet VW 505.01 because it has too much antiwear additives in it, i.e. it's better for the camshaft but worse for the catalytic converter (but the engine doesn't use any appreciable engine oil, so if the engine is not burning it, it's not getting to the catalyst anyway). It's the correct viscosity and oil analysis by others has found it to be very good.

For all of the bikes, it meets JASO MA as specified. The older bikes don't call for JASO MA ... but they were built before that specification existed.
 
Last edited:
Ah diesel, that explains it. I wonder when is North America finally going to start appreciating diesel engines in cars? Even the VW and Mercedes diesels of the eighties were very good engines with great fuel economy (my Golf would get an easy 700Km on a tank with very spirited driving) and torque no gas engine of comparable displacement could reach. Mercedes 200 was a standard taxi vehicle and many lasted over a million kilometers. Today diesels are considerably better with turbos and without high pressure pumps that were the only Achilles's heel of old diesels (not failing often, but very expensive to replace). What is everyone waiting for?
 
You should be safe. I used the Mobil1 15-50 with no additives for yrs in my bikes. As Brian has chosen to do, I also have switched to Rotella T6



....and Vlad...don't kid yourself that modern diesels aren't hi pressure fuel systems. Most modern common rail and direct injection stuff runs more than 20,000 psi....and replacement injectors run from $500-$1200 each!
 
omnivore said:
You should be safe. I used the Mobil1 15-50 with no additives for yrs in my bikes. As Brian has chosen to do, I also have switched to Rotella T6
Click to expand...

I've been using Mobil1 15W-50 for the last 120,000Km on my Bandit. I'm not worried if it's safe, I was just curious about this apparent change in formulation.

omnivore said:
....and Vlad...don't kid yourself that modern diesels aren't hi pressure fuel systems. Most modern common rail and direct injection stuff runs more than 20,000 psi....and replacement injectors run from $500-$1200 each!
Click to expand...

Damn, you just forced me to read up on "common rail" and other modern diesel fuel delivery systems :). I was under the impression that they don't have high pressure piston pumps. I stand corrected. It looks like the complexity/price has just moved a bit from the pump to the injectors. Of course, that does not mean more modern systems are not better.
 
The current (2009 onward) VW diesels use a HPFP ... and VW/Bosch is having major issues with it. It's to the point that this particular VW diesel enthusiast (me) is not buying a common-rail TDI until such time as VW has definitively fixed the issue. They're under investigation by NHTSA in the States for this issue and they may be forced to either recall them or issue an extended warranty. There's another newer-design HPFP manufactured by Delphi and in use on a european 3-cylinder TDI which is claimed to not have the issue that the Bosch HPFP has, and it's a different internal design - a good thing, because the Bosch HPFP has some internal design features that are idiotic in my opinion. Some of the pick-up truck diesels also use a Bosch HPFP but I think it's the next size bigger. Dunno if they're having issues, but the pick-up truck diesels 2007 and onward are all having major issues with the emission control systems - the VW seems sorted out in that regard; it's just the darn HPFP.

I bought my '06 because I knew the new emission rules were coming and I didn't want to be the guinea pig. Last year of no DPF, last year of no de-NOx catalyst, last year of no HPFP. The engine in my car has an issue with the flat-tappet lifters but only if you use a poorly-chosen oil. I can deal with that.

My dad has a 2011 Golf TDI, complete with HPFP, and he has not had any trouble with it. Canadian diesel fuel has better lubricity than US fuel (ours meets the international standards - US fuel does not) and this may have something to do with it - but I do frequent trips to the USA, and HPFP failures are not completely unknown here in Canada, either ...
 
Brian, why is "CF" obsolete? The "C" designation (now "CJ") is still in use. "CF" may be an older standard, but be warned that sometimes standards change and newer oils may not meet older standards. A good example of this is flat-tappet gas engines like the 4.0L in my Jeep. "SM" allows more wear than the older "SL" standard which is why it's better for me to ensure that my oil meets "SL".

And what "international standards" does Canadian fuel meet that American fuel does not? The only one I can think of is sulfur levels in fuel (maybe not all gas stations in the US have made the switch?). I know that the petroleum industry in Canada has moved to ULSD over the last couple of years and it's hard to get anything but ULSD. Makes sense because new off-highway equipment will now come equipped with aftertreatment (DPF, SCR).

Edit: Sulfur levels in ULSD fuel in US and Canada is 15ppm. I believe it is 10ppm in Europe and Japan.

And Vlad, Cummins has been using HPCR (High Pressure Common Rail) for some time now. The onset of the higher pressure means more stringent fuel filtration requirements.
 
Interesting, thanks. I learn something new every day :)
 
I have used it in all my racebikes for years no issues. However a 15 50 is a little heavy for street use IMO
 
kneedragger88 said:
I have used it in all my racebikes for years no issues. However a 15 50 is a little heavy for street use IMO
Click to expand...

I guess it depends on the bike. My Bandit is oil cooled so operating temperatures are considerably higher than water cooled engines. 15W-50 is also within manufacturer recommended viscosity range. It's probably just a psychological thing, but I wouldn't feel comfortable with 10W-40 at temperatures I was riding in this summer (over 40 for hours - my oil temp gauge went all the way up to 120 even at highway speeds). This particular oil has been proven on many Bandits over the years and has better reputation than Amsoil.
 
EngineerJoe said:
Brian, why is "CF" obsolete? The "C" designation (now "CJ") is still in use. "CF" may be an older standard, but be warned that sometimes standards change and newer oils may not meet older standards. A good example of this is flat-tappet gas engines like the 4.0L in my Jeep. "SM" allows more wear than the older "SL" standard which is why it's better for me to ensure that my oil meets "SL".
Click to expand...

No current production diesel on-road engine specifies the use of engine oil of "CF". They are all CJ-4 and that standard is written primarily for emission system compliance (to protect the DPF) rather than engine protection. And you're right about newer oils sometimes not meeting older standards. VW diesels through 2006 may have overhead camshafts, but they also have flat tappets. The new engines use rollerized followers. The older engines want a 5w40 with a decent amount of ZDDP in it although VW 505.01 puts a maximum on it. The new engines want a 5w30 (VW 507.00) and can live with less ZDDP. Most oil manufacturers say that their 5w30 VW 507.00 oils also meet VW 505.01 ... but there have been enough cam and lifter failures on 2004 through 2006 TDI engines using those oils that I don't believe it, which is why I've stayed with a 5w40 that still has decent ZDDP in it.

EngineerJoe said:
And what "international standards" does Canadian fuel meet that American fuel does not? The only one I can think of is sulfur levels in fuel (maybe not all gas stations in the US have made the switch?). I know that the petroleum industry in Canada has moved to ULSD over the last couple of years and it's hard to get anything but ULSD. Makes sense because new off-highway equipment will now come equipped with aftertreatment (DPF, SCR).
Click to expand...

It's not the sulfur, we are on ULSD and have been since 2006 (and we were ahead of the Americans on the switchover). The difference is in the lubricity of the fuel. The Americans are using ASTM D975 which allows a 520mm wear scar on a particular test (see http://oxytane.com/mystery/Liquid fuels/Lubricity Bulletin79.pdf for info on this). The Canadian standard for lubricity in diesel fuel is CAN/CGSB-3.517 and specifies 460mm wear scar (a smaller wear number is better). The 460mm wear scar specification is in line with similar standards in Europe. Bosch has made public an ominous chart which shows the relationship between the expected lifetime of a particular injection pump component and the lubricity of the fuel. It is extremely exponential, and the expected lifetime of the pump on 520mm wear scar fuel is probably (going from memory here - can't find the chart right now) 10 times less than on 460mm wear scar fuel.
 
Brian P said:
and HPFP failures are not completely unknown here in Canada, either ...
Click to expand...

Do you know personally someone who had an issue? On the TDI board, I have asked several times, but I never got to the canadian TDI owner, who used only Canadian diesel. It's all "friend of a friend of a friend" type of a thing or a guy who managed to pump gas into his TDI and the pump got contaminated .... so for now, I will not be loosing any sleep over it :)
 
kneedragger88 said:
I have used it in all my racebikes for years no issues. However a 15 50 is a little heavy for street use IMO
Click to expand...


My ST1300 gets 20w50 in the 'hot' season of summer, otherwise, spring / fall would get normal 10w40 ... I find the 20w50 makes the engine a bit smoother for highway cruising
 
Does anyone know where to buy 15w50 Synthetic Oil in GTA?

As the title says, wondering if anyone knows of somewhere in the GTA or Hamilton area that stocks/retails Mobil1 15w50 synthetic motor oil.

T.I.A.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom