• The Forums are now open to new registrations, adverts are also being de-tuned.

Shell Helix vs Mobil 1

st4

Banned
Joined
Mar 1, 2008
Messages
14,373
Location
In the driving seat
Car
C220cdi tourer
Shell wins.

Had my car back for a week from the dealer service where Mobil 1 229.5 was used and the car is noticably more gruff.

Still acceptable but next change, I am tempted to bring Shell Helix along as its better.
 
Out of interest can two oils meets the same specification but have different viscosities?
 
Out of interest can two oils meets the same specification but have different viscosities?

Yes, Mobil 1 do make a 0w-40 oil that meets 229.5spec. The shell was 5w-30 (meeting 229.5 spec) although I believe 5w-30 is in there just now.
 
Mmm. Cars are funny machines sometimes. This morning there was a lot of mist and therefore condensation in my car. The car sounded quieter though, or was I just being distracted having to wipe the windscreen every 200m.
 
Mmm. Cars are funny machines sometimes. This morning there was a lot of mist and therefore condensation in my car. The car sounded quieter though, or was I just being distracted having to wipe the windscreen every 200m.

Rain Ex is what you need ;)

Best bit is the faster you go, the faster the water drives off the screen. Brilliant.

Its getting a long run to Dumfrieshire tomorrow, and maybe further south all depends but won't be posting until sunday earliest. I'll keep updated, maybe it was because it was so cold this AM, but have noticed a tad gruffness since the service.
 
I think the MB 229.x Spec is more to do with chemical compatibility with the engine. The viscosity of oil to be used in it depends on the ambient temperature range of your environment. 0W-40 will go down to something like -30°C which is perhaps rather extreme in the UK. Mobile 1 is available in other viscosities, not all of them are available in the UK. Using a broad range oil can mean that it is too thin when cold and too thick when hot - when the engine is cold - but it should be just right when the engine is at operating temperature. The oil viscosity to be used is given in your handbook. There is a link to the MB229.x spec oils on another thread here.
 
I think the MB 229.x Spec is more to do with chemical compatibility with the engine.

And compatibility with dashboard service indicators, emissions equipment, etc, etc, etc - all of which have zip all to do with protection of the mechanical components of the engine.

Also MB will not give their approval unless provided with the formulation details of the oil - something not all oil manufacturers are prepared to do (confidentially agreements mean nothing in this age of the internet) which is why the only oil on the market to meet API CJ doesn't have MB approval.
 
Totally agree with you Steve and we stopped using it years ago, Shell Helix is by far the better Oil. Without doing it to death again (see my previous posts if interested) I would not put Mobil 1 anywhere near an engine of mine or a customers. I know how the base molecules of the synthesis are created and the molecular engineering is nowhere near the complexity of Shell. Seen too many failures on high performance engines running on Mobil 1 particularly Imprezas and Evo's. I'd go back to Shell if I were you.
 
I do not understand then the reason why MB like use to Mobil in there dealerships or recommend it in their top end engines such as the AMG ones. If it is more likely to cause failures on high performance engines why would they stick with it?
 
MB Temple Fortune use Shell Helix Ultra.

On a previous oil change the MB dealer (not Temple Fortune) used Castrol.

I think it's down to the deal that the individual dealership (even if it is MB-owned) strikes with the oil company. I doubt that the dealers have technical preference for one brand or the other, they will use the brand that gives them the best deal for the given spec oil (229.5 / 229.51 etc).
 
I do not understand then the reason why MB like use to Mobil in there dealerships or recommend it in their top end engines such as the AMG ones. If it is more likely to cause failures on high performance engines why would they stick with it?


Because it isn't likely to cause failure. It is one of the highest performance motor oils on the market.
 
MB Temple Fortune use Shell Helix Ultra.

On a previous oil change the MB dealer (not Temple Fortune) used Castrol.

I think it's down to the deal that the individual dealership (even if it is MB-owned) strikes with the oil company. I doubt that the dealers have technical preference for one brand or the other, they will use the brand that gives them the best deal for the given spec oil (229.5 / 229.51 etc).

I know that different dealerships use different oil and they just look at spec, as long as it meets their requirements they will use it. But then again i have spoken to a master technician who works for MB and moves around Tony Purslow dealerships where needed and he seems to think Mobil 1 is a superior oil.


Because it isn't likely to cause failure. It is one of the highest performance motor oils on the market.

I didnt think it was likely to cause failure, my comment was aimed at flanaia1 as he mentioned high performance cars using Mobil 1 having engine failures. I wouldnt have thought MB would like to be associated with/use/recommend any type of oil especially for their top end engines if it was likely to cause failures.

Surely the reputation of the reliability of their engines and cars is more important than any marketing/discount deals they have with any oil companies.
 
Also MB will not give their approval unless provided with the formulation details of the oil - something not all oil manufacturers are prepared to do (confidentially agreements mean nothing in this age of the internet) which is why the only oil on the market to meet API CJ doesn't have MB approval.

Interesting. I used to work for MoD in their Mechanical Testing of Lubricants Laboratory testing oils.
The American Petroleum Institute publishes its specifications that oils have to meet. They also use industry standard test engines and standard test routines.
So an oil company will blend a candidate oil to just pass the spec they are trying to achieve and test it in their own facilities. When they have an oil that passes the API spec they then submit a sample for certification to the API. If the oil passes they test the oil is awarded a certificate. Then the oil company will brand the oil and can put the API spec on the bottle.

As for chemical formula not being published. Well the chemists I used to work with would happily provide a chemical formula to all oils we used to test. I dont know how long it took but it was only a couple of days max before we had the chemical results.
The mechanical engine tests used to take us a minimum of 5 weeks!!!! As we used to run the engine on a known reference oil, then the candidate, then ref, then candidate, then ref. Each test was carried out on the same engine block and head but with new bearings, new piston and rings, new piston liner etc. for each test.

I would guess MB produce a specification that an oil has to meet to be given the MB code. I would guess that the oil companies provide a candidate to MB and MB get an independent test house to carry out the tests. If the oil passes it can use the MB code number. I guess this costs the oil companies a fair few quid!

Lastly to mention, our oil submissions I used to teat would only ever pass the tests by at maximum the difference in documented certified testers. Each year organisations would send their raters/testers to a 3 day refresher course to ensure all raters gave the same results. Sort of a rater calibration workshop.

Anyway while I have very little MB knowledge so they may do things different the above is the normal certification procedure.
 
Because it isn't likely to cause failure. It is one of the highest performance motor oils on the market.

You should have qualified that by "in your opinion" In my opinion and 30 years in professional motorsport and engine rebuilding it is one of the worst synthetics out there.

We have seen loads of engine failures due to deterioration of components usually plastic with Mobil 1 particularly on Porsches, Evo and Subaru. Have to admit never seen an MB failure though.
 
When I bought my CLC I was given a litre of Shell for top-up by the dealership, so presumably they use it when servicing cars.
 
You should have qualified that by "in your opinion" In my opinion and 30 years in professional motorsport and engine rebuilding it is one of the worst synthetics out there.

We have seen loads of engine failures due to deterioration of components usually plastic with Mobil 1 particularly on Porsches, Evo and Subaru. Have to admit never seen an MB failure though.

Given that it is used as OEM fill by Mercedes on the SLR, Porsche, Aston Martin, Bentley etc I don't think it is just my opinion. Porsche in point of fact state on their website " Porsche explicitly recommends Mobil 1 as service lubricant".

Mobil 1 - Cooperation partners - Partners - Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG

Presumably that is based on research and experience in the field, not just that Mobil will give them a bit of discount.

Personally I haven't seen any issues with Mobil 1 and I've used it in historic rally car engines I've built. My tubocharged Volvo still runs its factory original turbo after 220K miles on Mobil 1 as well as the original bottom end bearings.
 
Given that it is used as OEM fill by Mercedes on the SLR, Porsche, Aston Martin, Bentley etc I don't think it is just my opinion. Porsche in point of fact state on their website " Porsche explicitly recommends Mobil 1 as service lubricant".

Mobil 1 - Cooperation partners - Partners - Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG

Presumably that is based on research and experience in the field, not just that Mobil will give them a bit of discount.

Personally I haven't seen any issues with Mobil 1 and I've used it in historic rally car engines I've built. My tubocharged Volvo still runs its factory original turbo after 220K miles on Mobil 1 as well as the original bottom end bearings.

I agree with what you are saying and the info that is out there my gripe is not with the lubricant or protective qualities of the oil such as bottom end bearings or indeed turbo's it is the interaction of the oil with plastic engine components and gaskets over time. Most manufacturers don't test or can't test for this, thus engines we have seen that have been run on Mobil 1 for significant periods have had failure of components, As my previous post I admit it is limited to a few manufacturers, but just my experience

As regards the SLR Mobil 1 is not automatic first fill, it is done to customer spec and they are asked which lubricants they prefer although I accept AMG openly publicise the use of Mobil 1. The Oil spec on the SLR is 229.3 not 229.5 because of its 5 stage oil pump and 2 stage pressure pump. The SLR goes back on a few things notably the oil spec and the 5G gearbox instead of the 7G both are done for a reason.
 
Last edited:
I agree with what you are saying and the info that is out there my gripe is not with the lubricant or protective qualities of the oil such as bottom end bearings or indeed turbo's it is the interaction of the oil with plastic engine components and gaskets over time. Most manufacturers don't test or can't test for this, thus engines we have seen that have been run on Mobil 1 for significant periods have had failure of components, As my previous post I admit it is limited to a few manufacturers, but just my experience

That is all about cause and effect. Did the manufacturer spec the component badly. Is it indeed the oil, would it have happened with Amsoil or Helix or Castrol Edge?

I can say that my turbo has lasted 220K miles, and clearly that is good; I have neither the time nor the inclination to run an identical turbo on dino oil and competing synthetics. Synthetic oils are a minefield; not all oils labelled ass synthetic are genuine Ester/PAO (Poly Alpha Olefin) synthetic oils, also known as group IV synthetics.
 
Just to say... for a number of years I was member on another car forum... the forum rules were that any 'oil thread' gains it's starter an automatic ban! Apparently over the years there have been a number of such 'oil threads', involving heated and emotional debates and going on endlessly. I guess these is one of this areas that car owners are passionate about but with no hard scientific evidence either way this kind of discussion can go on forever...
 
Just to say... for a number of years I was member on another car forum... the forum rules were that any 'oil thread' gains it's starter an automatic ban! Apparently over the years there have been a number of such 'oil threads', involving heated and emotional debates and going on endlessly. I guess these is one of this areas that car owners are passionate about but with no hard scientific evidence either way this kind of discussion can go on forever...

I wouldn't disagree with that. Personally I reckon that if the lubricant meets the manufacturer's specification it ought to be pretty safe. And Mercedes publish that information.

MB 229.51 - Mehrbereichs-Servicemotorenöle Low SPAsh (Spezifikation 229.51) - Mercedes-Benz Betriebsstoff-Vorschriften
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom