Additive packs are more important than base oil

[ELS]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

And to think they sued Castrol for that....

---

Nobody got sued!!!!

---

It was to my understanding that Mobil sued the #@$%! out of Castrol over labeling some of their oils synthetic because the majority of them were not "true synthetics" like those mobil was producing at the time.

From what I heard, the lawsuit came down to and was hinged upon the definition of "synthetic" as it applies to oil... and in the end Mobil LOST... AND as a result now many have an oil labeled "synthetic" that is not really "synthetic" by the STRONGEST DEFINITION.

 

[ELS]

Quote:

---

Kind of like the new Havoline with "Deposit Shield". Wonder how much of that is legitimate additive improvements and how much of it is cost-reduction and/or profit-enhancing changes that are spun by marketing folks as the latest and greatest technological advance?

Nothing wrong with making money...just wonder how many of these claims are legitimate improvements by tribologist, chemists, and engineers versus how many are marketing hoo-haa smoke and mirrors.

---

Yeah... I saw that #@$%! and the new flashy containers.

Now I have to do some research to see what if anything changed, and if something did... rather or not the oil is worth a #@$%! anymore... BECAUSE I RUN HAVOLINE IN MY TRUCKS.

I might need to find another source for Chevron Supreme for a while until I see how it settles out.

 

[Lexura]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If Mobil has cheapened up on the base oil, how do we know it has not cheapened up on the additive package?

---

used oil analysis.

---

You meant this one, where GC shows lower Al, Fe, Cu, Pb, despite driving 700 more miles than Mobil 1 10w30?

http://theoildrop.server101.com/forums/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=UBB3&Number=241614

 

[glenncof]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

---

Yep, and we know from Terry's comments that there was a definite turn for the worse correlated with the time-frame of the change for many of the formulas.

---

Do I understand this to mean the old M1 (Grp 4?) is not as good as the new M1 (Grp3 ?) ??

If so, in what way ?

Do you attribute "worse" to basestock or add pack ?

I'm just trying to understand your comment.

 

[B00SS]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If Mobil has cheapened up on the base oil, how do we know it has not cheapened up on the additive package?

---

used oil analysis.

---

If we use used oil analysis then we get down to, "well my used oil analysis wasn't so good, was it my driving habits or my engine or the oil itself?" So then we compare my used oil analysis to someone else with the same engine. Then we compare the similar engines to those with similar driving habits. If we do find what is considered a "good" ad pack, we now have to start over to find other oils with the same ad pack for comparison.
Rather than go through all of this, I'd rather know that the oil is made up of "good" base stocks to begin with. That way I have only one thing to determine a good oil.

 

[AEHaas]

The answer depends on the characteristics you require.

A group 4 may have a higher natural viscosity index and therefore some grades require no viscosity index improvers. This is an asset if a multi-grade oil is needed. If the application only requires a straight 30 wt. oil with no VII then it may be that a group 1 is no worse assuming you have the same additives unrelated to viscosity.

Esters have a higher temperature range and are an asset if this characteristic is required.

aehaas

 

[Blue99]

Quote:

---

It was to my understanding that Mobil sued the #@$%! out of Castrol

---

Well, your "understanding" is wrong.

As explained by Patrick Bedard in the Nov. 2000 Car & Driver article:

Here's what happened, according to a detailed account published in the trade magazine Lubricants World. Late in 1997, Castrol changed the formula of its Syntec "full synthetic motor oil", eliminating the polyalphaolefin (PAO) base stock (that's the "synthetic" part, which makes up about 70% by volume of what's in the bottle) and replacing it with a "hydroisomerized" petroleum base stock.

Mobil Oil Corporation, maker of Mobil 1, "Worlds Leading Synthetic Motor Oil," said no fair and took its complaint to the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Council of Better Business Bureaus. NAD often arbitrates between feuding advertisers on their conflicting claims.

....In the end, NAD decided that the evidence constitutes a reasonable basis for the claim that Castrol Syntec, as currently formulated, is a synthetic motor oil, said Lubricants World.

The Lubricants World article can be read in it's entirety here:

Re-print of lubricants World Article

 

[PT1]

I don't need to worry about any of this because my oil has adaptive molecules......HA!

 

[m2200b]

Base Group 3 oil prices are falling. That's why they are being used. Better add packs are showing up in base group 2 oils as well as syn so I think improved add pack technology is independent of the shift to cheaper syn group 3 base oils.

 

[Lexura]

Quote:

---

Base Group 3 oil prices are falling. That's why they are being used. Better add packs are showing up in base group 2 oils as well as syn so I think improved add pack technology is independent of the shift to cheaper syn group 3 base oils.

---

The question is not the availability of such technology, it is the willingness of XOM to spend $ and use it to make a superior end product.
For now, I would give a huge credibility discount on anything that XOM says. I need independent data to verify every thing.
XOM says focus on the end product, but it is M1 end product that shows inferior used oil analysis.

 

[JAG]

Quote:

---

XOM says focus on the end product, but it is Mobil 1 end product that shows inferior used oil analysis.

---

That's vague and a categorical assessment. By what metrics do you see inferiority and relative to what other oils? Where do you see positives? If you only look at some things, you may be missing out big time. And what Mobil 1 oils are you referring to? They aren't all the same with just different viscosities. What are the limitations of wear metal levels in used oil analysis? Yes, I'm grilling you. Feel free to decline to answer...I know I have in the past at times. My point is to get you and everyone else to think hard so the BITOG forum has the best info possible.

 

[Lexura]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

XOM says focus on the end product, but it is Mobil 1 end product that shows inferior used oil analysis.

---

That's vague and a categorical assessment. By what metrics do you see inferiority and relative to what other oils? Where do you see positives? If you only look at some things, you may be missing out big time. And what Mobil 1 oils are you referring to? They aren't all the same with just different viscosities. What are the limitations of wear metal levels in used oil analysis? Yes, I'm grilling you. Feel free to decline to answer...I know I have in the past at times. My point is to get you and everyone else to think hard so the BITOG forum has the best info possible.

---

Did you even read the URL link to a Toyota 1mzfe engine and comments I posted about wear metals in a previous post?
If you wish others to think harder, please show the courtesy to read posts that are related to the topic you wish to discuss. I am not asking much, just in THIS thread.

 

[JAG]

Yes I did.

 

[Lexura]

Quote:

---

Yes I did.

---

This is not a personal insult, but if you read my comments and the UOA, you should know the answer of your own questions.

 

[JAG]

I see now. Mobil 1 0W-20. My bad. There is so much stuff going on right now. No worries about me feeling insulted. I don't. I'd still like to see how Pennzoil Platinum 5W-20 TBN holds up compared to Mobil 1 xW-20 oils. I haven't studied it since I use thicker oils.

 

[ELS]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

It was to my understanding that Mobil sued the #@$%! out of Castrol

---

Well, your "understanding" is wrong.

As explained by Patrick Bedard in the Nov. 2000 Car & Driver article:

Here's what happened, according to a detailed account published in the trade magazine Lubricants World. Late in 1997, Castrol changed the formula of its Syntec "full synthetic motor oil", eliminating the polyalphaolefin (PAO) base stock (that's the "synthetic" part, which makes up about 70% by volume of what's in the bottle) and replacing it with a "hydroisomerized" petroleum base stock.

Mobil Oil Corporation, maker of Mobil 1, "Worlds Leading Synthetic Motor Oil," said no fair and took its complaint to the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Council of Better Business Bureaus. NAD often arbitrates between feuding advertisers on their conflicting claims.

....In the end, NAD decided that the evidence constitutes a reasonable basis for the claim that Castrol Syntec, as currently formulated, is a synthetic motor oil, said Lubricants World.

The Lubricants World article can be read in it's entirety here:

Re-print of lubricants World Article

---

Thanks for the correction.
I'll have to go read the full article for myself.

In the end though, the POINT is the SAME.

They cried foul first and here 10 years later they are guilty of the same thing, no?

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

Do I understand this to mean the old M1 (Grp 4?) is not as good as the new M1 (Grp3 ?) ??

---

Just the reverse.

Quote:

---

If so, in what way ?

---

used oil analysis as interpreted by Terry, specification of the newer oils, and witnessed valevetrain failures.

Quote:

---

Do you attribute "worse" to basestock or add pack ?

---

Both, since we all know, it's the final formulation that counts.

 

[Z_ombie]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

It was to my understanding that Mobil sued the #@$%! out of Castrol

---

Well, your "understanding" is wrong.

As explained by Patrick Bedard in the Nov. 2000 Car & Driver article:

Here's what happened, according to a detailed account published in the trade magazine Lubricants World. Late in 1997, Castrol changed the formula of its Syntec "full synthetic motor oil", eliminating the polyalphaolefin (PAO) base stock (that's the "synthetic" part, which makes up about 70% by volume of what's in the bottle) and replacing it with a "hydroisomerized" petroleum base stock.

Mobil Oil Corporation, maker of Mobil 1, "Worlds Leading Synthetic Motor Oil," said no fair and took its complaint to the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Council of Better Business Bureaus. NAD often arbitrates between feuding advertisers on their conflicting claims.

....In the end, NAD decided that the evidence constitutes a reasonable basis for the claim that Castrol Syntec, as currently formulated, is a synthetic motor oil, said Lubricants World.

The Lubricants World article can be read in it's entirety here:

Re-print of lubricants World Article

---

Thanks for the correction.
I'll have to go read the full article for myself.

In the end though, the POINT is the SAME.

They cried foul first and here 10 years later they are guilty of the same thing, no?

---

People, please get it in your heads that Mobil is NO LONGER Mobil, they are now ExxonMobil. And as such, they are run how Exxon runs things. Which may very well be cheapening the product, and milking the M1 name for every bit its worth. But I feel eventually M1's credibility and reliability will sink because of Exxon's poor decisions. I really wish Mobil would have stayed out of Exxons hands. My feeling is that mergers, no matter how big or small, generally lower standards of quality and how the business is run. Its a real shame.

 

[B00SS]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Do you attribute "worse" to basestock or add pack ?

---

Both, since we all know, it's the final formulation that counts.

---

Well stated.

 

[Stainless]

Well. What am I supposed to buy now if i want a quality, REAL synthetic oil?

I can't buy German Castrol any more, ALL of my local autozones have it on SELL THROUGH.

What other options do I have?

thank you.