All You Wanted to Know About Mobil 1
- Thread starter Steelhead
- Start date
- Status
I love how they emphatically write "fully synthetic" in each and every description.
Thanks!!!!
Originally Posted By: Towel_Rail
I love how they emphatically write "fully synthetic" in each and every description.
What would you want them to write...? Synthetic ? Completely synthetic ? All pretty silly....sort of like listening to the Beatles records played backwards to hear a secret message....is mobil sending a secret message ?
All I know is they know alot about oil and understand the API and ISLAC testing requirements (which I am sure will increase requirements). GM uses (as well as others use for factory testing, future development motors, factory fill)...
Unless some ones can factually say...Mobil is ripping us off it's really Grp III conventional oil and I can prove it...then we'll just have to huddle around the bottle and wonder....
What more do we need ?
I love how they emphatically write "fully synthetic" in each and every description.
What would you want them to write...? Synthetic ? Completely synthetic ? All pretty silly....sort of like listening to the Beatles records played backwards to hear a secret message....is mobil sending a secret message ?
All I know is they know alot about oil and understand the API and ISLAC testing requirements (which I am sure will increase requirements). GM uses (as well as others use for factory testing, future development motors, factory fill)...
Unless some ones can factually say...Mobil is ripping us off it's really Grp III conventional oil and I can prove it...then we'll just have to huddle around the bottle and wonder....
What more do we need ?
Last edited:
Unless we get someone from Mobil, stating in writing, on Mobil letterhead, or their website, that certain Mobil 1 products (almost all probably) have a group III base oil, we will never have enough "proof" to please every BITOGer. Since that will never, ever, happen, I think we need to look at some other indicators. IMO, when TomNJ (I think that's his username) did the GS on Mobil 1 and concluded it was not a majority PAO based oil, then Mobil reps offered legalese and doubletalk when asked about Mobil's formula (or even just the base oil) and never would even confirm that it is PAO-based, then the UOA's pointed to a formulation change, then we started to see some of the Mobil 1 products prices come down a little, well....for me, that is enough to convince me that most products labelled "Mobil 1" are group III based. Perhaps the 0W-40 and the 10W-30HM are PAO-based, but who really knows for sure except EOM?
So there starts the rumour, m1 is grp 111 now just like PP,Syntec, etc... Wrong!, it is not like the others, it has PAO in it . That is why it has a pour point lower than any other oil on the shelf.and it cost very little more than the grp 111 oils, what a bunch of cheapskates!... And to address the UOA nerds, UOAs are way overated. They can only give you clues to the oils performance, there are many more variables that effect an UOA besides the oil itself... The bottom line is M1 is an excellent oil... The rumours remind my of little ole' church ladies gossiping...
Originally Posted By: mitchcoyote
So there starts the rumour, m1 is grp 111 now just like PP,Syntec, etc... Wrong!, it is not like the others, it has PAO in it . That is why it has a pour point lower than any other oil on the shelf.and it cost very little more than the grp 111 oils, what a bunch of cheapskates!... And to address the UOA nerds, UOAs are way overated. They can only give you clues to the oils performance, there are many more variables that effect an UOA besides the oil itself... The bottom line is M1 is an excellent oil... The rumours remind my of little ole' church ladies gossiping...
So there starts the rumour, m1 is grp 111 now just like PP,Syntec, etc... Wrong!, it is not like the others, it has PAO in it . That is why it has a pour point lower than any other oil on the shelf.and it cost very little more than the grp 111 oils, what a bunch of cheapskates!... And to address the UOA nerds, UOAs are way overated. They can only give you clues to the oils performance, there are many more variables that effect an UOA besides the oil itself... The bottom line is M1 is an excellent oil... The rumours remind my of little ole' church ladies gossiping...
Originally Posted By: mitchcoyote
The bottom line is M1 is an excellent oil...
I don't see where anyone is saying Mobil 1 is not a good oil. We all have our choices and as always my oil is better than your oil and my car is better than your car, oh wait we both have 07 Sonatas - lol. But you understand my point. And as to a Group IV oil is better than a Group III....... Well we will never get a final answer to that question. And lastly the base oil stock for a Group III synthetic oil has been so worked over that it has very little, if any, connection to its "Dino" birthright, that the worry over PAO or "Dino" is really pointless.
The bottom line is M1 is an excellent oil...
I don't see where anyone is saying Mobil 1 is not a good oil. We all have our choices and as always my oil is better than your oil and my car is better than your car, oh wait we both have 07 Sonatas - lol. But you understand my point. And as to a Group IV oil is better than a Group III....... Well we will never get a final answer to that question. And lastly the base oil stock for a Group III synthetic oil has been so worked over that it has very little, if any, connection to its "Dino" birthright, that the worry over PAO or "Dino" is really pointless.
So one person does a so called GS on one sample and the "church-ladies" sing ?!?!
Wow...where's the science in that ! LOL
Wow...where's the science in that ! LOL
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: TonyMazz
Originally Posted By: Towel_Rail
I love how they emphatically write "fully synthetic" in each and every description.
What would you want them to write...? Synthetic ? Completely synthetic ? All pretty silly....sort of like listening to the Beatles records played backwards to hear a secret message....is mobil sending a secret message ?
Do I have anything legitimate against Mobil One? Of course not. I just find it humorous that instead of mentioning in one place that "these are all fully synthetic", they C&P'd it into every spot they could.
To paraphrase the Bard, "They doth protest too much, methinks."
- Scott
Originally Posted By: Towel_Rail
I love how they emphatically write "fully synthetic" in each and every description.
What would you want them to write...? Synthetic ? Completely synthetic ? All pretty silly....sort of like listening to the Beatles records played backwards to hear a secret message....is mobil sending a secret message ?
Do I have anything legitimate against Mobil One? Of course not. I just find it humorous that instead of mentioning in one place that "these are all fully synthetic", they C&P'd it into every spot they could.
To paraphrase the Bard, "They doth protest too much, methinks."
- Scott
Originally Posted By: TonyMazz
So one person does a so called GS on one sample and the "church-ladies" sing ?!?!
Wow...where's the science in that ! LOL
You're right, let's proceed to stick our heads back in the sand. We can pretend the GS didn't happen, the pour points didn't go up, that Mobil representatives don't dodge direct questions, and the price didn't go down on some of their products.
I'm not saying its a bad oil, it was just overpriced relative to the competition. Heck, I bought four 5 quart jugs of it for under $20 each a couple of months ago. I'll use it but I'm not paying more than about ~$4 a quart when I can get QS advanced (or HP), PP, or Amsoil XL instead.
If it were truly a PAO-based oil then Mobil could say something like Amsoil does, which is basically (I'm paraphrasing) that the oils (not the XL line) are PAO based, however, that may change at some point due to advances in base-oils and technology. Mobil refuses to even say that and usually just says their Mobil 1 line of oils are "synthetic based". We all know Group III can be called synthetic by the oil companies. I don't know what better proof we can have than a GS, besides Mobil actually stating it themselves. What is NOT said is sometimes more proof that what IS said.
Anyway, I'll not talk about this anymore because people say they are tired of hearing it; although, there are two current threads about this same subject right now.
So one person does a so called GS on one sample and the "church-ladies" sing ?!?!
Wow...where's the science in that ! LOL
You're right, let's proceed to stick our heads back in the sand. We can pretend the GS didn't happen, the pour points didn't go up, that Mobil representatives don't dodge direct questions, and the price didn't go down on some of their products.
I'm not saying its a bad oil, it was just overpriced relative to the competition. Heck, I bought four 5 quart jugs of it for under $20 each a couple of months ago. I'll use it but I'm not paying more than about ~$4 a quart when I can get QS advanced (or HP), PP, or Amsoil XL instead.
If it were truly a PAO-based oil then Mobil could say something like Amsoil does, which is basically (I'm paraphrasing) that the oils (not the XL line) are PAO based, however, that may change at some point due to advances in base-oils and technology. Mobil refuses to even say that and usually just says their Mobil 1 line of oils are "synthetic based". We all know Group III can be called synthetic by the oil companies. I don't know what better proof we can have than a GS, besides Mobil actually stating it themselves. What is NOT said is sometimes more proof that what IS said.
Anyway, I'll not talk about this anymore because people say they are tired of hearing it; although, there are two current threads about this same subject right now.
Originally Posted By: cfromc
Anyway, I'll not talk about this anymore because people say they are tired of hearing it; although, there are two current threads about this same subject right now.
I don't mind if it's talked about as long as the thoughts expressed show that you've done your homework (at least by reading quality posts here). I don't know about others, but I can clearly see that you have not. No offense meant although I know nobody likes to be told that.
Anyway, I'll not talk about this anymore because people say they are tired of hearing it; although, there are two current threads about this same subject right now.
I don't mind if it's talked about as long as the thoughts expressed show that you've done your homework (at least by reading quality posts here). I don't know about others, but I can clearly see that you have not. No offense meant although I know nobody likes to be told that.
JAG, I was heavy into BITOG for a long while including the time when this Mobil thing was boiling over. Since then I've cut down a lot on my BITOG time due to work and other responsibilities. If I have missed some pertinent information, please point me in the right direction where I can update my knowledge. Has new information surfaced that disputes TomNJ's GC findings? Also, has Mobil published anything in the US that states which oils are majority PAO?
Edit:
P.S. I've looked at some of Tom NJ's previous posts, just to review. It was 2 GC samples from fresh, sealed containers of Mobil 1 EP bought at Wal-Mart. The findings were confirmed by someone with 40 years of experience. Unfortunately, Tom stopped posting a long time ago, so I doubt I will find anything from Tom himself that contradicts his findings. Someone, please point me in the direction where Tom's findings are disproven?
Edit:
P.S. I've looked at some of Tom NJ's previous posts, just to review. It was 2 GC samples from fresh, sealed containers of Mobil 1 EP bought at Wal-Mart. The findings were confirmed by someone with 40 years of experience. Unfortunately, Tom stopped posting a long time ago, so I doubt I will find anything from Tom himself that contradicts his findings. Someone, please point me in the direction where Tom's findings are disproven?
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: cfromc
JAG, I was heavy into BITOG for a long while including the time when this Mobil thing was boiling over. Since then I've cut down a lot on my BITOG time due to work and other responsibilities. If I have missed some pertinent information, please point me in the right direction where I can update my knowledge. Has new information surfaced that disputes TomNJ's GC findings? Also, has Mobil published anything in the US that states which oils are majority PAO?
Edit:
P.S. I've looked at some of Tom NJ's previous posts, just to review. It was 2 GC samples from fresh, sealed containers of Mobil 1 EP bought at Wal-Mart. The findings were confirmed by someone with 40 years of experience. Unfortunately, Tom stopped posting a long time ago, so I doubt I will find anything from Tom himself that contradicts his findings. Someone, please point me in the direction where Tom's findings are disproven?
They were not disproven, and a whole mess was created. Basically, I would stick to Mobil 1's own info on other countries' websites. Group III is not considered "synthetic" anywhere but here in the US. There is another thread where Buster posted the Japanese specs. Basically, Mobil IS PAO except for a couple of grades; coincidentally, one of them is the one Tom tested. Just my 4 cents (inflation...ugh)...
JAG, I was heavy into BITOG for a long while including the time when this Mobil thing was boiling over. Since then I've cut down a lot on my BITOG time due to work and other responsibilities. If I have missed some pertinent information, please point me in the right direction where I can update my knowledge. Has new information surfaced that disputes TomNJ's GC findings? Also, has Mobil published anything in the US that states which oils are majority PAO?
Edit:
P.S. I've looked at some of Tom NJ's previous posts, just to review. It was 2 GC samples from fresh, sealed containers of Mobil 1 EP bought at Wal-Mart. The findings were confirmed by someone with 40 years of experience. Unfortunately, Tom stopped posting a long time ago, so I doubt I will find anything from Tom himself that contradicts his findings. Someone, please point me in the direction where Tom's findings are disproven?
They were not disproven, and a whole mess was created. Basically, I would stick to Mobil 1's own info on other countries' websites. Group III is not considered "synthetic" anywhere but here in the US. There is another thread where Buster posted the Japanese specs. Basically, Mobil IS PAO except for a couple of grades; coincidentally, one of them is the one Tom tested. Just my 4 cents (inflation...ugh)...
cfromc, Tom's GC tests don't help us for several reasons. What I have to share are some threads that you may find informative in some way(s). I know there are many more but my memory of what search terms will find them is hazy. Let me know if you want to discuss anything after you read the threads.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...rue#Post1007292
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...true#Post975002
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...true#Post963519
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...true#Post945307
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...true#Post837264
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=787788&fpart=1
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...true#Post103050
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=97991&fpart=1
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...rue#Post1007292
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...true#Post975002
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...true#Post963519
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...true#Post945307
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...true#Post837264
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=787788&fpart=1
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...true#Post103050
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=97991&fpart=1
Originally Posted By: uconn1150
Originally Posted By: cfromc
JAG, I was heavy into BITOG for a long while including the time when this Mobil thing was boiling over. Since then I've cut down a lot on my BITOG time due to work and other responsibilities. If I have missed some pertinent information, please point me in the right direction where I can update my knowledge. Has new information surfaced that disputes TomNJ's GC findings? Also, has Mobil published anything in the US that states which oils are majority PAO?
Edit:
P.S. I've looked at some of Tom NJ's previous posts, just to review. It was 2 GC samples from fresh, sealed containers of Mobil 1 EP bought at Wal-Mart. The findings were confirmed by someone with 40 years of experience. Unfortunately, Tom stopped posting a long time ago, so I doubt I will find anything from Tom himself that contradicts his findings. Someone, please point me in the direction where Tom's findings are disproven?
They were not disproven, and a whole mess was created. Basically, I would stick to Mobil 1's own info on other countries' websites. Group III is not considered "synthetic" anywhere but here in the US. There is another thread where Buster posted the Japanese specs. Basically, Mobil IS PAO except for a couple of grades; coincidentally, one of them is the one Tom tested. Just my 4 cents (inflation...ugh)...
It's not considered synthetic in Canada..?
Originally Posted By: cfromc
JAG, I was heavy into BITOG for a long while including the time when this Mobil thing was boiling over. Since then I've cut down a lot on my BITOG time due to work and other responsibilities. If I have missed some pertinent information, please point me in the right direction where I can update my knowledge. Has new information surfaced that disputes TomNJ's GC findings? Also, has Mobil published anything in the US that states which oils are majority PAO?
Edit:
P.S. I've looked at some of Tom NJ's previous posts, just to review. It was 2 GC samples from fresh, sealed containers of Mobil 1 EP bought at Wal-Mart. The findings were confirmed by someone with 40 years of experience. Unfortunately, Tom stopped posting a long time ago, so I doubt I will find anything from Tom himself that contradicts his findings. Someone, please point me in the direction where Tom's findings are disproven?
They were not disproven, and a whole mess was created. Basically, I would stick to Mobil 1's own info on other countries' websites. Group III is not considered "synthetic" anywhere but here in the US. There is another thread where Buster posted the Japanese specs. Basically, Mobil IS PAO except for a couple of grades; coincidentally, one of them is the one Tom tested. Just my 4 cents (inflation...ugh)...
It's not considered synthetic in Canada..?
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: JAG
I don't know about others, but I can clearly see that you have not. No offense meant although I know nobody likes to be told that.
OK, JAG, I've read the threads you posted from the past year. The ones from 2004 I just skimmed since I'm sure the formulations have changed a couple of times since then. I will concede that it is likely that some Mobil 1 products are probably group IV based but I had already thought that before today. I still think that several Mobil 1 products are group III based and none of the posts you linked to showed otherwise. I would like to show you this quote however: "I too wish that all M1 oils had only Groups 4 and 5 basestocks." I don't know if that poster was referring only to 5W-30 EP and 15W-50 EP, as only you can answer that.
When you first posted the quote about me not doing my homework I was not offended, but now that I see that there is really nothing to rebut Tom NJ's findings, I can clearly see that you WANT to believe that (most?) Mobil 1 products are group IV. Maybe you know something I don't; something that allows you to believe it. If you are happy with the product, fine. Maybe I am dead wrong. Regardless, I believe that many Mobil 1 products are group III based. It doesn't really matter because I stopped using Mobil 1 for a long time after I discovered Amsoil. Now I have tried Mobil 1 10w-30 HM because the price is right and I happen to believe it is a very stout product. I will be doing my first UOA on it shortly and if it performs well I will probably keep using it. I happen to believe that it contains more PAO and/or esters than most of the other Mobil 1 products and it happens to "fit" into what I need right now in one of my high mileage vehicles. It also quiets the engine down nicely.
I realize from a scientific point of view, we do not have enough evidence to confidently state which Mobil products do or do not have PAO or Group III, or in what percentages. Nor could we say what was in it before; we were taking Mobil's word. Yes, we could test it if "we" had the money to send a statistically valid sample size of each and every flavor to a lab. My understanding is that it would cost big bucks to do that and the results would only mean something until the next formulation change. Since that is not practical for our purposes, other evidence must be utilized. I have posted the evidence I consider relevent. Even without any evidence, I won't pay a premium for an oil that I don't consider to perform any better than several other oils.
Sorry I broke my word about talking about this again but I felt I had to respond. I don't want to be known for not doing my homework.
I don't know about others, but I can clearly see that you have not. No offense meant although I know nobody likes to be told that.
OK, JAG, I've read the threads you posted from the past year. The ones from 2004 I just skimmed since I'm sure the formulations have changed a couple of times since then. I will concede that it is likely that some Mobil 1 products are probably group IV based but I had already thought that before today. I still think that several Mobil 1 products are group III based and none of the posts you linked to showed otherwise. I would like to show you this quote however: "I too wish that all M1 oils had only Groups 4 and 5 basestocks." I don't know if that poster was referring only to 5W-30 EP and 15W-50 EP, as only you can answer that.
When you first posted the quote about me not doing my homework I was not offended, but now that I see that there is really nothing to rebut Tom NJ's findings, I can clearly see that you WANT to believe that (most?) Mobil 1 products are group IV. Maybe you know something I don't; something that allows you to believe it. If you are happy with the product, fine. Maybe I am dead wrong. Regardless, I believe that many Mobil 1 products are group III based. It doesn't really matter because I stopped using Mobil 1 for a long time after I discovered Amsoil. Now I have tried Mobil 1 10w-30 HM because the price is right and I happen to believe it is a very stout product. I will be doing my first UOA on it shortly and if it performs well I will probably keep using it. I happen to believe that it contains more PAO and/or esters than most of the other Mobil 1 products and it happens to "fit" into what I need right now in one of my high mileage vehicles. It also quiets the engine down nicely.
I realize from a scientific point of view, we do not have enough evidence to confidently state which Mobil products do or do not have PAO or Group III, or in what percentages. Nor could we say what was in it before; we were taking Mobil's word. Yes, we could test it if "we" had the money to send a statistically valid sample size of each and every flavor to a lab. My understanding is that it would cost big bucks to do that and the results would only mean something until the next formulation change. Since that is not practical for our purposes, other evidence must be utilized. I have posted the evidence I consider relevent. Even without any evidence, I won't pay a premium for an oil that I don't consider to perform any better than several other oils.
Sorry I broke my word about talking about this again but I felt I had to respond. I don't want to be known for not doing my homework.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Article
