OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
To my knowledge, other than the M1 bash-festers speculation, there is no FACTUAL knowledge that M1 uses a GIII base stock.
Anyone see this?
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
- Status
I would assume company like Valvoline has data to prove when they decided to mess with big boys like exx/mob. They are not saying like their oil 4x time better in every possible test, just the area where they see that their brew performs better. At the same time I don’t understand lame Pennzoil marketing strategy.
‘PP Cleans out up to 46% engine sludge in First oil change (another wanna be Auto-RX
) That’s 3X better then conventional oil’
It would be good to know if there any grIII oil which at lest doesn’t leave varnish behind, let alone conventional oil cleaning affect [censored]. Pennzoil marketing people should be banned from oil industry because of blatant lie.
‘PP Cleans out up to 46% engine sludge in First oil change (another wanna be Auto-RX
It would be good to know if there any grIII oil which at lest doesn’t leave varnish behind, let alone conventional oil cleaning affect [censored]. Pennzoil marketing people should be banned from oil industry because of blatant lie.
Article on Valvoling/Kentucky R&D center.
http://www.valvoline.com/pages/racing/lubricant_article_bottling.asp
http://www.valvoline.com/pages/racing/lubricant_article_bottling.asp
Originally Posted By: Johnny
Well, all of a sudden it's 4x better. Less wear=less friction=less heat=better gas mileage. Believe me, the gas mileage campaign will be out shortly.
I decided to try 0W30 and so far havent seen much improvement in gas milage.
Well, all of a sudden it's 4x better. Less wear=less friction=less heat=better gas mileage. Believe me, the gas mileage campaign will be out shortly.
I decided to try 0W30 and so far havent seen much improvement in gas milage.
Leave it to Valv to try to spin a PASS/FAIL "wear" test into a superiority claim.
This is almost as bad as trying to take an official-sounding ASTM grease "wear" test designed to evaluate extreme pressure properties of GREASE and try to make a ENGINE OIL claim on that.
Not surprising to me. For years Valv has submitted Synpower's test data to GM and GM clearly only lists it on the conventional oil level approval list for GM 6094M (not on the higher performance GM4718M list). Yet every Synpower product Valv had claimed GM4718M - even their 20W-50!! While trying to re-validate this just now, I am floored to see that Valv has removed all deceptive references to GM4718M from ALL of their Synpower products. Holy smokes, maybe GM had a chat with Valv about their deception?
This is almost as bad as trying to take an official-sounding ASTM grease "wear" test designed to evaluate extreme pressure properties of GREASE and try to make a ENGINE OIL claim on that.
Not surprising to me. For years Valv has submitted Synpower's test data to GM and GM clearly only lists it on the conventional oil level approval list for GM 6094M (not on the higher performance GM4718M list). Yet every Synpower product Valv had claimed GM4718M - even their 20W-50!! While trying to re-validate this just now, I am floored to see that Valv has removed all deceptive references to GM4718M from ALL of their Synpower products. Holy smokes, maybe GM had a chat with Valv about their deception?
Quote:
This is almost as bad as trying to take an official-sounding ASTM grease "wear" test designed to evaluate extreme pressure properties of GREASE and try to make a ENGINE OIL claim on that.
I agree that ASTM grease test is silly and very deceptive.
I do think Valvoline is capable of making a very good motor oil though. Their R&D center is impressive IMO. I don't know anything about the GM cert. issue but I take your word.
This is almost as bad as trying to take an official-sounding ASTM grease "wear" test designed to evaluate extreme pressure properties of GREASE and try to make a ENGINE OIL claim on that.
I agree that ASTM grease test is silly and very deceptive.
I do think Valvoline is capable of making a very good motor oil though. Their R&D center is impressive IMO. I don't know anything about the GM cert. issue but I take your word.
I bought into the Mobil 1 hype and now I am stuck with a 1986 Toyota pickup with 300,000 miles, a 1999 Cavalier with 202,000 miles and a 2008 Silverado with 1796 miles. I guess there is still time to save the Silverado.
My neighbor of many years is a car fanatic. He has a 1975 Chevrolet 427, dual 4 barrel, and nitrous(sometimes). He uses 15W-50 Mobil 1 oil. He has a Corvette Stingray with an engine that I do not know. I thought it was a 427 but it is not. It also gets Mobil 1 oil. He has a 55 Chevrolet with a 350 engine, 4 barrel, big headers, lots of chrome, regularly sees 7000 RPM, and it gets Mobil 1. He has 2 Chevrolet pickup trucks and a Chrysler van(which calls for a xW-20) that are stock. Both pickups and the van get Mobil 1 10w30 which I THINK is the worse oil that Mobil makes. He has about 85,000 on the van, 155,000 on the 4.3 S-10 pickup and about 125,000 on the 5.3 Silvereado and he pulls a camper with the Silverado. Maybe he will switch from that oil before it is to late.
I would bet that there are folk on this forum that could tell similar experiences with whatever brand of oil. When I buy a new vehicle, I have a 200,000 mile expectation. My 1986 Toyota pickup with a 4 cyl 22-R engine has never been touched, yet, it still gets 26-28 MPG, doesn't burn or leak a drop of oil between OCI, no engine noises of any kind. Ditto the Cavalier. All the cars owned by my extended family get the Mobil 1 15W-50. My daughter's Chrysler van now has 116,000 miles. It called for a xW-20. She drove from Fredericksburg, Va to Cherokee, NC this week to bring the grandsons for some trout fishing with Poppa. She averaged 28 MPG.
I can't remember who said it and I can't find it(but I will), but the gist was that if you use an an oil that had a high enough HTHS, was thick enough, and had an excellent film strength, high heat stability(basically a synthetic xW-40 or xW-50) you could run without ZDDP or FM and have no wear issues. I can remember he said that if you got to the point where you were depending on ZDDP, you had a major oil failure or a major oil supply failure. At any rate, I love the thick synthetic oils and will use them as long as they are available. I also want all the ZDDP I can get!
My neighbor of many years is a car fanatic. He has a 1975 Chevrolet 427, dual 4 barrel, and nitrous(sometimes). He uses 15W-50 Mobil 1 oil. He has a Corvette Stingray with an engine that I do not know. I thought it was a 427 but it is not. It also gets Mobil 1 oil. He has a 55 Chevrolet with a 350 engine, 4 barrel, big headers, lots of chrome, regularly sees 7000 RPM, and it gets Mobil 1. He has 2 Chevrolet pickup trucks and a Chrysler van(which calls for a xW-20) that are stock. Both pickups and the van get Mobil 1 10w30 which I THINK is the worse oil that Mobil makes. He has about 85,000 on the van, 155,000 on the 4.3 S-10 pickup and about 125,000 on the 5.3 Silvereado and he pulls a camper with the Silverado. Maybe he will switch from that oil before it is to late.
I would bet that there are folk on this forum that could tell similar experiences with whatever brand of oil. When I buy a new vehicle, I have a 200,000 mile expectation. My 1986 Toyota pickup with a 4 cyl 22-R engine has never been touched, yet, it still gets 26-28 MPG, doesn't burn or leak a drop of oil between OCI, no engine noises of any kind. Ditto the Cavalier. All the cars owned by my extended family get the Mobil 1 15W-50. My daughter's Chrysler van now has 116,000 miles. It called for a xW-20. She drove from Fredericksburg, Va to Cherokee, NC this week to bring the grandsons for some trout fishing with Poppa. She averaged 28 MPG.
I can't remember who said it and I can't find it(but I will), but the gist was that if you use an an oil that had a high enough HTHS, was thick enough, and had an excellent film strength, high heat stability(basically a synthetic xW-40 or xW-50) you could run without ZDDP or FM and have no wear issues. I can remember he said that if you got to the point where you were depending on ZDDP, you had a major oil failure or a major oil supply failure. At any rate, I love the thick synthetic oils and will use them as long as they are available. I also want all the ZDDP I can get!
I would like to have a picture of your friends car collection. Especially the 55.
Quote:
there is no FACTUAL knowledge that Mobil 1 uses a GIII base stock.
The Japan Mobil 1 site actually lists the base oils (PAO + hydroprocessed) for Mobil 1 5w30 and 10w30 …
Mobil 1 jpn … hydroprocessed = GIII … (translate using babelfish)
But these high wear/iron readings really has nothing to do with the GIII content.
there is no FACTUAL knowledge that Mobil 1 uses a GIII base stock.
The Japan Mobil 1 site actually lists the base oils (PAO + hydroprocessed) for Mobil 1 5w30 and 10w30 …
Mobil 1 jpn … hydroprocessed = GIII … (translate using babelfish)
But these high wear/iron readings really has nothing to do with the GIII content.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
To my knowledge, other than the M1 bash-festers speculation, there is no FACTUAL knowledge that M1 uses a GIII base stock.
Do a search and learn. Plenty of FACTUAL evidence on the subject. Was discussed ad nauseam about a year ago.
To my knowledge, other than the M1 bash-festers speculation, there is no FACTUAL knowledge that M1 uses a GIII base stock.
Do a search and learn. Plenty of FACTUAL evidence on the subject. Was discussed ad nauseam about a year ago.
Originally Posted By: Drivebelt
Quote:
there is no FACTUAL knowledge that Mobil 1 uses a GIII base stock.
The Japan Mobil 1 site actually lists the base oils (PAO + hydroprocessed) for Mobil 1 5w30 and 10w30 …
Mobil 1 jpn … hydroprocessed = GIII … (translate using babelfish)
But these high wear/iron readings really has nothing to do with the GIII content.
I wish I were surprised by this. However, Mobil's intentional obfuscation regarding the Group III content of Mobil 1 left little doubt anyway: http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Car_Care/AskMobil/Group_3_Base_Oils.aspx As a long time Mobil 1 customer and defender, I have always found their refusal to give a direct answer to this question infuriating. If it contains some Group III, just admit it. Their line about that information being proprietary is pure, unadulterated mendacity. Mobil used to believe this too, thus their lawsuit against Castrol. I firmly believe that consumers have the right to know if the "fully synthetic" oil for which they are paying anywhere from $4.00 to $10.00 per quart contains only Group IV/V base oils or does in fact contain Group III. Mobil 1 is a rip-off if it is blended with GIII, but it would be a great value if it were pure GIV/V. This holds true regardless of how well the product actually performs. I would rather pay $10.00 per quart for Amsoil, Redline, Motul, or Neo and know what I am getting. These companies will answer this type of question directly and without equivication. The interest this forum holds for most of us is in part a desire to KNOW what we are buying and putting in our vehicles. Yet with Mobil 1, unlike PP or anything else, we are always left wondering and speculating. I personally find this highly unsatisfying. I will probably switch to SSO and Redline D4 at my next OC purely on principle.
Quote:
there is no FACTUAL knowledge that Mobil 1 uses a GIII base stock.
The Japan Mobil 1 site actually lists the base oils (PAO + hydroprocessed) for Mobil 1 5w30 and 10w30 …
Mobil 1 jpn … hydroprocessed = GIII … (translate using babelfish)
But these high wear/iron readings really has nothing to do with the GIII content.
I wish I were surprised by this. However, Mobil's intentional obfuscation regarding the Group III content of Mobil 1 left little doubt anyway: http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Car_Care/AskMobil/Group_3_Base_Oils.aspx As a long time Mobil 1 customer and defender, I have always found their refusal to give a direct answer to this question infuriating. If it contains some Group III, just admit it. Their line about that information being proprietary is pure, unadulterated mendacity. Mobil used to believe this too, thus their lawsuit against Castrol. I firmly believe that consumers have the right to know if the "fully synthetic" oil for which they are paying anywhere from $4.00 to $10.00 per quart contains only Group IV/V base oils or does in fact contain Group III. Mobil 1 is a rip-off if it is blended with GIII, but it would be a great value if it were pure GIV/V. This holds true regardless of how well the product actually performs. I would rather pay $10.00 per quart for Amsoil, Redline, Motul, or Neo and know what I am getting. These companies will answer this type of question directly and without equivication. The interest this forum holds for most of us is in part a desire to KNOW what we are buying and putting in our vehicles. Yet with Mobil 1, unlike PP or anything else, we are always left wondering and speculating. I personally find this highly unsatisfying. I will probably switch to SSO and Redline D4 at my next OC purely on principle.
Originally Posted By: FrankN4
I would bet that there are folk on this forum that could tell similar experiences with whatever brand of oil. When I buy a new vehicle, I have a 200,000 mile expectation. My 1986 Toyota pickup with a 4 cyl 22-R engine has never been touched, yet, it still gets 26-28 MPG, doesn't burn or leak a drop of oil between OCI, no engine noises of any kind. Ditto the Cavalier. All the cars owned by my extended family get the Mobil 1 15W-50. My daughter's Chrysler van now has 116,000 miles. It called for a xW-20. She drove from Fredericksburg, Va to Cherokee, NC this week to bring the grandsons for some trout fishing with Poppa. She averaged 28 MPG.
I have 220,000 miles on a 98 Blazer and have used the cheapest oil I can get. Still no oil consumption and still better than EPA fuel economy. Will get 22-23 mpg all highway. Unfortunately the rest of the truck is literally falling apart around the engine!
I would bet that there are folk on this forum that could tell similar experiences with whatever brand of oil. When I buy a new vehicle, I have a 200,000 mile expectation. My 1986 Toyota pickup with a 4 cyl 22-R engine has never been touched, yet, it still gets 26-28 MPG, doesn't burn or leak a drop of oil between OCI, no engine noises of any kind. Ditto the Cavalier. All the cars owned by my extended family get the Mobil 1 15W-50. My daughter's Chrysler van now has 116,000 miles. It called for a xW-20. She drove from Fredericksburg, Va to Cherokee, NC this week to bring the grandsons for some trout fishing with Poppa. She averaged 28 MPG.
I have 220,000 miles on a 98 Blazer and have used the cheapest oil I can get. Still no oil consumption and still better than EPA fuel economy. Will get 22-23 mpg all highway. Unfortunately the rest of the truck is literally falling apart around the engine!
Originally Posted By: buster
I want to know more before jumping ship. I don't buy into it 100%. There is a lot more to it IMO.
The one thing we know absolutely is that Mobil, for no good reason other than that they don't want to reveal the truth, refuses to give direct answers and that in and of itself is sufficient reason to not buy their product. The longer I participate on this site, the more it bothers me. If more people felt this way, Mobil would have to either come clean or upgrade the product to a true synthetic.
I want to know more before jumping ship. I don't buy into it 100%. There is a lot more to it IMO.
The one thing we know absolutely is that Mobil, for no good reason other than that they don't want to reveal the truth, refuses to give direct answers and that in and of itself is sufficient reason to not buy their product. The longer I participate on this site, the more it bothers me. If more people felt this way, Mobil would have to either come clean or upgrade the product to a true synthetic.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
To my knowledge, other than the M1 bash-festers speculation, there is no FACTUAL knowledge that M1 uses a GIII base stock.
Do a search and learn. Plenty of FACTUAL evidence on the subject. Was discussed ad nauseam about a year ago.
See, that's the thing, I just see speculation.
Buster called EM and they said they used PAO. There was apparently a test done on two grades by somebody but my understanding was that those tests are not a good way to determine actual base oil content and the results could be noise generated by contamination of the machinery.
I'm referring to this thread:
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/posts/762628/
Originally Posted By: buster
Another update:
I had two Mobil techs assure me that M1 was still PAO based. Joe said it was "Group IV and V only". Jay said it was primarily PAO. Jay told me that when they saw the rumor going around they talked to the chemist who said that it's still PAO. The chemist also said the test was wrong and that it's very hard to determine using a GC test.
This is what I could find when I searched back three years on this forum. If there is other information other than the SPECULATION which is discussed in the thread I referenced, I'm sorry but I could not find it.
What I see is people upset about EM's wordage. About somebody testing two grades of oil, finding GIII and everybody rallying to cut M1's nuts off.
There was discussion of having Terry run some tests to see what HIS results were. Did this ever materialize?
The info about the Japanese M1 site, from what I've read, also seems to be specific to one grade of M1? At least that's what I saw in that thread.
It seems, the POSSIBILITY that M1 contains GIII, and the fact that they refuse to clarify with absolute certainty that this is not the case, is what is angering people.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
To my knowledge, other than the M1 bash-festers speculation, there is no FACTUAL knowledge that M1 uses a GIII base stock.
Do a search and learn. Plenty of FACTUAL evidence on the subject. Was discussed ad nauseam about a year ago.
See, that's the thing, I just see speculation.
Buster called EM and they said they used PAO. There was apparently a test done on two grades by somebody but my understanding was that those tests are not a good way to determine actual base oil content and the results could be noise generated by contamination of the machinery.
I'm referring to this thread:
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/posts/762628/
Originally Posted By: buster
Another update:
I had two Mobil techs assure me that M1 was still PAO based. Joe said it was "Group IV and V only". Jay said it was primarily PAO. Jay told me that when they saw the rumor going around they talked to the chemist who said that it's still PAO. The chemist also said the test was wrong and that it's very hard to determine using a GC test.
This is what I could find when I searched back three years on this forum. If there is other information other than the SPECULATION which is discussed in the thread I referenced, I'm sorry but I could not find it.
What I see is people upset about EM's wordage. About somebody testing two grades of oil, finding GIII and everybody rallying to cut M1's nuts off.
There was discussion of having Terry run some tests to see what HIS results were. Did this ever materialize?
The info about the Japanese M1 site, from what I've read, also seems to be specific to one grade of M1? At least that's what I saw in that thread.
It seems, the POSSIBILITY that M1 contains GIII, and the fact that they refuse to clarify with absolute certainty that this is not the case, is what is angering people.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
It seems, the POSSIBILITY that M1 contains GIII, and the fact that they refuse to clarify with absolute certainty that this is not the case, is what is angering people.
Exactly! However, if it contained zero GIII, they would surely be using that fact to their advantage by making it clear that their product exclusively utilized superior and more expensive GIV/V basestocks. This information would be all over their advertising as a clear competetive advantage. The absence of any such confirmation can only lead one to conclude that it must contain some GIII. Stating openly that it contains no GIII, if it were true, would hardly compromise the integrity of their formulations! By refusing to state that it contains no GIII, it can logically be inferred that it does. The controversy will no doubt continue until Exxon-Mobil or some third party provides a definitive answer to this question.
It seems, the POSSIBILITY that M1 contains GIII, and the fact that they refuse to clarify with absolute certainty that this is not the case, is what is angering people.
Exactly! However, if it contained zero GIII, they would surely be using that fact to their advantage by making it clear that their product exclusively utilized superior and more expensive GIV/V basestocks. This information would be all over their advertising as a clear competetive advantage. The absence of any such confirmation can only lead one to conclude that it must contain some GIII. Stating openly that it contains no GIII, if it were true, would hardly compromise the integrity of their formulations! By refusing to state that it contains no GIII, it can logically be inferred that it does. The controversy will no doubt continue until Exxon-Mobil or some third party provides a definitive answer to this question.
Controversy will only continue for those that view it as a controversy. I don't. Being a little more straight forward wouldn't hurt I guess.
XOM's Visiom Grp III base oils approach PAO performance. We also know Group IV/V are also present in different amounts in all M1 PCMO's. So what?
OVERK1LL, I wouldn't go by those comments I has posted. I no longer believe that to be the case. I trust TomNJ's findings.
XOM's Visiom Grp III base oils approach PAO performance. We also know Group IV/V are also present in different amounts in all M1 PCMO's. So what?
OVERK1LL, I wouldn't go by those comments I has posted. I no longer believe that to be the case. I trust TomNJ's findings.
Originally Posted By: buster
Controversy will only continue for those that view it as a controversy.
The unknown is always controversial. BTW, are you off SSO and using M1?
Controversy will only continue for those that view it as a controversy.
The unknown is always controversial. BTW, are you off SSO and using M1?
Johnny
If he has a digital camera, I will ask him to post pictures. If not, I will see him at a get together late August or early September. He is very proud of his cars and motorcycles and will be pleased to show pictures.
I don't know what kind of paint he has on the 427 Chevy but you can hold a magazine up next to the car and read the magazine in the paint.
He is in the market for a 302 ci Z-28 Camaro and may be willing to trade the Corvette. He sold a 427 Camaro to get the Corvette. I think the only one he would not let go of is the red and white, showroom appearance 55.
If he has a digital camera, I will ask him to post pictures. If not, I will see him at a get together late August or early September. He is very proud of his cars and motorcycles and will be pleased to show pictures.
I don't know what kind of paint he has on the 427 Chevy but you can hold a magazine up next to the car and read the magazine in the paint.
He is in the market for a 302 ci Z-28 Camaro and may be willing to trade the Corvette. He sold a 427 Camaro to get the Corvette. I think the only one he would not let go of is the red and white, showroom appearance 55.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked