Found an old product data sheet for Mobil 1

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Dec 12, 2006
Messages
72
Location
Ann Arbor, MI
According to this data, there seems little doubt that Exxon Mobil began blending their 5W30, 10W30, and 15W50 formulas with a good dose of group III base stocks. As I know that the base stock composition of their 15W50 product remained unchanged from the SH to the SJ transition, this practice probably began with the SL formulations after Mobil lost its complaint against Castrol and after the Exxon/Mobil corporate merger, both occurring in 1999.

From a performance standpoint, this makes little difference in virtually all applications of said products -- just a question of corporate integrity, which may seem like an oxymoron when speaking of oil companies (not just EM, but all of them).

SJ--------------------- 0W30- 5W30- 10W30- 15W50
Pour Point C----------- -54---- -54---- -54---- -48
Flash Point C -D92----- 238---- 235---- 243-- 245
cSt at 40C------------- 52----- 53----- 59----- 120
cSt at 100C------------ 9.7---- 9.9---- 10.0--- 18.0
Viscosity Index-------- 175---- 176---- 157---- 168


SM--------------------- 0W30- 5W30- 10W30- 15W50
Pour Point C----------- -54---- -48---- -45---- -39
Flash Point C -D92----- 228---- 230---- 224---- 235
cSt at 40C------------- 63.1--- 11.3--- 62.0--- 131.2
cSt at 100C------------ 11.0--- 64.8--- 10.0--- 18.1
Viscosity Index-------- 169---- 169---- 147---- 154
 
How on earth can you determine that 'there is little doubt they started using Group III base stocks' from this data? Are you just basing it on the now-higher pour points? I don't think you can make that conclusion - the numbers are too close to be a definitive answer...

Funny how their 0W-30 and 5W-30 products used to be a lot thinner.
 
Ok, a bit overstated, particularly for the 5W30 formulation. At these ranges, though, small differences mean quite a lot, especially when one considers that a decent Group II oil 5W30 on the market has a pour point of - 39C. The gap is more statistically significant for the 10W30 and 15W50 grades, The data taken together is compelling -- increase in pour points as well as decrease in flash points and VI. While pour points and VI can be enhanced with depressants and VI improvers. Flash points are a function of lubricant quality and viscosity.
 
You're probably right, but you'll get eaten alive on this board for making unsubstanciated observations like that...save yourself the hassle!

:p
 
Why wouldn't they change the formula and use cheaper stuff if they could? I am sure we would to make more money. As long as you don't have to disclose what is in it and don't lie and say it is all PAO or Ester based, I guess any oil company is good.

As far as integrity, as long as they didn't lie it is not an integrity issue if they changed their formula but still met the synthetic definition.

I wish all Syn oils would be upfront about their base oils but most choose to be secretive or use tricky speech to avoid giving a concrete answer.
 
Last edited:
As I recall, the Mobil1 pour points were generally -55F across the board...this was clearly stated on the back of old bottles...
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: ZZman
As far as integrity, as long as they didn't lie it is not an integrity issue if they changed their formula but still met the synthetic definition.

I wish all Syn oils would be upfront about their base oils but most choose to be secretive or use tricky speech to avoid giving a concrete answer.
Yes, call it a sin of omission as opposed to one of commission.

So I guess all that extra cash goes to their marketing department.

Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
As I recall, the Mobil 1 pour points were generally -55F across the board...this was clearly stated on the back of old bottles...
Except for their 15W50 grade, all the other SJ grades cited above have pour points of -65 F (-54 C). On the back of their bottles, they've listed pour points for SH, SL, and SM. For the SJ grade, however, they listed low pumping temperatures.

One could speculate that this decision was made in order to the disguise the then upcoming changes made with their SL formulations.

Could it be? Could the marketing on the back of an oil bottle be that insidious?
 
Here goes another thread...
35.gif
 
It's been noticed and noted over quite a few years that the pour points went up, flash points down and VI dropped.

Just doesn't get much traction.
 
It is an observation of publicated specs. A good observation. What other plausable explanations are there for the changes in pour point and flash point?
 
Originally Posted By: Bryanccfshr
It is an observation of publicated specs. A good observation. What other plausable explanations are there for the changes in pour point and flash point?


That's a good question.

Maybe they should come out with Mobil 1 Classic.
 
Originally Posted By: SubieHo
Originally Posted By: ZZman
As far as integrity, as long as they didn't lie it is not an integrity issue if they changed their formula but still met the synthetic definition.

I wish all Syn oils would be upfront about their base oils but most choose to be secretive or use tricky speech to avoid giving a concrete answer.
Yes, call it a sin of omission as opposed to one of commission.

So I guess all that extra cash goes to their marketing department.

Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
As I recall, the Mobil 1 pour points were generally -55F across the board...this was clearly stated on the back of old bottles...
Except for their 15W50 grade, all the other SJ grades cited above have pour points of -65 F (-54 C). On the back of their bottles, they've listed pour points for SH, SL, and SM. For the SJ grade, however, they listed low pumping temperatures.

One could speculate that this decision was made in order to the disguise the then upcoming changes made with their SL formulations.

Could it be? Could the marketing on the back of an oil bottle be that insidious?



Okay, well, where did you get the "spec's sheet?" Because I recall being slightly obsessed in this period, and it seemed a lot of the Mobil sheets were in a mix of both metric standard measurements with the pour points almost universally in Fahrenheit and the bottles saying -55F on the back. Today they use Celsius on the stat sheet but say -53F on their website front page and some of their formulations vary...

Are we sure we're still dealing in the correct system?
 
All data in my original post was provided in degrees Celsius, a unit used in virtually all scientific calculations.

Data for the SJ formulations comes from an old pds Mobil sent to me over ten years ago at a time when I was researching the differences between motorcycle specific oils, PCMOs, and HDEOs.

SM data comes from their website. With the pervasiveness of the internet and the info. available on their website, I doubt Exxon Mobil sends out hard copies at this point.
 
Originally Posted By: SubieHo
All data in my original post was provided in degrees Celsius, a unit used in virtually all scientific calculations.


But not product data sheets. Mobil1's original site had temperature specific stuff in Fahrenheit for us Americans. I could be wrong, but I would almost swear to it and they're data was freely available on the site and not in pdf...

Quote:
Data for the SJ formulations comes from an old pds Mobil sent to me over ten years ago at a time when I was researching the differences between motorcycle specific oils, PCMOs, and HDEOs.

SM data comes from their website. With the pervasiveness of the internet and the info. available on their website, I doubt Exxon Mobil sends out hard copies at this point.



Maybe, but the current website doesn't have pour point ratings for a few of their newer products, 0W-30 "Fuel Economy" included...

http://www.mobil.com/USA-English/Lubes/PDS/GLXXENPVLMOMobil_1_0W-30_Advanced_Fuel_Economy.asp

On a side note, it is interesting that a "fuel economy" formula rated at 11.0 cSt @ 100C viscosity...

How much gas can you be saving?
21.gif
 
Last edited:
Their 0w30 has a HT/HS of only 2.99. Lower the HT/HS the greater the MPG.

Formulators will often use less shear stable VM'ers to improve MPG.
 
Thank you.

Incidentally, I may well be wrong re. the oil Mobil1 website (1990s to very early 2000s?) since I've killed a lot of brain cells in between then and now.
grin2.gif
04.gif
But I know M1 did claim the pour point to be -55F universally on the bottles at one time, not Celsius.

But to say conclusively that EXOM is now using Group III in Mobil1 based on "product data sheets" is inconclusive at best. Their current pour points really aren't that far off from -say- Amsoil in equivalent grades.

Could it be that that there has been a tightening on claims regarding spectacular extreme pour points on data sheets? Even for PAO/POE based oils?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Thank you.

Incidentally, I may well be wrong re. the oil Mobil1 website (1990s to very early 2000s?) since I've killed a lot of brain cells in between then and now.
grin2.gif
04.gif
But I know M1 did claim the pour point to be -55F universally on the bottles at one time, not Celsius.

But to say conclusively that EXOM is now using Group III in Mobil1 based on "product data sheets" is inconclusive at best. Their current pour points really aren't that far off from -say- Amsoil in equivalent grades.

Could it be that that there has been a tightening on claims regarding spectacular extreme pour points on data sheets? Even for PAO/POE based oils?







Last month I called Mobil and their tech told me all M1 tagged oils are grp 4.
 
Last edited:
I'm far from a huge EXOM fan. But I really do think their M1 lineup is mainly PAO-based. And I think the hurricanes did cause a substantial, temporary disruption in the quantity, then quality, of Mobil1 in North America and personally I'd hold off buying any for a couple of months to be sure. If they weren't still using mostly PAOs, they simply would have bought more Group III from S. Korea or Canada.

My $.02

Incidentally, when I went to Mobil1's site today, I was "selected" to fill out a detailed survey which took about 10 minutes of my precious time. One of my comments was that I'd like to know indeed what the basic percentages of their base oils are. Group III or Group IV? And I rated them more or less negatively regarding the the specific information on their oils' formulations...
 
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Okay, well, where did you get the "spec's sheet?" Because I recall being slightly obsessed in this period, and it seemed a lot of the Mobil sheets were in a mix of both metric standard measurements with the pour points almost universally in Fahrenheit and the bottles saying -55F on the back. Today they use Celsius on the stat sheet but say -53F on their website front page and some of their formulations vary...

Are we sure we're still dealing in the correct system?


I've got the 2006 Product Data Sheet, and it's -54C for the 10W-30, 0W-40, and 5W-50. -45C for the M1 ESP 5W-30, and 15W-40. (-51C for the V-Twin 20W-50)

Downloaded the 2008 Product Data Sheet, and it's -48C for the 0W-40, -42C for the 5W-30 and 5W-50, -33C for the 15W-50, and still -45C for the ESP 5W-30. V-Twin is still -51C.

Dang, had these two PDS on my comp all along, and never compared them.

Big change in 2 years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top