M1 EP 15W-50 Goes Group III

Bryanccfshr · Oct 31, 2006

Quote:

Sorry to go off-topic, but can someone elaborate on the impact that these revelations have on the rest of the Mobil line? There use to be a clear distinction between M5000, M7500, M1, and M1 EP, but I am not so sure right now...sorry for the newbie question and thanks in advance.

Mobil is stating that there are differnt performance expectations in each formulation. I have no doubt the Cost and the performance of each formualtion is reflected in the marketing. In other words the "good, better, best, bestest"marketing is probably an accurate reflection of the cost to formulate each oil.

If we solidify these findings as a conststant truth it will change the Synthetic marketing paradigm as we know it.

sootyoil · Oct 31, 2006

Quote:

my question is, can true PAO based oil pass API testing standards?

What are you smoking?

What is the point of your posts? Why has this not happened to you

?

Im sorry you dont understand my point yet.
a lubricant that has NO PETROLIUM PRODUCTS how does it get American Petrolium Institute certified?

The Critic · Oct 31, 2006

Quote:

Quote:

my question is, can true PAO based oil pass API testing standards?

Click to expand...

What are you smoking?

What is the point of your posts? Why has this not happened to you

?

Im sorry you dont understand my point yet.
a lubricant that has NO PETROLIUM PRODUCTS how does it get American Petrolium Institute certified?

DUDE.

API is merely an organization that regulates lubricants, and for our purposes, automotive lubricants.

Just because it's called American Petroleum Institute does not mean their expertise is solely limited to petroleum based lubes.

AusWRX · Oct 31, 2006

Hello Tom Nj

Ta mate, Appreciate you sharing you work here. Any chance Mobil Delvac 1 will grace your GC anytime soon?. This would be interesting as a few peole here seem to reckon this is a full PAO with lashings of ester.

tdi-rick · Oct 31, 2006

Quote:

Hello Tom Nj

Ta mate, Appreciate you sharing you work here. Any chance Mobil Delvac 1 will grace your GC anytime soon?. This would be interesting as a few peole here seem to reckon this is a full PAO with lashings of ester.

regardless what's in it, it works well.......

mcrn · Oct 31, 2006

Tom thank you. This sure makes walmarts synthetic look like a great deal now and might be the next oil I try now.

427Z06 · Oct 31, 2006

Quote:

...we'll duct tape you to a chair and in front of a computer with the Synlube website open (and the nasty synthetic music turned up loud for full effect)!

That clearly IS torture, and you'll need Presidential Authority before initiating.

Maximumcanon · Oct 31, 2006

Quote:

Quote:

They already did, remember? The XL line is Group III, and they call it synthetic. Before that line came out Amsoil made a big deal about how Group III isn't really synthetic, yada, yada. But when they introduce their own Group III oil, it's somehow now synthetic.

Click to expand...

Yes they call it synthetic as does the rest of industry now - but Amsoil also did not hide the fact that they changed the formulation of the XL line to Group III. Not comparable.

Just curious, but does this not mean that Amsoil XL line is no better than American Syntec? Just curious.

Tom NJ · Oct 31, 2006

Quote:

One more thought on all this: FWIW, I'm pretty much to the point of simply discarding or ignoring the term "synthetic" altogether. I'm afraid that it has simply joined ranks with other terms like, "new", "improved", "tastes great", "less filling", blah, blah, blah. . .

Hi Ekpolk,

Unfortunately you may be right. Under today's rules, the only difference in definition between "synthetic" (Group III = VI >120) and conventional oil (Group II = VI 80-120) is one VI point!

For the most part, however, while diluted and wounded the term still has some meaning in that it is used by marketers to denote their best premium oil. And while the performance of some conventional oils (such as those based on Group II+) may overlap the lesser of the Group III "synthetics" and blur the line, at least the presence of the term "Full Synthetic" should put you in the elite top grouping.

As for "Partial Synthetic", well .... don't get me started

Tom

BrianWC · Oct 31, 2006

So, does this mean that group III's can be much better long drain oils than anyone gave them credit for being?

buster · Oct 31, 2006

Group III vs PAO

As mentioned above, I don't have a problem with it being a group III, knowing they are using some PAO/AN, however, the price just seems too high for it being a primarily Group III based oil.

The differences are very small between PAO's and good Group III's.

buster · Oct 31, 2006

Quote:

A modern Group III oil can actually outperform a PAO in several areas important to lubricants, such as additive solubility, lubricity and antiwear performance. Group III base oils can now rival PAO stocks in pour point, viscosity index and oxidation stability performance.

I'm not buying it....

ekpolk · Oct 31, 2006

Quote:

Quote:

One more thought on all this: FWIW, I'm pretty much to the point of simply discarding or ignoring the term "synthetic" altogether. I'm afraid that it has simply joined ranks with other terms like, "new", "improved", "tastes great", "less filling", blah, blah, blah. . .

Click to expand...

Hi Ekpolk,

Unfortunately you may be right. Under today's rules, the only difference in definition between "synthetic" (Group III = VI >120) and conventional oil (Group II = VI 80-120) is one VI point!

For the most part, however, while diluted and wounded the term still has some meaning in that it is used by marketers to denote their best premium oil. And while the performance of some conventional oils (such as those based on Group II+) may overlap the lesser of the Group III "synthetics" and blur the line, at least the presence of the term "Full Synthetic" should put you in the elite top grouping.

As for "Partial Synthetic", well .... don't get me started

Tom

Tom:

Thanks for the info, and perspective. Good point on the current "less filling" interpretation of "synthetic". Still, I sorta long for the perhaps imaginary older "tastes great" interpretation. I think this essentially puts the responsible user in the position he should have put himself in all along: studying each product he is considering using, including its certifications, actual composition, performance in application, etc.

Evil Idea de Jour: maybe we should start a new thread in which you and bruce debate the relative merits of "partial synthetic" oils vs. Synlube. Sorry ... I'm feeling punchy today!

buster · Oct 31, 2006

Question: Assuming M1 is now Group III, primarily, can it be as good or better than previous PAO versions if formulated correctly?

sootyoil · Oct 31, 2006

Quote:

Question: Assuming M1 is now Group III, primarily, can it be as good or better than previous PAO versions if formulated correctly?

Hmmmm lets see, does Mobil1 offer 25000 OCI to consumers?
NO! back in 1974 they did, and they marketed that all the way till 1975, never to offer it again.
Buster the link you provided was written by Exxon employee's
in a effort to push their own oil, fact still is PAO is better, your link provides that information

Buster please call Mobil1 and ask them, since the change to groupIII in base stock will Mobil1 now drop the price?

Cujet · Oct 31, 2006

I have some of the fairly new 15W-50. I'll put it in the freezer

Wonder what is going to happen. I may have some older stuff too.

Also, PAO's turn purple with some surfactants. I'll test.

Chris

Cujet · Oct 31, 2006

My situation is unique. I run a 400HP++ turbocharged 1.8L engine. I had excellent performance from the classic M1 15W-50. Having been SURE of a good thing (the classic M1 15-50) I am now not sure my very expensive engine is going to perform as well or last as long as it did.

I am looking for suggestions for an equiv oil to the classic M1.

Folks with similar turbo engines get 20K to 25K out of a set of rod bearings. I have done much better with the old M1. What am I to do?

Chris

unDummy · Oct 31, 2006

I believe that big oil formula blends change more frequently then most want to think. Supply/demand/cost and keeping an assembly line moving makes me wonder how 'variable' all oils are concerning basestocks, especially the biggest market share high volume M1.
I'd wager that the smaller blenders don't have the same formula variances since they aren't stocked at the local wallyworld. And, we pay a premium for those boutique oils.

I'd love to see if the M1 ATF and gearoil is GIII or PAO.

I'm glad that I'm a discount/sale/rebate shopper. Mobil1 has never failed me. But, the budget forces me to use Rotella synth everywhere now. And, clearance rack and rebated synthetic oils are my other choices. I still have some quarts of that old $1.37 Target M1 15w50 scored a while back and only use it as a 'additive' or 'thickener'.

Tom NJ · Oct 31, 2006

Just checked the latest M1 5W-30 EP MSDS and found the following statement:

Quote:

Contains:
Base oil severely refined: Not carcinogenic in animal studies. Representative material passes IP-346, Modified Ames test, and/or other screening tests. Dermal and inhalation studies showed minimal effects; lung non-specific infiltration of immune cells, oil deposition and minimal granuloma formation. Not sensitizing in test animals.

Synthetic base oils: Not expected to cause significant health effects under conditions of normal use, based on laboratory studies with the same or similar materials. Not mutagenic or genotoxic. Not sensitizing in test animals and humans.

The same statement is on their 10W-30 EP only the synthetic statement comes before the severly refined statement.

Tom

mcrn · Oct 31, 2006

Cujet there is always Amsoil 20W50 and Redline makes both 15W50 and 20W50.

M1 EP 15W-50 Goes Group III

Similar threads