M1 EP 15W-50 Goes Group III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote:


....we are not trying to quantify the percentages of the components, only the presence and relative ratios....

.....show mineral oil as the largest single component.....





Please clarify these two seemingly opposing statements... I was not aware the GC equipment could quantify percentages of mixtures, only the presence of an Element?

Further, IF you are indeed stating that M1 in your testing shows large quantities of a group three oil (and not just the presence), then I respectfully suggest that you retest with another lot number, or leave for the possibility that you have a contaminated source. The lot of M1 could be defective, and you are allowing rampant, and possibly wrong, speculation as a result.
 
George, I'm a sorry to hear about the MC accident. No one is out to get you. In fact, most of us, including Tom are M1 users and like the product a lot. We are just trying to be objective and indentify and formulation changes. It does appear that Mobil 1 does contain Group III. I highly doubt Mobil tech A)knows B) would tell you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, the plot continues to increase in viscosity...

Here is Mobil's reply to my email:
Quote:


Thank you for your inquiry,

Mobil1 motor oils are still 100% synthetic, utilizing the PAO technology and a proprietary blend of additives which are tailored specifically for each viscosity.

Consumers should stop focusing on the baseoil of a product, that is only part of a formulation. You should look and focus on the end result,
Mobil1 motor oils plain and simple provide the best overall protection and performance for your engine in the real world.

That's important!!

--
Thank you for choosing ExxonMobil products.
If you need further assistance, please contact ExxonMobil at 1-800-ASK-MOBIL

-Matt Jacob




Well, frankly, that's troubling for at least two reasons. First, the "100% synthetic using PAO technology" could logically mean that PAO is only a minority of a 100% "synthetic" brew (as Castrol defined "synthetic"). Second, I'm troubled by Mobil urging consumers not to worry about the base oils used. Sure, I agree that performance is the ultimate litmus test, but why would Mobil, of all oil companies, say that???

I'm going to press for more (but not hold my breath...).
cheers.gif
 
That is an interesting response.


I actually agree with theiur statement that it's the performance that matters. Not beinga GRPIV/V synthetic purist I can see the point. The issue is that they have been marketing and continue to market PAO as a "technology" they use in the formulation of their oil.
Eyes wide open.
blush.gif
 
Last edited:
That Mobil reply shows how marketing people see the average customer who has questions: dumb as hay and easily satisfied with a fuzzy reply and platitudes.
grin.gif


It's frustrating and I won't even bother asking questions anymore. The poor sap who has to deal with nosey customers like us probably knows only what he's supposed to reply. Beyond that he's clueless.

Don't companies realize what a turn-off those wishy-washy replies are? I guess they don't care, because most consumers buy products based on price, advertising and, most of all, eye-catching packaging.
 
Quote:


Please clarify these two seemingly opposing statements... I was not aware the GC equipment could quantify percentages of mixtures, only the presence of an Element?

Further, IF you are indeed stating that M1 in your testing shows large quantities of a group three oil (and not just the presence), then I respectfully suggest that you retest with another lot number, or leave for the possibility that you have a contaminated source. The lot of M1 could be defective, and you are allowing rampant, and possibly wrong, speculation as a result.




Hi Boxcar,

G.C. is an excellent tool for quantifying a compound (not element) but it requires considerable work. Accurate percentages can be obtained through the use of internal or external standards using known reference materials, or by methods of addition. In this case, for example, we could make synthetic external standards from the identified components and use these to match the sample. We quantify competitive oil compositions all the time when we have a commercial interest to invest the time, which is not the case here. We ran these samples simply to keep up to date on market intelligence and determine ester usage. After doing so I chose to post the results here because BITOGers seem to be good people with a keen interest to learn, but did not expect such an uproar!

Could our sample be an anomaly or defective lot? Sure, but I believe EM has better quality control than that. Could we run more samples from different lots? Sure, but we completed our interest in the sample and do not need to expend resources on further work. Had I known people here would be so upset I probably would not have posted the results at all. I have no intent to "allow rampant speculation", indeed I stated repeatedly that the base oil mixture is not critical and that I would continue to use the M1. The "rampant speculation" seems to be the nature of this forum, apparently driven by a passionate and purist love for oils.

Maybe I should go find a good sex forum!
grin.gif


Tom
 
Since George pointed out the pour points of oils through MSDS I decided to go through a few of the Wal Mart Online MSDS's to compare pour points of M1 oils I found the following to be up to date, A The entire EP line is a couple of years old so no use in posting it but interestingly the 5w30 and 10w30 M1EP had pur points of
-44f while the 15w50 was -54f. Which leads me to believe the paper pushers who rewrite the MSDS's are not paying much atterntion to the 15w50. in other news I Think the
T&SUV is not heavily PAO based on the pour point.

Product Name: MOBIL 1 TRUCK & SUV 5W-30
Revision Date: 17Feb2006
Page 5 of 5
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Oxidizing Properties: See Sections 3, 15, 16. OTHER INFORMATION Freezing Point: N/D Melting Point: N/A Pour Point: -36°C (-33°F)
dunno.gif
WHat's up with that??
 
Quote:


So, the statement M1 EP 15W-50 goes Group III is a completely false statement...... Period....
I would love to see a 50W group III with a pour point of -54 F.. Not hardly... This alone is Group IV territory...
George Morrison, STLE CLS





TOM what did I tell you?
hornets_nest.gif


Any way using the LZ Blend add computer program a 5W/50 SM oil is predictable using NO PAO only CVX GPIII for whatever that is worth PP about -45C. So a 15W/50 is very doable.

bruce

hide.gif
 
The only complaint I have is how XOM handles the situation. Redline will tell you their oils are POE based with some PAO. Amsoil will tell you Group IV and V. CVX will tell you Groupu III. What is the big deal? Telling someone the base oil components is not a big deal. Telling them the % of each probably is.

If Mobil just came out and said "we now use a blend of Group III/PAO with Group V AN's", that would work for me.

When you put all this together, it's clear to me that they are using Group III as the primary base oil along with PAO's and AN's. The wording they use is actually correct. Synthetic base oils can be Group III's and we know PAO's and AN's are so they are right.

Bottom line is the total performance in the end is all that matters. From a business point of view, what they are doing makes sense and ultimately make them more $$. I do NOT think it lessens the quality at all.

Shell Helix - Group III
Synergyn- III+IV+V
Schaeffer's- II/IV

I think it's more ironic than anything that XOM, of all the oil makers, is now using Group III base oils.
 
I don’t know about you or Terry but I wasn’t really impressed with the EP line from the UOAs that we’ve seen so far here in BITOG. I had the expectation these oils to last easily 10.000 miles if not the advertised 15.000 and I just didn’t see it happen.
In some cases the oil was almost shot in 7.000-8.000 miles something unexpected from a PAO formulation as we had seen in Synthetic Oil Life Study .
http://neptune.spacebears.com/cars/stories/oil-life.html
Now as a lab assistant (though in a different industry) I test frequently in our laboratories samples from various competitors. If there is a drastic change in performance , it will be seen easily. We don’t , but i expect large coorporations to run formulation tests in competitors samples. Something like this can’t stay secret for long . I would like to hear what amsoil or penzoil have to say about this. Did they test it?
By the way, I bet green castrol’s formulation was thoroughly examined long before we had the inside glance on it.
George , sorry bro but you are in the middle of the fire, you ‘ll get burnt ( a little) .
Most of you haven't, but i have used in the past the mobil 1 15W50 in 10F weather and wasn't really happy with the cranking sound of the engine and battery. The mobil's 10W40 blend was definitely better in these mild temperatures.
 
Last edited:
Quote:


I Think the
T&SUV is not heavily PAO based on the pour point.
Pour Point: -36°C (-33°F)
dunno.gif
WHat's up with that??



Evaluating current 7500 mile OCI in short trip kid carrier...
crushedcar.gif
 
Quote:


Had I known people here would be so upset I probably would not have posted the results at all. I have no intent to "allow rampant speculation", indeed I stated repeatedly that the base oil mixture is not critical and that I would continue to use the M1. The "rampant speculation" seems to be the nature of this forum, apparently driven by a passionate and purist love for oils.

Maybe I should go find a good sex forum!
grin.gif


Tom




Tom, please don't feel that way. Information and knowledge is always better than speculation and belief. People may seem upset, but it's probably more like betrayed, since many here have always staunchly defended M1 whenever someone speculated that M1 was mostly Grp III without evidence. Now that XOM won't provide anything more than a wishy washy statement, I believe the reaction you see is quite natural.
 
Quote:


I think it's more ironic than anything that XOM, of all the oil makers, is now using Group III base oils.




I agree completely. But if you can't beat 'em.... join 'em for higher profits.
 
Quote:


Quote:


Had I known people here would be so upset I probably would not have posted the results at all. I have no intent to "allow rampant speculation", indeed I stated repeatedly that the base oil mixture is not critical and that I would continue to use the M1. The "rampant speculation" seems to be the nature of this forum, apparently driven by a passionate and purist love for oils.

Maybe I should go find a good sex forum!
grin.gif


Tom




Tom, please don't feel that way. Information and knowledge is always better than speculation and belief. People may seem upset, but it's probably more like betrayed, since many here have always staunchly defended M1 whenever someone speculated that M1 was mostly Grp III without evidence. Now that XOM won't provide anything more than a wishy washy statement, I believe the reaction you see is quite natural.




I second that, Tom. I practically grew up on M1 all the while being told the basestock was all PAO but now someone produces scientific evidence that it is not. Well, I feel betrayed. If this group is overly concerned with basestocks thats because we are a tiny example of extremeists/purists that care to know the chemical makeup of our motor oils. I agree there is a lot more to motor oils than the basestock but having M1 change to group III and use a play on words to make us believe it is still primaraly PAO based and charge appropriately for PAO well... someone suggested movie tag-lines for this thread. How about The Outlaw Josie Wales, "Don't ________ down my back and tell me it's raining." Please don't be discouraged Tom, we all need your insite for it's for issues like these that we gather here.
patriot.gif
 
Yes, Thanks Tom. Please don't hesitate to continue this type of service if you come accross a finding that goes against the standard oil Dogma.
H
 
Several people here have made requests that I have not yet responded to for me to analyze additional oils, explain our analytical techniques, and to post the G.C. graphs on the board. I have decided that this would not be appropriate. Allow me to put some perspective around this decision.

First, running and interpreting gas chromatographs is a complex task that requires considerable time and resources. As a VP of the company I have a responsibility to assure that corporate resources are allocated in an efficient manner and consistent with our business interests. Accordingly I must be on guard to not allow this analytical work to morph into a personal interest project. As much as I enjoy the enthusiastic spirit of this board and the informative exchanges, there has to be a limit when it comes to using company resources.

Second, I consider our G.C. techniques, interpretation skills, competitive knowledge, and extensive database to be confidential and proprietary information. To display and explain such information on a public forum in sufficient detail for most BITOGers to understand is just not appropriate.

Third, let’s say I did post the graphs. I would have to have numerous additional G.Cs run of reference standards, scan them, and upload them to the forum. Then write volumes and volumes of step-by-step layman language instructions to explain what you are looking at, including chemistry lessons, analytical theory, interpretation rules, product variations, and quantification techniques. When all the smoke clears, what will really change? There will still be a group here who say “I believe it” and another group who say “I don’t buy it”. The arguments will rage on, name calling will intensify, and I will be answering questions for months to come. Don’t get me wrong, I still love you guys (and ladies
confused.gif
), but I have a day job and a few other interests beyond oil (gasp!). As it is I spend considerable time typing posts in the morning, evening, and on lunch hour. It’s fun and I’ll continue to do so, but have mercy! Motor oil, and more specifically base oil composition, is just not the center of my life. Now anyone who wants to talk about growing tomatoes & garlic, Victorian watercolor paintings, or wine, come on in!

My posts were not intended to make a statement, take a competitive position, or make accusations – my intent was simply to share some information I thought would be of interest. I am a bit surprised by the reaction, but I guess that just reflects the spirit that makes this board so addicting.

Tom
 
I don't see the problem.
tongue.gif
laugh.gif
grin.gif
banana.gif
stooges.gif
Oil not the center of your life? I couldn't wait to get home to catch up on this thread! Can't we talk abou Victorian OIL paintings?
laugh.gif
cheers.gif
patriot.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom