MolaKule
Staff member
Trisyn was PAO, a Cocamide ester, a Trimethyl propane ester, and a bit of AN for low temperature cranking.
Mobil 1 0W-40 Base Oils Revealed
- Thread starter JAG
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Trisyn was PAO, a Cocamide ester, a Trimethyl propane ester, and a bit of AN for low temperature cranking.
"The unused lubricant was found to contain a complex mixture of alpha olefins, several specific alkyl diphenylamines, a complex mix of C26H40 alkyl naphthalenes, 4,4′-methylene-bis(2,6-di-tert-butylphenol), and a range of alkanoate esters of 1,1,1-tris(hydroxymethyl)propane (1,1,1-TMP) (Fig. 2)."
.
Trisyn was PAO, a Cocamide ester, a Trimethyl propane ester, and a bit of AN for low temperature cranking.
"The unused lubricant was found to contain a complex mixture of alpha olefins, several specific alkyl diphenylamines, a complex mix of C26H40 alkyl naphthalenes, 4,4′-methylene-bis(2,6-di-tert-butylphenol), and a range of alkanoate esters of 1,1,1-tris(hydroxymethyl)propane (1,1,1-TMP) (Fig. 2)."
.
Is not a company the size of XOM allready maxed out in terms of economy of scale?, thus ingredient prices are big deal to them in terms of profitability. If XOM can get 99% of performace of previous product at 98% of cost, by simply using different and cheaper stuff, they will every time with no hesitation. Isn't motor oil made in batches?, so every time a new batch is cooked up they could/can change things. Over 3 yrs. a relatively lot of tweaks could have been made.
Originally Posted By: Ken42
Jag 8th paragraph down from Introduction you will find this reference.
The aim of the present study was to investigate the in situ degradation of a Mobil 1 (0W/40) trisynthetic lubricant (Exxon Mobil, Irving, TX, USA),
Ken
I no longer can find the same page I initially did! What I see now is much less info. and lacking the tri-synthetic reference that you people are quoting. Oh well. It's the tri-synthetic version.
Jag 8th paragraph down from Introduction you will find this reference.
The aim of the present study was to investigate the in situ degradation of a Mobil 1 (0W/40) trisynthetic lubricant (Exxon Mobil, Irving, TX, USA),
Ken
I no longer can find the same page I initially did! What I see now is much less info. and lacking the tri-synthetic reference that you people are quoting. Oh well. It's the tri-synthetic version.
Originally Posted By: qship1996
Mobils own japanese website lists 0w-40 as their only full PAO - no group 3 mix weight.
Wow. So everything else is a blend like Pennzoil Platinum? Is this factually true worldwide?
Mobils own japanese website lists 0w-40 as their only full PAO - no group 3 mix weight.
Wow. So everything else is a blend like Pennzoil Platinum? Is this factually true worldwide?
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Art_Vandelay
Originally Posted By: qship1996
Mobils own japanese website lists 0w-40 as their only full PAO - no group 3 mix weight.
Wow. So everything else is a blend like Pennzoil Platinum? Is this factually true worldwide?
They can still be PAO BASED, they may simply have Group III content.
Originally Posted By: qship1996
Mobils own japanese website lists 0w-40 as their only full PAO - no group 3 mix weight.
Wow. So everything else is a blend like Pennzoil Platinum? Is this factually true worldwide?
They can still be PAO BASED, they may simply have Group III content.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
I'll still thank you for the link there, JAG ..but as you can see it's like a piece of meat dropped into piranha infested waters.
Originally Posted By: qship1996
Mobil 1 0w-40 is an excellent PAO based oil, its the rest of their M1 weights that are questionable regarding base oil used- Mobils own japanese website lists 0w-40 as their only full PAO - no group 3 mix weight.
Group III base stocks are not "questionable".
You can make a bummer motor oil with a PAO stock and one that you can take to the bank on a Group III base.
.
Mobil 1 0w-40 is an excellent PAO based oil, its the rest of their M1 weights that are questionable regarding base oil used- Mobils own japanese website lists 0w-40 as their only full PAO - no group 3 mix weight.
Group III base stocks are not "questionable".
You can make a bummer motor oil with a PAO stock and one that you can take to the bank on a Group III base.
.
Gonna go out and buy 5 cases of it now that I know the "truth"
Originally Posted By: Rolf
Originally Posted By: qship1996
Mobil 1 0w-40 is an excellent PAO based oil, its the rest of their M1 weights that are questionable regarding base oil used- Mobils own japanese website lists 0w-40 as their only full PAO - no group 3 mix weight.
Group III base stocks are not "questionable".
You can make a bummer motor oil with a PAO stock and one that you can take to the bank on a Group III base.
.
Rolf,
That post didn't say that group III base stocks were questionable. It states that the base stock, in weights other than 0w-40, are questionable as to whether they are Group III or Group IV.
The U.S. should really mandate the categorization of synthetics for the benefit of the consumer. It's obvious people want to know exactly what they are buying. Considering some of this stuff retails for $8+ we're all entitled to that information. The fact that some Group III's outperform some Group IV's, if that is the case, is irrelevant to the consumer's right to know what they are buying.
Originally Posted By: qship1996
Mobil 1 0w-40 is an excellent PAO based oil, its the rest of their M1 weights that are questionable regarding base oil used- Mobils own japanese website lists 0w-40 as their only full PAO - no group 3 mix weight.
Group III base stocks are not "questionable".
You can make a bummer motor oil with a PAO stock and one that you can take to the bank on a Group III base.
.
Rolf,
That post didn't say that group III base stocks were questionable. It states that the base stock, in weights other than 0w-40, are questionable as to whether they are Group III or Group IV.
The U.S. should really mandate the categorization of synthetics for the benefit of the consumer. It's obvious people want to know exactly what they are buying. Considering some of this stuff retails for $8+ we're all entitled to that information. The fact that some Group III's outperform some Group IV's, if that is the case, is irrelevant to the consumer's right to know what they are buying.
Originally Posted By: Rolf
Originally Posted By: Cutehumor
how's this stuff Group V oil? if the used oil analysis posted over the years show this 0w-40 grade shears? or am I missing something?
Mobil 1 0W-40 is on the very low end of 40.
Slight shearing and it measures as a high 30.
Folks don't do VOAs to compare with used oil analysis and conclude it's shearing more than it is.
.
I believe Mobil 1 0W40 starts out at a 100C cSt viscosity of 13.9. I've seen the following viscosities for Mobil 1 0W40 in 5 different Audi V8 engines, of different types:
40C/100C cSt
67.2/11.6 - 2450 miles on oil
60.9/11.2 - 2352 miles on oil
68.8/12.7 - 3500 miles on oil
68.3/11.8 - 4500 miles on oil
69.4/12.3 - 5670 miles on oil
This would make it a mid-30 weight in operation in these engines. I suspect it's designed to do that for better fuel economy.
Unfortunately, of all the oils I've seen in these engines, it shows the highest Nitration numbers in the shortest time. Something in it's formulation does not tolerate fuel well.
Originally Posted By: Cutehumor
how's this stuff Group V oil? if the used oil analysis posted over the years show this 0w-40 grade shears? or am I missing something?
Mobil 1 0W-40 is on the very low end of 40.
Slight shearing and it measures as a high 30.
Folks don't do VOAs to compare with used oil analysis and conclude it's shearing more than it is.
.
I believe Mobil 1 0W40 starts out at a 100C cSt viscosity of 13.9. I've seen the following viscosities for Mobil 1 0W40 in 5 different Audi V8 engines, of different types:
40C/100C cSt
67.2/11.6 - 2450 miles on oil
60.9/11.2 - 2352 miles on oil
68.8/12.7 - 3500 miles on oil
68.3/11.8 - 4500 miles on oil
69.4/12.3 - 5670 miles on oil
This would make it a mid-30 weight in operation in these engines. I suspect it's designed to do that for better fuel economy.
Unfortunately, of all the oils I've seen in these engines, it shows the highest Nitration numbers in the shortest time. Something in it's formulation does not tolerate fuel well.
Last edited:
Isn't there now a N.A. and a World version of this oil?
Originally Posted By: Art_Vandelay
That post didn't say that group III base stocks were questionable. It states that the base stock, in weights other than 0w-40, are questionable as to whether they are Group III or Group IV.
Ah, you meant "uncertain" or "unknown".
"Questionable", skipping the obsolete meanings, conveys
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/questionable
"3: affording reason for being doubted, questioned, or challenged : not certain or exact : problematic
4: attended by well-grounded suspicions of being immoral, crude, false, or unsound : dubious "
something of dubious value or worth, unsound, false, in short something negative.
Originally Posted By: Art_Vandelay
The U.S. should really mandate the categorization of synthetics for the benefit of the consumer. It's obvious people want to know exactly what they are buying. Considering some of this stuff retails for $8+ we're all entitled to that information. The fact that some Group III's outperform some Group IV's, if that is the case, is irrelevant to the consumer's right to know what they are buying.
I fail to see that.
It means literally nothing to the average consumer that a 5w30 motor oil is a Group III, a PAO, or a blend of both.
The total formulation of base stocks, blend stocks, additives, and so on determine the final performance of the finished motor oil.
If the $8 PAO doesn't beat the $8 Group III in actual use, giving the consumer a false impression does a disservice.
.
That post didn't say that group III base stocks were questionable. It states that the base stock, in weights other than 0w-40, are questionable as to whether they are Group III or Group IV.
Ah, you meant "uncertain" or "unknown".
"Questionable", skipping the obsolete meanings, conveys
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/questionable
"3: affording reason for being doubted, questioned, or challenged : not certain or exact : problematic
4: attended by well-grounded suspicions of being immoral, crude, false, or unsound : dubious "
something of dubious value or worth, unsound, false, in short something negative.
Originally Posted By: Art_Vandelay
The U.S. should really mandate the categorization of synthetics for the benefit of the consumer. It's obvious people want to know exactly what they are buying. Considering some of this stuff retails for $8+ we're all entitled to that information. The fact that some Group III's outperform some Group IV's, if that is the case, is irrelevant to the consumer's right to know what they are buying.
I fail to see that.
It means literally nothing to the average consumer that a 5w30 motor oil is a Group III, a PAO, or a blend of both.
The total formulation of base stocks, blend stocks, additives, and so on determine the final performance of the finished motor oil.
If the $8 PAO doesn't beat the $8 Group III in actual use, giving the consumer a false impression does a disservice.
.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
Quote:
If the $8 PAO doesn't beat the $8 Group III in actual use, giving the consumer a false impression does a disservice.
No more than it does to charge the same price for a cheaper process oil.
If the $8 PAO doesn't beat the $8 Group III in actual use, giving the consumer a false impression does a disservice.
No more than it does to charge the same price for a cheaper process oil.
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Quote:
If the $8 PAO doesn't beat the $8 Group III in actual use, giving the consumer a false impression does a disservice.
No more than it does to charge the same price for a cheaper process oil.
In fact more, since the only criterion of importance to the consumer is how the oil performs.
We live in a market economy where if I can figure out how to make something that works just as good as what you make for half the price, I get to sell it for what you sell it for and put the profit in my pocket as a reward for being clever.
The way you're stating the issue, performance means nothing at all, and you advocate some sort of price controls (i.e., socialism or fascism) which allow each manufacturer, regardless of the uniqueness of their approach, a certain percentage of profit, and no more.
Group IIIs, btw, are all over the lot. Some are basically indistinguishable from PAO, even requiring the addition of esters or ANs for additive solvency.
Others are not so close to PAOs.
Since the purpose of the motor oil is to be added to a crankcase and used, that's where the price needs to be set - in utility, not in cost of manufacturing.
.
Quote:
If the $8 PAO doesn't beat the $8 Group III in actual use, giving the consumer a false impression does a disservice.
No more than it does to charge the same price for a cheaper process oil.
In fact more, since the only criterion of importance to the consumer is how the oil performs.
We live in a market economy where if I can figure out how to make something that works just as good as what you make for half the price, I get to sell it for what you sell it for and put the profit in my pocket as a reward for being clever.
The way you're stating the issue, performance means nothing at all, and you advocate some sort of price controls (i.e., socialism or fascism) which allow each manufacturer, regardless of the uniqueness of their approach, a certain percentage of profit, and no more.
Group IIIs, btw, are all over the lot. Some are basically indistinguishable from PAO, even requiring the addition of esters or ANs for additive solvency.
Others are not so close to PAOs.
Since the purpose of the motor oil is to be added to a crankcase and used, that's where the price needs to be set - in utility, not in cost of manufacturing.
.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
Quote:
I can figure out how to make something that works just as good as what you make for half the price, I get to sell it for what you sell it for and put the profit in my pocket as a reward for being clever.
Yes, you do. You get to ride free on someone else's wave. Good work if you can get it.
Quote:
The way you're stating the issue, performance means nothing at all,
Where did I say that? I merely stated that charging the same for a cheaper process is no more or less a disservice than the non-disclosure that you are indeed using a cheaper process and capitalizing on "impressions". Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
Quote:
and you advocate some sort of price controls (i.e., socialism or fascism) which allow each manufacturer, regardless of the uniqueness of their approach, a certain percentage of profit, and no more.
WHAT IN THE EFF are you talking about?? Please ELABORATE on your totally out of left field visceral/irrational utterance.
Quote:
Group IIIs, btw, are all over the lot. Some are basically indistinguishable from PAO, even requiring the addition of esters or ANs for additive solvency.
Most Group III oils aren't marketed as extended drain oils. There are surely exceptions.
That is, while the gap is closing on performance ..the floor is also falling in terms of "premier" when the word synthetic is used.
I can figure out how to make something that works just as good as what you make for half the price, I get to sell it for what you sell it for and put the profit in my pocket as a reward for being clever.
Yes, you do. You get to ride free on someone else's wave. Good work if you can get it.
Quote:
The way you're stating the issue, performance means nothing at all,
Where did I say that? I merely stated that charging the same for a cheaper process is no more or less a disservice than the non-disclosure that you are indeed using a cheaper process and capitalizing on "impressions". Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
Quote:
and you advocate some sort of price controls (i.e., socialism or fascism) which allow each manufacturer, regardless of the uniqueness of their approach, a certain percentage of profit, and no more.
WHAT IN THE EFF are you talking about?? Please ELABORATE on your totally out of left field visceral/irrational utterance.
Quote:
Group IIIs, btw, are all over the lot. Some are basically indistinguishable from PAO, even requiring the addition of esters or ANs for additive solvency.
Most Group III oils aren't marketed as extended drain oils. There are surely exceptions.
That is, while the gap is closing on performance ..the floor is also falling in terms of "premier" when the word synthetic is used.
Thanks for the effort JAG!
Originally Posted By: Rolf
qship1996 said:
- Status