Dumb question. Read over on the Shell/Rotella website a really long post regarding what oil to use in motorcycles. Quite a few guys swore that Mobil 1, even though beging called 100 syn., doesn't use 100% syn. basestocks. I opened my mouth in reference to this and was charbroiled on the spot. Is there any truth to this idea? Can an oil claim 100% fully synthetic and not be made from 100% syn. base stocks? I realize how stupid this sounds but have to ask it anyway. Besides, I'm a "newbie" here! Thanks.
Mobil 1: 100% synthetic base stocks? Please settle this.
- Thread starter Crusty1
- Start date
- Status
Castrol is the reason why an oil can call themselves 100% synthetic and not be so. Mobil 1 is a synthetic oil in the true "pre-Castrol litigation suit old school definition of synthetic" sense. Mobil 1 uses Group 4 and Group 5 basestocks. That, if you ask almost anyone, is a synthetic oil. Others like Castrol and Valvoline etc use Group 3+ basestocks which are not considered synthetic by the majority here. This article is a good beginning point to use against those who charred you
http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=27&article_id=3631&page_number=1
http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=27&article_id=3631&page_number=1
Being new, I was never quite sure of the reason for all the Castrol bashing. Now, after reading the article, I wonder why you guys aren't bashing Castrol even more ;-) I was going to start using some GC, but now I'm honestly wondering if I should support a company like this.
Mobil 1 is without a doubt a 100% fully synthetic oil using only Group IV and V basestocks, NOTHING else. We've had many debates on this. Mobil 1 actually will get angry if you question their oil. My response was: "Yes! Mobil 1 only uses grp IV and V basestocks and is a fully synthetic oil!!
Mobil 1 was never a grp III.
What might be interesting is to turn the question around & ask "What info do you have that indicates M1 contains group 3?"
Since so little data is available on the M1 formulations, even on this site, more than likely the claim that M1 is less than 100% is, to be kind, "speculation"!
Since so little data is available on the M1 formulations, even on this site, more than likely the claim that M1 is less than 100% is, to be kind, "speculation"!
In the past, I remember reading a Mobil 1 gear lube container. There was an asterik by the large word SYNTHETIC that appeared on the bottle and the fine print read: "exclusive of the additive carrier." So at the time, I assume they were using a small amount of mineral oil in the mix.
That was just the oil used to dissolve and carry the additives. Mobil abandoned this practice over a decade ago. It's all syn now.
Before everyone goes on the Castrol witch hunt again, ask the Shell experts on the other website about Shell TMO (if they have been around long enough to remember it (80s). Pretty sure it was hydrocracked but Shell charged about 13 Deutschmarks ($8.33) a liter for it (I bought it when I lived in Europe)...sure seems like "synthetic" pricing scale to me. I just love how "experts" are everywhere.
In 1972 Amsoil developed the first truely synthetic oil (help me out Amsoil reps). My understanding is that Castrol uses group III basestocks (mineral?) to develop their synthetic oils. Others, like Amsoil, Redline, Royal Purple, Mobil and a few mainstream European version namebrands use fully synthetic PAO and ester basestocks to develope their oils. My understanding is that even though Castrol claims to be 100% synthetic, the fact trhat they use group III basestocks contradicts that claim in the purest sense. Correct me if I'm wrong guys.
The supersyn formula is 100% syn., I thought the last Trisynthetic formula had a smidge of non-syn fluid in it, I may be wrong but that is what I remember hearing. Could be a rumour though.
As far as Shell goes , do they have a 100% syn product ? , I thought all of their OTC stuff was group 3 . Either way Mobil1 Supersyn is 100% syn. group 4 and 5, that is all you need to know. You should not have to prove your statement, they should have to prove that Mobil1 is not 100% before putting you through the ringer, I doubt anyone has an oz. of proof.
As far as Shell goes , do they have a 100% syn product ? , I thought all of their OTC stuff was group 3 . Either way Mobil1 Supersyn is 100% syn. group 4 and 5, that is all you need to know. You should not have to prove your statement, they should have to prove that Mobil1 is not 100% before putting you through the ringer, I doubt anyone has an oz. of proof.
I thought Shell Helix Ultra uses that weird Group 3- like base stock ?
There's a Shell/Rotella forum? That's hardcore dedication!
I should point out that I'm the idiot that mentioned something off the Rotella forum discussion that talked about M1 not using 100% syn. basestocks. Thanks to your response, I now see how this whole thing started: pre tri-syn. formulation. Thanks for the excellent, and fast, info!
Please permit me to add to the debate that has gone on and on and on here at BITOG (I've been just a guilty as everyone else, but I'd like to see it laid to rest. Until proven it should be otherwise my position is reflected in Jim Pasha's article, Motor Oil for Older Porsches in the "Tech Forum" of Excellence magazine.
Now whether you feel you should pay the same for synthetic vice hydrocrack depends on the relative cost of the two processes, but why don't we let the Group III vs Group IV issue die. Porsche doesn't seem to think it is worth worrying about.
per the quote above:
Simply wrong.
now where does he find out Porsche's opinions on such discussions , are there people at Porsche going around saying " oil is oil use anything you want, it's all the same crap " . Or is he simply referring to the owner's manual which permits you to use any approved oil. Personally I dont think Porsche is the all deciding final word on whether Group 3 oils are as good as true synthetic Group 4 and 5's. I'm willing to bet Ferrari has a true synthetic recommendation for their vehicles and I'd be more inclined to hear their opinion on motor oils. Like all things rumours in the auto industry do nothing but drive you nuts.
The quote at the end of the excerpt is implied to be directly from Porsche...whether it is from a technical bulletin or owner's manual (or other source) I can't say. Although Porsche has now switched to Mobil 1, I can tell you for sure that for years (some of the years during which Porsche, in my opinion, built its toughest-on-motor-oil motors) Porsche did factory fill with and recommended for continued use, Shell TMO, which I am almost certain was hydrocracked. PAOs and, I believe, esters and PAO/ester combos were available at that time. So I'd have to say they backed up the words quoted in the article. I'd just like to see more occurances of people who make blanket statements and perpetuate endless debate back it up with test data. Sure everyone can have and state an opinion, that's only reasonable, but how about we don't go on an on simply based on opinion. I don't think that is too much to ask. I've also noticed, woe to the poster who challenges prevailing thought...even if the prevailing thought has no proven basis. I will tell you for sure, I am watching what I say.
Whimsey, I'm not upset at all (when I write with emphasis I guess I sound that way). I am just trying to appeal to our members (myself included)to stay off bandwagons and think whether what they are saying is echo or informed original thought.
pscholte,
Take heart and don't get upset and take it personally when posters come on strong about Group III "synthetics" versus Group IV and V's. It's because of the "Castrol Syndrome". Charging the same price for a "lesser cost to produce" product. Even though the Group III's seem to provide good wear numbers people think that because their components are less expensive the manufactures automatically pass their cost savings onto you. Welcome to capitalism and G*d bless it
. If you do your homework and determine that product X is better than product Y you are free to buy it. If you're sucked in just by advertising then so be it
. I think the earlier Porsche's, especially the 911 group, had very large oil sumps and not so large engines. Though they wrung a heck of a lot of power out of them. So maybe they were "gentler" on the oil than a vehicle with a small oil sump
. Plus if it was the "earlier" Porsche years then maybe the Group IV & V oil's were not that common. While in certain respects Group IV & V have advantages over Group III & or Group III & IV combo's. It's up to us to determime what's best for us as far as oil performance and cost. For me I'm using Schaeffer #701 5W-30. It costs less than Mobil 1 5W-30, at least where I live, plus it's delivered to my door
. And It's rated very highly on this site by some very knowledgeable people. This is a great site for knowledge. It's up to us as how to apply that knowledge.
Whimsey
Take heart and don't get upset and take it personally when posters come on strong about Group III "synthetics" versus Group IV and V's. It's because of the "Castrol Syndrome". Charging the same price for a "lesser cost to produce" product. Even though the Group III's seem to provide good wear numbers people think that because their components are less expensive the manufactures automatically pass their cost savings onto you. Welcome to capitalism and G*d bless it
Whimsey
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked