Lying is lying.
Dump M1 now!
Dump M1 now!
Mobil 1 and grp III continued.
- Thread starter Bryanccfshr
- Start date
- Status
Well there are certain applications that depended on what the old M1 15w50 delivered in terms of HTHS. EOM didn't do some people favors when they reduced this spec along with the additives.
Further, Terry has hinted about the abysmal UOAs M1 has been returning of late. I refused to believe him, but now that the cat's out of the bag that EOM is more into maximizing profits than providing the best lubes for the $, they've lost all creditability with me.
I personally will look to lubes that deliver, rather than relying on EOM's marketing department ability to cash in on the previous autonomous Mobil Corp's hard earned reputation for quality.
While any form of M1 may be good enough for normal passanger use, it no longer warrants its premium price and as far as Cobranut's needs are concerned it will make a difference with those sump temps and revs. He's in a position where grpIII may just not be good enough. Remember that the 15w50 used to be call Race Formula but isn't any more.
427, you could be right. I'm not ready to jump ship yet although I have thought about it. Tom said he will still use M1 bc he still believes it to be a great product. It is XOM's flagship product and is in many high end sports cars. They can't afford to lower it's quality and risk premature engine wear/failures with these OEM's. The recent HT-06 test tells me M1 is still excellent surpassing all the other retail brands. (At least in deposit control which is over looked on this board).
One the one hand, I'm really disappointed in XOM's decision to use Group III's, make record profits and payout huge, ridiculous bonus's to it's now retired CEO. It angers me, however, that is the nature of business. If they keep the performance the same by using Group III, why not then? The market will decide the price and will tell us if XOM's move was a good one. They seem to not really care about the influence of the internet and I think that could be a mistake on their part.
One the one hand, I'm really disappointed in XOM's decision to use Group III's, make record profits and payout huge, ridiculous bonus's to it's now retired CEO. It angers me, however, that is the nature of business. If they keep the performance the same by using Group III, why not then? The market will decide the price and will tell us if XOM's move was a good one. They seem to not really care about the influence of the internet and I think that could be a mistake on their part.
Where are people getting this idea that M1 isn't good for high temp applications now? Complete ________. What do you think that HT-06 test proves? They are still using PAO's and AN's along with the Group III. People are over reacting to this whole change and really starting to stretch the truth.
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2006
- Messages
- 2,326
No matter how severely hydroprocessed, group III oils contain impurities that are not desirable for PCMO, high performance or otherwise. If you want the best oil for your engine, you need to look somewhere other than Mobil 1.
The Honda test was run with new car formula 5w30 and M1 obviously did well. We also don't know how long ago it was run. It's probable that 5w30 and especially 0w40 have higher % of PAO. It's also possible (likely) that M1's unique AN component is great at keeping things clean though it may not be the best lube or good at clinging to metal. The hto-06 is basically a deposits test. There's lots that we don't know other than M1 costs too much if it's primary oil is grpIII and that it is still a good oil regardless of price. We also know that until a week ago, Mobil didn't consider an oil that contained grpIII full synthetic.
There is no one best for all engines! (The closest we have seems to be GC) That's why we have this site! I've read posts that claim DINO has advantages over synthetic. The most recent one I can think of is where the poster recalled what a disaster full syn Mobil 1 was for aircraft engines. If Ferrari uses Group III for racing that must mean something. If the fact that Mobil 1 is Grp IV is or was the last word then why has it shown higher iron numbers in many UOAs? How good a product is in theory doesn't matter if it doesn't transalate to real world results. As far as being forthcoming on basestocks, What percentage of any oil co. customers ask that question and How many consumer relations depts of any of the oil cos are equiped to deal with it? (I feel ideally they should be!) Did they lie or hide the truth? Who knows. Mobil and Amsoil are still the originals in synthetics. No one can that away from them. They must know something about making good oils. Now can't we drop it until someone actually has some useful facts to contribute?
Oilchanger What proof do you have for the above statement?
Oilchanger What proof do you have for the above statement?
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2006
- Messages
- 2,326
I can not take credit for this excellent link but everyone should read it at least once. Basestocks Ironically it came from Mobil. Jimmy boy, you need to slow down a little and do some more reading.
That is a very genreal sales pitch for synthetics. It is true in the sense that the API minimum for oil groups is vary loose. However most the major producers make some very pure Grp II and III oils that are more than satisfactory for PCMO applications. We need not let emotions or preferences overturn fact. Here is a interesting read.
INFLUENCE OF GROUP II & III BASE OIL COMPOSITION
INFLUENCE OF GROUP II & III BASE OIL COMPOSITION
Quote:
I can not take credit for this excellent link but everyone should read it at least once. Basestocks Ironically it came from Mobil. Jimmy boy, you need to slow down a little and do some more reading.
When it comes to VHVI AND XHVI Group III base oils, I think this is much ado about nothing. The impurity levels are on the order of 0.01 percent.
Deposit control and hi-temp oxidation stability are where the issue of full saturation of the base oil comes into play. There are plenty of studies done on neat Group III and PAO that show similar performance in these areas for both base oils.
Its all good!
Nice link. What group is Redline in? Isn't there a group V?
API only requires a saturate level of 10% or less as long as the VI requirement is met gor grp II and III. Thankfully the actual base oils are much better than that. It would be nice if The classifications were tightened up a bit to distinguish the true quality of the base oils. Although good viscosity index is usually a good indicator of purity. Aromatics and Mapthenes tend to retard VI.
Interesting reading.
Here is their definition of semi-synthetic oil: "Semi-Synthetics use base stocks comprising conventional or hydroprocessed base oil in combination with severely hydroprocessed or synthetic (PAO) basestocks."
And here is their definition of synthetic oil: "Synthetic motor oils contain a high proportion of base stocks created from pure chemicals. Since synthetic base stocks such as PAO are essentially pure chemicals themselves they avoid the performance limitations imposed by the impurities present in conventional and hydroprocessed base oils."
By their definition, isn't M1 5W-30 EP closer to being a semi-synthetic oil than a synthetic oil?
^^^ & the EOM fight Castrol over this definition & lost in US?
Hasn't M_M amended his statements recently to imply this?
More & more it looks like EOM has succumb to using Grp III as its base. What % we are not sure...but it would definitely dilute their Full Synth definition.
Hasn't M_M amended his statements recently to imply this?
More & more it looks like EOM has succumb to using Grp III as its base. What % we are not sure...but it would definitely dilute their Full Synth definition.
According to MB specs 229.3 and 229.5, only these Mobil 1 are high quality synthetic oils:
Mobil 1 SuperSyn European Car Formula 0W-40
Mobil 1 SuperSyn 5W-40
Mobil 1 SuperSyn 5W-50
Mobil 1 Turbo Diesel 0W-40
Mobil 1 ESP Formula 5W-30
Mobil 1 ESP Formula M 5W-40
My question is Mobil 1 ESP is the same as Mobil 1 Extended Performance ?
Mobil 1 SuperSyn European Car Formula 0W-40
Mobil 1 SuperSyn 5W-40
Mobil 1 SuperSyn 5W-50
Mobil 1 Turbo Diesel 0W-40
Mobil 1 ESP Formula 5W-30
Mobil 1 ESP Formula M 5W-40
My question is Mobil 1 ESP is the same as Mobil 1 Extended Performance ?
The link is very out of date: In Europe there are 6 current categories of oil types, http://www.atiel.org/downloads/code_practice/AppendixBissue13.pdf Group V "other" including esters, Group VI - PIO (polyinternalolefins, apparently produced by SA and Italian concerns)
As for Amsoil and Mobil they were not the first commercial auto synth oil suppliers. " Although in use in the aerospace industry for some years prior, synthetic oil first became commercially available for automobile engines when the French Oil company MOTUL first introduced commercial ester-based synthetic-oil in 1971. Other early synthetic motor oils included Amsoil, introduced in 1972 (with an ester-based 10W-40 formula developed by Hatco) and Mobil 1, introduced in 1974 (with a PAO-based 5W-20 formula)." Wikipedia, and also on Motuls site some time ago.
As for Amsoil and Mobil they were not the first commercial auto synth oil suppliers. " Although in use in the aerospace industry for some years prior, synthetic oil first became commercially available for automobile engines when the French Oil company MOTUL first introduced commercial ester-based synthetic-oil in 1971. Other early synthetic motor oils included Amsoil, introduced in 1972 (with an ester-based 10W-40 formula developed by Hatco) and Mobil 1, introduced in 1974 (with a PAO-based 5W-20 formula)." Wikipedia, and also on Motuls site some time ago.
I don't think it says anything about the "high quality" of the oil, but only that these oils meet the 229.3 and 229.5 specs.
FWIW, Mobil SHC Formula MB 5w30 meets 229.5 and it's a Group III oil. Mobil System S 5w40 meets 229.3 and it's a Group III oil.
- Status