I've been out of touch. Is Mobil 1 now using Group III base oils in all versions? How about Mobil Delvac 1?
Ken
Ken
Mobil 1 base oil???
- Thread starter Ken2
- Start date
- Status
There are more Mobil 1 base oil threads out there on BITOG than any other, by far. Do a little browsing here and you will have more reading than you can shake a stick at.
In a nutshell, there is fairly compelling evidence that suggests *some* of Mobil 1 pcmo's may now be made with Group III base oils. The main gripe many have is that XOM won't state definitively whether or not it does. They use a lot of wiggle words and obfuscation to dance around the questions, which only further convinces some folks that they do indeed use Group III in at least some of their products. XOM's pat response now is that their formulations are "proprietary" (so they won't comment on base oil composition) and that customers should focus on final product results rather than formulations. (Contrast that with their earlier battle with Castrol where Mobil loudly trumpeted the fact that *theirs* was the only "true" synthetic because it used true Group IV PAO base oils, not the "fake" Group III synthetic that Castrol used.)
I think most people think it's still a "good" oil, but many think it's not worth the premium over other synthetics, especially since they perceive much of it to be made with GIII. They resent XOM's perceived hypocrisy (with respect to the Castrol thing) and refuse to buy or use it simply on principle. Others don't care so long as they feel it continues to work as well for them as it always did.
In a nutshell, there is fairly compelling evidence that suggests *some* of Mobil 1 pcmo's may now be made with Group III base oils. The main gripe many have is that XOM won't state definitively whether or not it does. They use a lot of wiggle words and obfuscation to dance around the questions, which only further convinces some folks that they do indeed use Group III in at least some of their products. XOM's pat response now is that their formulations are "proprietary" (so they won't comment on base oil composition) and that customers should focus on final product results rather than formulations. (Contrast that with their earlier battle with Castrol where Mobil loudly trumpeted the fact that *theirs* was the only "true" synthetic because it used true Group IV PAO base oils, not the "fake" Group III synthetic that Castrol used.)
I think most people think it's still a "good" oil, but many think it's not worth the premium over other synthetics, especially since they perceive much of it to be made with GIII. They resent XOM's perceived hypocrisy (with respect to the Castrol thing) and refuse to buy or use it simply on principle. Others don't care so long as they feel it continues to work as well for them as it always did.
Anonymous inside XOM sources tell me that the new Mobil 1 HM 10W-30 and HM 10W-40 are formulated from 100% pure Group IV base stock.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . .
. . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . .
Up front, I'll admit that I'm a satisfied M1 user, and have been for six years.
That said, my question is: why should Exxon Mobil provide proprietary information to the users of its oil? The makers of Cheerios will most definitely not provide you information on how their cereal is made, no matter how many bowls of it you eat. Apply this to most other manufacturers, and the answer is the same. If I'm Keebler, and you want to know what goes into the cookies, my answer is going to be "-just some stuff the elves threw in."
Unless I misunderstand, the "base stock" of the oil is a component of the process, the part that is supposed to do the actual lubrication. I don't have any idea how much money Exxon Mobil, Castrol, Amsoil, or anyone else has invested in developing these oils, but if I was in control of one of them, I'd be go to heck before I'd tell you.
That said, my question is: why should Exxon Mobil provide proprietary information to the users of its oil? The makers of Cheerios will most definitely not provide you information on how their cereal is made, no matter how many bowls of it you eat. Apply this to most other manufacturers, and the answer is the same. If I'm Keebler, and you want to know what goes into the cookies, my answer is going to be "-just some stuff the elves threw in."
Unless I misunderstand, the "base stock" of the oil is a component of the process, the part that is supposed to do the actual lubrication. I don't have any idea how much money Exxon Mobil, Castrol, Amsoil, or anyone else has invested in developing these oils, but if I was in control of one of them, I'd be go to heck before I'd tell you.
First off when you look at the side of a cheerios box it tells you the ingredients, maybe not the exact ratio however. When I wrote to Mobil regarding their base oils I did not ask what their exact formulation is, I simply asked if their base oils contained any group III. Thats all, I did not expect them to give away their formulation. Many other companies give this information away or even advertise what it is.
Why? Us lawyers use a phrase, it's called "opening the door." When opposing counsel brings up a topic that would otherwise be off limits to me, I'm then free to explore that topic further because they "opened the door." It's a rule of evidence. If I can't bring it up or ask questions about it but the other guy does, the door is now open to that topic and all bets are off.
When Mobil makes statements like "contains PAO" they have opened the door when it comes to the base oils they use. They can't then turn around and claim it's proprietary if asked if their oil also contains Group III. To do so is disingenuous.
I no longer buy any Exxon-Mobil product due to the mystery of Mobil 1 base oils and Exxon's irresponsible actions as a company.
Thank goodness we have Shell and Chevron.
Thank goodness we have Shell and Chevron.
Amsoil has been vague too when it comes to this, but they do say they still "use" PAO in the TSO/ASL/ATM/ASM oils.
All of the other companies that I've spoken too have had no problem telling me what base oils are used, including Shell and CVX products. XOM is the only company that won't and that is because they now use the base oil they went to court over.
Regardless though, M1 simply is not as good as it used to be generally speaking. They still make some great oils like D1 and 0w-40. The others are not worth the cost when you have Valvoline, Havoline and PP to chose from and are very good products.
Because it costs so much.
Because it costs so much.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
I totally agree. No company is going to disclose their ingredient by ingredient formulas. The reason I`m a loyal Mobil 1 user is that their oil performs impeccably for me. Out of all the oils I`ve tried,I`ve never once had an issue with it.
Plus the fact that they make everything that goes into it,including their own base stocks,instead of sourcing out a generic base stock from who knows where.
Mobil 1 is still the best off the shelf oil you can buy....
Rico and aquarius, you're missing the point. The point isn't, "Hey, tell us the formulations of your oil."
The point is very simple: In the late 90's, Mobil made a HUGE deal out of the fact that their synthetic is the "real" synthetic because its base oil was 100% PAO (i.e. Group IV). Fast forward to 2006-2007, when most every other OTC synthetic is Group III, and it's now "proprietary" information over at good old XOM.
Don't you see the hypocrisy? It isn't about whether it's a good or bad oil, but more about being disingenuous and hypocritical. When they were trying to win an FTC case, they were more than happy to discuss their "formulations". When there was no longer a case to be won, they've suddenly quit talking. They still want to charge a premium but don't want to let people know what they're paying for.
The point is very simple: In the late 90's, Mobil made a HUGE deal out of the fact that their synthetic is the "real" synthetic because its base oil was 100% PAO (i.e. Group IV). Fast forward to 2006-2007, when most every other OTC synthetic is Group III, and it's now "proprietary" information over at good old XOM.
Don't you see the hypocrisy? It isn't about whether it's a good or bad oil, but more about being disingenuous and hypocritical. When they were trying to win an FTC case, they were more than happy to discuss their "formulations". When there was no longer a case to be won, they've suddenly quit talking. They still want to charge a premium but don't want to let people know what they're paying for.
I don't see hypocrisy. Group III's have improved and some approach PAO performance at a reduce cost. So what if Mobil 1 changed their philosophy? IMHO, as I've said over and over again it's not about what base oils they use. It's about the "end performance". People over react to this stuff. Mobil 1 has issues and it's ABSOLUTELY NOT THE GROUP III they use! Group II+ oils out perform M1 in some applications. What does that tell you?
Mobil 1 has issues all right. Part of it is performance-related, as you said. But I still disagree about the philosophy issue. They certainly *have* changed their philosophy:
Before - We proudly trumpet our G-IV base oil formulation.
After - We now say pay no attention to base oil and focus on performance.
Maybe our definitions of philosophy simply differ.
Before - We proudly trumpet our G-IV base oil formulation.
After - We now say pay no attention to base oil and focus on performance.
Maybe our definitions of philosophy simply differ.
I can buy Royal Purple and Redline off the shelf in my area.
Oh yeah, and...
I agree with "buster" completely. M1 performs for me, and I've seen not a smidge of evidence on this board (or anyplace else) that another brand of oil will perform better. When it is demonstrated to me (through UOAs or another verifiable means of collecting data) that another oil's better, I'll consider changing. Not before.
I couldn't conceivably care less about Exxon Mobil's "philosophy." I care about how their products perform in my car.
I couldn't conceivably care less about Exxon Mobil's "philosophy." I care about how their products perform in my car.
Unless you can substantiate this claim, your statement is quite useless. It also depends on what's on someone's shelf...
- Status
Similar threads
