Mobil 1 controversy on wikipedia.org

[farrarfan1]

So in this scenario we can asssume that the good old boy asserting that he is looking at a duck actually knows, based on his experience and observation that he is in fact looking at a duck. Or is his assertion based on what someone told him and that he blindly accepts and repeats without attempting to gather any independent evidence?

 

[Z_ombie]

I'm viewing the Wiki page with Firefox, and there currently is NO controversy section. I just checked Internet Explorer as well, no controversy section. What in the heck is goin on?

 

[Auto-Union]

I did not put the 1974 part in, but the 5w-20, 25k OCI and Tri-Synth part.

 

[Bryanccfshr]

What is going on is an information war. Hilarius if you ask me.
Mobil 1 iks So grp III it is undeniable at this point.

 

[Auto-Union]

A drive-by hacker, apparently from "www.bobistheoilguy.com", is inserting irrelevant inaccurate material regarding Mobil 1 into this entry. The current Mobil 1 is not a product of Mobil, but of the merged entity ExxonMobil. The so-called "proof" offered is an unsubstantiated commentary without any graphs, photos, or metrics of two weights of one Mobil 1 product. It is not accurate. If you see this material reinserted, and it has also shown up in the "Synthetic Oil" entry, please delete it. The author or authors are untrained zealots who apparently have some sort of axe to grind with ExxonMobil.

eblem

The above is wholly untrue. The base oil contraversy was correctly stated. The analysis was preformed by a 30 year industry expert with access to lab and interpretation skills that is top-notch. The FACT that Mobil 1 is NO LONGER a "full" synthetic but a processed-from-crue product is a "given" by people who are educated and informed. There is an apparent attempt to hide this fact from the Wiki users by *deletion* and from the general public by the use of deceptive wording. When questioned via EMail, XOM NEVER will clearly state their product is made of PAO synthetic base oils. They rather speak in terms of "performance" and the like. The editors would do well to contact an industry expert who has reviewed the test results. Best would be to let the article stand on it's own merits and let someone post RELAVENT TEST results disputing the fact Mobil 1 is not "synthetic" as defined on XOM's own webpage. Again, I am not the original author, but have seen conclusive proof from a long-time industry chemist that Mobil 1 is G-III Base- can someone prove other wise or even offer a shread of EVIDENCE that Mobil 1 is still PAO "synthetic" base oil? It is >>not<<. fwiw, I use a lot of Mobil oils, but don't think Mobil 1 is priced appropriately for it's content. The "contraversey" is real and well-substantiated.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:

---

So in this scenario we can assume that the good old boy asserting that he is looking at a duck actually knows, based on his experience and observation that he is in fact looking at a duck.(?)

---

Well, let me get back to you on that. Of course, if you're so compelled, you can find out for yourself.

 

[outersquare]

http://www.mobil1.jp/products_mobil1.html

there, note that all the Xw-30, except for 0w, oils are listed as "(PAO + Hydroprocessed)"

whoever is deleting the wiki entry now needs to stop and put it back, the controversy is real and exmobil will not come clean.

 

[outersquare]

if anyone tries to straight delete everything, click on "history", then the last revision, then "undo"

 

[Bebop]

Quote:

---

The controversy section of the Wiki page disappeared AGAIN!

---

Hit "reload"

 

[moribundman]

The whole affair is akin to the plot in a John Grisham novel -- only with worse spelling.

 

[HondaMan]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned that Microsoft was recently called out nationally for hiring someone to keep watch and edit Wiki information re: Microsoft.

Microsoft claimed many entries where wrong and of an IBM slant.

Seems like the same thing going on here with XOM. If this catches enough wind, it will make the national news.

 

[Auto-Union]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_oil

 

[tenderloin]

Thank you for your inquiry,

Mobil has seen the many rumors spread by these individuals and others. Mobil1 motor oils are still 100% synthetic, utilizing PAO's and other synthetic basestocks and a proprietary blend of additives tailored specifically for each viscosity.

This article however does state many important points, in that consumers should focus on the performance that the product delievers and not how Mobil or any other company gets their. When a consumers purchases a product, they pay for the end result, how it performs and what it can do for their vehicle. How a company makes their product should not be a focus, Mobil is continually improving the Mobil1 motor
oil with new technologies that the rest of the market does not even know exists and that is why we are not willing to share what the formulation is and what all the different basestocks that are utilized.

The bottomline, Mobil1 motor oils as in the past deliver the best overall protection for engines when it comes to real world performance, that has not changed. This is what a consumer pays for when purchasing Mobil1 motor oils!!

-Matt Jacob
1-800-ASK-MOBIL

 

[ekpolk]

I'm sure Matt Jacob is getting tired of his job about now. He must be starting to realize that fewer and fewer consumers are fooled by this silly double-speak. There's only one reason for saying, "utilizing PAOs and other synthetic basestocks. . .", and that is to mislead. They want the reader to latch on to "PAO" and brush past "other...". Likewise, they're happy to tell you about the presence of PAO, so why the need to conceal the identity of the "other synthetic basestocks". If they were esters, GTL, POE, or some other "true" synthetic, they'd identify the fluid, just like they identified the PAO component. The only reasonable conclusion from the unwillingness to identify the "other" fluids is that they are, in fact, Group-IIIs.

Confirming whether or not there's a G-III being used in the current M1 product line is a far cry from sharing "what the formulation is". That's just another weak excuse EM is using to avoid telling the whole truth.

ExxonMobil can decide what they put in their products; that's up to them. They will NOT, however, tell me what I will or will not pay for when choosing a motor oil, theirs or anyone else's. Best overall protection??? Where are those elevated Fe readings coming from in the UOAs?

Others are free to choose and use Mobil products, I've got no problem with that. But I'm done with them because I don't like the dishonest answers to straight, simple questions, and I can get both GC (better and a known, "real" synthetic) or PP (a good G-III, just like M1) for a lot less than M1. Perhaps this wouldn't #@$%! me off so bad if M1 was not well north of $6 per quart at this point.

OK, there, I've had my Mobil rant for the week. . .

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

...should focus on the performance that the product delievers and not how Mobil or any other company gets their. When a consumers purchases a product, they pay for the end result, how it performs and what it can do for their vehicle. How a company makes their product should not be a focus...

---

Funny, I once had a salesman tell me something similar when I said I wanted real leather instead of vinyl seats in my car.

 

[tenderloin]

But as you know for many years, on many vehicles.....it is now "leather seating surfaces" while the rest IS vinyl. More Mobil influence. LOL This has even spilled over to the home furniture business in many areas.

 

[Bryanccfshr]

Now I have to make some edits. There are some hypes on synthetic oil that have been show to be questionable.

This BITOG member is now editing the section.

 

[tenderloin]

GeorgeCLS
Group II Member

The lab called today, Monday, 2/12/07 and indicated that they sourced two samples of Group IV PAO from two different sources and that the GC traces are very, very similar to the Mobil 1 EP GC that they ran originally. The only missing component is the comparative trace for a Group III, which is still missing. However, the lab's comments were that they are "98% certain that the major component (base stock) for the Mobil 1 EP submitted sample is Group IV, PAO."
They are continuing to resource the Group III for absolution....

 

[ccs v2.0]

Quote:

---

But as you know for many years, on many vehicles.....it is now "leather seating surfaces" while the rest IS vinyl. More Mobil influence. LOL This has even spilled over to the home furniture business in many areas.

---

I get it now. Porsche, an "official Mobil partner", offers two leather options: "leather seating surfaces" and "full leather". I forsee this latter options being dropped without much fanfare since it's "how you get there" that matters.

 

[ekpolk]

Well, Mobil could put an end to this mess any time they choose to, with a simple one paragraph, totally trade secret safe, statement. Instead, all we get from EM is persistent, mealy-mouthed Group-III speak.

I too appreciate the time and money spent by those who have done lab work on the various M1 formulations. At this point, it looks to me like we're left with:

1) one set of results that seem to indicate Group-III
2) another set of results that seem to indicate Group-IV
3) a manufacturer that uses language typically employed when an oil brewer wants to sell a Group-III oil and call it "full synthetic".

This is NOT a good time for ExxonMobil to exercise its right to remain silent. If they have a leg to stand on (i.e., M1 is still a G-IV/V product), then they need to stand up, speak out, and slay this ***** dragon for once and for all!