Mobil 1 controversy on wikipedia.org

[OriginHacker21]

I stopped using Mobil 1 when they went over $6/qt. I could get Amsoil for cheaper than that. Now when I visited Pep Boys and a Wal-Mart in my area - mobil 1 is $7.26/qt. No way. Sad thing is - people still buy it like snacks off the shelf.

Today 2/12/07 - around 3:00pm PST - I went to the wikipedia site and it still has the Mobil 1 controversy there. Good work people - especially with people like Matt Jacob sending e-mails like that out... ?????

I hope Amsoil never switches ... I'm sure there will be more bashing than this if they do

. Very interesting indeed.

 

[moribundman]

Quote:

---

Today 2/12/07 - around 3:00pm PST - I went to the wikipedia site and it still has the Mobil 1 controversy there.

---

It's gone. I always empty my cache before checking the wikipedia to ensure I get the "latest" gab.

 

[Z_ombie]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Today 2/12/07 - around 3:00pm PST - I went to the wikipedia site and it still has the Mobil 1 controversy there.

---

It's gone. I always empty my cache before checking the wikipedia to ensure I get the "latest" gab.

---

Hmm, checked, its still there, cleared my cache, its still there...

 

[Z_ombie]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Today 2/12/07 - around 3:00pm PST - I went to the wikipedia site and it still has the Mobil 1 controversy there.

---

It's gone. I always empty my cache before checking the wikipedia to ensure I get the "latest" gab.

---

Hmm, checked, its still there, cleared my cache, its still there...

---

I take that back, its gone now....

 

[Drivebelt]

Where is the current controversy? I don’t see one.

In the 1990’s Mobil fought Castrol over the issue of calling Group III’s synthetic and lost. Group III’s are now considered synthetics and are being used and marketed as such by a whole bunch of oil companies. I don’t see Mobil currently disputing that. Even Amsoil is now using Group III’s and marketing them as synthetic.

The “controversy” part simply doesn’t belong in the Wikipedia article. This is just sour grapes by people who still hold on to the belief that only Group IV/V’s are “true” synthetics and believed that Mobil 1 was only using Group IV/V oils in their synthetic line of oils. So what if people believed Mobil 1 to be only PAO’s -- that’s their problem. Since when has Mobile stated that they were only using Group IV/V oils in their synthetics? And how many oil companies are telling us what base oils they’re using in their synthetic line of oils anyway? Hardly anyone.

Quote:

---

Mobil …

To meet the demanding requirements of today's specifications (and our customers' expectations), Mobil 1® uses high-performance fluids, including polyalphaolefins (PAOs), along with a proprietary system of additives. Each Mobil 1 viscosity grade uses a unique combination of synthetic fluids and selected additives in order to tailor the viscosity grade to its specific application.

---

Mobil states they are using PAO’s … AND … other high-performance fluids. Clearly this leaves room for Group III’s if they want to put them in there. According to the Japanese site a couple of their Mobil 1 oils are PAO and Group III blends -- the rest are PAO based.

 

[buster]

Exactly Drivebelt.

According to "someone" at Redline, the original Amsoil sales people would claim that only esters are true synthetics. Then Amsoil followed Mobil and went PAO. Don't be surprised if Amsoil goes GroupIII/IV blend and don't be surprised if they don't tell you! Performance is performance no matter how you get there...

 

[wileyE]

Why not just pull the cap off and take a wiff? PAO has a unique smell. If you heat it or burn it's even more distinctive.

 

[Z_ombie]

Quote:

---

Why not just pull the cap off and take a wiff? PAO has a unique smell. If you heat it or burn it's even more distinctive.

---

What exactly does that smell like? I've smelled M1, but not sure if it was genuine or not. But, the strongest, most powerful oil I have smelled to date is Rotella T, one big wiff of that and its enough to open your eyes alittle wider.

 

[AndyH]

As of 02/13/07 @ 11:06 AM CST the "Controversy" section has returned (it wasn't there a few hours ago when I checked):

Quote:

---

Controversy
In 2006, the results of a gas chromatography test on Mobil 1 5w-30 EP were posted by an industry expert on the popular motor oil discussion website BITOG. It showed the oil to be primarily composed of a less expensive, Group III processed mineral oil. Until this time, Mobil 1 was believed to be a true synthetic, utilizing a Group IV (PAO) basestock. The release of this information has led to a backlash against ExxonMobil's lubricant products in many automotive communities. Ironically, in 1999, Mobil fought Castrol's change in formulation to a Group III basestock in motor oils being marketed as fully synthetic. Mobil claimed that Castrol was decieving their customer base, while degrading their products. The National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus eventually ruled that Castrol could continue to market their Syntec line as a fully synthetic motor oil. ExxonMobil currently refuses to comment on the primary basestock of their Mobil 1 series of oils. This has only added further confusion over the exact definition of the term "synthetic oil."

---

Looking at the "History" of this Wikipedia entry, it appears that "Eblem" and "Outersquare" are duking it out, with one adding the section back in and the other removing it:

(cur) (last) 00:10, 13 February 2007 Eblem (Talk | contribs) (?Mobil 1)
(cur) (last) 20:55, 12 February 2007 Outersquare (Talk | contribs) (?Undid revision 107610954 by Eblem (talk))
(cur) (last) 18:20, 12 February 2007 Eblem (Talk | contribs) (?Mobil 1)
(cur) (last) 18:15, 12 February 2007 Outersquare (Talk | contribs) (?Undid revision 107533988 by Eblem (talk))
(cur) (last) 10:45, 12 February 2007 Eblem (Talk | contribs)
(cur) (last) 06:04, 12 February 2007 Outersquare (Talk | contribs) (?Undid revision 107430194 by Eblem (talk))

 

[JAG]

Quote:

---

Why not just pull the cap off and take a wiff? PAO has a unique smell. If you heat it or burn it's even more distinctive.

---

I've smelled and heated and smelled several brands of PAO based motor oils. There has been no common smell between them, probably because the additive package differences conceals the basestock odor too much.

 

[moribundman]

Does poor engine hygiene make the oil stink?

 

[CBDFrontier06]

I have to admit that it was Mobil's marketing that sold me on their oil years ago. Does anyone remember their commercial comparing Mobil1 to convention oil using cast iron skillets over a blue flame? I can't quote what temperature they were using, but they showed a pan of Mobil1 next to a pan of some brand of conventional oil heated to XXX degrees and the conventioal oil burned to the bottom of the pan, while the Mobil1 remained clear and still poured. If Mobil has switched to a group III, my concern would be if the oil would still be capable of withstanding those temperatures. Temperature stability is the main reason I use it, so I'd love to know if this attribute has changed.

 

[ekpolk]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Why not just pull the cap off and take a wiff? PAO has a unique smell. If you heat it or burn it's even more distinctive.

---

I've smelled and heated and smelled several brands of PAO based motor oils. There has been no common smell between them, probably because the additive package differences conceals the basestock odor too much.

---

And of course, none of the half-dozen or so other PAO brews I've whiffed have ever come close to achieving the sublime, legendary "Gummy Bear" odor for which the original green GC was so well known back in "the day" (all of two years ago...).

 

[JAG]

Quote:

---

I have to admit that it was Mobil's marketing that sold me on their oil years ago. Does anyone remember their commercial comparing Mobil 1 to conventional oil using cast iron skillets over a blue flame? I can't quote what temperature they were using, but they showed a pan of Mobil1 next to a pan of some brand of conventional oil heated to XXX degrees and the conventioal oil burned to the bottom of the pan, while the Mobil1 remained clear and still poured. If Mobil has switched to a group III, my concern would be if the oil would still be capable of withstanding those temperatures. Temperature stability is the main reason I use it, so I'd love to know if this attribute has changed.

---

I haven't noticed a change for the worse. I tested several M1 grades several years ago and also tested several recent formulations. The recent Mobil 1 oils I tested have still been very stable at high temps like they were years ago. The most recent test was 320F for 14 hours on M1 0W-40 and Green GC. The M1 0W-40 left no deposits behind on the ceramic cup. Green GC produced a pea-sized (in terms of its diameter; it was thin) varnish deposit on the bottom of the cup. That was just one test (no repeats) only so don't scribe it into stone but that's the result I got.

 

[Bob Woods]

MIDDLEBURY, Vt. (AP) - Middlebury College history students are no longer allowed to use Wikipedia in preparing class papers.
The school's history department recently adopted a policy that says it's OK to consult the popular online encyclopedia, but that it can't be cited as an authoritative source by students.

The policy says, in part, "Wikipedia is not an acceptable citation, even though it may lead one to a citable source."

History professor Neil Waters says Wikipedia is an ideal place to start research but an unacceptable way to end it.

 

[ekpolk]

Quote:

---

MIDDLEBURY, Vt. (AP) - Middlebury College history students are no longer allowed to use Wikipedia in preparing class papers.
The school's history department recently adopted a policy that says it's OK to consult the popular online encyclopedia, but that it can't be cited as an authoritative source by students.

The policy says, in part, "Wikipedia is not an acceptable citation, even though it may lead one to a citable source."

History professor Neil Waters says Wikipedia is an ideal place to start research but an unacceptable way to end it.

---

And I'm sure the last straw for them was watching the articles change by the minute as a bunch of motor oil zealots conducted their own, on-going, on-line "Tastes Great," "Less Filling," "Tastes Great," "Less Filling". . . battle.

I mean, at this point, when I now fully understand that at any moment in time, you can make Wiki say whatever you want it to say, I'd have to call it the ultimate, cred-free, anti-authority. Wiki says ___________________ (fill in whatever you want).

Next, Wiki will say that M1 was actually derived from the motor oil extracted from the engine of the alien saucer that crashed at Roswell NM back in 1947. Or was that the green GC???

 

[Auto-Union]

I was on top of the article for a while and wrote to wiki about it. The poster who is removing the article is not acting in the spirit of wiki, as the Mobil v. Castrol part is a FACT and the "contraversy" is real. Just because they don't like or agree does not mean it is not part of Mobil 1(folk) history.

 

[outersquare]

I went back and forth with this guy there about that section and he keeps deleting the composition section.

I am starting to wonder if he is an insider being paid to babysit the section.

 

[heathenbrewing]

outersquare - why did the link disappear? Is it a valid data sheet?

 

[PT1]

This is hilarious...we get XOM products at work to test but they are no better than everyone elses IMO. But they are better at branding & marketing for sure. Amsoil seems to follow their lead though with the Amsoil GPIII oil...but at least Amsoil will easily fess up and tell you it's GPIII and being offered as a more cost effective alternative. But XOM is all about the green...not green oil...green money...yours & mine. Those guys would fill a silver bottle with water if they could get away with it. But this is all just all my opinion. But the Wikpedia thing...hilarious