Mobil 1 EP GC update

[GeorgeCLS]

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....

 

[buster]

Quote:

---

"98% certain that the major component (base stock) for the Mobil 1 EP submitted sample is Group IV, PAO."

---

 

[s98d7fs]

Thanks again for your time in following up and investigating this.

 

[tenderloin]

"98% certain that the major component (base stock) for the Mobil 1 EP submitted sample is Group IV, PAO."

 

[JAG]

Thanks George. Oh man this is going to get crazy if this becomes their final conclusion. Then it will be a credibility contest. So get your ducks in a row and provide all the information you can to convince people that the GC tester(s) are experienced and unbiased.

 

[farrarfan1]

George run for your life.The villagers are gathering every pitchfork, torch and able bodied man they can muster.I wish you a safe and speedy escape.

 

[Volvohead]

Agreed. If you haven't already, you should name the lab involved, and flesh out the particulars, as the upshot on their findings, once completed, is patently obvious.

 

[outersquare]

thanks for the update, this is certainly a wild ride.

I guess it's still too early to throw out the couple cases of M1 in the garage still.

 

[ccs v2.0]

Ducks? Make them chromatographs, column IDs, calibration and other relevant QC data in PDF form for the world to see.

 

[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!

 

[tenderloin]

ekpolk

 

[buster]

People should really be focusing on how good the oil is, not what %'s of base oils each oil uses. We will NEVER EVER know that for ANY of these brands.

What I think they are doing and have been doing for awhile is using SuperSyn PAO as the correction fluid in varying amounts in different grades of Mobil 1. Some will use more (0w-40), some less. Thats my .02

Quote:

---

Mobil 1 15W-50 is formulated with SuperSyn, an extra-high viscosity synthetic fluid,

---

Here is a good link on moral relativism for those that want to take this to another level...

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/

 

[outersquare]

btw, what weights were tested?

 

[ekpolk]

Quote:

---

ekpolk

---

Live or dead, it's only going to be credible from the horse's mouth. So tell me, why won't the horse speak with any clarity???????

Right back at ya.

 

[ekpolk]

Quote:

---

People should really be focusing on how good the oil is, not what %'s of base oils each oil uses. We will NEVER EVER know that for ANY of these brands.

---

That's not the issue, Buster. No one is asking for a specific breakdown of the various formulae used for the M1 product line. I'd be 110% with Mobil, or any other competitor in refusing to disclose such info. But if they're now selling a product different product than what they've been promoting in their advertising, well, I continue to have a problem with that.

Yes, once again, it's Mobil's dragon to slay any time they feel like doing so. . .

 

[tenderloin]

ekpolk

It is clear enough, you just don't like what you read. Don't like the response from Mobil? That being the case don't use or recommend M1...simple. But much beyond these months even IF there are GRPlll M1 oils out there....I say enough is enough.

Just look at all the #@$%! spewed for months now. Only one or two posters actually had any contact to even give any "expert" opinion..especially the M1 is GRPIII now sucks and is overpriced, jump on the bandwagon gang, yet jump many did.

Regardless how this turns out, IMO this board has taken a HUGE credibility hit. Most posters turned out to just exhibit their true nature, beliefs, preferences and prejudices they had BEFORE the M1 GRPIII "controversy".....They just thought they had some cover to do it, with the "test" giving them some "credibility"

 

[ekpolk]

TL:

Really, it looks to me as if both sides of this are just as guilty as the other of beating on dead horses. If you've read enough, then you're free to stop.

Again, if this mess is so bad, then why on earth has Mobil not stepped in to stop it. You're right that this has become an unseemly mess, but what are we supposed to do, just ignore information that seems to indicate that a highly regarded product isn't what it claims to be? What sort of cred would this board have if we just give Mobil a "free pass" just because of their product's past record? Again, I'm not anti-Mobil at all -- not one bit. I just want the facts.

 

[TR3-2001SE]

Sound like what I suspected.

 

[tenderloin]

Bump

 

[sky jumper]

maybe I missed the original thread, but what grade did this second lab test? I'm inclined to believe that some M1 grades may still be mostly PAO (e.g. the 0W40)? while others may mix in more GIII. seems like that would be an important thing to understand.