Mobil 1 EP GC update
- Thread starter GeorgeCLS
- Start date
- Status
Truth in advertising a product to date? AMSOIL
Quote:
I'm actually well aware of moral relativism.
Which explains why your posts are so original.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
You'd happily buy and eat sewer rat meat as long as it tastes just like filet mignon?
The Mobil 1, 15w-50/EP has a kinematic viscosity @ 100C of 18.0 Cst, but a HT/HS viscosity @ 150C of only 4.6 Cp.
Compare that to the PAO based, Amsoil 20w-50/TRO, which has a kinematic viscosity @ 100C of 18.3 and a HT/HS viscosity of 5.1 Cp.
Clearly these are not comparable basestock blends and the 15w-50 is pumped up with polymeric thickener (VI modifier). That's why it thins out significantly more in the tapered bearing simulator test.
FWIW, the old Mobil 1, 15w-50 also had a HT/HS viscosity of approx 5.0 Cp @ 150C. So something has clearly changed....
Compare that to the PAO based, Amsoil 20w-50/TRO, which has a kinematic viscosity @ 100C of 18.3 and a HT/HS viscosity of 5.1 Cp.
Clearly these are not comparable basestock blends and the 15w-50 is pumped up with polymeric thickener (VI modifier). That's why it thins out significantly more in the tapered bearing simulator test.
FWIW, the old Mobil 1, 15w-50 also had a HT/HS viscosity of approx 5.0 Cp @ 150C. So something has clearly changed....
As I shared in my original post, the lab's samples of Group III and Group IV for comparative trace came up missing when they got around to running the Mobil 1 GC. Thus the lab did a low profile resource to obtain new samples of both Group III and group IV. They obtained two samples of Group IV from two sources and were then able to do the comparatives. Thus the reported 98% per cent certainty of Group IV based on the trace comparatives. However, the lab still wants to run the Group III trace for absolute verification.. Then the lab will or will not be able to say 100% based on the comparisons of both Group III and Group IV. The Group IV traces were carbon copies but the lab wants to be absolutely certain with the Group III comparative..
Quote:
I'm actually well aware of moral relativism.
My personal opinion is M1 absolutely contains some/mostly group III. Either way, I don't care as long as it performs.
Let's try looking at it from a quasi-mathematical point of view. I propose the following simple formula:
(Ultimate Assessment of an Oil) = ((Physical Quality of Oil) x (Reputation of Oilmaker)) / Oilmaker's Deceptive Behavior Factor
My Ultimate Assessment of an Oil is reduced by the relative (ooops, ought to leave that term out...) deceptiveness of the Oilmaker.
In you view, if I understand you, you would eliminate that factor from the equation completely.
Personally, I would want to see the "UAoO" maximized, which per my formula, would require minimal amounts of Oilmaker deceptive behavior.
In short, I care about both oil quality AND being deceived. You do not care about the latter factor, which of course, is a view you are entitled to embrace. Do try to understand, though, that for a lot of us, being deceived really #@$%! us off.
Yes, indeed "something has changed". The "old" Mobil 1 had 10%+/- ester component. The "new" Mobil 1 has little or no ester component, thus the change in numbers, the change in natural VI...
It appears that these oil geek threads are the only ones even talking about what's in the bottle beyond, it's synthetic oil. Why would Mobil respond if they have no interest in what we have to say, and we have no influence on their intended market, only other oil geeks.
I think all we know at this point (from George's Lab's tests) is that the Mobil might be PAO. They don't have a comparative of Grp III oil so they don't even know how close the Grp III test would be to a Grp IV test.
It is too early to conclude anything from this information.
But, thanks for the update.
It is too early to conclude anything from this information.
But, thanks for the update.
I think Mobil 1 is PAO. I also know it contains group iii also. The real question is how much group iii is in each grade. I think with the new additive technologies Mobil is finding the oil performs better with a group iii oil mixed in. I can remember a year ago saying Mobil 1 had a group iii component and I was almost flamed into banishment.
Mobil 1 is to expensive anyways, so most people won't buy it. Anyone got any marketshare numbers for Mobil 1?
Mobil 1 is to expensive anyways, so most people won't buy it. Anyone got any marketshare numbers for Mobil 1?
"""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"""
Answer not complete till a LIKE vis GPIII is run perhaps from 2 sources one being XOM, anyway as I remember they will look "similar" to a PAO.
bruce
Answer not complete till a LIKE vis GPIII is run perhaps from 2 sources one being XOM, anyway as I remember they will look "similar" to a PAO.
bruce
also be advised that the 2 labs seem to disagree BUT test maynot be accurate due to formula changes no on knows about this sample maybe all PAO the sample TOM ran could have been GPIII with out testing SAME bottle sample answer may never be known.
bruce
bruce
ekpolk, let me just say that I completely understand where you are coming from with this and I respect your opinion.
My equation would look like this:
Ultimate assessment of an oil = (UOA's in various cars) + (industry specs met) + (product endorsements) + (experience of blender) + (components of oil) + (product importance to company)
As I said before, you are buying performance in a bottle. How one gets there doesn't always matter. If I found that I could use a less costly component to make the product nearly as good or as good, I dont have a problem with that. That is business. Anyone who doesn't think that is a fool, would you not agree? So say they took Mobil 1 of old, which was 80% PAO, but now use some super Group III+ as the majority base oil and then add the SuperSyn High Vis PAO to the blend along with AN's. They now have created an oil that is every bit as good as the old, but only contains 15% PAO, why wouldn't you use it? Just on the principle fact alone that it's no longer a majority PAO based oil? It just doesn't make sense.
What I do have a problem with is the lackluster performance of M1 for the $$. It's not the Group III/IV/V blend. Any BITOG who has been around at least a year should know that it's the final product that matters. Some group III's properly formulated will perform as well or better than PAO based oils.
Believe me, I wish all the base oils %'s were disclosed by all the companies but that ain't ever gonna happen.
Here is the bottom line. Mobil 1 is still a great product and I really do not think anyone doubts that. The only thing (and I believe this is the only thing) that most are upset about is that Mobil raised such a ruckus when Castrol switched to Group III and called it synthetic. Now there is the possibility that XOM is using some Group III in their prized Mobil 1 product line. If this is correct they should say so. Maybe instead of having Mobil 1 and Mobil 1 EP, have a Mobil 1 Group III and a Mobil 1 PAO, kind of like Amsoil does. I know it would be a hard thing for them to swallow, but they could do it. Change the labels a little to let everyone know the difference.
As for market share, the last I saw, Mobil 1 had a synthetic market share of around 59%. They are still the king of synthetics in North America.
As for market share, the last I saw, Mobil 1 had a synthetic market share of around 59%. They are still the king of synthetics in North America.
Good lord! Is this still going on?
Well, I haven't been 'round in a while, but I still notice that Mobil1 still provides cold-flow temperature numbers on its regular line ("flows as low as -53F"), but has no such data on its EP bottles.
Well, I haven't been 'round in a while, but I still notice that Mobil1 still provides cold-flow temperature numbers on its regular line ("flows as low as -53F"), but has no such data on its EP bottles.
What percent of the market do synthetic oils represent?
20% max. Maybe more like 13%.
Well stated Johnny.
- Status
Similar threads
