Mobil 1 EP GC update

[Mr_Incredible]

As Nickdfresh just mentioned, some bottles I looked at last weekend stated cold pour down to -50ish. Some bottles didn't say that.

Might that not be an indicator of formulation? Certainly it wouldn't be as good as a list of percentages like a nutritional label, but is it a clue?

 

[goodvibes]

Quote:

---

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

---

It could also be that the test got a fortunate delay while Mobil re-improved the base stock.

 

[Lonnie]

It could also be that the test got a fortunate delay while Mobil re-improved the base stock.

And EOM would care because....?

 

[Challenger71]

You hear that? Hammer & nails: they're building a gallows for George down at at the town square. Poor guy.

 

[B00SS]

I could not have said it better:

Quote:

---

Volvohead said: Mobil 1 is still a very good motor oil.

The problem some of us have with it is that (1) it is marketed at the very upper end of the price scale, (2) it has historically claimed itself to contain an expensive PAO base (which justified and induced its use by some), (3) there have been recent controversial (and disputed) test results showing several varieties as primarily composed of cheaper Group III stocks, and (4) some UOAs have been less than spectacular, with higher than average Fe readings.

---

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

Believe me, I wish all the base oils %'s were disclosed by all the companies but that ain't ever gonna happen.

That is now how this industry works.

---

No, your wrong. When Castrol made the switch to Group III in Dec 1997 Mobil made a big stink about. Now...because Exxon-Mobil is doing it...it's super secret. On the otherhand, Amsoil and Pennzoil were forthcoming on their Group III move.

Further, there was a time when virtually all synthetic oil producers would gladly tell you what their product was made of. In the article I reference here:

http://theoildrop.server101.com/forums/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=825770

Mobil, along with more than a dozen other companies, clearly listed the synthetic basestocks in their formulations.

Lastly, if basestocks don't matter, just performance, why is there such a shortage of PAO?

Could it be that products that have a lot more demanding specs than SM/GF-4 require PAO?

Why are these other products, now requiring PAO, not made with Group III basestocks if Group III basestocks are just as good?

 

[TeeDub]

427ZO6,

I believe a lot of the PAO is going into the new synthetic blend, factory fill ATF's (Dexron VI and Mercon SP),which have more stringent pumping requirements than in the past.

It is my understanding (from reading some of Chevrons literature), that 20%-30% PAO gives you the same benefit in this regard as adding 60%-70% Group III basestock and you (Exxonmobil/Chevron/BP) are able to get a fair market price for your PAO's. If you make a PAO based engine oil and you can't sell it for a $1.25/qt premium over a Group III product, it makes very little economic sense to continue this practice.

Ted

 

[Thatwouldbegreat]

I quickly scanned a few Mobil 1 MSDS's and unlike the old days there is no info on composition.





SECTION 2 COMPOSITION / INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS

No Reportable Hazardous Substance(s) or Complex Substance(s

 

[buster]

Quote:

---

No, your wrong. When Castrol made the switch to Group III in Dec 1997 Mobil made a big stink about. Now...because Exxon-Mobil is doing it...it's super secret. On the otherhand, Amsoil and Pennzoil were forthcoming on their Group III move.

---

True, it used to be that they gave you this information.

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

427ZO6,

I believe a lot of the PAO is going into the new synthetic blend, factory fill ATF's (Dexron VI and Mercon SP),which have more stringent pumping requirements than in the past.

It is my understanding (from reading some of Chevrons literature), that 20%-30% PAO gives you the same benefit in this regard as adding 60%-70% Group III basestock and you (Exxonmobil/Chevron/BP) are able to get a fair market price for your PAO's. If you make a PAO based engine oil and you can't sell it for a $1.25/qt premium over a Group III product, it makes very little economic sense to continue this practice.

Ted

---

Ted, those questions were rhetorical in nature but thanks for fleshing them out with a great answer.

 

[ekpolk]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

No, your wrong. When Castrol made the switch to Group III in Dec 1997 Mobil made a big stink about. Now...because Exxon-Mobil is doing it...it's super secret. On the otherhand, Amsoil and Pennzoil were forthcoming on their Group III move.

---

True, it used to be that they gave you this information.

---

And what on earth was so wrong with that???? It's hardly as if I'm planning (or even able...) to dash off to my bathtub lab and, armed with their witlessly supplied info, start whipping up a better product, which would suddenly be embraced by the market en masse, resulting in the overnight destruction of ExxonMobil.

 

[B00SS]

Quote:

---

And what on earth was so wrong with that???? It's hardly as if I'm planning (or even able...) to dash off to my bathtub lab and, armed with their witlessly supplied info, start whipping up a better product, which would suddenly be embraced by the market en masse, resulting in the overnight destruction of ExxonMobil.

---

Ekpolk's Magical Elixir! I'd buy a 55 gallon drum of that!

 

[ekpolk]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

And what on earth was so wrong with that???? It's hardly as if I'm planning (or even able...) to dash off to my bathtub lab and, armed with their witlessly supplied info, start whipping up a better product, which would suddenly be embraced by the market en masse, resulting in the overnight destruction of ExxonMobil.

---

Ekpolk's Magical Elixir! I'd buy a 55 gallon drum of that!

---

Gosh, I appreciate the endorsement! One thing you can be sure of -- even if I'm using Martian skin oil as the backbone of my product, I'll tell you exactly what I'm using. . .

 

[Nickdfresh]

What's the MSDS on that?

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

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

---

This is a critical point so I'm going to quote it for bruce.

Tom tested three different samples, one, from almost two years earlier. The odds of his results being an anomaly are extremely, extremely small.

 

[bruce381]

""Tom tested three different samples, one, from almost two years earlier. The odds of his results being an anomaly are extremely, extremely small.""

I do agree with you and tom But Katrina bottles with GPIII could be floating around? NO?
bruce

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

""Tom tested three different samples, one, from almost two years earlier. The odds of his results being an anomaly are extremely, extremely small.""

I do agree with you and tom But Katrina bottles with GPIII could be floating around? NO?
bruce

---

Well two were from Oct 2006, and one was from Dec 2004, IIRC. When was Katrina? Sept 2005? IIRC, he checked the production dates on the two from Oct 2006.

Doesn't seem likely to me any of those could be Katrina bottles.

 

[outersquare]

Is there only one production plant for M1 or is it regional?

 

[flathead6]

I'm having a LOT of fun with this forum. Just a guess, here...I'll bet few of those bashing old George have one- tenth the qualifications concerning lubrication that he's got. Insofar as Mobil 1 oil is concerned, Exxon-Mobil does change formulations...they readily admit it. But, they are in business to make maximum profit...so are all the rest. Mobil 1 apparently has over 50% of the total synthetic engine oil business & they are a smart company. They are not about to downgrade the quality of the product and risk some of that profit...and that's just the way it is, folks!

 

[ekpolk]

Quote:

---

. . . They are not about to downgrade the quality of the product and risk some of that profit...and that's just the way it is, folks!

---

Well, the problem is, some of the information we've got here would seem to suggest that ummm, that's just NOT the way it is. . . Hey, many of us have repeatedly asked XOM, which used to openly brag about its PAO and ester based products to prove you correct and end all this silly squabbling. So for, XOM is just sitting there like a cat with a mouse tail hanging out of its mouth.

Tail??? What tail??? Hey, that doesn't mean that ... urrrrrp ... I just ate a mouse. . .

Sorry, but with all due respect, saying "that's just the way it is" proves nothing. I'll happily believe that M1 is the still the same great product it has been when either: 1) Mobil openly and clearly says what it is, or 2) we successfully confirm via independent lab work, what's in the current bottles. So far, we have neither.