Mobil 1 "fails" Seq. IVA wear test.

[Mark888]

Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
I disagree. XOM simply needs to publish their current Mobil 1 5w30 Seq. IVA results and make a broad sweeping statement, such as: "Mobil 1 offers unsurpassed protection*"

*based on results of Mobil 1 5w30 in Seq IVA

Just like SOPUS did. Bam, end of controversy.

Silence without repercussion really implies some sort of guilt, IMO.

As to why Mobil 1 may be able to get around API certs: http://www.api.org/Newsroom/tillerson-api-chair.cfm

This is pure trash talking. As mentioned previously, that is old info from 2006. Here is the current API Chairman and President:
http://www.api.org/Newsroom/api-elects-new-ceo.cfm

As far as silence is concerned, that is also a lie. EM has repeatedly denied the accusation, and Valvoline even admits to EM's denial in the letter posted above.

 

[Mark888]

Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Originally Posted By: ADFD1


Here is what the API said:

"API tests 600 licensed oils per year to confirm that they meet our requirements. This would include a variety of ExxonMobil products. We don’t merely accept an oil marketer’s word. I can’t really explain why Ashland chose to do what it did, but ExxonMobil has taken steps to confirm its product meets our requirements.

Kevin Ferrick
American Petroleum Institute
Engine Oil Licensing and Certification System"


Now based on this, Ashland is really playing with fire here. I just don't get it?

Could Ashland management be so stupid to think that because Ashland is so small that Mobil will just leave them alone, and take the hit?


There is NOTHING in this statement that says API tested Mobil 1 5w30 or that EoM Provided testing information that would contradict Ashlands claims. If We dont believe Ashlands tests, Then We live in a world of specualtion and fairy dust aspersion casting. Personally, I dont like either of the (Eom or Ashland) current synthetic products. I'm new here, but NOT new out of the box, and I see too much bias, and disregard for facts here. Pathetic.

Yes, there is something that says they tested Mobil 1 5w30. The API flat out says that Mobil provided information to verify that the oil meets API requirements while specifically referring to the Ashland claims.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Originally Posted By: ADFD1


Here is what the API said:

"API tests 600 licensed oils per year to confirm that they meet our requirements. This would include a variety of ExxonMobil products. We don’t merely accept an oil marketer’s word. I can’t really explain why Ashland chose to do what it did, but ExxonMobil has taken steps to confirm its product meets our requirements.

Kevin Ferrick
American Petroleum Institute
Engine Oil Licensing and Certification System"


Now based on this, Ashland is really playing with fire here. I just don't get it?

Could Ashland management be so stupid to think that because Ashland is so small that Mobil will just leave them alone, and take the hit?


There is NOTHING in this statement that says API tested Mobil 1 5w30 or that EoM Provided testing information that would contradict Ashlands claims. If We dont believe Ashlands tests, Then We live in a world of specualtion and fairy dust aspersion casting. Personally, I dont like either of the (Eom or Ashland) current synthetic products. I'm new here, but NOT new out of the box, and I see too much bias, and disregard for facts here. Pathetic.


They didn't specifically state 5W30, but they did imply it?

Wow this is better than watching 24.

 

[buster]

There really isn't much more that can be said. No one knows. Take your pick.

Whatever you think about Mobil 1, it's definitely been taking a beating over the years by many people on the internet. Yet when you go to a professional racing event, people swear by it and most use it as Johnny found out.

 

[Ben99GT]

Originally Posted By: Big Jim
When you wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty, but the pig don't care. Mobil is wise to stay out of the pig pen. There really is no need to step into pig dodo just because someone slings it at you.


There are ways to reply to reply to competitors claims without even naming your competitors. That avoids the "mud slinging" and eases the minds of those who actually follow this stuff.

Mobil's refusal to respond in any way other than, "we meet API standards" just doesn't look good.

Castrol is running national ads claiming that Edge offers 8x the wear protection of M1. Valvoline 4x. It just doesn't look good when M1 has nothing to address those claims on the bottles.

 

[Ben99GT]

Originally Posted By: Mark888
As far as silence is concerned, that is also a lie. EM has repeatedly denied the accusation, and Valvoline even admits to EM's denial in the letter posted above.


EM has replied to specific accusations with broad sweeping statements.

Regarding the "lies" and "trash talking", perhaps you should reign in the emoting and check what oil is in the 2nd vehicle in my sig.

 

[buster]

The fact that BP & Ashland both ran ads spending millions on a particular test (Seq IVA) does suggest Mobil had some issues there. I remain suspicious.

You only need to be below 90 microns. Anything less doesn't mean much of anything. The crazy part of it is that Ashland said Mobil was 2x the max allowable limit! 180 microns.

EM has confirmed with the API their oils sufficiently pass this test so hopefully it's been addressed.

I think it's hard to believe for some because of Mobil 1's historical high reputation among synthetic lubricants. Understandable from that point.

 

[buster]

http://www.f150online.com/forums/v8-engines/367431-more-bad-news-mobil-one-users-5.html

Quote:
You are right some people do not get it. Mobil 1 today is not the same Mobil 1 that it used to be. It used to be primarily PAO based but in order to keep the costs down it has been reformulated with hardly any PAO in it and is closer to a group III blend than a true synthetic. PAO is getting more expensive and Mobil was losing sales to the competition so they reformulated. Now you are seeing the bad test results due to the reformulation. Remember new coke?


This has become a very popular view on many internet forums.

 

[Ben99GT]

And that just shows that Mobil's decision to remain mum on the issue was a bad marketing decision, IMO.

On a side note, "MercedesTech"'s claims of Mobil 1 causing engine sludging are pretty laughable.

 

[buster]

Yeah he is way off base. Mercedes started recommending Mobil 1 because they had sludge issues with "other" oils.

 

[tenderloin]

"Castrol is running national ads claiming that Edge offers 8x the wear protection of M1. Valvoline 4x. It just doesn't look good when M1 has nothing to address those claims on the bottles".

Address the claims? Why should they? A rule is you don't enter into a debate when you are way ahead. Go to WalMart and see what flies off the shelf. Most WalMarts in my area Castrol Edge has dust on the bottles.

BTW Mobil has been responding in a way by offering reduced pricing and offering rebates to get people to try/use their product. Better that then some "think with your dipstick" or monkeys bouncing around advertising campaign B S. Look at this board. Much of the anti M1 B S has tailed off as M1 has come down in price and back to back rebate campaigns.

 

[Mark888]

Originally Posted By: buster
http://www.f150online.com/forums/v8-engines/367431-more-bad-news-mobil-one-users-5.html

Quote:
You are right some people do not get it. Mobil 1 today is not the same Mobil 1 that it used to be. It used to be primarily PAO based but in order to keep the costs down it has been reformulated with hardly any PAO in it and is closer to a group III blend than a true synthetic. PAO is getting more expensive and Mobil was losing sales to the competition so they reformulated. Now you are seeing the bad test results due to the reformulation. Remember new coke?


This has become a very popular view on many internet forums.

The fact is when you look at the Korean MSDS (which do have to report PAO) for M1 it has substantial PAO, usually 40-70% depending on grade. When you look at the articles about the M1 shortages when the EM PAO plant was damaged by Hurricane Ike it is obvious they still have substantial PAO. The fact is that most other synthetics from major oil companies contains very little if any PAO.

The other thing that is fishy about the wear tests is they are for all oils, not just synthetics, so even the most mundane conventional oil can pass the test. There is something fishy about the way the test was conducted IMO.

These are just more lies.

 

[Ben99GT]

Yep, all "lies"...

Korean Mobil 1 5w30 MSDS revised Jan 05, 2009:

MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET

SECTION 1 PRODUCT AND COMPANY IDENTIFICATION

PRODUCT
Product Name: MOBIL 1 5w30
Product Description: Synthetic Base Stocks and Additives

Product Code: 201510101040, 481119-89
Intended Use: Engine oil

COMPANY IDENTIFICATION
Manufacturer/Supplier:
For details contact Mobil Korea Lube Oil Inc.
7th Fl., Samhwan Bldg.
98-5, Unni-Dong
Chongno-Gu
Seoul 110-742 Republic of Korea


Supplier General Contact 82-2-3671-5141/82-52-259-7041


SECTION 2 HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION

This material is not hazardous according to regulatory guidelines (see (M)SDS Section 15).


Other hazard information:


PHYSICAL / CHEMICAL HAZARDS
No significant hazards.

HEALTH HAZARDS
High-pressure injection under skin may cause serious damage. Excessive exposure may result in eye, skin, or respiratory irritation.

ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS
No significant hazards.

NFPA Hazard ID: Health: 0 Flammability: 1 Reactivity: 0
HMIS Hazard ID: Health: 0 Flammability: 1 Reactivity: 0

NOTE: This material should not be used for any other purpose than the intended use in Section 1 without expert advice. Health studies have shown that chemical exposure may cause potential human health risks which may vary from person to person.


SECTION 3 COMPOSITION / INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS

Hazardous Substance(s) or Complex Substance(s) required for disclosure
Name CAS# Concentration* GHS Hazard Codes
1-DECENE, TETRAMER AND TRIMER HYDROGENATED - 68649-12-7 - 30 - 40% - H304
CALCIUM HYDROXIDE - 1305-62-0 - 0.1 - 1% - H314(1B)
POLYOLEFIN POLYAMINE SUCCINIMIDE - 147880-09-9 - 1 - 5% - H413

Quote:
The other thing that is fishy about the wear tests is they are for all oils, not just synthetics, so even the most mundane conventional oil can pass the test. There is something fishy about the way the test was conducted IMO.


That's really flawed reasoning. Just because Pennzoil conventional, for instance, doesn't say synthetic on the label doesn't mean it can't provide lower wear rates in certain tests.

Regarding wear metals, based on used oil analysis (if you put any stock in them) some conventional oils show the same or lower wear metals over short OCIs than some synthetics do.

 

[demarpaint]

I really enjoy these threads, and spent a lot of time reading up, and discussing it with car nuts like myself. Similar issues like this have come up a few times with products I use in my business. When I become aware of an issue such as a product reformulation, and/or the quality might have been compromised, I look elsewhere. If I hear complaints from others in my profession, I stop using the product. Why gamble? By the same token if someone continues to use a product in question, go for it. I always say spend your money however you see fit.

I will then use something that has no issues and a good track record. I switched my E-150 to PP, just to play it safe. It gets some great reviews here on BITOG, and has pretty much stayed out of the fight. My gut keeps telling me there had to be some issues with Mobil 1, and Ashland played it up. To me it doesn't matter how big or small an issue, I just feel something had to be off.

When all this is cleared up and Mobil 1 starts getting the love from BITOG that PP gets?????????? JMO

PS these are my general comments and not directed toward anyone.

 

[Ben99GT]

Japanese Mobil 1 5w30 MSDS, revised April 6, 2009:

PRODUCT
Product Name: MOBIL 1 5w30
Product Description: Synthetic Base Stocks and Additives
Product Code: 201510101040, 481119-87
Intended Use: Engine oil

COMPANY IDENTIFICATION
Supplier: ExxonMobil Yugen Kaisha
Lubricants & Specialties
W Building
1-8-15, Kohnan, Minato-ku
Tokyo 108-8005 Japan


Supplier General Contact 81-0120-016-313



SECTION 2 COMPOSITION / INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS

Reportable Hazardous Substance(s) or Complex Substance(s)
Name CAS# ENCS Concentration* Symbols/Risk Phrases
POLYOLEFIN POLYAMINE SUCCINIMIDE 147880-09-9 1 - 5% R53

* All concentrations are percent by weight unless material is a gas. Gas concentrations are in percent by volume.

JAPANESE COMPOSITION INFORMATION


Industrial Safety and Health Law: Article 57-2, Chemical Substances to be notified:
Name ISHL Ordinance Number Concentration
Mineral Oil 168 30-40 %weight

 

[OVERKILL]

If it is only 30-40% mineral oil, then most of the rest of it will likely be PAO, since the add pack doesn't make up a huge percentage.....

 

[Ben99GT]

From the Korean MSDS

Other Substances
Name CAS # Concentration
Base Oil 1 72623-87-1 30-40%
Trade Secret 01 Trade Secret 5-10%
Trade Secret 02 Trade Secret 5-10%
Trade Secret 03 Trade Secret 1-5%
Trade Secret 04 Trade Secret 1-5%
Trade Secret 05 Trade Secret 1-5%
Trade Secret 06 Trade Secret 1-5%
Trade Secret 07 Trade Secret 0.1-1%
Trade Secret 08 Trade Secret 0.1-1%
Trade Secret 09 Trade Secret 0.1-1%
Trade Secret 10 Trade Secret 0.1-1%
Trade Secret 11 Trade Secret 0.1-1%
Trade Secret 12 Trade Secret 0.1-1%
Trade Secret 13 Trade Secret 0.1-1%
Trade Secret 14 Trade Secret 0.1-1%
Trade Secret 15 Trade Secret 0.1-1%
Total concentration of all substances 100%

CAS# 72623-87-1 is C20-C50 neutral hydrotreated lubricating oil
Who knows what the "trade secrets" are...

 

[Mark888]

Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Yep, all "lies"...

I am not sure if you are agreeing with me, or being sarcastic, but 1-DECENE, TETRAMER AND TRIMER HYDROGENATED - 68649-12-7 is PAO 4, so it contains 30-40% of PAO 4. They are not required to disclose Group V ester stocks, so the total Group IV/V base stock for 5w30 is probably at least 40%. Some other Mobil 1 oils listed in the Korean MSDS's show up to 70% PAO.

No other major synthetic motor oil sold in the US has more than a few percent PAO/Ester stock (but not sure about GC which is formulated for European market even though sold in limited markets in the US).

 

[Mark888]

68649-12-7 is PAO 4. This is 30-40% of Mobil 1 5w30. If you google "68649-12-7" you will see that it is PAO.

 

[buster]

Thanks Mark.