The following is from a VW site I read regarding Mobil 1 and the comparision between it and Synpower: Is this not accurate, right?
"M1 latest formulations no longer use PAO-esters in most of their oils. They took notice of the court rulings and decided to join in with the others and now use Group III base stocks. It's cheaper and still provides a superior oil to conventional."
[ March 28, 2003, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: dagmando ]
Mobil 1 Group III base stock?
- Thread starter dagmando
- Start date
- Status
Patman
Staff member
Not true, Mobil 1 definitely does not use group 3 for it's base oil. There is some controversy on whether or not it's all PAO or PAO/ester though.
Nope, not true. That's an OLD rumor.
quote:You should read all of 10 pages of that big ole thread on vwvortex, not just that one comment. There's lots of speculation in it. Part of it stems from the fact that Mobil did a blunder and posted (for just a day or so) some info on their site stating that the new M1 is not a fully-synthetic oil. AFAIK, that's wrong.
Originally posted by dagmando: The following is from a VW site I read regarding Mobil 1 and the comparision between it and Synpower: Is this not accurate, right?
Both M1 TriSyn and SuperSyn base oils are PAO, ester and alkylated napthalynes (Group III?). They (ExxonMobil) would not tell me the percentages of each.
Well..this speculation has gone on for years and people periodically call up Mobil and they verify that it is still PAO. I have calledwithin the last 6 months. Since the pour point has not changed in the last 1 1/2 years I am inclined to believe that it's still PAO. Mobil 1 is still the largest maker of PAO's so they can get them a bit cheaper than If they had to purchase them. I also think that they are (for right now) defining Mobil 1 as the best oil off of the shelf. For the moment-at least, I doubt they will deviate from this path.
Also check the pour point vs - say syntech- It should be lower. Group III isn't as good.
Look at the pour point for SS M1 5W-30 -48C.
Then look at the pour point for trisyn M1 5W-30.
Low pour point doesn't necessarily mean its a PAO.
Pennzoil Synth 5w-30 w/ pennzane has a pour point of -48C but its not PAO.
Chevron Supreme 5w-30 is a dino and has a -43C pour point.
Simply calling up Mobil and asking if their SS M1 is a PAO is not acceptable. There has to be some means of quantitatively and chemically analyzing it to verify that it uses a PAO base stock.
Mobil may be legally in their right to claim their M1 is a PAO if their TriSyn formula was a PAO (based on a loophole or something).
The economics of the 21st century: profit by using the least amount of resources possible but in a manner in which the consumers won't really know they're using a substandard product.
I've run into this situation far too often with "name brand" products.
[ March 31, 2003, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: metroplex ]
Al,
What I posted was from calling Mobil about six months ago. The SuperSyn formula marketed in the USA is not 100% PAO. Delvac 1, a different product, is all PAO base oil. If you have gotten a different answer from them within the last year, then they have a serious credibility problem.
Group III basestocks respond very well to pour point depressants. The pour point of PAO cannot be modified by additives. Esters also have a naturally low pour point.
MolaKule
Staff member
Mobil 1 and Delvac are PAO's with Trimethylol (TME) Esters.
Anyone have solid evidence proving/disproving this rumor???
I know Mobil lists that for their M1 ATF, its all synthetic exclusive of the carrier oil.
but as for its engine oil, I'd like to see solid evidence (not possibly doctored MSDS sheets) showing it's Group IV/PAO or that its group III.
Heck, I saw the most recent (6/02) MSDS For Quaker State's synthetic engine oil in the US, and its basestock was a hydrogenated 1-decene homopolymer, confirmed to be a non-Group III basestock, however everyone said Quaker STate synthetic is indeed a group III.
It just seems to me there's a lot of speculation and not enough solid evidence disproving/proving M1 Engine Oil uses a Group III base stock.
quote:Tarot cards.
Originally posted by metroplex: Just curious, is that your word or did you determine that through some type of quantitative analysis?
![[Roll Eyes]](images/icons/rolleyes.gif){kind=icon}
Anyone who seriously believes that Mobil would switch to Group III for ANY of its synthetics needs to get a clue.
MolaKule
Staff member
Metroplex,
I am basing my view on a chemistry paper by Exxon/Mobil chemists and until I see information to the contrary, that's my story and I stickin' to it:
The later information comes from papers and patents. The paper was the Feb. 2001 write-up in Lubrication Engineering, "High Stability Esters for Synthetic Lubricant Applications." The paper is mostly a discussion of the chemistry of various esters and especially the TME ester.
The paper's key subject area seems to be the enhanced thermal stability, the reduction of viscosity growth, and the need for longer drain intervals that this ester can provide.
There are seven Exxon/Mobil patents from the period 1995 to 1998 relating to these new esters.
Exxon/Mobil may have used Group III in their System-S, but from what I read, everything else is PAO/Esters developed from their years of research.
Do you have some technical papers that show differently?
[ April 01, 2003, 09:51 AM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]
you see - whenever someone questions the validity of SS M1 being PAO, they get replies from Internet Tough guys.
What you posted neither proved nor disproved that M1 used PAO base stocks in their SS. Technical papers from 2 years back? C'mon. Someone has to do better than that.
All I'm asking is for proof that M1 SS isn't just a Castrol Syntec type engine oil. So far all I see are just "word of mouth" confirmations that M1 SS is a PAO synthetic engine oil. Or worse, Internet Tough Guys like G-Man II or Rotella T synthetic 5w-40 or whatever engine oil he liked at the time.
quote:Metroplex, there is plenty of anecdotal and technical evidence that Mobil 1 is PAO/ester. The burden is on YOU to prove that Mobil 1 is a Group III oil. The burden is not on me or anyone else to prove that it ISN'T. But for what it's worth, I called the Mobil 1 tech line when SuperSyn first came out. The person who answered the phone didn't even know what Group III was, so I asked to speak with someone else. I asked the next person if he was familiar with the Castrol case, and he was. I asked him if the "new" Mobil 1 was a Group III based oil. He said, and I quote, "Absolutely not. There is no Group III in Mobil 1." I can relate to your frustration with "Internet Tough Guys." I have the same problem with "Internet Morons."
Originally posted by metroplex: you see - whenever someone questions the validity of SS M1 being PAO, they get replies from Internet Tough guys. What you posted neither proved nor disproved that M1 used PAO base stocks in their SS. Technical papers from 2 years back? C'mon. Someone has to do better than that. All I'm asking is for proof that M1 SS isn't just a Castrol Syntec type engine oil. So far all I see are just "word of mouth" confirmations that M1 SS is a PAO synthetic engine oil. Or worse, Internet Tough Guys like G-Man II or Rotella T synthetic 5w-40 or whatever engine oil he liked at the time.
MolaKule
Staff member
Metroplex,
As I have explained in other threads, these technical papers are usually published one to two years before product introduction, to inform people about what is coming down the pike.
What you can do is send a sample of M1 to Terry Dyson and a check for about $350 (ask him for the exact price) and once and for all prove or disprove what has been said.
I am going by what has been published. All the ranting, flailing, and anecdotal mudslinging
doesn't disprove that Mobil 1 and Delvac 1 are not PAO/Esters.
Dr. T "poor performance on Timken test (tri-syn).. Excuse me but 0W40 Trisyn made any other oil tested on our Timken look ordinary and still the champion. Ron recently tested Castrol 0W40 RS and about the same capability hot but hopeless when cold. Rons picking up 0W40 M1 SS version today so we'll see how that goes....s
I'm trying to imagine why someone would have such an abiding interest in this issue so as to become defensive and to cast aspersions toward "internet tough guys". When it becomes personal, there is more at work than simply intellectual argument.
I don't think the argument is whether it's PAO or not. It probably is 100% PAO. So what?
My observations and those seen on this board:
1. It's the same price as the 'other' synthetics, so that tells you one thing. If it's a better product...charge more. eg. Amsoil, Redline, etc.
2. Thinner than other oils of the same grade.
3. Greater burn-off than other oils of the same grade.
4. Piston-slap observed/noted with long-term use.
5. Increased valve noise compared to oils of the same grade.
6. Greater thinning-out/inability to stay-in-grade during use.
7. Poor performance on the Timken test (tri-synth).
8. Delvac 1 recommended to mask the deficiencies of M-1 (listed above) - why 2 products needed?
9. M-1 used as O.E. fluid just a marketting thing
10. ?
Others feel free to add to this list...
- Status
