Mobil 1 Group III base stock?

[G-MAN]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr. T:
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...

---

These are certainly not universal observations, so they can't be generalized to reflect how Mobil 1 will perform for everyone who uses it. And some of your observations have been flat out refuted by recently posted UOAs of Mobil 1.

There are many variables that affect the retail price of motor oil. It's a falacy to assume that because other synthetics cost more, Mobil 1 must be inferior to them.

 

[MNgopher]

Is this the Mobil 1 bashing we had another poster asking about?

My only points are:

As far as price point goes, I think Mobil has a pretty good idea of who their target market is. I'm also speculating here that it isn't necessarily the market that Amsoil, Redline, etc... are in. Mobil 1 is priced appropriately for the market it caters to. Does this make it the best or worst oil? Probably not.

As far as results go, I think most of the UOA's are speaking for themselves and are looking pretty good. Supersyn sure doesn't look like it thins out in the xw30 grades, which are the ones I care about.

I personally think that there isn't one holy grail of oil for every engine out there. Some have different tendencies than others, so making blanket statements that Mobil 1 causes valve train noise or increases piston slap noises isn't a wise move.

 

[MolaKule]

For all of you M1 and Delvac 1 doubters out there, see this link:

http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=22;t=000048;p=1#000000

It's a PDF file posted by Toy4X4 regarding the CATERPILLAR Full Synthetic Diesel Oil (DEO), which is renamed and rebottled Delvac 1.

On page 2 is an interesting statement:

"Cat Full Synthetic DEO 5W40 high-performance diesel engine oil contains a blend of synthesized hydrocarbons and carefully selected esters..."

These carefully selected esters are TMP and TME esters. The synthetsized hydrocarbons are the PAO's.

[ April 02, 2003, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]

 

[TooSlick]

That's a description of the CH-4 rated Delvac 1....

With the CI-4 change, the VI went from 167 to 151; the pour point from -65F to -49F and the flash point from 464F to 439F. I believe they did change the basestock blend somewhat for this latest version of Delvac 1. At the very least, they are using a higher molecular weight basestock and perhaps less high VI ester ....

TooSlick

 

[MolaKule]

George,

Ask the chemists if they are still using the multifunctional additive series "diisoamylphosphordithoic acid."

Thanks

Mola

 

[Chris Jefferson]

all we need is like 74 people at $5/person! and think...we could prove once & for all to the internet that mobil 1 IS a PAO/Ester oil. group buy?

 

[G-MAN]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TooSlick:
With the CI-4 change, the VI went from 167 to 151; the pour point from -65F to -49F and the flash point from 464F to 439F. I believe they did change the basestock blend somewhat for this latest version of Delvac 1. At the very least, they are using a higher molecular weight basestock and perhaps less high VI ester ....

---

My take on these spec changes: The addition of the SuperSyn PAO to the base oil blend. This proprietary PAO is higher viscosity than other PAOs and has a higher pour point. The lower VI could be (and I surmise probably is) the result of LESS (or possibly NO) VI improver. The use of HIGHER VI "next generation" esters would enable the removal of polymer VI improvers from the blend while still maintaining the 5-40 spread, but the overall VI would be lower.

 

[Jay]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MolaKule:
...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...

---

This is such an interesting subject. Would anybody be interested in a "group buy" for this test? I would contribute $50.