What a bunch of morons-everyone knows that Edge is 8x better-obviously they use superior ingredients as compared to their standard group III Syntec.
Mobil 1 - Is a higher end Synthetic
- Thread starter Art_Vandelay
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
Oh I'm sorry, missed the part where people can not answer or discuss in YOUR thread...
You are taking what was said out of context and twisting it.
All that is referenced by "my" "your thread" is that I am the original poster. You cannot comprehend that?
Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
Mobil 1 is NOT a higher end Synthetic. NO OIL is.
I believe there are "higher end" synthetic oils. Are you saying that every synthetic oil is on equal ground? What is the basis for that argument if so?
Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
This thread does not need to be going on 7 pages....
Please explain to me what difference it makes to you if this thread were 1 page or a thousand?
Do you walk into a bookstore and complain that there are too many pages in a book? Or too many books on the same subject? Why do you care?
I did clarify my post by the way. Perhaps you were too busy flipping out to have read it. When you are the original poster and people ask you what you are looking for, you are entitled to answer that are you not? Here is what I said:
Originally Posted By: Art_Vandelay
I'm saying that a base stock made from
1. Group III and IV synthetic oil
is better than a base stock made solely from
2. Group III.
You can forget about Mobil 1 if that is what bothers you.
Any base stock that fits into criteria 1 will be better than any base stock in criteria 2.
That is all I am saying.
So Bill,
Yes, I think a base stock constructed from Group III annd IV constituents will outperform a base stock constructed solely from Group III synthetic. I believe if I stated that as a question to a Chemist or Chemical engineer, working in the field, they would agree with that. Even if they didn't, they would never find it meritless.
Do you really believe what I am saying is not discussed from time to time within the industry itself? You aren't lucid if you believe that.
If I were to rewrite this thread I would leave a brand name out of it. Reducing it instead to just the Group III vs III/IV discussion.
Oh I'm sorry, missed the part where people can not answer or discuss in YOUR thread...
You are taking what was said out of context and twisting it.
All that is referenced by "my" "your thread" is that I am the original poster. You cannot comprehend that?
Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
Mobil 1 is NOT a higher end Synthetic. NO OIL is.
I believe there are "higher end" synthetic oils. Are you saying that every synthetic oil is on equal ground? What is the basis for that argument if so?
Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
This thread does not need to be going on 7 pages....
Please explain to me what difference it makes to you if this thread were 1 page or a thousand?
Do you walk into a bookstore and complain that there are too many pages in a book? Or too many books on the same subject? Why do you care?
I did clarify my post by the way. Perhaps you were too busy flipping out to have read it. When you are the original poster and people ask you what you are looking for, you are entitled to answer that are you not? Here is what I said:
Originally Posted By: Art_Vandelay
I'm saying that a base stock made from
1. Group III and IV synthetic oil
is better than a base stock made solely from
2. Group III.
You can forget about Mobil 1 if that is what bothers you.
Any base stock that fits into criteria 1 will be better than any base stock in criteria 2.
That is all I am saying.
So Bill,
Yes, I think a base stock constructed from Group III annd IV constituents will outperform a base stock constructed solely from Group III synthetic. I believe if I stated that as a question to a Chemist or Chemical engineer, working in the field, they would agree with that. Even if they didn't, they would never find it meritless.
Do you really believe what I am saying is not discussed from time to time within the industry itself? You aren't lucid if you believe that.
If I were to rewrite this thread I would leave a brand name out of it. Reducing it instead to just the Group III vs III/IV discussion.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Not not 100% sure what the OP is looking for in this discussion but here is my opinion on the base stock and its bearing on how good an oil is. Since no one is really 100% certain what exactly Mobil 1 is using and its percentages I don't think the base stock matters much here.
Since Mobil 1 foreign MSDS data shows PAO content somewhere in the 40-70% range, depending on viscosity, I began by accepting that as true. Reasoning that, since PAO has better pour/flash points, TBN retention and the need for less viscosity improvers, that it is superior to a Group III synthetic.
When it is mixed with a Group III synthetic in a ratio as high as 40% those benefits translate to the base stock. So I think it is a better starting material, with better properties.
Not not 100% sure what the OP is looking for in this discussion but here is my opinion on the base stock and its bearing on how good an oil is. Since no one is really 100% certain what exactly Mobil 1 is using and its percentages I don't think the base stock matters much here.
Since Mobil 1 foreign MSDS data shows PAO content somewhere in the 40-70% range, depending on viscosity, I began by accepting that as true. Reasoning that, since PAO has better pour/flash points, TBN retention and the need for less viscosity improvers, that it is superior to a Group III synthetic.
When it is mixed with a Group III synthetic in a ratio as high as 40% those benefits translate to the base stock. So I think it is a better starting material, with better properties.
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Originally Posted By: Art_Vandelay
Do you think synthetic is superior to dino?
In my experience,in the engine,no. But in the gears,yes. [/quote]
I agree with this statement but I would also add synthetic:
1) Trans Fluid
2) Powersteering Fluid
I would also say that maybe in the 1980's or 1990's synthetic motor oil was better than dino oil, but today dino oil does just fine if it is not run out too long.
Anytime you someone brings up a post about Mobil 1 or any other oil as being a higher end synthetic or the best oil out there then arguments start.
I have Pmed Gary Allan for over 2 years now and I have talked with him on the phone, he is unbiased and has always spoken the truth. I have never heard him say that any Amsoil product is the best, he has told me what oil's are right for my oil change intervals.
I do feel that when Mobil 1 lost there lawsuit with Castrol about calling Castrol Syntec a synthetic oil that this has now confused everybody because anyone now can take a dino oil and hydrocrack it and call it a synthetic oil.
I believe it was Amsoil who helped Mobil 1 back in the late 1970's with there synthetic oil. Mobil 1 has always had great marketing, read between the lines and do not believe all of the hype.
Originally Posted By: Art_Vandelay
Do you think synthetic is superior to dino?
In my experience,in the engine,no. But in the gears,yes. [/quote]
I agree with this statement but I would also add synthetic:
1) Trans Fluid
2) Powersteering Fluid
I would also say that maybe in the 1980's or 1990's synthetic motor oil was better than dino oil, but today dino oil does just fine if it is not run out too long.
Anytime you someone brings up a post about Mobil 1 or any other oil as being a higher end synthetic or the best oil out there then arguments start.
I have Pmed Gary Allan for over 2 years now and I have talked with him on the phone, he is unbiased and has always spoken the truth. I have never heard him say that any Amsoil product is the best, he has told me what oil's are right for my oil change intervals.
I do feel that when Mobil 1 lost there lawsuit with Castrol about calling Castrol Syntec a synthetic oil that this has now confused everybody because anyone now can take a dino oil and hydrocrack it and call it a synthetic oil.
I believe it was Amsoil who helped Mobil 1 back in the late 1970's with there synthetic oil. Mobil 1 has always had great marketing, read between the lines and do not believe all of the hype.
Originally Posted By: RI_RS4
Originally Posted By: Art_Vandelay
I'm saying that a base stock made from
1. Group III and IV synthetic oil
is better than a base stock made solely from
2. Group III.
You can forget about Mobil 1 if that is what bothers you.
Any base stock that fits into criteria 1 will be better than any base stock in criteria 2.
That is all I am saying.
If the subjective criteria is pour point, then you are correct.
If the subjective criteria is molecular stability of the synthetic base, then you are correct.
If the subjective criteria is cost, then you are not correct.
If the subjective criteria is viscosity index, then it depends on the particular dino.
If the subjective criteria is wear performance, it depends on the additive package for both.
If the subjective criteria is OCI, it depends on the formulation of the base oils and additive package.
aka, the performance of the finished product is what makes a product "higher end". Not the performance of the individual components on their own.
Originally Posted By: Art_Vandelay
I'm saying that a base stock made from
1. Group III and IV synthetic oil
is better than a base stock made solely from
2. Group III.
You can forget about Mobil 1 if that is what bothers you.
Any base stock that fits into criteria 1 will be better than any base stock in criteria 2.
That is all I am saying.
If the subjective criteria is pour point, then you are correct.
If the subjective criteria is molecular stability of the synthetic base, then you are correct.
If the subjective criteria is cost, then you are not correct.
If the subjective criteria is viscosity index, then it depends on the particular dino.
If the subjective criteria is wear performance, it depends on the additive package for both.
If the subjective criteria is OCI, it depends on the formulation of the base oils and additive package.
aka, the performance of the finished product is what makes a product "higher end". Not the performance of the individual components on their own.
Originally Posted By: c3po
I do feel that when Mobil 1 lost there lawsuit with Castrol about calling Castrol Syntec a synthetic oil
There was no lawsuit. AFAIK, it was just an opinion of AMA and their updated definition of synthetic oil for marketing purposes.
I do feel that when Mobil 1 lost there lawsuit with Castrol about calling Castrol Syntec a synthetic oil
There was no lawsuit. AFAIK, it was just an opinion of AMA and their updated definition of synthetic oil for marketing purposes.
This is the stupidest thread ever.
A nice stainless steel exhaust system is a higher end component. Put it on a riced out Civic, and that doesn't make said Civic a high end car.
A nice stainless steel exhaust system is a higher end component. Put it on a riced out Civic, and that doesn't make said Civic a high end car.
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
aka, the performance of the finished product is what makes a product "higher end". Not the performance of the individual components on their own.
Bzzzt! Yellow card for not complying with Art's rules and roadblocking productive conversation!
aka, the performance of the finished product is what makes a product "higher end". Not the performance of the individual components on their own.
Bzzzt! Yellow card for not complying with Art's rules and roadblocking productive conversation!
I'll go sit in the corner and remain quiet. For a while!
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
This is the stupidest thread ever.
A nice stainless steel exhaust system is a higher end component. Put it on a riced out Civic, and that doesn't make said Civic a high end car.
So you do agree it is a higher end component. OK that is forward progress.
This is the stupidest thread ever.
A nice stainless steel exhaust system is a higher end component. Put it on a riced out Civic, and that doesn't make said Civic a high end car.
So you do agree it is a higher end component. OK that is forward progress.
My agreement with you that PAO in and of itself is a higher end component is 2 steps back in this ridiculous argument, given I also said this:
"the performance of the finished product is what makes a product higher end. Not the performance of the individual components on their own."
"the performance of the finished product is what makes a product higher end. Not the performance of the individual components on their own."
I Have to agre with Drew. Performance counts, components are only as good as their weakest link. Be that the additives or carrier packages or base oils blended in to improve solubility.
Meeting specifications and overall performance is what points to a high end lubricant. THe ingredients are not so relavant.
Meeting specifications and overall performance is what points to a high end lubricant. THe ingredients are not so relavant.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
My agreement with you that PAO in and of itself is a higher end component is 2 steps back in this ridiculous argument, given I also said this:
"the performance of the finished product is what makes a product higher end. Not the performance of the individual components on their own."
(looking over shoulder walking out the door)
Remember the Oleanna syndrome. Pondering the implications is ashchilling prospect.
My agreement with you that PAO in and of itself is a higher end component is 2 steps back in this ridiculous argument, given I also said this:
"the performance of the finished product is what makes a product higher end. Not the performance of the individual components on their own."
(looking over shoulder walking out the door)
Remember the Oleanna syndrome. Pondering the implications is a
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1511196#Post1511196
OK let this thread go. It surely isn't helping anyone.
OK let this thread go. It surely isn't helping anyone.
Last edited:
'Fraid not.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
