Mobil 1 - Is a higher end Synthetic

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: greenaccord02

No, he's saying you must be high because you're not making a clear point.


Is Mobil 1, given its Group IV and V constituents, superior to Group III synthetic oils?

That is not a clear point? Then it's a reading comprehension issue.
 
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete

Actually, I would consider you trying to artificially limit the scope of the discussion to be a "roadblock to productive conversation."



Classic material.
 
Originally Posted By: Art_Vandelay


Is Mobil 1, given its Group IV and V constituents, superior to Group III synthetic oils?

That is not a clear point?


Actually it's a question.
 
Originally Posted By: Captain_Klink

For that you take something like a Mobil 1 AFE 0w30, and
just mix it with ST 5w30 full synthetic and PZ YB conventional, in equal proportions. ST gives excellent wear numbers, so does YB, and to make these oils even better, add an equal part of Mobil, for additional friction reduction.

Kind of like mixing 1787 Chateau Lafite with a bottle of table wine, expecting more of the same great taste because one is good, and the other is good because it's cheap.
 
Originally Posted By: hate2work
Say what? Please explain this to me, I don't understand.

I think the Captain is just having some fun over here. :)
 
Originally Posted By: Pablo
But I can you tell MSDS's are a far cry from knowing the formula of a motor oil.


Pablo,

There isn't a single place where I claim to know the formula for Mobil 1 anywhere in this thread.
If a nation, such as Korea, requires disclosure of PAO content and percentage, in an MSD sheet, then we can derive valid information from it.
If such a document states a 50% PAO content, as an example, can you explain how that doesn't tell us that 50% of that oil is PAO based?

L-Dopa and D-DOPA share the same molecular formula and are radically different substances. Formulas are irrelevant to the point.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Art_Vandelay
Originally Posted By: greenaccord02

No, he's saying you must be high because you're not making a clear point.


Is Mobil 1, given its Group IV and V constituents, superior to Group III synthetic oils?

That is not a clear point? Then it's a reading comprehension issue.


Alright, Cheech.
 
Maybe this would be a better or simpler way to ask this.

If Mobil 1 has some Group IV and V base stocks in it, would it be a better product than an all Group III base stock oil if all of them had the exact same Lubrizoil additive package in them.
 
Originally Posted By: Art_Vandelay
M1 is PAO based but contains small amounts of adducts of nonylphenol and ethylene oxide using a solubilizing action on overbased calcium sulfonates..


Originally Posted By: Art_Vandelay
There isn't a single place where I claim to know the formula for Mobil 1 anywhere in this thread...
 
Originally Posted By: ericthepig
Creating a false post isn't wire fraud is it. Before a mod pounces on me, I confess to a small excursion into identity theft in the above post.


Actually you made a point.
 
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: Art_Vandelay

Do you agree that it is more costly to produce?

Without seeing actual costs, it's hard to say. For a company like XOM that produces it in high quantities, it may not be.
For others, who have to buy it from XOM, it may be.


That's a good point. XOM might just produce it for less than anyone, due to economy of scale. That's a pretty serious advantage when you think about it.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Art_Vandelay
Originally Posted By: Pablo
But I can you tell MSDS's are a far cry from knowing the formula of a motor oil.


Pablo,

There isn't a single place where I claim to know the formula for Mobil 1 anywhere in this thread.
If a nation, such as Korea, requires disclosure of PAO content and percentage, in an MSD sheet, then we can derive valid information from it.
If such a document states a 50% PAO content, as an example, can you explain how that doesn't tell us that 50% of that oil is PAO based?

L-Dopa and D-DOPA share the same molecular formula and are radically different substances. Formulas are irrelevant to the point.


Pablo,

Just be man enough to address the post above. Enough with the backhanded comments. Dispute it or agree with it. Makes no matter. Just back it up.
 
It also creates a trap, Art. What do you do when you're a premier creator of fine lubricants ..and require so much throughput to keep the "leading edge" R&D funded ..when the mass population is at its limits for affording your product?
 
Originally Posted By: Art_Vandelay
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: Art_Vandelay

Do you agree that it is more costly to produce?

Without seeing actual costs, it's hard to say. For a company like XOM that produces it in high quantities, it may not be.
For others, who have to buy it from XOM, it may be.


That's a good point. XOM might just produce it for less than anyone, due to economy of scale. That's a pretty serious advantage when you think about it.


OTOH they are limited from buying better products from competitors.
 
Originally Posted By: Johnny
Maybe this would be a better or simpler way to ask this.

If Mobil 1 has some Group IV and V base stocks in it, would it be a better product than an all Group III base stock oil if all of them had the exact same Lubrizoil additive package in them.

One would certainly do better than the other as additive packages perform best with particular base oils.

I know you know this already Johnny.
wink.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Art_Vandelay
Originally Posted By: Art_Vandelay
Originally Posted By: Pablo
But I can you tell MSDS's are a far cry from knowing the formula of a motor oil.


Pablo,

There isn't a single place where I claim to know the formula for Mobil 1 anywhere in this thread.
If a nation, such as Korea, requires disclosure of PAO content and percentage, in an MSD sheet, then we can derive valid information from it.
If such a document states a 50% PAO content, as an example, can you explain how that doesn't tell us that 50% of that oil is PAO based?

L-Dopa and D-DOPA share the same molecular formula and are radically different substances. Formulas are irrelevant to the point.


Pablo,

Just be man enough to address the post above. Enough with the backhanded comments. Dispute it or agree with it. Makes no matter. Just back it up.


"Just be man enough..."

Wow - OK.....I didn't think there was anything that needed addressing. If an oil company is required by a country to disclose it's ingredients, then I hope they wouldn't lie about it. Or at least they would tell the truth about the product in that country. I mean for example, what about some of the M1 MSDS's, etc in Japan?

But what is your point?

Formulas don't matter? I beg to differ. L and D dopamine. So?

MSDS's don't have all the chemistry and they certainly don't have precise quantities.

Again I'm not making a whole lot of claims about M1. At standard prices, I should hope M1 has some superior ingredients. I don't think EM is ripping people off, the consumer IS paying for these superior ingredients. I just fail to see the enlightenment of this "discovery". Hence my initial post.
 
My opinion only. I used Mobil 1 in my Nissan 2.4L P/U and it became darker than the Castrol that I used at an earlier point.

Example: Mobil 1 was as dark at 1,000 miles as Castrol was at 3,000 miles. I don't know, but was my engine that "dirty?"

I was able to run Mobil 1 out to over 10,000 miles before the oil change, now, I am looking to see if I can run Quaker State Synthetic out to 12k miles, before oil changes, using a PureOne Oil Filter.

I think that I have become biased toward Mobil 1, because my vehicle ran quieter, and the engine was very smooth...

That said, the Quaker State is doing about the same in my truck.
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: Johnny
Maybe this would be a better or simpler way to ask this.

If Mobil 1 has some Group IV and V base stocks in it, would it be a better product than an all Group III base stock oil if all of them had the exact same Lubrizoil additive package in them.

One would certainly do better than the other as additive packages perform best with particular base oils.

I know you know this already Johnny.
wink.gif



Oh, I know it, but was trying to simplify Art's original post/question.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
Mobil 1 advanced vs Mobil 1 extended new truck
2 3
Replies
58
Views
5K
Sienna dude
N
Mobil 1 Synthetic used oil color
Replies
6
Views
714
steveh
P
Castrol Magnatec 0w20 vs Castrol GTX Full syn 0w20
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
Intelligent Molecule
N
Re-Looking at Amsoil for problem engines.(Ford Ecoboost and GM 5.3/6.2)
3 4 5
Replies
86
Views
3K
tired
Robvette
High Mileage 10w40: Castrol GTX or Mobil 1?
Replies
9
Views
5K
Triple_Se7en
Back
Top Bottom