Mobil 1 - Is a higher end Synthetic

Status
Not open for further replies.
"For the sake of this conversation let's pretend that we could place equivalent additive packages into all the Group IIIs as well as the Mobil 1. It doesn't matter that we can't. Just eliminate that variable to foster the conversation. This keeps it in context."

This whole thought experiment you've contrived is utterly useless. First you purport to be pursuing "productive conversation", but what is productive about contemplating an impossible situation that ignores the realities of the situation?

So what if we assume that the exact same additive package could be used? Are we to also assume that the same additive package would then perform the same in different base oils/mixtures? If so, you're violating your own insistance about not retorting with "don't worry about what it is made from only worry about how it performs".

So what if you manage to get a lot of people agreeing that your hypothetical M1 product is the best OTC oil that can never be purchased? Where does that get anyone?

I think that everyone recognizes that oil formulation is about weighing positives and negatives associated with each constituent ingredient. I contend that your suggestion that we ignore this series of checks and balances is non-productive and useless.

I now wish I had the time back it took me to bother typing up this response.

Best of luck,

J
 
Seeing that M1 has "1" in the name and is the best selling full synthetic that should end all debate
wink.gif
 
Originally Posted By: SL8R
"For the sake of this conversation let's pretend that we could place equivalent additive packages into all the Group IIIs as well as the Mobil 1. It doesn't matter that we can't. Just eliminate that variable to foster the conversation. This keeps it in context."

This whole thought experiment you've contrived is utterly useless. First you purport to be pursuing "productive conversation", but what is productive about contemplating an impossible situation that ignores the realities of the situation?

So what if we assume that the exact same additive package could be used? Are we to also assume that the same additive package would then perform the same in different base oils/mixtures? If so, you're violating your own insistance about not retorting with "don't worry about what it is made from only worry about how it performs".

So what if you manage to get a lot of people agreeing that your hypothetical M1 product is the best OTC oil that can never be purchased? Where does that get anyone?

I think that everyone recognizes that oil formulation is about weighing positives and negatives associated with each constituent ingredient. I contend that your suggestion that we ignore this series of checks and balances is non-productive and useless.

I now wish I had the time back it took me to bother typing up this response.

Best of luck,

J


You wouldn't need the time back had you not typed this in the first place. So what is the motivation if you regret doing it when you click send?

You enjoy putting something down. That is the motivation for doing it. It's a psychological kick for you. That's a serious weakness. I don't put people down.

Have you ever heard the expression, "all things being equal?"
That is all I am trying to achieve with the X additive package context.
The goal is to simply answer the following:

- Are base stocks composed of Group III, IV and or V synthetic constituents superior to straight Group III synthetics?

- If they are then Mobil 1 has that advantage over the other synthetics mentioned.

- I wanted to keep the additive package out of the conversation only because it gets in the way of the primary part of the contention.

If someone says synthetic is superior to dino, the debate mostly concerns the intrinsic differences between the base stocks. Nobody would want to continue to read that YB has a superior add pack to Kendal GT-1 or vice versa. That would just get in the way of the comparison of two different base stocks.

You honestly can't see that?
 
Suppose one wanted to compare a Jaguar with a Cadillac. All they wanted to know was if the Jaguar was a higher end vehicle than the Cadillac. Are its parts of higher quality? Is the wood better, the leather better, is it more expensive and is the car smoother? Is the overall quality of the Jaguar superior to the Cadillac? Regardless of mechanical issues?

The question does not concern whether the Cadillac or the Jaguar will be capable of mechanically reaching 300,000 miles. So arguments favoring reliability or mechanical longevity are asked to be kept outside of the conversation. Just simply all else being equal which is a more high end vehicle.

I would say the Jaguar.

Here I say Mobil 1.
 
Quote:
Are base stocks composed of Group III, IV and or V synthetic constituents superior to straight Group III synthetics?


Well, one would ponder ..if they weren't ..why are they bothering?


Everything is blended to a target market. They use what is required to compete in that market.

Quote:
If someone says synthetic is superior to dino, the debate mostly concerns the intrinsic differences between the base stocks.


There is no magic oil.
 
Originally Posted By: Art_Vandelay
Is the overall quality of the Jaguar superior to the Cadillac? Regardless of mechanical issues?


54.gif


So Jags, being known for having mechanical issues, especially older ones, are still of higher quality?

So if Mobil 1 "did" contain all PAO, it would be better even though there is evidence some Mobil 1 batches failed the SAE seq. IVA wear test?
33.gif


Art, you're really grasping for straws now my friend. You're comparisons are gaining higher and higher altitudes.
 
This thread is EXACTLY why the concept of "best" is so irrelevant, especially for consumer products like motor oil, which is about as close to a true commodity for a consumer product that I can think of. Well, maybe toilet paper, and I think some might be needed for this thread! On the other hand, I've used some pretty bad toilet paper, and there isn't an API for the toilet paper industry.
 
Look at Amsoil. There group III oils have a lower mileage rating that their high end true synthetic lineup. Unless the add pack is much weaker for XL line then it's obvious that Amsoil thinks higher of their group IV oils.
 
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
which is about as close to a true commodity for a consumer product that I can think of. Well, maybe toilet paper,

Hey... my butt can definitely tell the difference between various TPs. Charmin Ultra gets my butt's vote!
 
Drew,

Lol I know all the wonderful Jaguar stories. "Drove one from LA to NY, in record time, and the engine only caught fire twice." I believe I read that in Road and Track back in the day. Ha Ha.

Actually quality of materials was the reason why I used Jaguar specifically. Better longevity was the reason I chose Cadillac. The purpose being that I acknowledge that the Cadillac can be more dependable. Just as PP can return better UOAs or performance than Mobil 1.

But that is irrelevant to the question of, which has higher quality materials in it?

If Mobil 1 does have a superior base stock why can't that be discussed?
 
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.



Define "superior"
 
Cooking analogy: You need good ingredients to make a great tasting dish, but you gotta know how to put em together.
There was this fantastic Italian Restaurant in the North End of Boston I frequented in the 80's called Sorrento's. The chef could make a 'gravy' for the manicotti like no other - pure heaven. He used good quality, fresh ingredients, very sparsly spiced but the result was seemingly more than the sum of the parts.
 
Originally Posted By: Art_Vandelay
That's a serious weakness. I don't put people down.


Ignoring your obvious contradiction of yourself, I think it's only fair to expect some criticism of a topic that in your very first post gleefuly acknowledge is likely to start a war.

At the end of the day, a useful exercise for you to take up would be to make a list of all of the members of the forum that you feel are knowledgeable of the topic at hand (not those that have read a few threads and posted a thousand opinions devoid of fact) and then go back through the pages and pages that this thread will eventually take up and see what is their general consensus on your chosen topic. I would guess it will be very telling.

Again, best of luck.

J
 
Originally Posted By: vinu_neuro
Doesn't this forum have moderators? I don't know understand why this thread was allowed past the initial post.


State specifically what it violates please.
 
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
which is about as close to a true commodity for a consumer product that I can think of. Well, maybe toilet paper,

Hey... my butt can definitely tell the difference between various TPs. Charmin Ultra gets my butt's vote!


Mine too!!!
 
If you're going to pay more for Mobil 1, you should get "more" compared to the other candidates.

I would contend that PP and many of the other synthetics on your list offer great protection, just like Mobil 1.

So why pay for esoteric fluids that don't provide any measurable benefits?

The same discussion can be made in a comparison between synthetics and dino oil.

Bottom line - use the stuff you have faith in as long as it meets the min. specifications for the application.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Z
  • Locked
When did Mobil 1 stop being a true synthetic?
Replies
14
Views
3K
MolaKule
B
Mobil 1 success
2 3 4
Replies
71
Views
7K
IndyFan
C
Is PAO (Group IV) no longer important?
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
9K
oil pan 4
Number_35
Mobil 1 vs. Mobil Full Synthetic
Replies
19
Views
8K
Lrobby99
sloinker
Time to dump the break in oil and move onto the next....
Replies
14
Views
2K
ledslinger
Back
Top