MOBIL 1 is NOT SYNTHETIC - I FOUND PROOF!!!

[BOBISTHEOILGUY]

I couldn't help myself. I was directed to this forum and asked to look into. When I started to read this and as I followed the responses, everyone seems to now believe that the m1 isn't a full synth. Thought I'd post this on here and see what the consensus is to this topic. bob

code:

---

Topic: MOBIL 1 is NOT SYNTHETIC - I FOUND

PROOF!!!

posted 07-20-2002 12:27 PM



Hello-

In many synthetic debates on these forums, I've

often stated that at least at this current date,

the "new tri-synthetic formulated" Mobil 1 is NOT

a true synthetic oil. I've also stated that in

the past, it probably was a real group IV/V

synthetic. I've said that it is a hydrocracked

petroleum - a group III oil. However, every time

I say it, people disagree with me.



Guess what: I found proof!

First, a reference item for comparison: Delvac 1

(mfd. by Mobil) is a very high quality synthetic

oil designed primarily for fleet use. If you do a

google/yahoo on it, you'll find lots of spec

sheets online - not much marketing gimmick around

this stuff. You'll find, however, that in that

marketing there are some FAQ, and one of them

clearly states that this is a group IV/V

synthetic, not a hydrocracked petroleum.



NOWHERE in ANY Mobil marketing info is this

question ever addressed about Mobil 1.



Now, the pour point of Delvac 1 (5w-40) is -55F.

The pour point of new Mobil 1 (15w-50) is -38F.

But, alas, one could argue that they are

different viscosity indicies, right?



Here's the kicker: I was in Target today and I

happened to wander into the automotive section.

Here in the Midwest, not many people buy heavy

weight oils. I stuck my hand in the back of the

shelf and pulled out an old bottle of Mobil 1 15w-

50. The info was printed on the bottle - not on

stickers like new bottles. And, there was no "tri-

synthetic" stuff written anywhere.



I found the missing link. The pour point of the

old Mobil 1 is -55F.



Indeed, new Mobil 1 is NOT a true synthetic.



Take care,

---

 

[Patman]

This sounds like the post I saw on the Ford Probe website! I even got involved in that thread,
although it was a while ago so some of the things I was saying in there are probably outdated. I wasn't as edjumacated on oil as I am now!

 

[Patman]

On second thought, maybe it wasn't the same post. However the one on the Probe site was very similar.

 

[UncleS2]

It's not proof of anything, except that the pour pt. temp has risen. An indicator, or maybe even evidence, that the new M1 *may* not be 100% Group IV/V base oil? You betcha. Proof? No way.

Having established that, it sure does look suspiscious, doesn't it? Makes me glad I "discovered" this board before I was through weaning my car over to M1.

 

[BOBISTHEOILGUY]

No, not the ford probe threads. So,what would you tell them? not everyday you get a second chance huh.

 

[dbrowne1]

I don't get it. Nothing in that post even suggests, let alone proves, that M1 is using group III. All the evidence that I have seen says that niether the Trisyn nor the Supersyn uses group III.
We had a huge thread over at the 1.8T forum at vwvvortex on this, back when I speculated the same thing about the Supersyn. Some folks in positions to know these things (i.e. Mobil distributors) emphatically stated, repeatedly, that there is no Group III in any M1 formula. Some other folks did some testing, and there was nothing conclusive. I don't want to rehash the whole thread, but at the end, I was pretty convinved that there is no group III in any M1 formulas.

I am 99.9999999% sure that Trisyn uses no group III, and about 95% sure that Supersyn doesn't either.

 

[dbrowne1]

There is a more logical explanation for the higher volatility and higher pour points of Supersyn. The Supersyn basestock is very viscous. So, in the 0W-30, 5W-30, and 10W-30 weights, they have to blend in some very thin (small molecule) oils to balance it out. These evaporate more easily. You see better volatility numbers in the 15W-50 because the Supersyn basestock is closer to this viscosity to begin with. The pourpoint should be self-explanatory.

 

[Patman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BOBISTHEOILGUY:
No, not the ford probe threads. So,what would you tell them? not everyday you get a second chance huh.

---

Hehe, if I could post in the Ford Probe thread again I'd keep it simple and sweet. I'd tell them that Mobil 1 is still definitely a real synthetic, using a PAO and ester base, not a group 3, but that it's antiwear package is definitely questionable, and the product may very well be inferior to past Mobil 1 formulas. Not to mention the fact that the pour point is less favorable, and in the case of the 10w30, the flash point dropped 15 degrees.

Plus I'd tell those Probe guys not to worry about Mobil 1, and just switch to Schaeffers anyways!

 

[icruse]

I was going to say that the logic used by the individual of the original copied post here "Mobil 1 is not synthetiic" would be that to what Goober of Andy Griffith show would have come up with.
But then I thought, no, I wouldn't want to insult the superior intelligence and character of the fellows back in Mayberry..

Good Day,
Steven

 

[BOBISTHEOILGUY]

Let's not bust anyone's chops about their logic as it can be very easy to think this to be the case if not understanding the oil basics and how it works.

I think the point to bring out here is why the difference between the two pour points and does it or doesn't mean they are not full synth because of this difference. anyone care to point this out?

 

[Brad]

I called Mobil's tech line, they insist there is no Group III basestocks in their oil. Also talked with reps from other oil companies, they also say Mobil is still PAO base.

 

[jjbula]

I'm not smart on the chemistry just refering to 3rd hand rumor.....

I read on another forum that Mobil 1 is using some fairly thick esters to help with TBN and wear protection due to less zddp. To compensate for the thicker formulation, so the post said, Mobil 1 might be using more pour point depressors. The tradeoff is a higher Noack and higher pour point limits.

If this is true it may still be Group IV but very unusual indeed.

 

[satterfi]

I have some Mobil 1 15w50 trisyn SJ rated oil. The label says "Pumps at -38F"

Does that mean the pour point is -38F? maybe, maybe not

This oil has been sitting around a while so I don't know if it is the new M1 or the old M1 this guy is talking about.

Any differences in what the label says on pour points doesn't mean one is not a group IV/V.

 

[Dipstick]

Sounds a bit like propaganda to me. Click below for the real story behind SuperSyn. To make Mobil 1 factory fill for Porsche, MercedesBenz AMG, Dodge Viper, Chevrolet Corvette, & Ford Mustang Cobra R and then immediately turn around and "reformulate" it's flagship product into a Group III oil (from IV) is silliness. If they did they must have been snorting their flagship product. Exxon's SuperSyn PAO

 

[Jay]

It said in many places on the old TriSynthetic M1 website that their basestocks were a mix of PAO, esters, and alkylated aromatics (napthalene). As far as I know, there is no synthetic source of napthalene. It's refined from petroleum. So I suppose you could say that the TriSynthetics are not 100% synthetic.

I asked Mobil about the Supersyn basestocks and they told me they were unchanged from the TriSynthetic formulation, but that there were fewer of them (basestocks) to make room for the SuperSyn anti-wear component.

 

[JTC]

Frankly, we are all simply ignorant about how good, or bad, M1 SuperSyn is.

However, ExxonMobil's marketing emphasizes the new formula's anti-wear properties above all.

That tells me something.

If there was no basis for that claim, why would they stupidly market a product as better than before, when it was worse.

Makes no sense -- too much liability there.

Moreover, using an inappropriate measure (does it plate out in backyard tests) to measure the effectiveness of ester chemistry antiwear additives tells you nothing.

Lets just lay off until the data is in.

I distrust the motivation and the intellectual honesty of whoever wrote that stupid little piece that Bob quoted to start this thread.

 

[BOBISTHEOILGUY]

quote:

---

I distrust the motivation and the intellectual honesty of whoever wrote that stupid little piece that Bob quoted to start this thread

---

I'm not sure that it was an intent to bust m1 or not, but the fact remains, in my opinion, they are off base as far as the subject of full synth or not.

As for the barrier additives, well, like we(including me) said, that still remains to be seen.(and i didn't bring that issue up in this thread

)

 

[jjbula]

Please excuse if this has been covered already....

What if the SS "anti-wear" package is not a better anti-wear formulation. Could it be the first step toward a GF-4 oil with acceptable wear protection? Time will tell but this may be the improvment that Mobil is talking about. Easier on your catalytic converter and ok for 80-90% of the cars on the road. Then again maybe it really is the best thing since sliced bread.

 

[jjbula]

By "acceptable" I meant good enough to get you to 100 or 150 K without an overhaul but not the best.

 

[Al]

I've also contacted Mobil and they indicated that they use no Group III. But again, ,we really don't know how good the new stuff is. Obviously the first the guy with 'proof' has a hard-on for Mobil. Time will tell. I hav no loyalties to any oil. I think like most here we want the oil which give us the best numbers.

Leave it to old Bob to stir up the pot.

[ July 21, 2002, 10:02 PM: Message edited by: Al ]