*Mobil 1 - PAO & Visom

[StevieC]

Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
I did a TON of searching through the uoa`s here the other night (blank out the date range in the serch criteria,and put your specific search words in quotations and the search feature here works perfectly) and M1 isn`t what I noticed producing high iron,it seems to be car maker specific no matter what oils are used. I found uoa`s with M1 in the tens of thousand mile range producing single digit iron readings,while there were dinos producing double digit iron numbers in less than 3000 mile intervals.

Toyota and Honda engines were showing perfect uoa`s using M1 for really long intervals. Here`s one that blew my mind:

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/posts/249928/

So maybe certain engines shed more iron,and it`s not the oil`s fault but the particular engines?
While that might be true for most engines I saw higher Iron numbers with M1 since the so called formulation changes. Not saying that equates to higher wear but given that I was using the old formulation and then switched to the new formulation and nothing else changed but the IRON numbers seems suspect to me.

 

[apwillard1986]

Precisely! If a BITOGer ran 5000 miles on peptobismol and it produced a used oil analysis that showed no wear metals and a high TBN theyd have to start selling it in 5 qt jugs at Walmart. A vast majority chase only an excellent used oil analysis but then get embroiled in base stock debates. I find it an interesting subject as well but it doesn't rock me to my oil using foundations.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: StevieC
If formulas change who cares so long as my used oil analysis don't change to indicate more wear with the trend data I have already.

I agree 100% with you. My point is the bottom line is profit, formulations are proprietary, and the oil companies can and will change formulas at will. If a cheaper alternative comes along I'm willing to bet they'll be all over it. Since Group III can legally be called full synthetic it is a homerun for the oil companies. It is our job to find out about formula changes, [if it matters to us] it is certainly not their job to tell us.

As long as my fleet continues to run the way it does base stock doesn't matter much to me. OTOH no one wants to over pay either.

 

[StevieC]

I just laugh how caught up people are on used oil analysis and Basestocks when they are only a small fraction of the big picture. Then these same people dump their cars at intervals that they could have achieved using conventional oil because they are rusted out or they are bored with it. Question their logic for using a PAO synthetic and you get reams and reams of posts why their logic is proper and we are all wrong for using GRP-III oils or conventional.

I just don't get it...

 

[StevieC]

I use synthetic because my engine is fussy on cold start-up, I also use it because I'm experimenting with new formulas, and because the higher cost of synthetic is covered for me otherwise I would most likely run dino and just change it at a good interval using a quality filter and be done with it.

From the gazillion of engines I have torn apart where 80% were using nothing but Dino and had their OCI's far extended past the 3/3000 mentality I can tell you Dino is much better than we think and the engines survived for a very long time without having lubrication issues and it's this in the back of my head that provides humor when I see the syn-heads claim that their daily driver which doesn't require a syn as per manufacturer specs, "needs" as syn as per them.

But then again I need this sort of relief because my days can be stressful and this always makes me laugh...

With that said I gotta go to my next store.... Adios.

 

[apwillard1986]

I have no problem with an oil company calling a hydrocracked grp III a synthetic if only because, as johnny mentioned, paos are derived thru crude process to an extent, just as ultra refined grp IIIs are. Contrary to the early synthetic advertisements, there are not factories full of scientists with flasks and agitators producing millions of gallons of synthetic motor oil one beaker at a time.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

I'm not surprised. The Mobil 1 ESP 5w30 I currently have in the sump was $7.99/quart vs the $11/qt Castrol SLX OE Prof. With that price difference I'm more than happy with the Gr3+ base mixed with PAO. But hey, I shop for OEM spec's 1st and price 2nd. Base stock isn't THAT important for my application.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

This info has been out for a long time so it seems. Here's a 2003 report.

http://www.lubereport.com/e_article000130105.cfm

"At the high end of the scale, and made only in pilot plant quantities so far, are ExxonMobil's new Visom branded Group III+ base stocks. This product aims to meet one of Europe's most difficult engine oil specs, 0W-30. So far, marketers have needed to formulate with polyalphaolefins to meet the stringent cold-cranking, viscosity and volatility requirements of this grade.

Visom is created through wax isomerization, and has an impressive viscosity index of 140, thanks to its high paraffin content. (The name Visom was derived from combining "viscosity index" and "isomerization," Cox explained.) The product became possible after the ExxonMobil merger, and combines Exxon reactor hardware with Mobil catalyst technology, with engineering and research support from both. Basically, it upgrades slack wax to base stocks with high V.I., low volatility, excellent cold-cranking properties and what Cox called "superior" blending performance. Visom is primarily iso-paraffins, he pointed out, while competing Group III base stocks made from hydrocracker bottoms have significant naphthene content.

He went on to show how Visom's blending advantages and cold-cranking performance mean that 5W-40 engine oils can be made with 100 percent Visom base stock, without resorting to PAO, and at a lower additive treat rate. He also described how 0w30 requirements can be met with Visom alone or with PAO alone (but not with competing Group III base stocks unless some PAO is included to achieve the cold-cranking limit).

"Wax is wax, and isomerized wax is essentially the same stuff," Cox said. "It doesn't matter where it comes from." Made from waxy feedstocks and using the same catalyst systems as GTL will use, Visom will provide valuable experience in formulating with GTL-type base stocks, prior to their arrival later in the decade, he said."

 

[buster]

Visom is good stuff. In the presentation, they show results of the TEOST MHT-4, and the new 0w40 out performs the previous version, which was already very good. Volatility is the same @ around 7-8% based on the graph.

Page 37 shows the TEOST results.

 

[Tom NJ]

Originally Posted By: BMWTurboDzl
This info has been out for a long time so it seems. Here's a 2003 report.


Yes the Visom news is old. What's new is ExxonMobil's finally admitting that they use it in their M1 line.

Tom NJ

 

[buster]

Originally Posted By: StevieC
I think the quality of basestocks are leaps/bounds better than they used to be just a few years ago and that added to great additive packages provided by years of research makes great oils that don't need hard to obtain PAO's any more.

Pennzoil Platinum is a great example of this!

+1 Very true!

 

[BobFout]

Is the current Mobil 1 0w40 the "old" or "new 0w40 in the presentation?

 

[Johnny]

I would say new considering the date of the presentation.

 

[Audi Junkie]

Well, the issue many have with Mobil using HC base oil, it's the hypocrisy of them ~secretly~ using it after taking Castrol to task on the same issue, effectively dragging Castrol's name through the mud, while they were exploring new technologies, and behind the scenes pawning their own version of it off on their loyal customer base.

 

[Johnny]

Originally Posted By: buster

A natural evolution of the formulation

The Mobil 1 formulation strategy has always been based on selecting the best components available. We now have the very high quality Group III+ base stock, ‘Visom’ exclusively available to ExxonMobil. As we developed the Mobil 1 ESP technology we found that combining Visom with PAO could deliver a formulation of equivalent performance to an all PAO formulation.

Competitive advantage

Visom is the only non-PAO stock that can deliver the required performance to formulate a 0W grade oil that meets European OEM engine oil specifications. Visom is not available to our competition.

To support Mobil 1 growth

Global PAO capacity is limited. As we quickly approach this limit, new base stocks must be explored to ensure we can support the continued growth of the Mobil 1 family of products.

To ensure continuity of supply

As we saw with the 2005 hurricane, the more flexibility we have in our formulations, the better placed we are to withstand disruption to our supply. We can balance PAO and Visom supply fluctuations to ensure we can always deliver the final product to our customers.

To maintain market relevant pricing

As PAO supply has tightened globally, raw material costs have increased substantially. In the future, an exclusively PAO formulation may be priced out of the market or result in significant margin erosion.

To prepare for next generation basestocks (GTL)

Commencing 2010, the next generation of base stocks derived from Natural Gas (Gas To Liquids) will enter the market. These high quality basestocks will arrive in substantial quantities and will probably be used in the majority of competitive premium formulations. Visom is viewed as a precursor of GTL, and hence it’s use now in our flagship formulations eases our transition to a GTL world, and helps us understand how to maintain flagship performance using these high quality non-PAO basestocks.



This right here should be posted as a sticky on the top of the PCMO page with a title of Mobil 1 Base Stocks. Maybe this way we could reduce some of these crazy Mobil 1 threads.

 

[Gary Allan]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: pbm
Why are global PAO stocks so limited? It's a man-made product so we should be able to make more, right?
I believe this is all about MONEY.

If PAO is more expensive and performs no better than the alternative in 99% of cases, no company in their right mind would use it unless they absolutely have to. That means demand will dwindle, which means supply will dwindle. Saying "global PAO supply is limited" might be marketing speak, but it still reflects a reality.



I'd say that demand for PAO's has skyrocketed where they are essential and the cost of expanding production JUST to accommodate former uses where alternatives are cheaper.. is the sensible market evolution.

Think China. PAO's aren't just used in motor oils. Their growth will put a demand on everything.

 

[shpankey]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: StevieC
Amsoil and Redline look like the best choices for people looking for quality Basestock oils now...

That might be true for now, but this remark in the article probably contains the most truth, and might mean that a lot of our favorite boutique oils might be changing down the road. Time will tell.

Quote: As PAO supply has tightened globally, raw material costs have increased substantially. In the future, an exclusively PAO formulation may be priced out of the market or result in significant margin erosion.

Keep in mind even Amsoil and Redline are concerned with profits first. Prices can only go so high before people start looking elsewhere, or companies are forced to change. Just stating my opnion nothing more.

Well, Amsoil recently announced their prices are going up due to an increase in the cost of basetsocks. So I think Amsoil is still going to be mainly based on Group IV and V (not including XLO).

Also, to the question of Royal Purple (above). I think they are PAO based too, and I think, don't quote me, but I think with some Group II to help solvency, or something to that effect.

 

[Gary Allan]

I think our future might be devoid of retail oil all together. All the OEM's are positioning themselves for exclusive fluids spec'd and licensed just for them. XOM has wisely put themselves (mostly) in the middle of much it by forming cooperatives with the OEM's. I'm sure SOPUS and others will be doing he same, but probably in different sectors.

 

[BobFout]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
I think our future might be devoid of retail oil all together. All the OEM's are positioning themselves for exclusive fluids spec'd and licensed just for them. XOM has wisely put themselves (mostly) in the middle of much it by forming cooperatives with the OEM's. I'm sure SOPUS and others will be doing he same, but probably in different sectors.


Euros already do have exclusive fluid specs but many oils meet many of these specs, available at retail still. How do you see domestic oil being different?

 

[KrisZ]

Originally Posted By: Johnny

Quote:
A natural evolution of the formulation

The Mobil 1 formulation strategy has always been based on selecting the best components available. We now have the very high quality Group III+ base stock, ‘Visom’ exclusively available to ExxonMobil. As we developed the Mobil 1 ESP technology we found that combining Visom with PAO could deliver a formulation of equivalent performance to an all PAO formulation.

Competitive advantage

Visom is the only non-PAO stock that can deliver the required performance to formulate a 0W grade oil that meets European OEM engine oil specifications. Visom is not available to our competition.

To support Mobil 1 growth

Global PAO capacity is limited. As we quickly approach this limit, new base stocks must be explored to ensure we can support the continued growth of the Mobil 1 family of products.

To ensure continuity of supply

As we saw with the 2005 hurricane, the more flexibility we have in our formulations, the better placed we are to withstand disruption to our supply. We can balance PAO and Visom supply fluctuations to ensure we can always deliver the final product to our customers.

To maintain market relevant pricing

As PAO supply has tightened globally, raw material costs have increased substantially. In the future, an exclusively PAO formulation may be priced out of the market or result in significant margin erosion.

To prepare for next generation basestocks (GTL)

Commencing 2010, the next generation of base stocks derived from Natural Gas (Gas To Liquids) will enter the market. These high quality basestocks will arrive in substantial quantities and will probably be used in the majority of competitive premium formulations. Visom is viewed as a precursor of GTL, and hence it’s use now in our flagship formulations eases our transition to a GTL world, and helps us understand how to maintain flagship performance using these high quality non-PAO basestocks.



This right here should be posted as a sticky on the top of the PCMO page with a title of Mobil 1 Base Stocks. Maybe this way we could reduce some of these crazy Mobil 1 threads.


+1

I can't help but notice all casual responses here, I mean every single Mobil 1 vs Syntec thread always boiled down to base stocks, and how Syntec, except GC, was overpriced because of that and should be priced as PP, but with Mobil it's business as usual, am I the only one that finds this wierd???