*Mobil 1 - PAO & Visom

[StevieC]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: StevieC


Me?


I've caught you doing it a couple times

But you are also using Terry, and have used his services in the past. That's a bit different when that is the data being referenced, since it has professional interpretation.

Same with the guy AJ quoted. He trended.... didn't like the results (was advised that the results were worrisome) and changed, and got better ones. That's using the "tool" more to it's intended purpose. Not fretting over 5-10ppm of iron on a used oil analysis or two; especially when jumping from oil to oil like the British colonizing continents during the 1800's and trying to draw "conclusions" based on these single data points.

 

[dparm]

This kind of chat is why I love coming here.

 

[StevieC]

You mean banter not chat.

 

[buster]

Originally Posted By: BBDartCA
Here is the pending XOM patent on this base oil, has a good comparison to PAO as well. http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=PdOkAAAAEBAJ


Thanks!

 

[Cup of Joe]

Patent application title: Lubricant composition with low deposition tendency


Quote:

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

[0003]Lubricating compositions for use in internal combustion engines typically comprise a base oil and a variety of additives to enhance the performance characteristics of the base oil. Important performance characteristics of a base oil include oxidation stability, additive solubility and deposit control. Because the base oil is the major constituent in these lubricating compositions, it contributes significantly to the properties of the finished lubricant. To produce high performance lubricating compositions, lubricant manufacturers are seeking base oils that have better performance characteristics than many petroleum derived base oils presently used in lubricating compositions. Thus, there is a trend toward using synthetic base oils such as polyalphaolefins (PAOs) that have better oxidation stability, for example, than petroleum derived base oils. PAO base oils are produced by a chemical polymerization process. Although PAOs exhibit good oxidation stability and deposit control, they have poor additive solubility and are expensive to produce. Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) derived lubricant base oils are desirable for their oxidation stability biodegradability and low levels of undesirable impurities, such as sulfur. Although F-T base oils are less expensive to produce than PAOs, F-T oils do not exhibit the same deposit control properties as PAOs. It would be useful, therefore, to provide a base oil comprising an F-T base oil that exhibits good deposit control.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

[0004]Accordingly, in one embodiment of the present invention, there is provided a lubricant base oil blend consisting essentially from about 20 wt % to about 80 wt %, based on the total weight of the blend, of an F-T Group III base oil containing less than 5 wt % cycloparaffins, the balance of the blend being a Group III base oil containing at least 35 wt % cycloparaffins. In another embodiment of the invention, there is provided an engine oil composition comprising: a major amount of a base oil blend consisting essentially of 20 wt % to about 80 wt % of an F-T Group III base oil having less than 5 wt % cycloparaffins and the balance being a Group III base oil having at least 30 wt % cycloparaffins; and at least one engine oil additive selected from dispersants, detergents, antiwear agents, VI improvers, antioxidants, defoamants, friction modifiers and rust inhibitors.


Read more: http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20090054285#ixzz0xA2I9hXT

 

[Audi Junkie]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Inexpensive used oil analysis are not a good way to determine an oil's "wear" characteristics, since the particle size window sampled is VERY narrow.

Much better tool to watch for contamination, oil life, impending doom....etc. And that's what it was designed for.


What's scary is that even some long time posters haven't wrapped their heads around this simple fact.



Originally Posted By: dkryan
My 2001 I30 with the VQ30DE engine spit lead like a Gatling gun with every UOA that was performed.

When Blackstone personally telephones you because your lead level is higher than the national debt of the U.S., that's a clue.

The same result was encountered with Dyson Analysis in terms of high lead levels.

Both German Castrol 0w30 and RLI 10w30 SHP-HD reduced those lead levels. Some of those levels may have been due to fuel dilution. Nothing alarming, but higher than I wanted, fuel dilution-wise.

If SOPUS is willing to enter into an "ask and answer" session on BITOG, why not Mobil? I'd love to know why the lead readings are so high (in my engines with my OCIs) using (or used to use long ago) M-1.


That's not the type of post I was referring to and you know that.

I SPECIFICALLY stated SINGLE UOA on an oil.



Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Inexpensive used oil analysis are not a good way to determine an oil's "wear" characteristics, since the particle size window sampled is VERY narrow.

 

[BobFout]

Everyone grab a soda/pop/coke/coffee/beer/wine/tea/cocoa/water/milk whathaveyou and spend a few minutes reading Mr. Hillary's analysis of UOAs (haha pun).

Doug analysis of UOAs

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT

Inexpensive used oil analysis are not a good way to determine an oil's "wear" characteristics, since the particle size window sampled is VERY narrow.

Much better tool to watch for contamination, oil life, impending doom....etc. And that's what it was designed for.


What's scary is that even some long time posters haven't wrapped their heads around this simple fact.



Originally Posted By: dkryan
My 2001 I30 with the VQ30DE engine spit lead like a Gatling gun with every UOA that was performed.

When Blackstone personally telephones you because your lead level is higher than the national debt of the U.S., that's a clue.

The same result was encountered with Dyson Analysis in terms of high lead levels.

Both German Castrol 0w30 and RLI 10w30 SHP-HD reduced those lead levels. Some of those levels may have been due to fuel dilution. Nothing alarming, but higher than I wanted, fuel dilution-wise.

If SOPUS is willing to enter into an "ask and answer" session on BITOG, why not Mobil? I'd love to know why the lead readings are so high (in my engines with my OCIs) using (or used to use long ago) M-1.


That's not the type of post I was referring to and you know that.

I SPECIFICALLY stated SINGLE UOA on an oil.



Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Inexpensive used oil analysis are not a good way to determine an oil's "wear" characteristics, since the particle size window sampled is VERY narrow.




Nice, except you forgot to include this post:

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Inexpensive used oil analysis are not a good way to determine an oil's "wear" characteristics, since the particle size window sampled is VERY narrow.

Much better tool to watch for contamination, oil life, impending doom....etc. And that's what it was designed for.


What's scary is that even some long time posters haven't wrapped their heads around this simple fact.


Not only that, but there are those who profess that they do "get" and understand it.... Yet will be in numerous threads posting the "value" of them for comparing oils against one another; condemning one oil whilst praising another based on a single sample....etc.


Which clearly makes mention of single samples and was posted before you hand-picked my other point to quote.

But that doesn't change the fact that the post you quoted is what I believe to be the case: People trying to control the "wear" characteristics of their engines over inexpensive (often Blackstone) UOA results with PPM deviations in the single digits.

THAT was the point I was making in that post, then followed it up with the other, both of which were posted well before you chose only the one to quote to "make your point".

Maybe you should quote some Wikipedia for us and take up a few pages. That always seems to help.

 

[Audi Junkie]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

Maybe you should quote some Wikipedia for us and take up a few pages. That always seems to help.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true.[Note 1][1] As a result, people gather evidence and recall information from memory selectively, and interpret it in a biased way. The biases appear in particular for emotionally significant issues and for established beliefs. For example, in reading about gun control, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and/or recall have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a stronger weighting for data encountered early in an arbitrary series) and illusory correlation (in which people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased towards confirming their existing beliefs.

 

[Steve S]

Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

Maybe you should quote some Wikipedia for us and take up a few pages. That always seems to help.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true.[Note 1][1] As a result, people gather evidence and recall information from memory selectively, and interpret it in a biased way. The biases appear in particular for emotionally significant issues and for established beliefs. For example, in reading about gun control, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and/or recall have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a stronger weighting for data encountered early in an arbitrary series) and illusory correlation (in which people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased towards confirming their existing beliefs.
I do not understand the meaning of the word ambiguous as it is used?

 

[Steve S]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Originally Posted By: tig1
Remember, Many here at BITOG believe all oil producers are making better products now than ever before. The only exception is Mobil 1.


Sure. Wouldn't you, of all people, say that M1 was the wizbang galactic magic elixir of all time? (you can say "yes")

M1's top tier products pull top $$. Those that, IMO, pay most of the bills have met DOWN to the competition ..just due to the economically diluted condition all of us are in.

I mean, we all aren't driving (fill in the blank of what you think is the all time greatest car) ..and most likely ..never will. Yet we can still get your average M1 pretty cheap.

How is that? With global demand going up on everything, us being "poorer" ..and a premier product getting less expensive.

How did they do that?

j/k Tig...

Corporate magic!

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

Maybe you should quote some Wikipedia for us and take up a few pages. That always seems to help.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true.[Note 1][1] As a result, people gather evidence and recall information from memory selectively, and interpret it in a biased way. The biases appear in particular for emotionally significant issues and for established beliefs. For example, in reading about gun control, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and/or recall have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a stronger weighting for data encountered early in an arbitrary series) and illusory correlation (in which people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased towards confirming their existing beliefs.


Thank you, we needed that.

 

[BobFout]

I fret day and night over the 10 ppm Fe "more wear" I had with Mobil 1 0w40 over Amsoil DEO.







Wait, no I don't.

 

[Gary Allan]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

Maybe you should quote some Wikipedia for us and take up a few pages. That always seems to help.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true.[Note 1][1] As a result, people gather evidence and recall information from memory selectively, and interpret it in a biased way. The biases appear in particular for emotionally significant issues and for established beliefs. For example, in reading about gun control, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and/or recall have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a stronger weighting for data encountered early in an arbitrary series) and illusory correlation (in which people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased towards confirming their existing beliefs.


Thank you, we needed that.


People who it refers to dispute it for validity.

 

[ItsuMitsubishi]

What Mobil is telling me from that finely crafted literature is this:

"Face it, Mobil 1 isn't PAO. It will never be PAO. It retails for the same price as when it was mostly PAO, but now it isn't. Good for us, we pocket the difference by now using cheaper Group III of our own making, and mix in some PAO. Visom, being our own branded GrIII, is obviously not available to our competition. They already have their own production capacity and suppliers. But mentioning (obvious) exclusivity will lead you to believe we're holding onto the good stuff, and that you'll need to buy Mobil 1 for the best GrIII. According to our research, you the customer "could" not notice any difference from a PAO product. R&D'ing our 'low cost' formula now paves the way for an easy transition into GTL, which will be even cheaper to produce. It 'helps us understand how to maintain flagship performance' using much cheaper components. We're proud to increase our profits and then turn around to use the opportunity to craft a message that influences you to believe that the product is the best it's ever been. Thank you for choose Mobil products"

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: ItsuMitsubishi
What Mobil is telling me from that finely crafted literature is this:


That being said, no one is forcing you to buy it or use it. Castrol and SOPUS have been playing the Group III game for years, and been priced the same as Mobil 1, I might add (at least here in Canada). Oddly enough, Mobil 1 is now the cheapest synthetic available in our Walmarts, and by a substantial margin.

So, why should I pay $9 a litre for Syntec or PP, or $14 a litre for Edge, when I can buy any Mobil 1 at $6 a litre? Canadian Tire is selling GC for $6.99 a litre while the Group III stuff goes for $9? Who's playing the shell game, now?

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted By: ItsuMitsubishi
What Mobil is telling me from that finely crafted literature is this:

"Face it, Mobil 1 isn't PAO. It will never be PAO. It retails for the same price as when it was mostly PAO, but now it isn't. Good for us, we pocket the difference by now using cheaper Group III of our own making, and mix in some PAO. Visom, being our own branded GrIII, is obviously not available to our competition. They already have their own production capacity and suppliers. But mentioning (obvious) exclusivity will lead you to believe we're holding onto the good stuff, and that you'll need to buy Mobil 1 for the best GrIII. According to our research, you the customer "could" not notice any difference from a PAO product. R&D'ing our 'low cost' formula now paves the way for an easy transition into GTL, which will be even cheaper to produce. It 'helps us understand how to maintain flagship performance' using much cheaper components. We're proud to increase our profits and then turn around to use the opportunity to craft a message that influences you to believe that the product is the best it's ever been. Thank you for choose Mobil products"

Now those sir are some Cahones you have...

 

[d00df00d]

Still haven't heard a reason to care about ingredients when there's no evidence of a performance difference.

 

[Audi Junkie]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

Thank you, we needed that.



I must have heard a dozen times in the last week how such-and-such version of Mobil 1 "has a decent amount of PAO".

Lame assertion, by the standards of this forum.

 

[StevieC]

Just to sum it up for the later tuners into this M1 debate so that we don't loose all the supporting points why M1 is a great oil regardless of whats in it PAO or not!

1) It doesn't matter what is in an oil so long as it performs in the real world over a long time. Lots of people can profess to this with past experiences of M1 products and XOM isn't one to be stupid and screw up their formulations that have gotten them this far.

2) used oil analysis tell you nothing more than an oils contamination and nothing about how your engine is wearing unless you have a ton of trending data (multiple used oil analysis) and/or expert analysis of the report or have an engine failure imminent and even then it might not show up on the narrow spectrum of the UOA.

3) Things like chemical reactions between additive packages and metallic surfaces and/or gasket materials can cause excessively high readings in used oil analysis that might be cause for concern to the untrained eye.

4) used oil analysis might not be accurate unless the lab is calibrating their equipment properly and has done the test accurately.

5) There are a gazillion of Mobil 1 used oil analysis here and none of the engines have shown anything but cleanliness and longevity regardless of the changes XOM has made to the formulations over the years.

Anything else to add?