*Mobil 1 - PAO & Visom

[Gary Allan]

Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Yeah ..right. Again, I really don't care. But the apologist's patch overs just won't cover the fact (and if you look at the original discussions where Tom brought this up ..and the hubbub it caused when it occurred, that XOM themselves were cowardly and deceptive in keeping this thing quiet.

Just concede to the obvious and I'm outta here.


Why opined when you don't really care? How is XOM cowardly and deceptive when they are following their business model like everyone else? You provided no proof except for some hum-haw on this forum in the past that XOM couldn't care less about. Where did XOM failed to meet specs with their advertised products?


Again, if you've been following along, the disclosure of this truth almost cost Tom his job. Now if that's not enough to high suggest that this was to be a quiet matter wen XOM was forced to tap dance to keep the pipeline full, then you're really trying to ignore it.

Now that they've had a number of years to realign their directions ..refine them ..you're of the "all is forgiven" Frech model in regard to back taxes.

So, again, concede to the screaming obvious ..and say, "well, yes, they were quietly dealing from the bottom of the deck ..selling a product that they protested another competitor selling and claiming to be a "true" synthetic" ..but in that totally hypocritical move, managed to pull some creative and superior blends out of their behinds."

OTOH, you can just say "I don't want to talk about that since it really doesn't serve my agenda much".


XOM makes a fine line of synthetic products. I'd say the best and at a level of worldwide distribution that can't be matched by anyone.

 

[Audi Junkie]

Tom will always have my respect for seeking "the truth".

 

[buster]

XOM was quiet about it because they know most consumers are dumb, and would equate the use of Group III to being an inferior product. That is why they approached it that way.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: buster
XOM was quiet about it because they know consumers are dumb and would equate the use of Group III to being an inferior product. That is why they approached it that way.

Thank you.

 

[rclint]

Originally Posted By: buster
XOM was quiet about it because they know most consumers are dumb, and would equate the use of Group III to being an inferior product. That is why they approached it that way.



Or XOM was smart and knew customers would not pay top synthetic prices when they may have learned from the internet that grp III base stock is cheaper to make, yet XOM or I should say m1 prices were at the top of off the shelf oil for a number of years, only recently have they dropped any... it's this reason I choose to believe however I'm glad m1 prices are where they are now I also think they are at a competitive price, and market to other similar oils at walmart which they are...

 

[prax]

Originally Posted By: buster
XOM was quiet about it because they know most consumers are dumb, and would equate the use of Group III to being an inferior product. That is why they approached it that way.



It's ok if Group 3 is inferior. But we all know PAO is more expensive so why not lower prices if you're using the cheaper stuff?

Free markets work best when both parties have more information. Big thumbs-up for Tom.

 

[shrooms]

Wow, they finally admitted it. It's fine with me...I haven't used M1 for a loooog time and have no reason to when there's so many other choices.

The next time I go into Walmart and see M1, I'll have a BIG

 

[Mokanic]

For me it's not about the base oil. I use more grp III than PAO. It's about EOM's deception,hypocrisy,and spin to consumers. They certainly could not care less about the end-user's opinion and that is one of the main reasons I avoid their products. Not to mention there are better quality offerings out there now. Many of the faithful are seeking out the M1 High-Mileage formulations over the iron-supplement 5W30 offering.Why is that? Maybe they know the quality of the flagship offering is in the outhouse... but we must never concede the obvious. Those silver jugs are just too pretty for that. Not to mention the payoffs(oopps) for factory endorsements,ect...

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Mokanic
Those silver jugs are just too pretty for that. Not to mention the payoffs(oopps) for factory endorsements,ect...


Of course, ExxonMobil is the only company to have factory fill deals with any of the manufacturers or contract with service departments, right? What deception, hypocrisy, and spin? What makes them different from any other big oil company? ExxonMobil didn't start the Group III issue, remember that.

Is Edge "better" than vanilla Mobil 1? Perhaps, depending upon one's definition. Under my definition, which includes cost effectiveness, Mobil 1 is a better oil. It's a third the price of Edge, yet I doubt it's performance is 67% poorer in any respect. I doubt I could triple my OCIs by switching to Edge from Mobil 1.

Pricing itself is a form of spin. What justifies the price of PU and Edge? What justifies the price of even Syntec and PP over M1? Many believe in the notion that one gets what one pays for. Are BP and SOPUS taking advantage of that?

 

[buster]

There are A LOT of good oils out there, use whatever you like as long as it meets the OEM requirements.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
Of course, ExxonMobil is the only company to have factory fill deals with any of the manufacturers or contract with service departments, right? What deception, hypocrisy, and spin? What makes them different from any other big oil company? ExxonMobil didn't start the Group III issue, remember that.


I'll interpret that as a rationalized or intellectualized concession.

"If I'm so bad, what about Johnny? Look what he did!!"

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
I'll interpret that as a rationalized or intellectualized concession.

"If I'm so bad, what about Johnny? Look what he did!!"


He he, not quite. My issue is simply that when ExxonMobil does something, they get taken to task over it. If the other big companies do it, it's praiseworthy.

Here's something that others should heed. Edge is ultra expensive, and certainly not a Group IV. The same applies to PU if it ever gets here. ExxonMobil may be using Group III basestocks in one or more oils. ExxonMobil's synthetic prices have dropped dramatically, to the point they're substantially below that of Syntec and PP, let alone Edge or PU.

As I said before, I can't speak for the U.S., but what I've seen is that ExxonMobil has done something to cut costs, and this saving has been passed on to the consumer. Is there a SOPUS or BP memo or PP presentation that explains why Edge is $14 a litre, Syntec is $9 a litre, PP is $9 a litre, for cheaper basestocks?

I'd love to hear the rational as to why Syntec and PP are $3 more per litre than Mobil 1, and why Edge is triple the price. As an aside, I'd also be interested to know why I can get Royal Purple cheaper than Syntec (non-GC) or PP, or why GC is cheaper than other Syntec varieties.

Right now, GC, RP, and Mobil 1 are the "best" oils out there (for cost effectiveness). It's a sad day for SOPUS and BP when Royal Purple has undercut them.

 

[ItsuMitsubishi]

Originally Posted By: buster
XOM was quiet about it because they know most consumers are dumb, and would equate the use of Group III to being an inferior product. That is why they approached it that way.



Are you sure that's why? Most consumers are dumb; dumb enough to have no idea what base oil groups are and how they perform.

Originally Posted By: Garak
My issue is simply that when ExxonMobil does something, they get taken to task over it. If the other big companies do it, it's praiseworthy.


I've consistently noticed the opposite bias. Syntec was really the first to be crucified for being Gr III. Pennzoil was long, and still is to some, synonymous with wax. The Mobil couldn't go wrong even with all the drama of failing specs, iron and grade dropout. I dislike all oil companies equally (sorry guys, nothing personal), I'd just prefer them to spin it more like the slap chop guy and less like a costly team of lawyers.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: ItsuMitsubishi
Are you sure that's why? Most consumers are dumb; dumb enough to have no idea what base oil groups are and how they perform.

We are no better. Most of us evidently aren't even curious about how group III and group IV base stocks compare. They don't ask any questions whatsoever. They just hear "group III" and "group IV," immediately leap to the conclusion that they have been ripped off, and don't want to hear any differently.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: ItsuMitsubishi
I've consistently noticed the opposite bias. Syntec was really the first to be crucified for being Gr III. Pennzoil was long, and still is to some, synonymous with wax. The Mobil couldn't go wrong even with all the drama of failing specs, iron and grade dropout. I dislike all oil companies equally (sorry guys, nothing personal), I'd just prefer them to spin it more like the slap chop guy and less like a costly team of lawyers.


In fairness to SOPUS and BP, I do agree that they were unfairly targeted with various things. In a way, BP brought it on itself by trying to change the definition of "synthetic oil." However, that doesn't mean that Group III type stocks offer any lesser performance for almost every application. The Pennzoil wax issue is totally hokey and absolutely flabbergasting.

In any case, though, the general consensus here is that SOPUS makes good oils and so does BP, regardless of Group III content. They, at least for a fairly long period of time, have gotten a free pass on the issues. If anyone comes here and claims that Pennzoil caused their engine to fill with wax or QS sludged their engine, or that Syntec and Edge are really only fancy conventional oil, they'd be "re-educated" very quickly, and rightfully so.

As for the Slap Chop Guy, if he starts marketing oil, we're in trouble. If there's ever a guy I want to see sitting on his couch or in his convertible and get "sludged," that would be him.

 

[azsynthetic]

A perfect analogy of this is the gun industries. When Glock first came out with their polymer handguns everyone assumes that it can never be as as good as a steel gun. Old school gun makers like Colt and S&W advertised their steel pistol can not be best by the polymer wannabe. Now, every gun makers that want to survive in the gun business was/is making polymer handguns.

If anyone wants to buy group IV or V oil then buy them from manufacturers that advertised as such, i.e. Amsoil, RP, Red Line, Maxima, Motul, etc. Don't buy and whine when your expectation is not met even though the manufacturers never claimed to provide it. XOM couldn't care less if you buy your oils from someone else. XOM is still the standard in the industries based on their list of clients and nothing is going to change that.

 

[Charlie41]

I haven't been a member of this forum long but let me chime in (with great trepidation). I've been a chemist for a long time and think I understand hydrotreating (group 3), PAO s, esters, gtl etc. pretty well (guess I think it is silly to put some of these expensive molecules in motor oil). The thing I find hard to understand is the concern about the basestock-a strong basestock without a good additive package isn't much good-on the other hand, a so-so basestock with an effective additive package will do quite well. As has been stated, look at how well the final product performs-not what is in it. I will retire to my storm shelter now.

 

[Gary Allan]

Charlie: The apologists keep going back to that point since it's the only defensible haven to occupy.

That's never been disputed. And a cheaper particle board generic speaker can have a fancy label put on it and if the consensus is that it contains the proper acoustic properties, it's worth as much as a set of B&O's that required a whole lot more put into them.

It's all fine if you don't mind Infinity speaker prices for AudioVox quality.

..and (to others) YES, SOPUS was never hammered or looked down upon for their proprietary XHVI Group III basestock. Why should they?

XOM's line of PAO lubricants were the standard that all others failed to best.

Now if all everyone is saying is that there's no need for the properties of PAO ..and that the advancements in Group III basestocks is proving more than enough for needs of the current demands placed upon them ..and that XOM is just sensibly responding the changing economic/technical evolutions in the most efficient, productive, and profitable manner - FINE.

If that's the case, then the former leading edge gap, the one that always set them WAY apart ..is shrinking. They can't put themselves out there like they used to.

It no longer pays. Nothing sinister about it ..nothing "wrong" with it either. Everyone keeps citing more OEM certs ..but that's more a licensing and positioning maneuver than it is one of superiority beyond having the R&D $$$ to "invest" in future returns.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
I'll interpret that as a rationalized or intellectualized concession.

"If I'm so bad, what about Johnny? Look what he did!!"


He he, not quite. My issue is simply that when ExxonMobil does something, they get taken to task over it. If the other big companies do it, it's praiseworthy.

Here's something that others should heed. Edge is ultra expensive, and certainly not a Group IV. The same applies to PU if it ever gets here. ExxonMobil may be using Group III basestocks in one or more oils. ExxonMobil's synthetic prices have dropped dramatically, to the point they're substantially below that of Syntec and PP, let alone Edge or PU.

As I said before, I can't speak for the U.S., but what I've seen is that ExxonMobil has done something to cut costs, and this saving has been passed on to the consumer. Is there a SOPUS or BP memo or PP presentation that explains why Edge is $14 a litre, Syntec is $9 a litre, PP is $9 a litre, for cheaper basestocks?

I'd love to hear the rational as to why Syntec and PP are $3 more per litre than Mobil 1, and why Edge is triple the price. As an aside, I'd also be interested to know why I can get Royal Purple cheaper than Syntec (non-GC) or PP, or why GC is cheaper than other Syntec varieties.

Right now, GC, RP, and Mobil 1 are the "best" oils out there (for cost effectiveness). It's a sad day for SOPUS and BP when Royal Purple has undercut them.


It must be in Canada that Edge is 3x the cost of M1. I watch the sales, and won't buy any oil unless it is on sale. When AAP runs their oil change deals Edge with a good filter is at a very good price, in fact usually about the same price as M1 is when they run specials on it.

 

[robertcope]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan

XOM's line of PAO lubricants were the standard that all others failed to best.


You state here that they were the high bar and that nobody beat them. Their presentation indicates that the new oil, although reformulated to use less PAO, actually out performs the old oil in most test cases (a few suffer, such as pour point, if I recall). Assuming both of those statements are true, they are still the high bar and unbeatable.

robert