Mobil 1 PDS wording

[buster]

I'm sure I am overthinking this, but I noticed that the Mobil 1 PDS wording is different across the grades they offer. Their data shees are always updated and very clean. XOM clearly puts time into making sure they are up to date. I did notice though that "cleaning" is used in only the regular Mobil 1 grade and Mobil 1 0w40. Could this be due to the concentration of AN's and POE in the 0w40?

Regular Mobil 1:
"by providing exceptional wear protection, cleaning power and overall performance."

Mobil 1 Extended Performance:
"your engines running like new and protect critical engine parts for 15,000 miles between oil changes."

Mobil 1 AP:
"are ultimate full synthetic engine oils, providing proven protection for one full year or 20,000 miles between oil changes, whichever comes first, while keeping your engine running like new...."fortified with a proprietary anti-aging technology system"

Mobil 1 0w40:
"It provides exceptional cleaning power, wear protection and overall performance....Provides exceptional cleaning power for dirty engines....ultra high performance synthetic basestocks"

 

[demarpaint]

It seems to me they carefully chose the wording, intentionally. Why though? Once again I feel all we will get is a lot of opinions, and little or no facts as to why. I wonder if a call into XOM will shed light? I have my doubts about that too. Having said that

 

[jongies3]

I doubt one type of M1 has more or less cleaning power than the next. They're probably all fairly close to the same in the cleanliness department!

 

[ka9mnx]

They are expressing the most desirable aspect of each oil to the customer. More fodder for us to ignore. Advertising and marketing.

 

[JAG]

I generally don't trust descriptive claims that are in PDSs, but for Mobil 1 Extended Performance 0w20 and Mobil 1 0W-40, my testing of varnish removal showed that the former had a lousy ability to dissolve varnish while the latter had some ability to do it. That is consistent with the PDS statements for those two oils. I have not done that test on vanilla or AP Mobil 1.

 

[buster]

Agreed. Probably means little and you can't really prove much from it anyway.

 

[PimTac]

The reality is that hardly anyone reads a PDS on anything. Most people probably don't know what it is.

Even here on BITOG, it's likely that the majority of members don't read these sheets.

 

[buster]

Originally Posted by PimTac
The reality is that hardly anyone reads a PDS on anything. Most people probably don't know what it is.

Even here on BITOG, it's likely that the majority of members don't read these sheets.


Very true. That's likely whe Castrol could care less about their PDS's they know only an extremely small fraction of weirdos like us are actually looking at them.

 

[4wd]

Originally Posted by jongies3
I doubt one type of M1 has more or less cleaning power than the next. They're probably all fairly close to the same in the cleanliness department!


Based on thousands of engine hours and many tear downs ... the formulas that don't produce significant varnish may not be designed to clean up someone else's mess ... see BG for a small bottle

 

[CT8]

M A R K E T I N G.

 

[UNC063]

Originally Posted by buster
Originally Posted by PimTac
The reality is that hardly anyone reads a PDS on anything. Most people probably don't know what it is.

Even here on BITOG, it's likely that the majority of members don't read these sheets.


Very true. That's likely whe Castrol could care less about their PDS's they know only an extremely small fraction of weirdos like us are actually looking at them.

 

[JohnnyJohnson]

Originally Posted by PimTac
The reality is that hardly anyone reads a PDS on anything. Most people probably don't know what it is.

Even here on BITOG, it's likely that the majority of members don't read these sheets.



I do on occasion but then I don't consider it to be the Holy Grail of oil.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

Minimum "cleanliness" spec/req set forth by ILSAC and API

I like when the marketers state how it would outperform the req
or a competitor's product

OTW I don't pay attention too much.

Like, in the past where marketers who put tag "QUIET" onto washer machines that had been found to be the NOISIEST

I think when I read that I found my personal tipping point

 

[Yah-Tah-Hey]

The more preposterous the mumbo-jumbo, the more quickly will people get in line to swallow it.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by buster
I'm sure I am overthinking this, but I noticed that the Mobil 1 PDS wording is different across the grades they offer. Their data shees are always updated and very clean. XOM clearly puts time into making sure they are up to date. I did notice though that "cleaning" is used in only the regular Mobil 1 grade and Mobil 1 0w40. Could this be due to the concentration of AN's and POE in the 0w40?

Regular Mobil 1:
"by providing exceptional wear protection, cleaning power and overall performance."

Mobil 1 Extended Performance:
"your engines running like new and protect critical engine parts for 15,000 miles between oil changes."

Mobil 1 AP:
"are ultimate full synthetic engine oils, providing proven protection for one full year or 20,000 miles between oil changes, whichever comes first, while keeping your engine running like new...."fortified with a proprietary anti-aging technology system"

Mobil 1 0w40:
"It provides exceptional cleaning power, wear protection and overall performance....Provides exceptional cleaning power for dirty engines....ultra high performance synthetic basestocks"


Mobil1 0W40 FS is in the league of its own.
Any oil that has MB229.5, or MB 229.51 and MB 229.52 are exceptional oils. Though they might be overkill depending on application.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted by buster
Very true. That's likely whe Castrol could care less about their PDS's they know only an extremely small fraction of weirdos like us are actually looking at them.

I think that's it. They know that we're the only nutcases that read them, then we bust their chops over every spec change, data point omission, and every word. Maybe they do these things to mess with us.

The same came with the HTHS on data sheets debate recently. If Pennzoil lists HTHS on their ILSAC 30 grade data sheets, sure, I'd like to see that, but I already know what it is within a fairly small margin of error. The problem is that they'll be fielding calls and emails from some of us wondering why PU is thicker/thinner than PP by 0.1 on HTHS, or some niggling little difference between 5w30 and 10w30. The telephone people aren't equipped to handle that, and even if they were, I highly doubt the answer would satisfy the people complaining about such a minor difference.