Mobil 1 Supersyn means no ester ??!!

[vxcalais]

http://www.aussieelises.com/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t4771.html

I am loving the info on this thread. Would like it verified and if it came from this site. Also loved the BITOM (bob is the oil man) referecence (innocent). Looks like great info. Can we link to another forum ?

 

[G-MAN]

This is has been discussed on here before with George. In fact, I had to issue a public apology to George because early on he said SuperSyn contained no esters and I pretty much said he was full of ____. No PAO based oil can be formulated without something for solubility, and traditionally esters are what is used. What Mobil did with SuperSyn was to replace the esters with alkylated naphthalene. This had been used in the Tri-Syn formula (it was one of the three synthetic fluids that made of the "tri" formula). In the subsequent SuperSyn formulation it was the sole fluid used for solubility and seems to have worked just fine.

 

[bepperb]

"SJ being the current one for gasoline passenger cars"

How old is the article referenced in that thread?

Formulations change, so even if M1 contained no Ester at some point, that isn't necessarily true.

Everything I have ever read indicates that M1 is a blend of mostly group 3, but some group 4 and 5. I've never seen anything saying it was only group 3, and that would surprise me being that Mobil is the largest producer of synthetic base stocks.

Edit, ok, so group 5 products that aren't esters.

"ExxonMobil Chemical offers innovative Group V alkylated naphthalenes under the trade name Synesstic(TM) blendstocks. These novel, highly stable Group V
blendstocks are formed by the reaction of olefins with naphthalene.

"Alkylated naphthalenes offer the hydrolytic stability of a PAO and excellent additive solubility of an ester They also can help improve additive system efficacy
because they are less polar than esters. Lubricants blended with Synesstic(TM) AN products provide increased hydrolytic and thermal/oxidative stability, resulting
in increased oil service and longer equipment life."

 

[buster]

Not true.

 

[G-MAN]

Originally Posted By: bepperb
"SJ being the current one for gasoline passenger cars"

How old is the article referenced in that thread?

Formulations change, so even if M1 contained no Ester at some point, that isn't necessarily true.

Everything I have ever read indicates that M1 is a blend of mostly group 3, but some group 4 and 5. I've never seen anything saying it was only group 3, and that would surprise me being that Mobil is the largest producer of synthetic base stocks.


The article (and this discussion) is about the old "SuperSyn" formulation that followed the "Tri-Synthetic" formulation, not the current formulation.

 

[d00df00d]

Great discussion IMO. With the proviso that the information on Mobil 1's formulation is no longer current, this should open people's minds a bit.

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: bepperb
"SJ being the current one for gasoline passenger cars"

How old is the article referenced in that thread?

Formulations change, so even if Mobil 1 contained no Ester at some point, that isn't necessarily true.

Everything I have ever read indicates that Mobil 1 is a blend of mostly group 3, but some group 4 and 5. I've never seen anything saying it was only group 3, and that would surprise me being that Mobil is the largest producer of synthetic base stocks.

Edit, ok, so group 5 products that aren't esters.

"ExxonMobil Chemical offers innovative Group V alkylated naphthalenes under the trade name Synesstic(TM) blendstocks. These novel, highly stable Group V
blendstocks are formed by the reaction of olefins with naphthalene.

"Alkylated naphthalenes offer the hydrolytic stability of a PAO and excellent additive solubility of an ester They also can help improve additive system efficacy
because they are less polar than esters. Lubricants blended with Synesstic(TM) AN products provide increased hydrolytic and thermal/oxidative stability, resulting
in increased oil service and longer equipment life."


Mobil 1 oils are not mostly Grp 3 base.

 

[StevieC]

I see another thread that will grow like crazy with the same rhetoric rehashed all over again.

Here we go...

 

[bepperb]

Sorry Stevie, I blame myself.

I took this as a "Mobil is only group 3" thread, but it was probably a legit question with an interesting answer with what Mobil uses as it's group 5 carrier.

Unfortunately, I agree this will become a "percentage of base stock" for it thread.

 

[StevieC]

I don't blame anyone... I just like how we can't have normal discussions on BITOG about anything that is a Mobil 1 product without it turning into a GRP-III debate again.

In a way I wish M1 would just come out and tell everyone what the true makeup of base stocks are so people could .... MOVE ON!

 

[7777]

 

[toyota62]

https://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/Mot..._Ester_Oil.aspx

 

[d00df00d]

What does that have to do with the discussion?

 

[Bill in Utah]

Originally Posted By: StevieC
In a way I wish M1 would just come out and tell everyone what the true makeup of base stocks are so people could .... MOVE ON!

Any other fantasizes you'd like to disclose? (G rated)

IF Mobil came out with the truth they would prob loose market share.

Sorta like learning about the tooth fairy.

 

[d00df00d]

I'd guess they don't want to disclose the formula because:


1. There's no incentive to make it easier for others to copy them.

2. Keeping it secret means they can alter it at will.

3. No matter what base stocks they use, someone will find fault with it. No reason to expose themselves to that.

4. The important thing is performance, and thus certifications. That's their stance. There's no sense in undermining it by feeding the bickering about base stocks.

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
I'd guess they don't want to disclose the formula because:


1. There's no incentive to make it easier for others to copy them.

2. Keeping it secret means they can alter it at will.

3. No matter what base stocks they use, someone will find fault with it. No reason to expose themselves to that.

4. The important thing is performance, and thus certifications. That's their stance. There's no sense in undermining it by feeding the bickering about base stocks.


I completely agree with you. Buster has said their base stock is a formula that is made of many base stocks,15 or so, and much to complcated for some to understand. Myself included. However in Dec. 08 I called Mobil tech and they did say all Mobil 1 oils are considered grp.4 without exception. I question him on that and reminded him that rumor has it that some Mobil 1s were grp 3. He said all Mobil 1 oils were 4.

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
Originally Posted By: StevieC
In a way I wish M1 would just come out and tell everyone what the true makeup of base stocks are so people could .... MOVE ON!

Any other fantasizes you'd like to disclose? (G rated)

IF Mobil came out with the truth they would prob loose market share.

Sorta like learning about the tooth fairy.

I didn't say it was gonna happen, but it would be nice. I also have a Gold Toilet on my list of "Wants" one day when I'm wealthy I will have it.

 

[JohnBrowning]

I see no point of mostly G-III EM is the largest producer of PAO stock on the earth! They wherenot the largest producer of G-III so it would not make a lot of sense to use a lot of G-III if your cannot make it as cheaply as you can make PAO. I amnot at all saying that M1 has not cheapened some of it's formula's by adding in some G-III only that I fail to see evidence for this any place. This is all wild guess's because no one has done the testing like we did with German Castrol to know what is truly in their oils!

Even if they did use some G-III that does not make them any worse then PP or VS because all of the other Synthetics on the shelf are either allG-III or they are franstein like blends of just about ever group you can imagine....PP is Heinzes 57 mix of base stocks and no one seems to care!

The fact that oils always come in second over all to AMsoils in standard industry test's tells me they are still makeing a great product and it would not be able to get as close to Amsoil as it does if it was mostly G-III this is why the other ones in those test's ccan not come close over all they are all loaded with G-II+ and G_III oils and can not compete with AMsoil or Mobil 1 Extended Performance.

We so no HP car listing PP on a big tag or sticker under the hood fromt he OEM or from Honda????

 

[mcrn]

That was hard to read. I know a lot of people on here will say its ok to misspell every word and that nobody should say anything. But when its so hard to read that is slows you down because you are trying to figure out the much appreciated information, it is a distraction. I just wanted to point out in a nice way that there are free spell checks and I think it makes people that have a lot of information to share seem more credible. I hope this is not offensive to anyone. I really am not trying to come across like that. I really want to just improve things if I can. After all I do not have the oil information that some here do!

 

[erogers]

I agree. It is not an unfair presumption that there should be at least some semblance of proper grammar and spelling in a person's writing when using an online forum. Punctuation marks were created for a reason. Otherwise, how can anyone effectively communicate in this medium? Now, let's get back to discussing oil without the usual "Excuse me, Professor" defensive replies from the grammatically challenged.