Mobil Group II+ negates need for Group III ad-ins

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

csandste

Joined
May 31, 2002
Messages
3,813
Location
St. Charles County, Missouri
https://www.exxonmobil.com/en/bases...s/enabling-excellence-with-ehc-45-and-65

Click on the .pdf on the bottom of the page. EHC base stocks. This seems to suggest that Mobil can formulate modern SN oils without any group 3. UNLIKE COMPETITORS WHO NEED 40%+ GROUP 3 IN ORDER TO MEET SN STANDARDS. Sorry to yell, but I've known that most SN oils are really blends, I just thought that was five percent, not forty percent.

If I read this right, it means that all semi-syn vs. conventional oil is nothing but advertising. It also means that all modern SN+ oils are really advanced.
 
Last edited:
No surprises Phillips used 40% group III to meet GF-4 and marketing used it to label their products as a Semi-syn. Although it is a Semi syn it is nothing more than a blend to meet modern specs.

It is nice to see the research you have done and thank you for presenting it. This beats 20 grade is water and somehow 30 grade is thick.
 
Thanks!
Bottom left of page where its says EHCâ„¢ base stocks ...Learn more.. Interesting PDF on 0w20, Dexos and other oil %. If someone could post that ?
Also they claim all other 0W-20 amd Dexos oils are group lll?
 
I've read numerous times that there is no real definition of semi-synthetic and that there are oils out there that make that claim with 1% group III. Not if they're meeting SN or SN+, they're not. Unless they're using the new Mobil Group II+ base stocks.
 
Originally Posted by dave1251
No surprises Phillips used 40% group III to meet GF-4 and marketing used it to label their products as a Semi-syn. Although it is a Semi syn it is nothing more than a blend to meet modern specs.

It is nice to see the research you have done and thank you for presenting it. This beats 20 grade is water and somehow 30 grade is thick.


Stopped going to Firestone for oil changes when they dropped Kendall blend for QS. Turns out that the oils were the same, only the words on the bottle were different.
 
I have mentioned this EHC at the point where the Noack improved in Delvac dino ...
 
Mobil just changed Mobil Super 5000 to Sn+ recently, and are now advertising it as a blend. It use to be advertised as conventional and SN. If EHC base stocks decreases costs, and is able make SN+ oils then why is Mobil doing the opposite?
 
they like to keep buyers in the DARK while they bull po us about their superiority! the more i read it seems to say theres VERY little difference in oils meeting the same spec EXCEPT the $$$$!!! most times we are likely paying for the advertisement expenses as well as endorsements to the various motorsports teams!!
 
Originally Posted by BigD1
Mobil just changed Mobil Super 5000 to Sn+ recently, and are now advertising it as a blend. It use to be advertised as conventional and SN. If EHC base stocks decreases costs, and is able make SN+ oils then why is Mobil doing the opposite?


If group 3 is syn then group 2+ can be syn. It's all advertizen.
 
Capitals and exclamation points are very 540RAT.

How is EM keeping consumers in the dark? They have a very good website with loads of information. A lot better than some brands I won't mention.
 
Yeah XOM seems to have a lot of the 'industry info' proliferated in a lot of .pdfs and blending guides etc etc. Seems like a nice gensture and being forthcoming and open at first glance but it's really clever marketing materials for newer tribochemists to fall in love with Mobil. It's tough to read their infomercial literature bc it's so fluffed up and littered with the product trademark names and sensational adjectives.... it's honestly really annoying that every other word is "Synesstic Plus XHVI Gxi 68(tm)" (or whatever).
/rant

The whole presentation is about cutting costs, "excellence" and "superiority" notwithstanding. How is it different than Petro-Canada HT purity GrII+?
 
I am/was under the assumption that Group II+ is just dino oil with a shot of Group III splashed in, in order to meet the + spec for, e.g., in the grades of 5W20, 5W30 & 10W30 dino oils.

Group III(obviously) is hydroprocessed synthetic oil. Oil companies were just not placing the "SynBlend" label on the container of Group II+ oils mainly due to these oils mentioned, didn't have enough Group III put in to be considered a complete SynBlend by the API. Maybe only(this is just me saying) ~5% Group III splashed in as the + part, where as a complete SynBlend needs a higher % of Group III thrown in of(just me again), ~7%-10%)???

Am I incorrect in my thinking?
 
Originally Posted by Char Baby
I am/was under the assumption that Group II+ is just dino oil with a shot of Group III splashed in, in order to meet the + spec for, e.g., in the grades of 5W20, 5W30 & 10W30 dino oils.

Group III(obviously) is hydroprocessed synthetic oil. Oil companies were just not placing the "SynBlend" label on the container of Group II+ oils mainly due to these oils mentioned, didn't have enough Group III put in to be considered a complete SynBlend by the API. Maybe only(this is just me saying) ~5% Group III splashed in as the + part, where as a complete SynBlend needs a higher % of Group III thrown in of(just me again), ~7%-10%)???

Am I incorrect in my thinking?


I was under the impression that Group II+ is also hydroprocessed but to a lesser degree than Group III.

Whimsey
 
Originally Posted by Char Baby
I am/was under the assumption that Group II+ is just dino oil with a shot of Group III splashed in, in order to meet the + spec for, e.g., in the grades of 5W20, 5W30 & 10W30 dino oils.

Group III(obviously) is hydroprocessed synthetic oil. Oil companies were just not placing the "SynBlend" label on the container of Group II+ oils mainly due to these oils mentioned, didn't have enough Group III put in to be considered a complete SynBlend by the API. Maybe only(this is just me saying) ~5% Group III splashed in as the + part, where as a complete SynBlend needs a higher % of Group III thrown in of(just me again), ~7%-10%)???

Am I incorrect in my thinking?


Just some clarifications. The difference between group II and III base oils is based on the quality of the base oil, lack of impurities and viscosity index.
There is no such thing as Grp II+ and III+ these are marketing notations to point out that the group II+ Base oil is almost good enough to be called grp III. But may fall a few digits short in viscosity index. The type of processing done to get to this is irrelevant to the designation. Refiners are always looking for more efficient ways to reach a target quality.
Mobil has apparently come up with a feedstock to baseoil process that is efficient (cost of materials and energy to get to finished oil) and this is marketing that product. Mobil is not the only one to use the + moniker. Shell with gtl and chevron have also advertised this way.
 
Originally Posted by Char Baby
I am/was under the assumption that Group II+ is just dino oil with a shot of Group III splashed in, in order to meet the + spec for, e.g., in the grades of 5W20, 5W30 & 10W30 dino oils.

Group III(obviously) is hydroprocessed synthetic oil. Oil companies were just not placing the "SynBlend" label on the container of Group II+ oils mainly due to these oils mentioned, didn't have enough Group III put in to be considered a complete SynBlend by the API. Maybe only(this is just me saying) ~5% Group III splashed in as the + part, where as a complete SynBlend needs a higher % of Group III thrown in of(just me again), ~7%-10%)???

Am I incorrect in my thinking?

From the paper it looks like a unique process which meets spec without group iii ad ins
 
Agreed. The cost of the final product can be affected by the starting base stock. A high sulfer crude is going to take more energy to get the same base oil quality than a low sulfer bright crude. Fractions of different feeds in a refinery can be optimized and no two have the same logistics and supply chain. These base stocks are a combination of circumstance and design. Trying to get to a goal from what hardware and supplies are available.

Purely designed feedstocks that were not built around supply and infrastructure become cost prohibitive.

Originally Posted by Whimsey
Originally Posted by Char Baby
I am/was under the assumption that Group II+ is just dino oil with a shot of Group III splashed in, in order to meet the + spec for, e.g., in the grades of 5W20, 5W30 & 10W30 dino oils.

Group III(obviously) is hydroprocessed synthetic oil. Oil companies were just not placing the "SynBlend" label on the container of Group II+ oils mainly due to these oils mentioned, didn't have enough Group III put in to be considered a complete SynBlend by the API. Maybe only(this is just me saying) ~5% Group III splashed in as the + part, where as a complete SynBlend needs a higher % of Group III thrown in of(just me again), ~7%-10%)???

Am I incorrect in my thinking?


I was under the impression that Group II+ is also hydroprocessed but to a lesser degree than Group III.

Whimsey
 
Originally Posted by BigD1
Mobil just changed Mobil Super 5000 to Sn+ recently, and are now advertising it as a blend. It use to be advertised as conventional and SN. If EHC base stocks decreases costs, and is able make SN+ oils then why is Mobil doing the opposite?


I didn't see where they mentioned their new base stock could meet SN+ without Grp lll....SN yes. Grp lll is still needed (71%) for 0W20 and Dexos (45%)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Y
ACEA A3/B4 oils still relevant in 2024 for Turbo GDI 'High performance' Engines? - Hyundai ElantraN
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
edyvw
JavierH19
New Mobil EHC 340 max base stock?
Replies
1
Views
1K
MolaKule
fantastic
What base oil is in the HDEO Bottle? Post your Info
Replies
5
Views
2K
kschachn
C
  • Locked
So who uses Exxon-Mobil EHC basestocks?
Replies
9
Views
2K
benjy
wwillson
  • Locked
Answers - Pennzoil Technology behind "Made From Natural Gas" and Vehicle maintenance while driving less Q&A
Replies
5
Views
31K
RateNate
Back
Top