Mobil's response to general competitor brands...

[jrustles]

Originally Posted By: tig1

You seem to forget that XM is involved with R&D with all the auto builders that use M1 as FF. As the case with Corvette and Porsche, and others, many years of research between XM and the engine designers go into producing oils that meet the spec's the builders require. This is just one reason M1 leads the world in synthetic fluids.


But that's entirely natural. If you as an automaker are going to contract one source of factory fill oil, you'd for sure want to make darn certain that it reduces your potential financial liabilities and warranty costs. They're not doing the R&D for any other reason, and that includes developing the world's greatest lubricant.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: jrustles

Does the Full Synthetic 5w30 meet ACEA A3/B4? 229.3? LL-01/03 or does it require purchasing an even more expensive, redundant grade positioned at actually "exceeding the industry's toughest standards".


How is it redundant? The Euro specs you mention like LL-01 require oils that are much heavier than your traditional PCMO and many of them are xW40 lubricants.

The "North American" 5w-30 lubricants are all ~3.0cP for HTHS, whilst the Euro lubes are all >=3.5cP. That's hardly redundant, that's a completely different ballpark

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: jrustles
Originally Posted By: tig1

You seem to forget that XM is involved with R&D with all the auto builders that use M1 as FF. As the case with Corvette and Porsche, and others, many years of research between XM and the engine designers go into producing oils that meet the spec's the builders require. This is just one reason M1 leads the world in synthetic fluids.


But that's entirely natural. If you as an automaker are going to contract one source of factory fill oil, you'd for sure want to make darn certain that it reduces your potential financial liabilities and warranty costs. They're not doing the R&D for any other reason, and that includes developing the world's greatest lubricant.


Which is why manufacturer specific certs and approvals are so bloody important. Because they reflect that R&D, they reflect the extensive testing that was involved to ensure that a specific level of performance could be guaranteed by a lubricant bearing that stamp.

The "majors" all have these relationships in place with OEM's and the result is oils like PU 5w-40, M1 0w-40....etc. Yes, bragging about it is certainly marketing, but the end result is a higher grade of product for the consumer.

 

[jrustles]

Well, M1 5w30 and M1 EP/ESP 5w30 are all the same grade, with differences in additives and film strength. To say that "Mobil 1 exceeds the toughest industry standards" implies that all grades of M1 Full Synthetic meet the toughest industry standards. I guess I was just pointing out that it wasn't true, since only some do.

API SN/GF-5/HTO-06 are IMO really basic standards (SN/GF-5 has to be met by ALL oil, even Supertech Conventional), not the toughest industry ones. HTO-06 is simply a turbo deposit standard, which I'd bet good money, that quite a few other non-approved oils meet or exceed.

Which begs another question: why do we in North America have such relatively low standards? Is CAFE really that influential?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: jrustles
Well, M1 5w30 and M1 EP/ESP 5w30 are all the same grade, with differences in additives and film strength.


M1 and M1 EP are indeed similar in weight (and carry almost all the exact same certs and approvals), but ESP, while being the same grade on the bottle, is a MUCH heavier lubricant with an HTHS of 3.58cP. That's more a problem with the oil grading system then it is with "redundant" oils.

Quote:
To say that "Mobil 1 exceeds the toughest industry standards" implies that all grades of M1 Full Synthetic meet the toughest industry standards. I guess I was just pointing out that it wasn't true, since only some do.


Not really, they all do for their respective classifications within the API and ACEA rating systems. You aren't going to see M1 0w-30 for example holding any of the high performance Euro certs because, although it may be a fantastic lubricant, its HTHS of 3.0cP immediately excludes it.

Quote:
API SN/GF-5/HTO-06 are IMO really basic standards (SN/GF-5 has to be met by ALL oil, even Supertech Conventional), not the toughest industry ones. HTO-06 is simply a turbo deposit standard, which I'd bet good money, that quite a few other non-approved oils meet or exceed.


HTO-06 was/is a turbo deposit standard as noted, and, for the longest time, M1 5w-30 was the only oil to carry that approval. Eventually a PP 5w-30 also carried it. So either Honda's certifications don't matter, or it is harder to get than you think

With respect to the "toughest industry standards", again, this comes down to where the oil fits in the system. Certain grades of oil simply cannot carry certain approvals because they are too light or too heavy.

Quote:
Which begs another question: why do we in North America have such relatively low standards? Is CAFE really that influential?


The standards we do have are based around lower viscosity lubricants than what are used in Europe. I wouldn't necessarily say our standards are "lower" (GM's old "Corvette spec" was certainly demanding and met only by synthetic lubricants. It was unfortunately displaced when DEXOS came on the scene) but they are certainly different.

And in that vein, a recent thread about Ford's new lubricant requirements for their Coyote engine and the spec they developed for their 5w-50 oil showed me that North Americans really don't respect the idea of using an approved lubricant in the first place. Which makes the idea of numerous manufacturer certs/approvals for the domestic and Asian marques a bit of a gamble. Expecting American consumers to actually follow these guidelines is what appears to be an exercise in futility. They will run what they want, certifications/approvals be [censored]

That is, if the audience on BITOG is in any way representative of the mindset of the American populous in general when it comes to this subject

I believe the attitude in Europe toward lubricants is significantly different than what we have here. Manufacturer OCI's, which are much longer, are followed. Approved lubricants are used, and are also much more expensive. And the foundation for many of those approvals is the potential for use of the vehicle on Germany's autobahn, which really isn't applicable to most of the North American driving public. But does set a benchmark for lubricant performance, even if its limits will never be tested by the vast majority of Americans.

 

[metalboy]

Breaking news, company markets their own products...

 

[buster]

I don't care how many people don't like Mobil 1. Use the brand you prefer. I thought Mobil's responses to some of the claims you often hear about were good.

The quality gap has closed for sure, but not all synthetics are created equal.

The Honda spec at the time was interesting to me because Honda R&D chose several popular shelf brands of synthetics and tested them against their in-house turbo testing. The results were pretty stunning at the time (2006) which showed Mobil 1 producing superior results at high temp deposits vs the other brands which all failed but one. PP at that time just barely passed.

Now there are other oils on the market that meet this quality spec.

Again, there are many many good oils out there.

 

[jrustles]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Expecting American consumers to actually follow these guidelines is what appears to be an exercise in futility. They will run what they want, certifications/approvals be [censored]

That is, if the audience on BITOG is in any way representative of the mindset of the American populous in general when it comes to this subject

Hey now, give us BITOGer's a little more credit! We'll blend two quality oils together, sure, but we won't run into the Kwik-E-Mart and grab a dusty old bottle of "Lube Prince API SH" or something like that

Quote:

I believe the attitude in Europe toward lubricants is significantly different than what we have here. Manufacturer OCI's, which are much longer, are followed. Approved lubricants are used, and are also much more expensive. And the foundation for many of those approvals is the potential for use of the vehicle on Germany's autobahn, which really isn't applicable to most of the North American driving public. But does set a benchmark for lubricant performance, even if its limits will never be tested by the vast majority of Americans.


Amen. The Europeans in general seem to have higher standards in many aspects of motoring: driving skills, vehicle dynamics, engine oils, tires, filters (MANN/MAHLE/KNECHT), wine, cheese

Imagine if to obtain a driver's license here in North America, every applicant needed to be proficient in operating a manual transmission, emergency maneuvering and collision avoidance? We woudl all be much better off, instead we give out licenses in Wheaties boxes and post status updates on Facebook while doing 60+MPH....
but I'm not putting down the American way of life. European standards come out of necessity. The cost of living is much higher, personal resources are more limited and so they make the best of yearly oil drains with 10euro a litre oil. Most NA'ers are still stuck on 3k Mile, 5k KM OCIs, in which our oils don't pose much of a problem. But we could still use better drivers, amirite?

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: jrustles
Does the Full Synthetic 5w30 meet ACEA A3/B4? 229.3? LL-01/03 or does it require purchasing an even more expensive, redundant grade positioned at actually "exceeding the industry's toughest standards".

There's nothing redundant about it. Normal M1 5w-30 is SN/GF-5 and is ACEA A1/B1 and A5/B5. Those ratings are mutually exclusive of A3/B3, A3/B4, LL-01/03, and so forth.

An A3/B3 5w-30 is as forbidden in my G37 from a manufacturer's warranty perspective as much as normal M1 5w-30 would be in a new Audi. So, there's no redundancy.

As for SN/GF-5, no, not oils have to meet that. Plenty of HM oils historically have not. 10w-30 HDEOs tend to be CJ-4/SM, and are never SN/GF-5, whereas 10w-30 PCMOs certainly can be. Any oil company can shoot for whatever target they want for certification, assuming the oil actually meets them, or they can choose to forgo certification altogether.

And your take on the North American market is correct. Look at the fuss that dexos1 caused. How well do you think it would go over if every North American and Japanese automaker went beyond SN/GF-5 and asked for ACEA A1/B1 A5/B5 on top of it? Of course, without extending the OCI, it would be pretty pointless and counterproductive, but that's another issue.


While CAFE is certainly an issue in North America, don't think that everyone in Europe is running an A3/B3 or A3/B5 in every vehicle on the road. There are several other ACEA sequences.

 

[jrustles]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: jrustles
Does the Full Synthetic 5w30 meet ACEA A3/B4? 229.3? LL-01/03 or does it require purchasing an even more expensive, redundant grade positioned at actually "exceeding the industry's toughest standards".

There's nothing redundant about it. Normal M1 5w-30 is SN/GF-5 and is ACEA A1/B1 and A5/B5. Those ratings are mutually exclusive of A3/B3, A3/B4, LL-01/03, and so forth.

An A3/B3 5w-30 is as forbidden in my G37 from a manufacturer's warranty perspective as much as normal M1 5w-30 would be in a new Audi. So, there's no redundancy.

As for SN/GF-5, no, not oils have to meet that. Plenty of HM oils historically have not. 10w-30 HDEOs tend to be CJ-4/SM, and are never SN/GF-5, whereas 10w-30 PCMOs certainly can be. Any oil company can shoot for whatever target they want for certification, assuming the oil actually meets them, or they can choose to forgo certification altogether.

And your take on the North American market is correct. Look at the fuss that dexos1 caused. How well do you think it would go over if every North American and Japanese automaker went beyond SN/GF-5 and asked for ACEA A1/B1 A5/B5 on top of it? Of course, without extending the OCI, it would be pretty pointless and counterproductive, but that's another issue.


While CAFE is certainly an issue in North America, don't think that everyone in Europe is running an A3/B3 or A3/B5 in every vehicle on the road. There are several other ACEA sequences.


I get what you're saying, OVERKILL pretty much covered those points.

I still think redundancy is a big problem.
For instance why do we have M1 and M1 EP? They don't meet any dramatically different specs or perform much differently, so why do we need M1 Limited Performance Why not make it all EP? I'm sure people would love that.

XOM's modus is par for the course, though.

SOPUS, BP guilty as well..
PP and PU? Why? GrV GTL performs better, cleaner than GrIII, yet the costs are really similar, considering Shell has plenty of capacity at it's Pearl facility. Ultra isn't even advertised as a Long Drain oil, so the differences are barely distinguishable. Is it just about deposits? Why do we need synthetic Pennzoil Not-as-good-as-it-could-be? Are the profit margins on PU just too sweet of a plum?

Castrol's actually kind of given up having merged the Syntec/Edge campaigns- distinguishing them by "Syntec" technology (grIII) and Titanium technology, whatever that is. GrIII+Ti additive?

I can only extrapolate this to oils of the same grade, why do we need so many variants of a single SAE grade? Why do we need 5w30 "Resource Conserving" low HTHS and 5w30 high HTHS?
What's up with changing the verbage from Energy Conserving to Resource Conserving? Does 'resource' refer to 'cost'??

It makes no sense to me to have two performance rating systems that theoretically report, or at least suggest the same thing, oil thickness/film strength, yet are hardly congruent. The real grading factor, is the one that's "occult", HTHS, and the grading system the consumer abides by, SAE KV, is a fallacy.

If you need a low drag oil for fuel economy/CAFE, choose (or specify) a suitable grade ie. Xw20, Xw16. An EC API SN 5w30 doesn't need to pretend to be a 5w30 while performing virtually identical to a 5w20, instead of like a higher HTHS rated 5w30. At least some more SAE grades are being defined, and the cSt ranges are being chopped, but I don't see 'fake' 5w30 EC's going anywhere anytime soon.

With the issue of temporary/permanent shear it seems that KV means virtually nothing to an engine. Bulking up a low viscosity base oil with VIIs in the hopes of creating the illusion of a SAE 30 9.3cSt - 12.3cSt@100C in the Ford cup or "ball drop" test is pointless IMO. It would be fine if engines had small balls in tubes of oil at a controlled temperature that needed to drop slowly by the force of gravity at a certain rate, but when the hydrodynamic bearing is going to perform at a SAE 5 to 20 grade at best in the bearing/cam lobe or piston ring at 70+ feet per second, the SAE rating becomes totally irrelevant. The API Energy Conserving scheme just seems like a joke, and has done nothing but muddy and obscure the rating scheme. To get away with it, by relying on additives to take over when the film rips is not the ideal solution IMO, despite the fact that most motorists tooling around don't notice any of this happening.

but alas the inadequacy of, and disdain towards the SAE viscosity grading nomenclature is well known on BITOG, isn't it?

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: jrustles
I still think redundancy is a big problem.
For instance why do we have M1 and M1 EP?

To be fair to XOM, they have, in my view, one of the least redundant product lines in North America, at least until Mobil Super Synthetic came out, and I'm not sure that AFE couldn't simply be rolled into the normal M1 line; costs are similar up here. With respect to M1 and M1 EP, one is guaranteed for 10,000 miles, the other for 15,000 miles, and they are at a different price point. They don't offer a pile of conventional or HM choices.

If you want a redundant product line, unfortunately, one has to look to SOPUS. PYB, QSGB, and FS; PP, PU, QSUD, and FSS.

With respect to thinner 5w-30s and thicker ones, well, we've covered that. The grading system has a spread. To take advantage (and appropriately define use) of this spread, other specifications such as ILSAC, ACEA, and the API diesel specifications come into play.

It would be nice if we had more data on the oil bottles, such as HTHS. It would be nice if the grading system were updated. Unfortunately, while that might be convenient for us BITOGers, the general public (and the dealerships and the oil change places) would be flummoxed.

 

[buster]

^ +1

 

[jrustles]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: jrustles
I still think redundancy is a big problem.
For instance why do we have M1 and M1 EP?

To be fair to XOM, they have, in my view, one of the least redundant product lines in North America, at least until Mobil Super Synthetic came out, and I'm not sure that AFE couldn't simply be rolled into the normal M1 line; costs are similar up here. With respect to M1 and M1 EP, one is guaranteed for 10,000 miles, the other for 15,000 miles, and they are at a different price point. They don't offer a pile of conventional or HM choices.

If you want a redundant product line, unfortunately, one has to look to SOPUS. PYB, QSGB, and FS; PP, PU, QSUD, and FSS.

With respect to thinner 5w-30s and thicker ones, well, we've covered that. The grading system has a spread. To take advantage (and appropriately define use) of this spread, other specifications such as ILSAC, ACEA, and the API diesel specifications come into play.

It would be nice if we had more data on the oil bottles, such as HTHS. It would be nice if the grading system were updated. Unfortunately, while that might be convenient for us BITOGers, the general public (and the dealerships and the oil change places) would be flummoxed.


It looks like we agree for the most part.

After my last post, it really hit me just how redundant the SOPUS lineup is, so you're spot on about that. Probably the biggest 'offender' as it stands. I'm not sure why, perhaps they don't want to kill off the brands, in case they resell them one off and/or just keep people employed or just to take advantage of loyalty. But to have at least three shelves of the exact same target product, with slightly different formulas?

 

[Solarent]

Originally Posted By: jrustles
After my last post, it really hit me just how redundant the SOPUS lineup is, so you're spot on about that. Probably the biggest 'offender' as it stands. I'm not sure why, perhaps they don't want to kill off the brands, in case they resell them one off and/or just keep people employed or just to take advantage of loyalty. But to have at least three shelves of the exact same target product, with slightly different formulas?

Two Words: MARKET SHARE

The multiple brands, and so-called redundancy gives SOPUS 24% of the lubricant market in north america. M1 has 9%, so some part of what they are doing is helping their bottom line, even if it silly. In the oil business, it's quite common to try to diversify your product offering to get more sales, rather than just try to sell more of the same thing. It also allows them to grab up more retail shelf space by having multiple skus.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Solarent
Originally Posted By: jrustles
After my last post, it really hit me just how redundant the SOPUS lineup is, so you're spot on about that. Probably the biggest 'offender' as it stands. I'm not sure why, perhaps they don't want to kill off the brands, in case they resell them one off and/or just keep people employed or just to take advantage of loyalty. But to have at least three shelves of the exact same target product, with slightly different formulas?

Two Words: MARKET SHARE

The multiple brands, and so-called redundancy gives SOPUS 24% of the lubricant market in north america. M1 has 9%, so some part of what they are doing is helping their bottom line, even if it silly. In the oil business, it's quite common to try to diversify your product offering to get more sales, rather than just try to sell more of the same thing. It also allows them to grab up more retail shelf space by having multiple skus.


Is that comparing Mobil's synthetic oil share to SOPUS's total share or?

I know that Mobil's share of the synthetic market is the largest. But I also know that SOPUS's share of the conventional oil market is the largest. So I'm interested in what you are citing here

 

[jrustles]

Market Share indeed.

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Solarent
Originally Posted By: jrustles
After my last post, it really hit me just how redundant the SOPUS lineup is, so you're spot on about that. Probably the biggest 'offender' as it stands. I'm not sure why, perhaps they don't want to kill off the brands, in case they resell them one off and/or just keep people employed or just to take advantage of loyalty. But to have at least three shelves of the exact same target product, with slightly different formulas?

Two Words: MARKET SHARE

The multiple brands, and so-called redundancy gives SOPUS 24% of the lubricant market in north america. M1 has 9%, so some part of what they are doing is helping their bottom line, even if it silly. In the oil business, it's quite common to try to diversify your product offering to get more sales, rather than just try to sell more of the same thing. It also allows them to grab up more retail shelf space by having multiple skus.


Is that comparing Mobil's synthetic oil share to SOPUS's total share or?

I know that Mobil's share of the synthetic market is the largest. But I also know that SOPUS's share of the conventional oil market is the largest. So I'm interested in what you are citing here

OVERKILL, if Mobil really does have the biggest chunk of the synthetic market, perhaps all SOPUS has left is to try to gain overall market share any way they can to compete- with repetitive product offerings. It sure seems that way

 

[Solarent]

Total North American lubricant demand (not just engine oils, synthetic or otherwise, but everything): Here is the link

The report cited is a couple of years old, but not much has changed since 2009.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: jrustles
After my last post, it really hit me just how redundant the SOPUS lineup is, so you're spot on about that. Probably the biggest 'offender' as it stands.

Originally, through just reading here, I assumed that vanilla M1 and M1 AFE would be on different price tiers (kind of like M1 EP). I've recently found that not to be the case, which is a bit of a head scratcher. If Syntec and Syntec with Ti were priced the same, or PP and PU the same, we'd be wondering about that.

And you and Solarent are both right - market share and product loyalty. We all know darned well that there are people out there who use QS religiously but would never touch PYB, not knowing they merged, let alone that SOPUS took over down the line. Heck, people that I know who should know better swear that PYB still uses exclusively Pennsylvania crude.

As redundant as it may be to us, SOPUS was obviously smart not to get rid of product names that had (and still have) a huge, loyal following. I suspect that their market share would drop dramatically if, for example, they put the Pennzoil and Quaker State names out to pasture and stuck with Formula Shell products only.

What really annoys me is how this redundancy in SOPUS and M1 product lines actually hurts selection, at least in my experience. WM has its PYB, QSAD, PP, and QSUD for SOPUS PCMO selections here, with PU MIA. While our Walmarts aren't too bad at ensuring sufficient stock on rollback, on occasion, one can find a popular grade of one pretty much depleted, rollback or not. Then, with M1 bringing out extra product lines, WM has not allocated more space to M1, so finding what one needs is hit and miss. Given WM's high regular pricing, the Imperial Oil distributor is the better choice, anyhow.

Wakefield (our Castrol distributor) seems to have things fairly sensible, at least from my perspective, particularly with the conventional. They offer one line, and a vast selection of grades, with no shortage of any of them in stock, and plenty of rollbacks, regardless of the retail location.

Basically, up here, if you want a 20w-50, you're getting GTX. If you want a straight grade, you're going to Castrol. I don't need those grades, but Castrol ensures they're readily available here.

 

[BlueOvalFitter]

Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
And now back to regular programming...

Did you see the new TV Land lineup?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Solarent
Total North American lubricant demand (not just engine oils, synthetic or otherwise, but everything): Here is the link

The report cited is a couple of years old, but not much has changed since 2009.


Interesting quote from the article:

Quote:
Looking strictly at industrial oils and fluids, ExxonMobil is number one, followed by Chevron, ConocoPhillips, then Shell.


That's not surprising. XOM's biggest focus points are industrial lubes and synthetics. Their conventional PCMO's have never had the market penetration that the SOPUS family has. But they dominate the synthetic oil market.