EP was not either. It is not exactly tearing up the board.
New Mobil 1's Spotted
- Thread starter ConfederateTyrant
- Start date
- Status
EP was not either. It is not exactly tearing up the board.
True, time told us what's up with M1 EP. It might be different with this oil. We'll never know if nobody tries it and gets it analyzed.
JAG, if there was a law firm in your state that once had a top reputation, and now there were credible rumors, and some supporting evidence, that they might betray a client or put the firm's interest ahead of the client... would you feel comfortable taking a chance with them?
Sure they have some top lawyers, but so do other firms. Some of the other firms are much more open and forthcoming when you express your concerns and ask them direct questions.
While the top law firm is charging the highest prices, you can't see the difference in the work product anymore.
I don't think that I enjoy griping about XOM as a 'how the mighty have fallen' story.
I post as a consumer who believes in 'fool me once shame on you , fool me twice...shame on me'.
Most large corporations make the mafia look good, IMHO.
I'm tired of supporting companies that are arrogant and focus most of their efforts on trick and lies.
I dislike all big oil companies equally but if I didn't, then I admit that I wouldn't want to support the ones I thought less of. Despite anything Mobil has said or written, I never thought that all M1 Supersyn oils were exclusively Group 4/5, so when the M1 Supersyn EP oils were found to contain Group 3, I wasn't appalled. My biggest gripe with Mobil is them being owned by Exxon who seems to make cheap products and who employed the drunk oil tanker who wrecked/spilled in Alaska!
Triple_Se7en
$50 Site Donor 2024
XOM doesn't have an open mind about full synthetic changing to Group III public - so why should we?
I did think that Mobil 1 Group IV/V, and that was why it fit into my scheme of things.
That is to say; Why choose Mobil 1 over other mass market oils? Because it was a 'true' synthetic.
Now Mobil 1 seems more like a commodity, so Pennzoil Platinum on sale wins hands down.
Now my oil stash is mostly Castrol GC 0W-30, Pennzoil Platinum 5W-20, 5w30, Redline 5W-20,5W-40,10W-40, Delo 15W-40, Shell Rotella 5W-40.
I would like to think that each oil selection is optimal for the intended vehicle, and makes some sort of sense in terms of performance or value.
What Mobil need to do is say:
Our new base oil (GRP III) is as good as our outgoing base oil (GRP 4) and that technology has made this possible and why.
Then they need to show some realworld results of how well it works....like they use to when they ran that 325i to a million miles and opened it up for all to see just how good it looked inside.
I still have an A4 broucher of that Gold Bottle Mobil 1 5W-40 with all the pictures and information about how their oil is 100% PAO....now that was a winner to me and I personally had great results with that oil.
Just my 2 cents...
Our new base oil (GRP III) is as good as our outgoing base oil (GRP 4) and that technology has made this possible and why.
Then they need to show some realworld results of how well it works....like they use to when they ran that 325i to a million miles and opened it up for all to see just how good it looked inside.
I still have an A4 broucher of that Gold Bottle Mobil 1 5W-40 with all the pictures and information about how their oil is 100% PAO....now that was a winner to me and I personally had great results with that oil.
Just my 2 cents...
I agree!
Suppose, Mobil 1 had been honest with its customers, and made a technical argument to explain the change from PAO to Group III [ if this is what has happened ].
Would we feel so angry and betrayed? No.
Would we wonder what made Group III Mobil 1 better than Brand P, V, Q, C Group III synthetics? Or why it isn't less expensive with cheaper basestocks...instead of more expensive than ever? You bet!
If this hypothetical is true; Mobil 1 would have to justify the expense of Mobil 1 in terms of additives [like Castrol Syntec tried], or say that a small percentage of high VI Supersyn made the difference.
Mobil 1 could explain the change by saying that Group III is better than PAO or Group IV or V...but I doubt that is true in most cases.
I think the change was a mistake , and Mobil 1 should have reduced prices of the Group III Mobil 1, and released a more expensive higher performance Mobil 1 that was still a true synthetic.
I will guess that the problem with my idea is that is produces less profit, and is in conflict with Mobil 1's attempt to create the various niche products to fill the shelves with factory spec 'synthetics' , Extended Drain 'synthetics', and High Mileage 'synthetics'... all at higher prices and higher profit margins than ever.
They couldn't really say "The new Mobil nearly as good and three times more profitable!"
The problem for forum members like us who want to understand what we are buying, as we try to make logical fact-based decisions on oilis .... is that we have very good Group III 'synthetics' fromn Shell on sale!
We also have very good High Mileage oils from other companies, also often on sale. And for the same price or a little more money, we have true synthetic oils from Amsoil and Redline...that are probably better oils for extended drains or high performance.
So what is this Mobil 1 Group III about?
I think it could easily be nothing more than a business strategy to increase profits and compete for shelf space by cheapening the product and creating more niche products within the brand name.
Exxon has the brand name Mobil 1, and while Mobil 1's reputation was established by tecnical innovation and performance...the name Mobil 1 might be all that remains. Maybe XOM will market that name into the ground, and make a lot more profit?
More profit allows for more deals to mass market companies like Wal Mart, and pays for more advertising.
It means that the company has to be less than totally honest with its enthusiast customers, and to turn its back on the decades of technical innovation and education of consumers about the advantages of PAO synthetic oil.
It also leaves me thinking that Shell has played a smarter game, and that I will buy oil on sale like a commodity or support the smaller companies like Amsoil and Redline.
I was a loyal Mobil 1 customer for nearly 2 decades, and a loyal Castrol customer for 35 years. The brands made sense to me and stood for quality and performance.
Now that I see that the I'm being played for a sucker and it is marketing hype that each compny values most... I have no loyalty to either brand.
Quote:
The new M1 HM seems, according to their ever-vast website, to be geared towards people who are transitioning to synthetics after racking up miles on dino OR people who have a car with questionable maintenence history.
XOM is going crazy.
What's next, special oil for cars who were previously owned by female drivers? 4 cylinder Formula? West Coast Blend?
What's next??? My thought for ~5-10 years in the future:
No more "High Mileage" "Low Intelligence" or "BITOG Member" formulations at all.
Instead, you'll walk up to the oil section, place your face in the retinal scanner, and allow it to sweep your eyeballs.
Once the system IDs you, the computer lurking behind the oil display facade will initiate contact with your car's ECU via cell (or whatever the current in-vogue wireless mechanism happens to be) link.
Oil display computer will interrogate your ECU, which will then run a quick on-board oil analysis.
Based upon the data forwarded back to the store's computer, oil blending machinery hidden behind display will whip up a custom tailored blend matched to your particular engine and it's current state of health.
The oil display may also have push-button selected options, much like the soda machines we're all used to seeing today. "Economy All-Natural Base Oil" "Mid-Grade Group-III Quasi-Syn" "Premium Synthetic Base Oil", and so forth.
After, of course, you've swiped your credit card, a neatly sealed jug of fresh custom blend will slide out for you to carry away.
And just imagine the personal shame and humiliation you'll feel if you're standing at the machine, with real men lined up behind you, and the screen starts flashing red and announces that it's going to mix you up a batch of "Emergency Neglect Response -- Sludge Removal Blend". . .
OK, perhaps this is a slightly far-fetched vision of the future. That said, my personal, more restrained vision has no place for a cagey Mobil and its compromised concoctions. Sure, Mobil's new blends may work fine, but I want a little more -- just a tad of honesty with my oil too please.
You guys are becoming charactures of what is bad about the internet. One tech. says an oil is group III and you all fall into the belief immediately. Mobil 1 may or may not be group III but the reaction on this site is beyond the pale. I use to think we had such knowledgable people on this site who did their homework and where not easily swayed. Now I am not so sure.
Huh? It's clear to me that you need to do a little homework yourself.
http://theoildrop.server101.com/forums/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=749606
http://theoildrop.server101.com/forums/s...0212#Post750212
http://theoildrop.server101.com/forums/s...0513#Post750513
Repeat verification runs
http://theoildrop.server101.com/forums/s...0621#Post750621
TR3:
If it weren't for the lab work and Mobil's refusal to clarify whether or not they're using G-III in M1, you'd have a much stronger point. Forget even the lab work, as some here question whether it was done, or what the results really mean. All Mobil has to do is give a straight answer to the simple question that's been put to them repeatedly. Mobil chooses not to. No one is asking them for a detailed recitation of the exact formula of any of their products.
Why is the fault of BITOG's membership that there's a controversy when it's Mobil, the only entity who could put this issue to rest for once and for all, that refuses do do so?????
If it weren't for the lab work and Mobil's refusal to clarify whether or not they're using G-III in M1, you'd have a much stronger point. Forget even the lab work, as some here question whether it was done, or what the results really mean. All Mobil has to do is give a straight answer to the simple question that's been put to them repeatedly. Mobil chooses not to. No one is asking them for a detailed recitation of the exact formula of any of their products.
Why is the fault of BITOG's membership that there's a controversy when it's Mobil, the only entity who could put this issue to rest for once and for all, that refuses do do so?????
Quote:
TR3:
If it weren't for the lab work and Mobil's refusal to clarify whether or not they're using G-III in M1, you'd have a much stronger point. Forget even the lab work, as some here question whether it was done, or what the results really mean. All Mobil has to do is give a straight answer to the simple question that's been put to them repeatedly. Mobil chooses not to. No one is asking them for a detailed recitation of the exact formula of any of their products.
Why is the fault of BITOG's membership that there's a controversy when it's Mobil, the only entity who could put this issue to rest for once and for all, that refuses do do so?????
Both you guys sum up the beliefs of many very well. It's good to see people who reject moral relativism which is probably why you guys can think critically without getting into name calling.
GeorgeCLS
Group II Member
The lab called today, Monday, 2/12/07 and indicated that they sourced two samples of Group IV PAO from two different sources and that the GC traces are very, very similar to the Mobil 1 EP GC that they ran originally. The only missing component is the comparative trace for a Group III, which is still missing. However, the lab's comments were that they are "98% certain that the major component (base stock) for the Mobil 1 EP submitted sample is Group IV, PAO."
They are continuing to resource the Group III for absolution....
Group II Member
The lab called today, Monday, 2/12/07 and indicated that they sourced two samples of Group IV PAO from two different sources and that the GC traces are very, very similar to the Mobil 1 EP GC that they ran originally. The only missing component is the comparative trace for a Group III, which is still missing. However, the lab's comments were that they are "98% certain that the major component (base stock) for the Mobil 1 EP submitted sample is Group IV, PAO."
They are continuing to resource the Group III for absolution....
Well, Mobil could put an end to this mess any time they choose to, with a simple one paragraph, totally trade secret safe, statement. Instead, all we get from EM is persistent, mealy-mouthed Group-III speak.
I too appreciate the time and money spent by those who have done lab work on the various M1 formulations. At this point, it looks to me like we're left with:
1) one set of results that seem to indicate Group-III
2) another set of results that seem to indicate Group-IV
3) a manufacturer that uses language typically employed when an oil brewer wants to sell a Group-III oil and call it "full synthetic".
This is NOT a good time for ExxonMobil to exercise its right to remain silent. If they have a leg to stand on (i.e., M1 is still a G-IV/V product), then they need to stand up, speak out, and slay this ***** dragon for once and for all!
I too appreciate the time and money spent by those who have done lab work on the various M1 formulations. At this point, it looks to me like we're left with:
1) one set of results that seem to indicate Group-III
2) another set of results that seem to indicate Group-IV
3) a manufacturer that uses language typically employed when an oil brewer wants to sell a Group-III oil and call it "full synthetic".
This is NOT a good time for ExxonMobil to exercise its right to remain silent. If they have a leg to stand on (i.e., M1 is still a G-IV/V product), then they need to stand up, speak out, and slay this ***** dragon for once and for all!
- Status
Similar threads
