Is PU available in 5 quart or 5+ bottles anywhere besides Wal-Mart? It seems Wal-Mart has very little PU available anymore.
PU Ads
- Thread starter kr_bitog
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: buster
I wonder why they didn't use Mobil 1 Extended Performance?
Again, I don't believe this is an apple to apple comparison. Because Mobil claims that their EP line has more cleaning agents/ability than their Mobil 1 line and because it is their top tier oil, therefore Pennzoil should be comparing their top tier oil (Ultra) with the EP line I am surprised that on one is noticing this.
Also, keep in mind that with Ultra they recommend that you change it every 4,000 miles. They also clearly state in the Q&A that Ultra's cleaning ability deteriorates beyond that.
I wonder why they didn't use Mobil 1 Extended Performance?
Again, I don't believe this is an apple to apple comparison. Because Mobil claims that their EP line has more cleaning agents/ability than their Mobil 1 line and because it is their top tier oil, therefore Pennzoil should be comparing their top tier oil (Ultra) with the EP line I am surprised that on one is noticing this.
Also, keep in mind that with Ultra they recommend that you change it every 4,000 miles. They also clearly state in the Q&A that Ultra's cleaning ability deteriorates beyond that.
I would expect my engine to be clean at 200,000 or more miles using any name brand dino with 4,000 mile OCI's.
I have used Mobil 1 since it came out back in the 1970's, changing my oil once a year. before I retired back in 2001, this was 19,000 to 20,000 miles. Of course, back in those days, Mobil 1 was always a true synthetic. Never had an engine problem in all those
years.
Now, I'm down to about 9,000 miles per year and still going with a once per year OCI, using either Mobil 1 0W40 or Mobil 1 High Mileage 5w30.
4,000 miles on any so-called synthetic is ridiculous.
I have used Mobil 1 since it came out back in the 1970's, changing my oil once a year. before I retired back in 2001, this was 19,000 to 20,000 miles. Of course, back in those days, Mobil 1 was always a true synthetic. Never had an engine problem in all those
years.
Now, I'm down to about 9,000 miles per year and still going with a once per year OCI, using either Mobil 1 0W40 or Mobil 1 High Mileage 5w30.
4,000 miles on any so-called synthetic is ridiculous.
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: steve20
SM or SN - probably doesn't matter PZL would beat both formulations of M-1
Mobil 1 reformulated their lineup for SN/GF-5, so it might be a whole new ballgame now.
I found it interesting that in the Mobil 1 sequence IIIG picture (showing the whole set of pistons) one of the pistons looks just like the M1 piston pic shown by Pennzoil (top piston 2nd column) while the rest look more or less identical to the Ultra piston shown by Pennzoil.
What is interesting, is that only Mobil Europe (where synthetic means not group III) is putting forth these pictures of these pistons/cleanliness (WPD) of SeqIIIG. If Mobil 1 USA is making this same claim, please let us know. So far, the USA site only talks about cleaning up sludge and nothing about piston deposits of the Sequence IIIG.
Originally Posted By: steve20
SM or SN - probably doesn't matter PZL would beat both formulations of M-1
I found it interesting that in the Mobil 1 sequence IIIG picture (showing the whole set of pistons) one of the pistons looks just like the M1 piston pic shown by Pennzoil (top piston 2nd column) while the rest look more or less identical to the Ultra piston shown by Pennzoil.
What is interesting, is that only Mobil Europe (where synthetic means not group III) is putting forth these pictures of these pistons/cleanliness (WPD) of SeqIIIG. If Mobil 1 USA is making this same claim, please let us know. So far, the USA site only talks about cleaning up sludge and nothing about piston deposits of the Sequence IIIG.
Originally Posted By: 1999nick
I would expect my engine to be clean at 200,000 or more miles using any name brand dino with 4,000 mile OCI's.
I have used Mobil 1 since it came out back in the 1970's, changing my oil once a year. before I retired back in 2001, this was 19,000 to 20,000 miles. Of course, back in those days, Mobil 1 was always a true synthetic. Never had an engine problem in all those
years.
Now, I'm down to about 9,000 miles per year and still going with a once per year OCI, using either Mobil 1 0W40 or Mobil 1 High Mileage 5w30.
4,000 miles on any so-called synthetic is ridiculous.
We need to start a 30+ year club with the same companies oil.
I would expect my engine to be clean at 200,000 or more miles using any name brand dino with 4,000 mile OCI's.
I have used Mobil 1 since it came out back in the 1970's, changing my oil once a year. before I retired back in 2001, this was 19,000 to 20,000 miles. Of course, back in those days, Mobil 1 was always a true synthetic. Never had an engine problem in all those
years.
Now, I'm down to about 9,000 miles per year and still going with a once per year OCI, using either Mobil 1 0W40 or Mobil 1 High Mileage 5w30.
4,000 miles on any so-called synthetic is ridiculous.
We need to start a 30+ year club with the same companies oil.
Originally Posted By: modularv8
What is interesting, is that only Mobil Europe (where synthetic means not group III) is putting forth these pictures of these pistons/cleanliness (WPD) of SeqIIIG. If Mobil 1 USA is making this same claim, please let us know. So far, the USA site only talks about cleaning up sludge and nothing about piston deposits of the Sequence IIIG.
This website shows M1 seq IIIG piston photos and talks about formulating M1 with Visom (group III+) base stocks.
http://www.motor-talk.de/forum/aktion/Attachment.html?attachmentId=695007
Also note that it claims only Germany is exempt.
What is interesting, is that only Mobil Europe (where synthetic means not group III) is putting forth these pictures of these pistons/cleanliness (WPD) of SeqIIIG. If Mobil 1 USA is making this same claim, please let us know. So far, the USA site only talks about cleaning up sludge and nothing about piston deposits of the Sequence IIIG.
This website shows M1 seq IIIG piston photos and talks about formulating M1 with Visom (group III+) base stocks.
http://www.motor-talk.de/forum/aktion/Attachment.html?attachmentId=695007
Also note that it claims only Germany is exempt.
Originally Posted By: tig1
Mobil 1 oils are not Grp 3. Their base stock is a blend of up to 15 differant compounds(is that the right word?)which is very hush hush, not only in Europe but also in the US.
I think it's pretty safe to say at this point that Visom (XOM's group III+) is being used in Mobil 1 oils everywhere except Germany and has been for a little while now.
PRODUCT OFFER
TECHNICAL
VISOM MOBIL 1
Why are we reformulating Mobil 1?
A natural evolution of the formulation
• The Mobil 1 formulation strategy has always been based
on selecting the best components available. We now
have the very high quality Group III+ base stock,
‘Visom’ exclusively available to ExxonMobil. As we
developed the Mobil 1 ESP technology we found that
combining Visom with PAO could deliver a formulation
of equivalent performance to an all PAO formulation.
Competitive advantage
• Visom is the only non-PAO stock that can deliver the
required performance to formulate a 0W grade oil that
meets European OEM engine oil specifications.
Visom is not available to our competition.
To support Mobil 1 growth
• Global PAO capacity is limited. As we quickly approach this limit, new base stocks must be explored to ensure we can support the continued growth of the Mobil 1 family of products.
To ensure continuity of supply
• As we saw with the 2005 hurricane, the more flexibility we have in our formulations, the better placed we are to withstand disruption to our supply. We can balance PAO and Visom supply fluctuations to ensure we can always deliver
the final product to our customers.
To maintain market relevant pricing
• As PAO supply has tightened globally, raw material costs have increased substantially. In the future, an exclusively PAO formulation may be priced out of the market or result in significant margin erosion.
To prepare for next generation basestocks (GTL)
• Commencing 2010, the next generation of base stocks derived from Natural Gas (Gas To Liquids) will enter the market. These high quality basestocks will arrive
in substantial quantities and will probably be used in the majority of competitive premium formulations. Visom is viewed as a precursor of GTL, and hence it’s use now in our flagship formulations eases our transition to a GTL world, and helps us understand how to maintain flagship performance using these high quality non-PAO basestocks.
With the exception of Germany, this reformulation will be invisible to consumers and B2B customers.
• Claims are identical with the exception of some now obsolete or soon to be obsolete claims
• Performance of new formulations are equivalent to current formulations
- Testing is underway to provide read-across of current marketing claims to new formulations
- Review will take place of current marketing literature to ensure accuracy of specific claims to new formulations (e.g. if we quote actual pour point values then this would need to be updated).
• There will be no proactive customer communication relating to this reformulation. However, an internal briefing document and Q&A has been prepared to allow sales to respond in the unlikely event of a customer question.
Mobil 1 oils are not Grp 3. Their base stock is a blend of up to 15 differant compounds(is that the right word?)which is very hush hush, not only in Europe but also in the US.
I think it's pretty safe to say at this point that Visom (XOM's group III+) is being used in Mobil 1 oils everywhere except Germany and has been for a little while now.
PRODUCT OFFER
TECHNICAL
VISOM MOBIL 1
Why are we reformulating Mobil 1?
A natural evolution of the formulation
• The Mobil 1 formulation strategy has always been based
on selecting the best components available. We now
have the very high quality Group III+ base stock,
‘Visom’ exclusively available to ExxonMobil. As we
developed the Mobil 1 ESP technology we found that
combining Visom with PAO could deliver a formulation
of equivalent performance to an all PAO formulation.
Competitive advantage
• Visom is the only non-PAO stock that can deliver the
required performance to formulate a 0W grade oil that
meets European OEM engine oil specifications.
Visom is not available to our competition.
To support Mobil 1 growth
• Global PAO capacity is limited. As we quickly approach this limit, new base stocks must be explored to ensure we can support the continued growth of the Mobil 1 family of products.
To ensure continuity of supply
• As we saw with the 2005 hurricane, the more flexibility we have in our formulations, the better placed we are to withstand disruption to our supply. We can balance PAO and Visom supply fluctuations to ensure we can always deliver
the final product to our customers.
To maintain market relevant pricing
• As PAO supply has tightened globally, raw material costs have increased substantially. In the future, an exclusively PAO formulation may be priced out of the market or result in significant margin erosion.
To prepare for next generation basestocks (GTL)
• Commencing 2010, the next generation of base stocks derived from Natural Gas (Gas To Liquids) will enter the market. These high quality basestocks will arrive
in substantial quantities and will probably be used in the majority of competitive premium formulations. Visom is viewed as a precursor of GTL, and hence it’s use now in our flagship formulations eases our transition to a GTL world, and helps us understand how to maintain flagship performance using these high quality non-PAO basestocks.
With the exception of Germany, this reformulation will be invisible to consumers and B2B customers.
• Claims are identical with the exception of some now obsolete or soon to be obsolete claims
• Performance of new formulations are equivalent to current formulations
- Testing is underway to provide read-across of current marketing claims to new formulations
- Review will take place of current marketing literature to ensure accuracy of specific claims to new formulations (e.g. if we quote actual pour point values then this would need to be updated).
• There will be no proactive customer communication relating to this reformulation. However, an internal briefing document and Q&A has been prepared to allow sales to respond in the unlikely event of a customer question.
Very interesting.
So Mobil will have Germany (I presume they have a formulating plant there) continue to use PAO base oils and the rest of the world is using Visom and soon GTL GP III.
So Mobil will have Germany (I presume they have a formulating plant there) continue to use PAO base oils and the rest of the world is using Visom and soon GTL GP III.
Originally Posted By: kr_bitog
Long time never check out the Pennzoil website, and now they publish 25% cleaner than Mobil 1, 35 % cleaner than Valvoline SynPower and 40% cleaner than Castrol Edge with Syntec.
So at least now it is open to public how all those ranks in terms of cleanliness, ... keep crossing finger if there will be next chart on wear protection
Ultra claims to clean 35% better than Pennzoil Platinum. Therefore, using Pennzoil's own numbers, Mobil 1 outperforms Platinum by 10%. Again, Pennzoil is unfairly doing an apples to oranges comparison since Ultra is their premier synthetic just like EP is Mobil's premiere synthetic. And Mobil does claim that EP cleans better than their Mobil 1 synthetic, but they don't give us a percentage. Also, it is alwyss more impressive to convert numbers to percentages. Gotta love their advertising
The Group III thing has been beaten to death. It doesn't matter anymore what group it comes from performance wise. Also, Ultra is definitely Group III as per their Q&A. Undoubtedly the Mobil synthetic blend contains Group III as well.
Long time never check out the Pennzoil website, and now they publish 25% cleaner than Mobil 1, 35 % cleaner than Valvoline SynPower and 40% cleaner than Castrol Edge with Syntec.
So at least now it is open to public how all those ranks in terms of cleanliness, ... keep crossing finger if there will be next chart on wear protection
Ultra claims to clean 35% better than Pennzoil Platinum. Therefore, using Pennzoil's own numbers, Mobil 1 outperforms Platinum by 10%. Again, Pennzoil is unfairly doing an apples to oranges comparison since Ultra is their premier synthetic just like EP is Mobil's premiere synthetic. And Mobil does claim that EP cleans better than their Mobil 1 synthetic, but they don't give us a percentage. Also, it is alwyss more impressive to convert numbers to percentages. Gotta love their advertising
The Group III thing has been beaten to death. It doesn't matter anymore what group it comes from performance wise. Also, Ultra is definitely Group III as per their Q&A. Undoubtedly the Mobil synthetic blend contains Group III as well.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: modularv8
What is interesting, is that only Mobil Europe (where synthetic means not group III) is putting forth these pictures of these pistons/cleanliness (WPD) of SeqIIIG. If Mobil 1 USA is making this same claim, please let us know. So far, the USA site only talks about cleaning up sludge and nothing about piston deposits of the Sequence IIIG.
This website shows M1 seq IIIG piston photos and talks about formulating M1 with Visom (group III+) base stocks.
http://www.motor-talk.de/forum/aktion/Attachment.html?attachmentId=695007
Also note that it claims only Germany is exempt.
Look at page 37 for the TEOST.
Originally Posted By: modularv8
What is interesting, is that only Mobil Europe (where synthetic means not group III) is putting forth these pictures of these pistons/cleanliness (WPD) of SeqIIIG. If Mobil 1 USA is making this same claim, please let us know. So far, the USA site only talks about cleaning up sludge and nothing about piston deposits of the Sequence IIIG.
This website shows M1 seq IIIG piston photos and talks about formulating M1 with Visom (group III+) base stocks.
http://www.motor-talk.de/forum/aktion/Attachment.html?attachmentId=695007
Also note that it claims only Germany is exempt.
Look at page 37 for the TEOST.
Originally Posted By: Capa
Originally Posted By: kr_bitog
Long time never check out the Pennzoil website, and now they publish 25% cleaner than Mobil 1, 35 % cleaner than Valvoline SynPower and 40% cleaner than Castrol Edge with Syntec.
So at least now it is open to public how all those ranks in terms of cleanliness, ... keep crossing finger if there will be next chart on wear protection
Ultra claims to clean 35% better than Pennzoil Platinum. Therefore, using Pennzoil's own numbers, Mobil 1 outperforms Platinum by 10%. Again, Pennzoil is unfairly doing an apples to oranges comparison since Ultra is their premier synthetic just like EP is Mobil's premiere synthetic. And Mobil does claim that EP cleans better than their Mobil 1 synthetic, but they don't give us a percentage. also, it is lays more impressive to convert our numbers to percentages.
The Group III thing has been beaten to death. It doesn't matter anymore what group it comes from performance wise. Also, Ultra is definitely Group III as per their Q&A. Undoubtedly the Mobil synthetic blend contains Group III as well.
Agree. You'll never know the base oil composition of these oils. Many use multiple base oils.
Originally Posted By: kr_bitog
Long time never check out the Pennzoil website, and now they publish 25% cleaner than Mobil 1, 35 % cleaner than Valvoline SynPower and 40% cleaner than Castrol Edge with Syntec.
So at least now it is open to public how all those ranks in terms of cleanliness, ... keep crossing finger if there will be next chart on wear protection
Ultra claims to clean 35% better than Pennzoil Platinum. Therefore, using Pennzoil's own numbers, Mobil 1 outperforms Platinum by 10%. Again, Pennzoil is unfairly doing an apples to oranges comparison since Ultra is their premier synthetic just like EP is Mobil's premiere synthetic. And Mobil does claim that EP cleans better than their Mobil 1 synthetic, but they don't give us a percentage. also, it is lays more impressive to convert our numbers to percentages.
The Group III thing has been beaten to death. It doesn't matter anymore what group it comes from performance wise. Also, Ultra is definitely Group III as per their Q&A. Undoubtedly the Mobil synthetic blend contains Group III as well.
Agree. You'll never know the base oil composition of these oils. Many use multiple base oils.
Originally Posted By: daman
PU does have a good slug of detergents in the add pack,if it cleans better then M1 lol thats gotta be better then new.
PU isn't a extended drain oil like EP is so one should not compare the two.
Based upon used oil analysis including TBN, Ultra may well be an extended drain oil.
SOPUS just doesn't promote it as such.
PU does have a good slug of detergents in the add pack,if it cleans better then M1 lol thats gotta be better then new.
PU isn't a extended drain oil like EP is so one should not compare the two.
Based upon used oil analysis including TBN, Ultra may well be an extended drain oil.
SOPUS just doesn't promote it as such.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Originally Posted By: daman
PU does have a good slug of detergents in the add pack,if it cleans better then M1 lol thats gotta be better then new.
PU isn't a extended drain oil like EP is so one should not compare the two.
Based upon used oil analysis including TBN, Ultra may well be an extended drain oil.
SOPUS just doesn't promote it as such.
I agree. Tbn retention is good.
Originally Posted By: daman
PU does have a good slug of detergents in the add pack,if it cleans better then M1 lol thats gotta be better then new.
PU isn't a extended drain oil like EP is so one should not compare the two.
Based upon used oil analysis including TBN, Ultra may well be an extended drain oil.
SOPUS just doesn't promote it as such.
I agree. Tbn retention is good.
Originally Posted By: buster
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Originally Posted By: daman
PU does have a good slug of detergents in the add pack,if it cleans better then M1 lol thats gotta be better then new.
PU isn't a extended drain oil like EP is so one should not compare the two.
Based upon used oil analysis including TBN, Ultra may well be an extended drain oil.
SOPUS just doesn't promote it as such.
I agree. Tbn retention is good.
+2
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Originally Posted By: daman
PU does have a good slug of detergents in the add pack,if it cleans better then M1 lol thats gotta be better then new.
PU isn't a extended drain oil like EP is so one should not compare the two.
Based upon used oil analysis including TBN, Ultra may well be an extended drain oil.
SOPUS just doesn't promote it as such.
I agree. Tbn retention is good.
+2
Originally Posted By: buster
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: modularv8
What is interesting, is that only Mobil Europe (where synthetic means not group III) is putting forth these pictures of these pistons/cleanliness (WPD) of SeqIIIG. If Mobil 1 USA is making this same claim, please let us know. So far, the USA site only talks about cleaning up sludge and nothing about piston deposits of the Sequence IIIG.
This website shows M1 seq IIIG piston photos and talks about formulating M1 with Visom (group III+) base stocks.
http://www.motor-talk.de/forum/aktion/Attachment.html?attachmentId=695007
Also note that it claims only Germany is exempt.
Look at page 37 for the TEOST.
Page 36, 37, 41, 45 is the great summary for PAO vs VISOM characteristics in Mobil 1 product
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: modularv8
What is interesting, is that only Mobil Europe (where synthetic means not group III) is putting forth these pictures of these pistons/cleanliness (WPD) of SeqIIIG. If Mobil 1 USA is making this same claim, please let us know. So far, the USA site only talks about cleaning up sludge and nothing about piston deposits of the Sequence IIIG.
This website shows M1 seq IIIG piston photos and talks about formulating M1 with Visom (group III+) base stocks.
http://www.motor-talk.de/forum/aktion/Attachment.html?attachmentId=695007
Also note that it claims only Germany is exempt.
Look at page 37 for the TEOST.
Page 36, 37, 41, 45 is the great summary for PAO vs VISOM characteristics in Mobil 1 product
Quote:
So Mobil will have Germany (I presume they have a formulating plant there) continue to use PAO base oils and the rest of the world is using Visom and soon GTL GP III.
No German Mobil 1 products have been relabeled, they no longer say Vollsynthese.
They say the transition will be invisible in all countries except Germany, in other words they wont publish it.
In Germany they must by law disclose the fact that this is no longer a Synthetic oil but instead just another high end dino.
A fact they try to spin every which way but cant avoid it.
This is what they don't really want to publish but legally have no choice, talk about spin. "aus Rohöl" (from crude oil) and "Synthese Schmierstoffe" (deliberately omitting the word Voll before Synthese) are the only relevant parts the rest is pure spin.
Quote:
Tradionell verwendetete herkömmliche Mineralöle
Synthese Schmierstoffe, die immer beliebter werden.
Beide Motorenöle werden aus Rohöl hergestellt
http://www.mobil1.de/wissenswertes/was-sind-shc-synthese-oele.aspx
The rub with this is they are charging the same price as the prior PAO formulation.
So Mobil will have Germany (I presume they have a formulating plant there) continue to use PAO base oils and the rest of the world is using Visom and soon GTL GP III.
No German Mobil 1 products have been relabeled, they no longer say Vollsynthese.
They say the transition will be invisible in all countries except Germany, in other words they wont publish it.
In Germany they must by law disclose the fact that this is no longer a Synthetic oil but instead just another high end dino.
A fact they try to spin every which way but cant avoid it.
This is what they don't really want to publish but legally have no choice, talk about spin. "aus Rohöl" (from crude oil) and "Synthese Schmierstoffe" (deliberately omitting the word Voll before Synthese) are the only relevant parts the rest is pure spin.
Quote:
Tradionell verwendetete herkömmliche Mineralöle
Synthese Schmierstoffe, die immer beliebter werden.
Beide Motorenöle werden aus Rohöl hergestellt
http://www.mobil1.de/wissenswertes/was-sind-shc-synthese-oele.aspx
The rub with this is they are charging the same price as the prior PAO formulation.
Originally Posted By: buster
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Originally Posted By: daman
PU does have a good slug of detergents in the add pack,if it cleans better then M1 lol thats gotta be better then new.
PU isn't a extended drain oil like EP is so one should not compare the two.
Based upon used oil analysis including TBN, Ultra may well be an extended drain oil.
SOPUS just doesn't promote it as such.
I agree. Tbn retention is good.
Right i my self would run PU to 10k with no worries,but it's still not advertised or formulated as a EP oil.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Originally Posted By: daman
PU does have a good slug of detergents in the add pack,if it cleans better then M1 lol thats gotta be better then new.
PU isn't a extended drain oil like EP is so one should not compare the two.
Based upon used oil analysis including TBN, Ultra may well be an extended drain oil.
SOPUS just doesn't promote it as such.
I agree. Tbn retention is good.
Right i my self would run PU to 10k with no worries,but it's still not advertised or formulated as a EP oil.
This ad by Pennzoil reminds me of the old cigarette ad "Are you smoking more and enjoying it less?". That ad was designed to sway a tobacco user from brand to another.
Pennzoil's ad is along the same line: " Are you driving harder but want to coke up your ring pack less?"
Two identical engines, driven identically for 400k miles, one using PU, the other M1. The difference at tear down is a quarter teaspoon of varnish.
Just my take on it - both are fine oils
Pennzoil's ad is along the same line: " Are you driving harder but want to coke up your ring pack less?"
Two identical engines, driven identically for 400k miles, one using PU, the other M1. The difference at tear down is a quarter teaspoon of varnish.
Just my take on it - both are fine oils
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked