Reply from Mobil 1 concerning basestocks

[Mickey_M]

Quote:

---

.... current UOA results and some proprietary testing I have studied and used in our work shows that to be incorrect. ....

---

Mobil, and then ExxonMobil, had and have an ongoing extensive testing program of every product currently on the market and considered for future marketing. This involves taxis, trucks, government vehicles, and its own test fleet in just about every climatic condition on the planet and every kind of use and vehicle one could imagine. It also includes evaluating competing products.

There are limited production lubricants that can "beat" Mobil 1 products in particular uses, usually at a higher or much higher cost. Nobody said ExxonMobil sells Rolls-Royces for the price of Hyundais.

These products are not readily available in East Podunk, or are made in short runs, or can create problems in certain common uses, or may have some other shortcoming not readily apparent in limited sample testing.

Most users will find that their interest in running their vehicle will run out before their engine or transmission wears out using Mobil 1 products.

They may also be perfectly happy with some other product.

The UOAs and actual use seem to indicate that Mobil 1, in general, is a completely competitive product at its price points.

 

[buster]

I agree with Mickey. Lets also not forget that very few of us even need synthetics. Extended drains, high temp turbos and extreme cold temps are where they do well. Mobil 1 does great in all 3 mentioned above.

Brian, do a search on Honda R&D HT-06. I posted a thread about it. Mobil 1 is ideal for a Turbo.

What I also find ironic is how some bash Mobil 1 but still use LC. Does anyone even know how LC works or what it is? LOL

 

[BrianWC]

Yeah, forgot about that HT-06 test. But......does that translate to the 40 weights, I wonder? I realize Honda was looking for a good lightweight mass market synth.....but a lot of turbo folks go with 40 weights and 0W40 already wasn't particularly a fav.

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

---

No I never assumed that Mobil 1 was 100% PAO. They woud require AN or ester for solubility/seal performance nd most add packs use Gp I as the diluant oil. I don't understand the VII comment though, of course they will have VI improver in the formulation. My point is that if you want a low HTHS with all PAO formulation(or mostly PAO if you are counting the add pack dil oil and ester/AN solubilizer), the low temp properties (CCS) are so good that you fall out of grade. You can keep a relatively constant low HTHS and in this case worsen your low temp properties (example, so you stay a 5W and don't end up a 0W) by adding a lower quality baseoil (like a Gp III or Gp II+). This would allow you to pass the Seq VIB fuel economy test as a 5W so you could market a GF-3/GF-4 oil that all the consumers would use.

---

Dude, you're going around in circles by back tracking on your original statement and regurgitating corrections presented to correct your incorrect statements. Here's what you first said:

Quote:

---

My thoughts are M1 started to include mineral oils back during the conversion to GF-3. The Seq VIB fuel economy test that was part of that category and which is part of the GF-4 catergory (with higher limits) is a difficult test to pass but is almost impossible with all PAO based formulations. This is a result of the test being very sensitive to viscosity. PAO's are great in passing all the other tests in the GF-3/GF-4 category but because of their inherint high VI, they are at a disadvantage in the Seq VIB. To pass this test you need to blend an oil near the bottom HTHS limit of the SAE J300 viscosity classification, ie a 5W-20 does better down at 2.6-2.7cP and a 5W-30 does better at 2.9-3.0cP. The problem with all PAO formulations is that you can't make a 5W-30 down at 2.9-3.0 cP, it turns out as a 0W-30 because of the very good low temp properties (CCS). So to be able to market a 5W-30 Mobil 1 XOM likely had to add something with poor low temp (CCS) properties (like AN or mineral oil) so they could blend at a low HTHS and keep from falling out of grade into a 0W.

---

And show me the specification/standard that states you have to label your product with the grade of the lowest temperature performance criteria it meets as opposed to the one your grading it for.

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

The UOAs and actual use seem to indicate that Mobil 1, in general, is a completely competitive product at its price points.

---

Perhaps you could explain why Mobil 1 does not turn in UOAs like German Castrol? Further, if Terry's interpretive skills are to be believed, these UOAs are indicating better performance than Mobil 1. Why isn't the price premium of Mobil 1 producing UOAs that blow GC, and Amsoil for that matter, away?

 

[XS650]

Quote:

---

And show me the specification/standard that states you have to label your product with the grade of the lowest temperature performance criteria it meets as opposed to the one your grading it for.

---

It's in my 1995 SAE Handbook. The requirement may have been dropped since then, but I doubt it.

 

[JavaMan]

It's my theory that any company will change their inputs if these inputs will meet standards and result in improved profits. Well, that is if a company has standards.

 

[flatlandtacoma]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

And show me the specification/standard that states you have to label your product with the grade of the lowest temperature performance criteria it meets as opposed to the one your grading it for.

---

It's in my 1995 SAE Handbook. The requirement may have been dropped since then, but I doubt it.

---

So if I made a 5w30, and viscosity was below cP max for CCS & MRV at the appropriate temperatures, I would have to test it again at lower temperatures to make sure it wouldn't squeak by as a 0w30???

Why don't they list a "cP min" for the 5w, 10w, 15w grades then?

 

[Mickey_M]

Quote:

---

Perhaps you could explain why Mobil 1 does not turn in UOAs like German Castrol?

---

Some UOAs in some vehicles with some Mobil 1 are comparable to some German Castrol UOAs.

Certainly if you want German Castrol, you should buy German Castrol.

 

[XS650]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

And show me the specification/standard that states you have to label your product with the grade of the lowest temperature performance criteria it meets as opposed to the one your grading it for.

---

It's in my 1995 SAE Handbook. The requirement may have been dropped since then, but I doubt it.

---

So if I made a 5w30, and viscosity was below cP max for CCS & MRV at the appropriate temperatures, I would have to test it again at lower temperatures to make sure it wouldn't squeak by as a 0w30???

Why don't they list a "cP min" for the 5w, 10w, 15w grades then?

---

I'm not SAE, ask them.

 

[Mickey_M]

Quote:

---

Further, if Terry's interpretive skills are to be believed, these UOAs are indicating better performance than Mobil 1.

---

Terry is not doing statistical sampling of a wide-range of Mobil 1 motor oils in a vast array vehicles under widely differing conditions against a similar array of other motor oils.

No one has asserted that every Mobil 1 formula in every application beats every other formula from every other manufacturer in every application.

 

[HTSS_TR]

If Mobil 1 is not as good as GC, why Mobil 1 SuperSyn European Car Formula 0W-40 is the only oil that passes MB 229.5 and approved to be used in AMG engines ? That same Mobil 1 oil is on BMW, Audi, Porsche ... approved list

Castrol Syntec European Formula 0W-30 (*) passes 229.5 but not approved for AMG engines.

http://www.whnet.com/4x4/oil.html

 

[yannis]

I would like to remind you Cerny's oil test in 1999.It has been mentioned in the recent past here but it is
outdated since most of the formulations are different now ( group III). It describes in every detail the exact percentages of PAO and group III bases in 14 synthetic oils and the methodes used for these tests.
http://www.oetg.at/website/wtc2001cd/html/M-21-P58-614-CERNY.pdf

 

[G-MAN]

Quote:

---

If Mobil 1 is not as good as GC, why Mobil 1 SuperSyn European Car Formula 0W-40 is the only oil that passes MB 229.5 and approved to be used in AMG engines ? That same Mobil 1 oil is on BMW, Audi, Porsche ... approved list

Castrol Syntec European Formula 0W-30 (*) passes 229.5 but not approved for AMG engines.

http://www.whnet.com/4x4/oil.html

---

I think you need to look more closely at that list. Mobil 1 0w40 is the only oil approved for AMG engines IN THE USA.

Any 229.5 oil on the European list is "approved" for AMG engines, even though Mobil 1 is the factory fill.

 

[jeremiah2360]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Further, if Terry's interpretive skills are to be believed, these UOAs are indicating better performance than Mobil 1.

---

Terry is not doing statistical sampling of a wide-range of Mobil 1 motor oils in a vast array vehicles under widely differing conditions against a similar array of other motor oils.

No one has asserted that every Mobil 1 formula in every application beats every other formula from every other manufacturer in every application.

---

Maybe I`m misinterpreting "statistical sampling" but just by the nature of Terry`s job of reading so many samples from so many different oils and applications doesn`t he do just that?

 

[Auto-Union]

That list in interesting, but referes only to M1 5w-50.

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

And show me the specification/standard that states you have to label your product with the grade of the lowest temperature performance criteria it meets as opposed to the one your grading it for.

---

It's in my 1995 SAE Handbook. The requirement may have been dropped since then, but I doubt it.

---

J300 went through a revamp in Dec 1999, so unless we have something more current, I guess it's undecided at this point. But even if what you say still applies, I'm not buying the arguement that the formulators are having a problem making oils too thin at CCS and MRV temperatures. And EOM substitution of AN for Esters, would surely make this problem go away if it did exist, given the difference in their viscometrics. Further, note how many formulators no longer publish the CCS and MRV specs. My hunch is the problem is quite the opposite.

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Further, if Terry's interpretive skills are to be believed, these UOAs are indicating better performance than Mobil 1.

---

Terry is not doing statistical sampling of a wide-range of Mobil 1 motor oils in a vast array vehicles under widely differing conditions against a similar array of other motor oils.

---

You didn't do a statistical sampling either. You allow yourself to make this statement...

Quote:

---

The UOAs and actual use seem to indicate that Mobil 1, in general, is a completely competitive product at its price points.

---

...but if anybody makes a counter statement, you want statistical evidence. Where's your statistical evidence?

Further, I'd like to see your analysis on current price points. If the requirements are "oil good enough to get the job done" then PP, and probably others, definitely have a significant advantage.

But all this posturing and speculation avoids the real issue, and that is that EOM is bamboozling it's customers. If EOM can achieve it's performance goals with Group III basestocks, they should just admit it and publish the performance results like Schaeffer's does with their SM/GF-4 test results.

 

[KBFXDLI]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

That's why I refuse to use ExxonMobil1...

---

ExxonMobil1 would be a good name for the "new" GIII formula, or perhaps XOM1 for short.

Two things we should keep in mind:

One, the pre Y2K Mobil Oil Corp. no longer exists. This was the company that developed Mobil1 and maintained its' "pure" synthetic formula for decades.

Two, since the 1999 "merger" of Exxon and Mobil, it appears the Exxon people pretty much took over. After the merger was complete, it was not Exxon's CEO that retired, it was Mobil's. I don't think Exxon was ever a major player in the synthetic oil market and they may be less concerned about Mobil1 keeping its' true synthetic base stock.

---

Bingo, we have a winner!! This explanation makes very real sense to me. I have seen the majority of the auto supply tiers and OEM's decontent their products while raising the price.......it's a profitable move. Unethical IMO if they don't tell the customer but no doubt profitable. The Exxon people were probably drooling over the margin in a quart of M1.......just basic greed at work here.

 

[Mickey_M]

Quote:

---

.... The Exxon people were probably drooling over the margin in a quart of M1.......just basic greed at work here. ....

---

This entire discussion is based on *one* GC of *one* viscosity of *one* Mobil 1 formula.


Just basic something else at work here.



.