Reply from Mobil 1 concerning basestocks

[Mickey_M]

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

The used oil analysis 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?

---

This board contains numerous used oil analysis of numerous formulas of numerous brands of numerous motor oils.

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

I believe, for example, that the board used oil analysis support the conclusion that 5w30 Mobil 1 is a pretty good match for Toyota engines. There are some other strands of gold to be mined from the used oil analysis.

Sweeping generalizations about ExxonMobil, Mobil 1, and so on based on *one* GC of *one* viscosity of *one* formula strike me as hysteria and, by definition, prejudice.

If you don't like Mobil 1, don't buy it.



.

 

[Mickey_M]

Quote:

---

.... all this posturing and speculation avoids the real issue, and that is that EOM is bamboozling it's customers. ....

---

Based on *one* GC of *one* viscosity of *one* formula?

And Tom NJ, who did the GC, said he wasn't upset and planned on continuing to use the same Mobil 1?

The bamboozle here is the wild speculation and rash statements.



.

 

[Ugly3]

The folks here are just upset at the level of profit XOM has now. I bet you could not find the Mobil 1 profit in the pile.

 

[G-MAN]

Quote:

---

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

---

Not true. He ran the 15w50 and the 5w30. And he repeated the tests to make sure.

 

[JohnBrowning]

I think we might be jumping the gun here a bit. We still only have on GC test of one viscosity of M1 that is being judged as GIII. By the testing parties own statements when they tested the 5W30 it tested as claimed by EM as a true synthetic if I am not mistaken. I do not even know what the limitations of a GC test are when comes to base stock resolution. I thought that it took more then a GC test when testing German Castrol a few years back to disearn it's base stock makeup? I also wounder why Terry and Molakule havenot tossed their hats into this Arean? It seems they would have the most inight into this issue.

Their is a company out of Texas that does all kinds of competive analsys for large corperations. They also do testing for corperations that do not have the equipment or staff to do the testing themselfs. I can not rember the name of the company but they also publish their own work in the form of books. I would really suprised if Terry does not have some of their published work. What we are disgusseing in this thread would easily could easily be a subject covered by these guys.

I also find it hard to belive that Amsoil,Castrol,Pennzoil and other would not be calling ExxonMobil out on this matter after the stink Mobil made a few years back when Castrol went to GIII in their synthetic line.

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

.... all this posturing and speculation avoids the real issue, and that is that EOM is bamboozling it's customers. ....

---

Quote:

---

Based on *one* GC of *one* viscosity of *one* formula?

---

---

Tom tested two grades, and repeated the tests to confirm his results to the best of his ability. Further, he tested a third grade several months ago.

Quote:

---

And Tom NJ, who did the GC, said he wasn't upset and planned on continuing to use the same Mobil 1

---

It's certainly Tom's prerogative to feel that way. Further, you assume everyone's upset. Many here may just be seeking the truth in a non passionate way. It looks to me, that you're the one upset with the possibility that your paradigm of the universe might not reflect reality.

Quote:

---

The bamboozle here is the wild speculation and rash statements.

---

And you're just as guilty by lumping everyone's comments together and labeling them speculative and rash.

 

[Mickey_M]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Not true. He ran the 15w50 and the 5w30. And he repeated the tests to make sure.

---

You need to go back and take a look at what he posted.

He looked at 15W-50 and 10w30. He looked at *one* sample of each. The two viscosities showed different makeups.

The 10w30 ".... showed AN, PAO, POE, and a mineral oil cut ....".

He did not indicate he repeated anything.



.

 

[Mickey_M]

Quote:

---

And you're just as guilty by lumping everyone's comments together and labeling them speculative and rash.

---

It is speculative. The story keeps getting different, and better, with each new rash statement.

It is, in fact, hysteria.

Yes, he tested two viscosities. And he got *different* results for each.

If you're interested in truth, get some datapoints.


.

 

[tripleM]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Not true. He ran the 15w50 and the 5w30. And he repeated the tests to make sure.

---

You need to go back and take a look at what he posted.

He looked at 15W-50 and 10w30. He looked at *one* sample of each. The two viscosities showed different makeups.

The 10w30 ".... showed AN, PAO, POE, and a mineral oil cut ....".

He did not indicate he repeated anything.

.

---

Page 5 of this thread:
5w30 EP presumed Group III after G.C. test

Tested '04 vintage of 10w30 also & nice description of G.C. by TomNJ

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

The used oil analysis 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?

---

This board contains numerous used oil analysis of numerous formulas of numerous brands of numerous motor oils.

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

I believe, for example, that the board used oil analysis support the conclusion that 5w30 Mobil 1 is a pretty good match for Toyota engines. There are some other strands of gold to be mined from the used oil analysis.

Sweeping generalizations about ExxonMobil, Mobil 1, and so on based on *one* GC of *one* viscosity of *one* formula strike me as hysteria and, by definition, prejudice.

If you don't like Mobil 1, don't buy it.



.

---

You need to get your facts straight before continuing this discussion.

Further, if you want to talk about statistics, you first have to produce some. You point to the used oil analysis here as your evidence, yet don't provide the statistical analysis to support your position.

 

[Mickey_M]

Quote:

---

You need to get your facts straight before continuing this discussion.

---

Yes, you do.

You also need to strike the word "bamboozle" from your rhetoric.

Get a grip, man.



.

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

He looked at 15W-50 and 10w30. He looked at *one* sample of each.

---

What's the significance of "*one* sample of each"? If EOM is producing random batches of group III based oils, that certainly won't bolster customer's confidence in the product.

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You need to get your facts straight before continuing this discussion.

---

Yes, you do.

You also need to strike the word "bamboozle" from your rhetoric.

Get a grip, man.

---

You're the one that needs to get a grip. You've staunchly defended your position so far on belief only. Where's your evidence? Where' your G.C., your statistical analysis?

I used the term bamboozle because that's what EOM is doing. We've seen them quickly reword their web pages, remove some from the public, change their tech phone answers, and have yet to see any official declaration from them.

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

And you're just as guilty by lumping everyone's comments together and labeling them speculative and rash.

---

It is speculative. The story keeps getting different, and better, with each new rash statement.

It is, in fact, hysteria.

Yes, he tested two viscosities. And he got *different* results for each.

If you're interested in truth, get some datapoints.


.

---

http://theoildrop.server101.com/forums/s...9606#Post749606
http://theoildrop.server101.com/forums/s...0212#Post750212
http://theoildrop.server101.com/forums/s...0513#Post750513

http://theoildrop.server101.com/forums/s...0621#Post750621

 

[Mickey_M]

Quote:

---

http://theoildrop.server101.com/forums/s...9606#Post749606
http://theoildrop.server101.com/forums/s...0212#Post750212
http://theoildrop.server101.com/forums/s...0513#Post750513
http://theoildrop.server101.com/forums/s...0621#Post750621

---

One formula, two viscosities (one two years old), two different outcomes.

Get a grip.




.

 

[Mickey_M]

Quote:

---

You're the one that needs to get a grip. You've staunchly defended your position so far on belief only.

---

My position, such as it is, is that you have one datapoint. So when you say

Quote:

---

Where's your evidence?

---

I have to ask "to rebut what?".

Quote:

---

Where' your G.C., your statistical analysis?[/quote}

To refute your one datapoint?

Quote:

---

I used the term bamboozle because that's what EOM is doing.

---

If that's the case, call the FTC. They have a mechanism for dealing with bamboozlers.

Show them your one datapoint.





.

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

http://theoildrop.server101.com/forums/s...9606#Post749606
http://theoildrop.server101.com/forums/s...0212#Post750212
http://theoildrop.server101.com/forums/s...0513#Post750513
http://theoildrop.server101.com/forums/s...0621#Post750621

---

One formula, two viscosities (one two years old), two different outcomes.

Get a grip.

---

It's three viscosity grades.

You take the cake. No matter how many times your statements are proven wrong, you accuse every one else of making "rash statements".

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You're the one that needs to get a grip. You've staunchly defended your position so far on belief only.

---

My position, such as it is, is that you have one datapoint. So when you say

Quote:

---

Where's your evidence?

---

I have to ask "to rebut what?".

Quote:

---

Where' your G.C., your statistical analysis?[/quote}

To refute your one datapoint?

Quote:

---

I used the term bamboozle because that's what EOM is doing.

---

If that's the case, call the FTC. They have a mechanism for dealing with bamboozlers.

Show them your one datapoint.

---

Gee, I bet the FTC will be just as interested as they were with Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, Aldephia, Global Crossing, etc, when there were a zillion datapoints.