Reply from Mobil 1 concerning basestocks

Status
Not open for further replies.
I live in Jakarta,Indonesia where the people are so easily swayed by the perception of prestige in using certain products, including Mobil 1.Over here, Mobil 1 is being marketed at the same level as Redline. Can you believe that Mobil 1 is much more expensive than Redline? Mobil 1 0w40 cost about $20 a quart, I kid you not! It's the most expensive oil that you can buy, a gallon jug is about $80! And you won't believe how many times they brainwashed you with Kimi Raikonnen and his McLaren-Mercedes that broke down more than half of 2006 F1 season.

That's why I refuse to use ExxonMobil1, Forbes stated that Mobil1 made $300,000 million in sales from 2005-2006 and now they are keeping us in the fog regarding what basestock that they are using? Man, how much more money will satisfy this pig?
 
Tom, great to hear from you. I did not really think that you objected to my earlier prodding you a bit. You've been around long enough to know that's my job here! On this thread, I did not mean to characterize your actions quite as negatively as it came out, just to explain to others my OWN position relative to previous postings. Yes, I do understand your current position ...completely. What I don't understand is why you chose to post such a contraversial issue using your professional crudentials. In hindsight, that might have been a bit of a fux-paux. In itself, that explains my second "issue" in that once you have "done the deed" or "let the cat out of the bag" I don't (personally or legally) see how you are served by backing-off both those results and, more substantially, declining to do any follow-up procedures. That being said, you DON'T owe me or anyone an explaination. Let's just characterize mine and others' speculation as just that- speculation (because that's all we have now).

So, on a final note, allow me again to suggest another path of action...one that might be best for everyone, especially best for the industry and it's consumers, frankly also best for Tom's integrity- to leave it at: if you, (in the future) found a substantial discrepancy between how a product is marketed and it's actual composition, you "might" be tempted to freely post either the data or interpretation of the data that you legally aquired and OWN. imo, that would keep the industry somewhat honest and on it's toes. That is in as much to say, at least WE are watching and have some clout. Thanks again Tom for some real expertise. To the other yahoos who feel they have some role to play as judges of the interaction between Tom and myself...you know what to do and how far to lean over to do it.
 
Quote:

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

Click to expand...


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


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.
dunno.gif
 
In retrospect, I suspect Group III started being used in one or more Mobil 1 grades with the switch from the "Tri-Synthetic" formula to the "SuperSyn" formula.
 
Hi Auto-Union,

When I signed up here I chose a handle (Tom NJ) like everyone else with the intention of being anonymous. The clues in my handle combined with the content of my posts made my identity obvious to some and I chose not to deny it. I really didn't have a problem being "outed" as I have only one character and integrity whether anonymous or public. But when my post on the M1 base oil results exploded into a controversial issue beyond my belief I did think how nice it would have been to have called myself "Jim from Florida".
smile.gif


I have not backed off my results and still believe them to be true. But now that I know the emotional level and reach of this board I have to consider the feelings of my customers if I continue reporting compositions, and it wouldn't be fair or consistent to select only non-customers, so the only solution is to stop that aspect of my posts. All other subjects are open.

Tom
 
Quote:

Quote:

since the 1999 "merger" of Exxon and Mobil, it appears the Exxon people pretty much took over.

Click to expand...


The joke at the time was: "What do you call a merger between Exxon and Mobil?"

Answer: "Exxon!"
wink.gif


Tom

Click to expand...


Sorta like: What do you call a merger between Chrysler and Daimler-Benz?

Answer: "Mercedes!"
 
Quote:

In retrospect, I suspect Group III started being used in one or more Mobil 1 grades with the switch from the "Tri-Synthetic" formula to the "SuperSyn" formula.

Click to expand...

IMHO, I believe the change was more recent than that. Back when they introduced the "SuperSyn" formula, they still published the CCS and MRV specs and those specs indicated a mostly PAO formula. I'm guessing the earliest change over would be about the time they stopped publishing these specs, about halfway into the SL formulation. But I believe they didn't go to mostly Group III until the latest round of spec changes over the past year or so.

On another note, Terry mentioned a few times he preferred the SJ formulations to the SL formulations.

twocents.gif
 
If Mobil 1 didn't get swithched to GIII stocks then they learned nothing from their clash with Castrol. Maybe GIII stocks are about as good as GIV, and that's good enough.
 
Quote:

Regardless, Shell, Sunoco seem to burn ok in my car. I'm running out of oil companies to patronize. First Hugo's Citgo, now EOM.

Click to expand...


Chevron That's the path I'm headin' down.
patriot.gif
 
Quote:

In retrospect, I suspect Group III started being used in one or more Mobil 1 grades with the switch from the "Tri-Synthetic" formula to the "SuperSyn" formula.

Click to expand...


You could be right. One indication of base oil type is Noak volatility. If you remember the older Mobil 1 PDS had Mobil 1's Noak in the low 5% range. Amsoil and Redline are both in that range also. Once M1 SS came around, it went up. It could be due to the Group III but I am just speculating based on my observation of the Noak #'s. Take a look at Mobil's MC oils. Noak is 4-5%.
 
I don't think so Hermann. Not many oil geeks over there or I would have posted it already.
 
Several points that "the switch" could have occured.

Tri-Synth/SuperSyn event horizon

SM reformulation

Advent of EP line with miles-specific guarantee (sort of a "bone" thrown to customers or an olive branch)

Katrina krunch

GC?

PP?
 
Last edited:
Other then we "oil purists", XOM is the winner here. Taking an oil that for 30 years or so was PAO based, and making it a Group III/IV blend based oil that is guaranteed for 15,000 miles. Not a bad move on their part unless the internet takes it's toll on them....IT'S THE FINAL COUNTDOWN!!! DE NE NE NE, DE NE NE NE NE....
 
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.

This is likely one reason that Redline doesn't have the GF-4 starburst on the bottle, because they decided not lower the quality of their product to meet some artificial fuel economy test.
 
FWIW

I have Mobil 1 5w30 Supersyn in my engine for approximately 14k miles now since last June 2006, planning to keep it till Jan 2007... or 6 months... it'll probably have about 20k miles on the oil. Car doesn't burn oil (with 118k miles).. I top off about 1/4 qt. yesterday. Filter is OEM mazda filter.

Oil is still fairly clean on the dipstick and on tissue. Shouldn't a conventional oil be really coked up by now?

Whatever Mobil 1 have in their oil does perform based on my personal experience.
canada.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
Sharing some shearing test results about Mobil 1 ESP 0W-30...
2
Replies
28
Views
4K
chris719
S
Sorry, Mobil 1 0w8 is not for retail sale in Canada
Replies
6
Views
795
Zee09
wwillson
  • Locked
Pennzoil - Low-speed pre-ignition (LSPI) Q&A
Replies
14
Views
1K
wwillson
wwillson
  • Sticky
Pennzoil - Low-speed pre-ignition (LSPI) Q&A - Answers
Replies
2
Views
1K
SubieRubyRoo
Al
Viscosity vs Temperature Formulas.
Replies
8
Views
2K
Al
Back
Top Bottom