Reply from Mobil 1 concerning basestocks

[tenderloin]

FWIW Mobil 1 tech support still states they are Grp lV

 

[brucelee]

Well there is the old M1 and the new M1. You have the old M1.

 

[G-MAN]

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.

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.

---

Wow.

 

[yannis]

OK, i can accept this explanation but i can't forgive them in the PAO propaganda and increased price.

 

[G-MAN]

Quote:

---

OK, i can accept this explanation ...

---

 

[BrianWC]

Well don't keep us in the dark G-man, why do you disagree?

 

[G-MAN]

Quote:

---

Well don't keep us in the dark G-man, why do you disagree?

---

You can't be serious. What he wrote about the Seq VIB test and PAO is a bunch of baloney, IMO.

 

[427Z06]

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.

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.

---

Dude, save the Ecstasy for raves.

Here's one of the earliest SuperSyn formulas (circa 2002):

 

[Bryanccfshr]

So much misinformation, so little time. A PAO formulated oil is actually the oil to beat in the fuel economy sequence. That is the standard of economy that other oils are measured against.

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Well don't keep us in the dark G-man, why do you disagree?

---

You can't be serious. What he wrote about the Seq VIB test and PAO is a bunch of baloney, IMO.

---

I concur.

 

[BrianWC]

I was serious b/c I don't live and breathe oil to the extint many of you do. You didn't agree and I wanted to know why. So I could possibly learn something...a la the original mission of bitog.... Now I know! Thanks!

 

[deven]

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.

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.

---

ummm, correct me if i am wrong but GF4 oils have nothing to do with fuel economy but all about decreasing the ZDDP for prolonging the life of a catalytic converter.

 

[Bryanccfshr]

Consider this as a friendly correction.
The ILSAC designation GF-4 includes many performance tests and partamerters including Phosporous content, fuel economy plus much more. Open this PDF http://www.ilma.org/resources/ilsac_finalstd011404.pdf
to begin your research.

 

[sky jumper]

over a year ago - when i first found this site and first learned about basestock classification - I smelled a rat with M1. the product marketer in me did not believe Mobil would sell a superior and more costly product at the same price (and hence lower profit margin) as the other brand name GIII synthetics. no company is that nice. so I posed a naive question/statement about M1/GIII to the BITOG community and was promptly set straight

of course i suspected regular M1 was GIII and the EP was still PAO. now we find out the more expensive stuff is mostly GIII. that's even more shady IMHO.

 

[goodvibes]

That was pre Katrina when oil companies got a pass on their formulations. I suspect this is when M1 got cheapened. No one noticed so why change back when it met spec. other than self respect and honest marketing.

 

[Bryanccfshr]

So seeing some of our responses you can see how many of us were misled.

 

[sky jumper]

Quote:

---

That was pre Katrina when oil companies got a pass on their formulations. I suspect this is when M1 got cheapened. No one noticed so why change back when it met spec. other than self respect and honest marketing.

---

but in the other thread Tom mentioned a sample from 12/04 showing only small amounts of PAO and more mineral - this way before katrina.

 

[sky jumper]

Quote:

---

So seeing some of our responses you can see how many of us were misled.

---

absolutely. as was I.

 

[tripleM]

Quote:

---

over a year ago - when i first found this site and first learned about basestock classification - I smelled a rat with M1. the product marketer in me did not believe Mobil would sell a superior and more costly product at the same price (and hence lower profit margin) as the other brand name GIII synthetics. no company is that nice. so I posed a naive question/statement about M1/GIII to the BITOG community and was promptly set straight

of course i suspected regular M1 was GIII and the EP was still PAO. now we find out the more expensive stuff is mostly GIII. that's even more shady IMHO.

---

Kudos & good call.

 

[yannis]

On second thought the 15W50 doesn't have to meet any fuel economy standard and it is group III....