Reply from Mobil 1 concerning basestocks

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

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.

---

That date (12/04) is still after the GF-4 licensable date of July 2004, and the SM licensable date of November 30, 2004.

The EP line was announced Jan 25, 2005. Further, the EP formula is different today than it was just 6 months ago.

In short, unless BITOG members all have personal G.C. machines to test every formula change Mobil came out with the past couple of years, your suspicion was justifiably rejected without something more than a hunch to back it up.

 

[Dick in Falls Church]

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


Maybe Mobil as the volume leader set a price, and the other guys found ways to make theirs less expensively but could still price it the same. Far as I know, that is still legal in our system---

 

[sky jumper]

Quote:

---

In short, unless BITOG members all have personal G.C. machines to test every formula change Mobil came out with the past couple of years, your suspicion was justifiably rejected without something more than a hunch to back it up.

---

but a mere hunch [that M1 was GIV, GV] was what that rejection was based on! how does one hunch justify the rejection of another? as far as I can tell, Mobil never actually claimed M1 was all PAO.

my hunch was based on business instinct. the other was based on assumption.

I'm not sure i understand your point about licensing dates - are you saying that because formulations often change, we can be certain that pre-katrina M1 was not GIII.

 

[sky jumper]

Quote:

---

Maybe Mobil as the volume leader set a price, and the other guys found ways to make theirs less expensively but could still price it the same. Far as I know, that is still legal in our system---

---

hence my suggestion in that thread a year ago for Mobil to differentiate themselves in their advertising/marketing - set themselves apart (if, in fact, M1 was a PAO). then they could demand a higher price - otherwise why bother with PAO? and look where we are.

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

In short, unless BITOG members all have personal G.C. machines to test every formula change Mobil came out with the past couple of years, your suspicion was justifiably rejected without something more than a hunch to back it up.

---

but a mere hunch [that M1 was GIV, GV] was what that rejection was based on! how does one hunch justify the rejection of another? as far as I can tell, Mobil never actually claimed M1 was all PAO.

my hunch was based on business instinct. the other was based on assumption.

I'm not sure i understand your point about licensing dates - are you saying that because formulations often change, we can be certain that pre-katrina M1 was not GIII.

---

Given the specs I posted on the previous page, that earlier SL formulation indicates a mostly PAO formulation. The latter SL formulation specs weren't quite as good, so one could guess that some Group III might of been used, but still wasn't a majority of the formulation yet. As the GF-4/SM formulations started to arrive, we again saw the specs progressively change, and not for the better. This is the point I suspected something was up, and even mentioned it back then. But "informed" sources still proclaimed them as mostly PAOs, so without any credible evidence to refute this "insider" knowledge, I accepted their word as the truth.

Obviously, those claiming insider knowledge have since lost their credibility.

 

[JAG]

I've posted this great thread below before but it seemed to be overlooked but now I think people might give it the attention it deserves. Poster "john s" did some great work in this thread on testing several versions of M1 and found some interesting results. He also tested other synthetics as well. There are many pages to the thread so grab some popcorn.
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=313674&page=2

 

[GeorgeCLS]

I just got off the phone with an ISO 9000 lab regarding running a GC on a Mobil 1 sample. The PhD who I was referred to, who runs the GC analysis, indicated that he had been through this before, however, with a lubricant manufacturer's oil he was testing, *knowing* the oils makeup, yet got inconclusive GC results as a result of molecular weight overlap between the PAO component and the Group III component.. The company supplied several iterations of the engine oil and the GC still reported unreliable results regarding the PAO and Group III content.
Irrespective, I am going to submit some sample of Mobil 1 and see what we get.

 

[Pablo]

Way to go George. Thanks.

 

[sky jumper]

Quote:

---

Given the specs I posted on the previous page, that earlier SL formulation indicates a mostly PAO formulation. The latter SL formulation specs weren't quite as good, so one could guess that some Group III might of been used, but still wasn't a majority of the formulation yet. As the GF-4/SM formulations started to arrive, we again saw the specs progressively change, and not for the better. This is the point I suspected something was up, and even mentioned it back then. But "informed" sources still proclaimed them as mostly PAOs, so without any credible evidence to refute this "insider" knowledge, I accepted their word as the truth.

---

ok I see what you're saying. not definitive proof, but at least some evidence of more/majority PAO back then.

and yes I too accpeted their word as gospel.

to be clear - I'm not bashing Mobil 1 the product - It's certainly one of the best oils money can buy. I'm just mad I got duped into thinking (against my better judgement/instinct) that it was/is a pure GIV/V.

of course at the end of the day it doesn't really matter. even the most advanced PAO/ester is not much better than the cheapest SM dino on the market these days.

 

[Blue99]

Let's get serious & drop the talk about hunches, twitches & dreams induced by bad burritos.

It's simply an unprecedented move, for Mobil 1, the flagship brand of the XOM lubricant divison, to decrease the amount of PAO basestock, while the chemical division is selling the virtues of PAO basestocks for automotive lubricants.

No one with any lubricants industry knowlege hinted that this was on the radar screen.

 

[BrianWC]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Maybe Mobil as the volume leader set a price, and the other guys found ways to make theirs less expensively but could still price it the same. Far as I know, that is still legal in our system---

---

hence my suggestion in that thread a year ago for Mobil to differentiate themselves in their advertising/marketing - set themselves apart (if, in fact, M1 was a PAO). then they could demand a higher price - otherwise why bother with PAO? and look where we are.

---

He's got a point. Read this about how much went into bottle design

http://www.packagedesignmag.com/issues/2006.03/designers.corner.shtml

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

I've posted this great thread below before but it seemed to be overlooked but now I think people might give it the attention it deserves. Poster "john s" did some great work in this thread on testing several versions of M1 and found some interesting results. He also tested other synthetics as well. There are many pages to the thread so grab some popcorn.
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=313674&page=2

---

Dude! Don't do that to people. You'll have them reading 10 pages of Gobbledygook to arrive at the conclusion posted on the first entry on the first page.

I suggest those only mildly interested in the science, start here:

http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=313674&page=1

 

[B00SS]

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.

---

How about ex-Mobil1.

 

[Brian Barnhart]

Quote:

---

I just got off the phone with an ISO 9000 lab regarding running a GC on a Mobil 1 sample. The PhD who I was referred to, who runs the GC analysis, indicated that he had been through this before, however, with a lubricant manufacturer's oil he was testing, *knowing* the oils makeup, yet got inconclusive GC results as a result of molecular weight overlap between the PAO component and the Group III component.. The company supplied several iterations of the engine oil and the GC still reported unreliable results regarding the PAO and Group III content.
Irrespective, I am going to submit some sample of Mobil 1 and see what we get.

---

Was the "known" oil 100% PAO base w/ only GIII in the add pack, or did the base oil include both GIII and GIV?

 

[G-MAN]

Quote:

---

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.

---

How about ex-Mobil1.

---

How about Mobil 3?

 

[dbvettez06]

Wow

Well , i will continue to use Mobil 1 on my 750HP Corvette Z06, 2007 Mustang GT, and my lowly Intrepid...It has done a fine job in the past 10+ years, removal of valve covers always shows factory clean....

 

[ScottB]

Quote:

---

Wow

Well , i will continue to use Mobil 1 on my 750HP Corvette Z06, 2007 Mustang GT, and my lowly Intrepid...It has done a fine job in the past 10+ years, removal of valve covers always shows factory clean....

---

I'm with you.
I "get" that I'm being "ripped off" according to some here, but I guess I'm OK with that.
I don't throw money away, but for me, M1 has always worked, so if I pay "too much" then I do.

 

[outersquare]

Quote:

---

I just got off the phone with an ISO 9000 lab regarding running a GC on a Mobil 1 sample. The PhD who I was referred to, who runs the GC analysis, indicated that he had been through this before, however, with a lubricant manufacturer's oil he was testing, *knowing* the oils makeup, yet got inconclusive GC results as a result of molecular weight overlap between the PAO component and the Group III component.. The company supplied several iterations of the engine oil and the GC still reported unreliable results regarding the PAO and Group III content.
Irrespective, I am going to submit some sample of Mobil 1 and see what we get.

---

That's interesting, but shouldn't be surprising. Since supposedly either method/group is just a different process to arrive at the same material.

What exactly would one be looking for to differentiate the two types of oil? And are there different types of chromatography setups that would be more sensitive to the differences?

 

[jfang]

G-Man...ever done extensive Seq VIB testing or formulated engine oils? Apparently not. I have and I'm sorry but it is true. If you need some more in-depth reading on Seq VI and fuel economy, I point you towards SAE publications 982502 and 98503 to understand the dependence on the HTHS. As for the Seq VIB reference oil, it is a non-friction modified non-VI containing all PAO oil. So its the "bad" reference that you must be better than be able to claim the ILSAC GF-4 (or GF-3) standard.

 

[Al]

I am not caring if Mobil 1 is all PAO. I'm done with it. Their 800# and e-mails read like Communist Propaganda and double speak. They made efforts to clarify in the past that a "True Syn" contained a majority of PAO in the base..and now they won't confirm that any more??? Hello..