Man, that makes it even more confusing to call it a PAO. I stand corrected.
Then again, how much PAO is it? Don't all oils contain at least a little PAO?
Then again, how much PAO is it? Don't all oils contain at least a little PAO?
SHC Synthese Technology (Mobil 1 New Life 0W40)
- Thread starter zoli
- Start date
- Status
I'm guessing the SHC is group III+ with PAO in it. Full synthetic would mean predominantly group IV/V. (I think)
Quote:
I'm guessing the SHC is group III+ with PAO in it.
I would guess that too or at least i hope that's the case for the price.
Quote:
Full synthetic would mean predominantly group IV/V. (I think)
If it was produced for the German market it would 100%, the law is very specific, no earth oil in a Full synthetic.
Originally Posted By: zoli
It seems to me my canister produced to the German market, that's why the label much correct with SHC - instead of qualification as 'Full Synthetic'. But this case what does 'Full Synthetic' mean, if not SHC/PAO oil?
Full synthetic in the German market would be GpIV/V Which could legally have SHC in the description. the issue isn't the acronym SHC, it is the "SHC Symthetic Technology tm" which is a trade marked label that may or may not have anything to do with SHC.
I sent a email to Mobil Germany asking if this is in fact a PAO based oil but i doubt if i get any sort of definitive answer.
Like they say in Germany no answer is answer enough, meaning if it is PAO they will affirm that fact pronto.
Even though SHC is the accepted acronym for PAO there is no law that says they cant use it to mean something else when used together with another word or words.
I saw this stuff on the shelf and had never seen it before so when i looking for a local alternative for Shell Valvata J Oil i got into a conversation about this very topic with a Mobil distributor.
I'm guessing the SHC is group III+ with PAO in it.
I would guess that too or at least i hope that's the case for the price.
Quote:
Full synthetic would mean predominantly group IV/V. (I think)
If it was produced for the German market it would 100%, the law is very specific, no earth oil in a Full synthetic.
Originally Posted By: zoli
It seems to me my canister produced to the German market, that's why the label much correct with SHC - instead of qualification as 'Full Synthetic'. But this case what does 'Full Synthetic' mean, if not SHC/PAO oil?
Full synthetic in the German market would be GpIV/V Which could legally have SHC in the description. the issue isn't the acronym SHC, it is the "SHC Symthetic Technology tm" which is a trade marked label that may or may not have anything to do with SHC.
I sent a email to Mobil Germany asking if this is in fact a PAO based oil but i doubt if i get any sort of definitive answer.
Like they say in Germany no answer is answer enough, meaning if it is PAO they will affirm that fact pronto.
Even though SHC is the accepted acronym for PAO there is no law that says they cant use it to mean something else when used together with another word or words.
I saw this stuff on the shelf and had never seen it before so when i looking for a local alternative for Shell Valvata J Oil i got into a conversation about this very topic with a Mobil distributor.
Found a correct short explanation of SHC (Mobiloil.de):
'Mobil 1 High Performance Lubricants
Mobil SHC synthetic Technology ™
The Mobil SHC synthetic Technology ™ is a high performance base oil technology combined with latest additive technology. Designed to protect your engine - for a long engine life under extreme conditions.'
Now absolute chaos in our heads is guaranteed!
'Mobil 1 High Performance Lubricants
Mobil SHC synthetic Technology ™
The Mobil SHC synthetic Technology ™ is a high performance base oil technology combined with latest additive technology. Designed to protect your engine - for a long engine life under extreme conditions.'
Now absolute chaos in our heads is guaranteed!
Quote:
is a high performance base oil technology combined with latest additive technology
What high performance base oil is the question.
is a high performance base oil technology combined with latest additive technology
What high performance base oil is the question.
Originally Posted By: zoli
Found a correct short explanation of SHC (Mobiloil.de):
'Mobil 1 High Performance Lubricants
Mobil SHC synthetic Technology ™
The Mobil SHC synthetic Technology ™ is a high performance base oil technology combined with latest additive technology. Designed to protect your engine - for a long engine life under extreme conditions.'
Marketing/lawyer gibberish designed to obfuscate facts rather than provide a useful explanation.
Found a correct short explanation of SHC (Mobiloil.de):
'Mobil 1 High Performance Lubricants
Mobil SHC synthetic Technology ™
The Mobil SHC synthetic Technology ™ is a high performance base oil technology combined with latest additive technology. Designed to protect your engine - for a long engine life under extreme conditions.'
Marketing/lawyer gibberish designed to obfuscate facts rather than provide a useful explanation.
Originally Posted By: ivancro
SHC - Synthetic hydrocarbons
FYI, Mobil tech support has confirmed this.
SHC - Synthetic hydrocarbons
FYI, Mobil tech support has confirmed this.
Yep i looked there also, i think the only site that they are held to truth in advertising is the .de site.
Mobil themselves caused their own grief when the sued BP in Germany many years ago for claiming hydro cracked was full synthetic.
They won and are now twisting in the wind trying to word smith their way around it. They got what they ordered.
Look at the Liqui Moly German site, the ol is full synthetic, synthetic technology etc.
http://www.liqui-moly.de/liquimoly/produ...voiladb=web.nsf
Mobil themselves caused their own grief when the sued BP in Germany many years ago for claiming hydro cracked was full synthetic.
They won and are now twisting in the wind trying to word smith their way around it. They got what they ordered.
Look at the Liqui Moly German site, the ol is full synthetic, synthetic technology etc.
http://www.liqui-moly.de/liquimoly/produ...voiladb=web.nsf
Originally Posted By: Trav
Yep i looked there also, i think the only site that they are held to truth in advertising is the .de site.
Yup. I remember when that secret VISOM presentation leaked out, there was a slide in there mentioning that the DE market regulatory constraints will need to be addressed somehow when this new formulation appears. Looks like they've addressed it by creating some tricky mambo-jumbo nomenclature, but they were still forced to show "synthetic technology" on the label.
Yep i looked there also, i think the only site that they are held to truth in advertising is the .de site.
Yup. I remember when that secret VISOM presentation leaked out, there was a slide in there mentioning that the DE market regulatory constraints will need to be addressed somehow when this new formulation appears. Looks like they've addressed it by creating some tricky mambo-jumbo nomenclature, but they were still forced to show "synthetic technology" on the label.
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: Trav
Yep i looked there also, i think the only site that they are held to truth in advertising is the .de site.
Yup. I remember when that secret VISOM presentation leaked out, there was a slide in there mentioning that the DE market regulatory constraints will need to be addressed somehow when this new formulation appears. Looks like they've addressed it by creating some tricky mambo-jumbo nomenclature, but they were still forced to show "synthetic technology" on the label.
+1 Looks like an example of a well seasoned legal team at work. At the end of the day it's all about marketing and selling product. JMO
Originally Posted By: Trav
Yep i looked there also, i think the only site that they are held to truth in advertising is the .de site.
Yup. I remember when that secret VISOM presentation leaked out, there was a slide in there mentioning that the DE market regulatory constraints will need to be addressed somehow when this new formulation appears. Looks like they've addressed it by creating some tricky mambo-jumbo nomenclature, but they were still forced to show "synthetic technology" on the label.
+1 Looks like an example of a well seasoned legal team at work. At the end of the day it's all about marketing and selling product. JMO
Originally Posted By: Trav
Mobil themselves caused their own grief when the sued BP in Germany many years ago for claiming hydro cracked was full synthetic.
It wasn't a lawsuit, and the results are history and we can't do a darned thing about it. This argument has been beaten to death ages ago, and in the end, it doesn't matter. No oil company, from Amsoil to SOPUS, provides an "open source" type recipe to its oil. Even almighty German-labelled synthetic oil likely has at least some Group III (or lower) component as a carrier oil.
If you want pure Group IV oil, Imperial Oil will sell you as much as you want, heck, even more than you can afford. If you're interested in a Group IV or V oil, it's pretty easy to check the pour point on a PDS. If it's very low, odds are its a Group IV. If it's hardly lower than conventional, it's probably a Group III/III+. I suppose that's the only real use for the pour point value - it creates a rough rule of thumb for finding out if there's more than a splash of Group IV.
Incidentally, Liqui Moly Top Tec 4600 5w-30 has a rather unimpressive pour point of -36 C, whereas Mobil 1 0w-40 has a pour point of -54 C. Even Mobil 1 5w-30 has a much better figure than the Liqui Moly.
With respect to Germany, it would appear that German labeling rules have been long superseded by the market. MB, BMW, Porsche, VW/Audi, and many others all have proprietary specifications. One looks for MB 229.5 or whatever, and that's it. It may be PAO or something else. As long as it meets specifications, it's good enough. I'd rather used a specified Group III+ than an out of spec Group IV any day of the week. Castrol 5w-40, if I recall correctly, is not Group IV and still meets specifications. I suspect that a lot of dexos1 and dexos2 (more important in Europe) oils will also be Group III/III+. Even Liqui Moly's website is more interested in making it easy for users to find which specs are met by which varieties.
As for Liqui Moly, they label their product according to German regulations. Good on them. As others have pointed out time and time again, the average North American consumer thinks Mobil 1 when they think synthetic oil. They don't think PU, PP, RP, or Redline, and I'm sure Liqui Moly is at the bottom of the average consumer's product recognition list. The names Liqui Moly, Eneos, and the like mean far more to the boy-racer crowd than they do to the mainstream public or fleet users. No offence to the serious users of such products, but the only people I've ever seen that use these more boutique type brands are those whose daddies bought them an A4 or a 370Z or are driving some blister of an Audi 90 and think it's more important to run a fancy German oil than it is to actually have more than a gallon of as in the tank.
It's tempting to think that one should have Group IV to justify the high prices of synthetic. One should real ly be looking to performance. Primarily, does it meet the specifications you require? Will it do the job you're asking of it? My car has 3750 mile OCIs under warranty. I'm not going to use Mobil 1, regardless of Group III/IV content, and regardless of the current sale at Canadian Tire, for such short OCIs. And I'm certainly not going to use Liqui Moly in it, particularly since it'll probably cost $15 per litre here in Canada, if I can find it.
I don't think there are a lot of complaints about PP's performance in the applications for which it was designed, regardless of group content. I wish companies would be more transparent about group content. I'd rather they updated their PDS files more regularly and more accurately, first. If we're worried about labelling, I'm more worried about claims to "meet or exceed" a specification rather than actually being a specified lubricant.
Mobil themselves caused their own grief when the sued BP in Germany many years ago for claiming hydro cracked was full synthetic.
It wasn't a lawsuit, and the results are history and we can't do a darned thing about it. This argument has been beaten to death ages ago, and in the end, it doesn't matter. No oil company, from Amsoil to SOPUS, provides an "open source" type recipe to its oil. Even almighty German-labelled synthetic oil likely has at least some Group III (or lower) component as a carrier oil.
If you want pure Group IV oil, Imperial Oil will sell you as much as you want, heck, even more than you can afford. If you're interested in a Group IV or V oil, it's pretty easy to check the pour point on a PDS. If it's very low, odds are its a Group IV. If it's hardly lower than conventional, it's probably a Group III/III+. I suppose that's the only real use for the pour point value - it creates a rough rule of thumb for finding out if there's more than a splash of Group IV.
Incidentally, Liqui Moly Top Tec 4600 5w-30 has a rather unimpressive pour point of -36 C, whereas Mobil 1 0w-40 has a pour point of -54 C. Even Mobil 1 5w-30 has a much better figure than the Liqui Moly.
With respect to Germany, it would appear that German labeling rules have been long superseded by the market. MB, BMW, Porsche, VW/Audi, and many others all have proprietary specifications. One looks for MB 229.5 or whatever, and that's it. It may be PAO or something else. As long as it meets specifications, it's good enough. I'd rather used a specified Group III+ than an out of spec Group IV any day of the week. Castrol 5w-40, if I recall correctly, is not Group IV and still meets specifications. I suspect that a lot of dexos1 and dexos2 (more important in Europe) oils will also be Group III/III+. Even Liqui Moly's website is more interested in making it easy for users to find which specs are met by which varieties.
As for Liqui Moly, they label their product according to German regulations. Good on them. As others have pointed out time and time again, the average North American consumer thinks Mobil 1 when they think synthetic oil. They don't think PU, PP, RP, or Redline, and I'm sure Liqui Moly is at the bottom of the average consumer's product recognition list. The names Liqui Moly, Eneos, and the like mean far more to the boy-racer crowd than they do to the mainstream public or fleet users. No offence to the serious users of such products, but the only people I've ever seen that use these more boutique type brands are those whose daddies bought them an A4 or a 370Z or are driving some blister of an Audi 90 and think it's more important to run a fancy German oil than it is to actually have more than a gallon of as in the tank.
It's tempting to think that one should have Group IV to justify the high prices of synthetic. One should real ly be looking to performance. Primarily, does it meet the specifications you require? Will it do the job you're asking of it? My car has 3750 mile OCIs under warranty. I'm not going to use Mobil 1, regardless of Group III/IV content, and regardless of the current sale at Canadian Tire, for such short OCIs. And I'm certainly not going to use Liqui Moly in it, particularly since it'll probably cost $15 per litre here in Canada, if I can find it.
I don't think there are a lot of complaints about PP's performance in the applications for which it was designed, regardless of group content. I wish companies would be more transparent about group content. I'd rather they updated their PDS files more regularly and more accurately, first. If we're worried about labelling, I'm more worried about claims to "meet or exceed" a specification rather than actually being a specified lubricant.
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: Trav
Mobil themselves caused their own grief when the sued BP in Germany many years ago for claiming hydro cracked was full synthetic.
It wasn't a lawsuit, and the results are history and we can't do a darned thing about it. This argument has been beaten to death ages ago, and in the end, it doesn't matter. No oil company, from Amsoil to SOPUS, provides an "open source" type recipe to its oil. Even almighty German-labelled synthetic oil likely has at least some Group III (or lower) component as a carrier oil.
If you want pure Group IV oil, Imperial Oil will sell you as much as you want, heck, even more than you can afford. If you're interested in a Group IV or V oil, it's pretty easy to check the pour point on a PDS. If it's very low, odds are its a Group IV. If it's hardly lower than conventional, it's probably a Group III/III+. I suppose that's the only real use for the pour point value - it creates a rough rule of thumb for finding out if there's more than a splash of Group IV.
Incidentally, Liqui Moly Top Tec 4600 5w-30 has a rather unimpressive pour point of -36 C, whereas Mobil 1 0w-40 has a pour point of -54 C. Even Mobil 1 5w-30 has a much better figure than the Liqui Moly.
With respect to Germany, it would appear that German labeling rules have been long superseded by the market. MB, BMW, Porsche, VW/Audi, and many others all have proprietary specifications. One looks for MB 229.5 or whatever, and that's it. It may be PAO or something else. As long as it meets specifications, it's good enough. I'd rather used a specified Group III+ than an out of spec Group IV any day of the week. Castrol 5w-40, if I recall correctly, is not Group IV and still meets specifications. I suspect that a lot of dexos1 and dexos2 (more important in Europe) oils will also be Group III/III+. Even Liqui Moly's website is more interested in making it easy for users to find which specs are met by which varieties.
As for Liqui Moly, they label their product according to German regulations. Good on them. As others have pointed out time and time again, the average North American consumer thinks Mobil 1 when they think synthetic oil. They don't think PU, PP, RP, or Redline, and I'm sure Liqui Moly is at the bottom of the average consumer's product recognition list. The names Liqui Moly, Eneos, and the like mean far more to the boy-racer crowd than they do to the mainstream public or fleet users. No offence to the serious users of such products, but the only people I've ever seen that use these more boutique type brands are those whose daddies bought them an A4 or a 370Z or are driving some blister of an Audi 90 and think it's more important to run a fancy German oil than it is to actually have more than a gallon of as in the tank.
It's tempting to think that one should have Group IV to justify the high prices of synthetic. One should real ly be looking to performance. Primarily, does it meet the specifications you require? Will it do the job you're asking of it? My car has 3750 mile OCIs under warranty. I'm not going to use Mobil 1, regardless of Group III/IV content, and regardless of the current sale at Canadian Tire, for such short OCIs. And I'm certainly not going to use Liqui Moly in it, particularly since it'll probably cost $15 per litre here in Canada, if I can find it.
I don't think there are a lot of complaints about PP's performance in the applications for which it was designed, regardless of group content. I wish companies would be more transparent about group content. I'd rather they updated their PDS files more regularly and more accurately, first. If we're worried about labelling, I'm more worried about claims to "meet or exceed" a specification rather than actually being a specified lubricant.
Well put.
Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: Trav
Mobil themselves caused their own grief when the sued BP in Germany many years ago for claiming hydro cracked was full synthetic.
It wasn't a lawsuit, and the results are history and we can't do a darned thing about it. This argument has been beaten to death ages ago, and in the end, it doesn't matter. No oil company, from Amsoil to SOPUS, provides an "open source" type recipe to its oil. Even almighty German-labelled synthetic oil likely has at least some Group III (or lower) component as a carrier oil.
If you want pure Group IV oil, Imperial Oil will sell you as much as you want, heck, even more than you can afford. If you're interested in a Group IV or V oil, it's pretty easy to check the pour point on a PDS. If it's very low, odds are its a Group IV. If it's hardly lower than conventional, it's probably a Group III/III+. I suppose that's the only real use for the pour point value - it creates a rough rule of thumb for finding out if there's more than a splash of Group IV.
Incidentally, Liqui Moly Top Tec 4600 5w-30 has a rather unimpressive pour point of -36 C, whereas Mobil 1 0w-40 has a pour point of -54 C. Even Mobil 1 5w-30 has a much better figure than the Liqui Moly.
With respect to Germany, it would appear that German labeling rules have been long superseded by the market. MB, BMW, Porsche, VW/Audi, and many others all have proprietary specifications. One looks for MB 229.5 or whatever, and that's it. It may be PAO or something else. As long as it meets specifications, it's good enough. I'd rather used a specified Group III+ than an out of spec Group IV any day of the week. Castrol 5w-40, if I recall correctly, is not Group IV and still meets specifications. I suspect that a lot of dexos1 and dexos2 (more important in Europe) oils will also be Group III/III+. Even Liqui Moly's website is more interested in making it easy for users to find which specs are met by which varieties.
As for Liqui Moly, they label their product according to German regulations. Good on them. As others have pointed out time and time again, the average North American consumer thinks Mobil 1 when they think synthetic oil. They don't think PU, PP, RP, or Redline, and I'm sure Liqui Moly is at the bottom of the average consumer's product recognition list. The names Liqui Moly, Eneos, and the like mean far more to the boy-racer crowd than they do to the mainstream public or fleet users. No offence to the serious users of such products, but the only people I've ever seen that use these more boutique type brands are those whose daddies bought them an A4 or a 370Z or are driving some blister of an Audi 90 and think it's more important to run a fancy German oil than it is to actually have more than a gallon of as in the tank.
It's tempting to think that one should have Group IV to justify the high prices of synthetic. One should real ly be looking to performance. Primarily, does it meet the specifications you require? Will it do the job you're asking of it? My car has 3750 mile OCIs under warranty. I'm not going to use Mobil 1, regardless of Group III/IV content, and regardless of the current sale at Canadian Tire, for such short OCIs. And I'm certainly not going to use Liqui Moly in it, particularly since it'll probably cost $15 per litre here in Canada, if I can find it.
I don't think there are a lot of complaints about PP's performance in the applications for which it was designed, regardless of group content. I wish companies would be more transparent about group content. I'd rather they updated their PDS files more regularly and more accurately, first. If we're worried about labelling, I'm more worried about claims to "meet or exceed" a specification rather than actually being a specified lubricant.
Well put.
Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Well put.
+2. Spot on!
Well put.
+2. Spot on!
Thx for all, again! Excellent comments!
Some remarks regarding correct info: I try choose the best oil into my car based on the car manufacturer oil spec and based on the oil data sheet.
How can I rely on composition of the oils (e.g. supersyn additives in Mobil 1)? Should I buy similar quality oil for reasonable price without extra additives? Or better additive pack oil - based on only advertisement? That's why this forum is excellent: lot of VOA and UOA are uploaded.
A good test from Australia - I hope it's reliable:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&p...2YjI5&hl=en
Some remarks regarding correct info: I try choose the best oil into my car based on the car manufacturer oil spec and based on the oil data sheet.
How can I rely on composition of the oils (e.g. supersyn additives in Mobil 1)? Should I buy similar quality oil for reasonable price without extra additives? Or better additive pack oil - based on only advertisement? That's why this forum is excellent: lot of VOA and UOA are uploaded.
A good test from Australia - I hope it's reliable:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&p...2YjI5&hl=en
Originally Posted By: zoli
A good test from Australia - I hope it's reliable:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&p...2YjI5&hl=en
It's not a good test, and was retracted by the magazine. I doubt that ExxonMobil, SOPUS, and BP test their oils with a "slot machine" and bearings in their labs. Neither should magazines.
A good test from Australia - I hope it's reliable:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&p...2YjI5&hl=en
It's not a good test, and was retracted by the magazine. I doubt that ExxonMobil, SOPUS, and BP test their oils with a "slot machine" and bearings in their labs. Neither should magazines.
OK, Sirs! I was looking for oils were in use my car (335,000 km); Mobil 1 5W50 has to be a good choice for summer time by BMW garage (the former owner of my SAAB has a brother and he has this workshop; this was the only oil in the car in the last 10 years). Mobil 1 0W40 should be also a good choice for winter.
Originally Posted By: zoli
Mobil 1 0W40 should be also a good choice for winter.
I looked at your spreadsheet - impressive! I would think Mobil 1 0w-40 would be a great year round choice, not just for winter, assuming it meets the specifications you require.
Also, with reference to your spreadsheet, Total Quart Energy 9000 5w-40 is priced most attractively. I'm assuming it meets the specifications you require. I also note you had some consumption with it, though, albeit less than with the more expensive M1 0w-40.
Personally, I don't think you're going to have huge problems running a 5w-40 or a 0w-40 year round, assuming they meet your manual's recommendations. For my 250,000 km Audi, 5w-40 or 0w-40 would be great year round grades, but I didn't use them often. I was sticking with conventional for the most part, since the manual doesn't call for any of the ACEA or Audi/VW oil specs.
Mobil 1 0W40 should be also a good choice for winter.
I looked at your spreadsheet - impressive! I would think Mobil 1 0w-40 would be a great year round choice, not just for winter, assuming it meets the specifications you require.
Also, with reference to your spreadsheet, Total Quart Energy 9000 5w-40 is priced most attractively. I'm assuming it meets the specifications you require. I also note you had some consumption with it, though, albeit less than with the more expensive M1 0w-40.
Personally, I don't think you're going to have huge problems running a 5w-40 or a 0w-40 year round, assuming they meet your manual's recommendations. For my 250,000 km Audi, 5w-40 or 0w-40 would be great year round grades, but I didn't use them often. I was sticking with conventional for the most part, since the manual doesn't call for any of the ACEA or Audi/VW oil specs.
- Status
Similar threads
