Update: Mobil 1 Group III

[ekpolk]

Mickey:

Respectfully, I'm not persuaded.

First, I AM buying chemicals, additives, [and] basestocks -- together in a bottle labeled "motor oil". There's no reason I should not get the same level of precision in responses to my questions as other EM customers.

Second, I do happen to be an attorney, and I don't see EM having any implied wty problems in this scenario. Moroever, I have not asked for a detailed recitation of the formula, just one aspect of it (G-III or not). The concerns you raise are easily addressed by the bottle disclaimers which are already commonly seen.

EM can offer to sell whatever it wishes. I'm NOT looking for a fixed batch of ingredients, I'm looking for a little candor and clarity. Until I get some from EM, I'll be looking elsewhere and to others who are more motivated to earn my business.

And finally, this entire flap can be ended in an instant with a simple clarification from EM. I don't know either why they won't, but I've got a pretty strong suspicion. . .

 

[G-MAN]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Why is it that Mobil steadfastly refuses to clarify the presence or absence of Group-III in Mobil 1?

---

I do not know why.

In general ExxonMobil does not disclose the makeup of any of its finished products in the retail markets.

---

This is just patently false. For decades--and even now--Mobil states plainly that they "utilize PAO" or words to that effect. If they can reveal that, the could surely state that they "utilize Group III" or that they don't. It's that simple.

The issue has never been whether or not Mobil 1 still contains PAO. Clearly it does. The issue is does it also contain Group III. And if Mobil can say that Mobil 1 contains PAO, they should be equally candid about Group III and say whether or not it contains any. To me, their silence on the matter speaks volumes.

 

[ekpolk]

Quote:

---

This is just patently false. For decades--and even now--Mobil states plainly that they "utilize PAO" or words to that effect. If they can reveal that, the could surely state that they "utilize Group III" or that they don't. It's that simple.

The issue has never been whether or not Mobil 1 still contains PAO. Clearly it does. The issue is does it also contain Group III. And if Mobil can say that Mobil 1 contains PAO, they should be equally candid about Group III and say whether or not it contains any. To me, their silence on the matter speaks volumes.

---

G-Man: Well put!

 

[Triple_Se7en]

Quote:

---

If ture, why don't they just make it clear "PAO based" in stead of the infamous "full synthetic" in any written public materials such as on their website? Your allegations still fail to make your point trustworthy.

---

XOM's definition of full synthetic is PAO.

======================================================

Quote:

---

Why is it that Mobil steadfastly refuses to clarify the presence or absence of Group-III in Mobil 1?

---

Every email that has come back from XOM has stated PAO-only for typical passenger vehicle weights/viscosities.

Where have you read otherwise?... other than 15W-50 in non-passenger vehicle use... which may need a minority dose of groupIII for best performance/protection.

 

[G-MAN]

Quote:

---

Every email that has come back from XOM has stated PAO-only for typical passenger vehicle weights/viscosities.

---

Not true. Every e-mail that has been posted on here has had the equivocal "utilizing PAO." That's a far cry from "PAO only." I could add some PAO to my Aunt Jemima pancake syrup and be "utilizing PAO."

 

[ekpolk]

Quote:

---

(...snip...)

Quote:

---

Why is it that Mobil steadfastly refuses to clarify the presence or absence of Group-III in Mobil 1?

---

Every email that has come back from XOM has stated PAO-only for typical passenger vehicle weights/viscosities.

Where have you read otherwise?... other than 15W-50 in non-passenger vehicle use... which may need a minority dose of groupIII for best performance/protection.

---

I've received several email responses from EM myself, and none of them say anything like "PAO only". Not even close. Just empty wiggle words instead. For example:

Quote:

---

Thank you for your inquiry,

Mobil 1 motor oils are still 100% synthetic, utilizing the PAO
technology and a proprietary blend of additives which are tailored
specifically for each viscosity.

Consumers should stop focusing on the baseoil of a product, that is
only part of a formulation. You should look and focus on the end result,
Mobil 1 motor oils plain and simple provide the best overall protection
and performance for your engine in the real world.

That's important!!

---

and

Quote:

---

Thank you for your inquiry,

The information given regarding the Mobil 1 formulation is all that
is available to the general public. Mobil 1 does not release specifics
regarding Mobil 1 motor oil formulations. Our competition would love to
get a hold of this information.

-Matt Jacob
1-800-ASK-MOBIL

---

and

Quote:

---

Thank you for your inquiry,
>
> Mobil 1 motor oils are still 100% synthetic, utilizing the PAO
>technology and a proprietary blend of additives which are tailored
>specifically for each viscosity.

---

Nothing in any of this about "PAO only" or that their definition of "synthetic" is PAO, or 100% PAO.

All their statements leave miles of room for the inclusion of G-III oils.

 

[Mickey_M]

Quote:

---

.... EM can offer to sell whatever it wishes. ....

---

And you can refuse to buy it.

End of discussion.

IMHO all that counts is the result, and the used oil analysis indicate that Mobil 1 products are generally competitive with other companies products in the same price range and market.




.

 

[XS650]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

.... EM can offer to sell whatever it wishes. ....

---

And you can refuse to buy it.

End of discussion.

---

The discussion is only over in your mind, feel free to drop out of it if it disturbs you.

There haven't been enough used oil analysis on Mobil's latest formulation to draw a conclusion.

This discussion is more about Mobil being misleading than the quality of their products.

 

[Bill in Utah]

Quote:

---

the used oil analysis indicate that Mobil 1 products are generally competitive with other companies products in the same price range and market.

---

Hmmm...

In my 2 engines with the same operating conditions and same OCI, Mobil 1 did worst in my used oil analysis than Pennzoil Conventional and Chevron Conventional oils....

And they were ALOT cheaper than Mobil 1...

And those used oil analysis were with normal Mobil 1 before the question of group III and such...

Thats why I don't use Mobil 1.

Not worth the $$$.

Take care, bill

 

[tripleM]

Price range from +- $3 I would guess.

 

[ekpolk]

Quote:

---

(...snip...)End of discussion.

IMHO all that counts is the result, and the used oil analysis indicate that Mobil 1 products are generally competitive with other companies products in the same price range and market.
.

---

I'm sure EM would desperately love to see this discussion end. But they're not going to. They don't deserve to. There's a question out here that's unresolved. And I'm not going away until it is.

Contents/formulation and performance are two separate issues. Sure, M1 products have performed well, and I have no disagreement with that. But I'm not going to give EM a free pass on this because of their reputation/performance, especially when they earned the rep with what very well may be a different product than what they're selling today.

 

[LouDawg]

Let's say M1 is indeed now using GIII, and they are telling us to focus on the performance not the ingredients. If that's true, to me it's kind of like paying for a filet-mignon and getting a round steak, because it doesn't matter how it tastes, only that they're both steaks. Hey, if I'd wanted a round steak, I'd have ordered one, and its "performance" (to fill me up) is probably about the same.

But don't charge me for a filet then bring me round steak, especially after you've bragged on your filet for 30+ years.

Am I wrong here?

 

[ekpolk]

No Lou, you're most definitely not wrong.

 

[G-MAN]

Quote:

---

Let's say M1 is indeed now using GIII, and they are telling us to focus on the performance not the ingredients. If that's true, to me it's kind of like paying for a filet-mignon and getting a round steak, because it doesn't matter how it tastes, only that they're both steaks. Hey, if I'd wanted a round steak, I'd have ordered one, and its "performance" (to fill me up) is probably about the same.

But don't charge me for a filet then bring me round steak, especially after you've bragged on your filet for 30+ years.

Am I wrong here?

---

I think XOM's response would be: "If our round steak tastes just like filet, and looks just like filet, what is your problem?"

 

[tripleM]

Not to mention that they raked Castrol over the coal for exactly what they are doing now.

Can't beat em, join 'em (but lets keep the appearance that we are still Mobil 1 = all synth, all the time).

 

[Bryanccfshr]

This issue can easily be resolved, but I guesse XOM wants to drag this out and basicly give us a "no comment".

That's fine I am not dropping it myself. Many of us are on other auto enthusiast websites as well as BITOG. The question of Mobil 1 honesty is spreading. They have enjoyed a reputation as the only "Pure" OTC synthetic oil for some time. Now we find that that reputation is in question do to their own actions and the language used with customers asking about the product.
If indeed this is true what makes Mobil 1 formulations worth the price premium over the SOPUS, valvoline or castrol brands? That is why I suspect we are getting stonewalled.

 

[goodvibes]

It's not like the other oil companies can call M1 about content either. Better for everyone to think that synthetic is synthetic when your using grp III yourself.

 

[buster]

Things will only change if Mobil starts to see a decline in M1 sales. I think they are underestimating the power of the internet. Look at Amsoil and their marketing tactics? It works....we've already seen how quickly it has spread to other auto forums. The only thing working in Mobil's favor lately is the fact that they continue to gain factory fill contracts with automakers. As we saw with the recent Acura HT-06 spec, Mobil 1 is still one of the best syn lubes on the market.

 

[den_s]

Quote:

---

Things will only change if Mobil starts to see a decline in M1 sales. I think they are underestimating the power of the internet.

---

I believe they sale just a few % from a total production volume through auto parts and other retail stores. Losing on store sales or even withdraw all oil from store shelves wouldn’t hurt em much.

 

[salesrep]

Here is my take. Castrol found that g3 performed close to the levels of pao and was "synthesized" therefore we can call it synthetic. AND it cost a lot less to produce. Mobil fought it cause that would bring so many other players into the synthetic market and perhaps was not a true synthetic, at that time.
Fast forward. Castrol gains market share, Pennzoil platnum enters the syn market, rotella g3 5-40, at a lot less cost, etc., etc. Over the last few years the g3 bases haven proven there mettle, delivering performance based results comparable to pao.

IF m1 is using less pao and more g3 it is because they have determined that there end product achieves the desired results at a lower cost in the highly competitive engine oil market. No fault here (imo) The rules say that g3 is synthetic and performs as such.
The BIG question is this.
Now are they misleading the public with there statements on synthetics or pao?

Imo they are not misleading if they are touting synthetics.