Why has Mobil changed formulations so many times?

Messages
8,467
Location
Colorado
Why has Mobil, or I guess I should say Exxon/Mobil, changed their SL formulations for Mobil 1 four times since the SL oils have come out? Were they waiting for results from auto racing before coming out with the Super Syn? Or were they just having a lot of problems with the additive package?
 
Messages
453
Location
Galveston, TX
quote:
Originally posted by TexasTDI: Probably to please the all mighty API and make sure their oils get the API's oh-so-important, and highly over-rated, "seal of approval". [Roll Eyes]
I beg to differ. If pleasing API was so important, all other oils too would do the "revolving door" quick-change-trick with their products, too. All the changes are necessary because M*1 ***** and the people who make it know it *****. [ July 15, 2003, 08:49 PM: Message edited by: rugerman1 ]
 
Messages
1,381
Location
Southeast Kentucky
I imagine its called staying on top of the game. In any business you either keep improving your product or someone will eat your lunch while you stand still.
 
Messages
8,756
Location
RI
We need api/ilsac/sae/acea......because no oil company has the balls to list their ingredients/additives.... Something so simple as a % or PPM of whats in the oil(on the bottle) would help the consumer more.
 
Messages
392
Location
Toronto, Canada
Can someone tell me how is the AVERAGE buyer of any Mobil 1 going to know that brand X is better than the last formulation of M1 he/she just bought? In other words how can the average consumer who buys M1 know the difference. Don't say UOA because the % of users doing that is insignificant. So it really begs the question - WHY?
 
Messages
47,644
Location
Duvall WA - Pacific NW USA
The quest for improvement is a GREAT thing! Look at MS Windows....still trying [Smile] Seriously - I'm not cynical - I think oil companies shouldn't be so shackled to some "initial" recipe. I think what makes folks cynical...is well a) experimenting at their expense and likewise b) if the formula was so great the first time, why 4 improvements in 2 years (or whatever)
 
Messages
23,591
quote:
Flimflam wrote: All the changes are necessary because M*1 ***** and the people who make it know it *****.
Hmm? What the **** did you say? [Razz] The repeated change of the formula could also be interpreted as as a reflection of steady improvement of the product.
 

MolaKule

Staff member
Messages
21,600
Location
Iowegia - USA
quote:
Why has Mobil, or I guess I should say Exxon/Mobil, changed their SL formulations for Mobil 1 four times since the SL oils have come out? Were they waiting for results from auto racing before coming out with the Super Syn? Or were they just having a lot of problems with the additive package?
My experience is that it's the new additive technologies that are driving the changes. I see Lubrizol, Vanderbilt, and others always introducing new adds and add packages. New calciums, borates, organometallic AW/EP adds, etc, are always enhancing the oils. Most of the new adds are now coming out in ester bases which mean they can be applied to all groups of oils, making one set of add packages apply to all base groups. As for what is in the oils, BITOG's VOA's and UOA's is the best place to keep abreast of these changes.
 
Messages
43,652
Location
'Stralia
quote:
Originally posted by MolaKule: [QUOTE] Most of the new adds are now coming out in ester bases which mean they can be applied to all groups of oils, making one set of add packages apply to all base groups.
Does that mean that Castrol's oils will all now become "synthetic blends" ? Seriously, if you can diss a synth oil because of the mineral carrier, then an oil with a synthetic carrier is a synth blend........isn't it ???? [Confused] [Smile]
 

Al

Messages
19,167
Location
Elizabethtown, Pa
quote:
Originally posted by cangreylegend: Can someone tell me how is the AVERAGE buyer of any Mobil 1 going to know that brand X is better than the last formulation of M1 he/she just bought? In other words how can the average consumer who buys M1 know the difference. Don't say UOA because the % of users doing that is insignificant. So it really begs the question - WHY?
The average buyer of M1 doesn't doesn't care that it has changed. He assumes that it is a good product and any change is an improvement of the existing product. For the rest of us skeptics-UOAs [Smile]
 
Messages
3,845
XOM needs to keep their flagship motor oil at the top of the heap in the consumers minds and is doing whatever they can with ;1) COSTS ( new technologies) 2) new API GF4 specs ( rained out yesterday in Houston ) both looming on the short term Horizon. All formulas are being reformed or have been reformed already. Some of what we are seeing here in VOA variations is experimentation and using up stocks of adds that will be useless or ineffective at current treat levels in GF4. A decision on the new PCMO should be out whenever the API can get back together.
 
Messages
180
Location
Harrisonburg VA
UOAs are certainly a good guideline, but they cannot give all the answers in matters of formulation changes. For example, the elemental analyses will give ppm amounts of the different elements such as Zinc (Zn), Barium (Ba), Calcium (Ca), etc. which may be identical, but they do not tell you what the "organo" portion of the organometallic ingredient was. If a company decides to make a change in the additive package for reasons of cost, supplier source, etc., any change can impact how the resultant additive package functions. In theory, any change in additive ingredients should necessiate full engine retesting unless the company can assure itself that such changes would not impact the overall performance. In practice with all pushing to have higher profit margins, the retesting may fall by the wayside. That is some or part of the rationale for why API has their certification and an approved formuale/recipe once certified.
 
Messages
5,069
Location
Saratoga, NY
What bugs me is the wide range of variation in the formulas. I can see trying 50PPM of moly versus 80PPM (or 100PPM, 125PPM, etc ...) and possibly adding in some borate esters BUT dramatically changing your horse in midstream (4 times in 2 years) suggests these folks aren't sure what they're doing. Now, I know that sounds harsh and I know that Mobil employees hundreds, possibly thousands of good chemists but the seeming lack of "coherent direction" gives me a less than warm-'n-fuzzy feeling that's hard to shake off. It's like a corporation which changes its CEO ... or its strategic business plan 4 times in two years. Not good. How about those early batches of Mobil 1 Supersyn which came out with no moly? [Freak] Was that a different formulation or simply a colossal boo boo? [Confused] In either case, I wouldn't want that stuff in my car. [SPAZ!] --- Bror Jace
 
Top