Why Less Love For Mobil 1 ?

Messages
14,854
Location
Illinois
Originally Posted By: Jooksing
Originally Posted By: Linctex
Originally Posted By: kschachn
I don't understand how it is "watered down".
Yes, it was a poor choice of words. However, Some people, when they pay for more..... expect more.
My understanding is that the new formula was easier (cheaper) to formulate. As for performance it would be assume less desirable but this is debated.
Once again you are wrong and continue to spread false info.
 
Messages
224
Location
Chicago
Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: Jooksing
Originally Posted By: Linctex
Originally Posted By: kschachn
I don't understand how it is "watered down".
Yes, it was a poor choice of words. However, Some people, when they pay for more..... expect more.
My understanding is that the new formula was easier (cheaper) to formulate. As for performance it would be assume less desirable but this is debated.
Once again you are wrong and continue to spread false info.
Sorry. I am still learning. Please correct me. -not being sarcastic My limited understanding is based on what I have read so far.
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Messages
46,511
Location
Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted By: Jooksing
Sorry. I am still learning. Please correct me. -not being sarcastic My limited understanding is based on what I have read so far.
It varies WILDLY grade-to-grade. I wouldn't say you are "wrong", as in one sense, you are correct that some of the oils Mobil presently produces, using less expensive bases, are indeed cheaper to formulate. On the other hand, there are a number of oils with significant portions of PAO in them, at least based on the limits of what we can glean from the MSDS sheets, which was the main ingredient in the pre-dispute era Mobil 1 product line. PAO is expensive, but then so are POE and AN's, and all of these bases exist in Mobil's product portfolio through XOM Chemical. While VISOM, which is Mobil's "Group III+" base, is cheaper to manufacture than PAO, Mobil is one of the largest manufacturers of PAO on the planet, and do use it, in varying dose levels, in their products. VISOM was, when it was developed, designed to be nothing more than a high-VI intermediate, bridging the formulation gap from a product line that was PAO-based to one that would use significant amounts of GTL base oil, which is also less expensive to produce, but takes massive investment to bring to market in any volume, something that Shell has demonstrated aptly with their Pearl facility. The idea was to go from PAO, to a PAO/VISOM blend, a ratio that would vary depending on formulation requirements to meet performance targets, to an eventual PAO/GTL blend. When Mobil cancelled their massive GTL plant in Qatar, the general view on here was that they'd just soldier on with VISOM, however that has not been the case, as M1 0w-40 "FS" appeared, having a significant portion of its base mix as FT-derived (GTL) Group III in it, indicating that Mobil was indeed using GTL. Are they purchasing it from Shell, or have they managed to convert or expand one of their many existing gas plants to produce this base? We don't know, and Mobil's websites are absent of details. We do know this was the eventual goal as provided in their roadmap however, and forging ahead with it would indicate that they've managed to secure, via production or procurement, sufficient GTL to make that happen. The BBB dispute with Castrol allowed for oils with Group III bases to be labelled as "synthetic". However, at least as far as the 0w-xx crowd shows, PAO still is a key component, in varying quantities, regardless of that fact. Castrol's own 0w-40 still has a good slug of PAO in it, which they would be sourcing from somebody like XOM or CP, and if they could get away with making it all Group III, I'm sure they would. All three of Mobil's 0w-20's have significant amounts of PAO in them, with the EP and AP products being well into majority territory (according to the MSDS anyways). So these oils are far from "cheap" to formulate and likely, are as close to the "old" Mobil formulations, in terms of the amount of PAO in them, as possible.
 
Messages
2,766
Location
Bend, Oregon
I used M1 0w20 many years ago when I first bought my ol' Ford Focus. As others mentioned....the engine just sounded loud...so I decided to see if another oil would sound quieter. I switched to QSUD 0w20 which IMO helped my engine quiet down. Lately I've used Pennzoil Platinum Ultra 0w20 with the same excellent results, and will continue to use it.
 

4WD

Messages
17,469
Location
Texas
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Jooksing
Sorry. I am still learning. Please correct me. -not being sarcastic My limited understanding is based on what I have read so far.
It varies WILDLY grade-to-grade. I wouldn't say you are "wrong", as in one sense, you are correct that some of the oils Mobil presently produces, using less expensive bases, are indeed cheaper to formulate. On the other hand, there are a number of oils with significant portions of PAO in them, at least based on the limits of what we can glean from the MSDS sheets, which was the main ingredient in the pre-dispute era Mobil 1 product line. PAO is expensive, but then so are POE and AN's, and all of these bases exist in Mobil's product portfolio through XOM Chemical. While VISOM, which is Mobil's "Group III+" base, is cheaper to manufacture than PAO, Mobil is one of the largest manufacturers of PAO on the planet, and do use it, in varying dose levels, in their products. VISOM was, when it was developed, designed to be nothing more than a high-VI intermediate, bridging the formulation gap from a product line that was PAO-based to one that would use significant amounts of GTL base oil, which is also less expensive to produce, but takes massive investment to bring to market in any volume, something that Shell has demonstrated aptly with their Pearl facility. The idea was to go from PAO, to a PAO/VISOM blend, a ratio that would vary depending on formulation requirements to meet performance targets, to an eventual PAO/GTL blend. When Mobil cancelled their massive GTL plant in Qatar, the general view on here was that they'd just soldier on with VISOM, however that has not been the case, as M1 0w-40 "FS" appeared, having a significant portion of its base mix as FT-derived (GTL) Group III in it, indicating that Mobil was indeed using GTL. Are they purchasing it from Shell, or have they managed to convert or expand one of their many existing gas plants to produce this base? We don't know, and Mobil's websites are absent of details. We do know this was the eventual goal as provided in their roadmap however, and forging ahead with it would indicate that they've managed to secure, via production or procurement, sufficient GTL to make that happen. The BBB dispute with Castrol allowed for oils with Group III bases to be labelled as "synthetic". However, at least as far as the 0w-xx crowd shows, PAO still is a key component, in varying quantities, regardless of that fact. Castrol's own 0w-40 still has a good slug of PAO in it, which they would be sourcing from somebody like XOM or CP, and if they could get away with making it all Group III, I'm sure they would. All three of Mobil's 0w-20's have significant amounts of PAO in them, with the EP and AP products being well into majority territory (according to the MSDS anyways). So these oils are far from "cheap" to formulate and likely, are as close to the "old" Mobil formulations, in terms of the amount of PAO in them, as possible.
Good post … I could run AFE since OLM will shut me down … but $4 more I know I’m getting over 60% PAO … I’m in
 
Messages
1,402
Location
MT
Probably because the rave here is in Supertech's favor nowadays. I dunno why, personally, I wouldn't use that cheap [censored] in my lawnmower! Mainly because I don't wanna line the Walton family's pockets anymore than I absolutely have to. At least if I buy Mobil 1 or any other name brand I know most of the profit goes back to that company instead of Walmart.
 
Messages
304
Location
New Jersey
Originally Posted By: jongies3
Probably because the rave here is in Supertech's favor nowadays. I dunno why, personally, I wouldn't use that cheap [censored] in my lawnmower! Mainly because I don't wanna line the Walton family's pockets anymore than I absolutely have to. At least if I buy Mobil 1 or any other name brand I know most of the profit goes back to that company instead of Walmart.
Don't know why supertech is considered to be in such high regard, I'll go name brand. Name brand is not much more anyway. Great post, you nailed it.
 
Messages
227
Location
UT. USA
I've been running M-1 HM 5W30 in my F-250HD with a 460 for the last 3 or 4 years. I'm also running M-1 in my daughter's car. Excellent product line, IMO.
 
Messages
1,648
Location
California
Originally Posted By: 93cruiser
Originally Posted By: jongies3
Probably because the rave here is in Supertech's favor nowadays. I dunno why, personally, I wouldn't use that cheap [censored] in my lawnmower! Mainly because I don't wanna line the Walton family's pockets anymore than I absolutely have to. At least if I buy Mobil 1 or any other name brand I know most of the profit goes back to that company instead of Walmart.
Don't know why supertech is considered to be in such high regard, I'll go name brand. Name brand is not much more anyway. Great post, you nailed it.
We are all still waiting for your FACTS. I have a feeling we are going to be waiting for a VERY long time!
 
Messages
1,648
Location
California
Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
Marketing and subjective opinions aside, can anyone honestly say that Mobil makes oil of significantly lesser quality than its competitors? I would love to see the data.
Me too. People are always talking about the bad UOA but don't post any links to them. As for the so called "noisy engine" syndrome, I have used both Mobil 1 and Pennzoil in several of my vehicles and couldn't tell any difference.
 

4WD

Messages
17,469
Location
Texas
Originally Posted By: LeakySeals
For some reason when it comes to oil, many think it stays the same, doesn't change with the times. Members of BITOG for years still cling to facts, rumors, myths decades old. Yes, there was a time when M1 was real synthetic oil created in a lab. That oil was known for hardening rubber and silicon gaskets and seals, ultimately creating leaks. But that M1 doesn't exist anymore. Extinct. Modern day M1 is hydrocracked/synthesized dinosoars with a special sauce. Just like every other brand sold OTC at Walmart. I like trying different brands in my 6.0L lq9. It "feels" the smoothest and most responsive throughout an OLM OCI running M1. Doesn't burn any, no makeup oil. It does weep but no drips around the filter and oil pan using M1, does not do that with other brands. Assume thats the result of better flow, willing to live with that for a smoother feeling engine.
This is my M1 from WM … tell us more:
 

4WD

Messages
17,469
Location
Texas
Originally Posted By: 93cruiser
Originally Posted By: jongies3
Probably because the rave here is in Supertech's favor nowadays. I dunno why, personally, I wouldn't use that cheap [censored] in my lawnmower! Mainly because I don't wanna line the Walton family's pockets anymore than I absolutely have to. At least if I buy Mobil 1 or any other name brand I know most of the profit goes back to that company instead of Walmart.
Don't know why supertech is considered to be in such high regard, I'll go name brand. Name brand is not much more anyway. Great post, you nailed it.
Here is my take ~ ST is a good lube … but working the rebates and sales all year many folks are buying name brands for same or less … so do I care if ST makers survive? Less so than CVX, RDS, XOM, etc that provide way more vital things for us … and support premier lube blenders like Amsoil …
 
Top