XOM Visom

[buster]

http://www.exxonmobil.com/UK-English/Basestocks/PDS/GLXXENBSKEMVisom.aspx

Here is a spec sheet for Visom, a very high grade Group III+ used by XOM. It has been said by XOM that using this base oil along with some PAO and other group V base oils (AN's/Esters) that the performance matches an all PAO formulation.

I assume Visom is found in many M1 formulations and in different amounts based on the desired performance of the end product. A Mobil PDF posted awhile back confirmed this. Blends obviously change over time so that always has to be kept in mind.

They do seem to have an excellent viscosity-volatility relationship.

 

[jorton]

Maybe it's in Super 5000 and HM. Can Mobil produce lots of Visom fast and cheap?

 

[LargeCarManX2]

We must always remember that the "Standard" for base oil changes. Oil formulators are moving forward in lube formulations and quality. We must not remain "Stuck" on any one type of base oil type.....interesting stuff!

 

[buster]

Originally Posted By: LargeCarManX2
We must always remember that the "Standard" for base oil changes. Oil formulators are moving forward in lube formulations and quality. We must not remain "Stuck" on any one type of base oil type.....interesting stuff!

 

[JHZR2]

noooooo!!!! Group III fake synthetic is worth so much less money than group IV and V, so it must be far worse. The world will end if grp III performs the functions in automotive use that grp IV and V can do, because it is much cheaper...

 

[tig1]

This is why I often say M1s base stock is superior to several other Synthetic oils. IMHO.

 

[vinu_neuro]

Visom is a PAO replacement. It's used in their flagship products like 0W-40, 5W-50, ESP.

 

[aquariuscsm]

Originally Posted By: tig1
This is why I often say M1s base stock is superior to several other Synthetic oils. IMHO.


That makes me wonder if that's why M1 didn't sheer at all but RP sheered quite a bit according to Blackstone via my UOA's. M1 seems to be a really *strong* oil.

 

[Garak]

Thanks for the link, buster!

 

[MolaKule]

GroupIII is good, but you need some high viscosity PAO or a special polymer in the mix to get good shear resistance.

Here is where most of the GroupIII comes from:
http://www.yubase.com/eng/download/articles/13.pdf

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
GroupIII is good, but you need some high viscosity PAO or a special polymer in the mix to get good shear resistance.

Here is where most of the GroupIII comes from:
http://www.yubase.com/eng/download/articles/13.pdf


That is a nice brief.

 

[buster]

Thanks Molekule.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
noooooo!!!! Group III fake synthetic is worth so much less money than group IV and V, so it must be far worse. The world will end if grp III performs the functions in automotive use that grp IV and V can do, because it is much cheaper...


To be fair, the oil industry created the distinction that they are now trying to dispell.

And aren't really passing their savings on to the consumer.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
And aren't really passing their savings on to the consumer.


Just to play the devil's advocate here, if XOM, for instance, came up with a process to create PAO base stocks at one quarter the cost of the current process, do you think they'd pass the savings onto the consumer?

If they came up with such a process, converted absolutely everything in their synthetic lines back to primarily PAO, and left the price as is, would we be getting our money's worth yet?

Additive packs aside, how much more does it cost to make a litre of PAO base stock versus Visom or Group III? What I can say in favour of XOM (and all the oil companies, for that matter), is that they've kept the price increases of synthetic far more measured and reasonable than has been done with conventionals. When I first saw Mobil 1 over twenty-five years ago, it was around $7 a litre. It can be had for the same price now. I certainly cannot say that for conventional oil, or gas, filters, tires, vehicles, insurance....

 

[Shannow]

Advocate away, it's all part of the discussion...

my beef was predominantly in the early days, when all of a sudden "synthetics" started losing pour point, increasing volatility, and never dropped a cent.

It's fine to quote "performance" as the measure, and I agree...but drop the word synthetic, and add "Premium" "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" or other to indicate why your oil is worthy of more money than your competitor's.

Admittedly with Oz prices, Helix Ultra GrIII went up 25% the day they changed the label from XHVI (which I never had a problem with when labelled as such) to "synthetic", M1 is $95 for 5 litres, Castrol Magnatec (Startup, which could sort of be labelled as syn blend) is $36...thus my stocking up on "generic" Calibre at less than $10/litre, when it's undoubtedly a GrIII "synthetic"

Drop the "synthetic", and advertise performance, and I'll be quiet.

But really, to go to the next level of Devil's advocate, if a Buick V-6 can go 300,000km on Castrol GTX or Valvoline XLD 20W-50, what is an improved "performance" oil adding to the consumer's bottom line ?

Not much really (although I had M1 in my rebuilt holden when the oil pump burned up...burned the paint off the external oil pump, and it didn't seem to harm anything engine wise).

 

[tig1]

When I first started using M1 was 1978 and payed $5 a qt. Today I pay about $5.50 a qt and the performance of the oil is better than ever.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
my beef was predominantly in the early days, when all of a sudden "synthetics" started losing pour point, increasing volatility, and never dropped a cent.


With that, I agree absolutely. Poorer performance for the same money doesn't fly with me. As for the name "synthetic" being used, I did have a problem with it back then; now, not so much, considering the performance has improved. Also, for the most part, any good "synthetic" these days has more specifications than just SN/GF-5. They don't have to have every certification under the sun like M1 0w-40, but they do tend to have something extra, be it dexos1, the Honda spec, or something from ACEA, things that aren't found with conventionals.

Syntec was one of the first messing with the "synthetic" definition. I don't think it benefited them much at all. They certainly never tossed M1 off their throne, and their market share worldwide is probably more based on oils with a lot of certifications (i.e. GC) than it is with, say, vanilla Syntec 5w-30.

Originally Posted By: Shannow
But really, to go to the next level of Devil's advocate, if a Buick V-6 can go 300,000km on Castrol GTX or Valvoline XLD 20W-50, what is an improved "performance" oil adding to the consumer's bottom line ?


That's another argument, and I agree wholeheartedly. There certainly are plenty of applications out there that see little benefit from using a synthetic, aside from the possibility of extended OCIs. Guys like tig1 who use M1 for 10,000 miles are getting their money's worth. If I used M1 in my G for the 3750 mile OCI under warranty, I wouldn't be getting my money's worth.

I am pleased, though, that oils are improving. It's easy to say that the oil companies want to make the product as cheaply as possible, but competition and various standards also ensure that the products are continually improving.