Mobil 1 is still PAO based correct? Its probably been discussed but is one better than the other? PAO V. GTL..
Is XOM turning to GTL
- Thread starter Realtech214
- Start date
- Status
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Mobil spent billions on a GTL plant that they then never finished. Not sure if they've changed their mind on that or not, but in the interim they are using VISOM (their own GIII+ product) and PAO.
As publicly announced by ExxonMobil, Mobil 1 is mostly, if not fully, Group III these days. If GTL becomes cheap, expect GTL in the future.
http://www.motor-talk.de/forum/aktion/Attachment.html?attachmentId=695007
http://www.motor-talk.de/forum/aktion/Attachment.html?attachmentId=695007
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
As publicly announced by ExxonMobil, Mobil 1 is mostly, if not fully, Group III these days. If GTL becomes cheap, expect GTL in the future.
http://www.motor-talk.de/forum/aktion/Attachment.html?attachmentId=695007
Instead of just linking the PDF, why not post the relevant excerpts?
Originally Posted By: Mobil
Why are we reformulating Mobil 1?
A natural evolution of the formulation
• The Mobil 1 formulation strategy has always been based on selecting the best
components available. We now have the very high quality Group III+ base stock,
‘Visom’ exclusively available to ExxonMobil. As we developed the Mobil 1 ESP
technology we found that combining Visom with PAO could deliver a formulation
of equivalent performance to an all PAO formulation.
Competitive advantage
• Visom is the only non-PAO stock that can deliver the required performance to
formulate a 0W grade oil that meets European OEM engine oil specifications.
Visom is not available to our competition.
To support Mobil 1 growth
• Global PAO capacity is limited. As we quickly approach this limit, new base
stocks must be explored to ensure we can support the continued growth of the
Mobil 1 family of products.
To ensure continuity of supply
• As we saw with the 2005 hurricane, the more flexibility we have in our
formulations, the better placed we are to withstand disruption to our supply. We
can balance PAO and Visom supply fluctuations to ensure we can always deliver
the final product to our customers.
To maintain market relevant pricing
• As PAO supply has tightened globally, raw material costs have increased
substantially. In the future, an exclusively PAO formulation may be priced out of
the market or result in significant margin erosion.
To prepare for next generation basestocks (GTL)
• Commencing 2010, the next generation of base stocks derived from Natural Gas
(Gas To Liquids) will enter the market. These high quality basestocks will arrive
in substantial quantities and will probably be used in the majority of competitive
premium formulations. Visom is viewed as a precursor of GTL, and hence it’s
use now in our flagship formulations eases our transition to a GTL world, and
helps us understand how to maintain flagship performance using these high
quality non-PAO basestocks.
With the exception of Germany, this reformulation will be invisible to
consumers and B2B customers.
• Claims are identical with the exception of some now obsolete or soon to
be obsolete claims
• Performance of new formulations are equivalent to current formulations
Testing is underway to provide read-across of current marketing
claims to new formulations
Review will take place of current marketing literature to ensure
accuracy of specific claims to new formulations (e.g. if we quote
actual pour point values then this would need to be updated).
• There will be no proactive customer communication relating to this
reformulation. However, an internal briefing document and Q&A has
been prepared to allow sales to respond in the unlikely event of a
customer question.
Due to the unique definition of synthetic in Germany (Synthetic = 100%
PAO) this reformulation is visible to the consumer and B2B customers.
• A more proactive communication is being prepared for German use
I'm not sure how you take away from this that the products are majority Group III. It clearly states that they are blending VISOM with PAO. This presentation is also quite old, from a time when Mobil's GTL plant was still being constructed and well before they abandoned it. This can be easily gleaned from the last page of the document where they list the MRV of the 0w-40 product as 22,000cP and the "future" version at 29,000cP. It hasn't been 22,000cP for something like three or four iterations.
As publicly announced by ExxonMobil, Mobil 1 is mostly, if not fully, Group III these days. If GTL becomes cheap, expect GTL in the future.
http://www.motor-talk.de/forum/aktion/Attachment.html?attachmentId=695007
Instead of just linking the PDF, why not post the relevant excerpts?
Originally Posted By: Mobil
Why are we reformulating Mobil 1?
A natural evolution of the formulation
• The Mobil 1 formulation strategy has always been based on selecting the best
components available. We now have the very high quality Group III+ base stock,
‘Visom’ exclusively available to ExxonMobil. As we developed the Mobil 1 ESP
technology we found that combining Visom with PAO could deliver a formulation
of equivalent performance to an all PAO formulation.
Competitive advantage
• Visom is the only non-PAO stock that can deliver the required performance to
formulate a 0W grade oil that meets European OEM engine oil specifications.
Visom is not available to our competition.
To support Mobil 1 growth
• Global PAO capacity is limited. As we quickly approach this limit, new base
stocks must be explored to ensure we can support the continued growth of the
Mobil 1 family of products.
To ensure continuity of supply
• As we saw with the 2005 hurricane, the more flexibility we have in our
formulations, the better placed we are to withstand disruption to our supply. We
can balance PAO and Visom supply fluctuations to ensure we can always deliver
the final product to our customers.
To maintain market relevant pricing
• As PAO supply has tightened globally, raw material costs have increased
substantially. In the future, an exclusively PAO formulation may be priced out of
the market or result in significant margin erosion.
To prepare for next generation basestocks (GTL)
• Commencing 2010, the next generation of base stocks derived from Natural Gas
(Gas To Liquids) will enter the market. These high quality basestocks will arrive
in substantial quantities and will probably be used in the majority of competitive
premium formulations. Visom is viewed as a precursor of GTL, and hence it’s
use now in our flagship formulations eases our transition to a GTL world, and
helps us understand how to maintain flagship performance using these high
quality non-PAO basestocks.
With the exception of Germany, this reformulation will be invisible to
consumers and B2B customers.
• Claims are identical with the exception of some now obsolete or soon to
be obsolete claims
• Performance of new formulations are equivalent to current formulations
Testing is underway to provide read-across of current marketing
claims to new formulations
Review will take place of current marketing literature to ensure
accuracy of specific claims to new formulations (e.g. if we quote
actual pour point values then this would need to be updated).
• There will be no proactive customer communication relating to this
reformulation. However, an internal briefing document and Q&A has
been prepared to allow sales to respond in the unlikely event of a
customer question.
Due to the unique definition of synthetic in Germany (Synthetic = 100%
PAO) this reformulation is visible to the consumer and B2B customers.
• A more proactive communication is being prepared for German use
I'm not sure how you take away from this that the products are majority Group III. It clearly states that they are blending VISOM with PAO. This presentation is also quite old, from a time when Mobil's GTL plant was still being constructed and well before they abandoned it. This can be easily gleaned from the last page of the document where they list the MRV of the 0w-40 product as 22,000cP and the "future" version at 29,000cP. It hasn't been 22,000cP for something like three or four iterations.
Originally Posted By: Realtech214
Mobil 1 is still PAO based correct? Its probably been discussed but is one better than the other? PAO V. GTL..
Mobil 1 is predominantly Group III+. They use Visom, a proprietary basestock that is sort of like a high-end group III (hence the "+" designation). It contains some PAO (group IV) and alkylated napthalene (group V).
Mobil 1 is still PAO based correct? Its probably been discussed but is one better than the other? PAO V. GTL..
Mobil 1 is predominantly Group III+. They use Visom, a proprietary basestock that is sort of like a high-end group III (hence the "+" designation). It contains some PAO (group IV) and alkylated napthalene (group V).
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
This presentation is also quite old,
Yup. 2006-2007 or so.
This presentation is also quite old,
Yup. 2006-2007 or so.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: dparm
Originally Posted By: Realtech214
Mobil 1 is still PAO based correct? Its probably been discussed but is one better than the other? PAO V. GTL..
Mobil 1 is predominantly Group III+. They use Visom, a proprietary basestock that is sort of like a high-end group III (hence the "+" designation). It contains some PAO (group IV) and alkylated napthalene (group V).
The Mobil 1 product line consists of oils that utilize a variety of base oils in varying quantities in order to meet their intended performance targets. Whether that's a blend of VISOM/PAO/AN/POE (0w-40), a majority VISOM product (their 5w-30), a 50% PAO product (their 0w-30) or something in between, the formula is what it is in order to satisfy the performance metrics set by Mobil and the certifications they wish to adorn the product with.
This is why it is, IMHO, foolish for us as a forum to try and lump an entire product line under a single category. We know from various sources, including the linked PDF, that the products are blends, and those blends are invariably in flux, as also noted in that document.
Originally Posted By: Realtech214
Mobil 1 is still PAO based correct? Its probably been discussed but is one better than the other? PAO V. GTL..
Mobil 1 is predominantly Group III+. They use Visom, a proprietary basestock that is sort of like a high-end group III (hence the "+" designation). It contains some PAO (group IV) and alkylated napthalene (group V).
The Mobil 1 product line consists of oils that utilize a variety of base oils in varying quantities in order to meet their intended performance targets. Whether that's a blend of VISOM/PAO/AN/POE (0w-40), a majority VISOM product (their 5w-30), a 50% PAO product (their 0w-30) or something in between, the formula is what it is in order to satisfy the performance metrics set by Mobil and the certifications they wish to adorn the product with.
This is why it is, IMHO, foolish for us as a forum to try and lump an entire product line under a single category. We know from various sources, including the linked PDF, that the products are blends, and those blends are invariably in flux, as also noted in that document.
Well, currently, M1 0W-40 MRV is 31,000 cP.
http://www.mobil.com/USA-English/Lubes/PDS/GLXXENPVLMOMobil_1_0W-40.aspx
Of course, there is no way of knowing how much PAO they are putting in M1 these days. However, since the whole idea is cost-cutting, you would expect Group IV to be well-under 50% of the base oil. The following is ExxonMobil's example in their previous formulation guide. If they use a similar Group III/IV blend in M1, the ratio of Group III to IV is about 2:1.
Looking at their example though, they got the HTHSV for 0W-40 wrong. The SAE minimum is 3.5 cP. Lol
http://www.mobil.com/USA-English/Lubes/PDS/GLXXENPVLMOMobil_1_0W-40.aspx
Of course, there is no way of knowing how much PAO they are putting in M1 these days. However, since the whole idea is cost-cutting, you would expect Group IV to be well-under 50% of the base oil. The following is ExxonMobil's example in their previous formulation guide. If they use a similar Group III/IV blend in M1, the ratio of Group III to IV is about 2:1.
Looking at their example though, they got the HTHSV for 0W-40 wrong. The SAE minimum is 3.5 cP. Lol
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Looking at their example though, they got the HTHSV for 0W-40 wrong. The SAE minimum is 3.5 cP. Lol
Nope. SAE minimum for a 40 grade is in fact 2.9 cP.
It's the ACEA A3 and some of the other Euro specs that mandate HTHS to be at least 3.5 cP.
Looking at their example though, they got the HTHSV for 0W-40 wrong. The SAE minimum is 3.5 cP. Lol
Nope. SAE minimum for a 40 grade is in fact 2.9 cP.
It's the ACEA A3 and some of the other Euro specs that mandate HTHS to be at least 3.5 cP.
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Looking at their example though, they got the HTHSV for 0W-40 wrong. The SAE minimum is 3.5 cP. Lol
Nope. SAE minimum for a 40 grade is in fact 2.9 cP.
It's the ACEA A3 and some of the other Euro specs that mandate HTHS to be at least 3.5 cP.
Right, but you pretty much never see a 40-grade as having HTHS under 3.5.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Looking at their example though, they got the HTHSV for 0W-40 wrong. The SAE minimum is 3.5 cP. Lol
Nope. SAE minimum for a 40 grade is in fact 2.9 cP.
It's the ACEA A3 and some of the other Euro specs that mandate HTHS to be at least 3.5 cP.
Right, but you pretty much never see a 40-grade as having HTHS under 3.5.
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Looking at their example though, they got the HTHSV for 0W-40 wrong. The SAE minimum is 3.5 cP. Lol
Nope. SAE minimum for a 40 grade is in fact 2.9 cP.
It's the ACEA A3 and some of the other Euro specs that mandate HTHS to be at least 3.5 cP.
Yes, ACEA A3/B3 and A3/B4 HTHSV minimum is 3.5 cP, even for xW-30. However, these are the SAE minimum specs for HTHSV:
SAE 16: 2.3 cP
SAE 20: 2.6 cP
SAE 30: 2.9 cP
SAE 40: 3.5 cP for 0W-40, 5W-40, and 10W-40
SAE 40: 3.7 cP for 15W-40, 20W-40, 25W-40, and 40
SAE 50: 3.7 cP
SAE 60: 3.7 cP
From the last page of:
http://www.infineum.com/API/API_2013/index.html
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Looking at their example though, they got the HTHSV for 0W-40 wrong. The SAE minimum is 3.5 cP. Lol
Nope. SAE minimum for a 40 grade is in fact 2.9 cP.
It's the ACEA A3 and some of the other Euro specs that mandate HTHS to be at least 3.5 cP.
Yes, ACEA A3/B3 and A3/B4 HTHSV minimum is 3.5 cP, even for xW-30. However, these are the SAE minimum specs for HTHSV:
SAE 16: 2.3 cP
SAE 20: 2.6 cP
SAE 30: 2.9 cP
SAE 40: 3.5 cP for 0W-40, 5W-40, and 10W-40
SAE 40: 3.7 cP for 15W-40, 20W-40, 25W-40, and 40
SAE 50: 3.7 cP
SAE 60: 3.7 cP
From the last page of:
http://www.infineum.com/API/API_2013/index.html
Originally Posted By: dparm
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Looking at their example though, they got the HTHSV for 0W-40 wrong. The SAE minimum is 3.5 cP. Lol
Nope. SAE minimum for a 40 grade is in fact 2.9 cP.
It's the ACEA A3 and some of the other Euro specs that mandate HTHS to be at least 3.5 cP.
Right, but you pretty much never see a 40-grade as having HTHS under 3.5.
Because the SAE minimum for xW-40 is either 3.5 cP or 3.7 cP, depending on the xW. See my post above.
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Looking at their example though, they got the HTHSV for 0W-40 wrong. The SAE minimum is 3.5 cP. Lol
Nope. SAE minimum for a 40 grade is in fact 2.9 cP.
It's the ACEA A3 and some of the other Euro specs that mandate HTHS to be at least 3.5 cP.
Right, but you pretty much never see a 40-grade as having HTHS under 3.5.
Because the SAE minimum for xW-40 is either 3.5 cP or 3.7 cP, depending on the xW. See my post above.
Doh! Brain [censored]! You guys are correct - it's 3.5 cP minimum.
I don't know much about the GTL process but some people can LTG when it comes to beer.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: dparm
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Looking at their example though, they got the HTHSV for 0W-40 wrong. The SAE minimum is 3.5 cP. Lol
Nope. SAE minimum for a 40 grade is in fact 2.9 cP.
It's the ACEA A3 and some of the other Euro specs that mandate HTHS to be at least 3.5 cP.
Right, but you pretty much never see a 40-grade as having HTHS under 3.5.
Because the SAE minimum for xW-40 is either 3.5 cP or 3.7 cP, depending on the xW. See my post above.
But the original Mobil document was correct that the low-W 40's were allowed to be 2.9 HTHS. That changed to 3.5 when the SN spec was released.
Originally Posted By: dparm
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Looking at their example though, they got the HTHSV for 0W-40 wrong. The SAE minimum is 3.5 cP. Lol
Nope. SAE minimum for a 40 grade is in fact 2.9 cP.
It's the ACEA A3 and some of the other Euro specs that mandate HTHS to be at least 3.5 cP.
Right, but you pretty much never see a 40-grade as having HTHS under 3.5.
Because the SAE minimum for xW-40 is either 3.5 cP or 3.7 cP, depending on the xW. See my post above.
But the original Mobil document was correct that the low-W 40's were allowed to be 2.9 HTHS. That changed to 3.5 when the SN spec was released.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
If Mobil is planning to use GTL, where are they going to get it? Shell said they were not going to market it to other blenders in the foreseeable future in the PurePlus Q&A.
As I said, at the time of that presentation, XOM was billions deep in their own GTL plant.
If Mobil is planning to use GTL, where are they going to get it? Shell said they were not going to market it to other blenders in the foreseeable future in the PurePlus Q&A.
As I said, at the time of that presentation, XOM was billions deep in their own GTL plant.
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: buster
Mobil uses Visom (III) and PAO (IV) in varying amounts in different oils along with proprietary V base oils. I wouldn't get hung up on base oil wars. GTL is somewhere between III and IV.
Quote:
Mobil 1 is mostly, if not fully
Not true.
+1
Why these wife's tales on some false value proposition don't die is beyond me.
Mobil uses Visom (III) and PAO (IV) in varying amounts in different oils along with proprietary V base oils. I wouldn't get hung up on base oil wars. GTL is somewhere between III and IV.
Quote:
Mobil 1 is mostly, if not fully
Not true.
+1
Why these wife's tales on some false value proposition don't die is beyond me.
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
But the original Mobil document was correct that the low-W 40's were allowed to be 2.9 HTHS. That changed to 3.5 when the SN spec was released.
Ah, thanks, it's good to know, and, yes, that's from the previous ExxonMobil synthetic-formulation guide.
This Web site links to several of the SAE J300 revisions. It looks like HTHSV specs were introduced rather late. It's surprising given how important HTHSV is:
http://wenku.baidu.com/view/c4b505896529647d272852c7.html
This finally explains why 1980s owner's manuals wouldn't recommend 5W-30 but recommend 10W-30. That's because back then they didn't have an HTHSV minimum and 5W-30 could run a lot thinner at high-temperature, high-shear (fast sliding parts) conditions than 10W-30! However, this is not true any more, and 5W-30 is only slightly thinner than 10W-30 (sometimes due to more permanent shear [viscosity loss] of the former)!
But the original Mobil document was correct that the low-W 40's were allowed to be 2.9 HTHS. That changed to 3.5 when the SN spec was released.
Ah, thanks, it's good to know, and, yes, that's from the previous ExxonMobil synthetic-formulation guide.
This Web site links to several of the SAE J300 revisions. It looks like HTHSV specs were introduced rather late. It's surprising given how important HTHSV is:
http://wenku.baidu.com/view/c4b505896529647d272852c7.html
This finally explains why 1980s owner's manuals wouldn't recommend 5W-30 but recommend 10W-30. That's because back then they didn't have an HTHSV minimum and 5W-30 could run a lot thinner at high-temperature, high-shear (fast sliding parts) conditions than 10W-30! However, this is not true any more, and 5W-30 is only slightly thinner than 10W-30 (sometimes due to more permanent shear [viscosity loss] of the former)!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked