Mobil 1 now containing GTL

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: buster
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: buster
Mobil doesn't seem to use their own mPAO in their formulations. If they do, it's in small amounts based on the MSDS.


I'm not sure if they would be required to differentiate between PAO and mPAO on an MSDS, they could probably use a pile of different PAO bases and they'd all fall under the same CAS number.

This is why Pontual postulating that they don't use it in their products is absurd. They manufacture it, why wouldn't they use it? It isn't like Gibbs manufactures base oils, they probably buy them from XOM, including the mPAO.



Good points.
smile.gif

+1
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Pontual
Originally Posted By: Leonardo629
Originally Posted By: Pontual
Not the best oil, since is a compromise between cost production and gross profit...


Name one oil that is superior in wear protection, but costs significantly less than the masses and is available everywhere?


No, just pay more if you want a better product.Not all more expensive is better, depends on application. Joe Gibbs Racing oils is way better from protection against wear on a track, for example and uses mPAO, A THING M1 NEVER HAD NOR WILL.


http://www.exxonmobilchemical.com/Chem-English/brands/spectrasyn-elite-mpao.aspx?ln=productsservices

1. Joe Gibbs doesn't make base oils and IF they are using mPAO, they probably buy it from XOM.

2. Unless you work as a formulator for XOM (you don't) you have no idea if they use it in their products or not. Given that they are the ones that make the product, why would you think they wouldn't use it?
EXCELLENT POINT.
 
Or you reckon mPAO is going in some non ICE applications, long range products, industrial lubes, and not $22 jugs.
(That are fine as is).
 
Last edited:
mPAO is not considered hazardous and therefore you won't find it on any MSDS. Driven Racing Oil uses it, but you won't see it on their MSDS.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
From the MSDS for the new Mobil 1 FS 0w-40:

1-DECENE, HOMOPOLYMER HYDROGENATED 68037-01-4 10 - < 20% H304
DISTILLATES (FISCHER - TROPSCH), HEAVY, C18-50 – BRANCHED, CYCLIC AND LINEAR 848301-69-9 40 - < 70% H304

Interestingly, they've removed the words "(FISCHER - TROPSCH)" from the latest MSDS that I looked at, dated 20 May 2016. But everything else still seems to be the same.
 
Can't wait til we hear the units, method and value of those van der Waals forces... ;-)




Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: weasley
Soot particles are not pure carbon, but carbon-rich hydrocarbons with varying C:H ratios and structures. Electrostatic agglomeration is a real phenomenon which dispersants are designed to counter.


Yeah, I know that. What we studied were the exact composition of those attached complexes (many of them sulfur compounds) and how they could be altered to affect water adsorption and dispersion within a polymer. We also looked a lot at the formation of agglomerates from the parent aggregates and what shear and impact forces were required to separate the agglomerates.

Since Ohle_Manezzini essentially posted that the van der Waals force was sufficient to make them abrasive, I was wondering if there was any proof of that.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top