| Author | Message | ||
     Brucelee |
There is a long post on Bob is the oil guy's site to the effect that the new M1 15W-50 oil that we all love is no longer a full synthetic oil. The chemist over there used Gas Chrom. to check for PAO content and found very little indeed. Curious, I checked out the M1 web site and sure enough, they have changed the wording to describe their M1 oils and are much less direct about reference to PAOs. They still claim that their oils are fully synthetic, but the wording is very slick indeed. All the more reason to switch to Red Line IMHO. Enjoy! | ||
| Rocketman |
Bruce can you elaborate on this in terms of explaining (in layman's terms please, lol) if what Mobil are doing differently is for better or worse? TIA Rocket | ||
| Blake |
Richard, The origins of the optimized molecular formula are not important. The performance of the molecular formula is important. It is possible that the new Mobil-1 formulation is superior in ways to the older one. Assuming that because Mobil-1 is no longer a PAO based oil that it is then automatically a less robust lubricant is not good science. | ||
| Brucelee |
Richard, The origins of the optimized molecular formula are not important. The performance of the molecular formula is important Blake, thanks for the lecture, which of course, I did NOT need. It is possible that the new Mobil-1 formulation is superior in ways to the older one. Yes, it is possible. It is also possible it is not! Assuming that because Mobil-1 is no longer a PAO based oil that it is then automatically a less robust lubricant is not good science. Well, I did not say that Blake, now did I. Also, I am not a scientist, I am a consumer. As as consumer,what I dislike about the Mobil 1 move is that it was NOT done in the open, it was and is, being done with slight of hand. M1 once took Castrol to task for claiming to be a synthetic oil but actually using refined DINO oil as a base. Now, it APPEARS that M1 is doing the exact same thing, yet claims to be "fully synthetic." The reference to Red Line is for those of us who want to get a fully synthetic oil when we pay fully synthetic prices. M1 may be a better oil than it was, M1's marketing practices are certainly not! And that is not science, that is consumer talk. Oh, yes, of course, you are free to buy what you want. Me too! | ||
| Brucelee |
Bruce can you elaborate on this in terms of explaining (in layman's terms please, lol) if what Mobil are doing differently is for better or worse? TIA Rocket In a nutshell, M1 was traditionally made with a base stock of PAO compounds. These and Esters have always been what oil engineers consider to be REAL synthetic motor oil. Recently, an engineer on Bob is the Oil Guy's website tested the new M1 EP formula 15-50 with a gas chroma and found that it was mostly DINO base stock oil with a touch of PAO. This is a radical change in formula that M1 has seemed to have forgotten to tell its customers about. I went to the M1 site and found that their verbiage around the "fully synthetic oil" claim is quite different that it was before. Yet, M1 still claims it is fully synthetic. I dislike this type of "lying" and will not use their formulas again. BTW-It APPEARS that M1 left the Euro version 0W-40 alone as it has to pass the Euro oil standards and could not unless it was really PAO oil. More to come on this later. Take care RMAN. | ||
| Blake |
Richard, You don't like my lecture. I don't like your off the cuff suggestions based on your personal feelings rather than hard evidence. I feel compelled to offer the audience a more scientific view. I'm truly sorry that offends you. That is not my intent.
| ||
| Blake |
"Recently, an engineer on Bob is the Oil Guy's website tested the new M1 EP formula 15-50 with a gas chroma and found that it was mostly DINO base stock oil with a touch of PAO." Link please? "I dislike this type of "lying" and will not use their formulas again." You are in no way qualified to judge the veracity of Mobil's statements concerning their fully synthetic lubricants. Period. The fact is that prior to their release of Mobil 1 Extended Performance their fully synthetic engine lubricants were describes as being comprised by a "Tri-Synthetic" base. They did not to my knowledge claim that to be a 100% PAO base stock. What is very interesting is that for the first time Mobil 1 is actually offering extended drain intervals where before they did not. I think that says a lot. | ||
| Brucelee |
Blake, What you have done to provide "evidence and scientific information" is to paste information form Mobil's website. Congrats! A marketing site is certainly a source of information that cannot be refuted. In other words, if Mobil says that it is a "fully synthetic formula" then of course, it must be. However, what you do not paste is what they USED to say on the site vs. what they say now. This marketing information USED to say that M1 was made from PAO and other high performance additives. Now of course, it says the opposite. So, this little changes is quite significant. When Castrol did this back in the 90s, M1 cried foul. Now, M1 does the same thing. So, trot our more "science" from the Mobil website. You are also factually incorrect about extended drain intervals. Back in the 80s, M1 claimed a 25K mile drain interval. They backed off from that claim later. While I may be in "no way qualified" to question M1 veracity, you are in no way qualified to defend it. Now, if you have a gas chromo and want to do the testing, well ...... | ||
| Brucelee |
Blake's funny science. Perhaps I should cut and paste items from Red Line's website as "proof" that their oil is superior to others. That must be the standard to use?? | ||
| Brucelee |
http://theoildrop.server101.com/forums/showflat.ph p?Cat=0&Number=749606&an=0&page=0&gonew=1#UNREAD http://theoildrop.server101.com/forums/showflat.ph p?Cat=0&Number=749606&page=0&fpart=1&vc=1&nt=19 Read to your heart's content! | ||
| Brucelee |
From BITOG website. Is this "scientific" enough for you Blake? I don’t know about you or Terry but I wasn’t really impressed with the EP line from the UOAs that we’ve seen so far here in BITOG. I had the expectation these oils to last easily 10.000 miles if not the advertised 15.000 and I just didn’t see it happen. In some cases the oil was almost shot in 7.000-8.000 miles something unexpected from a PAO formulation as we had seen in Synthetic Oil Life Study . | ||
| Rocketman |
Science or otherwise, I find it very hard to believe that Mobil would change their formula (for the worse according to this guy Bruce is quoting) in order to take a backward step with their product. What would be the sense in that? Rocket | ||
| Jackbequick |
Richard, Thanks for posting the info. It is a good thing to know. I don't understand why anyone here would want to take you to task for your post. Blake, I don't think Richard said M1 was not as good or worse, more that it had changed and the change could be something of interest. I prefer to use fully synthetic oils that meet certain service requirements over the semi synthetics and blended synthetics because, almost without exception, the people that sell the latter tend to be a little vague about the specifics as to what their "synthetic" is made of and what else might be in it. H-D's Syn-3 is a classic example of that. It is not so much that Syn-3 or M1's new formula is bad oil, is an lesser known or unknown of sorts. So if Bob is the oil guy wants to help us folks that prefer to know more about their oil than the people that sell it may be telling you, I can't find any reason to be critical of that. Who knows, this might just boil down with a yet higher level of egregious conduct on the part of Mobil. They are screwing the American public to tears on their profits now, why shouldn't they find a way to make higher profits on their oils too. Especially if there are a lot of people out there buying it without paying any attention to the details. I have not been able to find M1 15W-50 in stock at Wal-Mart for 6 or 7 months. They have already lost my business to either Red Line or AmsOil, which ever one I can find a reliable source for first. Anyone holding Mobil stock? I'm not. Jack | ||
| Rocketman |
Well thanks for the links. It pays to do your own research. In response to your inquiry, we do not know if MOBIL is using mostly a group III base stock. What we do know however is that it takes highly sophisticated equipment and very experienced people to actually determine the contents of a lubricant. There are few places in North America with this capability. This raises suspicion as to the accuracy of the statement made about MOBIL. Regardless of what others may or may not be doing, AMSOIL formulates with PAO basestocks and has no intentions of changing our premium formulations (ASL, ATM, TSO, etc). As for the comment made by the AMSOIL dealer, they would really have no way of knowing about the formulations, as they are confidential and proprietary. Shell's racing oils along with Synergyn racings oils both contain Group III basestocks. Both of those are top notch products. Mobil 1 15/50 racing formula is what I use these days. If it's good enough off the shelf for McLaren / Ilmor it's well good enough for my tractor. Rocket | ||
| Blake |
Richard, The Mobil info I quoted is not offered as scientific evidence, rather to show statements made by Mobil that contradict your assertions. How is it you come to trust so implicitly some statement made by some unknown person on the internet? Is it possible this source for your scientific information is not credible and/or has an ulterior motive? One thing the internet is rife with is naysayers and self-proclaimed wise men. You want to compare the marketing integrity of Mobil versus Redline or Amsoil, I'm all up for that. The level of hucksterism I've seen marketed by Amsoil and Redline is hard to match. Not saying they aren't good oils, just that their marketing (this was a few years ago) has been sorely lacking in integrity. Yes, I recall long long ago when Mobil-1 offered itself as good for 25K miles. That has been a long time. I find the fact that after such a long time of NOT recommending extended drain intervals that they now have chosen to do so. That is telling. Your view that Mobil has secretly made a change to their formula for the worse is unconvincing and irresponsible in my view. Lacking proof, it is just not something one should go around trying to sell the general public. You know this, but are too darn stubborn to ever admit it. Been there. Done that. Not a good way to go in general.  Now, please explain to our friend Jack here how Exxon-Mobil is not screwing all of us for profit anymore than any other for profit business. I KNOW you can do that.  | ||
| Blake |
Sean, I agree with your sense of logic on this issue. Good on ya. | ||
| Blake |
Richard, Would you like to revise the title of this thread, seeing as how Mobil-1 assures us that their 15W50 is indeed fully synthetic? | ||
| Brucelee |
Mobil 1 15/50 racing formula is what I use these days. If it's good enough off the shelf for McLaren / Ilmor it's well good enough for my tractor. Rman, This formula is no longer available in the US. This WAS an all PAO formula based on previous analysis. Alas, it is gone here in the US. Too bad, it was a great oil! (Message edited by brucelee on November 04, 2006) | ||
| Brucelee |
Your view that Mobil has secretly made a change to their formula for the worse is unconvincing and irresponsible in my view. Lacking proof, it is just not something one should go around trying to sell the general public. You know this, but are too darn stubborn to ever admit it. Been there. Done that. Not a good way to go in general. You calling someone stubborn is simply hilarious, I will not comment on this as any reader of YOUR posts knows this is the pot calling the kettle black. What I know for a FACT is that Mobil has recently changed their website significantly when it comes to dealing with the issue of whether their oil is a "full synthetic." As recently as three weeks ago, they answered this question without reservation or slight of hand with references to PAO base stocks. No question, it was all PAO base stocks. Then, all of a sudden, their wording changed such that their oil contains PAOs and other High Performance Fluids. Hey, if I have 1% PAOs, I can say that. You have certainly not read the posts on Bobs and if so, you have chosen to ignore all 19 pages of them. So be it. Your bias is clear. For the record, I have used M1 for many years and have been a loyal customer. No more, the cat is out of the bag as far as I am concerned. Blake your position is clear and you will win because, well it is your website. Same as it ever was! Now, please explain to our friend Jack here how Exxon-Mobil is not screwing all of us for profit anymore than any other for profit business. I KNOW you can do that. Huh? | ||
| Brucelee |
Sean, I agree with your sense of logic on this issue. Good on You WOULD agree with Sean but as I said, THAT oil is no longer available in the US. THAT oil was a fine PAO oil but they don't MAKE that oil anymore here in the USA. You do know the difference between THAT oil and the oil we are talking about, don't you Blake? Hmmmm | ||
| Brucelee |
Richard, Would you like to revise the title of this thread, seeing as how Mobil-1 assures us that their 15W50 is indeed fully synthetic No I won't but I am sure that you WILL! Hey, John Kerry assures use that he is a patriot but you don't believe HIM, do you? Castrol assured us that their oil was a full synthetic oil but Mobil did not agree. Who do YOU believe? | ||
| Brucelee |
Two consecutive Blake statements. See if you can see the logic here. I feel compelled to offer the audience a more scientific view Then! The Mobil info I quoted is not offered as scientific evidence, rather to show statements made by Mobil that contradict your assertions Does anyone see the disconnect here? Back to Debate 101 with you Blake! | ||
| Brucelee |
A little more science from Bob's The worsening viscometrics and some other physical properties in the M1 Product Data Sheets over the last few years and the volatility tests I've done support (but doesn't prove) the Group 3 finding. So does the M1 motorcycle oils' amazing viscometrics and physical properties which are more like the old M1 (Tri-Synthetic), possibly indicating those oils are still getting nothing but the best basestocks. | ||
| Brucelee |
Richard, Thanks for posting the info. It is a good thing to know. I don't understand why anyone here would want to take you to task for your post Thanks Jack. Blake likes to bust my balls for sport. It is just the way he is! | ||
| Blake |
I don't recal Mobil-1's Tri-Synthetic ever being claimed as consisting of 100% PAO base stocks. In fact, I recall the exact oposite. Whether I am stubborn or not, of course I know that I am, has ZERO bearing on the fact that you Richard are as stubborn as they come. But I'd rather discuss the issue. I'm happy to leave your title in place. It is your title. It is 100% wrong and exactly opposite of what Mobil states. If you are okay making that kind of false public statement, then I'm happy to let you. I was agreeing with Sean's logic when he expressed doubt about the veracity of the naysayer's claim concerning Mobil-1. I read some of the discussion thread you posted. I saw the statements quoted by Sean above too. I have no idea who NJ Tom is or what his motives or expertise might be. As far as I know, a gas chromatograph will report what elements comprise whatever substance is analyzed. Oil, be it synthetic, PAO, ester based, or conventional is comprised of hydrogen and carbon. I'm no expert, but I don't see how a gas chromatograph could spit out a report showing the type of base oil that a lubricant uses. Can you explain it to me? What you imagine is "science" is in fact rhetoric and supposition. Show me the actual report with actual values obtained according to proper industry standard testing (this requires more than one sample and the use of a control specimen) using properly calibrated and certified equipment under supervision/control of a certified expert. This is the kind of stuff I do for a living. We don't base analysis off chatter on some discussion forum. We do the actual testing, analysis and engineering. We don't make irresponsible statements contrary to the statements of others unless we have hard facts to support them. I don't like "busting balls", in fact I don't like it at all. What I really don't like is the kind of irresponsible public statements like you see fit to make that seek to malign a reputable product based on the glib unsubstantiated naysayings of some internet pontificator. It's wrong and you know it. While some of his actions have been near-traitorous. I believe John Kerry is a fool, but a patriot. I think you just set a new record for consecutive posts. We'll get you a t-shirt for that. | ||
| Rocketman |
Bruce, I'm in no way siding with Blake here, but I have to ask. What are you reading? So Bruce \ Blake, am I to understand the crux of this discussion is based on the argument that some Mobil fully synthetics are based on Group III base stock (mineral oil) which means they are not as fully synthetic as I might be lead to believe..... or the above but with a percentage of Polyalphaolefins (PAO's) so making it fully synthetic (allegedly)...... or some Mobil 1 fully synthetics are not all Group IV base oils chemically engineered from synthetic base stocks......? Bruce, I just can't fathom your point as it seems there are at least two ways to call oil 'fully synthetic'. 1. Group – III Hydro processing and Refining: Group III base oils are subjected to the highest level of mineral oil refining of the base oil groups. Although they are not chemically engineered, they offer good performance in a wide range of attributes as well as good molecular uniformity and stability. They are commonly mixed with additives and marketed as synthetic or semi-synthetic products. Group III base oils have become more common in America in the last decade. 2. Group IV -Chemical Reactions: Group IV base oils are chemically engineered synthetic base stocks. Polyalphaolefins (PAO's) are a common example of a synthetic base stock. Synthetics, when combined with additives, offer excellent performance over a wide range of lubricating properties. They have very stable chemical compositions and highly uniform molecular chains. Group IV base oils are becoming more common in synthetic and synthetic-blend products for automotive and industrial applications. Bruce, your stance seems to say, because you aren't satisfied with the way Mobil has changed its advertising speak you doubt some of their fully synthetic brands are indeed fully synthetic. If that's the case I would like you to say which Mobil brands you are comparing to one another so's I can see where you're coming from. For example, if M1 15/50 EP fully synthetic is a shelf replacement for a previous M1 fully synthetic grade and both have different base stocks, please say which grade has been replaced and what both their base stocks were. Better still, list all the M1 fully synthetic grades available and show me which grades come from which base stock because I'm sure as heck confused. Then again. Is your argument simply this. Mobil have introduced a new fully synthetic brand developed on Group III base stock, and you're annoyed because Mobil haven't gone out their way to inform you the customer of the base stock differences in this product compared to their previous product? Then of course, there's the bigger picture. What, if anything (besides advertising), are say Amsoil doing any different, and is it any better?  Rocket | ||
| Brucelee |
I ask that you guys re-read what I posted to start this thread. I think my points are clear. Go read the posts and go read the m1 website. If you are into it, read all 19 pages of the thread so you get a flavor of what has been exchanged. The "science" and the marketing of this issue is all there, no need to repeat it. IMHO, I won't use M1 oil anymore. I have been around Corporate my whole life and know marketing slight of hand when I see it. Here is how M1 can handle the issue if they want to come clean. "Our oil is made up exclusively of 100% fully synthetic basestocks. These basestocks DO NOT consist of any Group 3 hydroprocessed oils but rather, consist of PAOs and POE stock only." The remainder of our oil consists of proprietary additives." That would end the discussion wouldn't it. But of course, M1 has not made such a clean statement. BTW-In the past, M1 HAS made such statements over and over. I have no issue with synthetics made with Group 3 base. Some are quite good indeed, like Shell Rotella T. Some are realy crap. What I object to is a company that has made its mark by distancing itself from Group 3 and now, backdooring it in without disclosure. Bottom line, I am not paying $7 a qt for an oil when I can buy a Group 3 syn for about $4 or less. Now blake, about John Kerry. Do I need to pull out old threads where you call him a traitor? How can one be a traitor and a patriot. I am sure you have a way though! There is a long post on Bob is the oil guy's site to the effect that the new M1 15W-50 oil that we all love is no longer a full synthetic oil. The chemist over there used Gas Chrom. to check for PAO content and found very little indeed. Curious, I checked out the M1 web site and sure enough, they have changed the wording to describe their M1 oils and are much less direct about reference to PAOs. They still claim that their oils are fully synthetic, but the wording is very slick indeed. All the more reason to switch to Red Line IMHO. Enjoy! (Message edited by brucelee on November 05, 2006) | ||
| Brucelee |
I think you just set a new record for consecutive posts. We'll get you a t-shirt for that Forget the shirt, try taking some lessons in tact! | ||
| Jackbequick |
"..Now, please explain to our friend Jack here how Exxon-Mobil is not screwing all of us for profit anymore than any other for profit business..." You can explain it to me yourself if you want. Or not, I don't care either way. I made a rhetorical statement, to the point under discussion, that might explain why they are now making their oil with cheaper and/or different ingredients and not being very open or honest with the public about it. I don't need any further explanation to know that oil company profits have taken an outrageous leap in the last year or two. I realize the price of oil has gone up, but that does not in any way justify the retail prices that have brought the oil companies huge profits. You call yourself a scientist? I don't see that in your discussion here. You immediately decided what was right and wrong based on the way you thought is or was once. The way I see it, Richard's post and bobtheoilguy's site surface a new variable that appears to change things and that is worthy of consideration. No more, no less. I'm done here. Jack | ||
| Blake |
What is this "tact" of which you speak? |
