I bought 20 qrts. of MSS when on introductory sale at O'Reillys ($3.49 per qrt.) My experience with the MSS 5W20 is it is just ok. In my Hyundai Elantra and Kia Sedona the engines sound "buzzy" with the MSS inside . I run it 6K miles / 6 months and then dump it . When I use up my stash I will not renew with MSS , instead I will go with QSUD or PP .
Mobil Super Synthetic - Any Info or UOA's?
- Thread starter z917990
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: tig1
MSS is a grp 3 synthetic as is PP or QS. Now the last two oils may a have tweke or two that MSS doesn't. We don't know.
We do know that PP and QSUD have better additive packs than does MSS, and we do know that both have considerably higher starting TBN than does MSS.
We also know that the UOA forum has a host of really clean UOAs using PP, one of which is mine.
We also know that most flavors of M1 contain a good shot of Grp III and have an add pack and starting TBN similar to that of the SOPUS products.
The difference is that SOPUS is very upfront in disclosing the basestocks used in T6, PP, QSUD and Ultra, while XOM is quite coy about it.
MSS is a grp 3 synthetic as is PP or QS. Now the last two oils may a have tweke or two that MSS doesn't. We don't know.
We do know that PP and QSUD have better additive packs than does MSS, and we do know that both have considerably higher starting TBN than does MSS.
We also know that the UOA forum has a host of really clean UOAs using PP, one of which is mine.
We also know that most flavors of M1 contain a good shot of Grp III and have an add pack and starting TBN similar to that of the SOPUS products.
The difference is that SOPUS is very upfront in disclosing the basestocks used in T6, PP, QSUD and Ultra, while XOM is quite coy about it.
I agree with you.
VOAs only identify metallic additives.
Based upon the metallic additives identified, QSUD is clearly a superior oil to MSS.
QSUD also has undeniably higher starting TBN.
What hush hush additives do you think XOM has concealed in MSS that would make it the equal of QSUD?
Why don't they advertise them?
They advertise everything else.
The additives that we can see identify MSS as a bargain level formulation even WPP would be ashamed of.
Why would XOM hide all of the good stuff where we can't see it?
Incidentally, the cute little smilies enhance neither your point nor your credibility.
VOAs only identify metallic additives.
Based upon the metallic additives identified, QSUD is clearly a superior oil to MSS.
QSUD also has undeniably higher starting TBN.
What hush hush additives do you think XOM has concealed in MSS that would make it the equal of QSUD?
Why don't they advertise them?
They advertise everything else.
The additives that we can see identify MSS as a bargain level formulation even WPP would be ashamed of.
Why would XOM hide all of the good stuff where we can't see it?
Incidentally, the cute little smilies enhance neither your point nor your credibility.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
I agree with you.
...............
Why would XOM hide all of the good stuff where we can't see it?
Incidentally, the cute little smilies enhance neither your point nor your credibility.
Would you like a shovel to dig yourself any deeper yet?
You agree with me, but yet wonder why XOM would "hide" something. Something that may not be detectable in a VOA or even disclosed in a PDS. Because maybe they don't want to disclose or have to disclose. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I agree with you.
...............
Why would XOM hide all of the good stuff where we can't see it?
Incidentally, the cute little smilies enhance neither your point nor your credibility.
Would you like a shovel to dig yourself any deeper yet?
You agree with me, but yet wonder why XOM would "hide" something. Something that may not be detectable in a VOA or even disclosed in a PDS. Because maybe they don't want to disclose or have to disclose. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Faith is an awesome thing.
Objective data can only convince those open to new thinking.
You want to believe in XOM, no problem.
Most of us here have moved on to the objective information available in VOAs, UOAs and PDSs.
If XOM had a superior product, they would trumpet it to the world.
I think everyone who understands even basic product marketing would understand that.
It is you who would appear to need the shovel, to dig yourself out of the hole you have created.
Quoting my post selectively and without context is an indication of your inability to advance a cogent argument.
This is exactly what you did.
Objective data can only convince those open to new thinking.
You want to believe in XOM, no problem.
Most of us here have moved on to the objective information available in VOAs, UOAs and PDSs.
If XOM had a superior product, they would trumpet it to the world.
I think everyone who understands even basic product marketing would understand that.
It is you who would appear to need the shovel, to dig yourself out of the hole you have created.
Quoting my post selectively and without context is an indication of your inability to advance a cogent argument.
This is exactly what you did.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Faith is an awesome thing.
Objective data can only convince those open to new thinking.
You want to believe in XOM, no problem.
Most of us here have moved on to the objective information available in VOAs, UOAs and PDSs.
If XOM had a superior product, they would trumpet it to the world.
I think everyone who understands even basic product marketing would understand that.
It is you who would appear to need the shovel, to dig yourself out of the hole you have created.
Quoting my post selectively and without context is an indication of your inability to advance a cogent argument.
This is exactly what you did.
I never said MSS is a superior product, I only said MSS and PP are know grp 3 oils. PP may very well have a better ingrediant package. Since that's proprietary we will never know.
Faith is an awesome thing.
Objective data can only convince those open to new thinking.
You want to believe in XOM, no problem.
Most of us here have moved on to the objective information available in VOAs, UOAs and PDSs.
If XOM had a superior product, they would trumpet it to the world.
I think everyone who understands even basic product marketing would understand that.
It is you who would appear to need the shovel, to dig yourself out of the hole you have created.
Quoting my post selectively and without context is an indication of your inability to advance a cogent argument.
This is exactly what you did.
I never said MSS is a superior product, I only said MSS and PP are know grp 3 oils. PP may very well have a better ingrediant package. Since that's proprietary we will never know.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
You want to believe in XOM, no problem.
Never said that.
YOU are make claims that the QSUD add pack is "better" and "superior".
YOU said, "We do know that PP and QSUD have better additive packs than does MSS".
And I asked, "According to whom?"
And you said, "Check the Product Data Sheets for these oils."
"If XOM had a superior product, they would trumpet it to the world."
And if QSUD was a superior product, then why don't THEY trumpet it to the world?
"Based upon the metallic additives identified, QSUD is clearly a superior oil to MSS. QSUD also has undeniably higher starting TBN."
Metallic additives make it superior? How about the entire package, which once again is a greater sum than what is reported in a VOA, MSDS, or PDS. Higher TBN does NOT make it a "better" or "superior" add pack. Do you not understand this?
You want to believe in XOM, no problem.
Never said that.
YOU are make claims that the QSUD add pack is "better" and "superior".
YOU said, "We do know that PP and QSUD have better additive packs than does MSS".
And I asked, "According to whom?"
And you said, "Check the Product Data Sheets for these oils."
"If XOM had a superior product, they would trumpet it to the world."
And if QSUD was a superior product, then why don't THEY trumpet it to the world?
"Based upon the metallic additives identified, QSUD is clearly a superior oil to MSS. QSUD also has undeniably higher starting TBN."
Metallic additives make it superior? How about the entire package, which once again is a greater sum than what is reported in a VOA, MSDS, or PDS. Higher TBN does NOT make it a "better" or "superior" add pack. Do you not understand this?
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Faith is an awesome thing.
Objective data can only convince those open to new thinking.
You want to believe in XOM, no problem.
Most of us here have moved on to the objective information available in VOAs, UOAs and PDSs.
If XOM had a superior product, they would trumpet it to the world.
I think everyone who understands even basic product marketing would understand that.
It is you who would appear to need the shovel, to dig yourself out of the hole you have created.
Quoting my post selectively and without context is an indication of your inability to advance a cogent argument.
This is exactly what you did.
I'm sorry, but a PDS is hardly objective data. It is a product data sheet. It gives us SOME information about a product. It however, gives us no indication as to the overall formulation of the product OR its real world performance.
Accusing somebody of relying on faith whilst relying on your own faith in the very limited data presented in a PDS (many of which have been identified as having glaring errors in them! SOPUS I'm looking at you!) is, well, laughable.
There is a great deal we CANNOT glean about oils when forced to view their properties through the tiny windows into their formulations that we possess. VOA's, UOA's, PDS's....etc. They give us a vague picture of an oil's make-up and performance. We know TBN isn't linear. So an oil with a higher starting TBN may not end up being the longer lasting product. There are plenty of organic compounds that don't show up in VOA's, UOA's....etc. We also have tri-nuclear Moly to deal with now (Mobil).
At the end of the day, oils with the same certifications are likely to perform VERY similarly. That is what we DO know. And an oil with the MOST certifications is likely going to be BETTER. We don't need a VOA or PDS to tell us that. Though knowing NOACK, MRV..etc I think is beneficial when one wants to get REALLY anal. And it surely isn't a crime to want as much data as we can possibly get. But the value of that data still needs to be put in context.
Faith is an awesome thing.
Objective data can only convince those open to new thinking.
You want to believe in XOM, no problem.
Most of us here have moved on to the objective information available in VOAs, UOAs and PDSs.
If XOM had a superior product, they would trumpet it to the world.
I think everyone who understands even basic product marketing would understand that.
It is you who would appear to need the shovel, to dig yourself out of the hole you have created.
Quoting my post selectively and without context is an indication of your inability to advance a cogent argument.
This is exactly what you did.
I'm sorry, but a PDS is hardly objective data. It is a product data sheet. It gives us SOME information about a product. It however, gives us no indication as to the overall formulation of the product OR its real world performance.
Accusing somebody of relying on faith whilst relying on your own faith in the very limited data presented in a PDS (many of which have been identified as having glaring errors in them! SOPUS I'm looking at you!) is, well, laughable.
There is a great deal we CANNOT glean about oils when forced to view their properties through the tiny windows into their formulations that we possess. VOA's, UOA's, PDS's....etc. They give us a vague picture of an oil's make-up and performance. We know TBN isn't linear. So an oil with a higher starting TBN may not end up being the longer lasting product. There are plenty of organic compounds that don't show up in VOA's, UOA's....etc. We also have tri-nuclear Moly to deal with now (Mobil).
At the end of the day, oils with the same certifications are likely to perform VERY similarly. That is what we DO know. And an oil with the MOST certifications is likely going to be BETTER. We don't need a VOA or PDS to tell us that. Though knowing NOACK, MRV..etc I think is beneficial when one wants to get REALLY anal. And it surely isn't a crime to want as much data as we can possibly get. But the value of that data still needs to be put in context.
The metalic additive pack is not proprietary information, it is readily available data.
MSS is a bargain basement formulation meant to sell at a price point while not competing with M1.
Mobil has a marketing problem in that it has only the Mobil brand to offer.
SOPUS has no such problem, in that it has QS, Pennzoil and Shell to market as independent brands.
The Shell and Quaker State brands are clearly the price leaders, while Pennzoil is the premium brand.
SOPUS can offer very good oils in all of these brands while not compromising its marketing strategy.
XOM has only the Mobil brand, the Exxon oil brand having fallen by the wayside, so it has a bit of a dilemma.
We need to offer a cheaper syn, but it can't be as good as M1 or we'll degrade the flagship brand.
What shall we do?
XOM's response was to market an oil labeled as synthetic that was clearly inferior to M1 to be sold at a lower price point.
Were it the equal of M1, why would anyone pay more for M1?
SOPUS has different and recognized brands to play with, so it can offer really good oils in each.
This is why MSS is a bargain basement formulation, and QSUD is a very good one.
SOPUS is not worried about Pennzoil loyalists crossing over to QSUD, since they will remain PP or Ultra buyers.
XOM was clearly worried about M1 users crossing over to a cheaper MSS, so they made MSS an undeniably inferior oil to M1.
It is also an inferior oil to any SOPUS syn, unless you believe in fairy dust and the great and powerful Oz.
MSS is a bargain basement formulation meant to sell at a price point while not competing with M1.
Mobil has a marketing problem in that it has only the Mobil brand to offer.
SOPUS has no such problem, in that it has QS, Pennzoil and Shell to market as independent brands.
The Shell and Quaker State brands are clearly the price leaders, while Pennzoil is the premium brand.
SOPUS can offer very good oils in all of these brands while not compromising its marketing strategy.
XOM has only the Mobil brand, the Exxon oil brand having fallen by the wayside, so it has a bit of a dilemma.
We need to offer a cheaper syn, but it can't be as good as M1 or we'll degrade the flagship brand.
What shall we do?
XOM's response was to market an oil labeled as synthetic that was clearly inferior to M1 to be sold at a lower price point.
Were it the equal of M1, why would anyone pay more for M1?
SOPUS has different and recognized brands to play with, so it can offer really good oils in each.
This is why MSS is a bargain basement formulation, and QSUD is a very good one.
SOPUS is not worried about Pennzoil loyalists crossing over to QSUD, since they will remain PP or Ultra buyers.
XOM was clearly worried about M1 users crossing over to a cheaper MSS, so they made MSS an undeniably inferior oil to M1.
It is also an inferior oil to any SOPUS syn, unless you believe in fairy dust and the great and powerful Oz.
Higher TBN does not make a better oil?
Really?
A better additive pack does not make for a better oil?
Really?
I guess I should start looking for lower TBNs and a weaker additive pack when I look at oil.
Sorry for what I guess I don't understand.
I defer to your wisdom.
Really?
A better additive pack does not make for a better oil?
Really?
I guess I should start looking for lower TBNs and a weaker additive pack when I look at oil.
Sorry for what I guess I don't understand.
I defer to your wisdom.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
XOM was clearly worried about M1 users crossing over to a cheaper MSS, so they made MSS an undeniably inferior oil to M1.
It is also an inferior oil to any SOPUS syn, unless you believe in fairy dust and the great and powerful Oz.
And this is where your argument falls apart, because people buying these oils aren't buying them based on looking at their PDS's, only the anally retentive nutcases on this site (read: us) are doing that. The general public simply sees Mobil selling three price points of Synthetic:
1. Mobil 1 EP
2. Mobil 1
3. Mobil Super Syn
Covering three price tiers: Good/Better/Best
They have no idea WHAT makes them that way. Mobil could be selling bottled vomit as one of them and the average consumer wouldn't have a clue. So undeniably inferior? to whom? Definitely not the consumer. They just see it at a lower price. People shopping for a Euro oil still need to buy the spec'd oil for their application. And people who thought Mobil 1 was too bloody expensive may now start buying the lower priced product.
And inferior to any SOPUS syn? based on? They are both Group III "synthetics" sold at a price point. Your wild and wacky conclusions about how good it is or isn't are just as baseless as those you are condemning for not sharing your view of SOPUS superiority.
And if the people on this site are any indication as to how the consumer shops, then a large percentage of them simply shop on price alone. And if SS is priced accordingly, it WILL affect SOPUS sales regardless of how badly you appear to think of it.
XOM was clearly worried about M1 users crossing over to a cheaper MSS, so they made MSS an undeniably inferior oil to M1.
It is also an inferior oil to any SOPUS syn, unless you believe in fairy dust and the great and powerful Oz.
And this is where your argument falls apart, because people buying these oils aren't buying them based on looking at their PDS's, only the anally retentive nutcases on this site (read: us) are doing that. The general public simply sees Mobil selling three price points of Synthetic:
1. Mobil 1 EP
2. Mobil 1
3. Mobil Super Syn
Covering three price tiers: Good/Better/Best
They have no idea WHAT makes them that way. Mobil could be selling bottled vomit as one of them and the average consumer wouldn't have a clue. So undeniably inferior? to whom? Definitely not the consumer. They just see it at a lower price. People shopping for a Euro oil still need to buy the spec'd oil for their application. And people who thought Mobil 1 was too bloody expensive may now start buying the lower priced product.
And inferior to any SOPUS syn? based on? They are both Group III "synthetics" sold at a price point. Your wild and wacky conclusions about how good it is or isn't are just as baseless as those you are condemning for not sharing your view of SOPUS superiority.
And if the people on this site are any indication as to how the consumer shops, then a large percentage of them simply shop on price alone. And if SS is priced accordingly, it WILL affect SOPUS sales regardless of how badly you appear to think of it.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Higher TBN does not make a better oil?
Really?
How does a higher total base number in a non-diesel oil make an oil "better"?
But in that vein:
The CJ-4 standard lowered TBN ACROSS THE BOARD in diesel lubes. Yet the PERFORMANCE of CJ-4 oils is regarded as being BETTER than the CI-4+ oils they replaced and they seem to have better TBN RETENTION, even though they have a lower STARTING TBN.
They also saw reduced levels of metallic additives that were replaced by organic additives.... But that ties into your next "question"....
Quote:
A better additive pack does not make for a better oil?
Really?
Define "better"? Or by better, do you simply mean more "traditional", as in having a majority of metallic additives that you can see in a VOA or on a PDS so you can feel like a boss choosing your oil?
Quote:
I guess I should start looking for lower TBNs and a weaker additive pack when I look at oil.
Sorry for what I guess I don't understand.
I defer to your wisdom.
Perhaps you should start looking at some of the certifications and realizing just how similar many of the "regular" oils are in their actual performance.
But I don't expect you to take my word for it, so maybe the statements made by the teams of engineers from Porsche and Mercedes regarding certified lubricants and their performance to Mr. Doug Hillary when he was speaking with them at the Nurburgring would work instead.
(And BTW, I'm just as guilty of trying to be uber-l33t and checking MRV and NOACK when I oil shop too, so don't take the "boss" thing as a serious dig. It is what it is, and it is what we do on this site... over-think.)
Higher TBN does not make a better oil?
Really?
How does a higher total base number in a non-diesel oil make an oil "better"?
But in that vein:
The CJ-4 standard lowered TBN ACROSS THE BOARD in diesel lubes. Yet the PERFORMANCE of CJ-4 oils is regarded as being BETTER than the CI-4+ oils they replaced and they seem to have better TBN RETENTION, even though they have a lower STARTING TBN.
They also saw reduced levels of metallic additives that were replaced by organic additives.... But that ties into your next "question"....
Quote:
A better additive pack does not make for a better oil?
Really?
Define "better"? Or by better, do you simply mean more "traditional", as in having a majority of metallic additives that you can see in a VOA or on a PDS so you can feel like a boss choosing your oil?
Quote:
I guess I should start looking for lower TBNs and a weaker additive pack when I look at oil.
Sorry for what I guess I don't understand.
I defer to your wisdom.
Perhaps you should start looking at some of the certifications and realizing just how similar many of the "regular" oils are in their actual performance.
But I don't expect you to take my word for it, so maybe the statements made by the teams of engineers from Porsche and Mercedes regarding certified lubricants and their performance to Mr. Doug Hillary when he was speaking with them at the Nurburgring would work instead.
(And BTW, I'm just as guilty of trying to be uber-l33t and checking MRV and NOACK when I oil shop too, so don't take the "boss" thing as a serious dig. It is what it is, and it is what we do on this site... over-think.)
Okay, Overkill, let's say I buy all of your points that Product Data Sheets, UOAs and VOAs give only a vague picture of any oil's performance.
Let's instead focus on certifications, since you state that oils meeting the same certifications are likely to yield similar performance.
QSUD and MSS are both API SN, ILSAC GF-5 energy conserving oils, as is M1, all in the 5W-30 grade.
In comparing the 5W-30 grades, QSUD meets two fairly tough high temperature standards, Honda HTO-6 and GM 4718M, as does M1.
MSS meets neither.
QSUD is Dexos 1 approved, as is M1.
MSS isn't.
The QSUD 5W-30 has a viscosity index of 172, as does M1, while MSS has VI of 162.
QSUD also has considerably better low temperature performance than does MSS, if you believe the numbers from XOM and SOPUS.
Overall, QSUD appears to be far more comparable to M1 then MSS is to QSUD, judging only by the certification criteria you site as being more meaningful than PDSs, VOAs and UOAs.
Let's instead focus on certifications, since you state that oils meeting the same certifications are likely to yield similar performance.
QSUD and MSS are both API SN, ILSAC GF-5 energy conserving oils, as is M1, all in the 5W-30 grade.
In comparing the 5W-30 grades, QSUD meets two fairly tough high temperature standards, Honda HTO-6 and GM 4718M, as does M1.
MSS meets neither.
QSUD is Dexos 1 approved, as is M1.
MSS isn't.
The QSUD 5W-30 has a viscosity index of 172, as does M1, while MSS has VI of 162.
QSUD also has considerably better low temperature performance than does MSS, if you believe the numbers from XOM and SOPUS.
Overall, QSUD appears to be far more comparable to M1 then MSS is to QSUD, judging only by the certification criteria you site as being more meaningful than PDSs, VOAs and UOAs.
- Status
Similar threads
