You I respect, but I'd still like to see proof. Apologies...stephen
Mobil 1 better cleaner than AutoRx?
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: jmb106
Originally Posted By: sprintman
Mobil 1 is Group III? I'd really like to see the data on that.
Hey Sprintman, How's it going down under? Yes M1 here in the states been partially gruop III for a few years now.
Joe
We have heard these allegations for a few years now. But when you look for facts, they are nowhere to be found.
Mobil sells a wide variety of motor oils -- conventional, high mileage, and synthetic. A possible source for confusion by people who aren't paying close attention... Or maybe the confusion results from misinformation by competitors like Shell or Castrol?
It would be absurd to spend billions, probably, to establish Mobil 1 as a brand, over the last several decades, and then put that reputation at risk by cheapening it. Say what you will about Exxon-Mobil, but it makes lots of money because it has very smart people running it.
Originally Posted By: sprintman
Mobil 1 is Group III? I'd really like to see the data on that.
Hey Sprintman, How's it going down under? Yes M1 here in the states been partially gruop III for a few years now.
Joe
We have heard these allegations for a few years now. But when you look for facts, they are nowhere to be found.
Mobil sells a wide variety of motor oils -- conventional, high mileage, and synthetic. A possible source for confusion by people who aren't paying close attention... Or maybe the confusion results from misinformation by competitors like Shell or Castrol?
It would be absurd to spend billions, probably, to establish Mobil 1 as a brand, over the last several decades, and then put that reputation at risk by cheapening it. Say what you will about Exxon-Mobil, but it makes lots of money because it has very smart people running it.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Katrina landed a major hit on XOM's output capabilities. There were official releases that, without outright saying it, that this required XOM to use other materials in their formulations. We had a buttload of discussions on this and a member, Tom in NJ had bona fide insider knowledge of it. It almost cost him his job. What I think it boiled down to is that they were never going to meet demand with their degraded PAO production capability, and Group III base stocks were being used at a higher percentage.
Before Katrina XOM was looking to expand outlets for their products. It's what made 5w-40 T&SUV a reality. They hadd excess production capability that was in excess of demand, so they tried to send it out a whole new door. Katrina arrives and they could no longer meet the former demand.
(my speculation)
They then probably figured out that brand loyalty retained market share ..even with cheaper components. This you could term a "China Syndrome" in that if you can get the same job done for a few $$$ less ..there's no reason not to.
Note that not all M1's are created equal ..or rather price equally. Some cost more.
In the context of Auto-Rx, formulations are changing all the time and there will be shifts left, right, up, and down. No one can keep track of it. So you suggest the process that's going to give the best result over the broadest customer base.
This seems to be a harder concept to communicate than one would think.
Before Katrina XOM was looking to expand outlets for their products. It's what made 5w-40 T&SUV a reality. They hadd excess production capability that was in excess of demand, so they tried to send it out a whole new door. Katrina arrives and they could no longer meet the former demand.
(my speculation)
They then probably figured out that brand loyalty retained market share ..even with cheaper components. This you could term a "China Syndrome" in that if you can get the same job done for a few $$$ less ..there's no reason not to.
Note that not all M1's are created equal ..or rather price equally. Some cost more.
In the context of Auto-Rx, formulations are changing all the time and there will be shifts left, right, up, and down. No one can keep track of it. So you suggest the process that's going to give the best result over the broadest customer base.
This seems to be a harder concept to communicate than one would think.
Why do people get caught up in what an oil contains rather than it's real world performance?
I could care less if an oil was made from Crisco so long as it got the job done to my satisfaction for the price I paid.
PAO & Ester content doesn't necessarily mean better protection!
I could care less if an oil was made from Crisco so long as it got the job done to my satisfaction for the price I paid.
PAO & Ester content doesn't necessarily mean better protection!
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
We had a buttload of discussions on this and a member, Tom in NJ had bona fide insider knowledge of it. It almost cost him his job.
Yea I had heard Mobil 1 was now group 3 so I searched and found that thread of Tom's. I didn't mean to stir anything up, sorry.
As for the autoRX I searched and found this thread My Auto-RX Filter Pics and at post #302047 BrainWC says you can use synthetic on the clean phase. This seems to conflict w/ the advice jmb106 gave me to use Pennzoil YB for the clean phase and PP for the rinse (as it seems he has the order backwards). So can/should I use PP for the clean and rinse phases?
We had a buttload of discussions on this and a member, Tom in NJ had bona fide insider knowledge of it. It almost cost him his job.
Yea I had heard Mobil 1 was now group 3 so I searched and found that thread of Tom's. I didn't mean to stir anything up, sorry.
As for the autoRX I searched and found this thread My Auto-RX Filter Pics and at post #302047 BrainWC says you can use synthetic on the clean phase. This seems to conflict w/ the advice jmb106 gave me to use Pennzoil YB for the clean phase and PP for the rinse (as it seems he has the order backwards). So can/should I use PP for the clean and rinse phases?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
Originally Posted By: chambers
BrainWC
I'd consult sprintman, because he has the most experience of anyone with A-Rx.
BrainWC
I'd consult sprintman, because he has the most experience of anyone with A-Rx.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
* sings the theme song of Pinkie and the Brain *
No Ron has the most experience of anyone I know with RX, I have more than most not including him. Who buys RX by the case as I do?
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
I don't know who Ron is. Never heard of him. Of the folks who have constant success with A-Rx, you are the most prominent, staunch, and the most believable one on BITOG. That counts for something! Because of that I'll designate you BITOG's A-Rx honcho numero uno, and I recommend your advice to be followed to the letter in the best interest of success.
Originally Posted By: BrianWC
Yes you can use PP for clean. The warnings about synthetic are mainly for the rinse, not the clean. But even in the rinse, group III synths such as PP have been used sucessfully.
...and I saw that, mori.
Thanks for the info, so as long as it's group III it's good for autoRX. I can see the benefit of running a longer cleaning phase w/ PP, but is there any benefit to running a longer rinse phase than the standard one of 3k miles?
Yes you can use PP for clean. The warnings about synthetic are mainly for the rinse, not the clean. But even in the rinse, group III synths such as PP have been used sucessfully.
...and I saw that, mori.
Thanks for the info, so as long as it's group III it's good for autoRX. I can see the benefit of running a longer cleaning phase w/ PP, but is there any benefit to running a longer rinse phase than the standard one of 3k miles?
My advice is don't listen to anything I say as I don't follow 'the rules'
Originally Posted By: moribundman
I don't know who Ron is. Never heard of him. Of the folks who have constant success with A-Rx, you are the most prominent, staunch, and the most believable one on BITOG. That counts for something! Because of that I'll designate you BITOG's A-Rx honcho numero uno, and I recommend your advice to be followed to the letter in the best interest of success.
You don't know who RON is? Hah!
I don't know who Ron is. Never heard of him. Of the folks who have constant success with A-Rx, you are the most prominent, staunch, and the most believable one on BITOG. That counts for something! Because of that I'll designate you BITOG's A-Rx honcho numero uno, and I recommend your advice to be followed to the letter in the best interest of success.
You don't know who RON is? Hah!
Originally Posted By: chambers
Originally Posted By: BrianWC
Yes you can use PP for clean. The warnings about synthetic are mainly for the rinse, not the clean. But even in the rinse, group III synths such as PP have been used sucessfully.
...and I saw that, mori.
Thanks for the info, so as long as it's group III it's good for autoRX. I can see the benefit of running a longer cleaning phase w/ PP, but is there any benefit to running a longer rinse phase than the standard one of 3k miles?
Yes, and even M1 is okay for the clean. But you MAY consider extending it a bit. I didn't. But most do.
Originally Posted By: BrianWC
Yes you can use PP for clean. The warnings about synthetic are mainly for the rinse, not the clean. But even in the rinse, group III synths such as PP have been used sucessfully.
...and I saw that, mori.
Thanks for the info, so as long as it's group III it's good for autoRX. I can see the benefit of running a longer cleaning phase w/ PP, but is there any benefit to running a longer rinse phase than the standard one of 3k miles?
Yes, and even M1 is okay for the clean. But you MAY consider extending it a bit. I didn't. But most do.
I definitely advise against using M1 for clean or rinse.
Use dino
try Pennzoil Platinum Euro Formuala 5W40 (no ester or PAO)
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
