Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: weasley
No it doesn't. If it was "full synthetic" they would label it "Vollsynthetisch". They don't though (at least on the latest German web information). They label it "HC Synthese", which is German marketing speak for Group 3.
I was under the impression that the base oil just had to be majority; >=50%. It is 50-60%. There is no requirement for Mobil to change the labelling however and they may not have as of yet to reflect the base oil change. I'm sure this MSDS is newer than their labels. SOPUS STILL hasn't updated the PU Euro 5w-40 labels to say SN and match their PDS's and it has been two bloody years!
If you check out the Castrol Germany MSDS for their 0w-40 (which is labelled Vollsynthese):
http://msdspds.castrol.com/ussds/amersdsf.nsf/Files/A8C6292185F353A780257D7A00745BB7/$File/BP%20EU%20CLP%20SDS%20-%20Germany%20DE-Lubes%20Europe-Castrol468367-DE01German%20%28DE%29.pdf
It shows 25-35% 50cSt PAO and 25-35% of another type of PAO with CAS # 157707-86-3. That makes it 50-70% PAO at the most, reinforcing my understanding of the labelling requirements.
Originally Posted By: weasley
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
They are all "mixes". They have to be. The thing was that this oil was NOT majority PAO for some time. VISOM replaced PAO as the dominant base oil. This appears to have now changed.
They don't "have to be" mixes - it is perfectly feasible to make a full PAO (and/or ester) oil which would qualify as "Vollsyntetisch".
I don't think you are following what I'm saying or you are being intentionally obtuse
All oils are mixes. You are welcome to run straight PAO in your engine but I'm doubting the results would be desirable. Blenders use a mix of base oils, additives...etc to achieve a given performance target and yes, some oil companies will use more synthetic base stocks than others as a part of that percentage but it is still a balancing act. Even back in the day when Mobil was using only PAO; back when VISOM didn't exist, the oils wouldn't have been all PAO. There would have been some percentage of other base stocks in there to deal with solubility and other things.
That said, I'm sure there are oils on the market with a much higher percentage of PAO as the primary base oil blend. Their own EP 0w-20 is ~70% for example. But this is a change in this particular product and an interesting one because it was switched away from being PAO-based to being basically entirely VISOM based and that change has now been reversed.
I'm quite interested to see if they DO in fact update the marketing material/labelling (and you'll note Trav has stated he DID see M1 0w-40 labelled as vollsynthetische while in Germany but was unsure as to whether it was new or old stock)
I just ran across this on Amazon. It was in 2013.
This review is from: Mobil 1 14520 0W-40 Synthetic Motor Oil - 5.1 Quart Jug (Automotive)
As a PhD scientist who spent 33 years in lubricants R & D, I really get a kick out of all of these "laymen" comments which are generally not very accurate, but surprisingly sometimes actually do give a hint of some reality. As a result I feel compelled to make my own expert comments to clarify things for the laymen. BTW, 23 of those years were spent with Mobil working on "synthetic" lubricants.
FOA, "synthetic" is just a term. For one thing, one can make a really lousy "synthetic" lubricant from high-quality PAO base oils, or a really good lubricant from the new "hydroprocessed" base oils (Group II, II+, III or III+ base oils) - it all boils down to the additives. Without additives none of the hydrocarbon base oils are very good as lubricants; with PAO probably being the very worst from an actual stability standpoint. But, it just so happens that with the proper set of additives, a skilled lubricants formulator can make really good lubricants with PAO; but they also can with high-quality hydroprocessed base oils as well.
The lubricant producers formulate to meet the requires specifications by balancing the base oils and additives synergistically and at generally the lowest possible cost (to maximize profits). For wide-crossgraded products like a 0W-40, one needs base oils with good low temperatures properties and a flat temperature-viscosity profile (generally referred to as VI or Viscosity Index). Although hydroprocessing can create base oils with these attributes if one begins with the right feedstock and uses just the right transformation processes (like starting with a slack wax and doing isomerization dewaxing and hydrofinishing). In fact using the right processes can actually create base oils better than PAO from the VI standpoint, but not so easily producing the low temperature properties, unless a process like the MSDW-II process, a highly-selective isomerization dewaxing process, created by Mobil, is run properly to a low pour point product. For economic reason I don't believe they actually do that, at least not to my current knowledge. I know because I initiated the work that created this incredible process and know all of its capabilities.
Anyway, in order to meet the viscosity specs of SAE J300 for a 0W-40, most formulations today would require some Group III or III+ base oils along with some PAO to slip within these difficult set of specs. But, that doesn't matter other than for the viscosity of the oil; the quality of the oil is basically totally dependent upon the performance of the additive system. And, Mobil 1 has traditional always been formulated with the state of the art additives in a synergistic balance to produce the best possible lubricant product. One reason being is that it cost nothing extra because the PAO base oil and the additives are a price wash.
