M1 0w-40 is synthetic in Germany again.....

[kschachn]

Well, I for one have never said it was "every bit as good as PAO". However, ExxonMobil showed that when blended with PAO, their Visom product was substantially equal to an "all PAO" product in most respects, and slightly superior in others.

Whatever M1 0W-40 is (and no one knows for sure, right?), I will take it. Especially considering the price at Walmart.

Originally Posted By: wemay
Its threads like this that confuse many posters. On other threads, Grp III 'syn' is discussed as being every bit as good as PAO, yet here, we are all gushing over the possibility of M1 0w40 now being, and EDGE now bringing, PAO to the U.S. and Canada. Am I missing something?

BTW, just came back home from WM. Had to get some of that 0W-40 EDGE which is still $21.xx .

 

[Shannow]

wemay, you have to look at who's saying what.

Personally I believe that PAO/ester are "better" in general than GrIII (most GrIII), and that particularly in Oz, we got ripped off when they started bottling GrIII as "synthetic" and charging us exactly the same prices, for something that had a demonstrably worse pour point etc.

I've been pummelled over saying it for years, so I stopped saying it..."you are buying the packaged", "Pour point is meaningless in real life"...all correct enough statements...basestock snobbery was stated at one stage also.

But if I've got a choice of PAO versus GrIII, in the oil that I want, I'll take PAO every time.

 

[wemay]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
wemay, you have to look at who's saying what.

Personally I believe that PAO/ester are "better" in general than GrIII (most GrIII), and that particularly in Oz, we got ripped off when they started bottling GrIII as "synthetic" and charging us exactly the same prices, for something that had a demonstrably worse pour point etc.

I've been pummelled over saying it for years, so I stopped saying it..."you are buying the packaged", "Pour point is meaningless in real life"...all correct enough statements...basestock snobbery was stated at one stage also.

But if I've got a choice of PAO versus GrIII, in the oil that I want, I'll take PAO every time.


True, the source must always be considered. I've been around long enough to discern a person's motive and level of expertise when reading through threads.

 

[kschachn]

OTOH, does anyone even know if ExxonMobil is still using their Visom product? That presentation from a few years ago stated it was an intermediate base stock to be used until GTL was available, since world-wide PAO availability was expected to be limited.

 

[Shannow]

kschachn...very good question.

Board just assumes that everything's visom/trinuclear moly.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
OTOH, does anyone even know if ExxonMobil is still using their Visom product? That presentation from a few years ago stated it was an intermediate base stock to be used until GTL was available, since world-wide PAO availability was expected to be limited.

We do not know for sure, but the specs of this oil haven't changed since then.

And as far as I remember, XOM scrapped their plans for GTL.

 

[njohnson]

If the datasheet for the 0W-40 is showing 50-60% PAO, then there is the 0W-20 EP showing 60-70% PAO, could the opening of the new Mobil PAO plant be a factor? Now there is an abundant supply to work with whereas before they were limited by the amount of PAO available?

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: njohnson
could the opening of the new Mobil PAO plant be a factor? Now there is an abundant supply to work with whereas before they were limited by the amount of PAO available?

Only if this PAO is actually cheaper for them to make, compared to VISOM. Or if VISOM became in short supply all of a sudden. Otherwise, I don't see why they would switch.

Other than the reason already mentioned earlier - to able to have the words "Fully Synthetic" on the label in Germany.

 

[edyvw]

Did anyone noticed change of color in M1?
I think it is more amber than before. I just changed oil, and that was first thing I noticed.

 

[aa1986]

Originally Posted By: edyvw
Did anyone noticed change of color in M1?
I think it is more amber than before. I just changed oil, and that was first thing I noticed.


I don't have a newer bottle but when I first used the SN version a few years ago, I immediately noticed how thin and runny it was on the dipstick. I think it was colorless on the dipstick too.

 

[bluesubie]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Xtc6k
For the noobs like me, how can you tell what is the new 0w40 compared to the old sn version?


I don't think we can

In Germany, the labels may change. But that won't be the case here IMHO.

Thanks. I mis-read the question.

I believe they even put disclaimers on oil that state formulations may change from time to time.

-Dennis

 

[Clevy]

VISOM is proprietary and subject to change without notice,however performance will be unaffected.
I believe that it's always changing based on what feedstocks are currently available,so on any given day it could have a bit more of this,and a little less of that.
It provides them a bit of slack.

 

[kschachn]

You're not really serious about that, right? Unless you changed viscosity too...

Originally Posted By: aa1986
I don't have a newer bottle but when I first used the SN version a few years ago, I immediately noticed how thin and runny it was on the dipstick. I think it was colorless on the dipstick too.

 

[kschachn]

Maybe. You will recall that during Katrina when ExxonMobil experienced a disruption in certain components of their oil they had to temporarily drop the API starburst on their containers. They explained that the oil had been reformulated, and although they were certain it was equivalent or better to the previous formulation, it took time to get it re-certified. So I suppose it matters what is being changed in the formulation, but I think that unless they plan ahead and get API certification they can't just change certain components on their own.

It's not to say they can't change anything (I'm sure they do all the time), it's just that I think it has to be planned ahead.

Originally Posted By: Clevy
VISOM is proprietary and subject to change without notice,however performance will be unaffected.
I believe that it's always changing based on what feedstocks are currently available,so on any given day it could have a bit more of this,and a little less of that.
It provides them a bit of slack.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Clevy
VISOM is proprietary and subject to change without notice,however performance will be unaffected.
I believe that it's always changing based on what feedstocks are currently available,so on any given day it could have a bit more of this,and a little less of that.
It provides them a bit of slack.


Shannow posted recently about what can/can't be changed relative to various spec's. The list is quite extensive for what requires a re-test. A formulator cannot just arbitrarily swap out components

 

[kschachn]

Considering all the specs 0W-40 meets they probably can't change the cap color without someone being alarmed

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Shannow posted recently about what can/can't be changed relative to various spec's. The list is quite extensive for what requires a re-test. A formulator cannot just arbitrarily swap out components

 

[OVERKILL]

LOL!

 

[aa1986]

They can change to a PAO version in the US anytime they want. So long as that PAO version is already approved which apparently it is since it is being sold in Germany.

Of course, they should update the specs on their website, with should being the operative word.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: aa1986
They can change to a PAO version in the US anytime they want. So long as that PAO version is already approved which apparently it is since it is being sold in Germany.

Of course, they should update the specs on their website, with should being the operative word.


Assuming I am reading your post correctly, that's not quite what I was talking about

As per this thread:

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...ide#Post3542819

The API has guidelines on what requires retesting when swapping base oils. There are similar stipulations for additive packages and there are again further ones for OEM approvals/certifications. So it isn't as simple as Mobil swapping out one base for another, which was what I was referencing regarding Clevy's post.

For the actual product and the differences we are seeing in data sheets, from what we've heard from Mobil, this is a global product, so the product we have in the USA and Canada is the same (barring initial variations and lag in distribution) as the product represented in that German MSDS. Mobil is just slow updating their data sheets and even slower on their labelling. Though not quite as bad as Shell

LOL!

IMHO, this simply means Mobil has once again reformulated their flagship product, had it completely recertified and are working on rolling it out. The trouble will be, for those that care, knowing when you are obtaining the majority PAO version vs its VISOM-based predecessor. There were those of us who specifically looked for the older (less shear stable) SM version due to its superior cold flow characteristics and subsequently higher PAO base oil content. It was readily available in Canada for ages past when the SN version became the only thing on US shelves because our distribution chain is so far behind yours south of the border.

 

[aa1986]

I am beginning to suspect that the new product hit US shelves around the time that the rebate purchase period ended and when Walmart stopped selling it at $21.66.

This also fits in with an update to the US MSDS in July 2014.

We also had the instance of a craigslist seller who seems to have obtained a sizable amount of older product.

I don't know what's going on in Germany but perhaps Castrol and Mobil are competing over who has the best 0w40 and the fight is spilling out into the Americas.