*Mobil 1 - PAO & Visom

[BMWTurboDzl]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
I think our future might be devoid of retail oil all together. All the OEM's are positioning themselves for exclusive fluids spec'd and licensed just for them. XOM has wisely put themselves (mostly) in the middle of much it by forming cooperatives with the OEM's. I'm sure SOPUS and others will be doing he same, but probably in different sectors.


I think there are some legal hurdles to overcome before that happens. As it is now all the OEM, ACEA, API test sequences are available for any supplier/blender to certify their product meets applicable specifications.

 

[Gary Allan]

Originally Posted By: BobFout
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
I think our future might be devoid of retail oil all together. All the OEM's are positioning themselves for exclusive fluids spec'd and licensed just for them. XOM has wisely put themselves (mostly) in the middle of much it by forming cooperatives with the OEM's. I'm sure SOPUS and others will be doing he same, but probably in different sectors.


Euros already do have exclusive fluid specs but many oils meet many of these specs, available at retail still. How do you see domestic oil being different?


It's just an extension of the tethering we've seen since around 2002. More ante being paid. The more exclusive you make your fluid, the more revenue you channel through narrowing passages. Right now you've got about 100+ products that work in your engine. In 10 years, after most of the rolling fleet has been turned over, I don't think it will be the same.

 

[Cutehumor]

Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
I reported this change in the M1 formulations here four years ago and a global firestorm ensued. I took lots of grief over it, including people writing to the owner of my company, and dragging my name through the mud on the Internet. There are still people who adamantly deny that M1 formulations use Group III.

This presentation, dating sometime between 2005 and 2009, clearly shows that EM changed the M1 formulations to include Group III+, and that they did not want to tell their customers:

"With the exception of Germany, this reformulation will be invisible to consumers and B2B customers."

and:

"There will be no proactive customer communication relating to this reformulation. However, an internal briefing document and Q&A has been prepared to allow sales to respond in the unlikely event of a customer question."

This explains all the canned responses customers got when they asked EM about the change.

As I have consistently said, I use M1 and consider it a great oil, but I am happy that the truth is finally confirmed by EM. My name is finally cleared.

Tom NJ


Tom NJ, the people who actually took the time to write to the owner of your company are crazy. Sounds like these crazy people tried to get you fired, these folks need to get a life. You were right all along.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

Lets get semi-technical again

LubeReport From 2003 talking about VISOM (terrible acronym!)

http://www.lubereport.com/e_article000130105.cfm

Doesnt this infringe on Shell XHVI process - reads the same to me, broadbrush.
I always wondered where the majority GRPIII+ BASESTOCK in the M1 0w-40 came from. Now the mystery is solved!
You all know I'm a hardliner for calling a duck a duck - but I'm on the fence with the GROUP III+ as a synthetic. I think I'll give 'em a pass on that one.

 

[Drew99GT]

If anything, from what I've read, group III+ oils have a lot of advantages over PAO, such as solvency like Buster pointed out. The only area they can't compete with PAO is pour point, and it shows in the Mobil 1 data sheets. I actually think this doesn't hurt Mobil 1 at all, and the consistent high iron issues were more a problem with the older formulations, not this latest formula.

 

[Quattro Pete]

At the risk of getting crucified, I am going to post my translation of this message:

Quote:
A natural evolution of the formulation

We got caught. Let's make it sound like it was done in the best interest of our customer (as opposed to our pockets).

Quote:

The Mobil 1 formulation strategy has always been based on selecting the best components available. We now have the very high quality Group III+ base stock, ‘Visom’ exclusively available to ExxonMobil. As we developed the Mobil 1 ESP technology we found that combining Visom with PAO could deliver a formulation of equivalent performance to an all PAO formulation.

It is now convenient for us to use cheaper components, just like everybody else, but we still need to make everyone think that we're the best, so let's make up a fancy name for this component and make everyone think that it's so special that nobody else can match it.

Quote:
Competitive advantage

Visom is the only non-PAO stock that can deliver the required performance to formulate a 0W grade oil that meets European OEM engine oil specifications. Visom is not available to our competition.

Let's make them think this stuff is made of unobtanium and so good that it can replace the more expensive stuff that we no longer want to use. In reality, we just want to lower our mfg costs so that we can make more money.

Quote:
To support Mobil 1 growth

Global PAO capacity is limited. As we quickly approach this limit, new base stocks must be explored to ensure we can support the continued growth of the Mobil 1 family of products.

And by "the limit" we mean the limit of what we are willing to pay for our components. We want to make this stuff cheaper, just like everybody else.

Quote:

To ensure continuity of supply

As we saw with the 2005 hurricane, the more flexibility we have in our formulations, the better placed we are to withstand disruption to our supply. We can balance PAO and Visom supply fluctuations to ensure we can always deliver the final product to our customers.

Once again, cheaper is better.

Quote:

To maintain market relevant pricing

As PAO supply has tightened globally, raw material costs have increased substantially. In the future, an exclusively PAO formulation may be priced out of the market or result in significant margin erosion.

PAO is expensive. We want to be cheaper, just like everyone else.

Quote:

To prepare for next generation basestocks (GTL)

Commencing 2010, the next generation of base stocks derived from Natural Gas (Gas To Liquids) will enter the market. These high quality basestocks will arrive in substantial quantities and will probably be used in the majority of competitive premium formulations. Visom is viewed as a precursor of GTL, and hence it’s use now in our flagship formulations eases our transition to a GTL world, and helps us understand how to maintain flagship performance using these high quality non-PAO basestocks.

Touting the "all PAO" message is no longer making us as much money as we would have liked to. We're moving to cheaper components, yet making it sound like it's for the best good of our consumers. It's still a great product, but cheaper to make now.

 

[addyguy]

Originally Posted By: Johnny

Quote:
A natural evolution of the formulation

The Mobil 1 formulation strategy has always been based on selecting the best components available. We now have the very high quality Group III+ base stock, ‘Visom’ exclusively available to ExxonMobil. As we developed the Mobil 1 ESP technology we found that combining Visom with PAO could deliver a formulation of equivalent performance to an all PAO formulation.

Competitive advantage

Visom is the only non-PAO stock that can deliver the required performance to formulate a 0W grade oil that meets European OEM engine oil specifications. Visom is not available to our competition.

To support Mobil 1 growth

Global PAO capacity is limited. As we quickly approach this limit, new base stocks must be explored to ensure we can support the continued growth of the Mobil 1 family of products.

To ensure continuity of supply

As we saw with the 2005 hurricane, the more flexibility we have in our formulations, the better placed we are to withstand disruption to our supply. We can balance PAO and Visom supply fluctuations to ensure we can always deliver the final product to our customers.

To maintain market relevant pricing

As PAO supply has tightened globally, raw material costs have increased substantially. In the future, an exclusively PAO formulation may be priced out of the market or result in significant margin erosion.

To prepare for next generation basestocks (GTL)

Commencing 2010, the next generation of base stocks derived from Natural Gas (Gas To Liquids) will enter the market. These high quality basestocks will arrive in substantial quantities and will probably be used in the majority of competitive premium formulations. Visom is viewed as a precursor of GTL, and hence it’s use now in our flagship formulations eases our transition to a GTL world, and helps us understand how to maintain flagship performance using these high quality non-PAO basestocks.



This right here should be posted as a sticky on the top of the PCMO page with a title of Mobil 1 Base Stocks. Maybe this way we could reduce some of these crazy Mobil 1 threads.


This is a really really good idea.

 

[aquariuscsm]

Originally Posted By: shpankey
Also, to the question of Royal Purple (above). I think they are PAO based too, and I think, don't quote me, but I think with some Group II to help solvency, or something to that effect.


Yep,plus Synerlec which I`ve been told is an ester. So I guess RP is a grp IV/V with II as it`s carrier,which all synths have to have,right? I wonder if that how M1 got it`s Tri Syn name way back when,as a grp III/IV/V based oil?

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
Tom NJ, the people who actually took the time to write to the owner of your company are crazy. Sounds like these crazy people tried to get you fired, these folks need to get a life. You were right all along.



He (innocently enough) spilled the beans. No good/honest deed goes unpunished.


..and people somehow doubt the power of the internet and feel that no one pays attention to a geeky/nerdy oil board.

When people say "it doesn't matter what it's made of" ..I think that they need look no further than the reaction of this knowledge caused to see that very powerful people thought that it mattered.

That non-disclosure protected M1's price point compared to other oils for a long time. Now they've appeared to have reacted with lowering or working at par with the competition in terms of price. Instead of getting a premium for the name, now using the name to be the brand of choice where price is indifferent.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
At the risk of getting crucified, I am going to post my translation of this message:

Quote:
A natural evolution of the formulation

We got caught. Let's make it sound like it was done in the best interest of our customer (as opposed to our pockets).

Quote:

The Mobil 1 formulation strategy has always been based on selecting the best components available. We now have the very high quality Group III+ base stock, ‘Visom’ exclusively available to ExxonMobil. As we developed the Mobil 1 ESP technology we found that combining Visom with PAO could deliver a formulation of equivalent performance to an all PAO formulation.

It is now convenient for us to use cheaper components, just like everybody else, but we still need to make everyone think that we're the best, so let's make up a fancy name for this component and make everyone think that it's so special that nobody else can match it.

Quote:
Competitive advantage

Visom is the only non-PAO stock that can deliver the required performance to formulate a 0W grade oil that meets European OEM engine oil specifications. Visom is not available to our competition.

Let's make them think this stuff is made of unobtanium and so good that it can replace the more expensive stuff that we no longer want to use. In reality, we just want to lower our mfg costs so that we can make more money.

Quote:
To support Mobil 1 growth

Global PAO capacity is limited. As we quickly approach this limit, new base stocks must be explored to ensure we can support the continued growth of the Mobil 1 family of products.

And by "the limit" we mean the limit of what we are willing to pay for our components. We want to make this stuff cheaper, just like everybody else.

Quote:

To ensure continuity of supply

As we saw with the 2005 hurricane, the more flexibility we have in our formulations, the better placed we are to withstand disruption to our supply. We can balance PAO and Visom supply fluctuations to ensure we can always deliver the final product to our customers.

Once again, cheaper is better.

Quote:

To maintain market relevant pricing

As PAO supply has tightened globally, raw material costs have increased substantially. In the future, an exclusively PAO formulation may be priced out of the market or result in significant margin erosion.

PAO is expensive. We want to be cheaper, just like everyone else.

Quote:

To prepare for next generation basestocks (GTL)

Commencing 2010, the next generation of base stocks derived from Natural Gas (Gas To Liquids) will enter the market. These high quality basestocks will arrive in substantial quantities and will probably be used in the majority of competitive premium formulations. Visom is viewed as a precursor of GTL, and hence it’s use now in our flagship formulations eases our transition to a GTL world, and helps us understand how to maintain flagship performance using these high quality non-PAO basestocks.

Touting the "all PAO" message is no longer making us as much money as we would have liked to. We're moving to cheaper components, yet making it sound like it's for the best good of our consumers. It's still a great product, but cheaper to make now.



I think the use of the term "expensive" in relation to XOM is sort of an odd duck; they are the world's largest producer of PAO. It may be "expensive" to produce vs Group III+, but that is more of an "operating cost" than it is an "expense".

StevieC:
I don't think I saw anywhere in that article that stated the oil was MAJORITY Group III+. They saying they are blending Group III+ with PAO. At what percentage I'm sure varies oil to oil, but to broad-brush and state that they are all "majority" Group III is a bit of a reach without any actual data.

 

[Johnny]

And that is the actual data that will never be published, by anyone.

 

[aquariuscsm]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
They saying they are blending Group III+ with PAO. At what percentage I'm sure varies oil to oil, but to broad-brush and state that they are all "majority" Group III is a bit of a reach without any actual data.


Maybe M1 is a grp IV base oil with grp III as a carrier instead of grp II?

 

[Pesca]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
StevieC:
I don't think I saw anywhere in that article that stated the oil was MAJORITY Group III+. They saying they are blending Group III+ with PAO. At what percentage I'm sure varies oil to oil, but to broad-brush and state that they are all "majority" Group III is a bit of a reach without any actual data.


It is said in another publication found by BMWTurboDzl that for 5w40 and 0w30, the PAO basestock can be entirely replaced by VISOM
Originally Posted By: BMWTurboDzl
This info has been out for a long time so it seems. Here's a 2003 report.

http://www.lubereport.com/e_article000130105.cfm

"At the high end of the scale, and made only in pilot plant quantities so far, are ExxonMobil's new Visom branded Group III+ base stocks. This product aims to meet one of Europe's most difficult engine oil specs, 0W-30. So far, marketers have needed to formulate with polyalphaolefins to meet the stringent cold-cranking, viscosity and volatility requirements of this grade.

Visom is created through wax isomerization, and has an impressive viscosity index of 140, thanks to its high paraffin content. (The name Visom was derived from combining "viscosity index" and "isomerization," Cox explained.) The product became possible after the ExxonMobil merger, and combines Exxon reactor hardware with Mobil catalyst technology, with engineering and research support from both. Basically, it upgrades slack wax to base stocks with high V.I., low volatility, excellent cold-cranking properties and what Cox called "superior" blending performance. Visom is primarily iso-paraffins, he pointed out, while competing Group III base stocks made from hydrocracker bottoms have significant naphthene content.

He went on to show how Visom's blending advantages and cold-cranking performance mean that 5W-40 engine oils can be made with 100 percent Visom base stock, without resorting to PAO, and at a lower additive treat rate. He also described how 0W-30 requirements can be met with Visom alone or with PAO alone (but not with competing Group III base stocks unless some PAO is included to achieve the cold-cranking limit).

"Wax is wax, and isomerized wax is essentially the same stuff," Cox said. "It doesn't matter where it comes from." Made from waxy feedstocks and using the same catalyst systems as GTL will use, Visom will provide valuable experience in formulating with GTL-type base stocks, prior to their arrival later in the decade, he said."

 

[buster]

It's of no concerne to me which oils use Grp III+ with PAO or are all PAO or Grp III. It's pointless choosing an oil based on it's base oil composition alone and everyone should know that by now. Mobil is also using Grp V base oils as well, such as esters and AN's.

If you have the chance, read through the whole presentation before they remove it.

 

[shpankey]

Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Originally Posted By: shpankey
Also, to the question of Royal Purple (above). I think they are PAO based too, and I think, don't quote me, but I think with some Group II to help solvency, or something to that effect.


Yep,plus Synerlec which I`ve been told is an ester. So I guess RP is a grp IV/V with II as it`s carrier,which all synths have to have,right? I wonder if that how M1 got it`s Tri Syn name way back when,as a grp III/IV/V based oil?

I don't know, but it sounds logical enough.

As far as M1 goes. It's like I've said all along, including such companies as Fram into the mix on this. Every big company has some really great products and some average to poor products. There is no hard line Mobil 1 sucks or Mobil 1 is the best. I think they make some amazing oil's with high quality stocks and they also make some average ones with lesser quality. Just like Fram does. Hate them all you want, but they do make one of the best filter's out there, and at the same time, one of the worst. It's up to you, the consumer, to educate yourself on which is which and make informed decisions.

I've seen enough poor M1 5w30 UOA's on my car to know I'd rather not mess with it (and that's not saying it is for a 'fact' bad for my car, just that there are other options without the doubt) in MY car. But at the same time, I've seen other M1 oil's perform well in it. Which is why I currently am running a M1 oil in my car. Just not that one.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
If anything, from what I've read, group III+ oils have a lot of advantages over PAO, such as solvency like Buster pointed out. The only area they can't compete with PAO is pour point, and it shows in the Mobil 1 data sheets.

I thought PAOs also tend to have a tiny edge in terms of resistance to breakdown at the highest temperatures. No?

 

[Mokanic]

Marketing goop. They are playing catch-up to SOPUS. SOPUS is on the forefront of oil techknowlogy it seems to me. I have much more respect for Shell openly telling consumers all along what base oil they were usin.

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

StevieC:
I don't think I saw anywhere in that article that stated the oil was MAJORITY Group III+. They saying they are blending Group III+ with PAO. At what percentage I'm sure varies oil to oil, but to broad-brush and state that they are all "majority" Group III is a bit of a reach without any actual data.


I think it is safe to say that it's a large part GRP-III with little PAO considering how the article was written, and the fact that other oils like Pennzoil Platinum are doing things with their additive package. Also XOM has always been a huge profit driven company so IMO that makes them even more likely to skimp on things like base-stock where possible and supplement with additives to make up the difference so the performance doesn't suffer.

I am speculating and I will admit to that as XOM isn't publishing specifics because they are and will be a closely guarded secret but if you read between the lines in this article its not hard to form these opinions because it makes sense for profitability for XOM.

Edit: Personally like I said above, I could care less of an oils composition and whether the base-stock or the additive package is doing most of the work. To me its real world performance and price charged for that perfomance. (One of the reasons I have so many different synthetics in my oil stash to be used.)

IMO up here M1 isn't worth the price for the product you get. If they want to continue to be priced at almost the cost of Amsoil and not far from Amsoil to Redline for an O.C. then I see no reason to buy their product when I can pay a few bucks more and have Amsoil or Redline which I speculate to be a more premium oil that M1 based on base-stock, additives and the UOA performance. This is all I have to go on for now as my engine is still "young" and only time will tell if my choice was right.

You see otherwise and that is fine... Time will tell for us both as we are both heavy duty mileage nuts.

M1 though will give everyone that uses it with a proper OCI a very long engine life more than people want I'm sure so this is really not important and everyone getting hung up in base-stocks is hung up on unnecessary details.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: StevieC
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

StevieC:
I don't think I saw anywhere in that article that stated the oil was MAJORITY Group III+. They saying they are blending Group III+ with PAO. At what percentage I'm sure varies oil to oil, but to broad-brush and state that they are all "majority" Group III is a bit of a reach without any actual data.


I think it is safe to say that it's a large part GRP-III with little PAO considering how the article was written, and the fact that other oils like Pennzoil Platinum are doing things with their additive package. Also XOM has always been a huge profit driven company so IMO that makes them even more likely to skimp on things like base-stock where possible and supplement with additives to make up the difference so the performance doesn't suffer.

I am speculating and I will admit to that as XOM isn't publishing specifics because they are and will be a closely guarded secret but if you read between the lines in this article its not hard to form these opinions because it makes sense for profitability for XOM.

Edit: Personally like I said above, I could care less of an oils composition and whether the base-stock or the additive package is doing most of the work. To me its real world performance and price charged for that perfomance. (One of the reasons I have so many different synthetics in my oil stash to be used.)

IMO up here M1 isn't worth the price for the product you get. If they want to continue to be priced at almost the cost of Amsoil and not far from Amsoil to Redline for an O.C. then I see no reason to buy their product when I can pay a few bucks more and have Amsoil or Redline which I speculate to be a more premium oil that M1 based on base-stock, additives and the UOA performance. This is all I have to go on for now as my engine is still "young" and only time will tell if my choice was right.

You see otherwise and that is fine... Time will tell for us both as we are both heavy duty mileage nuts.

M1 though will give everyone that uses it with a proper OCI a very long engine life more than people want I'm sure so this is really not important and everyone getting hung up in base-stocks is hung up on unnecessary details.



But I'm using Petro Canada now, LOL!

 

[StevieC]

Right I forgot that... Well M1 served you well for the high mileage you have on your vehicles and the long OCI's you were doing... So enough said!