Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
reformulating the cheapest possible base concoction they can get away with semantically...
The same can now be said of Exxonmobil and Mobil 1. They're way down in the weeds now with their wording. They used to state exclusively that Mobil 1 was PAO. Not anymore!
Well, someone stated that they did say M1 is primarily PAO on the phone. And more than a few here "in the know" believe that M1 is still PAO, for better or worse.
And it's pretty clear that they want us to pay $8 a quart for something that is clearly very different from its Euro counterpart...
I'll believe Tom and Bruce any day over "people in the know" here (gee, I wonder who that could be
), and especially over some goon who awnsers the phone for Exxon.
Know what? Firstly, what's that got to do with the price of tea in China?
Whether Mobil1 is Group III or IV, that would have nothing to do with the Sequence IV. In fact, isn't the very issue of Mobil supply disruptions of their PAO refinery the central problem here?
And if the "prostitution of pour points" is the the issue here, Mobil1 still had a reliability, solid low temperature pour point across the board. That includes in their heavier weights and they're very much in line with Amsoils in roughly equivalent grades with the edge going mostly, but not exclusively to Amsoil.
It's nice of Castrol to provide us some basics of how they arrived at their claims of "8X better," but then, they never seem to provide much on the specs sheet of their $8 bottle of mostly Group III oil, especially pour points. I don't doubt the overall validity of the claims to the extent that I believe Mobil has problems, and I don't think it is any coincidence that these claims are coming out around the same time. But the people you are referencing haven't been around for a bit to my knowledge and much of this was based on analysis of a single weight of oil.
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
reformulating the cheapest possible base concoction they can get away with semantically...
The same can now be said of Exxonmobil and Mobil 1. They're way down in the weeds now with their wording. They used to state exclusively that Mobil 1 was PAO. Not anymore!
Well, someone stated that they did say M1 is primarily PAO on the phone. And more than a few here "in the know" believe that M1 is still PAO, for better or worse.
And it's pretty clear that they want us to pay $8 a quart for something that is clearly very different from its Euro counterpart...
I'll believe Tom and Bruce any day over "people in the know" here (gee, I wonder who that could be
Know what? Firstly, what's that got to do with the price of tea in China?
Whether Mobil1 is Group III or IV, that would have nothing to do with the Sequence IV. In fact, isn't the very issue of Mobil supply disruptions of their PAO refinery the central problem here?
And if the "prostitution of pour points" is the the issue here, Mobil1 still had a reliability, solid low temperature pour point across the board. That includes in their heavier weights and they're very much in line with Amsoils in roughly equivalent grades with the edge going mostly, but not exclusively to Amsoil.
It's nice of Castrol to provide us some basics of how they arrived at their claims of "8X better," but then, they never seem to provide much on the specs sheet of their $8 bottle of mostly Group III oil, especially pour points. I don't doubt the overall validity of the claims to the extent that I believe Mobil has problems, and I don't think it is any coincidence that these claims are coming out around the same time. But the people you are referencing haven't been around for a bit to my knowledge and much of this was based on analysis of a single weight of oil.
Last edited: