Is Mobil One PAO or Group III based???

JHZR2

Staff member
Messages
44,508
Location
New Jersey
Originally Posted By: bullwinkle
The answer is-not as much as it did before, but still "some"-the pour point of the 0W oils indicate more, but for more PAO, you're going to have to go Redline or Amsoil.
Good answer. But the question still remains - how much reduced wear rate and how much more longevity can we quantify, even on higher performance vehicles?
 
Messages
681
Location
New Jersey
Whoa! Collective amnesia seems riff here. I suppose everyone has forgotten that about 5-8+ years or so back all the fuss on here was about what Castrol was doing by ditching PAO and switching to GpIII base-stock oils in their brew. Mobil took them to the shed (well, actually to the Advertising Council) over misuse of the term "synthetic oil" for using primarily? GpIII, instead of primarily? GpIV PAO and not telling anyone. As it was, the Ad Council decided against Mobil and ever since then, we've been off to the races trying to figure out who has put what base-stock into what oil! The PAO purists castigated Castrol for years and the die hards swore to never use their products in this life--ever again. Now is seems we have gone full circle. Rarely is Castrol's orginal sin even mentioned and while it seems Mobil made the switch to GpIII, and crowed about "check the results!" "Its all about performance!" "Forget about PAO--here, drink this new and improved CoolAid!" It would seem that many people on here have drank a heavy draft of Mobil's CoolAid and accepted the big switch from them too. Nevertheless, I'm of the belief that PAO IS superior to GpIII as a base-stock product. Why? Because no one seems to know or care about what levels of impurities that may still be IN GpIII oils as apposed to what impurities were never IN PAO based oils to begin with. What made me switch to synthetic oil in the first place was that PAO was a "pure" engineered oil with none of the thousands of harmful species of molocules that were in mineral oils even after refining. I switch between Mobil EP and Pennzoil Ultra so I'm stuck with whatever base-stock either producer wants to use. I'm strongly supportive of the OP's position(s) on the matters he has brought up, since like everyone else you have to drink the CoolAid they make because they are the big boys on the block. But that doesn't mean I have to like it! Apparently, big oil isn't so big in Germany that the German's can't make them fess up to what's in their products. Fat chance that will ever happen here!
 
Messages
9,783
Location
Saskatoon canada
Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: Samilcar
Originally Posted By: Boatowner
Wow, a lot of really useless responses to a really simple question.
??? The (too) simple question was, "Is Mobil 1 a PAO oil or a Group III oil?". The correct answer, as given multiple times in this thread (and countless other threads), is... BOTH! Mobil 1 is a mixture of PAO and Group III base oils, with PAO content varying between 20% and 50% depending on what flavor of Mobil 1 that you choose. If that answer is too "useless" for you to understand, then you really need to find a different forum.
Also esthers. M1 base stocks are a blend of several stocks equal to if not better than PAO alone. Here is a link. http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1990677
A link to a discussion on the marketing of their new oil that was never meant to be seen publicly but someone found a PowerPoint presentation so mobil couldn't deny it. Great post
 

JHZR2

Staff member
Messages
44,508
Location
New Jersey
Originally Posted By: SaturnIonVue
of Mobil's CoolAid and accepted the big switch from them too. Nevertheless, I'm of the belief that PAO IS superior to GpIII as a base-stock product. Why? Because no one seems to know or care about what levels of impurities that may still be IN GpIII oils as apposed to what impurities were never IN PAO based oils to begin with. What made me switch to synthetic oil in the first place was that PAO was a "pure" engineered oil with none of the thousands of harmful species of molocules that were in mineral oils even after refining.
Show me which of those superioroity metrics really holds true over your OCI. Again, not trying to be a Grp III apologist, just saying, because if you arent pushing to the point where the PAO is being used in a useful way, why pay for a pure PAO oil? DOubt it will make any difference in an ion or vue or most cars. As for the lack of knowing what impurities are in there, you must be joking. IR, GC and a few other techniques let us easily know the basis of chemical content, plus how much sulfur, aromatics and other things there would be in the basestock.
 
Messages
22,125
Location
Dallas,Tx USA
Originally Posted By: Trav
Quote:
So show me a high PAO content oil that sells at the same price as M1
PU $28 5 qts at wally's 100% PAO/GTL base stock. Confirmed by Pennzoil to a forum member here just a couple of weeks ago. I don't know about you but for $2.50 more I'll take the real deal.
I may be wrong,but I could swear I read in Pennzoil`s Q and A post here that they`d said Ultra was 100% grp III basestock.
 
Messages
39,585
Location
Great Lakes
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
I may be wrong,but I could swear I read in Pennzoil`s Q and A post here that they`d said Ultra was 100% grp III basestock.
It once was, but the new API SN formulation with very low NOACK numbers isn't 100% group III.
 
Messages
681
Location
New Jersey
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: SaturnIonVue
of Mobil's CoolAid and accepted the big switch from them too. Nevertheless, I'm of the belief that PAO IS superior to GpIII as a base-stock product. Why? Because no one seems to know or care about what levels of impurities that may still be IN GpIII oils as apposed to what impurities were never IN PAO based oils to begin with. What made me switch to synthetic oil in the first place was that PAO was a "pure" engineered oil with none of the thousands of harmful species of molocules that were in mineral oils even after refining.
Show me which of those superioroity metrics really holds true over your OCI. Again, not trying to be a Grp III apologist, just saying, because if you arent pushing to the point where the PAO is being used in a useful way, why pay for a pure PAO oil? DOubt it will make any difference in an ion or vue or most cars. As for the lack of knowing what impurities are in there, you must be joking. IR, GC and a few other techniques let us easily know the basis of chemical content, plus how much sulfur, aromatics and other things there would be in the basestock.
No, I'm not joking at all about my concerns of what may be left over in the GpIII process. I've never heard or read of discussions about what wax--slack, or otherwise, what aromatics or other nasties may be left in there. Probably you're right--OCI to OCI maybe it doesn't matter, but over many OCI's maybe it does. I bought into synthetic oil about 25+ years ago when synthetic and PAO were one and the same thing, and I have used nothing but "synthetics" since then. Just because the oil blenders changed their secret recipies of herbs and spices doesn't mean I have to accept or believe the switch was for MY personal benefit. I think we know that how PAO is/was produced precluded nasties out of the product, and I was then, and still I am convinced that PAO base-stock is a superior base-stock than is other groups of base-stock. I am of the generation post SB/SC grade oils--of the same era when you could not buy motor oil anywhere else but from a gas station! At the time, Pennsylvania crude oils dominated the market. What you got then was an improvement over SA and SB but for decades SC, amd SD, and maybe even SE had a witches brew of every nasty imaginable--and your crankcase and dipstick would prove it to you! Today, occasionally a thread comes along about "is it true that Quaker State and Pennzoil sludged up engines once upon a time" and it seems that more often than not various ones will answer: "no, that is an old wives tale" when I know for a certainty that those and some other oils did sludge up even well kept engines!! So, for some younger car lovers on here the issue becomes a just a myth as the deniers (who may not have even been born then, let alone driving and caring for cars) make their comments of denial. My concerns about GpIII vs. GpIV synthetic oils has its apologist and deniers already. I don't think we have seen many or any true reports of GpIII synthetic oils doing what Quaker and Pennzoil oils did 30-40 or so years ago. Believe me, I'm all for progress, especially in the state of the art of motor oils--it's just that when a BIG Switch comes along from what has been defined "as the best" to "it's just as good" I have to wonder who benefits--me and you--or just "them." However, now that I think about it, I don't really care for CoolAid very much anymore! smile
 
Last edited:
Messages
39,585
Location
Great Lakes
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Otherwise why even have the 2 different products.
Why does Castrol have Edge with SPT and Edge with Titanium? Why does XOM have Mobil1 and Mobil1 EP?
 
Messages
3,222
Location
North TX
The answer is.......NO ONE KNOWS. They never did know, they never will know and this same question will be asked at least another 500 times by next November 1. By the way, there still won't be an answer then either.
 
Messages
9,923
Location
Jupiter, Florida
Interestingly, M1 continues to perform as expected, without coking turbo bearing areas, without creating deposits in troublesome engines and holding up well in extended drain intervals.
 

MolaKule

Staff member
Messages
21,384
Location
Iowegia - USA
Quote:
The answer to that is M1 is a blend of about 13 different types of base oils.
Really? DO you have some documentation to share?
 

MolaKule

Staff member
Messages
21,384
Location
Iowegia - USA
He didn't say there are 15 different types of basestocks in Mobil 1. I think he must be counting all of the components of the Performance Improvement (PI) additive package AND types of base stocks. There are currently about 5 major API groupings of basestocks and within each major Grouping there could be subcategories of chemistry. For example, under GroupV there could be subcategories of chemistry such as esters, alkylated naphthalenes, oil soluble PAG, polymerics such as butylenes, etc. Under API GroupIV there is only PAO. Now we know that various viscosities of PAO's are mixed to arrive at a specific viscosity, but this is one type of base oil. You cannot count the various viscosities of one type of base oil and include those as different "types." And then there is GroupIII which in my view (I know, I am a "purist" holdout) is not a synthetic, but has some performance properties equal to GroupIV synthetics. We know from Mobil patents that these patents allow the use of GroupIII, IV, and V base oils for their "synthetic" line of oils.
 
Last edited:

MolaKule

Staff member
Messages
21,384
Location
Iowegia - USA
Quote:
I think we know that how PAO is/was produced precluded nasties out of the product, and I was then, and still I am convinced that PAO base-stock is a superior base-stock than is other groups of base-stock.
I don't agree. The GroupV base stocks are generally superior but their cost is still high such that various types of basestocks have to be blended to keep the cost within the average consumers pocketbook, and still maintain performance. I think you have to look at the global picture when it comes to formulated lubricants and examine the final performance of the formulated lubricant, and not worry too much about the basestock that is only half of the picture. Additive technology is becoming advanced to the point that GroupII and II+ basestocks can almost have the same level of performance as Blends.
 
Last edited:
Messages
43,638
Location
'Stralia
I'm sort of agreeing with Trav back in the early pages. Synthetic implies something, and not a performance level. The performance level was demonstrated only by the use of synthetics back in the day. Same days that Shell advertised their XHVI in an appropriate and honest manner. The gold watch analogy is a good one...it's completely as functional (a performance measure), and goes one step further in being the same colour.
 
Top