Come on,boys. Life is tuff,and this is just engine oil! Pick an oil your ride likes and stick with it. I like 5 quarts of M1 EP, with an M1 filter,at AZ for $38 2 x a year;but that's just me. Now go call your Girl friend,Mom,or Dad,and have a nice day.
*Mobil 1 - PAO & Visom
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Originally Posted By: robertcope
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
XOM's line of PAO lubricants were the standard that all others failed to best.
You state here that they were the high bar and that nobody beat them. Their presentation indicates that the new oil, although reformulated to use less PAO, actually out performs the old oil in most test cases (a few suffer, such as pour point, if I recall). Assuming both of those statements are true, they are still the high bar and unbeatable.
robert
Well, I wouldn't JUST cherry pick that tidbit.
I've also stated that I think that they have the finest line of synthetics in such worldwide distribution. I don't know how much more generous I can be.
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
XOM's line of PAO lubricants were the standard that all others failed to best.
You state here that they were the high bar and that nobody beat them. Their presentation indicates that the new oil, although reformulated to use less PAO, actually out performs the old oil in most test cases (a few suffer, such as pour point, if I recall). Assuming both of those statements are true, they are still the high bar and unbeatable.
robert
Well, I wouldn't JUST cherry pick that tidbit.
I've also stated that I think that they have the finest line of synthetics in such worldwide distribution. I don't know how much more generous I can be.
M1 has always served me well, and is in two out of five cars at the moment.
M1 0W-30 AFE is going into the '99 Accord when I drain the fifteen fifty in October, while the other Accord will be going on PP 10W-30, which will hit 5K and change before we get real cold, and it will then go on PP 5W-30.
I have a large sub-stash of closeout PP from Meijer from last fall, and it is good stuff, and I need to use it.
Anyway, nothing has ever been wrong with any flavor of M1 that I can see.
The cheap UOAs really don't mean that much, unless they can be relied upon to be consistent, and you trend them over time and miles.
The PAO scarcity comment in the XOM presentation may have been their way of telling small volume buyers (Amsoil) that they'll be jumping on the Grp III+ bandwagon soon as well, since that's what XOM will be willing to supply them.
M1 0W-30 AFE is going into the '99 Accord when I drain the fifteen fifty in October, while the other Accord will be going on PP 10W-30, which will hit 5K and change before we get real cold, and it will then go on PP 5W-30.
I have a large sub-stash of closeout PP from Meijer from last fall, and it is good stuff, and I need to use it.
Anyway, nothing has ever been wrong with any flavor of M1 that I can see.
The cheap UOAs really don't mean that much, unless they can be relied upon to be consistent, and you trend them over time and miles.
The PAO scarcity comment in the XOM presentation may have been their way of telling small volume buyers (Amsoil) that they'll be jumping on the Grp III+ bandwagon soon as well, since that's what XOM will be willing to supply them.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Quote:
The PAO scarcity comment in the XOM presentation may have been their way of telling small volume buyers (Amsoil) that they'll be jumping on the Grp III+ bandwagon soon as well, since that's what XOM will be willing to supply them.
Not necessarily. It may just mean that the price spread broadens. I have no clue how Amsoil will react.
The PAO scarcity comment in the XOM presentation may have been their way of telling small volume buyers (Amsoil) that they'll be jumping on the Grp III+ bandwagon soon as well, since that's what XOM will be willing to supply them.
Not necessarily. It may just mean that the price spread broadens. I have no clue how Amsoil will react.
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Maybe you should quote some Wikipedia for us and take up a few pages. That always seems to help.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true.[Note 1][1] As a result, people gather evidence and recall information from memory selectively, and interpret it in a biased way. The biases appear in particular for emotionally significant issues and for established beliefs. For example, in reading about gun control, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and/or recall have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a stronger weighting for data encountered early in an arbitrary series) and illusory correlation (in which people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).
A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased towards confirming their existing beliefs.
What about iron'y. Can you Wiki that one?
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Maybe you should quote some Wikipedia for us and take up a few pages. That always seems to help.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true.[Note 1][1] As a result, people gather evidence and recall information from memory selectively, and interpret it in a biased way. The biases appear in particular for emotionally significant issues and for established beliefs. For example, in reading about gun control, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and/or recall have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a stronger weighting for data encountered early in an arbitrary series) and illusory correlation (in which people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).
A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased towards confirming their existing beliefs.
What about iron'y. Can you Wiki that one?
Originally Posted By: ItsuMitsubishi
What Mobil is telling me from that finely crafted literature is this:
"Face it, Mobil 1 isn't PAO. It will never be PAO.
Not at all what they said in the first release if you read it closely enough. I believe EXOM infers that they use a PAO/Group III+ blend...
Quote:
It retails for the same price as when it was mostly PAO, but now it isn't....
Actually, it's almost as inexpensive at Wal-Mart ($21 a jug) or in any of the chain sales ($27-30 for five qts. and a filter) as its competitors that admit to being mostly Group III (although most are probably blends to an extent)...
What Mobil is telling me from that finely crafted literature is this:
"Face it, Mobil 1 isn't PAO. It will never be PAO.
Not at all what they said in the first release if you read it closely enough. I believe EXOM infers that they use a PAO/Group III+ blend...
Quote:
It retails for the same price as when it was mostly PAO, but now it isn't....
Actually, it's almost as inexpensive at Wal-Mart ($21 a jug) or in any of the chain sales ($27-30 for five qts. and a filter) as its competitors that admit to being mostly Group III (although most are probably blends to an extent)...
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
It must be in Canada that Edge is 3x the cost of M1. I watch the sales, and won't buy any oil unless it is on sale. When AAP runs their oil change deals Edge with a good filter is at a very good price, in fact usually about the same price as M1 is when they run specials on it.
That's true. I said I couldn't speak for U.S. prices, simply because I cannot. I do know, too, that you guys tend to get more frequent and better sales down there, along with coupons. We almost never get coupons or rebates.
I would suspect that in the U.S., Edge isn't triple the price of M1. Up here, however, it is. The best Edge price I can find is also double the best price I can find on GC.
I can say with relative certainty that I cannot extend my OCIs three times by switching from M1 to Edge, regardless of whether it's the "bargain basement" Group III Mobil 1 or something else. No wonder Edge is gathering dust. Walmart is going to have to roll it back or send it back.
Price for the product is the issue. As others have stated, if one wishes to buy a Group IV oil, there are plenty of boutique oil choices. It's pretty sad when RP is cheaper than Syntec, let alone Edge. As for Mobil 1, I just checked our Walmart, and they're still way down.
Most of us here like deals. If Mobil 1 was a third the price of Edge and $3 per quart cheaper than PP or Syntec in the States like it is here, I suspect a lot of people would be switching to Mobil 1.
It must be in Canada that Edge is 3x the cost of M1. I watch the sales, and won't buy any oil unless it is on sale. When AAP runs their oil change deals Edge with a good filter is at a very good price, in fact usually about the same price as M1 is when they run specials on it.
That's true. I said I couldn't speak for U.S. prices, simply because I cannot. I do know, too, that you guys tend to get more frequent and better sales down there, along with coupons. We almost never get coupons or rebates.
I would suspect that in the U.S., Edge isn't triple the price of M1. Up here, however, it is. The best Edge price I can find is also double the best price I can find on GC.
I can say with relative certainty that I cannot extend my OCIs three times by switching from M1 to Edge, regardless of whether it's the "bargain basement" Group III Mobil 1 or something else. No wonder Edge is gathering dust. Walmart is going to have to roll it back or send it back.
Price for the product is the issue. As others have stated, if one wishes to buy a Group IV oil, there are plenty of boutique oil choices. It's pretty sad when RP is cheaper than Syntec, let alone Edge. As for Mobil 1, I just checked our Walmart, and they're still way down.
Most of us here like deals. If Mobil 1 was a third the price of Edge and $3 per quart cheaper than PP or Syntec in the States like it is here, I suspect a lot of people would be switching to Mobil 1.
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Originally Posted By: ItsuMitsubishi
What Mobil is telling me from that finely crafted literature is this:
"Face it, Mobil 1 isn't PAO. It will never be PAO.
Not at all what they said in the first release if you read it closely enough. I believe EXOM infers that they use a PAO/Group III+ blend...
Suggestion is the bread and butter of marketing deception. Mentioning the desirable first 'infers' that it is the primary constituent. Though that is not the case, suggesting such is legal. Also, if GrIII+ is so hot with identical performance and NO downsides compared to a synthesized fluid (PAO), then why bother with PAO at all? Why still make it, it obviously costs more to manufacture, and now we have GrIII+ "which does all that and more" so why not shut down all PAO operations, let alone use it to "fortify" the new golden child base stock?
(Hint: They truly are not equal)
Quote:
Quote:
It retails for the same price as when it was mostly PAO, but now it isn't....
Actually, it's almost as inexpensive at Wal-Mart ($21 a jug) or in any of the chain sales ($27-30 for five qts. and a filter) as its competitors that admit to being mostly Group III (although most are probably blends to an extent)...
M1 for 21 dollars a JUG is a pipe dream. Until Edge (and Ultra if it sold here), M1's always been THE most costly mainstream synth and more like 44 dollars a jug here at Wal Marts, even despite having been mostly Gr III for at least 2 years. I wonder if they dropped (ie HALVED) the price in the past 2 weeks? PP has always been the cut throat deal, but prices went up a little now, but nowhere near $44. Combined with it's recent dubious performance and you can see why such marketing tripe is so irritating to me. The most profitable corporation in the world (2008) feels the need to spend less on the product and spend more to cutting costs further?! So the premium I pay for the name and history is being used against me?? Hahaha
not something I want to support- ever.
Originally Posted By: ItsuMitsubishi
What Mobil is telling me from that finely crafted literature is this:
"Face it, Mobil 1 isn't PAO. It will never be PAO.
Not at all what they said in the first release if you read it closely enough. I believe EXOM infers that they use a PAO/Group III+ blend...
Suggestion is the bread and butter of marketing deception. Mentioning the desirable first 'infers' that it is the primary constituent. Though that is not the case, suggesting such is legal. Also, if GrIII+ is so hot with identical performance and NO downsides compared to a synthesized fluid (PAO), then why bother with PAO at all? Why still make it, it obviously costs more to manufacture, and now we have GrIII+ "which does all that and more" so why not shut down all PAO operations, let alone use it to "fortify" the new golden child base stock?
(Hint: They truly are not equal)
Quote:
Quote:
It retails for the same price as when it was mostly PAO, but now it isn't....
Actually, it's almost as inexpensive at Wal-Mart ($21 a jug) or in any of the chain sales ($27-30 for five qts. and a filter) as its competitors that admit to being mostly Group III (although most are probably blends to an extent)...
M1 for 21 dollars a JUG is a pipe dream. Until Edge (and Ultra if it sold here), M1's always been THE most costly mainstream synth and more like 44 dollars a jug here at Wal Marts, even despite having been mostly Gr III for at least 2 years. I wonder if they dropped (ie HALVED) the price in the past 2 weeks? PP has always been the cut throat deal, but prices went up a little now, but nowhere near $44. Combined with it's recent dubious performance and you can see why such marketing tripe is so irritating to me. The most profitable corporation in the world (2008) feels the need to spend less on the product and spend more to cutting costs further?! So the premium I pay for the name and history is being used against me?? Hahaha
I feel like Gordon Ramsay, screaming and yelling in one of those high priced restaurants where people once paid for fresh seafood and meats, only to find precooked and frozen ingredients because they were cheaper and "the customers never noticed". *insert barfing smiley*
Originally Posted By: ItsuMitsubishi
I wonder if they dropped (ie HALVED) the price in the past 2 weeks? PP has always been the cut throat deal, but prices went up a little now, but nowhere near $44.
Halved, not quite. Mobil 1 is under $30 for a five litre jug right now at my Walmart. $21 a jug might be a pipe dream up here, but it's certainly not $44 anymore. For reference, TDT is still $42 a jug. I haven't had to buy Delvac 1 from my supplier for so long I'm not even sure what it's going for.
I wonder if they dropped (ie HALVED) the price in the past 2 weeks? PP has always been the cut throat deal, but prices went up a little now, but nowhere near $44.
Halved, not quite. Mobil 1 is under $30 for a five litre jug right now at my Walmart. $21 a jug might be a pipe dream up here, but it's certainly not $44 anymore. For reference, TDT is still $42 a jug. I haven't had to buy Delvac 1 from my supplier for so long I'm not even sure what it's going for.
Originally Posted By: ItsuMitsubishi
Suggestion is the bread and butter of marketing deception. Mentioning the desirable first 'infers' that it is the primary constituent. Though that is not the case, suggesting such is legal.
The thing they mention first is just what they want to call attention to. That says nothing whatsoever about its importance in the finished product.
Originally Posted By: ItsuMitsubishi
Also, if GrIII+ is so hot with identical performance and NO downsides compared to a synthesized fluid (PAO), then why bother with PAO at all? Why still make it, it obviously costs more to manufacture, and now we have GrIII+ "which does all that and more" so why not shut down all PAO operations, let alone use it to "fortify" the new golden child base stock?
PAO has a few advantages in terms of oxidative stability, pour point, etc. All of them are very slight and only appear in the most extreme conditions, so they are pretty much meaningless for most applications. That's why so many oils now use group III instead.
PAO is still being produced for the most severe applications, and some types are being produced as additives.
Suggestion is the bread and butter of marketing deception. Mentioning the desirable first 'infers' that it is the primary constituent. Though that is not the case, suggesting such is legal.
The thing they mention first is just what they want to call attention to. That says nothing whatsoever about its importance in the finished product.
Originally Posted By: ItsuMitsubishi
Also, if GrIII+ is so hot with identical performance and NO downsides compared to a synthesized fluid (PAO), then why bother with PAO at all? Why still make it, it obviously costs more to manufacture, and now we have GrIII+ "which does all that and more" so why not shut down all PAO operations, let alone use it to "fortify" the new golden child base stock?
PAO has a few advantages in terms of oxidative stability, pour point, etc. All of them are very slight and only appear in the most extreme conditions, so they are pretty much meaningless for most applications. That's why so many oils now use group III instead.
PAO is still being produced for the most severe applications, and some types are being produced as additives.
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: ItsuMitsubishi
Are you sure that's why? Most consumers are dumb; dumb enough to have no idea what base oil groups are and how they perform.
We are no better. Most of us evidently aren't even curious about how group III and group IV base stocks compare. They don't ask any questions whatsoever. They just hear "group III" and "group IV," immediately leap to the conclusion that they have been ripped off, and don't want to hear any differently.
Financial reasons for that I'd say.
Originally Posted By: ItsuMitsubishi
Are you sure that's why? Most consumers are dumb; dumb enough to have no idea what base oil groups are and how they perform.
We are no better. Most of us evidently aren't even curious about how group III and group IV base stocks compare. They don't ask any questions whatsoever. They just hear "group III" and "group IV," immediately leap to the conclusion that they have been ripped off, and don't want to hear any differently.
Financial reasons for that I'd say.
Originally Posted By: ItsuMitsubishi
Also, if GrIII+ is so hot with identical performance and NO downsides compared to a synthesized fluid (PAO), then why bother with PAO at all? Why still make it, it obviously costs more to manufacture, and now we have GrIII+ "which does all that and more" so why not shut down all PAO operations, let alone use it to "fortify" the new golden child base stock?
PAO is needed to fulfill the 0w-x oils and of course it works very well in racing applications.
Add the fact that some customers just prefer PAO is another reason why it continues to be made. My understanding of the literature is that M1 products are a blend of oils (GRIII+, PAO, Ester).
Also, if GrIII+ is so hot with identical performance and NO downsides compared to a synthesized fluid (PAO), then why bother with PAO at all? Why still make it, it obviously costs more to manufacture, and now we have GrIII+ "which does all that and more" so why not shut down all PAO operations, let alone use it to "fortify" the new golden child base stock?
PAO is needed to fulfill the 0w-x oils and of course it works very well in racing applications.
Add the fact that some customers just prefer PAO is another reason why it continues to be made. My understanding of the literature is that M1 products are a blend of oils (GRIII+, PAO, Ester).
Again, I don't think it matters so long as it performs in the real world.
Your average customer has no idea what basestocks or additives are but they know if their engine wears out prematurely.
IMO M1 products have never shown evidence of this and I don't think they would gamble with this considering the market share they have, unless they were absolutely sure that their products will stand up to the use/abuse facing them.
Your average customer has no idea what basestocks or additives are but they know if their engine wears out prematurely.
IMO M1 products have never shown evidence of this and I don't think they would gamble with this considering the market share they have, unless they were absolutely sure that their products will stand up to the use/abuse facing them.
Last edited:
Funny, we would NOT be having this discussion if only Group IV/V/VI oils were called synthetic, would we? It's now a meaningless appellation.
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Funny, we would NOT be having this discussion if only Group IV/V/VI oils were called synthetic, would we? It's now a meaningless appellation.
1. If group III oils couldn't be called synthetic, what is now Mobil 1 and Pennzoil Platinum would be called overpriced dinos, and it would be even worse.
2. "Synthetic" always was a meaningless appellation because, from the chemical point of view, there is no real line between what is and isn't synthetic. Any line we draw is completely arbitrary and for our own convenience. Group III oils happen to straddle the line that we used to draw. Big freakin' deal. It was bound to happen at some point.
Funny, we would NOT be having this discussion if only Group IV/V/VI oils were called synthetic, would we? It's now a meaningless appellation.
1. If group III oils couldn't be called synthetic, what is now Mobil 1 and Pennzoil Platinum would be called overpriced dinos, and it would be even worse.
2. "Synthetic" always was a meaningless appellation because, from the chemical point of view, there is no real line between what is and isn't synthetic. Any line we draw is completely arbitrary and for our own convenience. Group III oils happen to straddle the line that we used to draw. Big freakin' deal. It was bound to happen at some point.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
No. They, like they are in Europe, would be called semi-synthetics. There would be a lot fewer "synthetics" on the market and a lot more semi-synthetics.
If PAO or similar was mandated for the "synthetic" moniker, that is ZERO guarantee we'd have better oils.
Therefore...
Therefore...
- Status
