Mobil 1 What exactly is it??? Group 3 +4 ?????
- Thread starter dbvettez06
- Start date
- Status
Patman
Staff member
Well that is one thing that the members of this board definitely do, so sooner or later we'll finally be able to show you enough proof to convince you that Mobil 1 has changed.
Newbie Layman here with some questions.
I've read this and the other threads on this issue and I'm shaking in my M1 15w-50 shoes here folks!
I'm a Porsche nut, my current one is a 93 968 - 3.0 ltr 4 cylinder engine and I live in south texas (can you say HOT!) and I drive my car hard in the heat. I've been using M1 15w-50 in my Porsche's over the years...now I have doubts...
1. Are there any true Gp IV synthetics out there? If so, names please.
2. I change my oil and filter every 5K - so does me worrying about 15w-50 having gpIII a moot point?
I'm also the local Porsche club President and so a lot of folks tap me for advice...
3. So what should a Porsche owner be using?
Thanks everyone!
sasilverbullet
I've read this and the other threads on this issue and I'm shaking in my M1 15w-50 shoes here folks!
I'm a Porsche nut, my current one is a 93 968 - 3.0 ltr 4 cylinder engine and I live in south texas (can you say HOT!) and I drive my car hard in the heat. I've been using M1 15w-50 in my Porsche's over the years...now I have doubts...
1. Are there any true Gp IV synthetics out there? If so, names please.
2. I change my oil and filter every 5K - so does me worrying about 15w-50 having gpIII a moot point?
I'm also the local Porsche club President and so a lot of folks tap me for advice...
3. So what should a Porsche owner be using?
Thanks everyone!
sasilverbullet
sasilverbullet, if you want some of the finest ("thick") brews for racing and will shell out some $$, try M1 V-Twin 20W-50 motorcycle oil. Additive levels in M1 15W-50 EP are not as high as they used to be. Will it make a difference? I dunno but why risk it is my belief when you have an awesome engine like you do.
Patman
Staff member
Since there aren't a lot of low cost (and easily available) synthetic Xw50 options out there, I'd say to keep using it, but perhaps you should convince the Porsche guys to begin doing UOAs right away, so that they can compare the stuff they are running now, to any future formulations of it. Then if they notice a drastic change, they can look into other options. And if things stay relatively the same, then they can keep using the product with confidence.
You don't need to abandon the M1 15W-50 from a performance standpoint based on Group III content. Performance is not the motivation of the recent M1 controversy. If you feel you've been deceived and gouged upon in reliance, that's an altogether different reason.
Another old school synthetic to consider if you do change would be Redline. This is the top oil in my opinion for difficult thermal loads. The price gap between it and the most expensive OTCs has narrowed, making it a better value than it once was. If you're not tracking it, other oils like GC or even Delvac 1 come to mind, although the first may be too thin and the latter is likewise an EM product.
Another old school synthetic to consider if you do change would be Redline. This is the top oil in my opinion for difficult thermal loads. The price gap between it and the most expensive OTCs has narrowed, making it a better value than it once was. If you're not tracking it, other oils like GC or even Delvac 1 come to mind, although the first may be too thin and the latter is likewise an EM product.
and still probably the finest HDEO available looking at the available evidence.
Doug Hillary, an ex and long time poster on here with very good industry credentials used it in his old 928 and has seen it used in multiple Porsche applications with success.
There is no reason to believe this formula has changed considering it is used at up to 100,000km/60,000 mile OCI's in over the road trucking.
All of which could and would be immediately and definitively squelched with an idiot-simple, trade-secret-safe confirmation from EM. . .
Are they just asleep at the wheel, being misguidedly paternalistic, or perhaps, is something more sinister afoot???
Well, of course, the other way would be buying your supplies from someone who has demonstrated that you can trust their representations about their product line. True enough, I think?
I think most ppl don't have the resources to do the UOAs...so yes truth in advertising is paramount.
Re: "EM's continued unwillingness to offer even simple clarification"... That is the confusing part.
EM offers very simple explanation that M1 is a PAO based full synthetic oil, and not a Group III based oil when I have asked the question.. And yet for some, EM apparently does not offer clarification that meets their requirement..
EM offers very simple explanation that M1 is a PAO based full synthetic oil, and not a Group III based oil when I have asked the question.. And yet for some, EM apparently does not offer clarification that meets their requirement..
George:
We've ploughed this ground several times, but again, if the wording is mere "ad copy," which easily leaves room for the addition of significant quantities of G-III along with the PAO, then yes, people are going to remain suspicious, and rightfully so, IMO.
If one describes an oil as "primarily PAO based," is it not entirely within the realm of possible for that oil to contain as much as 30, 40 or near 50% "other" base oils? Staying purely hypothetical here, such "other" oils could be from Groups I, II, II+, III, V, or perhaps GTL (not sure which pigeon hole GTL is being shoved into at the moment...). Do you disagree?
I'd just like to see an end to the wiggle words from EM (to be fair, they're far from alone in using them). Given their position in the market, and their historical stance on the syn issue, I don't think I'm being unreasonable.
Just call them up.
I'm sure when you identify yourself and establish your credentials as a poster on board where there's a raging conspiracy theory by people with little or no background based on two entire GCs by someone tinkering in a lab in his spare time, the entire ExxonMobil legal department and engineering staff will drop what they're doing and come to the telephone.
'
Patman
Staff member
But this whole thing did not get started because someone had a hunch that Mobil 1 contained group 3, it started with the FACT that Tom tested two samples and PROVED that it contains group 3. But you refuse to believe it. And obviously there is nothing we can say to convince you is there?
Which trust you would have to establish by doing UOAs, or tearing down the engine and measuring it after every oil change, or running comparative fleets with competing lubricants.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating, not in the spec sheet.
'
Tom did an informal run on the GC and believed both contained different amounts of Group III.
I believe that to be a fact.
I don't see any facts on any other Mobil 1 or Delvac 1 formula.
Do you have some?
Do you know, for a fact, whether Mobil 1 EP has always been formulated with Group III, or whether it was at one time formulated with PAO?
Do you know, for a fact, that Tom's samples are representative of regular Mobil 1 EP production, or whether something else was going on (the Beaumont PAO plant had problems coming on-line) and a temporary change was made?
Or have you come to some conclusions and wish those conclusions to be treated as facts?
'
Patman
Staff member
If either of those scenarios are indeed the explanation, then that will still be enough for people on here to no longer trust Mobil 1. It didn't matter to me either way, I stopped using Mobil 1 years ago.
Well, what you sarcastically describe in the second part of your post is why I haven't bothered trying the suggestion in the first.
I've emailed them twice on this question already, and they affirmatively refused to go past the canned wiggle word response. Maybe I will try calling, just to see for myself. Should I expect anything more than the obvious, "you're an idiot rube" tone conveyed in the emails???
My willingness to extend EM the benefit of the doubt is severely diminished by EM's own lack of respect for its long-time customers, myself included.
Why would the substitution of Group III for PAO on a temporary basis, if the end product met the same specs, be a problem?
And, since you apparently decided Mobil 1 isn't worth the money some time ago, what's your dog in the fight?
'
- Status
Similar threads
