*Mobil 1 - PAO & Visom

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Nov 16, 2002
Messages
38,045
Location
NJ
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.



Apparently XOM let this go public because it was found online. It's a PowerPoint presentation.

I can tell you that from reading it, the current M1 formulations are better than ever. TEOST testing is extremely good. Mobil 1 is their flagship product and there is no evidence at all that Mobil 1 is any worse than it used to be. In fact, it's a better oil.

They also show some OEM proprietary testing results and the new 0w40 has improved cam wear protection.
 
27.gif
Run and quickly... Here comes the pain train!
 
Sounds impressive, and like typical marketing all at the same time. As with all new oil products and technologies the UOA reports, and real world use will tell the story.

Yes the pain train is a comin!
 
Not suprising at all - if XOM came out with a group-III product, you knew they'd make it the best quality one they could.

Interesting way of admitting that M1 contains group-III, and probably why they have been so evasive so far - getting all the facts and marketing in place to make this 'look good'.
 
I think M1 is smart and wouldn't let their oils go to junk (can't use the word I want to) however like Demarpaint said. Only UOA's and real-world testing will confirm the oil hasn't been weakened by BITOG-er standards. Most consumers that have always used M1 will continue to do so and it will serve them well because they probably stick to a 3/3000 mentality.

I thank the higher powers that be that they finally released this information that the formula is mainly GRP-III with PAO added so that the rhetoric, nonsense and rumors on the board about M1 will finally stop. (At least I hope so)

Kuddo's to Buster for posting this.
thumbsup2.gif
 
Stop! You have got to be kidding. The bashers are licking their chops as we type.

Buster, can you post a link to this power point presentation?
 
Originally Posted By: StevieC

I thank the higher powers that be that they finally released this information that the formula is mainly GRP-III with PAO added so that the rhetoric, nonsense and rumors on the board about M1 will finally stop. (At least I hope so)



It sounded like a marketing pep talk. It won't change any opinions one way or the other.
 
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
 
It's not base-stocks in IMO that make the difference its the additive package. I have always said this. PAO is better than GRP-III but if it has a junk additive package then it's not any good.

Considering all the people that use M1 and have had success with it this just proves it because M1 has been mainly GRP-III for a while and just admitted to it now.

Who cares whats in an oil... We aren't chemists... We are BITOG folk and we should be concerned with real world results and UOA's but even UOA's aren't the greatest unless you have good trend data.
 
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, including B2B 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


Your good name was never tarnished as for as I'm concerned. Those that thought so are fools.

Originally Posted By: Steve S
Visom sounds more expensive than GPIII.


Fancy label, fancy name. It's no better than Chevron, Shell, ConocoPhillips, or Petro Canada Group III oils. Cost should all be about the same.
 
Visom sounds like a Group III+, maybe something similar to Shell's excellent Group III. Group III's do have solvency advantages.

To see the presentation: Google "Mobil 1 formulation" group III+ or "Mobil 1 formulation" visom
 
Originally Posted By: StevieC
Amsoil and Redline look like the best choices for people looking for quality Basestock oils now...
wink.gif



C'mon don't start that nonsense now. You don't know what Amsoil is using and you just said it's not all about the base oils. Get over it.

And I just stated that in the presentation, which you can find online, there are no performance differences. In fact, the "new" 0w-40, shows better TEOST and Cam wear protection compared to previous versions. I'm assuming this is the version that has been out since some time around the 2006.....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top