New Mobil "Full Synthetic" at AZ

Status
Not open for further replies.
All this shifting product packaging is foolish. 'New and Improved' wears off quickly. This makes the Chevron box oil approach genius. A recyclable box with 6 quarts of quality oil for the price of 5.

Best way to market anything is to make it cheaper and more convenient.
 
Originally Posted by Passport1
All this shifting product packaging is foolish. 'New and Improved' wears off quickly. This makes the Chevron box oil approach genius. A recyclable box with 6 quarts of quality oil for the price of 5.

Best way to market anything is to make it cheaper and more convenient.


The box can lower packaging costs while still maintaining quality oil.
 
Originally Posted by 4WD
Yeah, and there is nobody here that does not know who was your former favorite company.
The way my world works is someone has to enable others. There are not that many vertically integrated oil companies … and I have already acknowledged I'm happy to do business with companies that I see as vital, and actually more connected with OEM's and API in development of new standards. But I also acknowledged ST is a good value made possible by base stock suppliers and additive companies. Utmost standards? Meet the specs is where I'd have stopped implications aside.
I have also mentioned poor engine designs undermine the larger companies efforts to make longer lasting lubricants like they do in their industrial lubricant divisions … to the point if one knows it's happening that gives rise to change often and cheap … so I don't think any oil company has solved that one … That effort will return led by majors and boutiques.
I'm also picky where my money goes and Walmart/Amazon gets plenty already without store brand oils added in.
Paying fines? Lost me there.

What you consider hypocritical ? What year was that and who ALL got away with what since starting with whom? … and as I noted many times pretty much all of them stretch "synthetic" more and more. But so many have it in their heads that GrpIII is the minimum? Where is that written. What I was speculating is this Mobil entry level stuff is one of the highest ratio blends of GrpII+/GrpIII to exploit the S word … probably lower than ST with D1.2 approval … If it's below $20/jug at Walmart … they got there somehow. And having my own Castrol Magnatec oxidation issue at low miles - yet in a non DI engine left me suspicious too. That car has had no issues on the other two big brands.
I don't think you understood any of that (have mentioned a number of times) … and SR picked up on the GrpII+ N/S totem pole analogy that no harmonizing agency in the US seems worried about. It all lines up too closely with plant upgrades, so they are ALL shooting for the bottom line with these low cost enablers purchased by blenders and competition alike.
So I was not doing @XOM any favors at all … and have no plans for this basic oil either.
But, rather than ask for clarification … you went straight to judgement because guess you are needed in that role.



I've shown you the typical properties of the two 0W20 products from each companies. Everything about the two are nearly identical thus for all of XOM's advertising might it makes its products to a price point. Nothing wrong with this just shows the extent of the products "superiority" is advertising. You can cite with OEM work until you are blue in the face although it may provide XOM a slight advantage getting a product to market faster it does not gain any advantage in blending performance after the published requirements are made. The R&D of the additive companies and other blenders is just as dedicated and resourceful as XOM some are more because they don't have the XOM resources. XOM does what it does for profit everything it does is a compromise this is why a store brand meeting the certifications and specifications as a Mobil One will perform nearly identical. For some illogical reason you like to poo poo Warren and it really makes no sense.

As for your personal crusade of "oxidation issues" this really can be due to many contributing factors not solely group II+ base oil is used in a percentage.
 
Originally Posted by Triple_Se7en
Dave

What is your two words definition of... upmost of standards?
Is it .... Meets Specs?
Is it .....Exceeds Specs?

Highest and loftiest is the definition of up-most. I am holding a quart of Supertech 0W20 in my basement and I can't find the word exceeds on the jug.
Help me out. Will it appear on their SP GF-6 formulas?



Why does the simple concept of lable on the bottle means nothing is so difficult to understand. The only reason why you support brand names is because your grandpapy was douped by a Rockefeller poser selling everclear caused him to burn himself lighting his kerosene lamp.

http://www.warrendistribution.com/brands


https://www.warrenoil.com/site/media/#

Read up the "smaller" blenders are not a fly by night inferior company. If you ever venture out of Detroit schedule a tour with one of the smaller blenders the reputable ones will be more than willing to take you around and educate you how their products are made.
 
Get over this poo poo that never happened … can you understand anything or just start typing before any attempts to understand others.

You are not forcing your reasoning or habits on me.

Don't worry about me …
 
Originally Posted by 4WD
Got it … same as 30% to 70% PAO … later

Originally Posted by 4WD
Got it … same as 30% to 70% PAO … later

It's not 30-70% PAO.

https://www.exxonmobil.com/en/passenger-vehicle-lube/mobil-1-0w20/pds-us



With a VI of 173, HTHS of 2.7, and a NOACK of around 10%.

It's not 30-70% PAO. If it were the VI would be a lot closer to 200, the HTHS would be tad higher and the NOACK would be 6-7%. Plus the PDS does not list anything near 30© PAO.

So when you decide to revisit this at least be prepared to be factual about the product you are selling.
 
Originally Posted by 4WD
Get over this poo poo that never happened … can you understand anything or just start typing before any attempts to understand others.

You are not forcing your reasoning or habits on me.

Don't worry about me …



The poo poo happens every time there is either a Warren thread or someone bashes your beloved XOM. You like to make a point Warren synthetics are "group II" blends. Well I've shown you in pervious threads the Warren 0W20 stacks up nicely to Mobil One AFE. So nice ii is nearly identical except NOACK favors the AFE a bit. If Warren is using primarily group II then the AFE is must be blended by morons because to be nearly identical to a group II PCMO is not good.
 
Originally Posted by dave1251
Originally Posted by 4WD
Got it … same as 30% to 70% PAO … later

Originally Posted by 4WD
Got it … same as 30% to 70% PAO … later

It's not 30-70% PAO.

https://www.exxonmobil.com/en/passenger-vehicle-lube/mobil-1-0w20/pds-us



With a VI of 173, HTHS of 2.7, and a NOACK of around 10%.

It's not 30-70% PAO. If it were the VI would be a lot closer to 200, the HTHS would be tad higher and the NOACK would be 6-7%. Plus the PDS does not list anything near 30© PAO.

So when you decide to revisit this at least be prepared to be factual about the product you are selling.


What?

The VI of PAO isn't anywhere near that high, and the Noack for the low visc PAO's isn't that low.

A few examples:
SpectraSyn 4 has a VI of 126, Noack of SpectraSyn 6 has a VI of 138, Noack of 6.4%, HTHS of 2.08
SpectraSyn Plus 6 has a VI of 143, Noack of SpectraSyn 8 has a VI of 139, Noack of 4.1%, HTHS 2.58 but CCS only qualifies it for a 5w-xx

TGMO, entirely Group III based, had a ridiculously high VI due to high VII loading in a light base.

So a blend of 6 and 8 maybe (or maybe use SpectraSyn 4 with the 8 or 6) to get the 0w-xx rating, VII dose would be relatively low, and the VI wouldn't be overly high. And in fact this is reasonably consistent with the Mobil blending guide example of a completely PAO-based 0w-20, which is slightly less volatile and has a VI of 162:
[Linked Image]
 
Originally Posted by buster
The design of the bottles doesn't bother me. I kind of like it. Anything to sell more oil.....nothing surprises me anymore. I can see this confusing the average consumer though. When people think of synthetics, most think of Mobil 1. 40+ year history. With so many offerings now, who knows....

Wouldn't surprise me if there is some EHC II+ in this oil. I'm curious how it's priced at WM.


Nobody is going to buy this oil who isn't already a "do it-your selfer". Only those who already change their own oil. Whatever the market is now-is what it is.

It's not like somebody is going to be walking down the aisle-who already takes his/her car some where to have their oil changed-is going to say "I really like these bottles" I think I'll start changing my own oil.

NOPE!
 
No go for me. Mobil 1 is $2 less at walmart for a Jug. I think they have too many products in the mix. Ugly label too.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by dave1251
Originally Posted by 4WD
Got it … same as 30% to 70% PAO … later

Originally Posted by 4WD
Got it … same as 30% to 70% PAO … later

It's not 30-70% PAO.

https://www.exxonmobil.com/en/passenger-vehicle-lube/mobil-1-0w20/pds-us



With a VI of 173, HTHS of 2.7, and a NOACK of around 10%.

It's not 30-70% PAO. If it were the VI would be a lot closer to 200, the HTHS would be tad higher and the NOACK would be 6-7%. Plus the PDS does not list anything near 30© PAO.

So when you decide to revisit this at least be prepared to be factual about the product you are selling.


What?

The VI of PAO isn't anywhere near that high, and the Noack for the low visc PAO's isn't that low.

A few examples:
SpectraSyn 4 has a VI of 126, Noack of SpectraSyn 6 has a VI of 138, Noack of 6.4%, HTHS of 2.08
SpectraSyn Plus 6 has a VI of 143, Noack of SpectraSyn 8 has a VI of 139, Noack of 4.1%, HTHS 2.58 but CCS only qualifies it for a 5w-xx

TGMO, entirely Group III based, had a ridiculously high VI due to high VII loading in a light base.

So a blend of 6 and 8 maybe (or maybe use SpectraSyn 4 with the 8 or 6) to get the 0w-xx rating, VII dose would be relatively low, and the VI wouldn't be overly high. And in fact this is reasonably consistent with the Mobil blending guide example of a completely PAO-based 0w-20, which is slightly less volatile and has a VI of 162:
[Linked Image]




This does not match the Mobil AFE 0W20 PDS I have. The
MRV @ -40ºC is significantly higher, the HTHS is higher, the viscosity at 40C is significantly higher and flashpoint isn't the same.
 
I'm responding in one post, going out of town. You have misquoted the GrpII part … it would not be majority … that's not the intent of the developers*. But you selected to go after one company after the Castrol deal … and you mentioned bottom line. Of course they ALL jumped on that bottom line opportunity and many have done very well with the word "synthetic" … both big and small. Again, in future efforts to make long range oil and filters … I don't see that as a step in the right direction but perfectly fine in the 7k OLM world … in fact a good thing for cost until more regulation shows up ( hope it does not)
*(which is XOM in over two dozen brands including Warren and majors alike)
Nothing going in my engine is not 30-70 because that's the vintages that bow my shelves. … I'm not currently shopping oil, so I will not worry about formula for a while, and they will change again. The big players have allocations to deal with as both a seller and end user. As for trying to break down a formula … the hardest out there is likely Mobil with all the AN's, splash of ester, various PAO, and you name it …oh, and Infneium being in house for them and Shell.
I have already clearly stated my preference is majors … if you don't share my views on what companies matter, fine … where I'm at it's Chevron, Shell, and XOM … both in the area I live and when I get on a B777 on Monday. No ST in our turbines to big CAT's … no technical support ,no arctic grade fuel from small companies that OEM's don't support. Mobil has sold well over a billion gallons to CAT … I don't see that or the GM relationship changing - something vital.
Oxidation? Again, Castrol is my only PVL failure in my lifetime aside from Pennzoil gear oil. … ST is not going outperform Mobil in this area. Tig going 10k for 40 years speaks volumes … how many formula changes was that? Not one mention of break down like Castrol's Mag … probably another semi considering they are offering a wide product line that includes a very impressive long range offering, and Euro offerings. Again, I'm not likely to go with entry level on a $56k ride. That's just a comfort thing as is about half of what's on this site … which leads to current plan.
I have spent most of my life doing 5000 OCI, then a 7500 phase, and now ready for 10k/1 year. ST will play a minor role as a half way "spike" oil … but I think most would be more comfortable with Mobil 1 AP 0w20 in the motors you and I share.
Making that change is easy for some folks here, it's hard for me so I'd only trust a few brands top shelf lubes for that.
If I'm illogical … then I'm OK knowing that's a very subjective term… just like to think about an entire industry instead of who is jumping out with their logo on a jug next week to profit an influential company from the NW. A company I chose not to use.
 
Originally Posted by dave1251
This does not match the Mobil AFE 0W20 PDS I have. The
MRV @ -40ºC is significantly higher, the HTHS is higher, the viscosity at 40C is significantly higher and flashpoint isn't the same.


I wasn't saying it was a perfect match, just trying to demonstrate that the traits of a fully PAO based 0w-20 aren't what you appear to be expecting.
 
OK: would you say a finished formula is advanced chemistry and we have not batted .500 at attempts to "see what's in it"
 
Originally Posted by 4WD
OK: would you say a finished formula is advanced chemistry and we have not batted .500 at attempts to "see what's in it"


Certainly.
 
Originally Posted by buster
Can someone catch me up here on what we're debating?
lol.gif



IMO... Good/Better/Best like half the stuff here

I'm actually surprised they are calling something synthetic that's not even Dexos 1.2 ... achievable with a semi ...so maybe this product is not even one of those 3. IMO, MSS was already a semi and what AC Delco was. Keep in mind that both companies who got the GM contracts lately did these plant upgrades ...
This one? Probably a shelf blocker at AZ ... let's see if Walmart even bothers
 
Gotcha.

All oils are formulated to a price point. With oil, I prefer a major formulation. This is based on numerous people I've spoken with over the years that have worked in the industry. This doesn't mean there aren't great boutique brands - Driven, Amsoil etc.

The larger companies like XOM/Shell/Castrol have the R & D and testing resources to develop their own formulations. Complete certified additive packages are intended generally for small companies that lack these capabilities. However, the major companies may also go this way for specialty products or product line "fillers" that lack sufficient market share to justify the expense. The additive suppliers have a relationship with the major formulators. XOM/Shell jointly own Infineum, so they have some advantages. The large major brands do most of their own development work on their flagship oils in house, for example Mobil 1, but will work with additive suppliers as well.

If you can develop a less expensive way to meet a spec, it's going to make its way into that product. No one is in business to lose money. That goes for any company.

That's all I have.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top