That being said... The MSDS is required to be fully up to date by both OSHA and the EPA. If they were not, the company would be in serious deep doo-doo. Since the individual containers do not have one included, it is required to be available and up-to-date at place of purchase and the on the company's web site. READ THE doggone MSDS. I do not believe the people here who condemn a product over one person's NON-Published GC readings and based solely upon his statements regarding two grades of oils. ExxonMobil has to provide up-to-date MSDS, period. If you do not believe they are, then sick the EPA and OSHA on them!
I spoke to Mobil today about Mobil1
- Thread starter KBFXDLI
- Start date
- Status
That being said... The MSDS is required to be fully up to date by both OSHA and the EPA. If they were not, the company would be in serious deep doo-doo. Since the individual containers do not have one included, it is required to be available and up-to-date at place of purchase and the on the company's web site. READ THE doggone MSDS. I do not believe the people here who condemn a product over one person's NON-Published GC readings and based solely upon his statements regarding two grades of oils. ExxonMobil has to provide up-to-date MSDS, period. If you do not believe they are, then sick the EPA and OSHA on them!
Less complicated to switch brands.
http://www.host1.exxonmobil.com/psims/AlternateFormat.aspx?DocumentID=563536&DocumentFormat=RTF
This link is for the Mobil 1 EP 15W-50.
I don't see much that helps to clarify the basestock issue. 'Synthetic basestock with additives' could easily include Group III or be ebtirely Group III under the Castrol definition of 'synthetic'.
Moving on to something more certain: I am not impressed with how Mobil 1 answers my questions about their product.
If I don't like how Mobil 1 treats me as a customer, then I will not support Mobil 1.
This link is for the Mobil 1 EP 15W-50.
I don't see much that helps to clarify the basestock issue. 'Synthetic basestock with additives' could easily include Group III or be ebtirely Group III under the Castrol definition of 'synthetic'.
Moving on to something more certain: I am not impressed with how Mobil 1 answers my questions about their product.
If I don't like how Mobil 1 treats me as a customer, then I will not support Mobil 1.
I hate to interrupt raging anger and righteous indignation with commonsense and facts, but:
- Tom tested the contents of two containers, not a sample of production over some long period of time.
- the results differed between those two viscosities as to the makeup of the stocks
- Tom did not test regular Mobil 1 in any of its viscosities, any of the motorcycles oils, truck, transmission fluids, or any of the other of the vast array of Mobil 1 transmission fluids, greases, lubricants, or motor oils other than one container each of one product of the two different viscosities
- Tom readily admits, therefore, that no statistically valid inferences can be drawn from the one datapoint of 15W-50 and the one datapoint of 10W-30
- George CLS has pointed out that for various reasons ExxonMobil (and btw every other manufacturer) from time to time has to temporarily alter a formula. I don't hear great outrage that Castrol's synthetic has apparently been three or four different products bearing the same label in the last few years
.
Is having a Group III / PAO blend necessarily a bad thing?--I'm not so sure. I'm a professional pilot with many hours in recip aircraft. Some of you may be aware of Mobil's foray into full synth aircraft oil in the mid 90s--it was a disaster for many aircraft owners, which resulted in successful lawsuits against Mobil (wrongful death, engine replacement etc.). After the legal fallout, it was determined that the full synth oil lacked the properties to adequetely hold lead contaminents in suspension, resulting in sludging, plugged oil ports / galleries and eventual bearing failures. Here's the link for some more info: http://www.eaa49.av.org/techart/mobil01.htm
Why is this relevent to this discussion? Because now you cannot find a full-synth aircraft oil; best you can get is a blend, which is what we're talking about here. Maybe Mobil and the other companies have researched this issue enough that they've determined that a blend of PAO and mineral results in BETTER performance than pure PAO in ALL engines. Before anyone asks, I AM aware of the higher levels of lead in aircraft fuel / more blow-by / higher temps etc.--this isn't exactly an apples to apples comparison, but I think it deserves some consideration before we throw Mobil 1 to the lions. . .just my two cents.
Why is this relevent to this discussion? Because now you cannot find a full-synth aircraft oil; best you can get is a blend, which is what we're talking about here. Maybe Mobil and the other companies have researched this issue enough that they've determined that a blend of PAO and mineral results in BETTER performance than pure PAO in ALL engines. Before anyone asks, I AM aware of the higher levels of lead in aircraft fuel / more blow-by / higher temps etc.--this isn't exactly an apples to apples comparison, but I think it deserves some consideration before we throw Mobil 1 to the lions. . .just my two cents.
That strikes me as the very best approach to any concerns.
I personally don't use Mobil 1 EP because its reason for being made - a high TBN designed to last for extended oil change intervals - is of no interest to me. The regular Mobil 1 line in my personal cars and the 20W-50 V-twin motor oil in some of my other vehicles do everything that I want.
I don't expect that ExxonMobil is going to alter its products or marketing to market to the spec sheet crowd along the lines that Amsoil or Redline or some of the boutique motorcycle oil bottlers do.
.
I think if Mobil has simply been upfront about this and declared that they have changed formulas and the change is better because ......., this would have gone much more smootly for them.
It is the apparency of deceit that has "mobilized" me to move to Red Line.
It is the apparency of deceit that has "mobilized" me to move to Red Line.
The two samples Tom NJ ran a GC on were Mobil 1 EP.
Mobil 1 EP is formulated to maintain a relatively high TBN for extended drain intervals.
Due to the small sample size, inferences as to the formulation of the Mobil 1 EP line in general would not be statistically valid. And, of course, the samples say nothing at all about any of the other Mobil 1 products.
.
Triple_Se7en
$50 Site Donor 2024
All these threads about Mobil-1 recently have shown a propensity for XOM users looking for an excuse to try another brand. Now they're all coming out of the woodwork - blaming XOM for various things like dishonesty & deceiving with no proof whatsoever - except possibly in a very thick 15W-50 application - where it may be needed. How many oil producers produce a 15W-50 PAO anyways? Can someone name those brands?
For all these years, XOM has classified synthetic as being Group IV or higher -- even fought Castrol over who was right/wrong. Now folks here are writing their own chapter of this -- changing the words of XOM's defintion of what's synthetic - what's not.
This is getting hilarious. If you are seeking a reason to change oil brands & need an excuse to do so -- then get the proof XOM is dishonest & deceiving -- then change. But don;t change the words that XOM uses to define synthetic - with words that you want to use - just because Castrol, Valvoline and Pennzoil uses those words.
If you want to change brands, then change brands. No need to bring your own deceiving words into this.
For all these years, XOM has classified synthetic as being Group IV or higher -- even fought Castrol over who was right/wrong. Now folks here are writing their own chapter of this -- changing the words of XOM's defintion of what's synthetic - what's not.
This is getting hilarious. If you are seeking a reason to change oil brands & need an excuse to do so -- then get the proof XOM is dishonest & deceiving -- then change. But don;t change the words that XOM uses to define synthetic - with words that you want to use - just because Castrol, Valvoline and Pennzoil uses those words.
If you want to change brands, then change brands. No need to bring your own deceiving words into this.
Note that no one has posted any complaints about recent M1 performance issues in their engine/vehicle.
Common complaints have been:
- Engine noise
- Oil quickly turns black
- Oil consumption
If the presence of Grp III is verified, it may be the case that a blend of Grp III, PAO & Alkylated Napthalene is providing virtually the same performance as the full PAO formulation.
Plus, no one has really mentioned what hoops were jumped thru to make M1 EP pass the GF-4 Seq VIB Fuel Economy Test.
Common complaints have been:
- Engine noise
- Oil quickly turns black
- Oil consumption
If the presence of Grp III is verified, it may be the case that a blend of Grp III, PAO & Alkylated Napthalene is providing virtually the same performance as the full PAO formulation.
Plus, no one has really mentioned what hoops were jumped thru to make M1 EP pass the GF-4 Seq VIB Fuel Economy Test.
That is certainly a more productive approach to reaching some sort of comfort level than accusing ExxonMobil of perfidy.
These are businesses engaged in commerce, the commerce being the sale of lubricants for vehicles, not a religion. Red Line Synthetic Oil Corporation and Amsoil exist to make a profit, as does ExxonMobil, the only differences being that ExxonMobil is publicly traded, and Red Line and Exxon Mobil don't sell multivitamins, water filters, cleaning products, or natural fertilizer.
Mobil 1 products do everything they were doing five years ago, last year, and last week whether or not one feels - based on one sample each of one viscosity each of one Mobil 1 line - that they contain whatever basestocks, blendstocks, and additives you personally need to attain vehicular salvation.
.
Clinging to straws, are we 777? So far, imo there has not been any unfair assesments of XOM's actions here. According to the tests, it seems more likely then not that M1 is now G-III. Members basing their opinons and actions on that new information seems totally resonable....unless you can PROVE the Mobil 1 is still Group IV, are you prepared to do that?
Last edited:
Actually Tom NJ indicated that one sample each of two Mobil 1 *EP* viscosities - not regular Mobil 1, not either motorcycle, nor Truck & SUV, nor Delvac 1 - appeared to contain Group III.
That does not support the statement that "M1 is now G-III".
EP may normally contain Group III, or he may have selected two samples that contained Group III because the Beaumont plant was off-line temporarily and PAO was not available, or there may have been some problem with the samples, or ....
Unless there is some performance defect in the samples he bought, I am not sure what the hoopla is about.
.
If Mickey M is going to carry the water for XOM he needs to get a bucket that doesn't have holes in it.
Have a great day,
Don
Have a great day,
Don
- Status
Similar threads
