Engine synthetic or not?

I'll agree with Black Bart, I haven't kept up with whats going on. In the early 1980's I worked for Ryder as a diesel mechanic. They did a study and switched their entire fleet to Mobil 1. Since then I have used Mobil 1 in everything i own. I had no idea it had been changed or they had sued castrol. If you don't stay in touch you get out of touch. Thanks for the info.
 
There is a ton of information and misinformation on the net about Mobil 1 composition, and it doesn't help that the manufacturer won't discuss their proprietary blend, but they are still a PAO based oil with some Group III mixed in so that their additives will integrate better, and so that the oil can suspend contaminants properly.

Exxon/Mobil learned a hard lesson about the downsides of pure PAO oil with Mobil AV-1, an aviation oil they sold in the 1990s. While pure PAO is as slippery as snot, it's a lousy cleanser in addition to not suspending contaminants well, so after a many ruined aircraft engines and a $12.5 million dollar settlement, Mobil 1 is now a blend of approximately 60-70% PAO with the rest being Group III oil and additives. That ratio changes depending on weight and application formulation.

Very few manufacturers use a straight PAO base anymore for the reasons listed, but also there is the issue of pricing, and mixing PAO with Group III helps them stay competitive as PAO production falters and stumbles from time to time. As an example, Mobil 1 had to throttle sales and distribution drastically in the aftermath of 2008's Hurricane Ike when a major PAO plant in Texas was shut down, exacerbating an already chronically short PAO supply.

I like Mobil 1 pretty well and have used it in everything for ages, including Lycoming aircraft engines in the 1990s. I guess I got lucky on that one because my engines ran so often, so they didn't get the dreaded sludge because the contaminants never had time to drop out of the suspension. Instead they were visibly cleaner with less coking, and showed less measurable wear upon inspections than with dino products. On an airplane that saves an ungodly amount of money.

My mower only has 25 hours on it now, but when it is broken in I'll be using Mobil 1 in it as well because I'd like to get fifteen years out of the thing. That is, unless I can find a same quality synthetic cheaper. I'm not nearly as brand loyal as I am wallet loyal. :biggrin:
 
Jetblast said:
There is a ton of information and misinformation on the net about Mobil 1 composition, and it doesn't help that the manufacturer won't discuss their proprietary blend, but they are still a PAO based oil with some Group III mixed in so that their additives will integrate better, and so that the oil can suspend contaminants properly.

Exxon/Mobil learned a hard lesson about the downsides of pure PAO oil with Mobil AV-1, an aviation oil they sold in the 1990s. While pure PAO is as slippery as snot, it's a lousy cleanser in addition to not suspending contaminants well, so after a many ruined aircraft engines and a $12.5 million dollar settlement, Mobil 1 is now a blend of approximately 60-70% PAO with the rest being Group III oil and additives. That ratio changes depending on weight and application formulation.

Very few manufacturers use a straight PAO base anymore for the reasons listed, but also there is the issue of pricing, and mixing PAO with Group III helps them stay competitive as PAO production falters and stumbles from time to time. As an example, Mobil 1 had to throttle sales and distribution drastically in the aftermath of 2008's Hurricane Ike when a major PAO plant in Texas was shut down, exacerbating an already chronically short PAO supply.

I like Mobil 1 pretty well and have used it in everything for ages, including Lycoming aircraft engines in the 1990s. I guess I got lucky on that one because my engines ran so often, so they didn't get the dreaded sludge because the contaminants never had time to drop out of the suspension. Instead they were visibly cleaner with less coking, and showed less measurable wear upon inspections than with dino products. On an airplane that saves an ungodly amount of money.

My mower only has 25 hours on it now, but when it is broken in I'll be using Mobil 1 in it as well because I'd like to get fifteen years out of the thing. That is, unless I can find a same quality synthetic cheaper. I'm not nearly as brand loyal as I am wallet loyal. :biggrin:
Click to expand...

Jetblast where are you getting your info that Mobil is a PAO based oil, Can you provide a link to this info??? I would like to read it.

I have seen e mails sent to Mobil asking if their automotive oil contained ANY PAO and I also read Mobil's reply.

Several people tried to get an answer on this but every time they talk about how it is a proprietary blend that is blended for the best product.

Instead of dancing on the head of a pin a simple yes or no is all that was required to put and end to the argument but they refuse to say yes or no and for me that tells me all I need to know about what is in it.

Now understand I'm not saying it is any better or worse than anything else I'm just saying at one time they wanted the whole world to know they had a PAO base and now you can not pry it out of them they will not say yes it is PAO based so what does that tell you.

All manufactures use oil as a Carrier for the add-pack so even a PAO based oil will have some oil in it but Mobil won't talk about their base.
The closest I have seen is the guy that came up with the first synthetic base oil and sold it and still does posted on BITOG that he tested the new Mobil-1 and it had NO PAO in it and he has a laboratory to test with and that is why I would like to see where you got your info that it has such a strong PAO base stock.
 
Bob The Oil Guy's forums are rife with wild speculation on the topic and the matter isn't helped by the fact that there are so many competitor oil salesman posting there, and on every other automotive forum.

This is something I read a while ago and since the link is dead, I nearly broke my Google finger trying to find a copy/paste of the relevant section:
--------------------------------------------

http://www.exxonmobilsynthetics.com/Publ..._Sales_FAQs.asp

What percentage of synthetic engine oils is PAO and Group V base stocks (ester and other synthetics)?

Fully synthetic engine oils generally contain 70% to 80% PAO, 5% to 10 % Group V base stocks and the remaining portion are additives. However, some engine oil marketers have elected to use higher ratios.
-----------------------------------------------

I remembered the percentage incorrectly as 60-70%, but you get the idea.

Mobil 1 has consistently stated they're a Group IV based oil. Amsoil considers them to be one as well on one of their product comparison charts. (Google will bring that up.) Wikipedia's entry on Mobil 1 even lists them as a Group IV PAO based oil and nobody has challenged it successfully. Then there's the press industry press release from 2008 one can find showing how Mobil 1 supplies were impacted by the PAO plant problems from Hurricane Ike...

Despite Mobil 1's reluctance to discuss their proprietary formulas in their consumer website, all roads lead to them being a PAO based oil, including their pricing which has to be on a particular margin for them to remain successful. The "Mobil 1 = Group III" conspiracy theorists and competitor product salesman on the BTOG forums have quite a burden of proof to fulfill, but they've got nothing so far. God knows they've been trying for years!

I think there's more internet controversy on this topic than there is over who shot JFK, or who caused the World Trade Center to fall. Anyone curious enough can fire up their Google and come to their own conclusions, but it's never a bad idea to keep Occam's Razor in mind: "The simplest explanation is usually correct."
 
Well so you won't think I'm one of those who hates Mobil I use it in my Explorer but their are some doubts about the base stock.
The things you refer to about Mobil base stock was back before the change.
Their is no question it was a grp-4 back then and they openly said so.

As to you accusations about BITOG salesman are you aware that Mobil is a major sponsor of that site.

I'm sure not defending the forum I don't post their but when someone who DOES NOT sell oil and don't work for any oil company uses their lab to test different products and post the results you got to wonder.

If what he said was not true why didn't Mobil sue him it was his statement that started the whole debacle.

I use Mobil but I'm not as defensive over them as you seem to be, I believe they cheapened the base stock and they did it because it was the only way they could compete with ALL the other who also use a grp-3 base stock.


Also keep in mind that oil has changed just in the last year.

Just this morning I was reading some VOA [virgin oil analyst's ] I was looking to see how Mobil compared to others for ZDDP not so important unless you have a flat tappet performance cam but the new Rotella T-6 has Mobil beat by a wide margin and cost less so it would be a better choice for some engines.
I also noticed that the Mobil TBN is weaker than some others so while it is a good oil I'm not convinced it is head and shoulders over the competition like some Mobil supporter's would have me believe.
 
Exxon/Mobil may buy ads on BITOG (bobistheoilguy.com) but that doesn't keep boutique brand oil salesmen from posting there. Many are not trying to hide it and they do have a clear anti-Mobil 1 agenda. The place is a minefield.

The "change" in formulation rumors goes back to at least the late 1990s, but the majority of data for the arguments (such as it is) postdates that.

I've seen the dubious Blackstone analysis posted there along with the fatally flawed conclusions reached by its recipient, but I don't think you're referring to that when you speak about some guy's lab analysis disputing Mobil 1's claim to a PAO base. I looked and I can't find it. Can you provide a link?

I'm not a supporter nor a detractor for Mobil 1. I am a detractor of internet hype, paranoia, and BS though, as it makes it just that much harder to make proper buying decisions. I'm sure you feel frustrated by this as well. I'd like to see a conclusive end to this debate as would many others, but until Exxon/Mobil pipes up with an answer we'll have to go with the info that's out there. The way I'm reading it says Mobil 1 is still a PAO based oil and a good value, but others will see it differently. I can't help that even if we did end up basically retyping one of the longer BITOG Mobil 1 debates, but I would like to see those lab results that I can't find. Thanks in advance for any assistance in finding that.
 
Last edited:
JETBLAST I'm not a member so I can't search for it but I remember reading it and I remember his name because he was one of the very few that knew what he was talking about but seldom posted.

He went by TOM and was from NJ he manufactures base stock for anyone who wants to make full synthetic lubricates.
I use the M1 0w-30 in my explorer if you compare it to Mobil's 5w-30 in a VOA you will see it clearly is a better oil.
Not all of their line is the same and of course they claim it is PAO based.:biggrin:

The 0-30 has a lot of molybdenum in it and I like that since my engine has a roller cam it is a better choice for a anti-wear agent than ZDDP.

we will never know for sure because Mobil will not say what it is any more anything that I have found where they claim grp IV is dated before 2005 and ALL OILS has changed formula's several times since then.

I understand them not wanting to talk about the exact formula but when someone sends a E Mail and they say it is formulated from the best and refuses to come right out and say yes it has a PAO base then this will go on forever.

Mobil could lay it to rest but after 10 years still no definitive answer from them.

I did a copy-paste from the BITOG site and it looks like not all of them are Mobil haters, Here is the break down on what the members used in 2010.


Code:
Oil Times used Percentage
Pennzoil 346 25.40%
Mobil 1 263 19.30%
Vavoline 169 12.40%
Castrol 131 9.60%
QS 97 7.10%
Motorcraft 68 5.00%
Rotella 41 3.00%
super tech 31 2.20%
Amsoil 30 2.20%
chevron 26 1.90%
havoline 18 1.30%
Napa 18 1.30%
Royal Purple 15 1.10%
Schaeffers 14 1.00%
Toyota 14 1.00%
redline 10 0.70%
petro canada 10 0.70%
o'Rielly 7 0.50%
peak 7 0.50%
kendall 7 0.50%
motomaster 6 0.40%
trop artic 4 0.30%
Motul 4 0.30%
Honda 3 0.20%
Carquest 2 0.10%
RLI 2 0.10%
Esso 2 0.10%
76 2 0.10%
liqui moly 2 0.10%
exxon 2 0.10%
ace 2 0.10%
Eco power 2 0.10%
Cam2 1 Trace
costal 1 Trace
Brad penn 1 Trace
wolfs head
 
Very interesting the use survey from BITOG. Thanks for that, Black Bart. Amazing how the smallest minorities can make the most noise sometimes. :smile:

I found this (below) from "Tom NJ" dated from August of 2010 on BITOG, but he just says he found that M1 is including Group III in its formulations. No contradictions there, I'm already figuring that for reasons discussed earlier, but he doesn't discuss percentages in this post. I'd have probably gone on to dig for his original post from four years ago, but then he went on to say that he "uses Mobil 1 and considers it a great oil". Always nice to hear that from an industry insider, assuming he's on the level. Seeing that I'm only in it to know whether or not I'm using an excellent oil for my money, I'm good. I wish he'd cited some sources in that post though, as all the evidence we have to date is still anecdotal and laced with conjecture.

Interesting discussion and thanks for being dispassionate. It's not always so nice over there.

-------------------------------------------

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
 
I'm not a very loyal consumer I have read for several years now how great the UOA are for Pennzoil Platinum.
Last week while shopping at my Local Meijers store I came across a clearance on 5-30 PP at $14.00 per jug.
They only had 3 left and I bought all 3 of them.
I will put this in my car and sleep well at night.:laughing:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top