Mobil 1 synthetic gear oil in center diff

[93Chewbacca]

Heres a link to a Canadian Mobil 1 PDF file that states which base stock they use in their 5w20 oil. See page 3.

http://www.imperialoil.ca/canada-english/files/products_lubes/iocaenpvlmomobil_1_5w-20.pdf

 

[cary]

My dad and I have been using Mobil 1 for about 30 years and have always had very good results from it. In my recent hunt for Birfield grease choices, I discovered that in 1999 a law was passed that created a loophole allowing oil manufacturers to label regular petroleum oil as "synthetic". Basically, TRUE synthetics use Group IV or Group V base oil stocks (non petroleum). In 1999, a loophole was created to allow lubricants made with Group III (petroleum) base oil stocks to be classified as "synthetic" if the sulphur was removed from the oil.

Although regular petroleum oil has come a LONG way in the last 30 years, we still felt rather deceived by this labeling loophole. Mobil 1 does not make it very clear anymore (without a lot of online digging) what their base stock is, they used to clearly state that their oil was Group IV.

Thus, I have switched to Amsoil which still offers SOME true synthetic oil choices (they also offer some products that use Group III base stock). Amsoil seems to be much more open about their products and which base stock is used in each product.

I believe it is very likely that Mobil 1 may be using Group III base stock for many of its other "synthetic" lubricants, grease, gear oil, transmission fluid etc...

I was a huge fan of Mobil 1 up until now, ExxonMobil is now on my **** list. I guess I just don't like being told a product is "synthetic" if its made from the same stuff as all the conventional oil.

Interestingly enough, Group III base stocks are considered synthetic motor oil ONLY in the United States; elsewhere they are not allowed to be marketed as "synthetic".

You might want to go back and do your research again. There is no statute or case law in the United States regarding what is termed "synthetic" and "mineral" oil. What happened was that Mobil brought an FTC complaint against Castrol in the 1990's alleging that Castrol's use of the term "synthetic" for Group III hydro-cracked oils was misleading to consumer. In the end the FTC chose to side with Castrol. This is in contrast to Europe which limits the labeling of synthetic oils to Group IV PAO and Group V basestock oils.

Concerning Mobil 1, there is no evidence so suggest they no longer use PAO basestock oils in their Mobil 1 line. In fact we have evidence in the motor oils it is still used. Take the 0w-40 and ESP oils, these meet BMW LL-01. One of the prerequisites of meeting BMW LL-01 is that the oil be a PAO or ester base. We also know that Mobil 1 is the largest producer of PAO basestocks in the US (guess where amsoil buys their basestock from). You make a huge leap of logic when you say "Mobil doesn't make it clear" to your conclusion that Mobil 1 is now a Group III oil.

Finally, calling a group III oil mineral is a misnomer. Group III oil is a highly refined oil. The difference between it an PAO oils the use of hydrocracking rather than building up like molecules. In the past 10 years Group III oils have come a long ways and in actual used oil analysis show no difference in wear to group IV based oils. It comes down to the proper blending of base oils and additives, and guess what, even most PAO oils use group III oils as an additive carrier.

 

[93Chewbacca]

You might want to go back and do your research again. There is no statute or case law in the United States regarding what is termed "synthetic" and "mineral" oil. What happened was that Mobil brought an FTC complaint against Castrol in the 1990's alleging that Castrol's use of the term "synthetic" for Group III hydro-cracked oils was misleading to consumer. In the end the FTC chose to side with Castrol. This is in contrast to Europe which limits the labeling of synthetic oils to Group IV PAO and Group V basestock oils.

When the FTC sided with Castrol, that pretty much made it legal, IMO. My apologies for using the word "law" inapropriately The way I see it, when something like this goes down, it pretty much makes it legal to call a petroleum based oil "synthetic", which I think is ridiculous. It is NOT a true synthetic, hydrocracked or not.

Concerning Mobil 1, there is no evidence so suggest they no longer use PAO basestock oils in their Mobil 1 line. In fact we have evidence in the motor oils it is still used. Take the 0w-40 and ESP oils, these meet BMW LL-01. One of the prerequisites of meeting BMW LL-01 is that the oil be a PAO or ester base. We also know that Mobil 1 is the largest producer of PAO basestocks in the US (guess where amsoil buys their basestock from). You make a huge leap of logic when you say "Mobil doesn't make it clear" to your conclusion that Mobil 1 is now a Group III oil.

All the "evidence" I needed was when they decided to make their base stock a secret. Now we're buying an oil with a mystery base stock. Wheres the transparency here? If Mobil 1 wants people to trust their product, why aren't they being open about something as simple as the base stock?

Finally, calling a group III oil mineral is a misnomer. Group III oil is a highly refined oil. The difference between it an PAO oils the use of hydrocracking rather than building up like molecules. In the past 10 years Group III oils have come a long ways and in actual used oil analysis show no difference in wear to group IV based oils. It comes down to the proper blending of base oils and additives, and guess what, even most PAO oils use group III oils as an additive carrier.

I'm not debating which base stock is superior, I am just trying to keep the distinction between synthetic and non-synthetic. When Mobil 1 clearly states which base stocks they use for their products, I will consider purchasing their products again. Until then, no way. When I buy a product that is supposed to lubricate and protect a $40,000+ vehicle, I want to know EXACTLY what the base stock is.

I don't mind having a small amount of Group III oil in the mix as an additive carrier, I just don't like the fact that oil manufacturers can label Group III as synthetic, when it is not a true synthetic. Its like slapping a Land Cruiser emblem on a Chevy Tahoe and marketing it as a Land Cruiser.

 

[psfpilot]

cary,

It's good to see that some of the old 80s'-tech standard bearers are still around once in a while to set the bar.

Cheers!

 

[cary]

When the FTC sided with Castrol, that pretty much made it legal, IMO. My apologies for using the word "law" inapropriately The way I see it, when something like this goes down, it pretty much makes it legal to call a petroleum based oil "synthetic", which I think is ridiculous. It is NOT a true synthetic, hydrocracked or not.

For arguments sake, what do you define as a true synthetic? Let's take the example of Shell's Group III+ oil:

"It is true that ROTELLA T Synthetic is Group III (not PAO) based, but you must keep in mind that not all Group III base oils are created equal. ROTELLA T Synthetic is made with Shell's XHVI base oil, which unlike other Group IIIs does not begin as distilled crude oil, hence of all Group III base oils, XHVI is truly the only one that can legitimately be called "synthetic." XHVI is a wax isomerate, meaning that it is made from the slack wax removed from distilled crude in normal solvent dewaxing. This slack wax is catalytically transformed (isomerized) and hydrofinished into a chemically pure base oil which rivals PAO in virtually every category. There are other "synthetic" oils out there based on Group III, but Shell's is unique in that it uses XHVI base oil. Chevron and Petro-Canada produce Group III base oils that come close to XHVI, but even though these oils are all hydroprocessed and utilize the same type of isomerization technology employed in the making of XHVI, they are not the same thing. Only XHVI is made from pure petroleum slack wax and its CAS number is 92026-09-4. The CAS number for the more typical all-hydroprocessed Group III base oils is 64742-54-7. If you want to know what your "synthetic" oil is made from, take a look at the MSDS and look for these numbers. (The CAS number for PAO is 68037-01-4)."

All the "evidence" I needed was when they decided to make their base stock a secret. Now we're buying an oil with a mystery base stock. Wheres the transparency here? If Mobil 1 wants people to trust their product, why aren't they being open about something as simple as the base stock?

Actually it is not a secret, it is in their MSDS, the only thing you don't know is the percentage of group IV. I hope you don't take speculation as fact in real life, if speculation is all the evidence you need, then you have set the bar very low.

I'm not debating which base stock is superior, I am just trying to keep the distinction between synthetic and non-synthetic. When Mobil 1 clearly states which base stocks they use for their products, I will consider purchasing their products again. Until then, no way. When I buy a product that is supposed to lubricate and protect a $40,000+ vehicle, I want to know EXACTLY what the base stock is.

Actually you are debating which base stock is superior; if you weren't you wouldn't care if they called a group III based oil synthetic. So it is clear to us what you define as synthetic and mineral oils, can you provide us a clear definition so we understand where you draw the line in the sand; e.g. minimum viscosity requirements for each group of oil and refining processes.

FYI your 80 is not a $40,000 vehicle, it is a $5,000 vehicle. UOA's have shown us these engines are very easy on oil and you can run pretty much anything and it will work well.

In regard to your need to know the base oil, do you treat other products the same in your life? Do you refuse to eat KFC since the recipe is a secret? Ever drink a Coke?

I don't mind having a small amount of Group III oil in the mix as an additive carrier, I just don't like the fact that oil manufacturers can label Group III as synthetic, when it is not a true synthetic. Its like slapping a Land Cruiser emblem on a Chevy Tahoe and marketing it as a Land Cruiser.

Since it is so important to you to know exactly what percentages of base oils are in the bottle you buy, are you also concerned about the additive package? Do you fret over how much boron is in there, moly, calcium, the tbn? All of those are extremely important in the final mix.

 

[93Chewbacca]

For arguments sake, what do you define as a true synthetic? Let's take the example of Shell's Group III+ oil...

I have always considered Group IV and Group V to be true synthetics. What do YOU consider to be a true synthetic?

Actually it is not a secret, it is in their MSDS, the only thing you don't know is the percentage of group IV.

Precisely, the percentage.

Actually you are debating which base stock is superior; if you weren't you wouldn't care if they called a group III based oil synthetic. So it is clear to us what you define as synthetic and mineral oils, can you provide us a clear definition so we understand where you draw the line in the sand; e.g. minimum viscosity requirements for each group of oil and refining processes.

I am not here to debate which base stock is superior. I just like to know WHAT ingredients are used.

FYI your 80 is not a $40,000 vehicle, it is a $5,000 vehicle.

Today, yes. When new, no. I am talking about 80 series LC's in general, not just mine. Are you saying as our LC's get older (and lose monetary value) we should care less about which lubricants we select?

UOA's have shown us these engines are very easy on oil and you can run pretty much anything and it will work well.

Agreed. I never even brought that up.

In regard to your need to know the base oil, do you treat other products the same in your life?

Yes occasionally, but theres only so much time in a day Are consumers not entitled to know base oil figures?

Do you refuse to eat KFC since the recipe is a secret? Ever drink a Coke

Good points, theres only so much time in a day though. Maybe once we get to the bottom of Mobil 1, we can work on those next?

Since it is so important to you to know exactly what percentages of base oils are in the bottle you buy, are you also concerned about the additive package? Do you fret over how much boron is in there, moly, calcium, the tbn? All of those are extremely important in the final mix.

Agreed on the importance of the ingredients in the additive package.

I simply would like more clarity about the contents of "synthetic oil" base stock. Is that too much to ask?

It seems that the transparency of many of the products we use is getting murkier these days and it doesn't favor the consumer. Am I wrong? I think the reality here is that the term "Synthetic" (in oil marketing to the consumer) is losing its value, we can no longer put much weight in the word "synthetic" when choosing lubricants. I think there is a LOT more homework that needs to be done (by the consumer) in order to make an educated decision, and that translates into a headache for consumers.


"Group III base stocks are considered synthetic motor oil only in the United States; elsewhere they are not allowed to be marketed as "synthetic"."

-Any comments on this?

 

[93Chewbacca]

By the way, I mean no offense or disrespect to anyone who uses Mobil 1 products, I still think that Mobil 1 offers good products.

I just feel ExxonMobil should be more specific about their synthetic products, it would benefit consumers.

 

[Tools R Us]

... I just feel ExxonMobil should be more specific about their synthetic products, it would benefit consumers.

Why, who other than you would it benefit? All the users that I know don't buy oil because it has a specific ingredient. They buy oil that will result in low wear and lasts as long as they prefer. I really don't care how they make it, it is all about the result and Mobil One excels in both categories.

 

[Tacoma4life]

For $8.99/quart it's decent stuff. I just put it in the t-case today on our 97. I can't believe it holds less than 2 quarts, that's not much...

 

[93Chewbacca]

Why, who other than you would it benefit? All the users that I know don't buy oil because it has a specific ingredient. They buy oil that will result in low wear and lasts as long as they prefer. I really don't care how they make it, it is all about the result and Mobil One excels in both categories.

I agree with you about simply having a product that performs well, we all want that, but consider this:

Generally speaking, the sharing of data among a community/industry leads to improvements in technology for the end users. This has been illustrated in different technology areas all over the spectrum of different science fields. This pooling of resources (releasing information) usually produces faster advancements in technology, yielding better products in the long term.

For example, its through this sort of collaboration that auto manufacturers have been able to advance technology and make our engines last 300,000 miles instead of 60,000 miles. An open source effort has the benefit of world users in mind, versus concealing the technological advancements so that they can be used primarily for competitive advantage and corporate profit.

Think of what our engine oil will be like 50 years from now, wouldn't it be nice if we could have that technology much sooner. I think so.

My two cents

 

[cary]

I agree with you about simply having a product that performs well, we all want that, but consider this:

Generally speaking, the sharing of data among a community/industry leads to improvements in technology for the end users. This has been illustrated in different technology areas all over the spectrum of different science fields. This pooling of resources (releasing information) usually produces faster advancements in technology, yielding better products in the long term.

For example, its through this sort of collaboration that auto manufacturers have been able to advance technology and make our engines last 300,000 miles instead of 60,000 miles. An open source effort has the benefit of world users in mind, versus concealing the technological advancements so that they can be used primarily for competitive advantage and corporate profit.

Think of what our engine oil will be like 50 years from now, wouldn't it be nice if we could have that technology much sooner. I think so.

My two cents

I think oil is a bit different. Making a finished oil is really the sum of its parts, base oils, additive package, antiwear, etc. There is a lot of chemistry and testing that goes into designing oils, things that cannot be duplicated or tested by end users. Also, oils are increasingly walking a finer line between protection and maximizing gas mileage as auto manufactures are looking to get those last .1% of fleet mileage out. This is one reason you are seeing a split in oil lines, such as Mobil One Long Life specifically not complying with the SM specs. You will probably see a further split as the new SN and GF-5 standards come out, standards which further emphasize gas mileage at the expense of wear protection.

 

[93Chewbacca]

I think oil is a bit different. Making a finished oil is really the sum of its parts, base oils, additive package, antiwear, etc. There is a lot of chemistry and testing that goes into designing oils, things that cannot be duplicated or tested by end users. Also, oils are increasingly walking a finer line between protection and maximizing gas mileage as auto manufactures are looking to get those last .1% of fleet mileage out. This is one reason you are seeing a split in oil lines, such as Mobil One Long Life specifically not complying with the SM specs. You will probably see a further split as the new SN and GF-5 standards come out, standards which further emphasize gas mileage at the expense of wear protection.

Agreed. Its really a group project by many scientists, testing labs, real word testing, etc... The more talented minds that get involved, the better the product becomes. Hopefully we'll see many great things in the near future.

Here's to loving oil!