Honestly Jeff the Bantering is just high school bro...lets get some more quality posts and learn something from each other...thats what the site is for!

 

 

I emailed Mobil 1 and listed what they said VERBATIM. And explained what they said. That seems quality to me? Just that someone isn't debating the issue in any logical/adult manner. It takes two adults to have a conversation.

 

When I did I do any such thing?

 

Who do you REALLY work for?

 

once again steve, why don't you explain how mobil 1 that is marketed in other countries with the exact same specs as offered in the US have group 3 base oils in them, yet the US version doesn't? Why would multiple formulations be made up, some with group 3 base stocks and some without?

 

Direct quote from Mobil 1. I'll highlight the good stuff. If there's DISINFORMATION in it, it's from Mobil, not I.

Note the blue. "Including" means blend. And it was mentioned 2ND. "high performance synthetics" is mentioned 1st. Now up to this point, this is verbatim from Matt Jacobs, Mobil 1.

Now here is the opinion part. When you list ingredients, you list primary then secondary components. Logical???

1) "high performance synthetics" This is clearly not group IV because it's been differentiated from group IV. It's listed 1st. So it should be the primary-majority ingredient. Correct? I'll ASSUME it's group III. But one thing for sure, it's not group IV or there would be not reason to differentiate them. I mean does that make any sense to anyone?
2) Group IV is listed 2nd. As a secondary ingredient. Logic says, it's content is not nearly as much as the other. "Including" certainly doesn't imply it. It's order in the list certainly doesn't imply it either.

Take for what you will.

 

Oh sorry. Go ahead and repeat that debunking again?? LOL. right.

 

got that debunking done yet?

 

There was never a lawsuit against Castrol Syntec for using hydroprocessed oils and labeling them a synthetic. Exxon-Mobil (XOM) never sued anyone about this issue. This information is false.

Castrol, owned by British Petroleum, was using severely hydrocracked base stocks, along with Shell, way back in the seventies. The API had an official definition of what constituted a synthetic, determined during SAE Technical Meeting on Engine Oils 1, and they made sure hydroprocessed lubes qualified. The definition still stands today, and it is:
"Oils produced by synthesis (chemical reaction) rather than by extraction or refinement."
Copy of which may be found here:
http://www.noria.com/dictionary/default.asp

In 1992, Castrol began using Shell base stocks for their synthetic line. In 1999, several oil companies (Chevron, Conoco-Phillips, and XOM) complained to the National Ad Council of the Better Business Bureau that it was misleading. Based on the accepted definition, Castrol was not in any violation of fair advertising policy. Further, the definition of synthetic was left open for each individual company to determine. One company may well say their mostly PAO is their synthetic line, while another company's synthetic line may use Hydroprocessed oils as a base stock, or even Esters. It is up to the company.

All of this information is found in numerous business articles and I think is even a sticky on BITOG. For a more objective and professional source, check out the November 2007 issue of Lubes N' Greases magazine, the article titled "What's in a Name", the information is as I have posted here.

Mobil 1 did change their formula to Super-Syn. This was in the works long before the Ad Council's decision. Every company changes formulas to meet new demands for efficiency and fuel economy. If they didn't change, we'd still be using straight 30-weight crude. Even Amsoil changes the formulations, but for some reason, XOM is a target.

Their M1 oils are still using PAO base stocks. This has been quoted by Mobil. I guess you can believe they are lying, but there is no way their oils will achieve the cold pour points they do, and still have a high flash point, unless they are using a PAO or Ester. M1 does use some Ester as an additive, depending on the formula. Delvac 1 (M1 TDT) is an example. However, every PAO oil MUST use another base stock because the saturated hydrocarbon that is a PAO, is not a good solvent. There is NO SUCH THING as a pure PAO oil, unless you buy just the base stock. In order to have the additive package in the oil, a PAO base oil must also have some other base oil with high solvency. M1 typically uses Alkylated Napthalene (their Synesstic line http://www.exxonmobilchemical.com/Pu...adeEsterex.asp) or their Hydroprocessed oils.

The 0W-xx grades will use mostly PAO with AN and Ester additives in the oil. This is because it's what works best for the given grade.

The 5W-xx and 10W-xx oils will use a hydroprocessed oil becasue that is what works for the grade. The issue at hand with XOM is their PAO base stocks are TOO good for the creation of oils that meet J300 specs for 5W and 10W engine oils. This may be seen in their CHEAPEST PAO oil, the specs of all their PAO's may be seen here:
http://www.exxonmobilchemical.com/Pu...adeEsterex.asp

The PAO's all have a viscosity index too high, working from a minimum pour point too low, to achieve any J300 specs without the use of an olefin compound to increase the viscosity of the oil to a 5 or 10 grade. In other words, because PAO's lack the higher weight molecules that form waxes at lower temperatures, they cannot meet the higher viscosity required to be a 5 or 10 grade oil when cold.

This exact issue is seen in this XOM presentation on their upcoming solution to this problem, here:
http://www.exxonmobil.com/corporate/...generation.pdf

They have to use wax from G3 oils to keep the formulation from becoming too thin for a 5W, and especially a 10W grade. Hence, their majority PAO oils are all 0W-xx grades. The new line of base stocks in the pdf file are about GTL fluids, and we will probably see them replace the PAO blends in use now, except for high-end oils. For an example of what XOM's current crop of PAO's are capable of, check out this patent:
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/67...scription.html
Which shows the PAO base stocks being used to make a 0W-100 oil with less than 3% of any VII's needed to achieve the grade. That's impressive, but beyond what any automotive engine needs.

Mobil claims in every case to use a PAO base stock, and they do. The question is only how much of it they use per a given blend. Per the Japanese corporate site:
http://www.mobil1.jp/cts/pdt/mobil1.html
They all use a PAO majority base except the 5W-30 and 10W-30, which use a PAO+Hydroprocessed oil base. Exactly as they have said they needed to for the grade.

The BITOG post about the chromo results of M1 showing G3 oils was this:
"Actually I ran the M1 EP 10W-30, but the sample was dated 12/04. It showed AN, PAO, POE, and a mineral oil cut. The AN content was larger than the PAO, and the POE was only around 2-3%. The mineral oil portion (presumably Group III) was larger than expected from additive carrier oil and possibly the largest of the base oils."
And so their 10W-30 showed what was expected to some, but surprising to others. The accuracy of the test is doubted, since the same test, by the same company I believe, showed GC to also be a majority G3 oil: http://theoildrop.server101.com/foru...rue#Post701650
And now they know it is primarily a PAO base stock. Either way, all PAO oils must have another carrier oil for the additive package, and M1 uses a G3 because G3 oils also limit the cold viscosity to meet J300 specs for a 5 and 10W-xx grade oil. Their other oils use more Ester and AN as carriers.

The fact that they are changing oils shouldn't be a concern, only the performance. Motul has had to use a G3 oil additive in their Ester-based 8100 series for years, but no one complains that they still say "fully synthetic" and "Ester Technology" on their bottles. And they sell that stuff for way more than XOM sells Mobil1.

Amsoil used to be an Ester base oil back in the 70's, and now they use a PAO. Where's the outrage for going form a G5 to a G4 oil?

There are numerous new oils coming to market using new GTL G3+ oils that compete at the same level as a PAO, new G2+ oils and Group VI oils, as seen here:
http://www.chevron.com/products/prod.../gf4_faq.shtml

In the end, we may well see a whole new batch of oils being made, but it's the results in the VQ that matter. UOA results from other engines are pointless, but keep an eye on what works well in the VQ and you'll have a good bit of information to base your decision on, as opposed to internet rumor.

Will

 

how do you change your oil filter while leaving the old oil without making a huge mess in the process?

 

I'm not sure what the deal is but I'd like to see some used oil analysis results from that one once it is drained. I think running that might be way too much for the VQ... but oil analysis could prove me wrong

As for changing the filter without changing the oil, it's pretty straight forward. The oil sits in the oil pan and only whatever is in the filter area will drain out. The oil that is in the pan will not drain if you remove just the filter.

 

The oil filter port on the block is higher than the oil pan. So although you will lose about 1/2 qt of oil because of what's left in the filter, you won't make any more mess than if you drained the oil prior

 

How many quarts do these cars take, I'm looking to buy some M1 or Amsoil for my first oil change. No manual around (@ work), and I wanted to order online. help a noobie out.

 

per the tech manual, 5 qts with the oil filter.