Mobil 1 Base Oils
05-19-2012, 12:12 AM
#1
Instructor
Thread Starter
Member Since: Feb 2005
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mobil 1 Base Oils
A natural evolution of the formulation
The Mobil 1 formulation strategy has always been based on selecting the best components available. We now have the very high quality Group III+ base stock, ‘Visom’ exclusively available to ExxonMobil. As we developed the Mobil 1 ESP technology we found that combining Visom with PAO could deliver a formulation of equivalent performance to an all PAO formulation.
Competitive advantage
Visom is the only non-PAO stock that can deliver the required performance to formulate a 0W grade oil that meets European OEM engine oil specifications. Visom is not available to our competition.
To support Mobil 1 growth
Global PAO capacity is limited. As we quickly approach this limit, new base stocks must be explored to ensure we can support the continued growth of the Mobil 1 family of products.
To ensure continuity of supply
As we saw with the 2005 hurricane, the more flexibility we have in our formulations, the better placed we are to withstand disruption to our supply. We can balance PAO and Visom supply fluctuations to ensure we can always deliver the final product to our customers.
To maintain market relevant pricing
As PAO supply has tightened globally, raw material costs have increased substantially. In the future, an exclusively PAO formulation may be priced out of the market or result in significant margin erosion.
To prepare for next generation basestocks (GTL)
Commencing 2010, the next generation of base stocks derived from Natural Gas (Gas To Liquids) will enter the market. These high quality basestocks will arrive in substantial quantities and will probably be used in the majority of competitive premium formulations. Visom is viewed as a precursor of GTL, and hence it’s use now in our flagship formulations eases our transition to a GTL world, and helps us understand how to maintain flagship performance using these high quality non-PAO basestocks.
The Mobil 1 formulation strategy has always been based on selecting the best components available. We now have the very high quality Group III+ base stock, ‘Visom’ exclusively available to ExxonMobil. As we developed the Mobil 1 ESP technology we found that combining Visom with PAO could deliver a formulation of equivalent performance to an all PAO formulation.
Competitive advantage
Visom is the only non-PAO stock that can deliver the required performance to formulate a 0W grade oil that meets European OEM engine oil specifications. Visom is not available to our competition.
To support Mobil 1 growth
Global PAO capacity is limited. As we quickly approach this limit, new base stocks must be explored to ensure we can support the continued growth of the Mobil 1 family of products.
To ensure continuity of supply
As we saw with the 2005 hurricane, the more flexibility we have in our formulations, the better placed we are to withstand disruption to our supply. We can balance PAO and Visom supply fluctuations to ensure we can always deliver the final product to our customers.
To maintain market relevant pricing
As PAO supply has tightened globally, raw material costs have increased substantially. In the future, an exclusively PAO formulation may be priced out of the market or result in significant margin erosion.
To prepare for next generation basestocks (GTL)
Commencing 2010, the next generation of base stocks derived from Natural Gas (Gas To Liquids) will enter the market. These high quality basestocks will arrive in substantial quantities and will probably be used in the majority of competitive premium formulations. Visom is viewed as a precursor of GTL, and hence it’s use now in our flagship formulations eases our transition to a GTL world, and helps us understand how to maintain flagship performance using these high quality non-PAO basestocks.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums...1993530&page=1
"At the high end of the scale, and made only in pilot plant quantities so far, are ExxonMobil's new Visom branded Group III+ base stocks. This product aims to meet one of Europe's most difficult engine oil specs, 0W-30. So far, marketers have needed to formulate with polyalphaolefins to meet the stringent cold-cranking, viscosity and volatility requirements of this grade.
Visom is created through wax isomerization, and has an impressive viscosity index of 140, thanks to its high paraffin content. (The name Visom was derived from combining "viscosity index" and "isomerization," *** explained.) The product became possible after the ExxonMobil merger, and combines Exxon reactor hardware with Mobil catalyst technology, with engineering and research support from both. Basically, it upgrades slack wax to base stocks with high V.I., low volatility, excellent cold-cranking properties and what *** called "superior" blending performance. Visom is primarily iso-paraffins, he pointed out, while competing Group III base stocks made from hydrocracker bottoms have significant naphthene content.
He went on to show how Visom's blending advantages and cold-cranking performance mean that 5W-40 engine oils can be made with 100 percent Visom base stock, without resorting to PAO, and at a lower additive treat rate. He also described how 0W-30 requirements can be met with Visom alone or with PAO alone (but not with competing Group III base stocks unless some PAO is included to achieve the cold-cranking limit).
"Wax is wax, and isomerized wax is essentially the same stuff," *** said. "It doesn't matter where it comes from." Made from waxy feedstocks and using the same catalyst systems as GTL will use, Visom will provide valuable experience in formulating with GTL-type base stocks, prior to their arrival later in the decade, he said."
Visom is created through wax isomerization, and has an impressive viscosity index of 140, thanks to its high paraffin content. (The name Visom was derived from combining "viscosity index" and "isomerization," *** explained.) The product became possible after the ExxonMobil merger, and combines Exxon reactor hardware with Mobil catalyst technology, with engineering and research support from both. Basically, it upgrades slack wax to base stocks with high V.I., low volatility, excellent cold-cranking properties and what *** called "superior" blending performance. Visom is primarily iso-paraffins, he pointed out, while competing Group III base stocks made from hydrocracker bottoms have significant naphthene content.
He went on to show how Visom's blending advantages and cold-cranking performance mean that 5W-40 engine oils can be made with 100 percent Visom base stock, without resorting to PAO, and at a lower additive treat rate. He also described how 0W-30 requirements can be met with Visom alone or with PAO alone (but not with competing Group III base stocks unless some PAO is included to achieve the cold-cranking limit).
"Wax is wax, and isomerized wax is essentially the same stuff," *** said. "It doesn't matter where it comes from." Made from waxy feedstocks and using the same catalyst systems as GTL will use, Visom will provide valuable experience in formulating with GTL-type base stocks, prior to their arrival later in the decade, he said."
05-19-2012, 12:37 AM
#2
The Consigliere
Member Since: May 2006
Location: 2023 Z06 & 2010 ZR1
Posts: 22,291
Received 5,477 Likes
on
2,278 Posts
Ok. . . I keep listening for the drum roll. . . .
05-19-2012, 01:11 AM
#4
The Consigliere
Member Since: May 2006
Location: 2023 Z06 & 2010 ZR1
Posts: 22,291
Received 5,477 Likes
on
2,278 Posts
05-19-2012, 05:38 AM
#5
Team Owner
Member Since: Sep 2005
Location: Big Bend Country, TX
Posts: 29,114
Received 2,186 Likes
on
1,337 Posts
St. Jude Donor '06-'07-'08-'09-'10-'11-'12-'13-'14-'15- '16-'17-‘18-‘19-'20-'21
NCM Lifetime Member
Ohhhhhhhh Noooooooo .............. Not again !!
Another oil thread .......................... 
05-19-2012, 06:27 AM
#7
Drifting
If you care about such stuff, there are four types of hydrocarbon molecules potentially in groups 1, 2, and 3 motor oil: aromatics, naphthenes, normal paraffins, and isoparaffins. Aromatics are ring compounds with double bonds and are very bad for motor oil. They are extracted from all groups of motor oils, even “dino oil”, so don’t worry about those. Normal paraffins are long chains with no branching, and are what makes up wax. They are also extracted from all groups of motor oils, even “dino oil”, so don’t worry about them either. That leaves naphthenes and isoparaffins. The best compounds are the isoparaffins, which are long chains with branches. Naphthenes are ring compounds like aromatics, but without double bonds like aromatics. They are nowhere near as bad as aromatics, but are not quite as good as isoparaffins.
Groups 1 and 2 “dino oils” have relatively high naphthene content. Group 3 oils, most of which are made by hydrocracking, are much lower in naphthene content, but still have a non-trivial amount of remaining naphthenes. The advantage of the group 4, PAO oils is that they are built up from ground level, so are branched chains with zero naphthenes. But they are also very costly. Group 3 hydrocracked oils are far less costly than group 4, and are almost as good. Two new types of group 3+ oils are now appearing. They are ways to get rid of the remaining naphthenes without going to the very expensive group 4 PAO. The two new ways are gas to liquids (GTL) and Exxon’s Visom.
Exxon’s patent position on GTL is not very good, and they developed Visom as an alternative. In Visom, they take wax, which are straight chain normal paraffins, and introduce some branching by isomerization. In the GTL route, you are building up chains with varying degrees of branching from natural gas. I will confess that being retired for two years, I do not have direct knowledge on how the resulting isoparaffins from either Visom or GTL compare to group 4 PAO. They are probably very close to equivalent, because they all have zero naphthenes. The key to remaining differences is the exact degree of chain branching in the three methods, and I do not know that information. However, by the time you get to zero naphthenes, quality differences among Visom, GTL, and PAO are likely to be tiny.
Bottom line is that as was stated in the last lengthy oil thread, once you are into group 3, and especially group 3+ base stock, there’s not much point in worrying any more about group 3 versus 4. Indeed, even the last holdout Amsoil no longer claims on their web site that they are pure group 4. We are to the point where as long as you are at least group 3, base stock is so good that remaining differences are going to be controlled by the additive packages. So you should base your choice of oils on who you think has more resources to develop the better additive package, and stop agonizing over group 3 versus 4.
Groups 1 and 2 “dino oils” have relatively high naphthene content. Group 3 oils, most of which are made by hydrocracking, are much lower in naphthene content, but still have a non-trivial amount of remaining naphthenes. The advantage of the group 4, PAO oils is that they are built up from ground level, so are branched chains with zero naphthenes. But they are also very costly. Group 3 hydrocracked oils are far less costly than group 4, and are almost as good. Two new types of group 3+ oils are now appearing. They are ways to get rid of the remaining naphthenes without going to the very expensive group 4 PAO. The two new ways are gas to liquids (GTL) and Exxon’s Visom.
Exxon’s patent position on GTL is not very good, and they developed Visom as an alternative. In Visom, they take wax, which are straight chain normal paraffins, and introduce some branching by isomerization. In the GTL route, you are building up chains with varying degrees of branching from natural gas. I will confess that being retired for two years, I do not have direct knowledge on how the resulting isoparaffins from either Visom or GTL compare to group 4 PAO. They are probably very close to equivalent, because they all have zero naphthenes. The key to remaining differences is the exact degree of chain branching in the three methods, and I do not know that information. However, by the time you get to zero naphthenes, quality differences among Visom, GTL, and PAO are likely to be tiny.
Bottom line is that as was stated in the last lengthy oil thread, once you are into group 3, and especially group 3+ base stock, there’s not much point in worrying any more about group 3 versus 4. Indeed, even the last holdout Amsoil no longer claims on their web site that they are pure group 4. We are to the point where as long as you are at least group 3, base stock is so good that remaining differences are going to be controlled by the additive packages. So you should base your choice of oils on who you think has more resources to develop the better additive package, and stop agonizing over group 3 versus 4.
05-19-2012, 08:40 AM
#8
Instructor
Thread Starter
Member Since: Feb 2005
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you care about such stuff, there are four types of hydrocarbon molecules potentially in groups 1, 2, and 3 motor oil: aromatics, naphthenes, normal paraffins, and isoparaffins. Aromatics are ring compounds with double bonds and are very bad for motor oil. They are extracted from all groups of motor oils, even “dino oil”, so don’t worry about those. Normal paraffins are long chains with no branching, and are what makes up wax. They are also extracted from all groups of motor oils, even “dino oil”, so don’t worry about them either. That leaves naphthenes and isoparaffins. The best compounds are the isoparaffins, which are long chains with branches. Naphthenes are ring compounds like aromatics, but without double bonds like aromatics. They are nowhere near as bad as aromatics, but are not quite as good as isoparaffins.
Groups 1 and 2 “dino oils” have relatively high naphthene content. Group 3 oils, most of which are made by hydrocracking, are much lower in naphthene content, but still have a non-trivial amount of remaining naphthenes. The advantage of the group 4, PAO oils is that they are built up from ground level, so are branched chains with zero naphthenes. But they are also very costly. Group 3 hydrocracked oils are far less costly than group 4, and are almost as good. Two new types of group 3+ oils are now appearing. They are ways to get rid of the remaining naphthenes without going to the very expensive group 4 PAO. The two new ways are gas to liquids (GTL) and Exxon’s Visom.
Exxon’s patent position on GTL is not very good, and they developed Visom as an alternative. In Visom, they take wax, which are straight chain normal paraffins, and introduce some branching by isomerization. In the GTL route, you are building up chains with varying degrees of branching from natural gas. I will confess that being retired for two years, I do not have direct knowledge on how the resulting isoparaffins from either Visom or GTL compare to group 4 PAO. They are probably very close to equivalent, because they all have zero naphthenes. The key to remaining differences is the exact degree of chain branching in the three methods, and I do not know that information. However, by the time you get to zero naphthenes, quality differences among Visom, GTL, and PAO are likely to be tiny.
Bottom line is that as was stated in the last lengthy oil thread, once you are into group 3, and especially group 3+ base stock, there’s not much point in worrying any more about group 3 versus 4. Indeed, even the last holdout Amsoil no longer claims on their web site that they are pure group 4. We are to the point where as long as you are at least group 3, base stock is so good that remaining differences are going to be controlled by the additive packages. So you should base your choice of oils on who you think has more resources to develop the better additive package, and stop agonizing over group 3 versus 4.
Groups 1 and 2 “dino oils” have relatively high naphthene content. Group 3 oils, most of which are made by hydrocracking, are much lower in naphthene content, but still have a non-trivial amount of remaining naphthenes. The advantage of the group 4, PAO oils is that they are built up from ground level, so are branched chains with zero naphthenes. But they are also very costly. Group 3 hydrocracked oils are far less costly than group 4, and are almost as good. Two new types of group 3+ oils are now appearing. They are ways to get rid of the remaining naphthenes without going to the very expensive group 4 PAO. The two new ways are gas to liquids (GTL) and Exxon’s Visom.
Exxon’s patent position on GTL is not very good, and they developed Visom as an alternative. In Visom, they take wax, which are straight chain normal paraffins, and introduce some branching by isomerization. In the GTL route, you are building up chains with varying degrees of branching from natural gas. I will confess that being retired for two years, I do not have direct knowledge on how the resulting isoparaffins from either Visom or GTL compare to group 4 PAO. They are probably very close to equivalent, because they all have zero naphthenes. The key to remaining differences is the exact degree of chain branching in the three methods, and I do not know that information. However, by the time you get to zero naphthenes, quality differences among Visom, GTL, and PAO are likely to be tiny.
Bottom line is that as was stated in the last lengthy oil thread, once you are into group 3, and especially group 3+ base stock, there’s not much point in worrying any more about group 3 versus 4. Indeed, even the last holdout Amsoil no longer claims on their web site that they are pure group 4. We are to the point where as long as you are at least group 3, base stock is so good that remaining differences are going to be controlled by the additive packages. So you should base your choice of oils on who you think has more resources to develop the better additive package, and stop agonizing over group 3 versus 4.
Completely agree.
05-19-2012, 08:45 AM
#9
Instructor
Thread Starter
Member Since: Feb 2005
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.motor-talk.de/forum/aktio...hmentId=695007
Here is the Mobil presentation on what they did.
Here is the Mobil presentation on what they did.
05-19-2012, 09:42 AM
#11
Instructor
Thread Starter
Member Since: Feb 2005
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wanted to post this in the oil thread that was closed back in March regarding M1. A member on here had some contact with a former XOM rep regarding base oils and I wanted to share this.
05-19-2012, 12:14 PM
#12
Drifting
Your post was interesting to me. For my part, I don’t much care for the endless threads about how much better/worse Grand Sport is relative to Coupe/Z06. But you know what? I don’t break into those threads and post digs about how incredibly idiotic I think that topic is. I have a really novel solution. I don’t read them.
05-19-2012, 12:40 PM
#13
The Consigliere
Member Since: May 2006
Location: 2023 Z06 & 2010 ZR1
Posts: 22,291
Received 5,477 Likes
on
2,278 Posts
Bottom line is that as was stated in the last lengthy oil thread, once you are into group 3, and especially group 3+ base stock, there’s not much point in worrying any more about group 3 versus 4. Indeed, even the last holdout Amsoil no longer claims on their web site that they are pure group 4. We are to the point where as long as you are at least group 3, base stock is so good that remaining differences are going to be controlled by the additive packages. So you should base your choice of oils on who you think has more resources to develop the better additive package, and stop agonizing over group 3 versus 4.
05-19-2012, 03:58 PM
#15
Safety Car
Your post was interesting to me. For my part, I don’t much care for the endless threads about how much better/worse Grand Sport is relative to Coupe/Z06. But you know what? I don’t break into those threads and post digs about how incredibly idiotic I think that topic is. I have a really novel solution. I don’t read them.
The post above is a good exampl. And, while you may be a subject matter expert, whose knowledge is useful and helpful to the forum, the bottom line is that the majority are going to slurp from whatever cup is professed to be the best at any given time, regardles of the truth, and the rest are going to follow blindly what anyone tells them.
There is a reason threads like this get locked. Did you ever see the OP of the previous thread come back, or was he just a crap stirrer?
Last edited by glenB; 05-19-2012 at 04:03 PM.
05-19-2012, 04:58 PM
#16
Team Owner
I'm digging a huge swimming hole and stocking it with whales. I'm switching to whale sperm for my Z06.
05-19-2012, 05:16 PM
#17
Drifting
Except in this case, and to be fair, these oil threads aren't much different than the base Vs GS Vs Z06. They eventually devolve into the same mess ....
The post above is a good exampl. And, while you may be a subject matter expert, whose knowledge is useful and helpful to the forum, the bottom line is that the majority are going to slurp from whatever cup is professed to be the best at any given time, regardles of the truth, and the rest are going to follow blindly what anyone tells them.
There is a reason threads like this get locked. Did you ever see the OP of the previous thread come back, or was he just a crap stirrer?
The post above is a good exampl. And, while you may be a subject matter expert, whose knowledge is useful and helpful to the forum, the bottom line is that the majority are going to slurp from whatever cup is professed to be the best at any given time, regardles of the truth, and the rest are going to follow blindly what anyone tells them.
There is a reason threads like this get locked. Did you ever see the OP of the previous thread come back, or was he just a crap stirrer?
05-19-2012, 05:27 PM
#18
Burning Brakes
Frankly, I generally agree with those who say, "....another oil thread....". But when intelligent posts are generated......not the, "I used "bluestripe" for 40 years and it worked for me." kind of mentality. But the posts that are made by people who appear (at least) to know what they are stating and provide some type of reasonable explanation, I find stimulating. Even if I may need to research terms and language used by those people
But, yes...those that initiate a thread with, "What kind of oil....when do I change", etc. etc. do become a little trying.
I do thank those "experts" that took the time to post and explain. I have a little better information at my disposal.
But, yes...those that initiate a thread with, "What kind of oil....when do I change", etc. etc. do become a little trying.
I do thank those "experts" that took the time to post and explain. I have a little better information at my disposal.
05-19-2012, 05:31 PM
#19
Team Owner
Member Since: Jun 2005
Location: Northern, VA
Posts: 46,135
Received 2,493 Likes
on
1,954 Posts
St. Jude Donor '15
"In honor of jpee"
agree w. RnLi
