When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
"...I also don't see where GM would gain a big benefit from using synthetic (the marketing ploy you allude to). GM doesn't make any money on dealer sales of synthetic, and it seems unlikely that Mobil was writing checks to GM because of this, either...." Steven
Steven, I could just about guarantee you that Mobil paid for GM's use of the first go round of Mobil One. Maybe not today, but at least for several years. In return, Mobil got a new, first-line, American "performance" car to carry its oil from the factory (much as Porsche did a year or so prior) AND those two (one?) stickers in the engine bay saying, "Mobil One" were great advertisements, to the potential customer, to the technicians and to owners alike.
It is called product tie in. Movies and television shows do it all the time, and mfrs. pay for their products to be "seen". So, too, did Mobil. In no way does it take away from the product, just that it wasn't completely benign.
From: San Diego , CA Double Yellow DirtBags 1985..Z51..6-speed
Originally Posted by OldCorvetteFan
From a design standpoint, there is an expectation that Corvette drivers will subject their car to a more rigorous and demanding environment than the run of the mill passenger car.
On the contrary, back to Vettes vs Fbodies, I think the LS1/LT1 Fbodies are more likely than vettes to be driven hard. Look at the target consumer vs those who buy a vette.
On the contrary, back to Vettes vs Fbodies, I think the LS1/LT1 Fbodies are more likely than vettes to be driven hard. Look at the target consumer vs those who buy a vette.
I wouldn't tell any of my buddies that drive F body cars that they have "run of the mill" passenger cars. I define "rotm" as Roadmasters and other sedate sedans.
"...I also don't see where GM would gain a big benefit from using synthetic (the marketing ploy you allude to). GM doesn't make any money on dealer sales of synthetic, and it seems unlikely that Mobil was writing checks to GM because of this, either...." Steven
Steven, I could just about guarantee you that Mobil paid for GM's use of the first go round of Mobil One. Maybe not today, but at least for several years. In return, Mobil got a new, first-line, American "performance" car to carry its oil from the factory (much as Porsche did a year or so prior) AND those two (one?) stickers in the engine bay saying, "Mobil One" were great advertisements, to the potential customer, to the technicians and to owners alike.
It is called product tie in. Movies and television shows do it all the time, and mfrs. pay for their products to be "seen". So, too, did Mobil. In no way does it take away from the product, just that it wasn't completely benign.
Bill -
You're probably right, and I hadn't thought of it that way. I was thinking purely as an engineer. I officially retract that part of the post.
Well since we have brought up tie in's, i guess we should remember that both oil and automotive companys are traded publicly and that both have a long history of owning each others stock. So in that context they both have a vested interest in each other and probably always will. However those with stock in the General may be having second thoughts.
Well since we have brought up tie in's, i guess we should remember that both oil and automotive companys are traded publicly and that both have a long history of owning each others stock. So in that context they both have a vested interest in each other and probably always will. However those with stock in the General may be having second thoughts.
Well said. And considering the current plight of many car mfrs. and car parts suppliers, I would think they are all re-thinking their "cross-investment" policy. As you said, every company has cash or cash equivalents on hand and has to have them invested in order to produce a return. Sometimes, the money made by treasury or finance depts. in a company is very, very significant---that's THEIR biz---managing the cash of the company. Let's hope it all gets better--we need more competition and choices for parts, not less.
From: SCMR Rat Pack'r Charter Member..Great Bend KS
Originally Posted by LT4CompYell
I could just about guarantee you that Mobil paid for GM's use of the first go round of Mobil One. Maybe not today, but at least for several years.
While I don't believe that Mobil actually wrote a check to GM for this, I do believe that Mobil at least subsidized GM by supplying Mobil 1, either free or at a greatly reduced price, for the Corvette factory fill. (This could amount to a sizeable amount of money.)
There is no doubt that Mobil and GM worked closely in developing the GM 4718M spec, and I believe Mobil invested in this anticipating a significant ROI.
It worked, didn't it.
If Valvoline had pulled the same coup, and "Filled with Valvoline Syntec" was on the oil fill cap, we'd all be swearing allegence to Va'valeen instead of Mobil 1.
While I don't believe that Mobil actually wrote a check to GM for this, I do believe that Mobil at least subsidized GM by supplying Mobil 1, either free or at a greatly reduced price, for the Corvette factory fill. (This could amount to a sizeable amount of money.)
There is no doubt that Mobil and GM worked closely in developing the GM 4718M spec, and I believe Mobil invested in this anticipating a significant ROI.
It worked, didn't it.
If Valvoline had pulled the same coup, and "Filled with Valvoline Syntec" was on the oil fill cap, we'd all be swearing allegence to Va'valeen instead of Mobil 1.
Larry
code5coupe
Probably you are right re the methodlogy that Mobil/GM used!
So far, I've seen no other oil mfr. be quite as smart. Maybe that's why Penz/Quak. are now "Royal Dutch Shell" owned. The "mileage" (pun intended) that Mobil One's gotten out of the Corvette first-fill has been tremendous, imo. And they've followed it up with other "wins" in promo and advertising. Besides sponsoring races and race cars, I'd guess that this was one of their smartest investments and advertisement of the product.
To be honest, i've never tried Mobil 1 in any of my cars. I really like Castrol GTX though. If theres a big difference between the two I guess I could try Mobil 1 on my next oil change. Theres a reason Penzoil belongs to another company, they're oil is crap compared to these other mentioned brands. I'm not saying its bad, but my cars idle rough with it for some reason.
From: SCMR Rat Pack'r Charter Member..Great Bend KS
Originally Posted by LT4CompYell
So far, I've seen no other oil mfr. be quite as smart. Maybe that's why Penz/Quak. are now "Royal Dutch Shell" owned. The "mileage" (pun intended) that Mobil One's gotten out of the Corvette first-fill has been tremendous, imo. And they've followed it up with other "wins" in promo and advertising. Besides sponsoring races and race cars, I'd guess that this was one of their smartest investments and advertisement of the product.
Mobil 1 is first fill on a number of new cars....I always thought the main reason for the Mobil was becasue it only holds 4.5 quarts...my old beater v6 fords hold 5.5 quarts....think its interesting that once they switched to Mobil they removed the oil cooler....I dont think it has anything to do with being a sucker....
after over 2yrs of being on the forum, i still get laughs how some think mobil 1 is a conspiracy with our c4's and gm. what is the big deal about using mobil 1? it must be about some owners not liking being told what to do. pure and simple. quality oil is quality oil in my opinion. you can all point to web sites, and studies, and this and that, but i don't by it.
it's not like mobil 1 is 3x as much. i believe mobi 1 is an excellent choice and i will always use it. to each their own.
As mentioned before GM spec'd Mobil one because the small increase in cost for the oil was more than made up for with the deletion of the oil cooler. Anything more than that is in the realm of the conspiracy theorists.
I personally have been running M1 since I had my motor built. Probably not necessary, for the money I put into the motor, I don't mind a little piece of mind.