AORoads

well, I guess this means you can no longer live in the Houston metro area if you don't Aunt Ester, group hugs and para-fins.

welcome back, Jim. OH, that's right. you've never left! and that's all good.

mikeCsix

LDB and Lubricon,

A big thank you for the education on oil! I thoroughly enjoyed the conversations.

mikeCsix

Great read Lubrecon, thanks for posting.

JSchindler, are you using M1 in that VFR in your avatar? Your clutch won't like it. I tried Shell Rotella T, it was okay but the transmission in my Honda ST1300 would get a bit stiff after a short time so I switched back to motorcycle synthetics. I'm currently trying Fuchs Silkolene Racing oil to see if it is worth the $17/qt. If it cures my clutch issue, it will be.

RUBYREDVET

Thanks for the link. Very informative.
Now just need someone to splain it to me.

rayk

Well, over on Bob's site, I reviewed the virgin oil analysis. Mobil 1 looks similiar to other top oils with the additive package. Here's a chart of the mobil 1 additive levels used for preventing wear.

http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/...duct_Guide.pdf

LDB

Jschindler’s lament about respect for marketing folks triggered what I hope will be my final thoughts on this thread. What initially made me post way back on page 2, post #29, was the central question (which even Lubrecon has not addressed, hence my conceding only a TKO, not KO) of why Mobil will not say Mobil 1’s base oil is all group 4 PAO if it really is. One possible explanation is a marketing guy worried that if they made Mobil 1 sound too good, it might make their generic synthetic, which is branded “Mobil Super Synthetic” sound lame by comparison. Another possible explanation is that a corporate lawyer worried that Castrol might come back at them if they implied some synthetics are better than others. And of course a third possibility is that there really is a non-trivial amount of hydrocracked group 3 in today’s Mobil 1 base oil. Lubrecon’s spirited statements that there isn’t have shifted my estimate of probabilities in the direction of an explanation like the first two, but they have not eliminated the possibility of the third from my mind. And note that I didn’t call Lubrecon a possible liar by making that statement. When he was an active employee, Mobil 1 was all PAO base, so it would be possible for him to believe it still is, while reality has changed. But here’s the thing that the anti Mobil 1 crowd should keep in mind. As noted in the last paragraph of my first post #29 way back on page 2, and despite the nine pages of posts since then including several of mine, it really doesn’t matter very much.

To explain why it doesn’t matter much, let me digress for a second. I use my company’s gas in all my cars, and conventional motor oil in my non-Vette/CTSV cars not only because I want to support the company paying my pension, but also because I know from having seen the results of our engine testing group that our gas and conventional oil is as good as any others, and better than most. But we are Johnny-come-latelys in the synthetic lube game, so I go with the experience there, which is clearly Mobil 1. While some of the boutique brands have been in synthetics as long or longer than Mobil, they don’t have the research budget to compete with Exxon/Mobil in overall experience with synthetics. In lubes, the research budget to support continuing study of advances in additives and compounding is just as, if not more important than the base stock. So if you give me a choice (and don’t have a cow Lubrecon, notice that I’m not linking Mobil 1 to this choice) between a base 3+4 synthetic supported by a massive research budget for additive and compounding support, or a base 4 synthetic supported only by a boutique outfit’s research budget, I’ll choose the former. So that leads me to Mobil 1 irrespective of whether it’s base 4 or base 3+4 (at least until my company has more time and experience with synthetics under its belt).

Anyway, thanks in return to those who have thanked Lubrecon and me for the discussion. Perhaps we’ll be back in other threads. For this one, unless there’s some simple question for clarity or outrageous statement that I can’t let pass, I’m done.

jschindler

I've run Mobil 1 in all of my motorcycles the past 7 years. I put 44,000 miles on a FJR1300 Yamaha with it, the Kawasaki Concours in the picture has 29,000 miles on it with Mobil one, and I have a Goldwing (my second) that has had nothing but Mobil 1. I also had a 2004 Honda ST1300 that I put about 10,000 miles on with Mobil 1. There have been zero issues with the clutch in any of them.

Speaking of Interceptors, 28 years ago I was asked to run an 8 hour endurance race on a Honda 1000 Interceptor. Mobil 1 was not very well known then, but the guy who owned the bike put Mobil 1 in it. We were racing at Texas World Speedway which is a very fast track. After 8 hours the bike - including the clutch, were running flawlessly.

FrankTank

It really just boils downt to that. Thanks for all the other info you provided, was very educational.

The marketing hype theory is old, weak and just plain stupid. I liken it to the average conspiracy Theory mentality.... conspiracy theories are great because you never really have to have any hard, factual evidence to back it up..you can make up anything you want

One of the downsides to the forum, the bandwagon mentality..one person tries Royal Purple, or reads some one off study that's not even credible, and BOOM it's the flavor of the month here.

As you pointed out above, all of those high performance vehicles, a TON of R&D and money/resources goes into developing high performance vehicles...so a manufacturer/business is just not going to strike up some shady cash deal for "marketing hype" under the table just because

Nascar and other Racing Bodies don't just use Mobil 1 because of "marketing Hype" either. TOTAL BS IMO

Torch 97

Thanks to all for the education on oils and synthetic oils. Very interesting read

AirBusPilot

The real debate should be between GM4718/Dexos spec oils versus all others. IMO, oils that are compromised for emission purposes will never be as good as those that aren't restrained by that.

It may not make a difference in your average grocery getter in the slightest. But, it might in a highly stressed engine, like the LS7.

Shifter6

Sorry to stir the pot, but IMO we are not done here.

If you read the OPs statement (on the other forum), he states:

As it turns out, his statement was not totally off base regarding Mobil1. As confirmed by others on this thread Mobil1 contains some group III oils in it.

So...

Are there any motor oils that advertise their formula as a Group IV?

To legally claim an oil is a group IV, can it have any Group III oils in the blend?

Do group IV oils perform better than group III oils? From past posts it seems the answer is yes, but please confirm.

Did Mobil ever advertise Mobi1 as a group IV oil? Was it ever a pure group IV oil?

Are the Euro versions of Mobil1 any different than the domestic blends with regard to Group III and IV?

And finally...if Group IV oils are superior why wouldn't a synthetic oil company want to advertise their oil as Group IV? Let me answer this one...because they can't legally do so because it contains some group III oils.

Feel free to comment of correct. By the way thanks to LDB and Lubrecon for elevating the standard of information in this thread.

hig4s

Mobil 1 use to be true synthetic,, but since Castrol Syntec won the law suit that allows them to be called full synthetic, Mobil 1 has also started using hydro cracked crude bases.

But for that matter, while Amsoil is a true synthetic, but their base is still derived from crude oil, because it is cheaper than using non petroleum bases.

In wear tests, Redline and Royal Purple do not even compare to Amsoil, but Mobil 1 and Syntec do. For that matter, Royal Purple didn't even keep up with Castrol dino oil.

Lubrecon

I have some interesting information "from the horses mouth", a individual that was the PCMO(Passenger Car Motor Oil) manger when Mobil was still Mobil. I am going out of town, but will post his exact answer to my question, with no bias in my question, that I posed to him last night when I return Monday. I will be off line until then.

Stay tuned, there will be some crow eaten!!!

RUBYREDVET

Good question. Maybe LDB and Lubricon can post some opinion on this?

RUBYREDVET

Way to go. This is like an HBO cliffhanger.

RUBYREDVET

Please define "non petroleum bases".

hig4s

Sorry petroleum was not the right word.. I mean, not derived from fossil fuel, (crude oil or natural gas).

only group IV and V oils can be sold in Europe as full synthetic.

Group III are hydrocracked from crude oil, Syntec is Group III

Group IV PAO synthetics are created from carbon and hydrogen, mostly natural gas, but essentially come from fossil fuels. Amsoil Royal Purple and Mobil 1 are all Group IV

Group V Ester synthetics from acids and alcohols and are very expensive.
Redline is a Group V oil.

JoesC5

Personally, I believe that GM over spec'd the oil used in the C5 and C6's When the C5 came out GM said the oil had to meet their GM4718M spec, which was basically all "synthetic" oils whether they used group III base stock or Group IV base stock. GM then carried through until they came up with their dexos spec for oil to be used in ALL the cars including the ZR1. An oil that is a "blend" can pass the dexos spec and ExxonMobil makes the "blend" oil that GM markets as dexos.

Funny how a car that "required" a synthetic" oil for 15 years now only requires a "blend"ed oil. Does anyone think that GM would okay a lessor oil if they thought their engines would have horrendous in service failures using a "blend"ed oil.

hig4s

Nope!! but to be fair, non-synthetics are much better than they use to be.

JoesC5

True, but everyone is worried about which base stock is used in Mobil1 and their car doesn't even need "synthetic" oil to begin with, when a blended oil that meets the dexos spec will do.