I recently talked to some dude in a car chat room who said he read an article about problems with the formulation of mobil 1 aviation oil and said there were also performance problems with Mobil 1 automotive oil.He says he uses Castrol Syntech now,which really sucks but I didnt tell him that.Has anyone heard about problems with Mobil 1 automotive oil?

 

I have heard of no problems, but I have heard of some high and mighty criticisms of the newest formulation (the one with SuperSyn). Apparently it may not have as strong of base stocks as it used to, and this is due, in part, to some of Mobil 1's competition using less-then-desirable base stocks and still being able to legally call their oils 100% synthetic. The ongoing argument contends that Exxon/Mobil saw that other companies could sell cheaper products for the same price, so Exxon/Mobil is trying to save money by following their lead.

If this is true, future real 'improvements' in major-brand synthetic oils have all but ceased because there is no legislation to determine exactly what a 100% synthetic oil must use for a base stock.

There are plenty of in-depth threads out on the 'net regarding this change, but even with all of the very smart people (chemistry-wise) making points and issues, no-one will really know until Mobil 1 gives a straight answer as to what they switched to using for the SuperSyn formulation.

Best,

 

>performance
>problems with Mobil 1 automotive oil.He says he uses Castrol
>Syntech now,which really sucks but I didnt tell him that.Has
>anyone heard about problems with Mobil 1 automotive oil?

Funny how things come around. This whole thing started with Mobil suing Castrol because Castrol's base stock for their Syntech was not a "true" synthetic base. Mobil lost the lawsuit and now are using the same base stock for their synthetic oil. Oh, and now Amsoil are using the same base stock too.

 

Funny, I didn't know Amsoil was playing the same game.

My last maker to question would be Redline. I may make the switch to Redline finally.

 

Mobil stopped using 100% PAO (group IV) base stocks with the "Tri-synthetic" that pre-dates "SuperSyn". I called them and asked what Tri-synthetic means. The answer is PAO, esters and alkylated napthilates. Esters are considered a legitimate synthetic (group V) base stock used by Neo, Chevron and others. Alkylated napthilates are a group III chemistry that the "purists" don't like.

While the savings are obviously not being passed along, I think these new fomulations may actually perform better in the real world than pure PAO. This gets back to the beginning of this thread. The reason Mobil AV-1 was such a disaster is that while PAO may be a superior lubricant, it is inferior as a solvent. It cannot hold contaminants in suspension nearly as well as "conventional" oils beacuse the molecular shape.

If Castrol Syntec is so bad, why does BMW use it? Shell Helix Ultra is factory fill at Ferrari, yet it has the same group III base oil as Rotella Synthetic you can buy at Wally's for $13 a gallon.

Sorry for the long-winded chemistry lesson. I just can't help myself.

 

I'm going to elaborate slightly on Jim's informative post.

There was a problem with Mobil 1 in avation applications especially when a plane is infrequently used. I believe a failure in either a Lycoming or Continental engine was traced to the oil. The plane's engine had fairly low hours and failed due to motor oil failure. This prompted a recall and a FAA notification to owners of these engines. Ironically, there were many stories of engines, frequently used, that performed excellently with Mobil 1. It was the planes that sat around without being used that had a potential problem.

Dang. I didn't know that Mobil switched to group III stock for some of their base stocks. I'm bummed.

 

thanks for the responses guys

 

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 17-Nov-02 AT 06:36 PM (EST)]Don't forget, Castrol's Syntec was rated above Mobil 1 after Mobil 1 switched to the Tri-Synthetic. I just kept using Mobil 1 since it was easier to find.

(opinion here: ) But I believe my engine was actually quieter (as in no noise whatsoever) after cold start ups than it is with the SuperSyn. While that may be a lackluster way of judging premium oils, I feel it tells me something.

I may try one more oil change using Mobil 1 SuperSyn, and if the noise that was not there (valvetrain noise that was there when I bought it, but went away completely with a Pure 1 filter and Tri-Synthetic Mobil 1) is still there, I am switching to Redline or Amsoil.
(I realize, now, Amsoil is using the same base, but I might as well try it if Mobil 1 went cheap, will not admit to it, and will not specify just how much cheaper they went - how many corners did they cut, anyhow?)

Who is left to be trusted?

-Peace

 

I was out in the garage this evening and pulled two bottles of Mobil 1 10W-30 off the shelf, one is a year-old bottle of the Tri-Synthetic formula, the other bottle is the new Supersyn.

The older formula is labeled API SJ,SH/CF and the new one is labeled API SL,SJ/CF *and* ILSAC GF-3 (whatever that is). The new formula is also labeled "Meets GM 4718M and Chrysler MS 9615" while the older bottle is not.

If the argument is that the new formula is inferior in some respect, it at least carries upgraded API and additional manufacturer's ratings that the older formula did not.
Is there any chance the latest M1 formula is better than the older one- or at least as good?

-Bill in Colorado

2000 DOHC Focus ZTS 5-Speed (Wife's car)
2002 S/Cab Short Bed F-250 PSD 4x4. SCMT +80 HP.
1996 S/Cab Long Bed F-250 460. E4OD auto, 10.25" 4.10 posi, Air-Lift suspension, K&N filter in modified intake box, modified ignition advance curve, Edelbrock 2x61 mm throttle body, L&L 4 into 1 headers, .060 milled heads, 3" exhaust system, cat & Flowmaster 70, modified MAF meter. Reese hitch. 7,700 lbs GVW, 5,700 lbs empty.
{E\...F}

 

Paarrothead,

Well, there certainly is a chance it is as good, if not better, and Mobil claims it as being so. Still, it could be worse, too.

Keep in mind that future specs aren't set yet, so what you are seeing may just be the ability for M1 to meet whatever API spec there is at the date of manufacture. For example: API SW is not specified yet, thus M1 can't put it on the label to say they surpass it.

I am just about willing to bet dollars to donuts that the old Tri-Syn could have met "API SL,SJ/CF *and* ILSAC GF-3" specs if they had been around when it was formulated.

I could be wrong. I hope I am. But, based on the huge numbers of people who have tried to get to the bottom of which formula is actually better, but have not been able to (to the best of my knowledge and to my, or our, satisfaction), I fear we may never really know which is better.

It's just so difficult believing everything a company who wants my money tells me.

 

Gamma- You wrote-

>I am just about willing to bet dollars to donuts that the
>old Tri-Syn could have met "API SL,SJ/CF *and* ILSAC
>GF-3" specs if they had been around when it was formulated.

You got me thinking on this Sunday evening (could you smell the wood burning?)...I went over to the API web site where it says the SL rating was officially introduced on July 1, 2001, almost a year and a half ago. The M1 Tri-Syn Formula with the SJ rating was sold until fairly recently, in fact the new SuperSyn just appeared on my distributor's shelves only two or three months ago.

So to the best of my knowledge, M1 carried only the older SJ rating for at least a full year after the new SL rating became official, only the new bottles of SuperSyn carry the current SL rating.

This is conjecture on my part, but it would seem to me that if their old formula could have met the SL rating as you suggest it might have, it would have been labeled by their marketing people as such for at least a year until SuperSyn hit the shelves.

FWIW, API says the SL rating has to do with better deposit control at high temperatures and lower oil consumprion. Both would seem to have to do mostly with a lubricant's high temperature breakdown and viscosity characteristics; regardless of what's really in the M1 bottles now, it's certainly going to be a premium motor oil meeting the toughest and latest industry specs. My main concern is if I'm overpaying for what's in the bottle compared to the competition, not that I won't continue to trust the product as offering a premium level of performance.

For example, you can buy Shell Rotella T 5W-40 synthetic, which carries API SL for gas engines and the API CH-4 diesel rating for less than $13 a gallon at Wal-Mart. It's a product I'm considering switching to for use in all my vehicles. Mobil is currently redesigning their web site so I can't pull up the data sheets on M1, but after they do I'll be comparing its specs to the Shell synthetic product- for sure.

Take care,

-Bill in Colorado


2000 DOHC Focus ZTS 5-Speed (Wife's car)
2002 S/Cab Short Bed F-250 PSD 4x4. SCMT +80 HP.
1996 S/Cab Long Bed F-250 460. E4OD auto, 10.25" 4.10 posi, Air-Lift suspension, K&N filter in modified intake box, modified ignition advance curve, Edelbrock 2x61 mm throttle body, L&L 4 into 1 headers, .060 milled heads, 3" exhaust system, cat & Flowmaster 70, modified MAF meter. Reese hitch. 7,700 lbs GVW, 5,700 lbs empty.
{E\...F}

 

I think I`ll stick with Chevron Supreme with ISOSYN,its a high quality hydroprocessed dino oil.Its probably just as good as a fake synthetic like quaker state but a better value.:-)

 

Thanks for checking that out Paarrothead!

From what I know of the API ratings, they used to always be behind the actual performance level of synthetic oils. It may not be that way now, but it used to be.

You are correct that the Tri-Syn formula was sold until fairly recently - I think I last bought it at the beginning of this summer - but here's what I'm thinking: at the quantities that must be bottled over a period of time, what we were buying was the last of the Tri-Syn stock out of the warehouses as Exxon/Mobil geared up and bottled enough SuperSyn for its worldwide debut. To me, at least, July 1, 2001 was not all that long ago. (Motor oil isn’t like beer – it isn’t generally ‘freshly brewed’ and sold at the peak of its taste. I am almost willing to bet that if I looked hard enough, I could still find a few bottles of Tri-Syn somewhere on some store's shelves.)

I am still completely open to being off on this one, but that new API date does not adequately answer the question for me. We don't know if Exxon/Mobil makes synthetics year-round, nor how long they needed to supply, and ship, enough SuperSyn before releasing it to market. Nor do we know how much overstock of Tri-Syn there was to be bought up before Exxon/Mobil felt they could give a release date that wouldn't overlap stores' Tri-Syn supplies too much.

Best,