Talk:Mobil 1/Archive 1

So-called "Controversy" - sic

(Moved from Talk:Mobil)

A drive-by hacker, apparently from "www.bobistheoilguy.com", is inserting irrelevant inaccurate material regarding Mobil 1 into this entry. The current Mobil 1 is not a product of Mobil, but of the merged entity ExxonMobil. The so-called "proof" offered is an unsubstantiated commentary without any graphs, photos, or metrics of two weights of one Mobil 1 product. It is not accurate. If you see this material reinserted, and it has also shown up in the "Synthetic Oil" entry, please delete it. The author or authors are untrained zealots who apparently have some sort of axe to grind with ExxonMobil.

eblem

(who can be reached at eble_m@yahoo.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eblem (talk • contribs) 23:58 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The above is wholly untrue. The base oil contraversy was correctly stated. The analysis was preformed by a 30 year industry expert with access to lab and interpretation skills that is top-notch. The FACT that Mobil 1 is NO LONGER a "full" synthetic but a processed-from-crue product is a "given" by people who are educated and informed. There is an apparent attempt to hide this fact from the Wiki users by *deletion* and from the general public by the use of deceptive wording. When questioned via EMail, XOM NEVER will clearly state their product is made of PAO synthetic base oils. They rather speak in terms of "performance" and the like. The editors would do well to contact an industry expert who has reviewed the test results. Best would be to let the article stand on it's own merits and let someone post RELAVENT TEST results disputing the fact Mobil 1 is not "synthetic" as defined on XOM's own webpage. Again, I am not the original author, but have seen conclusive proof from a long-time industry chemist that Mobil 1 is G-III Base- can someone prove other wise or even offer a shread of EVIDENCE that Mobil 1 is still PAO "synthetic" base oil? It is >>not<<. fwiw, I use a lot of Mobil oils, but don't think Mobil 1 is priced appropriately for it's content. The "contraversey" is real and well-substantiated.

Real info- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.144.206.95 (talk • contribs • WHOIS) 08:29, 12 February 2007

I believe the word you're looking for is "controversy".

This is an irrelevant partisan dispute on a website (www.bobistheoilguy.com) that has no place in an encyclopedia-quality article on the former corporation "Mobil" or the "Mobil" brand in the entity ExxonMobil.

I have gone so far as to contact the "30 year industry expert", Thomas Schaefer at Hatco Corporation:

http://www.hatcocorporation.com/pages/company/contactus.htm

and he is either unable or unwilling to provide reference-quality support for the assertion "that Mobil 1 is G-III Base", whatever that is supposed to mean.

I am sure you have strong feelings on this topic, as arcane as it may be, but that's really not relevant.

You may reach me at eble_m@yahoo.com

eblem —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eblem (talk • contribs) 15:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Eblem, instead of casting aspersions that there is a conspiracy of Bob The Oil Guy website partisans (By the way, I live in New York City and haven't driven in 6 years and could care less about cars) and doing original research by contacting Mr. Schaefer, can you provide a link that shows how inaccurate this section is in the article? I did a quick look on Google and found a few references for it, and I think it is more or less balanced, as written. But I have no problem taking it out if you can back up your contentions. --DavidShankBone 16:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

http://www.mobil1.jp/products_mobil1.html

As noted above, in other markets for some grades of Mobil 1, Exxon Mobil freely notes that several grades of Mobil one are made from some amount of "hydroprocessed" base oil, which is synonymous with group 3 base oil.

In the US, oil companies don't need to make such a distinction because after the Castrol/Mobil lawsuit, either hydroprocessed or PAO can be advertised as "synthetic". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Outersquare (talk • contribs) 21:51, 14 February 2007

I do not have to provide a link "that shows how inaccurate this section is". The obligation is for the inserter to provide reference-quality verification.

You're admitting that you have none. The inserters have provided none.

In addition, even it were verifiable, it is not "on point" in this article, which is about the history of the former Mobil corporation and the current Mobil brands that continue in the merged ExxonMobil entity.

To "talk you out of it" would be appropriate if this were a debate forum, not a reference encyclopedia.

I don't know what "conspiracy" you're referring to, but there is a thread on "www.bobistheoilguy.com" describing the various efforts to insert disputative anti-ExxonMobil material into this article:

http://theoildrop.server101.com/forums/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=820578&page=0&fpart=8&vc=1

I also did a quick Google and found the source of every comment and discussion on this topic to be, believe it or not, a reference to www.bobistheoilguy.com. And there are at least four additional threads beating up the same topic going on right now at that location.

You may reach me at eble_m@yahoo.com, but I deleted this scurrilous material. This is a reference encyclopedia, not a debate forum.

---

Petri, I removed your restoration of the scurrilous material.

Unless and until it is clear it is verifiable and relevant, it does not belong in this article.

I am sorry you have not taken the several opportunities I have given you to discuss this.

eblem who may be reached at eble_m@yahoo.com

---

If ExxonMobil freely admits the use of hydroisomerized base stocks in some products in various markets consistent with the laws of the respective market (e.g., "semi-synthetic" in Europe, "synthetic" in North America), then there is no "controversy".

In North America Castrol, Valvoline, Pennzoil, Quaker State, and numerous others have made and sold synthetic motor oils with varying amounts of what is called in the U.S. "Group III" synthetic for several years:

• http://www.chevron.com/products/prodserv/BaseOils/gf4_faq.shtml

1. Therefore there is no controversy.
2. Several of these manufacturers do not provide information on their proprietary blend of base and blend stocks. The fact that ExxonMobil does not is not worthy of note in an encyclopedia entry, or anywhere else for that matter.
3. In markets where the law requires it, ExxonMobil appears to be listing products as "synthetic", "semi-synthetic", or otherwise consistent with the pertinent laws. There is, therefore, no confusion as to what is or is not "synthetic".
4. The disputative material does not belong in an entry dealing with the history of Mobil, the former corporation, and the Mobil brands of ExxonMobil due to irrelevance, and in no other entry which purports to be verifiable reference material.

This appears to be a totally fabricated "controversy" by partisans of some sort of position who wish to hijack this Wikipedia entry to further disseminate a partisan point of view.

Controversy

Before Petri, Kamope, or some other well-intended individual restores the "controversy", I would like to point out there is no controversy.

The "controversy" section deals with some sort of dispute between some members of a forum, www.bobistheoilguy.com, and apparently ExxonMobil.

ExxonMobil manufactures and sells motor oils in various countries worldwide using a variety of formulae. Among the base and blend stocks it uses are hydroisomerized petroleum, polyalphaolefin, diester, polyolester, alkylated napthlenes, and some even more esoteric chemicals such as esterized waxes and vegetable oils.

Depending on what country the products are sold in, they are termed "semi-synthetic", "synthetic", or something else consistent with that country's laws. For one example, a hydroisomerized petroleum is "synthetic" in North America but is not sold as "synthetic" in the European Union.

In the U.S. several major companies - Valvoline, Quaker State, Pennzoil, and others - have sold "synthetic" motor oils based on hydroisomerized petroleum for some years. That is completely legal in the US and Canada.

ExxonMobil - and several of the other companies - also do not provide breakdowns of which base stocks, blend stocks, and additives are used in any particular formula. Again, this is common industry practice.

The "controversy", then, consists of the fact that ExxonMobil may be using hydroisomerized petroleum in some of its US and Canadian synthetic motor oils and apparently will not provide participants of www.bobistheoilguy.com with their formulae on demand.

1. This is no bona-fide controversy.
2. This is also not relevant to the Wikipedia entry "Mobil".
3. Those who want the laws changed to require hydroisomerized petroleum products identified as such are free to petition the Congress of the United States and the Parliament of Canada for such redress.

eblem who can be reached at eble_m@yahoo.com

Responce by User:66.214.26.49

This eblem person obviously has some vested interest in keeping these facts from being seen.

First, he claims that there is no proof that M1 is group 3.

Then when pointed out in many other markets ExMobil themselves freely admits their M1 products do contain group 3 components, he claims that there is thus no controversy and the article should be deleted.

Notice here also;

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Synthetic_oil&diff=95845952&oldid=95834900

This same eblem also deleted references that M1 may in fact not be predominantly PAO/Group 4.

It maybe suggested that he also has some agenda and that he barred from further editing any "Mobil" or "oil" related articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.26.49 (talk • contribs) 07:14, 15 February 2007

Interesting that this post was unsigned. eblem is probably closer to the mark than ExM would like. There is no vested interest by eblem, just a fringe fanatical view that clings to the relic of "Mobil 1" as a standard unto itself. It's not. It's a product that has to be optimized for profit, just like anything else. ExxonMobil is fanatical about following federal regualtions. Whatever the US government requires regarding disclosing product components, I am sure they adhere to. If you want more transparency, call your congressman.

Goatpaws (talk) 00:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)goatpaws.

Edits on Mobil 1 Entry, split off from Mobil

Deleted

“used for an astonishing 25,000 miles”

substituted

“used for up to 25,000 miles”

Whether it’s “astonishing” or not is a subjective impression. It does not belong in a reference-quality encyclopedia entry.

Also, it is not supported. However, I know that in my reference material I have references and will add them when I have some time.

Deleted “Composition”

And will continue to do so until reference-quality support is provided for the following:

“In 2006, the results of a gas chromatography test on Mobil 1 5w-30 EP were posted by an industry expert on the popular motor oil discussion website”

I have searched the cited url and there are no gas chromatography test results.

“Group III processed mineral oil”

Group III oil, assuming this is a reference to the American Petroleum Institute groups, is petroleum in which the waxes are “cracked”, and the result is combined with hydrogen in the presence of a catalyst. The result is a product with relatively long-chain molecules in which 85-95% of the molecules are new. In the United States and Canada it is sold as “synthetic”.

“Mobil 1 was believed to be a synthetic oil true synthetic, utilizing a Group IV (PAO) base stock”

“The release of this information has led to a backlash against ExxonMobil's lubricant products in many automotive communities.”

“Ironically, in 1999, Mobil fought Castrol's change in formulation to a Group III base stock in motor oils being marketed as fully synthetic. Mobil claimed that Castrol was deceiving their customer base, while degrading their products. The National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus eventually ruled that Castrol could continue to market their Syntec line as a fully synthetic motor oil.”

I have found the NAD decision. It does not mention Mobil Oil.

“ExxonMobil currently refuses to comment on the primary basestock of their Mobil 1 series of oils.”

This is completely irrelevant. Very few motor oil manufacturers “comment” on the composition of their products, unless they are advertising some supposed advantage.

“This has only added further confusion over the exact definition of the term ‘synthetic oil.’“

There is no confusion.

As the deleted material itself points out, Castrol (and others) were selling Group III base stock motor oils as synthetic since before 1999, and that designation is approved.

All my previous comments are still applicable.

Petri, the following belongs in the original Mobil entry: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eblem (talk • contribs) 10:50 15 February 2007

Sponsorship

ExxonMobil (through Mobil 1) is a major, long-term partner of the Formula One constructor Team McLaren Mercedes. As well as providing lubricants and fuel to McLaren, Mobil 1 is a major brand in Formula One, for example sponsoring Grands prix.

Since you did the edit, you can fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eblem (talk • contribs) 10:50 15 February 2007

---

Nothing gets added without a proper source

I mostly agree with Eblem; however, I think the information that they market Mobil 1 in some countries with a different composition, could be added. But it shouldn't be under "Controversy". Until a sourced link to a non-blog site can back up test results, and until the rest of the information is similarly cited, it should remain out. --DavidShankBone 15:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Vested Interest

"This eblem person obviously has some vested interest in keeping these facts from being seen."

I have a vested interest in seeing Wikipedia a reference-quality encyclopedia, not a forum for people with various agendae.

"First, he claims that there is no proof that M1 is group 3."

No, I can only point out that there is no proof at bobistheoilguy.com, and there is no proof anywhere that I have seen that *all* Mobil 1 products are "group 3". I can also point out that if ExxonMobil sells one or more motor oils based on Group III hydroisomerized base stocks, they are "synthetic" as defined in the US and Canada, as are all the other brands that use Group III base stocks and have for the last decade.

"Then when pointed out in many other markets ExMobil themselves freely admits their M1 products do contain group 3 components, he claims that there is thus no controversy and the article should be deleted."

The only controversy appears to be whether participants from bobistheoilguy.com can take their pseudo-religious beliefs about motor oils and insert them into reference-quality encyclopedia articles without support.

Apparently you and Petr believe affirmatively. I do not.

I may be operating under something of a disability since I actually know something about the topic under discussion, while you and some editors apparently know absolutely nothing about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eblem (talk • contribs) 12:24 15 February 2007 (UTC)

GOOD DAY, Gentlemen. While I understand (sometimes, few ones), the attempts by Wikipedia "editors", who appear to be too jealous to remove ANYTHING that do nos please their "criteria", in order to "maintain" Wikipedia's "reference quality" (whatever it means), I believe they areactually destroying the true value of the concept: look, if someone reads a Wikipedia article, it could be that such person could be ONLY interested in a very general, superficial view of the subject... But what if the person is seriously investigating a subject, and such other person (like me), wants to know AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE in a Complete, well written article, not one full of deletions (sometimes VERY useful content) by fanatic censors dressed as "editors". As a person with more than 32 years of experience in the petroleum industry, that continues to work daily as a Senior technical advisor at the Mexican equivalent of the American Petroleum Institute (you can see our webpage at 3w.imp.mx, albeit in spanish language), I not only understand the fact that an Encyclopedic article HAS to meet strict rules, BUT; on the other side, it is more and more often that I am seeing undue deletions, INSTEAD OF useful EDITIONS to the articles. As it continues to be, the absolutely USELESS article on the "Mobil-1" motor oil does NOT contribute ANYTHING of true value apart from the completely trivial section on "Sponsorships". As a Qualified Professional Engineer with my experience in this area, I feel compelled to raise your attention to the fact that Motor Oil characteristics DO vary as a given formulation DEPARTS from a so called "100% Full Synthetic" formulation. The (sad) fact that in USA (and other countries) too many concepts have been HEAVILY DISTORTED in order to MAKE BELIEVE the unsuspecting public whatever the businesses want them to believe, to raise profits in the most rampant way. Europeans, on the contrary, tend to be more conservative in their specifications and also more demanding (No offense here). That is the reason for DISTINGUISHING between a True Synthetic and a mixture that attempts to appear as "100%" Synthetic. If this discussion is avoided, Wikipedia readers will NOT be aware of this, which hurts the whole Wikipedia concept, so, lets include this matter in MORE detail, nos less, much less amputating it.

A Terse, well written section on the matter of How-Much syntetic really is the Product is in absolute benefit to Wikipedia readers. When people GET the Wikipedia spirit, they tend to ENRICH an article, certainly not MUTILATING it. As a final note, I do NOT work for ANY company that sells ANY kind of Motor Oils, But we TEST and CERTIFY Motor Oils, so that I have absolutely NO interest in attacking or recommending ANY given product. But when a large company decides to promote its products and starts to STRETCH some concepts, in order to promote its sales or earnings, I am of yhe opinios that the persons that work in this field of knowledge MUST STEP IN and try to CLARIFY whatever needs to be clarified, in this case, the use of the terms "100% Synthetic", "Fully Synthetic" or similar ones. Remember the Old and Wise saying: "There is an ounce of TRUTH in every Lie" which fits this matter. Let's IMPROVE the Mobil-1 page. Sincerely, Alfredo M. Claussen, P.E., Instituto Mexicano del Petroleo, R&D, Mexico City, amarquez@imp.mx

notice eblem does not actually deny he has no outside interest. who cares how much of a paid off expert you are, your edits are obviously as equally slanted as you accuse anyone else of being. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Outersquare (talk • contribs) 17:32 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"...advertised to used for up to 25,000 miles." Golly shucks, Homer, that's some quality writin' there.68.13.191.153 14:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Group III

Since the "Group III" phrase keeps being bandied, here's a nice non-technical article for discussion:

http://www.machinerylubrication.com/article_detail.asp?articleid=493&relatedbookgroup=OilAnalysis

Relevant passages include:

"In hydrocracking, the base oil feed flows over a high-activity catalyst bed at temperatures above 650°F and pressures above 1,000 psi. Feed molecules are reshaped and some are cracked into smaller molecules. Almost all of the sulfur and nitrogen are removed, and many aromatic compounds are saturated with hydrogen. Molecular reshaping occurs as isoparaffins and saturated ring compounds are formed. These compounds have high viscosity indexes (VIs) and low pour points."

"Catalytic dewaxing is a high-temperature, high-pressure process in which a catalyst selectively cracks the wax molecules present in a base oil to light products, such as gas and naphtha. Although this process is efficient, it is somewhat wasteful, as high-value wax is converted to lower value gas and light fuel. In hydroisomerization, the process is similar, but the wax is selectively converted (isomerized) into very high quality base oil. Both processes remove wax and therefore lower the pour point of the base oil, but hydroisomerization results in higher VI base oil and better yields."

"In the United States, Mobil used catalytic dewaxing in place of solvent dewaxing, but still coupled it with solvent extraction to manufacture conventional neutral oils. Catalytic dewaxing was a desirable improvement to solvent dewaxing especially for conventional neutral oils, because it utilized simplified operations to remove n-paraffins and waxy side chains from other molecules by cracking them into smaller molecules. This lowered the pour point of the base oil so that it flowed at low temperatures, like solvent dewaxed oils."

"The final step in modern base oil plants is hydrofinishing, which utilizes sophisticated catalysts and pressures above 1,000 psi to give a final polishing to the base oil. In essence, the few remaining impurities are converted to stable base oil molecules."

ExxonMobil is using hydroisomerization coupled with catalytic dewaxing.

Petroleum goes in one end of the process and stable base molecules, sans waxes, sulfur, and nitrogen, while aromatics are saturated with hydrogen resulting in isoparaffins and saturated ring compounds.

In other words, the result is relatively stable homogenous synthesized molecules. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eblem (talk • contribs) 16:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Re: Nothing gets added without a proper source

I mostly agree with Eblem; however, I think the information that they market Mobil 1 in some countries with a different composition, could be added. But it shouldn't be under "Controversy".

I made a few phone calls to fellow SAE (Society of Autmotive Engineers) and API (American Petroleum Institute) members.

"Mobil 1" not only includes an ever-changing variety of motor oil compositions, but automatic transmission fluids, chassis lubes, gear oils, and filters:

http://www.mobil1.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Other_Products/Other_Products.aspx

http://www.mobil1.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Oils/Mobil_1.aspx

The article appeared to be about the motor oil, but if it is to include information on what may be sold on the brand name "Mobil 1", it is going to need to be vastly expanded. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eblem (talk • contribs) 17:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Dispute?

It's not disputed, it's unsupported.

A dispute involves facts being brought to bear supporting two mutually exclusive positions.

There is no doubt that "Group III" is in the U.S. and Canada sold lawfully as "synthetic". There is no support for any "gas chromotography".

In short, there is no dispute - there are facts, and they all point to one conclusion.

--Eblem 19:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"notice eblem"

The fact that I don't genuflect to Auto-Union, Patman, G-Man, or the other denizens of www.bobistheoilguy.com doesn't reflect a bias, it reflects a functioning brain and a disdain for cults - religious or tribological.

BITOG has become a cult.

--Eblem 04:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the stuff still tastes lousy on ice cream.68.13.191.153 06:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

stuff still tastes lousy on ice cream

That's certainly the sort of factoid you can learn by joining and participating in www.bobistheoilguy.com.

Perhaps I should create a "Bob Is The Oil Guy" entry, with Bob Winter's life story, and draw the BITOG crowd off mucking up worthwhile entries onto that, much like excrement attracts flies.

--Eblem 10:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

What proof do you possess that the "ice cream" writer originated from the Oil Guy site? Appears to me you have a built-in bias that affects what you post here!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.191.153 (talk • contribs) 14:37 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is a source for Group III base oil in Mobil 1--Mobil Itself!

Mobil's Japanese web site lists the base of all the oils in the Mobil 1 line as PAO except for 5W30 and 10W30 where it states PAO+Hydroprocessed (which means hydroisomerized group III oil) http://www.mobil1.jp/products_mobil1.html Several months ago, this same page said PAO/III instead. Just because they are alowed to call this synthetic under US Law does not make it sysnthetic in the scientific or encyclopedic meaning of the word. There seems to be a concerted effort to keep the truth out of this article. 143.182.124.2 22:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

moe in wichita ks in the last year i have spent 50 hrs looking up info about zinc in oil. iam more cunfused now than ever. i think EVERONE that posts on this subject has an axe to grind, i think i can find more productive things to do with my time, my rc car is calling. iam outa here. by —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moe7404 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

moe in wichita ks in the last year i have spent 50 hrs looking up info about zinc in oil. iam more cunfused now than ever. i think EVERONE that posts on this subject has an axe to grind, i think i can find more productive things to do with my time, my rc car is calling. iam outa here. by —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moe7404 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)