Can anyone help me comparing Mobile 1 synthetic oil to Penzoil synthetic oil.
Original Post
Read our primer articles on High Mileage Oil, Synthetic Oil and Kinematic Viscosity
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Both companies should have product data sheets avaliable on their respective websites. These sheets will list parameters such as 100C and 40C viscosities, flash point, pour point, cold cranking viscosity, viscosity index, etc. This should give you a good basis for an initial comparison. Be sure you get product data sheets (may vary in exact name), not material safety data sheets (MSDS).
Unless they've added this info to their site, this tech. data is not availabe on the Mobil site; you might be able to obtain it by calling them ?
'Rider Support'
(C.)918-636-1281
'Rider Support'
(C.)918-636-1281
quote:
Originally posted by ahowkins:
Can anyone help me comparing Mobile 1 synthetic oil to Penzoil synthetic oil.
Mobil is a pao based formulation while the Pennzoil is a group III based oil .
Although some of the group III formulations offer very good performance for the same money I pick the pao and Mobil has a very , very good additive package .
Please try the Pennzoil and have it tested after using in your car and let us know the results .
Winston. Do you know the type of synthetic in other brands? Particularly I am interested in Valvoline Synpower.
I am using Valvoline Maxlife which I understand (from much discussion at the oil guy forum) is a group II with about 10% or so ester synthetics. Would that be a good one to "juice up" with some PAO? I could add Mobil 1, but would prefer to stay in brand. My thinking is mainly to improve cold startability, but maybe this mix would be good year round.
I am using Valvoline Maxlife which I understand (from much discussion at the oil guy forum) is a group II with about 10% or so ester synthetics. Would that be a good one to "juice up" with some PAO? I could add Mobil 1, but would prefer to stay in brand. My thinking is mainly to improve cold startability, but maybe this mix would be good year round.
AMSOIL has run a number of bench tests comparing various oils, all 10W-30. These include the ones you are interested in.
You can find this at amsoil.com.
You can find this at amsoil.com.
quote:
Originally posted by Kevin:
Unless they've added this info to their site, this tech. data is not availabe on the Mobil site; you might be able to obtain it by calling them ?
'Rider Support'
(C.)918-636-1281
This should tell you all there is to know about Mobil 1. Wouldn't use anything else. It is simply the best on the market.
http://www.mobil1.com/index.jsp
You can find a comparison here
Thanks fred, you beat me to the punch. Amsoil is the hands down winner in a comparison with Mobil 1. PERIOD!
I've used Mobile 1 synthetic oil,Penzoil synthetic oil, and all Amsoil products. To continue, I have used the Havs, Vavs, and Quakers, but I have yet to find one oil that compares to Convoy (Conklin) parasynthetics. I have saved money from cold weather start-ups, and as gas is $1.60 at the pupmps, I do NOT see how anyone can afford NOT to use Convoy. The problem with other products is that they break down much more quicker than Convoy. Is it just me, but are you not suppose to increase horsepower also when using these expensive oils? Convoy gives me better gas efficiency AND increased horsepower. For those gas hog drivers and those HP crazed fans, CONVOY is the way to go.
Just Curious
Do most companies in the business of selling oil give their customers a guarantee that their products will perform as intended and if not, a 100% money back? Conklin products have help me for the past 4 years from Convoy (cold weather start-ups; engine cooling because I run one of my company vehicles without antifreeze all year long and I have had no trouble out of it as I put 25k on it the past 3 years) to Fuel Mate fuel conditioners to save me money at the pump. It seems Conklin products are great and proven, but Many people I speak with are reluctant to use the 30 year old products....Are there any reasons from you all as to why this is?
Do most companies in the business of selling oil give their customers a guarantee that their products will perform as intended and if not, a 100% money back? Conklin products have help me for the past 4 years from Convoy (cold weather start-ups; engine cooling because I run one of my company vehicles without antifreeze all year long and I have had no trouble out of it as I put 25k on it the past 3 years) to Fuel Mate fuel conditioners to save me money at the pump. It seems Conklin products are great and proven, but Many people I speak with are reluctant to use the 30 year old products....Are there any reasons from you all as to why this is?
Extremely Apodicitic, do you have any oil analysis done with Conklin? Talk is just that, back it up with hard facts and evidence.
I'd be interested in seeing those test results too. I know these oils have been around for a long time but would like to see some test results related data. Thanks.
'Rider Support'
(C.)918-636-1281
'Rider Support'
(C.)918-636-1281
Just based on Conklin's web site, their oil looks like a pretty poor value:
http://www.conklin.com/divisions/files/Lubes_catalog03.pdf
The compare their 10W30 to Mobil, Valvoline, etc, synthetic blends, and it comes out just barely better, but doesn't the Conklin cost something like $7/qt? So, Conklin looks to be a amsoil and redline priced oil that is out performed by $4-$5 /qt Mobil 1, Delvac 1, or German castrol. I suspect that some Group III synthetics like Rotella 5W40 perform better as well, and for $3/qt.
To go even further, based on Conklin's spec sheet compares their 15W40's pout point to Rotella T, which is well known to have the worst cold flow properties of any of th common 15W40's. Delvac 1300 has the same pourpoint as Conklin, and costs less than $2/qt:
http://www.prod.mobil.com/cgi-bin/bld_frameset.cgi?CONTENT=/mobil_lubes/onhighway/products_services/delvac1300/testimonials_content.html
Conklin's marketing tactics seem a little shady too: they seem to rely on a combination of dubious personal testimonies, and Amway style marketing to make up for a lack of actual product value.
http://www.conklin.com/divisions/files/Lubes_catalog03.pdf
The compare their 10W30 to Mobil, Valvoline, etc, synthetic blends, and it comes out just barely better, but doesn't the Conklin cost something like $7/qt? So, Conklin looks to be a amsoil and redline priced oil that is out performed by $4-$5 /qt Mobil 1, Delvac 1, or German castrol. I suspect that some Group III synthetics like Rotella 5W40 perform better as well, and for $3/qt.
To go even further, based on Conklin's spec sheet compares their 15W40's pout point to Rotella T, which is well known to have the worst cold flow properties of any of th common 15W40's. Delvac 1300 has the same pourpoint as Conklin, and costs less than $2/qt:
http://www.prod.mobil.com/cgi-bin/bld_frameset.cgi?CONTENT=/mobil_lubes/onhighway/products_services/delvac1300/testimonials_content.html
Conklin's marketing tactics seem a little shady too: they seem to rely on a combination of dubious personal testimonies, and Amway style marketing to make up for a lack of actual product value.
I know that Conklin is or was made by Amway. They may have shrouded the relationship because Amway has such a horrible reputation.
hey, have u guys realized a new technology synthetic oil not using PAOs and others..Theyre using calcium carbonate additives within petroleum sulfonate base oils.. try checking dmxtechcorp. youll be surprised bec the oil is good.
cranston
cranston
I've been in the lubricants business since 1979. I've sold and used just about every brand available. After my years of research, I'm now convinced that AMSOIL is the superior product line. My 1998 Ford E-350 has right at 415,000 miles on it, changing oil every 20,000 miles and oil filters ever 10,000. The savings in oil changes alone is enough to purchase a new van, and I might add, I don't need to.
For more information and a free catalog,CAP
For more information and a free catalog,CAP
The link does not work? 
@ CharlieB: impressive salestalk!
@ CharlieB: impressive salestalk!
The Amsoil comparison is interesting, but has any company published a comparison of their products with others and not been in first place?
And that 4-ball wear test? I can't get the 4-ball numbers on other products products by those other makers. Do they all avoid the 4-ball test because their oils are terrible flops when it comes to performance and this test would prove that? I'll bet that Mobil is terrified when someone brings up their poor performance in the 4-ball wear test as done by Amsoil. I guess that's why they blast the market with all these new labels hoping that you will forget the 4-ball test. I guess it shows, Amsoil has more balls than the competition and Al is just the guy to lead the charge.
And that 4-ball wear test? I can't get the 4-ball numbers on other products products by those other makers. Do they all avoid the 4-ball test because their oils are terrible flops when it comes to performance and this test would prove that? I'll bet that Mobil is terrified when someone brings up their poor performance in the 4-ball wear test as done by Amsoil. I guess that's why they blast the market with all these new labels hoping that you will forget the 4-ball test. I guess it shows, Amsoil has more balls than the competition and Al is just the guy to lead the charge.
When I asked Roy Howell of RL about the 4-Ball wear test, he said the same thing that Mobil, Shell, Castrol, and LE said. Bascially it has ZERO to due with real world engine performance and that rather then spend money on additives to make the wear scar lower, they spend the money else where. Amsoil should take that money and fix the oxidation issues their oils have.
http://forums.yellowworld.org/archive/index.php/t-1136.html
The repeatability is very poor with that test. Not to mention testing used oil shows a whole different number. Amsoil won't show you those. Very good oils with some hype/bad marketing thrown in. But they all do that. My biggest compliant with Amsoil is the fact that it can't stay in grade very well over a long drain interval. Thickens badly.
http://forums.yellowworld.org/archive/index.php/t-1136.html
The repeatability is very poor with that test. Not to mention testing used oil shows a whole different number. Amsoil won't show you those. Very good oils with some hype/bad marketing thrown in. But they all do that. My biggest compliant with Amsoil is the fact that it can't stay in grade very well over a long drain interval. Thickens badly.
quote:Originally posted by Winston:quote:Originally posted by ahowkins:
Can anyone help me comparing Mobile 1 synthetic oil to Penzoil synthetic oil.
Mobil is a pao based formulation while the Pennzoil is a group III based oil .
Although some of the group III formulations offer very good performance for the same money I pick the pao and Mobil has a very , very good additive package .
Please try the Pennzoil and have it tested after using in your car and let us know the results .
If you are talking about Penn Platinmum, this is not a majority GIII, but rather an EOS synthetic that should be in the same class IV as the PAO.
If you are talking about Penn Platinmum, this is not a majority GIII, but rather an EOS synthetic that should be in the same class IV as the PAO.[/QUOTE]
I relly can not understand that standpoit - ...it should be in same class as PAO.
Isn't it already defined: PAO, petroleum (a few classes), ... Why do we have to consider something if we do not need it? Look at specifications .. and everything is clear.
Related to someone's post about Mobil1 and Pennzoil read this:
Pennzoil - The PENNZANE® which is touted as "developed for and used by NASA" has been actually developed for use in vacuum pumps, and computer drives. It was never intended for or ever used in any engine!
PENNZANE® in its pure form costs about $400.00 per US quarts and it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that in the Consumer version of the "synthetic" motor oil with PENNZANE® that sells for under $4.00 there is about a drop of PENNZANE® in 5 gallons!
The Back Label of PENNZOIL "Synthetic" with PENNZANE® also instructs the user to: "change motor oil EVERY 3,000 miles for best performance" !
Why then it costs four times as much conventional Petroleum Motor Oil if it is not all that much better, and definitely does not last in service any longer?
Mobil - Back labels of Mobil 1 products for many years had following:" *exclusive of carrier oil" statement in substantially smaller print. At the same time the front label declared the Mobil 1 as:"100% Synthetic * ". in really large print.
If you are a good detective you’ll notice that the statement on the Front label ends with an asterisk (*) and the statement on the Back label starts with an asterisk (*). If you are really good, you’ll figure out that the asterisks are the magical "glue" that connects the two together and that what should be understood is:
" 100 % Synthetic, exclusive of carrier oil ".
Well, that is only the beginning of our decoding mission. When asked, majority of consumers has absolutely no idea what "carrier oil" is, or what the meaning of "exclusive of" really is.
Well then, what does Mobil (ExxonMobil) have to say about that ?
Q: Is Mobil 1 a fully synthetic oil?
A: Yes, it’s 100% synthetic. The base stocks used in blending Mobil 1 are all "chemically constructed" instead of being simply segregated out of crude oil like conventional mineral oils.
Q: Then why does it say it contains a petroleum carrier for additives?
A: All motor oils contain additives that provide extra protection against wear, corrosion and engine deposits. These additives are usually high molecular weight materials – sometimes even solids. Conventional carrier oil is used to make these additives soluble. All motor oils will contain some of this carrier oil, usually only amounting to a small percentage of the finished product.
(Source of above Questions and Answers is http://www.mobil,com and Mobil 1 promotional literature)
I relly can not understand that standpoit - ...it should be in same class as PAO.
Isn't it already defined: PAO, petroleum (a few classes), ... Why do we have to consider something if we do not need it? Look at specifications .. and everything is clear.
Related to someone's post about Mobil1 and Pennzoil read this:
Pennzoil - The PENNZANE® which is touted as "developed for and used by NASA" has been actually developed for use in vacuum pumps, and computer drives. It was never intended for or ever used in any engine!
PENNZANE® in its pure form costs about $400.00 per US quarts and it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that in the Consumer version of the "synthetic" motor oil with PENNZANE® that sells for under $4.00 there is about a drop of PENNZANE® in 5 gallons!
The Back Label of PENNZOIL "Synthetic" with PENNZANE® also instructs the user to: "change motor oil EVERY 3,000 miles for best performance" !
Why then it costs four times as much conventional Petroleum Motor Oil if it is not all that much better, and definitely does not last in service any longer?
Mobil - Back labels of Mobil 1 products for many years had following:" *exclusive of carrier oil" statement in substantially smaller print. At the same time the front label declared the Mobil 1 as:"100% Synthetic * ". in really large print.
If you are a good detective you’ll notice that the statement on the Front label ends with an asterisk (*) and the statement on the Back label starts with an asterisk (*). If you are really good, you’ll figure out that the asterisks are the magical "glue" that connects the two together and that what should be understood is:
" 100 % Synthetic, exclusive of carrier oil ".
Well, that is only the beginning of our decoding mission. When asked, majority of consumers has absolutely no idea what "carrier oil" is, or what the meaning of "exclusive of" really is.
Well then, what does Mobil (ExxonMobil) have to say about that ?
Q: Is Mobil 1 a fully synthetic oil?
A: Yes, it’s 100% synthetic. The base stocks used in blending Mobil 1 are all "chemically constructed" instead of being simply segregated out of crude oil like conventional mineral oils.
Q: Then why does it say it contains a petroleum carrier for additives?
A: All motor oils contain additives that provide extra protection against wear, corrosion and engine deposits. These additives are usually high molecular weight materials – sometimes even solids. Conventional carrier oil is used to make these additives soluble. All motor oils will contain some of this carrier oil, usually only amounting to a small percentage of the finished product.
(Source of above Questions and Answers is http://www.mobil,com and Mobil 1 promotional literature)
The following was posted on another site re Pennzoil Platinum (but is seems it is EOP instead of EOS):quote:Originally posted by Jmac:
[QUOTE]If you are talking about Penn Platinmum, this is not a majority GIII, but rather an EOS synthetic that should be in the same class IV as the PAO.
quote:Pennzoil Platinum - EOP base stock and additive package produced by Shell Chemical
ethylene-alphaolefin polymer. Here's an excerpt from a trade article from 2004:
PAOs have long been the premier base stocks in terms of performance. Although challenged by Group III stocks, PAOs still represent the superior product in the industry; however, Shell Global Solutions is developing a fluid to give PAOs competition from an economic and performance standpoint.
The fluid, known as ethylene-alphaolefin polymer (EOP), was originally developed by Pennzoil-Quaker State, now owned by Shell. Shell recently scaled up a pilot plant to produce EOP, making viscosities comparable to PAOs, like 4 and 8 cSt material.
At a recent presentation in Ostfildern, Germany, a Shell representative stated EOP is synthesized from ethylene, propylene and butene using a single-site catalyst, and the reaction products from the process exhibit comparable physical and chemical properties to PAOs. Even more, the feed stocks and manufacturing costs are significantly lower for EOP than PAOs.
However, some issues exist with EOPs that must be resolved first, of which additive solubility and seal compatibility represent the highest priority. Finished costs are expected to be 20-30 percent lower than PAOs for the 4 and 8 cSt material, with higher viscosities being as much as one-third the cost of a PAO.
So, since most of us can't look inside a bottle of oil and tell what's there while we're shopping for that just-right oil, then all this stuff about 4-balls, EOS, EOP, GIII is just advertising. This also includes labels like 'synthetic blend'...what? If the oil is synthetic in a conventional carrier oil, then blended, how much is synthetic? It sure is good that the marketing departments of these oil companies are such stand-up guys and tell us everything we need to know, right on the bottle.
I've read the bottles and next time I go shopping I'm going to look for a Start-Up, High-Mileage, Synthetic-Blend, EOP/EOS, GIII, Hard-Driving, Cold-Weather, Trop-Artic Anti-Sludge oil for my car. None of this voa, uoa stuff for me, no sir, these bottles know what they are talking about. I want my drop of synthetic magic in every bottle.
I've read the bottles and next time I go shopping I'm going to look for a Start-Up, High-Mileage, Synthetic-Blend, EOP/EOS, GIII, Hard-Driving, Cold-Weather, Trop-Artic Anti-Sludge oil for my car. None of this voa, uoa stuff for me, no sir, these bottles know what they are talking about. I want my drop of synthetic magic in every bottle.
Really right approach:..."I want (my drop of) synthetic magic in every bottle" - if you think that when you aimed to syntetic oil bottle it should be undoubtely synthetic. But, if you (because of "drop") think about Pennzoil I do not agree with you. Right now (for quite some time) I use Amsoil and it will be till someone find good technical reasons to convine me in something else. When I purchase Amsoil I do not need to think about percentages, groups, EOS,... Just pure synthetics (PAO) and - that's it.
Amsoil is good oil, no argument there. I just wish they would drop that 4-ball wear test stuff. It makes them look like a carnival vendor. Other synthetic oil blenders all say it serves no practical purpose. Amsoil gives a good explination of what they are trying to show with the test, but evidently, the message is aimed at less informed consumers.