Honda V6 engines and synthetic oil

formatting link
>>>>

formatting link

discussed this before. "uses" is not "made of". when reading "uses high-performance fluids, including polyalphaolefins" note "fluids" plural, and "including". canned tuna "includes" fats, proteins, ddt and mercury, but what are the proportions?

legally speaking, that's at best imprecise and more typically, "open to interpretation". i'm not an attorney, but i spend a lot of time reading and working with contracts. language like that in a contract would be laughed out of any court if subject to dispute. if you think the contents of mobil's web site has /not/ been thoroughly reviewed by their legal counsel, think again.

Reply to
jim beam
Loading thread data ...

snip

If this is so how can you confuse.......... POLYOFEFIN POLYAMINE SUCCINIMIDE, POLYOL with poly alpha olefins ?

If this is so how can you confuse............ That only thee chemicals are listed and their percentages only add to 7% ?

If this is so how can you confuse........... The fact that msds will only list the hazardous chemicals, therefore

93% of Mobil 1 is not referenced.

If this is so how can you confuse........... The obvious that poly alpha olefin is part of that 93% ?

Reply to
tnom

The best thing you can do for the longevity of your engine is QUIT using quick-lube places. Its only a matter of time until they do something stupid- like forget to drain the old oil and add 5 quarts new on top of it, leave off a drain plug, not change the filter for 10 oil changes in a row, or worst of all- suck the oil out the dipstick instead of properly drain it.

Reply to
Steve

jim beam wrote in news:oLSdnb-vibnp2dzbnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@speakeasy.net:

'K. I just checked your post in sci.materials.

One reply, and that one saying "ofefin" is a typo.

Reply to
Tegger

and that reply is from uncle al. it's a typo.

Reply to
jim beam

because:

  1. it's a typo.
  2. poly alpha olefin is generic
  3. polyolefin polyamine succinimide [pps] is merely a [more] specific subset of possible olefin compounds
  4. pps is /still/ generic in that it's not iupac nomenclature!

er, see above. the whole point is that "pao" is a minor constituent, not base as you have been suckered into believing.

that's not true - you're not required to list "proprietary" or trade secret compounds, simply provide emergency contact details so emergency services can call in the event of accident. the intent of the msds system is to provide the information, but the loophole exists for "commercial reasons".

i must be nuts arguing with someone that doesn't know their chemistry. or legal language.

polyolefin is just a generic term for a class of chemicals like polystyrene or polyethylene. and "ofefin" is a typo.

Reply to
jim beam

jim beam wrote in news:WcydnXjalvLA5t_bnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@speakeasy.net:

I'll go with that. It's a typo.

I just had a read of Uncle Al's stuff. I like it. Good writer.

Reply to
Tegger

he's a rude, obnoxious, opinionated mfsob, but organic chemistry? he knows a thing or two!

Reply to
jim beam

Ofefin is a mistake, purely and simply. Olefins are hydrocarbons which have an unsaturated bond arrangement, or -at least -one double bond.

Propene or propylene (both being similar although two common isomers exist) are just one part of a series of compounds which can be classified as olefins.

Poly(alphaolefins) (my son gives me hell for this terminology..In the newer chemistry language, we might call these poly(1-alkenes) , are compounds which may be composed of a multitude of chemical building blocks, not just propenes or propylenes.

PAO's are good lubricating agents, as are some other organic materials.

OFEFIN is NOT a substance.. It is an error.

Reply to
<HLS

Ok. Next question.

Is POLYOLEFIN POLYAMINE SUCCINIMIDE, POLYOL the same as Poly(alphaolefins)?

Reply to
tnom

yes.

the olefin is the backbone of the molecule.

=/\/\/\/\

we have no idea of the length of the chain.

the amines and succinimide are just radicals that substitute for hydrogens at whatever position on the chain. again, without iupac nomenclature, we have no idea where. likewise the "ols".

"alpha" just means the c=c bond is at the front end of the chain.

Reply to
jim beam

POLYOLEFIN POLYAMINE SUCCINIMIDE, POLYOL is only a part of the PAO content. PAO's are the base stock of Mobil 1 10w-30. This base stock is well over 50%. Mobil 1 will not divulge the exact formulation of their oils. All you have to do to confirm this is call

Product and Technical Information: Lubricants and Specialties: 800-662-4525 800-443-9966

Reply to
tnom

hang on a minute. on 5/7/07, 1:37am, you wrote: "POLYOFEFIN POLYAMINE SUCCINIMIDE is not poly alpha olefin" what's changed?

cite a credible reference that confirms that. all i see in writing is a minority [5%] component, not majority base.

hang on again. on 5/6/07, 9:11am, you wrote: "Mobil1 motor oils are still 100% synthetic motor oils and do not use conventional basestocks in the formulation."

on 5/6/07, 9:54am, you wrote: "even if you went out of your way to interpret the data in a negative way against Mobil 1, then you would still get between 80%-90% synthetic oil."

on 5/6/07, 1:00pm, you wrote: "Mobil 1's base stock (POA) is a least 80%."

now it's only 50%??? where do you get this "information"?

why could that /possibly/ be??? it's not to somehow fool the chemists in their competitor's labs - because they couldn't /possibly/ figure out the composition. no siree bob.

so who else could they /possibly/ be seeking to withhold that information from??? the /paying/ customer? that's paying a premium for something they know nothing about??? no - say it could never be so!

tell you what, /you/ call them and get them to put that in writing - something that *unequivocally* states that pao's *are* the base content, not that they /could/ be or /might/ be. then post it here. or better yet, get them to send you some literature that unequivocally confirms it and email the pdf's or scans to tegger. all you've brought to this debate so far is naivety, ignorance, and a changing story.

Reply to
jim beam

And you were right in your assumption that "POLYOFEFIN POLYAMINE SUCCINIMIDE is the total content of PAO? Remember the base argument. It wasn't about a typo. It was about your assertion that PAO in Mobil is only 5%. You derived that from misinterpreting a MSDS. I said the PAO was much higher.

As far a nothing changing. You are correct. You are still ignoring the truth.

Even one of Mobil 1's competitors rates Mobil's TOTAL content of PAO lower than theirs because they guesstimate Mobil's total PAO content to only be 80%-90% If you look hard enough you can find this information yourself.

You are referencing a quote. The above is true if speaking of basestocks

One of Mobil's competitors did the above. Look it up.

Since Mobil rightfully will not divulge their recipe. The above was taken from Mobil's competitor. Look it up.

Your credibility is nil with this statement. You are giving yourself away. I didn't say 50%. I said well over 50% because Mobil will not divulge the exact number.

Its' a conspiracy.

The astronauts did not land on the moon either. Hush...It was all done on a sound stage.

Call them. Let us know what you learn. Ask them if you read that specific msds correct. Ask them if PAO is only 5% based on your reading of that msds.

Hint: They won't tell you the exact content. It's not because it's only 5% It's because they are protective of their formula.

What about Mobil suing Castrol over the term "Full Synthetic"? They lost the suit but Mobil has always contended that full synthetic meant using PAO as the basestock. They still believe that, but you would rather bash them

Reply to
tnom

based on what??? cite your source!!!

dude, /you/ wrote on 5/10/07, 10:33: "PAO's are the base stock of Mobil 1 10w-30. This base stock is well over 50%."

where did you get that number? i've searched the web extensively, and see nothing authoritative or unequivocal other than the msds filings. all i see /you/ doing is steadily dropping your numbers.

again, /you/ call them and get them to put that in writing - something that *unequivocally* states that pao's *are* the base content. all their web content says it /could/ be, not that it unequivocally /is/. you're the one that wants to believe whatever you want to believe. cite something authoritative.

i'm not bashing them - i've been using m1 myself!!! all i want to know is exactly what i'm paying for. and they won't state that. the only written evidence i have is the legal msds filings showing 5% pao.

all we know for sure is that they say it's "full synthetic", and that "full synthetic" doesn't have to mean pao. it /could/, but mobil stop short of unequivocal language that states that it is. hen when mobils own web site references "supersyn" and how there's 50% /more/ of this stuff in m1 extended performance compared to conventional m1, basic math determines that unless they somehow have pao and "super-pao", then by definition, their "supersyn" pao is a minority component.

so far, all your content here has shown is an ability to self-delude and change your story as you go along. one more chance, then we're done. hard evidence required.

Reply to
jim beam

On May 11, 9:15 am, jim beam wrote: snip

snip

So this is the marketing crux of the issue. Why should Exxon/Mobil use more than 5% PAO when guys like Jim are willing to pay their price? In a previous discussion with Jim, he convinced me I was wasting my money on Mobil 1 and I've been buying whichever "synthetic" is on sale when I need oil. Now if Mobil 1 were to return to their previous practice of using PAO as the base and publishing the data then I'd be happy to resume my former brand loyalty.

Reply to
ACAR

snip

I explained already. Site your source! Don't tell me it's that msds that you can't read correctly.

snip

I'm not dropping the numbers. well over 50% is not 50% and can easily be 80%-90%

How many times do I have to tell you. Mobil will NOT divulge the exact numbers. It is however safe to say that the term "well over 50% " is accurate in that Mobil 1 uses PAO as it's basestock, and the basestock is the major component of oil.

snip

The msds does not show PAO at 5%. Before you start using your interpretation of that msds don't you think it would be better to call them and ask them one simple question. Ask them if you are interpretation that specific msds correctly. Ask them if POLYOLEFIN POLYAMINE SUCCINIMIDE, POLYOL is the total content of PAO. They will tell you no. At that point you can not say that Mobil 1 is 5% pao. You can only say that you wish they would divulge what the actual percentage is. They won't. You'll just have to stay confused for the rest of your life.

snip

The story about PAO being 5% is the only story here.

Reply to
tnom

i'd be a little more cautious than that - the additive package is real important. that's why i still stick to brands i've found to be good in that respect - castrol and mobil.

Reply to
jim beam

eh? game over. b-bye!

Reply to
jim beam

Jim, if you were a member of my negotiating team I'd have to fire you for not being able to read between the lines.

Reply to
ACAR

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.