motor oil thoughts

i'm sure we've all read the story about castrol and mobil's legal
struggle over use of the word "synthetic". to recap, we have
"synthetic" as in poly alpha olefins [pao's] and "synthetic" as in group
III mineral oils as per the following descriptions:

from
http://www.valvoline.com/carcare/articleviewer.asp?pg=vcc20060101so&cccid=2&scccid=2
we read

"...synthetic base oils are created through a series of chemical
synthesis. The starting materials may be a mixture of relatively pure
small molecules. In this case the small molecules are combined to make
new, larger molecules. Alternatively the starting material may be a
broad mixture of larger molecules. In this case the large molecules are
broken down and rearranged."

i.e. valvoline's defintion of "synthetic" include both pao's /and/ group
III's since they use the word "alternatively" rather than something
inclusive like "additionally". i think we can therefore conclude that
valvoline doesn't include pao's - ok, no problem so far.

otoh, we have
http://mobil1.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Synthetics/Why_Synthetics.aspx
where we have

"...Mobil 1® uses high-performance fluids, including polyalphaolefins
(PAOs)"

note the magic word "including". by reputation, M1 has a pao base, but
use of that one simple word clearly leaves the door wide open for
something else. so, reading further we have:

http://mobil1.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Oils/Mobil_1_Extended_Performance_FAQs.aspx#FAQs2
where:

"...Mobil 1 Extended Performance, with the Advanced SuperSyn System,
contains 50 percent more SuperSyn than Mobil 1."

really? so, since "SuperSyn" is the magic pao ingredient, how is it
mathematically possible for one type to contain "50% more" pao if pao is
the base for both??? answer: it's not.

conclusion:
the much-vaunted mobil 1 is not as is popularly believed. it's simply a
group III mineral oil, with additives, /including/ pao's, the
proportions of which are undetermined, but may vary depending on price
point.

personally, i'd like to see ingredients lists on oil like we have for
foods or things like shampoo. that latter is an extremely high margin
and competitive industry. constituent lists for shampoo enjoy legal
protections, so fear of competition is no excuse. why not publish
constituent lists for motor oil? there's no legal reason not to do it.

 

I suppose this would be fine, but it would also be meaningless to 99.99%
of consumers. And, ultimately, what's important is which service grades
(e.g. ILSAC, API, manufacturer specs) the oil is tested and proven to meet.

 

both oil and shampoo, but is that a reason? i think not. consumers are
quite capable of reading food ingredient labels if they have an allergy
- i see no difference here other than oilcos not having as much vacuum
into which marketing can be injected, but that doesn't disadvantage the
consumer.

 

You pour shampoo on your head, at least I do. You don't pour motor oil on
your head, at least I don't. People having their hair fall out and getting
strange rashes from poorly concocted formulations is thought to be the
business of government, while having your pockets emptied is your own
lookout. It's not a problem if you don't buy synthetic.

Earle

 

"thought to be" vs. "is"??? how do you differentiate? consumers only
get to know where their money goes if it's a health issue but anything
else is fair game? revealing perspective.

 

Jim, I think you nailed it. I've been convinced for a long time:
Synthetics are a blend, because it costs too much to synthesize a whole
quart to sell for only $6.00.

That means that the "synthetic blends" are a misnomer; they're just
/further diluted/ synthetic base with a whole lot of mineral oil.

Unjust enrichment, bait and switch deceptive ads, disgorgement of
profits, all that class action stuff, will probably get us fifty-cent
off coupons in 2 or 3 years when some law firm gets hold of this.