Originally Posted By: FrankN4
Mobil 1 fans that stay on board will be getting the best oil ever
we always have been
Mobil 1 fans that stay on board will be getting the best oil ever
we always have been
Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
- Status
I agree with what was said above about Mobil having a lot to loose and not much to gain however I feel Valvoline has a lot to loose too. If these claims come out to be totally not true and it was all marketing I personally will never buy their product again. (If I can avoid it.) However if their claims are true I will use it a lot!
There is no doubt that M1 failed the (one) test. Those looking for data can find it in the Jobers World link at bottom of page 10. The statements from E-M on GF-4 licensing in the link provided by Johnny on page 18 are typical corporate speak. If you read is closely, it’s apparent that E-M doesn’t dispute Valvoline’s claim. E-M only claims their licenses are valid.
I suspect licenses are granted based on test data of a certain formula, and the license remains valid as long as the tested and licensed formula (or equivalent) is used. With the sample Valvoline tested, E-M obviously used a formula that failed to meet the GF-4 requirements. Only E-M knows if they knew the formula used would not meet GF-4 when they produced it. So the fact that E-M’s GF-4 license remains valid means nothing. What matters is whether E-M has corrected the problem in production, or is ignoring the failure and continuing to use the same formula. Since they are so full of themselves, they may never say.
I suspect licenses are granted based on test data of a certain formula, and the license remains valid as long as the tested and licensed formula (or equivalent) is used. With the sample Valvoline tested, E-M obviously used a formula that failed to meet the GF-4 requirements. Only E-M knows if they knew the formula used would not meet GF-4 when they produced it. So the fact that E-M’s GF-4 license remains valid means nothing. What matters is whether E-M has corrected the problem in production, or is ignoring the failure and continuing to use the same formula. Since they are so full of themselves, they may never say.
This subject isn't on the T.V news I wonder if Mobil really cares?
Yea, the true test will be whether Valvoline starts making commercials about this!
I'm going to weigh in here after throwing in some stones here and there.
Mobil makes quality products, in general. Their ATF, gear lubes, greases, and oils are of very high quality.
I think this whole 5w30 thing is a mess, whether true or not. The bottom line is that if the 5w30 is not meeting specs, then Mobil has some issues they need to deal with. However, this is one grade. A common grade, yes, but let's look at the whole picture here. Also, let's give them a chance to really reply and prove one way or another.
I ran M1 5w30 in a GM 3.4 for 6 years, 70k miles, and TONS of harsh conditions. Always started, returned good MPG, and was running good as new when I sold it. No leaks, no nothing.
I have a supply of cheaply purchased Synpower. Fine oil, but from my UOA's and friends, it shears like crazy in the 5w30 grade. Even in my little 2.3 Mazda. Does this bother me? Yes and no. Will it make me stop using it? Not when it's this cheap!
My point is...let's look at Mobil as a whole. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and hope they give a better response...SOON! If there is a problem, let's just hope they fix it, and quick.
I have to change the oil on the 3 this week. It's cold here, and since I can't find 5w20/30 in M1, I'll probably use M1 10w30...and I'll use it with confidence.
Mobil makes quality products, in general. Their ATF, gear lubes, greases, and oils are of very high quality.
I think this whole 5w30 thing is a mess, whether true or not. The bottom line is that if the 5w30 is not meeting specs, then Mobil has some issues they need to deal with. However, this is one grade. A common grade, yes, but let's look at the whole picture here. Also, let's give them a chance to really reply and prove one way or another.
I ran M1 5w30 in a GM 3.4 for 6 years, 70k miles, and TONS of harsh conditions. Always started, returned good MPG, and was running good as new when I sold it. No leaks, no nothing.
I have a supply of cheaply purchased Synpower. Fine oil, but from my UOA's and friends, it shears like crazy in the 5w30 grade. Even in my little 2.3 Mazda. Does this bother me? Yes and no. Will it make me stop using it? Not when it's this cheap!
My point is...let's look at Mobil as a whole. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and hope they give a better response...SOON! If there is a problem, let's just hope they fix it, and quick.
I have to change the oil on the 3 this week. It's cold here, and since I can't find 5w20/30 in M1, I'll probably use M1 10w30...and I'll use it with confidence.
Has anyone gotten any email replies back from Mobil, other than the one my brother had me post?
I'm thinking that once Valvoline found this issue, they must have tested and retested the balance of the Mobil 1 product line and didn't find any issues. If they did they'd be all over it.
The good news is I can easily cash my stash in if and when I see fit.
Frank D
I'm thinking that once Valvoline found this issue, they must have tested and retested the balance of the Mobil 1 product line and didn't find any issues. If they did they'd be all over it.
The good news is I can easily cash my stash in if and when I see fit.
Frank D
What Brian Barnhart said above is true for a lot of industrial "recipes". I was involved for many years with a fire tested insulation product that was certified to fire performance by an outside third party of high repute. Once we showed that we passed the test to their satisfaction, they received a copy of our highly confidential formula. Then, on unannounced visits to our factory, they would demand to see the formula sheet that the operators were working from. ANy deviation from what they had been given set off alarms that were NOT good for us. I would suspect that EM works the same way with oil quialification. Even if you religiously follow a formulation, small variations in raw materials can run you back and forth statistically over "the line". As long as those are small variatiions, it is the overall adherance to a statistical value that you are shooting for. I wonder how Ashland would fare if we spent money and rounded up bottles of their product from around the US and started testing every property that they say they have.
Quote:
Thank you for your inquiry,
We are aware of Valvoline's claim, ExxonMobil stands behind the performance of our motor oils and products. Mobil1 5W30 motor oil is API "SM" rated along with ILSAC GF-4, and they are licensed.
-- Thank you for choosing ExxonMobil products.
If you need further assistance, please contact ExxonMobil at 1-800-ASK-MOBIL
MJ
Thank you for your inquiry,
We are aware of Valvoline's claim, ExxonMobil stands behind the performance of our motor oils and products. Mobil1 5W30 motor oil is API "SM" rated along with ILSAC GF-4, and they are licensed.
-- Thank you for choosing ExxonMobil products.
If you need further assistance, please contact ExxonMobil at 1-800-ASK-MOBIL
MJ
While driving home today I had this bit of thought, If Exxon Mobil said a product of theirs was SM-rated but in actuality was not, wouldn't that make them responsible for any voided warranty as a result of its use?
Food for thought on this Wednesday afternoon. . .
Food for thought on this Wednesday afternoon. . .
Here is their response to me:
(no subject)
From: ExxonMobil ([email protected])
Sent: Thu 12/18/08 12:15 AM
We are aware of Valvoline'sclaims and we stand behind the quality and performance of our oils.Additionally, all our API and GF-4 licenses are valid. -MJ
(no subject)
From: ExxonMobil ([email protected])
Sent: Thu 12/18/08 12:15 AM
We are aware of Valvoline'sclaims and we stand behind the quality and performance of our oils.Additionally, all our API and GF-4 licenses are valid. -MJ
I guess MJ was assigned the task of dealing with us concerned BITOG'ers. Here is another email me brother sent them with his concerns, he posted a link for them to view.
Their reply:
----------------------------------------------------------------
He sent this:
> Another link fyi: http://jobbersworld.com/valvolineq&Apage1.htm
> /jobbersworld.com/valvolineq&Apage1.htm> since I have a lot of
> money invested in my car I am concerned.
>
The reply
ExxonMobil does not have anymore comments on the subject, as stated
below Mobil1 5W30 and all of our branded API "SM" and ILSAC GF-4 motor
oils are licensed and they are valid, no reason for concern. Mobil1 5W30
is trusted for the vehicles listed below by GM it will will perform and
protect your vehicle as well.
-MJ
Their reply:
----------------------------------------------------------------
He sent this:
> Another link fyi: http://jobbersworld.com/valvolineq&Apage1.htm
> /jobbersworld.com/valvolineq&Apage1.htm> since I have a lot of
> money invested in my car I am concerned.
>
The reply
ExxonMobil does not have anymore comments on the subject, as stated
below Mobil1 5W30 and all of our branded API "SM" and ILSAC GF-4 motor
oils are licensed and they are valid, no reason for concern. Mobil1 5W30
is trusted for the vehicles listed below by GM it will will perform and
protect your vehicle as well.
-MJ
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
When I attended the chevron summit last month, one thing that I noted was that they test all of their main competitors' oils (including the less well known ones) for every test of importance, and know how they rank.
It was noted that some competitors fell below the mark by a slight bit in some tests.
Slight is a relative term, but the way chevron showed it (they showed the metric with real units), the guys that were low were just barely below threshold, and could even be within analytical error. 6% RSD is pretty good for many analytical techniques.
I'm not surprised, I think Chevron is the best and most straightforward oil company around.
Speaking of the Chevron summit, did you find out anything on the Chevron Supreme Synthetic there?
When I attended the chevron summit last month, one thing that I noted was that they test all of their main competitors' oils (including the less well known ones) for every test of importance, and know how they rank.
It was noted that some competitors fell below the mark by a slight bit in some tests.
Slight is a relative term, but the way chevron showed it (they showed the metric with real units), the guys that were low were just barely below threshold, and could even be within analytical error. 6% RSD is pretty good for many analytical techniques.
I'm not surprised, I think Chevron is the best and most straightforward oil company around.
Speaking of the Chevron summit, did you find out anything on the Chevron Supreme Synthetic there?
Originally Posted By: Nyquist
While driving home today I had this bit of thought, If Exxon Mobil said a product of theirs was SM-rated but in actuality was not, wouldn't that make them responsible for any voided warranty as a result of its use?
Food for thought on this Wednesday afternoon. . .
Yes it would. I have talked about this a bit here.
While driving home today I had this bit of thought, If Exxon Mobil said a product of theirs was SM-rated but in actuality was not, wouldn't that make them responsible for any voided warranty as a result of its use?
Food for thought on this Wednesday afternoon. . .
Yes it would. I have talked about this a bit here.
Exxon has it printed on all there bottles(Meets API SM, ect. . .)
and they have been marketing it as it meets the specs forever.
Even if they know it dose not meet the specs now, they will still market it as though it dose untill there ordered not to in the courts.
I would think that if the statements are true, XOM has allready fixed the issue.
and they have been marketing it as it meets the specs forever.
Even if they know it dose not meet the specs now, they will still market it as though it dose untill there ordered not to in the courts.
I would think that if the statements are true, XOM has allready fixed the issue.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
When I attended the chevron summit last month, one thing that I noted was that they test all of their main competitors' oils (including the less well known ones) for every test of importance, and know how they rank.
It was noted that some competitors fell below the mark by a slight bit in some tests.
Slight is a relative term, but the way chevron showed it (they showed the metric with real units), the guys that were low were just barely below threshold, and could even be within analytical error. 6% RSD is pretty good for many analytical techniques.
M1 may be in such a situation - they meet most everything, but valvoline has data to prove they are just below the cusp.
Another explanation is that M1 doesn't meet spec (which allows a certain amount of test and production variation), and Chevron's testing (if that's whose product they were even referring to) shows M1 as failing by a "slight" margin, and Valvoline's data (to include the independent lab) shows that they're not even close. IF such were the case, then that would suggest that the overall average result is between slightly and massively deficient.
That XOM ignores results and claims validity of their licenses only after significant elapsed silence suggests very, very strongly to me that they don't meet spec and they know it. Their product's deficiency may or may not be fixed by now, but the simple, plain fact is that they have (had) a licensed product that doesn't meet spec, and probably isn't all that close.
We all get to decide why for ourselves.
When I attended the chevron summit last month, one thing that I noted was that they test all of their main competitors' oils (including the less well known ones) for every test of importance, and know how they rank.
It was noted that some competitors fell below the mark by a slight bit in some tests.
Slight is a relative term, but the way chevron showed it (they showed the metric with real units), the guys that were low were just barely below threshold, and could even be within analytical error. 6% RSD is pretty good for many analytical techniques.
M1 may be in such a situation - they meet most everything, but valvoline has data to prove they are just below the cusp.
Another explanation is that M1 doesn't meet spec (which allows a certain amount of test and production variation), and Chevron's testing (if that's whose product they were even referring to) shows M1 as failing by a "slight" margin, and Valvoline's data (to include the independent lab) shows that they're not even close. IF such were the case, then that would suggest that the overall average result is between slightly and massively deficient.
That XOM ignores results and claims validity of their licenses only after significant elapsed silence suggests very, very strongly to me that they don't meet spec and they know it. Their product's deficiency may or may not be fixed by now, but the simple, plain fact is that they have (had) a licensed product that doesn't meet spec, and probably isn't all that close.
We all get to decide why for ourselves.
Quote:
That XOM ignores results and claims validity of their licenses only after significant elapsed silence suggests very, very strongly to me that they don't meet spec and they know it. Their product's deficiency may or may not be fixed by now, but the simple, plain fact is that they have (had) a licensed product that doesn't meet spec, and probably isn't all that close.
Yup.
In addition, Valvoline has also done some other testing on the competition. Valvman posted this in another thread:
Quote:
About a year ago Valvoline conducted a survey of various 5W-30 conventional products on shear stability and stay-in-grade performance. We went to our local Advance Auto Parts and purchased quarts of the products listed below. We noted that each product was currently labeled with the API SM donut and carried the ILSAC GF-4 starburst. I have included the results of the ASTM D6278 Kurt Orbahn (Bosch diesel injector) test which is typically used to evaluate stay-in-grade shear performance for engine oils. The current API requirement for BOI or VGRA (baseoil interchange or viscosity grade readacross) purposes for a 5W-30 stay-in-grade limit is 8.5cSt. Any 5W-30 that shears below this viscosity does not meet this API requirement for BOI or VGRA. The 8.5cSt viscosity limit is actually below the SAE J300 lower viscosity limit of 9.3cSt. for a SAE 30 grade because the Kurt Orbahn test is more severe than the Seq VIII engine test used to evaluate shear stability when running an API oil licensing program. European ACEA requirements are more severe requiring a higher performance level and a stay-in-grade pass uses the SAE J300 viscosity lower limits. So a 5W-30 must retain a minimum of 9.3cSt after the test. Out of all the oils tested, only the Valvoline oil showed the ACEA level of stay-in-grade performance.
Product Name Valvoline Premium Conv, Castrol GTX, Havoline,Mobil Clean 5000, Quaker State, Pennzoil
SAE Grade all 5W-30
Kinematic Viscosity @40C,cSt: 60.17, 60.59, 54.90, 60.16, 62.46, 61.07
Kinematic Viscosity @100C,cSt: 10.66, 10.59, 9.71, 10.55, 10.43, 10.49
ASTM D6278 Kurt Orbahn Shear (30 pass)
Kin Vis @ 100C, cSt after Shear: 9.42, 9.04, 8.89, 8.8, 8.68, 8.63
Looks like Valvoline has integrity.
That XOM ignores results and claims validity of their licenses only after significant elapsed silence suggests very, very strongly to me that they don't meet spec and they know it. Their product's deficiency may or may not be fixed by now, but the simple, plain fact is that they have (had) a licensed product that doesn't meet spec, and probably isn't all that close.
Yup.
In addition, Valvoline has also done some other testing on the competition. Valvman posted this in another thread:
Quote:
About a year ago Valvoline conducted a survey of various 5W-30 conventional products on shear stability and stay-in-grade performance. We went to our local Advance Auto Parts and purchased quarts of the products listed below. We noted that each product was currently labeled with the API SM donut and carried the ILSAC GF-4 starburst. I have included the results of the ASTM D6278 Kurt Orbahn (Bosch diesel injector) test which is typically used to evaluate stay-in-grade shear performance for engine oils. The current API requirement for BOI or VGRA (baseoil interchange or viscosity grade readacross) purposes for a 5W-30 stay-in-grade limit is 8.5cSt. Any 5W-30 that shears below this viscosity does not meet this API requirement for BOI or VGRA. The 8.5cSt viscosity limit is actually below the SAE J300 lower viscosity limit of 9.3cSt. for a SAE 30 grade because the Kurt Orbahn test is more severe than the Seq VIII engine test used to evaluate shear stability when running an API oil licensing program. European ACEA requirements are more severe requiring a higher performance level and a stay-in-grade pass uses the SAE J300 viscosity lower limits. So a 5W-30 must retain a minimum of 9.3cSt after the test. Out of all the oils tested, only the Valvoline oil showed the ACEA level of stay-in-grade performance.
Product Name Valvoline Premium Conv, Castrol GTX, Havoline,Mobil Clean 5000, Quaker State, Pennzoil
SAE Grade all 5W-30
Kinematic Viscosity @40C,cSt: 60.17, 60.59, 54.90, 60.16, 62.46, 61.07
Kinematic Viscosity @100C,cSt: 10.66, 10.59, 9.71, 10.55, 10.43, 10.49
ASTM D6278 Kurt Orbahn Shear (30 pass)
Kin Vis @ 100C, cSt after Shear: 9.42, 9.04, 8.89, 8.8, 8.68, 8.63
Looks like Valvoline has integrity.
how often does the API run test's on oils? (hypothetically speaking)What if they ran the test a year ago and it passed, but formulas have changed since then, and now it doesnt pass. Can MJ still say they are API liscenced and valid because the certification hasnt expired?
When was the last time M1 5w30 was actually put under the knife by the API?
When was the last time M1 5w30 was actually put under the knife by the API?
Originally Posted By: hooligan24
how often does the API run test's on oils? (hypothetically speaking)What if they ran the test a year ago and it passed, but formulas have changed since then, and now it doesnt pass. Can MJ still say they are API liscenced and valid because the certification hasnt expired?
When was the last time M1 5w30 was actually put under the knife by the API?
It either meets API SM / GF-4 specs or it doesnt. Theres no gray area.
I believe(I could be wrong) that the oil is only tested once by the API to make sure it meets API SM. After that(I think) its up to the oil maker to maintain the oils integrity.
how often does the API run test's on oils? (hypothetically speaking)What if they ran the test a year ago and it passed, but formulas have changed since then, and now it doesnt pass. Can MJ still say they are API liscenced and valid because the certification hasnt expired?
When was the last time M1 5w30 was actually put under the knife by the API?
It either meets API SM / GF-4 specs or it doesnt. Theres no gray area.
I believe(I could be wrong) that the oil is only tested once by the API to make sure it meets API SM. After that(I think) its up to the oil maker to maintain the oils integrity.
- Status
