Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: buster
I'm just interested in whether M1 passes the Seq IVA in order to meet API SM/ILSAC GF4.


That is very much a grave area of concern here and one that should definitely be the top of their priority list in addressing, since this latest claim is by far the most bold!
 
Originally Posted By: bulwnkl
Surely you don't think that XOM hasn't previously seen this thread?

The letter itself isn't particularly risky for Valvoline at all. They made contact with XOM first, and informed them that testing indicated that M1 did not meet SM/GF-4 requirements. That communication was neither public nor risky. At that point, Valvoline only publicly claimed that SynPower protected better than M1.


With no response from XOM after 2 months and in fact an off-point counterattack, Valvoline upped the ante by disclosing to a wider audience that testing at an independent lab showed failure to meet spec. There remains an invitation to XOM to provide information demonstrating that their product does actually meet spec. Still not risky, and still no on-point response from XOM. I'd say that XOM is messing their pants. I just don't know whether it's because they screwed up or because they got caught.



Not risky?!!!?!

Saying XMO dose not meet the Specs they advertise they do is VERY RISKY.
If it is a lie on Ashlands part it is Slander. Look it up. If it turns out to be false, XOM will bury Ashland in court. Ashland will have to pay so much money in Punitive damages they will have no choice but to file for bankruptcy and close down.
 
Originally Posted By: rg200amp
Originally Posted By: bulwnkl
Surely you don't think that XOM hasn't previously seen this thread?

The letter itself isn't particularly risky for Valvoline at all. They made contact with XOM first, and informed them that testing indicated that M1 did not meet SM/GF-4 requirements. That communication was neither public nor risky. At that point, Valvoline only publicly claimed that SynPower protected better than M1.


With no response from XOM after 2 months and in fact an off-point counterattack, Valvoline upped the ante by disclosing to a wider audience that testing at an independent lab showed failure to meet spec. There remains an invitation to XOM to provide information demonstrating that their product does actually meet spec. Still not risky, and still no on-point response from XOM. I'd say that XOM is messing their pants. I just don't know whether it's because they screwed up or because they got caught.



Not risky?!!!?!

Saying XMO dose not meet the Specs they advertise they do is VERY RISKY.
If it is a lie on Ashlands part it is Slander. Look it up. If it turns out to be false, XOM will bury Ashland in court. Ashland will have to pay so much money in Punitive damages they will have no choice but to file for bankruptcy and close down.



It's like playing hot potato with a hand grenade with the pin pulled.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: rg200amp
Originally Posted By: bulwnkl
Surely you don't think that XOM hasn't previously seen this thread?

The letter itself isn't particularly risky for Valvoline at all. They made contact with XOM first, and informed them that testing indicated that M1 did not meet SM/GF-4 requirements. That communication was neither public nor risky. At that point, Valvoline only publicly claimed that SynPower protected better than M1.


With no response from XOM after 2 months and in fact an off-point counterattack, Valvoline upped the ante by disclosing to a wider audience that testing at an independent lab showed failure to meet spec. There remains an invitation to XOM to provide information demonstrating that their product does actually meet spec. Still not risky, and still no on-point response from XOM. I'd say that XOM is messing their pants. I just don't know whether it's because they screwed up or because they got caught.



Not risky?!!!?!

Saying XMO dose not meet the Specs they advertise they do is VERY RISKY.
If it is a lie on Ashlands part it is Slander. Look it up. If it turns out to be false, XOM will bury Ashland in court. Ashland will have to pay so much money in Punitive damages they will have no choice but to file for bankruptcy and close down.



It's like playing hot potato with a hand grenade with the pin pulled.


Some one is going to get BLOWN UP
01.gif
 
It's not risky to provide lab testing demonstrating non-compliance. It's not slander, nor libel, nor anything else but test results. The fact that they've now (after 2 months of non-response) disclosed the results of the independent testing to a wider audience is a very good way to improve our confidence that's it's real, honest Seq IVA testing. M1 failed in those tests, and there's really very little room to dispute that at this point. Valvoline may be clever (and excellent R&D folks), but they're not stupid. This is not made-up, and it's not a lie.

I repeat: I'm guessing that XOM is [censored] their pants. I just don't know whether it's because they screwed up, or because they got caught.
 
Originally Posted By: bulwnkl
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
I've contacted Exxon Mobil, linked them to the jobberworld article and this thread.


Surely you don't think that XOM hasn't previously seen both the article and this thread?

The letter itself isn't particularly risky for Valvoline at all. They made contact with XOM first, and informed them that testing indicated that M1 did not meet SM/GF-4 requirements. That communication was neither public nor risky. At that point, Valvoline only publicly claimed that SynPower protected better than M1.

With no response from XOM after 2 months and in fact an off-point counterattack, Valvoline upped the ante by disclosing to a wider audience that testing at an independent lab showed failure to meet spec. There remains an invitation to XOM to provide information demonstrating that their product does actually meet spec. Still not risky, and still no on-point response from XOM. I'd say that XOM is messing their pants. I just don't know whether it's because they screwed up or because they got caught.


This isn't "Survivor All-Stars". One doesn't simply "up the ante" with a company the size of Exxon Mobil. They make more money in a day than Ashland makes in a YEAR.

This is like a GreenPeace vessel shooting a .22 at the USS Alabama....
 
Originally Posted By: bulwnkl
It's not risky to provide lab testing demonstrating non-compliance. It's not slander, nor libel, nor anything else but test results. The fact that they've now (after 2 months of non-response) disclosed the results of the independent testing to a wider audience guarantees that's it's real, honest Seq IVA testing. M1 failed in those tests, and there's really very little room to dispute that at this point. Valvoline may be clever (and excellent R&D folks), but they're not stupid. This is not made-up, and it's not a lie.

I repeat: I'm guessing that XOM is [censored] their pants. I just don't know whether it's because they screwed up, or because they got caught.


We have yet to see the proof. We do not know if XOM is in the wrong. Ashland says they have proof. Where are the lab documents??

I understand its test results. BUt saying you have test results and showing them are two diffrent things. What if the lab got it wrong? What if a court order goes out to get a bottle of Mobile one from every state in a random store. They test them, and find out it dose meet the specs.

THere are alot of what ifs here. This will go to court.
 
Originally Posted By: bulwnkl
It's not risky to provide lab testing demonstrating non-compliance. It's not slander, nor libel, nor anything else but test results. The fact that they've now (after 2 months of non-response) disclosed the results of the independent testing to a wider audience is a very good way to improve our confidence that's it's real, honest Seq IVA testing. M1 failed in those tests, and there's really very little room to dispute that at this point. Valvoline may be clever (and excellent R&D folks), but they're not stupid. This is not made-up, and it's not a lie.

I repeat: I'm guessing that XOM is [censored] their pants. I just don't know whether it's because they screwed up, or because they got caught.



OR

Exxon Mobil is performing MASSIVE testing and compiling a lawsuit so large and so bulletproof that Ashland will be out of business the day it's served.

Remember the Exxon Valdez spill? Remember the repercussions from that? Was Exxon Mobil [censored] their pants? Or did they turn around and become the most profitable company in history?

As much as you are rooting for the underdog here, I feel my battleship and the greenpeace boat analogy to be correct.
 
You guys really are 'fraidy-cats, aren't you? Ashland isn't big enough for XOM to care about. If XOM could realistically put any of their competitors out of business, they would have done so already. Plus, and this is the point so many are ignoring, XOM's product failed the tests performed at an independent lab.

EDIT: The worst thing that might happen here is XOM takes Ashland/Valvoline to the advertising arbitration board where they took BP/Castol (and lost). XOM may even be able to support their contention of compliance. The fact that they haven't yet is ...well not good for those who want Valvoline to be lying.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: bulwnkl
You guys really are 'fraidy-cats, aren't you? Ashland isn't big enough for XOM to care about. If XOM could realistically put any of their competitors out of business, they would have done so already. Plus, and this is the point so many are ignoring, XOM's product failed the tests performed at an independent lab.


And the lab couldn't be wrong? The test couldn't have been screwed up?

How many UOA's have we had from Blackstone on here that have been wrong? How many VOA's?

Labs can err!

And IF Exxon Mobil gets 30 labs to test it and it passes at all 30, then what's going to happen here? Ashland isn't just going to be able to say "my bad!
banana2.gif
" and things be hunky dory.....
 
Originally Posted By: bulwnkl
Still ignoring the point...
LOL.gif



I'm not quite sure what your point is.

You seem to think the "silent time" is indication of EM's guilt.

I seem to think that it may be that they are just creating a very large case to bury this.

Other than the letter from Valvoline we have no idea as to what's going on.........
 
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL


Remember the Exxon Valdez spill? Remember the repercussions from that? Was Exxon Mobil [censored] their pants? Or did they turn around and become the most profitable company in history?


Good point.
 
Originally Posted By: bulwnkl
You guys really are 'fraidy-cats, aren't you? Ashland isn't big enough for XOM to care about. If XOM could realistically put any of their competitors out of business, they would have done so already. Plus, and this is the point so many are ignoring, XOM's product failed the tests performed at an independent lab.


Ashland says it has proof. No one has seen it. Why would a company make a claim like this and not show the proof??

You cant just put a company out of business. If a company makes these kinds of statements and market them to the whole public, you do not think Mobil is loseing money because of this?? Now if mobil is not in the wrong, they will sue for all the lost money because of this add from ashland, and then they will get money ontop of that from which the court will order as punishment to Ashland. Ashland isn't big enough???? Who is Mobil one on the shelve next too???

This is basic law 101. If you can not back up your satements that degrade a person or company, that person or company can sue.

I am not saying Ashland is lieing. They may have hard proof.
XOM's product failed *a wear test, preformed by an *Independent lab.

What lab, where, when, ect. . . I can fail a drug test if I eat hamburgers on Poppy seed buns. DO I do drugs???? NO.
XOM, the biggest retailer of base oil. The oil company most used for OEM. The number ONE selling brand. The pioneers in synthetic oil development.XOM Is accused of not meeting a MANDATED API spec. NO carmaker allowes motor oil not meeting This spec. today.

Why would XOM put there company on the line, when it is SOOOO EASY to meet these specs. [censored], Ashland (who is worth penuts compared to XOM) can meet this Cert. Why would XOM's Mobil 1(the number one selling oil) not???

This is a hairy subject. But Thinking Ashland is right and XOM is wrong because Ashland "says" they have lab tests(but will not show them to the public) is crazy.

I am not saying one way or another what company is right untill allthe facts are out on the table. THis will go to court. It will be a major news story. Saying one way or another now is pointless. We have Heresay and thats it.
 
Originally Posted By: oilyriser
So if people switch to Synpower, the base oils of which are made by xom...


I believe I stated Exxon Mobil is the most profitable company in history
wink.gif
 
The letter is vague at best.

How many tests did they run?
How many different oil samples/different batches of oil did they use?
I want to see the wear rates in numbers? like .0003/.0012 etc...
What Independent lab did they use?

Interesting how the letter says they have been testing for a couple years. Did it just fail now? Did it fail every test?

That test doesn't really mean much to me as I don't idle alot or do stop and go driving. I am mostly Hwy driving. That might be very important to people in big cities that have bumper to bumper traffic.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top