Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
I was talking with a legal type(family) earlier and he said every independent lab in the country could show Mobil 1(or anyone else) failed or passed and none of it would be allowed in any US court. Only test done by the licensing agency meant anything. Tests done by and "RESULTS REPORTED" by a competitor would make the competitor liable if they stated test results as authoritative unless they were able to get the licensing agency to do the actual testing and "REPORTING". That is, they could report their many repeated results to the licensing agency and demand, but not mandate, an agency test. That is like all you folk that have base oil analyzed by various folk that have a decent chemistry lab and have to keep your mouth shut.(tough...aint it)

I know this is lawyer talk, but it is lawyers that will handle the situation. He said Ashland was MUCH, MUCH more at risk for legal action than Mobil. Mobil would most likely prove their API license status and go about business. Ashland was most likely counting on that, but look at the free advertisement. A calculated risk.
 
Originally Posted By: FrankN4
I was talking with a legal type(family) earlier and he said every independent lab in the country could show Mobil 1(or anyone else) failed or passed and none of it would be allowed in any US court. Only test done by the licensing agency meant anything. Tests done by and "RESULTS REPORTED" by a competitor would make the competitor liable if they stated test results as authoritative unless they were able to get the licensing agency to do the actual testing and "REPORTING". That is, they could report their many repeated results to the licensing agency and demand, but not mandate, an agency test. That is like all you folk that have base oil analyzed by various folk that have a decent chemistry lab and have to keep your mouth shut.(tough...aint it)

I know this is lawyer talk, but it is lawyers that will handle the situation. He said Ashland was MUCH, MUCH more at risk for legal action than Mobil. Mobil would most likely prove their API license status and go about business. Ashland was most likely counting on that, but look at the free advertisement. A calculated risk.



Sounds intresting.
 
I believe their results in the test mentioned. I would like to know ALL the details of the test, but I believe "as they reported under their situation." It just has no meaning legally. Only API can say pass or fail, license granted or denied.

If Mobil is guilty as accused, it will take API to say so. If API says so, I hope Ashland milks it for all it is worth because, of all companies, Mobil 1 has the resources in every area to make nothing but a premium product. They don't have to cut corners.

API may decide it is not worth looking at. Mobil is not making a fuss.
 
Obviously Synpower just isn't selling nearly as well as Mobil 1, Pennzoil Platinum, etc etc etc. Sales must really be down with Synpower to pull out the "4x better strategy". Like I said previously, clever marketers at work to get sales going. As I good rule of thumb in any area of life, "believe what you see, not what you hear."
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: buster
7th video down. "Valvoline Lab". They are the only oil company with it's own engine testing facility that can qualify passenger car oils.

http://www.valvoline.com/pages/media/index.asp




Well, that's a pretty good advertising, promotional video but don't think for a minute that Valvoline is the only oil company that does this. Shell's West Hollow Research Lab in Southwest Houston is 5 to 10 times the size of what Valvoline has. This is where Shell test and formulates it's oils for every car known to man, every large diesel engine there is, all outboard engines, motorcycle engines, and even outdoor power equipment. They have more engine test stands than most of the engine manufactures do. Then you can go to Exxon/Mobils Research Lab in Fairfax, VA., same thing, or Chevron's Research Lab outside of San Francisco, or the ConocoPhillips Research Lab in Bartelsville, OK. Heck, to listen to Valvoline you would think they were the only ones that knew how to formulate oil. Oh and by the way, they were not the first one to make a multi-vis oil.

There, rant over. I hate marketing B.S. and I can spot it a mile away.
 
Originally Posted By: FrankN4
I was talking with a legal type(family) earlier and he said every independent lab in the country could show Mobil 1(or anyone else) failed or passed and none of it would be allowed in any US court. Only test done by the licensing agency meant anything. Tests done by and "RESULTS REPORTED" by a competitor would make the competitor liable if they stated test results as authoritative unless they were able to get the licensing agency to do the actual testing and "REPORTING". That is, they could report their many repeated results to the licensing agency and demand, but not mandate, an agency test. That is like all you folk that have base oil analyzed by various folk that have a decent chemistry lab and have to keep your mouth shut.(tough...aint it)

I know this is lawyer talk, but it is lawyers that will handle the situation. He said Ashland was MUCH, MUCH more at risk for legal action than Mobil. Mobil would most likely prove their API license status and go about business. Ashland was most likely counting on that, but look at the free advertisement. A calculated risk.


I doubt that only the licensing lab could do the tests. Labs are certified for certain tests they apply accreditation for. If the national certifying body OK's any lab to do that test and they have certification to do that specific test, it is a valid test and should be legal.
 
Originally Posted By: Neil_A

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 just got an e-mail reply back from Exxon/Mobil that is exactly the same.
 
21 pages of this thread, just shows the power of a good marketing campaign.

I'm from the same camp as Johnny, "I hate marketing B.S. and I can spot it a mile away."

I recall reading on this board that XOM gas is not top tier either (corrrect me if I'm wrong). Could be Mobil 1 is at the lower limit of the specs, just like their gas, and they really are all about profit. Their balance sheet proves it.

JMO
Frank D
 
Originally Posted By: Johnny
Well, that's a pretty good advertising, promotional video but don't think for a minute that Valvoline is the only oil company that does this. Shell's West Hollow Research Lab in Southwest Houston is 5 to 10 times the size of what Valvoline has. This is where Shell test and formulates it's oils for every car known to man, every large diesel engine there is, all outboard engines, motorcycle engines, and even outdoor power equipment. They have more engine test stands than most of the engine manufactures do. Then you can go to Exxon/Mobils Research Lab in Fairfax, VA., same thing, or Chevron's Research Lab outside of San Francisco, or the ConocoPhillips Research Lab in Bartelsville, OK. Heck, to listen to Valvoline you would think they were the only ones that knew how to formulate oil. Oh and by the way, they were not the first one to make a multi-vis oil.

There, rant over. I hate marketing B.S. and I can spot it a mile away.


I agree, and thank you for grounding us a bit, Johnny. Sadly, that makes it all the more disappointing (frankly suspicious in my mind) that XOM's product was tested out of spec. XOM has the facilities, talent, and resources to know exactly how their product performs at all times.
 
Quote:
XOM has the facilities, talent, and resources to know exactly how their product performs at all times.


Quote:
It employs an array of analytical techniques including liquid chromatography (LC), gel permeation chromatography (GPC), gas chromatography (GC), GC/mass spectroscopy (GC/MS), LC/MS, fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), FTIR/microscopy, GC/FTIR/MS, X-ray diffraction, DC-arc emission spectroscopy (solids), fluorescence spectroscopy, optical microscopy and scanning electron microscopy/energy dispersive spectrometry (SEM/EDS). In addition, the lab has the capability to run many standard ASTM bench tests designed to measure properties and performance of petroleum products, but the advanced analytical capabilities are what really set Paulsboro MTS apart.
 
Who cares about the marketing? All companies do it. I have gotten better UOAs from PP and Synpower than M1. We should be glad that Valvoline is putting out a good product for a decent price. With all the rebates that Valvoline offers, I don't think that I have payed full price for an oil change for years, and I get as good or better results than when I was using M1.

It was kind of funny how everyone always wrote off the high iron in M1 samples, but with any other product we would never hear the end of it. I don't have a horse in either race, but I am glad that other companies are putting out good products. The success of M1 has caused other companies to step up...
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
http://74.6.239.67/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=ilsac+license+procedure&y=Search&fr=yfp-t-305&u=www.api.org/certifications/engineoil/pubs/upload/1509_16thedition042007.pdf&w=ilsac+license+procedure+procedures&d=c9zHoUfiR4nb&icp=1&.intl=us

Tom NJ

thanks for the link, but now i am lost...
 
Originally Posted By: bulwnkl
Originally Posted By: Johnny
Well, that's a pretty good advertising, promotional video but don't think for a minute that Valvoline is the only oil company that does this. Shell's West Hollow Research Lab in Southwest Houston is 5 to 10 times the size of what Valvoline has. This is where Shell test and formulates it's oils for every car known to man, every large diesel engine there is, all outboard engines, motorcycle engines, and even outdoor power equipment. They have more engine test stands than most of the engine manufactures do. Then you can go to Exxon/Mobils Research Lab in Fairfax, VA., same thing, or Chevron's Research Lab outside of San Francisco, or the ConocoPhillips Research Lab in Bartelsville, OK. Heck, to listen to Valvoline you would think they were the only ones that knew how to formulate oil. Oh and by the way, they were not the first one to make a multi-vis oil.

There, rant over. I hate marketing B.S. and I can spot it a mile away.


I agree, and thank you for grounding us a bit, Johnny. Sadly, that makes it all the more disappointing (frankly suspicious in my mind) that XOM's product was tested out of spec. XOM has the facilities, talent, and resources to know exactly how their product performs at all times.

+1
 
The API won't revoke a license immediately after hearing about a non compliance issue. Takes a lot of time/testing. Mobil claiming their oils still meet the API spec means nothing to me. I personally believe they dropped the ball this time. The accusation also comes from a credible source (Ashland) IMO.
 
Do we have a contact with API? I tried to find an email or contact us for the API but i did not find anything. (I did not look long, at work)
 
Originally Posted By: crinkles
Originally Posted By: FrankN4
I was talking with a legal type(family) earlier and he said every independent lab in the country could show Mobil 1(or anyone else) failed or passed and none of it would be allowed in any US court. Only test done by the licensing agency meant anything. Tests done by and "RESULTS REPORTED" by a competitor would make the competitor liable if they stated test results as authoritative unless they were able to get the licensing agency to do the actual testing and "REPORTING". That is, they could report their many repeated results to the licensing agency and demand, but not mandate, an agency test. That is like all you folk that have base oil analyzed by various folk that have a decent chemistry lab and have to keep your mouth shut.(tough...aint it)

I know this is lawyer talk, but it is lawyers that will handle the situation. He said Ashland was MUCH, MUCH more at risk for legal action than Mobil. Mobil would most likely prove their API license status and go about business. Ashland was most likely counting on that, but look at the free advertisement. A calculated risk.


I doubt that only the licensing lab could do the tests. Labs are certified for certain tests they apply accreditation for. If the national certifying body OK's any lab to do that test and they have certification to do that specific test, it is a valid test and should be legal.


I had coffee with my legal relative. He said that any lab that was licensed by API, if they did such, could perform the test, BUT, API, the authorizing body, would have to request and authorize the test or in the eyes of the law it did not exist. If every lab, university chemistry department, or whatever in the US said they tested and Mobil or whoever failed, in the eyes of the law those test are meaningless. Only API can say WE tested and THEY passed/failed.

I am not an attorney nor do I portray one on television.
smirk2.gif
 
Well... Redline is not on an API list, if we're gonna run a non-conforming oil, might as well be running something really tricky :)

Funny how the following phrase is thrown around the board so much:
"Any modern API SM oil will do really well."

Ooooops guess that leaves out M1 5W-30
wink.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top