Castrol says no to dexos license

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Complaining about GM's quality control while ridiculing an attempt to improve it. Interesting.


Yeah you will find that with the typical GM detractor. They'll argue both ends against the middle. It's probably a sign that they don't really have a good basis.

 

[Patman]

Originally Posted By: Mustang2008Z
My opinion is that GM needs to start building decent vehicles, pay back the millions that they borrowed from the taxpayer



I thought I heard that GM paid all (or most) of that loan back?

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: Patman

I thought I heard that GM paid all (or most) of that loan back?


http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/23/general...kha-dalmia.html

Nope. 100%, false propaganda.

 

[Drew99GT]

Originally Posted By: Patman
Originally Posted By: Mustang2008Z
My opinion is that GM needs to start building decent vehicles, pay back the millions that they borrowed from the taxpayer



I thought I heard that GM paid all (or most) of that loan back?


They burrowed money from the government to pay back a loan to the government.

 

[d00df00d]

Here's my understanding.

Some of the "bailout" money was given as loans. Of that, some was considered part of the "old GM" when they declared bankruptcy, so it was written off. That money is gone; the remainder of the loaned money has been paid back. This is what they're talking about when they say they've paid back their loans. I can't remember how much was lost and how much was paid back.

The rest of the "bailout" money -- the vast majority of it -- was used to buy GM shares. That money obviously hasn't been paid back because it doesn't have to be.


EDIT: Tempest's link seems to lay it out. I don't agree with calling it a lie/propaganda/whatever (although I certainly would call it spin), but there it is.

 

[demarpaint]

Great read, makes me respect FMC even more.

Back on topic, if I were BP, Ashland, or any other oil company that didn't win the contract for FF in GM vehicles I wouldn't pay the vig for the Dexos cert either. JMO

 

[Drew99GT]

Bottom line - GM did not pay back that bailout loan with money from earnings. It was money from the government.

Government motors indeed.

 

[Pablo]

Dexos spec is OK. I I really have no problem with it. The fee schedule is a shakedown. A scam. It cracks me up when people say Amsoil is a scam, or imply some level of illegality - when GM runs a protection racket, right out in the open!

 

[Brian Barnhart]

Anyone know how the Dexos approval fees compare with like fees for ATF and coolant?

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Brian Barnhart
Anyone know how the Dexos approval fees compare with like fees for ATF and coolant?

...or for engine oils for BMW, Mercedes, VW, etc.?

 

[LordAbbett]

I was under the impression that the euro specs were just that... specs but the oil cos didn't have to pay $ for the right to list them on the bottle. Is that not true?
IMO the licensing part of Dexos is a scam and I wish none of the oil Cos went along with.

 

[Ben99GT]

Originally Posted By: gregmp
GM cars are on par with ford and honda now. Toyota is way behind.


Not exactly...

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: LordAbbett
I was under the impression that the euro specs were just that... specs but the oil cos didn't have to pay $ for the right to list them on the bottle. Is that not true?
IMO the licensing part of Dexos is a scam and I wish none of the oil Cos went along with.


The difference between a spec and being licensed is the licensed product is tested and validated to meet the spec or approved. The only scam would be a product that lists the spec but doesn't meet it. Why should the automaker eat that cost?

 

[LordAbbett]

Why do they need to license the product?
Are the Euro specs or licensed?

 

[mechanicx]

I don't know but I think automakers over there have more input into the oil formulations and the oil there has a long history of meeting LL specs etc. I don't see anything wrong with automaker who sets a spec also approving a product by testing it and charging a reasonable fee.

 

[StevieC]

Kuddos to Hyundai for being so high up on that list... Although I knew that because I own one and it has been the best vehicle I have ever owned.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: LordAbbett
I was under the impression that the euro specs were just that... specs but the oil cos didn't have to pay $ for the right to list them on the bottle. Is that not true?

I'm not sure about VW, but I've heard that Mercedes and BMW don't tell anyone what the specs actually are (except for some vague information). There is some vague info floating around, but other than that it's pretty much a black box. You have to send the oil to them along with some money, and pay to have it tested and certified. If it passes, they add it to the list of approved oils. If it fails, they don't. I've also heard that BMW requires you to have the oil re-certified bi-annually or something; not sure about the other makes.

 

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx


The difference between a spec and being licensed is the licensed product is tested and validated to meet the spec or approved. The only scam would be a product that lists the spec but doesn't meet it. Why should the automaker eat that cost?


Please post the fee schedule for Dexos.

 

[LordAbbett]

It's likely a very good spec. Lube reports march 31 10 article says it might mean more grp III or Pao. Also that the fees are much more than API fees. What's a reasonable fee?
I don't know . I just don't want everybody coming out with new specs just with the intention of getting in on the money grab for spec approvals on the back of the bottle.

 

[LordAbbett]

Is the API/ILSAC incompetent? Or Outdated?