Dollar General sued over obsolete oils

[TiredTrucker]

Originally Posted By: daves87rs
Well, since it took 8 pages and nobody has mentioned it yet...

I could care LESS what the comsumer buys on the DG shelf-it's their choice...and if they are too dumb to read the labels, then it's just too bad.

I can see why Tom would be happy to have it off the shelves...because it will keep people from blowing their cars up....


BUT- who is going to protect US???? I have been behind two people on the freeway who blew their engines on what looked to be decent cars (not hoopies) One dropped speed so fast I had to nearly leap out of the way to avoid it. People already do enough dumb things in their car- I really don't want to add having the really wrong kind of oil to it. Do you? It's like telling someone it's okay to run nearly bald tires when nearly any new tire (like sm/sn oil) would do.


Maybe you guys are okay with freedom of choice here, but when you are driving something that could kill someone (and take out many more than just themselves), having more proper choices make sense here.

Could less about the lawsuit....more about getting it off the shelves...


Maybe you live in an area that has a high incidence of this kind of thing happening. In that case, I would say you are in a high risk area and might consider moving. I have over 5 million documented miles as a commercial driver, and I think I have only seen one vehicle "blow" an engine that caused any kind of problem for other drivers, out of all the collisions and wrecks I have witnessed over the years. Seems tires are more of an issue than motor oils. You are using the "at risk" fallacy that pervades the government mindset nowadays. If there is even the chance that something can happen, the we need to pass a law or regulation to avoid it to protect the people from themselves. Doesn't matter the unintended consequences of such a mindset. I cringe at the thought of wanting government to come to everyone's rescue for anything other than national defense.

 

[finmile]

The DG oil with "SF quality" clearly states on the bottle that it is "Suitable for use in cars made in 1988 or earlier."

Even if I wouldn't have any knowledge on the API service ratings, I wouldn’t be using this oil on a 1990s or newer car. Why? Because it says so on the bottle. So, with this additional warning this oil seems honest enough to me. Cheap oil for (a really) old beater!

And in the API SA oil bottle there's also a warning that it is "not suitable for use in most gasoline powered automotive engines built after 1930".

Maybe if they removed the "most" from that sentence, it would be more honest. But I think that's clear enough already.

 

[HerrStig]

The pump MOTORS on my heating system require SAE 30 "non-detergent". Does the nanny state have to protect everybody it admits from their own ignorance? BTW those motors have been getting Mobil 1 10 w 30 for decades. No failures.

 

[FutureDoc]

After doing some public survey work... one should never assume that a person is literate or able to understand labels/instruction. We are talking about as high as 1 in 5 can't really read at all (I think the literacy rate in the US is only about 85% with grade-school reading ability or less around 22%.) I would go to place X to collect public survey results and you would have clusters of illiterate/poor comprehending, but fully-functioning adults. Now think, would DG be a likely cluster for these folks. yup. And I have a huge problem with companies targeting those individuals and DG deserves to be sued with substandard products (and yes SF is substandard).

I know some folks think it is governmental babysitting... but you have some real vultures in the market that will run away with folk's money and could care less about their impact.

Also, it has been well proven that even "accurate" labels can misleading with marketing (within the marketing field). Nutrition labels (see Wansink and Chardon) marked with "low fat" marketing can actually increase caloric intake for those with poor eating habits. Accurate labels only really provide a benefit for those already attempting to make a "better choice" so the API labels are more effective towards BITOG-type folks but not for those less-concerned or other individuals.

 

[Kruse]

Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
We are talking about as high as 1 in 5 can't really read at all (I think the literacy rate in the US is only about 85% with grade-school reading ability or less around 22%.)


A few class action lawyers suing a large corporation will not enable these people to read or protect themself from their own illiteracy or stupidity.

 

[Tdbo]

Originally Posted By: Kruse
Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
We are talking about as high as 1 in 5 can't really read at all (I think the literacy rate in the US is only about 85% with grade-school reading ability or less around 22%.)


A few class action lawyers suing a large corporation will not enable these people to read or protect themself from their own illiteracy or stupidity.



But it will give a few class action lawyers a nice piece of change.

 

[finmile]

Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
After doing some public survey work... one should never assume that a person is literate or able to understand labels/instruction. We are talking about as high as 1 in 5 can't really read at all (I think the literacy rate in the US is only about 85% with grade-school reading ability or less around 22%.) I would go to place X to collect public survey results and you would have clusters of illiterate/poor comprehending, but fully-functioning adults. Now think, would DG be a likely cluster for these folks. yup. And I have a huge problem with companies targeting those individuals and DG deserves to be sued with substandard products (and yes SF is substandard).


I understand that it's problematic if someone can't read, or don't understand what they just read. But where do you draw the line?

For example, should the US government make API licensing mandatory for all oils sold in the US, so that API could dictate which oils are "good enough" for the citizens and which oils aren't?

I admit that the API SA oil is a bit of a trap. But the API SF oil is valid stuff.

You can find similar API SF/CD oil here in Finland also, as 10W-30 and as 15W-40. The only exception is that in here we don't have any extra warnings about the year 1988 on the bottles. It just says that the oil is for "older passenger cars". And nobody thinks here that this is a problem.

Below is a bottle of 15W-40 mineral oil (or conventional oil, as you say) I was talking about. This oil is the cheapest I could find from Finland with 15 minutes of Googling. So, if someone will choose the oil for his car based by the price only, then I probably have to say "good luck"...

If someone don't understand what oil the car needs, then he/she should head for the dealership or some independent shop and pay them to do the job for you. Or not to buy a car in the first place but use public transport or walk.

You already have many things better in the USA than the rest of the world. But be careful to not overdo things.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: finmile
The DG oil with "SF quality" clearly states on the bottle that it is "Suitable for use in cars made in 1988 or earlier."

SF is an obsolete specification. Why bother quoting it? We do have some HM oils on the market from the majors up here that have no certifications listed whatsoever. The majors know that it's, at the very least, questionable to claim specifications that are long past being able to be licensed, and have no relevance to anyone reading them. Even the average BITOGer who knows a bit about the specifications is going to be concerned about phosphorus levels and HTHS. They won't know anything about the SF license requirements at the time. And, the oil company knows that no one anywhere is going to test an oil for SF compliance in 2015.

So, why do it? If you want to market an unlicensed oil, you are free to do so. The majors all do it, with some of them being high mileage oils and others being racing oils. You don't have to make these ridiculously dubious claims, though. We're used to seeing claims of reduced wear, better mileage, more horsepower, and whatever else. However, SF is supposed to be an obsolete API standard, and I highly doubt that any oil that specifically claims SF actually even meets SF.

Anyone that claims they are making an SF oil should publish the test results in their entirety on their web site. After all, intellectual property claims or proprietary information claims on an oil claiming such an outdated specification are laughable at best, and no one is going to run the raft of tests on stuff like this to either "copy" the formula or verify its utility.

 

[ccap41]

Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Originally Posted By: daves87rs
Well, since it took 8 pages and nobody has mentioned it yet...

I could care LESS what the comsumer buys on the DG shelf-it's their choice...and if they are too dumb to read the labels, then it's just too bad.

I can see why Tom would be happy to have it off the shelves...because it will keep people from blowing their cars up....


BUT- who is going to protect US???? I have been behind two people on the freeway who blew their engines on what looked to be decent cars (not hoopies) One dropped speed so fast I had to nearly leap out of the way to avoid it. People already do enough dumb things in their car- I really don't want to add having the really wrong kind of oil to it. Do you? It's like telling someone it's okay to run nearly bald tires when nearly any new tire (like sm/sn oil) would do.


Maybe you guys are okay with freedom of choice here, but when you are driving something that could kill someone (and take out many more than just themselves), having more proper choices make sense here.

Could less about the lawsuit....more about getting it off the shelves...


Maybe you live in an area that has a high incidence of this kind of thing happening. In that case, I would say you are in a high risk area and might consider moving. I have over 5 million documented miles as a commercial driver, and I think I have only seen one vehicle "blow" an engine that caused any kind of problem for other drivers, out of all the collisions and wrecks I have witnessed over the years. Seems tires are more of an issue than motor oils. You are using the "at risk" fallacy that pervades the government mindset nowadays. If there is even the chance that something can happen, the we need to pass a law or regulation to avoid it to protect the people from themselves. Doesn't matter the unintended consequences of such a mindset. I cringe at the thought of wanting government to come to everyone's rescue for anything other than national defense.


Tires should be waaaaaay more of a concern than motor oil blowing an engine up. Work at a tire shop for a few months and you'd realize how many people are running around on legally bald tires. Guarantee there are more incidents due to lack of maintaining tires than..motor oil..

I also agree on the rest of your opinion, jus' say'n.

 

[ccap41]

Originally Posted By: Tdbo
Originally Posted By: Kruse
Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
We are talking about as high as 1 in 5 can't really read at all (I think the literacy rate in the US is only about 85% with grade-school reading ability or less around 22%.)


A few class action lawyers suing a large corporation will not enable these people to read or protect themself from their own illiteracy or stupidity.



But it will give a few class action lawyers a nice piece of change.


Yeah, kind of ironic considering that DG is the one "vulturing" on the illiterate while these lawyers do the same thing. They found a weak point and are just trying to get money for it.

 

[Gasbuggy]

Originally Posted By: TFB1
Almost amazing all the folks that can't be bothered to read four or five lines of type, but will readily blame someone else when they foul up...


That's because certain people are lining up to make excuses for them. This could be a missing chapter from Atlas Shrugged.