Recent Topics
2010 Honda Pilot, 3.5, 30k on engine, 5,4k on QSUD
by p1zippie
10/24/14 06:32 PM
THE BABY SKUNK
by Charlie1935
10/24/14 06:04 PM
Affixing brackets to fiberglass
by Apollo14
10/24/14 05:17 PM
Brakes on the "Bluesmobile" - the final update
by GreeCguy
10/24/14 03:47 PM
Liquid Moly
by Pelican
10/24/14 03:43 PM
New altitude world record parachute jump
by Drew99GT
10/24/14 02:30 PM
Replacing Valve Stem Seals, Honda or Aftermarket?
by zpinch
10/24/14 02:28 PM
Saw Mercedes out testing the Concept Coupe SUV
by 01rangerxl
10/24/14 02:24 PM
high speed wipers
by hardcore302
10/24/14 01:59 PM
does one need all 4 winter tires?
by hardcore302
10/24/14 01:53 PM
Bosch Icon Wipers
by gpguy
10/24/14 01:41 PM
School shooting, near Seattle
by CourierDriver
10/24/14 01:36 PM
Newest Members
Hox, massbrad, jtrix, SR1919, bigdaveyl
51684 Registered Users
Who's Online
90 registered (3800Series, 77GrandPrix, another Todd, AP9, aquariuscsm, AlaskaMike, 12 invisible), 1629 Guests and 209 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
51684 Members
64 Forums
221158 Topics
3496613 Posts

Max Online: 2862 @ 07/07/14 03:10 PM
Donate to BITOG

Page 17 of 30 < 1 2 ... 15 16 17 18 19 ... 29 30 >
Topic Options
#1316384 - 12/19/08 08:38 AM Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 [Re: buster]
Brian Barnhart Offline


Registered: 05/26/03
Posts: 617
Loc: Ohio
GM4718M does add additional requirements beyond SM/GF-4. However, I believe passing all SM/GF-4 requirements is a prerequisite to GM4718M approval. Therefore, any oil that does not meet SM/GF-4 cannot meet all the requirements of GM4718M.

Top
#1316390 - 12/19/08 08:44 AM Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 [Re: Brian Barnhart]
cheetahdriver Offline


Registered: 02/06/03
Posts: 561
Loc: springdale, ar
GM4718M has a specific reference to the SeqIVa test, the requirement is the same 90micrometers that SM requires, but it is one of the tests that has to be carried out in a GM approved lab. i don't think EOM could flimflam all the labs...

certainly, if the Ashland allegations are correct, M1 has problems with a number of different certifications. i just don't believe them...yet.


Edited by cheetahdriver (12/19/08 08:45 AM)

Top
#1316397 - 12/19/08 08:51 AM Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 [Re: cheetahdriver]
Brian Barnhart Offline


Registered: 05/26/03
Posts: 617
Loc: Ohio
I don't believe anyone is suggesting that E-M duped the labs and never developed a M1 5W30 formula that met SM/GF-4. The fact that they received the license is evidence that E-M had developed an approved formula. At issue is how much M1 5W30 was sold that didn't meet SM/GF-4, and whether the stuff currently on shelves meets SM/GF-4.


Edited by Brian Barnhart (12/19/08 08:52 AM)

Top
#1316420 - 12/19/08 09:13 AM Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 [Re: Brian Barnhart]
cheetahdriver Offline


Registered: 02/06/03
Posts: 561
Loc: springdale, ar
i think the timing on this is kind of interesting. i had heard that EOM put out some M1 without the API starburst on it after ike. they had to change their blend because of problems caused by ike.

wonder if this is "ike oil"?

Top
#1316456 - 12/19/08 09:43 AM Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 [Re: cheetahdriver]
Johnny Offline


Registered: 05/27/02
Posts: 14013
Loc: Retired | Wausau, WI
Could be. Valvoline is so sharp, maybe they should have stated what the date code was on this bottle of Mobil 1 they tested.

Top
#1316467 - 12/19/08 09:54 AM Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 [Re: Johnny]
Jason2007 Offline


Registered: 04/05/07
Posts: 591
Loc: virginia
Who knows, maybe they tested some M1 from 20 years ago?

Top
#1316507 - 12/19/08 10:43 AM Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 [Re: Jason2007]
buster Offline


Registered: 11/16/02
Posts: 29199
Loc: NJ
LOL...who knows...Mobil just needs to respond and prove their oils meet this friggin spec! Their slow response time is turning people off and causing a lot of doubt in peoples minds.

I spoke to GM engineer a few months ago. They love Mobil 1. Said it performs flawlessly in the Corvette engines. Mobil 1 5w30 is still factory fill in the ZR1 too fwiw.

_________________________
2014 Mazda 3 S GT AT - OE oil
2003 Forester XS 5spd - M1 0w40

Top
#1316515 - 12/19/08 10:49 AM Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 [Re: wgtoys]
bulwnkl Offline


Registered: 02/09/05
Posts: 1442
Loc: Arizona
 Originally Posted By: wgtoys
I haven't bothered lately, but for quite some time I used to read Mobil-1 UOA threads here on BITOG and I, like others, noticed that the Fe numbers were often higher for Mobil-1 in an application than other oils were (in those cases where the user posted multiple data points). We have been speculating about these high Fe numbers here for years, but without access to expensive controlled testing all we could do is speculate. Now we see Valvoline publishing data about camshaft wear rates which indeed seems to show clearly that in certain applications at least Mobil-1 has yield much higher camshaft wear than a competing lubricant.

Many excuses have been given for the Mobil-1 high Fe UOA readings. Everything from particle sizes to magic cleaning abilities have been used to hand wave away the data.

I've always thought there was some real fire behind the smoke, and this latest bit of data dump by Valvoline is consistent with the idea that at least in some situations Mobil-1 allows much more wear of the camshaft than do some competing solutions. Also, it is quite interesting to me that Mobil's official response doesn't directly challenge or refute Valvoline's claims. Mobil is hiding behind "we are licensed, don't worry". All very reminiscent of the weasel words they used when challenged on the base oil composition of Mobil-1. They would never say "we don't use Group III base oils in Mobil-1".

As far as API involvement, I don't believe the API does any actual testing. The API issues procedures and standards and then the manufacturers self-certify against them ... just like the EPA's fuel economy testing program, BTW.


Remember that it was not merely the conflagration of UOAs here that were telling us that M1 had an iron wear problem. Somebody very smart was telling us that, too.
_________________________
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have." --Gerald Ford

Top
#1316528 - 12/19/08 11:05 AM Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 [Re: bulwnkl]
Drew99GT Offline


Registered: 10/11/02
Posts: 20748
Loc: Colorado Springs
Who? Terry?

Top
#1316608 - 12/19/08 12:24 PM Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 [Re: cheetahdriver]
gogozy Offline


Registered: 03/16/04
Posts: 666
Loc: GTA, Ontario, Canada
 Originally Posted By: cheetahdriver
i think the timing on this is kind of interesting. i had heard that EOM put out some M1 without the API starburst on it after ike. they had to change their blend because of problems caused by ike.

wonder if this is "ike oil"?

i rather felt, the shortage by Ike was "staged" so EOM can bring the "updated" M1 to the market after valvoline's statement. a cover up - "recall" ...

Top
#1316685 - 12/19/08 02:04 PM Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 [Re: gogozy]
buster Offline


Registered: 11/16/02
Posts: 29199
Loc: NJ
 Quote:
i rather felt, the shortage by Ike was "staged" so EOM can bring the "updated" M1 to the market after valvoline's statement. a cover up - "recall" ...


Anything is possible.

The API SL ISLAC GF-3 Sequence IVA dated December 6,2000 = 120 max .

API SM ISLAC GF-4 Sequence IVA dated January 14,2004 - 90 max .



_________________________
2014 Mazda 3 S GT AT - OE oil
2003 Forester XS 5spd - M1 0w40

Top
#1316712 - 12/19/08 02:47 PM Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 [Re: gogozy]
cheetahdriver Offline


Registered: 02/06/03
Posts: 561
Loc: springdale, ar
well, it worked for coke....

Top
#1316749 - 12/19/08 03:16 PM Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 [Re: cheetahdriver]
rg200amp Offline


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 3127
Loc: Phila,PA
 Originally Posted By: cheetahdriver
 Originally Posted By: BigJohn
[quote=wgtoys]
The way we knit-pick oils on this forum, seeking the best.....don't we all want the product that give the absolute lowest possible wear?


i think we want the product that is the most cost effective solution. if we all wanted the best oil, period, there is RLI out there at 10 bucks a quart, or some other boutique oils at even more. M1 @ a little under 7 bucks is a cost effective way of getting 10k with a good synthetic. as i have said before here, the fact it also passes GM4718M makes me believe this is all bunk.

but i have been wrong before....


No one can say what we "all" want. We all want different things. Some use Super tech some use Redline.

Some do not want the most cost effective solution.
_________________________
// 2013 Subaru WRX //
SOLD:
-11 Volkswagen Jetta
-04 Lincoln LS
-01 Ford F250
-04 Mazda Rx-8
-97 Jeep Wrangler
-97 BMW M3
-97 Nissan Maxima


Top
#1316868 - 12/19/08 05:05 PM Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 [Re: Drew99GT]
77GrandPrix Online   content


Registered: 01/29/06
Posts: 195
Loc: Mid-Tenn

Top
#1317036 - 12/19/08 08:11 PM Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 [Re: 77GrandPrix]
cheetahdriver Offline


Registered: 02/06/03
Posts: 561
Loc: springdale, ar
in context i don't believe terry's comments have much applicability here. the argument going on at this point was BIO vs PAO, and while i will admit that the RLI stuff seems to handle the audi mis-engineering just fine, it will also not go the distance on an extended change. apples and grapefruit

Top
Page 17 of 30 < 1 2 ... 15 16 17 18 19 ... 29 30 >