Mobil 1 "fails" Seq. IVA wear test.
- Thread starter Corvette Owner
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Bryanccfshr
I work for a big oil company. My issue is that of integrity and maintaining objectivity. This is not personal, it is entirely based on my professional expectations of fact based decision making.
So are you questioning my facts? If so, I welcome a discussion of that.
You previously said that your instincts told you that "there are some specific interest involved" by people posting in this thread. I don't know what that exactly means, but I would like to hear your specific concerns if you have any.
I work for a big oil company. My issue is that of integrity and maintaining objectivity. This is not personal, it is entirely based on my professional expectations of fact based decision making.
So are you questioning my facts? If so, I welcome a discussion of that.
You previously said that your instincts told you that "there are some specific interest involved" by people posting in this thread. I don't know what that exactly means, but I would like to hear your specific concerns if you have any.
Originally Posted By: crinkles
we can't make fact based decisions in the oil world... this is what it seems like to me, because no one is playing straight!
Top two straight shooters in the oil world -
#1 - Schaeffer
#2 - Amsoil (there 4-ball wear test notwithstanding)
we can't make fact based decisions in the oil world... this is what it seems like to me, because no one is playing straight!
Top two straight shooters in the oil world -
#1 - Schaeffer
#2 - Amsoil (there 4-ball wear test notwithstanding)
Originally Posted By: ericthepig
Top two straight shooters in the oil world -
#1 - Schaeffer
#2 - Amsoil (there 4-ball wear test notwithstanding)
I am not sure I agree about Amsoil and their certification claims. For example, here is the wording for 5w30 (ASL):
AMSOIL Synthetic 5w30 Motor Oil is recommended for gasoline engines, diesel engines (API CF, ACEA B5) and other applications requiring any of the listed worldwide specifications:
API SM/CF, SL, SJ ...
ILSAC GF-4, 3 ...
ACEA A5/B5-04 A1/B1
JASO VTW
GM 4718M, 6094M
Ford WSS M2C929-A
Daimler Chrysler MS-6395N
VW 503.00
Notice that it does not say that 5w30 (ASL) meets these certifications or requirements, it only says that the oil is recommended in cases where such certifications are required.
Top two straight shooters in the oil world -
#1 - Schaeffer
#2 - Amsoil (there 4-ball wear test notwithstanding)
I am not sure I agree about Amsoil and their certification claims. For example, here is the wording for 5w30 (ASL):
AMSOIL Synthetic 5w30 Motor Oil is recommended for gasoline engines, diesel engines (API CF, ACEA B5) and other applications requiring any of the listed worldwide specifications:
API SM/CF, SL, SJ ...
ILSAC GF-4, 3 ...
ACEA A5/B5-04 A1/B1
JASO VTW
GM 4718M, 6094M
Ford WSS M2C929-A
Daimler Chrysler MS-6395N
VW 503.00
Notice that it does not say that 5w30 (ASL) meets these certifications or requirements, it only says that the oil is recommended in cases where such certifications are required.
I think Chevron is the most straightforward "big oil" company.
For one, they'll tell you that their Techron fuel system cleaner (one of best fuel system cleaners, IMO) is unnecessary if you consistently use a top tier fuel.
Honesty is the best policy...
RedLine and Schaeffer's seem to be extremely straightforward as well.
For one, they'll tell you that their Techron fuel system cleaner (one of best fuel system cleaners, IMO) is unnecessary if you consistently use a top tier fuel.
Honesty is the best policy...
RedLine and Schaeffer's seem to be extremely straightforward as well.
Originally Posted By: Mark888
Notice that it does not say that 5w30 (ASL) meets these certifications or requirements, it only says that the oil is recommended in cases where such certifications are required.
I had forgotten about that practice by Amsoil. Does Amsoil ever go on record stating that they do in-house R&D on each of these "recommendations" on certs? I understand that as a small player they don't want to jump thru every $$ hoop on these certs. If they're doing inhouse R&D on each "recommendation" (and I think they need to go on record), then I think their language is appropriate. If not, then not.
(I can't decide if I believe what I just wrote. Fuzzy.)
Notice that it does not say that 5w30 (ASL) meets these certifications or requirements, it only says that the oil is recommended in cases where such certifications are required.
I had forgotten about that practice by Amsoil. Does Amsoil ever go on record stating that they do in-house R&D on each of these "recommendations" on certs? I understand that as a small player they don't want to jump thru every $$ hoop on these certs. If they're doing inhouse R&D on each "recommendation" (and I think they need to go on record), then I think their language is appropriate. If not, then not.
(I can't decide if I believe what I just wrote. Fuzzy.)
Last edited:
It really depends. Some small blenders never run many of the tests they quote on their actual completed products. Blend quality in the boutique market segment is likely to be all over the map from what I have heard. I trust Amsoil and Redline. Amsoil's white papers show a balanced oil.
Originally Posted By: ericthepig
I had forgotten about that practice by Amsoil. Does Amsoil ever go on record stating that they do in-house R&D on each of these "recommendations" on certs? I understand that as a small player they don't want to jump thru every $$ hoop on these certs. If they're doing inhouse R&D on each "recommendation" (and I think they need to go on record), then I think their language is appropriate. If not, then not.
(I can't decide if I believe what I just wrote. Fuzzy.)
Amsoil claims that the certs are too costly. But I suspect that it has something to do with the additives or lack of Energy Conserving Formula (API Starburst).
In any case, I personally don't think the language is appropriate, because of lot of people reading it think they have obtained the certifications listed. If it really is too costly to get the certs, then they should clearly say the product is not certified and that it is too costly to obtain the certs (and not just say that on some other obscure part of the website).
I had forgotten about that practice by Amsoil. Does Amsoil ever go on record stating that they do in-house R&D on each of these "recommendations" on certs? I understand that as a small player they don't want to jump thru every $$ hoop on these certs. If they're doing inhouse R&D on each "recommendation" (and I think they need to go on record), then I think their language is appropriate. If not, then not.
(I can't decide if I believe what I just wrote. Fuzzy.)
Amsoil claims that the certs are too costly. But I suspect that it has something to do with the additives or lack of Energy Conserving Formula (API Starburst).
In any case, I personally don't think the language is appropriate, because of lot of people reading it think they have obtained the certifications listed. If it really is too costly to get the certs, then they should clearly say the product is not certified and that it is too costly to obtain the certs (and not just say that on some other obscure part of the website).
Energy conserving oils *may* be inferior to Amsoil full synthetics performance wise. SM oils may be inferior to SL oils wear wise. A minimum spec is just that-the bottom and other products may supercede the minimum regardless of whether they submitted to a certification test or not.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: wannafbody
Energy conserving oils *may* be inferior to Amsoil full synthetics performance wise. SM oils may be inferior to SL oils wear wise. A minimum spec is just that-the bottom and other products may supercede the minimum regardless of whether they submitted to a certification test or not.
+1 This has been mentioned before, with an example similar to this. If you needed a good doctor for a serious illness, would you want someone who passed his exams (certifications), with an A, or a D? No names mentioned, but oils can just pass, or pass with flying colors. JMO
Energy conserving oils *may* be inferior to Amsoil full synthetics performance wise. SM oils may be inferior to SL oils wear wise. A minimum spec is just that-the bottom and other products may supercede the minimum regardless of whether they submitted to a certification test or not.
+1 This has been mentioned before, with an example similar to this. If you needed a good doctor for a serious illness, would you want someone who passed his exams (certifications), with an A, or a D? No names mentioned, but oils can just pass, or pass with flying colors. JMO
I don't care who uses Amsoil, but here are some things that everyone needs to consider before putting Amsoil down:
1)Amsoil stands behind their products for the mileage stated on the bottle and doesn't try to get out of it like Mobil which says "but always follow your manufacturers reccomendations"
2)Amsoil has had very few actual "pay-outs" for the product not standing up to the stack as stated on the bottle. And they do pay out.
3)Amsoil can only recommend an oil for an application and not state that it is API certified because all of them but one is not.
But don't you think that a private company that keeps beating its sales year over year and growing at a very large rate is doing something right?
I mean if they were cooking engines and making false claims the FTC would have closed them down or they would be bankrupt, but they are still here after 30 years, still growing and don't have one FTC complaint on file!
4)An auto manufacturer can't deny warranty because a specific certified/non-certified oil was used, only if that oil failed to lubricate. So if you engine blows up because of a manufacturing defect they can't deny the warranty because you used a non API certified oil only if they prove that it was definitely the oils fault! In which case you would be covered by Amsoil and would receive your payout so long as you didn't abuse the oil in anyway.
If you don't want to use Amsoil or a non API certified motor oil because you aren't comfortable, thats fine. But don't put brands like Amsoil down just because they choose not to certify all their oils (except their XL series), and take this money an reinvest in tweaking their products.
As someone who has used Amsoil for quite a few miles I know there is nothing better both in the way my vehicle feels/performs and the UOA's I have showing it is tough stuff.
Ok... Who's next on the soap box?
1)Amsoil stands behind their products for the mileage stated on the bottle and doesn't try to get out of it like Mobil which says "but always follow your manufacturers reccomendations"
2)Amsoil has had very few actual "pay-outs" for the product not standing up to the stack as stated on the bottle. And they do pay out.
3)Amsoil can only recommend an oil for an application and not state that it is API certified because all of them but one is not.
But don't you think that a private company that keeps beating its sales year over year and growing at a very large rate is doing something right?
I mean if they were cooking engines and making false claims the FTC would have closed them down or they would be bankrupt, but they are still here after 30 years, still growing and don't have one FTC complaint on file!
4)An auto manufacturer can't deny warranty because a specific certified/non-certified oil was used, only if that oil failed to lubricate. So if you engine blows up because of a manufacturing defect they can't deny the warranty because you used a non API certified oil only if they prove that it was definitely the oils fault! In which case you would be covered by Amsoil and would receive your payout so long as you didn't abuse the oil in anyway.
If you don't want to use Amsoil or a non API certified motor oil because you aren't comfortable, thats fine. But don't put brands like Amsoil down just because they choose not to certify all their oils (except their XL series), and take this money an reinvest in tweaking their products.
As someone who has used Amsoil for quite a few miles I know there is nothing better both in the way my vehicle feels/performs and the UOA's I have showing it is tough stuff.
Ok... Who's next on the soap box?
And I doubt that any manufacturer would submit the oil to be tested to find out what brand it is(if possible) should a failure take place. Now they may be able to tell by a UOA if the wrong viscosity was used (ie 20W50 in instead of 0W20).
For my applications Amsoil is over engineered and expensive. In Amsoil's target market, there is very little competition.
Originally Posted By: wannafbody
Energy conserving oils *may* be inferior to Amsoil full synthetics performance wise. SM oils may be inferior to SL oils wear wise. A minimum spec is just that-the bottom and other products may supercede the minimum regardless of whether they submitted to a certification test or not.
In some respects, you may be right. An energy conserving API Starburst oil may not be as robust as an Amsoil 100% synthetic oil. But there is not always a straight-line continuum between two different oils as to which is best. There are compromises that have to be made when blending an oil, and it is not always correct that one oil is better in every single respect than another oil.
Getting back to the question that was asked about "straightforward" suppliers--in that respect I think Amsoil leaves something to be desired regarding their certification language, regardless of how good their oil is.
Energy conserving oils *may* be inferior to Amsoil full synthetics performance wise. SM oils may be inferior to SL oils wear wise. A minimum spec is just that-the bottom and other products may supercede the minimum regardless of whether they submitted to a certification test or not.
In some respects, you may be right. An energy conserving API Starburst oil may not be as robust as an Amsoil 100% synthetic oil. But there is not always a straight-line continuum between two different oils as to which is best. There are compromises that have to be made when blending an oil, and it is not always correct that one oil is better in every single respect than another oil.
Getting back to the question that was asked about "straightforward" suppliers--in that respect I think Amsoil leaves something to be desired regarding their certification language, regardless of how good their oil is.
Originally Posted By: Mark888
Originally Posted By: Bryanccfshr
I work for a big oil company. My issue is that of integrity and maintaining objectivity. This is not personal, it is entirely based on my professional expectations of fact based decision making.
So are you questioning my facts? If so, I welcome a discussion of that.
You previously said that your instincts told you that "there are some specific interest involved" by people posting in this thread. I don't know what that exactly means, but I would like to hear your specific concerns if you have any.
Hopefully you don't take this personal, you are a tenacious poster and you obviously feel strongly on the mobil 1 topic.
I am questioning why you think it is so important, I assume the problem with Mobil1 has been corrected but response is not advisable on their part(I would consider mobil 1 if I caught a good sale(I am a value shopper) I don't believe there is enough difference between different labled ILSAC oils to make a difference but when a controversy such as this
is raised my interest is in the integrithy of the certifications.
A sad Tid bit, My employers lubricant divisions product(a different business but their success is in my interest) is not my favorite. It is overpriced and we don't even get a break when we buy in house for the fleet(it comes to 5.80 a quart bulk delivered for a synthetic 5w20,we just switched to synthetic BTW). I would rather use a less expensive oil so my division could save some money but oh well..
Originally Posted By: Bryanccfshr
I work for a big oil company. My issue is that of integrity and maintaining objectivity. This is not personal, it is entirely based on my professional expectations of fact based decision making.
So are you questioning my facts? If so, I welcome a discussion of that.
You previously said that your instincts told you that "there are some specific interest involved" by people posting in this thread. I don't know what that exactly means, but I would like to hear your specific concerns if you have any.
Hopefully you don't take this personal, you are a tenacious poster and you obviously feel strongly on the mobil 1 topic.
I am questioning why you think it is so important, I assume the problem with Mobil1 has been corrected but response is not advisable on their part(I would consider mobil 1 if I caught a good sale(I am a value shopper) I don't believe there is enough difference between different labled ILSAC oils to make a difference but when a controversy such as this
is raised my interest is in the integrithy of the certifications.
A sad Tid bit, My employers lubricant divisions product(a different business but their success is in my interest) is not my favorite. It is overpriced and we don't even get a break when we buy in house for the fleet(it comes to 5.80 a quart bulk delivered for a synthetic 5w20,we just switched to synthetic BTW). I would rather use a less expensive oil so my division could save some money but oh well..
Originally Posted By: buster
The counter argument would be, do you know if the Doctor is board certified? Just playing Devil's advocate here. I'm sure many oils far surpass some of the ASTM tests.
LOL
It all depends on where you stand with all of this. It is very easy to build a case, depending on how you feel, and which oil you use in your car. IMO Amsoil didn't get the rep it has here or anywhere else for that matter making garbage.
The counter argument would be, do you know if the Doctor is board certified? Just playing Devil's advocate here. I'm sure many oils far surpass some of the ASTM tests.
LOL
Originally Posted By: Bryanccfshr
Hopefully you don't take this personal, you are a tenacious poster and you obviously feel strongly on the mobil 1 topic.
I am questioning why you think it is so important, I assume the problem with Mobil1 has been corrected but response is not advisable on their part(I would consider mobil 1 if I caught a good sale(I am a value shopper) I don't believe there is enough difference between different labled ILSAC oils to make a difference but when a controversy such as this is raised my interest is in the integrithy of the certifications.
I suppose I am tenacious, but not because I "believe in" Mobil 1, but because I hate lies, unsubstantiated rumors, illogical conclusions, and libel/slander about any person or company or product. I really don't care if anyone uses Mobil 1 or not, but I don't like it when people distort the truth. I would fight for any company or product that I think is getting a bum rap.
For example, I have to provide evidence frequently to people who claim (or ask about) whether M1 contains any PAO. This is in-spite of the fact that there is overwhelming and conclusive evidence that M1 has substantial amounts of PAO and far more PAO/Ester base stock than any other major synthetic oil brand.
I often see posts from people who say because M1 no longer contains PAO (even though it does) they are switching to PP or some other brand. Now PP is certainly a very fine synthetic motor oil, and I would not dissuade anyone from using it if they wanted to, but to say they are going to use PP because M1 does not contain PAO (or very little PAO) is completely asinine.
I agree with you that there is too much emphasis placed on which motor oil brand is best, and too little emphasis on which grade and/or certifications of the specific oil needed for a particular engine and operating conditions.
I am not promoting M1. Maybe they had some problems, or maybe they didn't. At first I was concerned about the Ashland reports of M1 5w30 (an oil I have used for a previous car), but the more I dig into it, the less I am convinced that there is now, or ever was, a problem (but I could be wrong). Reading carefully the letter from Ashland, checking out the website of the SWRI were the test is done (and where they apparently have to rebuild the same engine after each test), reading the response from the API, seeing that no manufacturers or race teams have abandoned M1, make me wonder about the accuracy of the Ashland claim and whether it was one bad test result due to a bad engine rebuild.
But aside from the Valvoline claims, much of the comments here concerning M1 are because people hate ExxonMobil, love some other company, or some other totally irrational reason that has nothing to do with the quality of the oil.
Hopefully you don't take this personal, you are a tenacious poster and you obviously feel strongly on the mobil 1 topic.
I am questioning why you think it is so important, I assume the problem with Mobil1 has been corrected but response is not advisable on their part(I would consider mobil 1 if I caught a good sale(I am a value shopper) I don't believe there is enough difference between different labled ILSAC oils to make a difference but when a controversy such as this is raised my interest is in the integrithy of the certifications.
I suppose I am tenacious, but not because I "believe in" Mobil 1, but because I hate lies, unsubstantiated rumors, illogical conclusions, and libel/slander about any person or company or product. I really don't care if anyone uses Mobil 1 or not, but I don't like it when people distort the truth. I would fight for any company or product that I think is getting a bum rap.
For example, I have to provide evidence frequently to people who claim (or ask about) whether M1 contains any PAO. This is in-spite of the fact that there is overwhelming and conclusive evidence that M1 has substantial amounts of PAO and far more PAO/Ester base stock than any other major synthetic oil brand.
I often see posts from people who say because M1 no longer contains PAO (even though it does) they are switching to PP or some other brand. Now PP is certainly a very fine synthetic motor oil, and I would not dissuade anyone from using it if they wanted to, but to say they are going to use PP because M1 does not contain PAO (or very little PAO) is completely asinine.
I agree with you that there is too much emphasis placed on which motor oil brand is best, and too little emphasis on which grade and/or certifications of the specific oil needed for a particular engine and operating conditions.
I am not promoting M1. Maybe they had some problems, or maybe they didn't. At first I was concerned about the Ashland reports of M1 5w30 (an oil I have used for a previous car), but the more I dig into it, the less I am convinced that there is now, or ever was, a problem (but I could be wrong). Reading carefully the letter from Ashland, checking out the website of the SWRI were the test is done (and where they apparently have to rebuild the same engine after each test), reading the response from the API, seeing that no manufacturers or race teams have abandoned M1, make me wonder about the accuracy of the Ashland claim and whether it was one bad test result due to a bad engine rebuild.
But aside from the Valvoline claims, much of the comments here concerning M1 are because people hate ExxonMobil, love some other company, or some other totally irrational reason that has nothing to do with the quality of the oil.
I agree that there is an irrational attack on some companies by individuals. I admit that I like to throw salt at the wound but once you understand that I think all these oils are basically nearly the same but I also admit to having my own preferences and prejudices that I am sometimes playing devils advocate and sometimes I like to stir it up. My comments are often meant to instigate, that's just my discussion style(I use this in professinal life as well to create deeper discussion).
I believe this subject is spent. If Mobil1 5w30 failed the sequence IVA test in all likelyhood they have corrected the issue.
At this point continuing the debate is pointless. I am more worried about the integrity of the API certification process than issues with individual companies. Business wise IF Mobil 1 failed they have made adjustments and the best course of action is to say nothing. THere may have been formula substitutions in a short term shortage that affected the performance but that is my speculation and in reality a normal oil user may have been using at the most 2 OCI's of this theoretical batch or formulation series. This would not really effect the engines of the user.
I think we need to focus on integrity issues with the qualifications and keeping the pressure on for good QA for allowed formulation changes from the tested original formula.
Lets bury this hatchet and get on to mor productive use of our intrest and knowledge.
I believe this subject is spent. If Mobil1 5w30 failed the sequence IVA test in all likelyhood they have corrected the issue.
At this point continuing the debate is pointless. I am more worried about the integrity of the API certification process than issues with individual companies. Business wise IF Mobil 1 failed they have made adjustments and the best course of action is to say nothing. THere may have been formula substitutions in a short term shortage that affected the performance but that is my speculation and in reality a normal oil user may have been using at the most 2 OCI's of this theoretical batch or formulation series. This would not really effect the engines of the user.
I think we need to focus on integrity issues with the qualifications and keeping the pressure on for good QA for allowed formulation changes from the tested original formula.
Lets bury this hatchet and get on to mor productive use of our intrest and knowledge.
Last edited:
- Status
