Originally Posted By: buster
Yes they post here.
Urls please.
.
Yes they post here.
Urls please.
.
so why are so many ripped at Mobil?
- Thread starter chet2
- Start date
- Status
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: buster
Originally Posted By: tig1
But why not with real facts, instead of spectulation.
http://www.jobbersworld.com/valvolineq&Apage1.htm
http://jobbersworld.com/valvolinesletter.htm
There is a ton of speculation going on right now, but most of it is not favorable towards XOM.
They first denied it. Then responded with a 1/2 @ss answer. Then Ashland showed them the facts and they have been silent ever since.
Or working on a lawsuit ever since. Nobody really knows. But boy, we are definitely doing what we do best here, OCD out the WAZOO!!!
Originally Posted By: tig1
But why not with real facts, instead of spectulation.
http://www.jobbersworld.com/valvolineq&Apage1.htm
http://jobbersworld.com/valvolinesletter.htm
There is a ton of speculation going on right now, but most of it is not favorable towards XOM.
They first denied it. Then responded with a 1/2 @ss answer. Then Ashland showed them the facts and they have been silent ever since.
Or working on a lawsuit ever since. Nobody really knows. But boy, we are definitely doing what we do best here, OCD out the WAZOO!!!
I got extra Paxil & Zoloft if anyone needs some for the OCD!
I use it for something else, but I'm willing to share...
Originally Posted By: buster
It sounds like you can't handle facts.
The facts were presented by Ashland.
Please cite the following facts presented by Ashland:
The name and address of the lab (are they an API certifying lab?).
Which of the three North American formulas they tested.
The date of manufacture and source of the sample.
The status of the API license since API does testing to ensure compliance.
I seem to be missing them in the materials from Ashland.
.
It sounds like you can't handle facts.
The facts were presented by Ashland.
Please cite the following facts presented by Ashland:
The name and address of the lab (are they an API certifying lab?).
Which of the three North American formulas they tested.
The date of manufacture and source of the sample.
The status of the API license since API does testing to ensure compliance.
I seem to be missing them in the materials from Ashland.
.
Hey, oil is like religion to some people what can i say.....XOM will be back I'm sure. They just may have dropped the ball this time....although some have been disappointed with their quality for the last 5 years or so...
We will see what happens. Until then, to each their own.
Rolf, I don't single people out nor do I go public with names/people I've spoken with. I keep my word.
If you any hard facts, please share them....
Originally Posted By: buster
Hey, oil is like religion to some people what can i say.....XOM will be back I'm sure...
I wonder which religion XOM is.
I don't wanna even connect those dots!
Hey, oil is like religion to some people what can i say.....XOM will be back I'm sure...
I wonder which religion XOM is.
Originally Posted By: buster
If you any hard facts, please share them....
Ditto.
.
If you any hard facts, please share them....
Ditto.
.
I believe in this one it states that Ashland contacted XOM in September concerning this.
http://www.jobbersworld.com/December 11, 2008.htm
And yes I once upon a time used Mobil 1 but if xom ceased to exist, the grass would still be green, the sun would come up in the morning and nothing would change in the scheme of things.
http://www.jobbersworld.com/December 11, 2008.htm
And yes I once upon a time used Mobil 1 but if xom ceased to exist, the grass would still be green, the sun would come up in the morning and nothing would change in the scheme of things.
Quote:
The letter reportedly goes on to say that Valvoline notified ExxonMobil of the failed test results in September and that the company take appropriate action regarding their claim that Mobil 1 meets ILSAC GF-4 and API SM specifications, or provide substantiation that they in fact meet these specifications.
As of today, Valvoline told JobbersWorld, ExxonMobil has been silent.
I called XOM about a week ago and asked about this. "No comment on that sir"". Does your oil pass the Seq IVA test? We have nothing to say on that."
So I asked Amsoil.
Quote:
AMSOIL’s additive technology has been tested extensively and passes the Sequence IVA test. AMSOIL synthetic motor oils are robust formulations specifically fortified with unique anti-wear chemistry to protect against wear. AMSOIL’s superior anti-wear performance is easily demonstrated in the 4-ball wear test and has been validated time and again through oil analysis and millions of on-road miles.
I'll be using Amsoil products from now on.
The letter reportedly goes on to say that Valvoline notified ExxonMobil of the failed test results in September and that the company take appropriate action regarding their claim that Mobil 1 meets ILSAC GF-4 and API SM specifications, or provide substantiation that they in fact meet these specifications.
As of today, Valvoline told JobbersWorld, ExxonMobil has been silent.
I called XOM about a week ago and asked about this. "No comment on that sir"". Does your oil pass the Seq IVA test? We have nothing to say on that."
So I asked Amsoil.
Quote:
AMSOIL’s additive technology has been tested extensively and passes the Sequence IVA test. AMSOIL synthetic motor oils are robust formulations specifically fortified with unique anti-wear chemistry to protect against wear. AMSOIL’s superior anti-wear performance is easily demonstrated in the 4-ball wear test and has been validated time and again through oil analysis and millions of on-road miles.
I'll be using Amsoil products from now on.
Originally Posted By: Rolf
It supports the conclusion that ExxonMobil correctly labels its products in accordance with applicable licensing and other requirements.
.
Especially when they know for a fact their [censored] product can't pass API testing!
(ie. Hurricane Katrina non API Mobil 1)
It supports the conclusion that ExxonMobil correctly labels its products in accordance with applicable licensing and other requirements.
.
Especially when they know for a fact their [censored] product can't pass API testing!
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Rolf
OVERK1LL said:There is a contingent of ExxonMobil bashers here.
.
Likewise, there is a contingent of Exxon nutswingers who've been exposed in the past here.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: endeavor to persevere
I believe in this one it states that Ashland contacted XOM in September concerning this.
http://www.jobbersworld.com/December 11, 2008.htm
The following seem to be missing from Ashland's materials:
The name and address of the lab (are they an API certifying lab?).
Which of the three North American formulas they tested.
The date of manufacture and source of the sample.
The status of the API license since API does testing to ensure compliance.
.
I believe in this one it states that Ashland contacted XOM in September concerning this.
http://www.jobbersworld.com/December 11, 2008.htm
The following seem to be missing from Ashland's materials:
The name and address of the lab (are they an API certifying lab?).
Which of the three North American formulas they tested.
The date of manufacture and source of the sample.
The status of the API license since API does testing to ensure compliance.
.
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Likewise, there is a contingent of Exxon nutswingers who've been exposed in the past here.
You mean the 2+ years ago Group III fiasco?
.
Likewise, there is a contingent of Exxon nutswingers who've been exposed in the past here.
You mean the 2+ years ago Group III fiasco?
.
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Especially when they know for a fact their [censored] product can't pass API testing!
API so far apparently hasn't agreed.
But what do they know?
.
Especially when they know for a fact their [censored] product can't pass API testing!
API so far apparently hasn't agreed.
But what do they know?
.
Originally Posted By: Rolf
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Especially when they know for a fact their [censored] product can't pass API testing!
API so far apparently hasn't agreed.
But what do they know?
.
So you agree now the API IS Exxon!
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Especially when they know for a fact their [censored] product can't pass API testing!
API so far apparently hasn't agreed.
But what do they know?
.
So you agree now the API IS Exxon!
Originally Posted By: Rolf
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Likewise, there is a contingent of Exxon nutswingers who've been exposed in the past here.
You mean the 2+ years ago Group III fiasco?
.
Oh, you remember?
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Likewise, there is a contingent of Exxon nutswingers who've been exposed in the past here.
You mean the 2+ years ago Group III fiasco?
.
Oh, you remember?
Originally Posted By: buster
So I asked Amsoil.
Yep, when I want to know about whether ExxonMobil meets API specs, I personally always go to a competitor, not the API.
.
So I asked Amsoil.
Yep, when I want to know about whether ExxonMobil meets API specs, I personally always go to a competitor, not the API.
.
Originally Posted By: Rolf
Originally Posted By: buster
So I asked Amsoil.
Yep, when I want to know about whether ExxonMobil meets API specs, I personally always go to a competitor, not the API.
.
You should use Synpower.
Originally Posted By: buster
So I asked Amsoil.
Yep, when I want to know about whether ExxonMobil meets API specs, I personally always go to a competitor, not the API.
.
You should use Synpower.
- Status
Similar threads
