You scratch mine, I'll scratch yours. We get skewered.
-A
-A
Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: bulwnkl
Let's see:
No absolute requirement for testing to renew,
The API 'works with' marketers that have a problem (as opposed to just jerking a license),
XOM is one of API's biggest 'customers,'
An annual renewal that in this case only lasts for 3 months,
...this math ain't tough, boys and girls.
Sometimes we just don't want to accept the obvious, no matter how obvious it may be.
I wonder if it is limited to only 5w30. I have had nothing but 15W-50 my 200,000-300,000 vehicles.
Let's see:
No absolute requirement for testing to renew,
The API 'works with' marketers that have a problem (as opposed to just jerking a license),
XOM is one of API's biggest 'customers,'
An annual renewal that in this case only lasts for 3 months,
...this math ain't tough, boys and girls.
Sometimes we just don't want to accept the obvious, no matter how obvious it may be.
I wonder if it is limited to only 5w30. I have had nothing but 15W-50 my 200,000-300,000 vehicles.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: buster
Para 3.5 states:
A license may be renewed annually by mutual agreement of the parties, provided the licensee reports the
volume of licensed product sold the previous year, pays the annual fee, and agrees to comply with any
amendments to the license agreement and any modifications or additional specifications of the license
requirements.
Oils only need to be retested if there is a formulation change, or a change in materials/suppliers etc.
It's very odd that Mobil 1 has a Dec 5th 2008 - Mar 2009 time frame for the license. Only 3 months? Hmmm
The three month thing seems obvious:
M1 is probably expecting a formulation "change" when the plant goes back online and will need to re-certify everything because of that.
Para 3.5 states:
A license may be renewed annually by mutual agreement of the parties, provided the licensee reports the
volume of licensed product sold the previous year, pays the annual fee, and agrees to comply with any
amendments to the license agreement and any modifications or additional specifications of the license
requirements.
Oils only need to be retested if there is a formulation change, or a change in materials/suppliers etc.
It's very odd that Mobil 1 has a Dec 5th 2008 - Mar 2009 time frame for the license. Only 3 months? Hmmm
The three month thing seems obvious:
M1 is probably expecting a formulation "change" when the plant goes back online and will need to re-certify everything because of that.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: bulwnkl
Let's see:
No absolute requirement for testing to renew,
The API 'works with' marketers that have a problem (as opposed to just jerking a license),
XOM is one of API's biggest 'customers,'
An annual renewal that in this case only lasts for 3 months,
...this math ain't tough, boys and girls.
1. We don't know if they had to re-test the product or not. I cannot find any documentation on the API's website stating such.
2. If they ONLY have to re-test if the formulation has changed, and they have not re-tested, then that means they are using the same formulation that they were using when it passed last time.
3. The renewal is probably for the life-cycle of M1's current product line, which will likely have to be COMPLETELY re-certified when the plant goes back online.
Let's see:
No absolute requirement for testing to renew,
The API 'works with' marketers that have a problem (as opposed to just jerking a license),
XOM is one of API's biggest 'customers,'
An annual renewal that in this case only lasts for 3 months,
...this math ain't tough, boys and girls.
1. We don't know if they had to re-test the product or not. I cannot find any documentation on the API's website stating such.
2. If they ONLY have to re-test if the formulation has changed, and they have not re-tested, then that means they are using the same formulation that they were using when it passed last time.
3. The renewal is probably for the life-cycle of M1's current product line, which will likely have to be COMPLETELY re-certified when the plant goes back online.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: bulwnkl
You can't do basic math!
And why is that Mr. Hawking?
You can't do basic math!
And why is that Mr. Hawking?
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Exxon Mobil's very "vague" response to the claims made by Ashland, in response to Jobbersworld contacting them:
Quote:
"We would like you to know that while we are aware of Valvoline's assertions, ExxonMobil stands behind the quality of Mobil 1 and all of our lubes products. ExxonMobil's GF 4 licenses for all product lines are valid."
http://www.jobbersworld.com/December 18, 2008.htm
Quote:
"We would like you to know that while we are aware of Valvoline's assertions, ExxonMobil stands behind the quality of Mobil 1 and all of our lubes products. ExxonMobil's GF 4 licenses for all product lines are valid."
http://www.jobbersworld.com/December 18, 2008.htm
Originally Posted By: bulwnkl
Oh, just nevermind. I think you're taking this way too personally.
Never question a motor oil that someone is emotionally attached to.
Oh, just nevermind. I think you're taking this way too personally.
Never question a motor oil that someone is emotionally attached to.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: bulwnkl
Oh, just nevermind. I think you're taking this way too personally.
OK, let me extrapolate on this a bit:
I've been using Mobil 1 since before I had a license. My automotive mechanic teacher swore by the stuff, and was on his 2nd Jetta (first went 1,000,000Km) that had over 700,000Km on it. (diesel).
I've personally accrued in the neighbourhood of 500,000Km on three different vehicles using it.
I drive my vehicles HARD. But I do not abuse them.
I have had TWO of these engines torn-down right to the shortblock to perform performance upgrades.
The Mustang engine, which has been driven VERY HARD was:
A) Spotless inside. You could EAT off the lifter valley.
B) Showed ZERO visible wear. There was no ring ridge, visible cross-hatching.
C) Showed ZERO varnish build-up. No stuck rings, no varnish on the cam, rockers, lifters....etc.
It's had pretty much every grade of M1 through it, from 0w20 to 5w50. Oil changed at 10-12,000Km.
With a set of ported Ford heads, no tune, and a horrendous 10:1 A/F ratio, it made 270RWHP and 300RWTQ. With 300,000Km on it. (About 325HP flywheel). Stock, it was rated for 225HP.
With those SAME heads, bigger MAF, tune, and a custom cam, I'm shooting for 320+RWHP with that same engine. 330,000Km on it now. That's 400HP flywheel with stock junk from 1987 that still makes 38psi of oil pressure hot at idle with 5w30 in it.
So yes, I have a hard time swallowing Ashland's "claims" when I have had such fantastic luck with this product keeping my stuff clean, and healthy over the years.
Remember, these aren't "look in the oil fill" observations. These are tear downs.
So forgive me for not condemning a company who has, in my opinion, served me VERY well for a VERY long time, simply because one of their competitors, who buys their bloody base oil FROM the company in question, makes a claim about some "independent testing" that they've done.
Oh, just nevermind. I think you're taking this way too personally.
OK, let me extrapolate on this a bit:
I've been using Mobil 1 since before I had a license. My automotive mechanic teacher swore by the stuff, and was on his 2nd Jetta (first went 1,000,000Km) that had over 700,000Km on it. (diesel).
I've personally accrued in the neighbourhood of 500,000Km on three different vehicles using it.
I drive my vehicles HARD. But I do not abuse them.
I have had TWO of these engines torn-down right to the shortblock to perform performance upgrades.
The Mustang engine, which has been driven VERY HARD was:
A) Spotless inside. You could EAT off the lifter valley.
B) Showed ZERO visible wear. There was no ring ridge, visible cross-hatching.
C) Showed ZERO varnish build-up. No stuck rings, no varnish on the cam, rockers, lifters....etc.
It's had pretty much every grade of M1 through it, from 0w20 to 5w50. Oil changed at 10-12,000Km.
With a set of ported Ford heads, no tune, and a horrendous 10:1 A/F ratio, it made 270RWHP and 300RWTQ. With 300,000Km on it. (About 325HP flywheel). Stock, it was rated for 225HP.
With those SAME heads, bigger MAF, tune, and a custom cam, I'm shooting for 320+RWHP with that same engine. 330,000Km on it now. That's 400HP flywheel with stock junk from 1987 that still makes 38psi of oil pressure hot at idle with 5w30 in it.
So yes, I have a hard time swallowing Ashland's "claims" when I have had such fantastic luck with this product keeping my stuff clean, and healthy over the years.
Remember, these aren't "look in the oil fill" observations. These are tear downs.
So forgive me for not condemning a company who has, in my opinion, served me VERY well for a VERY long time, simply because one of their competitors, who buys their bloody base oil FROM the company in question, makes a claim about some "independent testing" that they've done.
Originally Posted By: wgtoys
Isn't the whole point of the ILSAC specification system to AVOID individual manufacturer specific specifications? I'm not at all impressed by each company coming up with its own special licensing/branding program.
Industry standards, and close monitoring to make sure suppliers are actually consistently meeting them, is the way to go.
Company by company standards stink.
Exactly,.... and the warranty fears are not totally correct, but
have a practical effect. They lose in court on unrealistic spec requirements that are met by a similar common product. However, it ight give them something they could use to delay and haggle you with. (I flunked chemistry so I don't know **** about oils, but I did graduate law school and work in Corp defense counsel)
Most importantly Oil Geeks, does anyone really believe they will have an oil related engine failure (or even problem) by using either of these oils? I know that takes the fun out of it.
Merry Christmas
Isn't the whole point of the ILSAC specification system to AVOID individual manufacturer specific specifications? I'm not at all impressed by each company coming up with its own special licensing/branding program.
Industry standards, and close monitoring to make sure suppliers are actually consistently meeting them, is the way to go.
Company by company standards stink.
Exactly,.... and the warranty fears are not totally correct, but
have a practical effect. They lose in court on unrealistic spec requirements that are met by a similar common product. However, it ight give them something they could use to delay and haggle you with. (I flunked chemistry so I don't know **** about oils, but I did graduate law school and work in Corp defense counsel)
Most importantly Oil Geeks, does anyone really believe they will have an oil related engine failure (or even problem) by using either of these oils? I know that takes the fun out of it.
Merry Christmas
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
So yes, I have a hard time swallowing Ashland's "claims" when I have had such fantastic luck with this product keeping my stuff clean, and healthy over the years.
The claims have nothing to do with what you're talking about. M1 still just barely meets GF-3, it simply doesn't meet the current spec that it's licensed for. If you're upset about lack of wear control or the meets/doesn't meet spec thing, be upset with XOM for betraying you rather being upset with the messenger (Ashland, Dyson Analysis, UOAs here, who else?). It's not anyone's fault that XOM isn't performing to current spec except XOM's. I'm glad that the product has, in the past, produced clean internals for you. Again, none of that is in question. The current spec has tighter wear limits and the current product doesn't meet that standard. It meets the obsolete spec. No one's saying that the obsolete spec's wear level is not sufficient for you. It's merely a case of the current product being a bill of goods in that it doesn't meet the spec it carries and that customers think they're paying for, and there's every reason IN THE WORLD to believe that XOM knew it, knows it, and simply refuses to explain. That kind of disdain for the customer is intolerable to me, no matter who you are.
So yes, I have a hard time swallowing Ashland's "claims" when I have had such fantastic luck with this product keeping my stuff clean, and healthy over the years.
The claims have nothing to do with what you're talking about. M1 still just barely meets GF-3, it simply doesn't meet the current spec that it's licensed for. If you're upset about lack of wear control or the meets/doesn't meet spec thing, be upset with XOM for betraying you rather being upset with the messenger (Ashland, Dyson Analysis, UOAs here, who else?). It's not anyone's fault that XOM isn't performing to current spec except XOM's. I'm glad that the product has, in the past, produced clean internals for you. Again, none of that is in question. The current spec has tighter wear limits and the current product doesn't meet that standard. It meets the obsolete spec. No one's saying that the obsolete spec's wear level is not sufficient for you. It's merely a case of the current product being a bill of goods in that it doesn't meet the spec it carries and that customers think they're paying for, and there's every reason IN THE WORLD to believe that XOM knew it, knows it, and simply refuses to explain. That kind of disdain for the customer is intolerable to me, no matter who you are.
Everyone knows I've always been a fan of Mobil 1, but this is the straw that broke the camel's for me personally. It would have been one thing to be within several microns of the limit, which is 90, but being at 180 is inexcusable and should really make anyone now question their integrity.
I still believe Mobil 1 will remain among the best oils on the market just due to XOM's resources, but until then I'm jumping ship to Valvoline/Amsoil.
I still believe Mobil 1 will remain among the best oils on the market just due to XOM's resources, but until then I'm jumping ship to Valvoline/Amsoil.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: bulwnkl
Oh, just nevermind. I think you're taking this way too personally.
OK, let me extrapolate on this a bit:
I've been using Mobil 1 since before I had a license. My automotive mechanic teacher swore by the stuff, and was on his 2nd Jetta (first went 1,000,000Km) that had over 700,000Km on it. (diesel).
I've personally accrued in the neighbourhood of 500,000Km on three different vehicles using it.
I drive my vehicles HARD. But I do not abuse them.
I have had TWO of these engines torn-down right to the shortblock to perform performance upgrades.
The Mustang engine, which has been driven VERY HARD was:
A) Spotless inside. You could EAT off the lifter valley.
B) Showed ZERO visible wear. There was no ring ridge, visible cross-hatching.
C) Showed ZERO varnish build-up. No stuck rings, no varnish on the cam, rockers, lifters....etc.
It's had pretty much every grade of M1 through it, from 0w20 to 5w50. Oil changed at 10-12,000Km.
With a set of ported Ford heads, no tune, and a horrendous 10:1 A/F ratio, it made 270RWHP and 300RWTQ. With 300,000Km on it. (About 325HP flywheel). Stock, it was rated for 225HP.
With those SAME heads, bigger MAF, tune, and a custom cam, I'm shooting for 320+RWHP with that same engine. 330,000Km on it now. That's 400HP flywheel with stock junk from 1987 that still makes 38psi of oil pressure hot at idle with 5w30 in it.
So yes, I have a hard time swallowing Ashland's "claims" when I have had such fantastic luck with this product keeping my stuff clean, and healthy over the years.
Remember, these aren't "look in the oil fill" observations. These are tear downs.
So forgive me for not condemning a company who has, in my opinion, served me VERY well for a VERY long time, simply because one of their competitors, who buys their bloody base oil FROM the company in question, makes a claim about some "independent testing" that they've done.
All fine and dandy, but it doesn't dispute the claim that Mobil 1 5w30 failed the Sequence IVA wear test.
Originally Posted By: bulwnkl
Oh, just nevermind. I think you're taking this way too personally.
OK, let me extrapolate on this a bit:
I've been using Mobil 1 since before I had a license. My automotive mechanic teacher swore by the stuff, and was on his 2nd Jetta (first went 1,000,000Km) that had over 700,000Km on it. (diesel).
I've personally accrued in the neighbourhood of 500,000Km on three different vehicles using it.
I drive my vehicles HARD. But I do not abuse them.
I have had TWO of these engines torn-down right to the shortblock to perform performance upgrades.
The Mustang engine, which has been driven VERY HARD was:
A) Spotless inside. You could EAT off the lifter valley.
B) Showed ZERO visible wear. There was no ring ridge, visible cross-hatching.
C) Showed ZERO varnish build-up. No stuck rings, no varnish on the cam, rockers, lifters....etc.
It's had pretty much every grade of M1 through it, from 0w20 to 5w50. Oil changed at 10-12,000Km.
With a set of ported Ford heads, no tune, and a horrendous 10:1 A/F ratio, it made 270RWHP and 300RWTQ. With 300,000Km on it. (About 325HP flywheel). Stock, it was rated for 225HP.
With those SAME heads, bigger MAF, tune, and a custom cam, I'm shooting for 320+RWHP with that same engine. 330,000Km on it now. That's 400HP flywheel with stock junk from 1987 that still makes 38psi of oil pressure hot at idle with 5w30 in it.
So yes, I have a hard time swallowing Ashland's "claims" when I have had such fantastic luck with this product keeping my stuff clean, and healthy over the years.
Remember, these aren't "look in the oil fill" observations. These are tear downs.
So forgive me for not condemning a company who has, in my opinion, served me VERY well for a VERY long time, simply because one of their competitors, who buys their bloody base oil FROM the company in question, makes a claim about some "independent testing" that they've done.
All fine and dandy, but it doesn't dispute the claim that Mobil 1 5w30 failed the Sequence IVA wear test.
Originally Posted By: buster
Everyone knows I've always been a fan of Mobil 1, but this is the straw that broke the camel's for me personally. It would have been one thing to be within several microns of the limit, which is 90, but being at 180 is inexcusable and should really make anyone now question their integrity.
Yup. If I was a loyal Mobil 1 user like OVERKILL, I'd be pretty angry.
If they'd come out and say, for whatever reason - Katrina's disruption, someone dropped the ball, whatever, we put out a bad stock of product and it's fixed now, they'd have the ball back in their court. But no, they give us the typical corporate or political middle finger answer.
Everyone knows I've always been a fan of Mobil 1, but this is the straw that broke the camel's for me personally. It would have been one thing to be within several microns of the limit, which is 90, but being at 180 is inexcusable and should really make anyone now question their integrity.
Yup. If I was a loyal Mobil 1 user like OVERKILL, I'd be pretty angry.
If they'd come out and say, for whatever reason - Katrina's disruption, someone dropped the ball, whatever, we put out a bad stock of product and it's fixed now, they'd have the ball back in their court. But no, they give us the typical corporate or political middle finger answer.
Originally Posted By: bulwnkl
The claims have nothing to do with what you're talking about. M1 still just barely meets GF-3, . . .
I find that statement interesting since no one has said what date the Mobil 1 they tested was manufactured on. Is it possible that maybe Valvoline found an old bottle on shelf?
The claims have nothing to do with what you're talking about. M1 still just barely meets GF-3, . . .
I find that statement interesting since no one has said what date the Mobil 1 they tested was manufactured on. Is it possible that maybe Valvoline found an old bottle on shelf?
Last edited:
Quote:
I find that statement interesting since no one has said what date the Mobil 1 they tested was manufactured on. Is it possible that maybe Valvoline found an old bottle on shelf?
Frankly, no. They didn't just test a bottle. Go back and read everything. This wasn't a bottle or two, and wasn't a single test.
And, I'll be honest, maybe they don't meet GF-3. I said that with a certain number in mind which I may have mis-remembered. Is 180 microns within GF-3? I'm not going to go look right now.
I find that statement interesting since no one has said what date the Mobil 1 they tested was manufactured on. Is it possible that maybe Valvoline found an old bottle on shelf?
Frankly, no. They didn't just test a bottle. Go back and read everything. This wasn't a bottle or two, and wasn't a single test.
And, I'll be honest, maybe they don't meet GF-3. I said that with a certain number in mind which I may have mis-remembered. Is 180 microns within GF-3? I'm not going to go look right now.
Nicely put bulwnkl. For a moment early in this whole mess there was some initial denial for me. I mean for close to 20 years my E-150 ran on Mobil 1 10W30. I didn't want to believe that I might have been getting screwed, or buying a substandard product. Then reading and studying UOA's and seeing higher iron #'s with certain Mobil 1 products, and then mentally defending them saying 10W30 or 0W20, or whatever is better, or maybe they used iron in their blends (lol). They did target 5W30, and I wasn't using it, so that made me feel a little better, but that is a defense mechanism. Why should I defend them with my hard earned cash? My trust is not there, so I decided to move on.
They didn't become the biggest corporation in the world for no reason, it was marketing and selling to the masses, it worked. They might have made a great product, but I think they got caught up in all of it, and the quality is now lacking. Now they lost me as a customer both for oil and gas. The nice thing about living in this great land is we are free to our views and opinions, and are not locked into one brand. Thanks to Ashland for opening my eyes and switching me to Amsoil and Pennzoil for my 2 favorite vehicles. The beater will see sale oil, but not Mobil products.
In my eyes its going to take a lot for XOM to regain my trust.
JMO,
Frank D
They didn't become the biggest corporation in the world for no reason, it was marketing and selling to the masses, it worked. They might have made a great product, but I think they got caught up in all of it, and the quality is now lacking. Now they lost me as a customer both for oil and gas. The nice thing about living in this great land is we are free to our views and opinions, and are not locked into one brand. Thanks to Ashland for opening my eyes and switching me to Amsoil and Pennzoil for my 2 favorite vehicles. The beater will see sale oil, but not Mobil products.
In my eyes its going to take a lot for XOM to regain my trust.
JMO,
Frank D
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky