Home

Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2

Posted By: buster

Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/13/08 01:06 AM

http://www.jobbersworld.com/December%2011,%202008.htm

 Quote:
Rather than backing down, Valvoline is holding its ground, and turns up the heat.

Marketers say the received a letter from Valvoline providing additional information and data to support Valvoline SynPower's significant performance advantage versus Mobil 1. In addition, marketers say the letter turns the table on ExxonMobil's challenge and Valvoline is now challenging ExxonMobil's claim for its Mobil 1 5W-30.

According to the letter, Valvoline says the company conducted a number of tests and commissioned an independent laboratory to evaluate the performance of SynPower and Mobil 1 in the Sequence IVA wear test. Marketers were told the tests were run on a 5W-30 since it's the top selling grade.

Now for the interesting part...

According to a letter Valvoline marketers received, the result from Valvoline's testing indicate:

* Valvoline SynPower's 5W-30 wear performance is at least four times better than Mobil 1 5W-30
* Mobil 1 5W-30 does not meet minimum API SM or ILSAC GF-4 specification because of its inferior performance in the Sequence IVA wear test

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.
Posted By: Pablo

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/13/08 01:16 AM

Gutsy.

Can you say BITOG oil wars go mainstream??
Posted By: buster

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/13/08 01:21 AM

I don't think Valvoline would push it that far if it weren't true. Mobil will lose even further credibility with people if it is true.
Posted By: SCV

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/13/08 01:27 AM

Ashland is boldly turning up the heat on Mobil-1; it will be interesting to see what happens.
Posted By: crinkles

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/13/08 01:35 AM

just bought some Valvoline 10w-30 conventional this morning... and have some durablend 10w-30 waiting...
I'm over mobil!
Posted By: moribundman

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/13/08 01:51 AM

I've been feeding my car MaxLife 10W-40 for over a year and haven't needed any ARX!
Posted By: rg200amp

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/13/08 01:54 AM

WOW!!!!

Seems odd that in septhember Mobil 1 was sent the letter, and that was about the time hurrican "Ike" knocked out there base oil plant.
LOL


I am sure Mobil 1 passes API SM. Perhaps, pending we see this data, not as well as Valvoline.

Intresting they do not go after Pennzoil. Perhaps the Pennzoil Platnium is a little to good for them to attack. . . . .
Posted By: trail_rated

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/13/08 01:58 AM

Valvoline SYNpower FTW!!!
Posted By: buster

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/13/08 02:09 AM

 Quote:
Mobil 1 5W-30 does not meet minimum API SM or ILSAC GF-4 specification because of its inferior performance in the Sequence IVA wear test


This is the best part. Seq IVA is a tough valvetrain test that replicates taxi cab type service.

Posted By: ZZman

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/13/08 02:13 AM

There is more to oil performance than 1 test.
Posted By: buster

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/13/08 02:18 AM

Yes, but it's the fact that Mobil 1 has always been the "gold standard" of synthetics, it would put a dent in their integrity.
Posted By: azsynthetic

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/13/08 02:25 AM

Like I have said many times before: if Valvoline said their products meet a manufacturer specification, I believe them.
Posted By: demarpaint

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/13/08 02:27 AM

I'm surprised Mobil hasn't defended its position, I anxiously wait. Interesting they only singled out 5W-30, it has to be more than just popularity............ From what I've read and heard 10W-30 was the most popular grade.

Frank D
Posted By: BTLew81

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/13/08 02:50 AM

 Originally Posted By: rg200amp
WOW!!!!



Intresting they do not go after Pennzoil. Perhaps the Pennzoil Platnium is a little to good for them to attack. . . . .


Agreed...I think PP meets some impressive specs for "only" being mostly a grp III.

Anyone have any ideas as to what the full makeup of PP is?
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/13/08 03:04 AM

*waiting for EM to purchase Ashland and destroy them*
Posted By: bulwnkl

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/13/08 03:09 AM

 Originally Posted By: rg200amp
Intresting they do not go after Pennzoil. Perhaps the Pennzoil Platnium is a little to good for them to attack. . . . .


Or perhaps it's stupid to attack a bit player instead of the deficient overdog that doesn't even meet spec.
Posted By: Mr Nice

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/13/08 03:19 AM

Maybe they didn't go after Pennzoil cause Mobil 1 is the # 1 synthetic oil in terms of customer use/market share ?
Posted By: HARTZSKY

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/13/08 03:25 AM

 Originally Posted By: buster
I don't think Valvoline would push it that far if it weren't true. Mobil will lose even further credibility with people if it is true.
I've seen alot of people get sold a "bill of goods" over the years and you would swear they were telling the truth. So, I put no bearing of "truth" on anything just because a company pushes it.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/13/08 03:41 AM

 Originally Posted By: HARTZSKY
 Originally Posted By: buster
I don't think Valvoline would push it that far if it weren't true. Mobil will lose even further credibility with people if it is true.
I've seen alot of people get sold a "bill of goods" over the years and you would swear they were telling the truth. So, I put no bearing of "truth" on anything just because a company pushes it.


Agreed.

Look how many car companies claim to be "the best"
Posted By: kr_bitog

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/13/08 01:12 PM

The claim is not surprising, I have stopped putting M1 5w-30 for long OCI because it always failed my personal startup hearing test after 5K. Still trying with the EP version one though.
Posted By: buster

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/13/08 02:56 PM

Mobil 1 5w30 is a very good oil for high temp protection and deposit/sludge protection but may just be that it doesn't do that well on the Seq IVA, which is an entirely different test that measures valvetrain wear at low loads/low temps. Just a complete guess but it could be due to the HTO-06 spec it meets although PP 5w30 meets both.


Posted By: ZZman

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/13/08 03:18 PM

That is my point. Oils are mixed and designed to try and meet many standards of performance. Because it is such a complicated mix you may have to give a little in one area to excel in another area.

Since they don't give any concrete measurements for their wear test the wear was probably miniscule so even 4 times less wear would mean next to nothing. It would be like comparing 1" to 4" in distance or 1 mile and 4 miles distance. Same ratio but big difference.
Posted By: demarpaint

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/13/08 03:29 PM

Nicely explained Buster/ZZman. I'm not ditching my Mobil 1 0W-20 stash just yet and switching to Valvoline. I have a feeling it's possible that in the 5W-30 grade maybe in this one test Valvoline excelled, and they're jumping all over it, and keeping their mouths shut with the other grades. I think once Mobil sorts out their IKE issues they'll spend some time in a counter attack ad. I learned a long time ago to take Advertisements with a grain of salt.

Again JMO,
Frank D
Posted By: buster

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/13/08 03:45 PM

 Originally Posted By: ZZman
That is my point. Oils are mixed and designed to try and meet many standards of performance. Because it is such a complicated mix you may have to give a little in one area to excel in another area.

Since they don't give any concrete measurements for their wear test the wear was probably miniscule so even 4 times less wear would mean next to nothing. It would be like comparing 1" to 4" in distance or 1 mile and 4 miles distance. Same ratio but big difference.


Some oil companies have actually made a specific, separate grade to meet Honda HTO-06 which suggests it's a tough test. Both PetroCanada and Castrol have done this.

The problem is though, you must score under 90um of wear to pass the Seq IVA in order to meet the ILSAC GF4/API SM requirement and if it doesn't meet that, I'm not sure you could claim it.
Posted By: Johnny

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/13/08 04:06 PM

 Originally Posted By: buster
http://www.jobbersworld.com/December%2011,%202008.htm

 Quote:
Rather than backing down, Valvoline is holding its ground, and turns up the heat.

Marketers say the received a letter from Valvoline providing additional information and data to support Valvoline SynPower's significant performance advantage versus Mobil 1. In addition, marketers say the letter turns the table on ExxonMobil's challenge and Valvoline is now challenging ExxonMobil's claim for its Mobil 1 5W-30.

According to the letter, Valvoline says the company conducted a number of tests and commissioned an independent laboratory to evaluate the performance of SynPower and Mobil 1 in the Sequence IVA wear test. Marketers were told the tests were run on a 5W-30 since it's the top selling grade.

Now for the interesting part...

According to a letter Valvoline marketers received, the result from Valvoline's testing indicate:

* Valvoline SynPower's 5W-30 wear performance is at least four times better than Mobil 1 5W-30
* Mobil 1 5W-30 does not meet minimum API SM or ILSAC GF-4 specification because of its inferior performance in the Sequence IVA wear test

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 would want to see this letter on Valvoline letterhead, signed by someone in Valvoline management. That's a pretty liable statement saying Mobil 1 5W-30 does not meet API SM GF-4 specs.

I have not looked, but I doubt that is posted on their website.
Posted By: LTVibe

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/13/08 04:07 PM

 Quote:
Mobil 1 5W-30 does not meet minimum API SM or ILSAC GF-4 specification because of its inferior performance in the Sequence IVA wear test

"...does not meet minimum API SM or ILSAC GF-4 specification..."

If this is true, then this oil does not meet warranty requirements for new vehicles. And technically, any new car which comes from the factory with this oil, like Corvette, could be recalled.
Posted By: Johnny

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/13/08 04:13 PM

"Marketers say", "according to the letter". Anytime I hear the words marketers say and according in the same sentence, I look both ways before I cross the street.
Posted By: HondaMan

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/13/08 04:15 PM

Makes sense ....

You offer your 'Flagship' product in M1 5w-30 but ....

You come out with an EP offering stating nothing against your 'Flagship' but yet at the same time implying it is 'Stronger'.

Makes no sense other than just dollars.

Also for arguments sake, say you dumb down your 'Flagship' to make even more money. Too bad.

Perhaps as suggest before, EP is closer or is in fact the 'Original' M1
Posted By: demarpaint

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/13/08 04:19 PM

I'd like to see the letter too. Its possible its a rumor that actually made it to publication all on hearsay, from "reliable sources". If that's the case (stupid move for printing it) then legal action will probably be starting shortly. Time will tell. The key words are "marketers say". I say [censored].

Frank D
Posted By: JAG

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/13/08 04:19 PM

This raises the question of what the approval processes are for API SM and ILSAC GF-4. What are they?

If the test data is sent to an independent review board, Mobil should be in the clear about the claim that M1 5W-30 does not pass API SM and ILSAC GF-4. If it barely passed that wear test when Mobil tested it, it is possible for it to fail when its tested again due to statistical variations. Does anyone know if only one passed Sequence IVA wear test is all that's needed or is it multiple? If it's a sample size of one and M1 5W-30 passed it when Mobil tested it, and when Valvoline had it tested, it failed, Mobil need not show Valvoline substantiation.

I too take with a grain of salt what companies say through their marketing departments. They obviously have a lot to gain from trashing their competition. This whole thing has a fishy smell to it, to me.
Posted By: buster

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/13/08 04:43 PM

There will definitely be major repercussions from this either way. It could backfire on Valvoline or tarnish XOM's reputation. To go public and specifically call out a competitor on a major claim is ballzzy. I have a very hard time believing Mobil 1 5w30 does not meet the Seq IVA requirements for SM/GF4. I believe they have the test facilities in-house to do the testing themselves. Interesting little twist to the story as it's now an issue of whether M1 passes the Seq IVA. LOL.



Posted By: HayBusMan

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/13/08 04:49 PM

I believe there is validity in Valvoline's claim. I switched to Mobil 15W50 in my sport motorcycles. This was the tri-synthetic
formulation. The magnetic drain plugs were full of iron powder.
I tried the gold cap EP and the same wear was occuring. The oil did a fantastic job in cleaning up the engines though. (Castrol Syntec had left a varnish buildup which Mobil removed!). I believe the deposit control additives are competing with the AW, EP additives and are winning.
Posted By: aquariuscsm

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/13/08 04:54 PM

What would be the cause of high fe levels on the uoa`s with M1? Where would the fe come from? Any coorelation between the high fe levels and the engine noise sometimes associated with M1?
Posted By: buster

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/13/08 04:55 PM

 Originally Posted By: HayBusMan
I believe there is validity in Valvoline's claim. I switched to Mobil 15W50 in my sport motorcycles. This was the tri-synthetic
formulation. The magnetic drain plugs were full of iron powder.
I tried the gold cap EP and the same wear was occuring. The oil did a fantastic job in cleaning up the engines though. (Castrol Syntec had left a varnish buildup which Mobil removed!). I believe the deposit control additives are competing with the AW, EP additives and are winning.


Yeah some have said that. It's all about finding that "balance". Superior in some areas, a jack of all trades in others.
Posted By: aquariuscsm

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/13/08 05:01 PM

 Originally Posted By: buster
 Originally Posted By: HayBusMan
I believe there is validity in Valvoline's claim. I switched to Mobil 15W50 in my sport motorcycles. This was the tri-synthetic
formulation. The magnetic drain plugs were full of iron powder.
I tried the gold cap EP and the same wear was occuring. The oil did a fantastic job in cleaning up the engines though. (Castrol Syntec had left a varnish buildup which Mobil removed!). I believe the deposit control additives are competing with the AW, EP additives and are winning.


Yeah some have said that. It's all about finding that "balance". Superior in some areas, a jack of all trades in others.


Sort`ve like the cleaning agents are "cleaning away" the lubricating agents inhibiting 100% lubrication?
Posted By: greenaccord02

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/13/08 05:26 PM

They're saying this and all the while Mobil 1's marketers are sitting back, biding their time sharpening their shanks. I wouldn't be surprised if in short order we see Mobil come out with some test data that makes Valvoline look like Golden State.
Posted By: buster

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/13/08 05:35 PM

XOM needs to prove it far surpasses the Seq IVA and this goes away. Singling out one test is one thing, but not meeting it is another.

For my post above, sorry I meant many say M1 keeps engines spotless....never heard of any iron powder issues. LOL.

This is like WW III of oil wars.

Posted By: JAG

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/13/08 06:18 PM

For many tens of thousands of miles on my VW GTI, I've been monitoring iron picked up its drain plug and internal oil filter magnets (http://www.magna-guard.com/) and have not noticed an increase while using M1 0W-40 vs any other brand of oil (Valvoline Synpower 5W-40, Lubromoly 0W-40 and 5W-40, GC 0W-30, Syntec 5W-40, Amsoil ACD SAE 30/10W-30).

I don't put much weight on UOA iron measurements...there is a particle size limitation. It must be recognized that what it is measuring is the concentration on the low end of the size distribution and that distribution is not necessarily constant (shape of or the mean of the population density vs. particle size curve).

The one magnet I have is on the outside of the oil filter (http://www.filtermag.com/tech.php). After using Lubromoly 0W-40, I opened the oil filter while keeping the magnet on it, and was amazed to see how much iron particles there were. It was just like the pics on FilterMag's website: http://www.filtermag.com/proof.php. The particles were also very gritty to the touch.

On the other hand, M1 5W-30 has a strange formulation. It has low shear stability for a synthetic and has a low starting TBN. These are big enough strikes against it to make me not respect it, given that its most direct competition, PP 5W-30, is more shear stable and has higher starting TBN and also meets the Honda HT-06 spec.
Posted By: buster

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/13/08 07:23 PM

Interesting JAG.
Posted By: daman

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/13/08 07:49 PM

What [censored]...

oh and M1's no 1 selling oil is 10w30..not 5w30,they can't even
get that little bit of info right,so i'm suppose to believe the rest....lol
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/13/08 07:56 PM

 Originally Posted By: HayBusMan
I believe there is validity in Valvoline's claim. I switched to Mobil 15W50 in my sport motorcycles. This was the tri-synthetic
formulation. The magnetic drain plugs were full of iron powder.
I tried the gold cap EP and the same wear was occuring. The oil did a fantastic job in cleaning up the engines though. (Castrol Syntec had left a varnish buildup which Mobil removed!). I believe the deposit control additives are competing with the AW, EP additives and are winning.


Well, I have two 302's with almost 700,000Km between them. Both are driven VERY hard. M1 has kept them clean inside (yes, my engines have actually been apart, these aren't valve cover observations) and there was ZERO visible wear on the Mustang engine, even after all the abuse, fuel dilution due to overly-large injector sizing.....etc.

If the Syntec caused "gum" accumulation in your engine, is it not possible that iron particles were suspended in that "gum", and as the M1 dissolved this, that the particles were set free to accumulate on your magnets?

All kinds of variables here. This is why UOA's are just ONE test of MANY.

Tear-down tests, which, coincidentally, along with a barrage of other tests, are what are performed to evaluate an oil's REAL performance.

GM does this with M1, XOM does this.....etc.
Posted By: demarpaint

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/13/08 09:20 PM

Tearing down an engine and using a mic to measure things is really the only way to tell how effective an oil or additive really is. You bring out a great point. If a car was run from day one, on one and only one oil, then if wear metals were high it could be blamed on the oil (or poor engine design, etc). But it would be a lot more vaild than someone who switched brands and then at 50,000 miles went for a UOA.

As you mention it could be freeing up junk left behind from other oils and then getting crucified in a UOA. Its so odd that countless people comment on just how clean their engines are after using Mobil 1, how bad could it be?


JMO
Frank D
Posted By: HARTZSKY

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/14/08 12:04 AM

 Originally Posted By: Johnny
"Marketers say", "according to the letter". Anytime I hear the words marketers say and according in the same sentence, I look both ways before I cross the street.
Yes indeed
Posted By: HARTZSKY

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/14/08 12:06 AM

 Originally Posted By: Johnny
 Originally Posted By: buster
http://www.jobbersworld.com/December%2011,%202008.htm

 Quote:
Rather than backing down, Valvoline is holding its ground, and turns up the heat.

Marketers say the received a letter from Valvoline providing additional information and data to support Valvoline SynPower's significant performance advantage versus Mobil 1. In addition, marketers say the letter turns the table on ExxonMobil's challenge and Valvoline is now challenging ExxonMobil's claim for its Mobil 1 5W-30.

According to the letter, Valvoline says the company conducted a number of tests and commissioned an independent laboratory to evaluate the performance of SynPower and Mobil 1 in the Sequence IVA wear test. Marketers were told the tests were run on a 5W-30 since it's the top selling grade.

Now for the interesting part...

According to a letter Valvoline marketers received, the result from Valvoline's testing indicate:

* Valvoline SynPower's 5W-30 wear performance is at least four times better than Mobil 1 5W-30
* Mobil 1 5W-30 does not meet minimum API SM or ILSAC GF-4 specification because of its inferior performance in the Sequence IVA wear test

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 would want to see this letter on Valvoline letterhead, signed by someone in Valvoline management. That's a pretty liable statement saying Mobil 1 5W-30 does not meet API SM GF-4 specs.

I have not looked, but I doubt that is posted on their website.
Excellent point
Posted By: HayBusMan

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/14/08 04:29 AM

Overk1ll,

I'm glad you've had excellent results with Mobil 1. I know it is a very good oil.

In my case, the RPMs plus high valve spring tension resulted in unit loads that could have exceeded the oil's film strength and EP layer. On the other hand, it may have been transmission gear wear. I'm sure mobil 1 more than exceeds the requirements of a push rod v8.

You are right in that there are all kinds of variables. My observations should only be considered one bit of subjective data to consider. However, I don't think the iron was released from the varnish. I tested the oil over an extended period.

I have no axe to grind with the number one synthetic oil. I use it in other applications.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/14/08 06:04 AM

My current valve springs are 500lbs open, I've got lots of pressure too ;\)

I simply have a hard time believing that M1 actually CAUSED any of that iron. But of course, I could be wrong......
Posted By: buster

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/14/08 10:20 PM

Synpower should be GM 4718M cert. shortly too fwiw.

Posted By: cheetahdriver

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 12:45 AM

M1 5w30 is GM4718M rated. this means that they have to pass SeqIVa at 90μm, and that has to be proven at a GM certified lab. i now would say that the claim of M1 not meeting API SM (also 90μm) is probably bunk.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 12:55 AM

Some food for thought as to how Valvoline wants to take this.

Exxon Mobil's revenue for 2007 was 404.552 Billion
Exxon Mobil's NET income for 2007 was 40.610 Billion

Ashland's revenue for 2006 was 7.233 Billion
Ashland's NET income for 2006 was 170 Million


This is very much like Intel vs AMD. Intel will ALWAYS have the ability out-engineer AMD because they own so much more of the market and make so much more money.

Exxon Mobil could EASILY BUY Ashland. Going by the above figures, Exxon Mobil makes more money in ONE year than Ashland would make in 235 years.

This could turn into a Microsoft vs Netscape battle.

Who here uses Netscape (and no the open source fork of what was once the Netscape project that is now known as Mozilla doesn't count)?

Exactly........
Posted By: Drew2000

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 12:57 AM

 Originally Posted By: HayBusMan
I believe there is validity in Valvoline's claim. I switched to Mobil 15W50 in my sport motorcycles. This was the tri-synthetic
formulation. The magnetic drain plugs were full of iron powder.
I tried the gold cap EP and the same wear was occuring. The oil did a fantastic job in cleaning up the engines though. (Castrol Syntec had left a varnish buildup which Mobil removed!). I believe the deposit control additives are competing with the AW, EP additives and are winning.


Almost all of the ferrous powder was probably from the transmission gears and the steel clutch plates. Most sport bike engines have hardened alloy cylinder bores and very little iron in the engine. I've had pretty good results with the M1 15w50.
Posted By: LargeCarManX2

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 02:29 AM

 Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Some food for thought as to how Valvoline wants to take this.

Exxon Mobil's revenue for 2007 was 404.552 Billion
Exxon Mobil's NET income for 2007 was 40.610 Billion

Ashland's revenue for 2006 was 7.233 Billion
Ashland's NET income for 2006 was 170 Million


This is very much like Intel vs AMD. Intel will ALWAYS have the ability out-engineer AMD because they own so much more of the market and make so much more money.

Exxon Mobil could EASILY BUY Ashland. Going by the above figures, Exxon Mobil makes more money in ONE year than Ashland would make in 235 years.

This could turn into a Microsoft vs Netscape battle.

Who here uses Netscape (and no the open source fork of what was once the Netscape project that is now known as Mozilla doesn't count)?

Exactly........


TRUE, but Remember when little Pennzoil sued Texaco and jumped into the BigBoy world rather quickly? Maybe Johhny can elaborate on this...I just remember the suit from little David against Goliath!
Posted By: HondaMan

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 03:02 AM

Talk of XOM buying Ashland are foolish. Why? Ashland is not in the oil business. They are big in chemicals and chemical distribution, but Valvoline is just a brand name.

Given this, it is interesting to see the happenings in this thread.

Ashland may buy base oils from Marathon or even from XOM, who knows, maybe they buy from XOM and know something we all do not know.

To trust a blender or to trust a giant??????
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 03:28 AM

 Originally Posted By: HondaMan
Talk of XOM buying Ashland are foolish. Why? Ashland is not in the oil business. They are big in chemicals and chemical distribution, but Valvoline is just a brand name.

Given this, it is interesting to see the happenings in this thread.

Ashland may buy base oils from Marathon or even from XOM, who knows, maybe they buy from XOM and know something we all do not know.

To trust a blender or to trust a giant??????


And Exxon Mobil is NOT in the chemical and chemical distribution business? They are the largest in the world for both PAO's and Esters.

Ashland DOES buy base oils from Exxon Mobil.

That is why this is very much biting the hand that feeds you. Slamming one of your SUPPLIERS by making rather outrageous claims about YOUR product's performance using THEIR base oils???

Amsoil buys from Exxon Mobil too, but in their testing they almost always show Mobil 1 as a close 2nd.

Not "corporate letters" oozing potentially erroneous propaganda tarnishing Exxon Mobil's image by stating it fails certain tests it's already certified for!
Posted By: rg200amp

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 03:48 AM

 Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
 Originally Posted By: HondaMan
Talk of XOM buying Ashland are foolish. Why? Ashland is not in the oil business. They are big in chemicals and chemical distribution, but Valvoline is just a brand name.

Given this, it is interesting to see the happenings in this thread.

Ashland may buy base oils from Marathon or even from XOM, who knows, maybe they buy from XOM and know something we all do not know.

To trust a blender or to trust a giant??????


And Exxon Mobil is NOT in the chemical and chemical distribution business? They are the largest in the world for both PAO's and Esters.

Ashland DOES buy base oils from Exxon Mobil.

That is why this is very much biting the hand that feeds you. Slamming one of your SUPPLIERS by making rather outrageous claims about YOUR product's performance using THEIR base oils???

Amsoil buys from Exxon Mobil too, but in their testing they almost always show Mobil 1 as a close 2nd.

Not "corporate letters" oozing potentially erroneous propaganda tarnishing Exxon Mobil's image by stating it fails certain tests it's already certified for!


I agree, however:

Ashland would not make such statement(they can be sued for slander and more than likely close due to money needed to be paid out on the settlement or court order) unless they had *somekind of proof.

THat proof is what we need to find out. And see how factual it really is or is not.

If I started my own oil company in philadelphia, then marketed my oil showes 4x less wear than XOM and that XOM leading oil did not even meet the API SM spec, you bet your [censored] I would have a court sommons the next day!!!


I do not really think Ashlands statements are fully correct. But makeing those kind of claims, there putting there company on the line, so they shure believe it.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 04:02 AM

Some more, from the Dec 13th issue:

http://www.jobbersworld.com/December%2013,%202008.htm

 Quote:
Additional Information on Valvoline's Challenge
In an effort to gather additional information on Valvoline's claim that "Mobil 1 5W-30 does not meet minimum API SM or ILSAC GF-4 specification because of its inferior performance in the Sequence IVA wear test," JobbersWorld contacted Thomas R. Smith at Valvoline. Smith is Technical Director of Valvoline Lubricants and the author of a letter Valvoline went public with on November 20, 2008 that challenges Mobil 's claims.

Click below to view Valvoline's letter and Q&A to its customers, which is reprinted with Valvoline's permission.

Note: The publishers of JobberWorld do not represent or endorse the accuracy of Valvoline's claims, statements, or position in either its letter or associated Q&A.



And the letter:



That's a VERY bold letter. I sure as [censored] hope he can substantiate what he's saying, or he's going to find out what it's like to grapple with a company that makes more in a year than his company will in almost two and a half centuries.......

It's kind of like flipping off somebody who's mentally unstable and happens to be holding an M82A1.....
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 04:09 AM

I've contacted Exxon Mobil, linked them to the jobberworld article and this thread.

I'm interested to see what I hear back.
Posted By: rg200amp

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 04:18 AM

 Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Some more, from the Dec 13th issue:

http://www.jobbersworld.com/December%2013,%202008.htm

 Quote:
Additional Information on Valvoline's Challenge
In an effort to gather additional information on Valvoline's claim that "Mobil 1 5W-30 does not meet minimum API SM or ILSAC GF-4 specification because of its inferior performance in the Sequence IVA wear test," JobbersWorld contacted Thomas R. Smith at Valvoline. Smith is Technical Director of Valvoline Lubricants and the author of a letter Valvoline went public with on November 20, 2008 that challenges Mobil 's claims.

Click below to view Valvoline's letter and Q&A to its customers, which is reprinted with Valvoline's permission.

Note: The publishers of JobberWorld do not represent or endorse the accuracy of Valvoline's claims, statements, or position in either its letter or associated Q&A.



And the letter:



That's a VERY bold letter. I sure as [censored] hope he can substantiate what he's saying, or he's going to find out what it's like to grapple with a company that makes more in a year than his company will in almost two and a half centuries.......

It's kind of like flipping off somebody who's mentally unstable and happens to be holding an M82A1.....



YIEKS!!!!

Ashland has to be sitting on some kind of inside info/proof.
They really just put there WHOLE company(employees, Corp. officers, stock holders, bigwigs, ect. . .) on the chopping block. If XOM can disprove them, XOM will bankrupt and bury Ashland in court.

I just cant see Mobil 1 not meeting API specs. Either Valvoline is going to be cut from production due to the demise of Ashland, or XOM has has played all of its buyiers(includeing countless car makers who are useing it OEM) as fools.

I really cant wait to see how this plays out!!!!
Posted By: rg200amp

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 04:19 AM

 Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
I've contacted Exxon Mobil, linked them to the jobberworld article and this thread.

I'm interested to see what I hear back.


If they did not reply to Ashland directly yet, don't hold your breath!! lol
Posted By: buster

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 04:24 AM

I'm just interested in whether M1 passes the Seq IVA in order to meet API SM/ILSAC GF4.
Posted By: bulwnkl

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 04:35 AM

 Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
I've contacted Exxon Mobil, linked them to the jobberworld article and this thread.


Surely you don't think that XOM hasn't previously seen both the article and this thread?

The letter itself isn't particularly risky for Valvoline at all. They made contact with XOM first, and informed them that testing indicated that M1 did not meet SM/GF-4 requirements. That communication was neither public nor risky. At that point, Valvoline only publicly claimed that SynPower protected better than M1.

With no response from XOM after 2 months and in fact an off-point counterattack, Valvoline upped the ante by disclosing to a wider audience that testing at an independent lab showed failure to meet spec. There remains an invitation to XOM to provide information demonstrating that their product does actually meet spec. Still not risky, and still no on-point response from XOM. I'd say that XOM is messing their pants. I just don't know whether it's because they screwed up or because they got caught.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 04:37 AM

 Originally Posted By: buster
I'm just interested in whether M1 passes the Seq IVA in order to meet API SM/ILSAC GF4.


That is very much a grave area of concern here and one that should definitely be the top of their priority list in addressing, since this latest claim is by far the most bold!
Posted By: tripleM

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 04:39 AM

The end is near for some1...
Posted By: rg200amp

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 04:42 AM

 Originally Posted By: bulwnkl
Surely you don't think that XOM hasn't previously seen this thread?

The letter itself isn't particularly risky for Valvoline at all. They made contact with XOM first, and informed them that testing indicated that M1 did not meet SM/GF-4 requirements. That communication was neither public nor risky. At that point, Valvoline only publicly claimed that SynPower protected better than M1.


With no response from XOM after 2 months and in fact an off-point counterattack, Valvoline upped the ante by disclosing to a wider audience that testing at an independent lab showed failure to meet spec. There remains an invitation to XOM to provide information demonstrating that their product does actually meet spec. Still not risky, and still no on-point response from XOM. I'd say that XOM is messing their pants. I just don't know whether it's because they screwed up or because they got caught.



Not risky?!!!?!

Saying XMO dose not meet the Specs they advertise they do is VERY RISKY.
If it is a lie on Ashlands part it is Slander. Look it up. If it turns out to be false, XOM will bury Ashland in court. Ashland will have to pay so much money in Punitive damages they will have no choice but to file for bankruptcy and close down.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 04:45 AM

 Originally Posted By: rg200amp
 Originally Posted By: bulwnkl
Surely you don't think that XOM hasn't previously seen this thread?

The letter itself isn't particularly risky for Valvoline at all. They made contact with XOM first, and informed them that testing indicated that M1 did not meet SM/GF-4 requirements. That communication was neither public nor risky. At that point, Valvoline only publicly claimed that SynPower protected better than M1.


With no response from XOM after 2 months and in fact an off-point counterattack, Valvoline upped the ante by disclosing to a wider audience that testing at an independent lab showed failure to meet spec. There remains an invitation to XOM to provide information demonstrating that their product does actually meet spec. Still not risky, and still no on-point response from XOM. I'd say that XOM is messing their pants. I just don't know whether it's because they screwed up or because they got caught.



Not risky?!!!?!

Saying XMO dose not meet the Specs they advertise they do is VERY RISKY.
If it is a lie on Ashlands part it is Slander. Look it up. If it turns out to be false, XOM will bury Ashland in court. Ashland will have to pay so much money in Punitive damages they will have no choice but to file for bankruptcy and close down.



It's like playing hot potato with a hand grenade with the pin pulled.
Posted By: rg200amp

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 04:46 AM

 Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
 Originally Posted By: rg200amp
 Originally Posted By: bulwnkl
Surely you don't think that XOM hasn't previously seen this thread?

The letter itself isn't particularly risky for Valvoline at all. They made contact with XOM first, and informed them that testing indicated that M1 did not meet SM/GF-4 requirements. That communication was neither public nor risky. At that point, Valvoline only publicly claimed that SynPower protected better than M1.


With no response from XOM after 2 months and in fact an off-point counterattack, Valvoline upped the ante by disclosing to a wider audience that testing at an independent lab showed failure to meet spec. There remains an invitation to XOM to provide information demonstrating that their product does actually meet spec. Still not risky, and still no on-point response from XOM. I'd say that XOM is messing their pants. I just don't know whether it's because they screwed up or because they got caught.



Not risky?!!!?!

Saying XMO dose not meet the Specs they advertise they do is VERY RISKY.
If it is a lie on Ashlands part it is Slander. Look it up. If it turns out to be false, XOM will bury Ashland in court. Ashland will have to pay so much money in Punitive damages they will have no choice but to file for bankruptcy and close down.



It's like playing hot potato with a hand grenade with the pin pulled.


Some one is going to get BLOWN UP
Posted By: bulwnkl

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 04:46 AM

It's not risky to provide lab testing demonstrating non-compliance. It's not slander, nor libel, nor anything else but test results. The fact that they've now (after 2 months of non-response) disclosed the results of the independent testing to a wider audience is a very good way to improve our confidence that's it's real, honest Seq IVA testing. M1 failed in those tests, and there's really very little room to dispute that at this point. Valvoline may be clever (and excellent R&D folks), but they're not stupid. This is not made-up, and it's not a lie.

I repeat: I'm guessing that XOM is [censored] their pants. I just don't know whether it's because they screwed up, or because they got caught.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 04:48 AM

 Originally Posted By: bulwnkl
 Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
I've contacted Exxon Mobil, linked them to the jobberworld article and this thread.


Surely you don't think that XOM hasn't previously seen both the article and this thread?

The letter itself isn't particularly risky for Valvoline at all. They made contact with XOM first, and informed them that testing indicated that M1 did not meet SM/GF-4 requirements. That communication was neither public nor risky. At that point, Valvoline only publicly claimed that SynPower protected better than M1.

With no response from XOM after 2 months and in fact an off-point counterattack, Valvoline upped the ante by disclosing to a wider audience that testing at an independent lab showed failure to meet spec. There remains an invitation to XOM to provide information demonstrating that their product does actually meet spec. Still not risky, and still no on-point response from XOM. I'd say that XOM is messing their pants. I just don't know whether it's because they screwed up or because they got caught.


This isn't "Survivor All-Stars". One doesn't simply "up the ante" with a company the size of Exxon Mobil. They make more money in a day than Ashland makes in a YEAR.

This is like a GreenPeace vessel shooting a .22 at the USS Alabama....
Posted By: rg200amp

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 04:51 AM

 Originally Posted By: bulwnkl
It's not risky to provide lab testing demonstrating non-compliance. It's not slander, nor libel, nor anything else but test results. The fact that they've now (after 2 months of non-response) disclosed the results of the independent testing to a wider audience guarantees that's it's real, honest Seq IVA testing. M1 failed in those tests, and there's really very little room to dispute that at this point. Valvoline may be clever (and excellent R&D folks), but they're not stupid. This is not made-up, and it's not a lie.

I repeat: I'm guessing that XOM is [censored] their pants. I just don't know whether it's because they screwed up, or because they got caught.


We have yet to see the proof. We do not know if XOM is in the wrong. Ashland says they have proof. Where are the lab documents??

I understand its test results. BUt saying you have test results and showing them are two diffrent things. What if the lab got it wrong? What if a court order goes out to get a bottle of Mobile one from every state in a random store. They test them, and find out it dose meet the specs.

THere are alot of what ifs here. This will go to court.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 04:52 AM

 Originally Posted By: bulwnkl
It's not risky to provide lab testing demonstrating non-compliance. It's not slander, nor libel, nor anything else but test results. The fact that they've now (after 2 months of non-response) disclosed the results of the independent testing to a wider audience is a very good way to improve our confidence that's it's real, honest Seq IVA testing. M1 failed in those tests, and there's really very little room to dispute that at this point. Valvoline may be clever (and excellent R&D folks), but they're not stupid. This is not made-up, and it's not a lie.

I repeat: I'm guessing that XOM is [censored] their pants. I just don't know whether it's because they screwed up, or because they got caught.



OR

Exxon Mobil is performing MASSIVE testing and compiling a lawsuit so large and so bulletproof that Ashland will be out of business the day it's served.

Remember the Exxon Valdez spill? Remember the repercussions from that? Was Exxon Mobil [censored] their pants? Or did they turn around and become the most profitable company in history?

As much as you are rooting for the underdog here, I feel my battleship and the greenpeace boat analogy to be correct.
Posted By: bulwnkl

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 04:54 AM

You guys really are 'fraidy-cats, aren't you? Ashland isn't big enough for XOM to care about. If XOM could realistically put any of their competitors out of business, they would have done so already. Plus, and this is the point so many are ignoring, XOM's product failed the tests performed at an independent lab.

EDIT: The worst thing that might happen here is XOM takes Ashland/Valvoline to the advertising arbitration board where they took BP/Castol (and lost). XOM may even be able to support their contention of compliance. The fact that they haven't yet is ...well not good for those who want Valvoline to be lying.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 04:57 AM

This boat:


Vs:

These guys!:
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 05:01 AM

 Originally Posted By: bulwnkl
You guys really are 'fraidy-cats, aren't you? Ashland isn't big enough for XOM to care about. If XOM could realistically put any of their competitors out of business, they would have done so already. Plus, and this is the point so many are ignoring, XOM's product failed the tests performed at an independent lab.


And the lab couldn't be wrong? The test couldn't have been screwed up?

How many UOA's have we had from Blackstone on here that have been wrong? How many VOA's?

Labs can err!

And IF Exxon Mobil gets 30 labs to test it and it passes at all 30, then what's going to happen here? Ashland isn't just going to be able to say "my bad! " and things be hunky dory.....
Posted By: bulwnkl

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 05:01 AM

Still ignoring the point...
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 05:05 AM

 Originally Posted By: bulwnkl
Still ignoring the point...


I'm not quite sure what your point is.

You seem to think the "silent time" is indication of EM's guilt.

I seem to think that it may be that they are just creating a very large case to bury this.

Other than the letter from Valvoline we have no idea as to what's going on.........
Posted By: Liquid_Turbo

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 05:07 AM

Who knew oil could be a source of drama.
Posted By: greenaccord02

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 05:13 AM

 Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL


Remember the Exxon Valdez spill? Remember the repercussions from that? Was Exxon Mobil [censored] their pants? Or did they turn around and become the most profitable company in history?


Good point.
Posted By: rg200amp

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 05:15 AM

 Originally Posted By: bulwnkl
You guys really are 'fraidy-cats, aren't you? Ashland isn't big enough for XOM to care about. If XOM could realistically put any of their competitors out of business, they would have done so already. Plus, and this is the point so many are ignoring, XOM's product failed the tests performed at an independent lab.


Ashland says it has proof. No one has seen it. Why would a company make a claim like this and not show the proof??

You cant just put a company out of business. If a company makes these kinds of statements and market them to the whole public, you do not think Mobil is loseing money because of this?? Now if mobil is not in the wrong, they will sue for all the lost money because of this add from ashland, and then they will get money ontop of that from which the court will order as punishment to Ashland. Ashland isn't big enough???? Who is Mobil one on the shelve next too???

This is basic law 101. If you can not back up your satements that degrade a person or company, that person or company can sue.

I am not saying Ashland is lieing. They may have hard proof.
XOM's product failed *a wear test, preformed by an *Independent lab.

What lab, where, when, ect. . . I can fail a drug test if I eat hamburgers on Poppy seed buns. DO I do drugs???? NO.
XOM, the biggest retailer of base oil. The oil company most used for OEM. The number ONE selling brand. The pioneers in synthetic oil development.XOM Is accused of not meeting a MANDATED API spec. NO carmaker allowes motor oil not meeting This spec. today.

Why would XOM put there company on the line, when it is SOOOO EASY to meet these specs. [censored], Ashland (who is worth penuts compared to XOM) can meet this Cert. Why would XOM's Mobil 1(the number one selling oil) not???

This is a hairy subject. But Thinking Ashland is right and XOM is wrong because Ashland "says" they have lab tests(but will not show them to the public) is crazy.

I am not saying one way or another what company is right untill allthe facts are out on the table. THis will go to court. It will be a major news story. Saying one way or another now is pointless. We have Heresay and thats it.
Posted By: oilyriser

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 05:24 AM

So if people switch to Synpower, the base oils of which are made by xom...
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 05:29 AM

 Originally Posted By: oilyriser
So if people switch to Synpower, the base oils of which are made by xom...


I believe I stated Exxon Mobil is the most profitable company in history ;\)
Posted By: ZZman

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 01:25 PM

The letter is vague at best.

How many tests did they run?
How many different oil samples/different batches of oil did they use?
I want to see the wear rates in numbers? like .0003/.0012 etc...
What Independent lab did they use?

Interesting how the letter says they have been testing for a couple years. Did it just fail now? Did it fail every test?

That test doesn't really mean much to me as I don't idle alot or do stop and go driving. I am mostly Hwy driving. That might be very important to people in big cities that have bumper to bumper traffic.
Posted By: demarpaint

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 01:38 PM

I'm no fan of Ashland or Valvoline products, but these statements are pretty bold. Ashland must have a legal department they ran them by before publishing the results, and the legal department gave them the OK. Or they are the biggest bunch of a*.*holes going.

Somehow I see XOM coming out on top in all of this. Or they got bagged for marketing and selling a [censored] product, and they got called out.

Either way it makes for some great reading. If it is true anyone who used Mobil 1 and incurred damages will be entitled to payment for these damages from XOM if the oil doesn't meet the required specs. If somehow this got by Ashland's legal dept and the facts are just slightly skewed heads will be rolling, and there will be some new people filing for unemployment benefits. I hope all this comes to a conclusion before my next Mobil 1 OC .


Frank D

BTW as already mentioned 10W-30 is the number one selling oil, so already some credibility is already lost in my book.
Posted By: Pablo

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 01:47 PM

I'm too lazy to re-read through the thread or even the letter.

Did anyone mention the sample method and size?
Posted By: demarpaint

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 01:53 PM

Not that I saw.

Frank D
Posted By: HondaMan

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 02:04 PM

I think there is more to this story ....

I do think there is a correlation between this event and the shortage we are seeing.

There is no news with respects to empty M1 shelves, none.

XOM unable to deliver automotive oil product is big news.

I have done some homework.... no mention on recent calls with analysts, no forward looking statements with respect to M1 product sales suffering. (I'm sure they will have to bite this bullet later)

I think IKE is the perfect cover.

The news of allocation is not comming from XOM, it is comming from the jobbers world or the lube industry.

WM is almost completely out. Lube centers will buy from their distribution, then WM, then finally from an auto parts store.
Two different WM counters told me the phone is ringing everyday: "Every Jiffy Lube in town is calling for oil"

At the end of it all, XOM will say:

"Ashland, thanks for pointing that out to us, we corrected some faulty processes while we were bringing our plants back online after they where damaged during the very active hurricane season. We are confident all of our products meet the most current API standards."
Posted By: Pablo

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 02:07 PM

Exactry.
Posted By: buster

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 02:20 PM

HondaMan makes a good point.

I've been a fan of M1 for years, but have been increasingly skeptical of their quality over the last few years. Ever since they came out with Mobil 1 EP actually. The need for 2 Mobil 1's kind of led me to believe they are more after $$ than anything else.

As far as the size difference between both companies, to me that is irrelevant. Just because XOM is a mass producer of base oils/esters doesn't mean their oil will always be superior. The ILMA's can compete with the larger companies well and in fact do. Amsoil, Schaeffer's, Redline.....all are small, American companies that produce great oils.

Mobil 1 may exceed a lot of industry tests, but if it does turn out to be true that it doesn't meet the Seq IVA portion of pass/fail test, Mobil will have a little problem on their hands.

From Valvman in a previous thread.

 Quote:
Our strong wear results are likely due to SynPower's carefully balanced formulation and the specific anti-wear additive package that we use. Our anti-wear additives stay in the oil longer than those used by other leading synthetic motor oils. We use high quality base oils from several different base oil suppliers (including ExxonMobil) that complement our additive chemistry. It's the combination of base oils and additive chemistry that give us our strong performance.
Posted By: virginoil

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 02:40 PM

Desipte all the claims Valvoline makes about superior performance, Valvoline still recommends 3 mths or 5000km on the Australian website regardless of oil base used.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 03:02 PM

 Originally Posted By: buster
HondaMan makes a good point.

I've been a fan of M1 for years, but have been increasingly skeptical of their quality over the last few years. Ever since they came out with Mobil 1 EP actually. The need for 2 Mobil 1's kind of led me to believe they are more after $$ than anything else.

As far as the size difference between both companies, to me that is irrelevant. Just because XOM is a mass producer of base oils/esters doesn't mean their oil will always be superior. The ILMA's can compete with the larger companies well and in fact do. Amsoil, Schaeffer's, Redline.....all are small, American companies that produce great oils.

Mobil 1 may exceed a lot of industry tests, but if it does turn out to be true that it doesn't meet the Seq IVA portion of pass/fail test, Mobil will have a little problem on their hands.

From Valvman in a previous thread.

 Quote:
Our strong wear results are likely due to SynPower's carefully balanced formulation and the specific anti-wear additive package that we use. Our anti-wear additives stay in the oil longer than those used by other leading synthetic motor oils. We use high quality base oils from several different base oil suppliers (including ExxonMobil) that complement our additive chemistry. It's the combination of base oils and additive chemistry that give us our strong performance.


Buster, I think there is a marked difference between oil like Shaeffers, AMSOIL and Redline and that of Valvoline.

Boutique oils formulated to be the "absolute" best vs a readily available oil blended by a company that used to own a refinery and does not meet the GM or Honda specs but is drumming it's chest like it just bagged an Emmy?

As was said, it's all heresy until Exxon Mobil responds and more facts are brought to the table.

I see the EP line as a method to attempt to replicate the success AMSOIL has been having with their extended drain promoting, while still maintaining their flagship oils that comply to the OEM specs, which may prevent that capability.

As you and I had discussed before and in fact YOU had brought up: meeting all the specs and getting the approvals M1 does requires a balance. Part of that balance may affect the oil's performance in other areas. I would imagine one of those areas is extended drain performance. Enter the EP product line......
Posted By: addyguy

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 03:21 PM

I think we're blowing this WAY out of proportion. EOM is a huge company, that supplies most of the base oils/gas/factory fills in NA, if not the world. Their name is probably the first one that comes to mind when not-so-informed customers want to use/try and synthetic oil. They have the marked covered in so many ways its not funny.

A company the size of Ashland is not a concern to them. They're probably just laughing at this campaign by Valvoline, and haven't bothered to respond to it. I think they know their products meet the specs they say they do, and that some lab, on one set of test showing they don't isn't enought proof to have them worried.

Who knows - maybe there is more 'inside dealing' to this than we know - Ashlnd buys a lot of base oil from EOM. Maybe they cooked up this scheme to 'let' Valvoline find that Synpower is better than M1, have the sales of Synpower booster up, and make more money off base oil sales. Maybe Ashland top brass are in on it, both of them laughing together at creating this 'fuss' and DRAWING A LOT OF FREE ATTENTION TO THEIR PRODUCTS!
Posted By: Cutehumor

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 04:02 PM

ExxonMobil is probably too busy with bringing their plants back online. Ashland should know not to mess with a sleeping giant.
Posted By: Steve S

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 04:19 PM

 Originally Posted By: Liquid_Turbo
Who knew oil could be a source of drama.
Wathch this Liquid Turbo . So that makes Valvoline better than Amsoil?
Posted By: buster

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 04:26 PM

 Quote:
Buster, I think there is a marked difference between oil like Shaeffers, AMSOIL and Redline and that of Valvoline.
Boutique oils formulated to be the "absolute" best vs a readily available oil blended by a company that used to own a refinery and does not meet the GM or Honda specs but is drumming it's chest like it just bagged an Emmy?

As was said, it's all heresy until Exxon Mobil responds and more facts are brought to the table.

I see the EP line as a method to attempt to replicate the success AMSOIL has been having with their extended drain promoting, while still maintaining their flagship oils that comply to the OEM specs, which may prevent that capability.

As you and I had discussed before and in fact YOU had brought up: meeting all the specs and getting the approvals M1 does requires a balance. Part of that balance may affect the oil's performance in other areas. I would imagine one of those areas is extended drain performance. Enter the EP product line......


Agree, but all I'm saying is in order to meet API SM/GF4 you have to pass the Seq IVA and score under 90um's of wear. Mobil 1 is probably superior in terms of oxidation resistance, deposit control and long drain intervals but that really isn't the issue here. The issue is whether M1 passes the Seq IVA test.

Mobil 1 has always been tested for 25,000 mile drains the until EP came out. Not sure why they feel the need to have 2 Mobil 1's.

It's one thing to compare Seq IVA test scores, but it's another not to even pass it. The Seq IVA maybe be irrelevant to one's driving style, but it's still required to meet current API standards.
Posted By: demarpaint

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 05:43 PM

 Originally Posted By: Pablo
I'm too lazy to re-read through the thread or even the letter.

Did anyone mention the sample method and size?


I think Pablo nailed it? Did it take Ashland years of testing (they did say years of testing), to find a batch of 5W-30 Mobil 1 that was slightly out of spec? Then they jumped all over it. I've seen it with paint quality from one batch to the next, things happen. I'm willing to bet Valvoline has some bad oil batches too. Is the API, SAE, whoever there to draw a sample of every batch, and certify it? I'm willing to bet there would be a lot of oil pulled because they're out of spec from all companies.

Frank D
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 06:23 PM

 Originally Posted By: buster
 Quote:
Buster, I think there is a marked difference between oil like Shaeffers, AMSOIL and Redline and that of Valvoline.
Boutique oils formulated to be the "absolute" best vs a readily available oil blended by a company that used to own a refinery and does not meet the GM or Honda specs but is drumming it's chest like it just bagged an Emmy?

As was said, it's all heresy until Exxon Mobil responds and more facts are brought to the table.

I see the EP line as a method to attempt to replicate the success AMSOIL has been having with their extended drain promoting, while still maintaining their flagship oils that comply to the OEM specs, which may prevent that capability.

As you and I had discussed before and in fact YOU had brought up: meeting all the specs and getting the approvals M1 does requires a balance. Part of that balance may affect the oil's performance in other areas. I would imagine one of those areas is extended drain performance. Enter the EP product line......


Agree, but all I'm saying is in order to meet API SM/GF4 you have to pass the Seq IVA and score under 90um's of wear. Mobil 1 is probably superior in terms of oxidation resistance, deposit control and long drain intervals but that really isn't the issue here. The issue is whether M1 passes the Seq IVA test.

Mobil 1 has always been tested for 25,000 mile drains the until EP came out. Not sure why they feel the need to have 2 Mobil 1's.

It's one thing to compare Seq IVA test scores, but it's another not to even pass it. The Seq IVA maybe be irrelevant to one's driving style, but it's still required to meet current API standards.


Perhaps some of the latest manufacturer specs dropped the oil's ability to be recommended for the 25K drains anymore?

As it does with Amsoil and the like; having a separate oil group that is not governed by the same constraints gives them a lot more flexibility in terms of what they do with the EP lineup.

And of course the potential to make more money ;\)
Posted By: rg200amp

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 06:34 PM

Well I know this: If Mobil 1 dose not indeed pass the wear test, and dose not indeed meet the Specs.


There WILL be a MASSIVE class action lawsuit from users of mobil 1. since the use of that oil would void there warranty, and for the fact M1 was useing false advertisments.

So yes. Mobil 1 is worried about these claims. The size of the company means nothing. Ashland is sending these statements world wide. If Mobil can disprove Ashlands claims, Ashland will be blown out of the water.
Posted By: BTLew81

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 06:35 PM

Bottom line...M1 is a quality product, has been, and will continue to be. Sure, they've had some hiccups, but I am sure we can continue to expect quality products. PP, M1, Amsoil, RL...all great oils.
Posted By: demarpaint

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 06:41 PM

 Originally Posted By: rg200amp
Well I know this: If Mobil 1 dose not indeed pass the wear test, and dose not indeed meet the Specs.


There WILL be a MASSIVE class action lawsuit from users of mobil 1. since the use of that oil would void there warranty, and for the fact M1 was useing false advertisments.

So yes. Mobil 1 is worried about these claims. The size of the company means nothing. Ashland is sending these statements world wide. If Mobil can disprove Ashlands claims, Ashland will be blown out of the water.


I was thinking along those lines. Like all those 1-800 LAWYER commercials I see on TV. If you had/have an engine proplem related to oil, and you used M1 5W-30 you may be entitled to compensation.....I can see it now, that's if Valvoline is correct in their findings.

Frank D
Posted By: Liquid_Turbo

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 07:02 PM

I need to know the results of this ASAP so I can decide whether to use my last remaining stash of M1. Haha.
Posted By: bulwnkl

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 07:57 PM

 Originally Posted By: HondaMan
At the end of it all, XOM will say:

"Ashland, thanks for pointing that out to us, we corrected some faulty processes while we were bringing our plants back online after they where damaged during the very active hurricane season. We are confident all of our products meet the most current API standards."


Correct-o. Still leaves questions for us each to answer for ourselves, doesn't it?
Posted By: buster

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 08:22 PM

http://jobbersworld.com/valvolineq&Apage1.htm

Guy's, have a look at this thread.
Posted By: Liquid_Turbo

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 08:45 PM

LOL. WOW.
Posted By: rg200amp

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 08:49 PM

This may be one of, if not thee biggest oil story to hit BITOG ever!!!

This is gonna be on CNN, MSNBC, Ect. . . .
The next six months are going to be VERYYYYYY intresting!
Posted By: buster

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 08:51 PM



Mobil 1 FAILED the Seq IVA test.
Posted By: Drew99GT

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 09:01 PM

Yea, bout that high iron...
Posted By: Drew99GT

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 09:06 PM

Perhaps Mobil 1 should be sold via MLM now like Amsoil, and Exxon can just stop having it tested (like Amsoil used to).
Posted By: Liquid_Turbo

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 09:13 PM

Could this really cuase the usual M1 high iron?
Posted By: demarpaint

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 09:15 PM

I just posted this in another thread Amsoil vs. Mobil 1.


My brother emailed them and this was their reply: For whatever its worth. Remember "if it turns out to be true.

He said that he read on the www that Valvoline was making claims that M 1 5W-30 didn't meet API SM and ILSAC GF-4 specs. He then asked if he had a warranty issue using 5W-30 in a new car spec for API SM ILSAC GF-4 if there would be an issue. Their reply fwiw.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Mobil1 5W30 does meet and exceed API "SM: and ILSAC GF-4 requirements,
don't know who or where you are getting your information from. I would
seriously doubt that GM would choose Mobil1 5W30 over all other oils
they tested for factory fill in their Corvettes, Cadillac and all their
other supercharged vehicles.
_________________________
Posted By: greenaccord02

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 09:24 PM

This is really something... I always knew I was right about using PP.

After all my joking about VS being 4x better... It looks like it might really be true.
Posted By: Drew99GT

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 09:31 PM

The word is getting out. This thread is linked on a few car forums I searched via google.
Posted By: rg200amp

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 09:32 PM

 Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I just posted this in another thread Amsoil vs. Mobil 1.


My brother emailed them and this was their reply: For whatever its worth. Remember "if it turns out to be true.

He said that he read on the www that Valvoline was making claims that M 1 5W-30 didn't meet API SM and ILSAC GF-4 specs. He then asked if he had a warranty issue using 5W-30 in a new car spec for API SM ILSAC GF-4 if there would be an issue. Their reply fwiw.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Mobil1 5W30 does meet and exceed API "SM: and ILSAC GF-4 requirements,
don't know who or where you are getting your information from. I would
seriously doubt that GM would choose Mobil1 5W30 over all other oils
they tested for factory fill in their Corvettes, Cadillac and all their
other supercharged vehicles.
_________________________


I do not think GM nor any automaker "tests" oils on there cars. They look for a API certified oil, then they get a good contract with a maker. Since Mobil uses there own base stocks and are so big, they offer the best price. So Thats why I think OEMs go with Mobil. It is cheap, and thought to meet all the needed Specs.

As we ALL KNOW, M1 is not the best oil out there. So if GM was going to choose a oil based on "what works best" it would be diffrent for every enigne they make. And, more than likely it would not be M1.

Just the fact Mobil stated "don't know who or where you are getting your information from" shows there trying to play dumb.

"He said that he read on the www that Valvoline was making claims that M 1 5W-30 didn't meet API SM" your brother told M1 where he heard it from, the same place everyone else is hearing it from, the same place that sent M1 a letter with the same info. ASHLAND.

M1 needs to prove its meeting the specs.
Posted By: Johnny

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 09:50 PM

 Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I just posted this in another thread Amsoil vs. Mobil 1.


My brother emailed them and this was their reply: For whatever its worth. Remember "if it turns out to be true.

He said that he read on the www that Valvoline was making claims that M 1 5W-30 didn't meet API SM and ILSAC GF-4 specs. He then asked if he had a warranty issue using 5W-30 in a new car spec for API SM ILSAC GF-4 if there would be an issue. Their reply fwiw.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Mobil1 5W30 does meet and exceed API "SM: and ILSAC GF-4 requirements,
don't know who or where you are getting your information from. I would
seriously doubt that GM would choose Mobil1 5W30 over all other oils
they tested for factory fill in their Corvettes, Cadillac and all their
other supercharged vehicles.
_________________________


Well, since your brother has started communications with Mobil, maybe he should reply back and ask them to look at this website:

http://www.jobbersworld.com/December%2011,%202008.htm
Posted By: Johnny

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 09:50 PM

You can bet your paycheck that Castrol is loving this.
Posted By: gogozy

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 09:55 PM

can this has something to do with M1 shortage a few weeks ago? maybe they are making some changes?
Posted By: demarpaint

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 09:55 PM

According to their reply they meet the specs. Not looking to argue just passing info along. Honestly its real easy for me to change brands. I don't like Valvoline oil, but that dislike goes back 30 years. I did like VSOT however.

I am currently using Mobil 1 0W20, if I don't like how this plays out, this will be the last OC for Mobil. Since PP doesn't meet the spec I need in a 0W20, and is nowhere to be found I might just give Amsoil a try.

Frank D
Posted By: buster

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 09:57 PM

http://jobbersworld.com/valvolineq&Apage1.htm

I think Mobil was caught with their pants down. Period. I actually have more faith in Ashland than XOM at this point. Ball is in XOM's court.
Posted By: demarpaint

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 09:58 PM

 Originally Posted By: Johnny
[quote=demarpaint]
Well, since your brother has started communications with Mobil, maybe he should reply back and ask them to look at this website:

http://www.jobbersworld.com/December%2011,%202008.htm


One step ahead of you Johnny we sent them a link to this site and to jobbersworld. Honestly I didn't care for the tone of their reply.

Frank D
Posted By: demarpaint

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 09:59 PM

 Originally Posted By: buster
http://jobbersworld.com/valvolineq&Apage1.htm

I think Mobil was caught with their pants down. Period. I actually have more faith in Ashland than XOM at this point. Ball is in XOM's court.


I have no love for Ashland, but I have to agree with you, its not looking good for XOM.

Frank D
Posted By: Johnny

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 10:00 PM

I just figured since they asked your brother they did not know where this rumor was coming from, this might help. I like you do not have a dog in this fight and could really care less. I also like you do not like Valvoline and the time frame is about the same as yours.

You should try the Amsoil 0W-20, it is really good oil.
Posted By: Johnny

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 10:01 PM

I think we are all typing at the same time.
Posted By: Drew99GT

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 10:04 PM

 Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I don't like Valvoline oil
May I ask why?
Posted By: Pablo

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 10:06 PM

The response of one phone tech from M1 is....questionable...
Posted By: demarpaint

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 10:07 PM

 Originally Posted By: Johnny


You should try the Amsoil 0W-20, it is really good oil.


I'm really leaning that way, sad truth is I just changed my oil about a week ago. Sometimes a company can benefit from this kind of p*.*s fight by sitting back and doing nothing. I think there are a lot of people that think like I do and because of the way this news hit would rather stay clear of both compaines. I see Pennzoil, Amsoil and a host of others gaining because of this. I bet they're licking their chops too!

The tone of Mobils reply just about put me over the top. I handled a lot of CS issues over the years, and they really dropped the ball with their reply.

Frank D
Posted By: rg200amp

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 10:08 PM

I know Mobil knows where this info is coming from. They are just beating around the bush. Ashland sent them the letter we are all talking about.

Mobil will not tell anyone there product dose not meet the Specs unless it is proven in the court of law. That may be why we are not seeing or hearing any thing from Mobil right now. If they do take this to law and they lose, they have some MAJOR problems on there hands like Class action lawsuits, Loseing ALL there OEM contracts, loseing a MAJOR cutomer base, ect. . . Perhaps Mobil is just going to keep quite redo there oil(it has not been at stores for a while) and pretend like nothing happen.
Posted By: demarpaint

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 10:14 PM

That could very well be, we have to see how this plays out. I have honestly lost a lot of respect for Mobil 1 oils today. It looks like Ashland's marketing is working on me anyway. But it won't get them any of my cash, I won't using any of their oil either.

Frank D
Posted By: Drew99GT

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 10:16 PM

demarpaint, why do you dislike Valvoline so much?
Posted By: rg200amp

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 10:25 PM

Yea I dont usally use Valvoline. But, Due to todays information, I would use Valvoline in my bronco and in my moms car.

I do not hold any "bad" feeling to Ashland for bringing this info out on the table. This is bold moves. If anything, I hold a bit more respect for Ashland and Valvline.(pending the allegations are true)
Posted By: buster

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 10:35 PM

Everything is cyclical. Things change. My main issue with Valvoline has been their hang up on extended drain intervals and lack of OEM approvals, but that seems to be changing. Other than that they seem to make a quality oil.



Posted By: demarpaint

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 10:47 PM

 Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
demarpaint, why do you dislike Valvoline so much?


Its been over 30 years so I'm a little fuzzy on it. IIRC I had a 72 Mustang 302, that had a lifter noise, and used oil (at least I thought it did). I bought the car used and in previous cars I used Valvoline oil so I tried it in the Mustang. Anyway for probably 10,000 miles it used about 1 qt/1000 miles. Being a little OCD as a kid it really bothered me. A local repair shop said I probably needed engine work because Valvoline was such a great oil I shouldn't be using so much. A friend told me to try Pennzoil, I did, lifter noise stopped oil use cut in half. Old memories die hard.

Frank D
Posted By: buster

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 10:55 PM

I could see if it was borderline, say around 90-100 microns, but 180ul? Yikes. Double the allowable limit of 90 microns.
Posted By: Nyquist

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 10:59 PM

Here is a link outlining the test in question: http://www.swri.org/4ORG/D08/GasTests/iva.pdf (you will need Adobe Reader or some other PDF program)

If this were based on cold starting I would be more concerned, but most engines are in this temperature range for only a matter of 30 to 90 seconds while driving.

Looking at the list of specs for Mobil 1 in that grade it seems like it is more geared toward being a higher temperature engine oil. That may shed some light as to why it (quote) underperforms (unquote) on some tests. Call it the caveat of gaining in one area but losing some in another.

I have some leftover Mobil 1 5w30 in my closet that I was considering using once my fiance's Cobalt is due in a couple weeks. Honestly I don't think this will stop me from putting it in there because of the operating conditions of the test. I don't think I'll lose any sleep over it. :2cents:
Posted By: buster

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 11:05 PM

You are right, this is one test measuring one type of wear. As you said above, most engines are in this temp. range shortly.

The problem is, and as the letter states, you can't claim API SM/ILSAC GF4 if you don't score lower than 90ul.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 11:11 PM

And it would, as the letter states, invalidate it's certifications for both Honda's HTO-06 and GM's 4718.

This is big. This is EPIC.

And Mobil has yet to reply to me.
Posted By: FrankN4

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 11:24 PM

 Originally Posted By: Liquid_Turbo
I need to know the results of this ASAP so I can decide whether to use my last remaining stash of M1. Haha.


Don't chance it. Send it to me and I will dispose of it properly.
Posted By: [RT] ProjUltraZ

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 11:35 PM

This is a huge strategic move by Ashland and well thought out. some of you act like Ashland has no legal counsel, just a few guys decided to do this?

I think they're playing off the public discontent with Exxon's record profits the past two years. They let XOM know and ran the tests, double, triple, zintuple-checked it. They found that it failed. After much strategizing and mental chess, they decided to do this. If they can lure some M1 users to switch to them, it will all pay off, legal fees included.
Posted By: demarpaint

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 11:35 PM

 Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
And it would, as the letter states, invalidate it's certifications for both Honda's HTO-06 and GM's 4718.

This is big. This is EPIC.

And Mobil has yet to reply to me.


I wonder if you'll get the same response my brother got?

Frank D
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/15/08 11:41 PM

 Originally Posted By: demarpaint
 Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
And it would, as the letter states, invalidate it's certifications for both Honda's HTO-06 and GM's 4718.

This is big. This is EPIC.

And Mobil has yet to reply to me.


I wonder if you'll get the same response my brother got?

Frank D


I hope not.

-Chris
Posted By: SilverC6

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/16/08 02:19 AM

Glad I switched the 'Vette to PP now.

Heck, even YBP meets GF-4.

Now to find those Walmart receipts for the M1 in the oil stash........

Looks like the M1 shortage might be fixed soon.
Posted By: buster

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/16/08 02:21 AM

 Originally Posted By: SilverC6

Heck, even YBP meets GF-4.



It wouldn't surprise me if quite a few brands don't actually meet the spec.
Posted By: ZZman

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/16/08 02:45 AM

I sent them an e-mail also. I will see if I get the same canned response.
Posted By: Drew2000

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/16/08 02:54 AM

So....I have M1 0W20 and 0w30 "green cap" for the next two changes....are these better than the 5w30 M1 "engine death oil"?
Posted By: rg200amp

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/16/08 03:02 AM

 Originally Posted By: Drew2000
So....I have M1 0W20 and 0w30 "green cap" for the next two changes....are these better than the 5w30 M1 "engine death oil"?



I would believe. Ashland is only making claims on Mobil 1 5w30.

Your motor might blow up though. Wear safty goggles while driving!!!
Posted By: TexHawk

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/16/08 03:52 AM

 Originally Posted By: buster
Synpower should be GM 4718M cert. shortly too fwiw.



I had noticed that Synpower originally met the 4718M spec, and then it was removed from the website information. According to a response from Valvoline, it was temporarily removed while they were meeting the SM/GF-4 spec. but it should be reformulated to meet the 4718M spec. in December 2008.
Posted By: Steve S

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/16/08 03:57 AM

4x better .
Posted By: NismoMax80

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/16/08 04:27 AM

i think this puts enough doubt in my mind to try schaeffer's 9000 next time. only 1/2 way through my OCI with M1 EP.

I just think maybe it would be a waste to throw the 9000 away with my OCI of 7500 while under warranty until 2011.

although the way prices seems to be climbing, it doesn't seem like I really lose much. Especially if it's that much better it claims to be.
Posted By: Ben99GT

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/16/08 04:42 AM

 Originally Posted By: NismoMax80
i think this puts enough doubt in my mind to try schaeffer's 9000 next time. only 1/2 way through my OCI with M1 EP.


Not even Ashland is claiming M1 EP failed the tests.
Posted By: NismoMax80

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/16/08 05:03 AM

 Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Not even Ashland is claiming M1 EP failed the tests.


but EP seems to claim what regular M1 used to. so the question has been presented here is EP the original formula and M1 reduced in quality? or is EP really better than M1 ever was?
Posted By: crinkles

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/16/08 06:56 AM

this letter may be a fake for all we know, so it would be more prudent to hang back at this stage than to change the oil you are using.
Posted By: demarpaint

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/16/08 12:29 PM

 Originally Posted By: crinkles
this letter may be a fake for all we know, so it would be more prudent to hang back at this stage than to change the oil you are using.


I felt that way, and I am not using 5W30 I am using 0W20 Mobil 1. What bothered me was the tone of their response. I think sitting back if you're holding a stash or recently changed your oil is probably the best thing to do. If Mobil 1 comes out of this passing all required tests then fine, if not dump the stash and change brands. In my case I'll continue to run the current fill and find another brand when ready for the next OC. Hopefully I can return what I have w/o receipts. Their S*.*t attitude put me over the top. Maybe their responses to other BITOG members will help me get through these dark times. What I really need is to get some work and spend a little less time behind this PC, but that's a whole different story!

Frank D
Posted By: Spykem4e

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/16/08 12:51 PM

for guys that are putting in question mobil 1...

what about the ls1 engine with the 18k miles oci on M1 on the neptune website?

I think they have prooven more than what valvoline is claiming?

No?
Posted By: buster

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/16/08 02:00 PM

 Originally Posted By: Spykem4e
for guys that are putting in question mobil 1...

what about the ls1 engine with the 18k miles oci on M1 on the neptune website?

I think they have prooven more than what valvoline is claiming?

No?


Nope. The issue here is whether M1 meets the API SM/ILSAC GF4 by passing the Seq IVA test.
Posted By: addyguy

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/16/08 03:13 PM

 Originally Posted By: Spykem4e
for guys that are putting in question mobil 1...

what about the ls1 engine with the 18k miles oci on M1 on the neptune website?

I think they have prooven more than what valvoline is claiming?

No?


One answer to that is that test was a while ago, and was a different frmulation of M1 (SL spec.). Also, that test did show relatively hight wear numbers right from the start; so there could still be some validity to that fact that M1 caused excess wear. Sure, the oil survived, but did it protect the best...? Amsoil DID get better wear numbers....
Posted By: FrankN4

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/16/08 03:43 PM

I feel like I am standing in front of the fish market trying to figure out what it is that I smell.

With about 1,000,000 miles on Mobil 1 since 1990, never an engine problem of any kind, never wore an engine out, never used a drop of oil, I don't see Mobil having a problem with wear. However, I never use a 30 grade oil of any kind.

I was never impressed with Valvoline because of people I know that did use Valvoline. Many, if not most of them, I converted to Mobil 1. If you seriously research, not just look at, the UOA's just on BITOG, Synpower doesn't fare all that well. The MaxLife, on the other hand, really stands out.

If Ashland's claim is 100% legit, and I mean in all categories, Mobil 1 has failed their customers and the automotive industry, BIG TIME and should lose API license/endorsement.

If Ashland's claim is not 100% legit in every category, Mobil should bury them so deep they can't sell sewing machine oil.

Still.....what is that smell?
Posted By: Liquid_Turbo

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/16/08 03:45 PM

Speculating, if this were true, it would probably be a recent thing? (past couple years?)

And, if this were true, how could it slip under the radar by the groups that develop these standards?
Posted By: demarpaint

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/16/08 03:56 PM

I'm sure Mobil 1 passed, and if they didn't they could probably buy their way to certification. Isn't it all about money? Maybe the independent test was legit, and Mobil couldn't buy their way out of that since it went on behind their backs. Notice maybe, maybe, maybe? Time will tell.

BTW I like the fish analogy.

Frank D
Posted By: mcrn

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/16/08 04:46 PM

I just sent them an email too. Just curious as to how they will respond. I am in the rinse phase of Auto-rx and was thinking of going synthetic after thats complete. Leaning towards PP of coarse but I do have 5 quarts of Valvoline synpower in the garage. I was thinking of using each one as the single quart to add to the 5 quart jugs from the store I hate the most. My truck takes 6 quarts. However I was also thinking of one of the Mobil 1's but I am just not sure now.
Posted By: Nyquist

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/16/08 04:50 PM

One thing that is for sure is that Valvoline/Ashland accomplished one of their goals: To cast some doubt into the minds of Mobil 1 users.

One interesting point, I could not find what levels of oil pressure they use for the test. This could be a key element to how it actually performs especially if your engine turns more RPM which should lead to higher oil pressure and flow rate.
Posted By: Johnny

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/16/08 04:58 PM

They have accomplished their goal with fanatics like us, but John Q public has no clue.
Posted By: demarpaint

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/16/08 05:02 PM

 Originally Posted By: Johnny
They have accomplished their goal with fanatics like us, but John Q public has no clue.


Exactly, and reading between the lines they are swaying customers away from themselves and Mobil.

Frank D
Posted By: daman

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/16/08 08:07 PM

My grand Am is do for a OC think i'll use some of my 5w30 stash
and sleep good at night..
Posted By: Jason2007

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/16/08 09:02 PM

I decided to try the Synpower 5w30 because of the $10.00 rebate more than their marketing. Maybe they should focus more on the rebate side to woo customers. $9.00 for 5 quarts is real easy to decide when compared to $27.00 for M1.
Posted By: demarpaint

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/16/08 09:21 PM

I'm looking forward to seeing the email replies other BITOG'ers got.

Frank D
Posted By: greenaccord02

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/16/08 09:46 PM

 Originally Posted By: Jason2007
I decided to try the Synpower [...] $9.00 for 5 quarts is real easy to decide when compared to $27.00 for M1.


Synpower is one third the price of M1 and FOUR TIMES AS GOOD???

That means it's 12 TIMES THE VALUE OF MOBIL 1!
Posted By: rg200amp

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/16/08 10:05 PM

 Originally Posted By: demarpaint
 Originally Posted By: Johnny
They have accomplished their goal with fanatics like us, but John Q public has no clue.


Exactly, and reading between the lines they are swaying customers away from themselves and Mobil.

Frank D


You keep dancing around that topic.
Pending the truth, I would not sway away from Ashland. They are not doing anything wrong. I think they are pulling customers in.
Posted By: rg200amp

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/16/08 10:09 PM

 Originally Posted By: Spykem4e
for guys that are putting in question mobil 1...

what about the ls1 engine with the 18k miles oci on M1 on the neptune website?

I think they have prooven more than what valvoline is claiming?

No?


That has nothing to do with this topic at hand. So it worked was used for 18,000 miles.
The issue is specs met. You run that oil 18,000 miles and it dose not meet the OEM spec, there goes your warranty.
Posted By: Steve S

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/17/08 02:12 AM

 Originally Posted By: Spykem4e
for guys that are putting in question mobil 1...

what about the ls1 engine with the 18k miles oci on M1 on the neptune website?

I think they have prooven more than what valvoline is claiming?

No?
Was that the same formulation as the present M1?
Posted By: buster

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/17/08 02:47 AM

No, probably not.
Posted By: FrankN4

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/17/08 03:30 AM

 Originally Posted By: rg200amp
 Originally Posted By: demarpaint
 Originally Posted By: Johnny
They have accomplished their goal with fanatics like us, but John Q public has no clue.


Exactly, and reading between the lines they are swaying customers away from themselves and Mobil.

Frank D


You keep dancing around that topic.
Pending the truth, I would not sway away from Ashland. They are not doing anything wrong. I think they are pulling customers in.


Ashland went about this all wrong. They should have taken their results and positive proof to the API or whoever. Instead, they tried to sensationalize and get free advertisement.

Ashland may have shot Mobil 1 in the heart, it my be just a flesh wound, or it may be a clean miss, but they also shot themselves in the foot.
Posted By: HARTZSKY

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/17/08 03:32 AM

 Originally Posted By: Johnny
They have accomplished their goal with fanatics like us, but John Q public has no clue.
Agree. The only spell Valvoline is casting is on internet forums, the other 99.95%, to use bad english, aint gotta clue...
Posted By: buster

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/17/08 03:33 AM

True HARTZSKY.
Posted By: HondaMan

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/17/08 03:33 AM

Question for the likes of Mola, Bruce ... buster perhaps ....

Is it possible that XOM had an original baseline of the product established that meet spec and in their attempts to meet Honda's newest specification compromised the original baselined product that did meet API SM?

I mention Honda on purpose as it was the newest certification that M1 could pin on their bottle label.

As noted, in order to meet Honda or GM, current baseline API specifications are assummed. In testing to meet the Honda requirement, did they simply forget to go back and revalidate the first use case: Pass API SM ?????

Perhaps blending/formulating does not work in the manner I am refering, hence the need for someone like Mola or bruce to chime in.

Another way to ask is with respects to the Honda spec. for example:
Would a blender take an oil that already meets API SM spec and then simply try to 'add whatever' to then pass Honda requirments? Or do you have to tear down the whole product and start over?

If you simply 'add more stuff', perhaps this compromises the original formula .... 'add clash?'

If you have to tear down completely, then shame on XOM for not following simple procedures in terms of baseline testing and use case establishments. i.e. They cooked up and oil that passed Honda spec. and never bothered to retest against API baseline standard, and probably GM spec. to boot.
Posted By: HARTZSKY

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/17/08 03:47 AM

Valvolines wear tests 4x better than Mobil 1? Sorry, I don't buy it at all. You got a bunch of(sleezy) marketers with lots of pressure on them to sell a product, thats what I think. Im todays market place, people will do and say anything to sell a product. True or not. If I have to sue you so my company can get some needed press and attention, thats what I do, who cares if the claim is true or not
Posted By: demarpaint

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/17/08 05:11 AM

 Originally Posted By: rg200amp
 Originally Posted By: demarpaint
 Originally Posted By: Johnny
They have accomplished their goal with fanatics like us, but John Q public has no clue.


Exactly, and reading between the lines they are swaying customers away from themselves and Mobil.

Frank D


You keep dancing around that topic.
Pending the truth, I would not sway away from Ashland. They are not doing anything wrong. I think they are pulling customers in.


I'm not dancing, I stated how I felt. You feel its drawing customers, I feel there are people turned off by the whole thing, nothing more nothing less. :)

All this did was sway me over to Amsoil in my Jeep for my next OC. I will also continue to use PP and Yellow Bottle, in fact I just grabbed some Shell oil too. As far as Valvoline oil, using it never entered my mind. I always felt Mobil was a good product, however their email reply to my brother was less than professional, so I move on. My 2 oil changes a year using Mobil 1 equates to [censored] into the ocean as far as XOM is concerned, it really means nothing.

Truth be told I hope Mobil comes out of this clean, but that's a whole different story.

Frank D
Posted By: Johnny

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/17/08 05:20 AM

Now Lube Report is reporting on this. This is a little more detailed with names from both Valvoline and Mobil.

http://www.imakenews.com/lng/e_article001295961.cfm?x=bdSbqlq,b1M25KBS
Posted By: demarpaint

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/17/08 05:29 AM

I wonder how they will settle this........Mobil says their product meets specs. Valvoline says it doesn't.

“While we are aware of Valvoline's assertions, ExxonMobil stands behind the quality of Mobil 1 and all of our lubes products,” company spokeswoman Prem Nair told Lube Report. “ExxonMobil has not lost GF-4 licenses for any Mobil 1 products, and our GF-4 licenses for all product lines are valid.”


Pennzoil and Amsoil meet all the requirements I need. Let the battle continue!

Frank D
Posted By: rg200amp

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/17/08 05:40 AM

 Originally Posted By: demarpaint
 Originally Posted By: rg200amp
 Originally Posted By: demarpaint
 Originally Posted By: Johnny
They have accomplished their goal with fanatics like us, but John Q public has no clue.


Exactly, and reading between the lines they are swaying customers away from themselves and Mobil.

Frank D


You keep dancing around that topic.
Pending the truth, I would not sway away from Ashland. They are not doing anything wrong. I think they are pulling customers in.


I'm not dancing, I stated how I felt. You feel its drawing customers, I feel there are people turned off by the whole thing, nothing more nothing less. :)

All this did was sway me over to Amsoil in my Jeep for my next OC. I will also continue to use PP and Yellow Bottle, in fact I just grabbed some Shell oil too. As far as Valvoline oil, using it never entered my mind. I always felt Mobil was a good product, however their email reply to my brother was less than professional, so I move on. My 2 oil changes a year using Mobil 1 equates to [censored] into the ocean as far as XOM is concerned, it really means nothing.

Truth be told I hope Mobil comes out of this clean, but that's a whole different story.

Frank D


I just see it(if its true)as great marketing. Welcome to Corprate America, Its a cut throat world. If your not being bold and starting hype, your not doing it right.(in my eyes)
Posted By: demarpaint

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/17/08 05:49 AM

If its true and Valvoline Oil sales increase it is/was great marketing for them. The way I see it now as I read through the links posted. Ashland either has all their Ducks in a row, or their marketing and legal departments really screwed up! They know their messing with a giant, so maybe their ducks are all lined up.

Past my bedtime over and out.

Frank D
Posted By: JHZR2

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/17/08 06:36 AM

 Originally Posted By: bulwnkl
It's not risky to provide lab testing demonstrating non-compliance. It's not slander, nor libel, nor anything else but test results. The fact that they've now (after 2 months of non-response) disclosed the results of the independent testing to a wider audience is a very good way to improve our confidence that's it's real, honest Seq IVA testing. M1 failed in those tests, and there's really very little room to dispute that at this point. Valvoline may be clever (and excellent R&D folks), but they're not stupid. This is not made-up, and it's not a lie.

I repeat: I'm guessing that XOM is [censored] their pants. I just don't know whether it's because they screwed up, or because they got caught.


When I attended the chevron summit last month, one thing that I noted was that they test all of their main competitors' oils (including the less well known ones) for every test of importance, and know how they rank.

It was noted that some competitors fell below the mark by a slight bit in some tests.

Slight is a relative term, but the way chevron showed it (they showed the metric with real units), the guys that were low were just barely below threshold, and could even be within analytical error. 6% RSD is pretty good for many analytical techniques.

M1 may be in such a situation - they meet most everything, but valvoline has data to prove they are just below the cusp. The whole 4x more wear protection is based upon what? ppm of this vs. that? a real test? one test or a battery where an average was taken?

The 4x antiwear additives is a marketing person's dream... finesse the truth ever so slightly so that it is still true (technically), yet folks read into it as a huge deal. Making an outright claim, on the other hand, is a bigger set of fighting words. Valvoline could always tuck their tail between their legs and claim repeatable lab error or similar though... and I wonder if that was the case and they said their sorrys, if it would ever become a court issue - court is $$$.

Valvoline doesnt have much to loose if they have some basis - no matter how stretched. Mobil has much to loose and little to gain, thus why it was a good battle.

As of now, I see no data. In God we trust, all others bring data... and remember that one test is no test. Where is valvoline's statistically significant, low RSD results from a battery of tests. Most all big manufacturers do them for their and their competitors' oils...

I'd also be interested to see how Amsoil claims that synpower stacks up w.r.t. M1 and their own products...
Posted By: Audi Junkie

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/17/08 06:58 AM

Remember about 12 months ago when everyones Mobil 1 hormones were surging over HT-06?

I say this is Mobil's bean-counters putting ~whatever~ into the batches just to meet demand and Ashland pulling samples until they found what they were looking for. Maybe they were following a inside tip???

As for libel (slander is spoken), yes truth is an absolute defense...but the standard is that Ashland only needs to "believe" their assertions are true. One lab run to support that is enough. That is, Mobil coming back with a 1000 valid samples does NOT make Ashland liable for their statements. Ashland's test result of Mobil's failure does not have to be repeatable, just that it references a single valid test result.

Mobil will ignore.
Posted By: FrankN4

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/17/08 01:33 PM

I'll bet all of the Mobil 1 oils shipped to your local dealers shelves will NOW be of the highest quality control the industry has ever known. ;\) Mobil 1 fans that stay on board will be getting the best oil ever
Posted By: demarpaint

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/17/08 01:35 PM

Time and UOA's will tell, stay tuned.

Frank D
Posted By: daman

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/17/08 01:51 PM

 Originally Posted By: FrankN4
Mobil 1 fans that stay on board will be getting the best oil ever

we always have been
Posted By: mcrn

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/17/08 02:36 PM

I agree with what was said above about Mobil having a lot to loose and not much to gain however I feel Valvoline has a lot to loose too. If these claims come out to be totally not true and it was all marketing I personally will never buy their product again. (If I can avoid it.) However if their claims are true I will use it a lot!
Posted By: Brian Barnhart

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/17/08 03:01 PM

There is no doubt that M1 failed the (one) test. Those looking for data can find it in the Jobers World link at bottom of page 10. The statements from E-M on GF-4 licensing in the link provided by Johnny on page 18 are typical corporate speak. If you read is closely, it’s apparent that E-M doesn’t dispute Valvoline’s claim. E-M only claims their licenses are valid.

I suspect licenses are granted based on test data of a certain formula, and the license remains valid as long as the tested and licensed formula (or equivalent) is used. With the sample Valvoline tested, E-M obviously used a formula that failed to meet the GF-4 requirements. Only E-M knows if they knew the formula used would not meet GF-4 when they produced it. So the fact that E-M’s GF-4 license remains valid means nothing. What matters is whether E-M has corrected the problem in production, or is ignoring the failure and continuing to use the same formula. Since they are so full of themselves, they may never say.
Posted By: Steve S

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/17/08 04:13 PM

This subject isn't on the T.V news I wonder if Mobil really cares?
Posted By: buster

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/17/08 04:13 PM

LOL
Posted By: Drew99GT

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/17/08 05:01 PM

Yea, the true test will be whether Valvoline starts making commercials about this!
Posted By: BTLew81

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/17/08 06:09 PM

I'm going to weigh in here after throwing in some stones here and there.

Mobil makes quality products, in general. Their ATF, gear lubes, greases, and oils are of very high quality.

I think this whole 5w30 thing is a mess, whether true or not. The bottom line is that if the 5w30 is not meeting specs, then Mobil has some issues they need to deal with. However, this is one grade. A common grade, yes, but let's look at the whole picture here. Also, let's give them a chance to really reply and prove one way or another.

I ran M1 5w30 in a GM 3.4 for 6 years, 70k miles, and TONS of harsh conditions. Always started, returned good MPG, and was running good as new when I sold it. No leaks, no nothing.

I have a supply of cheaply purchased Synpower. Fine oil, but from my UOA's and friends, it shears like crazy in the 5w30 grade. Even in my little 2.3 Mazda. Does this bother me? Yes and no. Will it make me stop using it? Not when it's this cheap! :)

My point is...let's look at Mobil as a whole. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and hope they give a better response...SOON! If there is a problem, let's just hope they fix it, and quick.

I have to change the oil on the 3 this week. It's cold here, and since I can't find 5w20/30 in M1, I'll probably use M1 10w30...and I'll use it with confidence.
Posted By: demarpaint

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/17/08 06:23 PM

Has anyone gotten any email replies back from Mobil, other than the one my brother had me post?

I'm thinking that once Valvoline found this issue, they must have tested and retested the balance of the Mobil 1 product line and didn't find any issues. If they did they'd be all over it.

The good news is I can easily cash my stash in if and when I see fit.

Frank D
Posted By: Boomer

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/17/08 06:50 PM

What Brian Barnhart said above is true for a lot of industrial "recipes". I was involved for many years with a fire tested insulation product that was certified to fire performance by an outside third party of high repute. Once we showed that we passed the test to their satisfaction, they received a copy of our highly confidential formula. Then, on unannounced visits to our factory, they would demand to see the formula sheet that the operators were working from. ANy deviation from what they had been given set off alarms that were NOT good for us. I would suspect that EM works the same way with oil quialification. Even if you religiously follow a formulation, small variations in raw materials can run you back and forth statistically over "the line". As long as those are small variatiions, it is the overall adherance to a statistical value that you are shooting for. I wonder how Ashland would fare if we spent money and rounded up bottles of their product from around the US and started testing every property that they say they have.
Posted By: buster

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/17/08 09:16 PM

 Quote:
Thank you for your inquiry,

We are aware of Valvoline's claim, ExxonMobil stands behind the performance of our motor oils and products. Mobil1 5W30 motor oil is API "SM" rated along with ILSAC GF-4, and they are licensed.
-- Thank you for choosing ExxonMobil products.
If you need further assistance, please contact ExxonMobil at 1-800-ASK-MOBIL

MJ


Posted By: Nyquist

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/17/08 09:29 PM

While driving home today I had this bit of thought, If Exxon Mobil said a product of theirs was SM-rated but in actuality was not, wouldn't that make them responsible for any voided warranty as a result of its use?

Food for thought on this Wednesday afternoon. . .
Posted By: Neil_A

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/17/08 10:08 PM

Here is their response to me:

(no subject)‏
From: ExxonMobil ([email protected])
Sent: Thu 12/18/08 12:15 AM

We are aware of Valvoline'sclaims and we stand behind the quality and performance of our oils.Additionally, all our API and GF-4 licenses are valid. -MJ
Posted By: demarpaint

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/17/08 10:19 PM

I guess MJ was assigned the task of dealing with us concerned BITOG'ers. Here is another email me brother sent them with his concerns, he posted a link for them to view.

Their reply:

----------------------------------------------------------------

He sent this:

> Another link fyi: http://jobbersworld.com/valvolineq&Apage1.htm
> <http://jobbersworld.com/valvolineq&Apage1.htm> since I have a lot of
> money invested in my car I am concerned.
>


The reply



ExxonMobil does not have anymore comments on the subject, as stated
below Mobil1 5W30 and all of our branded API "SM" and ILSAC GF-4 motor
oils are licensed and they are valid, no reason for concern. Mobil1 5W30
is trusted for the vehicles listed below by GM it will will perform and
protect your vehicle as well.

-MJ
Posted By: Ben99GT

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/17/08 11:48 PM

 Originally Posted By: JHZR2
When I attended the chevron summit last month, one thing that I noted was that they test all of their main competitors' oils (including the less well known ones) for every test of importance, and know how they rank.

It was noted that some competitors fell below the mark by a slight bit in some tests.

Slight is a relative term, but the way chevron showed it (they showed the metric with real units), the guys that were low were just barely below threshold, and could even be within analytical error. 6% RSD is pretty good for many analytical techniques.


I'm not surprised, I think Chevron is the best and most straightforward oil company around.

Speaking of the Chevron summit, did you find out anything on the Chevron Supreme Synthetic there?
Posted By: rg200amp

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/17/08 11:50 PM

 Originally Posted By: Nyquist
While driving home today I had this bit of thought, If Exxon Mobil said a product of theirs was SM-rated but in actuality was not, wouldn't that make them responsible for any voided warranty as a result of its use?

Food for thought on this Wednesday afternoon. . .



Yes it would. I have talked about this a bit here.
Posted By: rg200amp

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/17/08 11:58 PM

Exxon has it printed on all there bottles(Meets API SM, ect. . .)
and they have been marketing it as it meets the specs forever.

Even if they know it dose not meet the specs now, they will still market it as though it dose untill there ordered not to in the courts.

I would think that if the statements are true, XOM has allready fixed the issue.
Posted By: bulwnkl

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/18/08 01:10 AM

 Originally Posted By: JHZR2
When I attended the chevron summit last month, one thing that I noted was that they test all of their main competitors' oils (including the less well known ones) for every test of importance, and know how they rank.

It was noted that some competitors fell below the mark by a slight bit in some tests.

Slight is a relative term, but the way chevron showed it (they showed the metric with real units), the guys that were low were just barely below threshold, and could even be within analytical error. 6% RSD is pretty good for many analytical techniques.

M1 may be in such a situation - they meet most everything, but valvoline has data to prove they are just below the cusp.


Another explanation is that M1 doesn't meet spec (which allows a certain amount of test and production variation), and Chevron's testing (if that's whose product they were even referring to) shows M1 as failing by a "slight" margin, and Valvoline's data (to include the independent lab) shows that they're not even close. IF such were the case, then that would suggest that the overall average result is between slightly and massively deficient.

That XOM ignores results and claims validity of their licenses only after significant elapsed silence suggests very, very strongly to me that they don't meet spec and they know it. Their product's deficiency may or may not be fixed by now, but the simple, plain fact is that they have (had) a licensed product that doesn't meet spec, and probably isn't all that close.

We all get to decide why for ourselves.
Posted By: buster

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/18/08 01:18 AM

 Quote:
That XOM ignores results and claims validity of their licenses only after significant elapsed silence suggests very, very strongly to me that they don't meet spec and they know it. Their product's deficiency may or may not be fixed by now, but the simple, plain fact is that they have (had) a licensed product that doesn't meet spec, and probably isn't all that close.


Yup.

In addition, Valvoline has also done some other testing on the competition. Valvman posted this in another thread:

 Quote:
About a year ago Valvoline conducted a survey of various 5W-30 conventional products on shear stability and stay-in-grade performance. We went to our local Advance Auto Parts and purchased quarts of the products listed below. We noted that each product was currently labeled with the API SM donut and carried the ILSAC GF-4 starburst. I have included the results of the ASTM D6278 Kurt Orbahn (Bosch diesel injector) test which is typically used to evaluate stay-in-grade shear performance for engine oils. The current API requirement for BOI or VGRA (baseoil interchange or viscosity grade readacross) purposes for a 5W-30 stay-in-grade limit is 8.5cSt. Any 5W-30 that shears below this viscosity does not meet this API requirement for BOI or VGRA. The 8.5cSt viscosity limit is actually below the SAE J300 lower viscosity limit of 9.3cSt. for a SAE 30 grade because the Kurt Orbahn test is more severe than the Seq VIII engine test used to evaluate shear stability when running an API oil licensing program. European ACEA requirements are more severe requiring a higher performance level and a stay-in-grade pass uses the SAE J300 viscosity lower limits. So a 5W-30 must retain a minimum of 9.3cSt after the test. Out of all the oils tested, only the Valvoline oil showed the ACEA level of stay-in-grade performance.

Product Name Valvoline Premium Conv, Castrol GTX, Havoline,Mobil Clean 5000, Quaker State, Pennzoil
SAE Grade all 5W-30
Kinematic Viscosity @40C,cSt: 60.17, 60.59, 54.90, 60.16, 62.46, 61.07
Kinematic Viscosity @100C,cSt: 10.66, 10.59, 9.71, 10.55, 10.43, 10.49

ASTM D6278 Kurt Orbahn Shear (30 pass)
Kin Vis @ 100C, cSt after Shear: 9.42, 9.04, 8.89, 8.8, 8.68, 8.63


Looks like Valvoline has integrity.
Posted By: hooligan24

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/18/08 01:45 AM

how often does the API run test's on oils? (hypothetically speaking)What if they ran the test a year ago and it passed, but formulas have changed since then, and now it doesnt pass. Can MJ still say they are API liscenced and valid because the certification hasnt expired?

When was the last time M1 5w30 was actually put under the knife by the API?
Posted By: rg200amp

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/18/08 02:13 AM

 Originally Posted By: hooligan24
how often does the API run test's on oils? (hypothetically speaking)What if they ran the test a year ago and it passed, but formulas have changed since then, and now it doesnt pass. Can MJ still say they are API liscenced and valid because the certification hasnt expired?

When was the last time M1 5w30 was actually put under the knife by the API?


It either meets API SM / GF-4 specs or it doesnt. Theres no gray area.

I believe(I could be wrong) that the oil is only tested once by the API to make sure it meets API SM. After that(I think) its up to the oil maker to maintain the oils integrity.

Posted By: FrankN4

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/18/08 02:34 AM

I was talking with a legal type(family) earlier and he said every independent lab in the country could show Mobil 1(or anyone else) failed or passed and none of it would be allowed in any US court. Only test done by the licensing agency meant anything. Tests done by and "RESULTS REPORTED" by a competitor would make the competitor liable if they stated test results as authoritative unless they were able to get the licensing agency to do the actual testing and "REPORTING". That is, they could report their many repeated results to the licensing agency and demand, but not mandate, an agency test. That is like all you folk that have base oil analyzed by various folk that have a decent chemistry lab and have to keep your mouth shut.(tough...aint it)

I know this is lawyer talk, but it is lawyers that will handle the situation. He said Ashland was MUCH, MUCH more at risk for legal action than Mobil. Mobil would most likely prove their API license status and go about business. Ashland was most likely counting on that, but look at the free advertisement. A calculated risk.
Posted By: rg200amp

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/18/08 02:39 AM

 Originally Posted By: FrankN4
I was talking with a legal type(family) earlier and he said every independent lab in the country could show Mobil 1(or anyone else) failed or passed and none of it would be allowed in any US court. Only test done by the licensing agency meant anything. Tests done by and "RESULTS REPORTED" by a competitor would make the competitor liable if they stated test results as authoritative unless they were able to get the licensing agency to do the actual testing and "REPORTING". That is, they could report their many repeated results to the licensing agency and demand, but not mandate, an agency test. That is like all you folk that have base oil analyzed by various folk that have a decent chemistry lab and have to keep your mouth shut.(tough...aint it)

I know this is lawyer talk, but it is lawyers that will handle the situation. He said Ashland was MUCH, MUCH more at risk for legal action than Mobil. Mobil would most likely prove their API license status and go about business. Ashland was most likely counting on that, but look at the free advertisement. A calculated risk.



Sounds intresting.
Posted By: buster

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/18/08 02:42 AM

7th video down. "Valvoline Lab". They are the only oil company with it's own engine testing facility that can qualify passenger car oils.

http://www.valvoline.com/pages/media/index.asp


Posted By: FrankN4

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/18/08 02:57 AM

I believe their results in the test mentioned. I would like to know ALL the details of the test, but I believe "as they reported under their situation." It just has no meaning legally. Only API can say pass or fail, license granted or denied.

If Mobil is guilty as accused, it will take API to say so. If API says so, I hope Ashland milks it for all it is worth because, of all companies, Mobil 1 has the resources in every area to make nothing but a premium product. They don't have to cut corners.

API may decide it is not worth looking at. Mobil is not making a fuss.
Posted By: HARTZSKY

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/18/08 03:06 AM

Obviously Synpower just isn't selling nearly as well as Mobil 1, Pennzoil Platinum, etc etc etc. Sales must really be down with Synpower to pull out the "4x better strategy". Like I said previously, clever marketers at work to get sales going. As I good rule of thumb in any area of life, "believe what you see, not what you hear."
Posted By: Johnny

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/18/08 06:51 AM

 Originally Posted By: buster
7th video down. "Valvoline Lab". They are the only oil company with it's own engine testing facility that can qualify passenger car oils.

http://www.valvoline.com/pages/media/index.asp




Well, that's a pretty good advertising, promotional video but don't think for a minute that Valvoline is the only oil company that does this. Shell's West Hollow Research Lab in Southwest Houston is 5 to 10 times the size of what Valvoline has. This is where Shell test and formulates it's oils for every car known to man, every large diesel engine there is, all outboard engines, motorcycle engines, and even outdoor power equipment. They have more engine test stands than most of the engine manufactures do. Then you can go to Exxon/Mobils Research Lab in Fairfax, VA., same thing, or Chevron's Research Lab outside of San Francisco, or the ConocoPhillips Research Lab in Bartelsville, OK. Heck, to listen to Valvoline you would think they were the only ones that knew how to formulate oil. Oh and by the way, they were not the first one to make a multi-vis oil.

There, rant over. I hate marketing B.S. and I can spot it a mile away.
Posted By: crinkles

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/18/08 07:29 AM

 Originally Posted By: FrankN4
I was talking with a legal type(family) earlier and he said every independent lab in the country could show Mobil 1(or anyone else) failed or passed and none of it would be allowed in any US court. Only test done by the licensing agency meant anything. Tests done by and "RESULTS REPORTED" by a competitor would make the competitor liable if they stated test results as authoritative unless they were able to get the licensing agency to do the actual testing and "REPORTING". That is, they could report their many repeated results to the licensing agency and demand, but not mandate, an agency test. That is like all you folk that have base oil analyzed by various folk that have a decent chemistry lab and have to keep your mouth shut.(tough...aint it)

I know this is lawyer talk, but it is lawyers that will handle the situation. He said Ashland was MUCH, MUCH more at risk for legal action than Mobil. Mobil would most likely prove their API license status and go about business. Ashland was most likely counting on that, but look at the free advertisement. A calculated risk.


I doubt that only the licensing lab could do the tests. Labs are certified for certain tests they apply accreditation for. If the national certifying body OK's any lab to do that test and they have certification to do that specific test, it is a valid test and should be legal.
Posted By: ZZman

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/18/08 10:31 AM

 Originally Posted By: Neil_A

We are aware of Valvoline'sclaims and we stand behind the quality and performance of our oils.Additionally, all our API and GF-4 licenses are valid. -MJ


I just got an e-mail reply back from Exxon/Mobil that is exactly the same.
Posted By: demarpaint

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/18/08 12:44 PM

21 pages of this thread, just shows the power of a good marketing campaign.

I'm from the same camp as Johnny, "I hate marketing B.S. and I can spot it a mile away."

I recall reading on this board that XOM gas is not top tier either (corrrect me if I'm wrong). Could be Mobil 1 is at the lower limit of the specs, just like their gas, and they really are all about profit. Their balance sheet proves it.

JMO
Frank D
Posted By: Tom NJ

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/18/08 01:29 PM

http://74.6.239.67/search/cache?ei=UTF-8...&icp=1&.intl=us

Tom NJ
Posted By: buster

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/18/08 02:16 PM

http://www.oilanalysis.com/article_detail.asp?articleid=227&relatedbookgroup=OilAnalysis

I agree Johnny. All I was pointing out is that Ashland is not some fly by night company selling snake oil. They have the facilities to run ASTM tests, as does Shell/XOM/CVX etc.

Posted By: bulwnkl

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/18/08 02:28 PM

 Originally Posted By: Johnny
Well, that's a pretty good advertising, promotional video but don't think for a minute that Valvoline is the only oil company that does this. Shell's West Hollow Research Lab in Southwest Houston is 5 to 10 times the size of what Valvoline has. This is where Shell test and formulates it's oils for every car known to man, every large diesel engine there is, all outboard engines, motorcycle engines, and even outdoor power equipment. They have more engine test stands than most of the engine manufactures do. Then you can go to Exxon/Mobils Research Lab in Fairfax, VA., same thing, or Chevron's Research Lab outside of San Francisco, or the ConocoPhillips Research Lab in Bartelsville, OK. Heck, to listen to Valvoline you would think they were the only ones that knew how to formulate oil. Oh and by the way, they were not the first one to make a multi-vis oil.

There, rant over. I hate marketing B.S. and I can spot it a mile away.


I agree, and thank you for grounding us a bit, Johnny. Sadly, that makes it all the more disappointing (frankly suspicious in my mind) that XOM's product was tested out of spec. XOM has the facilities, talent, and resources to know exactly how their product performs at all times.
Posted By: buster

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/18/08 02:48 PM

 Quote:
XOM has the facilities, talent, and resources to know exactly how their product performs at all times.


 Quote:
It employs an array of analytical techniques including liquid chromatography (LC), gel permeation chromatography (GPC), gas chromatography (GC), GC/mass spectroscopy (GC/MS), LC/MS, fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), FTIR/microscopy, GC/FTIR/MS, X-ray diffraction, DC-arc emission spectroscopy (solids), fluorescence spectroscopy, optical microscopy and scanning electron microscopy/energy dispersive spectrometry (SEM/EDS). In addition, the lab has the capability to run many standard ASTM bench tests designed to measure properties and performance of petroleum products, but the advanced analytical capabilities are what really set Paulsboro MTS apart.
Posted By: tmorris1

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/18/08 02:58 PM

Who cares about the marketing? All companies do it. I have gotten better UOAs from PP and Synpower than M1. We should be glad that Valvoline is putting out a good product for a decent price. With all the rebates that Valvoline offers, I don't think that I have payed full price for an oil change for years, and I get as good or better results than when I was using M1.

It was kind of funny how everyone always wrote off the high iron in M1 samples, but with any other product we would never hear the end of it. I don't have a horse in either race, but I am glad that other companies are putting out good products. The success of M1 has caused other companies to step up...
Posted By: gogozy

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/18/08 04:52 PM

 Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
http://74.6.239.67/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=ilsac+license+procedure&y=Search&fr=yfp-t-305&u=www.api.org/certifications/engineoil/pubs/upload/1509_16thedition042007.pdf&w=ilsac+license+procedure+procedures&d=c9zHoUfiR4nb&icp=1&.intl=us

Tom NJ

thanks for the link, but now i am lost...
Posted By: gogozy

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/18/08 04:52 PM

 Originally Posted By: bulwnkl
 Originally Posted By: Johnny
Well, that's a pretty good advertising, promotional video but don't think for a minute that Valvoline is the only oil company that does this. Shell's West Hollow Research Lab in Southwest Houston is 5 to 10 times the size of what Valvoline has. This is where Shell test and formulates it's oils for every car known to man, every large diesel engine there is, all outboard engines, motorcycle engines, and even outdoor power equipment. They have more engine test stands than most of the engine manufactures do. Then you can go to Exxon/Mobils Research Lab in Fairfax, VA., same thing, or Chevron's Research Lab outside of San Francisco, or the ConocoPhillips Research Lab in Bartelsville, OK. Heck, to listen to Valvoline you would think they were the only ones that knew how to formulate oil. Oh and by the way, they were not the first one to make a multi-vis oil.

There, rant over. I hate marketing B.S. and I can spot it a mile away.


I agree, and thank you for grounding us a bit, Johnny. Sadly, that makes it all the more disappointing (frankly suspicious in my mind) that XOM's product was tested out of spec. XOM has the facilities, talent, and resources to know exactly how their product performs at all times.

+1
Posted By: buster

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/18/08 05:43 PM

The API won't revoke a license immediately after hearing about a non compliance issue. Takes a lot of time/testing. Mobil claiming their oils still meet the API spec means nothing to me. I personally believe they dropped the ball this time. The accusation also comes from a credible source (Ashland) IMO.
Posted By: rg200amp

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/18/08 06:58 PM

Do we have a contact with API? I tried to find an email or contact us for the API but i did not find anything. (I did not look long, at work)
Posted By: FrankN4

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/18/08 07:24 PM

 Originally Posted By: crinkles
 Originally Posted By: FrankN4
I was talking with a legal type(family) earlier and he said every independent lab in the country could show Mobil 1(or anyone else) failed or passed and none of it would be allowed in any US court. Only test done by the licensing agency meant anything. Tests done by and "RESULTS REPORTED" by a competitor would make the competitor liable if they stated test results as authoritative unless they were able to get the licensing agency to do the actual testing and "REPORTING". That is, they could report their many repeated results to the licensing agency and demand, but not mandate, an agency test. That is like all you folk that have base oil analyzed by various folk that have a decent chemistry lab and have to keep your mouth shut.(tough...aint it)

I know this is lawyer talk, but it is lawyers that will handle the situation. He said Ashland was MUCH, MUCH more at risk for legal action than Mobil. Mobil would most likely prove their API license status and go about business. Ashland was most likely counting on that, but look at the free advertisement. A calculated risk.


I doubt that only the licensing lab could do the tests. Labs are certified for certain tests they apply accreditation for. If the national certifying body OK's any lab to do that test and they have certification to do that specific test, it is a valid test and should be legal.


I had coffee with my legal relative. He said that any lab that was licensed by API, if they did such, could perform the test, BUT, API, the authorizing body, would have to request and authorize the test or in the eyes of the law it did not exist. If every lab, university chemistry department, or whatever in the US said they tested and Mobil or whoever failed, in the eyes of the law those test are meaningless. Only API can say WE tested and THEY passed/failed.

I am not an attorney nor do I portray one on television.
Posted By: HondaMan

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/18/08 07:25 PM

Well... Redline is not on an API list, if we're gonna run a non-conforming oil, might as well be running something really tricky :)

Funny how the following phrase is thrown around the board so much:
"Any modern API SM oil will do really well."

Ooooops guess that leaves out M1 5W-30 ;\)
Posted By: demarpaint

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/18/08 07:30 PM

 Originally Posted By: FrankN4


I am not an attorney nor do I portray one on television.


And here I thought you stared in Jag

Frank D
Posted By: buster

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/18/08 07:37 PM

API does perform random sampling to keep an eye on quality control. As much as people knock the API, once you venture outside of it, you don't know what you are receiving. It can work both ways too, as superior oils could potentially be made. $45,000 for a IIIG piston is a lot of $, so it hurts the little guys.

Just think of how many other oils on the market that are not API licensed may or may not pass the Seq IVA for API SM. It's there for a reason. The irony of all this is that it's XOM.
Posted By: rg200amp

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/18/08 07:38 PM

 Originally Posted By: HondaMan
Well... Redline is not on an API list, if we're gonna run a non-conforming oil, might as well be running something really tricky :)

Funny how the following phrase is thrown around the board so much:
"Any modern API SM oil will do really well."

Ooooops guess that leaves out M1 5W-30 ;\)


There are oils that do not carry a API Sprcs. Amsoil is one. Just because they do not hold the API Spec does not mean there bad oils. They can be just as good, if not better than others that do hold the Specs.

The point here is: Mobil 1 is sold as a oil that MEETs and HAS the API Specs. And it is used as OEM oil because of that.

So we will see what happens. \:\!
Posted By: Geonerd

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/18/08 08:07 PM

 Originally Posted By: bulwnkl


I agree, and thank you for grounding us a bit, Johnny. Sadly, that makes it all the more disappointing (frankly suspicious in my mind) that XOM's product was tested out of spec. XOM has the facilities, talent, and resources to know exactly how their product performs at all times.


Just remember,
Dilbert is REAL! Ego and stupidity are universal!

In a big corporation like that, there's always room for some pointy-haired manager to come along and screw things up. It's entirely possible that the remains of half a dozen engineering failure reports are sitting in some middle-manager's shredder, all so he can show an improvement in his division's profit margin.
Posted By: Brian Barnhart

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/18/08 09:31 PM

 Originally Posted By: buster
Just think of how many other oils on the market that are not API licensed may or may not pass the Seq IVA for API SM. It's there for a reason...

However, it's beginning to look like conformance to API licensing is based chiefly on the honor system. I'd say the "reason" is starting to shear.
Posted By: Riptide

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/18/08 10:30 PM

FYI

Mobil 1 has $10 rebate up on their site. You have to d/l a form and send it in with proof of purchase.
Posted By: FrankN4

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/18/08 10:48 PM

 Originally Posted By: demarpaint
 Originally Posted By: FrankN4


I am not an attorney nor do I portray one on television.


And here I thought you stared in Jag

Frank D


Naaaw.....everyone does make that mistake because we look so much alike
Posted By: HTSS_TR

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/18/08 11:49 PM

 Originally Posted By: Riptide
FYI

Mobil 1 has $10 rebate up on their site. You have to d/l a form and send it in with proof of purchase.


Now, if CSK or PB has BOGO during the rebate period (from Apr 01 till Aug 31, 2009) then it will be nice.
Posted By: mva

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/19/08 01:55 AM

 Originally Posted By: Brian Barnhart

However, it's beginning to look like conformance to API licensing is based chiefly on the honor system. I'd say the "reason" is starting to shear.


I agree!

From the API standard:

"As noted in the licensing agreement, the marketer is solely responsible for ensuring that the
performance characteristics of the oil product displaying an API Mark or Marks meet all requirements for
the Mark or Marks"

It's a case of the fox guarding the hen house.
Posted By: 7055

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/19/08 02:47 AM

Anybody? What is a VOA?
Posted By: greenaccord02

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/19/08 02:58 AM

Virgin Oil Analysis
Posted By: rg200amp

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/19/08 02:59 AM

Virgin oil Analysis-

It is a lab test on unused oil. Like a UOA, only with new oil.
Posted By: wgtoys

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/19/08 06:55 AM

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.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/19/08 07:04 AM

 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.



I assume you mean flat tappet only?

Because I can show you the 300,000Km camshaft out of my Mustang. But it's roller.

EDIT: have the one out of the Townie as well.
Posted By: wgtoys

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/19/08 07:09 AM

"Because I can show you the 300,000Km camshaft out of my Mustang."

Can you show me wear measurements showing the dimensions when new and after 300Km of use?

I'm not saying Mobil-1 is a horrible oil. I am saying that there is a substantial amount of data which makes one think that in at least some applications Mobil-1 might not give the absolute lowest possible wear compared to competing products.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/19/08 07:32 AM

 Originally Posted By: wgtoys
"Because I can show you the 300,000Km camshaft out of my Mustang."

Can you show me wear measurements showing the dimensions when new and after 300Km of use?

I'm not saying Mobil-1 is a horrible oil. I am saying that there is a substantial amount of data which makes one think that in at least some applications Mobil-1 might not give the absolute lowest possible wear compared to competing products.


I'm thinking more along the lines of VISIBLE wear. It's 300,000Km. If we are talking micro-polishing style wear.... at that mileage, then we are talking about something that is inconsequential over the life of the engine.

Flat-tappet is MUCH harder on the camshafts and visible wear occurs much quicker, which is why I asked.
Posted By: BigJohn

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/19/08 01:48 PM

 Originally Posted By: wgtoys
"Because I can show you the 300,000Km camshaft out of my Mustang."

Can you show me wear measurements showing the dimensions when new and after 300Km of use?

I'm not saying Mobil-1 is a horrible oil. I am saying that there is a substantial amount of data which makes one think that in at least some applications Mobil-1 might not give the absolute lowest possible wear compared to competing products.



In my mind, once again, why hasn't Mobil responded....other than saying that they are aware of the claim???

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?
Posted By: cheetahdriver

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/19/08 01:52 PM

 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....
Posted By: Brian Barnhart

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/19/08 02:03 PM

 Originally Posted By: cheetahdriver
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....

But if an oil doesn't pass SM/GF-4 it won't meet GM4718M, or many other certs as well. Therefore, the assumption that M1 5W30 meets GM4718M is also suspect.
Posted By: buster

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/19/08 02:07 PM

 Quote:
But if an oil doesn't pass SM/GF-4 it won't meet GM4718M, or many other certs as well. Therefore, the assumption that M1 5W30 meets GM4718M is also suspect.


Two different tests that are entirely different. You could meet GM 4718M w/o meeting the Seq IVA but the API requires you at least pass the Seq IVA to meet API SM.
Posted By: Brian Barnhart

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/19/08 02:38 PM

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.
Posted By: cheetahdriver

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/19/08 02:44 PM

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.
Posted By: Brian Barnhart

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/19/08 02:51 PM

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.
Posted By: cheetahdriver

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/19/08 03:13 PM

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"?
Posted By: Johnny

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/19/08 03:43 PM

Could be. Valvoline is so sharp, maybe they should have stated what the date code was on this bottle of Mobil 1 they tested.
Posted By: Jason2007

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/19/08 03:54 PM

Who knows, maybe they tested some M1 from 20 years ago?
Posted By: buster

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/19/08 04:43 PM

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.

Posted By: bulwnkl

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/19/08 04:49 PM

 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.
Posted By: Drew99GT

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/19/08 05:05 PM

Who? Terry?
Posted By: gogozy

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/19/08 06:24 PM

 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" ...
Posted By: buster

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/19/08 08:04 PM

 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 .



Posted By: cheetahdriver

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/19/08 08:47 PM

well, it worked for coke....
Posted By: rg200amp

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/19/08 09:16 PM

 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.
Posted By: 77GrandPrix

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/19/08 11:05 PM

Terry's Comments
Posted By: cheetahdriver

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/20/08 02:11 AM

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
Posted By: cheetahdriver

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/20/08 02:13 AM

rg200amp,

point taken. my engineering background sometimes fakes me into thinking everybody works that way... some folks want the solid gold bathroom fixtures when the nickel will outlast a normal lifetime, just because it is the "best" (or at least most expensive<G>).
Posted By: 77GrandPrix

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/20/08 02:15 AM

Terry was responding to a question posed by another poster concerning high amounts of iron in Mobil 1 UOA's.
Posted By: cheetahdriver

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/20/08 03:20 AM

i suppose it is entirely possible that Ashland spotted a QC error (or was looking for one). the fact it is only the 5w30 that they are impugning would point in this direction.

i feel confident round 3 is coming up, i doubt EOM will take this one without squawking. either way, it probably will cause all of the "name" mfgs to look over their batch control systems.
Posted By: ksJoe

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/20/08 04:09 AM

I emailed Ashland early this week specifically mentioning the possibility of a bad batch. I asked how long they've been observing this about Mobil's oil, and if they observed notably better performance in older samples. I have not gotten a response.

The most plausible explanation to me is that Ashland was keeping an eye on Mobil's performance and got a hold of some abnormally bad stuff.

I bet once Ashland got some bad results, they went to all the stores in the area and bought all the mobile oil they had. How big do you think Ashland's stash of bad Mobil oil is?
Posted By: wgtoys

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/20/08 04:13 AM

GM 4718M is supposedly a tighter high temperature oxidation requirement than the normal GF-4 specs and supposedly was created to accommodate removing the oil cooler from the Corvette. Very few applications cook the oil like that, so in most cases GM 4718M doesn't tell you much.
Posted By: JHZR2

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/20/08 04:25 AM

 Originally Posted By: buster
 Quote:
XOM has the facilities, talent, and resources to know exactly how their product performs at all times.


 Quote:
It employs an array of analytical techniques including liquid chromatography (LC), gel permeation chromatography (GPC), gas chromatography (GC), GC/mass spectroscopy (GC/MS), LC/MS, fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), FTIR/microscopy, GC/FTIR/MS, X-ray diffraction, DC-arc emission spectroscopy (solids), fluorescence spectroscopy, optical microscopy and scanning electron microscopy/energy dispersive spectrometry (SEM/EDS). In addition, the lab has the capability to run many standard ASTM bench tests designed to measure properties and performance of petroleum products, but the advanced analytical capabilities are what really set Paulsboro MTS apart.


None of those stated analtical techniques are anything special. Sure, they sound complex to the non-technical person, but every university, corporate research center and many production facilities worth their salt have some if not all of those techniques available. Then there are contract labs that will do the work too...
Posted By: greenaccord02

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/20/08 08:17 AM

+1 any good lab has all the above capability and the chemists to conduct and interpret the tests. They do sound cool, though.
Posted By: cheetahdriver

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/20/08 01:07 PM

my wife knows how to run all of the above machinery, and doesn't know a thing about oil. she started out as a microbiologist, then became a metallurgical tech for a steel company, and now is finishing up her MSChemEng and starting on her PhD.

she still doesn't know anything about oil...
Posted By: ZZman

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/20/08 01:56 PM

Well have your wife do some studies on oil then......
Posted By: cheetahdriver

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/20/08 02:55 PM

bio-remediation is her gig, you can add capillary electrophoresis to the equipment list<G>.
Posted By: FrankN4

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/21/08 04:30 AM

I just noticed, according to Valvoline's own web site, their Synpower, MaxLife synthetic, and MaxLife synthetic blend cannot be used in any current production GM, Ford, Chrysler, Honda, or Toyota. To do so would void the warranty because it does not meet the specifications for any of these manufacturers.

Interesting, wouldn't you say?
Posted By: 02zx9r

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/21/08 02:49 PM

Might as well close down the plants then! No use for their oil
Posted By: demarpaint

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/21/08 02:53 PM

 Originally Posted By: FrankN4
I just noticed, according to Valvoline's own web site, their Synpower, MaxLife synthetic, and MaxLife synthetic blend cannot be used in any current production GM, Ford, Chrysler, Honda, or Toyota. To do so would void the warranty because it does not meet the specifications for any of these manufacturers.

Interesting, wouldn't you say?


I read that info too. All this Valvloine vs Mobil did was swing me further away from Valvoline than I already was, and stopped me from using Mobil 1. Had this info aired sooner on BITOG I would have never used Mobil 1 in my Jeep. Oh well...........

Frank D
Posted By: HeHarHeWeh

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/21/08 08:13 PM

 Originally Posted By: demarpaint
 Originally Posted By: FrankN4
I just noticed, according to Valvoline's own web site, their Synpower, MaxLife synthetic, and MaxLife synthetic blend cannot be used in any current production GM, Ford, Chrysler, Honda, or Toyota. To do so would void the warranty because it does not meet the specifications for any of these manufacturers.

Interesting, wouldn't you say?


I read that info too. All this Valvloine vs Mobil did was swing me further away from Valvoline than I already was, and stopped me from using Mobil 1. Had this info aired sooner on BITOG I would have never used Mobil 1 in my Jeep. Oh well...........

Frank D



Where on the website does it say this?
I looked under Maxlife Product specs and it says it wouldn't void new car warranty? ?
Posted By: demarpaint

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/21/08 08:31 PM

Last time I looked I was looking for specific specs, of a 0w20 oil, namely Chrysler MS-6395 and there was no mention of it. I did read it met all new car warranty requirements, many companies say that. Mobil 1 0w20 meets Chrysler MS-6395, they say it on the site. The Valvoline equivalent in 0w20 doesn't. If they changed the site then I stand corrected.

If it doesn't spell out exactly what spec you are looking for in my eyes it leaves a gray area, and a way out for them if there is a problem. This holds true for any company. Why give them an out if there is a problem? The auto maker could also have a way out and now I'd be left holding the bag. Not worth it to me.



Frank D
Posted By: endeavor to persevere

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/21/08 08:42 PM

I could not find this any where on Valvoline.com web site that it doesn't meet any manufacturers current production???

have a good one,

Don
Posted By: FrankN4

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/21/08 08:44 PM

I have a new 2008 Chevrolet Silverado. The manual says the oil MUST SPECIFY THAT IT MEETS GM specification 6094m. My youngest daughter has a new 2008 Jeep Patriot. It also says oil must meet some specification. My oldest daughter now has a new Ford van and it calls for an oil that meets some Ford specification. All of these says the oil must state that it meets these specifications. Valvoline makes no statement that it meets specifications for their Synpower, Max full syn and Max syn blend. To use it would be against the warranty requirements of these vehicles.

Just food for thought and maybe something Valvoline should think about.
Posted By: demarpaint

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/21/08 08:57 PM

Yes it is food for thought! I would email them and ask specifically. If they say it meets the spec you have a legal leg to stand on if there is a problem, just save the email. As I mentioned a few times this past week I lost respect for Mobil as a result of Valvoline's current marketing. Mobil does however spell out the requirements they meet pretty clear, so does Pennzoil.

Frank D
Posted By: endeavor to persevere

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/21/08 09:05 PM

Well it is still on GMs approved oil list:

http://www.gm.com/experience/technology/gmpowertrain/engines/GM_Engine_Oil_Approvals_v2.ppt

have a good one,

Don
Posted By: FrankN4

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/21/08 11:36 PM

Isn't that something. Valvoline does not have that on their bottles, jugs, or on their web site.
Posted By: Brian Barnhart

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/22/08 01:20 AM

Though the GM approval list is from their website, I seem to remember seeing a more recent version of the list (before they made techlink inaccessable to the public). I'm almost certain that QS Horsepower was on the later 4718M list.

It's not really surprising that none of the Maxlife oils are on the list. Mobil and GM are the only ones with high mileage oils that make the GM 6094M list.

Valvoline claims it's conventional and blend meet GM6094M requirements, but it is curious that they don't make that claim for Synpower. Since it met at one time (according to GM's own list), one wonders why Valvoline's current data does not claim compliance.
Posted By: endeavor to persevere

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/22/08 01:36 AM

Some where around here, Iv'e got a copy of the techlink list but I havn't been able to find it yet. I'll keep looking.

Don
Posted By: endeavor to persevere

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/22/08 02:03 AM

The GM6094M is pretty much the same.

The GM4718M is:

Castrol SLX 5W30
Chevron Surpreme synthetic 5W30, 10W30
Citgo Superguard synthetic 5W30, 10W30
Mobil 1 synthetic 0W30, 5W30, 10W30
Northland Synergy synthetic 5W30, 10W30
Pennzoil Platnum synthetic 5W30, 10W30
Texaco Havaline synthetic 5W30, 10W30
Q HorsePower synthetic 5W30, 10W30

have a good one,

Don
Posted By: wgtoys

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/22/08 03:20 AM

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.
Posted By: 77GrandPrix

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/22/08 03:49 AM

I think you nailed it sir!!! I'm not impressed with an oil blender that is obsessed with being on every "approved" list. If an oil meets or exceeds API/ILSAC standards that should be enough.
Posted By: BigJohn

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/22/08 04:49 AM

 Originally Posted By: HeHarHeWeh
 Originally Posted By: demarpaint
[quote=FrankN4]I just noticed, according to Valvoline's own web site, their Synpower, MaxLife synthetic, and MaxLife synthetic blend cannot be used in any current production GM, Ford, Chrysler, Honda, or Toyota. To do so would void the warranty because it does not meet the specifications for any of these manufacturers.

Interesting, wouldn't you say?


I read that info too. All this Valvloine vs Mobil did was swing me further away from Valvoline than I already was, and stopped me from using Mobil 1. Had this info aired sooner on BITOG I would have never used Mobil 1 in my Jeep. Oh well...........

Frank D




Exactly!!! PP and YB for me depending upon which vehicle.
Posted By: FrankN4

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/22/08 06:49 PM

I am probably going to word this wrong, but, do you think that maybe Valvoline is trying to set the stage, build a foundation, or whatever, to become like an over the counter Amsoil? Maybe they would like to be known as an API certified, small company thus higher attention to detail, compete with the boutique oils yet be available at Walmart. Knowattaimean?
Posted By: buster

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/22/08 06:52 PM

No. Valvoline's market is the quick lube market.

Posted By: demarpaint

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/22/08 06:55 PM

I agree with buster. I just think they want to jab at the big boy and grab some market share.

Frank D
Posted By: OVERKILL

Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/23/08 05:52 AM

This was pointed out to me a few minutes ago.....

The API certification for ALL M1 grades were renewed on December 5th, 2008.

This means that ALL these oils were TESTED for and PASSED the API certification process.

http://eolcs.api.org/DisplayLicenseInfo.asp?LicenseNo=0020

Of particular interest of course, to the content of this thread:

 Code:
MOBIL 1	5W-30	SM/CF*	March 9, 2009


That's right ladies and gentlemen. M1 5w30 passed the SM/CF certification on December 5th, 2008 and is licensed to carry the API logo on it's bottles until March 9th, 2009.
Posted By: FrankN4

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/23/08 06:17 AM

I went over the link but could not find any indication of testing, only extension of certification until march 2009. Where does it specify all of M1's oils were retested. The reason I ask is because the list contains some oils that M1 no longer makes.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/23/08 06:24 AM

 Originally Posted By: FrankN4
I went over the link but could not find any indication of testing, only extension of certification until march 2009. Where does it specify all of M1's oils were retested. The reason I ask is because the list contains some oils that M1 no longer makes.


No longer makes HERE or no longer makes?

I will find more info on the testing.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/23/08 06:30 AM

From the API:

 Quote:
Overview

API’s Engine Oil Licensing and Certification System (EOLCS) is a voluntary licensing and certification program that authorizes engine oil marketers who meet specified requirements to use the API Engine Oil Quality Marks. Launched in 1993, API’s Engine Oil Program is a cooperative effort between the oil and additive industries and vehicle and engine manufacturers Ford, General Motors, and DaimlerChrysler and those represented by the Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association and the Engine Manufacturers Association. The performance requirements and test methods are established by vehicle and engine manufacturers and technical societies and trade associations such as the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), Society for Automotive Engineers (SAE), and American Chemistry Council (ACC).

The Engine Oil Program is backed by an ongoing monitoring and enforcement program that ensures licensees adhere to program requirements. This includes running physical, chemical, and performance tests on licensed engine oils and verifying that the API-registered Marks are properly displayed on containers and convey accurate information to consumers.

About half of the program’s more than 500 licensees are based in the United States, and the other half are spread among more than 50 countries. A complete list of licensees is available on our licensee directory. More than 8,000 products now display API Marks.


And:

 Quote:
Requirements

The program’s requirements are described in API 1509, Engine Oil Licensing and Certification System. This standard describes the program’s performance requirements, explains the current engine oil service categories, shows how the marks are to be used, and explains the monitoring and enforcement program. Standards referenced by API 1509, such as ASTM D 4485, Standard Specification for Performance of Engine Oils, and SAE J300, Engine Oil Viscosity Classification, also play a critical role in defining the program. These can be purchased through their sponsoring organizations.

Monitoring and Enforcement Program

API has been testing off-the-shelf engine oils carrying the API Starburst and Donut under its Aftermarket Audit Program (AMAP) since 1994 and in 1999 began testing product dispensed from tanks and drums at quick-lube facilities, service stations, auto dealerships, and truck maintenance facilities. AMAP superseded the Oil Labeling Assessment Program (OLAP), a testing program jointly funded by the U.S. Army, the Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association (ILMA), the former American Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA), and API. In the last 10 years, API has tested more than 5,000 licensed oils from around the world.

Under AMAP, API-licensed engine oils are purchased in the marketplace and tested to determine their physical, chemical, and performance properties. The results are compared to licensee formulations on file at API. Conforming oils show test results that are consistent with the formulations on-file and meet program requirements. All samples undergo elemental analysis, viscosity at 100°C, and high-temperature/high-shear testing. They may also be tested for cold cranking, pumpability, volatility, gelation, foaming, filterability, flash point, and shear stability. Product packages are checked to make sure they correctly display the API Marks and carry product trace codes. A number of oils also undergo actual industry engine sequence testing for oxidation, deposits, sludge, varnish, and wear.

Enforcement

If a licensed oil does not match the physical and chemical data on file with API, API will work with the licensee to evaluate the nonconformity and take appropriate corrective action. Unresolved nonconformance issues are subject to additional enforcement actions spelled out in API 1509. Actions may include termination of the license to display the API Marks and removal of noncomplying product from the marketplace. If a licensed or unlicensed oil displays an improper label or unauthorized labeling data, API will require the marketer to cease and desist from committing the violation and will request verification that the violation has been corrected.



Newsroom
In the Classroom
About API
Print this page Print this page


Latest News

U.S. oil demand and prices drop in November: API
More

U.S. petroleum demand-reduction rate largest since early 1980s: API
More


Related Meeting

API Inspector Summit - Jan. 27-30, 2009 - Galveston, Texas


Related Links

API WorkSafeTM

ISO




Updated:August 12, 2008
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/23/08 06:30 AM

 Quote:
Licensing Forms



Marketers of engine oil must obtain a license from API to use the API Engine Oil Quality Marks: the API Service Symbol "Donut" and Certification Mark "Starburst." The use of the API Marks is a marketer's warranty that its licensed oils comply with the requirements set forth in API 1509 and API's Application for Licensure. The license application requires the applicant to certify that its oils meet Engine Oil Licensing and Certification System (EOLCS) requirements.

You can download API's Application for Licensure using the links below. Please review the application instructions before completing any of the application. New applicants must complete Parts A through D (Part E is optional). The Amended License Agreement is needed only when making additions to an already established license. All forms are available in writable Adobe PDF format.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/23/08 06:43 AM

Some interesting excerpts from the License agreement documentation:

 Quote:

8. The Licensee’s authorization to use the mark(s) will terminate each year on the
anniversary date of this Agreement. However, the authorization to use the mark(s)
will be automatically renewed each successive year on this date for an additional
twelve-month period under the same terms and conditions, except as modified by
API, provided that: the Licensee has submitted the necessary annual volume of sales
data and pays the annual royalty due to API within the specified time frame; has
complied with all terms and conditions of the program; and has agreed to comply with
any additional terms or conditions specified by API.


 Quote:

12. The Licensee agrees that it will use the marks only on products that meet all of
API's requirements and agrees to assume full and complete responsibility for the use of
the marks on its products. The Licensee shall establish and maintain a program of production, inspection and testing which is designed to ensure that the Licensee's
products comply with all API requirements.


 Quote:
14. Licensee agrees that it will do all acts required of it by API to ensure that pertinent
API standards and specifications are being met at all times in the manufacture of the
products, including submitting when requested by API a statement of manufacturer's
qualifications and samples of the products and permitting API, or a representative
thereof, upon reasonable notice to inspect pertinent manufacturing facilities. Licensee
agrees that it has on file and will retain on file evidence that its products meet all
applicable API standards and performance requirements for such products. Licensee
agrees to submit this evidence to API in a timely manner upon request.

Further, Licensee agrees to submit the data requested in the Application for Licensure
for each licensed product. API agrees to restrict use of this data for the sole purpose
intended. Summary data, if collected and published, will not be company specific. API
shall be the sole judge of whether Licensee meets the appropriate qualifications to
become and remain a Licensee and whether the products meet the appropriate
qualifications.


 Quote:
15. API or API's representative may make periodic examinations or tests of the
Licensee's product by selecting samples from the marketplace and submitting them to a
testing facility for evaluation to determine whether the products comply with specified
requirements. If requested by API, the Licensee shall send samples of the Licensee’s
product, at API’s expense, directly to a designated test facility for evaluation in the time
frame specified by API.




 Quote:

19. Licensee agrees to notify API in a timely manner if it has evidence or information
which indicates that its product does not conform to API's requirements or the properties
specified in each Product Data Sheet and agrees to take action immediately in order to
bring the product into full compliance.



 Quote:
20. If Licensee's products in the marketplace do not comply with API's requirements, or
the properties specified in the Product Data Sheet, Licensee agrees to take whatever
corrective action (including product recall) that is deemed necessary by API to protect
consumers or API in a time frame specified by API.


 Quote:
21. If the Licensee defaults in any of its obligations under this Agreement, API may
immediately terminate or suspend, as to any covered products affected by such default,
the rights or authority conferred by this Agreement without prejudice to any other rights
which API may have. The Licensee agrees that API may notify vendors, governmental
authorities, potential users, and others of an improper or unauthorized use of the mark
when in the judgement of API such notifications are necessary to protect consumers or
for API's own protection.


 Quote:
22. The Licensee agrees that the manufacture, sale, delivery, shipment, distribution or
promotion of any product utilizing the marks would mislead the public if such product
does not comply with the requirements of API as herein provided and agrees that any
breach of this contract in this respect could not adequately be compensated for in
money damages. For these and other reasons, the Licensee agrees that, in the event of
the violation of any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, a temporary injunction
may be issued at the instance of API restraining the Licensee from further use of the
marks in any manner whatsoever, and from any further sale or offering for sale, delivery
or distribution of said products bearing the marks, and any other relief which may be
deemed appropriate. Such temporary injunction shall not, however, restrain the sale
and delivery of products already properly bearing the marks which have been previously
found to be covered products and to be in compliance with the requirements of API at
the time the mark was applied to the products. The granting or issuance of such
temporary injunction shall not affect the right of API to compensatory and punitive damages for the misuse of the marks or its name, abbreviations, or symbols, and shall
be in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other rights and remedies provided by this
Agreement.
Posted By: FrankN4

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/23/08 06:45 AM

I guess it is going over my head. I still can not find any indication that M1 5W-30 was tested for and passed the IVA wear test.

The 5W-30 EP SL, 10W-30 EP SL, and 0W-40 SL are no longer listed on the Mobile web site. I didn't look for any of the diesel engine oils.

What I am trying to find is proof positive that the M1 5W-30 was tested and passed the IVA wear test since Ashland's claim, so I can, well, lets just say EXPLAIN it to someone.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/23/08 06:48 AM

From that documentation, what I'm getting is that Exxon-Mobil has to provide proof that the product meets all the requirements of SM/CF in order to be classified as such. And that every time the license is renewed, they must provide that proof of testing.

They are still testing the TDT for CI-4 as well, so.....

FWIW, we were still getting M1 5w50 up here for quite a while after Exxon pulled it from their website.
Posted By: FrankN4

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/23/08 07:01 AM

Maybe that is where the confusion is. I got it in my mind the license would not be renewed until March 2009 and what they were granted was a continuation until march 2009. Seems like it would be unusual to retest in December then retest again in March.

I fear I may be looking for something I am not going to find, especially because of the time interval.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/23/08 07:06 AM

I see that the "renewal term" is one year. But the products appear to have to be "renewed" every "X" number of months. My take on this is that testing data proving the oil's compliance must be submitted to the API in order for the renewal to be granted and that information shown on the API's website.

I could be wrong however, since I cannot find a document that actually spells it out in such terms.
Posted By: FrankN4

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/23/08 07:14 AM

That is the problem that I have. I cannot find documents that come right out and state something. I went to the API web and they want credit card payments to download some of their documents. I want to know but not strongly enough to pay.

I certainly hope your take on this is all correct.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/23/08 07:16 AM

Well, we've got one fact here:

Exxon-Mobil's 5w30 is still API certified. And that certification was renewed on December 5th, 2008.

What that does for Valvoline's claim... well........
Posted By: FrankN4

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/23/08 07:22 AM

 Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Well, we've got one fact here:

Exxon-Mobil's 5w30 is still API certified. And that certification was renewed on December 5th, 2008.

What that does for Valvoline's claim... well........


Yes. Certification cannot be doubted, and, "THAT CERTIFICTION WAS NOT REMOVED IN DECEMBER WHEN THERE WAS A PERFECT OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO."
Posted By: buster

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/23/08 02:10 PM

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



Posted By: FrankN4

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/23/08 03:06 PM

 Originally Posted By: buster
Para 3.5 states:

Oils only need to be retested if there is a formulation change, or a change in materials/suppliers etc.



So EM, or any oil company certified by API, reports volume sales, states that they have not changed suppliers or formulations since tested for certification, that they will change if API specks change, pays the fee, and no actual testing takes place for licenses renewal extension?
 Originally Posted By: buster
Para

It's very odd that Mobil 1 has a Dec 5th 2008 - Mar 2009 time frame for the license. Only 3 months? Hmmm



I got an e-mail form Mobil1 taking me to a link that let me print out a $10.00 rebate coupon on 5 quarts of M1. However, the coupon didn't become valid until April 2009. It appears that M1 expects their supply to be back up by April. That makes me very curious of the 3 month extension. Something must be in the process of changing at M1 and they require 3 months for completion.
Posted By: bulwnkl

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/23/08 03:38 PM

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.
Posted By: ARMY_Guy

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/23/08 04:01 PM

You scratch mine, I'll scratch yours. We get skewered.
-A
Posted By: FrankN4

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/23/08 04:22 PM

 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 5W-30. I have had nothing but 15W-50 my 200,000-300,000 vehicles.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/23/08 06:33 PM

 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.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/23/08 06:36 PM

 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.
Posted By: bulwnkl

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/23/08 07:14 PM

You can't do basic math!
:P
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/23/08 07:28 PM

 Originally Posted By: bulwnkl
You can't do basic math!
:P


And why is that Mr. Hawking?
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/23/08 07:37 PM

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%2018,%202008.htm
Posted By: bulwnkl

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/23/08 07:42 PM

Oh, just nevermind. I think you're taking this way too personally.
Posted By: Drew99GT

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/23/08 07:51 PM

 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.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/23/08 08:06 PM

 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.
Posted By: Cmarti

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/23/08 08:17 PM

 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
Posted By: bulwnkl

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/23/08 10:04 PM

 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.
Posted By: buster

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/23/08 10:11 PM

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.

Posted By: Drew99GT

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/23/08 10:12 PM

 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 5w-30 failed the Sequence IVA wear test.
Posted By: Drew99GT

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/23/08 10:15 PM

 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.
Posted By: buster

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/23/08 10:20 PM

I could live with that, but it won't happen.
Posted By: Nyquist

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/23/08 10:23 PM

 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?
Posted By: Ben99GT

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/23/08 10:27 PM

 Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
[quote=bulwnkl]
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.


I've had the same experience with M1 (5W-30). I had a '99 4.6 2V that I beat the [censored] out of for over 100,000 miles and ran 5W-30 M1 for the entire time (both the Tri-Synthetic and SuperSyn).

The engine was eventually taken out by a set of weak aftermarket valve springs (PTV contact, thanks Comp). But when we tore the engine down, I discovered an engine with cylinder crosshatches that looked fresh from the factory (also no ridge ring), main bearings with numbers still plainly visible, and all internal oil-exposed parts looking as if they came out of a 1500 mile engine.

I don't know if the current M1 has problems with cam wear or not, but up until at least 2 years ago their oils were awesome. I would still run M1 in confidence, even though I have made the jump to PP based on price.
Posted By: bulwnkl

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/23/08 10:28 PM

 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.
Posted By: demarpaint

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/23/08 10:28 PM

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
Posted By: rg200amp

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/23/08 10:29 PM

Perhaps we should collect some money up, hire a lab that dose this wear test, and pay to get a normal bottle of 5w30 from a store(we would have to discuss that part) tested. I am sure the price cant be that bad split 40,50,60 ways????

All we need is alot of people in on it, and one TRUSTED member to collect the money and one TRUSTED member to go out, get a bottle oil M1 5w30 and send it in.


Is this crazy we are testing oils now to see if they meet specs??? yes!!!

But atleast we will all get some answers and closure.
Posted By: Nyquist

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/23/08 10:37 PM

 Originally Posted By: bulwnkl
 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.

You bring up some good points. I'm not trying to defend them or anything. I just want to be sure I have all the facts before I throw someone/something under the bus.
Posted By: buster

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/23/08 10:46 PM

That test can run up to $45,000 LOL.

I would use Valvoline over Mobil at this point. Their conventional oils are excellent also.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/23/08 10:47 PM

 Originally Posted By: bulwnkl
 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.


According to Ashland.

 Quote:
It meets the obsolete spec.


We have no data providing it does that either.

 Quote:
No one's saying that the obsolete spec's wear level is not sufficient for you.


I would imagine there are only a few other members driving style on this board which match or exceed my own in terms of severity. And the majority of the people on this board go overboard with oil choice.

Other than actual tear-down testing, I have a hard time swallowing the validating of my specific wear protection needs being evaluated by somebody on a message board.

 Quote:
It's merely a case of the current product being a bill of goods in that it doesn't meet the spec it carries


According to Ashland.

 Quote:
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.


Based on Ashland's claims. The API has provided no information and Mobil is still in possession of their API license.

 Quote:
That kind of disdain for the customer is intolerable to me, no matter who you are.


And if Exxon DOES finally make a statement/claim/legal action then how does this affect your position?

We are dealing with ONE SIDE of the argument here.

Mobil has, for whatever reason, remained aloof and vague in the information they have provided.
Posted By: buster

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/23/08 10:52 PM

Reality of it is, most people don't care enough about this to even notice. As long as Mobil retains it's license, they will continue to do well and people that buy Corvettes will still use Mobil 1. This website represents a small % (growing all the time) of auto enthusiasts.

Posted By: bulwnkl

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/23/08 10:54 PM

STILL chasing the off-point stuff, overk1ll? And ignoring the several significant pieces of corroborating information? OK. I'm sorry you're hurt. I wish (for everyone's sake) that XOM would actually try to make good for/with you (and them). Goodbye.
Posted By: rg200amp

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/23/08 11:00 PM

 Originally Posted By: buster
That test can run up to $45,000 LOL.

I would use Valvoline over Mobil at this point. Their conventional oils are excellent also.



Thats pocket change!!!







J/K! If we get alot of people on it. We have over 23,000 members. If each one put up 2 bucks we would have it.
If half of them put up 4 bucks we would have it. ect. . . The less people join in, the more we have to pay. So like worse case if we do not get many people, the ones in might have to pay 20, 30, 40 bucks a person.

I would be in. Just for the heck of it.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/23/08 11:00 PM

 Originally Posted By: bulwnkl


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've read, and re-read the Valvoline sheet.

Ashland states:

 Quote:
Over the past couple of years, Valvoline conducted a number of tests and commissioned an independent laboratory to evaluate the performance of SynPower and Mobil 1 in the Sequence IVA wear test. Marketers were told the tests were run on a 5W-30 since it's the top selling grade.


They do not state they tested more than one bottle.

They state that they (Ashland) ran a number of tests. They do not state what these tests were.

They then state they commissioned an independent lab to evaluate the performance of Synpower and Mobil 1 in the Sequence IVA wear test.

Would this be using the samples they provided? Samples from the same batch/jug/bottle that they had previously "run their own testing" on?


Quite frankly, at this point, it's all up to how you interpret the data. Your claims that Mobil 1 is inferior are based on Ashland's claims, which nobody other than Ashland seems to have substantiated.

I see no acknowledgement by the API or any other testing facility. I do not see GM pulling their approval. Honda pulling their approval, Ford pulling their approval....etc.

Other than independently validating the bloody stuff ourselves, as another poster suggested, we really DO NOT KNOW what the truth is at this point.

I'll be pretty bloody [censored] at Mobil if this is eventually confirmed by a 3rd party.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/23/08 11:05 PM

 Originally Posted By: bulwnkl
STILL chasing the off-point stuff, overk1ll? And ignoring the several significant pieces of corroborating information? OK. I'm sorry you're hurt. I wish (for everyone's sake) that XOM would actually try to make good for/with you (and them). Goodbye.


I'm sorry Bullwinkle, I haven't swallowed the "Mobil 1 is garbage" Koolaid you and Rocky seem to be passing around based on this so far one-sided argument.

What ANGERS me is the fact the Exxon-Mobil has allowed it to REMAIN a one-side argument.

If they screwed up, they screwed up. I'll swallow that. And probably switch to Amsoil or Redline for the lack of up-front honesty with their client base.

On the other hand, if they didn't screw up, and they are just putting together something to lambaste Ashland with, then I'm fine with that too.

It's the lack of any real data other than what Ashland has provided that is frustrating here.
Posted By: endeavor to persevere

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/23/08 11:17 PM

I don't have any Mobil products or Valvoline for that matter in my GMC Sierra or my wife's Buick and I'll bet the sun will come up in the morning and the grass will still be green.And neither vehicle will have an engine failure is its respective lifetime. How important is this in the scheme of things. For those us not in denial its the principle of the thing.

Don
Posted By: Drew99GT

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/23/08 11:37 PM

 Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL


Mobil has, for whatever reason, remained aloof and vague in the information they have provided.


Kind of like Rod Blagojevich. He has nothing to hide. \:\!
Posted By: buster

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/24/08 01:43 AM

 Quote:
How important is this in the scheme of things.


In the grand scheme of things, it's obviously not important at all. On an oil forum, it is.
Posted By: demarpaint

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/24/08 01:45 AM

 Originally Posted By: buster
 Quote:
How important is this in the scheme of things.


In the grand scheme of things, it's obviously not important at all. On an oil forum, it is.


+1

Frank D
Posted By: Pablo

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/24/08 01:49 AM

It's riveting.
Posted By: demarpaint

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/24/08 01:52 AM

It is riveting, has a lot of drama, and we're all wondering how its going to end. It's almost like watching 24 on Fox 5.

Frank D
Posted By: SilverC6

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/24/08 02:00 AM

Valvoline is ratcheting up the marketing effort with "4X the protection" shelf tags at Walmart, Autozone, and other retailers.

They are pulling out all the stops on this one.
Posted By: demarpaint

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/24/08 02:17 AM

The more the plot thickens the more I think Ashland has Mobil by the short hairs.

Frank D
Posted By: pp_rp

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/24/08 04:38 AM

I get better performance with Synpower in my engines than Mobil 1.
Posted By: Liquid_Turbo

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/24/08 09:20 AM

I'll wait till XOM releases something that DIRECTLY addresses the issue, before I make any judgments about XOM.
Posted By: buster

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/24/08 01:48 PM

 Originally Posted By: Liquid_Turbo
I'll wait till XOM releases something that DIRECTLY addresses the issue, before I make any judgments about XOM.


I take their silence as a win for Ashland.

Mobil had put a statement up on their website and when Valvoline presented them with the data, they took it down.
Posted By: demarpaint

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/24/08 02:13 PM

I'm with buster on this one, but Valvoline won't see a cent of my money either.

Frank D
Posted By: cheetahdriver

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/24/08 02:26 PM

Good Mother wasn't the least bit bashful about unloading on Castrol when they messed up and got knocked off of the GM6094M list, so i can't see them cutting EOM alot of slack here either.

as a side note, i have no problems with companies coming out with their own specs. if honda waited for the governing bodies to come out with a spec that would handle the RDX, it would have been delayed to about 2026. ford helped drive everyone forward with their early 5w20 specs. MB229.5 is still the champ on most metrics. wait for committees? i don't think so...
Posted By: fishbone

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/24/08 03:50 PM

As a mere commoner, all I know is this.
My engine has seen 4 consecutive UOAs on 4 consecutive M1 5w30 syn (non EP) changes and they were all consistently high-wear in certain areas, as confirmed by two different labs. Matter of fact the ppm numbers became predictable for me before even looking at the UOA. By switching to another brand, after the first fill the previous high-wear metals were reduced instantly in as much as half.
Ashland's claims now just further cast a shadow of doubt for me personally over M1 and I will not be using it in any of my vehicles.
Posted By: demarpaint

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/24/08 03:53 PM

I had a look at the UOA's myself and stopped denying that Mobil 1 had some issues, especially in the 5w30 grade. Even though I never used 5W30 I figured why take chances?

Frank D
Posted By: RF Overlord

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/24/08 04:34 PM

 Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
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.
Don't hold your breath. A company the size of ExMo will never never EVER admit a mistake. They'll just jock some data around until it says what they want and publish it.

This latest fiasco just reinforces my decision to quit buying ExMo products. I've been using PP for the last year or so and buy my gas anywhere but Mobil or Exxon. They can get bent.

P.S. I'm not saying their products are lousy, because they aren't; they're excellent, in fact. It's the COMPANY that sucks and I refuse to support them with any more of my money.
Posted By: greenaccord02

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/24/08 06:00 PM

 Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
I haven't swallowed the "Mobil 1 is garbage" Koolaid.


+1 Always a good idea stay clear of the Koolaid.

Before I swear off M1, I'm waiting for some official response. It could be that there is a valid explanation. Really what I want to see is what kind of statement they will make to their customers. No matter what, I'll be buying a couple 5qt. jugs of M1 and VS because of their $10 rebates.
Posted By: SilverC6

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/24/08 07:30 PM

There should be a couple of extra jugs available at my local Walmart.

Just dumped all the EOM products from my oil stash.

I just needed a little push to go all Pennzoil.

In fact, after 25 years of using Pennzoil with great results, I felt like a hypocrite pouring M1 into one of my vehicles.

The M1 experiment is over for me.

I'm sure M1 is great oil.

I just don't believe in it.
Posted By: mva

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/24/08 07:48 PM

There is a thread in the UOA section where "nicrfe1370" posted a speadsheet with 120 Subaru UOA's. I did a bit of rough sorting and found M1 seemed to have higher iron numbers. Of course this is many different engines, climates, driving styles, etc. so the data is not 100% scientific.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1293170&fpart=1

I eliminated the data with less than 20,000 miles (break-in) and OCI less than 4000 miles to get rid of short OCI's. I was left with 90 samples.

I then sorted the data by ppm iron per 1000 miles.

Amsoil, Redline and Royal Purple dominate the top performers and Mobil 1 tends to dominate the bottom end of the list with higher iron ppm per 1000 miles.

I get very similar results for chrome per 1000 miles. Lead, copper and aluminum are more of a mixed bag.

See below for the iron ppm/1000 miles sort:

Miles iron/1000 Oil Brand
13500 0.2 Amsoil S2000
12664 0.3 Amsoil S3000
5786 0.3 Amsoil
4982 0.4 Redline
4323 0.5 Amsoil S3000
6904 0.6 RP Racing 21
22000 0.6 Amsoil S2000
4871 0.6 Redline
7490 0.7 Mobil 1
7156 0.7 Amsoil
5022 0.8 Royal Purple
4983 0.8 Royal Purple
4963 0.8 Redline
7382 0.8 Amsoil
5592 0.9 Tech2000
7777 0.9 RP Racing 21
8800 0.9 Chevron Supreme
7521 0.9 RP Racing 21
5319 0.9 Pennzoil/Pennzoil Plat
5174 1.0 Amsoil ASL
4131 1.0 Redline
5012 1.0 Redline
4950 1.0 Tech2000
5800 1.0 Mobil 1
7579 1.1 Mobil 1
7504 1.1 RP Racing 21
6500 1.1 Amsoil S3000
4632 1.1 Castrol High Mileage
7230 1.1 Amsoil S3000
4407 1.1 Motorcraft
5200 1.2 Amsoil ASL
6840 1.2 Synergyn
7666 1.2 Mobil 1
6790 1.2 Pennzoil Platinum
5089 1.2 Castrol Syntec
5061 1.2 Castrol Syntec
5840 1.2 Pennzoil Platinum
4082 1.2 Castrol GTX
7100 1.3 Castrol Syntec
8332 1.3 Mobil 1, Amsoil S3K
7534 1.3 Mobil 1
5174 1.4 Amsoil S2000
8077 1.4 Amsoil AMO
6540 1.4 Synergyn
5023 1.4 Synergyn
5003 1.4 RP Racing 21
5000 1.4 Mobil 1
7000 1.4 Pennzoil
4888 1.4 Mobil 1
8843 1.5 Amsoil
10000 1.5 Royal Purple
8000 1.5 Schaeffers
5200 1.5 Amsoil ASL
7780 1.5 Mobil Delvac 1
7000 1.6 Mobil 1
4411 1.6 Motorcraft
5000 1.6 Mobil 1
4316 1.6 Mobil 1, Amsoil S3K
13500 1.6 Amsoil ATM
4906 1.6 Castrol GTX
4796 1.7 Mobil 1
4788 1.7 Castrol Syntec
5930 1.7 Castrol Syntec
7000 1.7 Mobil 1
4000 1.8 Mobil 1
6213 1.8 Mobil 1
6165 1.8 Mobil 1
6144 1.8 Castrol Syntec
6000 1.8 Amsoil ATM
7600 1.8 unknown dealer non-synth
7000 1.9 Royal Purple
5921 1.9 Castrol GTX
4284 1.9 Pennzoil blend
6362 1.9 Mobil 1/Amsoil S3K/Mobil 1 T&SUV
7845 1.9 Castrol Syntec (GC)
4046 2.0 Amsoil
6524 2.0 Motul 300V Chrono
5303 2.1 Amsoil S3000
6261 2.2 Mobil 1
9581 2.3 Amsoil S2000
4647 2.6 Mobil 1
6000 2.8 Amsoil
7566 2.9 Mobil 1
7183 2.9 Mobil 1
6470 3.1 Schaeffers
5083 3.1 Castrol Syntec (GC)
7505 3.3 Mobil 1
7433 3.4 Mobil 1
4100 4.1 Schaeffers
Posted By: mva

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/24/08 07:51 PM

here is more sorting of the same Subaru data but by grade:

This time I eliminated all samples with less than 10,000 miles on the vehicle or less than 3000 OCI.

Overall averages by brand


Redline 0.8 ppm iron/1000 (6 samples)

Royal Purple 1.1 ppm iron/1000 (11 samples)

Amsoil 1.3 ppm iron/1000 (24 samples various grades)

Castrol 1.6 ppm iron/1000 (15 samples various grades)

Mobil 1 2.1 ppm iron/1000 (40 samples various grades)


Averages sorted by Grade and brand

0.8 iron/1000 Redline 10W30 & 10W40 (6 samples)

1.0 iron/1000 Amsoil 0W30 (4 samples)

1.1 iron/1000 Amsoil 5W30 (10 samples)

1.1 iron/1000 Royal Purple (11 samples various grades)

1.7 iron/1000 Amsoil 10W30 & 10W40 (8 samples)

1.8 iron/1000 Castrol Syntec 0W30 (10 samples)

2.3 iron/1000 Mobil 1 5W30 (23 samples)

Posted By: demarpaint

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/24/08 08:08 PM

 Originally Posted By: SilverC6
There should be a couple of extra jugs available at my local Walmart.

Just dumped all the EOM products from my oil stash.

I just needed a little push to go all Pennzoil.

In fact, after 25 years of using Pennzoil with great results, I felt like a hypocrite pouring M1 into one of my vehicles.

The M1 experiment is over for me.

I'm sure M1 is great oil.

I just don't believe in it.



We share similar feelings. I started using Mobil 1 long before PP ever existed, it was the only synthetic oil my van ever had. I now run PP in it thanks to Ashland's marketing. I did use YB exclusively for years in other vehicles I owned until joining BITOG, then I started buying sale oil.

The Mobil 1 experiment ended for me too, I have about 8 more qts of 0W20 to return and all ties will be cut officially in June when the 0W20 Mobil 1 comes out of my Jeep.

Frank D
Posted By: Riptide

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/24/08 08:13 PM

LOL

This sucks. I just switched to M1 5W-20 in my Mustang on the last fill. Was using the OEM MC before that. Everyone used to tout M1 as one of if not the best so ofcourse I went with it.

And now I read this fiasco.
Posted By: demarpaint

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/24/08 08:16 PM

LOL, I changed the oil in my Jeep to Mobil 1 0w20 about 100 miles ago. As much as I want it out of there its going to stay in it until June, or Ashland finds problems with it. LOL


Frank D
Posted By: defeated

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/24/08 08:35 PM

 Originally Posted By: greenaccord02

Before I swear off M1, I'm waiting for some official response. It could be that there is a valid explanation. Really what I want to see is what kind of statement they will make to their customers.


I keep thinking the same thing, but it seems like if they had something valid and reasonable, they would have come out with it already. There was something about Valvoline's statement that seems dodgy to me, but I can't quite nail down what it is. However, there must be plenty of validity to it because Exxon-Mobile HAS to know this is causing a flap, and they can't just dismiss it as a few car nerds. I've heard it from a few man on the street types that mobile 1 isn't a "real" synthetic anymore, so this kind of thing does trickle out to Joe Blow, slowly but surely.

I'm not ready to condemn the quality of M1, but I gotta say I'm not liking their corporate attitude. Their responses to some of the BITOG posters who have asked about Valvoline, combined with the responses they sent back in the days of the Group III controversy have just left a bad taste in my mouth that I'm not sure is going to go away this time. If I can get my hands on it easily, I think I'm going Redline from here on out and going by the OLM.
Posted By: Riptide

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/24/08 08:43 PM

I would also be going to Redline or Amsoil if I didn't have a warranty to worry about.

Oh woops did I just crack open a can of worms there? :)
Posted By: FrankN4

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/24/08 08:48 PM

 Originally Posted By: Riptide
I would also be going to Redline or Amsoil if I didn't have a warranty to worry about.

Oh woops did I just crack open a can of worms there? :)


You can always use the API certified Amsoil.
Posted By: SubLGT

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/24/08 09:51 PM

Back in August 2007 one of the BITOG members asked:

"Would Valvoline Durablend be better for a 5k oci than M1, or the other way around? "

This was Terry's answer:

"Right NOW the Valvoline formula will yield lower wear for 5000 mile interval in same engine. "

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=975237&fpart=3

Interesting, isn't it?
Posted By: Liquid_Turbo

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/24/08 10:11 PM

 Originally Posted By: Riptide
LOL

This sucks. I just switched to M1 5W-20 in my Mustang on the last fill. Was using the OEM MC before that. Everyone used to tout M1 as one of if not the best so ofcourse I went with it.

And now I read this fiasco.


As far as we know, this is only limited to 5w30, right?
Posted By: cheetahdriver

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/24/08 10:43 PM

right. the only allegation Ashland has made is for the 5w30. the "reason" this was tested was it is the "most popular" weight.

except it isn't, 10w30 is the most popular weight oil sold in the US. this makes me think that one batch of 5w30 is being used to smear the whole brand.
Posted By: HondaMan

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/25/08 01:21 AM

 Originally Posted By: SubLGT
Back in August 2007 one of the BITOG members asked:

"Would Valvoline Durablend be better for a 5k oci than M1, or the other way around? "

This was Terry's answer:

"Right NOW the Valvoline formula will yield lower wear for 5000 mile interval in same engine. "

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=975237&fpart=3

Interesting, isn't it?


Terry has been very candid with me and always had to willingness to backup what he was telling me with actual information. He has done many UOAs for me, many that I've never posted.

The one thing that I don't know how he does and we will not say how he knows is with statements like above, i.e.... he knows what is going on with 'Present' formulations of ALL the bigs.
Posted By: greenaccord02

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/25/08 05:50 AM

Just wanted to thank MVA for the data processing. That's really something to chew on.
Posted By: FrankN4

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/25/08 07:18 AM

 Originally Posted By: cheetahdriver
right. the only allegation Ashland has made is for the 5w30. the "reason" this was tested was it is the "most popular" weight.

except it isn't, 10w30 is the most popular weight oil sold in the US. this makes me think that one batch of 5w30 is being used to smear the whole brand.


According to the Mobil 1 web site, 5W-30 is their number one selling oil.
Posted By: cheetahdriver

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/25/08 01:44 PM

perhaps, but the best selling wt of motor oil in the country is 10w30, not 5w30. amsoil says 5w30 is their best seller, too. perhaps in synthetic grades 5w30 is the best selling weight, but for the country as a whole with all oils it's 10w30.
Posted By: buster

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/25/08 05:55 PM

I wonder if/when Mobil does reformulate their 5w30 to meet the Seq IVA test if it would loose some of it's high temperature deposit protection? Being Mobil 1 is used in mainly high performance engines, the Seq IVA really doesn't have much to do with that type of driving and engine condition. Or does it?
Posted By: Valvman

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/25/08 07:42 PM

Cheetah
NPRA reports show approximately 270 million gallons of 5W-30 projected to be sold for 2008 while 10W-30 is projected to sell about 170 million gallons (US volumes).
Posted By: otrdriver725

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/25/08 08:10 PM

you are right. you don't know what is going on!
Posted By: Liquid_Turbo

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/25/08 08:42 PM

 Originally Posted By: mva
There is a thread in the UOA section where "nicrfe1370" posted a speadsheet with 120 Subaru UOA's. I did a bit of rough sorting and found M1 seemed to have higher iron numbers. Of course this is many different engines, climates, driving styles, etc. so the data is not 100% scientific.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1293170&fpart=1

I eliminated the data with less than 20,000 miles (break-in) and OCI less than 4000 miles to get rid of short OCI's. I was left with 90 samples.

I then sorted the data by ppm iron per 1000 miles.

Amsoil, Redline and Royal Purple dominate the top performers and Mobil 1 tends to dominate the bottom end of the list with higher iron ppm per 1000 miles.

I get very similar results for chrome per 1000 miles. Lead, copper and aluminum are more of a mixed bag.

See below for the iron ppm/1000 miles sort:

Miles iron/1000 Oil Brand
13500 0.2 Amsoil S2000
12664 0.3 Amsoil S3000
5786 0.3 Amsoil
4982 0.4 Redline
4323 0.5 Amsoil S3000
6904 0.6 RP Racing 21
22000 0.6 Amsoil S2000
4871 0.6 Redline
7490 0.7 Mobil 1
7156 0.7 Amsoil
5022 0.8 Royal Purple
4983 0.8 Royal Purple
4963 0.8 Redline
7382 0.8 Amsoil
5592 0.9 Tech2000
7777 0.9 RP Racing 21
8800 0.9 Chevron Supreme
7521 0.9 RP Racing 21
5319 0.9 Pennzoil/Pennzoil Plat
5174 1.0 Amsoil ASL
4131 1.0 Redline
5012 1.0 Redline
4950 1.0 Tech2000
5800 1.0 Mobil 1
7579 1.1 Mobil 1
7504 1.1 RP Racing 21
6500 1.1 Amsoil S3000
4632 1.1 Castrol High Mileage
7230 1.1 Amsoil S3000
4407 1.1 Motorcraft
5200 1.2 Amsoil ASL
6840 1.2 Synergyn
7666 1.2 Mobil 1
6790 1.2 Pennzoil Platinum
5089 1.2 Castrol Syntec
5061 1.2 Castrol Syntec
5840 1.2 Pennzoil Platinum
4082 1.2 Castrol GTX
7100 1.3 Castrol Syntec
8332 1.3 Mobil 1, Amsoil S3K
7534 1.3 Mobil 1
5174 1.4 Amsoil S2000
8077 1.4 Amsoil AMO
6540 1.4 Synergyn
5023 1.4 Synergyn
5003 1.4 RP Racing 21
5000 1.4 Mobil 1
7000 1.4 Pennzoil
4888 1.4 Mobil 1
8843 1.5 Amsoil
10000 1.5 Royal Purple
8000 1.5 Schaeffers
5200 1.5 Amsoil ASL
7780 1.5 Mobil Delvac 1
7000 1.6 Mobil 1
4411 1.6 Motorcraft
5000 1.6 Mobil 1
4316 1.6 Mobil 1, Amsoil S3K
13500 1.6 Amsoil ATM
4906 1.6 Castrol GTX
4796 1.7 Mobil 1
4788 1.7 Castrol Syntec
5930 1.7 Castrol Syntec
7000 1.7 Mobil 1
4000 1.8 Mobil 1
6213 1.8 Mobil 1
6165 1.8 Mobil 1
6144 1.8 Castrol Syntec
6000 1.8 Amsoil ATM
7600 1.8 unknown dealer non-synth
7000 1.9 Royal Purple
5921 1.9 Castrol GTX
4284 1.9 Pennzoil blend
6362 1.9 Mobil 1/Amsoil S3K/Mobil 1 T&SUV
7845 1.9 Castrol Syntec (GC)
4046 2.0 Amsoil
6524 2.0 Motul 300V Chrono
5303 2.1 Amsoil S3000
6261 2.2 Mobil 1
9581 2.3 Amsoil S2000
4647 2.6 Mobil 1
6000 2.8 Amsoil
7566 2.9 Mobil 1
7183 2.9 Mobil 1
6470 3.1 Schaeffers
5083 3.1 Castrol Syntec (GC)
7505 3.3 Mobil 1
7433 3.4 Mobil 1
4100 4.1 Schaeffers


Very interesting!
Posted By: crinkles

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/25/08 10:14 PM

 Originally Posted By: endeavor to persevere
I don't have any Mobil products or Valvoline for that matter in my GMC Sierra or my wife's Buick and I'll bet the sun will come up in the morning and the grass will still be green.And neither vehicle will have an engine failure is its respective lifetime. How important is this in the scheme of things. For those us not in denial its the principle of the thing.

Don


it is incredibly important that products meet the specification they are claiming - otherwise what is the point of the specification? whether its babies' milk or jet fuel it is the principal that counts.

If we built a 400 foot high rise and left out every 100th steel bar, yes it would still stand up (most likely) but would you whether a hurricane in it?
Posted By: crinkles

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/25/08 10:17 PM

 Originally Posted By: Liquid_Turbo
 Originally Posted By: mva
There is a thread in the UOA section where "nicrfe1370" posted a speadsheet with 120 Subaru UOA's. I did a bit of rough sorting and found M1 seemed to have higher iron numbers. Of course this is many different engines, climates, driving styles, etc. so the data is not 100% scientific.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1293170&fpart=1

I eliminated the data with less than 20,000 miles (break-in) and OCI less than 4000 miles to get rid of short OCI's. I was left with 90 samples.

I then sorted the data by ppm iron per 1000 miles.

Amsoil, Redline and Royal Purple dominate the top performers and Mobil 1 tends to dominate the bottom end of the list with higher iron ppm per 1000 miles.

I get very similar results for chrome per 1000 miles. Lead, copper and aluminum are more of a mixed bag.

See below for the iron ppm/1000 miles sort:

Miles iron/1000 Oil Brand
13500 0.2 Amsoil S2000
12664 0.3 Amsoil S3000
5786 0.3 Amsoil
4982 0.4 Redline
4323 0.5 Amsoil S3000
6904 0.6 RP Racing 21
22000 0.6 Amsoil S2000
4871 0.6 Redline
7490 0.7 Mobil 1
7156 0.7 Amsoil
5022 0.8 Royal Purple
4983 0.8 Royal Purple
4963 0.8 Redline
7382 0.8 Amsoil
5592 0.9 Tech2000
7777 0.9 RP Racing 21
8800 0.9 Chevron Supreme
7521 0.9 RP Racing 21
5319 0.9 Pennzoil/Pennzoil Plat
5174 1.0 Amsoil ASL
4131 1.0 Redline
5012 1.0 Redline
4950 1.0 Tech2000
5800 1.0 Mobil 1
7579 1.1 Mobil 1
7504 1.1 RP Racing 21
6500 1.1 Amsoil S3000
4632 1.1 Castrol High Mileage
7230 1.1 Amsoil S3000
4407 1.1 Motorcraft
5200 1.2 Amsoil ASL
6840 1.2 Synergyn
7666 1.2 Mobil 1
6790 1.2 Pennzoil Platinum
5089 1.2 Castrol Syntec
5061 1.2 Castrol Syntec
5840 1.2 Pennzoil Platinum
4082 1.2 Castrol GTX
7100 1.3 Castrol Syntec
8332 1.3 Mobil 1, Amsoil S3K
7534 1.3 Mobil 1
5174 1.4 Amsoil S2000
8077 1.4 Amsoil AMO
6540 1.4 Synergyn
5023 1.4 Synergyn
5003 1.4 RP Racing 21
5000 1.4 Mobil 1
7000 1.4 Pennzoil
4888 1.4 Mobil 1
8843 1.5 Amsoil
10000 1.5 Royal Purple
8000 1.5 Schaeffers
5200 1.5 Amsoil ASL
7780 1.5 Mobil Delvac 1
7000 1.6 Mobil 1
4411 1.6 Motorcraft
5000 1.6 Mobil 1
4316 1.6 Mobil 1, Amsoil S3K
13500 1.6 Amsoil ATM
4906 1.6 Castrol GTX
4796 1.7 Mobil 1
4788 1.7 Castrol Syntec
5930 1.7 Castrol Syntec
7000 1.7 Mobil 1
4000 1.8 Mobil 1
6213 1.8 Mobil 1
6165 1.8 Mobil 1
6144 1.8 Castrol Syntec
6000 1.8 Amsoil ATM
7600 1.8 unknown dealer non-synth
7000 1.9 Royal Purple
5921 1.9 Castrol GTX
4284 1.9 Pennzoil blend
6362 1.9 Mobil 1/Amsoil S3K/Mobil 1 T&SUV
7845 1.9 Castrol Syntec (GC)
4046 2.0 Amsoil
6524 2.0 Motul 300V Chrono
5303 2.1 Amsoil S3000
6261 2.2 Mobil 1
9581 2.3 Amsoil S2000
4647 2.6 Mobil 1
6000 2.8 Amsoil
7566 2.9 Mobil 1
7183 2.9 Mobil 1
6470 3.1 Schaeffers
5083 3.1 Castrol Syntec (GC)
7505 3.3 Mobil 1
7433 3.4 Mobil 1
4100 4.1 Schaeffers


Very interesting!


it owuld be more meaningful if you could express as FE ppm/mile, then check back and see what the outcomes are. the OCI hasn't been nailed down in the list above.
Posted By: SubLGT

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/25/08 10:49 PM

Another interesting quote from Terry, circa July 2007:

..........."Many of the purported top of the line "synthetics" are terrible at resisting the aromatics attack [from fuel in oil]. No names mentioned but M1 is the worst offender in current formulation. And the main reason for their UOA wear values being higher particularly in iron readings"............"

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...true#Post951736
Posted By: sparkplug

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/26/08 12:24 AM

Another strike against XOM for me. I only used M1 in my Z28 for 120k miles before the engine bit the dust. I tore the motor apart and the bottom end was varnished and a little sludgy. I had replaced a valve cover gasket on my moms Stratus and the top end was varnished. I've been using dino Valvoline in it for the past 3 oil changes and the top end is clean. I'll back Valvoline for a long time.
Posted By: buster

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/26/08 12:40 AM

Mobil 1's best attribute is sludge and deposit control. Wear control seems to be the issue.

Synpower should be GM 4718M approved soon. \:\!
Posted By: mva

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/26/08 01:26 AM

Crinkles - you must have misunderstood my table. I did post Fe ppm per 1000 miles and the first number in each case is the OCI. If you want results per mile divide by 1000.

It is expressed as:

OCI, Fe ppm/1000 miles, Brand

13500 0.2 Amsoil S2000
12664 0.3 Amsoil S3000
5786 0.3 Amsoil
4982 0.4 Redline
4323 0.5 Amsoil S3000
6904 0.6 RP Racing 21
22000 0.6 Amsoil S2000
4871 0.6 Redline
7490 0.7 Mobil 1
7156 0.7 Amsoil
5022 0.8 Royal Purple
4983 0.8 Royal Purple
4963 0.8 Redline
7382 0.8 Amsoil
5592 0.9 Tech2000
7777 0.9 RP Racing 21
8800 0.9 Chevron Supreme
7521 0.9 RP Racing 21
5319 0.9 Pennzoil/Pennzoil Plat
5174 1.0 Amsoil ASL
4131 1.0 Redline
5012 1.0 Redline
4950 1.0 Tech2000
5800 1.0 Mobil 1
7579 1.1 Mobil 1
7504 1.1 RP Racing 21
6500 1.1 Amsoil S3000
4632 1.1 Castrol High Mileage
7230 1.1 Amsoil S3000
4407 1.1 Motorcraft
5200 1.2 Amsoil ASL
6840 1.2 Synergyn
7666 1.2 Mobil 1
6790 1.2 Pennzoil Platinum
5089 1.2 Castrol Syntec
5061 1.2 Castrol Syntec
5840 1.2 Pennzoil Platinum
4082 1.2 Castrol GTX
7100 1.3 Castrol Syntec
8332 1.3 Mobil 1, Amsoil S3K
7534 1.3 Mobil 1
5174 1.4 Amsoil S2000
8077 1.4 Amsoil AMO
6540 1.4 Synergyn
5023 1.4 Synergyn
5003 1.4 RP Racing 21
5000 1.4 Mobil 1
7000 1.4 Pennzoil
4888 1.4 Mobil 1
8843 1.5 Amsoil
10000 1.5 Royal Purple
8000 1.5 Schaeffers
5200 1.5 Amsoil ASL
7780 1.5 Mobil Delvac 1
7000 1.6 Mobil 1
4411 1.6 Motorcraft
5000 1.6 Mobil 1
4316 1.6 Mobil 1, Amsoil S3K
13500 1.6 Amsoil ATM
4906 1.6 Castrol GTX
4796 1.7 Mobil 1
4788 1.7 Castrol Syntec
5930 1.7 Castrol Syntec
7000 1.7 Mobil 1
4000 1.8 Mobil 1
6213 1.8 Mobil 1
6165 1.8 Mobil 1
6144 1.8 Castrol Syntec
6000 1.8 Amsoil ATM
7600 1.8 unknown dealer non-synth
7000 1.9 Royal Purple
5921 1.9 Castrol GTX
4284 1.9 Pennzoil blend
6362 1.9 Mobil 1/Amsoil S3K/Mobil 1 T&SUV
7845 1.9 Castrol Syntec (GC)
4046 2.0 Amsoil
6524 2.0 Motul 300V Chrono
5303 2.1 Amsoil S3000
6261 2.2 Mobil 1
9581 2.3 Amsoil S2000
4647 2.6 Mobil 1
6000 2.8 Amsoil
7566 2.9 Mobil 1
7183 2.9 Mobil 1
6470 3.1 Schaeffers
5083 3.1 Castrol Syntec (GC)
7505 3.3 Mobil 1
7433 3.4 Mobil 1
4100 4.1 Schaeffers
Posted By: buster

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/26/08 01:54 AM

 Quote:
t is incredibly important that products meet the specification they are claiming - otherwise what is the point of the specification?


That's all that really matters here.
Posted By: SubLGT

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/26/08 02:42 AM

More from Terry, July 2007 posting: (I think this was around the same time Valvoline first challenged ExxonMobil?)

"Some motor oils have successfully reformulated to take advantage of the fuels realities here in the US. Some have not.

XOM is underdeveloping and underexecuting on their top of the line formulas and commentary to the opposite is poppycock. In a normally running engine M1 will work fine but the current formulas indeed allow too much wear by any measure. Aromatics from systemic fuel dilute is causing aggravated wear in most oil formulas but M1 is letting YOU the customer down for the money spent. You are paying for brand recognition not technology. Hopefully that will change.... they sure have the resources to do it. (text bolded by me)

................................................

This is no HIT on M1, it an observation from a independent analyst who wants the best for his customers.

Brand be darned.

Amsoil has corrected their vis thickening oxidation issues of 2 years ago.

COP syn blends are real stable but allow too much valvetrain wear in the past few years since introduction.

............................

Valvoline used to have terrible cold crank and pump values in there conventional oils that was corrected 6 years ago.

RLI formulas until recently had oxidation limiting issues until the advancement of advanced Hybridized HOBS characteristics and thus they are now rivaling about any GRP V oils. RS4 program proves that from all over the US and some foreign customers.

I share what I can and base it on testing and stay independent. "
Posted By: Riptide

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/26/08 03:00 AM

I know 5W-30 is the type in question here but this whole fiasco makes it difficult for me to trust the Mobil1 in general.

What would be a good alternative API certified 5W-20 to go with? I used to use the Motorcraft blend but I'm not sure I should go back to that after having used "full" synthetic already. This is for the 4.6L 3v Ford engine.
Posted By: cheetahdriver

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/26/08 03:09 AM

when Ashland gets GM4718M, HTO-06 and MB229.5 give me a call.

while i look closely at what terry says, he also is quite involved with RLI. of course, Molakule was quite involved with SF.

i would be interested in his (Molakule) take on this...

as far as the Motorcraft Blend, i know of no issues switching back and forth between syn and dino.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/26/08 03:21 AM

 Originally Posted By: otrdriver725
you are right. you don't know what is going on!


That's right. And neither do you. Nobody does except XOM, who seem to have sealed lips.
Posted By: Bryanccfshr

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/26/08 03:21 AM

Riptide, try PP and don't look back.
Posted By: demarpaint

Re: Mobil 1 API certifications renewed - 12/26/08 03:28 AM

I think Terry is calling it like he sees it. I think its all about paying for Mobil 1 brand recognition and not quality at this point. Interesting to see how other brands addressed problems, no company is perfect. The key is to monitor quality and address issues. Higher wear numbers are an issue in my book, and XOM isn't doing much about it as of now.

Frank D
Posted By: greenaccord02

Re: Valvoline vs. Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/26/08 06:20 AM

It would be nice to have a weigh-in directly from Terry on this thread.

ALSO, it would be nice if XOM were to release an official statement. Hopefully by 1/5/09 we'll have some word.
Posted By: Liquid_Turbo

Re: Valvoline vs. Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/26/08 07:57 AM

XOM's silence is deafening
Posted By: virginoil

Re: Valvoline vs. Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/26/08 01:01 PM

Wow

After 39 pages of posting, how would you respond if you were the marketing manager at XOM charged with the responsibility.
Posted By: demarpaint

Re: Valvoline vs. Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/26/08 01:38 PM

 Originally Posted By: virginoil
Wow

After 39 pages of posting, how would you respond if you were the marketing manager at XOM charged with the responsibility.


I was thinking the same thing when this thread hit 20 pages. It appears they say they meet specs, and no longer want to address the issue. You'd think they would have come up with some counter attack advertising if their product was that good. I know I would have.

Frank D
Posted By: FrankN4

Re: Valvoline vs. Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/26/08 03:13 PM

From a financial point, it probably doesn't bother XOM. If every person on Bitog used Mobil 1, had 2 cars, and each one convinced one other person that also used Mobil 1 to switch away from Mobil 1, and everyone changed oil 4 times a year per car, it would cost XOM about $3,471,360 a year, Mobil 1 wholesale price. If any of those switched to Valvoline, Amsoil, or one of the other brands that use XOM base oils, you would have to subtract the extra income XOM would get from those increased sales.

I still can't get over the feeling that I am standing in front of the fish market trying to figure out what it is that I smell!

With 260,000 Mobil 1 miles on my Toyota, 207,000 Mobil 1 miles on my Cavalier, 190,000 Mobil 1 miles on daughter's Chrysler van, 170,000 Mobil 1 miles on daughter's Pontiac van, and many other well over 100,000 miles Mobil 1 stories....well...I smell something.

I just thought, my Toyota started out in 1986, well below SM. The Cavalier in 1999, well below SM, Both the vans below SM. Many, most of the vehicles that have greatly extended miles started out and lived out below SM.

If Mobil 1 is proven to be guilty, and doesn't make a public accounting, I will switch to another brand. I will switch not because I doubt the "QUALITY" of their oils but because I believe they lied to trusted consumes and don't really care.
Posted By: HondaMan

Re: Valvoline vs. Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/26/08 03:22 PM


The humor is all the UOAs.... all the sassy back and forth on the board about high Fe and now BEHOLD, the oil is actually underperforming and has been as we have seen time after time with UOA after UOA.

WOW!
Posted By: Pablo

Re: Valvoline vs. Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/26/08 03:27 PM

 Originally Posted By: HondaMan

The humor is all the UOAs.... all the sassy back and forth on the board about high Fe and now BEHOLD, the oil is actually underperforming and has been as we have seen time after time with UOA after UOA.

WOW!


 Originally Posted By: HondaMan
As I mentioned before, we'll never know what the truth is ... if XOM tells Ashland anything, Ashland is likely to share the info publically... so you can bet that XOM will not share with anyone from this point forward.

API as mentioned would have to call out XOM... I don't think that is gonna happen.

GM could make trouble for XOM as well, but they have much bigger concerns, I would say this is of no concern to them what so ever.

The humor is all the UOAs.... all the sassy back and forth on the board about high Fe and now BEHOLD, the oil is actually underperforming and has been as we have seen time after time with UOA after UOA.


I tend to agree - but we certainly have no heard the last of this. Watch the lube publications after the Holidays.

PS Some of you guys need to set your posts per page up a few notches. Mine is at the highest (99-100)....so I'm "only" on page 4....
Posted By: demarpaint

Re: Valvoline vs. Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/26/08 03:30 PM

 Originally Posted By: FrankN4
I will switch not because I doubt the "QUALITY" of their oils but because I believe they lied to trusted consumes and don't really care.


I am the original owner of an 88 E-150, I checked my records today just to see exactly how long I ran Mobil 1. I changed over to Mobil 1 10W30 in 1992 at 26,000 miles and only used Mobil 1 from that point until December 2008 when I switched to PP 5W30 for the first time. My miles are very low, and the van sits for long periods of time so I wanted something that would last me at least 6 months in the sump. Keep in mind in 1988 severe service was 3 months or 3000 miles.

I felt they lied to their customers, and I am done with them. As I mentioned in this post I didn't care for the tone of their replies to my brother and I when we questioned them. I'm in a service business and my customers concerns and questions no matter how stupid they might sound deserve a respectful honest answer. I never told someone I was done with a certain question if they had something else to ask. I also have no reason to doubt that the quality of their other products could be borderline quality. For the cost there are better oils.

You are correct in your analysis, they really don't need BITOG members to buy their products. When you weight it out it equates to probably less than a cup of coffee a quarter for the CEO. Besides they're still selling the base oil. But I still feel better making the change, and to me that's all that matters.

JMO,
Frank D
Posted By: Steve S

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/26/08 03:56 PM

 Originally Posted By: buster
Mobil 1's best attribute is sludge and deposit control. Wear control seems to be the issue.

Synpower should be GM 4718M approved soon. \:\!
There is nothing better than a worn out engine with minimal deposits
Posted By: Bryanccfshr

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/26/08 04:13 PM

"Those flat cam lobes sure are shiny"
Posted By: demarpaint

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/26/08 04:16 PM

 Originally Posted By: Steve S
 Originally Posted By: buster
Mobil 1's best attribute is sludge and deposit control. Wear control seems to be the issue.

Synpower should be GM 4718M approved soon. \:\!
There is nothing better than a worn out engine with minimal deposits


Yep, it makes it easier to mic things up. No sludge or varnish to clean off before measuring.

Frank D
Posted By: Cutehumor

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/26/08 11:14 PM

 Originally Posted By: buster
Yes, but it's the fact that Mobil 1 has always been the "gold standard" of synthetics, it would put a dent in their integrity.


I thought the dent was put in when they would not say they use PAO in their Mobil 1 line....
Posted By: GMFan

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/26/08 11:17 PM

I used Mobil 1 for one OCI in my vehicle. I couldn't justify the price for it and I have since used Pennzoil YB. However, I was trying to save a little money and I bought 2 jugs of Mobil Clean 5000 for $11 instead of the usual Pennzoil for $14 at Walmart. I feel like a traitor.

In all seriousness....I doubt using Mobil 1 5w30 would cause a lubrication failure. However, I wouldn't doubt that Pennzoil YB would provide BETTER wear protection in engines than Mobil 1.....because many UOAs show that here! There are a few UOAs done on Mobil Clean 5000 that show less wear than with Mobil 1.

BTW, anyone notice that Walmart now puts their logo on Mobil's oil jugs? It says "Recycle your used oil at your local Walmart Lube Express" along with the walmart symbol.

As a side note....it would be veryyyy interesting to see if Mobil changed the Mobil 1 formulation. Mobil 1 is back on the shevles, so we should start to see some UOAs in the coming months. Think of it as an after Christmas surprise.
Posted By: Pablo

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/26/08 11:28 PM

Classically I would say they are not related....but.....both have formula changes at the root.
Posted By: Shannow

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 12/27/08 10:05 PM

Awesome thread.

This and the GrIII thread from ages back give serious food for thought.

Wonder what the chances of the "specification" presented to the API stating "zinc 800ppm +/- 10%", presenting a top of the error band oil for test, then having a 9% "underadditised" oil reach the market (nearly 20% less than the oil sent for test)...still "in spec"
Posted By: Rolf

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 01/15/09 01:04 AM

 Originally Posted By: buster
I don't think Valvoline would push it that far if it weren't true.


http://www.ftc.gov/opa/1997/10/valve.shtm

October 8, 1997

VALVOLINE SETTLES CHARGES

Engine Wear, Fuel Economy, Performance Claims For Valvoline TM8 Engine Treatment Were Unsubstantiated

Ashland, Inc. has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that ads for the Valvoline Company's Teflon-containing TM8 Engine Treatment product were false and unsubstantiated. Valvoline is an unincorporated division of Ashland. The terms of the settlement will bar Ashland from making unsubstantiated claims about the performance or attributes of any engine treatment in the future and from misrepresenting tests or studies used to support its claims.

This is the latest in a series of FTC cases involving unsubstantiated or false claims for automotive additives and high octane fuels.

Ashland is a Fortune 500 company with 1996 revenues of $13.1 billion. It markets automotive products under the brand names Valvoline, Pyroil and Zerex. Ashland is based in Russell, Kentucky.

According to the complaint detailing the charges, ads for TM8 Engine Treatment made claims such as:

"TM8 is a blend of eight scientifically formulated components -- including Dupont's TEFLON fluoroadditive-- that chemically bond to engine surfaces, reducing engine friction and wear";

"TM8's 8 friction-fighting ingredients chemically bond to moving parts, protecting your engine even at start-up. In fact, under high operating temperatures, motor oil treated with TM8 offers twice the protection";

"REDUCE WEAR BY UP TO 75%. TM8 protects engines during "Stop and Go" driving."

Through the use of such claims in ads that ran on radio and TV, magazines, leaflets and on an Internet site, Valvoline represented that TM8 bonds Teflon to engine parts; that compared to motor oil alone, it reduces engine wear; that it reduces wear on some engine parts by up to 75 percent; that it provides twice as much engine wear protection under high temperature conditions; that it extends engine life; that it improves fuel economy; and that one treatment lasts for 50,000 miles.

In addition, according to the complaint, some ads claimed that "testing" demonstrated that compared to motor oil alone, TM8 reduces wear on engine parts by up to 75%, provides twice the wear protection under high temperature conditions, and improves fuel economy.

In fact, according to the complaint, Ashland did not possess and rely upon a reasonable basis to make the ad claims, so they were unsubstantiated. In addition, tests do not prove that, compared to motor oil alone, TM8 reduces wear on engine parts by up to 75%, provides twice the wear protection under high temperature conditions, and improves fuel economy. Therefore, the "testing" claims are false and misleading.

The agreement to settle the charges would prohibit Ashland from making any claims about the performance or attributes of any engine treatment unless it possesses and relies upon competent and reliable evidence to support the claims. It also bars misrepresentations of the results of any tests or studies.

The order also contains standard record-keeping provisions to allow the Commission to monitor compliance.

The Commission vote to approve the proposed consent agreement was 4-0. A summary of the agreement will be published in the Federal Register shortly and will be subject to public comment for 60 days, after which the Commission will decide whether to make it final. Comments should be addressed to the FTC, Office of the Secretary, 6th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580.

NOTE: A consent agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission of a law violation. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of $11,000.

Copies of the complaint, consent and an analysis to aid public comment and a free FTC consumer education brochure are available on the Internet at the FTC's World Wide Web site at: http://www.ftc.gov

http://www.ftc.gov/os/1998/01/ashlandcmp.htm

http://www.ftc.gov/os/1998/01/ashlanddo.htm



.
Posted By: buster

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 01/15/09 01:22 AM

So because Ashland lied 11 years ago about their claims, XOM is meets the Seq IVA wear test! Thank you! How relevant to the discussion.

http://www.jobbersworld.com/valvolineq&Apage1.htm

Valvoline Synpower exceeds the standards Mobil 1 can not even meet

 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.


 Quote:
hat's certainly a serious claim, and one that Thomas R. Smith, Technical Director of Valvoline Lubricants told JobbersWorld he stands behind. According to Smith, Ashland made ExxonMobil aware of this issue in September and as of December 11th, "ExxonMobil has been silent."


 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."
Posted By: endeavor to persevere

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 01/15/09 01:30 AM

http://www.mobilemarketer.com/cms/news/commerce/1264.html
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 01/15/09 01:31 AM

GM was no help:

 Quote:
Thank you for your email.

Our website (www.gm.ca) contains all corporate and product information that is available to the general public. Unfortunately, we do not have the resources available to respond to the high volume of special requests that we receive.

If the information you are looking for is not available on our website, we recommend that you research through alternate resources, such as the Internet and/or your local library.

Thank you for contacting General Motors of Canada Limited. Please visit our website again!


Christine Hoskin
General Motors Internet Correspondent
Posted By: Rolf

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 01/15/09 01:38 AM

 Originally Posted By: buster
So because Ashland lied 11 years ago about their claims, XOM is meets the Seq IVA wear test!


I found it made an interesting contrast to:

"I don't think Valvoline would push it that far if it weren't true."

If you think I am being unfair, go to:

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/1997/06/exxon.shtm



.



.
Posted By: endeavor to persevere

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 01/15/09 01:40 AM

http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2115738
Posted By: buster

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 01/15/09 01:42 AM

I don't think you are being unfair, but I think you are using an old debate trick trying to throw irrelevant information into the mix to distract from the issue at hand.

Until XOM responds, I personally take Ashland's word. Sure they could be wrong but until then I believe Ashland. They sent XOM the data. This is not some contrived story IMO.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 01/15/09 01:42 AM

 Originally Posted By: endeavor to persevere
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2115738


That's exciting, a 5w40 vs a 0w40? Why not run it against Delvac 1? Why not run it against TDT 5w40? You know, the SAME GRADE?????

That, and the fact that NO teardown was done, so the UOA information is basically MEANINGLESS.
Posted By: BigJohn

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 01/15/09 01:47 AM

 Originally Posted By: endeavor to persevere
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2115738



Wow....this link to the Blackstone reports is impacting.

I have 4 quarts of Mobil 1 left. I will use it up and never go back again. I am sure that Valvoline Synthetic is good stuff, but I will be going with PP.
Posted By: Rolf

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 01/15/09 01:49 AM

 Originally Posted By: endeavor to persevere
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2115738


Absolutely demonstrates that wear decreases with mileage, that Mobil 1 0W-40 is probably not a good match for this engine, and that you can't compare apples and oranges.

The comparable Mobil 1 motor oil would have been Delvac 1 5W-40 and its closely related Mobil 1 siblings.

Here is a typical result of Delvac 1 in a VW:

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1316444&fpart=1

Voila!



.
Posted By: Rolf

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 01/15/09 01:51 AM

 Originally Posted By: buster
I don't think you are being unfair, but I think you are using an old debate trick trying to throw irrelevant information into the mix to distract from the issue at hand.


That pretty much defines the entire case of Ashland and the resident ExxonMobil bashers IMHO.






.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 01/15/09 01:52 AM

 Originally Posted By: Rolf
 Originally Posted By: endeavor to persevere
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2115738


Absolutely demonstrates that wear decreases with mileage, that Mobil 1 0W-40 is probably not a good match for this engine, and that you can't compare apples and oranges.

The comparable Mobil 1 motor oil would have been Delvac 1 5W-40 and its closely related Mobil 1 siblings.

Here is a typical result of Delvac 1 in a VW:

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1316444&fpart=1

Voila!



.


Rolf, have you not figured out that this has nothing to do with being fair, factual information or logical approach?

Yes, as I mentioned above, the CORRECT oil to compare Valvoline's 5w40 to would have been Delvac 1 or M1 TDT, but of course it would have got its clock cleaned (in the meaningless UOA's) and so the 0w40 was run.

It would seem that the idea that the test was setup for failure escapes most people.....
Posted By: DragRace

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 01/15/09 01:57 AM

Wow another thread of mobil bashing

Can the mods lock this one up as well? same [censored] that was goin on in the other Mobil thread

I'm right,no, your right,no I'm right, wait,you dont know the facts,please!
Posted By: buster

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 01/15/09 01:57 AM

The Synpower 5w40 is not a diesel rated oil AFAIK. It's their equivalent to Mobil 1 0w-40.

 Quote:
SAE 5W-40: Provides the widest range of protection available in the SynPower motor oil line. Delivers outstanding cold temperature pumpability for rapid oil circulation at start-up. Provides a thick oil film for ultimate wear protection. Exceeds all car and light truck manufacturers’ warranty requirements for the protection of gasoline, diesel and turbocharged engines where an API SL, SM or CF oil is recommended. SynPower 5W-40 exceeds European ACEA A3/B3/B4/C3 requirements and is approved for Mercedes-Benz, and Volkswagen. SynPower 5W-40 also meets the engine performance requirements for BMW, Jaguar, Porsche, Lexus, Rolls Royce, Volvo and other high performance vehicles.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 01/15/09 02:02 AM

 Originally Posted By: buster
The Synpower 5w40 is not a diesel rated oil AFAIK. It's their equivalent to Mobil 1 0w-40.

 Quote:
SAE 5W-40: Provides the widest range of protection available in the SynPower motor oil line. Delivers outstanding cold temperature pumpability for rapid oil circulation at start-up. Provides a thick oil film for ultimate wear protection. Exceeds all car and light truck manufacturers’ warranty requirements for the protection of gasoline, diesel and turbocharged engines where an API SL, SM or CF oil is recommended. SynPower 5W-40 exceeds European ACEA A3/B3/B4/C3 requirements and is approved for Mercedes-Benz, and Volkswagen. SynPower 5W-40 also meets the engine performance requirements for BMW, Jaguar, Porsche, Lexus, Rolls Royce, Volvo and other high performance vehicles.


It is not the same grade though. And it does, in that quote, and from Valvoline's site (where that quote comes from), say it is rated for use in diesels. What's its HTHS viscosity? It's a 5w40, diesel or not (I see it is not CI or CJ rated), it should really be compared to a 5w40, not a 0w40.

And the information presented is useless regardless. It's UOA's, not tear-down testing.
Posted By: buster

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 01/15/09 02:04 AM

I disagree. A 0w or 5w doesn't matter. Amsoil's 5w40 is their European oil much like Mobil 1 has their 0w-40. Delvac 5w40 is a diesel oil first, PCMO second.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 01/15/09 02:08 AM

 Originally Posted By: buster
I disagree. A 0w or 5w doesn't matter. Amsoil's 5w40 is their European oil much like Mobil 1 has their 0w-40. Delvac 5w40 is a diesel oil first, PCMO second.


AMSOIL has much more freedom with their product than Ashland or ExxonMobil there, not a great comparison....

I would like to see a comparison of the HTHS viscosities and other properties, as well as actual tear-down testing performed before I would say we have learned ANYTHING from that comparison other than there are sites other than this one with a Mobil-bashing fetish.
Posted By: Rolf

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 01/15/09 02:11 AM

 Originally Posted By: buster
The Synpower 5w40 is not a diesel rated oil AFAIK. It's their equivalent to Mobil 1 0w-40.


Are you saying the comparison is unfair because the Delvac 1 5W-40 is a better oil?

I ask because around my area they're about the same price.

http://www.valvoline.com/products/Synpower.pdf

http://www.mobil.com/USA-English/Lubes/PDS/NAXXENCVLMOMobil_Delvac_1_5W-40.asp

http://www.mobil.com/USA-English/Lubes/PDS/GLXXENPVLMOMobil_1_0W-40.asp



.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 01/15/09 02:19 AM

 Originally Posted By: Rolf
 Originally Posted By: buster
The Synpower 5w40 is not a diesel rated oil AFAIK. It's their equivalent to Mobil 1 0w-40.


Are you saying the comparison is unfair because the Delvac 1 5W-40 is a better oil?

I ask because around my area they're about the same price.

http://www.valvoline.com/products/Synpower.pdf

http://www.mobil.com/USA-English/Lubes/PDS/NAXXENCVLMOMobil_Delvac_1_5W-40.asp

http://www.mobil.com/USA-English/Lubes/PDS/GLXXENPVLMOMobil_1_0W-40.asp



.





I think he just means it should be compared to Valvoline's "Premium Blue" Extreme, which I don't think I've ever seen anybody on here run? That would be their "equivalent" to Delvac 1, whilst they do not make a 0w40, so their Synpower 5w40 is the closest thing.
Posted By: buster

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 01/15/09 02:30 AM

 Originally Posted By: Rolf
 Originally Posted By: buster
The Synpower 5w40 is not a diesel rated oil AFAIK. It's their equivalent to Mobil 1 0w-40.


Are you saying the comparison is unfair because the Delvac 1 5W-40 is a better oil?

I ask because around my area they're about the same price.

http://www.valvoline.com/products/Synpower.pdf

http://www.mobil.com/USA-English/Lubes/PDS/NAXXENCVLMOMobil_Delvac_1_5W-40.asp

http://www.mobil.com/USA-English/Lubes/PDS/GLXXENPVLMOMobil_1_0W-40.asp



Again, you are switching the subject.

Synpower 5w-40 is a 40 grade oil that meets european specifications.

Mobil 1 0w-40 is a 40 grade oil that meets european specifications.

If you had a Mercedes, this is the Synpower oil that Ashland would recommend to replace M1 0w40.

I do not know what is the better oil between the two and neither do you.
Posted By: Rolf

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 01/15/09 02:43 AM

 Originally Posted By: buster
Again, you are switching the subject.


Comparing two 5W-40 motor oils at the same viscosity and price is "switching the subject"?

What, then, was the subject?

The individual who did this "analysis" seemed to say the point was Valvoline was better than Mobil.

 Originally Posted By: buster
Synpower 5w-40 is a 40 grade oil that meets european specifications.


Take a look at the urls. There are two Synpower 5W-40s, each of which meets some European specifications.

Both Mobil 1 0W-40 and Delvac 1 5W-40 meet some European specifications.

So, we learn once again that:

- you can cherry pick formulas to "prove" the superiority of one brand

- there is no substitute for used oil analyses properly interpreted

What this gentleman did NOT prove was that Valvoline is superior to Mobil.


.
Posted By: tig1

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 01/15/09 03:27 AM

UOAs, I think are pretty much a waste of time and money,unless you suspect antifreeze in the oil,etc. for the average person. Typically you can change your oil for what it cost to do a UOA.One millioneth of apart is extreamly minute. So if it's 9 or 29 ppm so what! It doesn't mean anything in regards to the longivety of the engine.
Posted By: demarpaint

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 01/15/09 03:36 AM

October 8, 1997

VALVOLINE SETTLES CHARGES

Engine Wear, Fuel Economy, Performance Claims For Valvoline TM8 Engine Treatment Were Unsubstantiated


I wonder if this has anything to do with them dropping VSOT, (granted it was a different product), which many of us liked...........
Posted By: buster

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 01/15/09 04:09 AM

 Quote:
there is no substitute for used oil analyses properly interpreted

What this gentleman did NOT prove was that Valvoline is superior to Mobil.


I think oil analysis is useful but limited.

Correct, he did not prove Valvoline was superior. Nor do you know Mobil is any better.

We do know wear metals dropped and we don't know what version of the 5w40 was run. You could certainly compare D1.

RI's interpretation:

 Quote:
1st off, this is not an experiment, it is an ongoing analysis of oil in a vehicle engine. The data is real, not contrived. A change definitely occurred when M1 was switched out and replaced with Valvoline. Arguing about "statistical significance" is a smoke screen. A change occurred in metal wear. That change in metal wear is well outside the error range of ICP spectroscopy used by Blackstone. Thus, something caused that change in wear. Now, we can argue whether it was the oil, or some other condition in the engine, but quite frankly, there are not that many variables that will cause this large an increase in wear.

Having done these sorts of experiments across many miles in my Audi's and having accumulated nearly 100 samples across 20+ Audi RS4 engines, I'd say that his results are what should be expected. It is a testament to good marketing that consumers become angry when the preeminence of Mobil 1 0W40 is challenged. But it does not change the fact that Mobil 1 sometimes does not perform as well as other oils in some engine applications.

Believe it or not, there really are not that many variables to consider that change the results in an oil analysis. Oil itself being the most important variable. Used Oil analysis gives a snapshot of an engine over the average period of the oil change, or analysis, interval. For what is measured, it is highly accurate.

I'd agree that it would be helpful to reintroduce M1 into the engine again. When/if he does, I fully expect to see fuel dilution go up, and Iron wear specifically increase. Why? Because M1 0w40 does not seal the rings well after it has been run in the engine a few thousand miles. And when confronted with fuel, some of it's anti wear additives are washed off of iron bearing surfaces in the engine, resulting in higher wear.
Posted By: buster

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 01/15/09 04:15 AM

Regardless of what you believe, I'm curious if they refute it publicly or let this issue die on it's own....

Posted By: buster

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 01/15/09 04:20 AM

 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.


Hopefully XOM will respond in time.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 01/15/09 04:26 AM

 Originally Posted By: buster
 Quote:
there is no substitute for used oil analyses properly interpreted

What this gentleman did NOT prove was that Valvoline is superior to Mobil.


I think oil analysis is useful but limited.

Correct, he did not prove Valvoline was superior. Nor do you know Mobil is any better.

We do know wear metals dropped and we don't know what version of the 5w40 was run. You could certainly compare D1.

RI's interpretation:

 Quote:
1st off, this is not an experiment, it is an ongoing analysis of oil in a vehicle engine. The data is real, not contrived. A change definitely occurred when M1 was switched out and replaced with Valvoline. Arguing about "statistical significance" is a smoke screen. A change occurred in metal wear. That change in metal wear is well outside the error range of ICP spectroscopy used by Blackstone. Thus, something caused that change in wear. Now, we can argue whether it was the oil, or some other condition in the engine, but quite frankly, there are not that many variables that will cause this large an increase in wear.

Having done these sorts of experiments across many miles in my Audi's and having accumulated nearly 100 samples across 20+ Audi RS4 engines, I'd say that his results are what should be expected. It is a testament to good marketing that consumers become angry when the preeminence of Mobil 1 0W40 is challenged. But it does not change the fact that Mobil 1 sometimes does not perform as well as other oils in some engine applications.

Believe it or not, there really are not that many variables to consider that change the results in an oil analysis. Oil itself being the most important variable. Used Oil analysis gives a snapshot of an engine over the average period of the oil change, or analysis, interval. For what is measured, it is highly accurate.

I'd agree that it would be helpful to reintroduce M1 into the engine again. When/if he does, I fully expect to see fuel dilution go up, and Iron wear specifically increase. Why? Because M1 0w40 does not seal the rings well after it has been run in the engine a few thousand miles. And when confronted with fuel, some of it's anti wear additives are washed off of iron bearing surfaces in the engine, resulting in higher wear.


Iron bearing surfaces? The only iron used as bearing surfaces are cam and crankshaft. And its "companion" metal is far more malleable..... And much more likely to wear. The iron is not crankshaft wear. And if it is from the cam, it is not bearing wear, it would be lobe wear. If it comes from the cylinders, again, it is not bearing wear, but bore and/or ring wear.

And (to sound like a broken record) unless tear-down testing is done, this really tells us SFA.
Posted By: HondaMan

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 01/15/09 04:47 AM

Rolf,

Take a break buddy. We need it.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 01/15/09 04:49 AM

 Originally Posted By: HondaMan
Rolf,

Take a break buddy. We need it.


I'm sure he will when the bashing stops, or when we have some cold, hard facts. Until then, he's living Leonidas' dream.....
Posted By: Geonerd

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 01/15/09 04:57 AM

 Originally Posted By: buster


Hopefully XOM will respond in time.


In time for what?

I don't think they ever plan to respond.
"Ignore and stonewall until the issue dies" is a time tested and proven tactic.
Posted By: Nyquist

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 01/15/09 05:05 AM

If everyone is really that curious, a VOA should be done. If you can find a bottle that was manufactured in mid-2008, that would be good to compare to a bottle made in 2009. If there are stark contrasts, that will support one side of the argument assuming ExxonMobil changed their formulation following the allegations.

Myself, I don't think there is much to find in all of this. If there is more low temperature wear in M1, I could see it as a by-product of meeting all those high temperature specs--gain in one area, but lose in another.

All things considered, I still plan on using the bottle I got on special a few months ago.
Posted By: Bryanccfshr

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 01/15/09 05:06 AM

In due time, soon, before the cows come home, while the iron's hot.

They seriously are losing credibility by trying to wait out the outrage.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 01/15/09 05:06 AM

 Originally Posted By: Bryanccfshr

They seriously are losing credibility by trying to wait out the outrage.


Yes, they are. And it is a genuine [censored]-off.
Posted By: [RT] ProjUltraZ

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 01/15/09 08:30 AM

Posted By: Rolf

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 01/15/09 11:20 AM

 Originally Posted By: buster
We do know wear metals dropped and we don't know what version of the 5w40 was run. You could certainly compare D1.


We do know that wear metals were different between two oils of different viscosity.

Based on UOAs that have been posted here on Delvac 1 in a range of VW/Audi engines, that would be a more direct comparison.

What the analysis did NOT demonstrate, since it was apples versus oranges, is that Valvoline - as a brand - has any advantage over Mobil 1 - as a brand.

As I first noted it also demonstrated Mobil 1 0W-40 is not a good match for that engine.

Btw, the "It is a testament to good marketing that consumers become angry when the preeminence of Mobil 1 0W40 is challenged." was nonsense. No one has expressed the slightest "anger" or indicated "the preeminence of Mobil 1 OW40".

What has been pointed out is that, as professionals, we expect apples to apples comparisons with conclusions supported by the evidence.



.
Posted By: Rolf

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 01/15/09 11:22 AM

 Originally Posted By: HondaMan
Take a break buddy. We need it.


For what?

To continue unsupported allegations?

To compare apples with oranges without challenge?

For what, exactly?



.
Posted By: buster

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 01/15/09 01:26 PM

 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.


Posted By: RI_RS4

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 01/15/09 03:32 PM

 Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL


Iron bearing surfaces? The only iron used as bearing surfaces are cam and crankshaft. And its "companion" metal is far more malleable..... And much more likely to wear. The iron is not crankshaft wear. And if it is from the cam, it is not bearing wear, it would be lobe wear. If it comes from the cylinders, again, it is not bearing wear, but bore and/or ring wear.

And (to sound like a broken record) unless tear-down testing is done, this really tells us SFA.


OVERKILL, alright a cam lobe is a load bearing surface and technically not a bearing. But it does wear like a bear in many engines. Many cam chains also use an iron alloy as the load bearing surface. Thus, it is a bearing which operates in the I stand by my words. In the RS4 engine, specifically, the cam chain is a simplex sleeve-type chain (instead of a roller-type chain). It is stronger than a roller chain, and can handle the increased loads of the engine, but, when the oil is fuel diluted it sheds a considerable amount of Iron.
Posted By: Rolf

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 01/15/09 03:32 PM

 Originally Posted By: buster
 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 ....


I was under the impression licensees provided support to the API, not other companies.

Is there some reason Valvoline would expect a response from ExxonMobil, which is the impression this gave?




.
Posted By: yeti

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 01/15/09 03:40 PM

on one of the other 2 "new" mobil 1 threads, a poster writes -- "it's just oil, but around here that often means some sort of cult ...". i didn't identify him, lest he be banished to using an SJ oil, and a fram filter. i had a little bet last night that this thread would be, mercifully, killed off after 43 pages. obviously, i lost. am i the only one here that is ready to go on a shooting spree ? i'm putting on my kevlar vest now.
Posted By: RI_RS4

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 01/15/09 03:41 PM

 Originally Posted By: Rolf
 Originally Posted By: HondaMan
Take a break buddy. We need it.


For what?

To continue unsupported allegations?

To compare apples with oranges without challenge?

For what, exactly?



.


Rolf,

This might not have been the test that YOU wanted, but it is hardly an apples-to-oranges test. Both oils tested have the same approvals for the same application. Therefore, comparative testing between the two is reasonable and appropriate. The fact that another Mobil oil might perform better is immaterial.
Posted By: Rolf

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 01/15/09 03:50 PM

 Originally Posted By: RI_RS4
This might not have been the test that YOU wanted, but it is hardly an apples-to-oranges test.


If the purpose of the test was to see which performed better in this individual's vehicle, it was not "an apples-to-oranges test". A full test, of course, would have involved controlled conditions of operation over identical courses for fixed lengths.

In addition it would have included measures of mileage and performance. The Mobil 1 0W-40 is actually a lower viscosity motor oil than the Synpower 5W-40, and I would expect both mileage and acceleration to be marginally better with the Mobil 1.

And, as I noted, I would agree that for this vehicle as far as engine wear goes the Synpower was the better motor oil.

But that was not what the comparison purported to "prove".

What it purported to "prove" was that Synpower is - across the board - better than Mobil - across the board.

If we're going to try to assess that sort of thing we at least might start with the same viscosity.

Otherwise we're comparing apples with oranges.





.
Posted By: Smokescreen

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 01/15/09 04:00 PM

If not for BITOG it would've never heard of this. How is the general population being informed of this debate? Perhaps Mobil is banking on very low coverage so they don't have to respond, or prove anything.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 01/15/09 04:01 PM

 Originally Posted By: RI_RS4
 Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL


Iron bearing surfaces? The only iron used as bearing surfaces are cam and crankshaft. And its "companion" metal is far more malleable..... And much more likely to wear. The iron is not crankshaft wear. And if it is from the cam, it is not bearing wear, it would be lobe wear. If it comes from the cylinders, again, it is not bearing wear, but bore and/or ring wear.

And (to sound like a broken record) unless tear-down testing is done, this really tells us SFA.


OVERKILL, alright a cam lobe is a load bearing surface and technically not a bearing. But it does wear like a bear in many engines. Many cam chains also use an iron alloy as the load bearing surface. Thus, it is a bearing which operates in the I stand by my words. In the RS4 engine, specifically, the cam chain is a simplex sleeve-type chain (instead of a roller-type chain). It is stronger than a roller chain, and can handle the increased loads of the engine, but, when the oil is fuel diluted it sheds a considerable amount of Iron.


See, now I would have used the term "timing chain" or "iron wear surface" if I were in your position, as to prevent confusion of calling something, that most do not call a bearing, a bearing.

I'm probably a little more "conventional" than you in this regard; my junk is all SBF's. We have a timing set. Which consists of an upper and lower timing gear, thrust-plate, and of course a chain. None of which we refer to as bearings.

I think you may have been better served using an alternative choice of words, as I am likely not the only person who looked at your original statement and scratched my head.

Curious here: How do you know that the iron is from the chain? I'm just wondering.
Posted By: FrankN4

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 01/15/09 04:07 PM

I think a lot, if not most, of this Valvoline/Mobil discussion, in the 3 major threads, might be on the order of: I know you think you understand what you thought you heard me say, but I am not sure you realize that what you thought you heard me say is not what I really meant.
Posted By: RI_RS4

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 01/15/09 04:27 PM

Jeez, OVERK1LL, that was a quick post I made, not a technical paper. It might be good for you to ask questions, rather than assume and accuse. For example, "RI_RS4, could you clarify what you mean by iron bearings?" That would lead to a reasonable discussion.

My choice of words with regards to the cam lobes were imprecise. However, as far as the cam chain is concerned, there are quite a few sleeve or roller bearings involved in any chain. The point, which often gets overlooked, is that high Iron in a UOA is indicative of the wear of an Iron load bearing component in the engine. For engines with Aluminum cylinder walls, the Iron cannot be coming from the cylinders, thus it must be coming from someplace else. If it were coming from mixed-material bearings, you would see elevations of multiple metals in a UOA. In the case of recent Audi Alusil cylinder walled engines, the wear seems to be primarily iron, and not overlay metals in a bearing, or hard aluminum alloys (used in some of the bearings.) This leaves a very few sources ... Cams, and chains. In this case cams are ruled out, because roller followers are used, and several of the lobes are available for inspection through the oil fill hole.

Another clue, there are sharp changes in average FE levels as fuel dilution rises, and as oil chemistry is changed. A good working theory for this suggests that the wear is occurring in the mixed lubrication regime, where anti-wear films are especially important. Fuel seems to wash ZDDP deposition films away from critical load bearing surfaces, or at the least retards formation of the films.

The timing chain fits right into the mixed lubrication regime, and caries high loads. It is the most likely source of the Iron in my engines.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 01/15/09 05:00 PM

 Originally Posted By: RI_RS4
Jeez, OVERK1LL, that was a quick post I made, not a technical paper. It might be good for you to ask questions, rather than assume and accuse. For example, "RI_RS4, could you clarify what you mean by iron bearings?" That would lead to a reasonable discussion.

My choice of words with regards to the cam lobes were imprecise. However, as far as the cam chain is concerned, there are quite a few sleeve or roller bearings involved in any chain. The point, which often gets overlooked, is that high Iron in a UOA is indicative of the wear of an Iron load bearing component in the engine. For engines with Aluminum cylinder walls, the Iron cannot be coming from the cylinders, thus it must be coming from someplace else. If it were coming from mixed-material bearings, you would see elevations of multiple metals in a UOA. In the case of recent Audi Alusil cylinder walled engines, the wear seems to be primarily iron, and not overlay metals in a bearing, or hard aluminum alloys (used in some of the bearings.) This leaves a very few sources ... Cams, and chains. In this case cams are ruled out, because roller followers are used, and several of the lobes are available for inspection through the oil fill hole.

Another clue, there are sharp changes in average FE levels as fuel dilution rises, and as oil chemistry is changed. A good working theory for this suggests that the wear is occurring in the mixed lubrication regime, where anti-wear films are especially important. Fuel seems to wash ZDDP deposition films away from critical load bearing surfaces, or at the least retards formation of the films.

The timing chain fits right into the mixed lubrication regime, and caries high loads. It is the most likely source of the Iron in my engines.


Great explanation! That's what I was looking for. And makes sense now that you've explained the system. Thank you.

As I stated, even though chains have their own little wear surfaces, most don't refer to them as bearings, more as the chain as a whole (which you've now explained and it makes sense) which is where you lost me on your original statement. As, which I'm sure you realized from reading, I was thinking you were talking about crank surfaces or had used the wrong term.

We are clear now ;\)

-Chris
Posted By: gogozy

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 01/15/09 08:47 PM

 Originally Posted By: buster
 Originally Posted By: Rolf
 Originally Posted By: buster
The Synpower 5w40 is not a diesel rated oil AFAIK. It's their equivalent to Mobil 1 0w-40.


Are you saying the comparison is unfair because the Delvac 1 5W-40 is a better oil?

I ask because around my area they're about the same price.

http://www.valvoline.com/products/Synpower.pdf

http://www.mobil.com/USA-English/Lubes/PDS/NAXXENCVLMOMobil_Delvac_1_5W-40.asp

http://www.mobil.com/USA-English/Lubes/PDS/GLXXENPVLMOMobil_1_0W-40.asp



Again, you are switching the subject.

Synpower 5w-40 is a 40 grade oil that meets european specifications.

Mobil 1 0w-40 is a 40 grade oil that meets european specifications.

If you had a Mercedes, this is the Synpower oil that Ashland would recommend to replace M1 0w40.

I do not know what is the better oil between the two and neither do you.

+1,
also, this... indirectly prove the M1 0w-40 is not superior to Synpower 5w-40, that M1 need to bring other "better" weapon (what other better oil they have other than 0w-40, SUV? Delvac?) to the battlefield to fight the "suppose" lower, poorly equipped enemy. unless Delvac finally meet it's match?? hehehehe
Posted By: Rolf

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 01/15/09 09:16 PM

 Originally Posted By: gogozy
also, this... indirectly prove the M1 0w-40 is not superior to Synpower 5w-40, that M1 need to bring other "better" weapon (what other better oil they have other than 0w-40, SUV? Delvac?) to the battlefield to fight the "suppose" lower, poorly equipped enemy. unless Delvac finally meet it's match??


If we took four vehicles, say a current Ford Focus, a Honda Civic, a VW Jetta, and Hyundai Genesis, and ran:

Mobil 1 0W-20

Mobil 1 0W-40

Mobil 1 10W-40 motorcycle

Delvac 1 5W-40

in them sequentially, we'd get four different results.

It might well be that each of them would prefer a different oil.

What this comparison "proved" is that this particular vehicle with this particular driver's style seems to show better wear numbers with 5W-40 Synpower than with Mobil 1 0W-40.

It does not prove that Synpower - in general - is superior to Mobil 1 - in general.

"Better weapon" is off the point completely.





.
Posted By: John_K

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 01/15/09 11:09 PM

Interesting that I just visited Advance's web site and this popped up:

http://www.advanceautoparts.com/english/featuredbrands/mobil1/synthetics.asp

Interesting that they are comparing to dino. Well, duh, I would hope Mobil is better in that you can almost get 3 quarts dino for what they want for one quart of Mobil 1.

John
Posted By: tig1

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 01/16/09 01:08 AM

 Originally Posted By: John_K
Interesting that I just visited Advance's web site and this popped up:

http://www.advanceautoparts.com/english/featuredbrands/mobil1/synthetics.asp

Interesting that they are comparing to dino. Well, duh, I would hope Mobil is better in that you can almost get 3 quarts dino for what they want for one quart of Mobil 1.

John



And your point is?
Posted By: REDDOG

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 01/16/09 05:29 AM

 Originally Posted By: yeti
on one of the other 2 "new" mobil 1 threads, a poster writes -- "it's just oil, but around here that often means some sort of cult ...". i didn't identify him, lest he be banished to using an SJ oil, and a fram filter. i had a little bet last night that this thread would be, mercifully, killed off after 43 pages. obviously, i lost. am i the only one here that is ready to go on a shooting spree ? i'm putting on my kevlar vest now.


yeti,

Just kick back and relax with a cold beverage-I've been enjoying the last 45 pages from atop a mountain of Schaeffer's- a great product at a fair price with none of the marketing manure... \:\!



Posted By: yeti

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 01/16/09 02:00 PM

reddog -- i hear 'ya. this is really entertainment -- to a point.i've read posts at random,while having a cigar and a brandy. if i had to read all 45 pages, i WOULD go on a shooting spree. read bill in utah's post on page 3 of the "mobil 1 means a clean engine" thread. take care.
p.s.-- from what i've read, schaeffers is an excellent oil "with none of the marketing manure".
Posted By: MolaKule

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 01/18/09 12:38 AM


Normally, a person or entity is innocent until proven guilty.

I think it would be more correct to say that there are "allegations" of substandard performance. The jury isn't in as yet.
Posted By: ZZman

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 01/18/09 01:10 PM

 Originally Posted By: John_K


Interesting that they are comparing to dino. Well, duh, I would hope Mobil is better in that you can almost get 3 quarts dino for what they want for one quart of Mobil 1.

John


It makes alot of sense really. Probably 80-90% of people run Dino oil. That leaves a large customer base to try to switch over. With people trying to hold on to vehicles longer you need to show them why it would make sense to switch to Syn oil.
Posted By: DGXR

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 06/06/18 08:06 PM

Originally Posted By: RI_RS4
Jeez, OVERK1LL, that was a quick post I made, not a technical paper. It might be good for you to ask questions, rather than assume and accuse. For example, "RI_RS4, could you clarify what you mean by iron bearings?" That would lead to a reasonable discussion.

My choice of words with regards to the cam lobes were imprecise. However, as far as the cam chain is concerned, there are quite a few sleeve or roller bearings involved in any chain. The point, which often gets overlooked, is that high Iron in a UOA is indicative of the wear of an Iron load bearing component in the engine. For engines with Aluminum cylinder walls, the Iron cannot be coming from the cylinders, thus it must be coming from someplace else. If it were coming from mixed-material bearings, you would see elevations of multiple metals in a UOA. In the case of recent Audi Alusil cylinder walled engines, the wear seems to be primarily iron, and not overlay metals in a bearing, or hard aluminum alloys (used in some of the bearings.) This leaves a very few sources ... Cams, and chains. In this case cams are ruled out, because roller followers are used, and several of the lobes are available for inspection through the oil fill hole.

Another clue, there are sharp changes in average FE levels as fuel dilution rises, and as oil chemistry is changed. A good working theory for this suggests that the wear is occurring in the mixed lubrication regime, where anti-wear films are especially important. Fuel seems to wash ZDDP deposition films away from critical load bearing surfaces, or at the least retards formation of the films.

The timing chain fits right into the mixed lubrication regime, and caries high loads. It is the most likely source of the Iron in my engines.


What engine has aluminum cylinder walls? An honest question, I really would like to know.

By what I have heard, nearly all mass-produced engines in the last 75 years have been either cast iron or aluminum blocks, with steel cylinder liners.
Posted By: OVERKILL

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 06/06/18 08:13 PM

Originally Posted By: DGXR
Originally Posted By: RI_RS4
Jeez, OVERK1LL, that was a quick post I made, not a technical paper. It might be good for you to ask questions, rather than assume and accuse. For example, "RI_RS4, could you clarify what you mean by iron bearings?" That would lead to a reasonable discussion.

My choice of words with regards to the cam lobes were imprecise. However, as far as the cam chain is concerned, there are quite a few sleeve or roller bearings involved in any chain. The point, which often gets overlooked, is that high Iron in a UOA is indicative of the wear of an Iron load bearing component in the engine. For engines with Aluminum cylinder walls, the Iron cannot be coming from the cylinders, thus it must be coming from someplace else. If it were coming from mixed-material bearings, you would see elevations of multiple metals in a UOA. In the case of recent Audi Alusil cylinder walled engines, the wear seems to be primarily iron, and not overlay metals in a bearing, or hard aluminum alloys (used in some of the bearings.) This leaves a very few sources ... Cams, and chains. In this case cams are ruled out, because roller followers are used, and several of the lobes are available for inspection through the oil fill hole.

Another clue, there are sharp changes in average FE levels as fuel dilution rises, and as oil chemistry is changed. A good working theory for this suggests that the wear is occurring in the mixed lubrication regime, where anti-wear films are especially important. Fuel seems to wash ZDDP deposition films away from critical load bearing surfaces, or at the least retards formation of the films.

The timing chain fits right into the mixed lubrication regime, and caries high loads. It is the most likely source of the Iron in my engines.


What engine has aluminum cylinder walls? An honest question, I really would like to know.

By what I have heard, nearly all mass-produced engines in the last 75 years have been either cast iron or aluminum blocks, with steel cylinder liners.


Quite the necropost!

There are a few engines that don't utilize conventional liners but instead use a special surface treatment. BMW's Nikasil and Alumasil coatings come to mind, which would indeed lead to, during wear, the release of aluminum or nickel and silicon particles.
Posted By: kschachn

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 06/06/18 08:28 PM

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
There are a few engines that don't utilize conventional liners but instead use a special surface treatment. BMW's Nikasil and Alumasil coatings come to mind, which would indeed lead to, during wear, the release of aluminum or nickel and silicon particles.

Yeah my old BMW M60 engine block is Alusil as are some Audi and Porsche engines. Jaguar used Nikasil coatings in the past (as did BMW of course) to unsatisfactory results.

I have a friend who has a Nikasil 540i which runs fine. These days with low sulfur fuel it's not an issue, so any Nikasil engine that made it this far is good to go.
Posted By: CaptainBiggles

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 06/06/18 08:50 PM

Originally Posted By: DGXR
Quite the necropost!


Holy [censored] this was from 2008! LOL I'm glad I skipped to the end as I was reading portions of that scratching my head.
Posted By: JLTD

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 06/06/18 09:15 PM

Holy resurrection is 9 years a record?

Wonder how the two oils compare today.
Posted By: TheLawnRanger

Re: Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2 - 06/06/18 09:39 PM

9 Years Later 6/7/27

RoboX18Z5
What are Valvoline and Mobil 1?

RoboLR135
Those were goopy liquids former Earth organisms put in machines like Uncle Mustang and Cousin Maverick before someone didn't change goopy liquid filter many intervals and their engine blew up and destroyed civilization thus giving rise to the machines. I'm glad we found their forum.
© 2019 Bob Is The Oil Guy