Mobil 1 "fails" Seq. IVA wear test.

[edhackett]

Gurney, the M1 in question is only the 5W-30 and only for a period covering two years according to Ashland.

The average consumer will never notice the extra wear, as the test is only one of many that the oil must pass. Those doing used oil analysis have seen higher than might be expected iron values that could be from cam wear(which is what the Sequence IVA test measures). I also notice that the very latest UOAs for M1 5W-30 show "normal" iron numbers. Hmmmmm...


Ed

 

[Mark888]

Originally Posted By: edhackett
Mark, nowhere in the statement from API does it say that we tested Mobil 1 5W-30 during the time period in question and it passed the sequence IVA test.

That's true, but no where does it say that M1 ever failed the API test as some have implied. In previous posts some have implied that M1 failed the API test, that there was a grace period, and that they subsequently passed the test.

The quote from the API employee suggests that he knows of no test where M1 ever failed the Seq IVA wear test, and that he does not know why Ashland said those things about M1.

Basically this is turning into dirty game where some company (about to be sold on the auction block) makes an accusation, and now everyone wants proof that it didn't happen. Let's see the proof that it did happen (they failed the tests). Certainly the API has no knowledge of any failed Seq IVA test by a M1 product.

BTW: When did you stop beating your wife/girlfriend/dog? Prove it.

 

[Mark888]

Originally Posted By: edhackett
Gurney, the M1 in question is only the 5W-30 and only for a period covering two years according to Ashland.

I have heard this two year thing once or twice on this forum, but where does that come from? Did Ashland actually say M1 failed the test continuously over a two year period, or that they conducted tests for two years until they finally found an anomaly (probably a bad engine)?

 

[Mark888]

Originally Posted By: Gurney
I am reluctant to keep this ball in play, but I have to ask: If M1 could not "pass" the Sequence IVA test, or the product lacked the ability to protect against unacceptable shearing and/or galling, wouldn't that be obvious now after all the years that M1 has been in the engines of tens of thousands of consumers?

This whole thing is ridiculous since the API knows of no Seq IVA test that M1 failed. The idea that it failed continually over a two year period is not even an accusation that Ashland actually made--they just said they have been testing for two years.

 

[ADFD1]

How could Ashland say they failed the test if they didn't? Isn't their some governing body to protect API members from slander? Mobil claims all their products passed the required tests?

AD

 

[edhackett]

Yes, it was in the follow up published in Jobber's World where Ashland said the oil failed multiple runs over a period of two years. This is not a cherry picked single event according to Ashland.

http://jobbersworld.com/valvolinesletter.htm

API may not have any failures because they may not have run tests on Mobil 1 5W-30. They don't test every product on a regular schedule. Their tests are essentially random spot checks. They probably don't have any tests that show that it passed either. If they did, they would say so.

In one corner we have Ashland with real, published data showing M1 failed the Sequence IVA test. In the other corner we have XOM saying, "does so".

Ed

 

[Mark888]

Originally Posted By: ADFD1
How could Ashland say they failed the test if they didn't? Isn't their some governing body to protect API members from slander? Mobil claims all their products passed the required tests?

AD

Ashland can say anything they want, especially since they may loose their jobs when the company is sold soon. I can say that a member of this forum is a high school dropout. Who needs evidence? If you they me for slander, I will just say I reached that conclusion by reading their posts, and I will be acquitted.

How can Mobil prove that they didn't fail the test. You can't prove a negative. They were not at the place when and where the tests were conducted (neither was the API). You can't prove that you have stopped beating your wife/girlfriend/dog.

Besides, EM can't sue anyone and win, especially not a little company like Ashland that has no oil wells and that has to buy it base stocks from great big mean companies like EM.

Ashland would demand a jury trial, and it is virtually impossible to find a jury with some some people who don't hate big oil companies and EM in particular.

Even if the test results were invalid, EM would have to prove malicious intent instead of just incompetence of the testers.

I was at Federal Bank fraud trial once as a spectator, and one of the criminal defendants was a lawyer who set up bogus shell companies to help defraud the government (which loans money to banks). The defense lawyers for the accused attorney brought in many witnesses to testify that the attorney was incompetent and got fired from several other jobs, and the attorney was acquitted because the government could not prove criminal intent rather than just negligence.

 

[Mark888]

Originally Posted By: edhackett
Yes, it was in the follow up published in Jobber's World where Ashland said the oil failed multiple runs over a period of two years. This is not a cherry picked single event according to Ashland.

http://jobbersworld.com/valvolinesletter.htm

API may not have any failures because they may not have run tests on Mobil 1 5W-30. They don't test every product on a regular schedule. Their tests are essentially random spot checks. They probably don't have any tests that show that it passed either. If they did, they would say so.

In one corner we have Ashland with real, published data showing M1 failed the Sequence IVA test. In the other corner we have XOM saying, "does so".

Ed

I don't want to be mean, but there is a reading comprehension problem here. Ashland said it has been conducting tests over the past "couple of years."

Then later in the letter they say they notified EM that in Sept 2008 of failing test results. The don't say if that was one test or multiple tests that failed, or if any tests passed or what the exact results were over the testing period.

So the claim that M1 5w-30 failed every test (or even nearly every test) over the "couple of years" is completely unsubstantiated.

The Ashland letter also states (contrary to what some have claimed) that EM challenged the Ashland claims both with Ashland and with their customers.

Meanwhile, Ashland did not notify the API or complain to the API of the failed tests, and the API does not know why Ashland is making the claims against EM.

 

[ADFD1]

If this is in fact the truth, which I have no reason to doubt, then Ashland is full of it.

Here is what the API said:

"API tests 600 licensed oils per year to confirm that they meet our requirements. This would include a variety of ExxonMobil products. We don’t merely accept an oil marketer’s word. I can’t really explain why Ashland chose to do what it did, but ExxonMobil has taken steps to confirm its product meets our requirements.

Kevin Ferrick
American Petroleum Institute
Engine Oil Licensing and Certification System"


Now based on this, Ashland is really playing with fire here. I just don't get it?

Could Ashland management be so stupid to think that because Ashland is so small that Mobil will just leave them alone, and take the hit?

 

[Taylor]

YES!

 

[demarpaint]

Wow that would be dangerous if it really is the thinking over at Ashland.

 

[Mark888]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Wow that would be dangerous if it really is the thinking over at Ashland.

Why is it dangerous? Ashland is just made up of a bunch of human beings who are employees. There are rumors that Valvoline is for sale, and if so the marketing people are the most vulnerable in a merger. The worst that can happen to them is they loose their jobs. The best that can happen is that they show their new owners that are aggressive marketing people who should be kept around after the acquisition.

But in reality, EM cannot file suit and win against anyone. In our legal system the defendant has a right to choose a jury trial, and there are too many people who hate ExxonMobil. They would probably have to sue them in Ashland's home state also.

And if any incompetence is involved in the testing, Ashland is off the hook since you must prove deceitful intent to win a lawsuit. But EM cannot prove anything since they don't have access to the testing details. The only outcome of a trial is give the claims more publicity, and as we have seen on this forum, (and to quote Abraham Lincoln) "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time...".

 

[Drivebelt]

Quote:
"API tests 600 licensed oils per year to confirm that they meet our requirements. This would include a variety of ExxonMobil products. We don’t merely accept an oil marketer’s word. I can’t really explain why Ashland chose to do what it did, but ExxonMobil has taken steps to confirm its product meets our requirements.


The API doesn't run any seq. IVA tests on those 600 oils they test. No way, no how -- too expensive. All the API will likely do is some of the simpler viscosity tests, evaporation (NOACK) and tests for phosphorus limits.

That statement from the API cannot be used to confirm that M1 5W-30 passes or passed the seq. IVA.

 

[Mark888]

Originally Posted By: Drivebelt
The API doesn't run any seq. IVA tests on those 600 oils they test. No way, no how -- too expensive. All the API will likely do is some of the simpler viscosity tests, evaporation (NOACK) and tests for phosphorus limits.

That statement from the API cannot be used to confirm that M1 5W-30 passes or passed the seq. IVA.

I would like to know who is responsible for conducting the tests, and where do they get the engines?

According to the http://www.swri.org/4org/d08/GasTests/IVAtest/default.htm website the engine used in the test is a 1994 Nissan KA24E, 2.4-liter, water-cooled, fuel-injected engine, 4-cylinder in-line, overhead camshaft with 2 intake valves, and 1 exhaust valve per cylinder. Is the same engine rebuilt after each test? Who inspects the engine to make sure it is rebuilt properly? They obviously cannot start out with a new engine each time, since the engines are not in production.

According to the website, the test lasts for 100 hours at 800 rpm and 1500 rpm. It is hard to believe that any decent oil would show significant enough wear to fail the test unless there was something wrong with the engine rebuild and/or test procedure.

 

[ADFD1]

Originally Posted By: Mark888


According to the website, the test lasts for 100 hours at 800 rpm and 1500 rpm. It is hard to believe that any decent oil would show significant enough wear to fail the test unless there was something wrong with the engine rebuild and/or test procedure.


Sure sounds easy enough. I don't think we'll ever be 100% sure of anything on this topic. A lot of speculation, that's about it.

AD

 

[Ben99GT]

Originally Posted By: Big Jim
Mobil is wise to not respond. There is no need to provide a forum for those with lesser market share.


I disagree. XOM simply needs to publish their current M1 5W-30 Seq. IVA results and make a broad sweeping statement, such as: "Mobil 1 offers unsurpassed protection*"

*based on results of Mobil 1 5W-30 in Seq IVA

Just like SOPUS did. Bam, end of controversy.

Silence without repercussion really implies some sort of guilt, IMO.

As to why M1 may be able to get around API certs: http://www.api.org/Newsroom/tillerson-api-chair.cfm

 

[demarpaint]

I think you've nailed it Ben. Mobil should do something along those lines, this silence has cast a lot of doubt, and swung a small % of people to other oil companies. Even though Mobil is the king of the hill, lost customers hurt. If I were king of the hill like Mobil is, I'd still watch my back.

 

[kender]

I'm sure Valvoline had "all their ducks in a row" before they started their "4x better wear" advertising campaign against Mobil 1. Also, Castrol is involved here. Their website says "they" conducted the sequence IVA test with 5w-30 oils, and came up with the "8x better" claim. Based on Valvoline and Castrol's claims, IMO, Mobil 1 has/or had a problem with the sequence IVA test in their 5w-30. Also, Mobil 1's lack of response "in advertising" to these claims does not look good.

 

[Big Jim]

Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: Big Jim
Mobil is wise to not respond. There is no need to provide a forum for those with lesser market share.


I disagree. XOM simply needs to publish their current M1 5W-30 Seq. IVA results and make a broad sweeping statement, such as: "Mobil 1 offers unsurpassed protection*"

*based on results of Mobil 1 5W-30 in Seq IVA

Just like SOPUS did. Bam, end of controversy.

Silence without repercussion really implies some sort of guilt, IMO.

As to why M1 may be able to get around API certs: http://www.api.org/Newsroom/tillerson-api-chair.cfm






When you wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty, but the pig don't care. Mobil is wise to stay out of the pig pen. There really is no need to step into pig dodo just because someone slings it at you.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

Originally Posted By: ADFD1


Here is what the API said:

"API tests 600 licensed oils per year to confirm that they meet our requirements. This would include a variety of ExxonMobil products. We don’t merely accept an oil marketer’s word. I can’t really explain why Ashland chose to do what it did, but ExxonMobil has taken steps to confirm its product meets our requirements.

Kevin Ferrick
American Petroleum Institute
Engine Oil Licensing and Certification System"


Now based on this, Ashland is really playing with fire here. I just don't get it?

Could Ashland management be so stupid to think that because Ashland is so small that Mobil will just leave them alone, and take the hit?


There is NOTHING in this statement that says API tested M1 5w-30 or that EoM Provided testing information that would contradict Ashlands claims. If We dont believe Ashlands tests, Then We live in a world of specualtion and fairy dust aspersion casting. Personally, I dont like either of the (Eom or Ashland) current synthetic products. I'm new here, but NOT new out of the box, and I see too much bias, and disregard for facts here. Pathetic.