Another 5w30 vs 10w30

[901Memphis]

Yes it has someone relevancy but as valvoline already pointed out the industry standard for NOACK testing the ASTM D5800 is not best method available for reproducibility or accuracy. Whether or not you agree with that is a different story but even some good 5w20s like Motorcraft test above the 15% range of the spec.

Either way after the Pennzoil showing why buy anything else... It's the total package.

 

[Garak]

In my view, it's a little childish to complain about the testing parameters rather than investigating why they failed the test and fixing the issue. Considering the influence oil companies have over API standards, that rings more hollow.

I would have absolutely no concern about using Valvoline products, and I've used them before. But, they seemed to enjoy holding XOM's feet to the fire over M1 not meeting SM standards for a time. I don't recall XOM complaining about testing methodology, either. Shell is in the perfect position right now to publicly bash Valvoline over oil volatility. Valvoline bragged about 8x less wear than M1. Let's see them run an ad as to how it's twice as volatile as Pennzoil Conventional or Quaker State Conventional. They enjoyed naming names last time. Not this time?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Garak
In my view, it's a little childish to complain about the testing parameters rather than investigating why they failed the test and fixing the issue. Considering the influence oil companies have over API standards, that rings more hollow.

I would have absolutely no concern about using Valvoline products, and I've used them before. But, they seemed to enjoy holding XOM's feet to the fire over Mobil 1 not meeting SM standards for a time. I don't recall XOM complaining about testing methodology, either. Shell is in the perfect position right now to publicly bash Valvoline over oil volatility. Valvoline bragged about 8x less wear than Mobil 1. Let's see them run an ad as to how it's twice as volatile as Pennzoil Conventional or Quaker State Conventional. They enjoyed naming names last time. Not this time?


Bravo sir

Ashland was certainly out shouting from the roof tops about that batch of Mobil 1 5w30 and Seq. IV-A. But turn the tables and all of a sudden it is the testing that is flawed. Really?

So what you appear to be saying Ashland is that there is a double standard at work here. When Mobil messes something up and manages to fail one of the standardized tests, their product is junk. And they should be dragged through the mud for it and publicly humiliated.

However when an Ashland product fails ones of the standardized tests, all of a sudden it is the testing protocol that is the problem?

It is no fun when you are the one under the microscope

 

[Garak]

Maybe GM needs to do a snap inspection of several Valvoline products to see if they're actually entitled to that dexos1 label. If that doesn't go well, they could return to the "meets or exceeds" wording. Heck, they might as well do that for SN/GF-5 and forget certification altogether, but wouldn't "meets or exceeds" be a lie?

 

[Hootbro]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Maybe GM needs to do a snap inspection of several Valvoline products to see if they're actually entitled to that dexos1 label. If that doesn't go well, they could return to the "meets or exceeds" wording. Heck, they might as well do that for SN/GF-5 and forget certification altogether, but wouldn't "meets or exceeds" be a lie?

If GM is getting a cut per bottle from Valvoline with the Dexos label, it is not in their best interest to be picking that scab.

 

[Garak]

I would suggest it would be in their best interests. GM isn't making a killing off of dexos.

 

[Hootbro]

Originally Posted By: Garak
I would suggest it would be in their best interests. GM isn't making a killing off of dexos.


Valvoline is not a fly by night company making convenience store brand oils of way off questionable quantities. They have one oil with one sample that is slightly out of spec on one criteria. Not exactly "the sky is falling" revelation that is making national news but is only being amplified by people here on BITOG that like to pick the fly dropping out of the pepper to have something to complain about. In the real world, life moves on and nobody's engines are grenading because of it.

That being said, I am sure GM has a continuous quality check system in place for those who claim and license the Dexos spec. Given that all the other Valvoline Oils PQIA has tested shows they are in spec and the current oil under question is not even a Dexos rated oil, it is a moot point for GM to rush out and do "snap" testing over this issue.

 

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted By: Hootbro
Originally Posted By: Garak
Maybe GM needs to do a snap inspection of several Valvoline products to see if they're actually entitled to that dexos1 label. If that doesn't go well, they could return to the "meets or exceeds" wording. Heck, they might as well do that for SN/GF-5 and forget certification altogether, but wouldn't "meets or exceeds" be a lie?

If GM is getting a cut per bottle from Valvoline with the Dexos label, it is not in their best interest to be picking that scab.


But the likelihood of GM auditing dexos licensees is in the agreement.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Hootbro

Valvoline is not a fly by night company making convenience store brand oils of way off questionable quantities.


Neither is Mobil. Yet that didn't stop Valvoline/Ashland from making a spectacle of a very similar issue....

Quote:
They have one oil with one sample that is slightly out of spec on one criteria.


So did Mobil.

Quote:
Not exactly "the sky is falling" revelation that is making national news but is only being amplified by people here on BITOG that like to pick the fly dropping out of the pepper to have something to complain about. In the real world, life moves on and nobody's engines are grenading because of it.


Similar points to those made by myself and others with regards to the Mobil 1 5w30 debacle. But it was not BITOG that amplified it and made a public scene about it, it was Ashland. This seems like an appropriate glass houses or what comes around goes around situation here

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: A_Harman
But the likelihood of GM auditing dexos licensees is in the agreement.

Oh, absolutely. But I bet something in the agreement deals with how to handle evidence of non-compliance provided by third-party, unbiased, scientific testing.

 

[wemay]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Garak
In my view, it's a little childish to complain about the testing parameters rather than investigating why they failed the test and fixing the issue. Considering the influence oil companies have over API standards, that rings more hollow.

I would have absolutely no concern about using Valvoline products, and I've used them before. But, they seemed to enjoy holding XOM's feet to the fire over Mobil 1 not meeting SM standards for a time. I don't recall XOM complaining about testing methodology, either. Shell is in the perfect position right now to publicly bash Valvoline over oil volatility. Valvoline bragged about 8x less wear than Mobil 1. Let's see them run an ad as to how it's twice as volatile as Pennzoil Conventional or Quaker State Conventional. They enjoyed naming names last time. Not this time?


Bravo sir

Ashland was certainly out shouting from the roof tops about that batch of Mobil 1 5w30 and Seq. IV-A. But turn the tables and all of a sudden it is the testing that is flawed. Really?

So what you appear to be saying Ashland is that there is a double standard at work here. When Mobil messes something up and manages to fail one of the standardized tests, their product is junk. And they should be dragged through the mud for it and publicly humiliated.

However when an Ashland product fails ones of the standardized tests, all of a sudden it is the testing protocol that is the problem?

It is no fun when you are the one under the microscope

Anyone can have a bad test, a bad batch, an anomoly; but when you defend yourself with excuses that point fingers outside your organization, the person representing you is digging a deeper hole with all consumers except your blind faithful. My faith in Valvoline is now shot. Maybe it will come back, but for now, no interest in their product.

 

[zeuloa]

Actually 5w30 is a bit rare here, and the ones found are all synthetics from the big companies (mobil 1, castrol edge, valvoline Syn, havoline Syn, Pennzoil platinum, FormulaShell Syn, and Kendall are the ones I've seen).

The standard here for gas engines is 20w50, with 10w30 creeping in. Some of the ones that use synthetics in other grades are the Mercedes/BMW dealers, and Chevrolet dealer with dexos 1 Pennzoil. Toyota dealer will begin to carry Mobil 0w20 as this is what the Toyota 86 uses.

 

[Norm Olt]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Garak
In my view, it's a little childish to complain about the testing parameters rather than investigating why they failed the test and fixing the issue. Considering the influence oil companies have over API standards, that rings more hollow.

I would have absolutely no concern about using Valvoline products, and I've used them before. But, they seemed to enjoy holding XOM's feet to the fire over Mobil 1 not meeting SM standards for a time. I don't recall XOM complaining about testing methodology, either. Shell is in the perfect position right now to publicly bash Valvoline over oil volatility. Valvoline bragged about 8x less wear than Mobil 1. Let's see them run an ad as to how it's twice as volatile as Pennzoil Conventional or Quaker State Conventional. They enjoyed naming names last time. Not this time?


Bravo sir

Ashland was certainly out shouting from the roof tops about that batch of Mobil 1 5w30 and Seq. IV-A. But turn the tables and all of a sudden it is the testing that is flawed. Really?

So what you appear to be saying Ashland is that there is a double standard at work here. When Mobil messes something up and manages to fail one of the standardized tests, their product is junk. And they should be dragged through the mud for it and publicly humiliated.

However when an Ashland product fails ones of the standardized tests, all of a sudden it is the testing protocol that is the problem?

It is no fun when you are the one under the microscope

Oh, the INHUMANITY! Clearly a case of viscosity inequality...

What about Exon-Mobil's self-image?

Cheers!

p.s. re: being "under the microscope - Do you think there's a link between the NSA and the PQIA?