Anyone see this?

[Toy4x4runner]

I think the thing to remember is theres a reason for engine oil specs. GMXXXXX, Honda HTO-06, Ford WXXXX. Not one shoe fits all. So you have to use the oil that will work for you engine, and that means spec!! We are over analyzing this. So if the oil meets your engine spec, pick your best deal, or favorite color. It's like we keep telling each other, oh to find the oil best for your car, do UOA's and try differnt oils etc... and we just all concluded oils are a balancing act. So the specs are there for a reason. More specs, probably the better, but if it's missing your spec... you're SOL.

Perfect example: my 6.0 Ford Diesel. I've used Motorcraft, Castrol, Shell (syn SL & SM dino). The CJ-4/SM rotella does not state it meets ford's spec, but it states every other spec in the world and from a marketing point... lots of 6.0's out there, means that's a big $ market. why not list it? Check this out... just in the past month(?) or so Shell came out with a CJ-4/SM Syn 5-40. And they list the ford oil spec on their website!!! But their CJ4/SM dino 15-40 does not list it!! why? I can't answer that. Gets better. I looked into Delvac 1 for like $40/gal (OMFG, yes). They also list a lot of specs, but not Ford! Why the heck not? So my only options that I've found which are CJ-4/SM & meet for spec: Dino Motorcraft, 5w-40 Motorcraft & new CJ-4/SM 5w-40 Shell. 3 oil to pick from. End of discussion for my 6.0 oil. I'll pick one of the 3 and Drive!!

 

[wgtoys]

Originally Posted By: buster
I have an update on this. I spoke to someone from Mobil (not their tech support) and basically it's a non issue IMO.

Put it this way, you are allowed to have up to 90 microns of wear under the Seq IVA. Without compromising anyone's credibility, let's just say Mobil 1 scored way below that. I was given a number and out of respect won't post it. So as bruce said, it's taking something like 20 ppm and comparing it to 10 ppm and saying that there was a 50% reduction in wear and therefore that oil provides 50% better protection. Kind of misleading, yet factual from a pure numbers standpoint.

More importantly, while I do believe Valvoline to be a very good oil, they fail to have an oil that meets the Corvette spec and Honda HTO-06 which says a lot more than their vague comparison of "4 x better wear".


If I had a car which put extreme temperature stress on the oil such as a turbocharged RDX or an oil-cooler deleted Corvette then I would be inclined to put a high priority on those results. But, like most people, I'm not driving such a vehicle and am in fact much more interested in minimizing wear than I am in having a thermal safety margin I never use. Similarly, I could care less if my car has a 110 mph or a 180 mph top speed as I never intend to hit either of them.

 

[buster]

True.

Toy4x4 summed it up.

 

[Rolf]

Originally Posted By: buster
OVERK1LL, I wouldn't go by those comments I has posted. I no longer believe that to be the case. I trust TomNJ's findings.


Someone at the time pointed out that, by sheer coincidence, Hatco had started up a PAO production line due to the shortages that were occurring due to demand from new ATFs and so on. And noted that Tom was in Hatco *sales*.

And then asked why, oh why, would Hatco be running gas chromos on an ExxonMobil product?

I always found that to be just too many coincidences.

Shortly after starting that controversy, Tom Schaefer "retired" from Hatco.

 

[Tom NJ]

Hatco does not and never has produced or sold any PAO. That rumor was totally fabricated.

Several months after the "controversy", Hatco was purchased by a large chemical company who make some heavy PAOs only (40 & 100 cSt) - they do not make motor oils, did not stand to benefit, and were not even identified as the buyer at the time.

Companies routinely analyze samples of key products in their markets to keep up to date.

For 10 years I planned to retire at the end on 2007. Instead, I had an opportunity to take a package during a global reorganization in June 2007, eight months after the "controversy", and took it.

I continue to use M1 in all my personal vehicles and consider it among the best.

Sounds like *M* has resurfaced?

Tom NJ

 

[Rolf]

Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Sounds like *M* has resurfaced?Tom NJ


No, Mobil 1 has remained in production.

 

[gogozy]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Well, all that varies with the monthly bottle label/formula changes and I dunno why the "new" 0w-30 does not meet A5 when the old 0w-30 does.


The US Data Sheets I referenced above were last revised in 2007.

The Canadian ones, which sport the SAME information were last revised in 2006.


But of course, it's ALWAYS in fashion to hate on Exxon-Mobil.

thanks, i was talking about the label printed on the bottle/jug, only has A1 printed on it. it does not have A5 on it. why?? since there is enough space on the bottle on print "A5 B5". i always get confused when company does it, label and spec on the corporate web pages are just different. why?
i was at US last weekend, and i so i checked the oil section... saw A1 printed on M1 5w-30, SUV version has A1 A5 on it. i don't recall seeing any ACEA on 0w-20 and 0w-30 green cap bottle. but i knew the M1 website product spec pages list all of them meet A1 and A5, but why different on label?
i am not a M1 hater, i use M1 on my TSX, GC on Subaru. i brought 3 jugs of M1 5w-30 SUV back to Canada

 

[gogozy]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

It is FAR easier for them to change the website content than the bottle labels.

not all the time.
and if there was no change, then why would EXM went the way to change label when the process is more costly then simply update the info on the web? my guess is label was pending the approval from testing after formulation change, M1 is so confident that the new formula will pass the test so they feel it's not necessary to take down the "A5" from the web. but for the label, have to make the change because it become property of consumer after purchased, hence it have to state the fact during production. maybe law or marketing guru can explain.

and good to see TomNJ back!

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: gogozy
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

It is FAR easier for them to change the website content than the bottle labels.

not all the time.
and if there was no change, then why would EXM went the way to change label when the process is more costly then simply update the info on the web? my guess is label was pending the approval from testing after formulation change, M1 is so confident that the new formula will pass the test so they feel it's not necessary to take down the "A5" from the web. but for the label, have to make the change because it become property of consumer after purchased, hence it have to state the fact during production. maybe law or marketing guru can explain.

and good to see TomNJ back!


Don't know the specifics. All I know is that their website is likely developed in such a way (as I would expect) that a quick edit in something like Pagemaker would take a developer literally seconds.

Where changing a label..... Not so easy.

Would be nice to hear what EM has to say.

 

[Valvman]

Quote:
http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Car_Care/AskMobil/Response_Valvoline_Claims.aspx


Anyone notice that this site has been removed?

 

[Brian Barnhart]

Looks like it’s gone from the M1 site. Perhaps EM is now aware of the technical data to support Vavoline’s claim that SynPower is superior to M1 in at least one area, and would rather ignore the data than talk about it.

In all fairness, even if Mobil 1 is better than SynPower in a number of other areas, there is probably little to be gained by EM in a discussion of the Sequence IVA test results. I wouldn’t expect to hear any more from EM about the issue, unless it comes up again in a very visible way. EM will probably just let this latest marketing pitch run it’s course. Even with all their resources, I doubt EM could make an oil that’s better than all others in every category at a palatable price.

 

[buster]

That, and/or they are re-writing something. LOL.