API finds nearly half of certified oils have issues
- Thread starter Tom NJ
- Start date
- Status
Going to be a lot of HPL purchases!
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2024
- Messages
- 777
How did you come up with that meme?
They got sneaky once PQIA went quiet 
Last edited:
From an investment club I’m in. Pretty much every publicly traded company has similar memes from various controversies.
When it comes to shelf-stocked oil, you really don't know what to use.. LOL. Obviously chances are, we are probably getting what we are paying for.. it's not like a tanker truck is coming, and filling up a 275 gallon tank or 500 gallon tank, full of oil..
Last edited:
4WD
$50 site donor 2025
You want to add context - nothing to do with motor oil is it ?
Last edited:
4WD
$50 site donor 2025
How far do you guys want to go ? How about opportunity between the types of manufacturers ?
Is someone who refines the materials and blends inside the same fence more or less likely to cheat ? Go ahead and speculate …
Is someone who refines the materials and blends inside the same fence more or less likely to cheat ? Go ahead and speculate …
A prime candidate for this thread... From the shelf of my local WinCo grocery.
Last edited:
They have that at Sam's club as well.. "Prime Guard"
4WD
$50 site donor 2025
We have harmonizing agencies to control things like this …
I’ll never trust a competitor saying they have independent or their own data on someone they want to put under …
No matter who they are …
Actually I know who makes it.
The operating partner is a great friend of mine. Really good dude. One of the ~3 most stand up people I’ve met in the ILMA community.
I would be very reluctant to ascribe anything nefarious to Exxon Mobil, or any other top tier producer. There are multiple "innocent" ways an oil can get out of, or test out of spec. Most would result in a short term problem, such as the stacking of normal batch to batch variation with the normal error associated with a given test procedure. Another would be a transient production line problem that was not caught in QC. The exchange tables that allow changes in base oils without retesting may not be as robust as thought. That could explain the M1 problem. Hypothetically, a base oil change made in accordance with the exchange tables may have gone wrong. They were not required to retest under the rules, and a substandard oil was put on the shelves. Mobil followed the rules. They should have paid as much attention to their oils as their competitors were. The API should have a testing program that doesn't let problems persist for years*.
The M1 5W-30 was the "plain jane" formula. Their response was: "Does to!" At the time the CEO and Chairman of the Board of Mobil held the top two positions of the API, so of course the sweeping under the rug meme was exactly what happened. Putting the foxes in charge of guarding the hen house is another reason I don't respect the API as much as I do the ACEA and in house testing requirements some OEMs put in place.
*In Valvoline's case they tested multiple samples over a two year period with the same results. They didn't blow the whistle until they were sure that there was a real, long term issue. I'm sure(hope) Shell also did enough testing to be confident that the problem wasn't just a single batch error. I wouldn't respect a company that that based an advertising campaign on a single sample.
Ed
4WD
$50 site donor 2025
API President and CEO
Mike Sommers is president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, the national trade association that represents all aspects of America’s oil and natural gas industry.
www.api.org
Dollar General got sued (and lost) for selling oil that was properly labeled per spec, just wasn't spec'd for anything modern.
I can't imagine a major oil company like Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell, or BP risking their reputation in the USA over a few pennies of additives that meant they didn't even meet their own spec. They wouldn't have a leg to stand on, and if a lawyer could prove it - it would mean billions.
I go back to the original article which again, is extremely vague about what the transgressions even mean - were they actually out of spec, or just hadn't had some new formulation tested?
www.consumeraffairs.com
I can't imagine a major oil company like Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell, or BP risking their reputation in the USA over a few pennies of additives that meant they didn't even meet their own spec. They wouldn't have a leg to stand on, and if a lawyer could prove it - it would mean billions.
I go back to the original article which again, is extremely vague about what the transgressions even mean - were they actually out of spec, or just hadn't had some new formulation tested?
Consumer Product Lawsuits and Safety
Stay informed about the latest consumer product lawsuits, recalls, and safety concerns to protect your health and wellbeing.
www.consumeraffairs.com
Dollar General got sued (and lost) for selling oil that was properly labeled per spec, just wasn't spec'd for anything modern.
I can't imagine a major oil company like Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell, or BP risking their reputation in the USA over a few pennies of additives that meant they didn't even meet their own spec. They wouldn't have a leg to stand on, and if a lawyer could prove it - it would mean billions.
I go back to the original article which again, is extremely vague about what the transgressions even mean - were they actually out of spec, or just hadn't had some new formulation tested?
Consumer Product Lawsuits and Safety
Stay informed about the latest consumer product lawsuits, recalls, and safety concerns to protect your health and wellbeing.
The answer is both.
When you make a new SP blend, you submit your blend info. (Base oil, additive package) Because the Additive companies do the testing and register the license blend. X amount of base oil(s) plus Y amount of additive(s). Iirc, they have a chemical finger print from the additive company of what it “should” look like.
It’s entirely possible that X base oil isn’t an API / Additive company supported base oil. It’s still perfectly good - just might not be registered for motor oil.
This blend, may absolutely suite SP or whatever spec. But because it doesn’t have a registered profile. So it wouldn’t fit what the blending company registered.
Or, also likely - they under treat the additive. If you’re supposed to have Y amount of gallons of additive to X amount of base oils. It might be shorted a little bit additives. So it wouldn’t match the chemical finger print. And may not meet spec.
Etc.
As for the majors - it’s mostly innocent. They are trying shave every penny. That’s the truth. As it adds up and that directly effects the GM of lubricants bonus and bottom line.
That being said. They all utilize third party toll blenders. Who might take a short cut. Or might have a misblend. Or might have disgruntled workers. Or Maybe someone made a mistake.
Etc.
Example of above - specifically with GM Dexos licensing.
When Dexos 1 Gen 1 came out was about the same time that Vertex/Adnoc came out with their Group 3s in the U.S. iirc Afton was the first company to register an AP SN blend with them. It was perfectly acceptable to make an SN Full Synthetic with it. It would have exceeded D1G1 specs. By a lot. Since it wasn’t registered with GM yet, it couldn’t be sold as that.
The product and additives will often beat the regulatory side of things. Especially when it comes to rolling change over. My tanks were filled with D1G3 product ~8 months before the actual D1G3 product license went live. It wouldn’t match what I registered for my D1G3 license. But why wouldn’t I give the customer a better product?
Same with the SN+ to SP conversion. My tanks were filled with SP way before it came out. Months. Probably 7, maybe 9 months before hand. It was a rolling conversion. But if the API tested my oil, it wouldn’t meet the SN+ finger print. But it would exceed the tests because it was an SP additive.
Again, why would I go sell the customer an inferior product in that case? Especially when that SN+ product would be more expensive.
Just food for thought on how it can be “innocent” as well.
When Dexos 1 Gen 1 came out was about the same time that Vertex/Adnoc came out with their Group 3s in the U.S. iirc Afton was the first company to register an AP SN blend with them. It was perfectly acceptable to make an SN Full Synthetic with it. It would have exceeded D1G1 specs. By a lot. Since it wasn’t registered with GM yet, it couldn’t be sold as that.
The product and additives will often beat the regulatory side of things. Especially when it comes to rolling change over. My tanks were filled with D1G3 product ~8 months before the actual D1G3 product license went live. It wouldn’t match what I registered for my D1G3 license. But why wouldn’t I give the customer a better product?
Same with the SN+ to SP conversion. My tanks were filled with SP way before it came out. Months. Probably 7, maybe 9 months before hand. It was a rolling conversion. But if the API tested my oil, it wouldn’t meet the SN+ finger print. But it would exceed the tests because it was an SP additive.
Again, why would I go sell the customer an inferior product in that case? Especially when that SN+ product would be more expensive.
Just food for thought on how it can be “innocent” as well.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Their response was simply "The API tested the product and confirmed it is compliant."
Unlike Valvoline, Mobil doesn't actively go looking to cast shade on other brands.
I realize your from the industry, and I have never been in an oil blender, but I have been in literally hundreds of fortune 500 manufacturing plants in a almost 30 year career. Yes, they engineer and manufacture to save every penny. But they don't purposely break their own spec. I would find that hard to believe.
I have been in things as mundane as soft drink independent bottlers, and even they follow the OEM's blend to the letter or risk loosing the franchise, and the mixing is pretty much automated so there isn't even a disgruntled employee to screw things up. Of course in that case, the OEM controls the syrup.
Presumably third party additives could be out of spec. They certainly would not test every shipment. So I can absolutely see that being an issue.
My understanding for example was that Mobil1 all comes from the Beaumont Texas plant - not 3rd party blenders? Possibly this is in error?
There’s a lot more variation in batch to batch base oils and additives than other manufacturing. The refining industry isn’t perfect - we all know this.
But that’s also one of my earlier comments - about being safe with a major brand. As there is less likely to have off spec. But at the same time, like I said in many other threads. Don’t believe marketing. Just because Shell spends millions advertising Rotella, doesn’t mean it’s the end all be all.
And, blending is mostly still a human function. You have employees solubilizing Polymers. You have additives coming from drums or off tankers. You have the human function of making sure you’re adding your Ys and Xs to make Zs. Humans are not perfect.
You have inline blending but again, controlled by a human. It will fail on some level.
As for Mobil - it’s impossible for one blending facility to support the entire U.S. Mobil utilizes Gordon Terminal system near me as a toll blender. They sub out overflow blending to places like Pinnacle oil for bottling and such too. Or OEM fill projects. Castrol used Pinnacle and Warren/Highline. Shell is all blended at Gordon or Ergon Congo. P66 comes out of Gordon, or their facility at Woodriver. Hicks oil does a lot of blending for Mobil and P66. P66 Previously used Valvoline freedom and ALS. Etc.
You have to go where it’s logistically easy for your marketers. (Me) or else you can never be price competitive.
Funny enough, one of my trucks is on Gordon’s website. I just looked at their pictures.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
