Calfornia penalizes Smitty's $751,155

[fdcg27]

Looks like a lightly formulated oil to me, whether PQIA finds it to meet the API spec or not. Good for those who are fans of sodium add packs and dislike moly, though.
Does anyone really think that the starting TBN of the oil is adequate to allow for anything beyond a short run up to maybe 5K?

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted By: dave1251

They are functionally equivalent when the products meet the same specs. If not then it is not up to spec. As the article states Smitty's products did not meet specs.


Are they now?
That begs a question.
Why do you suppose that name brand oils meeting the same spec as Smitty's use more costly add packs when only a small fraction of buyers know what's in the oil they buy?
Do you suppose the blenders do this just for grins and giggles?
Or could it be that a more costly formulation brings better results in service?
Oils meeting the same spec are obviously not functionally equivalent in that some will go well beyond that spec and may also offer attributes not envisioned in that spec while others will surf along barely above the line.
But you already knew this when you replied to me.

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Originally Posted By: dave1251

They are functionally equivalent when the products meet the same specs. If not then it is not up to spec. As the article states Smitty's products did not meet specs.


Are they now?
That begs a question.
Why do you suppose that name brand oils meeting the same spec as Smitty's use more costly add packs when only a small fraction of buyers know what's in the oil they buy?
Do you suppose the blenders do this just for grins and giggles?
Or could it be that a more costly formulation brings better results in service?
Oils meeting the same spec are obviously not functionally equivalent in that some will go well beyond that spec and may also offer attributes not envisioned in that spec while others will surf along barely above the line.
But you already knew this when you replied to me.


It is rather apparent your comprehension is lacking. For this I apologize. The cost of the additive package does not matter if the product is not formulated to meet the specification. Warren, Valvoline, XOM, and Calmut are a few examples who decided to meet specification a sodium based additive package was desirable. Smitty's in my perception due to their marketing(before) and lack of quality control(present) has been a less then a honest company and unfortunately this settlement is not surprising.

As a reference your argument about Smitty's additive package causing this issue you missed the target. This issue is Smitty's product failed to meet the parameters for SAE grade on the label in addition to not being within specifications for API SN. Do you have a copy of the analysis of the prosecuting attorney's evidence to support your claim a less costly thus inferior additive package is the reason the product has been dinged by the state of California?

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
I am surprised that Smitty's would inadvertenly mislabel any of their products.

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
I am surprised that Smitty's would inadvertenly mislabel any of their products.


Mola Smitty's has for nearly a decade labeled their ATF +4 dispute not being licensed.

http://www.centerforqa.com/chrysler-brands/
http://www.smittysinc.net/atf-4/


The link says:
Quote:
ATF+4 is fully compatible with all transmission applications where 7176, ATF+, ATF+2 or ATF+3 and Type 9662 Automatic Transmission Fluid is specified.



It says nothing about being licensed by Chrysler, it says "being compatible with."

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: 64bawagon
And... will any of that penalty money actually go to the people that purchased those products ? short of that, the state has done nothing to protect anyone.

They could start a class action lawsuit.

 

[MolaKule]

From this link of CUstom Plus oil tested in 11-1-2014:

http://www.pqiamerica.com/June 2014/customplus1030.htm

Quote:
Test Results and Assessment: The results of the tests conducted on this sample meet the SAE J300 specifications for the SAE Viscosity Grade listed on the product label, and are consistent with the listed API Service Category.

Note (revised 2/18/15): This product is labeled "For use where an SJ/SAE 10w30 Motor oil is recommended." The label, however, does not advise consumers that API Service Category SJ is intended for automotive engines built prior to 2002.



I guess we'll have to start labeling older Oils like this:

"This is an SJ rated engine oil for use where an SJ/SAE 10w30 Motor oil is recommended AND is recommended ONLY for automotive engines built prior to 2002. But hey, if you're not sure what oil belongs in your engine, NOW is a good time to read your freakin' OWNERS MANUAL for the correct GRADE and replacement interval."

 

[splinter]

Quote:
Total settlement was in the amount of $751,155. Civil penalties were $555,000 payable to Orange
County and investigative costs of $151,155 and cy pres restitution in the amount of $45,000, are both
made payable to CDFA DMS.

A mere drop in the bucket.
This 'settlement' barely covers the annual salaries and benefits largess of three entry level Deputy DA minions.

Nothing is available from the slush fund for hapless 'victims,' of course.

 

[Dallas69]

I can't tell what actually Smittys did wrong.
How does [censored] oil like Golden State keep from getting fined?

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Originally Posted By: dave1251

They are functionally equivalent when the products meet the same specs. If not then it is not up to spec. As the article states Smitty's products did not meet specs.


Are they now?
That begs a question.
Why do you suppose that name brand oils meeting the same spec as Smitty's use more costly add packs when only a small fraction of buyers know what's in the oil they buy?
Do you suppose the blenders do this just for grins and giggles?
Or could it be that a more costly formulation brings better results in service?
Oils meeting the same spec are obviously not functionally equivalent in that some will go well beyond that spec and may also offer attributes not envisioned in that spec while others will surf along barely above the line.
But you already knew this when you replied to me.


It is rather apparent your comprehension is lacking. For this I apologize. The cost of the additive package does not matter if the product is not formulated to meet the specification. Warren, Valvoline, XOM, and Calmut are a few examples who decided to meet specification a sodium based additive package was desirable. Smitty's in my perception due to their marketing(before) and lack of quality control(present) has been a less then a honest company and unfortunately this settlement is not surprising.

As a reference your argument about Smitty's additive package causing this issue you missed the target. This issue is Smitty's product failed to meet the parameters for SAE grade on the label in addition to not being within specifications for API SN. Do you have a copy of the analysis of the prosecuting attorney's evidence to support your claim a less costly thus inferior additive package is the reason the product has been dinged by the state of California?


No need to apologize, since I don't appear to be the poster who lacks comprehension.
I wrote nothing in the post to which you replied about Smitty's, the State of California or sodium add packs.
I took exception to your claim that all products meeting the same spec are functionally equivalent.
You failed to answer my questioning of your assertion but rather posted a load of irrelevant chaff.

 

[JBinKC]

This is kind of an old thread but Menard's indicated that Cam2 oils are manufactured in Roseland LA in the last made in USA sale hence it is implied it is Smitty's and if you look at the packaging it is in the same style. There is a recent PQIA VOA of 10w30 blend and very positive UOA of 5-20 blend if you search under cam2.

I think Smitty properly labeled the oil in question and shouldn't be punished because a portion of society is illiterate. Why don't they pick on the banks with their deceptive advertising in their even smaller print?



I do agree however that Smitty is trying to avoid paying a licensing fee to Chrysler on their ATF+4