Dollar General sued over obsolete oils

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: KCJeep
I buy a lot of my oil at DG because they carry several top name brands, run them on sale a LOT and will let me use a coupon on top of that which means I end up beating Walmart prices by a good bit and it is closer and far more convenient.


I do too because my local stocks Pennzoil, Castrol GTX, and Peak. I just stocked up on their Castrol BOGO sale plus I used a coupon for $5 of $30, and I ended up paying $2.08 a quart for Castrol GTX HM. DG passes out $5 off $25 coupons all the time on their receipts. I save money all the time on toilet paper, paper towels, etc. on the same items that Walmart or any grocery store sales by using those coupons, and waiting for items to go on sale plus it's convenient as just right up the street.
 
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Its a freaken dollar store what do you expect? Its as outdated as the rest of their junk.


That's a lot of hot air.
 
The only people that are going to benefit from this will be that attorneys directly involved.
I would agree that there are better oils out there. In my local DG, there are better oils on the same shelf. It is up to the consumer to select them.
The DG oil is certainly no worse than the oils that are sold in many of the mini-marts that sell the gasoline of many of the major oil companies. I'm talking about brands such as "Bullseye" and "City Star," just to name a couple. However, you don't see this group of attorneys getting their fur in a fluff and going after either the manufacturer or the owners of the business that sell this junk. IMO, it is about pocket depth.
I think that a case can be made that the DG oil probably represents a grade that meets the average demographic of their customer base. A case could be made that the DG oil is a better oil because it does meet an API grade, even if it is an obsolete one.
This case is not about the protecting the consumer, it is about benefitting from them.
 
Originally Posted By: NH73
Originally Posted By: ccap41
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: TFB1
if consumers can't read the label and/or owners manual, isn't the oil mfgr problem... These same consumers likely have their noses stuck in a smart phone all their waking hours... Would not want me on that jury...


Blaming consumers is absurd. That's like blaming the baby antelope for being eaten by the lion. We can't all research and become knowledgeable about every product we buy - we have to trust and rely on the information provided on product labels. We all do it every day. Companies that prey on our lack of full knowledge in a specific area through clever and deceptive labels and product placement are predators. They seek out the poor and ignorant, the weakest of consumers, for their personal gain, and when the products they sell are downright harmful they are evil.

Most of these companies know exactly what they are doing and the potential damage it can cause. They proceed with full malice for personal profit. I can't speak for Dollar General as many retailer buyers are ignorant on motor oils, but someone in the manufacturing/marketing line must have known what they were doing.

Tom NJ

NOTE: While I am an unpaid advisor to PQIA, the opinions I express on this forum are my own and not necessarily those of PQIA.


So the consumer who knows nothing about their vehicle OR what goes in it probably shouldn't be buying something to put in it then, right? I mean I agree with almost everything you said but in this scenario if somebody is buying the wrong motor oil they also don't know enough about their vehicle to be doing maintenance on it. How is that Dollar General's fault?

Now if this oil isn't even suitable for small engines/lawn mowers then I agree that it is just junk oil and there's no reason so it to be on sale if it can't even go in anything.


It goes both ways. Stores shouldn't sell it. Consumers shouldn't buy it. Someone going to buy motor oil, at most at least, are checking the oil. So the store at least should encourage consumers to check to see what there vehicle requires.


Can it not be used in small lawnmowers or something of the like? If not, then I agree. But I have a feeling that small engines don't have the stringent requirements our vehicles have.
 
Did any of you guys see the VOA of the Dollar General 10w30 API SF, it's not loaded but it's oil.

nme1rp.png



Links not click able but you can copy it sorry on phone

http://www.pqiadata.org/DollarGeneral10W30.html?utm_source=October+2%2C+2015&utm_campaign=10%2F2%2F2015&utm_medium=email
 
Originally Posted By: ccap41

Can it not be used in small lawnmowers or something of the like? If not, then I agree. But I have a feeling that small engines don't have the stringent requirements our vehicles have.


The API SA oil can't be used in a lawn mower, some companies go back as far as SF as a recommended API rating. But it still is ridiculous to be selling obsolete oils, it doesn't save anyone much money if not at all. Do I really want lawsuits? No. More regulations? No. I believe the business should have the morality to do what is right. But because business don't do what is right, we have lawsuits and over regulations.
 
This oil doesn't look bad at all and might actually meet a currently licensed API spec.
Could it be that the reason that the oil is labeled as being of SF quality rather than bearing a more current API spec license is to save the cost of testing and licensing expenses?
 
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
Honestly the elemental analysis of the DG 10w30 doesn't look like it would hurt any modern vehicles, it has sufficient anti wear additives.

I love the work PQIA usually does but this seems like a step in the wrong direction.


Indeed.

The SA stuff is worthy of severe criticism, but I'd be happy to run the SF in a pinch, and would gladly use it for top-off if the price was right.

PQIA has always been a bit hysterical about applying arbitrary standards, often "failing" an oil for falling fractionally outside of whatever window they deem 'correct.'
 
^^^^PQIA can in no way test to see if an oil actually meets any spec but they can flag certain aspects that would cause it not to meet a spec.
 
Then what exactly is the purpose of the PQIA? We can't tell you if it meets a spec but can tell you it doesn't? Seems that if it has the formulation the spec requires that it would meet it?
 
Originally Posted By: Geonerd

PQIA has always been a bit hysterical about applying arbitrary standards, often "failing" an oil for falling fractionally outside of whatever window they deem 'correct.'


PQIA compares test results to industry standard specifications or practices. They do not "fail" any oils - they make a "Note" of minor issues, and issue "Advisories" or "Consumer Alerts" for more serious issues in accordance with their mission to serve consumers.

In the case of Dollar General they simply reported to consumers that obsolete oils were being sold alongside current oils and cautioned that consumers should carefully read the front and back labels. With regard to the law suit, they simply reported that the suit was filed and linked to it. They do not file law suits and had nothing to do with this suit.

From their website:

"PQIA’s mission is to serve the consumer of lubricants by testing and reporting on the quality and integrity of lubricants in the marketplace.

It is expected that this improved visibility of quality will lead to wider conformance by lubricant manufacturers to specification and performance claims."

Tom NJ

NOTE: While I am an unpaid advisor to PQIA, the opinions I express on this forum are my own and not necessarily those of PQIA.
 
In my opinion, the phrase "Buyer beware" does not excuse intentional deception on the part of marketers. I have no idea what Dollar General's intentions were and they could be totally innocent, but I personally believe that intentional deception is a factor in many cases of obsolete and/or potentially harmful oils being sold across the country.

Tom NJ
 
Originally Posted By: itguy08
Then what exactly is the purpose of the PQIA? We can't tell you if it meets a spec but can tell you it doesn't? Seems that if it has the formulation the spec requires that it would meet it?


To fully test against the SN specification would cost about half a million dollars, hence PQIA cannot state that an oil meets the specification without running all of the tests. It can, however, report that an oil does not meet a specification if any the results from the tests they do run fail to meet the requirements of a specification.

Tom NJ

NOTE: While I am an unpaid advisor to PQIA, the opinions I express on this forum are my own and not necessarily those of PQIA.
 
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
This oil doesn't look bad at all and might actually meet a currently licensed API spec.
Could it be that the reason that the oil is labeled as being of SF quality rather than bearing a more current API spec license is to save the cost of testing and licensing expenses?


This is a very good point and I'm starting to believe that's the answer when I think about it
 
Originally Posted By: Jimzz
Originally Posted By: chainblu
Originally Posted By: Chris142
I never understood why they still sell these oils. How much more would Warren,Shell or exxonmobil charge then to bottle a good oil?


Like this?:
http://shop.advanceautoparts.com/p/shell...07-P#fragment-1

I think this is a SB rated oil (at best). Why isn't Advance Auto (or Shell) being sued??


Because that oil is not sold beside other current oils and uses normal size font on the front of the container saying its non-detergant. That oil is on the small engine shelf.


Maybe at your local Advance Auto, but at the one near me, the ND-30 in right there in the mix with the other oils.
 
Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: gathermewool
Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
.... They seek out the poor and ignorant, the weakest of consumers, for their personal gain, and when the products they sell are downright harmful they are evil. ....


Good grief. Selling correctly labelled SA and SF motor oil is evil?

What about booze and coffin nails? Pot? Cokes? Twinkies? White bread? "HD" tv antennas? Ammunition? VW diesels?

Where do you draw the line at protecting people from themselves, especially when this is not even protecting people - it's protecting clunkers, at best.



Correctly labeled? THERE IS NO SUCH APPROVAL AS API-SA.






?????

PQIA states it meets the specification. From their website:

"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 Categories.

Note: The back label on this product lists API Service SA which is an obsolete specification intended for engines built after 1930! According to the API, this service category of oil is unsuitable for most gasoline engines built thereafter and may cause harm to modern engines. To their credit, the back label includes a cautionary statement about the product's limited use." (my emphasis added)

Maybe they should do a bit of proof reading.
Originally Posted By: itguy08
Originally Posted By: gathermewool

Correctly labeled? THERE IS NO SUCH APPROVAL AS API-SA.


According to the API there is:
http://www.api.org/~/media/Files/Oil-and-Natural-Gas/Engine%20Oil/MOTOR_OIL_GUIDE_2010_120210.pdf?la=en

Pg 3.


Sorry for the confusion. If there is no single manufacturer specifying API SA oil, then it does not exist. It is beyond an obsolescence thing at this point.
 
All the DG stores I have been in have limited shelf space. I reckon they could put oil on the same shelf as the corn flakes.
 
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
In my opinion, the phrase "Buyer beware" does not excuse intentional deception on the part of marketers. I have no idea what Dollar General's intentions were and they could be totally innocent, but I personally believe that intentional deception is a factor in many cases of obsolete and/or potentially harmful oils being sold across the country.

Tom NJ


If we were talking about intentional deception then you would have a valid point. But it is printed right on the bottle what it is not suitable for, we are not talking about intentional deception.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

tired
Help with recommendation for motor oil for Toyota and Nissan daily drivers
2 3
Replies
54
Views
5K
tired
V
To blend or not to blend is the question (HPL and Renewable Lubricants)?
Replies
11
Views
396
BusyLittleShop
I
  • Question Question
“Barn find” BMW e28 / 535i stick shift Lazarus restore project
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
Impatient
The Critic
Oil Compatibility Issues between brands?
Replies
15
Views
5K
Thumper3
A
Another "Taxi" Study: Relationship of Engine Bearing Wear and Oil Rheology 872128
17 18 19
Replies
361
Views
33K
TiGeo
Back
Top Bottom