GM authorizes Pennzoil Platinum as replacement

Pennzoil motor oil
Status
Not open for further replies.
I dunno. I am an old man. Just seems to me (IMHO) that if somebody laid claims that were false and could be proven false a big ol company like Exxon/Mobil would have a field day in courts/marketing advertisements etc. They are stone cold quiet on the subject. Fella such as myself thinks there is something to Valvoline's claims or A) They would never had tugged on the tigers tail B)If these Valvoline advertisements were false or even slightly misleading Exxon/Mobil would have litigated quickly to have them removed.
With that said I don't put any value on any of the ads frankly. Mobil 1 is good oil. I use Shaeffers but wouldn't hesitate to use Mobil 1 if need be. I also think if your product is good you should let it perform as advertised and you'll be successful. Negative ads against any competitor only diminishes your value in these old eyes.
 
Originally Posted By: GrampsintheSand
I dunno. I am an old man. Just seems to me (IMHO) that if somebody laid claims that were false and could be proven false a big ol company like Exxon/Mobil would have a field day in courts/marketing advertisements etc. They are stone cold quiet on the subject. Fella such as myself thinks there is something to Valvoline's claims ......


Or they're smart enough to avoid giving Ashland free press.

Just remember, it ain't over 'til the fat lady sings.




.
 
Originally Posted By: buster
Quote:
"We would like you to know that while we are aware of Valvoline's assertions, ExxonMobil stands behind the quality of Mobil 1 and all of our lubes products. ExxonMobil's GF 4 licenses for all product lines are valid."


XOM's response doesn't even address the claim made by Ashland.


It sure did.

If ExxonMobil's GF-4 licenses are valid, Ashland's claim that the unnamed and unidentifed Mobil 1 5w30 formula did not meet specs is false.



.
 
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Until Exxon sues Ashland for libel, any claim that Mobil 1 5w30 meets spec is B S.


If the API doesn't revoke ExxonMobil's license, any claim that Mobil 1 5w30 doesn't meet specs is B. S.




.
 
Originally Posted By: Rolf
Originally Posted By: GrampsintheSand
I dunno. I am an old man. Just seems to me (IMHO) that if somebody laid claims that were false and could be proven false a big ol company like Exxon/Mobil would have a field day in courts/marketing advertisements etc. They are stone cold quiet on the subject. Fella such as myself thinks there is something to Valvoline's claims ......


Or they're smart enough to avoid giving Ashland free press.

Just remember, it ain't over 'til the fat lady sings.




.

How can being exposed as a liar be good "free press"?????
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: endeavor to persevere
Pennzoil Platinum has been GM 4718M approved and on the list for some time now.


+1 Not a big secret either
 
Originally Posted By: GrampsintheSand
Originally Posted By: Rolf
Originally Posted By: GrampsintheSand
I dunno. I am an old man. Just seems to me (IMHO) that if somebody laid claims that were false and could be proven false a big ol company like Exxon/Mobil would have a field day in courts/marketing advertisements etc. They are stone cold quiet on the subject. Fella such as myself thinks there is something to Valvoline's claims ......


Or they're smart enough to avoid giving Ashland free press.

Just remember, it ain't over 'til the fat lady sings.




.

How can being exposed as a liar be good "free press"?????


It falls in line with "there is no such thing as bad publicity".
 
Many industries register a formulation that in testing meets the specs. Then you run that formulation with the testing body pulling unannounced plant inspections and random product sampling. And yes, occassionally they find a sample that may not quite meet the specs. If this is just one or two, that is OK. These should be explained by the statistical analysis of the production process. If they see a trend where the data breaks out of the historical norm, the s___ hits the fan. Can you go out and find a few bottles of M-1 that don't quite meet a spec? Sure. Can you do the same for other oils? Sure. But on the whole, the properties will cluster around a center line of values. So finding a "bad container" does not negate anything. This is what statistical quality control is all about. You want the deviations to be small and Upper and Lower Control Limits to be as small as possible.


The danger in all of this is that if a spec calls for a number such as 7.5 +- .2, then the bean counters insist on centering the line at 7.3 but then your lower control limits fall below the spec. To really understand what a competitor is doing statistically, you would have to analyze at least 50-100 samples of a given product through all tests. And the samples would have to be taken from a wide geographical area. Is this what Valvolinde did? They don't seem to be forthcoming on their satistical evaluation methods.
 
Last edited:
35.gif
 
Originally Posted By: GrampsintheSand
How can being exposed as a liar be good "free press"?????


I don't think Ashland has "exposed" anything.

In the main the Valvoline allegations are a non-event.




.
 
Originally Posted By: Rolf
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Until Exxon sues Ashland for libel, any claim that Mobil 1 5w30 meets spec is B S.


If the API doesn't revoke ExxonMobil's license, any claim that Mobil 1 5w30 doesn't meet specs is B. S.




.


We've already gone round and round about API licensing and how, even if a product doesn't meet spec, the API isn't going to pull the license because testing is done on a voluntary basis. And it's done by the oil companies. They basically say, "yes API, my oil does meet spec." And the API says "wonderful, you have a license." Remember, the API IS the oil companies.
56.gif












.
 
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
We've already gone round and round about API licensing and how, even if a product doesn't meet spec, the API isn't going to pull the license because testing is done on a voluntary basis.


Well, that is simply wrong.

The API, a few years ago, began a testing program for ensuring that the products on the shelves bearing the starburst actually met API specs.

In addition the API will investigate evidence that a producer is mislabeling products.

Both Ashland and ExxonMobil are API members, so it is not clear to me why Ashland did not submit their test results to the API.





.
 
Originally Posted By: Bryanccfshr
This is not a small deviation but twice the wear allowed to pass sequence IVA


That is what surprised me the most. Not even close to 90 microns. It was an average of 180 microns, double the allowable amount.
 
Originally Posted By: Rolf
Drew99GT said:
In addition the API will investigate evidence that a producer is mislabeling products.

Both Ashland and ExxonMobil are API members, so it is not clear to me why Ashland did not submit their test results to the API.


And then they have a "grace period" if you will, for making sure the product meets spec in the future, and they can continue labeling the product as API certified.

I'm guessing Ashland did contact the API












.
Click to expand...
 
whether or not the API will jerk the license, GM has shown with Castrol that they aren't bashful at all about nailing a supplier (being a former GM supplier, i can also attest to that). if EOM wouldn't meet GM4718M, they would have that pulled in public fast enough that it would have happened long before this thread reached this length...
 
Originally Posted By: cheetahdriver
whether or not the API will jerk the license, GM has shown with Castrol that they aren't bashful at all about nailing a supplier (being a former GM supplier, i can also attest to that). if EOM wouldn't meet GM4718M, they would have that pulled in public fast enough that it would have happened long before this thread reached this length...



Thats interesting. Can you tell us more about your experience as a GM supplier, and how that relates to GM policy as for as testing requirements go. Thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Pennzoil Platinum question
Replies
8
Views
3K
Old Mustang Guy
C
  • Locked
Pennzoil Platinum and Mobil 1 viscosity
Replies
7
Views
2K
GlowingRotors
Falcon_LS
  • Locked
Pennzoil Platinum 5w30 in a Mitsubishi 6G72
Replies
2
Views
3K
Falcon_LS
W
  • Locked
GM 5.3 ticking
2
Replies
24
Views
16K
SteveSRT8
M
  • Locked
Pennzoil rumor again.
2 3
Replies
45
Views
20K
ted s
Back
Top Bottom