Mercedes-Benz Installs Reclaimed Motor Oil At The Factory?!?!?

Messages
8,937
Location
SC
I would say that that letter from Mercedes is probably ten years old. Also, keep in mind that the company name changed in 1998 to DaimlerChrysler AG and before that it was Daimler-Benz AG. No corporate letter would ever be signed "Mercedes-Benz Aktiengesellschaft" since Mercedes-Benz has always been just a brand name of their cars and not the corporate name. There simply was never a "Mercedes-Benz Aktiengesellschaft." The fact that the "letter" from Chrysler references GF-1 also gives some indication of the age of these documents.
 
Messages
3,094
Location
Metro Detroit
I'll bet the manufacturers listed on that site would sure like to know their "position" on re-refined oil. I'll bet all four of those are fraudulent. GM, for example, recommends API SL (maybe SM now). ILSAC is never mentioned in their owner's manuals.
 

Ray H

Thread starter
Messages
4,478
Location
Southern California
Oh, OK, so then Mercedes-Benz AG is merely a contraction of Mercedes-Benz Actiengesellschaft? Thanks for clearing that up, but, upon reviewing your initial response . . . Freakin' [freaknout] !
 

Ray H

Thread starter
Messages
4,478
Location
Southern California
So, Matt, do you have unambiguous evidence to dispute those letter reprints? Are you implying that the use of re-refined motor oil is really forbidden under the terms of the powertrain warranties and that neither GM nor Mercedes-Benz use some percentage of re-refined oil as factory fill? So far the responses seem closer to hysterical character assassination of Safety-Kleen's posted reprints than reasoned discourse. (Why am I not surprised? Gee, it just occurs to me that the possibility of dreaded re-refined oil as factory-fill would be another reason for getting the factory fill out as soon as possible in a new engine... [Big Grin] ) (no matter that the stuff's been initially filtered and then severely hydrocracked back into Group II and Group III base stocks prior to blending and additized)
 
Messages
8,937
Location
SC
quote:
Originally posted by Ray H: Oh, OK, so then Mercedes-Benz AG is merely a contraction of Mercedes-Benz Actiengesellschaft? Thanks for clearing that up, but, upon reviewing your initial response . . . Freakin' [freaknout] !
Not really a contraction, just an abreviation. It's roughly the equivalent of "Incorporated" and "Inc." I did a little checking and it turns out there was a restructuring of Daimler-Benz AG in 1989 in which Daimler-Benz AG was designated the holding company and Mercedes-Benz AG was created as the car and truck manufacturing entity. In 1997 this dual entity ended and Mercedes-Benz AG was merged with Daimler-Benz AG. In 1998 with the merger/takeover of Chrysler, the name was changed to DaimlerChrysler AG.
 
Messages
8,937
Location
SC
On the topic of re-refined oil, I don't see why filtering and hydrocracking can't result in a base oil that isn't the equal of hydrocrakced crude.
 
Messages
8,937
Location
SC
Ugh. I just looked at the SafetyClean spec sheet for their rerefined base oils. These are clearly not Group II quality. They've got very high levels of aromatics and low saturates. These base oils are about 40 years behind current specs and don't even compare to good quality Group I oils. The spec sheet says "great additive solvency." No kidding. That's about all they're good for, IMO. [LOL!]
 

Ray H

Thread starter
Messages
4,478
Location
Southern California
Since you neglected to post a link to your source, here are the links I consulted. For Safety-Kleen's "America's Choice" and "Canada's Choice" finished motor oils -in various viscosity grades, here're links to the MSDS and Product Data sheets respectively. Note specifically the current API/ILSAC specifications and the dates of these documents. This thread pertained to automaker acceptance of re-refined finished oils (and their use both as factory fill as well as service fill). Yet, you've consistently agendized the discussion with glaringly inconsistent and irrelevant responses in what can only be interpreted as a vain attempt to avoid the real issue. G-Man II, why do you, and so many others, seemingly feel threatened at the prospect of efficiently recycling a rapidly diminishing resource? [ March 15, 2006, 03:27 PM: Message edited by: Ray H ]
 
Messages
8,937
Location
SC
quote:
Originally posted by Ray H: Since you neglected to post a link to your source,
The source has already been posted: It's in the very first post in this thread. I have no problem with rerefined oils. However, I don't see how any modern PCMO or HDEO could be made using nothing but the base oils listed in that spec sheet. These are Group I oils with crappy specs. Period. http://www.ac-rerefined.com/Safety_Kleen_Allbase_6-14-04.pdf Oh, and FTR, I don't buy into the Chicken Little theory that crude oil is a diminishing resource.
 
Messages
3,094
Location
Metro Detroit
quote:
Originally posted by Ray H: So, Matt, do you have unambiguous evidence to dispute those letter reprints? Are you implying that the use of re-refined motor oil is really forbidden under the terms of the powertrain warranties and that neither GM nor Mercedes-Benz use some percentage of re-refined oil as factory fill? [snip]
Ray, I'm not attacking re-refined oil, but I smell a fish here. Maybe the letters aren't fraudulent, but they're certainly outdated. Check this link, from a US Military web site. There is an exact reprint of that letter, dated 12/1/1994. There's also a letter from Ford dated 9/9/1994. There's no date on the Chrysler letter, but I'd suspect the same time frame. I'd like to see a more-recent recommendation than that, considering how technology changes. Having said that, if they show the API starburst and meet GM6049M, GM should be OK with it for its current vehicles. It wouldn't be my choice, but it would be a valid one.
 
Messages
3,094
Location
Metro Detroit
Also, for the sake of fairness, there is a link on the America's Choice site about GM's industrial oil recyling program. That program is still ongoing and GM does use AC as a supplier to cart away and re-refine oils used in plant machinery. They also have a target of 5% recycled oil usage in their factories. I was able to verify this on several of GM's internal web sites. I was not able to find any mention of automotive use of re-refined oils on those same sites.
 
Messages
615
Location
Alma, Michigan USA
Visiting auto assembly plants (locally MI), I have seen big containers of fluids that require a fork lift to handle. Everything was labelled with the spec. and manufacturer. GM plants used Mobil at that time for engine oil. Don't recall any no name or off brand stuff ever. I have read that Rolls-Royce, used re-refined Duckhams, in the old days before BMW bought them. I don't know or have ever heard of re-refined Mobil 1 products or any of the Synthetics. May I ask some of our more learned brethren in the oil business, does such a thing exist? [I dont know] What is the grade that is re-refined the most, I would guess maybe 15W40? [Cheers!]
 
Messages
453
Location
stanwood, wash.
these are the same letters I saw over 10 years ago when I was reading up on the re-refined oil I was using than being made by a company in Tacoma, Wash. called "Lilyblad". I used it for the first 100thou miles of my 96 Geo Metro but when Al's Auto Supply(a local auto parts store) was bought by Shucks/Kragen it was not sold by them and I could not get it anymore. It must have worked ok being the car is still running today with almost 300thou miles on it.
 
Messages
9,448
Location
USA
G-ManII, While you do not need my endorsement at all I am behind you 100%! You arguments are clear, concise and spot-on!!! I would find it diffacult to belive that anyone would put an oil made from the listed bases stock's into any engine let alone a new one as factory fill. I have seen the parts list for service engine and factory engines for GM products includeing the Duramax diesel. In all cases the oils listed were either Mobil conventional oil or Mobil-1 synthetic. In the case of the Duramax XD3 was listed ont he build sheet. GM does use a lot of Saftey-Kleen products but factory fill oil was not one of them!
 

Ray H

Thread starter
Messages
4,478
Location
Southern California
So, if I understand you correctly, G-Man II, your point is that a ten year old product data sheet trumps a one year old product data sheet and MSDS delineating current specs met with severely hydrotreated reclaimed oil? That must be the selective data interpretation choice of the decade. By that measure of your personal Pollyanna fantasy, it follows that you'd also believe there's an inexhaustable supply of crude petroleum waiting to be pumped out of the ground. What a wonderful world you live in. Too bad it's nowhere to be found in this universe. For some inexplicable reason, I suddenly recall an old definition of neurosis, psychosis, and psychiatry - the neurotic builds castles in the air; the psychotic lives in those castles; and psychiatrists collect the rent.
 
Messages
8,937
Location
SC
I just noticed that they have links to pdf files of the purported letters from these carmakers. I have serious doubts about the authenticity of the Mercedes letter for the aforementioned reasons, plus after looking at the pdf the letter is undated and is not signed by a corporate official. All these red flags spell one thing to me: BOGUS. [No no]
 
Top