I am sure Head and shoulders would too.
Mobil 1 "fails" Seq. IVA wear test.
- Thread starter Corvette Owner
- Start date
- Status
I am sure Head and shoulders would too.
Another thing to keep in mind is this test is preformed on a late 80's 2.4 L nissian SOHC flat tappet.....
Whoever said this test is like a 4 ball test, has a lot of reading to do!
I agree with others who think this "independant lab" knew what their employer was looking for, and improperly assemblyed and or improperly ran this motor in.
That or it truely was a "bad" batch of oil, and if it was, mobil 1 has defenitally corrected. The latter I find very hard to believe. Marketing b.s.
Whoever said this test is like a 4 ball test, has a lot of reading to do!
I agree with others who think this "independant lab" knew what their employer was looking for, and improperly assemblyed and or improperly ran this motor in.
That or it truely was a "bad" batch of oil, and if it was, mobil 1 has defenitally corrected. The latter I find very hard to believe. Marketing b.s.
My point continues to be that I will continue to use M-1 5w-30 synthetic in my wife's Odyssey. I just don't believe that the test offered as "proof" the oil is junk is reasonable. If it turns out Exxon Mobil has sold an oil that is not good for an engine, I and most everyone else will abandon ALL of their products FOREVER.
Given the cleaning properties of M-1, I always wonder if it is picking up old metal when it is used for the first time in an older engine and then a UOA is done.
Given the cleaning properties of M-1, I always wonder if it is picking up old metal when it is used for the first time in an older engine and then a UOA is done.
not that this thread matters but i wont use M1 bc its overrated.. lots of UOA's to alteast make this statement 50% true LOL... ill stick with shell/ penzoil, havoline or valvoline.. no one ever [deletia] about those brands haha..
Edit: Misspelling or other methods of getting around the censor software may result in suspension.
Edit: Misspelling or other methods of getting around the censor software may result in suspension.
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: Taylor
I agree with others who think this "independant lab" knew what their employer was looking for, and improperly assemblyed and or improperly ran this motor in.
This is unlikely. The probably performance of the test was "blind" In other words the technicians building each motor knew nothing of what was to be ran in the motor. the personel tracking the results were liely blind to specific information on oils as well. Any laberatory that performs ILSAC seqwuence testing must be ISO 17020 certified. It is intrinsic upon this standard that no outside influences immpact results of testing. This means a lab must maintian impartiality, independence and integrity. To assure this the test are conducted blind.
I agree with others who think this "independant lab" knew what their employer was looking for, and improperly assemblyed and or improperly ran this motor in.
This is unlikely. The probably performance of the test was "blind" In other words the technicians building each motor knew nothing of what was to be ran in the motor. the personel tracking the results were liely blind to specific information on oils as well. Any laberatory that performs ILSAC seqwuence testing must be ISO 17020 certified. It is intrinsic upon this standard that no outside influences immpact results of testing. This means a lab must maintian impartiality, independence and integrity. To assure this the test are conducted blind.
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Pert Plus does well in the 4-ball test.
lol
Pert Plus does well in the 4-ball test.
lol
I don't know what to believe and it's impossible to really know. Regardless of what you think of the Seq IVA test, you have to pass it. It's a requirement. Maybe Mobil 1 "5w30" being factory fill in some high performance engines, they traded off low temp/low rpm type wear for high temperature performance?
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: mikeg5
not that this thread matters but i wont use M1 bc its overrated.. lots of UOA's to alteast make this statement 50% true LOL... ill stick with shell/ penzoil, havoline or valvoline.. no one ever beetches about those brands haha..
Please read Doug Hillary's article on UOA's:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/index.php?...month&Itemid=78
not that this thread matters but i wont use M1 bc its overrated.. lots of UOA's to alteast make this statement 50% true LOL... ill stick with shell/ penzoil, havoline or valvoline.. no one ever beetches about those brands haha..
Please read Doug Hillary's article on UOA's:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/index.php?...month&Itemid=78
Originally Posted By: buster
I don't know what to believe and it's impossible to really know. Regardless of what you think of the Seq IVA test, you have to pass it. It's a requirement. Maybe Mobil 1 "5w30" being factory fill in some high performance engines, they traded off low temp/low rpm type wear for high temperature performance?
Than they had to pass it somewhere along the way!
If we knew the results of the sequence IIIG test, you'd have your answer. Not so sure this is the case though, many oils do well in both.
I don't know what to believe and it's impossible to really know. Regardless of what you think of the Seq IVA test, you have to pass it. It's a requirement. Maybe Mobil 1 "5w30" being factory fill in some high performance engines, they traded off low temp/low rpm type wear for high temperature performance?
Than they had to pass it somewhere along the way!
If we knew the results of the sequence IIIG test, you'd have your answer. Not so sure this is the case though, many oils do well in both.
Originally Posted By: Bryanccfshr
Originally Posted By: Taylor
I agree with others who think this "independant lab" knew what their employer was looking for, and improperly assemblyed and or improperly ran this motor in.
This is unlikely. The probably performance of the test was "blind" In other words the technicians building each motor knew nothing of what was to be ran in the motor. the personel tracking the results were liely blind to specific information on oils as well. Any laberatory that performs ILSAC seqwuence testing must be ISO 17020 certified. It is intrinsic upon this standard that no outside influences immpact results of testing. This means a lab must maintian impartiality, independence and integrity. To assure this the test are conducted blind.
Very true, but this was not preformed by the API to obtain the SM badge. This lab was probably hired by the marketing department of a competitor....
If indeed everything was done properly, I want to see it done again. Is here any way to check the results of different oils and the test preformed?
Originally Posted By: Taylor
I agree with others who think this "independant lab" knew what their employer was looking for, and improperly assemblyed and or improperly ran this motor in.
This is unlikely. The probably performance of the test was "blind" In other words the technicians building each motor knew nothing of what was to be ran in the motor. the personel tracking the results were liely blind to specific information on oils as well. Any laberatory that performs ILSAC seqwuence testing must be ISO 17020 certified. It is intrinsic upon this standard that no outside influences immpact results of testing. This means a lab must maintian impartiality, independence and integrity. To assure this the test are conducted blind.
Very true, but this was not preformed by the API to obtain the SM badge. This lab was probably hired by the marketing department of a competitor....
If indeed everything was done properly, I want to see it done again. Is here any way to check the results of different oils and the test preformed?
Originally Posted By: Taylor
Very true, but this was not preformed by the API to obtain the SM badge. This lab was probably hired by the marketing department of a competitor....
this is the point that many seem to have missed. if it truly failed then why hasn't API yanked SM, and GM yanked GM4718M?
the lab only has to be ISO 17020 if they are going to use it for certification purposes. the marketing department can hire "Joes Salvage and Analytics" if they want.
Very true, but this was not preformed by the API to obtain the SM badge. This lab was probably hired by the marketing department of a competitor....
this is the point that many seem to have missed. if it truly failed then why hasn't API yanked SM, and GM yanked GM4718M?
the lab only has to be ISO 17020 if they are going to use it for certification purposes. the marketing department can hire "Joes Salvage and Analytics" if they want.
I'm reminded of one portion of a statistics class where the topic was how to lie using statistics. The intent of the topic was to make the students aware of how statistics could be manipulated so you could be on guard for such shenanigans.
Things that are way outside of the pattern are referred to as outliers. Sometimes no explanation could be found for why they were so far away from the standard deviation, but yet they were there.
When running a series of test, even under controlled conditions, occasionally an outlier would show up where the results didn't match the pattern of the rest of the tests. All of the scientific controls were in place, often enough to satisfy technically minded people that the test was legitimate. And yet is was not. Those paying for the tests were looking for an outlier, and discarded the rest of the results so they could promote their own agenda.
Is this what happened here? We may never know.
As I mentioned before, I view this whole silly thing about Mobil 1 failing this test, without more disclosure, as just pot shots to try to dislodge Mobil 1 from their position as "king of the mountain" as market share leader. Mobil is wise to not respond. There is no need to provide a forum for those with lesser market share.
Things that are way outside of the pattern are referred to as outliers. Sometimes no explanation could be found for why they were so far away from the standard deviation, but yet they were there.
When running a series of test, even under controlled conditions, occasionally an outlier would show up where the results didn't match the pattern of the rest of the tests. All of the scientific controls were in place, often enough to satisfy technically minded people that the test was legitimate. And yet is was not. Those paying for the tests were looking for an outlier, and discarded the rest of the results so they could promote their own agenda.
Is this what happened here? We may never know.
As I mentioned before, I view this whole silly thing about Mobil 1 failing this test, without more disclosure, as just pot shots to try to dislodge Mobil 1 from their position as "king of the mountain" as market share leader. Mobil is wise to not respond. There is no need to provide a forum for those with lesser market share.
Originally Posted By: cheetahdriver
Originally Posted By: Taylor
Very true, but this was not preformed by the API to obtain the SM badge. This lab was probably hired by the marketing department of a competitor....
this is the point that many seem to have missed. if it truly failed then why hasn't API yanked SM, and GM yanked GM4718M?
the lab only has to be ISO 17020 if they are going to use it for certification purposes. the marketing department can hire "Joes Salvage and Analytics" if they want.
As someone mentioned earlier, there is a grace period in which they are allowed to "correct the problem"
Originally Posted By: Taylor
Very true, but this was not preformed by the API to obtain the SM badge. This lab was probably hired by the marketing department of a competitor....
this is the point that many seem to have missed. if it truly failed then why hasn't API yanked SM, and GM yanked GM4718M?
the lab only has to be ISO 17020 if they are going to use it for certification purposes. the marketing department can hire "Joes Salvage and Analytics" if they want.
As someone mentioned earlier, there is a grace period in which they are allowed to "correct the problem"
If there is a grace period, I'm willing to bet XOM corrected the problem, and wasted no time doing it. The only thing that stinks about all of this, and I will use the word "if", so I am not accusing anyone of wrong doing.
"If" there is any truth to the claims about it failing the test, and "if" they did correct it, what happens to the people that got the bad batches of the 5W30? I guess they, the car owners would have to prove the product was bad, or substandard? That's "if" a problem arises, how about a year down the road? Odds are it is not likely to happen, but what "if" it did?
There's a match I'd rather not be in.
"If" there is any truth to the claims about it failing the test, and "if" they did correct it, what happens to the people that got the bad batches of the 5W30? I guess they, the car owners would have to prove the product was bad, or substandard? That's "if" a problem arises, how about a year down the road? Odds are it is not likely to happen, but what "if" it did?
There's a match I'd rather not be in.
Originally Posted By: Taylor
As someone mentioned earlier, there is a grace period in which they are allowed to "correct the problem"
Do we know there is a grace period, or is that speculation?
Here is what the API said:
"API tests 600 licensed oils per year to confirm that they meet our requirements. This would include a variety of ExxonMobil products. We don’t merely accept an oil marketer’s word. I can’t really explain why Ashland chose to do what it did, but ExxonMobil has taken steps to confirm its product meets our requirements.
Kevin Ferrick
American Petroleum Institute
Engine Oil Licensing and Certification System"
That does not sound to me like M1 failed the test, and then corrected it. If If M1 had failed any test conducted by the API, the API would not have said that they "can't really explain why Ashland chose to do what it did."
As someone mentioned earlier, there is a grace period in which they are allowed to "correct the problem"
Do we know there is a grace period, or is that speculation?
Here is what the API said:
"API tests 600 licensed oils per year to confirm that they meet our requirements. This would include a variety of ExxonMobil products. We don’t merely accept an oil marketer’s word. I can’t really explain why Ashland chose to do what it did, but ExxonMobil has taken steps to confirm its product meets our requirements.
Kevin Ferrick
American Petroleum Institute
Engine Oil Licensing and Certification System"
That does not sound to me like M1 failed the test, and then corrected it. If If M1 had failed any test conducted by the API, the API would not have said that they "can't really explain why Ashland chose to do what it did."
Mark, nowhere in the statement from API does it say that we tested Mobil 1 5W-30 during the time period in question and it passed the sequence IVA test.
A class in lawyerese, corporate speak, and weasel word should be a required class at the high school level.
Ed
A class in lawyerese, corporate speak, and weasel word should be a required class at the high school level.
Ed
Last edited:
I am reluctant to keep this ball in play, but I have to ask: If M1 could not "pass" the Sequence IVA test, or the product lacked the ability to protect against unacceptable shearing and/or galling, wouldn't that be obvious now after all the years that M1 has been in the engines of tens of thousands of consumers?
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
Similar threads
