Mobil 1 "fails" Seq. IVA wear test.
- Thread starter Corvette Owner
- Start date
- Status
No, Mark, they did not say their oil meets the requirements for the GF-4 license. They said their license is still valid. Big difference!
Ed
Ed
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
I won't believe a "spokesperson" EVER, and until EM either files a lawsuit or puts out some real factual information, and if and when both Valvoline and Castrol stop using this stuff in their advertising, maybe I believe it won't be true.
Until then, all I can go by is the best available information.
I believe the EM spokesperson as to what they said, namely that Mobil 1 5W-30 (or any other product) has not lost their GF-4 licensee and that the licenses are valid. One would think that Valvoline would raise the issue with the group that licenses GF-4 and have Mobil 1 5W-30 stripped of that designation if there really was a problem with M1 5W-30 other than a bad sample or a bad engine used in a particular test.
You also seem to be saying that if one sues the accuser that proves that the accuser is wrong. I don't think there is any "best available information" in the history of legal proceedings to support that theory.
Personally, I don't know what the truth is. Maybe there was a bad batch of M1 and that problem has been fixed. Maybe it was a bad engine used in the test. Maybe the "independent lab" wanted to make sure they got more business from Valvoline in the future. Or maybe Mobil 1 is a complete scam.
But the best available information is that no licensing board, nor the API, nor any race team, nor auto manufacturer that uses M1 as factory fill or factory recommended oil, seems to have abandoned Mobil 1 as a result of these claims. That may not be the complete story, but that is some pretty relevant "best available information" IMO.
I won't believe a "spokesperson" EVER, and until EM either files a lawsuit or puts out some real factual information, and if and when both Valvoline and Castrol stop using this stuff in their advertising, maybe I believe it won't be true.
Until then, all I can go by is the best available information.
I believe the EM spokesperson as to what they said, namely that Mobil 1 5W-30 (or any other product) has not lost their GF-4 licensee and that the licenses are valid. One would think that Valvoline would raise the issue with the group that licenses GF-4 and have Mobil 1 5W-30 stripped of that designation if there really was a problem with M1 5W-30 other than a bad sample or a bad engine used in a particular test.
You also seem to be saying that if one sues the accuser that proves that the accuser is wrong. I don't think there is any "best available information" in the history of legal proceedings to support that theory.
Personally, I don't know what the truth is. Maybe there was a bad batch of M1 and that problem has been fixed. Maybe it was a bad engine used in the test. Maybe the "independent lab" wanted to make sure they got more business from Valvoline in the future. Or maybe Mobil 1 is a complete scam.
But the best available information is that no licensing board, nor the API, nor any race team, nor auto manufacturer that uses M1 as factory fill or factory recommended oil, seems to have abandoned Mobil 1 as a result of these claims. That may not be the complete story, but that is some pretty relevant "best available information" IMO.
Did QS learn nothing from the Slick 50 lawsuits? 
Originally Posted By: Mark888
Originally Posted By: ADFD1
I'm thinking if EM could file a claim and shut them up they would?
AD
No, if you file a lawsuit, you just give more publicity to the claim. Just like when Tom Cruise was accused by some guy of being gay, Cruise sued him (against the advice of his lawyers) and won, but a lot of people still think he is gay (he is not).
BTW, here is the denial from EM:
“While we are aware of Valvoline's assertions, ExxonMobil stands behind the quality of Mobil 1 and all of our lubes products,” company spokeswoman Prem Nair told Lube Report. “ExxonMobil has not lost GF-4 licenses for any Mobil 1 products, and our GF-4 licenses for all product lines are valid.”
http://www.imakenews.com/lng/e_article001295961.cfm?x=b11,0,w
Now, I don't really know if Mobil 1 has a problem with the wear test or not. But they do seem to have denied that their oils fail to meet specifications.
If XOM wins it would put it all to rest. Then they could say a court ruled all the oil companies claiming their products weren't up to par were wrong. I see it as a big plus, but if they end up wrong, then what????
As far as Tom Cruise? Legally?
AD
Originally Posted By: ADFD1
I'm thinking if EM could file a claim and shut them up they would?
AD
No, if you file a lawsuit, you just give more publicity to the claim. Just like when Tom Cruise was accused by some guy of being gay, Cruise sued him (against the advice of his lawyers) and won, but a lot of people still think he is gay (he is not).
BTW, here is the denial from EM:
“While we are aware of Valvoline's assertions, ExxonMobil stands behind the quality of Mobil 1 and all of our lubes products,” company spokeswoman Prem Nair told Lube Report. “ExxonMobil has not lost GF-4 licenses for any Mobil 1 products, and our GF-4 licenses for all product lines are valid.”
http://www.imakenews.com/lng/e_article001295961.cfm?x=b11,0,w
Now, I don't really know if Mobil 1 has a problem with the wear test or not. But they do seem to have denied that their oils fail to meet specifications.
If XOM wins it would put it all to rest. Then they could say a court ruled all the oil companies claiming their products weren't up to par were wrong. I see it as a big plus, but if they end up wrong, then what????
As far as Tom Cruise? Legally?
AD
Originally Posted By: edhackett
No, Mark, they did not say their oil meets the requirements for the GF-4 license. They said their license is still valid. Big difference!
Ed
Maybe. Or maybe you are just splitting hairs. Personally I would not consider a license to be valid if it no longer meet the specs as set forth in the license.
If Mobil 1 does not meet GF-4 specifications, then why doesn't Valvoline sue them for false advertising, or appeal to the API, etc? Have any auto manufacturers that use Mobil 1 as factory fill and require GF-4 decided to not use M1 any longer?
Like I said, I don't claim to know the truth, but I have not seen any corroborating evidence from anywhere to back up the claims that Mobil 1 does not meet GF-4 specs.
No, Mark, they did not say their oil meets the requirements for the GF-4 license. They said their license is still valid. Big difference!
Ed
Maybe. Or maybe you are just splitting hairs. Personally I would not consider a license to be valid if it no longer meet the specs as set forth in the license.
If Mobil 1 does not meet GF-4 specifications, then why doesn't Valvoline sue them for false advertising, or appeal to the API, etc? Have any auto manufacturers that use Mobil 1 as factory fill and require GF-4 decided to not use M1 any longer?
Like I said, I don't claim to know the truth, but I have not seen any corroborating evidence from anywhere to back up the claims that Mobil 1 does not meet GF-4 specs.
Originally Posted By: ADFD1
If XOM wins it would put it all to rest. Then they could say a court ruled all the oil companies claiming their products weren't up to par were wrong. I see it as a big plus, but if they end up wrong, then what????
As far as Tom Cruise? Legally? AD
Your statement about Tom Cruise completely backs up what I said above. Filing a lawsuit just gives the lies more publicity.
You obviously have no background in legal or public relations matters. Everything you said about filing a lawsuit is exactly backwards.
Like I said, why doesn't Valvoline file a lawsuit to have the GF-4 license taken away from Mobil 1 5W-30?
If XOM wins it would put it all to rest. Then they could say a court ruled all the oil companies claiming their products weren't up to par were wrong. I see it as a big plus, but if they end up wrong, then what????
As far as Tom Cruise? Legally? AD
Your statement about Tom Cruise completely backs up what I said above. Filing a lawsuit just gives the lies more publicity.
You obviously have no background in legal or public relations matters. Everything you said about filing a lawsuit is exactly backwards.
Like I said, why doesn't Valvoline file a lawsuit to have the GF-4 license taken away from Mobil 1 5W-30?
Assuming Valvoline would win such a lawsuit, what good will it do them? It's not like all those M1 5w-30 users will just switch to Valvoline.
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Assuming Valvoline would win such a lawsuit, what good will it do them? It's not like all those M1 5w-30 users will just switch to Valvoline.
Some would. Why else do you think that Valvoline paid the "independent lab" to conduct those tests?
Mobil 1 has a huge market share for synthetic oils. If everyone abandoned M1, then Valvoline would certainly get their share.
Assuming Valvoline would win such a lawsuit, what good will it do them? It's not like all those M1 5w-30 users will just switch to Valvoline.
Some would. Why else do you think that Valvoline paid the "independent lab" to conduct those tests?
Mobil 1 has a huge market share for synthetic oils. If everyone abandoned M1, then Valvoline would certainly get their share.
Originally Posted By: Mark888
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Assuming Valvoline would win such a lawsuit, what good will it do them? It's not like all those M1 5w-30 users will just switch to Valvoline.
Some would. Why else do you think that Valvoline paid the "independent lab" to conduct those tests?
A lab test is much less costly than a full blown lawsuit against a behemoth such as XOM, while the positive outcomes to Valvoline (in terms of bottom line) are questionable at best.
Quote:
Mobil 1 has a huge market share for synthetic oils. If everyone abandoned M1, then Valvoline would certainly get their share.
Enough to offset the costs incurred? A lot of the M1 5w-30 users will switch to some other Mobil product (maybe M1 EP 5w-30?). In the meantime, XOM will redesign/improve it's M1 5w-30 so by the time the verdict is reached, they will have tests to prove that it now does meet Sequence IVA. They'll blame the previous results on some refinery/distribution/mixing glitch and claim that it won't happen again. It's a lost battle for Valvoline.
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Assuming Valvoline would win such a lawsuit, what good will it do them? It's not like all those M1 5w-30 users will just switch to Valvoline.
Some would. Why else do you think that Valvoline paid the "independent lab" to conduct those tests?
A lab test is much less costly than a full blown lawsuit against a behemoth such as XOM, while the positive outcomes to Valvoline (in terms of bottom line) are questionable at best.
Quote:
Mobil 1 has a huge market share for synthetic oils. If everyone abandoned M1, then Valvoline would certainly get their share.
Enough to offset the costs incurred? A lot of the M1 5w-30 users will switch to some other Mobil product (maybe M1 EP 5w-30?). In the meantime, XOM will redesign/improve it's M1 5w-30 so by the time the verdict is reached, they will have tests to prove that it now does meet Sequence IVA. They'll blame the previous results on some refinery/distribution/mixing glitch and claim that it won't happen again. It's a lost battle for Valvoline.
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Enough to offset the costs incurred? A lot of the M1 5w-30 users will switch to some other Mobil product (maybe M1 EP 5w-30?). In the meantime, XOM will redesign/improve it's M1 5w-30 so by the time the verdict is reached, they will have tests to prove that it does meet Sequence IVA. It's a lost battle for Valvoline.
If it's a lost battle, then why did Valvoline pay for the tests and then bring it up to begin with? And then why did QS and Castol jump on it also?
It would not cost that much to file a complaint with API about the M1 GF-4 license. Castrol spent $3 million on one 30-second commercial for Edge in the last Super Bowl, and millions more since then on more commercials, far exceeding what a complaint against M1 to the GF-4 licensing body would cost.
Enough to offset the costs incurred? A lot of the M1 5w-30 users will switch to some other Mobil product (maybe M1 EP 5w-30?). In the meantime, XOM will redesign/improve it's M1 5w-30 so by the time the verdict is reached, they will have tests to prove that it does meet Sequence IVA. It's a lost battle for Valvoline.
If it's a lost battle, then why did Valvoline pay for the tests and then bring it up to begin with? And then why did QS and Castol jump on it also?
It would not cost that much to file a complaint with API about the M1 GF-4 license. Castrol spent $3 million on one 30-second commercial for Edge in the last Super Bowl, and millions more since then on more commercials, far exceeding what a complaint against M1 to the GF-4 licensing body would cost.
Boy i guess i'll stop using it now....
NOT!!!
NOT!!!
Originally Posted By: Mark888
If it's a lost battle, then why did Valvoline pay for the tests and then bring it up to begin with? And then why did QS and Castol jump on it also?
I meant lost battle in terms of the lawsuit. The lab test results are still very effective marketing tool (alas short-lived, too), and Valvoline knows that XOM can't touch it.
If it's a lost battle, then why did Valvoline pay for the tests and then bring it up to begin with? And then why did QS and Castol jump on it also?
I meant lost battle in terms of the lawsuit. The lab test results are still very effective marketing tool (alas short-lived, too), and Valvoline knows that XOM can't touch it.
Mikey, did you move to Florida?
Originally Posted By: Mark888
Originally Posted By: ADFD1
If XOM wins it would put it all to rest. Then they could say a court ruled all the oil companies claiming their products weren't up to par were wrong. I see it as a big plus, but if they end up wrong, then what????
As far as Tom Cruise? Legally? AD
Your statement about Tom Cruise completely backs up what I said above. Filing a lawsuit just gives the lies more publicity.
You obviously have no background in legal or public relations matters. Everything you said about filing a lawsuit is exactly backwards.
Like I said, why doesn't Valvoline file a lawsuit to have the GF-4 license taken away from Mobil 1 5W-30?
A clear cut victory would put it all to rest, final, over, ended, done. Also the start of a great counter ad campaign. Most smart business people know when they have a slam dunk victory, it might not be the case here. This is strictly a business matter for EM, not someone calling someone else gay?
As far as Tom Cruise goes, first I'm hearing about it today. I guess you didn't get the hidden humor in it? My bad.
AD
Originally Posted By: ADFD1
If XOM wins it would put it all to rest. Then they could say a court ruled all the oil companies claiming their products weren't up to par were wrong. I see it as a big plus, but if they end up wrong, then what????
As far as Tom Cruise? Legally? AD
Your statement about Tom Cruise completely backs up what I said above. Filing a lawsuit just gives the lies more publicity.
You obviously have no background in legal or public relations matters. Everything you said about filing a lawsuit is exactly backwards.
Like I said, why doesn't Valvoline file a lawsuit to have the GF-4 license taken away from Mobil 1 5W-30?
A clear cut victory would put it all to rest, final, over, ended, done. Also the start of a great counter ad campaign. Most smart business people know when they have a slam dunk victory, it might not be the case here. This is strictly a business matter for EM, not someone calling someone else gay?
As far as Tom Cruise goes, first I'm hearing about it today. I guess you didn't get the hidden humor in it? My bad.
AD
Originally Posted By: Mark888
That may not be the complete story, but that is some pretty relevant "best available information" IMO.
The best available information is 3 prominant EM competitors are advertising that that Mobil 1 doesn't meet minimum API specs, and EM won't do a [censored] thing about it.
That may not be the complete story, but that is some pretty relevant "best available information" IMO.
The best available information is 3 prominant EM competitors are advertising that that Mobil 1 doesn't meet minimum API specs, and EM won't do a [censored] thing about it.
Last edited:
Quote:
ExxonMobil has confirmed to us that their 5W-30 Mobil 1 product meets ILSAC GF-4 and API SM requirements. This includes passing data in the IVA.
Kevin Ferrick
American Petroleum Institute
Engine Oil Licensing and Certification System
Quote:
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
I emailed the API about this issue awhile ago because I felt XOM was acting arrogant by not responding. This was what the API told me regarding Ashland's claim.
Take it for what it is. I'm not on either side. It will always remain unknown IMO. It's anyone's guess. Ike?
ExxonMobil has confirmed to us that their 5W-30 Mobil 1 product meets ILSAC GF-4 and API SM requirements. This includes passing data in the IVA.
Kevin Ferrick
American Petroleum Institute
Engine Oil Licensing and Certification System
Quote:
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
I emailed the API about this issue awhile ago because I felt XOM was acting arrogant by not responding. This was what the API told me regarding Ashland's claim.
Take it for what it is. I'm not on either side. It will always remain unknown IMO. It's anyone's guess. Ike?
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
The best available information is 3 prominant EM competitors are advertising that that Mobil 1 doesn't meet minimum API specs, and EM won't do a [censored] thing about it.
All 3 are going by the original Valvoline claim. If Mobil 1 was not the market leader they probably would file suit to gain publicity, but if you are the market leader you don't need publicity.
It is just like when newbies ask on this forum all the time if it is true that Mobil 1 no longer has PAO. Mobil 1 may have cut their PAO to 50%, but it is still way more than any major competitor, but people will believe the rumors even when they are false.
The best available information is 3 prominant EM competitors are advertising that that Mobil 1 doesn't meet minimum API specs, and EM won't do a [censored] thing about it.
All 3 are going by the original Valvoline claim. If Mobil 1 was not the market leader they probably would file suit to gain publicity, but if you are the market leader you don't need publicity.
It is just like when newbies ask on this forum all the time if it is true that Mobil 1 no longer has PAO. Mobil 1 may have cut their PAO to 50%, but it is still way more than any major competitor, but people will believe the rumors even when they are false.
Originally Posted By: Mark888
Personally I would not consider a license to be valid if it no longer meet the specs as set forth in the license.
You should personally read up on API licensing. Licensees are given a grace period if they are found to not meet spec. IE, the API label won't come off the bottle until after the grace period.
What a shocker, considering the API IS the oil industry.
Personally I would not consider a license to be valid if it no longer meet the specs as set forth in the license.
You should personally read up on API licensing. Licensees are given a grace period if they are found to not meet spec. IE, the API label won't come off the bottle until after the grace period.
What a shocker, considering the API IS the oil industry.
Originally Posted By: Mark888
All 3 are going by the original Valvoline claim.
Wrong.
All 3 are going by the original Valvoline claim.
Wrong.
- Status
Similar threads
