Oil wear comparison spreadsheet

[kender]

The Castrol Edge website still makes the claim as well.
I believe there will be more valvetrain wear with Mobil 1. That does not mean your engine won't last 200,000-300,000 miles though. However,for peace of mind, I will use something else.

 

[sangyup81]

I will take a little wear for a cleaner engine as long as the little wear doesn't kill my engine before 500k miles =)

 

[buster]

Originally Posted By: sangyup81
I will take a little wear for a cleaner engine as long as the little wear doesn't kill my engine before 500k miles =)


Mobil 1 performs exceptionally well in the TEOST/Seq IIIG and will keep hot running engines clean and deposit free.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: mva
Again this is straight from Valvoline:

Q Why should I choose Valvoline SynPower motor oil over Mobil 1?

A: Mobil 1 5W30 DOES NOT MEET the most basic API SM or ILSAC GF-4 specifications. That means Mobil 1 5W30 cannot meet basic GM, Ford, Chrysler or Honda Specifications. Valvoline Synpower exceeds the specifications in all tests.


The thing of it is, however, is that Valvoline does not write or police SM standards. The API does. The API has licenced M1 5w30 as an SM oil. Valvoline's claim is irrelevant and verifiably wrong.

I'm not going to debate the SM issue further. Mobil 1 5w30 is definitively and verifiably an SM oil, according to the very people who govern the standard. I've provided all the evidence supporting this. Valvoline's erroneous web claim does not change anything. They can claim it's an SB oil for all I care. The licensing authority states otherwise.

 

[Drew99GT]

The oil manufacturers submit their own testing to the API for licensing. The API does not do the testing. They do random testing to make sure products are meeting spec. The API licensed Mobil 1 5w30 based on Exxon's submitted testing. Which means the oil on the shelf (that Valvoline purchased and tested) isn't the same stuff Exxon Mobil tested and submitted for license to the API. This has been gone over since well before you were even a member Garak.

Valvoline's claim certainly IS NOT irrelevant, and Exxon or anyone else, to include the API, has not shown any facts to prove Valvoline's claim is "verifiably wrong".

Think for a second: Valvoline, Quakerstate, and Castrol all used the claim that Mobil 1 failed SM/GF-4 specifications in mass marketing. Do you honestly think Exxon Mobil would let that go unchallenged if it wasn't true???

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
The oil manufacturers submit their own testing to the API for licensing. The API does not do the testing. They do random testing to make sure products are meeting spec. The API licensed Mobil 1 5w30 based on Exxon's submitted testing. Which means the oil on the shelf (that Valvoline purchased and tested) isn't the same stuff Exxon Mobil tested and submitted for license to the API. This has been gone over since well before you were even a member Garak.


First off, I was reading this site religiously before I even became a member or started posting. I'm quite aware of the debate and how the certification is obtained.

I don't doubt that a substandard sample was obtained. By that same token, do you honestly believe that Exxon Mobil is the only big oil company that ever let some substandard product hit the shelves?

If we're going to accept that Exxon Mobil either knowingly labelled substandard oil as SM (fraudulent) or unknowingly did this (negligent), then it's not a stretch that another oil company would also fudge numbers, alter a sample, or engage in industrial espionage or sabotage to ensure the test results that they wished to see. None of the oil companies qualify as saints, and none qualify as the devil, either.

API random testing apparently did not come across any substandard samples. Hence, the SM licence remained intact. IF the API only rarely comes across substandard samples in their random testing, that means either their testing is woefully underutilized, or most oil companies make some pretty darn good products.

Others have pointed out correspondence with the API. Exxon Mobil did not let it go unchallenged. The matter has been addressed. Mobil 1 5w30 was subsequently tested and met the SM standard. The claims of the other oil companies are irrelevant because they are dated. If you've read my other posts, I've slammed Exxon Mobil when they engaged in questionable marketing tactics. I'm not going to give other companies a free pass on the issue, either.

It is unfair to categorically dismiss Mobil 1 5w30 as not meeting SM standards. It's the same thing as blaming QS for sludge and Penzzoil for waxy buildup, whatever that means. It's all shoddy, misleading, and unethical.

 

[Drew99GT]

Originally Posted By: Garak

Exxon Mobil did not let it go unchallenged. The matter has been addressed. Mobil 1 5w30 was subsequently tested and met the SM standard.


Where? Where and when was Mobil 1 "tested", and by whom? When did Exxon publicly challenge the claims in the court of public opinion?

I'll tell you. They did not address the matter at hand. They resubmitted test data to the API showing Mobil 1 meets API specifications. You do realize the API is not some police agency that monitors oil companies. The API, and it's licensing, is essentially an industry run organization.

Exxon Mobil DID NOTHING to counter the public advertising claims made by 3 competitors. Period. End of story. Mobil 1 was tested by 3 competitors and an independent lab and was found to not meet basic API specifications, those 3 competitors (especially Valvoline) continue to make their allegations, and Exxon Mobil has done nothing to refute them other then to submit testing to the the API claiming their product meets spec (remember, the API is essentially and industry lobby group run and operated BY THE OIL INDUSTRY).

Until Exxon sues Valvoline, BP, and Shell, the only thing a thinking man can conclude is that Exxon screwed up big time.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Where? Where and when was Mobil 1 "tested", and by whom? When did Exxon publicly challenge the claims in the court of public opinion?


I don't doubt that Exxon Mobil screwed up. It's certainly within the realm of possibility. However, when retesting was conducted, that was good enough for me. It may not be in the court of public opinion. It may not be good enough for Exxon Mobil's competitors.

It's good enough for me, however. I don't worry about what the general public thinks about oils, nor do I go to a competitor for advice on another competitor's oils.

The general public tends to fall into the "3,000 mile/3 mo" club or the "oil is a lifetime fluid" club. Neither of these opinions are very helpful. Oil companies, by their very nature, promote their products as superior to all others.

 

[sangyup81]

Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Until Exxon sues Valvoline, BP, and Shell, the only thing a thinking man can conclude is that Exxon screwed up big time.

You are free to see that as a requirement. I don't. Exxon went to the API instead of court and instead of wasting advertising dollars on doing something that would only acknowledge companies that are still trying to chase the success of M1.

For every one of you that thinks this way, there are many more that simply don't care. Even if feelings are shaken on M1 5w30, people would just switch to M1 0w30 or M1 EP 5w30. New vehicle requirements of 5w20 and 0w20 are already switching people off 5w30 as it is.

 

[sangyup81]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Where? Where and when was Mobil 1 "tested", and by whom? When did Exxon publicly challenge the claims in the court of public opinion?


I don't doubt that Exxon Mobil screwed up. It's certainly within the realm of possibility. However, when retesting was conducted, that was good enough for me. It may not be in the court of public opinion. It may not be good enough for Exxon Mobil's competitors.

It's good enough for me, however. I don't worry about what the general public thinks about oils, nor do I go to a competitor for advice on another competitor's oils.

The general public tends to fall into the "3,000 mile/3 mo" club or the "oil is a lifetime fluid" club. Neither of these opinions are very helpful. Oil companies, by their very nature, promote their products as superior to all others.


80% of the "public" use conventionals or whatever the mechanic wants to put in. The synthetic crowd is filled with people who are very brand loyal. As I said before, all your M1 5w30 bashing will accomplish is get those users to switch to M1 0w30 or M1 EP

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: sangyup81
For every one of you that thinks this way, there are many more that simply don't care.


Quite right. My 1991 Audi didn't care last winter. I have zero need for an SM oil. I'm confident that Mobil 1 5w30 is SM. If it isn't, it doesn't harm me in the least.

Even for people still under warranty, if their vehicle calls for SM rated 5w30, and they use Mobil 1, and it somehow causes a catastrophic failure, realistically, that's between Exxon Mobil and the automobile manufacturer. It's not the fault of the owner or mechanic who put in a [nominally] SM approved oil.

I am confident that Exxon Mobil makes good products. I'm also confident that BP and SOPUS do the same thing. I've used products from all of them with absolutely no problems, ever, with a combined fleet mileage in the millions. Competitors' allegations aren't going to give me a stroke, nor are they going to cause me to strike a variety of oil off my shopping list unless they can prove an ongoing, tangible problem.

 

[Gary Allan]

You keep placing bombs to explode in continued debate.

You should just say, "Yeah, they had an issue. It was corrected" and move on. Leaving nothing more to debate. Yet you insist on some end runaround apologist rationalist spin-doctor-esque continued dialog.

Like I said (either in this or another thread) M1 will not love you any more or any less because of your blind devotion to the product. It will slosh around in its bottle in total indifference to your allegiance to it.

..but carry on ...

That said, XOM has made many of the leading edge products over the past decades that also have an incredible level of distribution worldwide.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Until Exxon sues Valvoline, BP, and Shell, the only thing a thinking man can conclude is that Exxon screwed up big time.

You're still thinking about this very narrowly. There is no way to rule out the possibility that they just don't feel they stand to gain anything by suing. Don't confuse your (and others') strong feelings with a tangible loss of sales.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
You keep placing bombs to explode in continued debate.

And what do you call the post you just made?

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Until Exxon sues Valvoline, BP, and Shell, the only thing a thinking man can conclude is that Exxon screwed up big time.

You're still thinking about this very narrowly. There is no way to rule out the possibility that they just don't feel they stand to gain anything by suing. Don't confuse your (and others') strong feelings with a tangible loss of sales.


Drew,
I'm not a lawer and I doubt that you are. Lawyers for billion dollar corp. see do things in a differant light than we do.

 

[Gary Allan]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
You keep placing bombs to explode in continued debate.

And what do you call the post you just made?


I'm not among those unwilling to simply concede to the obvious and feel need to broaden the dialog to divert it from the fundamental issue.

Meanwhile, if you were taking notes, I've continually conceded the XOM makes some of the best lubricants.

I never said that it is some permanent blemish that detracts from the vast number of achievements that they've had over decades. I'm not saying that they're evil, deceptive, con men trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

Can you just say, "Yeah, they were out of compliance at some point". Shrug and move on? Nope.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
You keep placing bombs to explode in continued debate.

You should just say, "Yeah, they had an issue. It was corrected" and move on. Leaving nothing more to debate. Yet you insist on some end runaround apologist rationalist spin-doctor-esque continued dialog.


You're absolutely right. I thought I promised to quit debating the SM issue.

In any case, I'm confident in just about any name brand oil out there. They're all fine products. BP, SOPUS, Exxon Mobil, and Royal Purple have all treated me just fine.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Meanwhile, if you were taking notes, I've continually conceded the XOM makes some of the best lubricants.


As an aside, and I'm not trying to kiss someone's behind here, the best counter-example to unethical marketing are the Amsoil reps. I can't speak for the company itself, and I've never had the opportunity to use Amsoil products.

However, most of the Amsoil reps on this site are very forthright and ethical. Sure, they like their product and they believe in it. They don't, however, push it as the holy grail of all oils for all conditions, all circumstances, all OCIs, all vehicles, and all budgets.

It is quite refreshing.

 

[porkchop01]

I have been reading this thread from the start and some of you guys get pretty unravled about M1. I happen to use all the big names at the moment, My Harley gets M1 Vtwin, mower gets Valvoline, dirt bike gets Castrol, Cars and trucks get PYB. So far there hasnt been a single issue with any engine I have. Its just oil! If the higher Iron form M1 was an issue then there should be many cars out there that are showing some sort of problems(Burning oil)with low miles. But thats not the case is it? BTW My Bike still runs perfect on M1.

 

[ottotheclown]

I will pledge a donation to this web site if a moderator locks this thread, wow what a waste of energy saying the same things over and over again. The op is a teenager nothing wrong with that, and the effort was great but pla eese.