Quote:
.... THAT is EXACTLY what Mobil did. They paid for the test. They paid for the brochure. I think Mobil even helped develop the test. ....
The first mention of the HTO-06 standard I see is in the July, 2006, "Acura Service News" which indicates that Honda R&D developed the standard, and that they developed it for the new RDX.
Sounds much like the Corvette spec some years ago when heat was killing engines and the current VW 505.1 spec for their finicky diesel with a special pump.
As an OEM, ExxonMobil had a shot to qualify its oil to meet the standard at its own expense, much as it did for the Corvette, the Viper, Porsche, and some of the other high-performance manufacturers that use Mobil 1 as factory fill.
It is my understanding that one other major oil company has since qualified a synthetic under the HTO-06 requirements and will be so labeling their packaging.
ExxonMobil clearly labels its products when it meets a standard, and in common with other major oil companies pays out-of-pocket for the testing to accomplish that certification.
In the rare case where ExxonMobil recommends the use of a product but does not certify a product to a standard, such as the Chrysler ATF+4 certification process, it is clearly labeled as a "recommendation".
An example is Mobil 1 Synthetic ATF, which is marked as certified to a number of standards, and then bears the legend "Also recommended by ExxonMobil for Chrysler automatic transmissions".
In that case ExxonMobil has conducted its own tests in its sizeable test fleet and laboratories and fully stands behind its recommendation.
ExxonMobil does not cite non-standard specifications and tests, such as using the ASTM D-4172 Four Ball Wear test for motor oils, in its literature. The ultimate test for a motor oil is use in the crankcase of actual motor vehicles, not in gaming spec sheets.
ExxonMobil pays for its own advertising materials, ads, television spots, and so on.
