Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: FrankN4


I am not an attorney nor do I portray one on television.

And here I thought you stared in Jag

Frank D

 

[buster]

API does perform random sampling to keep an eye on quality control. As much as people knock the API, once you venture outside of it, you don't know what you are receiving. It can work both ways too, as superior oils could potentially be made. $45,000 for a IIIG piston is a lot of $, so it hurts the little guys.

Just think of how many other oils on the market that are not API licensed may or may not pass the Seq IVA for API SM. It's there for a reason. The irony of all this is that it's XOM.

 

[rg200amp]

Originally Posted By: HondaMan
Well... Redline is not on an API list, if we're gonna run a non-conforming oil, might as well be running something really tricky

Funny how the following phrase is thrown around the board so much:
"Any modern API SM oil will do really well."

Ooooops guess that leaves out M1 5w30

There are oils that do not carry a API Sprcs. Amsoil is one. Just because they do not hold the API Spec does not mean there bad oils. They can be just as good, if not better than others that do hold the Specs.

The point here is: Mobil 1 is sold as a oil that MEETs and HAS the API Specs. And it is used as OEM oil because of that.

So we will see what happens.

 

[Geonerd]

Originally Posted By: bulwnkl


I agree, and thank you for grounding us a bit, Johnny. Sadly, that makes it all the more disappointing (frankly suspicious in my mind) that XOM's product was tested out of spec. XOM has the facilities, talent, and resources to know exactly how their product performs at all times.


Just remember,
Dilbert is REAL! Ego and stupidity are universal!

In a big corporation like that, there's always room for some pointy-haired manager to come along and screw things up. It's entirely possible that the remains of half a dozen engineering failure reports are sitting in some middle-manager's shredder, all so he can show an improvement in his division's profit margin.

 

[Brian Barnhart]

Originally Posted By: buster
Just think of how many other oils on the market that are not API licensed may or may not pass the Seq IVA for API SM. It's there for a reason...

However, it's beginning to look like conformance to API licensing is based chiefly on the honor system. I'd say the "reason" is starting to shear.

 

[Riptide]

FYI

Mobil 1 has $10 rebate up on their site. You have to d/l a form and send it in with proof of purchase.

 

[FrankN4]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: FrankN4


I am not an attorney nor do I portray one on television.

And here I thought you stared in Jag

Frank D


Naaaw.....everyone does make that mistake because we look so much alike

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: Riptide
FYI

Mobil 1 has $10 rebate up on their site. You have to d/l a form and send it in with proof of purchase.


Now, if CSK or PB has BOGO during the rebate period (from Apr 01 till Aug 31, 2009) then it will be nice.

 

[mva]

Originally Posted By: Brian Barnhart

However, it's beginning to look like conformance to API licensing is based chiefly on the honor system. I'd say the "reason" is starting to shear.


I agree!

From the API standard:

"As noted in the licensing agreement, the marketer is solely responsible for ensuring that the
performance characteristics of the oil product displaying an API Mark or Marks meet all requirements for
the Mark or Marks"

It's a case of the fox guarding the hen house.

 

[7055]

Anybody? What is a VOA?

 

[greenaccord02]

Virgin Oil Analysis

 

[rg200amp]

Virgin oil Analysis-

It is a lab test on unused oil. Like a UOA, only with new oil.

 

[wgtoys]

I haven't bothered lately, but for quite some time I used to read Mobil-1 UOA threads here on BITOG and I, like others, noticed that the Fe numbers were often higher for Mobil-1 in an application than other oils were (in those cases where the user posted multiple data points). We have been speculating about these high Fe numbers here for years, but without access to expensive controlled testing all we could do is speculate. Now we see Valvoline publishing data about camshaft wear rates which indeed seems to show clearly that in certain applications at least Mobil-1 has yield much higher camshaft wear than a competing lubricant.

Many excuses have been given for the Mobil-1 high Fe UOA readings. Everything from particle sizes to magic cleaning abilities have been used to hand wave away the data.

I've always thought there was some real fire behind the smoke, and this latest bit of data dump by Valvoline is consistent with the idea that at least in some situations Mobil-1 allows much more wear of the camshaft than do some competing solutions. Also, it is quite interesting to me that Mobil's official response doesn't directly challenge or refute Valvoline's claims. Mobil is hiding behind "we are licensed, don't worry". All very reminiscent of the weasel words they used when challenged on the base oil composition of Mobil-1. They would never say "we don't use Group III base oils in Mobil-1".

As far as API involvement, I don't believe the API does any actual testing. The API issues procedures and standards and then the manufacturers self-certify against them ... just like the EPA's fuel economy testing program, BTW.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: wgtoys
I haven't bothered lately, but for quite some time I used to read Mobil-1 UOA threads here on BITOG and I, like others, noticed that the Fe numbers were often higher for Mobil-1 in an application than other oils were (in those cases where the user posted multiple data points). We have been speculating about these high Fe numbers here for years, but without access to expensive controlled testing all we could do is speculate. Now we see Valvoline publishing data about camshaft wear rates which indeed seems to show clearly that in certain applications at least Mobil-1 has yield much higher camshaft wear than a competing lubricant.

Many excuses have been given for the Mobil-1 high Fe UOA readings. Everything from particle sizes to magic cleaning abilities have been used to hand wave away the data.

I've always thought there was some real fire behind the smoke, and this latest bit of data dump by Valvoline is consistent with the idea that at least in some situations Mobil-1 allows much more wear of the camshaft than do some competing solutions.



I assume you mean flat tappet only?

Because I can show you the 300,000Km camshaft out of my Mustang. But it's roller.

EDIT: have the one out of the Townie as well.

 

[wgtoys]

"Because I can show you the 300,000Km camshaft out of my Mustang."

Can you show me wear measurements showing the dimensions when new and after 300Km of use?

I'm not saying Mobil-1 is a horrible oil. I am saying that there is a substantial amount of data which makes one think that in at least some applications Mobil-1 might not give the absolute lowest possible wear compared to competing products.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: wgtoys
"Because I can show you the 300,000Km camshaft out of my Mustang."

Can you show me wear measurements showing the dimensions when new and after 300Km of use?

I'm not saying Mobil-1 is a horrible oil. I am saying that there is a substantial amount of data which makes one think that in at least some applications Mobil-1 might not give the absolute lowest possible wear compared to competing products.


I'm thinking more along the lines of VISIBLE wear. It's 300,000Km. If we are talking micro-polishing style wear.... at that mileage, then we are talking about something that is inconsequential over the life of the engine.

Flat-tappet is MUCH harder on the camshafts and visible wear occurs much quicker, which is why I asked.

 

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted By: wgtoys
"Because I can show you the 300,000Km camshaft out of my Mustang."

Can you show me wear measurements showing the dimensions when new and after 300Km of use?

I'm not saying Mobil-1 is a horrible oil. I am saying that there is a substantial amount of data which makes one think that in at least some applications Mobil-1 might not give the absolute lowest possible wear compared to competing products.



In my mind, once again, why hasn't Mobil responded....other than saying that they are aware of the claim???

The way we knit-pick oils on this forum, seeking the best.....don't we all want the product that give the absolute lowest possible wear?

 

[cheetahdriver]

Originally Posted By: BigJohn

The way we knit-pick oils on this forum, seeking the best.....don't we all want the product that give the absolute lowest possible wear?


i think we want the product that is the most cost effective solution. if we all wanted the best oil, period, there is RLI out there at 10 bucks a quart, or some other boutique oils at even more. M1 @ a little under 7 bucks is a cost effective way of getting 10k with a good synthetic. as i have said before here, the fact it also passes GM4718M makes me believe this is all bunk.

but i have been wrong before....

 

[Brian Barnhart]

Originally Posted By: cheetahdriver
as i have said before here, the fact it also passes GM4718M makes me believe this is all bunk.

but i have been wrong before....

But if an oil doesn't pass SM/GF-4 it won't meet GM4718M, or many other certs as well. Therefore, the assumption that M1 5W30 meets GM4718M is also suspect.

 

[buster]

Quote:
But if an oil doesn't pass SM/GF-4 it won't meet GM4718M, or many other certs as well. Therefore, the assumption that M1 5W30 meets GM4718M is also suspect.


Two different tests that are entirely different. You could meet GM 4718M w/o meeting the Seq IVA but the API requires you at least pass the Seq IVA to meet API SM.