Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2

[rg200amp]

Perhaps we should collect some money up, hire a lab that dose this wear test, and pay to get a normal bottle of 5w30 from a store(we would have to discuss that part) tested. I am sure the price cant be that bad split 40,50,60 ways????

All we need is alot of people in on it, and one TRUSTED member to collect the money and one TRUSTED member to go out, get a bottle oil Mobil 1 5w30 and send it in.


Is this crazy we are testing oils now to see if they meet specs??? yes!!!

But atleast we will all get some answers and closure.

 

[Nyquist]

Originally Posted By: bulwnkl
Quote:
I find that statement interesting since no one has said what date the Mobil 1 they tested was manufactured on. Is it possible that maybe Valvoline found an old bottle on shelf?


Frankly, no. They didn't just test a bottle. Go back and read everything. This wasn't a bottle or two, and wasn't a single test.

And, I'll be honest, maybe they don't meet GF-3. I said that with a certain number in mind which I may have mis-remembered. Is 180 microns within GF-3? I'm not going to go look right now.

You bring up some good points. I'm not trying to defend them or anything. I just want to be sure I have all the facts before I throw someone/something under the bus.

 

[buster]

That test can run up to $45,000 LOL.

I would use Valvoline over Mobil at this point. Their conventional oils are excellent also.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: bulwnkl
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
So yes, I have a hard time swallowing Ashland's "claims" when I have had such fantastic luck with this product keeping my stuff clean, and healthy over the years.


The claims have nothing to do with what you're talking about. M1 still just barely meets GF-3, it simply doesn't meet the current spec that it's licensed for. If you're upset about lack of wear control or the meets/doesn't meet spec thing, be upset with XOM for betraying you rather being upset with the messenger (Ashland, Dyson Analysis, used oil analysis here, who else?). It's not anyone's fault that XOM isn't performing to current spec except XOM's. I'm glad that the product has, in the past, produced clean internals for you. Again, none of that is in question. The current spec has tighter wear limits and the current product doesn't meet that standard.


According to Ashland.

Quote:
It meets the obsolete spec.


We have no data providing it does that either.

Quote:
No one's saying that the obsolete spec's wear level is not sufficient for you.


I would imagine there are only a few other members driving style on this board which match or exceed my own in terms of severity. And the majority of the people on this board go overboard with oil choice.

Other than actual tear-down testing, I have a hard time swallowing the validating of my specific wear protection needs being evaluated by somebody on a message board.

Quote:
It's merely a case of the current product being a bill of goods in that it doesn't meet the spec it carries


According to Ashland.

Quote:
and that customers think they're paying for, and there's every reason IN THE WORLD to believe that XOM knew it, knows it, and simply refuses to explain.


Based on Ashland's claims. The API has provided no information and Mobil is still in possession of their API license.

Quote:
That kind of disdain for the customer is intolerable to me, no matter who you are.


And if Exxon DOES finally make a statement/claim/legal action then how does this affect your position?

We are dealing with ONE SIDE of the argument here.

Mobil has, for whatever reason, remained aloof and vague in the information they have provided.

 

[buster]

Reality of it is, most people don't care enough about this to even notice. As long as Mobil retains it's license, they will continue to do well and people that buy Corvettes will still use Mobil 1. This website represents a small % (growing all the time) of auto enthusiasts.

 

[bulwnkl]

STILL chasing the off-point stuff, overk1ll? And ignoring the several significant pieces of corroborating information? OK. I'm sorry you're hurt. I wish (for everyone's sake) that XOM would actually try to make good for/with you (and them). Goodbye.

 

[rg200amp]

Originally Posted By: buster
That test can run up to $45,000 LOL.

I would use Valvoline over Mobil at this point. Their conventional oils are excellent also.



Thats pocket change!!!

J/K! If we get alot of people on it. We have over 23,000 members. If each one put up 2 bucks we would have it.
If half of them put up 4 bucks we would have it. ect. . . The less people join in, the more we have to pay. So like worse case if we do not get many people, the ones in might have to pay 20, 30, 40 bucks a person.

I would be in. Just for the heck of it.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: bulwnkl


Frankly, no. They didn't just test a bottle. Go back and read everything. This wasn't a bottle or two, and wasn't a single test.

And, I'll be honest, maybe they don't meet GF-3. I said that with a certain number in mind which I may have mis-remembered. Is 180 microns within GF-3? I'm not going to go look right now.


I've read, and re-read the Valvoline sheet.

Ashland states:

Quote:
Over the past couple of years, Valvoline conducted a number of tests and commissioned an independent laboratory to evaluate the performance of SynPower and Mobil 1 in the Sequence IVA wear test. Marketers were told the tests were run on a 5w30 since it's the top selling grade.


They do not state they tested more than one bottle.

They state that they (Ashland) ran a number of tests. They do not state what these tests were.

They then state they commissioned an independent lab to evaluate the performance of Synpower and Mobil 1 in the Sequence IVA wear test.

Would this be using the samples they provided? Samples from the same batch/jug/bottle that they had previously "run their own testing" on?


Quite frankly, at this point, it's all up to how you interpret the data. Your claims that Mobil 1 is inferior are based on Ashland's claims, which nobody other than Ashland seems to have substantiated.

I see no acknowledgement by the API or any other testing facility. I do not see GM pulling their approval. Honda pulling their approval, Ford pulling their approval....etc.

Other than independently validating the bloody stuff ourselves, as another poster suggested, we really DO NOT KNOW what the truth is at this point.

I'll be pretty bloody [censored] at Mobil if this is eventually confirmed by a 3rd party.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: bulwnkl
STILL chasing the off-point stuff, overk1ll? And ignoring the several significant pieces of corroborating information? OK. I'm sorry you're hurt. I wish (for everyone's sake) that XOM would actually try to make good for/with you (and them). Goodbye.


I'm sorry Bullwinkle, I haven't swallowed the "Mobil 1 is garbage" Koolaid you and Rocky seem to be passing around based on this so far one-sided argument.

What ANGERS me is the fact the Exxon-Mobil has allowed it to REMAIN a one-side argument.

If they screwed up, they screwed up. I'll swallow that. And probably switch to Amsoil or Redline for the lack of up-front honesty with their client base.

On the other hand, if they didn't screw up, and they are just putting together something to lambaste Ashland with, then I'm fine with that too.

It's the lack of any real data other than what Ashland has provided that is frustrating here.

 

[endeavor to persevere]

I don't have any Mobil products or Valvoline for that matter in my GMC Sierra or my wife's Buick and I'll bet the sun will come up in the morning and the grass will still be green.And neither vehicle will have an engine failure is its respective lifetime. How important is this in the scheme of things. For those us not in denial its the principle of the thing.

Don

 

[Drew99GT]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL


Mobil has, for whatever reason, remained aloof and vague in the information they have provided.


Kind of like Rod Blagojevich. He has nothing to hide.

 

[buster]

Quote:
How important is this in the scheme of things.


In the grand scheme of things, it's obviously not important at all. On an oil forum, it is.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: buster
Quote:
How important is this in the scheme of things.


In the grand scheme of things, it's obviously not important at all. On an oil forum, it is.

+1

Frank D

 

[Pablo]

It's riveting.

 

[demarpaint]

It is riveting, has a lot of drama, and we're all wondering how its going to end. It's almost like watching 24 on Fox 5.

Frank D

 

[SilverC6]

Valvoline is ratcheting up the marketing effort with "4X the protection" shelf tags at Walmart, Autozone, and other retailers.

They are pulling out all the stops on this one.

 

[demarpaint]

The more the plot thickens the more I think Ashland has Mobil by the short hairs.

Frank D

 

[pp_rp]

I get better performance with Synpower in my engines than Mobil 1.

 

[Liquid_Turbo]

I'll wait till XOM releases something that DIRECTLY addresses the issue, before I make any judgments about XOM.

 

[buster]

Originally Posted By: Liquid_Turbo
I'll wait till XOM releases something that DIRECTLY addresses the issue, before I make any judgments about XOM.


I take their silence as a win for Ashland.

Mobil had put a statement up on their website and when Valvoline presented them with the data, they took it down.