I'm looking forward to seeing the email replies other BITOG'ers got.
Frank D
Frank D
Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Jason2007
I decided to try the Synpower [...] $9.00 for 5 quarts is real easy to decide when compared to $27.00 for M1.
Synpower is one third the price of M1 and FOUR TIMES AS GOOD???
That means it's 12 TIMES THE VALUE OF MOBIL 1!
I decided to try the Synpower [...] $9.00 for 5 quarts is real easy to decide when compared to $27.00 for M1.
Synpower is one third the price of M1 and FOUR TIMES AS GOOD???
That means it's 12 TIMES THE VALUE OF MOBIL 1!
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: Johnny
They have accomplished their goal with fanatics like us, but John Q public has no clue.
Exactly, and reading between the lines they are swaying customers away from themselves and Mobil.
Frank D
You keep dancing around that topic.
Pending the truth, I would not sway away from Ashland. They are not doing anything wrong. I think they are pulling customers in.
Originally Posted By: Johnny
They have accomplished their goal with fanatics like us, but John Q public has no clue.
Exactly, and reading between the lines they are swaying customers away from themselves and Mobil.
Frank D
You keep dancing around that topic.
Pending the truth, I would not sway away from Ashland. They are not doing anything wrong. I think they are pulling customers in.
Originally Posted By: Spykem4e
for guys that are putting in question mobil 1...
what about the ls1 engine with the 18k miles oci on M1 on the neptune website?
I think they have prooven more than what valvoline is claiming?
No?
That has nothing to do with this topic at hand. So it worked was used for 18,000 miles.
The issue is specs met. You run that oil 18,000 miles and it dose not meet the OEM spec, there goes your warranty.
for guys that are putting in question mobil 1...
what about the ls1 engine with the 18k miles oci on M1 on the neptune website?
I think they have prooven more than what valvoline is claiming?
No?
That has nothing to do with this topic at hand. So it worked was used for 18,000 miles.
The issue is specs met. You run that oil 18,000 miles and it dose not meet the OEM spec, there goes your warranty.
Originally Posted By: Spykem4e
for guys that are putting in question mobil 1...
what about the ls1 engine with the 18k miles oci on M1 on the neptune website?
I think they have prooven more than what valvoline is claiming?
No?
Was that the same formulation as the present M1?
for guys that are putting in question mobil 1...
what about the ls1 engine with the 18k miles oci on M1 on the neptune website?
I think they have prooven more than what valvoline is claiming?
No?
Was that the same formulation as the present M1?
Originally Posted By: rg200amp
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: Johnny
They have accomplished their goal with fanatics like us, but John Q public has no clue.
Exactly, and reading between the lines they are swaying customers away from themselves and Mobil.
Frank D
You keep dancing around that topic.
Pending the truth, I would not sway away from Ashland. They are not doing anything wrong. I think they are pulling customers in.
Ashland went about this all wrong. They should have taken their results and positive proof to the API or whoever. Instead, they tried to sensationalize and get free advertisement.
Ashland may have shot Mobil 1 in the heart, it my be just a flesh wound, or it may be a clean miss, but they also shot themselves in the foot.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: Johnny
They have accomplished their goal with fanatics like us, but John Q public has no clue.
Exactly, and reading between the lines they are swaying customers away from themselves and Mobil.
Frank D
You keep dancing around that topic.
Pending the truth, I would not sway away from Ashland. They are not doing anything wrong. I think they are pulling customers in.
Ashland went about this all wrong. They should have taken their results and positive proof to the API or whoever. Instead, they tried to sensationalize and get free advertisement.
Ashland may have shot Mobil 1 in the heart, it my be just a flesh wound, or it may be a clean miss, but they also shot themselves in the foot.
Originally Posted By: Johnny
They have accomplished their goal with fanatics like us, but John Q public has no clue.
Agree. The only spell Valvoline is casting is on internet forums, the other 99.95%, to use bad english, aint gotta clue...
They have accomplished their goal with fanatics like us, but John Q public has no clue.
Agree. The only spell Valvoline is casting is on internet forums, the other 99.95%, to use bad english, aint gotta clue...
Question for the likes of Mola, Bruce ... buster perhaps ....
Is it possible that XOM had an original baseline of the product established that meet spec and in their attempts to meet Honda's newest specification compromised the original baselined product that did meet API SM?
I mention Honda on purpose as it was the newest certification that M1 could pin on their bottle label.
As noted, in order to meet Honda or GM, current baseline API specifications are assummed. In testing to meet the Honda requirement, did they simply forget to go back and revalidate the first use case: Pass API SM ?????
Perhaps blending/formulating does not work in the manner I am refering, hence the need for someone like Mola or bruce to chime in.
Another way to ask is with respects to the Honda spec. for example:
Would a blender take an oil that already meets API SM spec and then simply try to 'add whatever' to then pass Honda requirments? Or do you have to tear down the whole product and start over?
If you simply 'add more stuff', perhaps this compromises the original formula .... 'add clash?'
If you have to tear down completely, then shame on XOM for not following simple procedures in terms of baseline testing and use case establishments. i.e. They cooked up and oil that passed Honda spec. and never bothered to retest against API baseline standard, and probably GM spec. to boot.
Is it possible that XOM had an original baseline of the product established that meet spec and in their attempts to meet Honda's newest specification compromised the original baselined product that did meet API SM?
I mention Honda on purpose as it was the newest certification that M1 could pin on their bottle label.
As noted, in order to meet Honda or GM, current baseline API specifications are assummed. In testing to meet the Honda requirement, did they simply forget to go back and revalidate the first use case: Pass API SM ?????
Perhaps blending/formulating does not work in the manner I am refering, hence the need for someone like Mola or bruce to chime in.
Another way to ask is with respects to the Honda spec. for example:
Would a blender take an oil that already meets API SM spec and then simply try to 'add whatever' to then pass Honda requirments? Or do you have to tear down the whole product and start over?
If you simply 'add more stuff', perhaps this compromises the original formula .... 'add clash?'
If you have to tear down completely, then shame on XOM for not following simple procedures in terms of baseline testing and use case establishments. i.e. They cooked up and oil that passed Honda spec. and never bothered to retest against API baseline standard, and probably GM spec. to boot.
Valvolines wear tests 4x better than Mobil 1? Sorry, I don't buy it at all. You got a bunch of(sleezy) marketers with lots of pressure on them to sell a product, thats what I think. Im todays market place, people will do and say anything to sell a product. True or not. If I have to sue you so my company can get some needed press and attention, thats what I do, who cares if the claim is true or not
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: rg200amp
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: Johnny
They have accomplished their goal with fanatics like us, but John Q public has no clue.
Exactly, and reading between the lines they are swaying customers away from themselves and Mobil.
Frank D
You keep dancing around that topic.
Pending the truth, I would not sway away from Ashland. They are not doing anything wrong. I think they are pulling customers in.
I'm not dancing, I stated how I felt. You feel its drawing customers, I feel there are people turned off by the whole thing, nothing more nothing less.
All this did was sway me over to Amsoil in my Jeep for my next OC. I will also continue to use PP and Yellow Bottle, in fact I just grabbed some Shell oil too. As far as Valvoline oil, using it never entered my mind. I always felt Mobil was a good product, however their email reply to my brother was less than professional, so I move on. My 2 oil changes a year using Mobil 1 equates to [censored] into the ocean as far as XOM is concerned, it really means nothing.
Truth be told I hope Mobil comes out of this clean, but that's a whole different story.
Frank D
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: Johnny
They have accomplished their goal with fanatics like us, but John Q public has no clue.
Exactly, and reading between the lines they are swaying customers away from themselves and Mobil.
Frank D
You keep dancing around that topic.
Pending the truth, I would not sway away from Ashland. They are not doing anything wrong. I think they are pulling customers in.
I'm not dancing, I stated how I felt. You feel its drawing customers, I feel there are people turned off by the whole thing, nothing more nothing less.
All this did was sway me over to Amsoil in my Jeep for my next OC. I will also continue to use PP and Yellow Bottle, in fact I just grabbed some Shell oil too. As far as Valvoline oil, using it never entered my mind. I always felt Mobil was a good product, however their email reply to my brother was less than professional, so I move on. My 2 oil changes a year using Mobil 1 equates to [censored] into the ocean as far as XOM is concerned, it really means nothing.
Truth be told I hope Mobil comes out of this clean, but that's a whole different story.
Frank D
Now Lube Report is reporting on this. This is a little more detailed with names from both Valvoline and Mobil.
http://www.imakenews.com/lng/e_article001295961.cfm?x=bdSbqlq,b1M25KBS
http://www.imakenews.com/lng/e_article001295961.cfm?x=bdSbqlq,b1M25KBS
I wonder how they will settle this........Mobil says their product meets specs. Valvoline says it doesn't.
“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.”
Pennzoil and Amsoil meet all the requirements I need. Let the battle continue!
Frank D
“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.”
Pennzoil and Amsoil meet all the requirements I need. Let the battle continue!
Frank D
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: rg200amp
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: Johnny
They have accomplished their goal with fanatics like us, but John Q public has no clue.
Exactly, and reading between the lines they are swaying customers away from themselves and Mobil.
Frank D
You keep dancing around that topic.
Pending the truth, I would not sway away from Ashland. They are not doing anything wrong. I think they are pulling customers in.
I'm not dancing, I stated how I felt. You feel its drawing customers, I feel there are people turned off by the whole thing, nothing more nothing less.
All this did was sway me over to Amsoil in my Jeep for my next OC. I will also continue to use PP and Yellow Bottle, in fact I just grabbed some Shell oil too. As far as Valvoline oil, using it never entered my mind. I always felt Mobil was a good product, however their email reply to my brother was less than professional, so I move on. My 2 oil changes a year using Mobil 1 equates to [censored] into the ocean as far as XOM is concerned, it really means nothing.
Truth be told I hope Mobil comes out of this clean, but that's a whole different story.
Frank D
I just see it(if its true)as great marketing. Welcome to Corprate America, Its a cut throat world. If your not being bold and starting hype, your not doing it right.(in my eyes)
Originally Posted By: rg200amp
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: Johnny
They have accomplished their goal with fanatics like us, but John Q public has no clue.
Exactly, and reading between the lines they are swaying customers away from themselves and Mobil.
Frank D
You keep dancing around that topic.
Pending the truth, I would not sway away from Ashland. They are not doing anything wrong. I think they are pulling customers in.
I'm not dancing, I stated how I felt. You feel its drawing customers, I feel there are people turned off by the whole thing, nothing more nothing less.
All this did was sway me over to Amsoil in my Jeep for my next OC. I will also continue to use PP and Yellow Bottle, in fact I just grabbed some Shell oil too. As far as Valvoline oil, using it never entered my mind. I always felt Mobil was a good product, however their email reply to my brother was less than professional, so I move on. My 2 oil changes a year using Mobil 1 equates to [censored] into the ocean as far as XOM is concerned, it really means nothing.
Truth be told I hope Mobil comes out of this clean, but that's a whole different story.
Frank D
I just see it(if its true)as great marketing. Welcome to Corprate America, Its a cut throat world. If your not being bold and starting hype, your not doing it right.(in my eyes)
If its true and Valvoline Oil sales increase it is/was great marketing for them. The way I see it now as I read through the links posted. Ashland either has all their Ducks in a row, or their marketing and legal departments really screwed up! They know their messing with a giant, so maybe their ducks are all lined up.
Past my bedtime over and out.
Frank D
Past my bedtime over and out.
Frank D
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: bulwnkl
It's not risky to provide lab testing demonstrating non-compliance. It's not slander, nor libel, nor anything else but test results. The fact that they've now (after 2 months of non-response) disclosed the results of the independent testing to a wider audience is a very good way to improve our confidence that's it's real, honest Seq IVA testing. M1 failed in those tests, and there's really very little room to dispute that at this point. Valvoline may be clever (and excellent R&D folks), but they're not stupid. This is not made-up, and it's not a lie.
I repeat: I'm guessing that XOM is [censored] their pants. I just don't know whether it's because they screwed up, or because they got caught.
When I attended the chevron summit last month, one thing that I noted was that they test all of their main competitors' oils (including the less well known ones) for every test of importance, and know how they rank.
It was noted that some competitors fell below the mark by a slight bit in some tests.
Slight is a relative term, but the way chevron showed it (they showed the metric with real units), the guys that were low were just barely below threshold, and could even be within analytical error. 6% RSD is pretty good for many analytical techniques.
M1 may be in such a situation - they meet most everything, but valvoline has data to prove they are just below the cusp. The whole 4x more wear protection is based upon what? ppm of this vs. that? a real test? one test or a battery where an average was taken?
The 4x antiwear additives is a marketing person's dream... finesse the truth ever so slightly so that it is still true (technically), yet folks read into it as a huge deal. Making an outright claim, on the other hand, is a bigger set of fighting words. Valvoline could always tuck their tail between their legs and claim repeatable lab error or similar though... and I wonder if that was the case and they said their sorrys, if it would ever become a court issue - court is $$$.
Valvoline doesnt have much to loose if they have some basis - no matter how stretched. Mobil has much to loose and little to gain, thus why it was a good battle.
As of now, I see no data. In God we trust, all others bring data... and remember that one test is no test. Where is valvoline's statistically significant, low RSD results from a battery of tests. Most all big manufacturers do them for their and their competitors' oils...
I'd also be interested to see how Amsoil claims that synpower stacks up w.r.t. M1 and their own products...
It's not risky to provide lab testing demonstrating non-compliance. It's not slander, nor libel, nor anything else but test results. The fact that they've now (after 2 months of non-response) disclosed the results of the independent testing to a wider audience is a very good way to improve our confidence that's it's real, honest Seq IVA testing. M1 failed in those tests, and there's really very little room to dispute that at this point. Valvoline may be clever (and excellent R&D folks), but they're not stupid. This is not made-up, and it's not a lie.
I repeat: I'm guessing that XOM is [censored] their pants. I just don't know whether it's because they screwed up, or because they got caught.
When I attended the chevron summit last month, one thing that I noted was that they test all of their main competitors' oils (including the less well known ones) for every test of importance, and know how they rank.
It was noted that some competitors fell below the mark by a slight bit in some tests.
Slight is a relative term, but the way chevron showed it (they showed the metric with real units), the guys that were low were just barely below threshold, and could even be within analytical error. 6% RSD is pretty good for many analytical techniques.
M1 may be in such a situation - they meet most everything, but valvoline has data to prove they are just below the cusp. The whole 4x more wear protection is based upon what? ppm of this vs. that? a real test? one test or a battery where an average was taken?
The 4x antiwear additives is a marketing person's dream... finesse the truth ever so slightly so that it is still true (technically), yet folks read into it as a huge deal. Making an outright claim, on the other hand, is a bigger set of fighting words. Valvoline could always tuck their tail between their legs and claim repeatable lab error or similar though... and I wonder if that was the case and they said their sorrys, if it would ever become a court issue - court is $$$.
Valvoline doesnt have much to loose if they have some basis - no matter how stretched. Mobil has much to loose and little to gain, thus why it was a good battle.
As of now, I see no data. In God we trust, all others bring data... and remember that one test is no test. Where is valvoline's statistically significant, low RSD results from a battery of tests. Most all big manufacturers do them for their and their competitors' oils...
I'd also be interested to see how Amsoil claims that synpower stacks up w.r.t. M1 and their own products...
Last edited:
Remember about 12 months ago when everyones Mobil 1 hormones were surging over HT-06?
I say this is Mobil's bean-counters putting ~whatever~ into the batches just to meet demand and Ashland pulling samples until they found what they were looking for. Maybe they were following a inside tip???
As for libel (slander is spoken), yes truth is an absolute defense...but the standard is that Ashland only needs to "believe" their assertions are true. One lab run to support that is enough. That is, Mobil coming back with a 1000 valid samples does NOT make Ashland liable for their statements. Ashland's test result of Mobil's failure does not have to be repeatable, just that it references a single valid test result.
Mobil will ignore.
I say this is Mobil's bean-counters putting ~whatever~ into the batches just to meet demand and Ashland pulling samples until they found what they were looking for. Maybe they were following a inside tip???
As for libel (slander is spoken), yes truth is an absolute defense...but the standard is that Ashland only needs to "believe" their assertions are true. One lab run to support that is enough. That is, Mobil coming back with a 1000 valid samples does NOT make Ashland liable for their statements. Ashland's test result of Mobil's failure does not have to be repeatable, just that it references a single valid test result.
Mobil will ignore.
Time and UOA's will tell, stay tuned.
Frank D
Frank D
- Status
