Wal-Mart fined for off-grade SuperTech Gear Oil

[Rolf]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Quote:
Certification requires the oil be tested by an independent laboratory, where all oil companies submit their candidate oils for testing. We can however test our oils in-house prior to submission.


It was good to see them handle this like gentlemen, not getting down in the muck and trading barbs and accusations, and not putting Ashland against the wall like Pennzoil did to Texaco two decades ago:

http://www.agsm.edu.au/bobm/teaching/MDM/pennzoil.pdf




.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Rolf
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Quote:
Certification requires the oil be tested by an independent laboratory, where all oil companies submit their candidate oils for testing. We can however test our oils in-house prior to submission.


It was good to see them handle this like gentlemen, not getting down in the muck and trading barbs and accusations, and not putting Ashland against the wall like Pennzoil did to Texaco two decades ago:

http://www.agsm.edu.au/bobm/teaching/MDM/pennzoil.pdf




.


My question now is this:

If the oil is REQUIRED to be tested by an independent laboratory, then how can Valvoline state they can certify oils in house? Or is it a matter that they can TEST the oils to DETERMINE their certification levels in-house (like ExxonMobil does) and are using creative wording to make people think they can actually do the entire approval process in their facility.....

 

[Rolf]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
If the oil is REQUIRED to be tested by an independent laboratory, then how can Valvoline state they can certify oils in house? Or is it a matter that they can TEST the oils to DETERMINE their certification levels in-house (like ExxonMobil does) and are using creative wording to make people think they can actually do the entire approval process in their facility.....


No oil company can self-certify.

Given the high level of heat and low level of light in the exchange at that point I did not want to point that out.

Both Ashland and ExxonMobil have the labs and facilities to certify other companies' oils. Whether they do or not I do not know.

Given the existence of independents for just that purpose, I tend to doubt it.



.

 

[bluesubie]

Are there any discussions about Tom's original post beyond page 1?

-Dennis

 

[Bill in Utah]

Originally Posted By: bluesubie
Are there any discussions about Tom's original post beyond page 1?

-Dennis
VERY little after the hijack...

 

[Drew99GT]

I wonder if this would have happened if Tom didn't start this thread.

I can't imagine the carnage if someone claimed Supertech had group III in it.

 

[Rolf]

Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
VERY little after the hijack...


Well at least you learned something .... hijack is one word.



.

 

[Rolf]

Originally Posted By: bluesubie
Are there any discussions about Tom's original post beyond page 1?


Yes.



.

 

[Bill in Utah]

Originally Posted By: Rolf
Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
VERY little after the hijack...


Well at least you learned something .... hijack is one word.



.
You are so clever Mike.

Must be hard to be so perfect. Too bad your oil choice is based on employment.

 

[Bryanccfshr]

Bill, Don't tease mike. He is only doing his job.

 

[Rolf]

Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
You are so clever Mike.


My name is not Mike, Willy.



.

 

[Rolf]

Originally Posted By: Bryanccfshr
Bill, Don't tease mike. He is only doing his job.


My name is not Mike, Bwyan.



.

 

[moribundman]

I feel like I'm in Disneyland.

 

[OMCWankel]

I have been a loyal M1 user for years (1970’s to present). Like other members of this board, I have noticed the degradation of wear numbers in UOA’s of those using M1 in the last 3 years, including myself. Not all grades are affected, 15W50 and Delvac1 appear to be a good formula, with low wear numbers at the current time.

I do not think Ashland has found anything new, just capitalized on what those on the BITOG site have suspected for at least two years, that M1 is reformulated and is no longer the industry standard synthetic for quality and low wear numbers in some grades.

If Exxon/Mobil does not respond, it means that a batch of M1 got out without meeting specs, for whatever reason. Exxon/Mobil lawyers will not allow EM to admit to anything that would create lawsuits from users of M1.

If Exxon/Mobil files a lawsuit against Ashland, it means that Ashland may have lied and this case will go to trial. We will have to wait and see.

 

[Drew99GT]

I seriously doubt Ashland would flat out lie, putting the company in jeopardy. They knew what they were doing and they wanted this to subtly get into the public sphere.

 

[peterdaniel]

And the average person couldn't care a whit. I try to get people to CHANGE the oil. Forget about talking to them about whats good and whats not.

 

[steve20]

the LSx heads will bolt onto a Windsor 351/302.....



which means the 351 & 302 heads will bolt up to an LSX as well-not that anyone would ever want Ford iron on the beloved LS series of engines


Steve

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: steve20

the LSx heads will bolt onto a Windsor 351/302.....



which means the 351 & 302 heads will bolt up to an LSX as well-not that anyone would ever want Ford iron on the beloved LS series of engines


Steve


Trick Flow High Ports? Lots of very good SBF heads out there, not to mention the Cleveland heads....

But yes, the only Ford parts the GM boys will admit to using are the 9" rear-ends

 

[Rolf]

Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
I seriously doubt Ashland would flat out lie, putting the company in jeopardy. They knew what they were doing and they wanted this to subtly get into the public sphere.


Running full pages ads does not comport with the definition of the word "subtle".

And, generally, ads are run in order to produce profits.




.

 

[Rolf]

Originally Posted By: OMCWankel
If Exxon/Mobil does not respond, it means that a batch of M1 got out without meeting specs, for whatever reason.


Or it means giving free advertising to Ashland does not fit into ExxonMobil's business strategy.

A false accusation when spread creates the same damage as a truth.

For a good example take a look at P&G's long battle to defend their man-in-the-moon trademark against charges of Satanism. The more they defended it, the worse the accusations got.

Several threads on Mobil 1 show basically the same characteristic - the charge itself is "proof".



.