Wal-Mart fined for off-grade SuperTech Gear Oil

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: buster
I'm aware of XOM's capabilities. I've posted two of those links before. It doesn't address the claims being made against them.


Claims, not facts.

Facts appear to be scarce.



.
 
http://www.exxon.com/USA-English/Lubes/Products_Services/Lubricants/PS_RD.asp


Quote:
At ExxonMobil, much of our business success is built upon our leadership in lubricant technology. To help our Exxon customers keep their operations running smoothly and trouble free, ExxonMobil’s Research & Development staff work closely with OEMs to remain at the forefront of evolving equipment performance specifications, base stock and additive advancements, and customer trends and needs.

To develop high performance products that will exceed equipment demands, ExxonMobil’s R&D program requires not only chemical engineering knowledge, but also a thorough understanding of industry applications. Specific areas of focus in ExxonMobil’s R&D program include:

* Creating effective molecular structures for basestocks, greases, and oils
* Developing the complex additive packages that give each of our lubrication products the particular specifications that meet needs in the marketplace
* Anticipating new regulations and equipment builder demands, and developing highly efficient lubrication products to meet these changing needs
* Designing and conducting performance tests — in the lab, in actual customer applications, and through our racing program — to ensure that our products meet all requirements
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: Rolf
Originally Posted By: endeavor to persevere
You wish, this is on every automotive forum out there.


Pardon me.

All two dozen of you.

The whole Group III hoopla did the same thing with many of the same players.

Not a blip on Mobil 1 sales.

You may notice that all the oil professionals and all the automotive service professionals have taken a "wait and see" attitude.

Facts are what is needed.



.



Were you here then???
 
So, What does this say about Warren Perfomance Products and their integrity? I thought they were a smaller blender of value-oriented but quality oils, but now does this put their other products under suspicion?

Great, I just flushed my tranny with Supertech Mercon V, which carries a Ford-license, but I guess you can inkjet anything on the side of a bottle, who knows.
 
Originally Posted By: Rolf
Originally Posted By: endeavor to persevere
Were you here then???


The complete record is still in the archives.




.


Oh, I though maybe you were here when it happened. Sorry.
 
Mobil's initial response from their website, which was later removed.

Quote:
We will respond to Valvoline in due time . Meanwhile, ExxonMobil is not
aware of any accurate data that would support Valvoline's superiority claim
versus Mobil 1. The Sequence IVA test , which is referenced in the
Valvoline advertising, and the basis for the brand's claim, is an industry
standard test that measures camshaft wear under low temperature, low speed,
and low load conditions,. This test is used to grade oils on a “pass” or
“fail” basis and is not precise enough for accurate quantitative
comparison. Hence, it is improbable that an oil could achieve a
statistically significant result that is “four times better” than any other
oil, let alone an oil such as Mobil 1 that has been shown to easily pass
the test requirement.

We have always been proud of our technical leadership. Consequently, we
know that the performance of Mobil 1 fully synthetic motor oil meets or
exceeds some of the industry's toughest standards. Mobil 1 conducts
numerous tests to ensure outstanding engine protection and excellent
overall performance. Mobil 1 assesses product performance and protection in
multiple categories, including: piston cleanliness, sludge prevention, oil
consumption, ring sticking, cam wear, cylinder wear and oil thickening. In
an effort to demonstrate it's outstanding performance, Mobil 1 stands up to
the world's toughest industry recognized engine tests and continues to
exceed them all. Mobil 1 5W-30 not only meets the industry standard API and
ILSAC tests, but also the harsh and demanding requirements for advanced
engine oil performance of General Motors and Honda. Mobil 1 5W-30 was the
first motor oil to pass both the GM 4718M and Honda HTO-06 test
requirements. In fact, Mobil 1 5W-30 is factory fill in all Chevrolet
Corvettes and all Honda turbocharged engines. Only Mobil 1 is able to make
this claim.

When it comes to offering overall engine protection, Mobil 1 delivers
proven performance.
 
Easy with the logic there sunfire, you will get the "UOA's don't tell the story, you need a tear down to really measure wear" response
 
Possibly yes. The question I have isn't whether M1 is good or not. It's obviously a very good brand of oils. The Seq IVA is just one ASTM test. It would be nice to just hear them publicly state they passed the Seq IVA wear test.

Amsoil flat out says they exceed it. Mobil will give you "no comment" or change the question.
 
Originally Posted By: sunfire
http://www.jobbersworld.com/valvolineq&Apage1.htm

Sequence IVA test "was developed to evaluate automotive lubricant's effect on controlling cam lobe wear..."

Since Mobil 1 fails IVA and cam lobes are made of iron... does this explain the high iron levels in M1 5W30 UOAs?


Darn good question
thumbsup2.gif
 
The Seq IVA does not only include tear down measurements, but also monitors Fe wear thru spectrographic analysis.
 
Originally Posted By: Bryanccfshr
Easy with the logic there sunfire, you will get the "UOA's don't tell the story, you need a tear down to really measure wear" response


Everyone reading this thread is thinking the same thing. I just wanted to put it out there to further the discussion. I'm not stating this as fact.
 
Originally Posted By: sunfire
Since Mobil 1 fails IVA .....


Allegedly fails IVA.

Ashland mentions "5W-30".

There are three Mobil 1 5W-30 formulas sold in the US.

Ashland doesn't mention which they claim failed.

Of course, they don't provide the name of the lab or its address, the date of the alleged tests, or anything else either.



.
 
I am stating it is a logical observation. 1 and 1 normally equals 2 unless its mobil one then 1 and 1 is still 1.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Rolf
Originally Posted By: sunfire
Since Mobil 1 fails IVA .....


Allegedly fails IVA.

Ashland mentions "5W-30".

There are three Mobil 1 5W-30 formulas sold in the US.

Ashland doesn't mention which they claim failed.

Of course, they don't provide the name of the lab or its address, the date of the alleged tests, or anything else either.



.


This needs to be made a sticky so he can quit typing it over and over.
 
Originally Posted By: Bryanccfshr
Easy with the logic there sunfire, you will get the "UOA's don't tell the story, you need a tear down to really measure wear" response


Ahhh, I see that not everybody is comfortable with the idea that UOA's give you a very vague indication of potential "wear" as noted by both Tom NJ and Doug Hillary and supported by such lovely companies as Cummins and CAT... Who obviously have no clue what they are talking about, they only make engines.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top