Wal-Mart fined for off-grade SuperTech Gear Oil

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
To me, that quote means that they now test bulk oil as well as bottled. They had only previously been checking bottled oil.

After re-reading the quote, I believe OVERK1LL is right. I stand corrected on that point.
 
In our neck of the woods, EOM makes all but the 5W-20 SuperTech reg. engine oils for WM. So I guess that means the 2 topics on this thread are at least somewhat related.

(The ST 5W-20, HM and syn engine oils are made by WPP here in our stores).
 
Originally Posted By: bmwtechguy
In our neck of the woods, EOM makes all but the 5W-20 SuperTech reg. engine oils for WM. So I guess that means the 2 topics on this thread are at least somewhat related.

(The ST 5W-20, HM and syn engine oils are made by WPP here in our stores).


Not really. The link in the original post before the insidious M1 hijack clearly referred to SuperTech products packaged by Warren.

As I posted earlier, how does Warren's integrity stack-up? I thought they were a reputable packager of value-oriented, but quality products. I wonder how their licensed products like Mercon V or Dexron VI test out after they got their initial license approval.
 
Originally Posted By: buster
Quote:
ExxonMobil has certified to API that its 5W-30 Mobil 1 product meets ILSAC GF-4 and API SM requirements.


.... but that doesn't let XOM off the hook....


Yes, it does.
 
Originally Posted By: Drew2000
The link in the original post before the insidious M1 hijack clearly referred to SuperTech products packaged by Warren.


The link actually provided an entire page of articles, one of which was "API's Response to Valvoline's Claim".



.
 
Originally Posted By: cven
I posted on the first page about the API being a joke and why they are not the ones catching these out of spec products? A county W&M finds the oil is not up to spec? Makes the API look like fools!


The API does not have a certification program for gear oils, the oil that was out of spec.




.
 
When the people doing the oversight are paid by the ones being inspected should we expect a different respose. no different then the CPAs, Attorneys, doctors all policing themselves with no one ever getting punished.

I agree API avoided the question like true politicians!
 
Originally Posted By: Rolf
Originally Posted By: Drew2000
The link in the original post before the insidious M1 hijack clearly referred to SuperTech products packaged by Warren.


The link actually provided an entire page of articles, one of which was "API's Response to Valvoline's Claim".



.
FACT. You still high jacked this thread for YOUR agenda on the 2nd post.
 
Is GL-5 ect.... not an API spec? If I am wrong please explain how they are not involved with a spec with there name on it?
 
Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
You still high jacked this thread for YOUR agenda on the 2nd post.


I have been asked by the Board owner not to be rude.

Tom provided a url and I responded to some of the content of it.

In order to "high jack" it (which I assume is akin to hijacking it) I would have to go outside his url to some other source.

As it turned out, the material further down in the url was of somewhat greater interest, if the number of posts are any indication.


.
 
Originally Posted By: cven
Is GL-5 ect.... not an API spec? If I am wrong please explain how they are not involved with a spec with there name on it?


The API has a program for ensuring motor oils meet specifications.

There is no similar API program for gear oils.



.
 
If the API does not check gear oils like they do motor oil (if I understand you correctly) I think less of them than I already did.

Thanks for the info by the way but if the API doesn't check any gear oil they should take there name off the package. I do not expect anyone to be perfect but at the very minimum an oil with their approval should be under some kind of random quality testing.
 
Originally Posted By: cven
.... if the API doesn't check any gear oil they should take there name off the package.


They don't put their name on the package.

There is no "starburst" equivalent for gear oils.

They publish specifications

http://www.api.org/certifications/engineoil/pubs/upload/1560.pdf

Tests are developed by American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) and reference is made to these test procedures in the API service designations.

In short, it's a completely different ballgame than engine oils.


.
 
Originally Posted By: Rolf
Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
You still high jacked this thread for YOUR agenda on the 2nd post.


I have been asked by the Board owner not to be rude.

Tom provided a url and I responded to some of the content of it.

In order to "high jack" it (which I assume is akin to hijacking it) I would have to go outside his url to some other source.

As it turned out, the material further down in the url was of somewhat greater interest, if the number of posts are any indication.


.


Ok Mike everyone knows what you did.

There was NO reason for you to change the subject and the rest of this thread was about YOUR old Mobil 1 subject. (and on the 2nd post. Could not even wait to be less obvious)

Then most of the 7 pages became YOUR hijacked (nice dig there, feel better?) subject.

Talk about someone with an agenda...
smirk2.gif
 
Originally Posted By: cven
The more I look at this it seems the API is a joke and does nothing but protect themselves and the one who make the products.


What do you expect when the fox is guarding the hen house?
 
Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
Everyone knows what you did.


Yes, I responded to the url that Tom inserted in his message.

Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
There was NO reason for you to change the subject .....


Actually there was. The topic at the bottom of the url Tom inserted was much more interesting than the Walmart topic.

It would have been silly to leave the topic Walmart.

Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
..... and the rest of this thread was about YOUR old Mobil 1 subject.


If you actually read the exchanges, Mobil 1 as a topic belongs to Buster, aided by the usual folks.

My only interest was to try to keep it on facts so it did not spin out of control like the Group III debacle a couple of years ago.

Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
Then most of the 7 pages became YOUR hijacked (nice dig there, feel better?) subject.


You seem to have some sort issue with other people speaking their piece.

Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
Talk about someone with an agenda...


Okay.



.
 
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
The fox really does guard the hen house!


The API deals with oil and lubricants, not poultry.

Manufacturers of oil and lubricants uses refineries, not hen houses.

And ExxonMobil owns more of the refineries and makes more of the oil and lubricants than anyone else, so I suppose it only makes sense that in a trade group for manufacturers of oil and lubricants, it would have a seat at the table.

But then what do I know?


.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

3
Synthetic oil bad in a lawnmower? Any truth in this self proclaimed experts statements?
10 11 12
Replies
221
Views
63K
weldor
wwillson
  • Locked
Answers - Pennzoil Technology behind "Made From Natural Gas" and Vehicle maintenance while driving less Q&A
Replies
5
Views
32K
RateNate
wwillson
  • Locked
Pennzoil GF-6 and Low Viscosity Engine Oil Q&A - Answers
Replies
15
Views
20K
4WD
wwillson
  • Locked
Shell Rotella Gas Truck synthetic engine oil Q&A - Answers
Replies
18
Views
56K
SlavaB
wwillson
  • Locked
Pennzoil API SN Plus & 0W-16 Q&A - Answers
Replies
17
Views
16K
Barn01
Back
Top