Why Did Mobil 1 Fail?
- Thread starter macarose
- Start date
- Status
Well, it might not be Mobil's fault, but you can't blame the guy for being hopping mad.
Originally Posted By: tig1
Since he claims the UOA showed his sample was not M1, why is he still harping about this anyway?
Missing my point. Imagine if my UOA showed Mobil 1. Getting Xom to even look at my claim is near impossible. They are not even saying that I do not have their product. They are saying unless I do a teardown for them, they will not look at case.
You guys seem mad that I pursue XOM. Like Garak said, if this was you all bets are off. In a lawsuit, persue all those that have responsibility. Car maker and part manufacturer get included in airbags and tire lawsuits. I am not taking Walmart out of responsibility either.
Am I mad. A bit. But not enough to ruin my day. You guys don't have to see your "baby" look like this.
Since he claims the UOA showed his sample was not M1, why is he still harping about this anyway?
Missing my point. Imagine if my UOA showed Mobil 1. Getting Xom to even look at my claim is near impossible. They are not even saying that I do not have their product. They are saying unless I do a teardown for them, they will not look at case.
You guys seem mad that I pursue XOM. Like Garak said, if this was you all bets are off. In a lawsuit, persue all those that have responsibility. Car maker and part manufacturer get included in airbags and tire lawsuits. I am not taking Walmart out of responsibility either.
Am I mad. A bit. But not enough to ruin my day. You guys don't have to see your "baby" look like this.
Originally Posted By: Jooksing
Originally Posted By: tig1
Since he claims the UOA showed his sample was not M1, why is he still harping about this anyway?
Missing my point. Imagine if my UOA showed Mobil 1. Getting Xom to even look at my claim is near impossible. They are not even saying that I do not have their product. They are saying unless I do a teardown for them, they will not look at case.
You guys seem mad that I pursue XOM. Like Garak said, if this was you all bets are off. In a lawsuit, persue all those that have responsibility. Car maker and part manufacturer get included in airbags and tire lawsuits. I am not taking Walmart out of responsibility either.
Am I mad. A bit. But not enough to ruin my day. You guys don't have to see your "baby" look like this.
You said" Imagine if my UOA showed M1". Well your UOA said your sample was not M1. Why would XM give you a minute of their time then. You can't even prove the oil you put in your engine was M1. XM probably sees scam artist all the time.
Originally Posted By: tig1
Since he claims the UOA showed his sample was not M1, why is he still harping about this anyway?
Missing my point. Imagine if my UOA showed Mobil 1. Getting Xom to even look at my claim is near impossible. They are not even saying that I do not have their product. They are saying unless I do a teardown for them, they will not look at case.
You guys seem mad that I pursue XOM. Like Garak said, if this was you all bets are off. In a lawsuit, persue all those that have responsibility. Car maker and part manufacturer get included in airbags and tire lawsuits. I am not taking Walmart out of responsibility either.
Am I mad. A bit. But not enough to ruin my day. You guys don't have to see your "baby" look like this.
You said" Imagine if my UOA showed M1". Well your UOA said your sample was not M1. Why would XM give you a minute of their time then. You can't even prove the oil you put in your engine was M1. XM probably sees scam artist all the time.
Originally Posted By: Jooksing
You are bad at imagining.... I am saying if it did come up matching M1. They will still not consider it.
How do you know that since what you put in your engine was not M1 oil as your UOA showed? XM can spot a scam when it comes their way.
You are bad at imagining.... I am saying if it did come up matching M1. They will still not consider it.
How do you know that since what you put in your engine was not M1 oil as your UOA showed? XM can spot a scam when it comes their way.
Last edited:
I know because they add road blocks to their claims process without even reading the stuff I gave them. I have been a open book to them and you guys. I submitted the info and open to them investigating my case. I am not trying to scam anyone as you insinuate. I love my car too much to put it in harm's way and there is nothing for me to gain here... a few thousand $ in an engine swap I rather not go through.
Walmart blames XOM and XOM will deny responsibility. It just leaves the consumer with empty promises(warranty). I understand there are jerks that take advantage. However i am not one. I offered you as well as other BITOGers to come to my place to check this out for yourself.. what scammer would do this?
Walmart blames XOM and XOM will deny responsibility. It just leaves the consumer with empty promises(warranty). I understand there are jerks that take advantage. However i am not one. I offered you as well as other BITOGers to come to my place to check this out for yourself.. what scammer would do this?
Originally Posted By: Jooksing
I know because they add road blocks to their claims process without even reading the stuff I gave them. I have been a open book to them and you guys. I submitted the info and open to them investigating my case. I am not trying to scam anyone as you insinuate. I love my car too much to put it in harm's way and there is nothing for me to gain here... a few thousand $ in an engine swap I rather not go through.
Walmart blames XOM and XOM will deny responsibility. It just leaves the consumer with empty promises(warranty). I understand there are jerks that take advantage. However i am not one. I offered you as well as other BITOGers to come to my place to check this out for yourself.. what scammer would do this?
Of course XM will deny responsibility since M1 EP wasn't in your engine. Per the UOA you did.
I know because they add road blocks to their claims process without even reading the stuff I gave them. I have been a open book to them and you guys. I submitted the info and open to them investigating my case. I am not trying to scam anyone as you insinuate. I love my car too much to put it in harm's way and there is nothing for me to gain here... a few thousand $ in an engine swap I rather not go through.
Walmart blames XOM and XOM will deny responsibility. It just leaves the consumer with empty promises(warranty). I understand there are jerks that take advantage. However i am not one. I offered you as well as other BITOGers to come to my place to check this out for yourself.. what scammer would do this?
Of course XM will deny responsibility since M1 EP wasn't in your engine. Per the UOA you did.
Originally Posted By: tig1
Of course XM will deny responsibility since M1 EP wasn't in your engine. Per the UOA you did.
Well it was in their bottle....the fact that it doesn't test the same does not mean that Mobil are off the hook, as something wrong in the wrong bottle...logically...doesn't look like what SHOULD be in the bottle does it ???
So by definition, it wasn't M1 the he tipped in his engine, but it doesn't mean that it couldn't have been incorrectly made by Mobil.
Personally, and on probability, I'd go chain of custody and lodge a claim with Walmart and let it run back up the waterfall.
Of course XM will deny responsibility since M1 EP wasn't in your engine. Per the UOA you did.
Well it was in their bottle....the fact that it doesn't test the same does not mean that Mobil are off the hook, as something wrong in the wrong bottle...logically...doesn't look like what SHOULD be in the bottle does it ???
So by definition, it wasn't M1 the he tipped in his engine, but it doesn't mean that it couldn't have been incorrectly made by Mobil.
Personally, and on probability, I'd go chain of custody and lodge a claim with Walmart and let it run back up the waterfall.
Originally Posted By: tig1
Of course XM will deny responsibility since M1 EP wasn't in your engine. Per the UOA you did.
put it this way...tig1 buys a salt shaker full of salt, cooks with it and kills his visitors. Analysis shows that tig1's salt wasn't salt, but pool chemicals.
Is it up to tig1 to just suck it up, as it clearly wasn't salt in the shaker ?
Of course XM will deny responsibility since M1 EP wasn't in your engine. Per the UOA you did.
put it this way...tig1 buys a salt shaker full of salt, cooks with it and kills his visitors. Analysis shows that tig1's salt wasn't salt, but pool chemicals.
Is it up to tig1 to just suck it up, as it clearly wasn't salt in the shaker ?
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: tig1
Of course XM will deny responsibility since M1 EP wasn't in your engine. Per the UOA you did.
Well it was in their bottle....the fact that it doesn't test the same does not mean that Mobil are off the hook, as something wrong in the wrong bottle...logically...doesn't look like what SHOULD be in the bottle does it ???
So by definition, it wasn't M1 the he tipped in his engine, but it doesn't mean that it couldn't have been incorrectly made by Mobil.
Personally, and on probability, I'd go chain of custody and lodge a claim with Walmart and let it run back up the waterfall.
How do you know this? So you believe the guy just because he says so? How do you spell gullible in OZ?? Come on Man!! LOL!
Originally Posted By: tig1
Of course XM will deny responsibility since M1 EP wasn't in your engine. Per the UOA you did.
Well it was in their bottle....the fact that it doesn't test the same does not mean that Mobil are off the hook, as something wrong in the wrong bottle...logically...doesn't look like what SHOULD be in the bottle does it ???
So by definition, it wasn't M1 the he tipped in his engine, but it doesn't mean that it couldn't have been incorrectly made by Mobil.
Personally, and on probability, I'd go chain of custody and lodge a claim with Walmart and let it run back up the waterfall.
How do you know this? So you believe the guy just because he says so? How do you spell gullible in OZ?? Come on Man!! LOL!
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: tig1
Of course XM will deny responsibility since M1 EP wasn't in your engine. Per the UOA you did.
Well it was in their bottle....the fact that it doesn't test the same does not mean that Mobil are off the hook, as something wrong in the wrong bottle...logically...doesn't look like what SHOULD be in the bottle does it ???
So by definition, it wasn't M1 the he tipped in his engine, but it doesn't mean that it couldn't have been incorrectly made by Mobil.
Personally, and on probability, I’d go chain of custody and lodge a claim with Walmart and let it run back up the waterfall.
Come on man...
They don’t make that stuff one jug at a time and if this was a Mobil issue it would be ALL OVER THE PLACE...
Not this one jug.
I is not Mobil’s fault, any more than one tampered with shaker of Morton salt would be Morton’s fault.
Originally Posted By: tig1
Of course XM will deny responsibility since M1 EP wasn't in your engine. Per the UOA you did.
Well it was in their bottle....the fact that it doesn't test the same does not mean that Mobil are off the hook, as something wrong in the wrong bottle...logically...doesn't look like what SHOULD be in the bottle does it ???
So by definition, it wasn't M1 the he tipped in his engine, but it doesn't mean that it couldn't have been incorrectly made by Mobil.
Personally, and on probability, I’d go chain of custody and lodge a claim with Walmart and let it run back up the waterfall.
Come on man...
They don’t make that stuff one jug at a time and if this was a Mobil issue it would be ALL OVER THE PLACE...
Not this one jug.
I is not Mobil’s fault, any more than one tampered with shaker of Morton salt would be Morton’s fault.
With all the tamper proof sealing that the industry uses it should be apparent to the end user that something is not right. It’s called paying attention.
How many here check the dimple on a screw top bottle to make sure the seal is intact before purchasing? The buyer must perform due diligence.
How many here check the dimple on a screw top bottle to make sure the seal is intact before purchasing? The buyer must perform due diligence.
If I noticed something was off you think I would dump in in my crank case?
I do check once in a while on food items, including the date. The wife is more attentive than me in checking every time. She checks everything that has a seal before buying, especailly the seals under plastic caps. So yes, people do.
I do check once in a while on food items, including the date. The wife is more attentive than me in checking every time. She checks everything that has a seal before buying, especailly the seals under plastic caps. So yes, people do.
Originally Posted By: DuckRyder
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: tig1
Of course XM will deny responsibility since M1 EP wasn't in your engine. Per the UOA you did.
Well it was in their bottle....the fact that it doesn't test the same does not mean that Mobil are off the hook, as something wrong in the wrong bottle...logically...doesn't look like what SHOULD be in the bottle does it ???
So by definition, it wasn't M1 the he tipped in his engine, but it doesn't mean that it couldn't have been incorrectly made by Mobil.
Personally, and on probability, I’d go chain of custody and lodge a claim with Walmart and let it run back up the waterfall.
Come on man...
They don’t make that stuff one jug at a time and if this was a Mobil issue it would be ALL OVER THE PLACE...
Not this one jug.
I is not Mobil’s fault, any more than one tampered with shaker of Morton salt would be Morton’s fault.
Did you read my post ?
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Personally, and on probability, I’d go chain of custody and lodge a claim with Walmart and let it run back up the waterfall.
Your "single bottle" strawman is stupid ... especially if you don't read the post that you are quoting.
In the salt analogy, does the customer own the problem, or have recourse ?
If the customer bought a faulty product, then chain of custody starts at the person who sold it to them...simple...get it ?
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: tig1
Of course XM will deny responsibility since M1 EP wasn't in your engine. Per the UOA you did.
Well it was in their bottle....the fact that it doesn't test the same does not mean that Mobil are off the hook, as something wrong in the wrong bottle...logically...doesn't look like what SHOULD be in the bottle does it ???
So by definition, it wasn't M1 the he tipped in his engine, but it doesn't mean that it couldn't have been incorrectly made by Mobil.
Personally, and on probability, I’d go chain of custody and lodge a claim with Walmart and let it run back up the waterfall.
Come on man...
They don’t make that stuff one jug at a time and if this was a Mobil issue it would be ALL OVER THE PLACE...
Not this one jug.
I is not Mobil’s fault, any more than one tampered with shaker of Morton salt would be Morton’s fault.
Did you read my post ?
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Personally, and on probability, I’d go chain of custody and lodge a claim with Walmart and let it run back up the waterfall.
Your "single bottle" strawman is stupid ... especially if you don't read the post that you are quoting.
In the salt analogy, does the customer own the problem, or have recourse ?
If the customer bought a faulty product, then chain of custody starts at the person who sold it to them...simple...get it ?
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: DuckRyder
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: tig1
Of course XM will deny responsibility since M1 EP wasn't in your engine. Per the UOA you did.
Well it was in their bottle....the fact that it doesn't test the same does not mean that Mobil are off the hook, as something wrong in the wrong bottle...logically...doesn't look like what SHOULD be in the bottle does it ???
So by definition, it wasn't M1 the he tipped in his engine, but it doesn't mean that it couldn't have been incorrectly made by Mobil.
Personally, and on probability, I’d go chain of custody and lodge a claim with Walmart and let it run back up the waterfall.
Come on man...
They don’t make that stuff one jug at a time and if this was a Mobil issue it would be ALL OVER THE PLACE...
Not this one jug.
I is not Mobil’s fault, any more than one tampered with shaker of Morton salt would be Morton’s fault.
Did you read my post ?
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Personally, and on probability, I’d go chain of custody and lodge a claim with Walmart and let it run back up the waterfall.
Your "single bottle" strawman is stupid ... especially if you don't read the post that you are quoting.
In the salt analogy, does the customer own the problem, or have recourse ?
If the customer bought a faulty product, then chain of custody starts at the person who sold it to them...simple...get it ?
Oh I read your post.
Quote:
Well it was in their bottle....the fact that it doesn’t test the same does not mean that Mobil are off the hook, as something wrong in the wrong bottle...logically...doesn't look like what SHOULD be in the bottle does it ???
Mobil is off the hook there is no way that if they bottled it there would be this single bottle. It WOULD BE all over. That isn’t a straw man, it is as close to a fact as you are likely to find.
Anyone who thinks Mobil shipped that is an idiot period. What happened after it left Mobil is anyones guess.
He can’t even prove it came out of the bottle...
Originally Posted By: DuckRyder
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: tig1
Of course XM will deny responsibility since M1 EP wasn't in your engine. Per the UOA you did.
Well it was in their bottle....the fact that it doesn't test the same does not mean that Mobil are off the hook, as something wrong in the wrong bottle...logically...doesn't look like what SHOULD be in the bottle does it ???
So by definition, it wasn't M1 the he tipped in his engine, but it doesn't mean that it couldn't have been incorrectly made by Mobil.
Personally, and on probability, I’d go chain of custody and lodge a claim with Walmart and let it run back up the waterfall.
Come on man...
They don’t make that stuff one jug at a time and if this was a Mobil issue it would be ALL OVER THE PLACE...
Not this one jug.
I is not Mobil’s fault, any more than one tampered with shaker of Morton salt would be Morton’s fault.
Did you read my post ?
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Personally, and on probability, I’d go chain of custody and lodge a claim with Walmart and let it run back up the waterfall.
Your "single bottle" strawman is stupid ... especially if you don't read the post that you are quoting.
In the salt analogy, does the customer own the problem, or have recourse ?
If the customer bought a faulty product, then chain of custody starts at the person who sold it to them...simple...get it ?
Oh I read your post.
Quote:
Well it was in their bottle....the fact that it doesn’t test the same does not mean that Mobil are off the hook, as something wrong in the wrong bottle...logically...doesn't look like what SHOULD be in the bottle does it ???
Mobil is off the hook there is no way that if they bottled it there would be this single bottle. It WOULD BE all over. That isn’t a straw man, it is as close to a fact as you are likely to find.
Anyone who thinks Mobil shipped that is an idiot period. What happened after it left Mobil is anyones guess.
He can’t even prove it came out of the bottle...
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: DuckRyder
[Anyone who thinks Mobil shipped that is an idiot period. What happened after it left Mobil is anyones guess.
Never heard of workplace sabotage ?
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/7-sickening-cases-food-sabotage-4322010
[Anyone who thinks Mobil shipped that is an idiot period. What happened after it left Mobil is anyones guess.
Never heard of workplace sabotage ?
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/7-sickening-cases-food-sabotage-4322010
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: DuckRyder
[Anyone who thinks Mobil shipped that is an idiot period. What happened after it left Mobil is anyones guess.
Never heard of workplace sabotage ?
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/7-sickening-cases-food-sabotage-4322010
Please point to the one of your examples wherein someone in a production facility tampered with the product and it got shipped to a retailer
Originally Posted By: DuckRyder
[Anyone who thinks Mobil shipped that is an idiot period. What happened after it left Mobil is anyones guess.
Never heard of workplace sabotage ?
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/7-sickening-cases-food-sabotage-4322010
Please point to the one of your examples wherein someone in a production facility tampered with the product and it got shipped to a retailer
Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: Jooksing
I know because they add road blocks to their claims process without even reading the stuff I gave them. I have been a open book to them and you guys. I submitted the info and open to them investigating my case. I am not trying to scam anyone as you insinuate. I love my car too much to put it in harm's way and there is nothing for me to gain here... a few thousand $ in an engine swap I rather not go through.
Walmart blames XOM and XOM will deny responsibility. It just leaves the consumer with empty promises(warranty). I understand there are jerks that take advantage. However i am not one. I offered you as well as other BITOGers to come to my place to check this out for yourself.. what scammer would do this?
Of course XM will deny responsibility since M1 EP wasn't in your engine. Per the UOA you did.
Tig1: i washed my hands of this guys post a long long.time ago. Who knows what he really put in his engine
Originally Posted By: Jooksing
I know because they add road blocks to their claims process without even reading the stuff I gave them. I have been a open book to them and you guys. I submitted the info and open to them investigating my case. I am not trying to scam anyone as you insinuate. I love my car too much to put it in harm's way and there is nothing for me to gain here... a few thousand $ in an engine swap I rather not go through.
Walmart blames XOM and XOM will deny responsibility. It just leaves the consumer with empty promises(warranty). I understand there are jerks that take advantage. However i am not one. I offered you as well as other BITOGers to come to my place to check this out for yourself.. what scammer would do this?
Of course XM will deny responsibility since M1 EP wasn't in your engine. Per the UOA you did.
Tig1: i washed my hands of this guys post a long long.time ago. Who knows what he really put in his engine
Originally Posted By: DuckRyder
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: DuckRyder
[Anyone who thinks Mobil shipped that is an idiot period. What happened after it left Mobil is anyones guess.
Never heard of workplace sabotage ?
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/7-sickening-cases-food-sabotage-4322010
Please point to the one of your examples wherein someone in a production facility tampered with the product and it got shipped to a retailer
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/652...elloggs-factory
I have a feeling this thread is about to be locked..
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: DuckRyder
[Anyone who thinks Mobil shipped that is an idiot period. What happened after it left Mobil is anyones guess.
Never heard of workplace sabotage ?
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/7-sickening-cases-food-sabotage-4322010
Please point to the one of your examples wherein someone in a production facility tampered with the product and it got shipped to a retailer
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/652...elloggs-factory
I have a feeling this thread is about to be locked..
- Status
