Why does Valvoline say...

[Employee#08]

Hi everyone. I was reading Valvoline's website and found an interesting point. They said not to switch back and forth with All-Climate and Maxlife. Is the Maxlife really that different from All-Climate? I remember a member on this board said not to switch back and forth but didn't state why. Comments and suggestions welcomed.

 

[geo]

Valvoline does not "recommend interchanging between MaxLife and All-Climate if you want to experience the full benefits of MaxLife". Valvoline minimized MaxLife's seal swelling properties so that it can be used at every oil change. This is the safest thing to do.

 

[Patman]

That's hilarious that Valvoline would say this, as our own Bob found out in his own testing that Maxlife doesn't swell any seals. It only shrinks things--your wallet!!

 

[Spector]

It is interesting how perception plays such a huge part in the marketing of a product. Many people on this board, Edmunds and others, swear that Maxlife has reduced oil leaks, seepages and oil consumption on older engines yet above it is stated that it does neither. So, if people buy it believing it will reduce leaks want to be bet that in their mind the leaks do get reduced. We all need to justify our purchases regardless of what the product is we buy. How many engine products get sold with the same beliefs, everyone is looking for that golden bullet. It ain't out there!

 

[dragboat]

Patman. I recommend if you can to get your hands on a Parker Seal hand book. It is a amazing amount of info on oils and the effects of swelling they do to various seal compositions. Even in contrast,how some seal compositions are developed to not swell or shrink, again with certain oils. There are many different seals used in all the various makes of Autos and Motorcycles. The problem I find is what seals are actually used? other that Asian and BMW/ Mercedes Cars. It is my understanding Mobil hired Parker to test it's oil against some known compositions in Autos,ohhhh what would I give to have that info.Worth a twelve pack for sure By the way,I have relocated the family [ August 01, 2002, 08:04 AM: Message edited by: dragboat ]

 

[geo]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patman: That's hilarious that Valvoline would say this, as our own Bob found out in his own testing that Maxlife doesn't swell any seals. It only shrinks things--your wallet!!

---

Patman, Bob's tests are not conclusive. MaxLife swells seals showly in a hot engine, not in a dixie cup. Also MaxLife costs between Group III Blends and Group I or II minerals. It contains 9% Group V esters used to swell seals, lowers the pour point, and raises the flash point. Maxlife is an excellent value (moly or not) and may be a better oil than most OTS blends.

 

[Chris A]

Geo pretty much said all I was going to, but I'll add some anyway. At Wal-Mart, MaxLife is $19.44 a case. Now, considering that it contains as much synthetic (ester) base oil as some (many?) of the synthetic blend oils, I consider it a good buy if you want a synth blend oil. Patman, please don't take this personally, but IMHO, you have knee-jerked on MaxLife. First, it was an excellent bargain oil and now it's a waste of money. As far as I can tell, the only reason you don't like it now is because it no longer has moly. From your MaxLife oil analysis post:

quote:

---

Even though the wear numbers are good, I am a bit disappointed with the lack of moly. Perhaps the GM mechanic didn't put in Maxlife after all? But if he didn't, I would've gotten some crappy bulk oil which probably wouldn't show such good numbers.

---

I understand that you feel "cheated" by MaxLife, but it appears from your analysis that it is a good oil. Personally, I don't run MaxLife (but I may one day) and I don't have any ties to Valvoline or MaxLife. Again, please don't take this as a flame. I just don't think that because MaxLife doesn't contain moly makes it a bad oil.

 

[BOBISTHEOILGUY]

quote:

---

Originally posted by geo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patman: That's hilarious that Valvoline would say this, as our own Bob found out in his own testing that Maxlife doesn't swell any seals. It only shrinks things--your wallet!!

---

Patman, Bob's tests are not conclusive. MaxLife swells seals showly in a hot engine, not in a dixie cup. Also MaxLife costs between Group III Blends and Group I or II minerals. It contains 9% Group V esters used to swell seals, lowers the pour point, and raises the flash point. Maxlife is an excellent value (moly or not) and may be a better oil than most OTS blends.

---

Good point, MAYBE your right... Any conclusive evidence that shows it does???? So far, I have not heard anyone conclusivly state that YES, Maxlife has resolve my seal leaks unlike auto rx and neutra 131. Care to share with us the many that have? Don't some syth's carry a group V ester that you state swell seals? Not heard of any full synth conditioning seals and reducing oil leaks, but just the opposite occurs mostly in older vehicles. Why would the detergency in maxlife be so low in comparision to the full synths? You'd think that you'd have to clean the seals and surfaces prior to conditioning it would it? From the analysis and my little experiment I saw just the opposite, the synth's cleaned much better, maxlife failed miserably in comparision. Auto rx and neutra 131 both have cleaning abilities that is needed to accomplish this. I stand by my opinion as it is and strongly disagree that maxlife conditions seals no better than any other oil and that it is a marketing ploy for their product.

 

[Patman]

Yes, part of the reason I don't like Maxlife now is because of the lack of moly, but I also am not comfortable with the 40% oxidation rate in just 2400 miles either. Perhaps that is elevated because of the sulfur content in our fuel up here, who knows. But I just am not sure how much of a bargain this oil is compared to other lower cost oils out there, especially since Johnny eluded to the fact that many low cost conventionals now actually contain a bit of PAO base in them! I guess we'll see soon enough how my SL Maxlife analysis turns out. Maybe the SJ stuff wasn't as robust anymore once the moly was gone, maybe my engine was extra dirty and now that it's been treated with Auto-rx it will allow the oil to do it's job better. But it is true, the main reason I felt it was a bargain oil in the first place was because of the moly. Without the moly this oil doesn't stand out above the other oils on the shelves anymore IMO.

 

[JonS]

Patman, Why all the talk about moly? I thought moly clogged up oil passages. Does it take the place of ZDDP? Don't most race oils use ZDDP as a friction reducer?

 

[geo]

> Good point, MAYBE your right... Any > conclusive evidence that shows it > does???? So far, I have not heard > anyone conclusivly state that YES, > Maxlife has resolve my seal leaks > unlike auto rx and neutra 131. Care > to share with us the many that have? Bob, MaxLife is not intended to be an Auto-Rx replacement. You know that, and hopefully most everyone on this forum knows that. MaxLife may serve a purpose. It may provide a prophylactic benefit over the course of continual use. At $0.20/qt over their All-Climate conventional oil, it may not be a bad deal. Who knows? Oil analysis will only tell you so much and I'm sure that you and the good folks at Schaeffer's do not know about Valvoline's research and empirical data. People have a tendency to work within their framework and not venture out. MaxLife may be more than the sum of it's parts. > Don't some syth's carry a group V > ester that you state swell seals? > Not heard of any full synth conditioning > seals and reducing oil leaks, but just > the opposite occurs mostly in older > vehicles. Bob, most synths containing esters have ingredients to counter the swelling, like PAO in Mobil 1. And who knows... 9% esters may be the magic number to provide a benefit without leaks. You don't know. I don't know. Only time will tell. > Why would the detergency in maxlife be > so low in comparision to the full synths? > You'd think that you'd have to clean the > seals and surfaces prior to conditioning > it would it? Bob, detergents are relatively inexpensive. If it was that easy, I'm sure that they would have added them. Again, you and I don't know their goals, the science, the empirical data, and the long-term results. > From the analysis and my little experiment > I saw just the opposite, the synth's cleaned > much better, maxlife failed miserably in > comparision. Bob, none of your experiments characterize, emulate or even approximate the engine environment. > Auto rx and neutra 131 both have > cleaning abilities that is needed to > accomplish this. I agree if it is desirable to do so, quickly. That was not Valvoline's mission. > I stand by my opinion as it is and > strongly disagree that maxlife > conditions seals no better than any > other oil and that it is a marketing > ploy for their product You are entitled to your opinion. Maybe MaxLife conditions seals as well as any other ester-based synthetic on the long run. But for $0.20 over the price of conventional oil, it's not a mere marketing ploy. It's called value.

 

[jjbula]

quote:

---

Originally posted by geo: [QB. MaxLife may serve a purpose. It may provide a prophylactic benefit over the course of continual use. [/QB]

---

I prefer Trojans.

 

[JonS]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Patman: [QB]The forms of moly used in oils now will not clog up oil passages at all. It just seems i see the words "moly" in the same sentence with PTFE, (which is what is in Prolong, slick 50 ect.) Check out the first paragragh in this sight. http://www.gopurepower.com/purepower_company.html [ August 01, 2002, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

 

[Bror Jace]

Well, I don’t think it’s proper to consider a soluble moly (not some ancient powdered moly) as akin to PTFE. I remember having seen a bottle of Slick 50 that had been sitting around for some time and when it was poured, It came out looking like oil and then as the bottom of the bottle poured out, it was a noticeably thicker, milky goo. Besides, testing has shown PTFE to accelerate wear even as it increases fuel economy and horsepower. The same cannot be said for moly which prevents wear … even in extreme pressure applications. I originally thought Max-Life was a great oil for the money. Valvoline touted it as a Group III oil (often marketed as a synthetic) and later it was discovered to have a good dose of moly in it. Well, the Group III info was an often repeated lie. And now, they’ve taken the moly out in order to appease the fools-on-the-hill (API). I wouldn’t bother with the stuff the way it is, not even if it was only $0.05 more per quart than All-Climate ... which would not be in my top three conventional oils anymore. I’ve had enough of Valvoline and their misleading antics. So, what good is Max-Life now? Bob has doubts about the ability of its ester additive to provide much, if any, seal swelling. My best friend who’s wife was driving around my old ’90 Integra used the stuff and claimed it slowed down the leaking and oil consumption of the car during its final year on the road. Conclusive proof? Nope, not even close. But I’m not gonna dismiss it completely, either. I just don’t think it’s worth it anymore and I no longer recommend it to anyone I know or talk to. --- Bror Jace “I was a patriot before being a patriot was cool.”

 

[geo]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bror Jace: Valvoline touted it as a Group III oil (often marketed as a synthetic) and later it was discovered to have a good dose of moly in it. Well, the Group III info was an often repeated lie. And now, they’ve taken the moly out in order to appease the fools-on-the-hill (API)

---

Bror, I don't recall Valvoline saying that MaxLife was a Group III oil publicly, either on their website or in ads. Last year, Valvoline's support people told me on the phone that the SJ was a Group II oil, and they repeated the same this year with the SL formula. The European MaxLife formulation is marketed as a semi-synth because it contain more esters than the US version.

 

[Patman]

The forms of moly used in oils now will not clog up oil passages at all. Bob has a really great article about moly on this site actually, it should answer everything you need to know about it: http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/moly.html

 

[JTC]

Bror, You write: "Bob has doubts about the ability of its ester additive to provide much, if any, seal swelling. " As the old saying goes: tell the truth and shame the devil. So, here's the truth as I see it: Bob has doubts about just about anything except Schaeffer's. Nevertheless, this is a wonderful site. But it's Bob's site, and its primary function is to market Schaeffers products and to undercut the competition, albeit subtly. Never forget that. Be that as it may, what redeems the site is that Bob allows free speech. I think geo was right on in his comments on Valvoline. I have felt the same about the M1 criticisms. Keep an open mind, take everything said with skepticism, understand the spin, and you can learn from this site.

 

[jjbula]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bror Jace: [QB] jjbula, Johhny works for Pennzoil, not Valvoline. ---Bror Jace I think I need a break from the board, I'm starting to lose it. My apologies to Johnny and everyone else

 

[BOBISTHEOILGUY]

Jtc, Bob has doubts about just about anything except Schaeffer's ,But it's Bob's site, and its primary function is to market Schaeffers products and to undercut the competition, albeit subtly I don't agree, it's(bob's site) primary function is to help people understand lubrication principles and how they apply. The messg board's function is to elaborate on all the issues about different oils and questions and allow general discussions about feelings, experiences and concepts/theories. Something You Missed... I am more of a skeptic than You or anyone else on this site! You must understand I didn't just jump on this oil just because some slick salesman told me it was good. Quite honestly, I doubt everything until I either have it proved or prove it to myself. Take for example, the neutra 131, I had not considered it as much of a thing until I ran into sludge issues with the Toyota's. Once I started to experiment with this stuff, did some oil analysis, tried it on many vehicles with many different problems, seen the solution to the cause take effect from this product, I ONLY NOW have started to stir the pot about its qualities and benifets, as well as did some testing with sufuric acid and fuels along with lucas's fuel additive. I demostrated that lucas's fuel additive appears to be good in those results. Having no experience with it otherwise, I could not support it further. I don't think I put it down and I stated how it compared with schaeffers as being as good in that test.. I think you are suspect to my intentions. Yes, I use SCHAEFFERS as a guidline or yardstick to measure for quality. Why? Because I have personally seen it, tested it or been convinced either my self through experience,testing and education that schaeffers is a top knotch company with top knotch products. So while I do believe strongly in Schaeffers, I don't do these tests to prove to others so much how bad something is as it is to prove to myself and help me understand more on what it is I am looking at and at the same time, allow others to see what I see so they too can conclude what they want from this. So when I see results and post those Is that so much slanted in favor of schaeffers? I'm really sorry if that seems that way. I know you must really believe that no oil company can have blends that can perform like full synths' and that extended drains with low wear #'s ain't possible, especially when you consider having used the same filter all the way, no top off oil, and yet it did as well and maybe even slightly better than a top grade full synth that had a filter change in mid way with top off oil refreshing the additive levels?. WOW!, That's hard to ignore even for me. OPPS!, there it is! the subtle selling! dang, now I understand what your saying. Well lets take this one step further to prove I'm not here to sell so much as to prove to me and others. I posted testing results #'s with third party analysis companies doing the tests as an unbiased way to show just how well is this stuff, You really think I have to blow out others for sales? The stuff works, and even when it is less than better, I'll post it. The analysis section is one of my favorite areas as it takes all the engineers comments and theroy's, all the salesman's comments and BS, and all the company propaganda comments and BS, and shucks them out the window and really lets you see just exactly what it really is about. That in my opinion is conclusive evidence that is not biased by me or anyone else on this board unless they post incorrect #'s, which is why I like many different ones as you can see actual #'s over a viraitaty of things. I really have tried not to "push or sell" so much with schaeffers by condeming or faulting other oils as I don't like that and if I have come across that way, then I have to re evaluate how I come across in respect of being objective vers demeaning other oils to make schaeffers look good as that is not the way I want to sound.

 

[Terry]

Good thread. Until and unless all/most of us consumers use oil analysis and "common sense", (to quote jjbula) confirming the honest product, we are pawns to marketing. By verifing the lubricant products we are installing in our $20,000+ driving machines we won't continue to get ripped off and deceived by the oil companies. Every major and small fry motor oil producer has seen, heard of or,visited this board. You guys/gals are making a mark ! The automotive oil industry needs customers like you all because profits and revenue streams are down and most of you will pay a little more for a solid value. Thats one reason the API and the majors have bumped up the basic motor oil quality a couple of notches in the last 3 to 5 years. Don't attack each other, attack the source of crappy lubricants! [ August 02, 2002, 11:53 PM: Message edited by: Terry ]