YOUR WARRANTY ...what is the real chance of a warranty denial b/c of your oil? Examples?

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

The manufacture would have to prove the oil caused the damage.

That's not at all difficult to do, trust me

 

[EMPIRE]

Regardless, it was a significant event in the industry. It undoubtedly led to better testing and stricter internal QC standards at Quaker, and probably other companies. It likely contributed to the current state of PCMO quality, and why your question could be asked with the answer being generations ago.

It hurt Quaker State. There's no way it couldn't have. The bad publicity, the payouts for repairs, and the expense laid out assuaging customers in attempt to keep them. I believe the whole motor oil company engine warranty program was borne out of it. QS was the #1 PCMO in US market share. Not long after, they lost that ranking and never regained it. By the late '90s they were circling the drain. Only because of mergers and buyouts does the brand still exist.

But all that was bad oil and not a bad choice of grade, right? Assuming we are talking about good oil here, yes?

 

[EMPIRE]

That's not at all difficult to do, trust me

OEM would likely have to spend a lot more $$ than what it cost to replace the engine.

 

[PimTac]

Regardless, it was a significant event in the industry. It undoubtedly led to better testing and stricter internal QC standards at Quaker, and probably other companies. It likely contributed to the current state of PCMO quality, and why your question could be asked with the answer being generations ago.

It hurt Quaker State. There's no way it couldn't have. The bad publicity, the payouts for repairs, and the expense laid out assuaging customers in attempt to keep them. I believe the whole motor oil company engine warranty program was borne out of it. QS was the #1 PCMO in US market share. Not long after, they lost that ranking and never regained it. By the late '90s they were circling the drain. Only because of mergers and buyouts does the brand still exist.

I saw evidence of Quaker State failing first hand as well in that time period. With that said, I’m sure it’s a great oil and that is all behind them now. Nevertheless, I haven’t used it.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

OEM would likely have to spend a lot more $$ than what it cost to replace the engine.

Yes, that's a business decision not an engineering decision and not speaking specifically for the automotive industry I can assure you they routinely do spend it as part of the corporate risk matrix as a self defense measure against the flood of actions they anticipate would happen if they didn't.

I know this process quite well. I've been doing it for decades. A lot more consideration goes into this than the cost of a single entity.

 

[Scuder]

But all that was bad oil and not a bad choice of grade, right? Assuming we are talking about good oil here, yes?

I suppose, but as your question was asked, I gave a direct answer.
What exactly did you mean? Was the intent of your original question to ask if a misapplication can cause an oil to fail, thereby damaging the engine? As opposed to a misapplication or a lube failure causing damage independent of one another?

 

[Scuder]

I saw evidence of Quaker State failing first hand as well in that time period. With that said, I’m sure it’s a great oil and that is all behind them now. Nevertheless, I haven’t used it.

Yep, ancient history. That was four decades and two mergers ago. About twelve years ago, I got at least forty cases for free. For liability reasons, due to a mistake printed on the label, it couldn't be sold. I've probably gotten 250K trouble free miles out of that oil. I still have have about eight cases, and I use it in my '09 Pontiac Vibe.

 

[EMPIRE]

I suppose, but as your question was asked, I gave a direct answer.
What exactly did you mean? Was the intent of your original question to ask if a misapplication can cause an oil to fail, thereby damaging the engine? As opposed to a misapplication or a lube failure causing damage independent of one another?

I am not the OP

 

[EMPIRE]

Yes, that's a business decision not an engineering decision and not speaking specifically for the automotive industry I can assure you they routinely do spend it as part of the corporate risk matrix as a self defense measure against the flood of actions they anticipate would happen if they didn't.

I know this process quite well. I've been doing it for decades. A lot more consideration goes into this than the cost of a single entity.

So are you saying, because the OEM's have the technical ability to know what oil is used (which is super ez when illumiating a sample with some neutrons, this is how we can reverse engineer a recipe for anything ) the end users get scared and only use what the "idiot label" says? Is that the premise?

 

[Quattro Pete]

but it seems like an almost zero risk to run whatever oil

Sure, but almost zero is not zero. It usually doesn't cost any more to use the approved oil than it is to use the unapproved one of high quality, so why bother?

And yes, the manufacturer has to prove that the oil caused the issue, but they can make that "proving" process an unpleasant experience for the owner if they choose to, for example, if the car has to sit in their shop while they're doing their investigation. In the meantime, the owner is left without a vehicle, unless the dealer is nice enough to provide a free loaner. They don't always do. Just not worth the potential inconvenience, IMO.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

So are you saying, because the OEM's have the technical ability to know what oil is used (which is super ez when illumiating a sample with some neutrons, this is how we can reverse engineer a recipe for anything ) the end users get scared and only use what the "idiot label" says? Is that the premise?

No, I didn't say or imply anything even remotely close to that. I think you might have been blinded by too much of that 'nucular" science and get so caught up in your attempt to use big words to sound impressive that even you lose meaning as to what you are saying.

 

[Scuder]

I am not the OP

This is the question to which I replied with my Quaker State history lesson.
" Before even the warranty claim issue, when has an engine failed and the motor oil was suspect as the cause?"

 

[EMPIRE]

No, I didn't say or imply anything even remotely close to that. I think you might have been blinded by too much of that 'nucular" science and get so caught up in your attempt to use big words to sound impressive that even you lose meaning as to what you are saying.

So what "flood of actions" are you talking about? You mean they write a risk matrix and one of them is "user claims engine failure" and the risk mitigation (check) is "we have ability to verify if the oil in engine is the recommended oil" ?

How many engine failures does an OEM deal with on an annual basis, and of those how many are suspect wrong engine oil?

 

[EMPIRE]

This is the question to which I replied with my Quaker State history lesson.
" Before even the warranty claim issue, when has an engine failed and the motor oil was suspect as the cause?"

And I asnwered that in the other post, I was thinking on the timeline of post CANbus. But as engines do fail for numerous reasons, post CAN bus, when has the oil been suspect and then found to be the cause, for either wrong type or bad oil?

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

So what "flood of actions" are you talking about? You mean they write a risk matrix and one of them is "user claims engine failure" and the risk mitigation (check) is "we have ability to verify if the oil in engine is the recommended oil" ?

How many engine failures does an OEM deal with on an annual basis, and of those how many are suspect wrong engine oil?

Very simple, obviously you know little about the business risk assessment process in general or you wouldn't harp on one of the most basic considerations.

Its the risk of 'doing nothing" and what negative actions can be brought against a given company in addition to the impacts. What it can invite and even motivate others to attempt if they see money in it.

Sure in most cases a one off or an outlier might get a nuisance settlement but in things like this both the OEM of the engine as well as the oil now have reputational risks and that's even more heightened now by the "cancel culture".

As to the rest, that's best directed at the individual OEM's as that would be their proprietary data.

 

[EMPIRE]

Very simple, obviously you know little about the business risk assessment process in general or you wouldn't harp on one of the most basic considerations.

Its the risk of 'doing nothing" and what negative actions can be brought against a given company in addition to the impacts. What it can invite and even motivate others to attempt if they see money in it.

Sure in most cases a one off or an outlier might get a nuisance settlement but in things like this both the OEM of the engine as well as the oil now have reputational risks and that's even more heightened now by the "cancel culture".

As to the rest, that's best directed at the individual OEM's as that would be their proprietary data.

You assume I don't know anything about risk analysis? I do it on a daily basis.
You then go on to list secondary and tertiary risks associated to the engine failure.

And I didnt say "do nothing". You said "the floods of actions". What floods of actions? Maybe you meant a few rare cases where oil was suspect?

If the engine has a rev limiter and I am constantly going to redline and the ECU records that, when the engine dies is it my fault?

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

You assume I don't know anything about risk analysis? I do it on a daily basis.
You then go on to list secondary and tertiary risks associated to the engine failure.

And I didnt say "do nothing". You said "the floods of actions". What floods of actions? Maybe you meant a few rare cases where oil was suspect?

If the engine has a rev limiter and I am constantly going to redline and the ECU records that, when the engine dies is it my fault?

I made no assumption, I evaluated your experience based on your commentary and I made no association to "engine failure'- I made my comments on the subject open ended ( one would think someone who does all this 'daily" would catch that and not make such an obvious error). My assessment still stands.

Part 2- Asked and answered already ( good time to put that reading comprehension to work)

Part-3 I am not into non sequitur straw- if you have a cogent, subject and context relevant point,, make it

 

[EMPIRE]

( one would think someone who does all this 'daily" would catch that and not make such an obvious error). My assessment still stands.

What error?

 

[Scuder]

And I asnwered that in the other post, I was thinking on the timeline of post CANbus. But as engines do fail for numerous reasons, post CAN bus, when has the oil been suspect and then found to be the cause, for either wrong type or bad oil?

I know of no large scale happenstances such as the QS failing in the post CANbus era. Misapplication and contamination happen all the time at levels at or near installation.
Certainly individual and small scale multiple failures happen occasionally.
I know of a small number of serious contaminations and misapplications that apparently didn't cause any known failures. That's not to say no damage was caused, however. There's just no way to tell.

 

[TiGeo]

BTW - this is just a convo, I always use (close enough) the recommended oil type/approval/etc. I agree it's no drama to do so so why not. My Sportwagen I've used oil that doesn't have the VW approval but warranty isn't a concern for me as it's been modified anyway. I just always see someone jump in about warranty in these discussions.