Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mobil 1 5w30 is a very good oil for high temp protection and deposit/sludge protection but may just be that it doesn't do that well on the Seq IVA, which is an entirely different test that measures valvetrain wear at low loads/low temps. Just a complete guess but it could be due to the HTO-06 spec it meets although PP 5w30 meets both.
 
That is my point. Oils are mixed and designed to try and meet many standards of performance. Because it is such a complicated mix you may have to give a little in one area to excel in another area.

Since they don't give any concrete measurements for their wear test the wear was probably miniscule so even 4 times less wear would mean next to nothing. It would be like comparing 1" to 4" in distance or 1 mile and 4 miles distance. Same ratio but big difference.
 
Nicely explained Buster/ZZman. I'm not ditching my Mobil 1 0W-20 stash just yet and switching to Valvoline. I have a feeling it's possible that in the 5W-30 grade maybe in this one test Valvoline excelled, and they're jumping all over it, and keeping their mouths shut with the other grades. I think once Mobil sorts out their IKE issues they'll spend some time in a counter attack ad. I learned a long time ago to take Advertisements with a grain of salt.

Again JMO,
Frank D
 
Originally Posted By: ZZman
That is my point. Oils are mixed and designed to try and meet many standards of performance. Because it is such a complicated mix you may have to give a little in one area to excel in another area.

Since they don't give any concrete measurements for their wear test the wear was probably miniscule so even 4 times less wear would mean next to nothing. It would be like comparing 1" to 4" in distance or 1 mile and 4 miles distance. Same ratio but big difference.


Some oil companies have actually made a specific, separate grade to meet Honda HTO-06 which suggests it's a tough test. Both PetroCanada and Castrol have done this.

The problem is though, you must score under 90um of wear to pass the Seq IVA in order to meet the ILSAC GF4/API SM requirement and if it doesn't meet that, I'm not sure you could claim it.
 
Originally Posted By: buster
http://www.jobbersworld.com/December%2011,%202008.htm

Quote:
Rather than backing down, Valvoline is holding its ground, and turns up the heat.

Marketers say the received a letter from Valvoline providing additional information and data to support Valvoline SynPower's significant performance advantage versus Mobil 1. In addition, marketers say the letter turns the table on ExxonMobil's challenge and Valvoline is now challenging ExxonMobil's claim for its Mobil 1 5W-30.

According to the letter, Valvoline says the company conducted a number of tests and commissioned an independent laboratory to evaluate the performance of SynPower and Mobil 1 in the Sequence IVA wear test. Marketers were told the tests were run on a 5W-30 since it's the top selling grade.

Now for the interesting part...

According to a letter Valvoline marketers received, the result from Valvoline's testing indicate:

* Valvoline SynPower's 5W-30 wear performance is at least four times better than Mobil 1 5W-30
* Mobil 1 5W-30 does not meet minimum API SM or ILSAC GF-4 specification because of its inferior performance in the Sequence IVA wear test

The letter reportedly goes on to say that Valvoline notified ExxonMobil of the failed test results in September and that the company take appropriate action regarding their claim that Mobil 1 meets ILSAC GF-4 and API SM specifications, or provide substantiation that they in fact meet these specifications.

As of today, Valvoline told JobbersWorld, ExxonMobil has been silent.


I would want to see this letter on Valvoline letterhead, signed by someone in Valvoline management. That's a pretty liable statement saying Mobil 1 5W-30 does not meet API SM GF-4 specs.

I have not looked, but I doubt that is posted on their website.
 
Quote:
Mobil 1 5W-30 does not meet minimum API SM or ILSAC GF-4 specification because of its inferior performance in the Sequence IVA wear test

"...does not meet minimum API SM or ILSAC GF-4 specification..."

If this is true, then this oil does not meet warranty requirements for new vehicles. And technically, any new car which comes from the factory with this oil, like Corvette, could be recalled.
 
"Marketers say", "according to the letter". Anytime I hear the words marketers say and according in the same sentence, I look both ways before I cross the street.
 
Makes sense ....

You offer your 'Flagship' product in M1 5w-30 but ....

You come out with an EP offering stating nothing against your 'Flagship' but yet at the same time implying it is 'Stronger'.

Makes no sense other than just dollars.

Also for arguments sake, say you dumb down your 'Flagship' to make even more money. Too bad.

Perhaps as suggest before, EP is closer or is in fact the 'Original' M1
 
I'd like to see the letter too. Its possible its a rumor that actually made it to publication all on hearsay, from "reliable sources". If that's the case (stupid move for printing it) then legal action will probably be starting shortly. Time will tell. The key words are "marketers say". I say [censored].

Frank D
 
This raises the question of what the approval processes are for API SM and ILSAC GF-4. What are they?

If the test data is sent to an independent review board, Mobil should be in the clear about the claim that M1 5W-30 does not pass API SM and ILSAC GF-4. If it barely passed that wear test when Mobil tested it, it is possible for it to fail when its tested again due to statistical variations. Does anyone know if only one passed Sequence IVA wear test is all that's needed or is it multiple? If it's a sample size of one and M1 5W-30 passed it when Mobil tested it, and when Valvoline had it tested, it failed, Mobil need not show Valvoline substantiation.

I too take with a grain of salt what companies say through their marketing departments. They obviously have a lot to gain from trashing their competition. This whole thing has a fishy smell to it, to me.
 
There will definitely be major repercussions from this either way. It could backfire on Valvoline or tarnish XOM's reputation. To go public and specifically call out a competitor on a major claim is ballzzy. I have a very hard time believing Mobil 1 5w30 does not meet the Seq IVA requirements for SM/GF4. I believe they have the test facilities in-house to do the testing themselves. Interesting little twist to the story as it's now an issue of whether M1 passes the Seq IVA. LOL.
 
I believe there is validity in Valvoline's claim. I switched to Mobil 15W50 in my sport motorcycles. This was the tri-synthetic
formulation. The magnetic drain plugs were full of iron powder.
I tried the gold cap EP and the same wear was occuring. The oil did a fantastic job in cleaning up the engines though. (Castrol Syntec had left a varnish buildup which Mobil removed!). I believe the deposit control additives are competing with the AW, EP additives and are winning.
 
What would be the cause of high fe levels on the uoa`s with M1? Where would the fe come from? Any coorelation between the high fe levels and the engine noise sometimes associated with M1?
 
Originally Posted By: HayBusMan
I believe there is validity in Valvoline's claim. I switched to Mobil 15W50 in my sport motorcycles. This was the tri-synthetic
formulation. The magnetic drain plugs were full of iron powder.
I tried the gold cap EP and the same wear was occuring. The oil did a fantastic job in cleaning up the engines though. (Castrol Syntec had left a varnish buildup which Mobil removed!). I believe the deposit control additives are competing with the AW, EP additives and are winning.


Yeah some have said that. It's all about finding that "balance". Superior in some areas, a jack of all trades in others.
 
Originally Posted By: buster
Originally Posted By: HayBusMan
I believe there is validity in Valvoline's claim. I switched to Mobil 15W50 in my sport motorcycles. This was the tri-synthetic
formulation. The magnetic drain plugs were full of iron powder.
I tried the gold cap EP and the same wear was occuring. The oil did a fantastic job in cleaning up the engines though. (Castrol Syntec had left a varnish buildup which Mobil removed!). I believe the deposit control additives are competing with the AW, EP additives and are winning.


Yeah some have said that. It's all about finding that "balance". Superior in some areas, a jack of all trades in others.


Sort`ve like the cleaning agents are "cleaning away" the lubricating agents inhibiting 100% lubrication?
 
They're saying this and all the while Mobil 1's marketers are sitting back, biding their time sharpening their shanks. I wouldn't be surprised if in short order we see Mobil come out with some test data that makes Valvoline look like Golden State.
 
XOM needs to prove it far surpasses the Seq IVA and this goes away. Singling out one test is one thing, but not meeting it is another.

For my post above, sorry I meant many say M1 keeps engines spotless....never heard of any iron powder issues. LOL.

This is like WW III of oil wars.
grin2.gif
 
For many tens of thousands of miles on my VW GTI, I've been monitoring iron picked up its drain plug and internal oil filter magnets (http://www.magna-guard.com/) and have not noticed an increase while using M1 0W-40 vs any other brand of oil (Valvoline Synpower 5W-40, Lubromoly 0W-40 and 5W-40, GC 0W-30, Syntec 5W-40, Amsoil ACD SAE 30/10W-30).

I don't put much weight on UOA iron measurements...there is a particle size limitation. It must be recognized that what it is measuring is the concentration on the low end of the size distribution and that distribution is not necessarily constant (shape of or the mean of the population density vs. particle size curve).

The one magnet I have is on the outside of the oil filter (http://www.filtermag.com/tech.php). After using Lubromoly 0W-40, I opened the oil filter while keeping the magnet on it, and was amazed to see how much iron particles there were. It was just like the pics on FilterMag's website: http://www.filtermag.com/proof.php. The particles were also very gritty to the touch.

On the other hand, M1 5W-30 has a strange formulation. It has low shear stability for a synthetic and has a low starting TBN. These are big enough strikes against it to make me not respect it, given that its most direct competition, PP 5W-30, is more shear stable and has higher starting TBN and also meets the Honda HT-06 spec.
 
What [censored]...
12.gif


oh and M1's no 1 selling oil is 10w30..not 5w30,they can't even
get that little bit of info right,so i'm suppose to believe the rest....lol
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top