Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.


Well, I have two 302's with almost 700,000Km between them. Both are driven VERY hard. M1 has kept them clean inside (yes, my engines have actually been apart, these aren't valve cover observations) and there was ZERO visible wear on the Mustang engine, even after all the abuse, fuel dilution due to overly-large injector sizing.....etc.

If the Syntec caused "gum" accumulation in your engine, is it not possible that iron particles were suspended in that "gum", and as the M1 dissolved this, that the particles were set free to accumulate on your magnets?

All kinds of variables here. This is why UOA's are just ONE test of MANY.

Tear-down tests, which, coincidentally, along with a barrage of other tests, are what are performed to evaluate an oil's REAL performance.

GM does this with M1, XOM does this.....etc.
 
Tearing down an engine and using a mic to measure things is really the only way to tell how effective an oil or additive really is. You bring out a great point. If a car was run from day one, on one and only one oil, then if wear metals were high it could be blamed on the oil (or poor engine design, etc). But it would be a lot more vaild than someone who switched brands and then at 50,000 miles went for a UOA.

As you mention it could be freeing up junk left behind from other oils and then getting crucified in a UOA. Its so odd that countless people comment on just how clean their engines are after using Mobil 1, how bad could it be?


JMO
Frank D
 
Originally Posted By: Johnny
"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.
Yes indeed
 
Originally Posted By: Johnny
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.
Excellent point
 
Overk1ll,

I'm glad you've had excellent results with Mobil 1. I know it is a very good oil.

In my case, the RPMs plus high valve spring tension resulted in unit loads that could have exceeded the oil's film strength and EP layer. On the other hand, it may have been transmission gear wear. I'm sure mobil 1 more than exceeds the requirements of a push rod v8.

You are right in that there are all kinds of variables. My observations should only be considered one bit of subjective data to consider. However, I don't think the iron was released from the varnish. I tested the oil over an extended period.

I have no axe to grind with the number one synthetic oil. I use it in other applications.
 
My current valve springs are 500lbs open, I've got lots of pressure too
wink.gif


I simply have a hard time believing that M1 actually CAUSED any of that iron. But of course, I could be wrong......
 
Last edited by a moderator:
M1 5w30 is GM4718M rated. this means that they have to pass SeqIVa at 90μm, and that has to be proven at a GM certified lab. i now would say that the claim of M1 not meeting API SM (also 90μm) is probably bunk.
 
Some food for thought as to how Valvoline wants to take this.

Exxon Mobil's revenue for 2007 was 404.552 Billion
Exxon Mobil's NET income for 2007 was 40.610 Billion

Ashland's revenue for 2006 was 7.233 Billion
Ashland's NET income for 2006 was 170 Million


This is very much like Intel vs AMD. Intel will ALWAYS have the ability out-engineer AMD because they own so much more of the market and make so much more money.

Exxon Mobil could EASILY BUY Ashland. Going by the above figures, Exxon Mobil makes more money in ONE year than Ashland would make in 235 years.

This could turn into a Microsoft vs Netscape battle.

Who here uses Netscape (and no the open source fork of what was once the Netscape project that is now known as Mozilla doesn't count)?

Exactly........
 
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.


Almost all of the ferrous powder was probably from the transmission gears and the steel clutch plates. Most sport bike engines have hardened alloy cylinder bores and very little iron in the engine. I've had pretty good results with the M1 15w50.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Some food for thought as to how Valvoline wants to take this.

Exxon Mobil's revenue for 2007 was 404.552 Billion
Exxon Mobil's NET income for 2007 was 40.610 Billion

Ashland's revenue for 2006 was 7.233 Billion
Ashland's NET income for 2006 was 170 Million


This is very much like Intel vs AMD. Intel will ALWAYS have the ability out-engineer AMD because they own so much more of the market and make so much more money.

Exxon Mobil could EASILY BUY Ashland. Going by the above figures, Exxon Mobil makes more money in ONE year than Ashland would make in 235 years.

This could turn into a Microsoft vs Netscape battle.

Who here uses Netscape (and no the open source fork of what was once the Netscape project that is now known as Mozilla doesn't count)?

Exactly........


TRUE, but Remember when little Pennzoil sued Texaco and jumped into the BigBoy world rather quickly? Maybe Johhny can elaborate on this...I just remember the suit from little David against Goliath!
 
Talk of XOM buying Ashland are foolish. Why? Ashland is not in the oil business. They are big in chemicals and chemical distribution, but Valvoline is just a brand name.

Given this, it is interesting to see the happenings in this thread.

Ashland may buy base oils from Marathon or even from XOM, who knows, maybe they buy from XOM and know something we all do not know.

To trust a blender or to trust a giant??????
 
Originally Posted By: HondaMan
Talk of XOM buying Ashland are foolish. Why? Ashland is not in the oil business. They are big in chemicals and chemical distribution, but Valvoline is just a brand name.

Given this, it is interesting to see the happenings in this thread.

Ashland may buy base oils from Marathon or even from XOM, who knows, maybe they buy from XOM and know something we all do not know.

To trust a blender or to trust a giant??????


And Exxon Mobil is NOT in the chemical and chemical distribution business? They are the largest in the world for both PAO's and Esters.

Ashland DOES buy base oils from Exxon Mobil.

That is why this is very much biting the hand that feeds you. Slamming one of your SUPPLIERS by making rather outrageous claims about YOUR product's performance using THEIR base oils???

Amsoil buys from Exxon Mobil too, but in their testing they almost always show Mobil 1 as a close 2nd.

Not "corporate letters" oozing potentially erroneous propaganda tarnishing Exxon Mobil's image by stating it fails certain tests it's already certified for!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: HondaMan
Talk of XOM buying Ashland are foolish. Why? Ashland is not in the oil business. They are big in chemicals and chemical distribution, but Valvoline is just a brand name.

Given this, it is interesting to see the happenings in this thread.

Ashland may buy base oils from Marathon or even from XOM, who knows, maybe they buy from XOM and know something we all do not know.

To trust a blender or to trust a giant??????


And Exxon Mobil is NOT in the chemical and chemical distribution business? They are the largest in the world for both PAO's and Esters.

Ashland DOES buy base oils from Exxon Mobil.

That is why this is very much biting the hand that feeds you. Slamming one of your SUPPLIERS by making rather outrageous claims about YOUR product's performance using THEIR base oils???

Amsoil buys from Exxon Mobil too, but in their testing they almost always show Mobil 1 as a close 2nd.

Not "corporate letters" oozing potentially erroneous propaganda tarnishing Exxon Mobil's image by stating it fails certain tests it's already certified for!


I agree, however:

Ashland would not make such statement(they can be sued for slander and more than likely close due to money needed to be paid out on the settlement or court order) unless they had *somekind of proof.

THat proof is what we need to find out. And see how factual it really is or is not.

If I started my own oil company in philadelphia, then marketed my oil showes 4x less wear than XOM and that XOM leading oil did not even meet the API SM spec, you bet your [censored] I would have a court sommons the next day!!!


I do not really think Ashlands statements are fully correct. But makeing those kind of claims, there putting there company on the line, so they shure believe it.
 
Some more, from the Dec 13th issue:

http://www.jobbersworld.com/December 13, 2008.htm

Quote:
Additional Information on Valvoline's Challenge
In an effort to gather additional information on Valvoline's claim that "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," JobbersWorld contacted Thomas R. Smith at Valvoline. Smith is Technical Director of Valvoline Lubricants and the author of a letter Valvoline went public with on November 20, 2008 that challenges Mobil 's claims.

Click below to view Valvoline's letter and Q&A to its customers, which is reprinted with Valvoline's permission.

Note: The publishers of JobberWorld do not represent or endorse the accuracy of Valvoline's claims, statements, or position in either its letter or associated Q&A.



And the letter:

valvol2.jpg


That's a VERY bold letter. I sure as [censored] hope he can substantiate what he's saying, or he's going to find out what it's like to grapple with a company that makes more in a year than his company will in almost two and a half centuries.......

It's kind of like flipping off somebody who's mentally unstable and happens to be holding an M82A1.....
 
I've contacted Exxon Mobil, linked them to the jobberworld article and this thread.

I'm interested to see what I hear back.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Some more, from the Dec 13th issue:

http://www.jobbersworld.com/December 13, 2008.htm

Quote:
Additional Information on Valvoline's Challenge
In an effort to gather additional information on Valvoline's claim that "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," JobbersWorld contacted Thomas R. Smith at Valvoline. Smith is Technical Director of Valvoline Lubricants and the author of a letter Valvoline went public with on November 20, 2008 that challenges Mobil 's claims.

Click below to view Valvoline's letter and Q&A to its customers, which is reprinted with Valvoline's permission.

Note: The publishers of JobberWorld do not represent or endorse the accuracy of Valvoline's claims, statements, or position in either its letter or associated Q&A.



And the letter:

valvol2.jpg


That's a VERY bold letter. I sure as [censored] hope he can substantiate what he's saying, or he's going to find out what it's like to grapple with a company that makes more in a year than his company will in almost two and a half centuries.......

It's kind of like flipping off somebody who's mentally unstable and happens to be holding an M82A1.....



YIEKS!!!!

Ashland has to be sitting on some kind of inside info/proof.
They really just put there WHOLE company(employees, Corp. officers, stock holders, bigwigs, ect. . .) on the chopping block. If XOM can disprove them, XOM will bankrupt and bury Ashland in court.

I just cant see Mobil 1 not meeting API specs. Either Valvoline is going to be cut from production due to the demise of Ashland, or XOM has has played all of its buyiers(includeing countless car makers who are useing it OEM) as fools.

I really cant wait to see how this plays out!!!!
 
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
I've contacted Exxon Mobil, linked them to the jobberworld article and this thread.

I'm interested to see what I hear back.


If they did not reply to Ashland directly yet, don't hold your breath!! lol
 
I'm just interested in whether M1 passes the Seq IVA in order to meet API SM/ILSAC GF4.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
I've contacted Exxon Mobil, linked them to the jobberworld article and this thread.


Surely you don't think that XOM hasn't previously seen both the article and this thread?

The letter itself isn't particularly risky for Valvoline at all. They made contact with XOM first, and informed them that testing indicated that M1 did not meet SM/GF-4 requirements. That communication was neither public nor risky. At that point, Valvoline only publicly claimed that SynPower protected better than M1.

With no response from XOM after 2 months and in fact an off-point counterattack, Valvoline upped the ante by disclosing to a wider audience that testing at an independent lab showed failure to meet spec. There remains an invitation to XOM to provide information demonstrating that their product does actually meet spec. Still not risky, and still no on-point response from XOM. I'd say that XOM is messing their pants. I just don't know whether it's because they screwed up or because they got caught.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top