Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
GM4718M does add additional requirements beyond SM/GF-4. However, I believe passing all SM/GF-4 requirements is a prerequisite to GM4718M approval. Therefore, any oil that does not meet SM/GF-4 cannot meet all the requirements of GM4718M.
 
GM4718M has a specific reference to the SeqIVa test, the requirement is the same 90micrometers that SM requires, but it is one of the tests that has to be carried out in a GM approved lab. i don't think EOM could flimflam all the labs...

certainly, if the Ashland allegations are correct, M1 has problems with a number of different certifications. i just don't believe them...yet.
 
Last edited:
I don't believe anyone is suggesting that E-M duped the labs and never developed a M1 5W30 formula that met SM/GF-4. The fact that they received the license is evidence that E-M had developed an approved formula. At issue is how much M1 5W30 was sold that didn't meet SM/GF-4, and whether the stuff currently on shelves meets SM/GF-4.
 
Last edited:
i think the timing on this is kind of interesting. i had heard that EOM put out some M1 without the API starburst on it after ike. they had to change their blend because of problems caused by ike.

wonder if this is "ike oil"?
 
LOL...who knows...Mobil just needs to respond and prove their oils meet this friggin spec! Their slow response time is turning people off and causing a lot of doubt in peoples minds.

I spoke to GM engineer a few months ago. They love Mobil 1. Said it performs flawlessly in the Corvette engines. Mobil 1 5w30 is still factory fill in the ZR1 too fwiw.
 
Originally Posted By: wgtoys
I haven't bothered lately, but for quite some time I used to read Mobil-1 UOA threads here on BITOG and I, like others, noticed that the Fe numbers were often higher for Mobil-1 in an application than other oils were (in those cases where the user posted multiple data points). We have been speculating about these high Fe numbers here for years, but without access to expensive controlled testing all we could do is speculate. Now we see Valvoline publishing data about camshaft wear rates which indeed seems to show clearly that in certain applications at least Mobil-1 has yield much higher camshaft wear than a competing lubricant.

Many excuses have been given for the Mobil-1 high Fe UOA readings. Everything from particle sizes to magic cleaning abilities have been used to hand wave away the data.

I've always thought there was some real fire behind the smoke, and this latest bit of data dump by Valvoline is consistent with the idea that at least in some situations Mobil-1 allows much more wear of the camshaft than do some competing solutions. Also, it is quite interesting to me that Mobil's official response doesn't directly challenge or refute Valvoline's claims. Mobil is hiding behind "we are licensed, don't worry". All very reminiscent of the weasel words they used when challenged on the base oil composition of Mobil-1. They would never say "we don't use Group III base oils in Mobil-1".

As far as API involvement, I don't believe the API does any actual testing. The API issues procedures and standards and then the manufacturers self-certify against them ... just like the EPA's fuel economy testing program, BTW.


Remember that it was not merely the conflagration of UOAs here that were telling us that M1 had an iron wear problem. Somebody very smart was telling us that, too.
 
Originally Posted By: cheetahdriver
i think the timing on this is kind of interesting. i had heard that EOM put out some M1 without the API starburst on it after ike. they had to change their blend because of problems caused by ike.

wonder if this is "ike oil"?

i rather felt, the shortage by Ike was "staged" so EOM can bring the "updated" M1 to the market after valvoline's statement. a cover up - "recall" ...
 
Quote:
i rather felt, the shortage by Ike was "staged" so EOM can bring the "updated" M1 to the market after valvoline's statement. a cover up - "recall" ...


Anything is possible.

The API SL ISLAC GF-3 Sequence IVA dated December 6,2000 = 120 max .

API SM ISLAC GF-4 Sequence IVA dated January 14,2004 - 90 max .
 
Originally Posted By: cheetahdriver
Originally Posted By: BigJohn
wgtoys said:
The way we knit-pick oils on this forum, seeking the best.....don't we all want the product that give the absolute lowest possible wear?


i think we want the product that is the most cost effective solution. if we all wanted the best oil, period, there is RLI out there at 10 bucks a quart, or some other boutique oils at even more. M1 @ a little under 7 bucks is a cost effective way of getting 10k with a good synthetic. as i have said before here, the fact it also passes GM4718M makes me believe this is all bunk.

but i have been wrong before....


No one can say what we "all" want. We all want different things. Some use Super tech some use Redline.

Some do not want the most cost effective solution.
11.gif
 
in context i don't believe terry's comments have much applicability here. the argument going on at this point was BIO vs PAO, and while i will admit that the RLI stuff seems to handle the audi mis-engineering just fine, it will also not go the distance on an extended change. apples and grapefruit
 
rg200amp,

point taken. my engineering background sometimes fakes me into thinking everybody works that way... some folks want the solid gold bathroom fixtures when the nickel will outlast a normal lifetime, just because it is the "best" (or at least most expensive).
 
i suppose it is entirely possible that Ashland spotted a QC error (or was looking for one). the fact it is only the 5w30 that they are impugning would point in this direction.

i feel confident round 3 is coming up, i doubt EOM will take this one without squawking. either way, it probably will cause all of the "name" mfgs to look over their batch control systems.
 
I emailed Ashland early this week specifically mentioning the possibility of a bad batch. I asked how long they've been observing this about Mobil's oil, and if they observed notably better performance in older samples. I have not gotten a response.

The most plausible explanation to me is that Ashland was keeping an eye on Mobil's performance and got a hold of some abnormally bad stuff.

I bet once Ashland got some bad results, they went to all the stores in the area and bought all the mobile oil they had. How big do you think Ashland's stash of bad Mobil oil is?
 
GM 4718M is supposedly a tighter high temperature oxidation requirement than the normal GF-4 specs and supposedly was created to accommodate removing the oil cooler from the Corvette. Very few applications cook the oil like that, so in most cases GM 4718M doesn't tell you much.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top