Is Valvoline's claim to be 'better' than Mobil 1 true?
If so, why in nontechical terms.
If so, why in nontechical terms.
Valvoline Synthetic versus Mobil 1
- Thread starter Gravely20G
- Start date
- Status
Please define "better".
In a word, no. But it's not worse either, both are good/very good oils.
In a word, no. But it's not worse either, both are good/very good oils.
It's four times better if it's four times cheaper.
Originally Posted By: Gravely20G
Is Valvoline's claim to be 'better' than Mobil 1 true?
If so, why in nontechical terms.
In nontechnical terms, because the commercial says so.
Is Valvoline's claim to be 'better' than Mobil 1 true?
If so, why in nontechical terms.
In nontechnical terms, because the commercial says so.
Both are exceptional oils.
Valvolines Synpower brand has been growing alot lately. Mobil 1 has the tried and true history.
So is Vavoline 4x better? No. Can a bunch of lab workers, marketing executives, and lawyers spin a 4x better than Mobil 1 claim? Yes.
Valvoline is good oil, but not the best. Nor is Mobil 1. What is best for you is not best for me, there is no universale "best"
Valvolines Synpower brand has been growing alot lately. Mobil 1 has the tried and true history.
So is Vavoline 4x better? No. Can a bunch of lab workers, marketing executives, and lawyers spin a 4x better than Mobil 1 claim? Yes.
Valvoline is good oil, but not the best. Nor is Mobil 1. What is best for you is not best for me, there is no universale "best"
M1 has met more stiringent specs for years: GM4718M needed for Cadillacs, Corvette, etc and Honda HTO-06 for the turbo Acura RDX. Apparently Valv has now admitted none of their oils meet these performance levels, but they like other manufacturers, have plans to upgrade their formulation to be able to pass these tests in the future.
Originally Posted By: OilGuy
M1 has met more stiringent specs for years: GM4718M needed for Cadillacs, Corvette, etc and Honda HTO-06 for the turbo Acura RDX. Apparently Valv has now admitted none of their oils meet these performance levels, but they like other manufacturers, have plans to upgrade their formulation to be able to pass these tests in the future.
Agree that M1 meets some impressive specs, as does PP. However, for a lot of us, Synpower is MORE than we would ever need. I know you ar not implying otherwise, I am just saying. Plus, it's CHEAP after MIR right now!
M1 has met more stiringent specs for years: GM4718M needed for Cadillacs, Corvette, etc and Honda HTO-06 for the turbo Acura RDX. Apparently Valv has now admitted none of their oils meet these performance levels, but they like other manufacturers, have plans to upgrade their formulation to be able to pass these tests in the future.
Agree that M1 meets some impressive specs, as does PP. However, for a lot of us, Synpower is MORE than we would ever need. I know you ar not implying otherwise, I am just saying. Plus, it's CHEAP after MIR right now!
From a Subaru forum, I found this:
as reported in the July 24, 2008 issue of Jobbers World Online News, Valvoline launched a national advertising campaign that takes on competitor Mobil 1. The centerpiece of the campaign claim Valvoline SynPower has "four times better wear protection than Mobil 1."
According to Valvoline, the claim is based on the industry standard Sequence IVA test. The Sequence IVA is the industry standard test for determining wear performance of an engine oil and is required to meet the API SL and SM requirements. Multiple tests showed that Valvoline SynPower provided four times better wear protection than Mobil 1, as measured in these tests of 5W-30 grades.
ExxonMobil responded to the claim by saying it was "not aware of any accurate technical data to support the claim" and they requested Valvoline provide the "substantiating data to support this claim immediately."
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.
as reported in the July 24, 2008 issue of Jobbers World Online News, Valvoline launched a national advertising campaign that takes on competitor Mobil 1. The centerpiece of the campaign claim Valvoline SynPower has "four times better wear protection than Mobil 1."
According to Valvoline, the claim is based on the industry standard Sequence IVA test. The Sequence IVA is the industry standard test for determining wear performance of an engine oil and is required to meet the API SL and SM requirements. Multiple tests showed that Valvoline SynPower provided four times better wear protection than Mobil 1, as measured in these tests of 5W-30 grades.
ExxonMobil responded to the claim by saying it was "not aware of any accurate technical data to support the claim" and they requested Valvoline provide the "substantiating data to support this claim immediately."
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.
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
As per the API:
Quote:
Company Information/Background:
EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION began marketing licensed motor oil products on August 10, 1993 under a license issued by the American Petroleum Institute. This License and Agreement will terminate on March 9, 2009 unless extended by mutual agreement.
The Certification Marks referred to and licensed under the agreement between API and the licensee are as follows:
Licensee is authorized to display the API Service Symbol on the following products during the period of December 5, 2008 through March 9, 2009:
Code:
Brand Name SAE Viscosity Grade Service Category Current Expiration Date
ESSO UNIFLO 10W-30 SL* March 9, 2009
ESSO UNIFLO 10W-30 SM* March 9, 2009
ESSO UNIFLO 10W-40 SL March 9, 2009
ESSO UNIFLO 5W-30 SM* March 9, 2009
EXXON SUPERFLO 10W-30 SM* March 9, 2009
EXXON SUPERFLO 10W-40 SM March 9, 2009
EXXON SUPERFLO 20W-50 SM March 9, 2009
EXXON SUPERFLO 30 SM March 9, 2009
EXXON SUPERFLO 40 SL March 9, 2009
EXXON SUPERFLO 5W-20 SM* March 9, 2009
EXXON SUPERFLO 5W-30 SM* March 9, 2009
EXXON XD-3 10W-30 CF,CG-4,CH-4,CI-4/SL March 9, 2009
EXXON XD-3 15W-40 CF,CG-4,CH-4,CI-4/SL March 9, 2009
MOBIL 1 0W-20 SM/CF* March 9, 2009
MOBIL 1 0W-30 SM/CF* March 9, 2009
MOBIL 1 0W-40 SL/CF* March 9, 2009
MOBIL 1 10W-30 SM/CF* March 9, 2009
MOBIL 1 15W-50 SM/CF March 9, 2009
MOBIL 1 5W-20 SM/CF* March 9, 2009
MOBIL 1 5W-30 SM/CF* March 9, 2009
MOBIL 1 EXTENDED PERFORMANCE 10W-30 SL/CF* March 9, 2009
MOBIL 1 EXTENDED PERFORMANCE 10W-30 SM/CF* March 9, 2009
MOBIL 1 EXTENDED PERFORMANCE 15W-50 SM/CF March 9, 2009
MOBIL 1 EXTENDED PERFORMANCE 5W-20 SM/CF* March 9, 2009
MOBIL 1 EXTENDED PERFORMANCE 5W-30 SL/CF* March 9, 2009
MOBIL 1 EXTENDED PERFORMANCE 5W-30 SM/CF* March 9, 2009
Quote:
Company Information/Background:
EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION began marketing licensed motor oil products on August 10, 1993 under a license issued by the American Petroleum Institute. This License and Agreement will terminate on March 9, 2009 unless extended by mutual agreement.
The Certification Marks referred to and licensed under the agreement between API and the licensee are as follows:
Licensee is authorized to display the API Service Symbol on the following products during the period of December 5, 2008 through March 9, 2009:
Code:
Brand Name SAE Viscosity Grade Service Category Current Expiration Date
ESSO UNIFLO 10W-30 SL* March 9, 2009
ESSO UNIFLO 10W-30 SM* March 9, 2009
ESSO UNIFLO 10W-40 SL March 9, 2009
ESSO UNIFLO 5W-30 SM* March 9, 2009
EXXON SUPERFLO 10W-30 SM* March 9, 2009
EXXON SUPERFLO 10W-40 SM March 9, 2009
EXXON SUPERFLO 20W-50 SM March 9, 2009
EXXON SUPERFLO 30 SM March 9, 2009
EXXON SUPERFLO 40 SL March 9, 2009
EXXON SUPERFLO 5W-20 SM* March 9, 2009
EXXON SUPERFLO 5W-30 SM* March 9, 2009
EXXON XD-3 10W-30 CF,CG-4,CH-4,CI-4/SL March 9, 2009
EXXON XD-3 15W-40 CF,CG-4,CH-4,CI-4/SL March 9, 2009
MOBIL 1 0W-20 SM/CF* March 9, 2009
MOBIL 1 0W-30 SM/CF* March 9, 2009
MOBIL 1 0W-40 SL/CF* March 9, 2009
MOBIL 1 10W-30 SM/CF* March 9, 2009
MOBIL 1 15W-50 SM/CF March 9, 2009
MOBIL 1 5W-20 SM/CF* March 9, 2009
MOBIL 1 5W-30 SM/CF* March 9, 2009
MOBIL 1 EXTENDED PERFORMANCE 10W-30 SL/CF* March 9, 2009
MOBIL 1 EXTENDED PERFORMANCE 10W-30 SM/CF* March 9, 2009
MOBIL 1 EXTENDED PERFORMANCE 15W-50 SM/CF March 9, 2009
MOBIL 1 EXTENDED PERFORMANCE 5W-20 SM/CF* March 9, 2009
MOBIL 1 EXTENDED PERFORMANCE 5W-30 SL/CF* March 9, 2009
MOBIL 1 EXTENDED PERFORMANCE 5W-30 SM/CF* March 9, 2009
Last edited by a moderator:
Let's try to stay on-point:
Countering multiple-laboratory-proven performance deficiency with 'we're still certified' is extremely weak (and off-point) at best. Then, we see that an auto-renewing annual license is renewed for only 3 months, and we know that API 'works with' marketers to address deficiencies rather than just pulling licenses.
Countering multiple-laboratory-proven performance deficiency with 'we're still certified' is extremely weak (and off-point) at best. Then, we see that an auto-renewing annual license is renewed for only 3 months, and we know that API 'works with' marketers to address deficiencies rather than just pulling licenses.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: bulwnkl
Let's try to stay on-point:
Countering multiple-laboratory-proven performance deficiency with 'we're still certified' is extremely weak (and off-point) at best. Then, we see that an auto-renewing annual license is renewed for only 3 months, and we know that API 'works with' marketers to address deficiencies rather than just pulling licenses.
Valvoline stated it doesn't meet SM/CF. Yet it's license was renewed.
I'm not saying this is "the end" of Valvoline's argument, but it brings up a very valid point........
Let's try to stay on-point:
Countering multiple-laboratory-proven performance deficiency with 'we're still certified' is extremely weak (and off-point) at best. Then, we see that an auto-renewing annual license is renewed for only 3 months, and we know that API 'works with' marketers to address deficiencies rather than just pulling licenses.
Valvoline stated it doesn't meet SM/CF. Yet it's license was renewed.
I'm not saying this is "the end" of Valvoline's argument, but it brings up a very valid point........
No, Valvoline stated that it didn't come close to passing the Seq IVA test.
The very valid point here is that the marketer is the only one who has to claim that the product meets spec in order to abtain the license (which is auto-renewed in the first place).
And of course that when a licensee has a problem its license doesn't get pulled, it gets to have some more time to run a non-compliant product while it tries to remedy the deficiency.
The very valid point here is that the marketer is the only one who has to claim that the product meets spec in order to abtain the license (which is auto-renewed in the first place).
And of course that when a licensee has a problem its license doesn't get pulled, it gets to have some more time to run a non-compliant product while it tries to remedy the deficiency.
It is obvious that XOM is pulling a fast one. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then its a duck.
Don
Don
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL[/img
Valvoline stated it doesn't meet SM/CF. Yet it's license was renewed.
Originally Posted By: bulwnkl
No, Valvoline stated that it didn't come close to passing the Seq IVA test.
The very valid point here is that the marketer is the only one who has to claim that the product meets spec in order to abtain the license (which is auto-renewed in the first place).
And of course that when a licensee has a problem its license doesn't get pulled, it gets to have some more time to run a non-compliant product while it tries to remedy the deficiency.
Quote:
2. Mobil 1 does not meet minimum API SM or ISLAC GF-4 specifications because of its inferior performance in the Sequence IVA wear test.
Valvoline stated it doesn't meet SM/CF. Yet it's license was renewed.
Originally Posted By: bulwnkl
No, Valvoline stated that it didn't come close to passing the Seq IVA test.
The very valid point here is that the marketer is the only one who has to claim that the product meets spec in order to abtain the license (which is auto-renewed in the first place).
And of course that when a licensee has a problem its license doesn't get pulled, it gets to have some more time to run a non-compliant product while it tries to remedy the deficiency.
Quote:
2. Mobil 1 does not meet minimum API SM or ISLAC GF-4 specifications because of its inferior performance in the Sequence IVA wear test.
Last edited by a moderator:
Quote:
The very valid point here is that the marketer is the only one who has to claim that the product meets spec in order to obtain the license (which is auto-renewed in the first place).
And of course that when a licensee has a problem its license doesn't get pulled, it gets to have some more time to run a non-compliant product while it tries to remedy the deficiency.
The very valid point here is that the marketer is the only one who has to claim that the product meets spec in order to obtain the license (which is auto-renewed in the first place).
And of course that when a licensee has a problem its license doesn't get pulled, it gets to have some more time to run a non-compliant product while it tries to remedy the deficiency.
i've heard of "not dignifying that with a response" but now over 3 months later and no data from Mobil to counter? that by itself is fishy by omission
- Status