XOM's silence is deafening
Valvoline vs Mobil 1 - Round 2
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
- Status
Wow
After 39 pages of posting, how would you respond if you were the marketing manager at XOM charged with the responsibility.
After 39 pages of posting, how would you respond if you were the marketing manager at XOM charged with the responsibility.
Originally Posted By: virginoil
Wow
After 39 pages of posting, how would you respond if you were the marketing manager at XOM charged with the responsibility.
I was thinking the same thing when this thread hit 20 pages. It appears they say they meet specs, and no longer want to address the issue. You'd think they would have come up with some counter attack advertising if their product was that good. I know I would have.
Frank D
Wow
After 39 pages of posting, how would you respond if you were the marketing manager at XOM charged with the responsibility.
I was thinking the same thing when this thread hit 20 pages. It appears they say they meet specs, and no longer want to address the issue. You'd think they would have come up with some counter attack advertising if their product was that good. I know I would have.
Frank D
From a financial point, it probably doesn't bother XOM. If every person on Bitog used Mobil 1, had 2 cars, and each one convinced one other person that also used Mobil 1 to switch away from Mobil 1, and everyone changed oil 4 times a year per car, it would cost XOM about $3,471,360 a year, Mobil 1 wholesale price. If any of those switched to Valvoline, Amsoil, or one of the other brands that use XOM base oils, you would have to subtract the extra income XOM would get from those increased sales.
I still can't get over the feeling that I am standing in front of the fish market trying to figure out what it is that I smell!
With 260,000 Mobil 1 miles on my Toyota, 207,000 Mobil 1 miles on my Cavalier, 190,000 Mobil 1 miles on daughter's Chrysler van, 170,000 Mobil 1 miles on daughter's Pontiac van, and many other well over 100,000 miles Mobil 1 stories....well...I smell something.
I just thought, my Toyota started out in 1986, well below SM. The Cavalier in 1999, well below SM, Both the vans below SM. Many, most of the vehicles that have greatly extended miles started out and lived out below SM.
If Mobil 1 is proven to be guilty, and doesn't make a public accounting, I will switch to another brand. I will switch not because I doubt the "QUALITY" of their oils but because I believe they lied to trusted consumes and don't really care.
I still can't get over the feeling that I am standing in front of the fish market trying to figure out what it is that I smell!
With 260,000 Mobil 1 miles on my Toyota, 207,000 Mobil 1 miles on my Cavalier, 190,000 Mobil 1 miles on daughter's Chrysler van, 170,000 Mobil 1 miles on daughter's Pontiac van, and many other well over 100,000 miles Mobil 1 stories....well...I smell something.
I just thought, my Toyota started out in 1986, well below SM. The Cavalier in 1999, well below SM, Both the vans below SM. Many, most of the vehicles that have greatly extended miles started out and lived out below SM.
If Mobil 1 is proven to be guilty, and doesn't make a public accounting, I will switch to another brand. I will switch not because I doubt the "QUALITY" of their oils but because I believe they lied to trusted consumes and don't really care.
Originally Posted By: HondaMan
The humor is all the UOAs.... all the sassy back and forth on the board about high Fe and now BEHOLD, the oil is actually underperforming and has been as we have seen time after time with UOA after UOA.
WOW!
Originally Posted By: HondaMan
As I mentioned before, we'll never know what the truth is ... if XOM tells Ashland anything, Ashland is likely to share the info publically... so you can bet that XOM will not share with anyone from this point forward.
API as mentioned would have to call out XOM... I don't think that is gonna happen.
GM could make trouble for XOM as well, but they have much bigger concerns, I would say this is of no concern to them what so ever.
The humor is all the UOAs.... all the sassy back and forth on the board about high Fe and now BEHOLD, the oil is actually underperforming and has been as we have seen time after time with UOA after UOA.
I tend to agree - but we certainly have no heard the last of this. Watch the lube publications after the Holidays.
PS Some of you guys need to set your posts per page up a few notches. Mine is at the highest (99-100)....so I'm "only" on page 4....
The humor is all the UOAs.... all the sassy back and forth on the board about high Fe and now BEHOLD, the oil is actually underperforming and has been as we have seen time after time with UOA after UOA.
WOW!
Originally Posted By: HondaMan
As I mentioned before, we'll never know what the truth is ... if XOM tells Ashland anything, Ashland is likely to share the info publically... so you can bet that XOM will not share with anyone from this point forward.
API as mentioned would have to call out XOM... I don't think that is gonna happen.
GM could make trouble for XOM as well, but they have much bigger concerns, I would say this is of no concern to them what so ever.
The humor is all the UOAs.... all the sassy back and forth on the board about high Fe and now BEHOLD, the oil is actually underperforming and has been as we have seen time after time with UOA after UOA.
I tend to agree - but we certainly have no heard the last of this. Watch the lube publications after the Holidays.
PS Some of you guys need to set your posts per page up a few notches. Mine is at the highest (99-100)....so I'm "only" on page 4....
Originally Posted By: FrankN4
I will switch not because I doubt the "QUALITY" of their oils but because I believe they lied to trusted consumes and don't really care.
I am the original owner of an 88 E-150, I checked my records today just to see exactly how long I ran Mobil 1. I changed over to Mobil 1 10W30 in 1992 at 26,000 miles and only used Mobil 1 from that point until December 2008 when I switched to PP 5W30 for the first time. My miles are very low, and the van sits for long periods of time so I wanted something that would last me at least 6 months in the sump. Keep in mind in 1988 severe service was 3 months or 3000 miles.
I felt they lied to their customers, and I am done with them. As I mentioned in this post I didn't care for the tone of their replies to my brother and I when we questioned them. I'm in a service business and my customers concerns and questions no matter how stupid they might sound deserve a respectful honest answer. I never told someone I was done with a certain question if they had something else to ask. I also have no reason to doubt that the quality of their other products could be borderline quality. For the cost there are better oils.
You are correct in your analysis, they really don't need BITOG members to buy their products. When you weight it out it equates to probably less than a cup of coffee a quarter for the CEO. Besides they're still selling the base oil. But I still feel better making the change, and to me that's all that matters.
JMO,
Frank D
I will switch not because I doubt the "QUALITY" of their oils but because I believe they lied to trusted consumes and don't really care.
I am the original owner of an 88 E-150, I checked my records today just to see exactly how long I ran Mobil 1. I changed over to Mobil 1 10W30 in 1992 at 26,000 miles and only used Mobil 1 from that point until December 2008 when I switched to PP 5W30 for the first time. My miles are very low, and the van sits for long periods of time so I wanted something that would last me at least 6 months in the sump. Keep in mind in 1988 severe service was 3 months or 3000 miles.
I felt they lied to their customers, and I am done with them. As I mentioned in this post I didn't care for the tone of their replies to my brother and I when we questioned them. I'm in a service business and my customers concerns and questions no matter how stupid they might sound deserve a respectful honest answer. I never told someone I was done with a certain question if they had something else to ask. I also have no reason to doubt that the quality of their other products could be borderline quality. For the cost there are better oils.
You are correct in your analysis, they really don't need BITOG members to buy their products. When you weight it out it equates to probably less than a cup of coffee a quarter for the CEO. Besides they're still selling the base oil. But I still feel better making the change, and to me that's all that matters.
JMO,
Frank D
Originally Posted By: buster
Mobil 1's best attribute is sludge and deposit control. Wear control seems to be the issue.
Synpower should be GM 4718M approved soon.
There is nothing better than a worn out engine with minimal deposits
Mobil 1's best attribute is sludge and deposit control. Wear control seems to be the issue.
Synpower should be GM 4718M approved soon.
There is nothing better than a worn out engine with minimal deposits
"Those flat cam lobes sure are shiny"
Originally Posted By: Steve S
Originally Posted By: buster
Mobil 1's best attribute is sludge and deposit control. Wear control seems to be the issue.
Synpower should be GM 4718M approved soon.
There is nothing better than a worn out engine with minimal deposits
Yep, it makes it easier to mic things up. No sludge or varnish to clean off before measuring.
Frank D
Originally Posted By: buster
Mobil 1's best attribute is sludge and deposit control. Wear control seems to be the issue.
Synpower should be GM 4718M approved soon.
There is nothing better than a worn out engine with minimal deposits
Yep, it makes it easier to mic things up. No sludge or varnish to clean off before measuring.
Frank D
Originally Posted By: buster
Yes, but it's the fact that Mobil 1 has always been the "gold standard" of synthetics, it would put a dent in their integrity.
I thought the dent was put in when they would not say they use PAO in their Mobil 1 line....
Yes, but it's the fact that Mobil 1 has always been the "gold standard" of synthetics, it would put a dent in their integrity.
I thought the dent was put in when they would not say they use PAO in their Mobil 1 line....
I used Mobil 1 for one OCI in my vehicle. I couldn't justify the price for it and I have since used Pennzoil YB. However, I was trying to save a little money and I bought 2 jugs of Mobil Clean 5000 for $11 instead of the usual Pennzoil for $14 at Walmart. I feel like a traitor.
In all seriousness....I doubt using Mobil 1 5w30 would cause a lubrication failure. However, I wouldn't doubt that Pennzoil YB would provide BETTER wear protection in engines than Mobil 1.....because many UOAs show that here! There are a few UOAs done on Mobil Clean 5000 that show less wear than with Mobil 1.
BTW, anyone notice that Walmart now puts their logo on Mobil's oil jugs? It says "Recycle your used oil at your local Walmart Lube Express" along with the walmart symbol.
As a side note....it would be veryyyy interesting to see if Mobil changed the Mobil 1 formulation. Mobil 1 is back on the shevles, so we should start to see some UOAs in the coming months. Think of it as an after Christmas surprise.
In all seriousness....I doubt using Mobil 1 5w30 would cause a lubrication failure. However, I wouldn't doubt that Pennzoil YB would provide BETTER wear protection in engines than Mobil 1.....because many UOAs show that here! There are a few UOAs done on Mobil Clean 5000 that show less wear than with Mobil 1.
BTW, anyone notice that Walmart now puts their logo on Mobil's oil jugs? It says "Recycle your used oil at your local Walmart Lube Express" along with the walmart symbol.
As a side note....it would be veryyyy interesting to see if Mobil changed the Mobil 1 formulation. Mobil 1 is back on the shevles, so we should start to see some UOAs in the coming months. Think of it as an after Christmas surprise.
Last edited:
Classically I would say they are not related....but.....both have formula changes at the root.
Awesome thread.
This and the GrIII thread from ages back give serious food for thought.
Wonder what the chances of the "specification" presented to the API stating "zinc 800ppm +/- 10%", presenting a top of the error band oil for test, then having a 9% "underadditised" oil reach the market (nearly 20% less than the oil sent for test)...still "in spec"
This and the GrIII thread from ages back give serious food for thought.
Wonder what the chances of the "specification" presented to the API stating "zinc 800ppm +/- 10%", presenting a top of the error band oil for test, then having a 9% "underadditised" oil reach the market (nearly 20% less than the oil sent for test)...still "in spec"
Originally Posted By: buster
I don't think Valvoline would push it that far if it weren't true.
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/1997/10/valve.shtm
October 8, 1997
VALVOLINE SETTLES CHARGES
Engine Wear, Fuel Economy, Performance Claims For Valvoline TM8 Engine Treatment Were Unsubstantiated
Ashland, Inc. has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that ads for the Valvoline Company's Teflon-containing TM8 Engine Treatment product were false and unsubstantiated. Valvoline is an unincorporated division of Ashland. The terms of the settlement will bar Ashland from making unsubstantiated claims about the performance or attributes of any engine treatment in the future and from misrepresenting tests or studies used to support its claims.
This is the latest in a series of FTC cases involving unsubstantiated or false claims for automotive additives and high octane fuels.
Ashland is a Fortune 500 company with 1996 revenues of $13.1 billion. It markets automotive products under the brand names Valvoline, Pyroil and Zerex. Ashland is based in Russell, Kentucky.
According to the complaint detailing the charges, ads for TM8 Engine Treatment made claims such as:
"TM8 is a blend of eight scientifically formulated components -- including Dupont's TEFLON fluoroadditive-- that chemically bond to engine surfaces, reducing engine friction and wear";
"TM8's 8 friction-fighting ingredients chemically bond to moving parts, protecting your engine even at start-up. In fact, under high operating temperatures, motor oil treated with TM8 offers twice the protection";
"REDUCE WEAR BY UP TO 75%. TM8 protects engines during "Stop and Go" driving."
Through the use of such claims in ads that ran on radio and TV, magazines, leaflets and on an Internet site, Valvoline represented that TM8 bonds Teflon to engine parts; that compared to motor oil alone, it reduces engine wear; that it reduces wear on some engine parts by up to 75 percent; that it provides twice as much engine wear protection under high temperature conditions; that it extends engine life; that it improves fuel economy; and that one treatment lasts for 50,000 miles.
In addition, according to the complaint, some ads claimed that "testing" demonstrated that compared to motor oil alone, TM8 reduces wear on engine parts by up to 75%, provides twice the wear protection under high temperature conditions, and improves fuel economy.
In fact, according to the complaint, Ashland did not possess and rely upon a reasonable basis to make the ad claims, so they were unsubstantiated. In addition, tests do not prove that, compared to motor oil alone, TM8 reduces wear on engine parts by up to 75%, provides twice the wear protection under high temperature conditions, and improves fuel economy. Therefore, the "testing" claims are false and misleading.
The agreement to settle the charges would prohibit Ashland from making any claims about the performance or attributes of any engine treatment unless it possesses and relies upon competent and reliable evidence to support the claims. It also bars misrepresentations of the results of any tests or studies.
The order also contains standard record-keeping provisions to allow the Commission to monitor compliance.
The Commission vote to approve the proposed consent agreement was 4-0. A summary of the agreement will be published in the Federal Register shortly and will be subject to public comment for 60 days, after which the Commission will decide whether to make it final. Comments should be addressed to the FTC, Office of the Secretary, 6th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580.
NOTE: A consent agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission of a law violation. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of $11,000.
Copies of the complaint, consent and an analysis to aid public comment and a free FTC consumer education brochure are available on the Internet at the FTC's World Wide Web site at: http://www.ftc.gov
http://www.ftc.gov/os/1998/01/ashlandcmp.htm
http://www.ftc.gov/os/1998/01/ashlanddo.htm
.
I don't think Valvoline would push it that far if it weren't true.
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/1997/10/valve.shtm
October 8, 1997
VALVOLINE SETTLES CHARGES
Engine Wear, Fuel Economy, Performance Claims For Valvoline TM8 Engine Treatment Were Unsubstantiated
Ashland, Inc. has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that ads for the Valvoline Company's Teflon-containing TM8 Engine Treatment product were false and unsubstantiated. Valvoline is an unincorporated division of Ashland. The terms of the settlement will bar Ashland from making unsubstantiated claims about the performance or attributes of any engine treatment in the future and from misrepresenting tests or studies used to support its claims.
This is the latest in a series of FTC cases involving unsubstantiated or false claims for automotive additives and high octane fuels.
Ashland is a Fortune 500 company with 1996 revenues of $13.1 billion. It markets automotive products under the brand names Valvoline, Pyroil and Zerex. Ashland is based in Russell, Kentucky.
According to the complaint detailing the charges, ads for TM8 Engine Treatment made claims such as:
"TM8 is a blend of eight scientifically formulated components -- including Dupont's TEFLON fluoroadditive-- that chemically bond to engine surfaces, reducing engine friction and wear";
"TM8's 8 friction-fighting ingredients chemically bond to moving parts, protecting your engine even at start-up. In fact, under high operating temperatures, motor oil treated with TM8 offers twice the protection";
"REDUCE WEAR BY UP TO 75%. TM8 protects engines during "Stop and Go" driving."
Through the use of such claims in ads that ran on radio and TV, magazines, leaflets and on an Internet site, Valvoline represented that TM8 bonds Teflon to engine parts; that compared to motor oil alone, it reduces engine wear; that it reduces wear on some engine parts by up to 75 percent; that it provides twice as much engine wear protection under high temperature conditions; that it extends engine life; that it improves fuel economy; and that one treatment lasts for 50,000 miles.
In addition, according to the complaint, some ads claimed that "testing" demonstrated that compared to motor oil alone, TM8 reduces wear on engine parts by up to 75%, provides twice the wear protection under high temperature conditions, and improves fuel economy.
In fact, according to the complaint, Ashland did not possess and rely upon a reasonable basis to make the ad claims, so they were unsubstantiated. In addition, tests do not prove that, compared to motor oil alone, TM8 reduces wear on engine parts by up to 75%, provides twice the wear protection under high temperature conditions, and improves fuel economy. Therefore, the "testing" claims are false and misleading.
The agreement to settle the charges would prohibit Ashland from making any claims about the performance or attributes of any engine treatment unless it possesses and relies upon competent and reliable evidence to support the claims. It also bars misrepresentations of the results of any tests or studies.
The order also contains standard record-keeping provisions to allow the Commission to monitor compliance.
The Commission vote to approve the proposed consent agreement was 4-0. A summary of the agreement will be published in the Federal Register shortly and will be subject to public comment for 60 days, after which the Commission will decide whether to make it final. Comments should be addressed to the FTC, Office of the Secretary, 6th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580.
NOTE: A consent agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission of a law violation. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of $11,000.
Copies of the complaint, consent and an analysis to aid public comment and a free FTC consumer education brochure are available on the Internet at the FTC's World Wide Web site at: http://www.ftc.gov
http://www.ftc.gov/os/1998/01/ashlandcmp.htm
http://www.ftc.gov/os/1998/01/ashlanddo.htm
.
So because Ashland lied 11 years ago about their claims, XOM is meets the Seq IVA wear test! Thank you! How relevant to the discussion.
http://www.jobbersworld.com/valvolineq&Apage1.htm
Valvoline Synpower exceeds the standards Mobil 1 can not even meet
Quote:
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.
Quote:
hat's certainly a serious claim, and one that Thomas R. Smith, Technical Director of Valvoline Lubricants told JobbersWorld he stands behind. According to Smith, Ashland made ExxonMobil aware of this issue in September and as of December 11th, "ExxonMobil has been silent."
Quote:
"We would like you to know that while we are aware of Valvoline's assertions, ExxonMobil stands behind the quality of Mobil 1 and all of our lubes products. ExxonMobil's GF 4 licenses for all product lines are valid."
http://www.jobbersworld.com/valvolineq&Apage1.htm
Valvoline Synpower exceeds the standards Mobil 1 can not even meet
Quote:
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.
Quote:
hat's certainly a serious claim, and one that Thomas R. Smith, Technical Director of Valvoline Lubricants told JobbersWorld he stands behind. According to Smith, Ashland made ExxonMobil aware of this issue in September and as of December 11th, "ExxonMobil has been silent."
Quote:
"We would like you to know that while we are aware of Valvoline's assertions, ExxonMobil stands behind the quality of Mobil 1 and all of our lubes products. ExxonMobil's GF 4 licenses for all product lines are valid."
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
GM was no help:
Quote:
Thank you for your email.
Our website (www.gm.ca) contains all corporate and product information that is available to the general public. Unfortunately, we do not have the resources available to respond to the high volume of special requests that we receive.
If the information you are looking for is not available on our website, we recommend that you research through alternate resources, such as the Internet and/or your local library.
Thank you for contacting General Motors of Canada Limited. Please visit our website again!
Christine Hoskin
General Motors Internet Correspondent
Quote:
Thank you for your email.
Our website (www.gm.ca) contains all corporate and product information that is available to the general public. Unfortunately, we do not have the resources available to respond to the high volume of special requests that we receive.
If the information you are looking for is not available on our website, we recommend that you research through alternate resources, such as the Internet and/or your local library.
Thank you for contacting General Motors of Canada Limited. Please visit our website again!
Christine Hoskin
General Motors Internet Correspondent
Originally Posted By: buster
So because Ashland lied 11 years ago about their claims, XOM is meets the Seq IVA wear test!
I found it made an interesting contrast to:
"I don't think Valvoline would push it that far if it weren't true."
If you think I am being unfair, go to:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/1997/06/exxon.shtm
.
.
So because Ashland lied 11 years ago about their claims, XOM is meets the Seq IVA wear test!
I found it made an interesting contrast to:
"I don't think Valvoline would push it that far if it weren't true."
If you think I am being unfair, go to:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/1997/06/exxon.shtm
.
.
- Status
