The Myth of the Mobil 1 v Castrol lawsuit

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Nov 15, 2002
Messages
8,937
Location
SC
I've posted several times about this, but the notion that there was some sort of lawsuit regarding the use of the term synthetic still persists and is attaining "urban legend" status.

There was not and never has been any suit AT LAW regarding the use of the term "synthetic" for Group III base oil, and no court or ALJ has made a ruling on this matter. Mobil simply filed a complaint with the National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau in the US claiming that Castrol was engaging in false advertising by calling Syntec "full synthetic" since it was now being made with Group III base oil. Castrol was able to present enough "evidence" to convince the NAD that Group III base oil could legitimately be called synthetic, so they rulled in Castrol's favor. This ruling has no "legal" standing. It merely means that as far as the NAD is concerned, an oil company is not falsely advertising an oil as "full synthetic" if that oil is made from Group III base oil.

The NAD is merely a self-regulatory arm of the BBB and has no legal standing whatsoever in the U.S. Hence, their ruling in this matter does not make it "legal" to claim that a Group III oil is "synthetic." It merely means that for any entity willing to abide by the NAD's guidelines, a Group III oil can be ADVERTISED under those guidelines as a synthetic.
 
Quote:


And do you think that Mobil went right back to the office and said, "Where is the chemist? We have to talk!" ?




No, that happened about eight years later.
wink.gif
 
Quote:


I'm not sure why this matters.




It matters because a lot of new members (and some not so new) still cling to the myth that there was a "lawsuit" over the issue of Group III base oil.
 
So, what you're saying is Mobil v. Castrol wasn't before the Supreme Court but instead in front of a congressional panel? Sorry...I couldn't help it
smile.gif
 
Quote:


If Mobil brought up the issue to the NAD what was their intention? why did they waste their time?




Because the NAD could have ruled in their favor. Had they done so it would have put Castrol in a difficult position. They could have continued to advertise Syntec as a "full synthetic" since the NAD has no real enforcement power. But if they did, Mobil would then publicize that they were engaged in "false advertising" based on the NAD ruling.
 
Quote:


Quote:


If Mobil brought up the issue to the NAD what was their intention? why did they waste their time?




Because the NAD could have ruled in their favor. Had they done so it would have put Castrol in a difficult position. They could have continued to advertise Syntec as a "full synthetic" since the NAD has no real enforcement power. But if they did, Mobil would then publicize that they were engaged in "false advertising" based on the NAD ruling.



so your view on the subject is? petroleum base oils can be modified and called the same synthetics as PAO POE base fluids?
confused.gif

you know both companies have billions to spend in litigation, something was hammered out here between lawyers
smirk.gif
 
Quote:


Quote:


Quote:


If Mobil brought up the issue to the NAD what was their intention? why did they waste their time?




Because the NAD could have ruled in their favor. Had they done so it would have put Castrol in a difficult position. They could have continued to advertise Syntec as a "full synthetic" since the NAD has no real enforcement power. But if they did, Mobil would then publicize that they were engaged in "false advertising" based on the NAD ruling.



so your view on the subject is? petroleum base oils can be modified and called the same synthetics as PAO POE base fluids?
confused.gif

you know both companies have billions to spend in litigation, something was hammered out here between lawyers
smirk.gif





Yeah. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
smirk.gif
 
Quote:


Quote:


Quote:


Quote:


If Mobil brought up the issue to the NAD what was their intention? why did they waste their time?




Because the NAD could have ruled in their favor. Had they done so it would have put Castrol in a difficult position. They could have continued to advertise Syntec as a "full synthetic" since the NAD has no real enforcement power. But if they did, Mobil would then publicize that they were engaged in "false advertising" based on the NAD ruling.



so your view on the subject is? petroleum base oils can be modified and called the same synthetics as PAO POE base fluids?
confused.gif

you know both companies have billions to spend in litigation, something was hammered out here between lawyers
smirk.gif





Yeah. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
smirk.gif




you know from what I remember Mobil started this cause Castrol used the SYNTEC label when Mobil was thinking about using it. All I know two oil giants acting like politicians over Marketing terms,
starwars.gif
it's all flawed logic anyway
stirthepot.gif
 
Quote:


you know from what I remember Mobil started this cause Castrol used the SYNTEC label when Mobil was thinking about using it.




crackmeup.gif
 
I heard that there was a big fight infront of the supreme court a mobil executive hit a castrol executive. They had a huge fight and harry potter came and then castrol killed voldemort.
 
One thing people forget is that after the ruling that Castrol was not out of bounds calling Group III base oils "synthetic" every major oil company switched their base stock to the more profitable Group III. That is except for Mobil 1. Maybe Mobil refused to accept the ruling. No matter. What followed was a disaster for the average consumer especially those driving German cars still under warranty. Here's why:

People driving Germain cars, BMW, Mercedes, Volkswagen, were required to use certain spec oils to remain under the manufacturer's warranty. These same owners noticed the name "Castrol Synthetic" on the expensive oil the Dealer was installing and many decided to save money and have Castrol Syntec installed at a local lube center or maybe did it themselves at home. What was worse, some of these cars had extended oil drain intervals up to 20,000 miles. What followed was a lot of sludging and engine damage with a lot of people being told their warranty was voided. The reason there was so much confusion is the motor oil sold at the Dealership service department were European Group IV synthetics that had been certified by the manufacturer for use in those engines. Castrol Syntec not only is Group III, but not certified for use in those engines.

I hate to say it, but the use of Group III "synthetics" needs to be rated differently somehow. Not only are these motor oils petroleum, but being petroleum they must employ lots of VI additives for for the "W" or winter grade specs.

Before anyone jumps my case, I realize that Mobil 1 isn't the only Group IV based synthetic. It is the only major oil company synthetic to still be Group IV. I realize that other smaller companies like AMSOIL and Redline use the Group IV base oils. But the 4 motor oils made by AMSOIL with the "XL-7500" label are Group III based motor oils which is why they have the shorter oil drain and cheaper price. See how confusing this can be?
 
Quote:


see gremil you newbe, group 3 syntetics have been proven to be just as effective as the IV you so highly speak of




That depends on what version of comparison you are referring to. The Group IV synthetics have several superior areas. For one, of course, the negative issue with VI (Viscosity Index) additives the Group III based oils use that the Group IV PAO synthetics do not require or require very little.

Next, the base oil uniformity in the PAO is very superior. In a PAO synthetic the viscosity is uniformly manufactured so if some oil consumption occurs due to heat or burn off what is left behind is the same viscosity. Not so with the Group III base oils. In the petroleum based Group III they average to a viscosity but actually have varying amounts of light and heavy oils in the mix. Any burn off or volatility of the oil usually sees the lighter elements burn off first and leave behind the heavier elements. In time the oil's viscosity becomes thicker. As an example look at the amount of volatility you see in a typical synthetic made from PAO base oils. It is much less, but still slightly occurs. Why? Because even the Group IV PAO motor oils need additives and those additives are mixed into a petroleum base oil carrier. This is how the additives are introduced into the motor oil. Therefore when a Group IV PAO is additized it receives some petroleum and it's that small amount of petroleum that is volatile. In the Group III motor oils the volatility will be higher than the Group IV. That's just chemistry. They do better than the Group II oils, and that is expected, but cannot compete with the PAO based Group IV under duress or high heat operation.

Maybe this depends not only on the conditions the oils operate under, but the oil change interval. If I had a turbo I wouldn't put in a Group III motor oil. AMSOIL manufactures both, and they would prefer the Group IV motor oils be used for those performance engine applications.
 
Quote:


Next, the base oil uniformity in the PAO is very superior. In a PAO synthetic the viscosity is uniformly manufactured so if some oil consumption occurs due to heat or burn off what is left behind is the same viscosity. Not so with the Group III base oils. In the petroleum based Group III they average to a viscosity but actually have varying amounts of light and heavy oils in the mix. Any burn off or volatility of the oil usually sees the lighter elements burn off first and leave behind the heavier elements. In time the oil's viscosity becomes thicker. As an example look at the amount of volatility you see in a typical synthetic made from PAO base oils. It is much less, but still slightly occurs. Why? Because even the Group IV PAO motor oils need additives and those additives are mixed into a petroleum base oil carrier. This is how the additives are introduced into the motor oil. Therefore when a Group IV PAO is additized it receives some petroleum and it's that small amount of petroleum that is volatile. In the Group III motor oils the volatility will be higher than the Group IV. That's just chemistry. They do better than the Group II oils, and that is expected, but cannot compete with the PAO based Group IV under duress or high heat operation.




90% of what you've said here is inaccurate. I would encourage you to read more and post less until you get a solid handle on the facts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top