Valvoline SynPower officially kicks Mobil 1s A$$
Current ILSAC GF-4/API (SM) standards
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sarge
You have to take a hard look at the test they reference for all their claims. It is not a test that is "embraced" to reflect actual real world wear by the tribology community for sure....it is a test (pass/fail) for GF-4 that test cam lobe wear in a low load/low temp taxi cab type environment. Part of the new SN requirements will be Phos retention etc. Valvoline has made changes to their formula to meet the new SN requirements.... all the others will also. Is it better oil? Nope. Will everybody else make adjustments? Yup. I just love marketing people.....did you notice in the one lil graph that bodly states Valvoline is 4X beter than Mobil1 there are no numbers to reference? Just a picture graph. Truth is the numbers are so miniscule it is ridiculaous and very misleading. Royal Purple must have loaned Valvoline some of their marketing guys.
I agree that you have to be cautious when looking at bold marketing claims likes these from Valvoline. But at the same time, I find it really entertaining to see these two major players in the oil industry war it out.
Also, in all fairness, the dumbed down version of the Valvoline’s IVA wear chart which doesn’t show numbers has a more scientific version with actual numbers shown. That version of the chart is provided in Thomas Smith’s letter from Ashland. Notice how both charts look almost identical even though the one that Joe blow consumer sees has no numbers on it.
Further, as per ILSAC GF-4 and API (SM) with energy conserving requirements as of March 2005, the Sequence IVA test is part of this requirement. The Sequence IVA test has an average cam wear parameter of 90 microns maximum. According to Valvoline’s findings, which have not been officially rebutted by Exxon Mobil, Mobil 1 5W-30 showed cam wear of double that of the current API (SM) maximum, at 180 microns. Notice that Valvoline claims only 20 microns of average cam wear. If these numbers could be verified, Valvoline could in reality say that their SynPower provides 9 X better wear protection than Mobil 1.
Thomas Smith’s letter points out, as of the date of Ashlands testing, Mobil 1 5W-30 did not pass this current API (SM) requirement. Whether or not one deems the Sequence IVA test as one that reflects actual real world conditions is debatable. Never the less, that test is indeed part of current ILSAC GF-4 and API (SM) testing parameters. If a consumer spends their hard earned money on any lubricant that supports the API energy conserving starburst, that lubricant should indeed meet the minimum oil performance standards.
See also ILSAC Performance Category GF-4 Summary pdf.
Finally just to be clear, I’m not advocating the use of Valvoline products as this would be a conflict of interest for me. But having a continued vested interest in the oil industry as a whole, I believe that consumers should be alerted to current industry news of this sort. Time will tell if Valvoline SynPower will be a strong competitor within the oil industry. Recently, UOAs of Valvoline SynPower do show satisfactory wear results. In addition, I would hope that in the light of Exxon Mobil’s record breaking earnings, it would be a company that produces products that at least meet minimum performance requirements.
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
CompSyn