Some product, same SKU, different copyright dates, same price. One says 10,000 miles, the newer one says 15,000 miles.
The the more modern left package has a more minimalist design on the back with fewer words and less technical information, just like many modern websites. On the front, the mileage has been inflated.
Extended performance is now at 25,000 miles. I remember 20,000 miles from two years ago.
What can you do ? Donât bother, the world has already had too many oil threads.
Open the image on your computer. PC? Right click in the window background. Select âSave Asâ from the drop down. Look under the image name at the bottom, save as type- select .jpg or .png from the pull down menuâŠ
This kind of stuff is the exact reason why some members have decided to not participate here and move elsewhere.
TwinTurbo, Thanks but it was a browser privacy extension issue that was messing up the upload of the file to the forum.
Look at the API qualifications. The enhanced mileage one is rated to the latest standard SQ. The formulation of the oil may be no different but has been tested to the new standard. Or perhaps it is slightly different, allowing it to meet the more rigorous standard.
Which is a problem for anyone who doesnât have a vehicle made for the SQ specification. I know the newer cars often have higher oil capacity which equates to longer oil life. It must be technically correct for them to remove the SN PLUS, SN, SM, and SL compatibility on the back of the newer package, since it is not rated for 15,000 miles for those vehicles.
Note that all of these oils require changing after one year, so â25,000 milesâ is not that big of a deal. As for the change from 10,000 to 15,000, itâs a new spec, as noted above. I wouldnât call it âinflationâ, Iâd call it âimprovementâ. Theyâre putting their money behind the claim, not a problem to me.
??? All API specs are backwards-compatible, so SQ covers all prior specs. I see no âproblemâ.
Says who?
Maybe it always was but they were limited to what they could claim based on the specifications at the time. Maybe they added something to the oil that allows it to suspend more particulates and so it lasts longer. Or the long chain polymer formula resists shear longer. I can think of many different ways this could play out. The SQ supercedes the prior SN et al meaning it is better in certain ways. Therefore it may very well allow for extended use in the legacy applications as well.
I could even see the case where they changed nothing in the oil, but found through testing that it could handle a 15,000 mile/12 month OCI sufficiently well that they were willing to put their guarantee on it. Whatâs wrong with that?
Nothing at all, if itâs true! If itâs mostly the same formula that now says 15,000 thatâs the problem.
I guess both versions need to be purchased and tested and all that.
@TheWonderful90s you drive cars from the supposedly wonderful 1990s that most likely donât even require this particular engine oil
As such, I donât see why youâre starting yet another oil discussion
Just asking for a friend but what kind of person would pay $70,000 for a piece of equipment and not change oil for 25,000 miles regardless of labels and advertising?
Mobil also knows it is all but impossible to definitively say that the sole cause of the engine failure was their oilâŠ
Their Limited Warranty states: âIf an engine failure occurs directly due to a defect in the lubricant, ExxonMobil will pay to repair the equipment damage.â
I think the â15,000 mileâ pitch is more a sales tactic and not all that many folks will take them up on it and those that do are in many cases folks who would have run the â10,000 mileâ oil that far anywayâŠ
