Today Quaker State published a press
release announcing "QUAKER STATE GOES
UNCHALLENGED AND UNSURPASSED IN WEAR
PROTECTION."
This release is a follow-up to last week's
full-page advertisement in USA Today where
Quaker State said "HEY CASTROL, VALVOLINE &
MOBIL 1: IF YOU CAN PROTECT AGAINST WEAR
BETTER, PROVE IT." See
JobbersWorld.com link below
The "headline" in the ad was followed by a
letter from Steve Harman, President, Americas
delivered to the executives responsible for
Mobil 1, Valvoline and Castrol. In short, the
challenge said, "Today, we hereby pledge to
bring clarity to this "Wear War," by making
public the scientific data that illustrates
for consumers the actual wear rating of each
brand's full synthetic motor oil. " if you
really believe your product can protect
against wear the best, here is your
opportunity to prove it."
And if that was not enough to get attention,
the ad said, "To facilitate this, Quaker
State now officially challenges your brands
in the Sequence IVA test. We'll even pay for
it." Quaker State gave those challenged until
Friday, March 27 at 5 p.m. EST to respond
Hmmm- from the sound of that, it looks
like Quaker State must be either courageous,
confident or crazy to take on three big boys
in the business, and on their dime.
Well maybe they are none of the above - maybe
Quaker State is just crafty. But where they
might be crafty enough to score some points
with the general public, their own words
explain why they are not crafty enough to
draw the three leading suppliers of engine
oil into a public show about superior
performance in the Sequence IVA wear test .
In an interview two weeks ago with Selda
Gunsel, Manager, Lubricants Technology Group,
Shell Global Solutions (US) Inc., Gunsel
told JobbersWorld "Although Pennzoil
Platinum performs exceedingly well in the
Sequence IVA wear test, the battle of the
"Xs" comparing oil against oil rather than
oil against spec is one we are staying out
of." And Gunsel says, the reason they are
staying out is because it's "bad science" and
could be misleading.
Ironically, the "bad science" argument
seems to be the very argument Quaker State
publicly challenged Valvoline, Castrol and
Mobil 1 to engage in.
To understand what Gunsel means by "bad
science," and the irony of the challenge,
starts with an understanding of the
Sequence IVA wear test.
The Sequence IVA is an engine test designed
to evaluate the performance of engine oils in
preventing camshaft lobe wear in an overhead
camshaft engine. It's a pass/fail 100-hour
test of 100 hourly cycles. When completed,
each of the 12 cam lobes in the test engine
is measured for wear at 7 points. An average
is calculated based on the total wear from
the 12 cam lobes. In short, test results with
a higher number means higher wear. For an
engine oil to qualify for API SM/ ILSAC GF-4
rating it must pass the Sequence IVA with an
average wear of 90 micron maximum. However,
according to Gunsel, "there is no
statistically significant difference for test
results within 35 microns of each other."
Troy Chapman, Marketing Management Team
Leader Pennzoil Brands with Shell, agrees
that low results in this test moves the
comparison into an area where differences are
"statistically indistinguishable."
With both Valvoline and Castrol Edge publicly
claiming their synthetics score 10-20 microns
in the Sequence IVA, one has to wonder what
the Quaker State challenge was all about?
After all neither Valvoline or Castrol made
claims their oils were better than Quaker
State in Sequence IVA wear protection; their
comparisons were made against Mobil 1. Why
didn't they also challenge Quaker State?
Maybe because it's bad science.
So why did Quaker State publicly join this
fray - is it courageous, crafty or crazy for
Quaker State to publicly challenge their
competitors on wear protection? Maybe they
joined because it was safe! So long as their
wear result was within 35 microns of the
other oils, the results are "statistically
indistinguishable", allowing them to state
"no other oil provides better wear
protection". The challenge makes them look
courageous and confident, but it was actually
a safe bet and allowed them to get free
mileage off the ad campaigns of Valvoline and
Castrol. Sounds more like crafty marketing
than science to me - certainly not "good
science".
