Mercedes Benz owners receive $32 million settlement

A U.S. District Court judge in Philadelphia has awarded a $32 million class action settlement to American owners of Mercedes-Benz vehicles due to the company’s failure to specify the use of synthetic motor oils with its Flexible Service System (FSS). Many motorists who have used conventional oils with the system have experienced premature engine wear problems. The settlement requires Mercedes-Benz to cover repairs estimated at $20 million and supply 350,000 owners and lessees with vouchers for free synthetic oil changes.

The Mercedes-Benz Flexible Service System was included on nearly all Mercedes-Benz models sold in the U.S. from 1998 to 2001. It utilizes an electronic device that monitors engine oil life by measuring factors such as engine temperature, oil level, vehicle speed, engine speed, distance driven and time since last service. Beginning with a 10,000-mile minimum drain interval, the system adjusts the interval upward as it detects favorable engine and driving conditions.

Through the Flexible Service System, motorists extended their drain intervals to an average of 12,000 miles, with some reaching as high as 20,000 miles. The problem is that owners manuals and promotional materials advised consumers to use conventional motor oils, which failed to maintain protection or performance throughout the extended drain intervals.

“The company’s intentions – to save its customers money and to protect the environment – are certainly commendable,” said attorney Kenneth Jacobsen. “But it didn’t work because conventional oils just don’t stand up to those intervals.”

zMax Marketers to offer refund

In order to settle a false advertising lawsuit brought by the U.S Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the marketers of zMax oil additives have agreed to refund $1 million to customers who purchased the product.

The settlement prohibits Speedway Motor sports Inc. and subsidiary Oil-Chem Research Corp. from making general claims regarding zMax’s ability to improve fuel economy, reduce engine wear and corrosion, lower emissions and extend engine life. However, they are still allowed to make more specific claims, including that zMax can maintain fuel efficiency in newer vehicles and reduce wear on valve stems and guides, piston rings and skirts by reducing deposits.

The zMax Power System is a package of three separate fluids that are added to the engine, fuel line and transmission. Oil-Chem infomercials and advertisements claimed the package was guaranteed to improve fuel efficiency by at least 10 percent, reduce engine wear and corrosion, extend engine life and reduce emissions.
The FTC’s 2001 complaint alleged that Oil-Chem’s claims were false and manufactured from results of a 1997 L-38 engine test. The L-38 test measures the bearing corrosion protection abilities of motor oils. According to the FTC, Oil-Chem removed detrimental information from the lab report and results actually showed zMax caused more than twice the bearing corrosion as motor oil alone.The zMax settlement is the latest in a long line of false advertising settlements obtained by the FTC since the mid-1990s from after market oil additive companies, including STP, Dura Lube and Slick 50. Penalties have ranged from less than $1 million to $10 million. Other additive companies, including Prolong, Motor Up and Valvoline, have settled without fines on the promise of halting all unsupported claims.n t

McFall Column Draws Repsonse

Lubes-n-Greases Automotive Editor David McFall’s column “Drain Intervals: How Long Must We Wait?,” in which he criticized the industry’s standard 3,000-mile drain interval, prompted a large response in the Lubes-n-Greases “Letters” section.

W. Whitaker Gallman of the Duke Power Nuclear Engineering Department in Charlotte, N.C., points out that while most oil companies cling to the 3,000-mile drain interval, many automobile manufacturers encourage extended drains. He cites the General Motors Oil Life
Monitor, which allows intervals to be extended up to 7,500 miles, but actually permits intervals up to 15,000 miles for vehicles that use and come factory-filled with Mobil 1.

“This is a pretty obvious if not direct admission by GM that they don’t mind if Mobil 1 is run twice as long as basic mineral-based oils,” writes Gallman.

Two letter writers expressed their satisfaction with AMSOIL products. Clay Spencer of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality writes, “Amsoil is expensive, but the extended drain interval more than makes up for the extra cost and is much better for the environment,” while Ken Kerkman of Burlington, Wis., writes, “Thank you for telling it like it is about engine oils and drain intervals. I have been using Amsoil since 1976, and last year we sold our only car that we had for 23 years with only 18 oil changes.”

Some letter writers expressed concern that warranties could be voided if drain intervals are extended. Of course, motorists need not fear losing their warranty coverage because they use AMSOIL motor oils. As long as a motor oil meets the manufacturer’s recommended viscosity and API service requirements and is not the cause of the failure, the warranty cannot be voided. AMSOIL motor oils exceed API requirements and have never been deemed the cause of an engine failure. In addition, AMSOIL has its own limited warranty to protect motorists even further.

More reasons to switch to Amsoil

Request An AMSOIL Catalog

Your information is kept confidential. Data is never sold or given to anyone.