search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
Continued from page 49


VLS 010182 – Varol Varpress Hydraulic Oil 46 AW 20L


On 5th June 2023 the case was reported to VLS.


VLS have received a complaint about Varol Varpress 46 AW. The complaint alleged that the product label claims DIN 51524 Part 2. The Complainant’s test results for foam performance were outside the specification.


VLS procured and tested a sample of the product and found that the results fall outside the limits as given in DIN 51524 Pt 2. The sample had been mixed prior to testing.


The test results were shared with the Named Party in a letter setting out details of the complaint on Tuesday 17th August. In response the Named Party acknowledged receipt of the correspondence from VLS on 17th August which contained the test results in the main body of the letter, they stated that they would start their investigation and requested a copy the independent laboratory report from a UKAS approved laboratory. VLS provided a copy of the report from a UKAS accredited laboratory on Tuesday 26th September.


Following their investigation, the Named Party reviewed and amended the formulation.


VLS was content to close the investigation and arrange a six-month review of the case in line with its stated process.


On 18th September 2024 VLS undertook a six-month review of the case in line with its stated process.


As part of the review VLS procured and tested a sample of the product which demonstrated no improvement.


Following further dialogue with the Lubricant Marketer they have advised that the sample checked as part of the six-month review was old stock that was sold to a distributor, who then sold it to a sub-distributor when their product recall was actioned. They advised that they are addressing this issue going forward as part of their Quality Management System to ensure it doesn’t happen again if quarantine/recall of a product is put in place.


50 LUBE MAGAZINE NO.184 DECEMBER 2024


VLS then procured and tested a further sample of product issued after the initial case investigation concluded and following formulation amendments made by the Lubricant Marketer. The results showed that the revised product is well within the DIN 51524-2 specification for foaming characteristics and the case is therefore closed.


VLS 010208 – 5W-30 ACEA C3 On 18th July 2024 the case was accepted by VLS.


The case concerned the TBN and Sulphated Ash limits of a PCEO 5W-30 claiming both VW 502.00 and VW 505.01. The product was claimed not to be compliant for VW 502.00 requiring a minimum TBN of 10mgKOH/g and for Sulphated Ash >1<1.5%m/m.


Additionally, VW 505.01 is not a valid claim with VW 502.00.


VLS sourced and tested a sample of the product. Test results show that the TBN was 9.2mgKOH/g and for Sulphated Ash 0.76% m/m. However, the product pack showed only the claim against VW 505.01 being made which was reflected in the product’s Technical Data Sheet and website description, with the claim against VW 502.00 having been withdrawn. Although the product pack picture on the website description retained the label showing claims against VW 502.00 and VW 505.01.


VLS is content that the claim against VW 502.00 has been withdrawn by the Lubricant Marketer but has issued an advisory to them to ensure that product packs and labelling shown on the company’s website reflect the actual performance claims being made for the product as denoted in the product’s Technical Data Sheet and website description.


VLS believe that the product is compliant and the case is therefore closed.


VLS 010209 – PCEO 5W-30 ACEA C3 On 18th July 2024 the case was accepted by VLS.


The case concerned the product’s compliance against an ACEA C3, VW 504.00/507.00, BMW LL-04 and Porsche C30 performance claim where it was alleged that the product’s HTHS was 3.25mPa.s


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60