Continued from page 61
VLS 010200 – SCT Vetriebs GmbH Mannol Brake Fluid DOT 4 3002
The Complainant alleged that the batches of material they procured, sampled and tested failed in critical areas of performance required for safe brake operation. The results, they claimed, fall short of the specification limits stated in US FMVSS 116 DOT 4.
The Complainant claimed they purchased two samples of product and conducted a Kinematic Viscosity test at -40 degrees centigrade, a SBR Elastomer test at 120 degrees centigrade and a water tolerance/bubble travel time test. The stated that values obtained for both samples were extremely high and at low operating temperatures would result in reduced brake system response time when the brakes are applied. This is a severe safety issue which may result in a vehicle accident and possible injury to any persons involved or worse.
The Swell test results they claimed were in excess of the DOT 4 limits. They alleged that this could lead to brake system failure due to the ineffective performance of any elastomers used in its construction. Ineffective braking operation could lead to accident and personal injury.
Batch MD46_PEA-230526 they claimed failed the water tolerance test. The Complainant stated that failing this test will lead to the impairment of the fluid’s ability to exert an effective hydraulic pressure on the braking components. They alleged that this is a severe safety issue which may result in a vehicle accident and possible injury to any persons involved or worse.
The Complainant stated that the fluids do not comply with the declared specification of US FMVSS 116 DOT 4 and their inability to do so presents a grave risk to end users. This complaint should be investigated as a matter of urgency due to its critical nature.
VLS independently procured a sample of the product within the UK and tested it for Kinematic Viscosity @ -40 degrees centigrade, SBR Elastomer Swell Test @ 120 degrees centigrade, and Water Tolerance / Bubble travel time – seconds. The test results show that the product failed to meet the specification limits across all three tests. The test results were shared with Lubriage Ltd, trading as Mannol UK and we invited them to comment on these along with steps they will
62 LUBE MAGAZINE NO.187 JUNE 2025
take to bring the product into compliance. As the distributor of the product in the UK, Lubriage Ltd, trading as Mannol UK is liable for the claims made on the product and the product’s compliance with market standards such as DOT 4.
In response Lubriage Ltd trading as Mannol UK verbally assured VLS that they had immediately stopped selling the product on the UK marketplace although they have not formally responded in writing and VLS has not seen any evidence of the product being quarantined or withdrawn from their distributors or any attempt to contact the end users who might have purchased the product through their distributors to recall the product.
VLS has also escalated the issue as a consumer product safety issue to its Primary Authority partner Bucks & Surrey Trading Standards and will conduct a formal six-month review of the case in line with its stated process.
On 9th April 2025 VLS undertook a six-month review of the case and as part of this sourced and tested a new sample of the product which was found to be non-compliant against the Dot 4 specification performance claim which could cause risk to personal injury, accident or even risk loss of life. Consequently the case will be referred to Trading Standards and a press release issued in the interests of public safety.
VLS 010202 – Exol Lubricants Ultramax 32 Hydraulic Oil ISO 32
On 5th March 2024 the case was accepted by VLS.
VLS received a complaint about the above product. The Complainant alleged that the product fails to meet the demulsification requirements of industry tests quoted on the labelling and Technical Data Sheet.
VLS procured a sample of the product and tested it for demulsification properties. The test results obtained supported the Complainant’s findings, in that the demulsification characteristics do not meet the requirements of the specifications claimed.
In response Exol the Lubricant Marketer said they had tested a retained sample from the same batch
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 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72
