35 Gallons of Hydraulic Fluid for $36.75 - Free Shipping

[#40Fan]

They are giving this stuff away and if you order $35 worth, 7 pails = $36.75, you get free shipping.

Yeah, I know NO ONE should be using this in their Kubota.

BUT, before you think about this for something else, fire up your favorite search engine and type in "303 Hydraulic Oil Lawsuit".

 

[Runs With Scissors]

Good post.

Thats a steal for sure!





Oh, and I gotta try and get in on that class action suit.

I could really use another $4.32!!!!!


( thats how much I got from the last one “I/we won”……….. )

 

[mikester]

LOL anything for a deal

 

[Old Machinist]

The last clearance oil deal I tried to get in on through Carquest wasted a bunch of my time. The order went through and I got an email the next morning saying it was ready to pick up but the guy that triggered the ready response hadn't even checked stock on it. I drove all the way to town and none of them had stock. He wouldn't even look me in the eye or tell me what he was doing. He took the order I printed out and got on the computer a few minutes then handed it back to me with a credit refund.

I don't have anything to use 303 fluid in anyway but that is a deal for those logger types pouring that stuff through a leaker.

 

[John T]

Just checked my local Advance Auto....
they have it in stock.. I may pick up a pail just to have.

I'll use it in my dump body or wood splitter.... Hell yeah.

a couple years ago... probably 10,
Home depot had an online special
50LB. tins of Lincoln Excalibur 7018 welding rod for like $20.00 shipped !!!

I took a chance and bought 2 tins..... It showed up in perfect sealed tins and burned great.
I gave away a bunch and I still have some in air tight containers.

sometimes even a blind squirrel finds a nut...

 

[Old Machinist]

Interesting info on some 303 oils.

61K views · 367 reactions | More Lawsuits over John Deere's 303 Hydraulic Oil The lawsuits surrounding John Deere's 303 hydraulic oil are not new, but there are some interesting developments happening lately. The JD 303 oil designation is 57 years old, but has been obsolete since 1974 because it contained whale oil that was banned from use. Today, there is no modern equipment in which JD 303 is appropriate. Some retailers selling 303-specified oil have been the target of lawsuits over the last two years due to lack of modern specification. A recent lawsuit was just settled as the retailer used transformer oil, line wash oil, and other waste oil products to manufacture 303 labeled oil. | Messick Farm Equipment

More Lawsuits over John Deere's 303 Hydraulic Oil The lawsuits surrounding John Deere's 303 hydraulic oil are not new, but there are some interesting developments happening lately. The JD 303 oil...

www.facebook.com

 

[NCL4701]

After viewing the video @Old Machinist posted in #6, I understand the legal theory for suing that particular manufacturer as they’re alleged to have marketed a product as 303 which wasn’t actually 303.

I’ve had a bit more confusion on some of the other lawsuits. Were the 303 manufacturers claiming compatibility with machines they knew or should have known it wasn’t compatible with? Were they, like the company in the video, falsely labeling as 303 a product that didn’t meet or exceed 303?

I have heard several times the statement made by Neal, that 303 isn’t compatible with any modern equipment. That’s swell, but it’s arguably acceptable for something such as my Farmall H. Not sure I’d put 303 in it, but I’d be more likely to use 303 in the H than SUDT2. If I’m dumb enough to put 303 in my L4701 HST, seems like that’s on me.

 

[North Idaho Wolfman]

Bummer, can't get it anywhere around here.
That would be great for the old equipment I run into.

 

[#40Fan]

Can you get it shipped to you?

 

[TheOldHokie]

After viewing the video @Old Machinist posted in #6, I understand the legal theory for suing that particular manufacturer as they’re alleged to have marketed a product as 303 which wasn’t actually 303.

I’ve had a bit more confusion on some of the other lawsuits. Were the 303 manufacturers claiming compatibility with machines they knew or should have known it wasn’t compatible with? Were they, like the company in the video, falsely labeling as 303 a product that didn’t meet or exceed 303?

I have heard several times the statement made by Neal, that 303 isn’t compatible with any modern equipment. That’s swell, but it’s arguably acceptable for something such as my Farmall H. Not sure I’d put 303 in it, but I’d be more likely to use 303 in the H than SUDT2. If I’m dumb enough to put 303 in my L4701 HST, seems like that’s on me.

The 303 products are all swill made with waste products of the blending process. There is a reason they are dumping it - they dont want to get sued. Why would you put it in anything ?

Dan

 

[BT3101]

Can you get it shipped to you?

Website won't let me order to in store or home delivery. Both just say out of stock and gray out the cart.

 

[NCL4701]

The 303 products are all swill made with waste products of the blending process. There is a reason they are dumping it - they dont want to get sued. Why would you put it in anything ?

Dan

I don’t run 303 in anything. The H and wood splitter have Traveller Universal Hydraulic Fluid in them. My L has SUDT2. My ZTR has 20w-50 full synthetic motor oil in the hydraulic motor system because that’s what it specs. I don’t use enough hydraulic fluid in aggregate for the cost difference between Traveller Universal and 303 to be of any significance. From the standpoint of practical impact on my equipment and purchasing/maintenance behavior, 303’s utility for any purpose is irrelevant.

I still don’t understand under what legal theory a civil action withstands any meaningful defense. Accepting as fact that 303 is inappropriate for use in “modern” equipment, which seems to be a necessary element of any complaint upon which relief could be granted, is not, by itself, sufficient to create liability. There has to also be some allegation of negligence or fraud in marketing of the product. Either it was alleged to be 303, but in fact did not meet the physical properties required to qualify as 303; or it was marketed as 303, met the physical properties to qualify as 303, but was labeled as meeting or exceeding the requirements of equipment with which it was incompatible. If it’s only compatible with equipment manufactured before 1965 (or whatever the actual date is), and is marketed as such, and meets the requirements for the 303 designation on the label, what legal theory leads to a conclusion of liability?

That’s the crux of the question I’ve never heard an answer to: What did the defendants allegedly do that constituted negligence or fraud? Making a crap product simply isn’t sufficient without some collaborating misrepresentation.

 

[D2Cat]

I always saw the 303 in yellow 5 gal. buckets. On the buckets was a list of tractors/machinery it was approved for. Listed as "Meets specs for JD, Case, Cat and on and on. Listing at least a dozen companies. I'd think if enough folks bought the oil and had mechanical failures with equipment listed on the bucket those companies listed would bring the class action suit.

 

[TheOldHokie]

I don’t run 303 in anything. The H and wood splitter have Traveller Universal Hydraulic Fluid in them. My L has SUDT2. My ZTR has 20w-50 full synthetic motor oil in the hydraulic motor system because that’s what it specs. I don’t use enough hydraulic fluid in aggregate for the cost difference between Traveller Universal and 303 to be of any significance. From the standpoint of practical impact on my equipment and purchasing/maintenance behavior, 303’s utility for any purpose is irrelevant.

I still don’t understand under what legal theory a civil action withstands any meaningful defense. Accepting as fact that 303 is inappropriate for use in “modern” equipment, which seems to be a necessary element of any complaint upon which relief could be granted, is not, by itself, sufficient to create liability. There has to also be some allegation of negligence or fraud in marketing of the product. Either it was alleged to be 303, but in fact did not meet the physical properties required to qualify as 303; or it was marketed as 303, met the physical properties to qualify as 303, but was labeled as meeting or exceeding the requirements of equipment with which it was incompatible. If it’s only compatible with equipment manufactured before 1965 (or whatever the actual date is), and is marketed as such, and meets the requirements for the 303 designation on the label, what legal theory leads to a conclusion of liability?

That’s the crux of the question I’ve never heard an answer to: What did the defendants allegedly do that constituted negligence or fraud? Making a crap product simply isn’t sufficient without some collaborating misrepresentation.

Whst they did was market and misrepresent a product that was crap. The stuff in those buckets bore no resemblance to JDM 303 and labeling it as such was the misrepresentation. It was in fact a random hodge podge of waste products from the blending process. It was/is a scam pure and simple.

JDM 303 was a loosely defined formulary based primarily on the use of sperm whale oil which has been banned since 1972. There is no way to manufacture or test it today. That is what ultimately exposed Smitty's and their distributors to legal action.

That lawsuit actually prompted the Department of Commerce to publish new truth in labeling regulations for THF. The new regs require the manufacturer to clte and demonstrate conformance to at least one OEM specification. Unfortunately very few have actually gone that far and there is no enforcement mechanism.

Dan

 

[NCL4701]

That

I always saw the 303 in yellow 5 gal. buckets. On the buckets was a list of tractors/machinery it was approved for. Listed as "Meets specs for JD, Case, Cat and on and on. Listing at least a dozen companies. I'd think if enough folks bought the oil and had mechanical failures with equipment listed on the bucket those companies listed would bring the class action suit.

That makes sense. False or misleading statements result in liability for damage caused by reliance on those statements.

After posing my question, did some looking and found a few sellers with statements similar to the below.

“…is designed for…requirements of equipment manufacturers where a product of this quality is recommended.” (Sounds like a lawyer trying to do some butt covering wrote that.) Then a list of manufacturers. You have to read through about 2/3 of the sheet to find the first disclaimer explaining no manufacturer has recommended it since 1974. There’s another disclaimer at the end. If you read the whole sheet, it looks like it would be hard to argue there’s an intent to deceive, but I suppose that’s a jury question.

Also saw some like this one from NAPA which looked a lot sketchier to me. Back of the bucket says in big letters it’s “agricultural hydraulic fluid”. Small print says it’s compatible with agricultural applications that call for SAE 20W hydraulic fluid. It does say to check owner manual for specific applications, but that one looks like legal either didn’t review it or they were having a bad day when they reviewed it.

NAPA’s description says it may be used “…where tractor hydraulic fluid is recommended”.

With kind of marketing, lawsuits make perfect sense.

 

[NCL4701]

Whst they did was market and misrepresent a product that was crap. The stuff in those buckets bore no resemblance to JDM 303 and labeling it as such was the misrepresentation. It was in fact a random hodge podge of waste products from the blending process. It was/is a scam pure and simple.

JDM 303 was a loosely defined formulary based primarily on the use of sperm whale oil which has been banned since 1972. There is no way to manufacture or test it today. That is what ultimately exposed Smitty's and their distributors to legal action.

That lawsuit actually prompted the Department of Commerce to publish new truth in labeling regulations for THF. The new regs require the manufacturer to clte and demonstrate conformance to at least one OEM specification. Unfortunately very few have actually gone that far and there is no enforcement mechanism.

Dan

Thanks. That adds significant context to the issue.

 

[Old Machinist]

My introduction to hydraulic repairs was 9 or 10 years ago when I bought a backhoe that was "READY TO WORK". It showed up with one stabilizer squirting fluid 20 feet out when it was moved. I had done a little research and had read the New Holland recommended fluid was their 134D spec at the time. It might not have mattered in the hydraulic system but they recommended it in everything including trans and rear axle.

SOOO not knowing better I drove an hour and a half to the nearest NH dealer and paid too much for a kit and some fluid. The guy sold me 303 and said that was what it needed. On the way home I got to thinking about it and pulled in a Tractor Supply. After looking over all their labels I saw their Premium Travelers listed the NH134D spec so I bought some of that.

Several cylinder repairs and fluid changes later I ended up using that in everything on the NH and have even poured it in my JD 4310 eHydro trans with no ill effects so I have stuck with that.

On the Kubota I used their Super UDT2 since it's under warranty. I recently looked at this Triax stuff that gets good reviews and I might change to that at some point. Some reviews claimed it lessened the hydro whine. Others like that it had the red dye in it and was easier to see on the stick.

 

[Hugo Habicht]

"Designed for" and "meets" are marketing nonsense anyway.

The way I know it is that oil manufacturers send their oil to the manufacturer of a vehicle, the manufacturer tests it and approves its use if found to be suitable. The manufacturer then publishes lists of approved oils. All oils in those lists are safe to use.

And I spent ages looking for hydraulic oil for my G1900 only to find out that the genuine Kubota oil from a dealer nearby (who even posted it) was the cheapest.

 

[TheOldHokie]

"Designed for" and "meets" are marketing nonsense anyway.

The way I know it is that oil manufacturers send their oil to the manufacturer of a vehicle, the manufacturer tests it and approves its use if found to be suitable. The manufacturer then publishes lists of approved oils. All oils in those lists are safe to use.

And I spent ages looking for hydraulic oil for my G1900 only to find out that the genuine Kubota oil from a dealer nearby (who even posted it) was the cheapest.

In general the equipnent OEM privides the test requirements and the blenders test them in house or send them to independent laboratories.

The new THF truth in labeling regs I mentuoned ard quite specific on wording. I may not have this exactly right but it illustrates the idea

Has the following approvals

Signifies the oil has been tested to and conforms to the equipment OEMs specification AND the OEM has formally approved its use in applications rewuiring that performance

Meets or Exceeds the Following Specificstions

The oil has been tested against the listed specification(s) and conformds BUT the equuipment OEM has not formally approved its use.

Suitable for use in equipment requiring the following performance

The oil OEM believes the oil is suitable for use in equipment requiring the indicated performance.

As I said in the previous post technically the oil manufacturer has to test abd label their priducts against at least one specification but at rhis point thats pretty much limited to the big boys like Mobil and feiends.

 

[D2Cat]

My introduction to hydraulic repairs was 9 or 10 years ago when I bought a backhoe that was "READY TO WORK". It showed up with one stabilizer squirting fluid 20 feet out when it was moved. I had done a little research and had read the New Holland recommended fluid was their 134D spec at the time. It might not have mattered in the hydraulic system but they recommended it in everything including trans and rear axle.

SOOO not knowing better I drove an hour and a half to the nearest NH dealer and paid too much for a kit and some fluid. The guy sold me 303 and said that was what it needed. On the way home I got to thinking about it and pulled in a Tractor Supply. After looking over all their labels I saw their Premium Travelers listed the NH134D spec so I bought some of that.

Several cylinder repairs and fluid changes later I ended up using that in everything on the NH and have even poured it in my JD 4310 eHydro trans with no ill effects so I have stuck with that.

On the Kubota I used their Super UDT2 since it's under warranty. I recently looked at this Triax stuff that gets good reviews and I might change to that at some point. Some reviews claimed it lessened the hydro whine. Others like that it had the red dye in it and was easier to see on the stick.

At $130 for 5 gallons why not use Kubota UDT2 at $141? Oh i see, you're saving money. I'll pay $11 for peace of mind.