A father used to say to his teenage son: Take good care of her son, and use
nothing but Esso Extra and Uniflow motor oil, and she'll last you 90,000
Now the single dad says: Dude! Take good care of your whip, m'k? Make sure
to use the right octane gas, and use oil with the right SAE service rating,
m'k? Dude! If you don't get T-boned and shit, that car will last you
It boils down to this Matt: We used to rely on our favorite trusted brands
to promise us that the product in the bottle was good. Now, we are more
sophisticated, and can judge for ourselves. The governing and testing bodies
stamp the rating on the bottle, and all we have to do is educate ourselves a
little and read the label.
Truth be told? I rather it the old way. But that's life, dude.
Matt - you've been making some pretty big assumptions about QA throughout
this thread. Where is the breakdown in QA in your mind? It's refined in
the same plants. The distinction comes more at the packaging end of things.
Sure - there is potential for problems at every step but those problems
exist for everyone. Do you really believe that Mobil or any other supplier
has a QA process that is so unique and so different from what Wal Mart or
any other private label similar to Wal Mart has? I really doubt it. There
just isn't that much room in the supply chain as it exists, for huge
disparities in QA like you're suggesting. Besides - you've not documented
any reason to believe that there even is a QA difference, so why do you keep
mentioning the QA point? At some point, this kind of thing becomes what we
call FUD - Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. Most times, totally unfounded and
only intended to smear a competitor or a product when no valid evidence
Yes, I do believe that. I've worked for 23 years in a Fortune 500
corporation and I know a lot of things I can't say in public that would
very much surprise you about a lot of products you use every day.
Sure there is. Many people will sacrifice a lot of quality to get a
cheap price. Many people won't. There is room for all, but to claim
that all products are created equal is simply absurd. Do you really
believe that Bose stereo products are no better than the no-name brands
And you've not documented that there isn't a difference.
and Doubt. Most times, > Totally unfounded and only intended to smear a
competitor or a product when no valid evidence exists.
The key word is most times, and it isn't even most, more like some.
And Consumer Reports sure wastes a lot of money testing products. Now
that Mr. Supertech has educated us that all products that meet a
standard are equal in "the real world" and don't have differences that
matter, I can drop my subscription and just buy the cheapest product I
can find at Wal-Mart and know that I'm getting good stuff. :-)
Consumer Reports, eh? I guess you must have conveniently forgotten this
article that refutes everything you've suggested:
Granted, it's ten years old, but at least it's an actual controlled
test. Read it and weep, Matt.
That gets us back to the "what's the label say" issue.
I've been running Supertech Synthetic for a long time in a Dodge Caravan,
Chevy Malibu, and Chrysler T&C with no problems - no leaks, no sludge, no
nothing! If you look down under the valve cover on these vehicles, it looks
Ok - I'll be the one to steer this thread in a different direction...
I've never used synthetic oils. Pure dino all the way. I've typically
driven my cars for 200,000 - 250,000 miles. I've had the valve covers off
more than one of my cars and with well over 100,000 miles, I've never found
any sludge or buildup. The most recent experience of this nature was when I
replaced the intake gaskets on my daughter's '98 Malibu with a 3.4L. The
car had 118,000 miles on it and when I pulled the valve covers the thing was
spotless. On nothing but dino oil and those crummy Fram filters that have
such a bad reputation here. The dino oil came from Wally World - you
guessed it - SuperTech.
Someone has been bringing up the word "degree". I think that is the most
appropriate word to this whole thread. Any differences are really not that
significant. I change my oil faithfully at 4,000 miles and always have.
I'm switching to synthetic just to get the added mileage between changes.
I've got 5 cars in this household to tend to and reducing oil changes
appeals to me. But, do I expect something more or something better from
synthetics? Nope. How do you improve upon the experiences I've had in 35
years of driving and maintaining my vehicles?
Those longer intervals appeal to me too!
I think I would use synthetic oil if I didn't worry about the filter. I
trust syn oil up to 10,000 miles, but I only trust oil filters up to 6000.
Filters are so small these days I'm afraid they could become restricted by
normal combustion products.
[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
I often feel using synthetic would be a total waste is some vehicles.
The best oil in the world won't stop contaminants from getting in, filters
aging... Quality conventional oils also have improved dramatically over
Consider someone who should change oil by time, not mileage. Say they only
drive 10-12K miles a year and have few long trips to really dry things
out. That is "severe service" of a different kind and there may be a cost
benefit ration that favors more frequent changes with conventional oils.
Personal home page - http://gogood.com
gerry misspelled in my email address to confuse robots
Oh come on Matt. I've worked in Corporate America for over 25 years myself.
That fact has nothing at all to do with the discussion at hand. Do you
think that most of America would really be surprised by things you've seen?
The truth is that most of these "hidden corporate secrets" are quite common
That's not what was stated Matt. Red Herring.
to smear a competitor or a
No, FUD is almost always unfounded and intended to smear. Factual issues
are one thing, but speculative fears based on no evidence are not factual.
True, so what's your point? Do you have EVEN ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE that
Warren Oil doesn't have outstanding QC? In case you can't bring yourself
to let the word past your lips, I'll help you. The answer is "no".
Being a retired QA/QC manager that fought the good fight for 35 years, yes,
I know about the last line of defense. In today's plants, there are
redundant checks, balances, and super-reliable instrumentation to prevent
those little accidents from getting out of the shop. I believe bottlers are
just too sophisticated for that to happen except on rare, freakish
Bob, who'd you work for? Did you work for multiple companies or just
one? I work for a large company that has a reputation for high quality
products. I've friends who have come from a range of other companies
and it is amazing at the disparity among companies with respect to their
Certainly this isn't true across the board, but for the most part the
"name brand" companies that have THEIR name on the product take quality
manufacturing and QA/QC more seriously. Since adopting TQM and Six
Sigma practices a couple of decades ago, we actually try to avoid having
to do QC! No offense. :-)
It is almost always better to design (and manufacture) quality in than
to try to inspect it out, as I'm sure you well know. However, you need
some inspection as a process feedback mechanism if not a strict QC
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.