synthetic oil for 06 Sonata V-6

Page 3 of 5  
Matt Whiting wrote:


This is all true, but what's your point? It says nothing specific about the companies we're discussing. Unless you know what their QA/QC procedures are, you have no right to denegrate them based on pure speculation.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

3 different companies. An appliance manufacturer, a pipe fitting company that made exotic alloy nuclear fittings, and a precision tool company that manufactured and used many bearings of many types. I was considered their in-house "expert" on bearings and lubricants. That Consumer Reports article read like many of my own reports, and brought back memories! We used to do bearing and lubricant wear tests with gages that had a resolution of .000002" (2 millionth's of an inch)

HA!! That was my philosophy way before it was widely adopted! I was considered a radical at 1 time. Instead of hiring and maintaining a huge QC department to weed out defects, I emphasized quality at the point of manufacture. I wanted every machinist to be a QC technician. I wanted my inspectors, techs, and engineers to be primarily teachers. And yes, 6 Sigma was nirvana!

Exactly!
--
Bob

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

We're not talking about ideology. Just oil. Oil has no business model, no employees, and no politics. It just sits there and does its job without complaint.
Hey, oil has it pretty good! :)
--
Bob

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Deck wrote:

Did I say that? :-)
Matt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Matt, changing the label on a tool or bottle of oil does not magically change their properties. Wal-Mart can sell brand name products cheaper because they have mega-buying power, not because their label somehow degrades the quality. Mobil1 from Wal-Mart is the same quality as Mobil1 from Pep Boys.
The only legitimate question is, what's in the SuperTech bottle? The MSDS sheet says Pennzoil/Quaker state. Not exactly chopped liver.
--
Bob

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Just bought oil at Peb Boys...penzoil platinum. $3.50 cheaper at wallyworld for 5 qts!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bob Adkins wrote:

I never claimed it did and specifically said above that brand name (and labeled) products should be the same everywhere. If you really believe that store brand products are exactly the same as brand name products other than the label, then that is your prerogative. I know for a fact that many industries sort products by specifications and "bin" them for sale. The high quality products get sold under a brand name and the lower quality get sold to folks that rebrand them. This is very common in the electronics industry for example.

That is the only legitimate question, I agree. However, the MSDS doesn't tell you what is in the bottle, it tells you what is supposed to be in the bottle. Poor QA may well mean that what is in the bottle isn't exactly what is supposed to be in the bottle. And, yes, I actually do consider Pennzoil and Quaker State to be the chopped liver of oil brands. Quaker State is one of the few oil producers that destroyed a bunch of engines due to poor QA that let bad oil get out of their factory.
Matt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I don't think Pennzoil/QS or Shell or any other supplier would create a blend just for Wal-Mart. That wouldn't make economic sense at all when there are already excellent blends to choose from. SuperTech oil is simply re-labeled oil that is identical to some other oil. The question is, which one? Hint: It's a premium oil that meets all the latest API, SAE, ASTM Etc. specs.

So, you believe every oil maker except for Pennzoil/QS is immune to QA problems? Well I've got news for ya! :)
It comes down to trusting a label. I think Wal-Mart has just as much integrity as the next re-seller of bulk-blended oil. In fact, Wal-Mart's QA program probably strikes more fear into the oil companies than any other outlet. After all, Wal-Mart is probably their most important customer.
Matt, we've got to be careful today. A person can praise one brand very highly and smear another viciously and be embarrassed to find they are different in name only.
We have huge oil bottlers that specialize in economically bottling oil for many customers. In order to reduce overhead, I'm sure their inventory consists of dozens fewer actual formulations than there are brands. And it's subject to change from time to time.
That brings to mind a neighbor that used to tell me my riding mower was junk, and his brand was the highest of quality. One day I took a close look at his mower, and the only difference in the 2 were the paint job. I really had some fun with that one!
Moral: Research thoroughly (not just old information) before saying one oil is inferior to another.
--
Bob

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bob Adkins wrote:

It makes tons of sense. Wal-Mart is probably one of their largest customers. If they can save 5 cents a quart by cutting back on the additive package, that makes loads of economic sense. And it is well known that Wal-Mart squeezes its suppliers on price like no other company. Read the business press a little and you'll see they are legendary for this. And if you think their supplies don't cut corners to lower their price and keep their business, you don't know much about business.

Nope, but given a choice between a company that had a documented problem and one's that haven't, and a company being squeezed on cost by Wal-Mart and one that isn't, I'll take the latter every time. :-)

Ha, ha, ha. Wal-Mart has no incoming QA program. They put EVERYTHING back on their vendors. Read a little about Wal-Mart's business practices. It is very enlightening.

Yes, that is always possible.

Yes, and they also try to make the lowest common product they can get away with.

I agree, most cheap lawn mowers are made by just a couple of companys. That is why I buy John Deere equipment. So far at least, I've gotten quality products.

I've researched as thoroughly as I can.
Matt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I don't think Deere makes their own mowers, do they? Neither does Troy Built, Craftsman, Huskvarna, or Poulan AFAICT. They buy them from one of the big manufacturers. I think "Yard Machines" is a main one, and another company(? Maybe Electrolux?) is another big one.
--
Bob

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bob Adkins wrote:

Last I knew Deere made most of their mowers. The engine in mine is a Kawasaki, which I considered a plus after owning three Kawasaki motorcycles. Consumer reports had an article on mowers some time ago and talked about who made which mowers. I wasn't thinking John Deere bought from one of the mower mills, but maybe that has changed for their low-end machines like those sold at Home Depot. I didn't buy one of those. :-)
Matt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Matt Whiting wrote:

So if a problem doesn't exist, you'll just make one up to justify your position? Give me a break.

And that happened how long ago? IIRC, that was something like 25 years ago and the problem was corrected. Have you heard of even ONE quality issue with modern oils?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Excellent point!
Once upon a time when we all had dark hair, there was a wide difference in oil quality. Some was pretty good, some was bilge sludge.
Now, I bet there's VERY LITTLE difference from the best to the worst. Almost imperceptible! Certainly not enough to get our shorts in a wad about.
This is the result of STANDARDS. SAE used to rule the roost, and their standards metrics were primitive.
Now,,, there are several standards testing bodies in the fray, and the oil bottlers must comply or die. We win! :)
--
Bob

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bob Adkins wrote:

Sorry, but I've seen test data (from the source I've mentioned here several times before - MCN) that shows the above statement to be patently false. There was a wide range of data in virtually every parameter of the oil that was tested.
Some oils have far better additive packages than others, and the correlation wasn't perfect with price and brand name, but it was significantly correlated.

Standards in most cases provide only a minimum (or ocasionally a maximum to prevent catcon poisoning) requirement. They don't ensure equality at all. The Air Force has a minium height standard for its pilots (and a maximum as well). Do you you really think this standard means that all pilots in the Air Force are the same height?

Ha, ha, ha. This is funnny.
Matt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Now that's a significant statement Matt - if it can be substantiated and qualified. Can you share what kind of data you saw? What were the parameters that differed and made that impression on you? How did those parameters compare to standards? In other words - what were the specifics? Is the data you saw available for review?

Standards do ensure that a product is indeed safe and proper for use - as contrasted to arbitrary statements that "something may not be right". Not to insult you but I'll accept standards certification long before I'll accept your arguement that QA *may* not be up to snuff in the absense of any evidence.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike Marlow wrote:

Yes, if you'll pay the $7 or whatever a back issue of MCN costs. I provided the reference some time ago.
Matt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Matt Whiting wrote:

Why don't you scan it and send it to us? I sent you the data I had. I doubt that MCN is going to get worked up over a six-year-old article being sent to a handful of people.
Hmmm, I suppose I could take a page out of your book and insinuate that you MUST have something to hide, since you haven't produced the goods. You MUST have gone back and re-read the article and figured out that you were wrong. Yeah, that MUST be it!
See, it's easy to make up crap. How about producing some evidence, Matt?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Mike, I'm going to have to call you out on that one.
Since you seem to be calling me a liar, I'm asking you to show your data. Not only what, but more importantly WHEN the testing was done. Pre historic data doesn't count!
Oil is blended in modern plants, with state-of-the art equipment, all computer controlled. There are many controls and check points, and everything is recorded in logs. It's been that way for 20 years. It's a very "settled" technology. If the button pusher or computer should glitch while one brand is being bottled, that brand could possibly have some defective bottles. One brand is just as likely to be defective as the others. The color of the bottle has no bearing on anything.
Even if there is a breakdown of some kind, I bet buzzers and lights go off all over the place, and the suspect bottles are rounded up and dumped into the waste oil bin for re-processing. (or more likely, just dumped into Mobil-1 bottles). <ROFL!>
--
Bob

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bob Adkins wrote:

The article he's referring to is from 2000. It's in a motorcycle magazine, which alone is enough to cast doubts about how relevent it is to an automobile discussion.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Well, I suppose the processes are so standardized that data from 2000 is 100% relevant. But I agree that MC's and cars are apples and oranges.
--
Bob

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    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.