Fear of improper quality oil

Yep I totally get it thanks for all your post I'm just interested in why some people and I cannot remember who said that but I hear a lot of the same questions,, how is the oil working for you,, did you have any problems with it?

It all just seems so vague to me because like many of the other posters have said here, as long as it's a good quality oil and meets specs you're golden.

I'm just going to stick with full synthetic Kirkland 0w 20 and slick 50:-)
 
Yep I totally get it thanks for all your post I'm just interested in why some people and I cannot remember who said that but I hear a lot of the same questions,, how is the oil working for you,, did you have any problems with it?

It all just seems so vague to me because like many of the other posters have said here, as long as it's a good quality oil and meets specs you're golden.

I'm just going to stick with full synthetic Kirkland 0w 20 and slick 50:-)
Slick 50 ? What approvals does that carry ?
 
Yes I get that, but it seems I hear the same statement a lot; are you having any problems with your oil. It seems to be a very open statement because how would one know if they're having a problem with their oil and it's causing engine problems. Even if they're using these certified oil because they all seem to be pretty much certified these days.
Generally speaking, unless you're engaging the oil in several performance edge cases (racing, extreme cold, etc...) or keeping your car some absurd number of miles, you're not going to be able to determine any measurable difference between oils, provided they meet the manufacturer's standards/viscosities listed in the manual or TSBs.
 
Use a quality oil that meets the mfg specs and change it when they recommend changing it. Or better yet do a UOA and change the oil based on the data you gained from the UOA. That should keep you from running the oil too long.
 
People put too much faith in API and OEM certs and approvals. We recently saw here how Rotella bombed D892 with >2.5x the CK-4 limit on foam. API themselves stated in an audit that nearly half of the oils they tested didn't meet one or more standards of the claimed cert.
Scary considering the bar isn’t set very high…
 
Get you some good synthetic oil and oil stabilizer. Lucas is good, or a high zinc conventional oil for older engines.
 
Get you some good synthetic oil and oil stabilizer. Lucas is good, or a high zinc conventional oil for older engines.

There's no such thing as an oil stabilizer. That's a marketing term.

Lucas Oil Stabilizer is just a bright stock with no additives in it and a ~38,000% wholesale profit margin. It's among the biggest scams on the supplement shelf. All it does is dilute the additives already in your oil. In RPVOT, it causes an earlier onset of oxidation meaning it actually reduces oil service life, contrary to what they claim. Forget the supplement shelf exists. Nothing good comes from that shelf. In general, if your oil needs a supplement (99% of the time, it won't), you need a better oil.

438246370_975062467301366_3211153557262238511_n.webp
 
Last edited:
There's no such thing as an oil stabilizer. That's a marketing term.

Lucas Oil Stabilizer is just a bright stock with no additives in it and a ~38,000% wholesale profit margin. It's among the biggest scams on the supplement shelf. All it does is dilute the additives already in your oil. In RPVOT, it causes an earlier onset of oxidation meaning it actually reduces oil service life, contrary to what they claim. Forget the supplement shelf exists. Nothing good comes from that shelf. In general, if your oil needs a supplement (99% of the time, it won't), you need a better oil.

View attachment 266495
It’s a well and widely known fact that off the shelf oils on their own are highly unstable and in desperate need of stabilization. Without proper stabilizing additives in the oil how can one ensure maximum stability. Stable is as stable does.
 
There's no such thing as an oil stabilizer. That's a marketing term.

Lucas Oil Stabilizer is just a bright stock with no additives in it and a ~38,000% wholesale profit margin. It's among the biggest scams on the supplement shelf. All it does is dilute the additives already in your oil. In RPVOT, it causes an earlier onset of oxidation meaning it actually reduces oil service life, contrary to what they claim. Forget the supplement shelf exists. Nothing good comes from that shelf. In general, if your oil needs a supplement (99% of the time, it won't), you need a better oil.

View attachment 266495
Rather than an “oil stabilizer” it is a formulated oil degrader.
 
It’s a well and widely known fact that off the shelf oils on their own are highly unstable and in desperate need of stabilization. Without proper stabilizing additives in the oil how can one ensure maximum stability. Stable is as stable does.
Exactly. Without products like that Lucas just think the heck that we’d be in.
 
There's no such thing as an oil stabilizer. That's a marketing term.

Lucas Oil Stabilizer is just a bright stock with no additives in it and a ~38,000% wholesale profit margin. It's among the biggest scams on the supplement shelf. All it does it dilute the additives already in your oil. In RPVOT, it causes an earlier onset of oxidation meaning it actually reduces oil service life, contrary to what they claim. Forget the supplement shelf exists. Nothing good comes from that shelf. In general, if your oil needs a supplement (99% of the time, it won't), you need a better oil.

View attachment 266495
I found this Lubrizol paper interesting. Apparently even group 1 bright stock is too expensive so polymer thickeners are cheaper and better performing.

https://media.journoportfolio.com/users/87499/uploads/5258c36e-ffd1-489d-b1d5-a30e372d03f2.pdf
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom