How are car/store brands so cheap yet still...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: AnarchyX
Able to meet ILSAC and API requirements/specs, while name brands like Pennzoil and Valvoline meet the same specs, yet cost as much as double in some instances. I've seen a bottle of pennzoil synthetic cost double of supertech yet they both meet API and ILSAC specs.

Are the big brand's base oils that much better than store brands, or is it the additive packages that are that much better or both?

Just wondering cause I've read on here where people using Wal-Mart brand or Motorcraft get just as many miles out of their vehicles as those of us who use the big brands like Pennzoil, Castro, etc.


It cost the same to make name brand oil as no name brand, with brand names you pay extra money and they make extra profits off their marketing which convinces some, that their product is better with no proof, yet they ALL meet the API designations on the bottle.
Like any product, its about marketing and its impossible to know if one is better then the other if they all meet the same standard.
 
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Supertech meets the minimum spec,while Pennzoil exceeds the maximum spec. Think of a quarter pounder from Micky D's keeping you alive,while a Kobe beef hamburger keeping you healthy
laugh.gif



There's no need to exceed the spec though. The automaker says that oil that meets spec will keep the engine perfectly healthy though.
 
Originally Posted By: hallstevenson
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Supertech meets the minimum spec,while Pennzoil exceeds the maximum spec. Think of a quarter pounder from Micky D's keeping you alive,while a Kobe beef hamburger keeping you healthy
laugh.gif



There's no need to exceed the spec though. The automaker says that oil that meets spec will keep the engine perfectly healthy though.

Yes!
thumbsup2.gif
thumbsup2.gif
 
Originally Posted By: alarmguy
Originally Posted By: AnarchyX
Able to meet ILSAC and API requirements/specs, while name brands like Pennzoil and Valvoline meet the same specs, yet cost as much as double in some instances. I've seen a bottle of pennzoil synthetic cost double of supertech yet they both meet API and ILSAC specs.

Are the big brand's base oils that much better than store brands, or is it the additive packages that are that much better or both?

Just wondering cause I've read on here where people using Wal-Mart brand or Motorcraft get just as many miles out of their vehicles as those of us who use the big brands like Pennzoil, Castro, etc.


It cost the same to make name brand oil as no name brand, with brand names you pay extra money and they make extra profits off their marketing which convinces some, that their product is better with no proof, yet they ALL meet the API designations on the bottle.
Like any product, its about marketing and its impossible to know if one is better then the other if they all meet the same standard.


Common misconceptions.
It costs more to use a better blend of basestocks which in turn yield lower loss in the NOACK test protocol. I'd personally rather run an oil that shows You also get more expensive adds in many name brand oils, like moly, the most costly add used and one often absent from the cheap stuff.
Then there's starting TBN and TBN retention, neither of which cheap oils are noted for having in abundance.
Anyone who wants to take the cheap route is welcomed to do so.
Your car and your wallet.
Me, I'll pay a little more to get a little more. Also, considering promos, clearances and MIRs, the name brand oils can actually be cheaper to run than the store brands.
 
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Originally Posted By: alarmguy
Originally Posted By: AnarchyX
Able to meet ILSAC and API requirements/specs, while name brands like Pennzoil and Valvoline meet the same specs, yet cost as much as double in some instances. I've seen a bottle of pennzoil synthetic cost double of supertech yet they both meet API and ILSAC specs.

Are the big brand's base oils that much better than store brands, or is it the additive packages that are that much better or both?

Just wondering cause I've read on here where people using Wal-Mart brand or Motorcraft get just as many miles out of their vehicles as those of us who use the big brands like Pennzoil, Castro, etc.


It cost the same to make name brand oil as no name brand, with brand names you pay extra money and they make extra profits off their marketing which convinces some, that their product is better with no proof, yet they ALL meet the API designations on the bottle.
Like any product, its about marketing and its impossible to know if one is better then the other if they all meet the same standard.



Me, I'll pay a little more to get a little more. Also, considering promos, clearances and MIRs, the name brand oils can actually be cheaper to run than the store brands.


This right here. Right now Pennzoil Platinum is on Rollback at Walmart. $22.97 for 5 qts of PP HM 5W-20 (for my Odyssey) plus the $2/qt rebate comes to $12.97 plus tax for name brand full synthetic with a plethora of UOA/VOA and customer satisfaction. Super Tech 5W-20 full synthetic is $17.97 for 5 qts. I'll take the Pennzoil.

I don't doubt that Super Tech is a good product. I'd just rather put the name brand stuff in my car for less money.
 
Originally Posted By: Peter_480
Originally Posted By: Garak

I also don't see Walmart doing any R&D, plus they're looking for the lowest bidder to fill the bottles. I don't see SuperTech rushing to claim ACEA certification or a lot of builder approvals.


But the manufacturers who make it are. I can trust WPP and Amalie to make a quality product.

Of course. What I mean, though, is that an oil company isn't looking to have a large markup (and the company buying to create a house brand isn't willing to pay for a large markup) to recoup a bunch of R&D money on these products. I wasn't making a dig at house brands, either. They're quite capable when used as directed.
 
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
.................

Supertech meets the minimum spec,while Pennzoil exceeds the maximum spec. Think of a quarter pounder from Micky D's keeping you alive,while a Kobe beef hamburger keeping you healthy
laugh.gif



Interesting. Would "exceeding" a spec technically make it now "out of spec"?
 
Originally Posted By: Hootbro
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
.................
Supertech meets the minimum spec,while Pennzoil exceeds the maximum spec. Think of a quarter pounder from Micky D's keeping you alive,while a Kobe beef hamburger keeping you healthy
laugh.gif


Interesting. Would "exceeding" a spec technically make it now "out of spec"?

No. He means it will have better oxidation resistance, higher tbn, higher flash point, etc...
 
For something like GF-5 oils, provided you differentiate between a mineral oil & a synthetic, there is virtually no difference between what you get from Walmart and from a big brand.

First off, neither Walmart nor the big oil companies actually develop their own oils these days. It's the big additive companies (Lubrizol, Infineum, Oronite & Afton) that do the lion's share of oil formulation work and bear the bulk of the R&D expenditure.

Typically an AddCo can do one of two basic sorts of development; a market general one, which will be available to anyone that wants it or a customer specific program. The former is fully funded by the AddCo. The latter might be part or fully funded by the customer. Whilst big oil companies always want something 'unique' and are tempted to go the customer specific route, the reality is that both market general and customer specific programs tend to arrive at more or less the same destination. And that creates a dilemma! If you're going to end up with essentially the same base oil/DI/VI/PPD system, why would you take on the burden of funding a customer specific program when you can get the market general system 'for free'?

So, if you see two very similar oils, and one is twice the price of the other, then very likely with the more expensive 'big brand oil', you're handing over more if your hard earned dosh over to the oil company for very little in return.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
For something like GF-5 oils, provided you differentiate between a mineral oil & a synthetic, there is virtually no difference between what you get from Walmart and from a big brand.

First off, neither Walmart nor the big oil companies actually develop their own oils these days. It's the big additive companies (Lubrizol, Infineum, Oronite & Afton) that do the lion's share of oil formulation work and bear the bulk of the R&D expenditure.

Typically an AddCo can do one of two basic sorts of development; a market general one, which will be available to anyone that wants it or a customer specific program. The former is fully funded by the AddCo. The latter might be part or fully funded by the customer. Whilst big oil companies always want something 'unique' and are tempted to go the customer specific route, the reality is that both market general and customer specific programs tend to arrive at more or less the same destination. And that creates a dilemma! If you're going to end up with essentially the same base oil/DI/VI/PPD system, why would you take on the burden of funding a customer specific program when you can get the market general system 'for free'?

So, if you see two very similar oils, and one is twice the price of the other, then very likely with the more expensive 'big brand oil', you're handing over more if your hard earned dosh over to the oil company for very little in return.

You're harshing my buzz.
 
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
For something like GF-5 oils, provided you differentiate between a mineral oil & a synthetic, there is virtually no difference between what you get from Walmart and from a big brand.

First off, neither Walmart nor the big oil companies actually develop their own oils these days. It's the big additive companies (Lubrizol, Infineum, Oronite & Afton) that do the lion's share of oil formulation work and bear the bulk of the R&D expenditure.

Typically an AddCo can do one of two basic sorts of development; a market general one, which will be available to anyone that wants it or a customer specific program. The former is fully funded by the AddCo. The latter might be part or fully funded by the customer. Whilst big oil companies always want something 'unique' and are tempted to go the customer specific route, the reality is that both market general and customer specific programs tend to arrive at more or less the same destination. And that creates a dilemma! If you're going to end up with essentially the same base oil/DI/VI/PPD system, why would you take on the burden of funding a customer specific program when you can get the market general system 'for free'?

So, if you see two very similar oils, and one is twice the price of the other, then very likely with the more expensive 'big brand oil', you're handing over more if your hard earned dosh over to the oil company for very little in return.


I would say you're probably correct in regards to store brands (SuperTech, O'Reilly, AutoZone, Peak, etc.) and well-known name brands (Pennzoil, Quaker State, Valvoline, Castrol, Mobil, Havoline, etc.) - however, I'm not sure how true that would be for the more niche name brands (Amsoil, Royal Purple, Motul, Klotz, Shaeffer's, etc.)...
 
If you go back say 30 years, there was a lot more variance & originality between the engine oils supplied by the different oil companies. This was in part due to the fact that most of them had their own in-house chemical additive company. Exxon had Paramins. Shell had Shell Chemicals. Mobil had Mobil Chem. BP had Adibis. Texaco had Texaco Chem. Chevron had Oronite. Amoco had Amoco Chem. Go back even further and Burmah Castrol (or C C Wakefield & Co) had a tiny chemical arm called Edwin Cooper. Additionally many of the big companies had their own engine test labs.

I wasn't involved in lubes back then but I heard all of the stories. Ironically for an industry dedicated to making lubricants, all having your own in-house additive company seemed to do was created huge amount of friction (I'm talking about real destructive metal-on-metal variety!). Back in the 80s, relations between the Petroleum & Chemical arms of my old outfit were so bad, meetings had to be chaired by a official 'referee'! It also engendered a lot of in-house cheating.

Inevitably the additive industry became more consolidated and more 'hands-off' as far as the oil companies were concerned. As a result, there is now a blandness to generic oils which is why price, should be a major consideration when people buy oils.
 
SonofJoe, would an oil company state lesser approvals on their lower end oils to prevent cannibalization of their higher end products?

Eg, Shell Helix Ultra 5W40 is more than double the price of Shell HX7 10W40 where I live. The SHU has MB229.5 but the HX7 only 229.3

If the HX7 does meet 229.5 standards, many would opt for it at less than half the price. So it would be in Shell's best interest to claim some lesser specs. Just an example, not asking you to confirm that specific comparison. Just interested in your opinion if the big name brands with all their different tiers of oil would do this to maximize their top tier sales?
 
Originally Posted By: KL31
SonofJoe, would an oil company state lesser approvals on their lower end oils to prevent cannibalization of their higher end products?

Eg, Shell Helix Ultra 5W40 is more than double the price of Shell HX7 10W40 where I live. The SHU has MB229.5 but the HX7 only 229.3

If the HX7 does meet 229.5 standards, many would opt for it at less than half the price. So it would be in Shell's best interest to claim some lesser specs. Just an example, not asking you to confirm that specific comparison. Just interested in your opinion if the big name brands with all their different tiers of oil would do this to maximize their top tier sales?



The practice of 'under-claiming' on oil specs, whilst not an everyday occurrence, is well known in the industry. I've had oil systems of mine that have been specifically developed to have joint Gasoline, Diesel & OEM specs but end up being marketed in three different guises (Gasoline specs only, Diesel specs only & The Full Monty). From the perspective of the oil marketer, it makes perfect sense. You segment the market and divide up your target customer profiles to maximise what you get for what you've blended. From the perspective of your average bloke in the street, it all seems a bit unnecessary; even deceitful.

However the oil industry is probably no worse than other industries. I once was told by someone from the South African wine industry that wine is bulk shipped in 20,000 litre containers to places like the UK where it is bottled under many different labels and deliberately sold at different price points, all in the name of maximising revenue/bulk container load. Unsurprisingly, since then I've always looked for cheap wine that tastes okay rather than assume that spending more buys you more.

In the specific case you cite of HX7 & Ultra, I can't be 100% sure but I don't think HX7 is being 'under-claimed'. HX7 10W40 is very likely a semi-synthetic containing a shed load of VII. It's probably good for MB 229.3 but only on a good day with a strong tail wind. Ultra on the other hand will be full synthetic which would sail through MB 229.5 with consummate ease.
 
Originally Posted By: javacontour
Originally Posted By: mightymousetech
People are misguided by thinking products are priced based on how much they cost to produce. They don't say, hmm, this cost $12 to make, mark it up 30%. Items are priced by what the local market is willing to pay. This is why the same product varies greatly in price.

People are willing to pay more for name brands, so they charge more.


This!

Products are marketed and priced based on what consumers are willing to pay.

Advertising helps a product's image in the market, allowing the seller to charge more and get it.



^^^ Excellent ^^^
Well said ... and I thought I was the only one who knew this ... :eek:)

Everything we spend money on in this world is marketing, every move you make, every decision.
Corporations have got into the heads of people like never before, its called psychology.

I wonder how many people truly understand the experiments that take place every minute of the day on the human being by corporations on how to extract the most amount of money from your wallet as possible = meaning what will trigger you to take your money out of your pocket.

The products are the same, in this case OIL, they all meet a standard, they will ALL take your engine to over 200,000 miles but marketing will get some of you to spend 500% more for a product that will do the same.

The corporation that wins at extracting the most money from you wins, they win in the board rooms, they win with the shareholders and they win with terrific pay scales and profits. IN the case regarding oil, all for a product that meets the same API or ACEA or whatever standards certified on the bottle..

Its just oil and whenever automotive makers or API, ACEA decide that they need a new standard they develop one, once developed the oil company produces the new product. Everything else is a sales pitch if it meets the new standard..
 
Last edited:
Okay SOJ, but what about the significant differences in NOACK one sees among oils that claim the same API specs as well as the significant differences in CCV?
You may get the same add pack in GoGO Many Mile Super Synthetic as you would in CheapSynfromArkansas, but one oil might have a substantially more costly basestock blend than the other and this would be seen in considerably better physical characteristics.
Surely lower NOACK and better CCV numbers are worth a couple of dollars per jug?
 
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Okay SOJ, but what about the significant differences in NOACK one sees among oils that claim the same API specs as well as the significant differences in CCV?
You may get the same add pack in GoGO Many Mile Super Synthetic as you would in CheapSynfromArkansas, but one oil might have a substantially more costly basestock blend than the other and this would be seen in considerably better physical characteristics.
Surely lower NOACK and better CCV numbers are worth a couple of dollars per jug?



Good point and yes, lower Noack (but not lower CCS for a given vis grade) is a goal worth chasing. However the Noack of an oil is impacted by so many things. Viscosity grade has a major influence on Noack. For a given base oil/DI/VII system, Noack increases as you move say from 10W30 to 5W30 to 0W30. Noack also tends to increase with VII loading ie as you move from 5W20 to 5W30 to 5W40. In the US in particular, Noack is impacted by 'sloppy blending' so say for a 5W30, Noack rises as your CCS-30 drops from 6000 to 5000 to 4000.

So just for the sake of argument, let's just focus on one viscosity grade (5W30) with one market general DI/VII system, with equal KV100 & CCS-30. So now we have to address the base oil issue. The biggest difference in Noack will arise from the difference between mineral (Group I/II) and synthetic (Group III/IV/V). However this is generally made explicit on the can, even if you buy oil from Walmart.

So now focus on minerals. Group I is virtually dead in the US but there are many different producers of Group II, all of which vary a little in the way they're made. Just remember that despite what gets talked about on BITOG, Group II still today accounts for the great majority of oils that are sold in the US. Now here's the thing. A big volume mineral oil brand isn't made from just one type of base oil. To make that oil available throughout the continental US in the volumes that are needed, Brand X 5W30 might be made from one of maybe 15 different base oils! Obviously this impacts on Noack so a result you see say on PQIA isn't a definitive number for Brand X. This makes it hard to argue that expensive branded oil is better than non-branded oil in terms of Noack!

Focussing on synthetics, there will always be a Noack difference between Group III and PAO with GTL (nominally a Group III) sitting somewhere in between. However I would stress again, this difference is far smaller that the difference between minerals and synthetic in general. If you're moving towards 0WXX territory, this difference will become more pronounced and as the blurb on the side of the can doesn't tell you what synthetic is used, you might infer that Brand X 0W20 is better in terms of Noack that Walmart synthetic 0W20.

Does that help any?
 
Last edited:
This is interesting.
So the X.X% NOACK numbers one sees in PQIA UOAs may not mean all that much after all and are subject to change without notice? We all remember the unicorn NOACK numbers PQIA found for some PYB and QSGB bought off the shelf from a Walmart in NJ and nobody thought those were typical of either oil.
Beyond that, it may well be that the small difference in NOACK between PP and M1 AFE in the 0W-20 grade as seen in the most recent PQIA VOAs of the two may not be of any significance since they may not be a constant.
Coming back to the question of add packs, the cheapo oils seem to have add packs light even though the same metallic adds may be used. They just seem to be used at lower treat rates.
Also, how important is moly?
Many of the cheap oils lack it, although it is becoming more common even in some of the cheaper store brands.
 
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
This is interesting.
So the X.X% NOACK numbers one sees in PQIA UOAs may not mean all that much after all and are subject to change without notice? We all remember the unicorn NOACK numbers PQIA found for some PYB and QSGB bought off the shelf from a Walmart in NJ and nobody thought those were typical of either oil.
Beyond that, it may well be that the small difference in NOACK between PP and M1 AFE in the 0W-20 grade as seen in the most recent PQIA VOAs of the two may not be of any significance since they may not be a constant.
Coming back to the question of add packs, the cheapo oils seem to have add packs light even though the same metallic adds may be used. They just seem to be used at lower treat rates.
Also, how important is moly?
Many of the cheap oils lack it, although it is becoming more common even in some of the cheaper store brands.




Yes, that's correct. For Group II oils in particular, the PQIA numbers only represent one sample at one point in time from one geographic location in the US. That very low Noack unicorn oil sort of proves the point. I very much doubt that Shell ever wanted to use GTL for that particular oil (such a waste!) but if for example, you have a late delivery of cheap, Motiva Group II, you would use whatever base oil you had floating around the blend plant to keep the canning lines running. As long as it's 'approved', it's good to go.

Regarding additives, a VOA doesn't tell you a right lot about overall DI treats. In no particular order....

ZDDP treat tends to be the same for all GF-5 oils, cheap or expensive, as in effect it's defined by the min/max Phosphorus spec. Typically, an oil contains about 0.9% of ZDDP.

Overbased metallic detergents are your primary source of oil TBN. These show up as calcium, magnesium & sodium in a VOA. You need to exercise care in translating these metals numbers into treat rates of actual detergent. Say you have a nominal 8 TBN oil. You could get this from 2% of 400 TBN Magnesium Sulphonate or 5.3% of 150 TBN Calcium Salicylate. The higher treat rate will be more expensive but technically will if better, worse of the same? IMO, the higher treat is worse.

Finally, the biggest component in any PCMO DI pack will be the Ashless Dispersant and this is invisible on a standard VOA. Typically, you'll see about 5% in a GF-5 oil. Again increasing the amount arguably makes the overall oil worse.

Moly is an interesting additive. I used to adore Moly but only in Group I oils where it was a truly superb AO at very low treat rates. The argument for using Moly is far less clear cut in better, more stable base oils. So if it's present in a synthetic 5W20, I'm happy, but if it's not, and all the requisite tests have been passed, I wouldn't cry big tears over it.

Overall, unless we're talking about Africa & the Middle East, I don't agree that cheap oil means someone's using a cheaper, lower treat, lower quality DI pack. It's confusing because cheaper often means better. Consequently, for something like GF-5, most DIs gravitate to the same optimum point.

Apologies if I'm muddying the waters but it's sort of how it is!
 
You're not muddying the waters at all.
Rather, you're bringing clarity and in the process blowing away some of my cherished assumptions about finished oil quality.
In another thread, you wrote that if one mixed two different oils of a given W qualification, he'd always end up with a mix that met that W qualification.
Maybe the guys who've always said mix away were right all along?
One cherished belief shot to hades.
In this thread, you're basically stating that less may well be more in the add pack of a finished oil, so not only are the cheap oils that meet the required specs okay to use, they may actually be preferable in some respects.
Maybe the guys who've maintained that cheap oil meeting a given spec is as good as more costly oil meeting the same spec have been right all along?
Another cherished belief turned to dust.
I do appreciate the insights and knowledge you bring here as you've helped me and many others understand that what we've long thought to be objective fact may not be the whole story.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top