Is "Summit" oil any good?

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: IllinoisSparky
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Your welcome. The license information is here.

https://engineoil.api.org/Directory/EolcsResultsDetail?accountId=-1&companyId=10298&resultsUrl=%2FDirectory%2FEolcsResults%3FaccountId%3D-1%26brandName%3Dsummit


Thanks again. Learned of a new site for oil info.
I was actually looking at the PQIA site, not API. Oops.


Your welcome, don't worry for some reason the API EOLCS site is a pain in the rear to find.

 

[RedVic]

I have a question about these manufacture standards on oil bottles and threatening to void warranties if you don't use an oil with their standard.

GM develops their standard on what they want in the oil.

Ford develops their standard.

Chrysler, Honda, BMW the list goes on.

Many oils list multiple manufactures on the bottle as meeting their standard.

If GM want's more of a certain additive than does Ford or Honda or Chrysler, ect. that throws the others specs out of balance. Dilution of their specs if you will. I just do not buy into the manufacture specific specs because there is no way that you can have multiple manufactures developing their own specs and then saying a single oil meets all of them when each company is deciding what they want within their own specs.

I myself use Redline oil in the proper weight for my Honda Civic 1.5 liter Turbo engine and Ram 2500 6.4 Hemi again in the proper weight.

I also see that General Motors started off hard line on if you did not use their current spec "dexos1" (dexos2 for their diesels) your warranty would be voided but then changed it to if you don't use dexos1 your warranty may be voided, a little magnuson-moss warranty act catching up with them maybe?

Lets face it when has anyone had a true oil related engine failure when using the proper weight of oil?

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: RedVic
If GM want's more of a certain additive than does Ford or Honda or Chrysler, ect. that throws the others specs out of balance. Dilution of their specs if you will. I just do not buy into the manufacture specific specs because there is no way that you can have multiple manufactures developing their own specs and then saying a single oil meets all of them when each company is deciding what they want within their own specs.

The manufacturers don't specify ingredients. They tend to specify a viscosity and performance benchmarks, often based upon another specification already out there, such as ACEA or API/ILSAC specs.

 

[Tom NJ]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
Summit is under WARREN OIL COMPANY INC's API license. It is API SN GF-5 resource conserving in the 5W30 grade certified.


While I suppose it's possible, I would be very surprised if a reputable and quality conscience company like Warren Oil would market a product claiming SN/GF-5/dexos1 with no certification marks, and no hyphen between the 5W and 30. Irvin Warren sits on the Advisory Board of PQIA and he knows better. I suspect this is a different Summit brand, but can't say for certain.

Tom NJ

 

[mjoekingz28]

Aren't there two different Warren companies?


Thanks for your thoughts on the matter!

 

[Garak]

In that vein, Tom, at least just thinking out loud, it would be rather nice if API license numbers were printed on data sheets and bottles, like we see with dexos and Dexron-VI certifications. It would make sifting through similar sounding names a lot less problematic, particularly when appropriate API markings aren't shown on the bottle. Heck, it would be helpful even if they were on the bottle and the license number were still printed.

 

[Tom NJ]

Originally Posted By: Garak
In that vein, Tom, at least just thinking out loud, it would be rather nice if API license numbers were printed on data sheets and bottles, like we see with dexos and Dexron-VI certifications. It would make sifting through similar sounding names a lot less problematic, particularly when appropriate API markings aren't shown on the bottle. Heck, it would be helpful even if they were on the bottle and the license number were still printed.


Yes it would be nice, but not a priority for oil companies considering the value of label real estate, and the fact that 99% of the buying public do not know what an API license is, or for that matter what API stands for.

Tom

 

[Tom NJ]

Originally Posted By: mjoekingz28
Aren't there two different Warren companies?


Thanks for your thoughts on the matter!


Yes, but the Summit brand on the API license list is under Warren Oil, not Warren Performance Products.

Tom

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Yes it would be nice, but not a priority for oil companies considering the value of label real estate, and the fact that 99% of the buying public do not know what an API license is, or for that matter what API stands for.

But you know they should cater to their strangest, most niche customers, the BITOGers.

I would have suggested going by product UPC and linking that to a specific API license, but those UPC numbers change all the time, and that would create more havoc. Some companies can't keep their data sheets straight, to keeping UPC codes linked to an appropriate API license is just asking for trouble.