For $7.50 you can get 5 quarts of Maxlife at Walmart.
is Wal-Mart Super Tech synthetic decent stuff?
- Thread starter turbomazda
- Start date
- Status
$1 plus per quart difference? There is only $1/qt difference in shelf price ($1.50 vs. $2.50). Chevron and SOPUS must be getting all their advertising for free, and then selling Havoline and Pennzoil at a lower profit margin than Supertech?
If you could meet API SM with $1+/qt less chemistry, what businessman in his right mind would throw away all that extra money? I find your statement incredible.
That would be a good deal; my Walmart wants $11.06 for it.
Being that Group III has a large range to it, I'd think this Group III is just a little better than Group II+ based on the price they are selling it for. I wouldn't count on it being the high grade Group III that Castrol and Shell Rotella are made from.
It would be nice if they had Group III subclasses (III-, III+)
It would be nice if they had Group III subclasses (III-, III+)
Would you say that it is just a tad better than the best Group II ?
I think it is made by Mobil. The bottle designs are similar.
I'll keep using supertech,its better oil then my engine deserves.I hope all you people worry and take care of yourselfs as much as your engines.
What a bunch of horse pucky! If an oil passes the SM tests it meets the SM tests period. If an oil passes the ACEA A5 it meets the A5 standards. In both cases some oils will barely pass and some will pass more easily. Few know which ones are which.
The fact is if the ratings on the oil meet the makers recommendations then you can be relativly sure that the oil will meet your needs.
There is no one out there making a commercial oil (non boutique) that beats the specs by a long shot because they are all in a very competitive industry and a minor cost disadvantage will cause great harm.
Buy oil by the specs and don't look back!
JHZR2
Staff member
Absolutely ridiculous. while the lowest common denominator is that 'SM chemistry is SM chemistry', that does not mean that some are not superior to others. THere are a million ways to formulate an oil to meet some set of specs... its not infinite, but there is a huge window of which oils can be tailored to meet some spec. We've seen this time and time again from VOA of add packs from different manufacturers.
Then move to UOAs... we can see that different oils hold up differently - some shear really quick, some loose TBN very fast, etc. Sure, every driver has a different style, and so there are a lot of variables, but it is also evident that some oils hold up better overall than others.
If SM is SM was the case, then why should anyone comment on how Shell makes a superior shear-resistant VII? Why would anyone care about XVHI, why would we be having te superthreads about XOM going Group III vs. PAO? Why would anyone be excited about the large quantities of Moly that were in the early API SM formulations of havoline? what kind of boron there is in this oil or that oil? excited to the fact that there is antimony in some oils, as it is a good anti-corrosive? curious to find a diesel-spec add pack for their 5w30 oil?
If all things are the same, why not just allow the status quo??? Because it is not. Chemistries are tailored, and som are more expensive than others. You can be sure that the ST oil is formulated to get by the SM tests. Does it pass them the same as some fancier more expensive oil? Yes... but how well does it do? If we are judging oxidative thickening, shear stability, whatever, and we have a mere pass/fail metric, we don't know how well something passed the threshold, or how badly it missed the threshold in failing... we just know that it did good enough to get by.
Ask me where to bet my dime, it would be that an oil like pennzoil platinum will have passed with a much greater margin than something like ST syn... why? because all chemistries are the same?
Heck, if that were the case, Amsoil wouldnt be producing charts that compare different competing oils for wear tests, evaporation, thickening, etc. Its because basestock and additive chemistry (remember, BOTH are important) are irrelevant and the only thing that counts is brand differentiation based upon company symbol and bottle color, right????
And further, if a small cost delta will cause great harm, then why are all of the mainstream players right around the same price point??? If they are all using the same basestock and add chemistry as ST, then why not drop a few pennies and profit more? Oh yeah, that dollar delta per quart (!) is all for NASCAR ads... I forgot. Forget R&D, which WPP and wal mart has none of. Forget testing, which WPP and wal mart do none of. Yes, advertising and sponsorship has something to do with it, and any oil that gives negligible value over ST is a ripoff if sold for a higher price for the same stuff and some advertisements/brand name. However, someone has to pay for the further development of new chemistries, production of advanced basestocks, etc. Unfortunately none of that is paid for by wal-mart - the folks that buy oils from the real companies are financing that, and you can be assured that the latest and greatest isnt going to be divulged to wal-mart for pennies on the dollar.
'SM is SM' in the lowest common denominator, but thats only so that people don't HAVE to do any analysis - they know their oil meets some basic spec. How well it meets the spec is another question... Something besides advertisements and bottle color is the reason for product differentiation - otherwise these mainstream companies would have NO R&D, and would just produce a marginal product that meets the status quo (kind of the way wal-mart does it).
JMH
Then move to UOAs... we can see that different oils hold up differently - some shear really quick, some loose TBN very fast, etc. Sure, every driver has a different style, and so there are a lot of variables, but it is also evident that some oils hold up better overall than others.
If SM is SM was the case, then why should anyone comment on how Shell makes a superior shear-resistant VII? Why would anyone care about XVHI, why would we be having te superthreads about XOM going Group III vs. PAO? Why would anyone be excited about the large quantities of Moly that were in the early API SM formulations of havoline? what kind of boron there is in this oil or that oil? excited to the fact that there is antimony in some oils, as it is a good anti-corrosive? curious to find a diesel-spec add pack for their 5w30 oil?
If all things are the same, why not just allow the status quo??? Because it is not. Chemistries are tailored, and som are more expensive than others. You can be sure that the ST oil is formulated to get by the SM tests. Does it pass them the same as some fancier more expensive oil? Yes... but how well does it do? If we are judging oxidative thickening, shear stability, whatever, and we have a mere pass/fail metric, we don't know how well something passed the threshold, or how badly it missed the threshold in failing... we just know that it did good enough to get by.
Ask me where to bet my dime, it would be that an oil like pennzoil platinum will have passed with a much greater margin than something like ST syn... why? because all chemistries are the same?
Heck, if that were the case, Amsoil wouldnt be producing charts that compare different competing oils for wear tests, evaporation, thickening, etc. Its because basestock and additive chemistry (remember, BOTH are important) are irrelevant and the only thing that counts is brand differentiation based upon company symbol and bottle color, right????
And further, if a small cost delta will cause great harm, then why are all of the mainstream players right around the same price point??? If they are all using the same basestock and add chemistry as ST, then why not drop a few pennies and profit more? Oh yeah, that dollar delta per quart (!) is all for NASCAR ads... I forgot. Forget R&D, which WPP and wal mart has none of. Forget testing, which WPP and wal mart do none of. Yes, advertising and sponsorship has something to do with it, and any oil that gives negligible value over ST is a ripoff if sold for a higher price for the same stuff and some advertisements/brand name. However, someone has to pay for the further development of new chemistries, production of advanced basestocks, etc. Unfortunately none of that is paid for by wal-mart - the folks that buy oils from the real companies are financing that, and you can be assured that the latest and greatest isnt going to be divulged to wal-mart for pennies on the dollar.
'SM is SM' in the lowest common denominator, but thats only so that people don't HAVE to do any analysis - they know their oil meets some basic spec. How well it meets the spec is another question... Something besides advertisements and bottle color is the reason for product differentiation - otherwise these mainstream companies would have NO R&D, and would just produce a marginal product that meets the status quo (kind of the way wal-mart does it).
JMH
Quote:
I hate people like thatThe reason is they are probably correct and smarter not to mention they probably sleep better....if I did that I'd stay up with worry
But I'll never use WM dino ST....or will I??
I know..even though he is my best friend and was best man in my wedding 20 years ago I tell him he is a stupid hillbilly for using ST......
I use the Supertech Synthetic, it's a decent oil for $13/5 quart jug.
I trust it, i get no engine noise, no issues thus far.
I trust it, i get no engine noise, no issues thus far.
JHZR2
Staff member
OK, and you go on buying the same #@$%! that everything is all the same... Think that if you like, I wish you all the best.
These sort of charts (thanks amsoil for presenting this stuff) tell me there is something to it besides just that SM is SM... but thats just me... call me stupid for having more than a little background in these areas...
Maybe not the best charts/tests... but if SM is SM (and by extension, SL is SL, CI-4 is CI-4, etc.), they would all protect identically, wouldnt they???
Unfortunately there is some 'magic' in the basestock/additive chemistry that makes them all qualify, but all act/perform differently. They can all pass the test, fine, OK, that means that they can do some set of synthetic tests that indicate performance metrics that should be useful... but some CAN certainly do better than others, and both pass. If you get a 100% on your exam, and I get a 92% on mine, we both get the grade of A... but obviously you did better, and likely have some superior set of knowledge compared to I, such that you could ace the exam, and I barely squeaked the same grade... it is that principle, and there is no escaping it in anything engineering-related.
But SM is SM... good luck to you.
JMH
These sort of charts (thanks amsoil for presenting this stuff) tell me there is something to it besides just that SM is SM... but thats just me... call me stupid for having more than a little background in these areas...
Maybe not the best charts/tests... but if SM is SM (and by extension, SL is SL, CI-4 is CI-4, etc.), they would all protect identically, wouldnt they???
Unfortunately there is some 'magic' in the basestock/additive chemistry that makes them all qualify, but all act/perform differently. They can all pass the test, fine, OK, that means that they can do some set of synthetic tests that indicate performance metrics that should be useful... but some CAN certainly do better than others, and both pass. If you get a 100% on your exam, and I get a 92% on mine, we both get the grade of A... but obviously you did better, and likely have some superior set of knowledge compared to I, such that you could ace the exam, and I barely squeaked the same grade... it is that principle, and there is no escaping it in anything engineering-related.
But SM is SM... good luck to you.
JMH
Umm, ST Synth *is* A3-rated. At least the 10w-30 HM I used was. It must have HT/HS >3.5 to make that claim. No complaints at all, nice and smoof.
JHZR2
Staff member
Quote:
Before you take this wrong and bash me....Remember I do agree with you
Doc,
thanks for your post. In the end all, its not all about being right, making everyone agree, and feeding our 9-year oldish egos. Its about learning and being open minded.
If I saw results from UOA or otherwise that showed that ST somehow more than made up fr the value equivalence that is built into its price, then fine, perhaps it would be a good deal on a good oil. However, all things considered for the oil, from what ive seen, its nothing special, and the reason its cheap is because they use 'just good enough' materials to get by. I totally agree that a well-changed engine running on this stuff is better than something abused running on the worlds' best. Very true. But that doesnt mean that there is any indication that what they offer is equivalent to what others offer...
Now if others would like to present data and not anecdotes regarding NASCAR advertising, etc. as to why the price delta is what it is... or give insight into the differences in add packs and basestocks between what WPP buys and what, say, pennzoil gets for their platinum line, and it turns out to be identical, hey maybe there is value in ST syn because it EXCEEDS the standard to an extent that the name brand "equivalents" do. But to my memory, I cannot recall any such claims existing. All we can analyze off of is the data that exists from places like Amsoil, which shows that there IS a difference in basestock/additives between different quality tiers, and the consistent performances of different oils, say, schaeffer's 9000 which is always pretty darn good, or even plain jane havoline, vs. something like ST syn, which despite being labeled as 'synthetic' doesnt show to me that its very good for mych beyond a 3-5k OCI - the same as a conventional oil. It is good enough for API SM, and that's all that we can tell... while others indicate that they can last longer and do better. If thats ont one's bag, fine, but likely theyll do better not paying a premium for ST syn over ST conventional then...
Thanks again for your post
JMH
Last edited:
What I can tell you is this. If you run ST convential and change at 3,000 miles your engine will outlast the rest of the car. If you run ST synthetic and change at 6,000 miles the engine will outlast the rest of the car.
Cost effective, yes. Best you could have bought, no.
Good enough to serve the purpose, yes.
Enjoy the day!
Cost effective, yes. Best you could have bought, no.
Good enough to serve the purpose, yes.
Enjoy the day!
Nothing's ever that simple.
JHZR2
Staff member
Quote:
What I can tell you is this. If you run ST convential and change at 3,000 miles your engine will outlast the rest of the car. If you run ST synthetic and change at 6,000 miles the engine will outlast the rest of the car.
Cost effective, yes. Best you could have bought, no.
Good enough to serve the purpose, yes.
Enjoy the day!
I concur... but then why do we make thousands of posts at BITOG???
JMH
Quote:
I concur... but then why do we make thousands of posts at BITOG???
JMH
good point LOL.
this site is like crack!
convinced me (or i convinved myself) to run ST or whatever's on sale in the Galant, MC in the Civic and truck...
and YOU GUYS have me checking for sales, running to Home Depot to look for clearance oil, etc etc....causing me problems at home LOL
- Status
Similar threads
