Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
There is little doubt that the Japanese OEMs and their partners have "dumped all kinds of money into formulating their high VI oils". The fact that the product is cost effective to the consumer holds no relationship to what it actually cost to develop or to produce.
I'm just trying to determine why we see such wide swings in VIs from the regular branded offering by the big companies versus those we see from the OEMs. Is there a tradeoff? They are obviously not identical lubes. As for price, one does tend to equate a lower cost product with one that costs less to produce; that certainly isn't an unreasonable assumption.
I'd agree with this if the distribution models where the same, but they aren't. I don't think oil sales are a big consideration for Mazda or Toyota, but they certainly are for SOPUS and Mobil, etc. There also aren't a lot of associated costs in the distribution and marketing of their lubricants. It wouldn't surprise me at all if there were much less margin in the OEM lubricants.
Originally Posted By: Garak
We can see why a company like PC would want to have a high VI and good extreme cold weather specifications. While they're an oil company and not a car manufacturer worried about fuel economy or concerns for in house engines, they have at least a feasible reason for what they produce - Canadian winter. That may or may not be the case, but on the face of it, it fits.
So, why wouldn't something like Pennzoil synthetic 0w-20 have a better VI than it does? This is the discrepancy I'm trying to reconcile. I would think there is some kind of tradeoff. Cost? Easier to meet certain other specifications?
Or perhaps there's simply no reason, and that's just the way it's done. After all, Imperial Oil says Mobil Super 1000 is designed with Canadian winters in mind, though their extreme cold weather specs are not impressive.
Obviously it's all speculation, but my guess is that cost plays a part. After all, putting a commercial on during the Superbowl extolling the virtues of a high viscosity index is a pretty hard sell to effectively communicate to the average buyer in 20 or 30 seconds; "40% cleaner" just sounds easier to digest. I just don't think a having a high VI is an important sales consideration for oil manufacturers, and ultimately they're in the business of selling oil. Note to those who will automatically create a strawman argument out of what I just said: I'm not saying that they're making a lousy product. I am saying that the composition of the product is a result of many factors, profit margin being one of them.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
There is little doubt that the Japanese OEMs and their partners have "dumped all kinds of money into formulating their high VI oils". The fact that the product is cost effective to the consumer holds no relationship to what it actually cost to develop or to produce.
I'm just trying to determine why we see such wide swings in VIs from the regular branded offering by the big companies versus those we see from the OEMs. Is there a tradeoff? They are obviously not identical lubes. As for price, one does tend to equate a lower cost product with one that costs less to produce; that certainly isn't an unreasonable assumption.
I'd agree with this if the distribution models where the same, but they aren't. I don't think oil sales are a big consideration for Mazda or Toyota, but they certainly are for SOPUS and Mobil, etc. There also aren't a lot of associated costs in the distribution and marketing of their lubricants. It wouldn't surprise me at all if there were much less margin in the OEM lubricants.
Originally Posted By: Garak
We can see why a company like PC would want to have a high VI and good extreme cold weather specifications. While they're an oil company and not a car manufacturer worried about fuel economy or concerns for in house engines, they have at least a feasible reason for what they produce - Canadian winter. That may or may not be the case, but on the face of it, it fits.
So, why wouldn't something like Pennzoil synthetic 0w-20 have a better VI than it does? This is the discrepancy I'm trying to reconcile. I would think there is some kind of tradeoff. Cost? Easier to meet certain other specifications?
Or perhaps there's simply no reason, and that's just the way it's done. After all, Imperial Oil says Mobil Super 1000 is designed with Canadian winters in mind, though their extreme cold weather specs are not impressive.
Obviously it's all speculation, but my guess is that cost plays a part. After all, putting a commercial on during the Superbowl extolling the virtues of a high viscosity index is a pretty hard sell to effectively communicate to the average buyer in 20 or 30 seconds; "40% cleaner" just sounds easier to digest. I just don't think a having a high VI is an important sales consideration for oil manufacturers, and ultimately they're in the business of selling oil. Note to those who will automatically create a strawman argument out of what I just said: I'm not saying that they're making a lousy product. I am saying that the composition of the product is a result of many factors, profit margin being one of them.
