Valvoline or Supertech?

Not open for further replies.
Oct 11, 2002
Pullman WA
I know this sounds like a loose/loose situation but I was just curious to see which one you would use if these were your choices. I know that they both have weak additive packages, but at least supertech has some moly and is cheaper. I imagine with 3000 mile oil changes it wouldn't really matter much.
To directly answer your question, Supertech. It's cheaper than Valvoline. If Havoline or Chevron is in the same display case, I vote for either of them instead. [Big Grin]
I would choose the Valvoline. The Supertech seems to be made by either QS, Warren Ind, or who ever. The Valvoline is made by Ashland - always. Napa carries there own Napa brand synthetic made by Ashland for $3.00/qrt. Even though it is made by Ashland it is not the same as Valvoline. I called and Valvoline can not give me any info on the oil. They are told by Napa, carquest ect. what and how they want the oil to perform. And they package it for Napa.
If you are doing 3000 mile OCIs then I would pick Supertech since it is cheaper. At 3000 miles I doubt there would be any difference between the two other than price. Mikep
Super Tech is said to have a weak additive package.Go over to the VOA board and look at the Chevron/Havoline 10W30 post.If this is considered weak then Chev/Hav must be also.
Any particular reason the 5-30 has moly and the 10-30 doesn't? Is it because the manufacturer du jour (whoever was cheapest for that batch) was different for the two batches tested? For this reason alone I say get the Valvoline; at least you know what your're getting. I would buy it somewhere else too, but that's a whoooole other topic...
Given those 2 choices, I would say Valvoline simply because they make the oil themselves and put their name on the product. I think Chevron or Havoline is a better choice.
I'm with mikemc. I'd hesitate to buy a house label which I have no idea where it came from or if it was simply sourced to the lowest bidder for a given contract. I would also hesitate to buy an oil in which spec sheets are not made available. I find it funny that people trash talk Valvoline's "weak" additive package, mainly because of calcium and moly numbers, I believe. Yet Valvoline's TBN is higher than a number of brands, including Conoco, Kendall, and Union 76, to name a few.
Warren Distribution has all ST blending contracts, although the SJ oil was a Quaker State subsidiary--and it could be argued-- a different product. Data sheets are available on the Warren web site. This is a small group of posters and opinions of good or bad tend to spread quickly. In another dimension, I would think that there might be a similar small group of posters extolling Valvoline. In truth, I believe that most SL dino oils are pretty much the same. [ January 15, 2004, 07:18 PM: Message edited by: csandste ]
I could never see why ST 10w30 was charged with having a weak add pack. Mediocre maybe, but not way below the average for a dino oil. The latest uoa on the ST 5w30 does look a bit weak--despite having moly that the 10w30 lacks, but it (like most of the ST tests) seems to be hanging in there quite well in real world applications.
"Warren Distribution has all ST blending contracts, although the SJ oil was a Quaker State subsidiary--and it could be argued-- a different product. Data sheets are available on the Warren web site." I can only find them for an oil called "Mag 1", would this be the same as supertech?
Regardless of the manufacturer, the oil still would have to pass the minimum requirements of the SL rating. If it is SL rated, it is more than adequate for the majority passenger cars in North America. Granted, some people may need an oil with a more robust additive package or synthetic base, but not many. Most of us don't do hole shots at every stop light.
Not open for further replies.