Which Oil is a better value

Not open for further replies.
Jan 21, 2003
Elizabeth City NC
I have two oils I am considering for my toyota cressida during the auto-rx treatment and maybe beyond. The chevron/texaco 10w-40 is available for $1.00 per quart at the local dollar store and the Delo 400 is available for $1.70 at the local walmart. I can buy it in gallons but it is still close to the 1.70 price. Is this oil worth the extra .70 quart???

[ August 18, 2003, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: TR3-2001SE ]
I think the Chevron/Havoline would be an excellent choice as "carrier" for the AutoRx; in my opinion you would be spending $.70 more than you need to if you got the Delo and, given the nature of these oil intervals, you wouldn't get any better engine protection or any better results from the treatment for having used it.
The Chevron/Havoline is a great choice, but it is a 10W40 and the Delo 400 is 15W40. Personally when I get to the 40 wt oils, I prefer the Delo 400. The climate that you live in is suitable for this weight and you will have an additive package that is tops in a dino oil. JMO
I too would take a 15W40 over a 10W40 (but not necessarily a 10w30). Don't know if the typical non-syn 10w40 belongs in a modern engine. Of course one could argue that the typical 5w30 has as many viscousity improvers as a 10w40.

I have to admit when I wrote my earlier post the "10W40" and the "and beyond" blew right past me. While I do believe modern 10W40s are better than the ones that earned the bad reputation, I agree that 10W30 or 15W40 are better choices, especially if you are going to continue to use them "beyond AutoRx." So, I would recommend Chevron/Havoline 10W30 first and then the Delo 15W40.
pscholte. That was my thinking also. So I will use the chevron/texaco for the auto-rx treatment and then give the delo 400 at try at the end. I may still have to return to the 20w50 because of consumption but time will tell. I am burning 1 quart of the 20w-50 Castrol GTX every 600 miles.
I think I will also use the 10w-30 weight during the treatment. Thanks everyone for the replies.

Originally posted by pscholte:

While I do believe modern 10W40s are better than the ones that earned the bad reputation,

Interesting, When I was in High School Auto class in 1977. I got a 68 390 Ford Galaxy? to rebuild it had a 148,000 mile on it ran on 10/40 oil changed every 3 k miles. The only real problem the motor had was valve seals and valve guides. There was almost no wear on the cam,lifters, cylinder walls had under .0015 taper/wear, crank was at net spec. Bearings looked real good. Don't you think it is possible that not all 10/40 were bad back than. FWIW the guy used Chevron 10w 40 the 148,000 miles.

I never saw, that I can recall, an engine torn down that had run 10W40...but I did HEAR plenty regarding the problem with the oils breaking down due to the high amount of VIs required to achieve the spread and their propensity for shearing off and creating gunk in the engine. I'm sure you remember some manufacturers making "the death announcement" for 10W40 use in their vehicles. I have high regard for Chevron products, including their oil, so I would not be surprised that Chevron 10W40 may not have "fit the 'mold'" that some of the other oils fell into. The OEMs may not have trusted their customers to know which were good and which were not, so they condemned them all.
That big slow-turning 390 probably never stressed the oil enough to create "black death" from oxidized polymers. It was high oil temps in small engines that created most of the problem.
Not open for further replies.