Wal-mart sells a 100% synthetic. It's thier brand called pro flow or super flow or something that sound like that. Super tech! Yeah, that's what it's called.

Does anybody know who makes that oil for Wal-mart? It costs just under $13 for 5 quarts! I put that in my F150 last oil change and I could feel the difference. Smoooooth. Mark M

 

just like with any product there is only a few major players. i wouldnt be surpised if QS or Valv, or even Penz made wal-marts syn oil. same thing with mopar and motorcraft oil, they have someone make that for them, exactly who, im not sure but i bet its one of the top 5 manufacturers. QS, Valv, Penz, Havl or Mobil.

 

Okay, everyone please be seated...Class is about to begin.

Now, first off, Quaker State and Pennzoil are the same oil, made by the same manufacturer. Valvoline is made by Ashland. They also produce the oil for Napa.
Havoline also makes Shell oil and Advance Auto Parts branded oil.
Amsoil is all by itself, so is Mobil 1.Mobil conventional oil is the same as Exxon superflow since Exxon/Mobil is one company now.
Castrol also is in its own class, no one makes Castrol oil but Castrol.
Rumor has been that Havoline makes Motorcraft, but I have not been able to confirm this. I don't believe they do. 9 times out of 10, you will have a hard time trying to find who makes what oil for your Generic places (Wal-Mart, Target, etc...)

Oil Change Intervals....

Oil should be changed every 3 months or 3,000 miles or whichever comes first.
It should be changed more often if the following conditions are met:
1: You have frequent stop and go driving, ie..live in a heavy traffic area.
2: High Performance applications...higher engine oil temps will greatly reduce an oil's lifespan and break it down quicker.
or 3: Drive in dusty conditions, ie...construction.

Benefits of a Synthetic:

Lower oil temps
Longer Change Intervals
Better protection at startup
Better Fuel Mileage
Higher horsepower.

I didn't copy and paste any of the above info, I have witnessed with my own 3 eyes the lower oil temps, better fuel mileage and higher horsepower.
I had a sponsor (Torco Racing Oils) who provided oil for one of my dyno sessions back in 1995. Temps were 20 degrees cooler and we picked up 7 hp just by switching to synthetic.

Now, with that said, here are some more FACTS:

Quaker State and Pennzoil have the HIGHEST content of wax in their oils. Said to help protect engine components, but sometimes helps to burn alot quicker too. DO NOT USE those oils if you have a consumption problem. Use Castrol GTX which has the LOWEST content of wax.

Switching from a Conventional Oil to a Syn. You can do this, even in high mileage cars, but keep in mind you MIGHT develop a consumption problem due to the increased lubricity of a Synthetic. Just switch back if you have this problem.

The biggest rumor put to rest....

Fords required 5w-20. Can I use a 5w-30 instead? ABSOLFRIGGINLUTELY!
Ford switched everything to 5w-20 to help meet the Cafe standards set forth by the fabulous US Govt. They found that the reduced viscosity help increase gas mileage like ..0006%. Multiply that by how many cars Ford sells and voila, they come up smelling like roses with the feds. As a car owner, you can use whatever you like. Personally, 5w-30 is what I have in my '04 GT. I was using Mobil 1 since 1,200 miles, but switched to Castrol once I put my S/C on. Two reasons for the switch...no longer go for 5,000 intervals and I'd go broke changing Mobil 1 every 3,000 and two, the tuner recommends a dino oil instead of a syn in blown applications due to the chance of blowby. Now that I don't drive my car daily, I am probably going back to Mobil 1. If I develop a blowby problem, I will go back to Castrol.

BTW, I am an ASE Certified Parts Specialist, so I aint making this crap up.

 

:clap: :clap:

 

wow, nice post Mike, you're good for something afterall!

 

By putting it at a size 7 font, changing the font, putting it in bold, and underlining it as well, I thought people would pick it up as an intentional misspelling. I guess not...
:loser:
:foot:

 

Regular everyday engine oil is pumped from the ground as crude oil and then refined. What's the process for synthetic oil, where does it come from?

 

Synthetic Oil Trees and Bushes.

 

typical mechanic answer..hummmm:sleeping:

 

:bash:

 

To the consumer, a synthetic lubricant that costs a lot and significantly outperforms the others, offering superior high- and low-temperature protection, the opportunity to significantly extend oil drain intervals, and "flat-out better lubricity and engine protection."

Consumers define it that way because that's what they were taught with the hundreds of millions of dollars in advertising spent by Mobil, Castrol, Quaker State, Pennzoil, Valvoline, Amsoil and others over the last several decades. Rather than defining synthetics based on oligomerization reactions, polymerized molecules, codified specifications and other technical jargon, marketers of synthetics knew how to speak the language consumers understand. They are the ones who shaped the consumer's definition and expectation of "synthetics." They did it with bold claims about fuel efficiency and drain intervals that few consumers were willing to test, but took comfort in knowing were there. And these marketers employed creative and compelling ads that spoke to both the real and perceived needs of consumers, on technical and emotional levels.

To the scientists, engineers, formulators and other industry insiders, the technical definition of synthetic lubricants meant that they were made with synthetic base stocks. In the past, the SAE J357 standard clearly defined these base stocks as being produced by chemical synthesis rather than by extraction or refinement of petroleum. The SAE dropped this definition, however, over controversy concerning very high viscosity index (VHVI) mineral base stocks in 1996.

In spite of this, there was an unspoken rule within the industry that synthetic engine oils were based on polyalphaolefin (PAO), usually blended with some ester to solubilize additives, aid in seal swell, and enhance lubricity. In industrial applications, synthetics covered the use of many different chemistries including PAO, esters polyglycols, silicone and other high-end, high-price base stocks.

Buth the technical definition for synthetics and assumptions about the use of PAO changed in 1997. This is when Castrol made the very daring and financially brilliant move to turn its back on the unspoken rule that synthetic motor oil must be formulated with PAO> I replaced the PAO/ester blend in its Syntec brand engine oil with VHVI Group III mineral base stock - at about half the cost. This enabled Castrol to significantly reduce its base stock costs for the product and increase its margins, while arguably delivering the same performance as with PAO.

Although Mobil challenged Castrol's use of the term "synthetic" for the new Syntec formulation by taking its case to the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus in 1999, it lost. The NAD, as most in the industry are aware, sided with Castrol. This gave the Syntec and therefore Group III the unofficial green light to compete on the same track as PAO and other synthetics.

Aside from some minor grumbling among purists in obscure blogs and on message boards, the NAD ruling and Castol's switch to Group II was, for the most part, a non-event at the consumer level. Consumers continued to define synthetics as "the good stuff" and demonstrated a growing willingness to pay a high premium for it.

The same cannot be said for what it did at the producer level. Here, it had a major impact. Within two years of the NAD ruling, money talked and most followed Castrol's walk, replacing millions of gallons of PAO with Group III in synthetic and synthetic-blend engine oils. PAO took a solid punch in the gut and it hurt.

This stirred up a hornet's nest of anger among PAO producers who stayed with PAO. And according to many, the angry buzz continues. There is still" raging controversy" in the industry about this issue, says one of the leading producers of synthetic base stocks, and the fight is far from over.

PAO proponents charge that Group III "hijacked the good name and reputation of synthetics; a reputation that was built on the hard work of PAO." Others say it's a classic case of "bait and switch" and consumers should be "outraged!" One finished-lubricant producer claims that Group IIIs do a "disservice" to the industry because they "dumb down" synthetics, and that consumers (if they knew) would turn away from synthetics because of it.

In addition, there is a grass-roots effort underway by the Synthetic Lubricants Council to band together interested parties to establish and promote a definition for "true synthetics" that distinguishes them as unique (and presumably better) compared to Group III. The Synthetic Lubricants Council, subject to its ChemStar panel guidelines.

It would be easy to conclude that all of this is simply the noise made by vanquished incumbents in response to a low-cost producer telling them to holster their high-priced guns and get out of Dodge. But such a conclusion masks real and concerning issues behind what clearly has become a synthetic definition of synthetics. This definition is increasingly being synthesized by marketers in an effort to capitalize on a non-technical definition ("good stuff, costs a lot") that has been internalized by consumers.




How Much Synthetic's in that "Blend"?

by Thomas F. Glenn

Lubes 'N' Greases - September 2004

Synthetic blends of passenger car motor oil command a significant premium in the U.S. market, with the leading brands retailing for an average $2.30 a quart. When you compare that with the current average for conventional PCMO (about $1.60), it is clear that the "synthetic blend" concept appeals to consumers and garners considerable market value.

These lubricants represent a rapidly growing segment of the automotive engine oil market. Several viscosity grades (SAE 0W-X, 5W-20 and 5W-30) all but require the use of some synthetic base stock to reach the new GF-4 performance level. Demand for these grades is growing, too, as more automakers emphasize the fuel economy benefits of low-viscosity oils and recommend them for their new cars.

Pop Quiz for all you who make a living selling these high-value, premium-quality lubricants:

Q. How much synthetic is in a synthetic blend?


Regardless of your answer, you are likely right. That's because there are no rules, regulations, standards or other precepts that govern how much "synthetic" a blend must contain. Instead, it's left to the company that blends and markets these products to decide. Rather than having to comply with restrictive definitions or limits set by SAE International, the American Petroleum Institute or any other standards organization or industry watch-dog, formulators have the freedom to do as they see fit when deciding how much synthetic to put in a synthetic blend. And what they see fit to do varies considerably.

Some - albeit very few - say the term "blend" implies to the consumer a 50/50 mix of conventional and synthetic base stock. Some further feel obligated to use PAO base stock for the synthetic half of the blend since PAO (polyalphaolefin) is what the consumer originally was sold on as being synthetic. They maintain that although you can reduce costs by replacing PAO with API Group III base stocks, it would be unethical to do so without first telling consumers about the change.

Then there are those who, although agreeing a blend should contain 50 percent synthetic base stock, maintain that there is no reason to use PAO since Group IIIs are synthetic base stocks and perform equally as well. In their minds, it's certainly not unethical to replace PAO with Group III; after all, Group IIIs were accepted as "synthetic" years ago by the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus. Moreover, since Group III costs about half as much as PAO, they save close to $2.00 a gallon on the costs of goods sold. Although this lower coast may not pass through to the consumer in the form of a lower price, they see it as a win/win for both the supplier and buyer.

Most lubricant manufacturers, however, take a different approach. Although they may elect to use Group III instead of PAO due to cost, the amount of "synthetic" base stock used in their blends often is reported to be lower. Instead of the expected 50 percent, these blends typically may contain 10 to 20 percent Group III blended with 80 to 90 percent conventionally refined base stock. This amount of synthetic base stock, advocates say, is sufficient to deliver "measurable performance advantages." In addition, they maintain this approach delivers optimum value because it strikes the best balance between cost and performance. Understandably, the cost of goods sold for manufacturers who take this approach is even lower than for those in the previous two examples.

Finally, there are a few who reportedly say that you don't actually have to use any synthetic base stock at all in a synthetic base stock at all in a synthetic blend. They assert that since additives comprise roughly 20 percent by volume of an engine oil and additives contain fully synthesized molecules, any engine oil containing additives constitutes a synthetic blend. By taking this approach they feel they can legitimately label most engine oils as "synthetic blends," and enjoy a manufacturing cost significantly below virtually everyone else in the business.

Most understandably will cry foul and say that this last approach is irresponsible, unethical and deceptive. Others, however, could counter that these charges are no more than mudslinging about where one elects to participate along a quality continuum of products that can comprise anywhere from 1 percent "synthetic" material. Unfortunately, they could be right, even when what they are doing is wrong for the consumer. Remember, there are no rules that govern how much synthetic a blend must contain. It's up to the company that blends and markets these products to decide.

 

highly informative, great post.

 

I've used Royal Purple and now I've switched to Mobil 1 for no other reason than it's a lil cheaper and easier to find. The Motorcraft oil is actually a Syn-blend so no flushing is needed.

 

I never really understood the whole "Flushing" thing anyways. It is not needed.

 

If you've run a mineral oil for some time..deposits will be left behind from oxidized additives. Synthetics have detergents in them that will "wash" these deposits off and out of and circulate them through the engine. Granite the filter will catch some but not all. Thats why its important when switching to only run the first synthetic change for a few miles and then change it again.

 

News to me. I was always taught that ALL motor oils have detergents. Only those designated as NON DETERGENT oil had none. Shell ND30 for instance. Non detergent oils are for use in lawn mowers and tractors without an oil filter system.