Who makes O’REILLY MOTOR OIL?
- Thread starter Peter_Pan
- Start date
- Status
Nevermind, it has come up before:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...true#Post787039
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...rue#Post1363903
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...true#Post787039
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...rue#Post1363903
And I did some further digging in to this and of course there is a reason as to why they sell this oil for $2.25/QT. It's rated SL! I wouldn't use this oil in any car manufactured after MY 2005! It will hurt the catalyst in the long run!
Here is the link to their API certification page:
http://eolcs.api.org/DisplayLicenseInfo.asp?LicenseNo=0884
Here is the link to their API certification page:
http://eolcs.api.org/DisplayLicenseInfo.asp?LicenseNo=0884
Also here is some good info on the ProLine oil which sells for less than Kragen/O'Reilly:
http://eolcs.api.org/DisplayLicenseInfo.asp?LicenseNo=0270
These are actually current SM, GF-4 rated oils so they do present good value. Problem is they appear to have not renewed their license beyond Feb. 22 2009 or maybe the website hasn't been updated. Either way I think it is safe to buy this oil at least for the near term.
http://eolcs.api.org/DisplayLicenseInfo.asp?LicenseNo=0270
These are actually current SM, GF-4 rated oils so they do present good value. Problem is they appear to have not renewed their license beyond Feb. 22 2009 or maybe the website hasn't been updated. Either way I think it is safe to buy this oil at least for the near term.
this is not true unless the car uses oil...SL oils were used for years in cars with cat-converters. It is the diesel oils that are more prone to do this & only if your car has blow-by. Yes it is a concern, but it is not as big of concern as you make it out to be in your statement so I wanted to mention it. Just my opinion. Many people would say they prefer an SL oil for the extra wear protection as comapred to an SM? Anyone, anyone...?
O'reilly is current SM GF4 spec. Smaller blenders are not in the business of website management and you often find things don't get updated. I would prefer they know how to blend and package oil over being Web geeks.
Originally Posted By: FastSUV
this is not true unless the car uses oil...SL oils were used for years in cars with cat-converters. It is the diesel oils that are more prone to do this & only if your car has blow-by. Yes it is a concern, but it is not as big of concern as you make it out to be in your statement so I wanted to mention it. Just my opinion. Many people would say they prefer an SL oil for the extra wear protection as comapred to an SM? Anyone, anyone...?
While most of what you say is very true indeed, it was my understanding that the main reason they brought SM forward was to reduce ZDDP to reduce any risk to the catalyst?
this is not true unless the car uses oil...SL oils were used for years in cars with cat-converters. It is the diesel oils that are more prone to do this & only if your car has blow-by. Yes it is a concern, but it is not as big of concern as you make it out to be in your statement so I wanted to mention it. Just my opinion. Many people would say they prefer an SL oil for the extra wear protection as comapred to an SM? Anyone, anyone...?
While most of what you say is very true indeed, it was my understanding that the main reason they brought SM forward was to reduce ZDDP to reduce any risk to the catalyst?
Originally Posted By: Bryanccfshr
O'reilly is current SM GF4 spec. Smaller blenders are not in the business of website management and you often find things don't get updated. I would prefer they know how to blend and package oil over being Web geeks.
No Bryan, if you look closely this is the API website, who issues licenses for certifications, where you can go to check on the license (and class) issued to blenders. It clearly indicates O'Reilly has a license for SL ONLY! No SM or GF-4 Starburst certification has been issued to them.
If they are putting SM or GF-4 on their bottles they are simply stating something that cannot be collaborated by the issuing body.
O'reilly is current SM GF4 spec. Smaller blenders are not in the business of website management and you often find things don't get updated. I would prefer they know how to blend and package oil over being Web geeks.
No Bryan, if you look closely this is the API website, who issues licenses for certifications, where you can go to check on the license (and class) issued to blenders. It clearly indicates O'Reilly has a license for SL ONLY! No SM or GF-4 Starburst certification has been issued to them.
If they are putting SM or GF-4 on their bottles they are simply stating something that cannot be collaborated by the issuing body.
Originally Posted By: FastSUV
this is not true unless the car uses oil...SL oils were used for years in cars with cat-converters. It is the diesel oils that are more prone to do this & only if your car has blow-by. Yes it is a concern, but it is not as big of concern as you make it out to be in your statement so I wanted to mention it. Just my opinion. Many people would say they prefer an SL oil for the extra wear protection as comapred to an SM? Anyone, anyone...?
Exactly why I now use Mobil 1 High Mileage 10W30 in my 2005 Pathfinder 4.0 V-6. This oil is still SL, and meets my engine's requirements, which call for an SL oil in 5W30, 10W30, or 10W40.
I only have 40,000 miles on the Pathfiner, by the way. I also use this M1 10W30 High Mileage oil in my lawn mower and other OPE.
I, personally, have never known of any of my kin or friends who had to have a clogged converter replaced. On a Porsche website a few months back, a Porsche mechanic made the comment that a Porsche engine cost a lot more than a cat converter.
this is not true unless the car uses oil...SL oils were used for years in cars with cat-converters. It is the diesel oils that are more prone to do this & only if your car has blow-by. Yes it is a concern, but it is not as big of concern as you make it out to be in your statement so I wanted to mention it. Just my opinion. Many people would say they prefer an SL oil for the extra wear protection as comapred to an SM? Anyone, anyone...?
Exactly why I now use Mobil 1 High Mileage 10W30 in my 2005 Pathfinder 4.0 V-6. This oil is still SL, and meets my engine's requirements, which call for an SL oil in 5W30, 10W30, or 10W40.
I only have 40,000 miles on the Pathfiner, by the way. I also use this M1 10W30 High Mileage oil in my lawn mower and other OPE.
I, personally, have never known of any of my kin or friends who had to have a clogged converter replaced. On a Porsche website a few months back, a Porsche mechanic made the comment that a Porsche engine cost a lot more than a cat converter.
Originally Posted By: 1999nick
Exactly why I now use Mobil 1 High Mileage 10W30 in my 2005 Pathfinder 4.0 V-6. This oil is still SL, and meets my engine's requirements, which call for an SL oil in 5W30, 10W30, or 10W40.
I only have 40,000 miles on the Pathfiner, by the way. I also use this M1 10W30 High Mileage oil in my lawn mower and other OPE.
I, personally, have never known of any of my kin or friends who had to have a clogged converter replaced. On a Porsche website a few months back, a Porsche mechanic made the comment that a Porsche engine cost a lot more than a cat converter.
Well, it is actually SM/SL and ILSAC GF-4 meaning it meets/exceeds the latest certifications:
http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Oils/Mobil_Clean_High_Mileage_10W-30.aspx
The O'REILLY oil in question here is only rated SL and has no ILSAC certification.
In any case I don't know how long it would take for the catalyst to fail or get clogged up (if ever) using SL oils but I'm personally not willing to take the chance with my cars...
I don't really get the logic behind using an oil which had to go through inferior testing would imply better protection for a modern engine? I'm not saying ALL SL oils are worse than ALL SM oils. However I'm willing to bet oils at the very cheapest spectrum of SL are at the very best equal to SMs, however unlikely, but far from providing superior protection.
Exactly why I now use Mobil 1 High Mileage 10W30 in my 2005 Pathfinder 4.0 V-6. This oil is still SL, and meets my engine's requirements, which call for an SL oil in 5W30, 10W30, or 10W40.
I only have 40,000 miles on the Pathfiner, by the way. I also use this M1 10W30 High Mileage oil in my lawn mower and other OPE.
I, personally, have never known of any of my kin or friends who had to have a clogged converter replaced. On a Porsche website a few months back, a Porsche mechanic made the comment that a Porsche engine cost a lot more than a cat converter.
Well, it is actually SM/SL and ILSAC GF-4 meaning it meets/exceeds the latest certifications:
http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Oils/Mobil_Clean_High_Mileage_10W-30.aspx
The O'REILLY oil in question here is only rated SL and has no ILSAC certification.
In any case I don't know how long it would take for the catalyst to fail or get clogged up (if ever) using SL oils but I'm personally not willing to take the chance with my cars...
I don't really get the logic behind using an oil which had to go through inferior testing would imply better protection for a modern engine? I'm not saying ALL SL oils are worse than ALL SM oils. However I'm willing to bet oils at the very cheapest spectrum of SL are at the very best equal to SMs, however unlikely, but far from providing superior protection.
Last edited:
Your link is wrong, that is to Mobil Clean High Mileage, it should be to Mobil 1 High Mileage, which is indeed SL rated, not SM. M1 10W-30 High Mileage
Originally Posted By: Peter_Pan
Originally Posted By: 1999nick
Exactly why I now use Mobil 1 High Mileage 10W30 in my 2005 Pathfinder 4.0 V-6. This oil is still SL, and meets my engine's requirements, which call for an SL oil in 5W30, 10W30, or 10W40.
I only have 40,000 miles on the Pathfiner, by the way. I also use this M1 10W30 High Mileage oil in my lawn mower and other OPE.
I, personally, have never known of any of my kin or friends who had to have a clogged converter replaced. On a Porsche website a few months back, a Porsche mechanic made the comment that a Porsche engine cost a lot more than a cat converter.
Well, it is actually SM/SL and ILSAC GF-4 meaning it meets/exceeds the latest certifications:
http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Oils/Mobil_Clean_High_Mileage_10W-30.aspx
The O'REILLY oil in question here is only rated SL and has no ILSAC certification.
In any case I don't know how long it would take for the catalyst to fail or get clogged up (if ever) using SL oils but I'm personally not willing to take the chance with my cars...
I don't really get the logic behind using an oil which had to go through inferior testing would imply better protection for a modern engine? I'm not saying ALL SL oils are worse than ALL SM oils. However I'm willing to bet oils at the very cheapest spectrum of SL are at the very best equal to SMs, however unlikely, but far from providing superior protection.
Originally Posted By: Peter_Pan
Originally Posted By: 1999nick
Exactly why I now use Mobil 1 High Mileage 10W30 in my 2005 Pathfinder 4.0 V-6. This oil is still SL, and meets my engine's requirements, which call for an SL oil in 5W30, 10W30, or 10W40.
I only have 40,000 miles on the Pathfiner, by the way. I also use this M1 10W30 High Mileage oil in my lawn mower and other OPE.
I, personally, have never known of any of my kin or friends who had to have a clogged converter replaced. On a Porsche website a few months back, a Porsche mechanic made the comment that a Porsche engine cost a lot more than a cat converter.
Well, it is actually SM/SL and ILSAC GF-4 meaning it meets/exceeds the latest certifications:
http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Oils/Mobil_Clean_High_Mileage_10W-30.aspx
The O'REILLY oil in question here is only rated SL and has no ILSAC certification.
In any case I don't know how long it would take for the catalyst to fail or get clogged up (if ever) using SL oils but I'm personally not willing to take the chance with my cars...
I don't really get the logic behind using an oil which had to go through inferior testing would imply better protection for a modern engine? I'm not saying ALL SL oils are worse than ALL SM oils. However I'm willing to bet oils at the very cheapest spectrum of SL are at the very best equal to SMs, however unlikely, but far from providing superior protection.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: txrhino
Your link is wrong, that is to Mobil Clean High Mileage, it should be to Mobil 1 High Mileage, which is indeed SL rated, not SM. M1 10W-30 High Mileage
Good catch! I stand corrected. It is indeed SL, GF-3 rated.
Your link is wrong, that is to Mobil Clean High Mileage, it should be to Mobil 1 High Mileage, which is indeed SL rated, not SM. M1 10W-30 High Mileage
Good catch! I stand corrected. It is indeed SL, GF-3 rated.
Originally Posted By: Peter_Pan
Originally Posted By: Bryanccfshr
O'reilly is current SM GF4 spec. Smaller blenders are not in the business of website management and you often find things don't get updated. I would prefer they know how to blend and package oil over being Web geeks.
No Bryan, if you look closely this is the API website, who issues licenses for certifications, where you can go to check on the license (and class) issued to blenders. It clearly indicates O'Reilly has a license for SL ONLY! No SM or GF-4 Starburst certification has been issued to them.
If they are putting SM or GF-4 on their bottles they are simply stating something that cannot be collaborated by the issuing body.
Cross reference Omni Specialty Packaging. O'reilly band is clearly listed under their a[pproved API SM GF4 products list.
I wouldn't state sometthing as fact I have not already researched and confirmed personally.
Originally Posted By: Bryanccfshr
O'reilly is current SM GF4 spec. Smaller blenders are not in the business of website management and you often find things don't get updated. I would prefer they know how to blend and package oil over being Web geeks.
No Bryan, if you look closely this is the API website, who issues licenses for certifications, where you can go to check on the license (and class) issued to blenders. It clearly indicates O'Reilly has a license for SL ONLY! No SM or GF-4 Starburst certification has been issued to them.
If they are putting SM or GF-4 on their bottles they are simply stating something that cannot be collaborated by the issuing body.
Cross reference Omni Specialty Packaging. O'reilly band is clearly listed under their a[pproved API SM GF4 products list.
I wouldn't state sometthing as fact I have not already researched and confirmed personally.
Last edited:
ACCEL 10W-30 GF-4 July 30, 2009
ACCEL 5W-20 GF-4 July 30, 2009
ACCEL 5W-30 GF-4 July 30, 2009
LUBSOIL HP 10W-30 GF-4 July 30, 2009
LUBSOIL HP 5W-20 GF-4 July 30, 2009
LUBSOIL HP 5W-30 GF-4 July 30, 2009
O'REILLY 10W-30 GF-4 July 30, 2009
O'REILLY 5W-20 GF-4 July 30, 2009
O'REILLY 5W-30 GF-4 July 30, 2009
PARTS CITY 10W-30 GF-4 July 30, 2009
PARTS CITY 5W-30 GF-4 July 30, 2009
PURE GUARD 10W-30 GF-4 July 30, 2009
PURE GUARD 5W-20 GF-4 July 30, 2009
PURE GUARD 5W-30 GF-4 July 30, 2009
SPRING MART 10W-30
ACCEL 5W-20 GF-4 July 30, 2009
ACCEL 5W-30 GF-4 July 30, 2009
LUBSOIL HP 10W-30 GF-4 July 30, 2009
LUBSOIL HP 5W-20 GF-4 July 30, 2009
LUBSOIL HP 5W-30 GF-4 July 30, 2009
O'REILLY 10W-30 GF-4 July 30, 2009
O'REILLY 5W-20 GF-4 July 30, 2009
O'REILLY 5W-30 GF-4 July 30, 2009
PARTS CITY 10W-30 GF-4 July 30, 2009
PARTS CITY 5W-30 GF-4 July 30, 2009
PURE GUARD 10W-30 GF-4 July 30, 2009
PURE GUARD 5W-20 GF-4 July 30, 2009
PURE GUARD 5W-30 GF-4 July 30, 2009
SPRING MART 10W-30
Originally Posted By: Bryanccfshr
ACCEL 10W-30 GF-4 July 30, 2009
ACCEL 5W-20 GF-4 July 30, 2009
ACCEL 5W-30 GF-4 July 30, 2009
LUBSOIL HP 10W-30 GF-4 July 30, 2009
LUBSOIL HP 5W-20 GF-4 July 30, 2009
LUBSOIL HP 5W-30 GF-4 July 30, 2009
O'REILLY 10W-30 GF-4 July 30, 2009
O'REILLY 5W-20 GF-4 July 30, 2009
O'REILLY 5W-30 GF-4 July 30, 2009
PARTS CITY 10W-30 GF-4 July 30, 2009
PARTS CITY 5W-30 GF-4 July 30, 2009
PURE GUARD 10W-30 GF-4 July 30, 2009
PURE GUARD 5W-20 GF-4 July 30, 2009
PURE GUARD 5W-30 GF-4 July 30, 2009
SPRING MART 10W-30
That's very interesting...
ACCEL 10W-30 GF-4 July 30, 2009
ACCEL 5W-20 GF-4 July 30, 2009
ACCEL 5W-30 GF-4 July 30, 2009
LUBSOIL HP 10W-30 GF-4 July 30, 2009
LUBSOIL HP 5W-20 GF-4 July 30, 2009
LUBSOIL HP 5W-30 GF-4 July 30, 2009
O'REILLY 10W-30 GF-4 July 30, 2009
O'REILLY 5W-20 GF-4 July 30, 2009
O'REILLY 5W-30 GF-4 July 30, 2009
PARTS CITY 10W-30 GF-4 July 30, 2009
PARTS CITY 5W-30 GF-4 July 30, 2009
PURE GUARD 10W-30 GF-4 July 30, 2009
PURE GUARD 5W-20 GF-4 July 30, 2009
PURE GUARD 5W-30 GF-4 July 30, 2009
SPRING MART 10W-30
That's very interesting...
Originally Posted By: Peter_Pan
Originally Posted By: FastSUV
this is not true unless the car uses oil...SL oils were used for years in cars with cat-converters. It is the diesel oils that are more prone to do this & only if your car has blow-by. Yes it is a concern, but it is not as big of concern as you make it out to be in your statement so I wanted to mention it. Just my opinion. Many people would say they prefer an SL oil for the extra wear protection as comapred to an SM? Anyone, anyone...?
While most of what you say is very true indeed, it was my understanding that the main reason they brought SM forward was to reduce ZDDP to reduce any risk to the catalyst?
Yes but as mentioned, if the vehicle doesn't burn a significant amount of oil between changes, then this is not an issue from what most say. I to am concerned about this, but many people use diesel oils with high levels of ZDDP in their 4.0 flat-tappet Jeeps and have no issues as long as the motor doesn't burn any oil.
Originally Posted By: FastSUV
this is not true unless the car uses oil...SL oils were used for years in cars with cat-converters. It is the diesel oils that are more prone to do this & only if your car has blow-by. Yes it is a concern, but it is not as big of concern as you make it out to be in your statement so I wanted to mention it. Just my opinion. Many people would say they prefer an SL oil for the extra wear protection as comapred to an SM? Anyone, anyone...?
While most of what you say is very true indeed, it was my understanding that the main reason they brought SM forward was to reduce ZDDP to reduce any risk to the catalyst?
Yes but as mentioned, if the vehicle doesn't burn a significant amount of oil between changes, then this is not an issue from what most say. I to am concerned about this, but many people use diesel oils with high levels of ZDDP in their 4.0 flat-tappet Jeeps and have no issues as long as the motor doesn't burn any oil.
Last edited:
- Status
