Supertech ATF not pqia tested?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not sure Id worry about Dex VI, since it has a GM license.

The "Dex III" fluid (no such thing) is probably OK because it has the W-M juggernaut behind it, but its not the first time they've sold sub-par merchandise.
 
isn't their 2 versions of the supertech mec/dex III? warrens and citco's? i would look at the pqi tests for those 2 fluids.
 
Is there any knowledge that ALL warren products are exactly the same? Big claim there...

With WM's tendency to drive costs down, and given the costs of add packs, Id have my concerns...
 
Originally Posted By: daves87rs
Warren stuff is usually good anyways...they are not going to cut costs just for walmart...

Then they wouldn't be able to do business with Walmart. Or at least they wouldn't be able to do it profitably.
 
Originally Posted By: NMBurb02
Originally Posted By: daves87rs
Warren stuff is usually good anyways...they are not going to cut costs just for walmart...

Then they wouldn't be able to do business with Walmart. Or at least they wouldn't be able to do it profitably.


Plus they make stuff for other companies too...so it would be important to have a good product...
 
Originally Posted By: NMBurb02
Originally Posted By: daves87rs
Warren stuff is usually good anyways...they are not going to cut costs just for walmart...

Then they wouldn't be able to do business with Walmart. Or at least they wouldn't be able to do it profitably.

I'm thinking it actually makes pretty good profit for them. They don't have to deal with the large marketing expenses of SOPUS, XOM, BP Lubricants, or Ashland. WM doesn't really market the product either. Most people who know that ST exists know that from going to WM and seeing it on the shelf. There's been nothing that indicates that any of the lubricants sold under the ST brand are ones that barely scrape by the API or manufacturers' standards.

If anything, I'd think the major brands with large marketing budgets deal with WM because they have to, even if that means they barely make anything from the sale.
 
While PQIA has not tested the ST ATF, they have done the engine oils, which compared favorably to the other major brands and house brands. There really is no reason to think that their ATF would be grossly different than other offerings.

Also, I can attest, after using WM/ST lubes, that they perform admirably. I've had ATF UOAs on my wife's van, and they came back fine. I certainly had success with their ST engine oils (as my recent UOAs will attest).

The WM/ST lube approach is not unlike many, many other product industries.

We recently bought some new bedding sets; long overdue. We found a local retailer that sells bedding that is made right in our state, in a family owned manner, and it was about 40-50% less than the major brands such as Sealy, Serta, etc. Quality of the lesser known brand is top notch (there were actual cutaway beds in the showroom for comparison and contrast). Were you to pay for the national brands, you'd not be getting more bed, but more marketing.

Same goes for HVAC stuff. I currently work in that industry at a production facility. I can tell you that we make about 20+ differnt brand names you may well recognize. Many are high-end stuff, some are low end. There are a few brands that cost way less (at least 15-25%) simply because there is no marketing money in the system; they are bargain brand leaders. But as far as construction and components, they are all completely identical! They are built on the same assembly line, with the same folks, and the same parts. They just cost far less because they are not pushed with big marketing campaigns, (TV and radio, big sports entertainment, race car drivers, etc).

I understand and agree that you cannot say this is always the case. What is ALWAYS TRUE is the age old addage - Caveat Emptor.
Educate yourself on your options, and you'll make far better choices.
 
As usual, DN3 makes a very well-reasoned case.

I have used ST Mercon V in both my DD and my ex-wife's Mercury Marauder (not the one in my sig) and it seems to work equally as well as Motorcraft, Castrol, and Valvoline. Of course, the difference between Mercon V and Dex/Merc is that one is licensed and must meet spec while the other is not.
 
Originally Posted By: NMBurb02
Originally Posted By: daves87rs
Warren stuff is usually good anyways...they are not going to cut costs just for walmart...

Then they wouldn't be able to do business with Walmart. Or at least they wouldn't be able to do it profitably.


+1. WM mandates lower cost, cut cost and superior pricing as compared to other vendors.

The return for that is a LOT of business.

And if youre doing a LOT of business, for a blender like Warren, it likely means the ability to have a separate bottling line, separate tankage, blending, etc. And that means you have the opportunity to skimp a bit here and there to shave costs.

Having recently toured another smaller but still high volume blender, they run through tankage and make a LOT of different products. This is one of those blenders that sells an oil of some viscosity, with various API ratings and various specs. So batch to batch, the materials included change. They have full QC/QA on the products and a very nice lab, but it certainly isnt just one batch of products that goes to all vendors. This site visit was NOT to Warren.

The only way to know for certain is to perform the correct analytical work on the products from multiple vendors, like PQIA does. Otherwise it is pure speculation one way or another.

To throw another wrench in the works - the various product lines may well all "meet" whatever the spec is in terms of additization, etc. It may be the quality or level of overall additization that changes (this is my belief), particularly with respect to the latest and greatest additive formulations from the additive suppliers. Low bid product, dont get the latest add packs and top chemistry. May still meet a spec well enough though...

But thats also why I have my concerns with the D/M ATF. Cutting costs plus lack of a real spec/license any more means that liberties can be taken... Especially when cost cutting measures are pushed.
 
As typical you make excellent points.

All I counter with is that while inputs are predictors, results tell the complete story.

My Villager UOAs show ST fluids are well more than capable. The tranny fluid I had checked was rom a few years ago, but after the Dex/Merc licenses had expired. That product may have changed by today's blend. But at the time, the ST ATF was performing admirably. As for the engine lubes, they are API licensed; their performance is outstanding, as my two recent UOAs show.

I'll take UOA data (along with other tools like compression checks, filter disection, visual checks, PCs, etc) to validate a lube capability more than a list of what goes into the bottle. Licenses are an assurance of some minimum standard being met, and that is a great place to start. But items which don't meet that (either cannot or choose to not apply) do not automatically fall into some "worthless" catagory. Amsoil, RL, RP and others are not licsensed to many specs; they are fine products. No license exsits for the former DEX/Merc, but that does not mean products cannot fill that niche.

I echo your fears that there are certainly opportunities for a wide range of offerings where no license exists; the risk is that ever-present cost cutting will generally lower the market response with each itteration. As soon as one company cheapens their product, another will follow suit to keep up with the competition. That is a very real risk.

However, at this point, I've not seen any degradation in performance, even if a cheapened product is present.



A quick and simple solution to this question is to have someone here pay for a VOA for ST Dex/Merc ATF. The, compare and contrast those results with the PQIA data for all the others, and see where they fall. I, for one, would like to see it, but I'm not willing to pay for it, as I already am satisfied with the UOA data I have.
 
Last edited:
A Virgin UOA is slim pickins datawise compared to the PQIA tests which are more detailed. It's soemthing but...
 
Well ST works for the intervals that make logical sense (ATF drain and fill every 15-20K miles).

I would rather put ST and replace it every 20K miles than put Amsoil and replace it every 100K miles.

Now I do like Amsoil products for things like gear fluids you don't want to go and change every 30K miles.

I would ST with confidence if one is aware it is a low cost product and would only do so much if one has the interval clearly set in the mind.

Infact I use ST syn for my wife's care for $17/5Q for so long that it just works fine for 6K intervals (anyway after 6K miles my mind is wandering to get the fluid out, so why put a M1 or PP and wait for 10K miles)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top