QS Defy is now QS"high mileage"

[Garak]

This is the problem. Europeans have long told me that North American HM oils are a gimmick. I would argue that wasn't true in the past, but, unfortunately, I now must agree with them in all but a very few cases.

At one time, we used to have the regular conventional oils, synthetic blends, then the synthetics, all tending to meet whatever specification was current at the time. Then, HM oils started appearing, with Valvoline starting things out, or, at the very least, popularizing it. We ended up with some blends that had seal conditioners, extra HTHS, and extra anti-wear compounds, not married to the latest specification.

Some time after that, the "regular" synthetic blends started to disappear. While many seemed to have remained in existence on paper, they certainly disappeared from the shelves. Now, we have a trend where high mileage oils are disappearing as oil bottle contents, while the labelling as high mileage oils remains and modern specifications are inexplicably adopted. Regardless of what anyone says, the claim that an oil certified SN/GF-5 dexos1 is a high mileage oil (I'm looking squarely at Valvoline here) is dubious at best. Imperial Oil in Canada did that same stupidity with Mobil Super 2000 back in the SM days, with their high mileage oil being SM/GF-4. Not surprisingly, it was as useless as any other 5w-30 SM/GF-4 in slowly leaks on the F-150. Non-certified MaxLife (which no longer exists) and HDEO were the only temporary fixes.

So, Shell switches Defy to ILSAC. You can't swing a dead cat in an oil aisle in North America without striking a bottle of Shell ILSAC stuff. I'm sure their market share will increase sharply, considering that PYB, PP, PUP, Pennzoil Gold, QSGB, QSUD, QSED synblend, Formula Shell, and Formula Shell synthetic, all in SN/GF-5, clearly leave huge gaps in SN/GF-5 availability.

It's easy to say that Defy bumps right up to the upper limits of phosphorus. So what? So does PYB. So does QSAD. And both are significantly cheaper. Mola has mentioned that there are other AW compounds beyond ZDDP, and low phosphorus isn't a bad thing all on its own. Of course, that's quite true. But, ILSAC certification winds up bringing the HTHS way down, and if I want a low HTHS lube SN/GF-5 lube, I can do much cheaper than the "high mileage" oils. As best as I can tell, aside from boutiques, there is maybe only one real high mileage oil left, and that's Pennzoil High Mileage, which is still pretty iffy. It is SN in 30 grades, which means low phosphorus. It isn't ILSAC, but no HTHS is published.

 

[KCJeep]

Preach it Garak, I am right there with you. And totally disgusted.

Although I do put Castrol HM right there with Pennzoil HM, it is still one of the rare "thick for grade" HM oils. Castrol is a bit of a puzzle to me though...it went "Resource Conserving" a couple years ago but that's it. All the specs, and VOA's/UOA's I've seen since still clearly show it as a thick for grade HM oil. Not sure how that works but they have done it.

Not surprisingly I use Castrol HM and Pennzoil HM the most by far. Why the oil companies can't stop fixing what wasn't broken is beyond me.

 

[Garak]

Yep, well, I've had the rant before, and I can see Shell's reasoning, but only to a point. Technically, at least according to their website, QSED still exists as SN/GF-5, so leave Defy alone. It's not a flaw in Defy that is costing QSED shelf space. It's not a fault in Ultra Platinum that is making the stuff impossible for many to find. There's not something wrong with Pennzoil's Euro stuff that makes few able to find it outside a dealer.

It's marketing's fault. If Wakefield Canada can get every viscosity of gold and black bottle Edge on many retail shelves, from Walmart to the mom and pop stores, and have four A3/B4 lubricants in one store (0w-30 A3/B4, 5w-30 A3/B4, 0w-40 A3/B4, and 5w-40 A3/B4), then clearly it's not impossible. And, as I've posted before, the gold bottle was a gargantuan failure up here, too, until Castrol put the extended mileage warranty on the product. Now, it's everywhere, because at least people have a tangible reason to pay extra. They may not use those extra 5,000 miles, but they're there, and the difference is clear for them to see.

What you stated is Shell's biggest problem right now. Don't fix what isn't broken. Defy was fine as it is, not needing any certification tweaks. If you want a to market a QS synthetic blend with certifications, go right ahead. There are the QS product tiers in place already. Now, what's the difference between QS Defy 5w-30 SN/GF-5 and QSED 5w-30, other than availability?

There's a reason why GC 0w-30 has been such a success. It was easy to find up here, with stable specifications, back when I started coming here and it's remained a constant. It's still available with much the same specifications, very similar bottling, and the same name it had years ago. There's no confusion. I want 0w-30 A3/B4, I buy 0w-30 A3/B4. It's not hiding. It's not pulled from shelves for a retooling every six months. A retailer doesn't wonder whether or not it's going to be available next week. A customer doesn't wonder whether or not there will be a monumental shift in specifications next month or if they'll have to look for a completely different bottle design and name.

If you want PU to succeed, leave the stupid bottle alone, add the warranty, and get the shelf space. If you want a Pennzoil Euro to succeed, same thing. Leave the stupid bottle alone, quit jumping between 0w-40 and 5w-40 by picking one (or both, but just do it and stick with it), and put it on the darned shelves. Changing names and viscosities and label designs every six months isn't going to fix things.

I'd love to hear Shell marketing's explanation why, if I were retailing the stuff, I should carry Defy 5w-30 SN/GF-5 and QSED SN/GF-5. And, I'd ask why I should carry PP and PU, given their interchangeability. And, I'd ask why I should carry a Pennzoil Euro product, since everything changes every six months, and I have no desire to play around with inventory and ordering of something that isn't going to be the same from month to month.

 

[dlundblad]

Pretty soon, HDEO's won't be duel rated.

 

[Garak]

Well, personally, I think I'd be comfortable if an HDEO had E7, E9 or E6, E7, E9 and lacked SM or SN, assuming I was out of warranty, and depending upon the application. One just has to note that the E6 is a lower phosphorus specification, if that concerns them, whereas an E7, E9 isn't going to be terribly far from an A3/B3 A3/B4 lubricant.

All Shell has to do is yank the SN/GF-5 from Defy, and that goes for any of the big name high mileage oils. I trust Shell more than enough to put Defy in an older vehicle, without any licensing whatsoever on the bottle. If they say it's good enough and can only talk about obsolete specifications, I'm perfectly fine using their product without API markings. That was a marketing feature for me, not a hindrance.

 

[FutureDoc]

If HDEO are not dual rated, a lot of fleets folks (myself included) would have a collective fit. In the end, it would likely just be a multi-fleet oil (which is the same thing). We run 10w30 HDEO in everything, (personal fleet vehicles, diesels, generators, grounds equipment). Not having to stock a lot of different bottles (or deal with additional state contract purchases).

My guess as to why SL high--mileage is disappearing is that there post 2011 SN vehicles with a LOT of miles out there. You are seeing blenders start chasing those vehicles. That person with a 1992 Pontiac might default to the cheapest option while those weary and with a lot of miles on newer vehicles (thus willing to spend more) might be looking at the SL vs SN issue.

 

[Garak]

That is true about high mileage vehicles existing where their contemporary spec would have been SM or SN. However, it's not like Shell doesn't have enough product lines to cover all the bases, including something a bit thicker within the grade and extra ZDDP. They can advertise meeting all the "other" SN or GF-5 standards, aside from viscosity and phosphorus. That has been done before.

I'm sure you can understand my cynicism, though. If a high mileage oil is still certified SN/GF-5, what is it offering a "high mileage" vehicle calling for SN/GF-5 that a "regular" SN/GF-5 oil cannot provide? Higher wallet flushing capabilities? If it sounds gimmicky, it probably is.

 

[FutureDoc]

Originally Posted By: Garak
That is true about high mileage vehicles existing where their contemporary spec would have been SM or SN. However, it's not like Shell doesn't have enough product lines to cover all the bases, including something a bit thicker within the grade and extra ZDDP. They can advertise meeting all the "other" SN or GF-5 standards, aside from viscosity and phosphorus. That has been done before.

I'm sure you can understand my cynicism, though. If a high mileage oil is still certified SN/GF-5, what is it offering a "high mileage" vehicle calling for SN/GF-5 that a "regular" SN/GF-5 oil cannot provide? Higher wallet flushing capabilities? If it sounds gimmicky, it probably is.


I completely agree with you about Shell's product line and the general HM gimmick. They should have room (actually Formula Shell HM would be a good place since a lot of non-automobile use still has SL as the standard ... at least it it seems that way with the grounds equipment). Still, considering QS placement in the big-box shelves as the lower price points Shell options (private label, Havoline, Mobil Super HM---all SN) and being the lone SL in a sea of SN high mileage... might have been something that the market research group identified. I think it could have done better as a more high-end option than the pricepoint QS option (which would work against my Formula idea).

I agree that the HM label is a bit of a gimmick, but it is an odd spot in the market. While Valvoline made a killing with Maxlife when it was the new option, I don't think there is enough market-share to justify every brand offering a HM oil and each brand recouping that investment for offering a very distinct product. My guess is that going to a single SN product and then adding "spice/label" is just something that had to be done. So, yeah, a gimmick. Plus, why wait to up-sell a buyer who has a 0-75K car until they rack-up the miles? See to the new car too... afterall I bet new car buyers are an easier up-sell that some of the 200K beater drivers.

 

[wemay]

"10W-40 and 15W-40, the new HM oils."

 

[hjones]

Yes

 

[Garak]

Yes, the Formula Shell line wouldn't have been a bad place to start at all. At least that lineup is available at all distributors up here, even non-Pennzoil-Quaker State ones. Or one of the others, sure; Shell offers enough product to add diversity. There's nothing wrong with them wanting a certified HM oil. Not every HM oil on the shelf needs to SN/GF-5, though, since that simply flies in the face of many of the arguments the oil companies made about making a high mileage oil anyhow. I hammered Shell on this once already. I believe they said they wanted to differentiate their products in one of the Q&As. Well, rushing to SN/GF-5 on every 20 and 30 grade they produce isn't doing much differentiation.

MaxLife is, I would suggest, a victim of its own success. I'd love to see the sales figures, but I bet that ordinary red bottle MaxLife is probably their number two seller, by a big margin, being eked out by VWB. Having dexos1 on the bottle is only going to increase those sales. I'd wonder how its effectiveness is currently versus how it was back in the day, had the old F-150 still been leaking oil. There, I didn't mind the upsell. The choices were a 15w40 to reduce leakage (no top ups, fine in the summer, not great in winter), a normal ILSAC grade (requiring top ups, which aren't free), or a higher priced MaxLife (requiring no top ups). Maybe it works just as well these days, but I cannot say.

Now, just give us a 5w-30 VR1 for guys who drive an older vehicle for the winter, and we're all set.

 

[SR5]

Originally Posted By: Garak

Now, just give us a 5w-30 VR1 for guys who drive an older vehicle for the winter, and we're all set.

Yes, but not an ILSAC 5W-30 VR-1 !!
Give it at least 1000 ppm Zn and at least a HTHS of 3.5, hold on !! That's Castrol Edge 5W-30 A3/B4

 

[Garak]

Yes! The funny thing is, though, that VR1 (our Walmarts have 20w-50 but no 10w-30 for some reason) has a better regular price than most conventionals. That makes it pretty attractive. And Defy was marketed to older vehicles, and when on special, would have an attractive price.

If I need an SN/GF-5 oil, a HM oil is, unfortunately for the oil companies, going to be the bottom of my list of choices. And Castrol Edge 5w-30 A3/B4 is a real option for the old F-150, now that it doesn't leak. Even better in the cold would be something like Delvac Elite 222 0w-30. Nothing is going to beat it with respect to price, particularly in a HM oil, and I'll have the HTHS, phosphorus, and some real cold weather capabilities.

Walmart Canada needs VR1 20w-50 about as much as they do palm tree fertilizer.

 

[SR5]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Yes! The funny thing is, though, that VR1 (our Walmarts have 20w-50 but no 10w-30 for some reason) has a better regular price than most conventionals. That makes it pretty attractive. .......

You have mentioned your good VR-1 prices before, that's good. It's fairly expensive here.

Originally Posted By: Garak

Walmart Canada needs VR1 20w-50 about as much as they do palm tree fertilizer.

Laugh !! Send it all to me. Lots of people still use 20W-50 here and a 20W-50 VR1 should sell well. The only VR-1 that I have seen is a semi-synthetic 10W-40. Send the palm tree fertilizer too, lots of them around me. Might stop them dropping big palm fronds all over the place.

 

[mctmatt]

Boy this thread has been very interesting to me as I am one of those guys that just assumed that Max Life HM oil was the best choice for an older vehicle (1996 Taurus). Now I am kinda second guessing this and other HM oil brands as more marketing and nothing more. What does have my head spinning is that I might should consider using HEDO such as Mobil Delvac 1 LE 5W-30 (Live in Texas so cold weather is not to concerning). I just thought if it said for use with diesel engins than it was not or could not be used in your gas engin car! I actually have no oil leaks but the purpose of using the HM oil was in my mind to keep the gaskets and seals conditioned to try and prevent any leaks. Great Thread and discussion Gentleman you are helping to educate me or at least think a little more about the HM oils that I have been using.

 

[Jake777]

I'll jump in and say the unpopular thing. I believe that with time and research the oils today are indeed better than yesterday's. I believe the newer formulations are capable of achieving better performance throughout the spectrum all without having to do it in a traditional way. Oh the glory days of thicker oil that would have plugged up a leak. Ok I get it someone should make an oil that's nice and thick for our old beater cars that can't hold oil in the system but for everyone else modern chemistry provides more horsepower better fuel economy and greater protection than ever in the past. That's just how technology works and some people will never agree because they don't really understand all that goes into it. I'll finish with this. I do think oils are mostly marketing but that's what sells. The truth is conventional oils are designed to deliver a specific performance level and synthetic is designed to meet a higher performance level. It's just a matter of putting the chosen additive package in and slapping the different price tag on the bottle. I promise you that soon we will see 0w16 oils keeping motors alive for hundreds of thousands of miles and it won't be due to the thickness of the oil it will all be due to the chemistry.

P.S. Wanting more of an old additive is like wanting more iron for you armored suit to help stop a bullet when really you should rely on specially designed fibers to do that job "Kevlar"

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: SR5
Laugh !! Send it all to me. Lots of people still use 20W-50 here and a 20W-50 VR1 should sell well.

Walmart's approach is odd, I must say. If I needed 20w-50 for something, particularly with high ZDDP levels, VR1 would be a very easy choice. The price point is exceedingly hard to beat, and it certainly pushes the ZDDP content that other 20w-50 options won't necessarily have.

mctmatt: Delvac 1 LE 5w-30 is certainly another option, and a fairly cost effective one up here. Of course, its phosphorus content is a little low, but as with anything else - and in fairness - including MaxLife and Defy and other HM options, ZDDP isn't the only anti-wear compound. I don't think there was one particular component to something like Defy or MaxLife that got my attention. Having a little higher HTHS within grade was one thing, and higher AW compound levels another. I don't know if my success with MaxLife and slowing leaks was just higher viscosity or seal conditioning ingredients. But, it was before the SN/GF-5 days, and I really can't make a fair comparison. I do know that the higher HTHS kept the oil light off at operating temperatures at idle (fuel dilution), which ILSAC oils could not do.

Jake777: Oils of today are far better than oils of the past. I don't think you'll find a lot of disagreement with that. As for viscosity, you're certainly right, but as you can see, there are reasons to want a thicker oil, in conjunction with some of these other things. Some want an oil that works as a band-aid, minimizing some of these issues until the work gets done. Sometimes that requires a bit thicker of an oil, in addition to all the other goodies they might pack in a high mileage oil. When the F-150 was having its issues, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, a high mileage ILSAC oil was quite useless.

Simply going out and getting a thicker oil is fairly trivial. There are all kinds of 30 grade HDEOs and 40 grades out there, and thicker, if one really wants. Asking for a high mileage oil with good AW levels (whatever those might be) and an HTHS of 3.5 and a grade of 5w-30 isn't exactly asking a lot. It's not asking for something that difficult to blend or that far out of spec that no one would buy it. If oil companies can still find people to buy 20w-50, even in Canada, they can certainly find people to buy what I mentioned.

And note that there are some expensive answers to what I asked for, and that really doesn't help those who are trying to save a bit of cash on an older vehicle or are trying to band-aid something. When I was trying to minimize the leaking on the F-150 before the rebuild, the last thing I needed was Red Line, or Joe Gibbs, or Royal Purple's API SL line.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: mctmatt
Boy this thread has been very interesting to me as I am one of those guys that just assumed that Max Life HM oil was the best choice for an older vehicle (1996 Taurus).

I think that sums up the conundrum perfectly. We have guys who are worried about an SN/GF-5 HM oil like MaxLife, wondering if it's been "weakened." And then, we have guys with a new GM who wonder if dexos1 licensed MaxLife is appropriate to use in their brand new vehicles because it's still a high mileage oil.

I guess when you claim to be all things to all people, people tend to get skeptical.

As you can see, I'm not afraid of using HDEOs in gasoline engines, either.