Firestone Complete Auto Care Drops Kendall

[badtlc]

The firestone auto centers are now using Quaker State for the basic oil change service and also offer Pennzoil HM and Pennzoil Platinum oil change options.

No link to announce the change. I just noticed through the recent ads I received. That had to be a big loss for Kendall.

 

[wemay]

Yes, it's been that way for a few months now (at least here). Our Hyundai is running their new fill right now.

 

[wemay]

It does pose an interesting question for the consumer in the know though. Would you rather Syn Blend Kendall or QSGB?

 

[Oregoonian]

IMO....QSAD Green Bottle.....is a fine oil. If I decided to use a conventional in my vehicle....QSAD Green Bottle would be my oil of choice.

I would think they offer the QS Semi-Syn as an option as well.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: wemay
Would you rather Syn Blend Kendall or QSGB?
Hands down it would be Kendall because QSAD is a conventional oil. While Kendall could have 1% of synthetic in it and still call itself a blend, I tend to think it is on par with MC SynBlend (both made by Conoco/Phillips) which has had good reviews. But that is just me...

 

[mrsilv04]

It would sure be easier to find the Quaker State products if one would need oil in between changes.

Finding Kendall? Good luck with that.

 

[Kuato]

Kendall. QS probably offered them a lower bulk cost so they switched.

Another victory for big business, at the detriment of the consumer.

 

[badtlc]

Originally Posted By: wemay
It does pose an interesting question for the consumer in the know though. Would you rather Syn Blend Kendall or QSGB?



For me I am done with Kendall for now. I used it for around 30k miles on the Escape and it developed some kind of buildup that caused a RMS leak. I'm willing to try something else.

 

[skyactiv]

Firestone Auto Centers switched because a new big shot either worked at Sopus or served on the board of directors.

 

[Bgallagher]

Originally Posted By: Kuato
Kendall. QS probably offered them a lower bulk cost so they switched.

Another victory for big business, at the detriment of the consumer.


QS is still a fine product. I wouldn't say it is a detriment to the consumer with the exception that they will be paying the price for a conventional oil change versus a syn-blend that they previous offered.

 

[OneEyeJack]

Both product lines are good performers. The change has nothing to do with product performance and everything to do with contract performance.

 

[NormanBuntz]

Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: wemay
It does pose an interesting question for the consumer in the know though. Would you rather Syn Blend Kendall or QSGB?



For me I am done with Kendall for now. I used it for around 30k miles on the Escape and it developed some kind of buildup that caused a RMS leak. I'm willing to try something else.


Kendall oil caused a rear main seal leak at 135K miles? Unlikely. Sounds like a Ford problem, not an oil problem.

 

[Kuato]

Originally Posted By: Bgallagher
Originally Posted By: Kuato
Kendall. QS probably offered them a lower bulk cost so they switched.

Another victory for big business, at the detriment of the consumer.


QS is still a fine product. I wouldn't say it is a detriment to the consumer with the exception that they will be paying the price for a conventional oil change versus a syn-blend that they previous offered.


I didn't say QS was a bad oil, just that this switch was started by the company (insert bean counter discussion here) and there was a detriment to the customer; I didn't say what that detriment was, nor did I speculate. Bold italics in the quote above are mine...your saying there's an exception means that there is in fact a detriment to the customer.

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: Kuato
Kendall. QS probably offered them a lower bulk cost so they switched.

Another victory for big business, at the detriment of the consumer.


How the synblend is the Phillips version of SOPUS "conventional". Both are nothing more than GF-5 spec meeting PCMO's. The complete lack of understanding is rather annoying.

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: Bgallagher
Originally Posted By: Kuato
Kendall. QS probably offered them a lower bulk cost so they switched.

Another victory for big business, at the detriment of the consumer.


QS is still a fine product. I wouldn't say it is a detriment to the consumer with the exception that they will be paying the price for a conventional oil change versus a syn-blend that they previous offered.


A rather dumb post.

 

[Robenstein]

Well if you are getting an oil change in a car that specs 5w20, you are likely getting a syn blend. Last I checked, the addition of synthetic was required in a 5w20.

 

[badtlc]

Originally Posted By: NormanBuntz
Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: wemay
It does pose an interesting question for the consumer in the know though. Would you rather Syn Blend Kendall or QSGB?



For me I am done with Kendall for now. I used it for around 30k miles on the Escape and it developed some kind of buildup that caused a RMS leak. I'm willing to try something else.


Kendall oil caused a rear main seal leak at 135K miles? Unlikely. Sounds like a Ford problem, not an oil problem.


Yes, I believe it did. I had used mostly PP before going to kendall. So i'm fairly sure the engine was good and clean before the change.

There is no defect with the RMS. I can't blame anything on ford. It appears to have been buildup causing the leak because ARX cleaned it right up and completely stopped the leak. Everything is bone dry down there again and I used no seal swellers or the likes. Cleaning is the only explanation to this point. And if cleaning fixed it, then buildup was the likely culprit.

 

[Kuato]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: Kuato
Kendall. QS probably offered them a lower bulk cost so they switched.

Another victory for big business, at the detriment of the consumer.


How the synblend is the Phillips version of SOPUS "conventional". Both are nothing more than GF-5 spec meeting PCMO's. The complete lack of understanding is rather annoying.


From your post, it's obvious you were responding to someone else. I really don't know what you're referring to here.

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: Kuato
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: Kuato
Kendall. QS probably offered them a lower bulk cost so they switched.

Another victory for big business, at the detriment of the consumer.


How the synblend is the Phillips version of SOPUS "conventional". Both are nothing more than GF-5 spec meeting PCMO's. The complete lack of understanding is rather annoying.


From your post, it's obvious you were responding to someone else. I really don't know what you're referring to here.


Simple there is no substance to your post. There is no detriment because both lubes meet the exact same specs. I guess this fact is too hard to understand. The Phillips "synblends" are nothing but API SN/GF-5 spec meeting lubricants, meaning they are the equivalent offerings such as PYB, QSAD, VWB, M5K, and ect. As far as Phillips VOA's are concerned they are rather unimpressive barely meeting NOAK and Cold Crank Viscosity for ISLAC GF-5, VI's in the 150's, and a rather pedestrian additive pack.

Yet they are regarded as something more other that a entry level PCMO. Must be the synthetic blend on the label.

 

[4ever4d]

Originally Posted By: Bgallagher
Originally Posted By: Kuato
Kendall. QS probably offered them a lower bulk cost so they switched.

Another victory for big business, at the detriment of the consumer.


QS is still a fine product. I wouldn't say it is a detriment to the consumer with the exception that they will be paying the price for a conventional oil change versus a syn-blend that they previous offered.

Yes!