In the 2010s, it seemed to me that consensus converged around PP and PUP as being top of the heap. Especially because of its highly touted gas-to-liquids making it a true synthetic. So I pretty much accepted that and had used PUP and/or PP on my 2013 Focus ST the past 10 years and only occasionally checked the boards. The ST ran for the 10 years, 180000km smooth as butter, no engine deposits, and no problems I could find. I still had intake valve deposits, but that was an evil I accepted and dealt with (one walnut blast, CRC spraying at every OCI).
Fast forward today I have a newly acquired Hyundai Kona with a 1.6T Smartstream motor (GTDI) which calls for an "SN+/SP or ILSAC GF-6" (0W-20) and now looking once again at oils. The manual included with my car mentioned "Recommends Shell Helix Motor Oils". Then I downloaded the US version of the manual and in the same table I saw "Recommends Quaker State". Geez.
I very briefly skimmed the first few pages of this thread and sounds like M1 and Quaker State has since gained favour. Is this the new consensus these days? I remember M1, Castrol (and others) years past being poo-poo'ed because they marketed themselves as synthetics but they actually weren't (and just very highly refined crude). I think I remember the term "severe hydrocracking" being used back then.
Yeah I'm sure sticking with PUP would be fine. But again, I'm just curious as to what the consensus has converged around these days. Thanks.
Fast forward today I have a newly acquired Hyundai Kona with a 1.6T Smartstream motor (GTDI) which calls for an "SN+/SP or ILSAC GF-6" (0W-20) and now looking once again at oils. The manual included with my car mentioned "Recommends Shell Helix Motor Oils". Then I downloaded the US version of the manual and in the same table I saw "Recommends Quaker State". Geez.
I very briefly skimmed the first few pages of this thread and sounds like M1 and Quaker State has since gained favour. Is this the new consensus these days? I remember M1, Castrol (and others) years past being poo-poo'ed because they marketed themselves as synthetics but they actually weren't (and just very highly refined crude). I think I remember the term "severe hydrocracking" being used back then.
Yeah I'm sure sticking with PUP would be fine. But again, I'm just curious as to what the consensus has converged around these days. Thanks.
Last edited: