5w30 Quaker State defy now API SN too!

[901Memphis]

Back at Meijer today the 5w30 is now the same as the 5w20 it's API SN resource conserving, the old stock 10w30 still showing API SL for now on the shelf.

Looks like the date codes on the API SN stuff starts with may 2015 as the 10w30 is still from March 2015. When they sell this old stock 10w30 it might get replaced with SN too? It looks like the 10w30 just doesn't move as fast obviously...


This is a follow up to the 5w20 thread.




http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3777658/Re:_Quaker_State_Defy_-_now_AP

 

[slacktide_bitog]

Oh man! Why are they all doing this?

Pennzoil HM is SN, but not RC/GF5. Goes for both copper bottle and PPHM

 

[old1]

If it has a decent amount of ZDDP, for the old flat tappet cams, as it kinda claims, how does it meet the SN specs? Or is it just saying that it has a little more than some other oils, but still not a good amount? Guess I am just gonna stick to good ole Rotella or Dello for the classics!

 

[3311]

Can't wait to see an updated pds.

 

[addyguy]

I do not understand this.

After QS made it's 'plan' with HM oils to be non-RC, and have a high dose of ZN and P as anti-wear; now they are going to 'abandon' that whole plan and make them regular API SN/GF-5 oils, with maybe a bit of seal conditioner in them?

Something has 'spooked' them in the market - recently, Castrol's HM oils specifically started mentioning having ultra-reduced P in them....apparantly, this is the trend.

I wonder if the API is preparing to make categories SJ and SL obsolete, so QS doesn't want it's oils caught by that?

 

[901Memphis]

This is what Tom from PQIA had to say after I mentioned the 5w20 to him.

The specification required for SN certification sets a maximum of 0.08% phosphorus for this viscosity grade. An oil with more than 0.08% phosphorus would not be entitled to claim approval under the SN specification. PQIA has not tested the specific oil you mention and therefore does not have any data on its phosphorus content. It should be noted that since the phosphorus specification is expressed in units of percent to two significant figures, the specification may be interpreted as including a phosphorus content of 550 ppm to 849 ppm.



Kind regards,



Tom Glenn

President, Petroleum Quality Institute of America

 

[The Critic]

Originally Posted By: addyguy
I do not understand this.

After QS made it's 'plan' with HM oils to be non-RC, and have a high dose of ZN and P as anti-wear; now they are going to 'abandon' that whole plan and make them regular API SN/GF-5 oils, with maybe a bit of seal conditioner in them?

Something has 'spooked' them in the market - recently, Castrol's HM oils specifically started mentioning having ultra-reduced P in them....apparantly, this is the trend.

I wonder if the API is preparing to make categories SJ and SL obsolete, so QS doesn't want it's oils caught by that?


I think it makes more sense for them to have a more similar line-up between the different brands. The market for a high Zn/P oil is very small, and given that many engine warranties are now going up to 100k - they don't want someone putting a non API-SN oil in a "high-mileage" car that is still under warranty.

 

[KCJeep]

Dummies.

We are already up to our eyeballs in SN Resource Conserving thin side of grade oils.

Dummies.

 

[bbhero]

Amen.
Now at Autozone I saw at least 10 5 qt containers API SL rated. K mart in town had about that many too for $15 five qt containers. So, if y'all who like the SL version go stock up while you can. It can be found in large quantities in some places

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: addyguy
I do not understand this.

Me neither. This is nonsensical. SJ and SL are obsolete. Shell doesn't have to market this as an API approved oil of any sort. It doesn't need an API Donut, and it sure as heck doesn't need a Starburst. Basically, this is going to be QSGB's additive package in a semi-synthetic base, which is what they had before.

KCJeep is right - dummies. When my current stock of Defy is gone, I'm not buying any more of it. Why should I spend more for QSGB's additive package in a semi-synthetic base for a thirty year old truck? More to the point, why should I spend that much money on a semi-synthetic base when I can get a fully synthetic base, higher HTHS, higher phosphorous, and vastly improved cold weather numbers from an Imperial Oil product, for the same money or less? For the kind of money that Walmart and CT charge for oil, I think I'll be getting Delvac Elite 222 0w-30 from Imperial Oil. Shell simply cannot compete with that product, try as they might.

I understand Shell's fear, though, with respect to Defy. They really don't market enough ILSAC approved oils. The shelves with PYB, Pennzoil Gold, PP, PUP, QSGB, QS dexos1 blend, QSUD, Formula Shell, and Formula Shell Synthetic are just screaming for one more ILSAC rated option.

 

[addyguy]

Unfortunately, I think Critic is right - they don't want to 'scare off' customers who have a newer car that calls for an API-spec'd oil, but is still over 75k, and there are a lot of them on the roads.

 

[Garak]

They don't need to worry about "scaring off" customers. They're not worried about cannibalizing their own sales, after all. Valvoline hasn't gotten rid of VR-1 out of some bizarre fear. Ironically, it's cheaper than even QSGB at our Walmart.

 

[3311]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: addyguy
I do not understand this.

Me neither. This is nonsensical. SJ and SL are obsolete. Shell doesn't have to market this as an API approved oil of any sort. It doesn't need an API Donut, and it sure as heck doesn't need a Starburst. Basically, this is going to be QSGB's additive package in a semi-synthetic base, which is what they had before.

KCJeep is right - dummies. When my current stock of Defy is gone, I'm not buying any more of it. Why should I spend more for QSGB's additive package in a semi-synthetic base for a thirty year old truck? More to the point, why should I spend that much money on a semi-synthetic base when I can get a fully synthetic base, higher HTHS, higher phosphorous, and vastly improved cold weather numbers from an Imperial Oil product, for the same money or less? For the kind of money that Walmart and CT charge for oil, I think I'll be getting Delvac Elite 222 0w-30 from Imperial Oil. Shell simply cannot compete with that product, try as they might.

I understand Shell's fear, though, with respect to Defy. They really don't market enough ILSAC approved oils. The shelves with PYB, Pennzoil Gold, PP, PUP, QSGB, QS dexos1 blend, QSUD, Formula Shell, and Formula Shell Synthetic are just screaming for one more ILSAC rated option.


Good Point, they don't want another production line. Just splash some seal conditioner in an existing line and call it a day.

 

[Garak]

And whatever seal conditioner they have will be well within ILSAC standards, anyway. Just because oil companies advertise seal conditioners in HM formulations doesn't mean they're not in non-HM offerings. They certainly are. In any case, the old F-150 doesn't need help with leaks any longer; that's why MaxLife isn't in it since the rebuild. I bought Defy for enhanced AW levels. I don't need (or even want) a HM oil. QSGB, Formula Shell, and PYB all make much more sense than Defy now. Even VR-1 makes more sense than Defy now (and it's significantly cheaper).

At the rate they're going, how soon will it be until Formula Shell, QSGB, and PYB aren't just indistinguishable within error bars from VOAs, but actually the identical product in different bottles?

 

[Red91]

Hopefully Garak, they won't do such a thing. QS needs to be QS, PYB needs to be PYB, and FS needs to be FS. At any rate, if they did ruin the brand identity, maybe at least they wouldn't charge more for PYB than QS and FS.

 

[Garak]

Well here, Walmart and Canadian Tire take care of that problem and make sure that QS and Pennzoil are the same price down to the penny. Walmart doesn't carry Formula Shell, and I think Canadian Tire charges a wee bit less on Formula Shell, but still not at anywhere near an acceptable price.

 

[Tom NJ]

It is not uncommon for a company to establish an image or reputation for a brand, trademark or claim, and then change the formula to a lower cost or more marketable one while keeping the brand, trademark and/or claim.

The term "High Mileage" is not defined or controlled by the industry. Like "Synthetic", it is a marketing term that can be interpreted any way a company sees fit.

In this case, the term "Defy" implied (at least to me) that they were "defying" the API formulation limits on phosphorus, and indeed some products had significantly boosted ZDDP and boasted about it. But the lack of API credentials may have cost them sales opportunity, thereby leading to a subsequent reduction of ZDDP to within API limits for a broader market appeal. Since the term "Defy" is a marketing term they invested in, they just leave it on the label. Just speculation on my part - I don't know what is driving QS.

Tom NJ

 

[901Memphis]

Maybe they will leave the 10w30 alone since it's not specified as the primary fill in new vehicles?

 

[Red91]

Honestly, no one outside of BITOG is going to notice. I really like the original Defy, but your average Joe has no idea what SN/GF-5 is. It must not have sold well. I literally bought all the 10W-40 my AAP store had. Like, every quart they stocked between 2012 to now. That's how well it moved, at least at parts stores. I'm still a little perturbed, but there isn't anything I can do about it.

 

[Xtc6k]

Does this mean they lowered the ZDDP content?