Klondike brand 0w-40

[Clevy]

Hey guys. Has anyone heard of this stuff. I saw it in 5 gallon pails right beside the rotella 0w-40 today. It's an hdeo,cj-4 rated(iirc) and says right on the pail that its long drain capable.
I'm wondering if anyone has used it or has any info on it. The gallon jugs were 20 bucks each which makes it half the price if rotella. I noticed a Canadian address on it too so maybe its a Canadian blended product.
Anyways if anyone has any info or can tell me about it that'd be great. It looks like 5 gallon pails will be under 100 bucks which makes it very attractive especially in the Canadian market.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Rolla07]

http://klondikelubricants.com/

I noticed westec lubricants website..which shows wolfs head motor oil.

 

[Solarent]

+1 Klondike is one of westec's brands. Lubricants bought in bulk from independent blenders and then repackaged in Delta BC. Quite a common low cost option in the BC market.

Basically the same business model as Boss Lubricants but they aren't connected in anyway except maybe through ILMA

ps. good luck on finding tech data anywhere. I have yet to see one or an msds for that matter.

 

[Clevy]

Originally Posted By: Solarent
+1 Klondike is one of westec's brands. Lubricants bought in bulk from independent blenders and then repackaged in Delta BC. Quite a common low cost option in the BC market.

Basically the same business model as Boss Lubricants but they aren't connected in anyway except maybe through ILMA

ps. good luck on finding tech data anywhere. I have yet to see one or an msds for that matter.



I emailed them and asked if they had a voa and asked for the KV-40,KV-100,HTHS and the viscosity index on their 0w-30 and 0w-40.

If they provide the info I'll post it. I'm interested in the stuff. Its not expensive in Canadian terms.
We have a boss dealer here too. I should look into their stuff as well.
I'm looking to find the ideal 0w-40 that I can buy in pails. Ideally its m1 0w-40 but 5 gallon pails of it are unobtanium. Heck a 5 quart jug is unobtanuim.
The devlac 0w-40 can be had from the distributor but it ain't cheap. This Klondike was priced just a bit above conventional rotella which makes it very interesting as far as cost is concerned.
I want to concentrate my stash into pails. Easier to store that way.
Hehehe.
If I hear back I'll post what I learn. If they don't answer I'll spend my money elsewhere.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Clevy
I'm looking to find the ideal 0w-40 that I can buy in pails. Ideally its m1 0w-40 but 5 gallon pails of it are unobtanium.

Check with the distributor up there; I'm not sure of the price, but Delvac 1 ESP 0w-40 shows up on my sell sheets in 5 gallon pails. As for Boss, I've seen a few of their spec sheets. They have some decent stuff at some reasonable prices.

 

[Seadoo]

From what I can see regarding the Klondike 0w40 it is not a API approved product this could have something to do with the price point:

https://engineoil.api.org/Directory/EolcsResultsDetail?accountId=-1&companyId=10556&resultsUrl=%2FDirectory%2FEolcsResults%3FaccountId%3D-1%26companyName%3DKlondike

Klondike has some products approved by API but this is not one of them.

 

[BrianF]

Interesting find. The Coop 0w40 goes for about 31$ before tax for a 5 liter jug and 120 give or take before tax for a 20 liter jug.

 

[Shannow]

It's a bargain then, a lot of uncertificated oils are comparatively expensive compared to Klondike.

 

[Solarent]

0W40 HDDEO mostly aren't certified. The only ones carrying a license currently are Shell, Imperial oil and Caterpillar. Most other manufacturers use "suitable for 0W40 applications requiring API CJ-4" or "uses the same additive technology as approved CJ-4 licensed oils" (I'm thinking Duron here as an example)

 

[Seadoo]

Good find on the Duron but at least P-Can does say "based on the same API CJ-4 performance additive package" whereas Klondike says "meeting API CJ-4 and tough OEM specifications" What else is false in their product data sheet? I would also trust a major oil companies warranty over someone repackaging oil but that is just me.

 

[Garak]

Well, I'll be! I never knew that Duron 0w-40 was non-certified. I never really checked, to be honest, but that's correct. PC doesn't hide the fact either, and their list of what HDEO has what certification is very clear. I just missed it.

 

[userfriendly]

Small companies like Red-Line and Petro Canada can't afford to have every product licensed for every application. That could mean 0W40 Duron is up to 10X better than a 0W40 licensed product. Independent tests could include, but not limited to; taste, smell, colour, price, availability, and packaging just to name a few. The superior texture alone (the difference you can feel for yourself) of 0W40 Duron and Red-Line helps keep parts separated under high engine loads and rpm providing longer engine life in a demanding environment.

 

[Seadoo]

I would not consider either Petro Can or Redline small companies and would trust their claims. Petro-Can has to be top 5 producers of lubricants in Canada and are used extensively by Forestry and Mining sectors. Redline is now owned by Phillips 66 so again another reputable company. It's the repackagers that I don't trust. Who knows where the product is coming from or what type of additives package they have. Do they do there own research and development. Not to say all repackagers are poor quality you just don't know what you are getting in a lot of cases and for the difference in price between a reputable brand in a HDEO is it really worth the risk. Drain intervals are being extended so really overall what is the cost difference compared to rebuilding an engine? I would rather spend a little more to insure a quality product.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: userfriendly
Small companies like Red-Line and Petro Canada can't afford to have every product licensed for every application.

Yes, Petro-Canada is known for having terrible cash flow problems and for being a small company.

Originally Posted By: userfriendly
That could mean 0W40 Duron is up to 10X better than a 0W40 licensed product.

This isn't the first time I've heard this recently. Up to ten times better? How do you quantify this? And only up to ten times better?

Originally Posted By: userfriendly
The superior texture alone (the difference you can feel for yourself) of 0W40 Duron and Red-Line helps keep parts separated under high engine loads and rpm providing longer engine life in a demanding environment.

What kind of a repeatable test would this be?

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: userfriendly
Small companies like Red-Line and Petro Canada

ROFL!

Petro-Canada is part of Suncor, a $40 billion/yr CDN conglomerate. If that is small, then what do you consider large?

 

[Garak]

Not to mention it's already been explained plausibly why either Petro-Canada or Red Line would have non-certified products. 0w-40 HDEOs that have any certifications are comparatively rare up here. And we know that Red Line has little desire to be making ILSAC rated lubricants, and really has nothing certified. I hardly think either case has anything to do with company size or cash.

We can choose to believe Petro-Canada's and Red Line's claims, or we don't. At least they have the reputation that we don't have to fear what they produce as uncertified as also being totally unsuitable for use, or even questionable for use.

I wonder if userfriendly knows that Petro-Canada was the lubricant partner with whom GM devised Dexron-VI. Maybe that's why Petro-Canada has a licensed Dexron-VI. They couldn't afford the license fees so they helped write the specification and design the prototype fluids.

 

[userfriendly]

All easily explained. Sit up and pay attention so I don't have to write this out six times: For an engine oil to pass an API, manufactures' or other governing body's specification, the finished product is compromised by all the hoops it has to jump through. Such as reduced additive levels and viscosity to meet fuel economy targets. The reduced viscosity may cause the engine to consume oil which can have downstream effects on TWCs and particulate filters, which is the prime reason the anti wear levels are lowered. That is called connecting the dots.

Unlicensed lubricants may in contrast have a higher viscosity as well as a more robust additive package. The evaporative losses and oil consumption will likely be reduced in addition to the wear numbers. To top it off, the cherry on the cake is a lower cost due to the savings the blender otherwise would have to pay for testing and licensing that is passed on to the consumer.
Now there is a list of at least ten items, five for one, and five against the other that equals up to ten times better.

 

[kschachn]

Cool story, bro.

Originally Posted By: userfriendly
All easily explained. Sit up and pay attention so I don't have to write this out six times: For an engine oil to pass an API, manufactures' or other governing body's specification, the finished product is compromised by all the hoops it has to jump through. Such as reduced additive levels and viscosity to meet fuel economy targets. The reduced viscosity may cause the engine to consume oil which can have downstream effects on TWCs and particulate filters, which is the prime reason the anti wear levels are lowered. That is called connecting the dots.

Unlicensed lubricants may in contrast have a higher viscosity as well as a more robust additive package. The evaporative losses and oil consumption will likely be reduced in addition to the wear numbers. To top it off, the cherry on the cake is a lower cost due to the savings the blender otherwise would have to pay for testing and licensing that is passed on to the consumer.
Now there is a list of at least ten items, five for one, and five against the other that equals up to ten times better.

 

[Solarent]

Originally Posted By: userfriendly
All easily explained. Sit up and pay attention so I don't have to write this out six times: For an engine oil to pass an API, manufactures' or other governing body's specification, the finished product is compromised by all the hoops it has to jump through. Such as reduced additive levels and viscosity to meet fuel economy targets. The reduced viscosity may cause the engine to consume oil which can have downstream effects on TWCs and particulate filters, which is the prime reason the anti wear levels are lowered. That is called connecting the dots.


The funny thing about connecting the dots is that the way you connect the dots and the way others might do it are not necessarily the same.
Yes, the API "one size fits all" approach to engine oil does produce some compromises. However if you think that a unlicensed lubricant is more likely to be superior to a licensed lubricant your dots aren't lining up the right way.

There are many reasons why a product may be unlicensed:

• COST - most blenders purchase "market general" additive packages from one of the 4 major additive companies. These additive packages are developed using common base oils and the engine programs (costing around $1 000 000 per grade) are run by the additive companies. If a blender wants to depart from the common base oils, or standard grades ie 0W40 CJ-4 and still obtain a license they have to pay for the engine tests. This becomes impossible to do - so a blender may not be eligible to license a product because the test data is not available using their base oils or viscosity grade.
• VOLUME - Aligned with cost for testing - the volume of a specialty grade (and this is certainly the case with 0W40 CJ-4) is not high enough to warrant an investment in obtaining the test data required for certification
• WORKING OUTSIDE THE API RESTRICTIONS - some products ie High Mileage oils, are not licensed because the marketer has chosen to operate outside one of the physical property descriptions (such as the PHOS limits) to address a specific market segment - these oils aren't necessarily better, but just more suitable to a specific application
• API Licensing program - Although the program has become much easier to manage, sometimes a smaller blender doesn't have the time or resources to devote to managing their licenses. Or they don't know how to register or use the EOLCS system.
• MARKETER'S CHOICE - whether they are being unscrupulous or choose to not register for another reason - some marketers think they can game the system by not registering their products (although IMO every legitimate marketer should have at least some of their products registered)

Quote:
Unlicensed lubricants may in contrast have a higher viscosity as well as a more robust additive package. The evaporative losses and oil consumption will likely be reduced in addition to the wear numbers. To top it off, the cherry on the cake is a lower cost due to the savings the blender otherwise would have to pay for testing and licensing that is passed on to the consumer.
Now there is a list of at least ten items, five for one, and five against the other that equals up to ten times better.


I strongly disagree with this stance. Unlicensed lubricants are highly unlikely to be different in viscosity or additive package. If the marketer is purchasing additives from one of the big 4 then they should be able to leverage that relationship to get the licensing data and register their product. In my experience marketers that are not licensing any of their products are either down-treating the additive package to save money or using cheaper basestocks that do not match with the additive designs and therefore create products that would not pass the engine tests. This is especially true when looking at standard grades without some special market differentiation that would require the marketer to work outside the API restrictions.

All that said there are some companies that may choose to not register some of their niche products (and there are legitimate reasons for this as listed above) but when a company doesn't register their oils it shows that they are looking for ways to cut corners and that is what makes their oil cheaper. Not licensing with the API saves about $3000 USD for a marketer producing less than 1 million gallons. Working with a good additive supplier can help reduce the cost of testing. Those cost savings aren't going to do nearly as much good for the marketer as smart inventory management and having an aggressive purchasing strategy for raw materials (especially base oils).

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: userfriendly
All easily explained. Sit up and pay attention so I don't have to write this out six times: For an engine oil to pass an API, manufactures' or other governing body's specification, the finished product is compromised by all the hoops it has to jump through.


Yes, proof of performance such as maximum levels of wear, deposit control, oxidization resistance.....etc.

Originally Posted By: userfriendly
Such as reduced additive levels


For the API ILSAC approvals, not for any high performance applications and this only applies to "Energy Conserving" oils, something a 0w-40 is not.

Originally Posted By: userfriendly
and viscosity to meet fuel economy targets.


The grade is defined by a range of viscosity. If an oil is a 0w-40, its viscosity falls within the range for a xW-40. Then there is also HTHS viscosity of which many of the manufacturer approvals (and European approvals) have a minimum necessary.

Originally Posted By: userfriendly
The reduced viscosity may cause the engine to consume oil which can have downstream effects on TWCs and particulate filters, which is the prime reason the anti wear levels are lowered. That is called connecting the dots.


Are you talking about using a 20 weight where a xW-40 is specified here or what are you trying to say?

Originally Posted By: userfriendly
Unlicensed lubricants may in contrast have a higher viscosity


Compared to what, an oil of a different grade? Redline 5w-30 (unlicensed) and Castrol GC 0w-30 (licensed) are both heavy 30-weight oils with very similar viscosities in terms of their positioning in the 30-weight range.

Originally Posted By: userfriendly
as well as a more robust additive package.


Like GC, M1 0w-40....etc Basically any oil that isn't Resource Conserving.

Originally Posted By: userfriendly
The evaporative losses and oil consumption will likely be reduced in addition to the wear numbers.


Measured through NOACK. Amazingly M1 0w-40 (approved) has a lower NOACK/Volatility (8.8%) than Redline's 0w-40 (non-approved) (9%).

Originally Posted By: userfriendly
To top it off, the cherry on the cake is a lower cost due to the savings the blender otherwise would have to pay for testing and licensing that is passed on to the consumer.


Redline 0w-40 is massively more expensive (unapproved) than M1 0w-40, GC 0w-40....etc. In fact Redline's oils are some of the most expensive on the market.

Originally Posted By: userfriendly
Now there is a list of at least ten items, five for one, and five against the other that equals up to ten times better.


That's some pretty funky math