Halfords "Classic" Oil

[Ducked]

(Dunno why the rotation, sorry)

Back in the Yook for the summer break and saw this stuff in Halfords, a UK consumer-level car accessories chain.

Now I like old thick oil, and I don't discount the alleged downside of newer specs with lower zinc levels. (I use SJ routinely and would use SG).

However, I'm unclear what the advantage might be in going as retro as SE, apart from price. I thought this might be priced as a niche product, but it was only 18 quid for 5L IIRC. Quite surprising.

Any educated guesses?

Academic at the moment but might get relevent if I move back to the UK and can find and afford an old car or motorcycle.

 

[Bailes1992]

I believe it's rebranded Comma stuff so decent quality. Didn't realise it was so cheap! Might be tempted for the Defender.

 

[FCD]

It's not something i would ever use.

API SE/CC?? No thanks!!

I'm quite sure it's the same stuff as Comma Classic 20W-50, which is also API SE/CC, it doesn't even have the Zinc you would expect in a Classic oil, 600-800ppm from a datasheet i saw...

I naively almost bought some back when i didn't know much about oils.

For cars that want 20W-50, all i recommend is Valvoline VR1

 

[weasley]

Originally Posted By: Bailes1992
I believe it's rebranded Comma stuff so decent quality.

No question about it.

That's not to say that it is precisely the same as any named Comma oil, although it would be a fair assumption that it is the Comma Classic 20W-50 (which, as indicated above, has a pretty average Zn/P content).

 

[FCD]

Other than the nice tin can i see no reason to use it.
2-3 years ago on a Classic Ford forum i'm on somebody posted a thread saying the rocker shafts on his Capri 2.8 had worn out quickly, just so happens he had switched to that Halfords Classic oil recently....

 

[Ducked]

Dunno. I'm not up to date on what's readily available in the Yook, but I didn't see anything else in that Halfords I'd have considered using on my present 1980's car. All too skinny and too new.

As I said, I'm wondering why SE rather than a later-but-still-obsolete spec without a zinc limit.

SH would seem to be the "sweet spot" for a "classic" oil, from both a performance (potentially) and a marketing perspective.

Maybe SE is just significantly cheaper to make.

 

[khittner]

Well, if it’s the recommended oil for Triumph Stags, as the package artwork implies, it really won’t see much use . . .

 

[Ducked]

The similarly pitched "Castrol Classic" is SF (later, but still not the SG or SH I might expect), and costs nearly 3 times as much.

https://msdspds.castrol.com/bpglis/FusionPDS.nsf/Files/4E39BAC2A01EBD4F80257FA900323602/$File/BPXE-A9Y56L.pdf

No info on the Zinc level. Given the niche its aimed at, that's surprisingly coy, even suspect.

Most of the "why classic oil is different" descriptive stuff (apart from concern about detergent, which implies its low) on the website would apply to any oil and sounds like marketing BS.

 

[Ducked]

This article, written in 1996:-

https://www.volvoclub.org.uk/castrol.shtml

says "Oils for modern engines comply to the latest API ratings of SG and SH and are ideal for the design of a modern engine, i.e.: use of neoprene seals, high delivery pumps, narrow oil galleries, high revving with overall tighter machine tolerances."

This implies that SG and SH are incompatible with pre-1980 engines.

I wonder why?

With the possible exception of neoprene seals, all those factors would seem to be mostly affected by viscosity, which isn't a variable here.

My car is 1986, so should be OK with SG or SH if I ever find any.

Most surviving pre-1980 cars are now quite pricy, so I'm unlikely to be affording one, but I'm still curious as to the specific reasons (if any) for this alleged incompatibility.

 

[Silk]

I remember when SE came out, wow, it was pretty good stuff apparently. I had some stickers and put them on my car.