synthetic oil for 06 Sonata V-6

[Bob]

Sure there is. Many people will sacrifice a lot of quality to get a cheap
price. Many people won't. There is room for all, but to claim that all
products are created equal is simply absurd. Do you really believe that
Bose stereo products are no better than the no-name brands from China?

That's not a real good example. Alot of Bose products ARE now made in china.
That gets us back to the "what's the label say" issue.

I've been running Supertech Synthetic for a long time in a Dodge Caravan,
Chevy Malibu, and Chrysler T&C with no problems - no leaks, no sludge, no
nothing! If you look down under the valve cover on these vehicles, it looks
really clean.

 

[Matt Whiting]

[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]

[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]



Brian Nystrom wrote:



Matt Whiting wrote:

Sorry, but I've seen test data (from the source I've mentioned here
several times before - MCN) that shows the above statement to be
patently false. There was a wide range of data in virtually every
parameter of the oil that was tested.


Oh boy, here we go again. Where's this data? EXACTLY how much of a
difference? What are the FUNCTIONAL differences?

I provided you with oil analysis data for Super Tech Full Synthetic
5W-30. Do you have anthing to refute the conclusions therein? Do you
have any data showing that any other oil is demonstrably superior in any
way? You can keep making vague references to an old motorcycle magazine
article if you wish, but that's not good enough. It's time to either put
up or shut up.

It isn't a vague reference, I gave you a direct reference to its
location. I don't have the data, well I might have, but I don't think I
have MCN issues back to the 2001 or so timeframe when their last test
was published. And if I did, I wouldn't violate copyright law by
publishing it here.



You just "made up" copyright law.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

"The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of
the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have
regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for
purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a
scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the
author's observations;...."

If I had the original article, I'd have to quote a substantial portion
of it to convince you or Brian. That would hardly constitute a "short
passage."

Nice try, I knew you wouldn't read the official copyright office page.

at the government source

"Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it
does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in
the work."

You may quote ANY fact, no matter how long.

I quoted the fact. That fact is that all oils aren't created equal and
some are better than others. You and Mr. Supertech are now asking me to
post the details of the article, which would require scanning and
posting as most was in graphical form. That would clearly be a
copyright violation. And I'm not doing that much work (assuming I even
still have the magazine in my archives) to save you $7 or whatever it
would cost for a reprint.

I'm done with you.

Matt

 

[Matt Whiting]

That's not a real good example. Alot of Bose products ARE now made in china.
That gets us back to the "what's the label say" issue.

The specs aren't even close though. I was talking brands, not origin.
What part of "no-name brands" above wasn't clear?

I've been running Supertech Synthetic for a long time in a Dodge Caravan,
Chevy Malibu, and Chrysler T&C with no problems - no leaks, no sludge, no
nothing! If you look down under the valve cover on these vehicles, it looks
really clean.

Great! I'd now try running re-refined oil or maybe even reusing someone
else's oil. You'd save a few more bucks.

Matt

 

[Brian Nystrom]

And Consumer Reports sure wastes a lot of money testing products. Now
that Mr. Supertech has educated us that all products that meet a
standard are equal in "the real world" and don't have differences that
matter, I can drop my subscription and just buy the cheapest product I
can find at Wal-Mart and know that I'm getting good stuff.

Consumer Reports, eh? I guess you must have conveniently forgotten this
article that refutes everything you've suggested:

http://www.xs11.com/stories/croil96.htm

Granted, it's ten years old, but at least it's an actual controlled
test. Read it and weep, Matt.

 

[Brian Nystrom]

The specs aren't even close though. I was talking brands, not origin.
What part of "no-name brands" above wasn't clear?



Great! I'd now try running re-refined oil or maybe even reusing someone
else's oil. You'd save a few more bucks.

What have we here? Could it be yet another feeble attempt to divert the
discussion and confuse the issue we've been debating? Imagine that!

BANG! You just shot yourself in the foot again, Matt. ;-)

 

[Brian Nystrom]

Bob, who'd you work for? Did you work for multiple companies or just
one? I work for a large company that has a reputation for high quality
products. I've friends who have come from a range of other companies
and it is amazing at the disparity among companies with respect to their
quality orientation.

Certainly this isn't true across the board, but for the most part the
"name brand" companies that have THEIR name on the product take quality
manufacturing and QA/QC more seriously. Since adopting TQM and Six
Sigma practices a couple of decades ago, we actually try to avoid having
to do QC! No offense.

It is almost always better to design (and manufacture) quality in than
to try to inspect it out, as I'm sure you well know. However, you need
some inspection as a process feedback mechanism if not a strict QC
mechanism.

This is all true, but what's your point? It says nothing specific about
the companies we're discussing. Unless you know what their QA/QC
procedures are, you have no right to denegrate them based on pure
speculation.

 

[Brian Nystrom]

[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]

gerry wrote:

[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
Brian Nystrom wrote:



Matt Whiting wrote:


Sorry, but I've seen test data (from the source I've mentioned
here several times before - MCN) that shows the above statement
to be patently false. There was a wide range of data in
virtually every parameter of the oil that was tested.



Oh boy, here we go again. Where's this data? EXACTLY how much of a
difference? What are the FUNCTIONAL differences?

I provided you with oil analysis data for Super Tech Full
Synthetic 5W-30. Do you have anthing to refute the conclusions
therein? Do you have any data showing that any other oil is
demonstrably superior in any way? You can keep making vague
references to an old motorcycle magazine article if you wish, but
that's not good enough. It's time to either put up or shut up.


It isn't a vague reference, I gave you a direct reference to its
location. I don't have the data, well I might have, but I don't
think I have MCN issues back to the 2001 or so timeframe when their
last test was published. And if I did, I wouldn't violate
copyright law by publishing it here.




You just "made up" copyright law.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

"The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General
Revision of
the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have
regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or
criticism for
purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a
scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the
author's observations;...."


If I had the original article, I'd have to quote a substantial
portion of it to convince you or Brian. That would hardly constitute
a "short passage."

Nice try, I knew you wouldn't read the official copyright office page.

at the government source

"Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed
himself; it
does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in
the work."

You may quote ANY fact, no matter how long.

I quoted the fact. That fact is that all oils aren't created equal and
some are better than others. You and Mr. Supertech are now asking me to
post the details of the article, which would require scanning and
posting as most was in graphical form. That would clearly be a
copyright violation. And I'm not doing that much work (assuming I even
still have the magazine in my archives) to save you $7 or whatever it
would cost for a reprint.

I'm done with you.

I emailed you a .jpg file, Matt. You can't do the same for us? Tsk, tsk.
I guess it's just easier to get your panties all in a wad and refuse to
participate.

BTW, I have no ax to grind for Supertech, per se. I just don't like
seeing a good product being lambasted by someone who obviously has no
clue what they're talking about.

As I suggested above, go read the Consumer Reports article, since you're
a fan of their testing. In case you ignored it above, here's the URL again:

http://www.xs11.com/stories/croil96.htm

If you're too lazy to even click on the link and read the article - or
unwilling to do so, since it refutes your claims - I'll summarize their
conclusions for you:

1- There was no measureable difference in wear in the engines tested
between brands of oil, regardless of price or type of oil (natural,
synthetic or synthetic blend).

2- Any API certified oil will protect an engine for typical 7500 mile
change intervals.

That was as of 1996. API standards have been raised 5 times since then,
so current oils are even better than those tested, at least incrementally.

 

[A. Sinan Unur]

Matt Whiting wrote:

Consumer Reports, eh? I guess you must have conveniently forgotten
this article that refutes everything you've suggested:

http://www.xs11.com/stories/croil96.htm

Granted, it's ten years old, but at least it's an actual controlled
test. Read it and weep, Matt.

Indeed. If anyone expected to find serious differences among oils, believe
me, Consumer Reports would be running these tests every year.

Sinan

 

[Bob Adkins]

As a Quality Assurance Engineer

Not surprised at all! Your training shows in your clear logic!

I had a wonderful career in QA, but sometimes it's a lonely job.

 

[Bob Adkins]

Bob, who'd you work for? Did you work for multiple companies or just
one?

3 different companies. An appliance manufacturer, a pipe fitting company
that made exotic alloy nuclear fittings, and a precision tool company that
manufactured and used many bearings of many types. I was considered their
in-house "expert" on bearings and lubricants. That Consumer Reports article
read like many of my own reports, and brought back memories! We used to do
bearing and lubricant wear tests with gages that had a resolution of
..000002" (2 millionth's of an inch)

Since adopting TQM and Six Sigma practices a couple of decades ago, we actually try to avoid having
to do QC! No offense.

HA!! That was my philosophy way before it was widely adopted! I was
considered a radical at 1 time. Instead of hiring and maintaining a huge QC
department to weed out defects, I emphasized quality at the point of
manufacture. I wanted every machinist to be a QC technician. I wanted my
inspectors, techs, and engineers to be primarily teachers. And yes, 6 Sigma
was nirvana!

It is almost always better to design (and manufacture) quality in than
to try to inspect it out, as I'm sure you well know. However, you need
some inspection as a process feedback mechanism if not a strict QC
mechanism.

Exactly!

 

[Bob Adkins]

The article he's referring to is from 2000. It's in a motorcycle
magazine, which alone is enough to cast doubts about how relevent it is
to an automobile discussion.

Well, I suppose the processes are so standardized that data from 2000 is
100% relevant. But I agree that MC's and cars are apples and oranges.

 

[Bob Adkins]

I quoted the fact. That fact is that all oils aren't created equal and
some are better than others.

You are right! I think everyone agrees with you on that.

But Matt, it's a matter of DEGREE. Some of us believe the differences in
modern premium oil are so miniscule that it's insignificant. Apparently you
believe there are large enough differences within groups of similarly rated
oil to cause premature engine wear. Even if that were true, I don't believe
it would lead to the death of the engine. There are many other things that
will happen to it first.

I dropped by friend's house 1 day, and he was struggling with a pallet of
bottled water he had just brought home from Sam's Club. I ask about the
water, and he said he "didn't trust the city water". On top of the pallet of
bottles was several cartons of cigarettes. I told him not to worry, and
guaranteed him the city water would not kill him!

 

[Matt Whiting]

Well, I suppose the processes are so standardized that data from 2000 is
100% relevant. But I agree that MC's and cars are apples and oranges.

These were laboratory tests of a half dozen or so oil properties of oils
both sold as being for motorcycles specifically and standard auto oils.
They weren't tests in engines so the fact that the tests were
commissioned at an independent laboratory by a motorcycle magazine isn't
relevant.

Matt

 

[gerry]

[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]

I quoted the fact. That fact is that all oils aren't created equal and
some are better than others.

I never claimed all oils are the same. I didn't even enter this thread
until you fabricated copyright law as an excuse you couldn't provide data!

If you expressed opinion based upon prior readings or other sources, no
one could argue. Anybody can have any opinion.

I do have the opinion that synthetic's benefits are often over stated
versus high quality modern conventional oil. "Overstated" does not mean
they are not superior in some applications!

I have owned vehicles since 1966 and never used synthetic. I never had an
oil related engine failure and probably have an average of 140,000 miles
per car before replacement. I always used brand name oil of the highest
rating available at the time.

Perhaps it is the brand motor vehicle I preferred or perhaps it was proper
care. Since any oil is vulnerable to contaminants and additive
deterioration, every oil needs to be changed.

Thus I am left with no data to suggest why I should not just meet or
exceed the published specifications for my 2006 Sonata V6.

gerry

 

[Bob Adkins]

These were laboratory tests of a half dozen or so oil properties of oils
both sold as being for motorcycles specifically and standard auto oils.
They weren't tests in engines so the fact that the tests were
commissioned at an independent laboratory by a motorcycle magazine isn't
relevant.

Agreed.

Again, we get back to degrees. How bad were the bad ones, and how were the
tests quantified?

 

[Matt Whiting]

Agreed.

Again, we get back to degrees. How bad were the bad ones, and how were the
tests quantified?

It has been 5+ years since I read the articles. I don't remember the
specific details and I don't think I even have the mags anymore. Since
nobody here cares enough about the data to obtain it, I've got nothing
more to say on the subject.

Actually, I hope that the folks here don't buy premium oils such as
Mobil 1, Castrol products, and similar. They cost too much now and if
the demand gets any higher the price will only increase and cost me more
money! It is bad enough that makers of cars such as the Corvette, a
model or two of Porsche, etc., ship Mobil 1 from the factory and pretty
much require its use.

Then again, Hyundais are cheap cars so it seems fitting to use cheap
oils, oil filters, tires, etc., on them.

Matt

 

[Mike Marlow]

Yes, I do believe that. I've worked for 23 years in a Fortune 500
corporation and I know a lot of things I can't say in public that would
very much surprise you about a lot of products you use every day.

Oh come on Matt. I've worked in Corporate America for over 25 years myself.
That fact has nothing at all to do with the discussion at hand. Do you
think that most of America would really be surprised by things you've seen?
The truth is that most of these "hidden corporate secrets" are quite common
knowledge.

Sure there is. Many people will sacrifice a lot of quality to get a
cheap price. Many people won't. There is room for all, but to claim
that all products are created equal is simply absurd. Do you really
believe that Bose stereo products are no better than the no-name brands
from China?

That's not what was stated Matt. Red Herring.
Uncertainty and Doubt. Most times, > Totally unfounded and only intended
to smear a competitor or a

product when no valid evidence exists.

The key word is most times, and it isn't even most, more like some.

No, FUD is almost always unfounded and intended to smear. Factual issues
are one thing, but speculative fears based on no evidence are not factual.

 

[Mike Marlow]

I've been running Supertech Synthetic for a long time in a Dodge Caravan,
Chevy Malibu, and Chrysler T&C with no problems - no leaks, no sludge, no
nothing! If you look down under the valve cover on these vehicles, it looks
really clean.

Ok - I'll be the one to steer this thread in a different direction...

I've never used synthetic oils. Pure dino all the way. I've typically
driven my cars for 200,000 - 250,000 miles. I've had the valve covers off
more than one of my cars and with well over 100,000 miles, I've never found
any sludge or buildup. The most recent experience of this nature was when I
replaced the intake gaskets on my daughter's '98 Malibu with a 3.4L. The
car had 118,000 miles on it and when I pulled the valve covers the thing was
spotless. On nothing but dino oil and those crummy Fram filters that have
such a bad reputation here. The dino oil came from Wally World - you
guessed it - SuperTech.

Someone has been bringing up the word "degree". I think that is the most
appropriate word to this whole thread. Any differences are really not that
significant. I change my oil faithfully at 4,000 miles and always have.
I'm switching to synthetic just to get the added mileage between changes.
I've got 5 cars in this household to tend to and reducing oil changes
appeals to me. But, do I expect something more or something better from
synthetics? Nope. How do you improve upon the experiences I've had in 35
years of driving and maintaining my vehicles?

 

[Brian Nystrom]

Not surprised at all! Your training shows in your clear logic!

I certainly hope so.

I had a wonderful career in QA, but sometimes it's a lonely job.

Yeah, tell me about it. ;-)

 

[Bob Adkins]

I'm switching to synthetic just to get the added mileage between changes.
I've got 5 cars in this household to tend to and reducing oil changes
appeals to me.

Those longer intervals appeal to me too!

I think I would use synthetic oil if I didn't worry about the filter. I
trust syn oil up to 10,000 miles, but I only trust oil filters up to 6000.
Filters are so small these days I'm afraid they could become restricted by
normal combustion products.