You don't need expensive engine oil

[stoopid]

On one hand, I like the desire to be objective. On the other hand, what standard are you testing to?

Let me give a counterpoint: There are other industries that have created testing regimes under the pretense of helping people objectively determine the need for something. The problem is that while the tests may give objective data, the standards against which the data is interpreted are superstitious or counterfactual. "Oh, your test says 6. Well, we recommend that anyone testing below 8 does X." Yet they never have an objective basis to justify why they set the bar at 8 or why 6 is in any way problematic. This is just a ruse to sell you X.

This is certainly an issue, but with data in hand the results can at least be scrutinized. Without that data though (ie - not doing any testing), it's a bit of guess work. The biggest benefit for testing is usually in determining if detergent concentrations are lower, what foreign matter is accumulating, and in what concentration the components that stabilize the oil (providing its viscosity) are fairing. The gathering of data can never be 'wrong', but yes how someone uses that data is another story.

The two situations oil testing is most useful is in extending the oil changes (avoiding the tossing of 'good', still functional oil) and to verify the engine isn't eating itself from the inside (levels of metal being found).

Blackstone, who was referenced a few posts up, have a fairly respected testing history and provide charts with the raw data as well as 'expected' ranges for what was found. It's a starting point, more than if you had no data at all.

I'll stop posting as we await the details for the inquiry on our current standards.

Disclaimer: I am not a chemist or car mechanic, and have never personally sent in oil for testing. I change my oil at reasonable intervals, usually very close to or within manufacturer guidelines.

 

[hayagix]

Any oil will degrade over time and get dirty. Perhaps more frequent oil changes are better than buying boutique oils.

 

[arencambre]

This is certainly an issue, but with data in hand the results can at least be scrutinized. Without that data though (ie - not doing any testing), it's a bit of guess work.

In health care, there are concerns about over-testing leading to people getting unnecessary medical services. That is an illustration of why I can't agree that testing is beneficial per se.

 

[Ohiocruiser]

I am brainwashed idiot using amsoil signature series 5w30.

 

[arencambre]

Any oil will degrade over time and get dirty. Perhaps more frequent oil changes are better than buying boutique oils.

Dirty oil isn't a problem per se. It's normal and expected for oil to get dirty over time. Capturing particulate matter is part of its purpose.

The question is when would the oil get too degraded. If we ignore oil-marketers' propaganda and folklore, then we lack any basis to say that Kia's instructions are bad.

 

[arencambre]

I am brainwashed idiot using amsoil signature series 5w30.

If I was selling boutique oil, I'd love zombies big-time.

 

[JSolo]

Crisco or bust!

 

[stoopid]

lol sorry I just can't help myself

 

[Stiletto]

I am lost on your point.

First, you cite "independent studies", yet your example appears to be oil-marketer propaganda. Second, your reference to synthetic oil is not germane because that kind of oil is simply what Kia requires. At best, your mention of synthetic is an irrelevant comparison between 1. what the manufacturer requires in our vehicle and 2. a kind of oil we cannot use in our vehicle.

I think what you mean to say is there may be something better than ILSAC GF-6A. OK, let's start at first base: you first need to substantiate the problem with ILSAC GF-6A that needs fixing. What is it? Until you can get past that, you're simply trading in superstition and folklore.

Okay, let me help you understand.

First I cited TWO sources, one of which is an independent source (unless you have empirical evidence that American Automobile Association is biased or funded by a oil corporation). I merely annotate that Amsoil uses the same American Standards for Testing Materials as AAA. I could just as easily referenced them in reverse order, but your apparent partiality prevents you from looking past a brand name.

The purpose of ASTM is to define a scientific method, regardless of who is performing the testing. If your qualm is with ASTM, then perhaps you need to establish a new process that is accepted internationally.


Second, my reference to synthetic versus conventional is address the fact that the latter can, and has been, used both by dealer service centers and owners. It should be noted that synthetic is NOT required per the owner's manual. Also, the word recommended is not a synonym for required, the former being the term used in the aforementioned manual.

Lastly, you presume a label which denotes specified requirements is superior to the standard used to attain the particular levels. Until you can supercede the ASTM, SAE and API, you are peddling in gaslighting and are grandstanding pontificator.

 

[arencambre]

First I cited TWO sources, one of which is an independent source (unless you have empirical evidence that American Automobile Association is biased or funded by a oil corporation).

Your first source is propaganda. Per your summary of your second source, it just affirms the type of oil that Kia requires. I remain lost on what point you're trying to make.

It should be noted that synthetic is NOT required per the owner's manual.

False. My owner's manual requires "[f]ull synthetic SAE 5W-30 ACEA A5/B5". Source: Page 583 of the manual that comes with 2022 Kia Stingers, per what Manuals gave me.

Lastly, you presume a label which denotes specified requirements is superior to the standard used to attain the particular levels. Until you can supercede the ASTM, SAE and API, you are peddling in gaslighting and are grandstanding pontificator.

Sorry, first sentence is attacking a strawman, and I am not understanding your second sentence.

 

[NS_Stinger]

I'm surprised at the posts in here where some claim we need some kind of fancy engine oil. In supporting this theory, I am seeing little besides folklore and oil-marketers’ propaganda.

The instructions in the owner's manual are clear. For example, on page 583 of my owners manual, it says that for my 3.3L twin turbo engine, I need "Full synthetic SAE 5W-30 ACEA A5/B5". That's a European standard, but thankfully there's a footnote 3 further clarifies that "API Latest (ILSAC latest)" is also fine. As of now, API latest is SP, and ILSAC latest is GF-6A. (There's an ILSAC GF-6B, but it is only for a 0-16W oil. Not applicable.)

You know what meets ILSAC GF-6A and API SP? Walmart Super Tech Full Synthetic. That is almost the least expensive oil you can get.

A pretty label or oil-marketers’ propaganda aren't necessary. They just feed superstitions. Simply use what meets the spec. That's all you need.

 

[Stiletto]

Your first source is propaganda. Per your summary of your second source, it just affirms the type of oil that Kia requires. I remain lost on what point you're trying to make.


False. My owner's manual requires "[f]ull synthetic SAE 5W-30 ACEA A5/B5". Source: Page 583 of the manual that comes with 2022 Kia Stingers, per what Manuals gave me.

Sorry, first sentence is attacking a strawman, and I am not understanding your second sentence.

Jeez, you must live an echo chamber. Propaganda?! Did you even bother to read the study??

Your manual is different because it has been updated. The preponderance of Stingers will not have that in their manual. Thus, it's still germane to address conventional vs synthetic. Also, it's still recommended, not required...since you quietly avoided that point.

How is ILSAC a straw man when you literally brought it up?? I was responding to your claim about what I "meant to say". ILSAC and ACEA are a set of requirements for oil to meet in order to obtain the rating, e.g. ILSAC GF-5, ACEA B5. They use the SAE, API or ASTM standards to obtain those ratings. Hence, a study using the ASTM (which the Amsoil and AAA both did) cannot be inferior or less trustworthy than a rating which uses that standard.

 

[MerlintheMad]

The online manual for the MY18 Stinger does not refer to SAE 30 weight oil like my paper manual does. This must reflect the switch to full synthetic in January.

 

[arencambre]

Propaganda?!

Yes. Boutique oil marketers are selling a pointless product. They have to create the case with propaganda. If anything is sole-sourced from a boutique oil marketers, then it's fair to assume it's propaganda.

Your manual is different because it has been updated. The preponderance of Stingers will not have that in their manual. Thus, it's still germane to address conventional vs synthetic. Also, it's still recommended, not required...since you quietly avoided that point.

You're right. I just checked a 2019 manual, and the word synthetic is absent from the manual, so it is neither recommended nor required for that year. It requires ILSAC GF-4, a spec from 2004. I again remind you that my 2022 manual clearly specifies--requires, not recommends--"full synthetic" oil.

How is ILSAC a straw man when you literally brought it up??

The straw man was that you were arguing about some point I never made in your prior post.

 

[arencambre]

The online manual for the MY18 Stinger does not refer to SAE 30 weight oil like my paper manual does. This must reflect the switch to full synthetic in January.

Woah, what? Your manual suggests straight SAE 30 oil? I am shocked that a single-viscosity oil, especially of that weight, would be on the menu of options for any modern car engine!

 

[MerlintheMad]

Woah, what? Your manual suggests straight SAE 30 oil? I am shocked that a single-viscosity oil, especially of that weight, would be on the menu of options for any modern car engine!

Sorry, I misremembered, it says this exactly (you tell me what it means): API SM/ILSAC GF-4 above/ SW-30 above.

This was replaced in the online manual for that model year with: API SM/ILSAC GF-4 or above.

What is the distinction between SAE 30 and SW 30?

 

[Stiletto]

Yes. Boutique oil marketers are selling a pointless product. They have to create the case with propaganda. If anything is sole-sourced from a boutique oil marketers, then it's fair to assume it's propaganda.


You're right. I just checked a 2019 manual, and the word synthetic is absent from the manual, so it is neither recommended nor required for that year. It requires ILSAC GF-4, a spec from 2004. I again remind you that my 2022 manual clearly specifies--requires, not recommends--"full synthetic" oil.


The straw man was that you were arguing about some point I never made in your prior post.

You must be new to the automotive enthusiasts world. AMSOIL is not boutique. They were the first to develop a synthetic oil that met the API requirement. Mobil1 or Castrol can't produce propaganda?? You know what happens when you assume...

You improperly attributed a fallacy to my statement because you didn't understand it. Your original statement: "I think what you mean to say is there may be something better than ILSAC GF-6A. OK, let's start at first base: you first need to substantiate the problem with ILSAC GF-6A that needs fixing." My response: "Lastly, you presume a label which denotes specified requirements [ILSAC] is superior to the standard [ASTM/SAE/API] used to attain the particular levels." With the bracketed details, you can now see there is no straw man.

 

[Rodtheviking]

Another oil thread that doesn't disappoint.

 

[GennyGuy]

This thread is pointless. Amsoil ftw tho!

 

[bfglitch]

You're right. I just checked a 2019 manual, and the word synthetic is absent from the manual, so it is neither recommended nor required for that year. It requires ILSAC GF-4, a spec from 2004. I again remind you that my 2022 manual clearly specifies--requires, not recommends--"full synthetic" oil.

I also have a 2022, and your manual states "Recommended lubricants and capacites".....then in the paragraph below that states again "These lubricants and fluids are recommended for use in your vechile". No where does it say requires.