When I was in line at auto Zone the other day, a man in front of me inquired after high mileage Qauker State oil. The young clerk wrinkled his nose and muttered that Quaker State is a "bad oil." Curious, I leaned forward and asked him why and he said his dad had a Ford Ranger that they "opened up" the engine and the insides were full of jellied junk (that was his description). He said he woudl never use Quaker State because it leaves deposits behind.

I wondered at this, thinking that if this were true, it woudl have been pulled off the maarket years ago, no?

What do you guys think?

 

I think you just reopened a BIG can of worms.
This topic has led to some very spirited discussion.

 

Hard to say without knowing his oil change history. I think all oils will do this if you don't change them frequently enough. Also I wonder if his Dad was adding anything else to the oil. My Dad used Quaker State Exclusively with good success, but he changed it every 3000.

 

As is usually the case, I am in agreement w/ "rgiles".

QS might not be the best, or even ONE OF the "better" brands (if you press me I'd say they fall "somewhere" in the middle of the pack), but they certainly know a thing or three about mass-producing a decent (sufficient) product, seeing how they've been doing it, for, oh, a COUPLE of years now.

The keys are, temperature considerations (proper viscosity/weight), conditions driven under, QUALITY filters, and CHANGE INTERVALS - w/, IMHO the last (proper/timely changes) and the first (proper "weight" or viscosity for expected ambient temps) the most vital factors to consider.

 

Just another parts counter commando that thinks he knows something about cars. If he knew anything about cars he would not be working at autozone for $7 per hour. The QS/Pennzoil MYTH is just that, a MYTH that has never been proven by anyone on this board or elsewhere.

 

>Just another parts counter commando that thinks he knows
>something about cars. If he knew anything about cars he
>would not be working at autozone for $7 per hour. The
>QS/Pennzoil MYTH is just that, a MYTH that has never been
>proven by anyone on this board or elsewhere.

Here I go again...agreeing w/ Stab. The antecdotal story told by the parts counter guy would mean nothing to me. I know QS has been berated many times by many folks. However, I do NOT believe there oil is as bad as some make it out to be. WHY - free market economy. If their oil WAS really that bad, they'd be out of business.

IMHO- all modern, name brand oils are good. Pick one, use it, change it (and the filter) at reasonable intervals and sleep easy.

Brian A

 

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 19-Nov-02 AT 01:02 PM (EST)]I think the punk at Autozone has Jelly in his brain, if he has any brains at all. Before using Mobil 1 I used quacker state. All my engines were driven over 150,000 miles and the inside was as clean as new. Mr. Autozones dad probably never changed his oil on schedule and that is probably his problem.

 

I've heard numerous reports of problems with Quaker State motor oil. They used to be one of the best in the motor oil business, but now they're a low price, low quality supplier. Their MSDS lists the contents of their oil as a mixture of Group I and Group II/III (probably Group II) base stock as well as additives for viscosity and pour-point modifiers. The Group I base and the additives are the source of the sludge.

This is another motor oil I wouldn't put in my lawnmower.

 

>
>I've heard numerous reports of problems with Quaker State
>motor oil. They used to be one of the best in the motor oil
>business, but now they're a low price, low quality supplier.
>Their MSDS lists the contents of their oil as a mixture of
>Group I and Group II/III (probably Group II) base stock as
>well as additives for viscosity and pour-point modifiers.
>The Group I base and the additives are the source of the
>sludge.
>
>This is another motor oil I wouldn't put in my lawnmower.

Paul,
respectfully...please add more to your points.
I have read/heard the opposite! I was under the impression that the "old" QS was the one that (reportedly) had a tendency to create deposits. And, the "new" QS was the benefactor of much newer, improved motor oil technology and no longer given to forming such deposits.

Do I run QS? No - as you know its Shell. Would I? Yes, and probably wouldn't worry much about it.
I know we have been down this road before, but I am left to wonder...Does anybody know of any real world reports by any respected truck magazine, or automotive magazine, etc. that elaborates on this subject? It is somewhat interesting to me from several perspectives.
I figure if the problems REALLY existed:
a) some publications would comment accordingly.
b) QS would be aware of it and, if interested in staying in business, fix the problem.
I view this as an opportunity to learn, and there are plenty of educated guys here to learn from.
So, Paul (you being one of those) I understand your point about the MSDS info and agree it gives rise to some degree of suspicion. But, have you any first hand experience or knowledge of deposit formation etc? ALso, what about my understanding that the new QS has been "fixed"
Thanks in advance!
Brian A

 

The PCV is one of the most neglected service item. I wonder if that ranger had a plugged breather system and the oil was mistakenly blamed for not being able to absorb all of the blowby fumes. Late model Toyota V-6's are notorious for sludging up on any oil. Do some Ranger engines have a similar problem?

Jim

 

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 19-Nov-02 AT 05:44 PM (EST)]Yeah - in addition possibly (probably) to extended drain and filter intervals, I agree PCV valves are quite often over-looked and can be quite problematic.

I changed my wife's Honda (4-cyl) at 100K - just because. It was still "rattlin" and passed the "hose-pinch" test, and I had WD-40'd (cleaned) it out at about, I think 60 -75K, but for the $3.49 I think I paid Purolator, I believe it was a superior investment.

My `99 Ranger (V6) calls for 100K replacement, but you can bet your sweet deriere I checked it at 60K.

The `99 & `00 4-banger's (Rangers) call for 60K replacement - I wonder if this is because they build-up more heat and/or pressure?

 

I'm almost positive that my oil test was conducted on Quaker state Oil as I just checked the Jiffy Lube label indicated they used QS. The reason I'm not 100% sure is I didn't watch them put it in. I know the couple changes before that were QS and I suspect they stick with the customers preferred brand. BTW, my Dad's work Van Dodge with a V8 (bought new in 1979) has over 280,000 miles on it last I checked about 1 year ago and he tows a trailer about once a week with it. I will check if he is still using Quaker State but pretty sure he is.

My 3100 mile test results indicate my oil was still good so judge for yourself:

https://www.ford-trucks.com/dcforum/DCForumID30/450.html

Now I've switched to Mobile 1 synthetic, but I wouldn't have any problem using Quaker State or Penzoil as I've used both successfully in the past. I used Penzoil in a '76 Mustang 302 V8 driving and abusing it in hot and cold weather without a single problem. I have yet to have any oil related failures in any vehicle using any kind of oil. Granted I never kept a vehicle past around 125,000 miles so I didn't push the limits.

I'm beginning to concluded based upon everyone's input, that if you change it at 3000 miles it almost doesn't matter what brand you use. If you want to change it at 5000 or 7500 you might need to be a bit more selective. I personally have no worries changing mine at 5000 mile intervals, and will likely go to 7500 with the synthetic.

 

I still dont know what to think about this issue.I thought the current formulations of quakerstate/pennzoil were supposed to have very pure base oils,and yet this talk of waxy buildup or sludge from quakerstate/pennzoil persists.Maybe its a myth,but some guys like dinosaurfan on this board sound pretty convincing.Thats why I switched from Pennzoil to Chevron Supreme,to be on the safe side.The Chevron appears to be one of the higher rated dino oils on the market and their ISOSYN technology produces a base stock thats probably just as pure as Pennzoils "purebase" if not more so.In fact,I understand that chevron pioneered the development of modern oil refining processes like hydrocracking and Isodewaxing back in the mid 1980s,probably before anyone else.I`m also using chevron in the differential and tranny.------Ben W.

 

I am very happy at the progress of this board. Several replies to my comment and not one single urban legend about pennzoil/QS oil. This board has progressed quite a bit.

 

poopey, as far as Dino goes I think Chevron is an excellent choice. Good price for a high quality product.