Synthetic motor oil

1…9293959798…175

Comments

  • americanflagamericanflag Member Posts: 400
    I ahave heard some of the newer engines from Ford and Honda are built to very high specifications and therefore need a thinner oil, that is, 5W-20. Can it hurt the engine to run 5W-30 in an engine that calls for 5W-20? Wouldn't the oil have a 30 grade viscosity for quite a while before the oil breaks down to 20 grade or lower (as the engine specs call for)? In other words, can it be harmful to run a higher grade oil than the engine needs?
  • malachy72malachy72 Member Posts: 325
    you know, of course, that quaker state and pennzoil are the same company
  • chas_in_okcchas_in_okc Member Posts: 21
    I just bought a 03 PT Crusier GT with the 2.4 turbo engine. Turbos heat up oil more than regular engines. Manual says change the oil every 3000 miles in severe duty and 5000 miles for normal service. Prefered oil is 5w-30.
    Untill I started reading up on oils on the net I was thinking about synthetic blended oils. With it being unclear what oils are really synthetic and the low ammount of synthetics in blended oil I am not sure what to use. Leaning more toward all synthetic with a 5000 mile interval. Or 1qt syn and 3.5qt dino changed every 4000.
    Just did the first oil change today at 950 miles. Used Castrol GTX 5w-30. Got 3000+ miles to decide.
  • div2div2 Member Posts: 2,580
    If I was going to keep the car for a few years I'd run Mobil 1 5W-30 and change oil and filter at 5000 miles.
  • bigorange30bigorange30 Member Posts: 1,091
    Don't use a blend. That will not give you any help. You will spend extra money and get no added benefit because you will still have to change it every 3000 miles. I would use a 5W30 or 10W30 synthetic and change it at 5-7 K miles. Get a drain tested to make sure you are not going too far. I hope your not a big Castrol fan because they have the worst reputation in the synthetic market than any other. I don't know how their dino compares. I think the 1 qt syn and 1.5 qts dino is a waste. What would that accomplish?
  • bigorange30bigorange30 Member Posts: 1,091
    Here are the pictures I was talking about. They are very compelling to me. It is amazing how clean the engine is that used Mobil1 and how blackened the one with dino is.


    http://forums.stangnet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=181031


    The comments I have seen about oil blackening being an indication suspending of contaminants. I guess that means that Mobil1 just has less contaminants (ie. less wear of the metal parts) and the contaminants must have all went out with the oil and were not left on these engine parts. Blackening engine parts a good thing? How can that be?

  • bluedevilsbluedevils Member Posts: 2,554
    I, and probably malachy72 as well, was speaking about blackening oil. I.e. blackening oil is a good thing. I agree with you that blackening engine parts does not seem like a good thing.
  • bluedevilsbluedevils Member Posts: 2,554
    Your post indicates your closed-mindedness. I did plenty of research on the Kia Sedona. I do not buy the cheapest thing I can find. This is a very good minivan with some class-leading features at an outstanding price. Do I care if someone like you does not believe it? No.

    I considered not mentioning we owned a Kia but decided to do so as a sort of test. Seeing someone (you) make such an uninformed comment, and even somewhat of a personal attack, was disappointing. Something like 'Kia sure has a poor reputation around the U.S. Why did you buy a Sedona?' would have been totally reasonable and acceptable. Instead, you said "Well, I guess that fits with a 'buy things with cheapest initial cost and don't worry about the long term costs' attitude. Do you shop for doctors like that too? Do you buy your dishes at the Dollar Tree?"

    In reality, I am a pretty discriminating vehicle buyer. When I started my minivan search, I was very skeptical of the Kia. 2 years ago I never would have bought a Kia. But I conducted the research process with an open mind and performed due diligence on the Sedona and determined it was the best choice for our family. We could have afforded a much more expensive competitor but it wasn't necessary.
  • bigorange30bigorange30 Member Posts: 1,091
    It was not intended to be a personal attack but to a seeking to understand why people like yourself want to buy cheap products. Quality is worth paying for and proves itself out in the end. The Kia does not have a good reputation. It is mostly an unproven and unknown so far. Time will tell if it was a good decision or a bad one. I just can't afford to take chances like that. I apologize if I offended you.
  • bluedevilsbluedevils Member Posts: 2,554
    The Kia brand does have a horrible reputation. The Sedona does not. I did not 'take a chance' on an inferior product. The Sedona is inexpensive, not cheap. You strike me as someone who is probably overpaying for many things on the basis that you always 'get what you pay for.' It's not always true. Quality IS worth paying for, but it doesn't always cost more to get quality. And paying more does not ensure quality.

    Conventional motor oil is not a 'cheap product' either. 99.9% of the motoring public uses it in their vehicles. I am not convinced that these folks are shortening the life of their vehicles' engines by using conventional motor oil and changing oil and filter every 3000-5000 miles. If this is one of the arguments you are trying to make, good luck. I do not believe that most synthetic lubricant proponents would agree with you.

    It is very disappointing and befuddling to see someone like you, who obviously has some good thoughts and can express them in writing, to think of me as someone who buys 'cheap stuff' based on my Town Hall posts. My posts do not support your conclusions, and I'm having a hard time figuring out why and how you are drawing those conclusions.

    By the way, have I mentioned recently that I am using Mobil 1 synthetic lubricants in the front and rear differential, transfer case, and 4WD unit in my Isuzu Trooper? I decided on these synthetic lubricants because I felt they were better performers than conventional products and were worth the extra cost (appx 3 times more). This, and other things such as my willingness to try synthetic motor oil in the past and consider it for the future, really should show I'm not someone who 'buys cheap stuff.'

    The bottom line: You may be right that synthetic motor oil is clearly the better choice for all right-minded automobile owners; how can anyone really know for sure? But the reason I've decided on conventional oil instead is not because I can't afford synthetic or am too stupid to understand its superiority. Calling me someone who 'buys cheap stuff' has nothing to do with the discussion about synthetic and conventional oil.
  • malachy72malachy72 Member Posts: 325
    of "I see umbrellas when it rains, therefore umbrellas must cause rain" logic going around. No one says synthetic oil isn't a superior oil to dino. However,group III and group II+ have apparently closed the gap. Is it that difficult to accept that the gap is too narrow for some people to choose synthetic? Can their choice be respected as a synthetic users choice is?

    "Why can't we all just get along?".....Rodney King
  • bigorange30bigorange30 Member Posts: 1,091
    that "you get what you pay for" is just a GENERAL rule that certainly has exceptions. You can get good quality for a reasonable price but it just doesn't happen very often. Many that thought they had a good deal often find out they were wrong later. The other side is true too. Many peole get taken by high prices and promises of good quality and actually end up with mediocre quality. There is another saying that goes around. If something is too good to be true, it probably is. My opinion, and it is just that an opinion because enough facts are not out there yet to say either way, is that these improved dino oils (group III) sound too good to be true. I don't believe they have closed the gap much. They still won't go to extended drain intervals. Whatever your philosophy, you should do a decent amount of research before making a decsion on major issues. I do that and that is why I don't overpay. I have seen MANY cases of buying cheap stuff and it proving to be just that. This has happened numerous times in my own family and to me in years past. I am committed to trying not to let that happen again. I do, in some cases, pay extra for styling. The Corvette that I would like to some day buy is a good example of that. It is known to be a lesser quality car then many but I do like the style.
  • joatmonjoatmon Member Posts: 315
    I believe most come here to share experiences and to learn what has worked/not worked for others.

    My take on this? A good dino such as Chevron, Castrol GTX, or Pennzoil, etc, and a good oil filter every 3 - 4k fits most vehicles.

    Why go to syn? As an example, my wife's car seemed noisy at startup at about 40k. I switched to syn and it quieted the engine at startup. I change oil at 5k, so I pay a little more this way. But, the car now has 192k and runs great. I can easily justify the small additional expense.

    My 4 Runner is a pain to do change oil changes on because the filter is mounted upside down in a hard to reach area, and there is a skid plate that collects the dripping oil. I went to syn oil to stretch the drain interval from 4k to 8k. I am not comfortable going past 8k without an oil analysis. I just changed to a blend, Schaeffers 7000, because I believe that an 8k drain interval will work with this oil.

    Just use a good dino at 4k. If you have issues that syn will solve or improve, use syn. This isn't rocket science.

    Jack
  • bluedevilsbluedevils Member Posts: 2,554
    Agree with 99% of bigorange30's #4768 and all of joatmon's 4769.

    To me, I think the improved dino oils HAVE closed the gap. Do they go 10k miles easily? I don't think so. But are they signicantly better than dino oils of the past? My impression is yes. Just as my impression is that the current true synthetics are better than their predecessors. For me, they've closed the gap enough that it does not make sense for me currently to use synthetic engine oil.

    I don't see people around here claiming or expecting the group III conventional oils as some magic bullet or anything like that. I.e. I don't think the claims/expectations are in the 'too good to be true' category.

    As for the Corvette, I personally wouldn't buy one - don't feel the quality is there. But it does have a reputation as being a great value among performance cars - outstanding performance at a bargain price vs. other cars of similar performance.
  • harry31harry31 Member Posts: 128
    You mean umbrellas really DON'T cause rain??? Go figure...
  • adc100adc100 Member Posts: 1,521
    As was mentioned Pennzoil and QS are now one company. I am by no means a Mobil 1 apologist. But I have seen only one report (out of dozens) where Mobil 1 failed to stay in-grad; especially the 10W-30. I have run as high as 8300 miles on the Mobil 1 on 3 different vehicles and it has always staid in-grade. Anyone who as evaluated oil analysis reports will tell you that. I hate it when a so-called "source" puts out this bs.
  • fleetwoodsimcafleetwoodsimca Member Posts: 1,518
    If anyone out there recognizes themselves as a synthetic user that simply cannot resist insulting other participants in this thread, and if they adjust their rhetoric and manners now and again to camouflage their bad manners, then: Please be advised that it really is okay for you to use synthetic oil, but you must not expect to ride rough shod over the forum. You'll just get your spurs confiscated!
  • maple49maple49 Member Posts: 66
    Let me take a shot at sharing my opinion on the whole synthetic (group IV+) vs. dino debate. From my research (on various boards, websites, etc),personal experience and conversations with people whose opinion I respect I developed my own "educated" opinion. If you change your oil/filter every 3-5k miles with a high quality dino oil (Pennzoil, Chevron, etc) there is no measurable benefit to using a synthetic oil. Exceptions would be high-end vehicles that require synthetics, winter driving in the arctic circle or abnormal driving habits (racing, etc). Synthetics are far superior if you plan to extend drain intervals longer than 5-6k miles.

    Currently, I change oil/filter every 4k miles with a quality dino oil. I am sure that my engine is well protected and in my case I would see zero benefit from using a synthetic. If I ever wish to move to extended drain intervals I will switch to a group IV+ synthetic like Mobil 1.
  • tbonertboner Member Posts: 402
    I choose a synthetic for many of the reasons you cite.

    My 98 SVT Contour is typically only driven on weekends, and when it is driven, it is typically driven hard (after a warm up, of course) sees the redline, as well as some track time and Autocrossing. I change the oil every 6 months, regardless of mileage. Mobil 1 5W30.

    Same interval on my wife's Mazda MPV, but for different reasons. Yes, it is a high reving engine with the same Ford Duratec, but without the SVT enhancements, but it sees about 10K miles /year. So two annual oil changes, one in the spring and one in the fall are sufficient. I get to do oil changes during typically good weather and protect the engine.

    My Buick. I've just switched to Shell Rotella T 5W40 (A fleet oil with the SL automotive rating, after all, the car is a 1987 so I doubt a 5W40 synthetic designed for fleet use will hurt this car much if at all.). I figure that engine and that oil will probably go 10K easily. However, 10K miles will occur somewhere around every 4 months. So that should keep me out from under the car during the cold and snow doing an oil change. I'll probably finish off the Vavoline 5W30 Maxlife I have in the spring, and then in the fall go back to the Rotella T.

    But I choose the synthetic to:

    A) Extend drain intervals.
    B) Mitigate risks with extreme usage.
    C) I believe it will hold up better in severe duty (two of my three cars)

    I do believe that a good quality conventional oil will do an adequate job of lubrication.

    I just believe a good quality synthetic will do an even better job at the extremes.

    So currently, I use 24 quarts of oil for the two Duratec vehicles per year and probably another 16-18 quarts for the Buick with this schedule, including 1 quart makeup oil every 5K.

    If I used a 3K or 6 month schedule with conventional oil, I'd probably use 30 quarts for the two Duratec vehicles (I figure I'd still only do two changes on the SVT, but 3+ for the Mazda) 4.and I'd do 8+ changes on the Buick at roughly 4.5 quarts/change and 5 quarts of makeup oil over the 25K, totalling 43 quarts.

    If we assume $1/quart for conventional oil and about $3.50/quart for synthetic (Wally World has 5quarts M1 at $17.88 and 1 gallon jugs of Rotella T for under $13) then I am spending $73/year for conventional oil, and about $140-150/year for synthetic.

    However, it only takes a few hours of my time not spent changing to oil, for it to be worth that extra $70-80 in oil costs for it to be worth it. Especially when we are talking about 8+ changes a year for the Buick on conventional oil.

    TB
    Still has at least a year's supply of oil in the garage.
  • bluedevilsbluedevils Member Posts: 2,554
    Good post. I share all of those sentiments. The part the synthetic proponents seem to disagree with is "I am sure that my engine is well protected and in my case I would see zero benefit from using a synthetic." For our family's vehicles, I feel the same way as you do - though I'd probably say 'very confident' rather than 'sure.'
  • bluedevilsbluedevils Member Posts: 2,554
    Your reasons for using synthetic seem to be sound ones, and you have a good perspective on the whole engine oil thing.

    P.S. - Hope your Contour is treating you well - I gave up on my 95 SE after one too many significant mechanical problems and sold it a few months back.
  • tbonertboner Member Posts: 402
    Yeah,

    I think I commented on your thread regarding resale value over at Contour.org

    It seems you did pretty good selling it.

    I've driven Contours in various flavors for the past five years, so I'm itching to get something else.

    Wifey's MPV should be paid off Spring 2004 (or even earlier if SUNW posts some great gains on the NASDAQ.) and that will also be close to 160K on the Buick.

    Of course, even with the repair history on the Buick, it only costs about $0.15-0.16/mile to drive. Of course 27-28K/year makes that money add up.

    Have my heart set on something sedan like, RWD, and a stick.

    However, the realities of a currently nearly 13y.o. daughter, impending college, and such will probably burst any dreams of a high end sedan.

    So it is more likely a Mazda 6 or Protege. Maybe an RX-8 on a stretch.

    Well, that's off in the future. But I'll probably still run synthetic, for the reasons previously stated.

    FWIW,

    TB
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    #4778
    "...Of course, even with the repair history on the Buick, it only costs about $0.15-0.16/mile to drive. Of course 27-28K/year makes that money add up.
    Have my heart set on something sedan like, RWD, and a stick...."

    Fret not and keep the fire burning! I have been more than pleasantly surprised at the operating costs of an American Sports car: The Corvette.

    Synthetic oil and filter, scheduled maint., Gas, tire wear, and insurance comes to a per mile cost of .1085 cents.

    Incidently because this is a synthetic oil topic, the cost per mile lubricated has been .00181056 cents.

    A neat thing is that I have changed the oil 3 times!

    If I had used a Qwikie Lube and provided my own oil and filter, the cost per mile lubricated would be .002458 cents.

    If I had used the 3000 mile changes and conventional oil like Chevron Supreme (which is an unfair comparison because the manufacturer requires GM 4718M specified oils, of which synthetic Mobil One meets this standard)

    the cost per mile lubricated: .0029347 cents

    which is 1.6209334 times more than using synthetic.

    I would have changed the oil 15 times !

    If I had used a Qwikie Lube (which research has suggested this as fairly common) the cost would have approached .0097826 cents per mile lubricated

    While an unfair comparison, Lubrication whether you use a synthetic or convention oil is an absolute bargain !! The use of synthetic is even more so!

    I would suspect that when you go shopping for a car after you send your offspring through college, that sports cars will be better still (that is if the environmentalists don't succeed in killing off this market segment or lack of market demand [strange bedfellows, eh?] ) , and synthetic oil will remain a bargain !
  • fleetwoodsimcafleetwoodsimca Member Posts: 1,518
    I think I'd hold out for a Dodge Viper, and have an engine capable of running on mineral based oil. And the Viper costs a few bucks more, but it's a lot more car.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    #4780

    Personally I would not get a Viper so I could use conventional oil!? :)

    You will not find out what high maintenance means until you get a Viper!!! By then, it will be WAY too late!!! :)

    While this is off topic, the Viper is WAY harder to drive WELL than a "Zoramobile." Without a doubt it is truly a 10 cylinder BEAST.
  • fleetwoodsimcafleetwoodsimca Member Posts: 1,518
    I'll bet you are absolutely right. Anything as hugely powerful, and expensive, as the Viper has got to be pretty high maintenance. I'll take a pass! Overpriced SUVs are trouble enough to keep me busy for the time being. I get my performance needs met by my motorcycling hobby.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    #4782

    It is more than difficult to beat the P/W ratio of currently available motorbikes!!! :) (especially in the band width that we tend to operate them)

    (read this: faster, quicker, faster quicker, quicker faster, even better (absolute) gas milege, higher top end speed etc. WAY cheaper in an absolute sense, outside of the fact that you are at a higher risk exposure!)

    So that we are on topic: Bikes ARE WAY harder on oils, synthetic or convention!!
  • fleetwoodsimcafleetwoodsimca Member Posts: 1,518
    This will simply take your breath away:
    I changed oil and filter every 1000 miles for 5K, and then moved up to 1.5K-- That was on my Valkyrie. I used "real" motorcycle oil through 5.5K and then switched to Valvoline 15W-40 All Fleet. I used several Purolators, and now have a batch of Honda filters to last a long while.
  • tbonertboner Member Posts: 402
    My job requires a car that I can carry my tools and the occassional large spare part for large multiprocessor computers.

    So we are talking sedans or wagons, not sports cars.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    #4785

    The Corvette was used as an antedotal comparison for your Buick's .15-.16 cents a mile operation. The fact of the matter is that the operating costs if you are so inclined to track it (as I am)So whether you chose a sports car or a sedan or wagon as you have mentioned twice that you favor, the .15-.16 per mile and the .11-.12 cents per mile at some point will be a yardstick for your new sedan or wagon. Best of luck !!
  • tbonertboner Member Posts: 402
    Costs include acquisition, for what it is worth.

    TB
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    #4787

    I would do a lookback (depreciation) of .10875 cents per mile. So adding that to ops cost of .11-.12 cents a mile =.22875 cents.

    The Z06 Corvette seems to depreciate even in this down market at 4-6% annually.
  • chas_in_okcchas_in_okc Member Posts: 21
    I have read about Castrols synthetics and wouldn't use them. Mobil 1 5W-30 is my choice for syn oil. If Amsoil was a bit more mainstream I might try that but don't care to go with something not sold in stores.
  • bigorange30bigorange30 Member Posts: 1,091
    but I thought you were thinking about using dinos or a blend? Did you change your mind?
  • chas_in_okcchas_in_okc Member Posts: 21
    to mix a qt of syn with dino so I am moving away from that idea. Buying a blended oil is even more of a waist of money. Will keep reading. I may change my mind again before the next oil change.
  • armtdmarmtdm Member Posts: 2,057
    I concur on blends however, I am seriously considering using the Schaeffers blend in two of my cars. It seems to be holding up better then manysynthetics from what I can see from results on other boards and it can do longer drains as well. As has been pointed out, it is not just the base stock that makes a difference it is the entire additive package..
  • gregb882gregb882 Member Posts: 75
    Re: bigorange30 and wain. Regarding your posts almost 200 posts ago (sorry, I haven't checked in for a long time). My son has a 2000 Camry with the 4Cyl engine that sludged up (just got it back, and yes, even though 9000 miles shouldn't be too long for most engine oils today, he didn't check it at all and the oil cooked out). The Toyota dealer said they are now recommending no more than 3700 miles on an oil change in the Michigan region. Just an FYI.
  • adc100adc100 Member Posts: 1,521
    in that engine on dyno oil??? un-oh!!
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    #4793

    Changing oil at 3750 miles does nothing to change the underlying condition that causes the oil to "cook" at specific places in the Toyota engine. If one uses synthetic oil the oil will still "cook" but at a higher temperature. If that temperature happens to be within the higher tolerance side of the synthetic there will be less residue than the conventional oil.

    Seems like certain Toyota engines have a design flaw, and if there is no other fix than change the oil more frequently, knowing this that would degrade the value and in my mind the viability and price of buying one of those cars with those affected engines.
  • bigorange30bigorange30 Member Posts: 1,091
    That's exactly the point I made in the Toyota Sludge board that was open in the first half of this year. Toyota seems to think that offering an 8 year warranty for engine sludging should make everyone feel more comfortable. I just know that I won't buy a Camry, Corolla, Sienna or Highlander until they admit there is a design flaw in the engine, state exactly what it is and recall it. If they at least admitted what it was and state it, then I would feel comfortable that new engines would not have that. It definitely reduces the resale value in my opinion. It also affects the Lexus versions of those designs. The RX300 is a beautiful SUV but one I wouldn't touch because of this issue.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    #4796

    If you said that, I think you are on the beam. While it would be tempting to say that synthetic oil would be a cure, the fact that conventional oil cooks would indicate that that "cook plate area" would put it beyond 455 degrees F, which is the upper limit for Mobil One synthetic. The "cooking" of synthetic would leave less sludge residual, but as you had inferred, whatever oil you use will still be cooked unless there is a design change that lowers the temp of the "cook areas" within the operating parameters of engine oil. Bad design is bad design whether or not an 8 year warranty is proferred.
  • fleetwoodsimcafleetwoodsimca Member Posts: 1,518
    Perhaps we will later discover that some updating changes are made to several Toyota engines; just routine things that bright engineers come up with, and of course NOT meant as a cure for any nonexistent problem, but "Glad you consumers are somehow now convinced that..."
    No admissions, no recalls, no further problems?
  • gregb882gregb882 Member Posts: 75
    I didn't make myself clear - he wasn't intending to stretch the change interval and he didn't use syn. He just screwed up! But that having been said, I know people who have absent mindedly and unintentionally gone much longer than that on other brands without their engine blowing up. Toyota, for what ever reason, has an engine design which requires extraordinary maintenance to avoid having to replace it. I agree with bigorange30. I wouldn't buy a Toyota on a bet. And that is really too bad, too, because otherwise they make good cars.
  • bigorange30bigorange30 Member Posts: 1,091
    I almost bought the 4Runner in January when I bought my QX4. The only reason I didn't is because it was generally considered by most as underpowered. They have fixed that with this year's model. I would also really like to have a Sequoia but didn't have the money for one. I just said that I wouldn't buy a Toyota with a known sludging engine type.
  • bluedevilsbluedevils Member Posts: 2,554
    How much more was a similarly equipped Sequoia vs. the QX4? I know both aren't exactly cheap but would have thought the difference isn't huge.
  • bigorange30bigorange30 Member Posts: 1,091
    The difference is quite a bit. Remember the Sequoia has a 3rd row of seats and just a good bit larger. The difference was about $7 K. I got the QX4 with everything but Navigation and Chrome Wheels for $36,600 including TTL and docs. Most of it is standard on the QX4. Toyota really gets you with the cost of the options.
  • fleetwoodsimcafleetwoodsimca Member Posts: 1,518
    Does that have the 3.5L Nissan engine? My 1998 Pathfinder has the older 3.3L and by today's standards is under powered, yet ironically it has enough power for most any application (not drag racing, however!). My 2002 Mountaineer Premier with 4.6L V8 is absolutely phenomenal, and not much higher (?) MSRP than your Infiniti.
    To give the appearance of swerving back on topic, I'll add that I have not placed either on a synthetic oil regimen.
  • bluedevilsbluedevils Member Posts: 2,554
    IIRC, max hp in the QX4 is 240hp. I know that motor makes more HP in other applications (Maxima etc.).
  • bigorange30bigorange30 Member Posts: 1,091
    The old Pathfiner/QX4 is underpowered and I would not have one. The Mountaineer Premier MSRP is about $5 K less than than my QX4 was if I added the right options to make it comparable (everything except 21E, 53G, 422 and B2). I would not have one of those because my expectation is that my QX4 will last about 100 k miles more before experiencing the same problems as the Mountaineer. Again, it comes down to a cents/mile that makes a difference to me. I have a 12 year old Mustang GT that I bought brand new. I am starting to experience some repairs that I am uncomfortable with on it.
  • fleetwoodsimcafleetwoodsimca Member Posts: 1,518
    I saw the ballooned price on those QX4 replicas of Pathfinders, and had much the same "wouldn't have one" thoughts that you report having on many vehicles. I would never throw away that kind of money on a pretentious badge slamming product from Nissan. I have also passed the chance to buy any Mustangs, seeing that the insurance rates tell any one who can read that there is a big problem there.
    This all seems to have nothing to do with synthetic motor oil, so count me out of the brand and model follies as of now!
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles

Your Privacy

By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our Visitor Agreement.