Pardon my rant but....
Perhaps OEMs should start being honest and these discussions could be a little more reasoned and fact based and reduce the hyperbole level. There are good solid performance based standards and metrics that they can cite if they wanted to:
View attachment 109509
View attachment 109511
But that would make it hard to justify the name brand FUD they spout and enable owners and operators to make fact based choices. Third party lubricant manufacturers have no problem giving you real perfomance data and industry standard specifications.
View attachment 109513
View attachment 109514
I was at a manufacturer's dealer training (optional training) session, which lasted 8 days (!), we studied lubricants. Not all of it dealt with engine oils, it dealt with certain fluids used in transmissions and gearcases and such in addition. Majority of it dealt with ATV and motorcycle stuff BUT the principles apply to all lubricating fluids. This was an eye-opening class.
Basically a manufacturer can give all the ISO specs, however the vast majority of people wouldn't understand it. MSDS and ISO spec sheets give a lot of information but manufacturers are not required by federal law to give exact specifications or formulations and they never do. Reason being, keeping it short, trade secrets. The actual additive packages that different manufacturers use are often guarded heavily. There were about 80 of us in this class and every single one of us was asked to not disclose some information. And I'm not, I've stuck with that.
Another tidbit. The fluids are often formulated at the same plant that other fluids are formulated at. For instance, let's use PS-4 from Polaris. It may be made at the exact same plant as, using another example, Valvoline (since it's a well-known name). But, we have to keep in mind that PS-4 is made specifically for Polaris equipment, using an additive package that only Polaris engineers and the fluid manufacturer knows about, and it comes out the same door as the cheap $5/quart stuff that you can but at wal-mart. But just because it came out the same door don't mean it's the same stuff, and often it isn't. This was a huge issue with motorcycles that used a wet clutch, where guys were buying Rotalla T6 because even though T6 is expensive, it's still cheaper than Yamalube. Guys with the early R1's were destroying engines. Basically T6 excludes a certain additive that Yamalube has, which helps the wet clutch live. Over time, Rotella does not protect the clutch and the lining gets burnt, it delaminates from the backing, falls down into the pan and plugs up the pickup screen-which usually destroys the engine. I did a number of them before Yamaha was able to put their finger on the problem. We are talking about 2003-ish through 2007 or so. Of course the engine was completely changed in 2009, to a different design, and by then also the owners were starting to understand the issues. Some still didn't care, and that's fine, as I still built a few engines once in a while. They paid my bills, although the early units were great for us techs. Same for the Kawasaki VN1500's eating clutch springs, due to owner neglect and sometimes abuse. There is more to it as to why, but lubricants played a role. If people would use what's recommended and go by the book, lubricant-related failures are drastically reduced. And even better, when a factory rep asks for a fluid analyses, the analysts and the factory reps want to see certain things. If it ain't there or ain't what they want to see, they don't like it any. If it is, and it's documented that you used what's recommended, it becomes an easier process. MUCH easier in my experience. Warranty stuff can be a real bear. And, people often refer back to a certain court decision that suppsedly protects people and manufacturers, as the end-all, but in fact it's not. There is enough vagueness in that set of rulings that it may not help you. You cannot go wrong with OEM stuff. It may cost a little more but that peace of mind is worth the extra cost, at least in my opinion-and my experience.