I bought this barely a week ago for a lot more during the discount weekend! Well now it is down to 40 for all your people who prefer to keep their cash rather than give it to dealer/servicers who generally put cheap castrol 15w-40 in your car.
Castrol Edge 5w 30 Oil $40 Repco
180
Happy501 on 15/07/2014 - 11:56 catalogues.repco.com.au (771 clicks)
Last edited 15/07/2014 - 12:58 by 1 other user
Last edited 15/07/2014 - 12:58 by 1 other user
Related Stores
closed Comments
No worries :-)
Don't forget to go to supper cheap for a price beat…
For a Fully Synthetic this is very cheap. (Not sure if its actually good though) I use to bring my own 5L container to the local AMSOil dealer and fill up for about $90 for Fully Syn for 5L depending on USD rate.
For more reading on Oils check out the following link - http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/
So what didn't you neggers like? The fact that your little motor extravagance has been called out or that your choice of expensive and totally unnecessary synthetic oil has been brought into question? Next you'll be hiding the fact that you put nitrogen into your tyres to fractionally reduce the temperature. As I said, your choice.
I want to let people who need 5w-30 for their car know of the bargain so they can save money. It is part of being in a community of savers.
I don't care about your philosophy on oil usage/quality/brand. Find an oil forum to debate it.
I didn't neg your post pal so have a sook elsewhere. I simply responded to the obvious contradiction in your comment about keeping your money in your pocket while promoting an expensive and unnecessary (in most cases) oil. 99.9% of road users will see NO difference whether they use expensive synthetic oil or far cheaper, rated mineral oil. Got no problem with those who choose the expensive option - it's their wallets and their choice. As placebo consistently shows if it gives you a warm feeling of security no matter how misplaced it's probably worth it for your peace of mind.
You did say some people would see a difference so that's reasonable. I'd disagree on the exact percentage being 0.1%. I'd agree that it'd definitely be a minority.
I think you got downvoted because your first post didn't say something along the lines of "most people don't need this" but "people who prefer to keep their cash won't be buying expensive and unnecessary synthetic oil for their cars." which suggests that there is no possible use for this oil and that people who buy it throw cash away regularly on stupid things. So it's quite insulting and factually inaccurate and therefore gets downvoted fairly.
The negs don't bother me, the mentality does. The irony of the initial comment was lost on the OP and the neggers no doubt. The % was just for emphasis. The notion that car manufacturers who actually "recommend" or even "mandate" synthetic oil build motors which are so poorly designed that they require the very small improvement (in normal circunstances) gained by syn oil is total nonsense.
Anyone who has done any reading on the subject knows that good syn oils are chemically able to deal with extreme heat better that (most) good mineral oils. They might even allow you to extend your oil changes fractionally, and there are claims that the improved viscousity of syn might even improve fuel consumption in some circumstances. However there is no independent testing to verify or quantify the value of any of this for "typical" motoring.
The oil/fuel comparison elsewhere is little more than junk. Unlike an engine which should function perfectly with most rated high-grade oils (under "normal" motoring) a vehicle's EMS has been set up specifically to operate most efficiently on fuels with specific octane and, more importantly, energy ratings. Even ethanol blends can have high RON ratings. MON is a more important measure from an anti-knock and performance perspective.
In all honesty I couldn't care less what you have to say about the oil in this forum.
You don't know what engines people here are using this on.For anyone that uses this oil for whatever reason, technical or simply by preference, it's a good price compared to how much it usually sells for and gets my up-vote.
In all honesty you missed the point, but thanks for weighing in with your ever so well-informed opinion. Let me make it clear to you - the deal's fine if you choose to use this brand of unnecessarily expensive syn oil. Like you I really don't give a fig what you put in your own car but suggesting it's a sound mechanical or economic decision is only marginally ahead of creative design in the credibility stakes.
@Possumbly: i don't doubt there's some marketing spin when it comes to oils but unless you can provide some definitive data to back up why i should go against my owner's handbook to use only manufacturer-approved, fully synthetic oils over mineral or semi-synthetics, take your aggro keyboard warrior attitude elsewhere.
You'd take my word for it instead of doing your own research? After your 95 RON comment you probably should but frankly I wouldn't recommend it. What was it your wrote? Get a clue. You got that right at least.
@Possumbly: well if you're going to come blowing in belittling the OP and everyone else, then at least have something to back yourself up if you want to be taken seriously.
the way you carry on like a douchebag, it's as if the wrong oil into you lol
@tdw: Lol. I made a fairly innocuous comment, one or two went on the attack and I responded. Big deal. You had a swing and missed by a long way, threw in the childish "get a clue" comment (typical of your so called keyboard warriors - what a pathetic cliche that is), and you talk about me being taken seriously? Add in your latest "douchebag" effort and you're well and truly into the big league of puerile teenage online commentary. On top of that you want me to spoonfeed you about vehicle basics and demand that I provide "definitive data" to change your mind. Next you'll be asking me to prove God doesn't exist. The data doesn't exist as I've already indicated and you might speculate as to why that may be the case. When you grow up you might realise the difference between hype and fact.
Where was the irony in the comment?
I don't think it's a poor design to make things with smaller tolerances and using a more specific fuel or oil, because they can squeeze slightly more performance or efficiency out of an engine by designing it that way. It is deliberate. The older cars are built to a much larger tolerance and varying quality of oils and fuel etc but they are less efficient in design. Eg. an old beetle could run on practically anything and you wouldn't notice a difference, but a new highly tuned turbocharged sports car would notice minor changes in quality of fluids you put in it. That's the trade off for better performance.
Perhaps the difference is exaggerated by many, and obviously it'd be exaggerated by the companies trying to sell the more premium fluids, but that doesn't mean that woolies brand basic mineral oil will make 0 difference in an M3 over a period of 300,000 kms compared to the best stuff around. Of course it would.
The part that I'd perhaps agree with you more on is that there's no point spending $100 on oil and replacing it once every 15,000 kms when you could instead buy $30 decent semi syn stuff and replace it every 5,000 kms and still have cash left over and you'd definitely have less engine wear as well.
The irony was obvious. Save money by buying expensive oil which MIGHT have some tiny advantage in a very few scenarios (not encountered by the vast majority of drivers). There is no credible evidence of "less engine wear" as you claim, simply scientific analysis of what happens to syn oils under extreme temps compared to "equivalent" mineral oils and extrapolation of what that MIGHT mean in a small percentage of cases. The same can be said for claims of improvements in "performance" due to better/more consistent viscosity of syn oil. These are assumptions - albeit with a small measure of logic behind them, unproven by proper testing. Your talk about tolerances has no relevance in the syn/mineral oil discussion in the case of "equivalent" oils. Particular oils are undoubtedly suited to particular designs and some current oils, despite being far higher spec, are not at all suitable for older vehicles.
I wonder how many of the synthetic oil buyers pay the same "respect" to their tyres. Very few I suspect because in the end for most people it's a compromise between cost, convenience, and performance/safety. For most, syn oil is little more than the motoring equivalent of comfort food.
How is buying something which may or may not have a benefit ironic?
Also, you clearly misread my post if you thought I was suggesting that $100 oil would result in "less engine wear" as that entire paragraph was saying the opposite.
As for consistency of viscosity being an improvement based on logic but without testing, what's the point there?
The talk of tolerances was a reply to your talk about some of these engines being "poorly designed" due to more demanding recommendations in a broad general sense. I was explaining how some engines are built to lower tolerances and therefore have more specific requirements and the tradeoffs that such a design has and why it is therefore not necessarily a "poor design". That was separate to your syn/mineral discussion.
Further to the last paragraph, I'd agree with your sentence, "Particular oils are undoubtedly suited to particular designs and some current oils, despite being far higher spec, are not at all suitable for older vehicles." because there are a lot of oils and some are more suitable to certain cars. Some (the minority) require more synthetic types with more specific viscosity etc.
As for tyres, I agree, they are very important and probably most people don't spend enough on their tyres really. People underestimate the importance of those. Almost everyone compromises on them however, because spending thousands on tyres every few months so that you get the best grip levels isn't worth it on a cost/benefit balance even for the ones who do put a lot of thought into them. Especially if they are just driving at normal speed on the street.
As for your final sentence, "For most, syn oil is little more than the motoring equivalent of comfort food." I don't agree. If you mean "most" as in most of the population, you'd find that probably 80% of the population just go to their mechanic for a service and never even know what type of oil they are running and it's probably nothing special or synthetic at all. For the small minority who do their own servicing or purchase their own oil, only a very small minority of those people bother to purchase expensive full synthetic oil for their vehicles. This is apparent from the fact that these oils make up a tiny percentage of the oils on the shelf at supercheap auto and other stores and they are often dusty and seem to have been sitting there a while. So you're talking about a tiny fraction of the tiny fraction of the tiny fraction. How many of those people are in that minority who run Skylines on 30psi of boost tuned to 300rwKW on a e85 and track their vehicles fairly regularly etc and have fairly specific needs? Probably a lot of them actually. And for someone who has invested a lot of money into building their engine, any small cheap insurance like that becomes more worthwhile. So your initial comment which comes across as saying "anyone who buys synthetic oil is an idiot" would quite obviously offend those tiny few who do actually purchase it but have a good reason to do so. Your idea that mums and dads are buying royal purple full synthetic oil for the stock VS commodore is definitely not an accurate picture of what's happening.
Old saying - it's foolish to argue with a fool, nevertheless I'm back for one parting shot. Look up the word irony - I've already explained where the irony was, you simply need to understand the concept. Your waffle about tolerances shows you actually have little idea of the topic of motor design or in what circumstances and how syn oil might be a worthwhile improvement over mineral oil. My initial statement implied nothing about "idiocy" although I admit that yours and a few other subsequent comments would have confirmed that diagnosis had I made it. On top of your inability to absorb facts and understand simple argument I see you also have a propensity for inventing comments - hopefully the mums and dads you mention taught their kids better.
I really don't care whether you agree or not - I've pointed out the facts and it's up to you do do the research - which will mostly confirm the basic statements I've made and the lack of supporting evidence regarding claims made by syn oil marketers - or rather the notions planted that syn oil will give them protection not available in far cheaper oils. It MAY, but only in exceptional circumstances.
So that you don't lie awake at night in a lather of sweat wondering, the "logic" point was this. Lab/bench testing can show certain unalienable scientific facts about oil performance under stress. Using those accepted facts we might logically conclude that a measure of improved "performance" could/should then result under "normal" running in a motor vehicle. Seems logical and reasonable but bench testing should be regarded with scepticism, especially where claims of improved performance and reduced engine wear in "the real world" are concerned. There are far too many factors involved in those areas to draw such conclusions. Even "mums and dads" know the effects of short runs on motors and why taxis for example often go for a 100,000km longer before needing major engine work than Joe Blogg's private car. It isn't the oil.
Well you did say that "people who prefer to keep their cash..won't be buying synthetic oil" and this is ozbargain, so what other kind of people here would be actually wanting to throw away their cash other than someone with some degree of idiocy? It's quite obviousl how that sentence would be taken from the context as evidenced by all of your downvotes due to insulting people.
The fact that you refer to me as a fool is evidence that you have no issue with being rude and insulting, so all of your comments have only confirmed that your attitude towards people initially was one of looking down on them and seeing them as idiots to some degree.
As for your argument, the "facts" that you argued were simply that there are no facts based on practical testing. That's a fine and valid point, but you expect people to just accept that because there are no "facts", your opinion is the most credible source of information. You didn't really go into anything specific to back up your claims.
We agreed broadly that most people in most cars don't NEED synthetic and won't see a difference from using it. The difference in our positions isn't actually that large, you just won't address them properly and prefer to be insulting.
I think the difference in our views is that you claim only a tiny minority would benefit from synthetic oils (which I agreed with) but you wouldn't specify any examples of who would. You did quantify it as 0.1% but then retracted that later saying it was just for emphasis.
So what cars and use cases do you believe it may provide some (albett small) benefit to?Also re my point in the post before this that the people you're talking about who purchase this stuff (a very tiny tiny fraction of all drivers) most likely are far more likely to fit into that category as well. So which people do you believe are buying full synthetic mistakenly all the time and how much money are they wasting?
Because if you're talking about all of the people with tuned modified cars who track them and purchase expensive oils for their cars, they probably do see some benefit from it, so are you suggesting that mums and dads are buying unnecessary oil or what? If you're more specific then it's more of a discussion rather than trading barbs. That's the main issue here really, it's not clear exactly who you're suggesting is incorrectly purchasing the oil and it sounds as if you're saying nobody should even for $40 when many mineral oils cost more than that.I myself drive a tuned boosted turbo car and I don't run full synthetic myself for the reasons i discussed earlier. Why spend $100 on royal purple and change it half as often, when I can spend $30 on some decent but not overpriced oil that matches my required specs, change it twice as often and still have money left over? No oil can last double as long as another, so changing it more frequently instead of spending more will always be better. The dirtier the oil, the more abrasive it is and the more sludge can build etc.
Perhaps that is a point you are also trying to make?That being said, if I was to pay $40 for some castrol edge, like in the deal, that wouldn't necessarily be a bad purchase compared to the other oils available (whether synthetic or not) for the price. There are many factors that go into oil quality in theory and being synthetic is only one of them.
With the lab tests vs real life, I'm sure lab tests that say something positive about synthetics are somewhat of an indication that in some use cases they can be beneficial, as you also seem to believe. Of course, like you said, there are a million variables to engine wear and like you said, everyone knows the effects of short runs and sees the castrol magnatec tv ads saying 80% of engine wear occurs shortly after starting the engine.
It's for these reasons that real life tests are not practical and are pointless since anybody could dispute them. But if an oil breaks down less under high temperatures in a lab, then using it for a case where it's going to be operating at high temperature for long periods has some evidence of benefit obviously. In fact that'd probably be a stronger proof of that specific example than any real world test, since real world tests would have too many other variables.
some cars require fully synthetic oil.
just like some cars require minimum 95RON fuel.get a clue.
Do some reading. Some (euro) manufacturers have specs which they claim may only be met by SOME synthetic oils but there is zero evidence of benefit or detriment. There's plenty of bullsh** and hype around but plenty of disinterested commentators think product licensing has more to do with these manufacturer specs than protection or need.
Racq etc card results in extra 20%discount atm
Does that include items already discounted? Or only on retail pricing?
Repco's VIP card only gives 10% and even then it's only on full priced items.only applies to full priced items :(
Not in the catalogue as well…
Might have to rock up to the shop and ask them will the 20/25% discount applies to full priced but in catalogue products. Castrol Edge FST 5w-30 is the prime example @ $50 a pop.
handy for the oil filter.
Thankyou! time to stock up :)
how long can you store the oil, if kept in the bottle?
Will be OK in your engine for a year so I assume if in unopened bottle should be a lot longer that that.
As long as its stored in a dark and cool area (e.g. cupboard in the garage)
Good price. Sometimes comes cheaper, but if you're after some good, cheap oil soon this is great
What is the practical difference between this and the "fuel saver" magnatec 5w30 ?
Any reason to get the latter when it is not cheaper?I'm assuming either will work fine in a Falcon which specifies ILSAC GF3 5w30.
I may be wrong but my take is that… Edge is marketed with a "suitable for performance car" sales pitch… so probably suits to people whose driving habits are more demanding (the drag racers)… While Magnatec is more aimed towards older car with higher mileage (where reduced starting friction of from already worn components is more important).
To me "Fuel Saver" is just a marketing pitch trying to distinguish the product against the competition
Yes, thats the marketing, but is the much difference in practice ?
Apparently 30 vs 40 weight can make 1% difference to fuel economy, but I suspect the variance between different 5w30 oils is much less.And what is "high milage"? Does 100kkm on a Falcodore count as high milage these days, or is it just wearing in?
Magnatec is semi-synthetic, whilst Edge is "full synthetic". Better wear protection with a full synthetic.
100K is nothing. I'm still using a 5W-30 full synthetic in a 2005 Magna that has 210k on the clock. About 500mls of make up oil added over 10000kms oil change interval. When it starts burning a litre or more I'll probably switch to a 40. The other Magna was traded in at 280,000 and it didn't even use any oil between changes (5W-30).
My car is using this now of same fuel comsumption as before , but prefer 10w40 with much smoother running .
Damn I got this last weekend for "on special" for $49.99.
Time to stock up. Thanks OP