Stand by man, I am going to get a oil anaylsis and I will report here. Cuz, i like the Supertech Synthetic, its driving **** here and alot of wear on my car and my car is doing fine.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
2 year supertech synthetic user needs edumication
- Thread starter Korean_redneck
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Quote :
" Second, I have a real problem with Castrol secretly ditching its PAO formulation, replacing it with a new G-III base oil that costs half as much to produce, and then continuing to sell it to the public for the same full price, without disclosing what they're doing. Yes, I happen to be a free market believer, but I also think that some form of corporate ethics standards should be followed. NOt for Castrol, though. They are happy to exploit the careful use of partial truth to continue making themselves a windfall from folks who think they're getting one thing, when the whole truth is that they're getting something else. "
Ek ,
I'm not with you nor against you here although I do have my own personal feelings however I just wanted to point out that Castrol is being singled out here . Others jumped on that group III wagon to include Pennzoil , Valvoline , Phillips and Chevron ect. All of them had PAO formulas previously .
I do believe Shell still has two 30wt PCMO's thats made with PAO's . But to my knowledge thats it in the OTC oils currently avaialable .
" Second, I have a real problem with Castrol secretly ditching its PAO formulation, replacing it with a new G-III base oil that costs half as much to produce, and then continuing to sell it to the public for the same full price, without disclosing what they're doing. Yes, I happen to be a free market believer, but I also think that some form of corporate ethics standards should be followed. NOt for Castrol, though. They are happy to exploit the careful use of partial truth to continue making themselves a windfall from folks who think they're getting one thing, when the whole truth is that they're getting something else. "
Ek ,
I'm not with you nor against you here although I do have my own personal feelings however I just wanted to point out that Castrol is being singled out here . Others jumped on that group III wagon to include Pennzoil , Valvoline , Phillips and Chevron ect. All of them had PAO formulas previously .
I do believe Shell still has two 30wt PCMO's thats made with PAO's . But to my knowledge thats it in the OTC oils currently avaialable .
I don't think it's correct to say that Castrol abandoned PAO oils. Now, their USA Syntec brand, yes. I find it very interesting that GC is probably not G-III, most think a G-IV with a little G-V, and no one is complaining or commenting that Castrol is actually giving some people more than they expect.
I was sorta waiting for someone to bring up the inconsistency. I'm being pretty hard on Castrol (I think they deserve it), but I'm also experimenting with German Castrol.quote:
Originally posted by joatmon:
I don't think it's correct to say that Castrol abandoned PAO oils. Now, their USA Syntec brand, yes. I find it very interesting that GC is probably not G-III, most think a G-IV with a little G-V, and no one is complaining or commenting that Castrol is actually giving some people more than they expect.
You're right, perhaps "abandon" is the wrong word. It would be more accurate to criticize them for their "bait-and-switch" trick. They started with a good PAO product, appropriately priced for what it was. Then, they snuck in a new, much cheaper G-III product, and continued to represent it as the same thing while charging the old PAO price. Ultimately G-III may be perfectly functional oil for most uses, but this is just waaaay too sneaky for my taste. If your local auto or appliance dealer plays "bait-and-switch" it's condemned as an unethical or even illegal business practice, but when a big oil company, with a scary army of lawyers does it, well, ummm, that's OK.
We could beat this dead horse all afternoon. Personally I feel that differentiating whether group III is or is not synthetic is a battle that is long over. Mobil certainly won the PR battle with oil afficianados. Castrol, however, may have won with the broader marketplace. Although Mobil 1 is the top selling synthetic, group III rules most of the rest of the synthetic market and the entire synthetic industry is dwarfed by the dino. market. I'm sure there are a lot more bottles of Pennzoil sold than Mobil 1.
I was impressed by the (Chevron?) study touting group III oils as being (often) as superior as PAO's.
Since this started out as a ST thread, I'll re-remind everyone that there was a Warren chemist who responded to a phone question by stating that ST was a PAO (that week, maybe?).
At any rate, I think there's entirely too many Mobil 1 UOA's posted (as a percentage) and am looking forward to the ST synthetic UOA being posted.
I was impressed by the (Chevron?) study touting group III oils as being (often) as superior as PAO's.
Since this started out as a ST thread, I'll re-remind everyone that there was a Warren chemist who responded to a phone question by stating that ST was a PAO (that week, maybe?).
At any rate, I think there's entirely too many Mobil 1 UOA's posted (as a percentage) and am looking forward to the ST synthetic UOA being posted.
That's not the horse I'm beating on. As I said, G-III may be fine for most uses. It's Castrol's misrepresentation and dishonesty that bother me. The battle to assure that TRUTH overcomes dishonesty and half-truth will apparently never be over. If they'd just be fully honest about what they're selling, that would silence a lot of people like me. And you wouldn't have to lose patience with threads like this one.quote:
Originally posted by csandste:
We could beat this dead horse all afternoon. Personally I feel that differentiating whether group III is or is not synthetic is a battle that is long over. Mobil certainly won the PR battle with oil afficianados. Castrol, however, may have won with the broader marketplace.
you know what would be really nice, if some sort of regulation was placed on oil makers/marketers for their bottling. Prohibit the use of the word synthetic, and only let them label it as engine oil, with the current API rating and other specs that it meets, and have an ingredients list telling the base oil(s) used.
How nice would it be to see bottles saying, group II, group II/III blend, group IV, V, etc?
How nice would it be to see bottles saying, group II, group II/III blend, group IV, V, etc?
I singled out Castrol because they seem to have been the instigators of this mess. The others scurried in behind to take advantage of the NAD decision. Upon some reflection, I'm not really sure, at least for myself, which is the slimier approach.quote:
Originally posted by Motorbike:
Ek ,
I'm not with you nor against you here although I do have my own personal feelings however I just wanted to point out that Castrol is being singled out here . Others jumped on that group III wagon to include Pennzoil , Valvoline , Phillips and Chevron ect. All of them had PAO formulas previously .
I do believe Shell still has two 30wt PCMO's thats made with PAO's . But to my knowledge thats it in the OTC oils currently avaialable .
Don't forget about good ole' Mobil-1. It's the obvious OTC PAO that remains easily available. A year or so ago, I had an interesting email exchange with one of their reps. My concern was that the change from Tri-Synthetic to Supersyn was an indication that Mobil had tucked its tail and joined Castrol, having not beat them. The rep assured me that Mobil will remain primarily PAO (with some G-V for good measure, depending upon product).
[ May 12, 2004, 12:35 PM: Message edited by: ekpolk ]
You know, the changing of products we know and love is just an inherint part of the free market system. You normally can't sit still with a product. You must improve it and/or lower its cost. Mobil 1 was introduced as an extended drain oil. Mobil 1 has backed off that claim, but in a very subtle way. You know what I would find interesting. Question for TooSlick, MolaKule, etc. Is the Castrol Systec G-III stuff a better oil than the old PAOs from years ago? Not the base stock, but the whole enchilada? If it protects better, do we care, or I should say, does the average consumer care?quote:
Originally posted by ekpolk:
That's not the horse I'm beating on. As I said, G-III may be fine for most uses. It's Castrol's misrepresentation and dishonesty that bother me. The battle to assure that TRUTH overcomes dishonesty and half-truth will apparently never be over. If they'd just be fully honest about what they're selling, that would silence a lot of people like me. And you wouldn't have to lose patience with threads like this one.quote:
Originally posted by csandste:
We could beat this dead horse all afternoon. Personally I feel that differentiating whether group III is or is not synthetic is a battle that is long over. Mobil certainly won the PR battle with oil afficianados. Castrol, however, may have won with the broader marketplace.
Think of all the products that have been cheaponed over the years. Cars, movers, lawn sprayers, etc. Remember your dad's old Hudson sprayer? All metal. New ones are almost all plastic. Cheaper to build, cheaper to buy, cheaper to maintain (no rust concerns), and they may last longer for the average consumer. Did Hudson do a good thing? Yeah, I know that the changes there are obvious. But the benefits were not obvious when they first started using plastic.
I'm not a Castrol apologist, but I do think the path they took with Syntec is pretty typical in the capitalistic, free-enterprize system.
/soap box mode off
[ May 13, 2004, 09:13 AM: Message edited by: joatmon ]
I too am a free enterprise capitalist. With that, I have no problem. But I also believe that business should be governed by some sense of honesty and ethics vs. just plain old profit motive. I mean, is it OK to lie, steal, cheat; to do or say anything if it adds a penny to the bottom line? IMO, the answer is no.
I happen to be a lawyer (actually, I've been "drafted" back into the Marines for now, but law is my chosen profession...). Despite all the jokes an insurance company propaganda that are out there, we actually happen to be governed by a pretty rigid code of ethics (which does vary from state to state). You can debate the effectiveness of ethical codes, but I can assure you that if I tell a client that I'm providing a $5000 service, and collect that $, and then knowingly substitute in its place a $3000 service (note carefully the numbers I selected), I would be disbarred, period.
Yes, I know that providing sensitive legal services and selling oil are very different situations. But the fact remains, most of us don't like being lied to or deceived. G-III may be perfectly functional stuff, but the fact remains that Castrol chose to deceive its customers to better line its pockets. That's just not right.
I happen to be a lawyer (actually, I've been "drafted" back into the Marines for now, but law is my chosen profession...). Despite all the jokes an insurance company propaganda that are out there, we actually happen to be governed by a pretty rigid code of ethics (which does vary from state to state). You can debate the effectiveness of ethical codes, but I can assure you that if I tell a client that I'm providing a $5000 service, and collect that $, and then knowingly substitute in its place a $3000 service (note carefully the numbers I selected), I would be disbarred, period.
Yes, I know that providing sensitive legal services and selling oil are very different situations. But the fact remains, most of us don't like being lied to or deceived. G-III may be perfectly functional stuff, but the fact remains that Castrol chose to deceive its customers to better line its pockets. That's just not right.
The perception that Castrol is a cheap to produce, junk/overpriced Group III is incorrect.
There is more than one way to skin a cat.
Some N/A Castrol products contain Slack Wax, PAO, and GPIII components.
Having a closed mind can not produce better chemistry.
A PAO base oil only does not equal a superior product. It ain't that simple guys.
There is more than one way to skin a cat.
Some N/A Castrol products contain Slack Wax, PAO, and GPIII components.
Having a closed mind can not produce better chemistry.
A PAO base oil only does not equal a superior product. It ain't that simple guys.
I'm sorry, but motor oil is a commodity item and I still think that lawyers are not something you pick on price and specs!quote:
Originally posted by ekpolk:
I too am a free enterprise capitalist. With that, I have no problem. But I also believe that business should be governed by some sense of honesty and ethics vs. just plain old profit motive. I mean, is it OK to lie, steal, cheat; to do or say anything if it adds a penny to the bottom line? IMO, the answer is no.
I happen to be a lawyer (actually, I've been "drafted" back into the Marines for now, but law is my chosen profession...). Despite all the jokes an insurance company propaganda that are out there, we actually happen to be governed by a pretty rigid code of ethics (which does vary from state to state). You can debate the effectiveness of ethical codes, but I can assure you that if I tell a client that I'm providing a $5000 service, and collect that $, and then knowingly substitute in its place a $3000 service (note carefully the numbers I selected), I would be disbarred, period.
Yes, I know that providing sensitive legal services and selling oil are very different situations. But the fact remains, most of us don't like being lied to or deceived. G-III may be perfectly functional stuff, but the fact remains that Castrol chose to deceive its customers to better line its pockets. That's just not right.
My point was and is that Castrol was following a logical progression in the life cycle of a product, and to assume that it was meant to deceive or harm without some sort of proof is, (well, I need a lawyer here to get the proper term), without merit.
My prior point that Castrol actually improved one of their products without fanfare by going beyond a G-III has been and continues to be ignored by the Castrol naysayers. However, their silence speaks volumes.
Jack
I am. For folks who don't care, fine, it doesn't matter to them. And I can even agree that it they didn't need to "publicise" the change. But when they carefully set up a situation where they sell a premium oil, for a premium price, then quietly switch in an oil that costs about half as much to make, while continuing to market with the same nomenclature and premium price, then I've got a problem. Are you saying it's OK to be deceptive, as long as you're only partly deceptive or if you're just selling a commodity? Look, I might even use a G-III myself, if it had the performance parameters I want. But I'll be darned if I'm going to be fooled or misled into paying a PAO/POE price for something that costs significantly less to make.quote:
Sneaky? You can't be serious.
Jack: The whole NAD fiasco isn't enough proof of what Castrol was doing? 1) They determined that it would cost them 40-50% less to make and market G-III as a "full synthetic" product. 2) They knew this had not been done before. Look at how they fought, and won, the battle to redefine the term "synthetic" to fit the product they had switched in place of the previous PAO. 3) Obviously knowing of the new reduced production cost, they left the selling price to the market the same as for the old product. 4) Not only did they NOT publicize the change, but they also refuse to acknowledge it when asked. When I complained, I got a fluffy letter that blathered on about how they always strive to keep their products performing best, and so forth.quote:
Originally posted by joatmon:
I'm sorry, but motor oil is a commodity item and I still think that lawyers are not something you pick on price and specs!quote:
Originally posted by ekpolk:
My point was and is that Castrol was following a logical progression in the life cycle of a product, and to assume that it was meant to deceive or harm without some sort of proof is, (well, I need a lawyer here to get the proper term), without merit.
Jack
While certainly circumstantial, all this leads to only one conclusion: Castrol was boosting the bottom line with a form of bait-and-switch. You are certainly entitled to believe this conclusion is without merit, but I think it's the only reasonable conclusion on the known facts.
OK, continue to beat the dead Castrol horse. Yes, they probably changed Syntec so that it cost less to make. Wow, imagine that.
Now, still no takers on the fact that the latest GC (Syntec 0W30) probably costs lots more to make!
Jack
Now, still no takers on the fact that the latest GC (Syntec 0W30) probably costs lots more to make!
Jack
1. Jack, you continue to overlook my WHOLE point. It's not just that it cost less to make. It's that PLUS they continued to represent it as if it was the same, previous costlier product, while charging customers the same old costlier price.quote:
Originally posted by joatmon:
OK, continue to beat the dead Castrol horse. Yes, they probably changed Syntec so that it cost less to make. Wow, imagine that.
Now, still no takers on the fact that the latest GC (Syntec 0W30) probably costs lots more to make!
Jack
2. Credit where credit is due. I'm experimenting with GC myself. If I find that it's the best product for my car, I'll use it. But I'll also keep an eye on this great corporate citizen, given their demonstrated willingness to bend the truth to suit thier own purposes.
Been there, read that; it's a good article, and a part of why I'm now more comfortable that G-IIIs can be fine oils. Heck, for $2.75 - 3.00 per quart, with a little old fashioned honesty on the side, I'd probably be a die-hard Syntec user right now.quote:
Originally posted by csandste:
Time to trot this out again????
http://www.chevron.com/prodserv/BaseOils/docs/npra_paper.pdf
I still haven't heard anyone tell me why it's ethical for Castrol to sell a cheaper-to-make product for the old expensive-to-make price, while creating the perception in customer's eyes that they're still getting the previous product.
Castrol wants everyone to think this horse is dead, but as long as they keep this up, it's not, and I'll beat it each time it rears up in front of me because IMO, it deserves to be beaten.
I'm a firm believer that costs (increases or decreases) should be passed on to the consumer.
If a company is saving money by using a less expensive product, then by all means lower the price. Anything less is a bit underhanded, unless that product can only be found at specialized boutiques, but that's neither here nor there.
That's why I don't use syntec regular, but I might use GC.
But to get back on topic, there is nothing wrong with using supertech synthetic for 5-6k w/ a supertech fiter. They are decent products sold at good prices.
[ May 13, 2004, 06:08 PM: Message edited by: seotaji ]
If a company is saving money by using a less expensive product, then by all means lower the price. Anything less is a bit underhanded, unless that product can only be found at specialized boutiques, but that's neither here nor there.
That's why I don't use syntec regular, but I might use GC.
But to get back on topic, there is nothing wrong with using supertech synthetic for 5-6k w/ a supertech fiter. They are decent products sold at good prices.
[ May 13, 2004, 06:08 PM: Message edited by: seotaji ]
You're absolutely right. But if you can't trust the information Castrol (or anyone else) supplies, how can you make an informed decision about what really is appropriate for your situation. As I've repeatedly said, G-III may make a fine product. But if it can REALLY stand on its own merits, why does Castrol have to be sneaky about their use of it? Again, I'd just like to see Castrol be honest and straight-up about its product so I can make an intelligent, properly informed decision about whether to use their G-III or something else.quote:
Originally posted by haley10:
The perception that Castrol is a cheap to produce, junk/overpriced Group III is incorrect.
There is more than one way to skin a cat.
Some N/A Castrol products contain Slack Wax, PAO, and GPIII components.
Having a closed mind can not produce better chemistry.
A PAO base oil only does not equal a superior product. It ain't that simple guys.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 11
- Views
- 4K
- Replies
- 18
- Views
- 14K
- Replies
- 11
- Views
- 4K
- Question
- Replies
- 10
- Views
- 1K