5-year oil changes? Castrol thinks so

[pitzel]

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/denis.werb/bpf03lubricants.pdf

"Surprisingly, one of the most demanding
environments for motor oil is low mileage,
stop-start urban driving, when full engine
working temperatures are rarely attained and
lubricant additive chemistry remains unactivated.
This represents one of the extreme
environments that need to be tested in the
course of product development. A three-year
test involving a large fleet of low mileage
vehicles was developed and carried out at
Castrol’s Pangbourne research facility in
Berkshire in the UK. This test is many more
times severe than real life but proves beyond
doubt that the new lubricant is well capable
of handling the large amounts of fuel and
water that condense into the lubricant under
these conditions. Although the VW
involvement in this trial is complete, Castrol
is now continuing it with some of these cars
into their fifth year – with no oil change."

If what Castrol is saying is true, then the whole concept of the 3-month, or even the 1-year oil change with synthetic oil really is highly meaningless and very wasteful.

A couple other interesting comments, one inferring that diesel oils really aren't that great in petrol-fired engines because the additives promote thickening.

pschole, is GC and Castrol SLX Longlife II the same thing?

 

[Audi Junkie]

SLX-II is a low HT/HS version for use in Audis with Flexible Service Interval system. Engine mods include roller rockers and a monitoring system to use this oil that would damage a normal engine.

 

[CosmicFlash]

pschole, is GC and Castrol SLX Longlife II the same thing?

I e-mailed Castrol the same question and they specifically said NO...
Their quote:
"No the SYNTEC 0w-30 is not the same as the SLX 0w-30. The SYNTEC 0w-30
is the same as the German 0w-30 available in the US, however."

 

[pitzel]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Audi Junkie:
SLX-II is a low HT/HS version for use in Audis with Flexible Service Interval system. Engine mods include roller rockers and a monitoring system to use this oil that would damage a normal engine.

---

What are you implying? That using SLX II in a normal engine would damage it? That the VW scheme of lubricant life monitoring is so precise that it can predict, to within a couple thousand km's, the life of the lubricant? I do know that those cars use an oilpan-mounted instrument to measure some characteristics of the oil, but can they really be that precise?

More to my original point, the Castrol testing seems to indicate that time-based intervals, instead of mileage-based intervals are really irrelevant, and that short-trips shouldn't really be considered 'severe' service as they are commonly in owners manuals.

Reading an owners manual for an American car would have the owner believing that horrible things will occur to an engine, even if infrequently (like once a week) driven, if the oil is not changed every 3 months or 6 months or 1 year, 'whichever comes first'. That oil somehow suffers really bad effects if its used on short trips a lot, or if its left in the crankcase for extended periods of time. Many of us believe that fuel contamination and water contamination can be 'cured' with a good long drive -- the Castrol study would appear to back this thinking up.

 

[pscholte]

quote:

---

Originally posted by CosmicFlash:
pschole, is GC and Castrol SLX Longlife II the same thing?

I e-mailed Castrol the same question and they specifically said NO...
Their quote:
"No the SYNTEC 0w-30 is not the same as the SLX 0w-30. The SYNTEC 0w-30
is the same as the German 0w-30 available in the US, however."

---

C...F...,

Based on the technical data I have (and, of course, what the Elves pass on to me) I believe GC is the same as SLX in its original formulation. While I have heard of Longlife II and just did a Google search on it, I do not know anything about it except that it appears it is an SLX variant that meets certain VW and Audi specs; therefore, I agree with Castrol...GC and SLX II are NOT the same oil (at least not exactly the same). I do believe that GC and SLX ARE the same.

Hope this helps.

 

[SteveD2]

Seems to me that this would be information castrol would want kept secret. They're only going to loose alot of sales if everybody starts changing their oil every 5 years.

Won't be long now, we'll have sealed for life engines...

 

[Gene K]

Automobile Manufactures are already discussing engines sealed for life.

Gene

 

[73Duster]

back in the 90's there was a bill before the house and senate which was referred to as the "clunker bill" I think its offical name was the "Roth Bill". Its goal was to not allow anyone to drive a vehicle that was older than 5 yrs. This was all under the guise of "Cleaner emissions" whereas with improve technology each yr for cleaner exhaust emissions anything older than 5 yrs would be polluting to much. Any logical reasonable person can see the big picture and the implications, whereas that bill is being accomplished through the backdoor while the average american is asleep even though the bill was defeated and never came up again.
On a side note a similar 5 yr ownership program/law is presently enforced in japan, whereas one is charged extreme taxes if u own a vehicle older than 5 yrs.

 

[labman]

OK, I have been into this every 3 months nonsense for over 12 years because of a sludge problem in my 81 Pontiac Phoenix V-6. My Cavalier and LUV are both out of warrantee. Say December I put in a synthetic, whatever Big Lots has cheap at the time if any. Then in June I do UOA's, and in December every year afterwards along with a filter change. I also look in the oil fill hole the best I can 6 month intervals. Any other checks I could do? I change oil when I see a problem.

So other than Roth, who voted for that stupidity? Can somebody post names here to deny them the BITOG vote tomorrow?

 

[Kestas]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 73Duster:
back in the 90's there was a bill before the house and senate which was referred to as the "clunker bill" I think its offical name was the "Roth Bill". Its goal was to not allow anyone to drive a vehicle that was older than 5 yrs...

---

It would be a sad day if this bill were to pass. I drive no more than 3000 miles on any of my cars in a given year. Plus one of my cars is 33 years old. Imagine having to junk classic cars or cars with only 15,000 miles! Also, not too long ago, I paid $30,000 for a seven year old car which is my daily summertime driver!

 

[Jimbo]

"Northern Europe is recognised as the most demanding environment in the world for motor oils."

That beginning statement taints the whole study in my eyes. North America has more extreme climates, dirtier fuels and an extreme variety of other operating conditions, such as towing of heavy trailers accross the desert in summer or short trips to the post office in sub-zero weather. Typical Euopean arrogance that has led to proprietary oil specifications from each manufacturer. The October issue of " Lubes 'n Greases" has an article about this subject.

Oil thickening of "diesel" formulas in gasoline engines is a new one on me. Do the UOA's here show that? Delo 400 stays "in grade" in my gasoline powered BMW.

The last couple of paragraphs show that Europe is behind the US in emissions and fuel economy requirements. I think it will be tough to go with super extended drain intervals on low HTHS, low phosphorus oil formulations.

 

[farfel]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 73Duster:
"Roth Bill". Its goal was to not allow anyone to drive a vehicle that was older than 5 yrs.

---

That would be extremely stupid. The amount of pollutants to build a new car FAR exceeds the difference between a 2000 & a 2005 model. Such a Bill would *increase* pollutants, not reduce them.

I had an old 250,000 mile car... it only put out 10% of the allowable limit. It's HOW you maintain the car, not some random age.

Japan Gov't = Idiots.

 

[labman]

I am surprised this thread sort of died. Isn't the 5 year OCI a little extreme?

 

[SteveD2]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 73Duster:
back in the 90's there was a bill before the house and senate which was referred to as the "clunker bill" I think its offical name was the "Roth Bill". Its goal was to not allow anyone to drive a vehicle that was older than 5 yrs. This was all under the guise of "Cleaner emissions" whereas with improve technology each yr for cleaner exhaust emissions anything older than 5 yrs would be polluting to much. Any logical reasonable person can see the big picture and the implications, whereas that bill is being accomplished through the backdoor while the average american is asleep even though the bill was defeated and never came up again.
On a side note a similar 5 yr ownership program/law is presently enforced in japan, whereas one is charged extreme taxes if u own a vehicle older than 5 yrs.

---

That would NEVER happen in the US. Did they plan on buying everyone with an old car a new one?

My old '90 Cherokee with a bad cat and an extremely poorly maintained engine still passed it's emissions test perfectly.

 

[ekpolk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gene K:
Automobile Manufactures are already discussing engines sealed for life.

Gene

---

A scary thought indeed. My '04 G35 sedan (which I managed to get for less than many pay for a loaded V-6 Camry, btw) comes with the transmission dipstick bolted down. Actually for the first year of G35 production (2003), the cars came with just a cap bolted down on the dipstick -- no dipstick included. On principle, I unbolted mine and checked the fluid, noting the stern warnings to use only Nissan "Matic-J" ATF or the trans will be damaged. Fluid was dead on the full mark and was just light pink ATF smelling stuff -- didn't look special at all.

I wonder which engine opening Nissan will seal next??? Someday, they'll finally seal the intake and exhaust and all we'll know is that under the hood there's a small lump of metal that purrs when you want the car to go. They probably think we're too dumb to understand that. . .

 

[SteveD2]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ekpolk:
They probably think we're too dumb to understand that. . .

---

Unfortuneately, most people are.

 

[Redneck53]

quote:

---

Automobile Manufactures are already discussing engines sealed for life.

---

Gene, I believe that this is not entirely a new idea. Didn' Rolls Royce have factory sealed engines?

 

[XS650]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Redneck53:

quote:

---

Automobile Manufactures are already discussing engines sealed for life.

---

Gene, I believe that this is not entirely a new idea. Didn' Rolls Royce have factory sealed engines?

---

Urban legend.

 

[Blokey]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 73Duster:
On a side note a similar 5 yr ownership program/law is presently enforced in japan, whereas one is charged extreme taxes if u own a vehicle older than 5 yrs.

---

I read that the main reason they did this was to legislate "planned obsolesence" in their auto industry. By making a car more expensive to maintain than to purchase a new one, it keeps domestic car sales up.
Apparently Japanese recycle yards are full of viable cars in a condition that folks in most other countries would operate for years.

With the US being such a large country with a comparatively underdeveloped mass transit system, a law maker would have to be incredibly stupid to even draft such a draconian piece of legislation for consideration in this country.