Did you really use it as cologne?
Do women like it better than regular Castrol?
BMW Syn. oil awesome?
- Thread starter Chris J.
- Start date
- Status
Do women like it better than regular Castrol?
But hold on Bob, does it "meet"? Is Larry making up the rules as he goes along? He says that it meets all the specs. except one......hello? I am quite sure that ACEA would not say close enough! As far as I am concerned it either meets them all or it does not "meet".
Furthermore, if it is as he says that ACEA spec. is not relevent to the North American market, then why bother putting it on the data sheet?
[ July 30, 2002, 12:54 AM: Message edited by: con carne ]
Furthermore, if it is as he says that ACEA spec. is not relevent to the North American market, then why bother putting it on the data sheet?
[ July 30, 2002, 12:54 AM: Message edited by: con carne ]
GOT ME??
I honestly don't know the answers to this but I do know that it works. As I see it, the HT/HS doesnt' take into account the barrier additives under stess and load like in an engine therefore I suspect you will do as many and see this minor component of the overall picture, discard it as being a less than quality oil and scratch yer head when the #'s on oil analysis seem to show it IS performing as good or better than some of the other higher ht/hs oils. Have you noticed that yet? Maybe there is something to be said to these bench tests just showing one aspect and not the whole overall picture you think? I've seen this before.. Terry has too. You think you find a weak spot but then you fail to examine just how another aspect or benifet of the oil has an effect on the weaker aspect that you think is less than desirable.
In the real life situations under analysis it gives you something to pause and think about don't you think?. Just something to think about.
In the real life situations under analysis it gives you something to pause and think about don't you think?. Just something to think about.
My wife has a BMW 528e. We went by the oil change indicators when new, and oil was changed at ~ 10-12k intervals by the dealer. At ~40k, I noticed lots of engine noise on startup. I started to do my own oil changes with Mobil 1 every 5k. Car was much quieter on startup, and it runs better today than 10 years ago. At ~180k, I took it in for inspection II (Big $ service) and asked them to put in syn. They used the BMW (Castrol) 10W30. I noticed that the oil was much darker at 4k than the Mobil 1 at 5k. I changed it with new BMW (Castrol) 10W30 at 184k. At 186k, it is fairly dirty. Why? Is it a different detergent package? The mechanical that changed the cam seal (common BMW maint. item) at 180k said the engine was very clean.
For what it's worth,
Jack
For what it's worth,
Jack
O.K. sure, it is good oil and it works, but that is not the issue. I, like Steve in SD, feel that this is misleading and that it is an issue of trust.
Is this a case of an oil company saying "tell them what they want to hear" when it comes to writing up the tech data sheets? It sure looks like it....and when questioned on this, they say "trust me, it's alright, we can do this, really."
Is this a case of an oil company saying "tell them what they want to hear" when it comes to writing up the tech data sheets? It sure looks like it....and when questioned on this, they say "trust me, it's alright, we can do this, really."
I'm not going to argue with you on this.. I agree.. DTA (Dont Trust Anybody). Do oil analysis and see for yourself just where it stands. I think the point here is that every oil company put specs down and how are you (and me) the consumer going to know what is or is not the truth? (oil analysis).
I think one thing about this issue with schaeffers, I have never, ever, seen them lie about anything. They haven't been in business over 162+ yrs by cheating or lieing to the public and I believe they aren't going to start anytime soon especially with the tech #'s.(not saying you said that just making a point)
It is expensive to have american oils tested for ACEA standards that are not applicable in the U.S. Therefore, there may be other oils out there that meet ACEA A3, but were not tested due to the cost of testing.
This is disturbing to me for a couple of reasons. If HTHS is truly just a guideline, then which other testing parameters are just guidelines as well?
The point he brings out here is, since it isn't applicable in the U.S, They are doing the test anyway but also letting you know where they do fall. how many companies are going to admit to the lower #?
Therefore, there may be other oils out there that meet ACEA A3, but were not tested due to the cost of testing.
it may be faulty to judge an oil quality based on meeting ACEA A3 specs, as they may just be guidelines after all. Therefore, by saying that BMW/Castrol oil meets ACEA A3/B3 doesn't mean much after all.
If schaeffers didn't do these tests, why would they post a number less than min? I honestly don't think they would if that was the case.
As pointed out, just maybe it would be fautly to judge an oil quality based on these specs based on this statement alone would you not agree?
Again DTA, do oil analysis and see for yourself.
And as I pointed out on another thread, schaeffers tends to go on the conservitive side of things for fear like many others of being sued if they were to fudge on the numbers. If Larry stated that it is a guidline I believe him as he is very maticulas on his information.
I think one thing about this issue with schaeffers, I have never, ever, seen them lie about anything. They haven't been in business over 162+ yrs by cheating or lieing to the public and I believe they aren't going to start anytime soon especially with the tech #'s.(not saying you said that just making a point)
It is expensive to have american oils tested for ACEA standards that are not applicable in the U.S. Therefore, there may be other oils out there that meet ACEA A3, but were not tested due to the cost of testing.
This is disturbing to me for a couple of reasons. If HTHS is truly just a guideline, then which other testing parameters are just guidelines as well?
The point he brings out here is, since it isn't applicable in the U.S, They are doing the test anyway but also letting you know where they do fall. how many companies are going to admit to the lower #?
Therefore, there may be other oils out there that meet ACEA A3, but were not tested due to the cost of testing.
it may be faulty to judge an oil quality based on meeting ACEA A3 specs, as they may just be guidelines after all. Therefore, by saying that BMW/Castrol oil meets ACEA A3/B3 doesn't mean much after all.
If schaeffers didn't do these tests, why would they post a number less than min? I honestly don't think they would if that was the case.
As pointed out, just maybe it would be fautly to judge an oil quality based on these specs based on this statement alone would you not agree?
Again DTA, do oil analysis and see for yourself.
And as I pointed out on another thread, schaeffers tends to go on the conservitive side of things for fear like many others of being sued if they were to fudge on the numbers. If Larry stated that it is a guidline I believe him as he is very maticulas on his information.
Correct me if I am wrong Bob, but ACEA is a licensing body in the same way that the API is in America. Has this oil been tested and certified by ACEA or did Schaeffer just type it in on the data sheet in the same way that Amsoil types in "meets API" on theirs?
This is what I am talking about Bob - it is all too easy for a company to list off a whole bunch of standards.....General Motors, Ford, Daimler Chrysler, Jaso, Volkswagen, ACEA etc. knowing full well that nobody is really going to look into the details as to whether they actually comply. So, when it has been shown that they do not meet the specs. of one, it calls them all into question. (trust)
This is what I am talking about Bob - it is all too easy for a company to list off a whole bunch of standards.....General Motors, Ford, Daimler Chrysler, Jaso, Volkswagen, ACEA etc. knowing full well that nobody is really going to look into the details as to whether they actually comply. So, when it has been shown that they do not meet the specs. of one, it calls them all into question. (trust)
I think that when a company puts down the actual #'s that they used and follows the guidlines to what qualifies then that is truthful and not hiding anything which can be trusted. As stated before, the HTHS is just a guideline and they are allowed to show meeting it under that guideline then there is no deceiving or mis representation of the facts.
Like here with api, the companies themselves must do or have the testing done and beable to support it's claim to meeting these min's because API doesn't do the testing but is a clearing house stateing they have seen the documentation showing it meets the min's. The do random tests to verify these numbers and I suspect that this would be the same for ACEA.
I think that you and whom ever else that is hung on this is taking this the wrong way. Did Schaeffers lie? No, They followed the exact proceedures that are allowed in the U.S. and did not cross any lines. Did they post the actual test #'s, Yes, and the tell you exactly what you need to determine if those specs meet YOUR guideline. Again, No lies, followed the rules, gave you all the data, I still find it hard to understand how you'd think this qualifies as misrepresenting and not trusting as they can qualify what they have shown you. This also is verified by the head chemist/cls of this company who gave up front and honest answers as well. I will not beleive for a minute this company is playing any underhanded role of misrepresentation of the facts.
Fact 1- Here in the states, ACEA is a guideline
Not a requirement to met the spec.
Fact 2- They post actual #'s for you to
compare and see what the limits are.
Fact 3- Direct communication with Schaeffers
varifies same info listed in facts 1 and
2.
If these things are not acceptable to you as being trustworthy, I appologize and beg for forgiveness as I have nothing else to offer for these actions on their behalf.
Like here with api, the companies themselves must do or have the testing done and beable to support it's claim to meeting these min's because API doesn't do the testing but is a clearing house stateing they have seen the documentation showing it meets the min's. The do random tests to verify these numbers and I suspect that this would be the same for ACEA.
I think that you and whom ever else that is hung on this is taking this the wrong way. Did Schaeffers lie? No, They followed the exact proceedures that are allowed in the U.S. and did not cross any lines. Did they post the actual test #'s, Yes, and the tell you exactly what you need to determine if those specs meet YOUR guideline. Again, No lies, followed the rules, gave you all the data, I still find it hard to understand how you'd think this qualifies as misrepresenting and not trusting as they can qualify what they have shown you. This also is verified by the head chemist/cls of this company who gave up front and honest answers as well. I will not beleive for a minute this company is playing any underhanded role of misrepresentation of the facts.
Fact 1- Here in the states, ACEA is a guideline
Not a requirement to met the spec.
Fact 2- They post actual #'s for you to
compare and see what the limits are.
Fact 3- Direct communication with Schaeffers
varifies same info listed in facts 1 and
2.
If these things are not acceptable to you as being trustworthy, I appologize and beg for forgiveness as I have nothing else to offer for these actions on their behalf.
They used the BMW (Castrol) 10W30. I noticed that the oil was much darker at 4k than the Mobil 1 at 5k. I changed it with new BMW (Castrol) 10W30 at 184k. At 186k, it is fairly dirty. Why? Is it a different detergent package?
YES, probably....along with...even though it smells different than Syntec, I think it's just to fool us into thinking it is drastically different. Granted...it's not Syntec (proprietary formula), but I believe it's another non-PAO Castrol "synthetic" formula at it's finest.
And, no I don't think it smells like Mobil 1. In fact, nothing smells like M-1. To me M-1 smells like Elmer's glue. BMW Synth. smells more like Delvac 1 or Havoline Synthetic.
YES, probably....along with...even though it smells different than Syntec, I think it's just to fool us into thinking it is drastically different. Granted...it's not Syntec (proprietary formula), but I believe it's another non-PAO Castrol "synthetic" formula at it's finest.
And, no I don't think it smells like Mobil 1. In fact, nothing smells like M-1. To me M-1 smells like Elmer's glue. BMW Synth. smells more like Delvac 1 or Havoline Synthetic.
I see on the web Mobil confirmed that the BMW High Performance Synthetic Oil 5W40 is std Delvac 1.
Huh??? I don't know what you guys have in Australia, but BMW Synth. only comes in a 5W30 and they have NEVER admitted that it is made by Mobil. They used to have a Synth. 5W40 that was made by Valvoline and now their oils come from Castrol. Both for the standard 3,5 and 7 series (5-30) and the M cars (10-60)...and for their Formula 1 racing team might I add. Finally, the only mention is on their website, which confirms that in an emergency and as an suitable alternative (eg. for topping up), you may use "Mobil or Valvoline" synthetics.
Dr. T,
Don't take this the wrong way...
Are BMW engines that much different than MB?
Shouldn't BMW engines be able to run an ACEA A3 (European spec) oil?
What you're facing with the recommendation of 5w30 is an attempt to follow CAFE standards.
Also, isn't it against the law in the U.S. to mandate a brand of oil without supplying the oil free of charge to the owner?
[ August 02, 2002, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: jjbula ]
Don't take this the wrong way...
Are BMW engines that much different than MB?
Shouldn't BMW engines be able to run an ACEA A3 (European spec) oil?
What you're facing with the recommendation of 5w30 is an attempt to follow CAFE standards.
Also, isn't it against the law in the U.S. to mandate a brand of oil without supplying the oil free of charge to the owner?
[ August 02, 2002, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: jjbula ]
I just realized I didn't read the first post completely
BMW 5w30, since it meets A3, is a much different oil than U.S. OTC synths.
Sorry about that.
[ August 02, 2002, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: jjbula ]
BMW 5w30, since it meets A3, is a much different oil than U.S. OTC synths.
Sorry about that.
[ August 02, 2002, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: jjbula ]
The reason that I think that the BMW syn. oil is a PAO syn. is that the only oil Castrol makes in Europe that is a 5w-30 is the Castrol TXT Softec Plus brand and from what i've found out its a PAO/Ester syn. It is very possible however, that Castrol is able to formulate a group III, A3-rated, 5w-30 oil here in America but, I dont think thats the case here.
Question is, how is BMW/Castrol able to sell a PAO syn. oil for only $3.80/qt retail? By having a legal agreement with Castrol International to buy in extreme bulk and to maybe help in production costs as well. Perhaps BMW recoups their money through labour fees or the such and this subsidising by BMW to Castrol allows Castrol to still make a profit?
{This begins my rant for the week!
}As far as syn. oils go and oils in general, we are VERY LUCKY here in the states! Everyone complains about OTC syn. oil prices and expects the oil companies to sell them to us at their COST! This is a capitalisitc market and these companies DO have to make a profit! Think of how much it costs to produce and market a product! Theres n way ExxonMobil sells a purely PAO based Mobil 1-no way.
I think many of us are looking a gift horse int he mouth so to speak and should quit worrying about the composition soley of the BMW syn. and just try it! {End of rant}
[ August 02, 2002, 11:17 PM: Message edited by: Chris J. ]
Question is, how is BMW/Castrol able to sell a PAO syn. oil for only $3.80/qt retail? By having a legal agreement with Castrol International to buy in extreme bulk and to maybe help in production costs as well. Perhaps BMW recoups their money through labour fees or the such and this subsidising by BMW to Castrol allows Castrol to still make a profit?
{This begins my rant for the week!
I think many of us are looking a gift horse int he mouth so to speak and should quit worrying about the composition soley of the BMW syn. and just try it! {End of rant}
[ August 02, 2002, 11:17 PM: Message edited by: Chris J. ]
Well, for what it's worth....I don't think the BMW synth. is a PAO as my car developed visible sludge with the same change intervals over ~60k mi..
The cheap cost tells you it's NOT made in England.
Finally, I agree it's not the same stuff as Syntec...but probably not too far off with a BMW-spec additive package...and that's about it.
Are you sure it's ACEA A3? I will check my bottle tonight...
The cheap cost tells you it's NOT made in England.
Finally, I agree it's not the same stuff as Syntec...but probably not too far off with a BMW-spec additive package...and that's about it.
Are you sure it's ACEA A3? I will check my bottle tonight...
Dr.T
Don't think it was an Aussie BMW forum. I'll see if I can find it, but anyway the guy could have been lying. Why, well who knows?
Don't think it was an Aussie BMW forum. I'll see if I can find it, but anyway the guy could have been lying. Why, well who knows?
- Status
Similar threads
