You have good numbers here. So you are UPgrading to SYN hugh... Well eventually the dino must die... Now if you numbers do not improve, I suppose you'll come back to dino.
Castrol GTX 10w-40 in Suzuki Sidekick Sport........
- Thread starter Flimflam
- Start date
- Status
Patman, I am always interested in getting the best result I possibly can. Castrol is just fine, but I understand Chevron is a better base stock. Chevron is also cheaper than Castrol. And some kinds of Chevron are good for extended use.
Also, I have always wanted to try Schaeffer's. Only now, I am able to get my hands on some Schaeffer's. I'm just itching to try this much-talked about Schaeffer's Blend.
But don't worry, Patman. If it don't work out, I can always go back to Castrol.
Drew, the Sidekick is much better as a daily driver and grocery hauler than the Benz. And the Sidekick can go to the beach, climb the dunes for you!!!!!!quote:
Originally posted by Drew99GT:
You can afford to drive an SL600 Benz and you also have a SidekickI'm thinking to myself, wwwhhhhhyyyyyy!
I was just thinkin, you walk out to your driveway and there is an SL 600 and a Sidekick, which one do you choose? If it was my driveway, the Sidekick would never get over 5,000 miles!
"To Be Or Not to Be, That is the Question; Whether 'Tis Nobler in the Mind to Bear the Slings and Arrows of Outrageous Fortune;
Or, By Courageous Action.....End It." --- Shakespeare
Patman, a couple of decades ago, I was faced with the choice: a dirty engine or a blown-up engine. Dino Castrol GTX or Synthetic M*1. I determined that I would not have a blown-up engine at any cost......I would not have my engine blow up even if each tiny little fragment was gleaming, shining, and free of sludge. So, that is why I went with Castrol GTX.
To be honest, I never expected wear numbers with Castrol GTX to be this good. But 7 cars and 7 bikes over the last 25 years, none with an engine problem....so I said, what the hell, if it has worked on so many vehicles for so many years, why mess with it? Now, I finally have the numbers to prove that my choice was the right one.
[To those M*1 Groupies out there: OK, OK, so it may not blow up your ride today. But think for a moment: aren't all those double-figure wear numbers a little disconcerting?]
This looks like a situation where the Suzuki would be a lot more fun.
http://images.cardomain.com/member_images/4/web/340000-340999/340237_7_full.jpg
More pics here - http://www.cardomain.com/memberpage/340237
I think having a modified one to wheel would be great...
[ November 28, 2003, 12:28 AM: Message edited by: jsharp ]
http://images.cardomain.com/member_images/4/web/340000-340999/340237_7_full.jpg
More pics here - http://www.cardomain.com/memberpage/340237
I think having a modified one to wheel would be great...
[ November 28, 2003, 12:28 AM: Message edited by: jsharp ]
That's my concern of a lot of oils. But yeah, I'll agree... and add.... I want my oil to filter all the dirt and grime the filter can't, so my engine is clean as can be inside...quote:
Originally posted by Bror Jace:
FlimFlam, -*-*-
My biggest complaint about Castrol was that it stayed clean-looking a long time but each time I switched oils, the oil which followed Castrol seemed to darken almost immediately ... even Mobil 1.A clear sign that the fresh oil was cleaning something left behind by the Castrol.
-*-*
--- Bror Jace
Bror Jace, with all due respect: if that is your acid test of motor oils, then every single oil on this planet will fail your test. If an oil has high wear numbers in UOA, then it is not doing its job of protecting th eengine. If it has low wear numbers in UOA, then it has to be a conspiracy....they are hiding something somewhere.quote:
Originally posted by Bror Jace:
FlimFlam, I'm curious. What's the inside of that motor look like? Any evidence of sludge accumulation?
My biggest complaint about Castrol was that it stayed clean-looking a long time but each time I switched oils, the oil which followed Castrol seemed to darken almost immediately ... even Mobil 1.A clear sign that the fresh oil was cleaning something left behind by the Castrol.
The wear numbers look pretty good, even if it was only a tad over 3,000 miles. But, if it's leaving a lot of the evidence of wear behind, these results may be misleading.
However, this is just a theoretical caveat of mine. Castrol may have addressed that deficiency years ago. Calcium sure looks strong in your sample.
I had the same concern regarding Chevron: that the additive package may be so weak (which may also explain the price) that it's leaving wear metals behind and creating great-but-misleading UOAs ...
... then someone posted pictures of a high mileage Soob engine which saw Chevron all its life and it was amazingly clean.
Personally, though, I am not fond of 10W40 motor oils. There is a UOA of Chevron 10W40 somewhere in this section and it sheared down a tad too rapidly for my tastes as well. I don't remember the specifics, just my disappointment. I don't think the blenders put much thought into this weight ... nor most 20W50s. No new vehicles specify 10W40, 20W50, etc ... and this stuff typically goes into older clunkers. Cars who are lucky if they see any oil changes at all.
If I lived in the deep south and wanted a 40 weight, one of the 15W40 fleet oils would be the only way to go.
A woman at work had a Suzuki Sidekick with about 165,000 miles on it. I followed this thing out of a parking lot a few months ago and it was blowing a lot of blue smoke. It has since died despite the fact they said they changed the oil regularly/often.
--- Bror Jace
I believe Castrol has the best add pack. I have no axe to grind as I say this. I am actually undergoing "cold turkey" treatment to get away from Castrol. My Suzuki now has Chevron dino juice in it.
10w-40 are weak oils, no doubt about that. But don't tar and feather the 20w-50's with the same brush. Go to the Ed Hackett Oil Study. It says that 20w-50's have less VII improver polymers than the other multigrade dino's.
If you live in the deep south, I'd say screw the multiweights. Just use plain old monograde dino. I've found Castrol HD-30 works for me. Many old-timer deep south denizens use monograde dino exclusively. None of this shearing down one grade with monograde dino.
Re: woman with 165,000 mile Suzuki that died. Well, they are a very tightly-geared piece of equipment. They turn over at a fierce rate of revolutions. As one BITOG forum poster said, he had to beat it to death just to keep up with traffic. So that is why I always change oil after a short interval. And that's also why I use the most expensive mineral oil I can find on the shelf. Tell her to get a new crate engine. Suzuki's are fun things, they pay you back in the way of good times.
P.S.:-- Re: "no new vehicles...specify 10w40, 20w50, etc. ....this stuff goes into.....clunkers." Again, Bror Jace, with all due respect: I don't like Xw-30's, and I don't like Synthetics. This has to do with my production racing days when my friends and I experienced loss of oil pressure with multigrades.
I've also experienced catastrophic cooling system failure on a highway with no shoulder. Had to keep running the thing when it looked like some mini-Hroshima on wheels. I believe had I had anything other than Castrol 10w-40, my engine would have been toast. Oh, sorry. Castrol 20w-50 may have handled the situation, too.
Drew, the SL 600 is not a perfect car. With all that motor in the nose, it is too nose-heavy/tail-light. Reminds me of a Ford Thunderbird I had in my college days.
Mercedes had to lower the car something fierce to make it balance and handle. So, the front bumper/spoiler grounds all the time even on minor grades like gas station entry ramps. Had to replace the front spoiler a few times at great expense.
Summary: I'd rather drive the Suzuki. Besides, in these energy-conscious times, people wanting to rely less on the Mid East etc., it makes good sense to drive something that needs only $20 of gas a week.
FlimFlam, I'm curious. What's the inside of that motor look like? Any evidence of sludge accumulation?
My biggest complaint about Castrol was that it stayed clean-looking a long time but each time I switched oils, the oil which followed Castrol seemed to darken almost immediately ... even Mobil 1.
A clear sign that the fresh oil was cleaning something left behind by the Castrol.
The wear numbers look pretty good, even if it was only a tad over 3,000 miles. But, if it's leaving a lot of the evidence of wear behind, these results may be misleading.
However, this is just a theoretical caveat of mine. Castrol may have addressed that deficiency years ago. Calcium sure looks strong in your sample.
I had the same concern regarding Chevron: that the additive package may be so weak (which may also explain the price) that it's leaving wear metals behind and creating great-but-misleading UOAs ...
... then someone posted pictures of a high mileage Soob engine which saw Chevron all its life and it was amazingly clean.
Personally, though, I am not fond of 10W40 motor oils. There is a UOA of Chevron 10W40 somewhere in this section and it sheared down a tad too rapidly for my tastes as well. I don't remember the specifics, just my disappointment. I don't think the blenders put much thought into this weight ... nor most 20W50s. No new vehicles specify 10W40, 20W50, etc ... and this stuff typically goes into older clunkers. Cars who are lucky if they see any oil changes at all.
If I lived in the deep south and wanted a 40 weight, one of the 15W40 fleet oils would be the only way to go.
A woman at work had a Suzuki Sidekick with about 165,000 miles on it. I followed this thing out of a parking lot a few months ago and it was blowing a lot of blue smoke. It has since died despite the fact they said they changed the oil regularly/often.
--- Bror Jace
My biggest complaint about Castrol was that it stayed clean-looking a long time but each time I switched oils, the oil which followed Castrol seemed to darken almost immediately ... even Mobil 1.
The wear numbers look pretty good, even if it was only a tad over 3,000 miles. But, if it's leaving a lot of the evidence of wear behind, these results may be misleading.
However, this is just a theoretical caveat of mine. Castrol may have addressed that deficiency years ago. Calcium sure looks strong in your sample.
I had the same concern regarding Chevron: that the additive package may be so weak (which may also explain the price) that it's leaving wear metals behind and creating great-but-misleading UOAs ...
... then someone posted pictures of a high mileage Soob engine which saw Chevron all its life and it was amazingly clean.
Personally, though, I am not fond of 10W40 motor oils. There is a UOA of Chevron 10W40 somewhere in this section and it sheared down a tad too rapidly for my tastes as well. I don't remember the specifics, just my disappointment. I don't think the blenders put much thought into this weight ... nor most 20W50s. No new vehicles specify 10W40, 20W50, etc ... and this stuff typically goes into older clunkers. Cars who are lucky if they see any oil changes at all.
If I lived in the deep south and wanted a 40 weight, one of the 15W40 fleet oils would be the only way to go.
A woman at work had a Suzuki Sidekick with about 165,000 miles on it. I followed this thing out of a parking lot a few months ago and it was blowing a lot of blue smoke. It has since died despite the fact they said they changed the oil regularly/often.
--- Bror Jace
... if that is your acid test of motor oils, then every single oil on this planet will fail your test. If an oil has high wear numbers in UOA, then it is not doing its job of protecting th eengine. If it has low wear numbers in UOA, then it has to be a conspiracy....they are hiding something somewhere."
Hold on there FlimFlam. I'm not talking conspiracies, black helicopters or Area 51. You are reading too much into what I said.
When you look look at data/information. It's not just important to see what is shown, but what is NOT shown. We know that UOAs don't tell the whole story and I'm just leaving myself some outs.
If you dumped an oil with NO detergents into a motor and it came out showing very little wear, is that REALLY very little wear or is the oil incapable of holding the worn off bits in suspension? We see some short oil change intervals spike because the detergent dispersant package is at its most aggressive and is actively turning up old junk. I'm just looking for evidence of the reverse also being true.
And, like I said, the anecdotal evidence of Castrol leaving stuff behind is out there ... and it's not just me. I'm not acting as judge, jury and executioner on the issue, I'm just looking for evidence of things being left behind.
"10w-40 are weak oils, no doubt about that. But don't tar and feather the 20w-50's with the same brush. Go to the Ed Hackett Oil Study. It says that 20w-50's have less VII improver polymers than the other multigrade dino's."
Of course that study is old. Maybe I'll PM Ed and see if he (still) agrees. I had heard that as a class, many 20W50s have a good deal of VII. Still, I am leary that the most advanced elements of modern oils are not included in most of the "obsolescent" oil weights.
--- Bror Jace
Hold on there FlimFlam. I'm not talking conspiracies, black helicopters or Area 51. You are reading too much into what I said.
When you look look at data/information. It's not just important to see what is shown, but what is NOT shown. We know that UOAs don't tell the whole story and I'm just leaving myself some outs.
If you dumped an oil with NO detergents into a motor and it came out showing very little wear, is that REALLY very little wear or is the oil incapable of holding the worn off bits in suspension? We see some short oil change intervals spike because the detergent dispersant package is at its most aggressive and is actively turning up old junk. I'm just looking for evidence of the reverse also being true.
And, like I said, the anecdotal evidence of Castrol leaving stuff behind is out there ... and it's not just me. I'm not acting as judge, jury and executioner on the issue, I'm just looking for evidence of things being left behind.
"10w-40 are weak oils, no doubt about that. But don't tar and feather the 20w-50's with the same brush. Go to the Ed Hackett Oil Study. It says that 20w-50's have less VII improver polymers than the other multigrade dino's."
Of course that study is old. Maybe I'll PM Ed and see if he (still) agrees. I had heard that as a class, many 20W50s have a good deal of VII. Still, I am leary that the most advanced elements of modern oils are not included in most of the "obsolescent" oil weights.
--- Bror Jace
Believe me, Bror Jace. Castrol is not lacking in add pack. If Castrol had caused the metal parts in the engine to be ground down, there is more than enough detergents, etc. to be well suspended in the Castrol until such a time as you decide to pull your oil sample and send it off to the lab.
Castrol may turn your engine insides a weird brown color, according to some people. But it does not grind your engine down and then try to hide the shiny little bits.
Re: "advanced elements of motor oil.....not included in 'obsolescent' oil weights." Heyyyyy, watch what you are calling 'obsolescent!'
Sorry, but I just had to get that off my chest. I am a longtime fan of 20w-50's, and I have to go to their defense whenever they are criticized.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
