castrol response(give you guys something to talk about)

Status
Not open for further replies.
quote:

Originally posted by MolaKule:
I would like to have seen Bedford's original article to view both sides of the story. Apparently, his article hit very close to home or Castrol wouldn't have gone on the defensive as it did.

Here's a link to the article: Patrick Bedard on synthetic oil

Everyone can bash Castrol over this till the cows come home, but I commend them for at least trying to offer a reasoned response to the criticism.

[ October 17, 2003, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: G-Man II ]
 
Credit for responding? Big deal, they should have responded. Castrol is all over the place. No product consistancy and it's clear the use of group III was a cost saver for them and nothing else. They are a clear example of big oil ripping people off.
 
quote:

Originally posted by FowVay:


And if the German Castrol is the exact formulation as the North American 0W-30 then I'm pouring that junk out this weekend.


No need to do that, we've seen enough evidence through UOAs and VOAs on this stuff to know it's the real thing. The instant telltale sign is the viscosity, the US made stuff was never around 12cst, it's always been around 10. And I would be willing to bet it thins out quickly too, we've seen UOAs on their 10w30 Syntec (and 5w30 I believe) where it's thinned out fast, like most group 3 oils tend to do.
 
quote:

Originally posted by Cary:
My 2 cents:

1) A very carefully drafted letter, that addresses many issues, but at the same time does not answer the questions.

2) Castrol must believe the receiptients of the letter to be stupid. They address the GC, but then claim it is identical to the US 0w-30, ignoring their own labling. I am sure that someone from Castrol has been reading this board, why not address the A1, A3 labling difference?

3) I will continue to avoid the GC for two reasons. 1) I don't believe castrol to be an honest company. 2) I truly believe by the time I use this product, they will chang the formula or pull it from the market.

Cary


Well my 3 cents.

1) Few if any oil companies write public letters to address the concerns from 3,000 oil nuts on an internet forum. They did try. I don't know what you expect them to do.

2) Marketing will not say that a product is never going to change. Remember the 03 GeeWhizMobile you bought that they said was the ultimate? Well, the 04 SupremeMostBestestGeeWhizMobile is now out. Sorry!

3) Boycott away. You know a quart of 10W30 conventional cost less that a quart of Bud. Think about that for a moment. Actually, a quart of conventional oil costs less than a quart of bottled water. 1) I doubt many oil companies would be classed as "honest" when measured against the same criteria. 2) Companies do change formulas. In the last 2 years, Mobil 1 has seen lots of changes - TriSyn SJ, TriSyn SL, SupSyn SL, some of these with moly and some without.

I'm glad Castrol is still in the market and I believe the more we have in the market, the better the consumer's product choices will be. I wonder if ExMob is looking at GC and wondering if they can and should improve their 10W30 to meet ACEA B3?

May all your moving parts be well lubed,

Jack
 
Guys,

In the past I have given you all credit for an honest concern about Castrol in general, and Syntec, in particular...in other words, you genuinely believed your had a legitimate grievance. I now believe, however, that with some of your posts above, you have demonstrated that no matter what Castrol does, even were they to publish cost and formulation data and their internal balance sheets, you will not "forgive" them (if there was actually anything to forgive), give them credit for trying to explain themselves or give credence to what they say (I hear your argument that they haven't acutally "said" anything but with what I read above, I don't accept your accusation). You will always find a reason to downplay any effort they try to make to explain why they do what they do. I accept that you feel that way, but, while I stll value your opinions in other areas, it does color my opinion of your objectivity in future discussion if a Castrol product is involved. Buster, et al, boycott and reject Castrol products as you see fit...Patman and I will, obviously, be able to retain an effective supply of GC. For that I thank you.
cheers.gif
 
Thanks, G-Man II, but that does not change the fact that they say that the German Castrol is the same as the American Castrol. That bothers me.

I do think that Castrol conventional motor oil is very good. It is probably the equal of Pennzoil. Some had been saying that the Castrol conventional has a high pour point but freezer testing seems to indicate that it will flow good in the cold.

Who knows what will happen in the future? Five years from now Group III motor oil may be superior to PAO and esters. Or five years from now, we may need PAO motor oil to be able to meet the requirments of the new cars/trucks.

I am not against Group III motor oils. But if they are made from cheaper materials then they should cost less then PAOs and esters. If a Group III motor oil can perform about as well in your car/truck as a PAO and costs less-is this not a good thing?

I saw a commercial where it was stated that the American made Castrol Syntec outperforms conventional motor oils. Is this really the case? It should be, if the Castrol costs about as much as Mobil 1. Otherwise, you might as well buy the Mobil 1, right? Or just use a good brand of conventional motor oil and change it often.

Somehow, though, I feel that if I was going to use a Group III motor oil, it would probably be Chevron Supreme Synthetic rather then Castrol Syntec. In fact, I was going to try the Chevron Supreme Synthetic, but I could not find it in 5W-30 viscosity. Do you know how much the Chevron Supreme Synthetic costs? It costs about $3.00.
 
Mystic;
I put 5W30 Chevron in a 2000 Cougar 2.5L four days ago. The engine took 5.8 instead of 5.5 litres because I let the oil drain for an hour.
The total cost of the oil change including filter= $28.00 USD
Now where can you get supper, breakfast, and laid for $28.00?
 
Once you ruin your credibility, it takes a long old time to rebuild it. You have to go the extra mile. This is not done by evasive answers, ad hominem attacks, or obfuscation. No sign that Castrol has gotten the message (and I have GC in my truck as we speak) I guess it means "build it and they will come" even if you are a doofus.
tongue.gif
 
Called Castrol today to see what the latest spin is. Nothing new. She said the oil might appear different colors and have different labeling but they are sure that they are the same formulas. She said the materials used for this oil are sourced and come from different countries and companies. I hate that aspect of blenders. I also agree with comment below.

quote:

3) I will continue to avoid the GC for two reasons. 1) I don't believe castrol to be an honest company. 2) I truly believe by the time I use this product, they will chang the formula or pull it from the market.

Cary

My fitty cent. .50
lol.gif
 
Dickwells;
I know, but I didn't tell her it was a group III and not a real synthetic.

[ October 17, 2003, 02:14 PM: Message edited by: userfriendly ]
 
Actually, I wonder if we need Group III motor oils anyway. If they are going to cost as much as PAO motor oils, what is the point? You might as well use the PAO.

And in a recent freezer test Havoline Synthetic (which is probably very similar to Chevron Synthetic) did not do well in the freezer test, according to the person doing the test. One of the reasons people use synthetic motor oil is for good oil flow in the wintertime. Some people use synthetic oil only in the wintertime just for this reason. If conventional Pennzoil, Castrol, or Mobil Drive Clean will flow in the cold almost as well as a synthetic oil (especially a Group III synthetic oil), you might as well use either Mobil 1 or one of the conventional motor oils that flow well.

A Group III oil only makes sense if it truly outperforms conventional motor oil, flows well in the cold (so you don't have to use an expensive synthetic), and costs less then a synthetic like Mobil 1. If any of these three conditions are not met, there is no point in using the Group III oil.

Think about it: Would you use a Group III oil if it costs three or four times what conventional motor oil costs, but cannot outperform conventional motor oil? What is the point?

Would you use a Group III in the wintertime if it cannot flow any better then many conventional motor oils? What is the point?

And if the Group III costs as much as Mobil 1-well, I would use the Mobil 1.
 
I forsee Group III oils as having a place in the new transmission fluid market to meet the new Dexron III-H, Allison, Mercon spec derivatives, since the GIII base oils are more stable than either Group I's or II's.

And having a place in the 0W20 to 5W20 PCMO markets, with the proper additives.

One still has to decide whether the G III's are price competitive with a full synthetic, and herein I think lies the stigma.
 
Exactly Mola, and since the future of PCMOs is in the light weights the group IIIs look very good.
Nobody is going to talk out of school, I have a few little birdies that told me so, and I know what 5W20 is made from.
 
Yes, but also consider this:

Say you have a group III and you're going to formulate a 5W20. You see that a group III has the 4-6.0 cSt base oil you need.

Now it is more stable and has less impurities than does either Group I or II. So far so good.

But is also still needs a VII and something to solve the additive package, since a GIII has little solvency, about the same as a PAO. Since the hydrodynamic films at high temperatures will be very low, you need a good amount of an expensive set of AW/EP adds.

So you take an ester and blend in the addditves and then add those to the base oil. You have to use a more expensive Hydrogentated Styrene-Diene CoPolymer for the VII, so you wind up with an oil about the same cost as for a PAO/ester formulation. The PAO/ester formulation is more thermally and oxidatively stable than the GIII formulation and much more shear-stable.

So the point is, unless the refiners who produce GIII are willing to lower the price of the base stocks, GIII's will be relegated to niche oil markets.
 
Wow, I've waited 5 months for a post like that.
So what did the refiners do???
They increased production capacity and lowered the price of group III base stock.
Just in time for the 5W20s and "synthetic" ATFs.
Pop quize: Which country has a large domestic oil supply, is not reliant on energy imports, and has an excess group III base stock capacity?
edit; What is ging to happen to PAO/ester and group v engine oil sales when group III lubricant prices are cut in half?

[ October 17, 2003, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: userfriendly ]
 
We need to get a VOA and a UOA on the US base 0W-30.
There is not one on this board that I have found and many people speak to the fact that there is no way they can be the same oil. Well in color we already have one different factor, although no testing to back any claims up. So before we completly say they are different I think we need to see some tests.
Also before the GC 0W-30, I personally had never seen a Syntec 0W-30 at all here in the states. Whether it be US or German, and until the GC started showing up Castrol didn't have it on their website to my knowledge. It was just recently added.
I'm not saying anything either way, other than I would like to see some analysis'.
smile.gif
 
quote:

Originally posted by pscholte:
Guys,

In the past I have given you all credit for an honest concern about Castrol in general, and Syntec, in particular...in other words, you genuinely believed your had a legitimate grievance. I now believe, however, that with some of your posts above, you have demonstrated that no matter what Castrol does, even were they to publish cost and formulation data and their internal balance sheets, you will not "forgive" them (if there was actually anything to forgive), give them credit for trying to explain themselves or give credence to what they say (I hear your argument that they haven't acutally "said" anything but with what I read above, I don't accept your accusation). You will always find a reason to downplay any effort they try to make to explain why they do what they do. I accept that you feel that way, but, while I stll value your opinions in other areas, it does color my opinion of your objectivity in future discussion if a Castrol product is involved. Buster, et al, boycott and reject Castrol products as you see fit...Patman and I will, obviously, be able to retain an effective supply of GC. For that I thank you.
cheers.gif


The problem is that the letter contains misleading statements which attempt to deflect the true question. I have a problem with dishonesty used in this context. You are probably right-many of us will hold a grudge. This letter makes it easy to continue to do so.
cheers.gif
 
quote:

Originally posted by pscholte:
Guys,

In the past I have given you all credit for an honest concern about Castrol in general, and Syntec, in particular...in other words, you genuinely believed your had a legitimate grievance. I now believe, however, that with some of your posts above, you have demonstrated that no matter what Castrol does, even were they to publish cost and formulation data and their internal balance sheets, you will not "forgive" them (if there was actually anything to forgive), give them credit for trying to explain themselves or give credence to what they say (I hear your argument that they haven't acutally "said" anything but with what I read above, I don't accept your accusation). You will always find a reason to downplay any effort they try to make to explain why they do what they do. I accept that you feel that way, but, while I stll value your opinions in other areas, it does color my opinion of your objectivity in future discussion if a Castrol product is involved. Buster, et al, boycott and reject Castrol products as you see fit...Patman and I will, obviously, be able to retain an effective supply of GC. For that I thank you.
cheers.gif


Pscholte,
I hear you loud and clear and I agree. I have no problems with anybody who wants to stop buying Castrol (or any other group III) because of their business practices. Bror convinced me in the other thread that the way Castrol went about calling something one thing while it is another is a bit shady, so I say more power to all those who don’t want to buy Castrol anymore.

The problem I have is that holding a grudge against somebody for their ethical behavior and data analysis are two different things. When grudges start affecting the way we read UOA’s, then this board starts to take on the flavor of religious wars rather than an honest attempt at finding truth. An oil is more than PAO vs. Group III, it is PAO+Additive package A vs. Group III + additive package B. If Additive Package A=Additive Package B, then this big debate about whether a group III oil is “priced right” relative to a PAO oil holds merit. But that is an awfully strong assumption and it continues to be the dominant assumption that is rarely questioned.

Unfortunately, IMO, it's not uncommon to see an analysis on brand X get posted. Wear is above universal averages, but it still gets the “great oil” comments based on the above assumption. Meanwhile, brands Z and Y can have wear far below universal averages and they will still get bashed routinely.

That said, I still think this is a great board and I have learned a lot and will continue to learn a lot.
cheers.gif
 
Al,

If folks want to be critical about the Group III based Syntec, I think they should focus on the robustness of additive package and not the base oil. The most recent data I saw showed a TBN of only 8.75 for the Syntec 10w-40 formulation and that's their ACEA "A3/B3" rated stuff. This really doesn't compare to the 11+ TBN add pack that Mobil uses. Mobil is also using small amounts of ester and MoDtc in the Supersyn formulation. One of the keys to the good performance of the Supersyn is that they are using a well balanced additive chemistry along with the PAO/Ester basestock. The Group III based Syntec could be significantly improved with a more robust add pack, but then any cost savings over Mobil 1 would go away.

The ACEA A3/B4 rated, 0w-30 Syntec from Europe performs very well and is a good alternative to the Mobil 1, 0w-40 for about the same price. Given the specs/price, I'd say it's primarily a PAO based oil, with some ester blended in as a carrier for the additives.
 
quote:

Originally posted by TooSlick:
Al,

If folks want to be critical about the Group III based Syntec, I think they should focus on the robustness of additive package and not the base oil. The most recent data I saw showed a TBN of only 8.75 for the Syntec 10w-40 formulation and that's their ACEA "A3/B3" rated stuff. This really doesn't compare to the 11+ TBN add pack that Mobil uses. Mobil is also using small amounts of ester and MoDtc in the Supersyn formulation. One of the keys to the good performance of the Supersyn is that they are using a well balanced additive chemistry along with the PAO/Ester basestock. The Group III based Syntec could be significantly improved with a more robust add pack, but then any cost savings over Mobil 1 would go away.


You bring up a good point and one which I need clarification. In the Oct publication TLT (STLE) they discuss Organomolybdnum Compounds in Engine oil (MoDTC-A, MoDTC-B,Mon,MoO). The thought is that these compounds may allow the amount of Phosphorus in ZDDP to be reduced. This article is writtem by someone of Ethyl Corp. I wonder if Mobil is one step ahead of this curve. The reason I say this is that Ethyl feels further research is needed.

They mention that only small amounts of these compounds are necessary for a synergistic effect. Makes you wonder if Redline is still in the dark ages with their 600 ppm of moly
dunno.gif


I would like to hear from Lord Molakule on a synopsis of this article.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top