castrol spec sheets

[sxg6]

i looked around the castrol web site, could not find them. so i asked castrol to send them, and they did. then after searching here, i noticed others were also wondering about them. so i decide to try to share them.


gtx

syntec blend

high mileage

syntec

5w-20 doc

*added .jpg version of 5w-20 in case you cant view .doc files

5w-20 jpg

[ June 12, 2004, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: sxg6 ]

 

[G-MAN]

The specs they have listed for the 0w30 Syntec are for the old US made 0w30, not the 0w30 imported from Germany.

The specs they have listed for the GF-4 5w20 are not very impressive at all. HT/HS is the bare bones min for a 5w20 at 2.6. I wouldn't use it.

 

[sxg6]

yea a few things i should mention. original files were 200kb+ .pdf documents, due to size and file type, i took screen grabs and made them .jpg's.
as a result, you are seeing the full specs, but not the full document, the castrol logo, and date are not seen. the gtx document says june 2002 on it, the hi mileage says june 2002 as well, same date for syntec, same for syntec blend. the only document with a different date is the 5w-20, which as you can see is march 2004

 

[haley10]

quote:

---

Originally posted by G-Man II:
The specs they have listed for the 0w30 Syntec are for the old US made 0w30, not the 0w30 imported from Germany.

The specs they have listed for the GF-4 5w20 are not very impressive at all. HT/HS is the bare bones min for a 5w20 at 2.6. I wouldn't use it.

---

2.6

I was thinking the guy with the high lead and elevated silicon on the Ford truck was probably air filtration. Maybe not.

2.6

Maybe this just ain't his cup of tea for the Ford truck even though 5-20 is recommended. I don't think I'd run it either.

 

[haley10]

Thanks sxg6. Very useful info.

The current Syntec 10W-30 is A5 rated.

The 5W-20 looks scary.

You might be on the razor's edge of major wear on some engines.

[ June 12, 2004, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: haley10 ]

 

[novadude]

Thanks for posting!

 

[Patman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by G-Man II:


The specs they have listed for the GF-4 5w20 are not very impressive at all. HT/HS is the bare bones min for a 5w20 at 2.6. I wouldn't use it.

---

But you're using Pennzoil 5w20, and according to their website, the HTHS on that is 2.65, so it's not much different. Although the Pennzoil definitely has a better additive package. If my mom ends up going with a Mazda Protege over the Mini Cooper, I'll use Pennzoil 5w20 in the Mazda (I believe the Mini calls for 5w30, and haven't decided what to run in that if she gets it-I do all her oil changes so I get to decide on the oil)

 

[T-Stick]

After looking at these specs, it makes me wonder if the syntec (and especially the blend) is really that much better than the GTX. In fact it seems as though the GTX is a very good oil, which all my UOAs have also shown.
Am I missing something here?

 

[haley10]

quote:

---

Originally posted by T-Stick:
After looking at these specs, it makes me wonder if the syntec (and especially the blend) is really that much better than the GTX. In fact it seems as though the GTX is a very good oil, which all my UOAs have also shown.
Am I missing something here?

---

This is very subjective, but Syntec vs GTX is like night and day in my two cars. GTX is fine, but Syntec quiets everything and cold starts better. No consumption.

Maybe doesn't uoa any better, but I thought it was worth it. I've since went to M1. It's cheaper for me.

 

[T-Stick]

I am sure to some degree every motor design is a law unto themselves in their preferences.

My thought was that UOAs over say a 5,000 OCI may not show significant differences in wear numbers. The chief benefit would seem to be in the longer drain intervals or in cold weather starting.

Has anyone noticed a significant improvement on UOAs with the Syntec over the GTX if the OCI is kept at 5k or below?

It is pretty hard to quantify "better" in any other way than UOAs.

 

[haley10]

T-Stick, there are so few uoa's on Syntec that we really don't know. With a 5K oci, I don't think there is any evidence to suggest that syn shows better wear numbers over a quality dino.

Syn maintains a cleaner engine. longer oci's, and other benefits, but conventional oils and blends can post as good or better wear numbers.

Like I said I gave up on Syntec, because of price. I can get M1 at Wally's much cheaper than Syntec, so I figure it's a moot point.

Syntec Blend is putting up some great uoa's if you do a search.

 

[T-Stick]

Yes, I have posted some great UOAs with both GTX and Syntec Blend.

I do wonder though about whether engines are significantly cleaner with synthetic than the "current" good dino oils with proper OCIs. This was certainly true 10 years ago, but is it significant now?

 

[Jay]

The 2.6cP HTHS is fine for my Honda K20A3. M1 0w-20 has the same HTHS and we've seen excellent results with it. The cold temperature specs don't look right for the 5w-20 Syntec. First, the cranking viscosity is given at -35C (a 0w testing temp) and the oil almost makes 0w, but the pumping viscosity is given as 60,000cP @ -35C which is just borderline 5w. That can't be right.

The oil has a nice flashpoint spec.

 

[haley10]

quote:

---

Originally posted by T-Stick:
Yes, I have posted some great UOAs with both GTX and Syntec Blend.

I do wonder though about whether engines are significantly cleaner with synthetic than the "current" good dino oils with proper OCIs. This was certainly true 10 years ago, but is it significant now?

---

Don't know. My old 3.3L Buick is still running around with 250K and ran GTX 5W-30 since 1989. I'm not sure that was true even 10 years ago.

It is very engine dependent, I think. Some are easy on oil and some engines can beat up Mobil 1 and Amsoil quickly. I think it's knowing your engine and finding the right match.

I've never had any sludging issues with Castrol ever.

 

[ToyotaNSaturn]

I just called Castrol to request the data sheets. They sent them to me, but they were ALL dated June 2002. Alot has changed in 2 years, but the data sure hasn't been updated.

 

[dustyjoe1]

quote:

---

The specs they have listed for the GF-4 5w20 are not very impressive at all. HT/HS is the bare bones min for a 5w20 at 2.6. I wouldn't use it.

---

Hmmm...Intersting. M1 0w20 is 2.61, If I recall Pennzoil is 2.65. In any case the first link "gtx" reads 2.8 not 2.6 . Not sure I would agree with you in not using it. Going to look at uoa's and think about it

 

[dustyjoe1]

By the way does anyone know the Ht/hs on motorcraft 5w20 and their vis at 100 C??? Thanks in advance.

r.

 

[ZiTS]

That's the first I've seen of the spec's for the Syntec 5w-20. If you guys don't know, I've posted VOA's for all of the 5w-20 lines (GTX, Syntec Blend, and Syntec in the VOA section. By combining these two, we should be able to get a pretty good picture, don't you think?

Also, I'm going to be sending in for a UOA of the Syntec 5w-20 tomorrow. It will only have approx 1,300 miles/two months on it, but since it is a new oil, I want to see how it's holding up.

Z-

 

[G-MAN]

quote:

---

Originally posted by dustyjoe1:

quote:

---

The specs they have listed for the GF-4 5w20 are not very impressive at all. HT/HS is the bare bones min for a 5w20 at 2.6. I wouldn't use it.

---

Hmmm...Intersting. M1 0w20 is 2.61, If I recall Pennzoil is 2.65. In any case the first link "gtx" reads 2.8 not 2.6 . Not sure I would agree with you in not using it. Going to look at uoa's and think about it

---

Well, if it in fact does have an HT/HS of 2.8 that would be the highest HT/HS rating of any conventional 5w20 I've seen. I'd have no problem using the 5w20 GTX if it's 2.8. However, maybe the GF-3 5w20 was 2.8 and the new GF-4 is 2.6.

 

[sxg6]

redline claims 3.3 for their 5w-20