Castrol Syntec(U.S.)-People love to bash this product

[427Z06]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TooSlick:
...generated the average wear rates I've seen...

---

You mean average UOAs. You guys nitpick in the noise level. Buster recently verified that again.

But you do bring up a good point. People bash Mobil 1 incessantly here. Don't see you or Pabs complaining when that happens. But let some poor soul ask an innocent question about Amsoil in a way that you perceive as questioning Amsoil's quality, and you guys go into an all out attack mode.

 

[Pablo]

Actually 427 that's not true. If anyone "attacks" any product unfairly I will jump in. For example I have time and time again defended M1 and the "high iron" claims. Maybe I don't go into detail, but I do. Surely I defend Amsoil because it is attacked just like Castrol Syntec, if not more, for some pretty crazy reasons.

I can only imagine the myths that would bloom here if not for the counter points...(that's a good thing)

 

[buster]

A good oil can be made with various basestocks as we all know. (Group II+ through IV)

I think you have to look at the big picture. So if Mobil 1 does shown on avg, 10ppm of Fe higher than other brands, does that make it inferior? No. What about deposit control, oxidation, low temp performance, high temp. performance for turbo's, ACEA, API, OEM approval? I have no issues with Mobil's marketing. They make a good product and as Honda recently said, it out performed all the other brands as a result of their testing. Marketing alone did not put Mobil 1 as the #1 synthetic oil, the quality of the product did.

 

[joee12]

Cool it with the personal stuff!!!!

 

[ekpolk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MC5W20:
(...snip...) "The man" orders this to be fast tracked so they don't get left high and dry.

So, I guess I can understand that Castrol switched to a group 3 base and still had to keep the price the same to cover their R&D expsenses they had to incur to make sure thier replacement was top quality. (Ever consider their was a price reduction and the wholesaler kept the profit?)

Speculation on my part - yep, you bettya
Do I find the above scenario reasonable - yes
I just find it hard to believe that castrol just made the switch without doing any R&D work to make sure their product was the best. Now, if they had plenty of time to do the work then the costs were probably controlled, but if they had to "fast track" this as part of a recovery plan then their costs were probably very extensive.
(...snip...)

---

Allow me to expose another gaping hole in this "story". Beyond what 427 noted about the failings of the "fairy tale" approach, the story itself still does not make sense. First, I find it impossible to believe that any added R&D costs Castrol may have incurred ten years ago have not by now been absorbed and/or passed on to the consumer. So we're left today with a product whose base oil costs a buck or two less per quart than the G-IV/V products. And again if today, the finished product requires that much more costly of an add pack to bring it on par with the IV/V competition isn't that, in and of itself, pretty convincing proof that the G-III base they're using is inherently inferior to the IV/V based oils?

 

[427Z06]

quote:

---

Originally posted by joee12:
Cool it with the personal stuff!!!!

---

Good advice, let's stay on topic.

quote:

---

Castrol Syntec(U.S.)-People love to bash this product

---

I gave my explanation on WHY most people love to bash this product. I never said it was grossly inferior, but I still believe it's overpriced.

 

[buster]

quote:

---

I gave my explanation on WHY most people love to bash this product. I never said it was grossly inferior, but I still believe it's overpriced

---

Exactly. I don't think anyone said Syntec is inferior. The argument has always been if group III's are cheaper, then why has the price been as high as Mobil 1/Amsoil?

 

[GMZ]

quote:

---

Your results are undeniably good. That said, and acknowledging that comparisons of one engine to another don't mean much statistically, my VQ-35 (G35) did even better on GC, which of course, is a G-IV/V product (similar interval too, 7100 miles for me vs your 7600 mi). Just reinforces my belief that while G-IIIs have become well developed products, they're still not quite on par with the IV/V competitors

---

Yes they good. But, there are many others here with different cars and engines that have had similar results as myself. Maybe its just because Ive had such good results with it, Im reluctant to try anything else? I do hear many more love/hate views on M1, maybe due to more users of the product? I am at a crossroads as I am ready to put syn in my new 1GR-FE. The results with M1 in this engine are undeniable, but so are my/others results with Syntec. Bottom line is I havent used anything else! Maybe thats why Im up Syntec's a**

I do think the time is ripe for a change though. But thats another topic. Syntec in my opinion and somewhat limited experience is on par with M1 as far as 7.5K 350Z OCI's go. This GC is really tempting me too! I dont really care about marketing, or what the company did. I pay for a product to do a job, and Syntec does it wonderfully, so Ill pay the price for it without question. I am tired and this post is probably my most rambling one!

 

[avette]

quote:

---

Originally posted by buster:
Marketing alone did not put Mobil 1 as the #1 synthetic oil, the quality of the product did.

---

Timing to the market, marketing dollars, access to the basestocks and shear size of the company and its resources.
Quality? Mobil1 used to have a market to itself and loads of time to establish its brand recognition.
Now they're just riding the wave.

 

[TooSlick]

427ZO6,

I think that Delvac 1 and the Mobil 1, motorcycle oils are outstanding products and I recommend them all the time. I don't see any Mobil Jobbers recommending Amsoil, do you?

I have performance issues with the idea of an SAE 0w-40 - no matter who makes it - and I also think the iron levels in the Mobil 1 analyses could be better. I have no idea if Mobil 1 is "noisy" (I doubt it) or if its' use results in higher oil consumption than other synthetics. Those comments are from folks who actually use the stuff.

Mobil had the on-the-shelf, US synthetic oil market to themselves from 1975 until Castrol syntec appeared in around 1990. That's the main reason they are the market leader - they simply invested the effort into promoting the superiority of synthetics (for which they deserve a lot of credit), for a long, long time.

TS

 

[MC5W20]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 427Z06:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MC5W20:
I'm not trying to twist your words around, just trying to get you to make a respectable argument that I know your capable of making.

---

YES YOU ARE. And I don't need your help. All my points have been well made and accurate, unlike yours.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MC5W20:
I've read many of your posts and I can tell your a very intelligent person.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MC5W20:
I was not a Mobil 1 user at that time, just didn't see the benefit of paying that premium price for the oil when everyone I knew used the cheap stuff and their cars ran just fine.

---

Not sure what this has to do with this thread.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MC5W20:
Now, I won't proclaim to know the whole story of the arbitration and the switch to groupiii, as I don't really care. I have seen references to Castrol being squeezed out of the group4 market, and I have never seen anyone dispute this information so lets assume this to be the case.

So lets look at this logically, Castrol knows its getting its nads pressed by a bigger player and will either have to pay higher prices for group 4 or switch. So, they play both ends do some cost studies on the higher prices of group 4 and then do some engineering work on alternatives. Also, I would assume their would be no disagreement that the add pac in group 4 syntec would not just be a drop in fit to groupiii castrol and expect the same performance, right?

Lets, say "the man" this would be the decision maker at castrol. Well "the man" makes a decision and says a group iii product is the only way out of this situation and issues an open ended CEA to engineer a replacement. "The man" orders this to be fast tracked so they don't get left high and dry.

So, I guess I can understand that Castrol switched to a group 3 base and still had to keep the price the same to cover their R&D expsenses they had to incur to make sure thier replacement was top quality. (Ever consider their was a price reduction and the wholesaler kept the profit?)

Speculation on my part - yep, you bettya
Do I find the above scenario reasonable - yes
I just find it hard to believe that castrol just made the switch without doing any R&D work to make sure their product was the best. Now, if they had plenty of time to do the work then the costs were probably controlled, but if they had to "fast track" this as part of a recovery plan then their costs were probably very extensive.

Only an insider will be able to give us the information to separate fact from fiction. Know any who wants to spill the beans?

---

Nice fairy tale. (As an aside, it's pretty silly to step through a fairy tale logically) The beauty of using it as a defense for Castrol's past behavior is you never have to prove it. That's right. No verification available or that in any way can be referenced. Just a story put out there so people like you can be suckered in by it.

But you know what is really sad. People like you continued to be bamboozled by this story. It's been at least 10 years since this fictitious fast track development. Why are people still being charged for it today?

---

Thats a pathetic response. The fairy tale here is you have no evidence that Mobil 1 is superior to Castrol Syntec. Why don't you just end the argument and show your scientific data that Mobil 1 outperforms Castrol. Whats wrong, the only stat you can throw at me is pour point???

I have seen many post where you throw out an abundance of date, why are you incapable of doing it in this one? If you can't reconcile my posting with what you have stated so far in this thread then so be it............

 

[MC5W20]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ekpolk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MC5W20:
(...snip...) "The man" orders this to be fast tracked so they don't get left high and dry.

So, I guess I can understand that Castrol switched to a group 3 base and still had to keep the price the same to cover their R&D expsenses they had to incur to make sure thier replacement was top quality. (Ever consider their was a price reduction and the wholesaler kept the profit?)

Speculation on my part - yep, you bettya
Do I find the above scenario reasonable - yes
I just find it hard to believe that castrol just made the switch without doing any R&D work to make sure their product was the best. Now, if they had plenty of time to do the work then the costs were probably controlled, but if they had to "fast track" this as part of a recovery plan then their costs were probably very extensive.
(...snip...)

---

Allow me to expose another gaping hole in this "story". Beyond what 427 noted about the failings of the "fairy tale" approach, the story itself still does not make sense. First, I find it impossible to believe that any added R&D costs Castrol may have incurred ten years ago have not by now been absorbed and/or passed on to the consumer. So we're left today with a product whose base oil costs a buck or two less per quart than the G-IV/V products. And again if today, the finished product requires that much more costly of an add pack to bring it on par with the IV/V competition isn't that, in and of itself, pretty convincing proof that the G-III base they're using is inherently inferior to the IV/V based oils?

---

Thats an easy one. No, thats the answer. Your focusing on one aspect of the oil. This whole thing has gone far off track, it seems the argument is always about one aspect and not the whole picture. You, FAIL, yes I mean fail, to look at the whole picture. Just because an addpac costs more - this has no indication on the base oil used. The costs of the addpac should be viewed in terms of performance of the motor oil as a package. Performance is performance.........regardless of costs.

 

[ekpolk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MC5W20:
(...snip...)Thats an easy one. No, thats the answer. Your focusing on one aspect of the oil. This whole thing has gone far off track, it seems the argument is always about one aspect and not the whole picture. You, FAIL, yes I mean fail, to look at the whole picture. Just because an addpac costs more - this has no indication on the base oil used. The costs of the addpac should be viewed in terms of performance of the motor oil as a package. Performance is performance.........regardless of costs.

---

Oh my, that's just silly. The best you can do is say that I "fail" and 427 is "pathetic"??? Pretty clearly, you've run fresh out of ideas. As to my post, first, where on earth do you get the idea that I don't look at the "whole picture"? Base oil, add pack, and performance -- I've addressed them all. If you've bothered to read what I've posted, you'll even find that I've said that G-IIIs perform nearly identically to some of the IV/V competitors. The base oil, add pack, and performance combo is one reason I criticise US Syntec.

Second, has it ever occured to you that someone else might look at "performance" differently than you? Clearly, you've never run a business. Cost is, in the eyes of a great many people, an integral and telling component of "performance".

And finally yes, the cost of the add pack does speak tellingly about the base oil into which it is introduced. But to help you grasp my point better, I'll sharpen it some. I can assure you from a business perspective, Castrol uses an add pack that is no more expensive than necessary to do the job, again, that's the way business works. If they didn't need to use a more costly/potent add pack, they would not. You walked into that one without realizing what you were doing. On point, this is another reason I criticise US Syntec.

Now, can you do any better than come back with mere namecalling?

 

[ekpolk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MC5W20:
(...snip...)I have seen many post where you throw out an abundance of date, why are you incapable of doing it in this one? If you can't reconcile my posting with what you have stated so far in this thread then so be it............

---

MC:

Sorry, but 427 is right about this. You did no more than make up a story and post it as if that proves something. You're not in much of a position to be demanding data from others when all you've offered is a tale that you just made up, and that, surprise, is consistent with your view. Actually, it's pretty transparent, the reason you make up stories is that you have no real facts at all to support what you say. There's no reason to reconcile that with facts -- you can just change the story to keep dodging reality as you like.