I am still not sure why most people bad mouth Castrol Syntec,,there a lot of other group III, called synt.,,why is Castrol singled out so badly,,,though I have also heard they are reformulating the north american lube,again,,OH by the way Syntec really is a great oil,given quot,,compaired to real life use and labs,,,though there better brands in use that exceed,,as Schaeffers,,for about same $$$,,,,,,,,,,,,,BL
Castrol Syntec
- Thread starter grbr95
- Start date
- Status
AJ said:
The problem with this argument is that there's more to interpreting terms than just looking to the linguistic roots of the word. Another factor to consider is customary usage. The problem with Castrol's strategy is that when they pulled the now famous/infamous switch, customary usage of the term "synthetic" did not include G-III oils. Their overemphasis on word origin, and their disregard for customary usage of the term made their strategy the equivalent of a big bait-and-switch scam. A harsh description perhaps, but one I believe is deserved. Ironically, as oil technology forges ahead, and we see the clarity between classes and categories of oils blurring, the whole issue is sliding toward mootness.
The problem with this argument is that there's more to interpreting terms than just looking to the linguistic roots of the word. Another factor to consider is customary usage. The problem with Castrol's strategy is that when they pulled the now famous/infamous switch, customary usage of the term "synthetic" did not include G-III oils. Their overemphasis on word origin, and their disregard for customary usage of the term made their strategy the equivalent of a big bait-and-switch scam. A harsh description perhaps, but one I believe is deserved. Ironically, as oil technology forges ahead, and we see the clarity between classes and categories of oils blurring, the whole issue is sliding toward mootness.
Brian Fix said:
It's because Castrol was the leader in this. The others are just sheep who followed along after Castrol blazed the trail.
It's because Castrol was the leader in this. The others are just sheep who followed along after Castrol blazed the trail.
Hydrocracked Group III base oils are produced from distilled crude oil using catalysts, hydrogen, and very high temperatures to restructure the oil at the molecular level into a chemically pure base oil. The process includes destroying aromatic compounds, sulphur, and other impurities, and converting the residual wax into oil.
"Actually, having had 3 years of Latin and 3 years of Greek in college, I can tell you the root of "Synthesis" is Greek, not Latin. You got the rest of it pretty much correct."
I just made that stuff up anyway.
I just made that stuff up anyway.
"customary usage of the term "synthetic" did not include G-III oils"
So definitions from chemical reference manuals means what then? You're saying they are irrelavent?
"more to interpreting terms than just looking to the linguistic roots of the word."
...but that part supports your assertions.
So definitions from chemical reference manuals means what then? You're saying they are irrelavent?
"more to interpreting terms than just looking to the linguistic roots of the word."
...but that part supports your assertions.
What difference does any of this make? If an oil gives you good results, why do you care what they call it?
Corporations (and governments) are always going to spew out doubletalk and mumbo jumbo. The proof is in the pudding, not in the press release.
Corporations (and governments) are always going to spew out doubletalk and mumbo jumbo. The proof is in the pudding, not in the press release.
G-Man II said:
OK, you stated it in more precise detail, but it took you four lines, not two.
Other than your addition of details, certainly significant ones, it pretty much looks like we're saying the same thing. My "inaccurate" description still distinguishes G-III from I and II before it, and IV and V after it, though certainly in no detail.
OK, you stated it in more precise detail, but it took you four lines, not two.
Other than your addition of details, certainly significant ones, it pretty much looks like we're saying the same thing. My "inaccurate" description still distinguishes G-III from I and II before it, and IV and V after it, though certainly in no detail.
AJ said:
No, the definitions from chemical references certainly do weigh in as part of the analysis of “customary usage”. The problem I still have is that your position overlooks the “customary usage” of the retail user of the product. To determine customary usage fairly, you need to look at the expectations of everyone involved, not just the guys who wear lab coats. I’m not a chemist, so I’ll certainly defer to them on how they would use the term. On the other hand, the product involved, oil brewed for retail sale, is marketed to plain old average people, teachers, bread truck drivers, prison guards, accountants, what-have-you. It is simply not realistic to expect average people who are buying the product to be well schooled on customary usage as found in a chemical reference manual.
Sure, this “supports [my] assertion” on this issue. I’m really not that cynical though; the concepts of interpretation of terms are pretty well established (at least in my line of work). I’m also willing to live by them when they lead to conclusions I disagree with as well.
No, the definitions from chemical references certainly do weigh in as part of the analysis of “customary usage”. The problem I still have is that your position overlooks the “customary usage” of the retail user of the product. To determine customary usage fairly, you need to look at the expectations of everyone involved, not just the guys who wear lab coats. I’m not a chemist, so I’ll certainly defer to them on how they would use the term. On the other hand, the product involved, oil brewed for retail sale, is marketed to plain old average people, teachers, bread truck drivers, prison guards, accountants, what-have-you. It is simply not realistic to expect average people who are buying the product to be well schooled on customary usage as found in a chemical reference manual.
Sure, this “supports [my] assertion” on this issue. I’m really not that cynical though; the concepts of interpretation of terms are pretty well established (at least in my line of work). I’m also willing to live by them when they lead to conclusions I disagree with as well.
Posted by Mark C:
An excellent and valid point, for sure. And don’t forget, I’m the guy with over 150 quarts of German Castrol stashed away in my garage, precisely because of the results it produces. That said, I’m still rubbed the wrong way by what I see as Castrol’s bait-and-switch with the change to G-III for most of the Syntec line. They still charge full “true” synthetic prices, while bottling a cheaper-to-make product. And as Buster points out, the G-III Syntec oils don’t seem to last as long in service as the Group IV-V oils typically do.
An excellent and valid point, for sure. And don’t forget, I’m the guy with over 150 quarts of German Castrol stashed away in my garage, precisely because of the results it produces. That said, I’m still rubbed the wrong way by what I see as Castrol’s bait-and-switch with the change to G-III for most of the Syntec line. They still charge full “true” synthetic prices, while bottling a cheaper-to-make product. And as Buster points out, the G-III Syntec oils don’t seem to last as long in service as the Group IV-V oils typically do.
A couple of points: You could substitute "Group II" for "Group III" in my description and it would still be 100% accurate. In other words there is no distinction between how hydrocracked Group II and Group III are made. The process is exactly the same. The only varriable is the length of time the feedstock is subjected to the catalytic conversion. Second, your description calls the procedures "various chemical processes," which, IMO, is the really inaccurate part. (Group I is produced by chemical processes.) Change that phrase to "various catalytic processes" and I would be much happier with your description.
G-Man, I see your point, and it makes sense. My perspective on this is undoubtedly warped by my early military experience. Having lived for a long time in a world where we made a living dropping bad things on bad (we hope) people, I tend to think of "reactions" broadly as being either "chemical" (garden variety bang) or "nuclear" (very big bang). Of course, bombs and motor oil are different commodities. Bombs blow things up. We all hope that motor oil does not. Getting out of my old box, I can see that there are meaningful distinctions beyond just "nuke" and "chem". Catalytic as distinct from simple chemical would be one.
So, I wonder when are we going to see "Group-VII", nuclear fusion derived base oils???
EDIT: And hey, we already have one oil that glows green. . .
So, I wonder when are we going to see "Group-VII", nuclear fusion derived base oils???
EDIT: And hey, we already have one oil that glows green. . .
I'm still on the anti-Castro Syntec side.
Castrol makes some excellent products like German Castrol Syntec 0w30 and Transynd synthetic ATF for TES-295 fluid specc'ed Allison transmissions.
I use both these products.
The European market has more excellent Castrol oils, and Castrol clearly has the abilty to buy excellent ingredients and additives and formulate top quality lubricants
And now that Castrol is owned by BP, and actually has refineries to supply ingredients; perhaps marketing won't be Castrol's strongest suit.
I used to buy Castrol Syntec and I had been a loyal Castrol user. And then one day, I learned that the 'full synthetic' oil for $4.00 / quart had completely changed its formula and contained less expensive ingredients.
The entire reason I bought Syntec was gone, and Castrol never mentioned it to the consumer.
Bye bye Castrol! It is only recently that I bought Castrol GC and Transynd.
Imagine if Redline, a favorite oil of mine, decided to switch from the expensive group V Polyol Ester basestock to group III+ or VHVI basestock but never changed the label or the marketing or the price.
Do you really think I'd believe an explanation like Castrol's that they used a 'more expensive additive' instead of the basestock I believed made for a great oil?
If Redline ever decided to make a major change to an oil, I would hope that they would tell us and let us decide.
Mobil 1 changes formulations far to quickly for my tastes and explains the changes like they were selling us soap powder or toothpaste. Mostly marketing hyperbole.
Castrol is even worse with their P.T. Barnum-like hucksterism, IMHO.
Tell the consumer the truth and quit the smoke and mirrors.
If you find a way to make a superior oil for less money...tell the consumer that this is a new oil and price it so that we also benefit from the cost savings or technology ...and we can make informed decisions.
If Castrol was in the business of making 100% Fresh Squeezed Florida Orange Juice [ not from concentrate ]...absent government regulations:
Castrol would be bottling anything form orange dyed and flavored sugar water maybe with some 'vitamins added', up to the real thing and always calling and pricing it as a premium product.
And we as consumers would be trading info like:
-'buy the Castrol Orange Juice sold at Safeway with the green wording in the 'Fresh Squeezed' label in the lower right corner, dated Oct. 17, 2005'
[ November 02, 2005, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: Thatwouldbegreat ]
Castrol makes some excellent products like German Castrol Syntec 0w30 and Transynd synthetic ATF for TES-295 fluid specc'ed Allison transmissions.
I use both these products.
The European market has more excellent Castrol oils, and Castrol clearly has the abilty to buy excellent ingredients and additives and formulate top quality lubricants
And now that Castrol is owned by BP, and actually has refineries to supply ingredients; perhaps marketing won't be Castrol's strongest suit.
I used to buy Castrol Syntec and I had been a loyal Castrol user. And then one day, I learned that the 'full synthetic' oil for $4.00 / quart had completely changed its formula and contained less expensive ingredients.
The entire reason I bought Syntec was gone, and Castrol never mentioned it to the consumer.
Bye bye Castrol! It is only recently that I bought Castrol GC and Transynd.
Imagine if Redline, a favorite oil of mine, decided to switch from the expensive group V Polyol Ester basestock to group III+ or VHVI basestock but never changed the label or the marketing or the price.
Do you really think I'd believe an explanation like Castrol's that they used a 'more expensive additive' instead of the basestock I believed made for a great oil?
If Redline ever decided to make a major change to an oil, I would hope that they would tell us and let us decide.
Mobil 1 changes formulations far to quickly for my tastes and explains the changes like they were selling us soap powder or toothpaste. Mostly marketing hyperbole.
Castrol is even worse with their P.T. Barnum-like hucksterism, IMHO.
Tell the consumer the truth and quit the smoke and mirrors.
If you find a way to make a superior oil for less money...tell the consumer that this is a new oil and price it so that we also benefit from the cost savings or technology ...and we can make informed decisions.
If Castrol was in the business of making 100% Fresh Squeezed Florida Orange Juice [ not from concentrate ]...absent government regulations:
Castrol would be bottling anything form orange dyed and flavored sugar water maybe with some 'vitamins added', up to the real thing and always calling and pricing it as a premium product.
And we as consumers would be trading info like:
-'buy the Castrol Orange Juice sold at Safeway with the green wording in the 'Fresh Squeezed' label in the lower right corner, dated Oct. 17, 2005'
[ November 02, 2005, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: Thatwouldbegreat ]
Wasn't the aribitratin board a consumer arbitration board?
Does anyone really "know" this? We all know about the arbitration ruling, but that was a long time ago. PAO's are not that much more expensive than Grp. III anymore. Are they?
Has anyone inquired lately to find out if Syntec really is Grp.III? That email that the guy has from Castrol implies that it is probably PAO.
It just seems that everyone on BITOG is so smug in their knowledge that Castrol is Grp. III, but the "proof" in that knowledge always points back the the arbitration ruling. There are no statements from Castrol saying the current oil is Grp. III, there is no testing that shows it is Grp. III. Or is there some thread that I missed that prooves it is Grp. III?
AJ Posted:
It may well have been. I've only read an article about the proceeding (several years ago) and never examined any original documents. Even if it was, there was no one advocating for consumers in this case. It was just Mobil and Castrol putting forward their own cases. But that's really beside the point. I was responding to your assertion that the use of the term "synthetic" is justified in a technical sense, which it very well may be. Regardless of the technical correctness of the usage, a lot of non-technical people, consumers of the product, did not (and still do not) agree with the usage. Again, I still think that from the perspective of the buyer, the use of the term is not justified.
It may well have been. I've only read an article about the proceeding (several years ago) and never examined any original documents. Even if it was, there was no one advocating for consumers in this case. It was just Mobil and Castrol putting forward their own cases. But that's really beside the point. I was responding to your assertion that the use of the term "synthetic" is justified in a technical sense, which it very well may be. Regardless of the technical correctness of the usage, a lot of non-technical people, consumers of the product, did not (and still do not) agree with the usage. Again, I still think that from the perspective of the buyer, the use of the term is not justified.
I hear you EK! 100%
Why does Castrol continue to be so slimy? They sound like an overlawyered politician dodging a sexual assualt charge.
Group III is hydrocracked.
Call the oil : HC-Synthetic
Call the Group IV and V oil: Full Synthetic
Why does Castrol continue to be so slimy? They sound like an overlawyered politician dodging a sexual assualt charge.
Group III is hydrocracked.
Call the oil : HC-Synthetic
Call the Group IV and V oil: Full Synthetic
That's true too, but I see what the G-Man means also. Another failure of terminology, really. The distinction is in the degree of chemical processing. In Group I and II processing (again, I'm overdistilling this), there's really no molecular change to the lube molecules, they're just separated from other molecules, hopefully with to an adequate extent. In Group III processing, there's an actual manipulation of the structure of the lube molecules. Both arguably fall under the chemical processing terminology, but one form is a lot more extensive than the other.
OK. Got it.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked