Castrol Syntec

[speedtc]

You people who still argue about the mobil 1 vs' syntec are losers. I know that sounds harsh but it's the truth. You people who think mobil 1 is the greatest oil ever get over yourselves. The Mobil 1 used oil analysis are not the greatest and are no better or worse than any other Full Synthetic group lll or lV. To my untrained eye it seems that dino performs better than syn in the short UOA. This stupid argument is a cancer on this board and never goes away. Personally Mobil 1 will never go in my vehicles. I think its junk. It's makes my 4 cyl sound like garbage after about 2000 miles. It doesn't matter to me weather it is protecting just fine or not it makes my motor louder. I use castrol gtx in the summer and syntec in the winter.
The truth is nobody here knows whats in any of these oils for sure. After i realized that dino protects as good or better than any syn threads like this i wouldn't enter. This is just too stupid for us to argue over this. Again and again and again. Just foolish and a waste of time.
NOBODY HAS ANY PROOF THAT Mobil 1 IS BETTER THAN SYNTEC OR ANY OTHER SYN FOR THAT MATTER. THE ONLY THING THAT IS FOR SURE TO ME IS THAT Mobil 1 IS .75 CENTS MORE IN MY AREA AND PROTECTS NO BETTER THAN THE CHEAPEST DINO I CAN FIND FOR 5000 MILE OCI.

 

[sjlee]

Yep, you guys are right... it is Castrol Syntec Blend. I guess I omitted that important part from my original post.

So, how is the Syntec Blend?

 

[Drivebelt]

Castrol Syntec 5w-40 is BMW LL-98, which I believe is a max 25,000km rating, not much less than the max 30,000km rating for LL-01.

Is it possible the only thing holding back the Grp III’s from a LL-01 specification is that BWM specifies synthetic basestocks only for LL-01, and Grp III need not apply in Europe on that score?

Or maybe even that Castrol 5w30 is not a thick 30 weight so it simply can’t meet the HTHS 3.5 spec.’ed for A3 and LL-01. It’s the same deal with Mobil 1 here, the 5w30 isn’t thick enough to meet those spec’s either, even though it’s a Grp IV based oil.

I think some people like Grp IV/V’s and are more comfortable with them because they have a much longer history in the performance synthetic area and have been around for 30 years or more. But I also think the performance of Grp III oils are being underestimated because of some of the propaganda on the web labeling them as not “true” synthetics. A Grp III hydrocracked basestock is not just made from crude oil, it’s made (synthesized) from crude oil + hydrogen. If one looks at comparisons between Grp III’s and PAO’s at sites like Neste Oil and Kimya, the performance spec’s of the basestocks are remarkably similar (except for the low pp of the PAO’s). It’s the performance that matters in the end, and Grp III’s are very good on that score.

The medium neutral oil with the best oxygen stability on Chevron’s site is a Petro-canada Grp III VHVI basestock, beating even the ChevronTexaco Grp IV/PAO on that page. (the low number of 23 for the Asia 8cST is likely a misprint). I believe Castrol is using Petro-canada for their Grp III basestocks. JR doesn’t seem to think PAO’s are really THAT special …

quote:

---

Supply of Modern Base Oil.ppt

John Rosenbaum - (Chevron Senior Product Development Engineer)

Group IV PAO - Polyalphaolefin made by chemical synthesis. Expensive and high purity, but residual unsaturated olefins make it less than perfect. Comparable to a good Grp III.

---

With a good add-pack Grp III’s can outperform PAO’s …

quote:

---

castrol.pdf…

In early 1999, Castrol Heavy Duty made an amazing discovery. While experimenting with Polyalphaolefin (PAO) synthetic base fluids and high caliber anti-wear and anti-oxidant additives, it became apparent that the PAO fluids could not adequately solubilize or dissolve these high quality additives. The formulation experts at Castrol Heavy Duty decided to mix the premium anti-wear and antioxidant additives with a synthetic Group III base fluid. Group III fluids traditionally have naturally high viscosity indices (VIs) and excellent oxidative stability, and they typically exhibit very good solubility properties.

The resulting chemistry produced products that outperformed comparable mineral- and PAO-based fluids in applications.

---

 

[GROUCHO MARX]

Hey, did they use a Fram filter?

 

[pscholte]

I need to remind you guys that there is a very good chance that the oils Shell puts in Ferrari Formula 1 cars and that they put in the Audi R8 before Audi switched to the diesel-powered R10 are/were Grp III. It was VERY LIKELY Group III in the Porsches that dominated road racing in the 80s...my only point being don't be so quick to diss Group III oils, especially if they are spiked with a little Group IV or V...and even if you tell me that it is not performance but price that bugs you, be SURE you have a handle on what it costs to make a top level Group III/IV/V mix. Do you KNOW it is THAT MUCH cheaper? I am not saying you are wrong; I am just asking do you KNOW?

 

[brucelee]

The racing analogy is flawed I think. We don't subject are cars to the stresses as do the racers and we don't change the oil every weekend.

I have not seen any data that suggests that group 3 oils are superior to group 4.

Is there any out there?

If not, I am sticking with the M1 or Amsoil for now.

 

[brucelee]

BTW- if we are using racing as a valid comparison of oils, M1 has certainly done right by the Corvette racing team these past 5 years.

 

[Triple_Se7en]

I have-yet to race my 5 cylinder Colorado P/U -- 4-banger soccer-mom Minivan -- plus an S-10 that corners terribly...lol

I don't -- plus a few thousand others here don't quite fit the Corvette racing M-1 mold.

 

[Nickdfresh]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple_Se7en:
I have-yet to race my 5 cylinder Colorado P/U -- 4-banger soccer-mom Minivan -- plus an S-10 that corners terribly...lol

I don't -- plus a few thousand others here don't quite fit the Corvette racing M-1 mold.

---

Exactly, I'm wondering if many people, aside from those driving performance cars that call for it like the 'Vette and Porsche (both of which use that horrible Mobil 1, that "non-losers" would never put in their engines, as factory fill BTW

) need a synthetic at all when the newer SL/SM mineral oils appear to protect engines just fine.

And is a group III synthetic' any better in a cold start winter application then a conventional, mineral oil 5W-20/30? I believe that's why synthetics became popular to begin with, starting when the Germans noticed that the stuff started much easier in their panzers on the Eastern Front.

 

[brucelee]

I'll stick to the horrible 0-40 Mobil.

 

[tnt31]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple_Se7en:
I'll bet for $2.63 that it was Syntec-Blend. No oil change shop will give you Castrol Syntec for $2.63.

---

I was thinking exactly the same thing as I read the thread.

 

[Drivebelt]

“I have not seen any data that suggests that group 3 oils are superior to group 4. Is there any out there?”


Petro-canada advertises that fact in some of their literature.

quote:

---

Petro-canada Compro XL-S.pdf

With equal or better resistance to thermal and oxidative breakdown versus leading PAO synthetic based fluids, COMPRO provides up to 8,000 hours or one year of continuous worry free service and can significantly reduce compressor operating costs.

In panel coker testing at 260ºC (500ºF) COMPRO XL-S demonstrated stronger resistance to carbon deposit formation versus leading PAO synthetic based fluids. Less carbon build-up on compressor components improves operating efficiencies and saves on maintenance costs.

---

Compro XL-S is possibly even only a Grp II/III blend, judging by the VI numbers. While that Compro XL-S data sheet is about compressor oils, I think it illustrates the performance possibilities for Grp II/III based oils. Maybe P-C tried those same high caliber anti-wear and anti-oxidant additives that Castrol used in their Isolube formulations.

I would have expected the PAO’s to show better results than the Grp II/III in that panel coker test at 260C. The good performance characteristics of these basestocks demonstrated in compressor oils should transfer well into an engine environment.

I used to think that synthetics (what used to be only Grp IV/V before the late 1990’s) had better film strength so they would provide better wear in extreme situations. This may not be the case, as in this Machinery Lubrication article … Maximizing Bearing Life with EHD Fluids -- the mineral (paraffinic Grp II/III … didn’t say) outlasted the PAO in an extreme elastohydrodynamic (EHD) lubrication performance test on a bearing. In a situation like with a TDI-PD engine, were cam wear might be a critical issue (because the cam is used to pump the injectors and undergoes more stress), a Grp II/III oil may provide advantages over a PAO. It would be a tradeoff, the PAO would provide slightly better gas mileage (lower coefficient of traction = slipperier), and the Grp II/III would trade a little gas mileage for slightly better wear.

In a gear oil test, a Grp III based gear oil (B) significantly outperformed 2 PAO’s (A and C) in the longer 90 minute 170C higher stress test for oxidation levels.

quote:

---

The Oxidation Stability of Gear Oils in Modern Differentials

Once again, under conditions of high temperature and extended exposure time, Oil B outperforms the
comparison oil, Oil A.

It is also interesting to note that in Sequence 2 the two PAO-based products , Oils A and C, show markedly greater levels of oxidation.

---

 

[LarryL]

We have a fleet operation that switched from Mobil 1 to Chevron Supreme Synthetic. The new oil appears to perform as well and is about half the cost. That does not mean that M1 is not a good oil, but that there are other good oils out there and maybe your time would be better put toward finding the best oil at a good price and not a good expensive oil, with hugh advertising like Syntec or M1. This leads me back to a comment I'd like to make about oils like Syntec. They say on the bottle "Synthetic" and is high priced like a synthetic, but they might not be a true synthetic. And Castrol Syntec and Mobil 1 have a lot of slick ads. I'll bet a lot more people say give me Mobil 1 or Syntec than say give me Chevron Supreme Synthetic. With all the talent and interest on this board, we should start a search for a very good, inexpensive oil. And Syntec or M1 would not qualify.

 

[brucelee]

Well, M1 IS a synthetic, unlike Syntec.

 

[G-MAN]

I've been reading this thread with some interest, so I suppose I'll add my two cents to the direction it has taken:

Sooner or later the diehard PAO fans are going to have to realize that modern hydrocracked and isodewaxed Group II+ and Group III base oils have completely blurred the line between synthetic and conventional oil from a performance standpoint, not a semantic one.

If the API had imposed the current GF4 standards 15 years ago, only PAO-based oils could have met those standards. Put another way, today the absolute worst possible crude can be refined into basestocks from which motor oils are made that meet specs that a decade ago would have required PAO.

Food for thought.

 

[GMorg]

Does anyone, anywhere have dictionary that defines the word "synthetic" in a way that does not apply to GroupIII.

Words have definitions.

 

[G-MAN]

quote:

---

Originally posted by GMorg:
Does anyone, anywhere have dictionary that defines the word "synthetic" in a way that does not apply to GroupIII.

Words have definitions.

---

Etymologically, the English word "synthetic" is derived from the Greek word syntithenai which literally meant "to put together." Chemists and chemical engineers like to keep the definition of "synthetic" very precise to mean the making of a more complex substance from the "putting together" of smaller compounds. By that definition, Group III is not "synthetic." PAO is.

If a more general definition of "synthetic" is allowed, e.g., where the finished product is chemically different from the feedstock used to make it, then Group III (and Group II) are "synthetic." The catalytic processes used to make these base oils actually result in a chemical transformation of the feedstock. That was not the case with the "old" solvent extraction and solvent dewaxing way of making Group I base oil. That process was basically "cleaning up" the feedstock to the point you could use it to make motor oil.

 

[Auto-Union]

The whole basis of the findings in Mobil v. Castrol was that Chemical Reference Manuals state that a substance only need be "changed signifigantly" to be considered synthesized. That's why the ruling of the arbitration board was correct.

 

[ekpolk]

Which begs the question of whether the definition is adequate. I do not think that "changed significantly" is an adequate definition of synthesis, because as we have seen through this very saga, it reduces the term to near meaninglessness. If, for example, the word "hat" had as much haze in it as "synthetic" now does, I could say I'm wearing a "hat" and from that alone, you could not be sure if I was wearing something on my head, socks, a T-shirt, or a jock strap. Several years ago, many people thought it utterly absurd when a well-known public figure tried to avoid trouble by bending the meaning of the three-lettered word for reproductive union. Why was that torturing of terminology seen easily for its silliness and lack of ethics, but this one is not?

The defintion of "synthetic" being fundamentally flawed, so was the arb board's ruling. Garbage in -- garbage out.

 

[-Clayton-]

Since he was talking about the blend and not the syn, Does not the blend have a real decent add pack? And is this just GroupII+III mix or does it have some of the real thing?