Composite Analysis of GC

[Bio-T]

First of all, look at the company we are dealing with, Castrol. Anything is possible. The GC that is being tested in our Z-oil test is the real deal. What has happened since the 04 batch is anyones guess. And after the results of the current test are in, maybe the 05 batch will be the oil to test next to see if a switch was made.

It is no secret that I am not a Castrol Company fan, but I can with all honesty state that for the money the 02-04 GC has produced the best used oil analysis on this board. In fact, it will probably go untouched in that arena for the $5 price tag.

[ March 31, 2005, 12:05 PM: Message edited by: 59 Vetteman ]

 

[jsharp]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Audi Junkie:
JT, I know AMSoil XL 7500 is a good G-III product. Does it meet mfg specs though? In Europe, I don't see HC oils doing that.

---

The europeans stood their ground on this and didn't allow HC oil to be labled "synthetic." Something the FTC should have done in this country. But that opinion is politics, not oil...

[ March 31, 2005, 01:55 PM: Message edited by: jsharp ]

 

[haley10]

All I can say is, a board member once got me interested in the Syntec 10W-40. I used it knowing the composition; GPIII, Slack Wax and some PAO. It was excellent and out-performed some true synthetics.

GC works for me.

The composition is interesting, but whatever it is...it works.

Terry will clear this up shortly. Carpy's info does seem to be somewhat in conflict with what Terry has reported so far.

[ March 31, 2005, 02:42 PM: Message edited by: haley10 ]

 

[Grossomotto]

If the GC Amber '05 batch was tested, then we know a lot more than we did before.

GC is now $5.39 in a lot of places. I don't see it a much better deal than new Mobil 1 Extended Performance, or other similar oils.

Although, I currently have two more changes of GC '04 on hand. I'll hold off on my purchase of any more. At least the Amber '05.

 

[GregH]

This thread has gotten rediculous. I think carpy relayed what he was told. Johnny and Pscholte have been pretty hard on him. One seems to think there is a secondary motive just because he does not agree, and for Johnny I am not sure. He sure plugs his brand, and have not heard a good excuse for the low add pack Pennzoil VOA. Come on guys, see how it feels to be picked on. I would not blame carpy if he told this group to kiss his A$$ and move on . This group of folks have always exchanged info in a friendly manner but this GC stuff has turned this group into a divided and rude house.
Listen to what you have to say and think about it before posting and you just might be a little more open minded.
Just my thoughts one of the unwashed multitude
GregH

 

[loudist]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jsharp:
That's the nature of sacred cows. People get mad when someone points out they're really just cattle...

---

Don't forget, they make the best tasting hamburgers too!

 

[NewGuy]

Wow. This is one heated thread. I thought Carpy's comments might ruffle some feathers, but I had no idea.

FWIW...I like Castrol products, including Syntec, GTX and I believe that the UOA numbers from GC were overall the best on this board. I am a chemist (not in the petroleum area) and know that there are many different methods to arrive at the same result. It is entirely possible that an oil using Group III, V and some good additives might give superior results to PAO products. I have always believed that Syntec (non-GC) had something other than Group III in it to boost performance (hence my question about Group V in Syntec).

Carpy did admit that Mobil 7500 was Group III and that it did not have the robust additive package (Group V plus additives) found in his sample of GC. Hence they were similar, but the GC was a better product. It might be that both Carpy and Terry can be correct if Carpy tested amber '05 product and Terry evaluated '04 product.

I do not believe that Carpy was trying to degrade GC or promote Mobil 7500....he was just relaying information and comparing the results with a product that he knows well....Mobil 7500. I did a search on all of Carpy's previous posts and believe that he has been a straight shooter on things.

There are other members here who work for Amsoil, Pennzoil and other companies and they are entitled to state their opinion....just like Carpy. Wouldn't it be funny if both he and Terry were right?

In my opinion, the composition of an oil is secondary to its performance. I don't see anything wrong with paying $4-$5 for a Group III/V product if it gives good results and the user sleeps good at night knowing the product works in his engine.

Just my thoughts!!

 

[bighead]

I agree newguy, but, me personally, I wouldn't have paid nearly 200 bucks for my 24 qt stash if I knew it was regular syntech with a greenish tint (providing The Green was in fact the oil that carpy had tested). To me it's the principal of the whole thing. True, it gives great protection and used oil analysis, but I just couldn't justify spending that kind of money on some green syntec...but, again that's just me.

 

[Johnny]

"and for Johnny I am not sure. He sure plugs his brand, and have not heard a good excuse for the ow add pack Pennzoil VOA".

Well let me tell you. If you are referring to the Pennzoil High Mileage VOA I suggest you re-read the intire post again. I did answer the low ad pack, bad anaylisis report, not the product.

As for as plugging my brand, well, if someone ask me a question about MY brand, I will try my best to give them an honest answer. You have never read a post of mine where I bashed or said something negativy about another product and you never will.

Here is my problem with this whole thread. I don't care what brand of oil was tested, makes me no difference. What I do have a problem with is someone comes on here and says he works for XYZ company and we did this or that and everyone all of a suddend takes it as gospel. When I first joined this board eveyone use to say, don't say it, show us the proof. Well, show us the proof. Show us a lab report from Exxon/Mobil Corporation that shows this test was done and where the chemist that ran it shows his or her findings. I firmly do not believe you will get a report with Exxon/Mobil letterhead on it that states this. And if for some strange reason one does appear, you can bet the next communication about it will be from BP's legal department. Things like this are just not done by the major oil companies. IT IS NOT ETHICAL.

Now if an individual wants to talk about any brand they want to, that's fine. FREE SPEACH and all that, but in the business world you just don't do it. I work for Shell and I know a lot of folks that work for Mobil, BP, Chevron, Valvoline, and Conoco, and there is one thing we all have in common. We had to sign an Ethical Compliance Agreement. If I posted something like this on a public form, or even made it in private conversation and my company found out about it, I would be fired.

THIS IS THE ONLY PROBLEM I HAVE WITH THIS

Now I don't care what Carpy does. But if you don't care about ethics on this board, then I'm outta here.

 

[Bio-T]

Thanks for all the posts on this subject. I think it has been very clear that this does involve an ethical issue.

The regular posters on this site have been fantastic. Johnny has contributed knowledge on products and has been very upfront and honest. A true Gentleman in every sense of the word.

We will have a test of GC and it will be from an independent lab. No affiliation with Castrol. Terry will post the information as soon as it is received. Then we can make a judgment on the oil from that standpoint.

I have issues with Carpy, that I will not discuss publicly on the board. It is between him and I. I have information that I cannot discuss because every poster is assured privacy by the Moderators on the info we receive, whether through emails, PM's or registering. Let me say that the agenda from him is questionable.

I am going to close this topic and let the Z-Oil report speak for GC Castrol.

 

[bulwnkl]

Re: this thread, all I can come up with is "wow." I thought I was opinionated, but give me a break.

I love RedLine. I use it. I think it's "the best" no matter what any UOA says. I don't think it's cost-effective and I tell everyone that synthetic engine oil is almost never cost-effective.

GC's proponent's seem to be covetous/unreasonably protective of something that USED TO BE available. What kind of sense does that make?

I appreciate carpy's posts and information. I also take all such posts regardless of author with a grain of salt for reasons which include, but are not limited to, some of the things that johhny and pscholte posted.

Lighten up, guys.

 

[Audi Junkie]

Myself, I tend to trust the senior members. Carpy is a good guy, he's brought a lot to this board, but think he will probally regret this stunt.

Putting on my lawyer hat...

10 days from store shelf to lab to internet forum?

Contradictory base group info from Terry's Report?

Mobil v Castrol??? (no agenda there

)

"compare to Mobil Clean 7500"?!

Do any "other" G-III oils pour at -80f OR meet mfg LL specs?

(I'm sure Warren would like to hook up with Mercedes-Benz for a supply contract of bulk MB 229.3 oil)

My question to Carpy is: Do you think Mobil will test any GF-4 G-III oils against Euro or other LL specs, even ACEA? Also, might they drop Mobil 1 0w-40 all together???

Somehow, I doubt Clean 7500=GC.

PS my favourite thing about GC is not the colour, it's the stout 3.5 HT/HS, but at a lower +100c viscosity than ANY Mobil product. How'd they do that?

 

[jason07-1zzfe]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Audi Junkie:
...
Do any "other" G-III oils pour at -80f OR meet mfg LL specs?

...

---

Probably doesn't pour at that anymore, that's the point. So you're saying you can't meet LL specs with a "GIII/PAO blend with a robust additive package" ?

 

[Audi Junkie]

JT, I know AMSoil XL 7500 is a good G-III product. Does it meet mfg specs though? In Europe, I don't see HC oils doing that.