Current Formulations: Mobil 1 Or Castrol Syntec???

[ULVER]

Just curious, if either current formulation, shows anything superior to the other

Or, are they basically in the same "neighborhood" now.

I loved the German green "daze" a long ago...

 

[Merkava_4]

All I can say is that Mobil 1's thinner grades have been the subject of many noise complaints on this board; what the exact reason is for that I'm not sure, but I suspect it's because they act like a much thinner oil than what they're labelled to be.

As far as the Castrol Syntec goes, there's not much to say about it because Mobil 1 is more widely used and thus get more complaints than Syntec.

However! I'd be okay with trying Mobil 1 0W-40, 10w30 HM, or 10W-40 HM.

 

[mitchcoyote]

M 1 does have a superior formulation than Synpower

 

[mitchcoyote]

Or Syntec, excuse me..

 

[Triple_Se7en]

I prefer Castrol's base oil
I prefer Mobil 1 add-packs

But I use Pennzoil, Quaker State & Amsoil for (my opinion) the best of both worlds doing 6-8K OCIs.

 

[OilGuy]

Here are some facts to consider:

Syntec cannot protect a rather common Cadillac, which requires an oil that is approved against GM's high performance oil spec, GM4718M. Castrol intentionally misleads the public to believe Syntec is approved, but they are not on GM's approval list. (It does satisfy the requirements of GM's conventional-level oil spec GM6094M)

Syntec is not approved against Acura's new performance oil spec HTO-06 required for the RDX.

In the industry standard test (TEOST) to evaluate high temp deposit resistance, Syntec creates 5x more deposits than M1. We may not experience such severe test conditions in our everyday driving, by it's an industry standard test to compare apples to apples.

 

[buster]

M1, no contest.

 

[Bill in Utah]

Quote:

---

M1, no contest.

---

Unless you run your car on rollers...

(latest D U M B Castrol commercial)

I've used M1 and Syntec and did a used oil analysis with both. The Syntec was better (lower metals).

Neither I'd run again. If I was going to run a syn, it would be whatever is on sale or if I was going to pay for it, Amsoil.

Take care, Bill

 

[buster]

Quote:
In the industry standard test (TEOST) to evaluate high temp deposit resistance, Syntec creates 5x more deposits than M1. We may not experience such severe test conditions in our everyday driving, by it's an industry standard test to compare apples to apples.


Engines run best when kept clean, free of slugde and deposits. I could care less about noise floor wear metals which is what all oils produce these days.

However, any GF-4 oil though should be good at preventing deposits/sludge in a non turbo.

 

[MKZman]

Originally Posted By: OilGuy

In the industry standard test (TEOST) to evaluate high temp deposit resistance, Syntec creates 5x more deposits than M1. We may not experience such severe test conditions in our everyday driving, by it's an industry standard test to compare apples to apples.


Where did this info come from? I searched this forum and googled the Internet and did not see any data posted.

 

[OilGuy]

Mobil paid for an independent lab (likely, SW research) to run the industry standard deposit evaluating TEOST tests to compare M1 to it's #2 competitor in the world. Mobil 1 scored 5.3, #2 Competitor (Syntec) scored 26.4.

Also, Mobil tested Clean 7500 vs the #1 Syn Blend in the world (Syntec Blend). With it's 27% detergent additive boost vs it's base GF-4 requirement "Mobil Clean" bulk oil (formerly Drive Clean at retail), Clean 7500 scored 14.6 (yes, almost 1/2 the deposits of Castrol's best Full Synthetic Syntec), Syntec Blend scored 39.8.

 

[uconn1150]

I'll take my GC any day over M1 30 grade or 0w-40.

 

[buster]

Originally Posted By: OilGuy
Mobil paid for an independent lab (likely, SW research) to run the industry standard deposit evaluating TEOST tests to compare M1 to it's #2 competitor in the world. Mobil 1 scored 5.3, #2 Competitor (Syntec) scored 26.4.

Also, Mobil tested Clean 7500 vs the #1 Syn Blend in the world (Syntec Blend). With it's 27% detergent additive boost vs it's base GF-4 requirement "Mobil Clean" bulk oil (formerly Drive Clean at retail), Clean 7500 scored 14.6 (yes, almost 1/2 the deposits of Castrol's best Full Synthetic Syntec), Syntec Blend scored 39.8.


Good to know. Never been a fan of Castrol.

I wonder how many people run oils that show low wear, but create deposits when pushed? Castrol seems to produce very average oils, at best.

 

[ToyotaNSaturn]

Why the wide discrepancy on deposits between syntec & M1 when both are allegedly group III products? Something is not right with those numbers IMO.

 

[buster]

Originally Posted By: ToyotaNSaturn
Why the wide discrepancy on deposits between syntec & M1 when both are allegedly group III products? Something is not right with those numbers IMO.


Base oils alone won't tell you everything. Reg M1 is Group IV/V. Lot more to it than just making assumptions based on what base oil is being used.

 

[JAG]

Originally Posted By: ToyotaNSaturn
Why the wide discrepancy on deposits between syntec & M1 when both are allegedly group III products?

Is that the current state of BITOG consensus on the subject? If so, I might as well quit posting on these subjects since it was all for nothing.

 

[Eddie]

Mobil 1 meets the more demanding tests as oilguy states. While Mobil 1 suppodly has started to use some Gp3 base stock (percentage unkown, the pour point remains lower suggesting some or much of the base oil is POA with some esters. In addition the add pack is outstanding. Both very good oils but, in my opinion the nod goes to M1

 

[OilGuy]

Well Castrol has an easy lawsuit on it's hands if that's the case.

Newsflash - anybody can buy any base stock. We don't run base stocks in our engines, but rather finished lubes are made up of a proprietary or off the shelf add pack combined with base oil(s). The add pack is where the real difference is, but base oil is easy and sexy to talk about and market (along with "see it with your very own eyes" UOA data)

M1 hasn't been full PAO since it was first launched in the 70s (when it didn't swell seals and actually caused leaks). They added a different syn component to help back then. It was the Tri-Synthetic formula in it's previous generation. According to Mobil, all M1 products contain PAO today - though apparently in different amounts depending on viscosity formulation.

It doesn't matter what you make it with (or what mktg label is slapped on it), what it can do is far more important. If low Fe wear numbers were most important, there are a lot of stupid engine builders around the world wasting a lot of money and resources designing and running industry-standard and OEM tests if all that is needed to "truly" differentiate oils is a $20 oil analysis report that Joe Public can do. UOA can indeed be helpful, but it provides limited and incomplete insight regarding overall performance.

 

[Iain]

Originally Posted By: ToyotaNSaturn
Why the wide discrepancy on deposits between syntec & M1 when both are allegedly group III products? Something is not right with those numbers IMO.


Group III product?

Castrol Syntec probably are, but Mobil 1 are highly dependent on viscosity rating.

 

[buster]

Originally Posted By: OilGuy
Well Castrol has an easy lawsuit on it's hands if that's the case.

Newsflash - anybody can buy any base stock. We don't run base stocks in our engines, but rather finished lubes are made up of a proprietary or off the shelf add pack combined with base oil(s). The add pack is where the real difference is, but base oil is easy and sexy to talk about and market (along with "see it with your very own eyes" UOA data)

M1 hasn't been full PAO since it was first launched in the 70s (when it didn't swell seals and actually caused leaks). They added a different syn component to help back then. It was the Tri-Synthetic formula in it's previous generation. According to Mobil, all M1 products contain PAO today - though apparently in different amounts depending on viscosity formulation.

It doesn't matter what you make it with (or what mktg label is slapped on it), what it can do is far more important. If low Fe wear numbers were most important, there are a lot of stupid engine builders around the world wasting a lot of money and resources designing and running industry-standard and OEM tests if all that is needed to "truly" differentiate oils is a $20 oil analysis report that Joe Public can do. UOA can indeed be helpful, but it provides limited and incomplete insight regarding overall performance.


Well said.

IMO, people can end up wasting their time/$$ IMO on comparing oils based on small differences in ppm wear. I'd rather rely on specs met and reputation among engine builders. I'd like to see low wear metals in used oil analysis, but I know that it's not as black and white as some make it.
.02