Defending Castrol?????????????????

Shannow · Aug 14, 2004

Mamala Bay,
I beleive that the non-synthetic portion was only the carrier that the additives were supplied in.

As to Castrol, they sell their Group 3 and Group 4 oils along side each other at exactly the same price, and that is plain wrong.

Shell used to advertise their XHVI oils as "mineral oils that carry the performance of a full synthetic", and charge a lesser rate. With the Castrol case, they started selling them as full synthetic.

At least Fuchs down here are open and honest. The Titan GTO is Group 3, and the RRP is about 2/3 of their competitors' "full synthetic".

Hemidart · Aug 14, 2004

As Johnny says, Mobil was fleecing Castrol on the price of the PAO. If Mobil was doing this to force Syntec from competing with Mobil 1, then maybe we should be more ****** at Mobil. If Mobil was fair in their pricing, then this whole GIII is a synthetic argument would be moot.

Audi Junkie · Aug 14, 2004

So, all Syntec grades have esters, but Mobil 1 has none???

People are making assumptions about the cost of one formula verses another without any idea what is going into it besides the basestocks. I have a quasi-science backround, reading a lot of different primary and secondary research papers, imo G-III is not a synthetic and cannot understand the rationale of the Castrol V. Mobil decision.

Did Castrol do anything wrong, legally...**** no. On the other hand, Mobil did use G-I as a "carrier" in previous "Full Synthetic" finished oils. As is usually the case, the whole system of labeling is messed up by the courts. What is the big deal, the whole issue could be as pointless as back-to-back used oil analysis of Syntec and Mobil 1 10w-40. Wait, Mobil does not make 10w-40.

pscholte · Aug 14, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by Jay:
Castrol dishonestly hi-jacked the term "synthetic"

Jay,

This is really neat...you were in the boardroom when the decision was made or else you would not know it was a cold calculated "hijacking," right? Please share with us what it was like. I imagine there was a lot of evil laughter and perfidious planning for further ripping off of the gullible public. I am sure, based on your first hand telling of this decision, that you KNOW FOR A FACT it was not something less nefarious like, "Hey, Grp III is a modification of the original oil molecular structure. Why can't we justifiably call it a synthetic?" You were there so you know that didn't happen. Why didn't you share this insider info sooner and save us all from getting sucked in?

Thanks for setting us all straight on WHAT REALLY HAPPENED>

ekpolk · Aug 14, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by VeeDubb:

quote:

Consider this hypothetical: your next door neighbor works for Castrol. He borrows a tool from you and lies about his intent to return it to you. He then puts a tie on, goes to work, and lies to you about what's in the oil his company just sold you. I respectfully challenge you to make a principled distinction between these two situations.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I don't think the morality in the synthetic debate is this clear. If it was, I'd be very surprised if anybody disagreed with you.

The key issue is not whether it's right or wrong to lie (it's wrong), but what the definition of synthetic is. Is group III a synthetic or not? I personally think it probably is. Others will disagree. Mobil thinks it isn't, Castrol thinks it is. If somebody thinks their product qualifies as synthetic, then they wouldn't be lying. I just don't think it is very clearcut.

However, if you do NOT belive that group III is synthetic, I completely respect your choice not to buy it. [/QB]

Wellllll, the problem with the idea that it's OK to redifine the meaning of "synthetic" at will, and to suit one's own agenda, is that then you've got to say that the infamous "I did not have sex with that woman" claim wasn't really dishonest afterall. I mean, if Castrol can shape-shift "synthetic" to suit its own purposes, then why can't you-know-who define the term "sex" to suit his?

Hmmmmmm, I smell fumes in here. Anyone got a match. . .

VeeDubb · Aug 14, 2004

quote:

Wellllll, the problem with the idea that it's OK to redifine the meaning of "synthetic" at will, and to suit one's own agenda, is that then you've got to say that the infamous "I did not have sex with that woman" claim wasn't really dishonest afterall. I mean, if Castrol can shape-shift "synthetic" to suit its own purposes, then why can't you-know-who define the term "sex" to suit his?

Hmmmmmm, I smell fumes in here. Anyone got a match. . .

[/QB]

I agree with you, but my understanding is that a third party ruled in favor of Castrol (I'm not an expert on this so I'm open to someone telling me otherwise). If true, Castrol didn't unilaterally pull it off.

glxpassat · Aug 14, 2004

Since Castrol won the law suit it just shows they are smarter than Mobil for producing a synthetic oil at a much lower cost. The law decides what is synthetic and what is not. If you don't believe group III is synthetic then you're just on the wrong side of the law!

JohnBrowning · Aug 14, 2004

Ugly3 I do not think you can show me data proveing that Group III base stocks used in automotive motor oil can match group IV and V PAO and Ester base stocks in their chemical cheristics let alone exceed them. They might come close but we are not talking about close! UOA only shows how the finished product is working in one engine under those usage parameter and OCI it does establish the charcteristics of the base componets!

Only in the United States can Castrol and other companys get away with playing word games on the lablel Germany does not allow this and most other European country do not allow it either.

This is why I only use Mobil synthetics, Amsoil synthetics, Synergen synthetic and Motul if I want to pay for a true synthetic. I picked up Havoline Synthetic for $1.99 a quart and was happy to get it!!! It was priced at a fair price for a GIII oil! Not some insane $4.99 a quart like Castrols highly refined conventional oil!!!

Why is it that Mobil 1 is $3.88 a quart at Target and Sam's Club? Why is it $18.22 for a 5 quart jug at Walmart? Surely it is postioned far ahead of Castrol as a premium product! Exxon/Mobil can sell a true GIV/V product for less then Castrols GIII product???

Ugly3 · Aug 14, 2004

It was not the "law" it was some advertising "board" that decided the Castrol product met the specs and could be appropriatly called a full synthetic oil.

Ugly3 · Aug 14, 2004

John Browning - Ugly3 I do not think you can show me data proveing that Group III base stocks used in automotive motor oil can match group IV and V PAO and Ester base stocks in their chemical cheristics let alone exceed them. They might come close but we are not talking about close! UOA only shows how the finished product is working in one engine under those usage parameter and OCI it does establish the charcteristics of the base componets!

TRy as I may I seem to have failed to make my point so far. I will try one last time.

I don't care if Castrol makes motor oil from peanut butter, squashed bananas, or cocanut shells. The base stock and manufacturing method are simply a means to an end.

I care about the ability of the end product to protect my engine. If the final oils produced from PAO and Group III basestocks both protect my engine equally (and that is a big "if" for me because I have not see enough data to make that decision), so be it.

To condem one maker simply because they dare to use a different method to get to an end is simply wrong. Predicting that the oils produced from Group III basestocks will be proven to be inferior is fair - but it has to be followed up by performance data on the final product.

If the Group III basestock oils do not perform as well as PAO oils then I will be one on the first to "condem" the poor quality of the end product.

Ugly3 · Aug 14, 2004

VeeDubb - Having said that, I do see the other side of the argument. Some people have definite ideas of what synthetics mean. If it ain't group IV or V, it ain't synthetic, regardless of performance. It's like that fake crab they sell at super markets. No matter how good they make it taste, it's not crab. A psychological peace of mind does have value.

Point well made and taken.

Ray H · Aug 14, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by pscholte:
...I am sure, based on your first hand telling of this decision, that you KNOW FOR A FACT it was not something less nefarious like, "Hey, Grp III is a modification of the original oil molecular structure. Why can't we justifiably call it a synthetic?" You were there so you know that didn't happen. Why didn't you share this insider info sooner and save us all from getting sucked in?...

Probably because the livid "if-it-ain't-PAO-it's-a-ripoff!" crowd can't seem to grasp the concept that in chemistry (and this is chemistry) the term "synthesis" encompasses both polymerization and isomerization. (or maybe it's 'cause the big words they've never encountered outside their normal reading material scare 'em off...)

Dan4510 · Aug 14, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by Ray H:

quote:

Originally posted by pscholte:
...I am sure, based on your first hand telling of this decision, that you KNOW FOR A FACT it was not something less nefarious like, "Hey, Grp III is a modification of the original oil molecular structure. Why can't we justifiably call it a synthetic?" You were there so you know that didn't happen. Why didn't you share this insider info sooner and save us all from getting sucked in?...

Click to expand...

Probably because the livid "if-it-ain't-PAO-it's-a-ripoff!" crowd can't seem to grasp the concept that in chemistry (and this is chemistry) the term "synthesis" encompasses both polymerization and isomerization. (or maybe it's 'cause the big words they've never encountered outside their normal reading material scare 'em off...)

Ray,

I need to set the record straight, my normal reading material contains extremely large words and crosses many different bodies of knowledge, like many here on the board.

Further than that, group III is not built like group IV or V. It takes a lot of extra adds to make group III work as well as group IV or V. To me that by definition group III is not as strong a product as group IV or V.

According to my reading getting group III out of the 20 weight range into the 30 and 40 weight range requires a lot of help.

By the formal definition group III is not synthetic and I for one resent any manufacturer trying to get me to pay for it as I would a true synthetic.

If one will note, this is allowed advertising by a non-judicial body that approves advertising copy. Not an authority on engine oil in my opinion.

Dan

[ August 14, 2004, 10:53 PM: Message edited by: Dan4510 ]

Motorbike · Aug 14, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by Jay:

I, for one, don't think group III basestocks are as good as group IV and V basestocks, nor do I think that finished oils made from group III should cost as much as real synthetics. If the FTC were doing their job they would require all oilmakers to tell consumers what basestocks they're using in what proportions and the word "synthetic" could only be used for group IV and V.

My thoughts to a T

Thanks Jay , well spoken

Jay · Aug 14, 2004

Websters dictionary:

quote:

synthesize1. To combine so as to form a new complex product. 2. To make by combining separate elements.

Group IV and V basestocks are made this way. Group I, II, and III basestocks are not. To say hydrocracked or isomerized basestocks are synthetic bastardizes the term.

ekpolk · Aug 14, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by glxpassat:
Since Castrol won the law suit it just shows they are smarter than Mobil for producing a synthetic oil at a much lower cost. The law decides what is synthetic and what is not. If you don't believe group III is synthetic then you're just on the wrong side of the law!

Ugly said it too. They arbitrated in front of some esoteric industry board. The result is a one-time decision that has no binding force as precedent for anyone else. In other words, there is no law on this question.

BTW, to reveal my own prejudice/oddly inconsistent stand on this, I am acutally a user of the product known commonly here as German Castrol. I obviously don't condone this whole sordid Group-III Syntec charade, but the 0w30 product, which in an extraordinary twist of irony also wears the same Syntec name, is plainly an outstanding oil. Credit where credit is due. And I'm not so naive as to believe that other oil companies haven't engaged in shenanigans equally as repugnant, just undiscovered.

So, I'm still waiting for the advent of "Nuntech", the perfect lubricant brewed in a convent by a team of virgin nuns selfless concerned only with the eternal life of our engines, and our salvation from "syn."

I've been up too long. . .

ekpolk · Aug 14, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by Ray H:
Probably because the livid "if-it-ain't-PAO-it's-a-ripoff!" crowd can't seem to grasp the concept that in chemistry (and this is chemistry) the term "synthesis" encompasses both polymerization and isomerization. (or maybe it's 'cause the big words they've never encountered outside their normal reading material scare 'em off...)

Two problems here. First, you are unfairly trying to tar those with a different point of view as irrational ("livid"), and thus presumably less credible. But this is not accurate. I'm not livid about this at all. And I don't care whether an oil is PAO, mineral, ester, some other exotic, or freakin molasses for that matter. I just want to know what it really is so I can make my choice based on facts, not deceptively misused words.

This feeds into the second problem. Castrol isn't selling oil to a convention hall full of chemists. They are selling to a populace, 99% of whom have no idea at all that, as you put it, "the term "synthesis" encompasses both polymerization and isomerization". Granted, the vast majority will never be in a position to do anything with, or understand, the truth; but for those of us who have some awareness, Castrol's marketing strategy is a bit hard to swallow.

Audi Junkie · Aug 14, 2004

quote:

I do not think you can show me data proveing that Group III base stocks used in automotive motor oil can match group IV and V PAO and Ester base stocks in their chemical cheristics let alone exceed them

The dilema for me is it worth dealing with seal swell/shrink issues with PAO/Esters (or that napathalated whatever M1 uses) for the increase in performance (shear,pp/cc).

IF G-III, II+ can be cheap and work really well, bring it on. I'm sure Castrol execs are not sitting around lighting cigars with $100 bills, lots goes into research and development, GC *is* proof of that.

The word Synthesize is from Latin "sunthesis" and Ancient Greek "Suntitheni" both meaning "to put together" : "Sun"-,together + "Tithenai"-,to put. Websters' 1.a definition is:"A Fusion of SEPERATE elements or substances to form a coherent whole". That does not sound like hydroisomerization to me.

Hirev · Aug 14, 2004

Castrol can call a Group III a synthetic oil because of a decision made in the early 90s by the API. Having the API American petroleum institute set standards is like having the Fox guard the chicken house.

In Japan JASO Japanese Automotive Standard Organization sets the oil standards. Not the petroleum industry. Today, the benchmark standards in the area of lubricants for the motorcycles are the JASO standards even in the US. Not API.

Does JASO consider Group III base oils synthetic? No way! The fox is not guarding the chicken house in JASO case.

I also think the word synthetic should have never been used on motor oils. A rating system based on closer real world tests much like JASO did with JASO FA, JASO FB, JASO FC 2 stroke oils.

For car motor oils a rating based partly on UOA per miles driven might be a better route. Than telling me this Group III is a synthetic and it is the best because its synthetic. It almost a joke.

Ray H · Aug 14, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by Hirev:
Castrol can call a Group III a synthetic oil because of a decision made in the early 90s by the API. Having the API American petroleum institute set standards is like having the Fox guard the chicken house.

More Amazing Facts... (or further misinformation by people with an agenda). The API steered completely clear of the issue understanding the implications for complete disarray among its membership since the API is NOT an independent body. It's a trade organization composed of oil company representatives. Castrol can call a Group III base lube stock a synthetic by virtue of binding arbitration decided by the Better Business Bureau's Advertising Division in the early '90s. Both Castrol and Mobil agreed to be bound by the independent arbitrator's decision. Both companies presented their evidence to support their respective positions. Mobil failed to persuade the arbitrator in their position after independent chemists (expert witnesses) testified under oath that "isomerization" of unrelated waxes and 2, 3, 4, & 5-ring naphthenes into desirable saturated paraffin lubes is a valid definition of organic chemistry "synthesis". According to the minutes of the proceedings, Miriam Webster was not called by either side to present testimony. This incessant bickering is about as pointless as refighting the War of 1812.

[ August 15, 2004, 12:22 AM: Message edited by: Ray H ]

Defending Castrol?????????????????

Similar threads