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

[jthorner]

If y'all want to be angry about the use of the term synthetic, you should look into how the coal industry sprays magic-goo onto trainloads of coal and "converts" it into "synthetic fuels" for which they receive US federal tax breaks.

It makes the tired old Castrol debate seem like the tempest in a teapot it is.

Here are some of the many published articles on this true scam:

http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/news/local/3017331.htm?1c

http://www.house.gov/doggett/pr04-29-04.htm

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/10/07/1532235

 

[Ray H]

I find it interesting that PAOs are now being subjected to catalytic hydrotreatment in the presense of hydrogen at 500 lbs/sq. in. to "stabilize" the molecules through hydrogen saturation - the very technique that Group IIs and Group IIIs are subjected to in varying degrees for the same purpose. Are these the "super PAOs" I've seen mentioned occasionally in other threads? If so, apparently straight polymerization just wasn't quite good enough, eh?

Does the residual olefin content in polymerized PAOs lead to instability that a bout in a hydrofinishing pressure vessel tweaks down to trace levels through isomerization? Can the final product still be called a "synthetic" if it depends on isomerization at any point in its production? Inquiring minds want to know...

[ August 15, 2004, 06:49 PM: Message edited by: Ray H ]

 

[pscholte]

I think I have made it clear how I feel about this issue, both: in a desire to make those of you who make the accusations REALLY think about what you are saying and on what basis you are saying it; and, quite frankly, to get it off my chest. Now that I have done that on more than one occasion the only thing left in my opinion is either "put up or shut up." If someone comes through with irrefutable evidence that Castrol is the malevolent villain they are claimed to be, that they are indeed selling an overpriced product (see Johnny's original post), I will clearly declare, "I was wrong." Since I cannot present evidence from the other perspective, I will shut up...I would request the rest of you who are sans evidence do the same (YOU DO NOT KNOW how much it costs Castrol to produce this product). But whatever you choose to do I bow out and never intend to engage this subject again. I have plenty of Der grüne Nektar to bring back the

.

 

[Patman]

I don't have anything to say other than I had McDonald's for dinner, and both of my cars are running German Castrol. So I'm happy, my tummy is happy and my engines are happy!

 

[pscholte]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patman:
I don't have anything to say other than I had McDonald's for dinner, and both of my cars are running German Castrol. So I'm happy, my tummy is happy and my engines are happy!

---

...and how is that "dark and mysterious Vette," Pat, my friend?

 

[Audi Junkie]

Doesn't everyone realize that the Castrol Haters know how much it costs to bottle the finished product and the neutral people here are not assuming any inside knowledge. John, the retail price of Syntec and Mobil 1 is the same or close enough to be a non-issue. Of course it costs Mobil a minimal amount to produce all the componets of their finsihed oil. They can easily manipulate the PAO basestock prices to make it appear (to us) that you get a product with more costly componets. (I'm no expert in production steps or costs) Why, simply, could it be that Castrol spends less on basestocks and more on additives? It's been said here repeatedly that additives are more important anyway.

 

[Mamala Bay]

How many people do know of Group 3 or Group 4/5...and why do Syntec sell. Guess bottom line is if you market it and the consumer buys the product it shows how much the majority of car owners do know of engine oil. Syntec is not an under nourished Group 3 oil but ask anyone if they had a choice at the same price Syntec or Mobil 1 and I say 99.999% on this forum would take Mobil 1. In the real world it's anyone's guess.

 

[Patman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by pscholte:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patman:
I don't have anything to say other than I had McDonald's for dinner, and both of my cars are running German Castrol. So I'm happy, my tummy is happy and my engines are happy!

---

...and how is that "dark and mysterious Vette," Pat, my friend?

---

It's awesome! And it loves the 0w30! It runs smooth as can be, no piston slap, and it's getting much better gas mileage than my LT1 Firebird (3-4 MPG better, even though it's got a lot more power!)

 

[outrun]

If Castrol proclaims OJ Simpson to be innocent via a NAD arbitration decision by a body of non-chemists and engineers does that make it irrefutable scientific fact?

Mobil may have made the mistake of not involving the FTC on this one

Put it up shut-up?

Obviously GM, Ford, Daimler-Chrysler, Porshe badge select engines with "factory-fill Mobil 1"

*right Patnam

on your C5*

So they just did put out, they new Syntec was not chemically the appropriate contendar.

Perhaps if Sham-Tec 10W30 & 5W30 were PAO/Ester base oils then Mobil may not have recieved that carte blanch factory contracts. (personal opinion)

So i put this out, tell me when you see a car with factory fill Sham-Tec and we can talk more.

Until then my respect falls with Castrol's European Operations for there SLX GC OW30 formula available here.

 

[Audi Junkie]

quote:

---

tell me when you see a car with factory fill Sham-Tec

---

The millions of VW/Audi 1.8t engines did and do come with Castrol SLX from the factory. I'm not sure ALL Mercedes come with Mobil 1, just AMG with 0w-40 and Mclaren with 5w-50. Before you go exalting the virtues of Mobil 1 JUST because it is ADVERTISED factory-fill in a few brands, shouldn't you KNOW what comes in other cars too, like BMW, before you assume any relavence? Come on! Just because Mobil hammered out a sweet contract with a few mfgs does it make their oil better? used oil analysis don't really indicate it's "special". You are decending into Brainwash Country when you base your decisions on what is obviously MARKETING! NASCAR, anyone? I figure if a mfg does not care about oil brands(typical), of course they will accept a sweet-heart $deal$ of free oil for endorsments.

BTW: Our beloved 30 weight Mobil 1 products are not even sold in Europe because they are so great.

What did everyone here use before 0w-40 came out?

 

[kev99sl]

Bottom line: Castrol made the switch to Group III and lobbied for the ability to call it "synthetic" solely based on profit margin. That's all: I'm not suggesting they're any more or less evil than any other company. But let's not insult everyone's intelligence -- especially our own -- by suggesting that they did it because it was a benefit, a move up, for the consumer. They did it because it was better for their margin, and that's the end of the story. I think there are fools on both sides of this argument: the fools who believe that Castrol was just making an innocent research, development and marketing move that was completely up-front, honest, and had the best interest of the consumer in mind because, why, gee whiz, Group III is virtually identical to other synthetics .... uh huh; and the fools who think that Mobil, Pennzoil, Red Line, Amsoil, etc. wouldn't have done exactly the same thing or at least something very similar if they were in a similar positition as Castrol. Don't believe me? Just wait ...

 

[TallPaul]

quote:

---

Originally posted by GROUCHO MARX:
Why doesn't ExxonMobil, that big, bad, greedy oil compamy, just make a synthetic oil from GIII and charge what they're charging for M1 and increase the bottom line?

---

Or ExxonMobil could tout the PAO content, noting tests showing it is better than Group II, so called synthetic that most other "synthetic" oils are comprised of. Why don't they tell the public they are better than the rest?

 

[Audi Junkie]

quote:

---

they did it because it was better for their margin

---

I think we all agree on that point. What we don't know is what happened to Castrol's supply-chain of basestocks. Were the prices manipulated by Mobil? Would it be quite so evil of Castrol to use G-III if Mobil screwed them unfairly? I think that would make Mobil more evil. Would it be evil of Castrol used more costly additives to supplement their G-III oils, basicly keeping the same $ margin and building a strong R&D programme?

 

[Johnny]

Wish I would have never started this thread. Had no idea it would go this far. Did not mean to start a war, but it looks like I did.

Audie Junkie: Your correct. The only Mobil 1 products that come close to meeting all the European specs is their 0W40 and 5W50. And your also correct about the Mercedes AMG. The rest of the Merceces cars are factory filled with Shell. BMW, Volvo, and Land Rover are factory filled with Castrol. Factory fill on American cars is as follows. MoPar (Mobil) GM Goodwrench (Mobil) Ford (Red bottles-Conoco) Ford factory fill (Shell).

Now I'm off to the Subaru dealer to put some Pennzoil in my wife's Forester.

Peace to all.

 

[Ray H]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny:
Wish I would have never started this thread. Had no idea it would go this far.

---

Another hard-learned lesson that no good deed goes unpunished. (Or, "A prophet is without honor in his own house.")

 

[Quattro Pete]

Thierry, and how much is Mobil 1 0w-40 where you are? Around me, I can get a 4 liter container of SLX (LongTec) for around 64 USD (dang you weak dollar!

). Around 53 USD for Mobil 1.

 

[MolaKule]

quote:

---

Would it be quite so evil of Castrol to use G-III if Mobil screwed them unfairly? I think that would make Mobil more evil. Would it be evil of Castrol used more costly additives to supplement their G-III oils, basicly keeping the same $ margin and building a strong R&D programme?

---

Why would they need Mobil for PAO basestocks when BP, Chevron, Standard, Shell, and others could supply them with same? About the time they left PAO's was when PAO production and supply was at a peak.

And why would Castrol need to build a R&D programme when they had BP to do it for them?

 

[Bror Jace]

I’m not some fuming, maniacal Castrol hater but I am decidedly in the camp of Jay, Dan4510, Hirev, ekplok, kev99sl, MolaKule and outrun on this issue (except that Mobil 1 factory fill thing is really a sponsorship deal) and have been since I read Patrick Bedard’s landmark article in Car & Driver about four years ago. I even read Castrol’s pitiful response to Mr. Bedard on a bulletin board somewhere ... a bunch of mistruths and lawyer doublespeak.

Prior to the mid nineties, the industry knew what "synthetic" meant. And the public had some idea that it was a specially-made, high quality oil costing four times as much. Patrick Bedard pointed out how the industry-known costs of Group III basestocks were about half of what PAO was going for at the time. And of course, Castrol continued to charge $4+ per quart retail for their finished Group III product. I guess they went from getting “fleeced” to fleecing everyone else.

If I was retailing imported Irish whiskey and Johnny’s family controlled 100% of the importation of the stuff and are gouging me at the wholesale level, does that make it OK for me to whip up batches of high-quality whiskey in a warehouse somewhere in New Jersey then label it “Imported from Ireland?” That’s just plain misleading and wrong.

It may be good whiskey ... but it’s not imported from Ireland.

And please don’t anyone hide behind the law on this. As was said before. Just because what Castrol did wasn’t illegal, doesn’t preclude it from being immoral.

I believe I read some technical info (from Chevron?) about XHVI basestocks approaching the performance of PAO ... but nothing showing them surpassing it. Anyone have a link to some info which does?

The honest and ethical thing to do would have been for Castrol to market their Group III Syntec as a “super mineral” oil, one which “makes synthetics obsolete,” etc ... Take their new formula to the marketplace and represent it fairly and honestly with advertising dollars. And if their campaign was successful, they could have dealt Mobil a tremendous blow. Instead they merely pulled a secret bait-and-switch to reap tremendous profits by selling mislabeled, over-priced mineral-based oil.

--- Bror Jace

 

[Dr. T]

Basically, there was another way to make an oil with similar properties to PAO's and everyone gets bent out of shape. There are different ways to skin a cat...

And BMW, Volvo, Range Rover, Mini, etc. "Recommend Castrol" right on the oil filler cap. So Castrol does come as OEM on some automotive products.

Basically, until you use the stuff it's hard to provide objective comments. I won't speak for the 5/10-30 products, but I will bet bottom dollar that the Syntec 5-50 is the same or an even better product than the BC 5-40 (because I've used both). And BC contains all the M-B, Audi, VW, BMW recommendations as Mobil 1 0w40....

 

[yannis]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MolaKule:
Why would they need Mobil for PAO basestocks when BP, Chevron, Standard, Shell, and others could supply them with same? About the time they left PAO's was when PAO production and supply was at a peak.

---

Would it be the same quality at the same price as Mobil's?

Mobil clearly dominates the synthetic US market.
Price and quality are unbeatable.
Does anybody wants proof for this?
How many BP ,Shell or Chevron PAO based oils exist in BITOG's oil analysis section?
I guess the only way to get a competably prised PAO basestock and gaining R&D access was joining one of the others .
They wisely chose BP, a great company.

[ August 16, 2004, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: yannis ]