OK, but other than Paul's "emotional" explanation, I don't see why
anyone would drive 160 miles to find this oil, or stock up with 20 gallons of it
before knowing whether or not it works for them.
pscholte,
I'm not sure your first reason is cause for such
over-excitement, viewing these other reports. As for your second reason, I completely understand what you're saying. I've also got a certain "fondness" for Europe, & although I've never lived there for an extended period of time, I have accumulated over four months there while on vacations. I'm always glad to return to the US, but at the same time I always miss the eccentricities I discover when I'm over there. Perhaps that's even part of why I like M1 0W-40 so much.
But would I exert
so much time, money & energy trying to get it?
I think not.
Yes, I know there are other GC UOAs available, but the Civics present the largest "family" of comparisons all being run in the same time-frame. That helps to eliminate engine design differences & seasonal differences. I'm not sure any of the other GC UOAs fit both considerations. Just so you know, there were other excellent Civic reports for both Castrol GTX 5W-30 & Havoline syn 10W-30 (Fe=2,3 Cu=2,2 Pb=1,1), but I didn't include them 'cuz they didn't fit the time-frame of the GC UOAs.
buster,
I agree, alternatives create ever-better products for us! As you've pointed out, perhaps that's why Mobil has been tweaking their formula.
Idrinkmotoroil,
The reason I'm comparing all the Civics is because that's what I've seen being claimed as the basis for all the "miracle oil" hype. Your UOAs only comprised one GC report & the RL report, so I don't think you're car's throwing off the numbers.
I was also a dyed-in-the-wool Castrol fanatic. For 20 years! But their whole "synthetic" lawsuit fiasco really went against my beliefs of how a company
should do business. I don't want to say, "I'll never use Castrol again," but I will say that I'll choose another product for now.
Steve S,
Yes, I agree, the method you suggest
would be best. None of the GC reports have been from the same Civic, yet they're viewed as all providing the same definitive conclusion regarding the abilities of GC. Why?? I'm not intimately familiar with Civics, but the example you give regarding the Chevron Supreme is why I didn't include other makes & models.
Patman,
Yes, I realize that the few VOAs indicate some starting points above zero. The problem is, we don't have "actual use" VOAs for
all of the oils. So what do we do? IMO, we either:
A) Use
only UOA results for all of the oils, or
B) Discount
all of the oils by the same amount.
Yes, I know it's not a very satisfactory answer. I simply didn't feel it was "fair" to discount some of the oils without knowing the same information about all of them. Do we subtract 9ppm Fe from the GC that UOA'd with 7ppm? What does that say for the lab's margin of error? Besides the non-zero starting point, we'd then have add/subtract that margin of error for all the results. I guess I'm not sure how else to propose "fairness" with so much missing data.
__________
As I said, the GC looks like good stuff. I'm just in the dark as to why there's such a feeding frenzy over it when other, less obscure examples appear to perform equally well.
If you're running side-by-side comparisons in your own vehicle, for the same number of miles, using the same filters, with the same engine health/condition, during the same seasonal conditions, driving as close to the same way as possible, & you like the way GC works compared to whatever else you've tried, then I think that's a valid decision. But I still haven't heard any tangible reasons (other than pure emotion) as to why this oil should be considered head-&-shoulders above all others.
So ... what else can you tell me? Or do I have to start referring to this stuff as "Emotional Castrol"?
