If so many people were/are up in arms about Mobil 1’s secretive oil base change, why aren’t more people calling for Castrol’s red and green stripes on a platter, and lighting torches over their deceptive PDS data? On almost all of their PDS’ they have only “100°C cst” and “212°F SUS” data for their viscosity data, and not data for the other halves for each of those industry tests to allow for accurate knowledge of their products for discussions and comparisons to other brands. They are displaying data for the same temperature in two different tests: 100°C = 212°F!
To me, this is done intentionally to deceive the consumer who wants to know more about their product. It is funny how Castrol recognized that “212°F SUS” data results are in the same range as 40°C cSt data. If you look at other oil PDS data that posts data for both tests, 40°C cSt data is typically lower than 212°F SUS data.
Is Castrol’s oil thinner than what they are telling us?? Is being secretively thin hiding something?
I know Castrol is a sponsor, but they will have to start playing fair and disclose data that almost every other oil brand publishes; even the no-names don’t hide this PDS data. BITOG’ers look closely at PDS’ for discussions, comparisons, and to scrutinize oil data, but without having equal data available, many posts that reference published Castrol PDS viscosity data are now invalid.
I wrote off Castrol years ago because their PDS’s were not thorough and I did not know how their oil performed in all standard industry tests for comparison, but I was willing to give them a try based on BITOG’ers posts; not now! This must have been done to mask the fact that they change their ingredients often and it covers them legally when they do. Who really knows how those white bottles and black bottles fair in comparison to others on paper??? I know that PDS’ are a snap shot and there are production variations, but it is an indicator – just like there is not exactly 12 oz. of fermented malted barley in those brown bottles or aluminum cans; it varies during production. It is interesting that GTX didn’t meet GM6094M specs in May, then change a little of this and that, and shaked it(not stirred it) to meet the test, and presto – GM6094M approved
; no need to change the PDS. I know that many BITOG’ers have great success with Castrol products, as many did with M1 before discovering the base oil change, but this does not set well with me; I don’t know how this will affect their BITOG rating.
I know Castrol is a sponsor, but they will have to start playing fair and disclose data that almost every other oil brand publishes; even the no-names don’t hide this PDS data. BITOG’ers look closely at PDS’ for discussions, comparisons, and to scrutinize oil data, but without having equal data available, many posts that reference published Castrol PDS viscosity data are now invalid.
I wrote off Castrol years ago because their PDS’s were not thorough and I did not know how their oil performed in all standard industry tests for comparison, but I was willing to give them a try based on BITOG’ers posts; not now! This must have been done to mask the fact that they change their ingredients often and it covers them legally when they do. Who really knows how those white bottles and black bottles fair in comparison to others on paper??? I know that PDS’ are a snap shot and there are production variations, but it is an indicator – just like there is not exactly 12 oz. of fermented malted barley in those brown bottles or aluminum cans; it varies during production. It is interesting that GTX didn’t meet GM6094M specs in May, then change a little of this and that, and shaked it(not stirred it) to meet the test, and presto – GM6094M approved
Last edited:
