HOT OFF THE PRESS...Response from Castrol on GC

[Patman]

Also keep in mind though, once that Mobil 1 0w40 shears back to 12 cst, it's HTHS won't be 3.6 anymore, but might be closer to 3.2 to 3.3.

 

[moribundman]

quote:

---

Also keep in mind though, once that Mobil 1 0w40 shears back to 12 cst, it's HTHS won't be 3.6 anymore, but might be closer to 3.2 to 3.3.

---

Hmm, how come that Mobil 1 0W-40 meets VW 502 00 and VW 503.01 (requires HTHS 3.5 or higher) then? According to Primus, the HTHS must not fall below the minimum required HTHS, or that oil would not get the car maker's approval. It makes sense that the minimum requirement must be maintained during the whole drain interval. Otherwise the approval is pretty much meaningless.

 

[Patman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by moribundman:

quote:

---

Also keep in mind though, once that Mobil 1 0w40 shears back to 12 cst, it's HTHS won't be 3.6 anymore, but might be closer to 3.2 to 3.3.

---

Hmm, how come that Mobil 1 0W-40 meets VW 502 00 and VW 503.01 (requires HTHS 3.5 or higher) then? According to Primus, the HTHS must not fall below the minimum required HTHS, or that oil would not get the car maker's approval. It makes sense that the minimum requirement must be maintained during the whole drain interval. Otherwise the approval is pretty much meaningless.

---

That's one thing that I wonder too, but it couldn't be technically possible for Mobil 1 0w40 to maintain a 3.5 HTHS for it's entire interval if it is thinning out by 2cst. It's definitely going to be dropping below 3.5 HTHS at some point during the interval if it's only at 3.6 HTHS when new.

 

[Eiron]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patman:
... I used to be an Amsoil dealer myself and talked to a few of these guys who would practically tell you this stuff cures baldness. ...

---

Now there's an oil I could use!!

(that's me, looking for my long-gone hair)


OK, I know how much everyone likes it when I "run the numbers," so here's another quick comparison I just ran:

Out of the four EC 0w30 used oil analysis I could find with viscosity numbers (did minrek ever come up with a vis for his F150?), I came up with a mean viscosity of 10.73 over 18,727 miles, or an 11.25% drop in viscosity from the 12.1cSt starting point.

Out of four Mobil 1 0W-40 used oil analysis taken from the same time period (from non-turbo engines), I came up with a mean viscosity of 12.77 over 20,218 miles, or a 10.75% drop in viscosity from the 14.3cSt starting point.

Hmmmm ... more miles ... less drop ... higher starting & ending viscosities ...

Now, what were those comments about shear, sludge formation, HT/HS retention, etc, etc, etc ... ?

 

[Primus]

Patman,
It's quite amazing to see how Castrol plays with figures: you was advised 238 C as SLX flash point. When I asked Castrol why they claim 236 C if it is 218 C, they replied 218 is minimum and 236 is the actual value ?! Suppose you have made a virgin oil analysis, what is the actual value ?

By the way, in Europe Castrol also sells their oils under VEEDOL brand. Probably pure marketing given many do not digest Castrol name. Some of them even claim Veedol outperforms Castrol and Mobil without knowing it is the same Castrol.
Interesting, but Veedol Syntron 0w30 also claims to have 238 C flash point now. If somebody is interesting to see specs go:

www.veedol.de/produkte/a-pkw-motorenoele

all data in pdf format, just open "Technische Productbeschreibung Veedol ..." in red.

 

[pscholte]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patman:
Just like I think people shouldn't judge this new Castrol oil based on the antics of the idiots at Castrol USA. Keep in mind, they don't even make the stuff.

---

Patman,

You have brought us back to the critical point, one that even I--GC cheerleader that I am--tend to forget. Castrol marketing and business practices, disgusting, annoying, etc as they may be, SHOULD NOT cause us to denigrate any truly strong performers they put out there (the same is true for "other companies" which sometimes get the hammer here). The only reason I would say anyone should ignore GC (or oil XYZ) is if the performance demonstrated does not equal or exceed the price paid. I don't believe anyone yet has demonstrated GC is not at least equal in performance to oils selling for the same price. Other aspects surrounding it are "interesting," but performance is the bottom line. I believe it is VERY GOOD STUFF.

[ September 16, 2003, 07:19 PM: Message edited by: pscholte ]

 

[Patman]

quote:

---

Out of the four EC 0w30 used oil analysis I could find with viscosity numbers (did minrek ever come up with a vis for his F150?), I came up with a mean viscosity of 10.73 over 18,727 miles, or an 11.25% drop in viscosity from the 12.1cSt starting point.

---

I only recall one UOA where this oil dropped below 11 cst and the rest have all been in the range of 11.0 to 11.5. Also keep in mind that in many of these used oil analysis, the person switched from a thinner oil, so their first run of GC will be mixed in with that, so it'll show a thinner viscosity than it would in subsequent intervals.

Also note that the VOAs on this oil show it starting at 11.6 to 11.8 cst. So your thinning percentage is off just based on that alone.

 

[buster]

This oil is no doubt a serious contender for being one of the best from what we have seen. I really hope it stays around and Castrol gets its act together. I won't lose sleep if it does not bc based on Castrol's track record thus far, it doens't seem like anything they do is consistant. I'd also like to see it hang around bc I want other good OTC oils to choose from. Mobil 1 has it too easy.

Plus at 12.1cst, it's a good choice for Vettes, my future car...I wish.

This thicker viscosit is good for the LS1 and old Jeep 4.0L.

[ September 16, 2003, 08:09 PM: Message edited by: buster ]

 

[pscholte]

Buster,

Just remember, as long as Castrol isn't ripping us off by not getting their act together, their act is less important than their oil. To me it is similar to the situation with a large parent company that makes a multitude of products some good some bad. Just because it makes some bad products we're going to "boycott" them all?...or just because Ecomart (name made up) sells some junk items, we won't buy well made, reasonbly priced items from them?

 

[buster]

pscholte, what my concern is that if I start using this oil and all of a sudden they change the oil or suppliers or whatever, how will we know? When I buy Mobil 1, I know what I'm getting for the most part. With Castrol, they are still telling and selling people on Syntec that it's a fully synthetic oil. What a rip off.
I have standards to which I hold companies to and you should too. If a company can't tell you what they are selling then I'd be careful. So to me, it does matter. It's like buying a Rolex watch off the streets of NY city from some Chinese guy for $10. Yeah, its the same thing.

[ September 16, 2003, 09:42 PM: Message edited by: buster ]

 

[pscholte]

Buster,

Won't disagree that it IS important to stand on principle (e.g holding companies to certain standards) and with Castrol you have to be willing to snoop around to make sure they haven't changed something. I certainly understand the attitude that if something else good is out there,(e.g Schaeffers, Redline, M1, Amsoil) why bother? I haven't given blood lately; maybe I'll find I'm "infected" and its turned green!

 

[Mike_dup1]

quote:

---

There are many forums on the internet and these are often the result of seemingly knowledgeable persons offering so called "expert information"
to those that aren't.

---

how true this is.

 

[Patman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike:

quote:

---

There are many forums on the internet and these are often the result of seemingly knowledgeable persons offering so called "expert information"
to those that aren't.

---

how true this is.

---

Unfortunately many Amsoil dealers fall into this same category too. We're lucky none of ours on here are like that, but there are tons of them out there in the real world and on the net who give out all kinds of false info. Even Amsoil's own website is guilty of that too.

It's unfortunate that so many good oils are clouded by this type of BS that is spewed out by the companies who make them and the people who sell them. When I try to convince some people to try out Amsoil for instance, many of them refuse simply because they call it snake oil.

Image is everything to some people, they don't care (or know anything about) the used oil analysis results. To me, it's the UOA that counts the most, not the advertising or the technical support or the network that sells the product.

 

[Pablo]

ALL oil companies make some wild claims.

 

[Patman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pablo:
ALL oil companies make some wild claims.

---

I totally agree, and that's why this site exists, so we can seperate the advertising hype from the truth. used oil analysis are the truth.

 

[Spector]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patman:
I totally agree, and that's why this site exists, so we can seperate the advertising hype from the truth. used oil analysis are the truth. [/QB]

---

Have we really done that though or just created a ton of info via used oil analysis that is extremely difficult to interpret. By that I mean we are unable to look at Valvoline 10W30 produced in 2002 and say that it does or does not do well over 3000 mile intervals in this climate, in city driving etc. We have tons of data but true confusion. Unfortunately, Blackstone has all the info on a huge array of oils and conditions that could be used to provide insight but legally they would never publish this. This site has similar info but not in any format. It would be fantastic to go to a site, input Castrol GTX, 10W30 2002 formula and see all the used oil analysis and explanations and the reader could determine if that oil fits his bill. True facts and no opinions, just data.


Probably never happen. Is advertising hype that much different then personal opinions and anecdotal evidence which is what we really have on this site? True we have the numbers from the used oil analysis but everything else is opinion!

 

[Patman]

Another thing we've got here that I forgot to mention, but is also extremely important in our quest for knowledge, is the VOA section. Seeing how the oils have changed their formulations, even before they've announced it publically, is another thing we've discovered on here (perfect example, the reformulation of SuperSyn with more calcium and more boron in it)

We've also got people like Terry and MolaKule and Bob and many others, who are down there in the trenches giving us their technical insight too.

So while there are a lot of opinions on this site, you have to admit that 99% of them are right on the money (when they aren't, there are enough people on here to call them on their error). When I visit other automotive message boards and I hear some of the things people claim whenever an oil topic comes up, it sometimes makes me laugh how misinformed they truly are, and it's even worse when people start believing what they say too (such as that recent Royal Purple viscosity change "explanation" that was posted on another board)

[ September 17, 2003, 10:31 AM: Message edited by: Patman ]

 

[Spector]

I totally agree with your comments. My hope a long time ago with this site was that after a period of time we would have enough data to support opinions rendered. Such as what oil do I use in a 2003 4 cyl Camry in North Dakota, year round, 100% city driving and I plan on changing every 5000 miles or one year or any other scenario, engine etc. Answer, based upon X number of UOA in similar conditions and your engien the oil showing the least amount of degradation and wear is ?????.

That would be a huge step forward for BITOG.

 

[pscholte]

Piscataway NJ/Toronto ONT. Castrol NA and Castrol Canada today announced that they will begin a massive campaign to discredit supposed lubrication experts who are promoting the notion that batches of Castrol Syntec 0W30 appearing on North American Shores contain oil formulations that are superior to formulations already being sold in the US and Canada. We are as adamant as was the Iraqi Minister of Information when he declared that coalition forces were nowhere near Baghdad, that the version of Castrol which has come to be known by some foolish persons as GC or EC is THE VERY SAME formulation as existing stocks which are moving rapidly off of suppliers shelves. According to Castrol, afficianados have gone so far as to judge the oil based on the color of the label and the color of the oil, are tracking batch numbers and sneak into the stock area of partner Autozone stores in search of what they believe to be a "miracle liquid." This reporter found the Castrol spokesman whom we queried to be very forthcoming. The only problem we had with the interview was toward the end as he became quite winded from loading multiple cases of oil into his personal vehicle, the boxes being marked, "Made In Germany Imported by Castrol North America Incorporated..."

 

[Eiron]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patman:
I only recall one UOA where this oil dropped below 11 cst and the rest have all been in the range of 11.0 to 11.5. Also keep in mind that in many of these used oil analysis, the person switched from a thinner oil, so their first run of GC will be mixed in with that, so it'll show a thinner viscosity than it would in subsequent intervals.

Also note that the VOAs on this oil show it starting at 11.6 to 11.8 cst. So your thinning percentage is off just based on that alone.

---

I'd guess the same conditions apply to the Mobil 1 0W-40 used oil analysis I used, where the person was switching from an xW-30 to give 0W-40 a try.

OK, so how do we address the notion of one oil remaining shear-stable & another not? Your claim is that EC is shear stable, but "Mobil 1 0w40 is not in that category by any means."

Do you want to throw out the "worst" result? That's fine with me. I'll throw out the one EC result that thinned by 20%, down to 9.6cSt. Of course, to be fair, I'll have to throw out the "worst" Mobil 1 result, right? That's the one that thinned by 14%, down to 12.32cSt.

The initial 12.1cSt & 14.3cSt numbers were from what you said Castrol Germany provided, & from Mobil's website. Do you want to use the VOA numbers instead? Again, that's fine with me. Using 3MP's calculator, the lowest EC number I came up with (from a Blackstone VOA) was 11.8cSt. Again, to be fair, the lowest Mobil 1 number (also from a Blackstone VOA) is now 13.6cSt.

So how do these "fair & accurate" numbers compare? (I thought you'd never ask ... )

For EC, I now have a mean viscosity of 11.1cSt over 15,427 miles, or a 6% drop in viscosity from the 11.8cSt starting point. Much, much better, but our data is now resting only on three reports.

For Mobil 1, I now have a mean viscosity of 12.9cSt over 14,200 miles, or a 5% drop in viscosity from the 13.6cSt starting point. Also much, much better, but we have the same problem with limited data, right?

Look, I'm not saying anything other than "be fair." EC is a good oil. I don't discourage anyone from using it, or being excited about it. Especially considering what else Castrol offers here in N.A. And like I've said before, I was a true-blue Castrol fanatic for 20 years! But, so far, it hasn't proven its mettle beyond anything else available, & certainly not to the extent of hoarding it, or making unfounded claims about other, equally good oils. When you combine that with everything else Castrol's done over the past few years (marketing history, & apparent clearing of comparable stock from other countries), I think you're misleading folks into unnecessarily spending a lot of time, money & effort looking for this stuff.