quote:So, does that imply that oils constructed like Motul are better or worse, or just follow a different philosophy for some reason (price, effectiveness,whatever)?
The 100% synthetic oils you see (like Motul), are made from the less expensive, diester basestocks.
quote:I'm baffled by that statement, too. Regardless of the debate over whether Group IIIs are rightfully true synthetics, how could the claim be made that any motor oil is legally a "Full Synthetic" if Group II base stocks are blended in? (I just tried to access Castrol's web site to verify whether the company still blended in esters as an antiwear ingredient. The site's obviously undergone a complete revamp since I last visited. The Castrol site's now a model of complete non-information vs. the read-between-the-lines-techno-ambiguity it formerly provided. (When lawyers write ad copy, the results are a disaster!) Perhaps I'm being overly harsh, but I'm beginning to regard Castrol with the same disdain usually reserved for Fram on this site - both companies may actually market good products, but no rational person could draw that conclusion from the information(?) the respective companies provide to inquiring consumers on the internet. Oh, well, as one lawyer once told me, "Without physical or strong circumstantial evidence, you can't be convicted for what you don't say.")
Originally posted by Sin City: Molakule, where did you hear that Castrol Syntec is group III and II? I thought that Castrol Syntec was group III with a little group V mixed in.