I think I'm going back to conventional oil.

[Bror Jace]

Wayne, I supposed a crate motor would be a more hassle-free option than screwing around with something used or "rebuilt" ... which seems to be a term of art for some shops.

A haedgasket job on my Honda 4-cyl (including having the head plained by a machine shop) was $800. I can't imagine a dealership doing a V8 (both heads) for less than $1,000.

"I've never heard of anyone complaining about Group III synthetics causing engine problems."

Really? Well you're hearing one now. Consumption went from ZERO to 1/2 of a quart in 5,000 miles on my Honda Civic. This was a mixture of Valvoline Synpower 5W30 and 10W30.

I had to run Red Line Oil for a full year to get it back to ZERO again.

--- Bror Jace

 

[Lance]

If you are going to run dino, Castrol GTX is by far the best I've used. It made a Yamaha XT-500 C motorcycle I used to have kick its oil drinking problem completely, same vis and everything.

 

[wtd]

I used Castrol GTX years ago in my wife's 91 Chevy Beretta with the 2.2L four cylinder. At about 60,000 miles I had to have the head gasket replaced. I got to see the inside of the valve cover area and while it was sludge free, there was a coating of varnish on everything. I changed the oil religiously every 3,000 miles on this car and most of the driving was highway miles. At around 100,000 miles the car started having valve problems. We traded it in at 122,000 miles and while the car ran okay, it definatly had some mechanical problems starting. I never did use Castrol after that.

Wayne

 

[Bror Jace]

Wayne, I've often wondered if it was something about Castrol GTX and other formulations of theirs which gave great UOAs but left behind (in the motor) a lot of wear indicators.

A low or weak dispersant package might do this. The oil fails to hold wear particles in suspension ... and may form sludge over time.

To be fair, I've wondered the same about the Chevron UOAs. Some seem almost too good to be true.

--- Bror Jace

 

[Eastexan]

Has anyone considered that their engine knock could be caused by their cheap oil filter, such as Fram?
I've heard on other forums, and I think maybe this one too, that Fram filters are notorious for this problem. It may not be the oil at all, but the filter that's at fault.

Ronnie

 

[wtd]

Well, I know that in my truck, the knock was not caused by a cheap oil filter because I use the AC-Delco UPF52 gold series filter. These are supposed to be very good. Sometimes I'll use the regular AC-Delco Duragaurd filter. I Have not used Fram oil filters in years. Right now using 5W-30 Havoline conventional oil and an AC-Delco PF52 Duragaurd filter, I'm not getting any startup knock.


Wayne

 

[Mystic]

Maybe instead of going back to conventional motor oil, check out the recent UOAs on some blends. Recently a Castrol synthetic blend displayed really good numbers in a UOA. And Mobil Drive Clean Plus is available.

 

[Flimflam]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bror Jace:
Wayne, I've often wondered if it was something about Castrol GTX and other formulations of theirs which gave great UOAs but left behind (in the motor) a lot of wear indicators.

A low or weak dispersant package might do this. The oil fails to hold wear particles in suspension ... and may form sludge over time.

To be fair, I've wondered the same about the Chevron UOAs. Some seem almost too good to be true.

--- Bror Jace

---

wtd, Bror Jace, thanks a million.

I have been using Castrol GTX and HD-30 and HD-40 for more than 2 decades now, and most of the engines I had from ages back are still running well.

But I could not figure out some of the posts from Old Timers hinting of varnish and deposits from Castrol usage.

After your posts, both wtd and Bror Jace, I think I understand a little better. My "perfect oil," Castrol, may not turn out to be 100% perfect after all. Even so, I would take Castrol mineral any day over that awful stuff that costs almost 3X as much as Castrol and comes in flimsy faux silver color bottles with flimsy, leaky caps.

 

[Bror Jace]

Well ssmokin' posted that he had a couple of cars (at least one of which had over 100,000 miles on Chevron oil and they looked clean inside. That helps put my mind at ease about possible sludging. If there is little or no residue after all that time, the UOAs, as unbelievably good as they seem, must be for real.

I'm not condemning Castrol GTX or any of their other oils, I'd just like to know more about how they perform in the long run. Some people on here have claimed that they caused sludge in motors they owned while others were adamant that their engines ran it trouble-free for years.

I guess I'd just like to know more before pronouncing an oil good or bad. It may be that Castrol's reputation for being really good mineral oil comes from a higher precentage of pure lubricant at the expense of detergents/dispersants. Then again maybe it's not. Maybe a lot of it is just marketing ... their effective TV and print media ads?

Anyone remember the Pennzoil oil pan advertisements of about 4+ years ago? They ran the heck out of several different brands of oils and compared the layer of goo in each oil pan at the end of the (extended) drain interval. I know Pennzoil did well ... but I remembered some oils I liked at the time (Valvoline and Castrol come to mind) faired poorly.

Maybe I need to get out some of my old Road & Track issues and get that ad scanned?

--- Bror Jace

 

[Flimflam]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bror Jace:


Anyone remember the Pennzoil oil pan advertisements of about 4+ years ago? They ran the heck out of several different brands of oils and compared the layer of goo in each oil pan at the end of the (extended) drain interval. I know Pennzoil did well ... but I remembered some oils I liked at the time (Valvoline and Castrol come to mind) faired poorly.

Maybe I need to get out some of my old Road & Track issues and get that ad scanned?

--- Bror Jace

---

Ah, Jace. The old "compare the residue/goo/gunk test." One of the oldest tricks in the book, and time-honored, too. Even the mightily touted M*1 has its own version of the "compare the goo." Even if the test were authentic and not staged or rigged, it has limited usefulness. For, what does it profiteth the man if he has no goo in his engine, but his cam and cam followers/rocker arms are worn down to nothing? And his big end bearings are trashed?

Having said all the above, I must confess I am dying to see how much goo Castrol GTX leaves behind. But I can't do the old Ignition Tube test indoors. So, I'll wait till I can get hold of a camping stove and then conduct the test out in my backyard where I can't incinerate the house.

 

[userfriendly]

Good one Flimflam, throw another quart on the barbie!

 

[Mystic]

If I remember correctly, Castrol took Pennzoil to court over those commericals. Pennzoil had to drop them.

 

[wtd]

I may eventually try a blend but right now I'm going to stick with a conventional. My engine is the quietest its been in a long time and I think its partly the synthetic that made it noisy. I don't know if a blend would make it any noisier than it is now but I'll wait to see. Anyway, I have a case of Chevron Supreme to use up before I make any changes. I'm also curious to see what kind of oil analysis results I will see with a conventional oil in this engine since I haven't run a conventional oil in the time I've been having analysis's done.

To be honest, alot of the oil analysis I've seen using conventional oils lately have been pretty impressive and if I can somehow achieve these same results, I don't see any real benefit of going back to synthetics.

Wayne

 

[Bror Jace]

"The old "compare the residue/goo/gunk test." One of the oldest tricks in the book, and time-honored, too. Even the mightily touted M*1 has its own version of the "compare the goo." Even if the test were authentic and not staged or rigged, it has limited usefulness."

Actually, if they just ran the oil a long, long time and didn't do anything blatantly fraudulent during the testing, I think it's a valid test which shows what might happen with extended drains ... or use after 10+ years.

I doubt Pennzoil has too many detergents/dispersants as their UOAs here have ben quiet good.

It was easily 1000% better than the current crop of motor oil commercials out there right now featuring that sweaty lab geek or Dennis Leary threatening to show us the test results.

"If I remember correctly, Castrol took Pennzoil to court over those commericals. Pennzoil had to drop them."

Mystic, if you can find any specifics, I'd love to see 'em. I'm guessing Johnny was working for them at the time ... would love to hear his side of the story.

I remember Valvoline wasn't too pleased either.

--- Bror Jace

 

[wtd]

Crashz,
I had the opposite results when using the Mobil 1 5/10W-30. Mine was noisier with the 10W-30 and the startup knock was worse.

Wayne

 

[mikep]

quote:

---

Originally posted by crashz:
From the first time I put M1 5w-30 into my truck until now, my Ford has been noisy. Different synthetics like Royal Purple and QS Full Syn would quiet down the motor dramaticaly. I finally tried M1 10w-30, and this was much quieter, however I got my first taste of very breif cold start knock.

---

Once, and one time only, I filled my '01 F150 with M1 0w-30. Not only was the cold start knock dramatically worse but the engine overall seemed much louder and I noticed ticking noises I never heard prior to using the M1.

That was the start and end of my relationship with M1.

 

[geeeman]

All this M1 bashing...yet no one tried simply using a thicker weight oil. M1 is on the thin side in 30w's ; all of them are about the same at 100c. 0W40 is thicker, 15W50 much thicker again. GC 0w30 is borderline 40w...

Maybe your noisy engines simply wanted a little more cushion... be it a synthetic or conventional.

 

[wtd]

The only two viscosity oils approved for my engine is 5 or 10W-30 and I tried both of these using Mobil 1. I'm not going to use a 40 or 50wt in this truck. This is why I switched brands as it seems that my truck doesn't like Mobil 1 very much. Believe me, it was difficult for me to quit using Mobil 1 because I've been using it for years and was a big fan of it.

Wayne

 

[pgtr]

quote:

---

It may be that Castrol's reputation for being really good mineral oil comes from a higher precentage of pure lubricant at the expense of detergents/dispersants. Then again maybe it's not. Maybe a lot of it is just marketing ... their effective TV and print media ads?

---

I believe back in the 80s in an earlier article before the taxi fleet - CU did a report on oils and gave GTX high marks. That was based on accumulated samples from around the country and pure lab tests but no fleet tests. THeir later oil test didn't show GTX to be a standout from other dino oils. I want to say they gave real low marks to Kendall but beyodn that I can't recall much.

Back then it was one of the few oils avail in 20W50 which was often spec'd for smaller engines of the time.

It was in this same era that Quakerstate got a lot of antecdotal rhetoric about sludging engines up.

---

Speaking of M1 viscosity - is it's 15W50 a suitable replacement for an engine spec'ing 15W40?

 

[Flimflam]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mikep:
Once, and one time only, I filled my '01 F150 with M1 0w-30. Not only was the cold start knock dramatically worse but the engine overall seemed much louder and I noticed ticking noises I never heard prior to using the M1.

That was the start and end of my relationship with M1.

---

That's tellin' em, Brother! That darn fancy synthetic was no good, never will be any good to anybody. Give me my good ol' $6.88 to $7.95 a jug Castrol GTX any day. 25 years on the road, never needed any synthetic, and never will. Except next year, of course, when I try Schaeffer Supreme 7000 Blend.