M1 5w30 v GC 0W30

Status
Not open for further replies.
I like it, in part, because I believe it is a formulation in which everything "just came together rightly" to create a superior performing oil. I use it in an Audi A6 with a twin-turbo 2.7L V-6, and as I use up my M1 0W40 (almost there), will also use it in a Ford Taurus 3L V-6 and a Nissan 3L V-6. Unless the owner's manual will not allow it, I will also use it in the vehicles that replace the Taurus and Nissan both of which I hope will be something "a little exotic." I would feel comfortable using it in anything up to and including V-8 or V-12 motors. It has operated in the Audi in 100ºF temps in the Nevada desert at sustained speeds in the 80mph range without incident. I am an unabashed proponent of this oil...I can hear everyone sighing, "We know, we know." By the way everyone, thanks for putting up with my enthusiasm.
 
I really didn't go back and recheck all of the GC oil analysis. But just shooting from the hip-but IMHO its not delivering all its cracked up to be. Time will tell.
 
quote:

Originally posted by Al:
I really didn't go back and recheck all of the GC oil analysis. But just shooting from the hip-but IMHO its not delivering all its cracked up to be. Time will tell.

Al,

That is not my recollection...the UOAs I have seen--and I watch specifically for SLX UOAs--have been predominantly and consistently outstanding...I look at them with a very critical eye because I say so much about this oil and have so much "invested" (literally) in it.
 
quote:

Originally posted by Al:
I really didn't go back and recheck all of the GC oil analysis. But just shooting from the hip-but IMHO its not delivering all its cracked up to be. Time will tell.

I think GC's reputation was based on a handfull of really good UOA's posted when it first appeared. Now that we have more of them it's starting to look like it's just another synthetic.

A few of us have run GC in the same vehicles under the same conditions where we had previously used M1 and seen UOA's that were quite similar with no clear advantage to one vs. the other. I don't find this too surprising really. I doubt Castrol has any magicians in it's employ nor are they known for giving us 2X the performance for the same money...
 
Overall, I think that our choice is largely based on what makes us "feel better", rather than a scientific deduction.

In my case, I feel better using an oil that has been widely used around the gloge where extended drains are the norm. This has helped me deal with the initial shock of leaving an oil in for 6k and 9k.

AND, it has reduced consumption in one of the vehicles I maintain to about half what it used to be.

AND it's green.

AND it smells like gummi bears.

-Paul
 
quote:

Originally posted by Paul:

AND it's green.

AND it smells like gummi bears.

-Paul


You guys say stuff like that just to get me going don't you...you know I can't resist. Yeah I do like the fact that it is green and that people think it smells like gummi bears but I do also think it is great stuff, well engineered, and you make a good point, Paul, it has been used successfully around the globe and in places where L O N G OCIs are recommended and is apparently a staple in lots of shops. I have yet to see anybody address seriously why SLX has garnered SO MUCH discussion. Every other oil addressed on this board has the same opportunity to get people "all gaga"; but they don't...now why is that? If the answer is, 'cause you, Scholte, and Patman, and some of the others keep going on about Elixer of Life and the Green and Green Fairies, etc etc; true...but that stuff would fall on its face if there weren't something about this oil that keeps people interested. M1, Amsoil, Schaeffers, and Redline all have an equal chance...so why don't people get as excited about them? I wish well everyone who uses those oils and hope they get every mile or kilometer out of their engine that those oils can give them...but give me SLX or give me dea...well, that's going too far even for
me!
cheers.gif


[ July 04, 2004, 12:52 AM: Message edited by: pscholte ]
 
quote:

Originally posted by jsharp:

quote:

Originally posted by Al:
I really didn't go back and recheck all of the GC oil analysis. But just shooting from the hip-but IMHO its not delivering all its cracked up to be. Time will tell.

I think GC's reputation was based on a handfull of really good UOA's posted when it first appeared. Now that we have more of them it's starting to look like it's just another synthetic.

A few of us have run GC in the same vehicles under the same conditions where we had previously used M1 and seen UOA's that were quite similar with no clear advantage to one vs. the other. I don't find this too surprising really. I doubt Castrol has any magicians in it's employ nor are they known for giving us 2X the performance for the same money...


When GC is used for at least three oil changes it has usually shown better results than M1.
 
I started using it in my 02 Silverado 4.3 because it was a little thicker at the 30 wt end and a little thinner at deep sub0 temps. I just ran my third analysis with it and cut the interval short due to sodium/potassium showing up in my tests (motorguard doesnt seem to know how to differentiate them and they switch back and forth). At any rate the iron was down to 8ppm at 5k miles (58K on engine), this is its best yet and about 1/3 what it was with M1, so I am a good with it. As for the green color, it is not unique, it is only seen in backlite and I recall seeing it in oil in glass jars on a shelf with those old tin spouts on them in a gas station many years ago and long before any synthetic. As for the gummy bear smell, I don,t smell it at all.
 
quote:

Originally posted by SSDude:

quote:

Originally posted by jsharp:

quote:

Originally posted by Al:
I really didn't go back and recheck all of the GC oil analysis. But just shooting from the hip-but IMHO its not delivering all its cracked up to be. Time will tell.

I think GC's reputation was based on a handfull of really good UOA's posted when it first appeared. Now that we have more of them it's starting to look like it's just another synthetic.

A few of us have run GC in the same vehicles under the same conditions where we had previously used M1 and seen UOA's that were quite similar with no clear advantage to one vs. the other. I don't find this too surprising really. I doubt Castrol has any magicians in it's employ nor are they known for giving us 2X the performance for the same money...


When GC is used for at least three oil changes it has usually shown better results than M1.


I'll be running 10K drains with it and I'm only 2K miles into the second interval so it's going to take me a couple of years to find out. I just don't drive as much as I used to...
 
I'll be posting a 10,000 mile UOA with GC as soon as I hear from Blackstone and Terry. (I mailed it last week)

This is with a Nissan KA24DE oil smasher engine in a Frontier pickup. I wouldn't even think of running M1 5w-30 for 10K miles in this thing.

If Mobil 1 could earn an A3 rating we could consider these 2 oils as being more alike.

cheers.gif
patriot.gif
 
I am running GC in a 98 4.6 f150, and at 5k I pulled the dipstick, and the stuff still looks nearly new.

I'm going to run 7k with it, then send it to Terry for a UOA.

The only thing that concerns me (not really), is with the GC my consumption has gone up to about 1/2 a quart in 5k miles and it never used any oil before.

Also my gas mileage is down over mobil1 5w30, but the UOA will tell me whats really going on.

JH
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top