Can't think of brand names, but I have seen some oils with Teflon in them that I would not use.
oils NOT to use
- Thread starter Pee Wee
- Start date
- Status
Well, I'm not euthanizing this pup just yet. Where did you get your info. I've heard from several sources that G-III is significantly less expensive to produce. I'm not an oil company exec, of course, so if you've got some data that supports this, I'd like to look at it. That's NOT meant as an "in yer face," I'd just like to compare what I had picked up before and figure out what's correct. If I'm incorrect, so be it. OTOH, several things seemed to point to G-III being cheaper. First, its precursor material, basic lube stock, is in heavy oversupply in the market and it's an easy-to-handle liquid. PAO precursors (ethylene gas primarily) is costlier and being a gas, is more difficult to handle. But again, I'm not an industry authority, I'm just out here piecing together articles, papers, factoids, and info from places like this, so my mind certainly remains open to new info.
You're operating under the assumption that all Group III base oils are the same. They aren't. XHVI is a wax isomerate and the feedstock is either slack wax or waxy raffinate, not VGO from the distiller. The more typical hydrocracked/isodewaxed Group III, which uses VGO as the feedstock, IS more economical to produce than PAO. And while a wax isomerate may be somewhat cheaper to produce than PAO, the difference isn't that much—certainly not enough to warrant a change in the retail price of the oil.
Castrol chose XHVI because of the all the Group III base oils available, this wax isomerate comes the closest to matching PAO in performance and specs.
Can I post something without mentioning Castrol?
As for "Oils to avoid" I must mention two oils that I, personally, can't see myself ever using in a street-driven passenger car.
1. Neo
2. Royal Purple
I wouldn't use Neo, because I just haven't seen EVIDENCE on this board justifying Neo's rather expensive price.
With regards to Royal Purple, I've seen UOAs where it sheared down more than I care for.
Shearing doesn't make sense in an oil with synthetic oil pricing.
The above notwithstanding, apparently for some racing applications Royal Purple works just fine. Maybe it can hold its own 100% for the duration of a race, just not for 5,000 miles on the street. So I have nothing against Royal Purple in racing applications...
As for "Oils to avoid" I must mention two oils that I, personally, can't see myself ever using in a street-driven passenger car.
1. Neo
2. Royal Purple
I wouldn't use Neo, because I just haven't seen EVIDENCE on this board justifying Neo's rather expensive price.
With regards to Royal Purple, I've seen UOAs where it sheared down more than I care for.
Shearing doesn't make sense in an oil with synthetic oil pricing.
The above notwithstanding, apparently for some racing applications Royal Purple works just fine. Maybe it can hold its own 100% for the duration of a race, just not for 5,000 miles on the street. So I have nothing against Royal Purple in racing applications...
I'd avoid anything but Valvoline... It's the only oil I'll use.
No offense, but you guys sound like bitter trolls who would hang your hat on the slightest percieved injustice. Your'e are expecting WAY too much from an oil company...as if they OWE you something and cannot tweak their formula without your personal approval. If XHVI was a few cents MORE expensive than PAO, would anybody be whining about Gruppe numbers? We are all happy with SHELL Rotella Synth, right? Nobody squaks about Pennzoil's blatant false advertising! Talk about jumping to conclusions about GIII basestocks, most of us have no idea what the prevailing market conditions were and why Castrol changed basestock. Thankfully, G-Man has some insight on the subject of economics as far as the "switch" goes. This silly grudge-mentality drags down the intelectual level of discourse on the Forum. I really don't car about basestocks, if I lived in a warm climate, dino 15w-40 would be the ticket.
1. Where did I ever say that other oil companies were saints? I didn't. They're not.
2. If dishonest, misleading tactics are OK with you, fine, but they're not with me. I don't treat others that way, and I don't like it when its done to me. Does the fact that a corporate citizen is the one being dishonest and misleading make it more accpetable than if a human citizen did the same thing? I don't expect much from an oil company, but I draw the line when it comes to outright deception.
3. I suggest you examine your own bias. Your comparison is invalid. If they had subbed in a more expensive product and kept the price the same, no, I wouldn't compain. I'd say, "wow, now there's a company that's willing to compete for my business." G-Man added some more information, which I intend to evaluate carefully. Not because I don't trust him, but because I'd love to sort all this out. The easy way, of course, would be for Castrol to come out and explain what's what, but they refuse to do that. . . Wonder why?
4. That you refer to this as "silly grudge mentality" only reflects your own lack of objectivity and leap to a conclusion. If I was suffering a silly grudge, why would I be trying German Castrol myself right now? Did you leap right over that fact on the way to your conclusion??? If you're really concerned about the quality of intellectual discussion, then you should realize that if no one is willing to challenge and test information, then this forum is worthless because the discourse will be founded upon nothing more than commercial progaganda and personal opinions.
5. No offense taken. I hope you feel the same way.
[ May 15, 2004, 12:00 AM: Message edited by: ekpolk ]
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Well, if you said johoba (spl?) bean oil ..you probably would have the best natural lubricant available (it bested Amsoil and M1 in the late 80s). At about $30-50 a quart ..it just ain't making it.
Not trying to re-ignite another round the Castrol blaze, but with all due respect, I'll get off that soap box as soon as Castrol starts demonstrating the sort honesty and integrity their customers deserve. Sure, it appears that G-III can be fine oil. That's not the issue. Castrol is advertising and pricing Syntec as if it's still the costly-to-make PAO it once was. Say what you will about Wal-Mart, but they price their good G-III oil at a fair level (which I define as reflective of production costs with a competitive profit margin added).
It's up to Castrol to put this soapbox away if they care about their reputation and want to silence folks like me.
I was thinking palm kernel oil isn't so good...maybe lard, too? Not sure, though.
I love olive oil, or a little peanut oil with some untoasted sesame seed oil added.
I love olive oil, or a little peanut oil with some untoasted sesame seed oil added.
Pabs...you're such a character!
Well........I guess I am going to have to throw out my opinion. First off......I don't THINK that 100% of the GIII basestock that castrol uses, is shell XHVI. Next....I have not seen any evidence that the finished XHVI products on the market, are equal to the PAO stuff available........regardless of the capability of the XHVI basestock itself. I am not impressed at all with regular syntec....and I am not really impressed with rotella T syn. Just my opinion.
Dr T ,
Are you familier with the additive company named Lubrizol ?
If so , on their website they have a list of synthetic base lubes to include PAO's, various Ester's ect and last time I visited their site group III was strangely ommitted from their list of synthetics .
Patman
Staff member
Let me pose another question to you Castrol haters.
If every single upper level executive who worked at Castrol during their switchover to group 3 was no longer working there, would you still hold it against the current Castrol management? In other words, should the new company suffer because of the percieved sins of the previous management? At this point it would just be the name Castrol that you people are hating.
I hated Castrol too, but was more than willing to try GC 0w30 when it arrived, since I knew it was a good oil.
If every single upper level executive who worked at Castrol during their switchover to group 3 was no longer working there, would you still hold it against the current Castrol management? In other words, should the new company suffer because of the percieved sins of the previous management? At this point it would just be the name Castrol that you people are hating.
I hated Castrol too, but was more than willing to try GC 0w30 when it arrived, since I knew it was a good oil.
I'm not really a Castrol "hater," and in fact, I'm trying GC myself right now. Yeah, I'm concerned about the particulars of the oils involved, but what gets me really spun up is the misrepresentation aspect of how Castrol did what it did.
Legally, a corporate citizen is a citizen like you an me, it just lacks a physical body. It is accountable for its actions, good and bad. Its owners, the stockholders, control it through the Board of Directors. The stockholders have to accept the consequences of the actions of the people they hire to run their corporation, good or bad. Sure, the management can make mistakes, and they can be replaced. I'm willing to allow for all that, and as I said above, I'm even trying one of their products GC. But in the end, citizen-Castrol is accountable for its actions, it can't blame problems on departed employees.
If you caught me in a BIG LIE here on BITOG, you'd question every subsequent post I put up, wouldn't you? That's sort of the way I look at Castrol. But I'm also willing to consider their good products too (once I've confirmed product info
Don't the additives that are used as important or more important then the base stock? Plus if I'm going to use an oil for 5000 miles and then throw it away, is Mobil 1 versus Castrol Syntec quality even an issue? Won't they both take care of my engine for as long as most sane people would want to own a car??? Not many of us own Enzo's so the super duper quality might not be that important, right?? Just asking??quote:
Originally posted by sbc350gearhead:
Well........I guess I am going to have to throw out my opinion. First off......I don't THINK that 100% of the GIII basestock that castrol uses, is shell XHVI. Next....I have not seen any evidence that the finished XHVI products on the market, are equal to the PAO stuff available........regardless of the capability of the XHVI basestock itself. I am not impressed at all with regular syntec....and I am not really impressed with rotella T syn. Just my opinion.
I guess the way to be successfull in the oil industry is make the most expensive product at the cheapest price, by your logic.
The whole true synthetic argument is a bunch of bunk. Why is basestock derived from natural gas inherently better than basestock derived from crude oil?
Quaker State bought the Slick-50 company specifically to profit from the teflon in oil scam. Then Pennzoil bought Quaker State and Shell bought Pennzoil.
The logic which drives the "I Hate Castrol" crowd should also have them hate all things Quaker State, Pennzoil and Shell.
Personally I am much more offended by the lies, deceit and profit mongering of Slick-50 then I am by the argument over Group III vs. PAO basestocks.
John
Quaker State bought the Slick-50 company specifically to profit from the teflon in oil scam. Then Pennzoil bought Quaker State and Shell bought Pennzoil.
The logic which drives the "I Hate Castrol" crowd should also have them hate all things Quaker State, Pennzoil and Shell.
Personally I am much more offended by the lies, deceit and profit mongering of Slick-50 then I am by the argument over Group III vs. PAO basestocks.
John
True. At temperatures around zero to minus 10, I find that Syntec actually gives better cold starts. It's not a linear curve. I also "use" a bit more M1.
I like both oils and I won't argue over it.
I can't imagine why we don't see more Syntec uoa's here.
I'll use mine for my info, but won't post the results, for now.
- Status
Similar threads
- Question
