oils NOT to use

[TC]

"oils NOT to use ..."

1. Price is of almost no relevance in my opinion. I've seen Havoline, Pennzoil, and other reputable oils down in the 50 cent range after promotions, and I've also seen Pennzoil for $2.69 regular price at grocery stores. Strictly marketing-based pricing with not much rhyme or reason, and certainly no reflection of quality or lack of same.

2. I've seen perfectly decent UOAs (iron/lead/copper wear near 10 ppm) on most or all of the second and third tier oils like Shell Formula, Citgo, Kendall, etc., so just because a brand isn't one of the biggest doesn't mean it won't perform.

3. "oils NOT to use ..." I'd say any oil in which you don't have reasonably full confidence in the certifications claimed. If Pennzoil says it meets the "SL" spec. and Mobil 1 claims to meet ACEA A3, I have little reason to doubt either. But Rite Aid or Safeway brand oils? I can see these oils being just what they claim to be, but I also wouldn't be surprised if they turned out to be "lowest bidder...PERIOD" oils from unknown or offshore suppliers. Don't get much of a "warm & fuzzy" with oils like that.

 

[Mystic]

TC is right. Except for oils like Amsoil or the German Castrol, etc., that we know are very high quality, stay away from any oil that does not meet the requirements (currently SL for gasoline engine vehicles). And stay away from weird brands you have never heard of (although there are exceptions to this-I had never heard of Schaeffer's Oil before I came to this web site and Schaeffer's makes good oil).

I personally would stay away from re-refined motor oils. When you can get motor oil at a dollar a quart or so in many cases (and less with a sale), who needs the re-refined stuff.

I don't know what brand of SL-rated oil is the least capable one of the major brands but any major brand oil that meets the requirements should be good for 3000 miles.

 

[ekpolk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jthorner:
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

---

1. PAOs resist thermal breakdown better than mineral-based oils do. As I understand it, the degree of advantage varies from product to product, but broadly speaking, resistance to thermal breakdown/oxidation is a general advantage. POEs are even more resistant. Now, whether or not the typical user under normal circumstances will derive a benefit, that's another question.

2. I don't know about some others, but I think characterizing my position vis Castrol as "hating" is unfair, because it way overstates where I'm coming from. I don't "hate" Castrol, but I am extra-suspicious of the company because of what they've done.

3. Your point about Slick-50 and its peddlers is well taken. The truth about them and their products should be told as it should be for Castrol. But again, I don't hate them, I watch them carefully and note how they've conducted themselves, and act accordingly. With as much TRUTH as possible exposed and debated in forums like this, we can then all intelligently apply our own opinions and personal preferences to our product selections.

[ May 15, 2004, 12:20 PM: Message edited by: ekpolk ]

 

[G-MAN]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ekpolk:
PAOs resist thermal breakdown better than mineral-based oils do. As I understand it, the degree of advantage varies from product to product, but broadly speaking, resistance to thermal breakdown/oxidation is a general advantage.

---

This is true, but Group III and PAO are very, very close on that score. The real advantage is cold temp properties. PAO beats Group III hands down there.

Chevron (the main licensor of hydrocracking/isodewaxing systems) has not been sitting on their hands when it comes to catalyst technology. Neither has ExxonMobil with their hydrocracking/isodewaxing system. We are almost a full decade into the all hydroprocessed base oils now, and improved catalysts are enabling the production of better and better products. We are seeing Group II and II+ with specs that are as good as Group III was a few years ago. That is why current blends of 5w20 are now being made with nothing but Group II and II+ (when they used to need some Group III in them for "correction.")

As Group III technology progresses, we will gradually see the "gap" between PAO and UCBO narrow.

 

[rob-the-oil-nut]

Maybe I mis-read the article, but I recall something about by June of '04 ('05?) that 80 or 90 or 95% of all OTC oils for sale in the US would really just be re-badged Royal Dutch Shell products? Did I get something wrong; or did they buy some companies, but not others? Off-hand I'd say I "hate" that more than I "hated" Castrol. I once vowed never to buy Castrol again. Then came BITOG, and the guys that make BITOG, ummm, well, BITOG!
UOA's STILL not done on my GC, sorry guys, 100% my fault. So I can't rush to judge or condemn, and with GC, I doubt I'll be condemning.
One also should not condemn a company based on what their upper management USED to be like (do as I say, not as I do; details via email or PM for details)... but then again I just NOW heard that they had (significantly?) changed.
It's late, I'm tired and I did not look at all postings, sorry.

SUPPOSE someone at your favorite oil company (RedLine for me) did something morally reprehensible. Would you stop buying oil from the company? Suppose the Top 5 Kahunas there secretly voted that profit margin was their #1 priority? Then what?

How about a seperate thread with voting enabled: Should we forgive Castrol: All in favour? Opposed? Vote.
Maybe ask (nicely) for a Castrol guy to do an interview chat, live e-chat, or post a Q&A on our site, addressing some concerns. I certainly have a few!

FWIW
Rob

 

[ekpolk]

Well, my vote, believe it or not is "maybe." Despite my reservations about the company, I'm trying GC right now, and I have the Dyson Analysis package on order. UOA coming later. We'll see how it goes.

QUOTE: "One also should not condemn a company based on what their upper management USED to be like (do as I say, not as I do; details via email or PM for details)... but then again I just NOW heard that they had (significantly?) changed. "

I must respectfully disagree, at least a little. Legally, a corporation is just a "fake person, " who is accountable for its actions just like you or me. If the hired managers screw it up, the corp and its owners have to suck it up. When a human "bad guy," facing punishment or a damaged reputation claims to have turned a new leaf, most others think, "yeah right." New mgt is a positive step, but the most I'll give them is a cautious, "we'll see."

 

[joatmon]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ekpolk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gary Allan:

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

---

I stopped into another Autozone tonight (Chalmette, LA). They had plenty of GC but absolutely no johoba oil anywhere! Imagine that. Sinister Castrol executives must be behind this!!!

---

Not so fast! What makes you think that GC cost less to produce than the "old" Syntec?

Since your Castol attacks are fueled by your knowledge that "reduced production costs" were not passed to the consumer, please tell us more about their production costs and selling prices of the G-IV Syntec and the G-III Syntec.

Jack

 

[Dr. T]

It seems like the guys that don't use or have never really used Syntec are the one's that have negative things to say.

I too was ****** when I first tried it. It was directly responsible for every gasket leak in my car. I swore I would never go back to it especially when I found out about the Group III thing.

Truth is, we all saw the data sheets...group III's are darn close to PAO's with respect to performance and both are permitted to be called synthetic. Furthermore, every other OTC oil is now also a group III. Why not have a beef with all of them?

Fact is, Castrol is a world player and is right up there with Mobil that it is difficult to discount them and their products. A lot of people here (and some experts) have even discounted M-1 as being the be-all-end-all in motor oils. So why isn't M-1 on the list of "oils not to use"?

My comments relate to oils sold under store label as being SL-rated when the consumer doesn't really know what's in them, quality control is questionable and specs change without notice. So, yes if you are an oil guru, you will care what goes into your car. SuperTech will do fine, but if you're into your mustard, then only French's will do.

 

[alloy]

I'm kinda new to this site, and don't know much about the castrol price debate. But, let me throw this out to all of you.

I know someone that works at auto zone and in his training he was told there is no product auto zones sells that they don't make at least 50% to 60% percent profit on. He can match lower prices in a heartbeat, and the computer register has a courtesy discount of 10% they can give to anyone they choose.

Anyway, just food for thought.

 

[ekpolk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr. T:
It seems like the guys that don't use or have never really used Syntec are the one's that have negative things to say.

So, yes if you are an oil guru, you will care what goes into your car. SuperTech will do fine, but if you're into your mustard, then only French's will do.

---

If you're really into your mustard, then only Grey Poupon will do. . .

And if you're really into your oil -- whoa, better stop before I ignite another multi-page BITOG nuclear exchange!

BTW, in fact I did use Syntec, for about two years. It's performance seemed adequate. Part of why I get so animated about Castrol is that I felt deceived when I found out what it really was. Yeah, I guess I should have done my homework better, and that's my fault. Hey, it's my engine, and I want to decide what to put into it. Can't do that without straightforward info from the maker.

As to production cost, there's plenty of general info out there suggesting that G-IIIs are less expensive to make, although the degree seems to be open to debate at this point. Castrol's the one with the specific info we're looking for. I'd love to see it. I wonder why they've been so hesitant to publicise any of this info???

 

[ekpolk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr. T:
It seems like the guys that don't use or have never really used Syntec are the one's that have negative things to say.

So, yes if you are an oil guru, you will care what goes into your car. SuperTech will do fine, but if you're into your mustard, then only French's will do.

---

If you're really into your mustard, then only Grey Poupon will do. . .

And if you're really into your oil -- whoa, better stop before I ignite another multi-page BITOG nuclear exchange!

BTW, in fact I did use Syntec, for about two years. It's performance seemed adequate. Part of why I get so animated about Castrol is that I felt deceived when I found out what it really was. Yeah, I guess I should have done my homework better, and that's my fault. Hey, it's my engine, and I want to decide what to put into it. Can't do that without straightforward info from the maker.

As to production cost, there's plenty of general info out there suggesting that G-IIIs are less expensive to make, although the degree seems to be open to debate at this point. Castrol's the one with the specific info we're looking for. I'd love to see it. I wonder why they've been so hesitant to publicise any of this info???

 

[gerhardb]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pablo:
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.

---

You want to stay away from the Peanut or nut based oil as they help your body produce uric acid... which leads to gout!

-smile-

 

[joatmon]

ekpolk,

Instead of attacking Castol and ranting about "reduced production costs" that were not passed to the consumer, please show us some facts and evidence regarding the production costs and selling prices of G-IV Syntec and G-III Syntec.

You're a lawyer, right? This evidence thing should be easy for you.

Jack

 

[Thomas Pyrek]

quote:

---

Originally posted by alloy:
I know someone that works at auto zone and in his training he was told there is no product auto zones sells that they don't make at least 50% to 60% percent profit on.

---

That's pretty much how everything retail works. Those $3 pints of beer at the bar cost $.30 for the beer alone. Obviously, there's the nitrogen and cooling costs, but it's still less than $1.50 to serve a pint of beer.

 

[ekpolk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by joatmon:
ekpolk,

Instead of attacking Castol and ranting about "reduced production costs" that were not passed to the consumer, please show us some facts and evidence regarding the production costs and selling prices of G-IV Syntec and G-III Syntec.

You're a lawyer, right? This evidence thing should be easy for you.

Jack

---

Jack: If you think I'm "ranting", you've already hopelessly missed my point. Yes, the evidence thing is easy for me, and maybe you should do some homework on it yourself. The real question is who has the burden of proof. It's not up to me to prove that Castrol's product delivers reasonable quality for the price. That's Castrol job if they want my business. I've merely expressed a concern that many others have as well. It's Castrol that's keeping a lid on the evidence, not me, or any of their other customers.

Very generally, the law calls for a party with custody or control of evidence to cough it up, unless it's protected by some privilege or it's totally irrelevant. And frequently, where a party stands on privilege to suppress or avoid disclosing information, that party will not be allowed to either prosecute or defend on the issue to which the evidence applies. In effect, the law presumes that the "victim" of the suppression is correct, and leaves it up to the suppressor to choose whether to lose in this fashion. I'm still waiting to hear from Castrol. The idiotic form letter I got from them when I asked said only, "don't worry, Syntec works fine. . ." (but hey, it did include a coupon for a free quart!).

If I'm guilty of "ranting," then you're just as guilty of obediently accepting whatever Castrol's spinmeisters feed you. Watch out when they offer you a great deal on a bridge in Brooklyn.

[ May 18, 2004, 11:22 AM: Message edited by: ekpolk ]

 

[Ugly3]

Avoid all oils that are not API certified. "Starburst", buy - no "Starburst", stay away.

 

[Ugly3]

As to this Castrol "thing" -

If a company could figure out how to make an oil better than Mobil 1 and Amsoil at a cost of $.50 a quart what price should they sell it at? Maybe the answer is the market price based on the performance charactorists of the oil.

If the company wanted to "own" the market then they might try to "own" it on price. Why don't Nike shoes sell for $12 (they only cost $5)? Because a product positioned as a premium product commands a premium price.

The American consumer sees what they consider a premium product at discount prices and says "it must be cheap crap and I (or my car or my pet) deserve better than that" and stays away in droves.

Would Castrol full synthetic sell well at $2.00 a quart? It would sell well to the few "gearheads" who know the facts. For the vast majority of buyers it would look like some "middle of the road" product and they would buy the real stuff at $5.00 a quart.

 

[Hemidart]

quote:

---

Originally posted by G-Man II:
Valvoline is the only name-brand oil I can think of that I would never consider using.

---

It's funny...That is the only oil my dad will use. He buys it by the case. He does 3k OCI with Fram filters and has an old Ford that he has had since new with 170k on it.

 

[Hemidart]

There are two types of oil buyers. Ones who knows the story behind Castrol and Mobil 1, and know the difference between a Group III and a PAO, but still might try Castrol because they look at the whole picture. The other type of buyer just wants to buy a "Synthetic" oil and sees Castrol Syntec and Mobil 1 on the shelf next to each other. They look at the price, sees they are close and buys on spiffy packaging. IMHO Castrol Syntec has a better looking package then Mobil 1. Castrol imho cannot afford to sell at a lower rate then M1...by doing so they would be saving money, but adding a percieved idea to the general public that they are inferior to M1. If I owned Castrol...I would do the same thing they did and are doing now.

 

[TallPaul]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ugly3:
Avoid all oils that are not API certified. "Starburst", buy - no "Starburst", stay away.

---

What if your car takes 10w40? Where do you get the starburst 10w40 (not that I want starburst, just curious)?

I don't see the need for staburst (except for CAFE). Isn't it enough to have the SL rating?