Okay, which are GIII, GIV, and GV

[MolaKule]

quote:

---

Blame that on the oil producers/bottlers -- not on the BITOG posters.

---

Let's be reasonable about the highly competitive lubrication industry.

I believe GMorg is right on!

Why would we list anything that could be taken out of context, used in liability proceedings, and possibly copycated by someone who didn't test his oil for three years at great expense?


If you want to know what's in their oils, then buy into it, invest in it, or buy their formulations or company.

Supposed you invented and patented a new wrench and someone is now manufacturing it with a license.

Now I come up to you and said, "Please tell how you did it, what kind of materials you used, and the process for making it."


Would you really consider my question to be REASONABLE ?

 

[Triple_Se7en]

I don't see how putting a group number on the back of an oil jug becomes damaging?

I also don't see how putting a percentage number of synthetic amount on the back of a syn-blend jug relates to anything damaging either.

I'm not asking for each company's secret recipe..... just a piece of their honesty -- just some piece of mind knowing I am (or) am not getting ripped-off at the cash register by them.

I feel I have the right to know if they are using 40% group I in that oil brand that's priced the same as Valvoline, Castrol & Pennzoil. Also have the right to know if only 10% synthetic is in their syn-blend jugs.

 

[GMorg]

When KFC (Kentuck Fried Chicken franchise) first hit the market, did people buy the fried chicken because it had 11 herbs and spices? Did they pay a little extra because those spices may have been imported or expensive? NO! The bought it because they thought that is was worth the asking price based on performance. In this case, convenience and taste. If you get the performance that you want, then you are getting your money's worth. If you think you know something about an oil beyond its spec's because you know something about one of the ingredients, then I suggest that you re-evaluate what you think that you know.

One of my mentors often proclaimed that the most dangerous information in science is something that you think that you know,....and you don't. I try to remind myself of that comment often. I know that I cannot evaluate an oil based on an ingredient. I think that it also true of most of the people that want to quench their curiosity about this subject.

And by the way, I would like to know the answer to these questions too. But I am convinced that I do not have a "right" to the information.

 

[Auto-Union]

quote:

---

Originally posted by LouDawg:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Auto-Union:
Just decipher the PDS yourself. Better yet, have some of the newer members help, they seem to either be armchair experts or in desperate need of practical education on the subject. Let us know how it works out.

---

A-U, I recognize your sarcasm, and as a "newer member", I thought I'd draw on the experience of some of our older, wiser members. But if a newer member happens to have insight on the matter, then I won't dismiss it out of hand simply because they haven't been on BITOG for years. That being said, I believe I will read all of the PDS's on all of the oils I mentioned...maybe more. I doubt seriously they will declare their heritage (read: Group#) in big, bold letters, but maybe I can read between the lines and through all of the marketing bull#@$%....

---

I meant to say MSDS, not PDS. The CAS #s will tell you what the constituents are. What I meant in my now-missing post is that new members should develop their skills to do 1st-hand research and not pester the same old guys for the same old info. (not even directed at you, just a general statment) Too often new members come armed with just myth and folklore, which is fine...so did I, but *repeating it as gospel without even knowing where to begin factual research is not what this Forum is all about*. Seriously, your post is a good approach, to consolidate info on a consensus-basis. I did mean "good luck" in sincere terms.

[ April 21, 2006, 09:37 PM: Message edited by: Auto-Union ]

 

[Auto-Union]

Now, fwiw, my $.02c. Gruppe III and Gruppe V can be tricky. G-III does not always mean Hydrocracked, and G-V has a whole category including "other" that is non-ester.

 

[Auto-Union]

Base gruppes to judge oil's performance (and "value") is a out-dated approach, imo.

 

[Nickdfresh]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Auto-Union:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LouDawg:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Auto-Union:
Just decipher the PDS yourself. Better yet, have some of the newer members help, they seem to either be armchair experts or in desperate need of practical education on the subject. Let us know how it works out.

---

A-U, I recognize your sarcasm, and as a "newer member", I thought I'd draw on the experience of some of our older, wiser members. But if a newer member happens to have insight on the matter, then I won't dismiss it out of hand simply because they haven't been on BITOG for years. That being said, I believe I will read all of the PDS's on all of the oils I mentioned...maybe more. I doubt seriously they will declare their heritage (read: Group#) in big, bold letters, but maybe I can read between the lines and through all of the marketing bull#@$%....

---

I meant to say MSDS, not PDS. The CAS #s will tell you what the constituents are. What I meant in my now-missing post is that new members should develop their skills to do 1st-hand research and not pester the same old guys for the same old info. Too often new members come armed with just myth and folklore, which is fine...so did I, but repeating it as gospel without even knowing where to begin factual research is not what this Forum is all about. Seriously, your post is a good approach, to consolidate info on a consensus-basis. I did mean "good luck" in sincere terms.

---

That's fine, but your post was a tad condescending and completely out of the context of this thread. In fact I have been reading oil sites for many years now. I never claimed to be an expert, but I can provide several articles that back what I think to be true. But in the end, it's just opinion...

Please do not get snippy with me, I've in fact ignored many opportunities to fire barbs at you. But there comes a point where I will not take it... Your "deleted post" (which actually wasn't since you've just quoted it) was completely out of context of this thread, and clearly a pot shot at me.

I merely pointed out (politely) that the original list had Castrol GTX was presumably mistakenly listed as a "synthetic oil," and Castrol has never claimed it as such, only a quality mineral oil. Try to keep your posts on task and try not to direct everything towards me (while all-the-while ignoring all of the "Mobil 1 is crap!" posts, of which I can count about ten or so that you've completely ignored. I mean, are those not exactly what you claim mine to be?

In short, if you have a problem with my opinion and posts, then don't read them nor respond. It's that simple.

Thank you, good night and good luck yourself brother...

You don't have to like me, but you will have to put up with me...

*edit*

BTW, isn't that part of the purpose of this forum, for new posters to "pester" those in the know?

 

[Auto-Union]

Umm, I did not even notice your post, sorry.

However, thanks for keeping score of which posts I respond to and not. Although I use a lot of Mobil oils, I would prefer not to use Mobil 1 but have aquired too great a stash and it fits my application. Funny, now that I think of it...I repeatedly claimed M1 made my engines noisy compared to Havoline.

Don't let me detract if you have something pertinent to add to the thread. I know how you dislike when posts are directed at another member. (sort of)

 

[Auto-Union]

quote:

---

BTW, isn't that part of the purpose of this forum, for new posters to "pester" those in the know?

---

Apparently, the purpose of this Forum is to repeatedly harp on mistaken notions gleaned from other sources and badger the membership here if they don't cower to the overbearing attitude that comes with delusional affirmation.

 

[Nickdfresh]

Apology accepted, now we can be friends again...

I think it's interesting to see which company uses which process to brew their stuff...

But I agree more research and fact checking could go into the list...

 

[Nickdfresh]

Actually, I'd more like to know if any (major) oil companies are using Group I in their formulations anymore.

 

[Auto-Union]

Looking for the high solvency of G-I? Mobil Delvac 1300S has some, that's why I recommend it for ARX.

 

[Nickdfresh]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Auto-Union:

...if they don't cower to the overbearing attitude that comes with delusional affirmation.

---

I don't think you quite read me correctly and quote selectively:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nickdfresh:
...

I love Mobil1, but hate Exxon-Mobil at this point. I'll go with Platinum myself when I get a newer vehicle...

---

 

[Triple_Se7en]

Would be much simpler if oil companies would display the group(s) numbers(s) on the back of their quart jugs.

Would also be nice if they displayed the amount/percentage of synthetic in their syn-blends.

So much info of this discussion board is speculation/guessing/wishful-thinking.

Blame that on the oil producers/bottlers -- not on the BITOG posters.

 

[Blue99]

quote:

---

One of my mentors often proclaimed that the most dangerous information in science is something that you think that you know,....and you don't.

---

quote:

---

And by the way, I would like to know the answer to these questions too. But I am convinced that I do not have a "right" to the information.

---

Very good comments, GMorg!

When does the average consumer have "a right to know" proprietary details of product formulations?

Does this "right to know" exist only in the oil aisle?

Or does it also apply to window cleaners, laundry detergent, shampoo & toothpaste - all items that are sold in nearby aisles of the typical superstore?

 

[Triple_Se7en]

quote:

---

And by the way, I would like to know the answer to these questions too. But I am convinced that I do not have a "right" to the information.

---

Well if everyone used the approach I do & avoid purchasing the syn-blends until the percentages either appeared on the jug or the product became discontinued... well then the consumer becomes the winner -- not the shady, "lets-hide-something" oil producer.

Or better yet....
A major oil producer suddenly has a big quarterly drop in profits & decides to cut costs by lowering his synthetic in syn-blends from 25% to 10% for the next three months.

Well doing so is all legal right now. But if that oil producer was forced to put 25% on the back of the jugs, then he would think twice about scamming the consumer when company stock takes a big nosedive for consecutive months.

I'm done here!
Buy whatever you want!
Believe whomever you want!

 

[Bryanccfshr]

Like synthetic is all that great for everyone.

 

[jg-911]

Many years ago (back in mid 80's) an article about winterizing your vehicle. It advised mixing 1 quart synthetic in every oil change for cold start protection. I believed this and have followed that advice mostly, with zero oil related failures (and many torturous rpm excursions). Lately, I have changed to 50/50 or 100% synthetic oil changes. I have read the oil bibles and oppinions, only to get more confused. PAOs, g3, etc ... Jeez, I know there will always be good, better, best, but how much difference is there if oil changes are done regularly? Sorry to ask a million times asked question, but it is looming. I've read for 3 days on this site before posting, efficiency? Longevity? Cold start wear?
Sorry guys, the more I read the more I regress. I will sit back and learn, I have notebooks full of oil stuff. Still I quest.
And I read of zink, etc... but I just rely on 5-8000 mile oil changes.
This is a pretty informative place, but seems I question more as I learn more. In 10 words or less, what is the best solution? Nah!