PU Euro question

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: Jeffs2006EvoIX
I read on the matrix oil site that GC had a higher flash point then the M1. Maybe was a typo then on their behalf.

So edyvw your saying that where your vw is now the M1 is your best bet, but where your wife is its the GC?

All because of flashpoint of a 15c difference?

Please elaberate I'm curious.

Jeff

Because my wife lives for now in San Diego, and I live in Colorado Springs on 6100ft.
Since I am crazy about skiing and curvy roads, I am often pushing car very hard on passes that are 10-12,000ft.
I often go to Pikes Peak (14,110ft) and there, once you reach top, engine temp goes up even if you do not push car hard, not to mention if you keep it for 20 miles constantly above 5,000rpm. Because of lower atmospheric pressure, boiling point of water on 6100ft is not 100c, it is 93-94, and flash point of oil goes lower.
So, if I am pushing hard on 12,000ft, yes I want those additional 15c in my oil! I actually might go with Castrol BC 0W40 because I recently found out that flash point on BC is 240c, and it is full-SAPS oil. Most oils with 240c are Mid-SAPS or Low-SAPS, and Colorado fuel is not example of low sulfur gas.

 

[OVERKILL]

Where did you find that information? I ask because Castrol's typically vague PDS just lists ">200" as per the norm with them:

http://msdspds.castrol.com/bpglis/FusionPDS.nsf/Files/CECA18F501CC843B80257BF800542AA3/$File/BPXE-9C7A4Q.pdf

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Where did you find that information? I ask because Castrol's typically vague PDS just lists ">200" as per the norm with them:

http://msdspds.castrol.com/bpglis/FusionPDS.nsf/Files/CECA18F501CC843B80257BF800542AA3/$File/BPXE-9C7A4Q.pdf


I seriously cannot remember, but I would say it is one of Euro pds for 0W30 (and not for LL-04). I would say for Russian market since for that market they get same 0W30 like we do.

 

[edyvw]

OK guys my mistake!
I mixed ASTM D92 and ASTM D93 test applications.
Yes, GC has 4c higher flash point then M1.
That means going back to GC

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: edyvw
OK guys my mistake!
I mixed ASTM D92 and ASTM D93 test applications.
Yes, GC has 4c higher flash point then M1.
That means going back to GC

Got a link?

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: edyvw
OK guys my mistake!
I mixed ASTM D92 and ASTM D93 test applications.
Yes, GC has 4c higher flash point then M1.
That means going back to GC

Got a link?

http://msdspds.castrol.com/bpglis/FusionPDS.nsf/Files/3A12233C4C0AC723802578A8007E1817/$File/BPXE-8HMJJJ_0.pdf

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: edyvw
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: edyvw
OK guys my mistake!
I mixed ASTM D92 and ASTM D93 test applications.
Yes, GC has 4c higher flash point then M1.
That means going back to GC

Got a link?

http://msdspds.castrol.com/bpglis/FusionPDS.nsf/Files/3A12233C4C0AC723802578A8007E1817/$File/BPXE-8HMJJJ_0.pdf


Interesting that the density is different between the two PDS's (the one I posted from 2013 and this one) as the UK one is 0.838 and the US one is 0.839

Though I'm doubting it really means anything.

Also interesting that this UK sheet is far less vague than the US one.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: edyvw
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: edyvw
OK guys my mistake!
I mixed ASTM D92 and ASTM D93 test applications.
Yes, GC has 4c higher flash point then M1.
That means going back to GC

Got a link?

http://msdspds.castrol.com/bpglis/FusionPDS.nsf/Files/3A12233C4C0AC723802578A8007E1817/$File/BPXE-8HMJJJ_0.pdf


Interesting that the density is different between the two PDS's (the one I posted from 2013 and this one) as the UK one is 0.838 and the US one is 0.839

Though I'm doubting it really means anything.

Also interesting that this UK sheet is far less vague than the US one.


Based on everything else I think it is same oil. But we are talking about Castrol, so nothing should be surprise!

 

[Jeffs2006EvoIX]

Go to matrix oils website.

They show the properties.

I'm curious now about the GC because edyvw has 2 vehicles with the same engine as I do and claims the car runs better. Might get a little better MPGs with the GC as well?

Doesn't the CC edyvw have the same engine as the golf R? If so it's an FSI isn't it?

They may call it a TFSI at least that is what the R has. That is the higher output motor with like 250hp vs 200 of the TSI.

Or Does both your VW's have 200hp and have the GTI's version which is the TSI?

Just curious.

Jeff

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: Jeffs2006EvoIX
Go to matrix oils website.

They show the properties.

I'm curious now about the GC because edyvw has 2 vehicles with the same engine as I do and claims the car runs better. Might get a little better MPGs with the GC as well?

Doesn't the CC edyvw have the same engine as the golf R? If so it's an FSI isn't it?

They may call it a TFSI at least that is what the R has. That is the higher output motor with like 250hp vs 200 of the TSI.

Or Does both your VW's have 200hp and have the GTI's version which is the TSI?

Just curious.

Jeff


Both are TSI, same as in your GTI. 200hp, 207 torque (Although APR claims that these engines are producing 222hp, and 222 torque).
I do not have scientific proof that GC is better for TSI. I might even stay with M1 since I like HTHS of 3.8cp, and fact that is SN, which addresses better ethanol in the oil (although I am not paying attention on API at all, but like this requirement about SN).
However, for CA I would personally go with GC because fuel in CA is much better then in other 49 states.

 

[Jeffs2006EvoIX]

Yeah APR says VW is conservative in their HP figures. That APR stage 1 tune with no other mods on 91 pump nets 258hp and 280tq. That's on par with the new MK7.

I like the M1. No issues at all. It meets 502/505 and that it can be found at Walmart for under $25 for 5qts. I mean it's a deal to boot.

Jeff

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: Jeffs2006EvoIX
Yeah APR says VW is conservative in their HP figures. That APR stage 1 tune with no other mods on 91 pump nets 258hp and 280tq. That's on par with the new MK7.

I like the M1. No issues at all. It meets 502/505 and that it can be found at Walmart for under $25 for 5qts. I mean it's a deal to boot.

Jeff

M1 is great oil, as well as GC or PU or BC.
majority of people do not have a clue about these issues and difference in oils. For them there is distinction between mineral and synthetic oils.
I tried to explain issues with oil to one person that drives CC, after my explanation, she said: I have no clue what you just told me.
So no worries, these oils will work.

 

[Ayrton]

Originally Posted By: edyvw
Originally Posted By: Jeffs2006EvoIX
Yeah APR says VW is conservative in their HP figures. That APR stage 1 tune with no other mods on 91 pump nets 258hp and 280tq. That's on par with the new MK7.

I like the M1. No issues at all. It meets 502/505 and that it can be found at Walmart for under $25 for 5qts. I mean it's a deal to boot.

Jeff

M1 is great oil, as well as GC or PU or BC.
majority of people do not have a clue about these issues and difference in oils. For them there is distinction between mineral and synthetic oils.
I tried to explain issues with oil to one person that drives CC, after my explanation, she said: I have no clue what you just told me.
So no worries, these oils will work.


Great thoughts throughout thread! Now if only dealers used one of the great oils, M1 0w40, GC, PU 5w40, or BC.

 

[Jeffs2006EvoIX]

I did see GC at pep boys today. They had a deal going 5qts and a filter for $32 I would have bought some but forgot my wallet at home ha ha. I only use OEM filters that I buy for $8 but could have got a filter for my Dad's car.

With that in mind GC can be had pretty reasonably.

Is there much concern over ethonal use in gas vs the SL GC or best to stick with the SN M1?

Any other benefit of an SN approved oil over SL?

Jeff

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: Jeffs2006EvoIX
Is there much concern over ethonal use in gas vs the SL GC or best to stick with the SN M1?

For an oil that already meets MB 229.5, when you look at the below graph, do you really care whether it's API SN approved?

 

[edyvw]

I just mentioned kind of on a sideline.
But point is that for TSI it is key to focus on MB 229.5
Now, I am not sure, but I have feeling that problems with manifold is caused by that Castrol 5W40 that does not meet MB 229.5, it is more unstable and generally has low quality base.
I am not sure whether their NJ production site cannot pump out better oil, or it is just that they chooses to be bad!

 

[Jeffs2006EvoIX]

How is PP euro 5w30 in contrast to the GC?

Just curious on that. I would be willing to give the GC a try just wasnt sure if newer certs equal a cleaner engine or not.

 

[Jeffs2006EvoIX]

Is the fact that GC is actually formulated in Germany mean anything? I mean as far as base oil is concerned? Is GC sold here be considered "synthetic" in Germany?

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: Jeffs2006EvoIX
How is PP euro 5w30 in contrast to the GC?

PP Euro 5w30? Did you mean PU Euro 5w30? PP Euro is no longer made. It was replaced by PU Euro. The PU Euro 5w30 is a low SAPS oil, so by default it will have a weaker add pack compared to GC. Not that it's a bad thing, just different.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: Jeffs2006EvoIX
Is GC sold here be considered "synthetic" in Germany?

We don't really know because there is no product called "GC" in Germany. The closest thing to GC in Germany would be Castrol EDGE Professional A3 0W-30, and this one is marketed as "full synthetic" in Germany. Not sure why it matters though. It's the specs that matter.