Do we really know that GC can take the heat for a long OCI? I'm sure GM ran the **** out of Corvette engines before it became a factory fill as did Porsche and so many other high performance engine manufactures.
Would GC pass GM4718M?
- Thread starter drfeelgood
- Start date
- Status
Eddie:
Of course, you're free to choose the path you feel is best for you and your engines, as are the other owners here.
Based upon:
1) GCs repeated good performance in other engines known to generate very high oil temp stress, and
2) The specs the oil DOES meet, incl the BMW LL and MB specs, and
3) The results of our "science project,"
I am comfortable that:
a) GC can take the heat, and,
b) it's lack of the GM spec is either a result of:
----i) Castrol made an economic decision not to test to this spec, or
----ii) Some other characteristic (besides thermal stability) does not quite fit what GM was after with this particular spec (such as, perhaps the 12+ cSt viscosity).
Of course, you're free to choose the path you feel is best for you and your engines, as are the other owners here.
Based upon:
1) GCs repeated good performance in other engines known to generate very high oil temp stress, and
2) The specs the oil DOES meet, incl the BMW LL and MB specs, and
3) The results of our "science project,"
I am comfortable that:
a) GC can take the heat, and,
b) it's lack of the GM spec is either a result of:
----i) Castrol made an economic decision not to test to this spec, or
----ii) Some other characteristic (besides thermal stability) does not quite fit what GM was after with this particular spec (such as, perhaps the 12+ cSt viscosity).
Interesting indeed, GC, BC, and BC's replacement.
According to Castrol's product data sheets all the Syntec grades meet the spec EXCEPT 0w30 and 5w40. Interesting...
GM gets the mobil1 for free in exchange for using an oil cap that states mobil1 on it. GM used to get a slightly different grade of mobil1 than you could buy off the shelf. slightly thicker(but still 30 wt.) I was told that by mobil tech. The mobil tech called it GM 5w30.
Syntec 5W40, 2004 vintage, "exceeds engine protection..for GM4718M"
If it doesnt say it meets that spec on that back doesnt mean it wont work well in your GM engine, it was designed for Eourpean autos which probably have tougher standards anyway (my guess there). Castrol already has a line that does meet American auto specs. Besides, if your vehicle hasnt already had a catastrophic engine failure, it probably wont unless you abuse the engine-then it wont matter what kind of oil you use.
Claiming no good understanding of Magnuson-Moss, I confess that you are wholly correct as regards the law.
My remarks were intended to outline the position of the engine maker, which is in obvious conflict with the law.
I'll point out that in the case I referred to, the consumer was ultimately offered a "deal" by her dealer wherein she paid 20% or so of the cost of repairs. That reminds of what might happen if this were taken to third-party non-government arbitrators.
I realize you could fight the automaker in court, but many consumers will find that the risk/reward is unfavorable there, or that they simply cannot afford representation and feel uncomfortable proceeding pro se.
Tom:
Hope you didn't take my post as a slap around. Tone often gets lost when typing. . . You're a respected contributor here, and your perception of the MMWA is pretty wide-spread.
The key to catching how the MMWA works (at least the part we are talking about) is to focus on the order of who does what and when. In cases where the law involves critical burden shifting "dances," and this is such an area, it's all in the order of presentation. It's not a case in which all the evidence gets "tossed onto the heap" all together and gets considered as a "lump."
In a MMWA case. A smart owner's lawyer might file a Motion for Summary Judgment, which requires the mfr to put some evidence forward to show it can meet it's "you go first" burden. The judge would, in effect, ask them "what do you have?" If they can't come up with admissible proof that someone else caused the problem, the case is over right there, and the owner, who may never have changed oil at all, gets to sit there like a cat with the proverbial mouse's tail hanging out of its mouth.
Certainly, there are some fairness arguments that the mfrs can make, but I think the idea Congress had in mind was to try to take away some of the advantage that huge corporation has when litigating against a lone "little guy."
Such cases often end in settlements like you described, and often they are most reflective of justice, in the end. This lady clearly had some fault, but OTOH given the number of car/oil abusers who are out there and who never have a problem, I'd guess that her engine had "issues" too.
Hope you didn't take my post as a slap around. Tone often gets lost when typing. . . You're a respected contributor here, and your perception of the MMWA is pretty wide-spread.
The key to catching how the MMWA works (at least the part we are talking about) is to focus on the order of who does what and when. In cases where the law involves critical burden shifting "dances," and this is such an area, it's all in the order of presentation. It's not a case in which all the evidence gets "tossed onto the heap" all together and gets considered as a "lump."
In a MMWA case. A smart owner's lawyer might file a Motion for Summary Judgment, which requires the mfr to put some evidence forward to show it can meet it's "you go first" burden. The judge would, in effect, ask them "what do you have?" If they can't come up with admissible proof that someone else caused the problem, the case is over right there, and the owner, who may never have changed oil at all, gets to sit there like a cat with the proverbial mouse's tail hanging out of its mouth.
Certainly, there are some fairness arguments that the mfrs can make, but I think the idea Congress had in mind was to try to take away some of the advantage that huge corporation has when litigating against a lone "little guy."
Such cases often end in settlements like you described, and often they are most reflective of justice, in the end. This lady clearly had some fault, but OTOH given the number of car/oil abusers who are out there and who never have a problem, I'd guess that her engine had "issues" too.
- Status
Similar threads
