ahhh.. so someone has a history of being critical of the labs.. interesting to hear the response.
VOA Castrol GTX Conventional 5w20
- Thread starter researcher
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2010
- Messages
- 9,807
Originally Posted By: danielLD
Ugh, Polaris has huge issues with ICP. My old lab I was constantly getting in trouble, because I wouldn't stop bringing up bad data. Most of these labs are jokes. But PQIA, Tom knows what he's doing.
Care to share some quantifiable and verifiable objective data to support your statement or are you simply trying to float us? Polaris has multiple accreditations and a lab will not be in business long if they do not maintain the processes behind those accreditations.
Ugh, Polaris has huge issues with ICP. My old lab I was constantly getting in trouble, because I wouldn't stop bringing up bad data. Most of these labs are jokes. But PQIA, Tom knows what he's doing.
Care to share some quantifiable and verifiable objective data to support your statement or are you simply trying to float us? Polaris has multiple accreditations and a lab will not be in business long if they do not maintain the processes behind those accreditations.
Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
Originally Posted By: danielLD
Ugh, Polaris has huge issues with ICP. My old lab I was constantly getting in trouble, because I wouldn't stop bringing up bad data. Most of these labs are jokes. But PQIA, Tom knows what he's doing.
Care to share some quantifiable and verifiable objective data to support your statement or are you simply trying to float us? Polaris has multiple accreditations and a lab will not be in business long if they do not maintain the processes behind those accreditations.
Interesting, isn't it? The deafening silence and no reply.
Originally Posted By: danielLD
Ugh, Polaris has huge issues with ICP. My old lab I was constantly getting in trouble, because I wouldn't stop bringing up bad data. Most of these labs are jokes. But PQIA, Tom knows what he's doing.
Care to share some quantifiable and verifiable objective data to support your statement or are you simply trying to float us? Polaris has multiple accreditations and a lab will not be in business long if they do not maintain the processes behind those accreditations.
Interesting, isn't it? The deafening silence and no reply.
HA! you guys crack me up, this forum I don't like. I don't receive any notifications when someone comments, can anyone share how to fix that?
I don't have a previous screen name, not sure what you're referencing there.
2015_PSD sure, what do you want.
LOL, guys the ISO 17025:2005 certifications doesn't mean squat. Not like ANA Labs was cheating Chicago Metro on their UOA program, eh? Oh that's right, they're banned from NYC, Detroit, Houston, Chicago, and many more cities for what their old owner did.(cheated on the coolant analysis, was screening vs. testing, they were ISO17025 for a long time even after the scandal)
A machine's calibration has little to do with the darn certificate that STATES THEY FOLLOWED PROCEDURE.
I don't have a previous screen name, not sure what you're referencing there.
2015_PSD sure, what do you want.
LOL, guys the ISO 17025:2005 certifications doesn't mean squat. Not like ANA Labs was cheating Chicago Metro on their UOA program, eh? Oh that's right, they're banned from NYC, Detroit, Houston, Chicago, and many more cities for what their old owner did.(cheated on the coolant analysis, was screening vs. testing, they were ISO17025 for a long time even after the scandal)
A machine's calibration has little to do with the darn certificate that STATES THEY FOLLOWED PROCEDURE.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuPAxKBSaaQ
Now, if we can get back to the discussion. If you need more proof than Terry Dyson explaining it to you then, I have hundreds of back to back UOAs of Blackstone and other labs. Including Tribologik, Polaris, TestOil, ANA Labs, Analysts INC, GearHEADS, WEAR Check, PMC, SGS, and about 10 other labs.
Originally Posted By: danielLD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuPAxKBSaaQ
Now, if we can get back to the discussion. If you need more proof than Terry Dyson explaining it to you then, I have hundreds of back to back UOAs of Blackstone and other labs. Including Tribologik, Polaris, TestOil, ANA Labs, Analysts INC, GearHEADS, WEAR Check, PMC, SGS, and about 10 other labs.
If you want to complain about how bad others are doing, start your own post. No need to hijack mine. I was posting a VOA for Castrol GTX, which has nothing to do with an advertisement for your friend Terry Dyson. You're free to disagree but start your own postings, no need to hijack my info.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuPAxKBSaaQ
Now, if we can get back to the discussion. If you need more proof than Terry Dyson explaining it to you then, I have hundreds of back to back UOAs of Blackstone and other labs. Including Tribologik, Polaris, TestOil, ANA Labs, Analysts INC, GearHEADS, WEAR Check, PMC, SGS, and about 10 other labs.
If you want to complain about how bad others are doing, start your own post. No need to hijack mine. I was posting a VOA for Castrol GTX, which has nothing to do with an advertisement for your friend Terry Dyson. You're free to disagree but start your own postings, no need to hijack my info.
Originally Posted By: researcher
Originally Posted By: alarmguy
New ultra clean, new formula, no track record and weaker film strength.
But yeah, I'd be upset too if I just had a VOA done on the old stuff!
I actually returned a jug of 20w50 that I bought for my bike when I read about the change, even though no evidence of changing the 20/50 yet, I just moved onto another brand, not wanting to mess around.
OK and, well, truth is my wife returned it for me...
)
While I can agree it's a new formula and no track record since it's new. I can't just agree that it has a weaker film strength. No data to support that yet. I did look at the specs of the new Ultraclean and it looks extremely similar to what it is replacing. I'll probably be the test subject when I switch my tC over to ultraclean 5w30 from the Toyota stuff I have been using. Not liking how thin that Toyota/Mobil stuff was getting.
ahh, so you returned a 20w50 Castrol because of the new change. Yeah I can see your point. I'm going to be sending in a VOA this week for the Ultraclean 5w30, would like to see exactly what it is.
hey that's nice of your wife to return that for ya!
Well yeah, someone did test the film strength of the new "Ultra Clean".
In fact, it will be the one and only fact on this oil ever posted in BITOG. I already know people will trash this guy, yet, they will produce no facts on the new GTX, no one except him.
Here was his very respectable film strength on the old formula.
63. 5W30 Castrol GTX, API SN conventional = 95,392 psi
zinc = 830 ppm
phos = 791 ppm
moly = 1 ppm
This is an older version of this oil that is no longer available. See 5W30 Castrol GTX “ULTRACLEAN” below, for current capability.
Here is the new Ultra Clean -
117. 5W30 Castrol GTX “ULTRACLEAN, API SN conventional = 78,664 psi
This oil claims 50% better sludge protection than Industry standards.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This was the latest current version of this oil when tested Summer 2017. For reference, this oil’s wear protection capability dropped 16,728 psi, and it dropped over 50 Ranking positions, compared to the previous 5W30 Castrol GTX that was NOT called ULTRACLEAN.
Originally Posted By: alarmguy
New ultra clean, new formula, no track record and weaker film strength.
But yeah, I'd be upset too if I just had a VOA done on the old stuff!
I actually returned a jug of 20w50 that I bought for my bike when I read about the change, even though no evidence of changing the 20/50 yet, I just moved onto another brand, not wanting to mess around.
OK and, well, truth is my wife returned it for me...
)While I can agree it's a new formula and no track record since it's new. I can't just agree that it has a weaker film strength. No data to support that yet. I did look at the specs of the new Ultraclean and it looks extremely similar to what it is replacing. I'll probably be the test subject when I switch my tC over to ultraclean 5w30 from the Toyota stuff I have been using. Not liking how thin that Toyota/Mobil stuff was getting.
ahh, so you returned a 20w50 Castrol because of the new change. Yeah I can see your point. I'm going to be sending in a VOA this week for the Ultraclean 5w30, would like to see exactly what it is.
hey that's nice of your wife to return that for ya!
Well yeah, someone did test the film strength of the new "Ultra Clean".
In fact, it will be the one and only fact on this oil ever posted in BITOG. I already know people will trash this guy, yet, they will produce no facts on the new GTX, no one except him.
Here was his very respectable film strength on the old formula.
63. 5W30 Castrol GTX, API SN conventional = 95,392 psi
zinc = 830 ppm
phos = 791 ppm
moly = 1 ppm
This is an older version of this oil that is no longer available. See 5W30 Castrol GTX “ULTRACLEAN” below, for current capability.
Here is the new Ultra Clean -
117. 5W30 Castrol GTX “ULTRACLEAN, API SN conventional = 78,664 psi
This oil claims 50% better sludge protection than Industry standards.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This was the latest current version of this oil when tested Summer 2017. For reference, this oil’s wear protection capability dropped 16,728 psi, and it dropped over 50 Ranking positions, compared to the previous 5W30 Castrol GTX that was NOT called ULTRACLEAN.
Originally Posted By: researcher
Originally Posted By: danielLD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuPAxKBSaaQ
Now, if we can get back to the discussion. If you need more proof than Terry Dyson explaining it to you then, I have hundreds of back to back UOAs of Blackstone and other labs. Including Tribologik, Polaris, TestOil, ANA Labs, Analysts INC, GearHEADS, WEAR Check, PMC, SGS, and about 10 other labs.
If you want to complain about how bad others are doing, start your own post. No need to hijack mine. I was posting a VOA for Castrol GTX, which has nothing to do with an advertisement for your friend Terry Dyson. You're free to disagree but start your own postings, no need to hijack my info.
I haven't hijacked your post. You asked for "proof". This is not an ad for Terry Dyson, that dude doesn't even care about this place. It has to do with you understanding that VOA isn't going to be accurate. Alas this is exactly why he left, the website he helped found turned from science to a bunch of people who think they know everything. How come only in the oil world do results get interpreted by the patient.
Originally Posted By: danielLD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuPAxKBSaaQ
Now, if we can get back to the discussion. If you need more proof than Terry Dyson explaining it to you then, I have hundreds of back to back UOAs of Blackstone and other labs. Including Tribologik, Polaris, TestOil, ANA Labs, Analysts INC, GearHEADS, WEAR Check, PMC, SGS, and about 10 other labs.
If you want to complain about how bad others are doing, start your own post. No need to hijack mine. I was posting a VOA for Castrol GTX, which has nothing to do with an advertisement for your friend Terry Dyson. You're free to disagree but start your own postings, no need to hijack my info.
I haven't hijacked your post. You asked for "proof". This is not an ad for Terry Dyson, that dude doesn't even care about this place. It has to do with you understanding that VOA isn't going to be accurate. Alas this is exactly why he left, the website he helped found turned from science to a bunch of people who think they know everything. How come only in the oil world do results get interpreted by the patient.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2010
- Messages
- 9,807
Originally Posted By: danielLD
It has to do with you understanding that VOA isn't going to be accurate. Alas this is exactly why he left, the website he helped found turned from science to a bunch of people who think they know everything. How come only in the oil world do results get interpreted by the patient.
Not accurate in what way and how is the "patient interpreting the results", when the oil lab is the one giving the initial findings?
It has to do with you understanding that VOA isn't going to be accurate. Alas this is exactly why he left, the website he helped found turned from science to a bunch of people who think they know everything. How come only in the oil world do results get interpreted by the patient.
Not accurate in what way and how is the "patient interpreting the results", when the oil lab is the one giving the initial findings?
Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
Originally Posted By: danielLD
It has to do with you understanding that VOA isn't going to be accurate. Alas this is exactly why he left, the website he helped found turned from science to a bunch of people who think they know everything. How come only in the oil world do results get interpreted by the patient.
Not accurate in what way and how is the "patient interpreting the results", when the oil lab is the one giving the initial findings?
As in Blackstone uses internal standards that are not verified by the slightest. They're not even ISO9000, which is a joke of a certification anyways. Blackstone doesn't care, they are happy where they are, they know, the typical consumer will not know to look for these things. So Blackstone has 0 accountability to how they run their lab. Certification doesn't mean the lab is perfect, BUT it means we can at least have more confidence in that they are taking the right approaches and using proper procedures.
Blackstone as I showed to you above, gives out bad interpretations left and right. They're trying to stay in business and make money, props to them, but have you noticed EVERY report always comes back with go longer, looks great, etc? Even when the samples have 51ppm of iron, they're still saying to go longer. Modern engines do not allow for ferritic wear.
Most on here aren't professionals in the industry. Yet the things I'm reading are horribly scary. Everyone is just shouting out a bunch of things but few know what they're talking about. Also, Blackstone's analysts are trained by no one. Another thing to note, have you ever noticed, no recommendation to solve issues, oil selection, filter selection , etc. What's the point of UOA then? Y'all are basically left to try and decipher things that took others decades to understand and learn at the highest levels of UOA.
It's very frustrating when I see a bunch of guys that care, getting bad info. I can show you back to back Tribologik(whom I don't like) and Blackstone reports. one says 0% fuel, the other reports 2.5%. I've seen plenty of [censored] reports with 0% when fuel was actually 8%. And those are just the little things.
Originally Posted By: danielLD
It has to do with you understanding that VOA isn't going to be accurate. Alas this is exactly why he left, the website he helped found turned from science to a bunch of people who think they know everything. How come only in the oil world do results get interpreted by the patient.
Not accurate in what way and how is the "patient interpreting the results", when the oil lab is the one giving the initial findings?
As in Blackstone uses internal standards that are not verified by the slightest. They're not even ISO9000, which is a joke of a certification anyways. Blackstone doesn't care, they are happy where they are, they know, the typical consumer will not know to look for these things. So Blackstone has 0 accountability to how they run their lab. Certification doesn't mean the lab is perfect, BUT it means we can at least have more confidence in that they are taking the right approaches and using proper procedures.
Blackstone as I showed to you above, gives out bad interpretations left and right. They're trying to stay in business and make money, props to them, but have you noticed EVERY report always comes back with go longer, looks great, etc? Even when the samples have 51ppm of iron, they're still saying to go longer. Modern engines do not allow for ferritic wear.
Most on here aren't professionals in the industry. Yet the things I'm reading are horribly scary. Everyone is just shouting out a bunch of things but few know what they're talking about. Also, Blackstone's analysts are trained by no one. Another thing to note, have you ever noticed, no recommendation to solve issues, oil selection, filter selection , etc. What's the point of UOA then? Y'all are basically left to try and decipher things that took others decades to understand and learn at the highest levels of UOA.
It's very frustrating when I see a bunch of guys that care, getting bad info. I can show you back to back Tribologik(whom I don't like) and Blackstone reports. one says 0% fuel, the other reports 2.5%. I've seen plenty of [censored] reports with 0% when fuel was actually 8%. And those are just the little things.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2010
- Messages
- 9,807
Originally Posted By: danielLD
Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
Originally Posted By: danielLD
It has to do with you understanding that VOA isn't going to be accurate. Alas this is exactly why he left, the website he helped found turned from science to a bunch of people who think they know everything. How come only in the oil world do results get interpreted by the patient.
Not accurate in what way and how is the "patient interpreting the results", when the oil lab is the one giving the initial findings?
As in Blackstone uses internal standards that are not verified by the slightest. They're not even ISO9000, which is a joke of a certification anyways. Blackstone doesn't care, they are happy where they are, they know, the typical consumer will not know to look for these things. So Blackstone has 0 accountability to how they run their lab. Certification doesn't mean the lab is perfect, BUT it means we can at least have more confidence in that they are taking the right approaches and using proper procedures.
Blackstone as I showed to you above, gives out bad interpretations left and right. They're trying to stay in business and make money, props to them, but have you noticed EVERY report always comes back with go longer, looks great, etc? Even when the samples have 51ppm of iron, they're still saying to go longer. Modern engines do not allow for ferritic wear.
Most on here aren't professionals in the industry. Yet the things I'm reading are horribly scary. Everyone is just shouting out a bunch of things but few know what they're talking about. Also, Blackstone's analysts are trained by no one. Another thing to note, have you ever noticed, no recommendation to solve issues, oil selection, filter selection , etc. What's the point of UOA then? Y'all are basically left to try and decipher things that took others decades to understand and learn at the highest levels of UOA.
It's very frustrating when I see a bunch of guys that care, getting bad info. I can show you back to back Tribologik(whom I don't like) and Blackstone reports. one says 0% fuel, the other reports 2.5%. I've seen plenty of [censored] reports with 0% when fuel was actually 8%. And those are just the little things.
I personally stopped using Blackstone for the reasons that you note, but I have to say, you are making blankets statements that do not apply to all labs (including those which are certified) with zero objective and credible proof and that brings your credibility into full question. Polaris is fully certified and yet, you call them out with statements like:
Originally Posted By: danielLD
Ugh, Polaris has huge issues with ICP. My old lab I was constantly getting in trouble, because I wouldn't stop bringing up bad data. Most of these labs are jokes. But PQIA, Tom knows what he's doing.
Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
Originally Posted By: danielLD
It has to do with you understanding that VOA isn't going to be accurate. Alas this is exactly why he left, the website he helped found turned from science to a bunch of people who think they know everything. How come only in the oil world do results get interpreted by the patient.
Not accurate in what way and how is the "patient interpreting the results", when the oil lab is the one giving the initial findings?
As in Blackstone uses internal standards that are not verified by the slightest. They're not even ISO9000, which is a joke of a certification anyways. Blackstone doesn't care, they are happy where they are, they know, the typical consumer will not know to look for these things. So Blackstone has 0 accountability to how they run their lab. Certification doesn't mean the lab is perfect, BUT it means we can at least have more confidence in that they are taking the right approaches and using proper procedures.
Blackstone as I showed to you above, gives out bad interpretations left and right. They're trying to stay in business and make money, props to them, but have you noticed EVERY report always comes back with go longer, looks great, etc? Even when the samples have 51ppm of iron, they're still saying to go longer. Modern engines do not allow for ferritic wear.
Most on here aren't professionals in the industry. Yet the things I'm reading are horribly scary. Everyone is just shouting out a bunch of things but few know what they're talking about. Also, Blackstone's analysts are trained by no one. Another thing to note, have you ever noticed, no recommendation to solve issues, oil selection, filter selection , etc. What's the point of UOA then? Y'all are basically left to try and decipher things that took others decades to understand and learn at the highest levels of UOA.
It's very frustrating when I see a bunch of guys that care, getting bad info. I can show you back to back Tribologik(whom I don't like) and Blackstone reports. one says 0% fuel, the other reports 2.5%. I've seen plenty of [censored] reports with 0% when fuel was actually 8%. And those are just the little things.
I personally stopped using Blackstone for the reasons that you note, but I have to say, you are making blankets statements that do not apply to all labs (including those which are certified) with zero objective and credible proof and that brings your credibility into full question. Polaris is fully certified and yet, you call them out with statements like:
Originally Posted By: danielLD
Ugh, Polaris has huge issues with ICP. My old lab I was constantly getting in trouble, because I wouldn't stop bringing up bad data. Most of these labs are jokes. But PQIA, Tom knows what he's doing.
I'm not making blanket statements, LOL. I've used those labs, issues. My own former lab, Tribologik, US Navy's official lab, lab that DOD uses, we did Hoover DAM, NYC Metro, Detroit Metro, Seattle Metro, Houston Metro, Chicago Metro, and sooooo many more big clients, Gulfstream, Rolls Royce, Schneider Trucking, Air Canada, United Airlines, to name a few. We CONSTANTLY had lab issues, GC machine's down, TBN machine out, KF reading 3x as high to name a few.
So Tribologik carrying an ISO 17025:2015 doesn't mean it's perfect. Polaris is worse than Tribologik in this regard, why could such a thing be? Because they don't care about that 1% accuracy. We had 2,000 samples to push through a day. UPMan didn't care if numbers weren't perfect, as long as results were out, OK. Polaris is doing even more samples than Tribo, like 10X as much.
That and ultimately these labs don't care about the end users. Tribologik's expert system is seriously flawed, but I was told to keep my mouth shut. Most labs get intimidated and threatened when they're told there's an issue. As "credibility" a thing this field gives to anyone with a degree or certificate, is a ironically a big deal in this field.
So Tribologik carrying an ISO 17025:2015 doesn't mean it's perfect. Polaris is worse than Tribologik in this regard, why could such a thing be? Because they don't care about that 1% accuracy. We had 2,000 samples to push through a day. UPMan didn't care if numbers weren't perfect, as long as results were out, OK. Polaris is doing even more samples than Tribo, like 10X as much.
That and ultimately these labs don't care about the end users. Tribologik's expert system is seriously flawed, but I was told to keep my mouth shut. Most labs get intimidated and threatened when they're told there's an issue. As "credibility" a thing this field gives to anyone with a degree or certificate, is a ironically a big deal in this field.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2010
- Messages
- 9,807
Originally Posted By: danielLD
I'm not making blanket statements, LOL. I've used those labs, issues. My own former lab, Tribologik, US Navy's official lab, lab that DOD uses, we did Hoover DAM, NYC Metro, Detroit Metro, Seattle Metro, Houston Metro, Chicago Metro, and sooooo many more big clients, Gulfstream, Rolls Royce, Schneider Trucking, Air Canada, United Airlines, to name a few. We CONSTANTLY had lab issues, GC machine's down, TBN machine out, KF reading 3x as high to name a few.
So Tribologik carrying an ISO 17025:2015 doesn't mean it's perfect. Polaris is worse than Tribologik in this regard, why could such a thing be? Because they don't care about that 1% accuracy. We had 2,000 samples to push through a day. UPMan didn't care if numbers weren't perfect, as long as results were out, OK. Polaris is doing even more samples than Tribo, like 10X as much.
I will not beat a dead horse, but of course you are:
-- You said that "Ugh, Polaris has huge issues with ICP. My old lab I was constantly getting in trouble, because I wouldn't stop bringing up bad data. Most of these labs are jokes. But PQIA, Tom knows what he's doing."
--You said that "LOL, guys the ISO 17025:2005 certifications doesn't mean squat. Not like ANA Labs was cheating Chicago Metro on their UOA program, eh? Oh that's right, they're banned from NYC, Detroit, Houston, Chicago, and many more cities for what their old owner did.(cheated on the coolant analysis, was screening vs. testing, they were ISO17025 for a long time even after the scandal). A machine's calibration has little to do with the darn certificate that STATES THEY FOLLOWED PROCEDURE."
--You said that "I have hundreds of back to back UOAs of Blackstone and other labs. Including Tribologik, Polaris, TestOil, ANA Labs, Analysts INC, GearHEADS, WEAR Check, PMC, SGS, and about 10 other labs."
And to substantiate all of these claims, you post one Blackstone UOA and a load of anecdotal information, which by the way, cannot be verified by any reputable and objective third party? Hopefully, you can see the problem with this, but I suspect not.
I'm not making blanket statements, LOL. I've used those labs, issues. My own former lab, Tribologik, US Navy's official lab, lab that DOD uses, we did Hoover DAM, NYC Metro, Detroit Metro, Seattle Metro, Houston Metro, Chicago Metro, and sooooo many more big clients, Gulfstream, Rolls Royce, Schneider Trucking, Air Canada, United Airlines, to name a few. We CONSTANTLY had lab issues, GC machine's down, TBN machine out, KF reading 3x as high to name a few.
So Tribologik carrying an ISO 17025:2015 doesn't mean it's perfect. Polaris is worse than Tribologik in this regard, why could such a thing be? Because they don't care about that 1% accuracy. We had 2,000 samples to push through a day. UPMan didn't care if numbers weren't perfect, as long as results were out, OK. Polaris is doing even more samples than Tribo, like 10X as much.
I will not beat a dead horse, but of course you are:
-- You said that "Ugh, Polaris has huge issues with ICP. My old lab I was constantly getting in trouble, because I wouldn't stop bringing up bad data. Most of these labs are jokes. But PQIA, Tom knows what he's doing."
--You said that "LOL, guys the ISO 17025:2005 certifications doesn't mean squat. Not like ANA Labs was cheating Chicago Metro on their UOA program, eh? Oh that's right, they're banned from NYC, Detroit, Houston, Chicago, and many more cities for what their old owner did.(cheated on the coolant analysis, was screening vs. testing, they were ISO17025 for a long time even after the scandal). A machine's calibration has little to do with the darn certificate that STATES THEY FOLLOWED PROCEDURE."
--You said that "I have hundreds of back to back UOAs of Blackstone and other labs. Including Tribologik, Polaris, TestOil, ANA Labs, Analysts INC, GearHEADS, WEAR Check, PMC, SGS, and about 10 other labs."
And to substantiate all of these claims, you post one Blackstone UOA and a load of anecdotal information, which by the way, cannot be verified by any reputable and objective third party? Hopefully, you can see the problem with this, but I suspect not.
Originally Posted By: alarmguy
Well yeah, someone did test the film strength of the new "Ultra Clean".
In fact, it will be the one and only fact on this oil ever posted in BITOG. I already know people will trash this guy, yet, they will produce no facts on the new GTX, no one except him.
Here was his very respectable film strength on the old formula.
63. 5W30 Castrol GTX, API SN conventional = 95,392 psi
zinc = 830 ppm
phos = 791 ppm
moly = 1 ppm
This is an older version of this oil that is no longer available. See 5W30 Castrol GTX “ULTRACLEAN” below, for current capability.
Here is the new Ultra Clean -
117. 5W30 Castrol GTX “ULTRACLEAN, API SN conventional = 78,664 psi
This oil claims 50% better sludge protection than Industry standards.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This was the latest current version of this oil when tested Summer 2017. For reference, this oil’s wear protection capability dropped 16,728 psi, and it dropped over 50 Ranking positions, compared to the previous 5W30 Castrol GTX that was NOT called ULTRACLEAN.
I finally found that info you're talking about.. and what is hilarious is that the Toyota/Mobil that I had been using for the Scion (5w30)is actually LESS PSI than the new Castrol Ultraclean! So it was a smart move for me to leave that Toyota/Mobil oil! People can claim all they want about Mobil 1 but the 5w30 Toyota/Mobil makes IS NOT mobil 1! Cannot compare the two no matter what, not the same.
Here's the info for the Toyota oil to compare to the Castrol Ultraclean.
167. 5W30 Toyota Motor Oil, API SN conventional = 68,069 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
Well yeah, someone did test the film strength of the new "Ultra Clean".
In fact, it will be the one and only fact on this oil ever posted in BITOG. I already know people will trash this guy, yet, they will produce no facts on the new GTX, no one except him.
Here was his very respectable film strength on the old formula.
63. 5W30 Castrol GTX, API SN conventional = 95,392 psi
zinc = 830 ppm
phos = 791 ppm
moly = 1 ppm
This is an older version of this oil that is no longer available. See 5W30 Castrol GTX “ULTRACLEAN” below, for current capability.
Here is the new Ultra Clean -
117. 5W30 Castrol GTX “ULTRACLEAN, API SN conventional = 78,664 psi
This oil claims 50% better sludge protection than Industry standards.
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
This was the latest current version of this oil when tested Summer 2017. For reference, this oil’s wear protection capability dropped 16,728 psi, and it dropped over 50 Ranking positions, compared to the previous 5W30 Castrol GTX that was NOT called ULTRACLEAN.
I finally found that info you're talking about.. and what is hilarious is that the Toyota/Mobil that I had been using for the Scion (5w30)is actually LESS PSI than the new Castrol Ultraclean! So it was a smart move for me to leave that Toyota/Mobil oil! People can claim all they want about Mobil 1 but the 5w30 Toyota/Mobil makes IS NOT mobil 1! Cannot compare the two no matter what, not the same.
Here's the info for the Toyota oil to compare to the Castrol Ultraclean.
167. 5W30 Toyota Motor Oil, API SN conventional = 68,069 psi
zinc = TBD
phos = TBD
moly = TBD
OP thank you for posting the VOA, it's great to see some regular mineral oils tested.
The GTX 5W20 looks good to me, regular ILSAC levels of zinc (739 ppm with PQIA returning 817 ppm), lots of Boron (162 ppm, PQIA at 195) a nice touch of Moly (74 and 86 ppm respectively) based on a Calcium detergent package (2188 ppm here and 2646 at PQIA) returning a healthy TBN of 8.1 (PQIA 8.68).
J300 gives 9.3 cSt as the max KV100 viscosity for a 20 grade oil, and Castrol typicaly like to produce an oil at close to the upper limits. Here we have KV100 = 9.01 cSt (PQIA gives 9.2 cSt). PQIA also returns a NOACK volatility of 11.6 % which is good for a non-synthetic oil, well under the 15% API maximum.
The difference between the two could just be batch to batch variation, but PQIA probably has the better calibration, so if in doubt I would trust the PQIA numbers.
I think it's a nice looking oil, heavy for grade which I like, and with a decent add pack that has a nice touch of moly and boron.
The new UltraClean is a semi-synthetic with a bit of Group III (most likely) added and this should help reduce deposits and increase oxidation resistance. If I was Castrol, I would just keep tha add pack the same. It's a good pack, why mess with it, and it probably helps limit development costs to keep it consistent. However I agree, only another VOA will tell for sure.
Still if they put the old GTX on sale to make room for the new stuff, it's certainly worth grabbing the old formula at a good price. It's a good looking oil.
The GTX 5W20 looks good to me, regular ILSAC levels of zinc (739 ppm with PQIA returning 817 ppm), lots of Boron (162 ppm, PQIA at 195) a nice touch of Moly (74 and 86 ppm respectively) based on a Calcium detergent package (2188 ppm here and 2646 at PQIA) returning a healthy TBN of 8.1 (PQIA 8.68).
J300 gives 9.3 cSt as the max KV100 viscosity for a 20 grade oil, and Castrol typicaly like to produce an oil at close to the upper limits. Here we have KV100 = 9.01 cSt (PQIA gives 9.2 cSt). PQIA also returns a NOACK volatility of 11.6 % which is good for a non-synthetic oil, well under the 15% API maximum.
The difference between the two could just be batch to batch variation, but PQIA probably has the better calibration, so if in doubt I would trust the PQIA numbers.
I think it's a nice looking oil, heavy for grade which I like, and with a decent add pack that has a nice touch of moly and boron.
The new UltraClean is a semi-synthetic with a bit of Group III (most likely) added and this should help reduce deposits and increase oxidation resistance. If I was Castrol, I would just keep tha add pack the same. It's a good pack, why mess with it, and it probably helps limit development costs to keep it consistent. However I agree, only another VOA will tell for sure.
Still if they put the old GTX on sale to make room for the new stuff, it's certainly worth grabbing the old formula at a good price. It's a good looking oil.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: SR5
OP thank you for posting the VOA, it's great to see some regular mineral oils tested.
The GTX 5W20 looks good to me, regular ILSAC levels of zinc (739 ppm with PQIA returning 817 ppm), lots of Boron (162 ppm, PQIA at 195) a nice touch of Moly (74 and 86 ppm respectively) based on a Calcium detergent package (2188 ppm here and 2646 at PQIA) returning a healthy TBN of 8.1 (PQIA 8.68).
J300 gives 9.3 cSt as the max KV100 viscosity for a 20 grade oil, and Castrol typicaly like to produce an oil at close to the upper limits. Here we have KV100 = 9.01 cSt (PQIA gives 9.2 cSt). PQIA also returns a NOACK volatility of 11.6 % which is good for a non-synthetic oil, well under the 15% API maximum.
The difference between the two could just be batch to batch variation, but PQIA probably has the better calibration, so if in doubt I would trust the PQIA numbers.
I think it's a nice looking oil, heavy for grade which I like, and with a decent add pack that has a nice touch of moly and boron.
The new UltraClean is a semi-synthetic with a bit of Group III (most likely) added and this should help reduce deposits and increase oxidation resistance. If I was Castrol, I would just keep tha add pack the same. It's a good pack, why mess with it, and it probably helps limit development costs to keep it consistent. However I agree, only another VOA will tell for sure.
Still if they put the old GTX on sale to make room for the new stuff, it's certainly worth grabbing the old formula at a good price. It's a good looking oil.
Hey thanks for the input, SR5! That's the exact reasons why I liked this oil on paper specs, it had a nice add pack, on the thicker side, a lower NOACK %. I had also wanted to try an add pack with Moly in it, instead of the titanium that Toyota (TGMO) was using in their version. So far I am really enjoying this oil, the civic engine seems to agree with it. Oh and yep! It is on sale, you called it exactly. I found it is on sale at Autozone which I'm thinking they're clearing out the older stuff to make way for the newer Ultraclean version. I think it's $4.29/qt until mid September.
Speaking of the newer version, I did have the Ultraclean tested and it is very close to the same, exact additive package. I tested the 5w30 version and will post up those results soon in a new post. I was looking for a good 5w30 for my Scion tC. Looks like I found it. But you're right, Castrol did not mess with the add pack in the newer version, it looks like they just substituted a bit of Group III to the mix. Why mess with what works?! And for once, someone did not mess with success.
Oh and that's exactly why I posted a mineral-based VOA. Sometimes people might not want to go full synthetic or "top-of-the-line" and just want a basic, good oil. That was me, I wanted to know the specs of what was available on the organic side. But it's not low in performance at all!
OP thank you for posting the VOA, it's great to see some regular mineral oils tested.
The GTX 5W20 looks good to me, regular ILSAC levels of zinc (739 ppm with PQIA returning 817 ppm), lots of Boron (162 ppm, PQIA at 195) a nice touch of Moly (74 and 86 ppm respectively) based on a Calcium detergent package (2188 ppm here and 2646 at PQIA) returning a healthy TBN of 8.1 (PQIA 8.68).
J300 gives 9.3 cSt as the max KV100 viscosity for a 20 grade oil, and Castrol typicaly like to produce an oil at close to the upper limits. Here we have KV100 = 9.01 cSt (PQIA gives 9.2 cSt). PQIA also returns a NOACK volatility of 11.6 % which is good for a non-synthetic oil, well under the 15% API maximum.
The difference between the two could just be batch to batch variation, but PQIA probably has the better calibration, so if in doubt I would trust the PQIA numbers.
I think it's a nice looking oil, heavy for grade which I like, and with a decent add pack that has a nice touch of moly and boron.
The new UltraClean is a semi-synthetic with a bit of Group III (most likely) added and this should help reduce deposits and increase oxidation resistance. If I was Castrol, I would just keep tha add pack the same. It's a good pack, why mess with it, and it probably helps limit development costs to keep it consistent. However I agree, only another VOA will tell for sure.
Still if they put the old GTX on sale to make room for the new stuff, it's certainly worth grabbing the old formula at a good price. It's a good looking oil.
Hey thanks for the input, SR5! That's the exact reasons why I liked this oil on paper specs, it had a nice add pack, on the thicker side, a lower NOACK %. I had also wanted to try an add pack with Moly in it, instead of the titanium that Toyota (TGMO) was using in their version. So far I am really enjoying this oil, the civic engine seems to agree with it. Oh and yep! It is on sale, you called it exactly. I found it is on sale at Autozone which I'm thinking they're clearing out the older stuff to make way for the newer Ultraclean version. I think it's $4.29/qt until mid September.
Speaking of the newer version, I did have the Ultraclean tested and it is very close to the same, exact additive package. I tested the 5w30 version and will post up those results soon in a new post. I was looking for a good 5w30 for my Scion tC. Looks like I found it. But you're right, Castrol did not mess with the add pack in the newer version, it looks like they just substituted a bit of Group III to the mix. Why mess with what works?! And for once, someone did not mess with success.
Oh and that's exactly why I posted a mineral-based VOA. Sometimes people might not want to go full synthetic or "top-of-the-line" and just want a basic, good oil. That was me, I wanted to know the specs of what was available on the organic side. But it's not low in performance at all!
For reference, here is the link to the recent VOA of the newer GTX 5W30 UltraClean. The add pack looks to be very similar.
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4507347/
Originally Posted By: SR5
GTX 5W30 UltraClean
Moly is 84 ppm, Boron is 198 ppm, the detergent is Ca at 2451 ppm producing a TBN of 8.26 with Zinc close to the upper ILSAC limits at 808 ppm. The viscosity is a touch on the thick side, which I like, KV100 = 11.2 cSt.
Thank you OP for both VOA's
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4507347/
Originally Posted By: SR5
GTX 5W30 UltraClean
Moly is 84 ppm, Boron is 198 ppm, the detergent is Ca at 2451 ppm producing a TBN of 8.26 with Zinc close to the upper ILSAC limits at 808 ppm. The viscosity is a touch on the thick side, which I like, KV100 = 11.2 cSt.
Thank you OP for both VOA's
Last edited:
Hey you're most welcome SR5 for the VOA's! Thanks for linking my other post to this one!
- Status
Similar threads
