A lot? Who else? Castrol could only lose customers with things like that (me, for instance). I really do not like to be considered as stupid wallet. By the Esso sources XD=3 is excellent oil. But - synthetic or petroleum? I couldn't find a clue.
Posts: 98 | Location: Windsor, Canada | Registered: Sat June 18 2005
Well, I am not averse to using Group III oil and probably do with Valvoline Synpower and Maxlife Synthetic. Castrol though was the culprit (as I understand it) it pushing to get Group III so it could be called Synthetic. In many ways Group III is nearly as good as PAO though, so it can be a very good oil (perhaps XD-3 is, but maybe with some true synthetic included, don't know). Mobil, I understand has been pretty honest to use true synthetics.
Despite much better characteristics of Group III oils (over conventional oils especially) they still are (natural) petroleum with all imperfections. Volatility, cold temperature, oxidation resistance, tendency to make a varnish & sludge, ..., longevity are their real "weak points". So, why bother (ourselves) with conventional oils at all? I've started with synthetics before twenty years and (really don't know why) switched to Castrol some time later (influence of advertising maybe). When discovered their game with customers (and rules) I switched to synthetics - forever. Honesty of Mobil could be disputable. Check this:"...The "small percentage" of petroleum oil in bottle of synthetic (according to Mobil) actually is 9.8% to 19.2%. Many investors would be thrilled to get such a "small percentage" return on their money !! Just for the record - the average dividends for Mobil and Exxon over last 20 years have been in 2% to 4% range, and they jointly term this as "significant" return on Shareholders’ Equity in their Annual Reports...". I am not telling that their oil is bad but what is point of "discovering" 15.000 mile drain interval while, for example, "Optima 2000" oil (from former Yugoslavia) before 20 years had drain recomendation of 20.000 kms?
Posts: 98 | Location: Windsor, Canada | Registered: Sat June 18 2005
Originally posted by TallPaul: A lot of companies doing it. Need a standardization of definitions.
I hear you there . Percentage of and type base oils used would be on every bottle if I were the BOSS
Synthetic should offer superior cold and hot weather performance along with resistance to thinning and oxidation over the long haul . Everyone's long haul is different but I don't see much difference in most of the OTC synthetics vs the groupII's and II/III blends at 5000-6000 miles in most of todays better designed engines through analysis or in the typical data sheets where cold pumping performance can be found .
Some of the 2 buck a quart blends stay in grade every bit a well as the 5+ buck per quart OTC synlubes labeled oils .
There's many Syntecs . The 5w's , 10w's thin just like the ECIII dino's did from what I've seen and TBN at end of interval on par with say Pennzoil dino for example . Ending viscosity as well.
The problem with calling Syntec synthetic is that you should get what you pay for. The courts go one way, one time, than change. An example? Years ago GM started putting Chevy small block engines in Buick, Olds and Pontiac cars. Along came a lawyer that took GM to court over the practise. GM said the small block produced more power, used less gas and required fewer repairs. GM said they did this to save customers money and give them a better product (choke). The lawyer won and the judge said that if someone bought an Olds, for example, he should get an Olds engine and so on. Big settlement. Then GM marked all their documentation and window stickers with statements like 'GM engine' to keep them out of court. The judge wanted truth in advertising. The judge in Syntec vs Mobil 1 went the other way. The judges are what the lawyers make them. Get a better lawyer, get a better judgement.
Posts: 100 | Location: California | Registered: Sun June 12 2005
No Barkerman, we don't NEED any more lawyers, just better judges WITHOUT a hidden agenda somewhere. But in today's society, where it's MINE MINE MINE and the @#$% with you, how are we supposed to get to the truth...at all.
Just an opinion from a "frustrated" consumer with big business.
Posts: 145 | Location: Glenshaw, PA, USA | Registered: Mon March 01 2004
Dad2leia, where do you think judges come from....lawyers. Courts are not about fair play, they are about winners and losers. When you buy Syntec and think you are getting synthetic oil, it's ok, because a courts said it's ok. Castrol is marketing to those that just don't know and there are more of them than there are people that are bothered by such things. If you are bothered, Castrol just wants you to go away. In reality, if Syntec just passes API or ACEA or other claimed requirements then they have done their job. If they ever find out they are making Syntec any better then required, they need to put a stop to it. Anything you hear about the performance of Syntec is advertising. Do you think that the corporate heads let a chemist write advertising copy. A chemist might explain in everyday terms how Syntec is made and works and that would really screw up an advertising campaign. Just let the advertising people keep making comercials and telling you how Syntec really works. If you don't like Syntec you could always buy some Penzoil or Quaker State and then add some of their Slick 50. The court said Slick 50 did not do what it claimed, but they could keep selling it, anyhow, just change the advertising. In the end, it's ok to screw the public, just get the court's permission to continue if you get caught.
Posts: 100 | Location: California | Registered: Sun June 12 2005
While I don't beleive or a nano second that Exxon/Mobil is purposely doing consumers a favor by selling PAO synthetics in huge quantities to Walmarts and the savings happen to be passed along , I do like the integrity they have in keeping with PAO's or PAO/Ester when they package a premium synthetic motor oil product .
I do feel they did go to bat for consumers in some if small way when they took Castrol to task over the group III thing . Too bad IMO that the average Joe don't know of what took place .
If you don't like Syntec you could always buy some Penzoil or Quaker State and then add some of their Slick 50. The court said Slick 50 did not do what it claimed, but they could keep selling it, anyhow, just change the advertising. In the end, it's ok to screw the public, just get the court's permission to continue if you get caught.
Have you seen that Quaker State now incorporates that Slick 50 into their packaged quarts if mineral oil ? Who's wearing the pants in the family there , Shell ?
Please note that 'Syntec' is only a product name and does not have to imply that it is synthetic. If you buy a cellphone which is called Tri-Star, it's not automatically triple band cellphone. If having a 'synthetic' is so important, you should read the label, instead of going for a fancy product name. And if people fall for only the name and feel cheated afterwards, then you're own lack of knowledge/interest is to blame.
And no, I do not work for Castrol or any related companies.
.:[EM]:.
Posts: 173 | Location: The Netherlands = Holland | Registered: Tue May 25 2004
Originally posted by .:[EM]:.: Please note that 'Syntec' is only a product name and does not have to imply that it is synthetic. If you buy a cellphone which is called Tri-Star, it's not automatically triple band cellphone. If having a 'synthetic' is so important, you should read the label, instead of going for a fancy product name. And if people fall for only the name and feel cheated afterwards, then you're own lack of knowledge/interest is to blame.
And no, I do not work for Castrol or any related companies.
Guessing you have not read the label on their bottles of 5w-20 Syntec ? It say's :
• SAE 5W-20: Castrol SYNTEC is the first major full synthetic oil brand to offer a 5W-20 that is....................
Is it really supposed that ordinary customer has to be Sherlock Holmes in all deals with Castrol?
Disregarding fact that term "full" technically means (almost) nothing, for all, other than Castrol, oil manufacturers that means: oil is made of PAO! Not hydrocracked petroleum oil !
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Djordan,
Posts: 98 | Location: Windsor, Canada | Registered: Sat June 18 2005
Castrol makes a very good oil in the 5w-30 BMW High Performance Car synthetic .
It's great oil and just about the same price . Beats using that green Castrol IMO and it will outlast it a time again and does not thin down compared to the other Syntec's .
I'm not sure why others have not caught on to this oil when they need a 5w-30wt and cannot bring themselve's to use the Mobil EP or better yet , Synergyn . It's good stuff !
I tun the BMW 5w30...Since it is the service fill for our BMW. Actually trying to figure out if it was a good oil sent me on the tangent of learning as much as I could about engine oils. I will have to check to asee if it can be sou8rced econimcally for other applications.
Posts: 8 | Location: Corpus Christi, Tx | Registered: Mon December 13 2004
Baring any existing hostilities towards brands how would a person care how an oil was marketed or labeled if it could take the 10-15k mile crankcase trip time after time for under 5 bucks per quart like the BMW oil can in many engines ?
As an aside , it's apparent Castrol might be using salicylate chemistry in some of their oils . This type chemistry has exhibited lower wear rates in low phosforus , low visosity oils vs SL levels of phos and using sulphonates . This chemistry also has shown better TBN retention in testing and actually out peformed sulphonate oils with a much higher starting TBN point.
I'm not certain Castrol is now , or ever was asleep at the wheel No affiliation
