GC and M!
- Thread starter mchang204
- Start date
- Status
have used both and after 10thou with oil samples done of each-both did very well. M1 had the higher iron(M1 38/47 & GC 28) but the GC started thickening where the M1 did not(like the Amsoil did for me on its test-was lossing mpg with both the last thou or two before it was changed-M1's mpg held). Am staying with M1 do to it being available everywhere, GC is to hard to find being Autozone is the only one that sells it if they have it in stock. 98Suzuki Swift mpg 43.3 ave overall.
Go over to the UOA section and run a search on my member name or number (3733). I ran back to back UOAs, M1 and GC in my 03 Camry when I still had it. You will see that you can hardly go wrong with either. You'll probably have to go M1 in the long run, though, as the GC supply is drying up (not mine though, still a multi-year stash in my garage...). GC is notably heavier than the M1 30 wt oils, though, so if you can get some, you might give it a try to see how your engine behaves with it. My present car, a VQ35 powered G35 seems to prefer thicker 30wt. It's slightly smoother and not as harsh sounding.
Not true, the latest formulation (gold in color) is readily available at most AutoZone stores.
True. Although gold is turning is some pretty decent performances in the UOA, which I'm happy about, I can not assume it is the same stuff as the green. The composition of the green and its add pack are what make it so special. No one has done any sophisticated testing on the gold, and its add pack is clearly somewhat different than the add pack of the green. I'm sure they're similar, but for now, I'm making no assumptions. No way to tell if Castrol is now feeding us a G-III oil. You may buy and use whatever you want, but to me, the "true" GC is the green stuff. The green stuff is what the reputation was built on, and, if you know what I mean, I have a much better idea of how green is put together than the gold. I'm just glad I've got my ~150 qts of green stashed away. . .
ekpolk: Bruce381 had this to say about the "gold" GC:
http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=51;t=000502
From this message thread:
http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=51;t=000502
So tell me: 1) exactly what did change?, and 2) why I should just assume that the gold is as good as the green? Do you think that Castrol just altered the color because we were having too much fun with it???
Bruce is a knowledgable member, I don't dispute that, but if the test he's referring to is what I think it is (Bruce, can you clarify), we need a good bit more info before we can assume it's truly the same base. And believe me, I'd love to have it, but right now, we don't.
Either way, though, if they've monkeyed with the base oil, the adds, or both, then gold is simply not the same oil upon which the reputation was built. Good, perhaps (I hope), but to me, it will have to prove itself and stand on its own two feet, as the green has repeatedly proven it can.
What makes you believe that Gold GC is different?
UOA's are great.
IR's look the same.
VOA's are very similar.
The only change is that they increased Mg, and lowered the Ca.
How much more prove do you need? It takes some time to accumulate a significant number of the UOA reports.
Judging by the ones we have so far so good.
What are you doubts based upon? A different color?
That's it???
UOA's are great.
IR's look the same.
VOA's are very similar.
The only change is that they increased Mg, and lowered the Ca.
How much more prove do you need? It takes some time to accumulate a significant number of the UOA reports.
Judging by the ones we have so far so good.
What are you doubts based upon? A different color?
That's it???
A gas chromatography and some other hard-core tests would be a nice start. You're aware, I assume, of the little science project a bunch of us here pitched in and did almost a year ago? Well, until I see something similarly impressive, I will remain skeptical of GC gold. Let me sort of turn your question around -- if the color and several of the key additives are suddenly different, why should I assume the oil is the same? Castrol did not change these things for the fun of it, they likely changed the adds to better match a different base oil package, IMO. How different? Who knows? Castrol is not big on telling. Please understand that I'm not condemning the gold stuff, I'm simply questioning its credentials versus assuming it's good because its predecessor was good.quote:
Originally posted by vad:
{SNIP}
How much more prove do you need? It takes some time to accumulate a significant number of the UOA reports.
Judging by the ones we have so far so good.
What are you doubts based upon? A different color?
That's it???
Gas chromatography...
Are you willing to pay for those tests?
How come then you're not questioning credentials of any other oil, including Mobil 1 EP?
I haven't seen any in-depth analisys performed on Mobil.
What is good for any other oil is suddenly not good enough for GC.
And you don't trust Bruce too.
How interesting.
Are you willing to pay for those tests?
How come then you're not questioning credentials of any other oil, including Mobil 1 EP?
I haven't seen any in-depth analisys performed on Mobil.
What is good for any other oil is suddenly not good enough for GC.
And you don't trust Bruce too.
How interesting.
Oh come on now, relax, read.
I did pay my share for the expensive and extensive procedure that is described here. See number 16 on Tony's list in the initial post. As a result, I am very comfortable with using the green in my cars.
Mobil is forthright about the content of its oils. Look at their site, dig around a bit, see the MSDS and other product info. They are PAO oils primarily. Good stuff, Mobil has nothing to hide. I also don't particularly care about Mobil-1 EP at this point, as I don't plan to use it for a while. In short, it's not on my personal radar; GC is because I use it.
In contrast to Mobil's candor, unfortunately, Castrol chooses not to be quite so candid. They won't produce anything but the vaguest description of what they put in the bottles. In a nutshell, I trust the independently demonstrated performance of GC, both in other's cars, and my own. I don't trust Castrol's representations about their products. Have you heard anything from Castrol explaining and describing how this oil is changed?
And I absolutely never said I did not trust Bruce. Far from it, I do trust him. Repeat: I do trust him. But trusting someone does not mean you must blindly accept all that they say. Questions are OK, or why bother with BITOG at all. And I wasn't saying he's incorrect either. All I asked for was some more info. I'd like to know, technically, how the "IR" testing he did compared the the other sophisticated tests that were done in The Study.
If you follow the above-cited thread down, you'll see that there appear to be sufficient funds remaining to answer this question without resort to making assumptions. Only when this is done (or other similar evidence is brought forward) will I be satisfied that "gold" is the "real thing."
And if YOU follow the above-cited thread down, you'll see what Terry had to say on testing:
"I am having great difficulty with getting a Mass Spec testing source I can trust and we can afford. Either they are labs owned by "entrenched" interests or too costly."
Ekpolk, since no in-depth testing will be done, at least not in the near future, I don't see any point discussing the Gold formula with you.
You're dead set on the inferiority theory of the Gold regardless of the available evidence.
And since the only test that could possibly change your mind remains unavailable, you will continue to exhibit your dissatisfaction with GC as being "the real thing".
O.K.
At least you've made yourlself perfectly clear.
[ October 22, 2005, 12:28 AM: Message edited by: vad ]
Wow guys, talk about some harsh combat. Vad I think your being really snobish about this. I side with Ekpolk on this. I mean its not the same oil, if it was, it wouldn't be gold, it wouldnt be different and it would be from germany, which its not. Im not as smart as the rest of you when it comes to this stuff as im trying hard to learn, but I think the fact is is that its different. And isnt the GC a form of SLX which we dont even get in this country, therfore making it impossible to be the same as the gold stuff?
Gold GC is from Germany, bottled in the exactly the same bottle as Green GC, conforms to the exactly the same specs, or even a little better.
That actually was the source of a big confusion because there's no way to tell the Green GC bottle from the Gold one without opening up the bottle or checking and knowing the differences in the batch numbers.
It's largely believed on this board that GC is SLX.
There is no evidence to prove it otherwise. If you have any please post in this thread.
==============================quote:
Originally posted by vad:
{snip}And if YOU follow the above-cited thread down, you'll see what Terry had to say on testing:
"I am having great difficulty with getting a Mass Spec testing source I can trust and we can afford. Either they are labs owned by "entrenched" interests or too costly."
Ekpolk, since no in-depth testing will be done, at least not in the near future, I don't see any point discussing the Gold formula with you.
You're dead set on the inferiority theory of the Gold regardless of the available evidence.
And since the only test that could possibly change your mind remains unavailable, you will continue to exhibit your dissatisfaction with GC as being "the real thing".
O.K.
At least you've made yourlself perfectly clear.
Vad:
Look, I don't care whether or not you want to discuss it or not, but it is you who don't have your facts straight. I will now straighten. I have been up and down that thread, more than once. If you'd ponied up some cash like those of us who got in on the program, you would know that the testing ultimately was done, and those of us who were in very much got what we paid for. Just because we're still looking and more testing has yet to be done does not mean it won't. Why do you think that the half of the money is still sitting there?
You also state, incorrectly, that I am "dead set on the inferiority theory of the Gold regardless of the available evidence." Please quote for us exactly where I said gold was inferior. I am very pleased with the performance of green, and I sincerely hope that gold is as good or better. So far, we've got a handful of good UOAs, similar yet different VOA[/B][/I], and that's it.
You also state that, ". . .since the only test that could possibly change your mind remains unavailable, you will continue to exhibit your dissatisfaction with GC as being "the real thing". Wrong again. I asked Bruce (because I do trust him...) to offer a bit more info on the IR testing he mentioned. I hope this is as good as suggested.
You also say, "Gold GC is from Germany, bottled in the exactly the same bottle as Green GC, conforms to the exactly the same specs, or even a little better." All true. So what? What I really care about is the oil. Not the bottle, not where it came from, not the specs (well, I care about them a little). But to repeat, I care about the oil inside the bottle. And every bit of evidence (versus speculation) we have so far indicates that while gold is similar, it's just not the same stuff.
By the way, you can distinguish green and gold GC without opening the bottle, or resorting to looking at the batch number. You just have to get it in the right light and look carefully at the narrow clear "window" that runs down the side of the bottle. The green sheen, or the lack of it, is detectable through it.
I am well aware that many here believe green GC to be SLX. I've followed that argument for a long time too, and in the end, I'm not particularly moved by it either way. SLX is good stuff, so is green GC, and the gold seems to have promise. Your point was what?
In the end, what you can't get around is that this new form of Syntec 0w-30 is different from our old friend green GC. How different is the question. You seem to think like a transmission without "Neutral". You have to believe in the stuff and just can't wait to be convinced. I'm still in "neutral", no more, no less. I'm not, as you put it, "dead set" at all, either way.
I trust that I have now indeed made myself perfectly clear. It would be nice if you'd do the same.
Nobody really knows what it is, do we? You certainly can't tell us, can you? But we do know it shows different appearance and a different, albeit slightly, add pack. When the facts demonstrate that it deserves the same respected status that the green earned for itself, I'll happily sign on. Not until then. You, of course, may do as you please.
You're already committed to the idea that "gold is great," before the evidence supports that conclusion. I'm keeping my mind open and uncommitted until we have the facts. No more, no less. But yes, Castrol once before has substituted a cheap, lesser base oil for a solid respected one (and kept charging the same prices...). No, I don't really trust them, but that's just me.
Beyond that, I'm not sweating this, since I've got so much green on hand (~150 qts) that by the time it's used up, the UOA records will speak for themselves (again, listen carefully, I hope they turn out as consistently good as the green). In the meantime, you feel free to test the stuff for me in your engine. . .
You're already committed to the idea that "gold is great," before the evidence supports that conclusion. I'm keeping my mind open and uncommitted until we have the facts. No more, no less. But yes, Castrol once before has substituted a cheap, lesser base oil for a solid respected one (and kept charging the same prices...). No, I don't really trust them, but that's just me.
Beyond that, I'm not sweating this, since I've got so much green on hand (~150 qts) that by the time it's used up, the UOA records will speak for themselves (again, listen carefully, I hope they turn out as consistently good as the green). In the meantime, you feel free to test the stuff for me in your engine. . .
I think you're not reading my posts.
Therefore I'll repeat myself.
1. In regards of testing.
The test was done - on the Green GC.
Yet you want to have another test to be performded, now on Gold. (even though Terry has said that it won't happen due to a bunch of factors).
Because you believe that IR is not too conclusive to make an assumption about the basestock similarities.
Even though Bruce says that IR showed close matching apparently it's not good enough for you to assume then that the basestocks are indeed a close match.
I would love to have another test to be done.
And I would happily pay my contribution if or when the test is scheduled.
But we have to deal with what is available.
2. In regards of you using the word inferior.
You didn't use that word and I never said you did.
Let's not diminish ourselves down to the clintonesque defenitions.
Here is what you did say in this very thread:
"No way to tell if Castrol is now feeding us a G-III oil. You may buy and use whatever you want, but to me, the "true" GC is the green stuff."
"Only when this is done (or other similar evidence is brought forward) will I be satisfied that "gold" is the "real thing.""
"Either way, though, if they've monkeyed with the base oil, the adds, or both, then gold is simply not the same oil upon which the reputation was built."
Do you call it being "neutral"?
Interesting, indeed.
You're not simply sayng it is different.
You're even stating a possibility of Gold being Group III, for ******'s sake!
Even though the available data tells us otherwise!
Where is the evidence that Gold GC is not as good as Green?
Or the basestocks are not a close match?
Make your case.
Present quotes, statments, data, rumors, guesses.
I would like to see that.
[ October 22, 2005, 12:24 PM: Message edited by: vad ]
Therefore I'll repeat myself.
1. In regards of testing.
The test was done - on the Green GC.
Yet you want to have another test to be performded, now on Gold. (even though Terry has said that it won't happen due to a bunch of factors).
Because you believe that IR is not too conclusive to make an assumption about the basestock similarities.
Even though Bruce says that IR showed close matching apparently it's not good enough for you to assume then that the basestocks are indeed a close match.
I would love to have another test to be done.
And I would happily pay my contribution if or when the test is scheduled.
But we have to deal with what is available.
2. In regards of you using the word inferior.
You didn't use that word and I never said you did.
Let's not diminish ourselves down to the clintonesque defenitions.
Here is what you did say in this very thread:
"No way to tell if Castrol is now feeding us a G-III oil. You may buy and use whatever you want, but to me, the "true" GC is the green stuff."
"Only when this is done (or other similar evidence is brought forward) will I be satisfied that "gold" is the "real thing.""
"Either way, though, if they've monkeyed with the base oil, the adds, or both, then gold is simply not the same oil upon which the reputation was built."
Do you call it being "neutral"?
Interesting, indeed.
You're not simply sayng it is different.
You're even stating a possibility of Gold being Group III, for ******'s sake!
Even though the available data tells us otherwise!
Where is the evidence that Gold GC is not as good as Green?
Or the basestocks are not a close match?
Make your case.
Present quotes, statments, data, rumors, guesses.
I would like to see that.
[ October 22, 2005, 12:24 PM: Message edited by: vad ]
Being a Chemistry student, I have access to both NMR and GC-MS instruments. I am going to run H-NMR and hopefully later GC-MS. I will probably run TLC first (thin layer chromatography) to see if there is any difference between the green and gold. I will post the results when I receive them.
p-chem ...
Awesome, looking forward to the results!
excellent, thank you
as I was reading this thread I was thinking "is there some university facility we can use"
looks like there is
(although my daughter goes to Purdue, she is a liberal arts person like her Mom
- Status
