CASTROL MAGNATEC

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: magnus308
Originally Posted By: weasley
Compared to what? Most of the effects you mention are viscosity-related. Magnatec's clinging effect is at the molecular scale.


Would not most oils have that molecular clinging effect?
From my understanding most oils have some ester additives and since ester are polar it clings to surfaces.

I have always disliked Castrols marketing and would not be surprised if they use this to make customers believe that Magnatec have a clinging molecular effect that other oils do not have.


Yes, any oil with esters, including Mobil 1. Which also has AN's.

 

[bobbydavro]

A lot of 'ester' oils mentioned do not give the low wear numbers in the IVA

Has everyone forgot the 8x and 6x better wear protection claims made against Mobil ?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: bobbydavro
A lot of 'ester' oils mentioned do not give the low wear numbers in the IVA

Has everyone forgot the 8x and 6x better wear protection claims made against Mobil ?


That was made against M1 5w-30 specifically and due to an issue (Hurricane) with the formula that was quickly corrected. Castrol (and later Ashland) BOTH made those claims... Because they could, with the hurricane formula. Why not right? Basically free advertising. It doesn't mean it reflects the performance of other grades or other oils.

So by stating a lot of "ester oils" seems intentionally vague

The only oil I've ever seen Seq-IVA comparisons against was Mobil 1 5w-30, and from both Ashland and Castrol. The sequence is pass or fail, so we aren't privy to an oil's performance on it. BTW, the results posted from Ashland and BP were both fails, and Mobil later had the API back-up that the product (M1 5w-30) passes the sequence, so whatever the issue was, it was quickly corrected.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: 1bioguy


Here, I'll break in down for you, and I'll try to use easy words. When you watch the third video titled "The Proof" - LOL, it compares cam wear WITH "magnetec" and WITHOUT. It doesnt say with brand X oil or other type of oil, just "without".
Now here across the pond we employ critical thinking and examine that statement. It is very carefully constructed as to make the easily influenced believe this snake oil is better than anything else, including Castrol full synthetic or anything else on the planet. Looking at the wear on the cams, it looks like the non magnesnakeoiltec cam is severely worn. If that is the typical wear from any other oil, all our engines would be [censored].
Too bad, even Vladimir from Moscow didnt even convince me.


re critical thinking...

As you’d be aware then, the sequence IV wear test is the test that is supposed to simulate “warm-up” wear, where the traditional anti wear additives aren’t functional, with the engine coolant and oil held purposely at the temperature at which this effect happens…it’s an “accelerated wear” test, to give measurable results in the lifetime of the testers. It’s in the API sequences, so has been proven to be measurable, representative, and repeatable.

Originally Posted By: 1bioguy
If that is the typical wear from any other oil, all our engines would be [censored]
.…they don’t, it’s an accelerated wear test.

The Magnatec additive, as explained to me (at dinner) with one of their (ex) Chemists who worked on the programme was to provide function in that warm-up phase.

 

[wemay]

^^^ + 1 to Shannow's post. I'd use CM (Castrol Magnatec) without a thought.

 

[CrawfishTails]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: bobbydavro
A lot of 'ester' oils mentioned do not give the low wear numbers in the IVA....Has everyone forgot the 8x and 6x better wear protection claims made against Mobil ?

That was made against M1 5w-30 specifically and due to an issue (Hurricane) with the formula that was quickly corrected. Castrol (and later Ashland) BOTH made those claims... Because they could, with the hurricane formula. Why not right? Basically free advertising. It doesn't mean it reflects the performance of other grades or other oils.

So by stating a lot of "ester oils" seems intentionally vague

The only oil I've ever seen Seq-IVA comparisons against was Mobil 1 5w-30, and from both Ashland and Castrol. The sequence is pass or fail, so we aren't privy to an oil's performance on it. BTW, the results posted from Ashland and BP were both fails, and Mobil later had the API back-up that the product (M1 5w-30) passes the sequence, so whatever the issue was, it was quickly corrected.



The hurricane excuse, is that really confirmed as being the cause of bad wear in M1, or are you just talking out of your drain plug?

 

[Panzerman]

If this stuff is the same stuff as Castrol Start-up, same color bottle. That was Great stuff. It would stick to your fingers and was more slippery than any oil, I ever felt. I am just mad that I bought so much oil at Auto zone, I wont need oil till sometime in 2018. I would use this oil at any cost. I could tell the difference and bought up all the Castrol Start-up, I could find, but finally ran out. Great stuff.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: CrawfishTails
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: bobbydavro
A lot of 'ester' oils mentioned do not give the low wear numbers in the IVA....Has everyone forgot the 8x and 6x better wear protection claims made against Mobil ?

That was made against M1 5w-30 specifically and due to an issue (Hurricane) with the formula that was quickly corrected. Castrol (and later Ashland) BOTH made those claims... Because they could, with the hurricane formula. Why not right? Basically free advertising. It doesn't mean it reflects the performance of other grades or other oils.

So by stating a lot of "ester oils" seems intentionally vague

The only oil I've ever seen Seq-IVA comparisons against was Mobil 1 5w-30, and from both Ashland and Castrol. The sequence is pass or fail, so we aren't privy to an oil's performance on it. BTW, the results posted from Ashland and BP were both fails, and Mobil later had the API back-up that the product (M1 5w-30) passes the sequence, so whatever the issue was, it was quickly corrected.



The hurricane excuse, is that really confirmed as being the cause of bad wear in M1, or are you just talking out of your drain plug?


That's the somewhat generally accepted theory on this site based on the time-frame and the fact that the API was quick to confirm that the product was fine when Mobil was pushed on it.

There were some funny bottles of M1 5w-30 produced around that time frame IIRC (I believe Bill in Utah noted a few without the API logo on them) after Katrina and the thought was that Ashland and BP were able to get their hands on samples of the off-spec batch to do their little mud dragging campaigns. The test results posted by both companies would never have passed the API spec, so the API's confirmation that the product did in fact pass meant that there was something else going on there.

That's not to say Mobil producing an off-spec product when their facility was off-line was acceptable. It was not. But the performance of that product is not representative of that Mobil 1 product (their 5w-30) under normal circumstances, or anything else in their product line.

 

[KCJeep]

Originally Posted By: 1bioguy

Here, I'll break in down for you, and I'll try to use easy words. When you watch the third video titled "The Proof" - LOL, it compares cam wear WITH "magnetec" and WITHOUT. It doesnt say with brand X oil or other type of oil, just "without".
Now here across the pond we employ critical thinking and examine that statement. It is very carefully constructed as to make the easily influenced believe this snake oil is better than anything else, including Castrol full synthetic or anything else on the planet. Looking at the wear on the cams, it looks like the non magnesnakeoiltec cam is severely worn. If that is the typical wear from any other oil, all our engines would be [censored].
Too bad, even Vladimir from Moscow didnt even convince me.


I already told you this once but you apparently missed it. You are wrong on Castrol's claims. Pertinent part is in bold. All the information is not in the video, they just allude to it.

From the bottle:

"Castrol GTX Magnatec's intelligent molecules...form an extra layer of protection during warm up, when your engine needs it most, dramatically reducing engine wear and keeping critical engine parts up to 4X smoother.*

*Representation of cam surface wear comparing the same 5w30 oil with and without Castrol GTX Magnatec molecules in Sequence IVA wear test.

If you don't like Castrol don't use it but stop spreading misinformation. Whether or not Magnatec is anything special hasn't been determined, but the notion a major oil company is using wear comparison advertising with their new oil versus NO oil is just stupid.

 

[weasley]

Originally Posted By: 1bioguy
Originally Posted By: weasley
Originally Posted By: 1bioguy
Hilarious, this is why Im not a Castrol fan. The can wear test compares a cam with "magnatec" and one without - oil that is. So using this stuff is better than no oil at all. Real scientists, on Castrol payroll that is. Marketing at its best.........


What the.... I just.....

Nope, I got nothing.


Here, I'll break in down for you, and I'll try to use easy words. When you watch the third video titled "The Proof" - LOL, it compares cam wear WITH "magnetec" and WITHOUT. It doesnt say with brand X oil or other type of oil, just "without".
Now here across the pond we employ critical thinking and examine that statement. It is very carefully constructed as to make the easily influenced believe this snake oil is better than anything else, including Castrol full synthetic or anything else on the planet. Looking at the wear on the cams, it looks like the non magnesnakeoiltec cam is severely worn. If that is the typical wear from any other oil, all our engines would be [censored].
Too bad, even Vladimir from Moscow didnt even convince me.


What the..... I just.....

Nope, still nothing.

 

[bobbydavro]

Originally Posted By: CrawfishTails
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: bobbydavro
A lot of 'ester' oils mentioned do not give the low wear numbers in the IVA....Has everyone forgot the 8x and 6x better wear protection claims made against Mobil ?

That was made against M1 5w-30 specifically and due to an issue (Hurricane) with the formula that was quickly corrected. Castrol (and later Ashland) BOTH made those claims... Because they could, with the hurricane formula. Why not right? Basically free advertising. It doesn't mean it reflects the performance of other grades or other oils.

So by stating a lot of "ester oils" seems intentionally vague

The only oil I've ever seen Seq-IVA comparisons against was Mobil 1 5w-30, and from both Ashland and Castrol. The sequence is pass or fail, so we aren't privy to an oil's performance on it. BTW, the results posted from Ashland and BP were both fails, and Mobil later had the API back-up that the product (M1 5w-30) passes the sequence, so whatever the issue was, it was quickly corrected.



The hurricane excuse, is that really confirmed as being the cause of bad wear in M1, or are you just talking out of your drain plug?


The same hurricane issue affected oils in Japan? And Australia? and Europe?

Absolute Rubbish Im afraid

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: bobbydavro

The same hurricane issue affected oils in Japan? And Australia? and Europe?

Absolute Rubbish Im afraid

Where, in those places, specifically, were claims made, noting origin of the product, that has anything to do with the topic? I would love some specifics here, as the claims I'm talking about, EVERYBODY on this board has seen. Ashland and BP were not shy about putting it out there. And the SEQ-IVA testing they did was done, was in the US, with a US sourced batch of oil, that wouldn't pass the basic API standards. I've said that last bit SEVERAL times now.

You just keep tossing this garbage out there hoping some of it will stick, but you haven't provided anything to back it up yet.

Statements like this:

Originally Posted By: bobbydavro
A lot of 'ester' oils mentioned do not give the low wear numbers in the IVA


Which I questioned you on and you didn't respond to.

And now this latest gem about oils being sold abroad.

Post some information to back-up your statements please, because right now all you are doing is mud slinging.

And to further clarify, I doubt the advertising done by BP or Ashland was exclusive to the US and Canada. I'm sure it made its way overseas. That doesn't mean that the product sold in those countries was affected though. And it CERTAINLY wasn't representative (to repeat myself, YET AGAIN) of the product under normal circumstances, due to the fact that as pointed out by Ashland, it would never have achieved even the basic API approval based on the test results, let alone the OEM approvals it also carries.

 

[wemay]

Originally Posted By: KCJeep
Originally Posted By: 1bioguy

Here, I'll break in down for you, and I'll try to use easy words. When you watch the third video titled "The Proof" - LOL, it compares cam wear WITH "magnetec" and WITHOUT. It doesnt say with brand X oil or other type of oil, just "without".
Now here across the pond we employ critical thinking and examine that statement. It is very carefully constructed as to make the easily influenced believe this snake oil is better than anything else, including Castrol full synthetic or anything else on the planet. Looking at the wear on the cams, it looks like the non magnesnakeoiltec cam is severely worn. If that is the typical wear from any other oil, all our engines would be [censored].
Too bad, even Vladimir from Moscow didnt even convince me.


I already told you this once but you apparently missed it. You are wrong on Castrol's claims. Pertinent part is in bold. All the information is not in the video, they just allude to it.

From the bottle:

"Castrol GTX Magnatec's intelligent molecules...form an extra layer of protection during warm up, when your engine needs it most, dramatically reducing engine wear and keeping critical engine parts up to 4X smoother.*

*Representation of cam surface wear comparing the same 5w30 oil with and without Castrol GTX Magnatec molecules in Sequence IVA wear test.

If you don't like Castrol don't use it but stop spreading misinformation. Whether or not Magnatec is anything special hasn't been determined, but the notion a major oil company is using wear comparison advertising with their new oil versus NO oil is just stupid.


+1 I don't see how anyone would understand anything different after reading it.

 

[camrydriver111]

Aren't all oils supposed to do what Magnatec advertises?

 

[bobbydavro]

I'm referring to oils purchased in Japan and tested in the IVA that had similar poor wear results to the U.S. products.

US oils have also been tested before the famous hurricane

 

[weasley]

Originally Posted By: camrydriver111
Aren't all oils supposed to do what Magnatec advertises?


Nope.

 

[camrydriver111]

Originally Posted By: weasley
Originally Posted By: camrydriver111
Aren't all oils supposed to do what Magnatec advertises?


Nope.


So oil doesn't cling to metal and just drips down leaving behind nothing?

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: camrydriver111
Originally Posted By: weasley
Originally Posted By: camrydriver111
Aren't all oils supposed to do what Magnatec advertises?


Nope.


So oil doesn't cling to metal and just drips down leaving behind nothing?

Yeah, seriously. If this magnatec stuff is so great, then why aren't they using it in their top of the line Edge formulations as well?

 

[CrawfishTails]

camrydriver111 & weasley,
It comes down to HOW POLAR and tenacious are the chemicals in Brand X vs. Magnatec.
The part of the Magnatec ad campaign I don't like are the lack of comparisons to other synthetic blends which may or may not have the strong polar "sticky" molecules Magnatec does.
Like the rough-cams demo, where you'd think any good motor oil should be able to avoid the rough surface, not JUST Magnatec.

 

[bobbydavro]

Exactly, you'd think any oil would create smooth parts. Unfortunately not every oil does. Oil not draining down and molecules that bond to metal surfaces are very different things. However it's not really the bonding that is giving the benefit here. It's the ability for molecules to protect from cold and then allow traditional anti wear to work at higher temperatures. Esters are also surface active but they have a tendency to displace ZDDP which can compromise wear performance of engine oils.

The seq IVA never goes above 50C bulk oil temperature

Whats to say the molecules are not in Edge formulations too ?