Patman
Staff member
It was long before that, it was around 1997 I believe.
Boycott Castrol !!!
- Thread starter geeeman
- Start date
- Status
GOUCHO, it's not really about brand name ... it's about chemical composition. The way PAO is made is very different from Group III stocks. There's a lot of re-packaging of the same stuff going on out there, but that's not the problem here.
What Castrol did was force the issue and exploit the lack of political backbone of the API and got "court approval" for it. Nothing to celebrate, that's for sure.
--- Bror Jace
What Castrol did was force the issue and exploit the lack of political backbone of the API and got "court approval" for it. Nothing to celebrate, that's for sure.
--- Bror Jace
Bror,
I respect your logic, but, except for the cost reductions acknowledged in the press releases, your assertions are still speculation and emotionally charged (e.g. "sleazy"). Unless you KNOW what happened in the boardroom, you are only making unsubstantiated accustations. You don't KNOW what Pennzoil, Cheveron, and Valvoline would or would not have done. I will not assert that Castrol is a paragon of virtue or even a wise marketer of product. What finally motivated my engagement in this fashion is the obvious anti-Castrol bias and venom that I see in posts that is not directed at anyone else, nor does it take into account that recent events have shown that MOST of corporate America should be considered suspect. I don't intend to prolong this debate. I just think bias and emotion are governing it and I want people to think about how the debate is REALLY being conducted, i.e., absent a lot of key data, given the nature of the "charges" that are freely thrown about...even if they end up still having no use for Castrol products.
I respect your logic, but, except for the cost reductions acknowledged in the press releases, your assertions are still speculation and emotionally charged (e.g. "sleazy"). Unless you KNOW what happened in the boardroom, you are only making unsubstantiated accustations. You don't KNOW what Pennzoil, Cheveron, and Valvoline would or would not have done. I will not assert that Castrol is a paragon of virtue or even a wise marketer of product. What finally motivated my engagement in this fashion is the obvious anti-Castrol bias and venom that I see in posts that is not directed at anyone else, nor does it take into account that recent events have shown that MOST of corporate America should be considered suspect. I don't intend to prolong this debate. I just think bias and emotion are governing it and I want people to think about how the debate is REALLY being conducted, i.e., absent a lot of key data, given the nature of the "charges" that are freely thrown about...even if they end up still having no use for Castrol products.
Bror,
As usual, I appreciate your opinions because they are well thought out and logical. But I should clarify that I am in no way claiming that Group III's are superior to PAOs. What I am talking about is the final product. All else being equal, I would take the PAO over the group III anyday. But all else is usually not equal and there is more to an oil than the base oil. Nonetheless, I sense that most people focus on the base oil as if that will be the cure for all other deficiencies in a oil. We have seen many examples of UOA's on this board where Group III's produce lower wear numbers than Mobil 1. We have also have had many folks here rip Redline recently despite the fact that it a very high quality base. I have heard you tear into Mobil 1 Try-syn about its additive package. This was a PAO oil that I doubt many of us would feel comfortable using.
My only point is that people should focus on the whole package rather than one component of the package. If indeed Mobil is using the superior base oil, and yet, some group III's can show better wear numbers, what does that tell us about Mobil's additive package relative to some of the lower wear group IIIs? And who is ripping off the consumer more? The company that uses the inferior base oil or the inferior additive package? It's all so subjective and dependent on what ingredient people focus on. Right now, the rage appears to be the base oil.
[ October 14, 2003, 07:52 AM: Message edited by: VeeDubb ]
Sort of like "imitation naugahyde??quote:
Originally posted by Patman:
Isn't the term "fake synthetic" an oxymoron anyways?
The thing I'd worry about with this oil is Castrols track record. It might be good to watch the lot numbers so you you don't end up running green tinted US Syntec for 15K thinking it's the good stuff...
Some good points!
I don't understand how Hyundai can even sell cars in North America after ripping off every single person that bought one of their vehicles from the 80's to the mid 90's. If I see a lot of 2000 Hyundais still running in 15 years, maybe I'll consider getting one then. There were a lot of other bad cars in the 80's, but Chrysler was certainly among the worst.
I actually don't mind Castrol. I think it's just because they look so good compared to the current king of annoying/misleading marketing: Quaker State!
other than GC, I have gotten rid of all the Castrol in my car, and let me tell you, the car runs much better.
So my reasons for leaving Castrol (except the green elixir during the winter time) are more.... exotic.
So my reasons for leaving Castrol (except the green elixir during the winter time) are more.... exotic.
Even not being Castrol fan of its crankcase oils now, I have to assure you that it still offers the widest range and, what is more important, the best quality of transmission oils. Really in Europe nobody can outperform Castrol on this field.quote:
Originally posted by Asmodeus:
other than GC, I have gotten rid of all the Castrol in my car, and let me tell you, the car runs much better.
So my reasons for leaving Castrol (except the green elixir during the winter time) are more.... exotic.
Bror Jace ,
From 1993 to 2000 I was using mainly Castrol Formula RS 10W-60 in BMW 525i (E28) and never went much into details about other oils and their composition since 1). Castrol had been recommended to me by our racing team, 2). it was ensuring appropriate protection at any hard drive and allowing to start up at -30 C. All head-aches about oils and coolants came together with Honda. So, I cannot say exactly when BP started to use hydrocracked oil in Visco 5000, could be from its launching, but I can affirm that now 90 % of all European 5w30 and 5W-40 synthetic oils have a big share (20-70 %) of hydrocracked stock. And, as I understand, the question is not only in its lower cost, but in its certain properties. According to oil manufacturers in normal use (including long high speed journeys, but not racing) this base stock provides equal, if not better, protection then 100 % PAO. Among mentionned advantages: quicker formation of solid oil layer and lower corrosivity. Over this, it was also said that some latest OEMs requirements (seems it concerns mainly diesel engines in passenger cars) could not be passed if to use only PAO stock.
Hope it may help to clarify situation.
From 1993 to 2000 I was using mainly Castrol Formula RS 10W-60 in BMW 525i (E28) and never went much into details about other oils and their composition since 1). Castrol had been recommended to me by our racing team, 2). it was ensuring appropriate protection at any hard drive and allowing to start up at -30 C. All head-aches about oils and coolants came together with Honda. So, I cannot say exactly when BP started to use hydrocracked oil in Visco 5000, could be from its launching, but I can affirm that now 90 % of all European 5w30 and 5W-40 synthetic oils have a big share (20-70 %) of hydrocracked stock. And, as I understand, the question is not only in its lower cost, but in its certain properties. According to oil manufacturers in normal use (including long high speed journeys, but not racing) this base stock provides equal, if not better, protection then 100 % PAO. Among mentionned advantages: quicker formation of solid oil layer and lower corrosivity. Over this, it was also said that some latest OEMs requirements (seems it concerns mainly diesel engines in passenger cars) could not be passed if to use only PAO stock.
Hope it may help to clarify situation.
Primus,
I wish this post could be seen by many of our members. I believe it points out some things about Group III and Group IV oils that we all need to see. Furthermore, I believe it addresses some assumptions and maybe misconceptions that many of us have about the relative capabilities and performance of the two.
I wish this post could be seen by many of our members. I believe it points out some things about Group III and Group IV oils that we all need to see. Furthermore, I believe it addresses some assumptions and maybe misconceptions that many of us have about the relative capabilities and performance of the two.
I just have to throw my two cents in here.
Castrol has always produced an exceptional product. Maybe it is overpriced, but as long as people keep paying for it, why drop the price? It's the American way. I have always used either Castrol GTX or Pennsoil prior to finding BITOG. I found BITOG when I was considering switching to Amsoil, another great product.
I emailed Castrol regarding the base oil of the "Made in Germany" SYNTEC 0w30 and got the following reply:
Now, we do know, by the ACEA ratings on the bottle, that GC is designed for extended drains and therefore, once again a better product than the old SYNTEC. Castrol has alway, and will continue to produce an excellent product. Some of us may not agree with their marketing, but that doesn't make it a BAD oil.
Just my two cents.
[ October 14, 2003, 07:31 PM: Message edited by: medic ]
Castrol has always produced an exceptional product. Maybe it is overpriced, but as long as people keep paying for it, why drop the price? It's the American way. I have always used either Castrol GTX or Pennsoil prior to finding BITOG. I found BITOG when I was considering switching to Amsoil, another great product.
I emailed Castrol regarding the base oil of the "Made in Germany" SYNTEC 0w30 and got the following reply:
Now, while they completely avoided my question, they do maintain that the current Group III formula out performed the old PAO formula. While this may be true, I'm sure that this conclusion was not made for extended drains. Therefore, the average consumer was receiving a better product for the same $$$. Who is being cheated, the people buy the original SYNTEC.
Now, we do know, by the ACEA ratings on the bottle, that GC is designed for extended drains and therefore, once again a better product than the old SYNTEC. Castrol has alway, and will continue to produce an excellent product. Some of us may not agree with their marketing, but that doesn't make it a BAD oil.
Just my two cents.
[ October 14, 2003, 07:31 PM: Message edited by: medic ]
Why not buy Amsoil or Mobil 1
They are superior to Castrol stupidtec
Interesting post Medic. I have no experience with Castrol so I can't give you my opinion. If I read this corectly, they are basically saying that the group III Syntec out performed the old one, which I thought was always group III?? We know that the base stock is but one factor in making a great oil. We also don't know the details of the test. How many miles etc.?
We do know that for extended drains, PAO is better. M1, Amsoil and Redline ALL put emphasis on high quality base oils. So, I think they are giving us the spin by saying the new oil is better bc we cut costs on a high quality base stock, increased the additives or whatever, and for 3-5k miles there are no differences in the product.
As far as Castrol always making a good product? How the heck do we know when they have customer support like this? Look at Amsoil, Mobil 1 and Redline. ALL OF them tell you what you are getting in the oil. Amsoil has gone as far to plaster the PAO label on their boxes. Castrol is a mixed mess if you ask me. I refuse to waste my time with a company like this. To each their own. I'll stick with the BIG 3 of oils, Mobil, Amsoil and Redline.
[ October 14, 2003, 07:51 PM: Message edited by: buster ]
We do know that for extended drains, PAO is better. M1, Amsoil and Redline ALL put emphasis on high quality base oils. So, I think they are giving us the spin by saying the new oil is better bc we cut costs on a high quality base stock, increased the additives or whatever, and for 3-5k miles there are no differences in the product.
As far as Castrol always making a good product? How the heck do we know when they have customer support like this? Look at Amsoil, Mobil 1 and Redline. ALL OF them tell you what you are getting in the oil. Amsoil has gone as far to plaster the PAO label on their boxes. Castrol is a mixed mess if you ask me. I refuse to waste my time with a company like this. To each their own. I'll stick with the BIG 3 of oils, Mobil, Amsoil and Redline.
[ October 14, 2003, 07:51 PM: Message edited by: buster ]
You can't handle the proof!
I can!
I'm not jack nicholson
I'm just a regular dipstick.
- Status
Similar threads
