Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Hi,
maersk - You said this:
"Even though this particular offering of theirs is, in all likelihood, rather good, most of their oils are mediocre at best (GTX, Magnatec, much of the Edge line as well)."
It remains for you now to justify such a bold and sweeping statement - about the product that is the topic of this Thread - Castrol 0W-40!
I know first hand Magnatec sucks. I've used it when I was way less knowledgeable and listened to my mechanic for my oil choice. I think I can even attribute a slight piston slap to that time.
With the oil and additives I use now the engine runs 10% cooler (72~73°C vs. 80°C) irrespective of the weather and with higher antifreeze concentration (just as LM claimed), starts easier and revs noticeably more freely and runs quieter - which a lot of other people (even women on their own) have also noticed after switching from Castrol to what I use, per my advice.
Of even the Edge line-up, I can only ascertain 0w40 as a synthetic ("Synthetic base stock. Proprietary performance additives."), as one might expect from its pour point and cold temperature performance.
Of the rest a few are PAO/HC blend, at best("Chemically modified base oil. Proprietary performance additives."). Most are refined mineral, HC or blend. Fairly certain there's no 5w40 synthetic from Castrol. They'll only use synthetic base stocks when there's absolutely no way to cheap out with HC.
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
I have a very different viewpoint to this and have worked in developing some of their products over several decades. Some of Castrol's products are still in the top tier - even those that were initially developed many years ago!
Then would you care to explain the "intelligent molecules" schtick when advertising mineral oils (at best blend of refined mineral and hydrocracked for the GTX and Magnatec lines)?
And which oils are those, from Castrol? And what makes them better than homologues from Liqui Moly, Ravenol, Mobil 1, etc.
Liqui Moly too has/has had approvals and certification from most all European manufacturers. And so do lots of other lubricants, from other companies. The way I see it, a good oil will meet the specs but meeting the specs, a good oil does not necessarily make.
Here's one of their
hydrocracked offerings. Notice the clear distinction they make among different basestocks, on the left?
Top Tec 4100 5w40
Specifications / Approvals:
API SM/CF
ACEA A3-04/B4-04/C3-04
MB-Approval 229.31
BMW Longlife-04
VW 505 00/502 00
Porsche A40
Ford WSS M2C 917-A
LIQUI MOLY recommends this product for vehicles for which the following specifications are required:
VW 505 01
Fiat 9.55535-S2 / 9.55535-H2 / 9.55535-M2
Notice also the clear distinction between certifications and the "advised in applications calling for" category. As they expire, the certifications will be moved to the latter. Or maybe that's where they place less demanding specs which are contained in others, that the oil does meet.
Why should I esteem or award my business to a company that treats me like a dolt deserving only to be parted from his money? Who insults my intelligence with ads about "intelligent molecules" and outright lies about its product being fully synthetic when it's a HydroCracked basestock?
And they're owned by BP, no less.