Mobil 1 vs. Castrol Syntech - Which one is better
z
> "maf" <m...@switchboard.net> wrote in message news:<bMZ78.79$Tl1.1...@news.uswest.net>...
>
> > Clearly, there are other synthetic oils used in racing. Since many motor oil
> > companies sponsor race teams (Valvoline, Castrol, Quaker State, Texaco,
> > etc.) they are required to market the same synthetic oil to consumers (even
> > if their synthetics are rarely advertised nor widely distributed). Also,
> > there are race teams that are sponsored by synthetic oil companies such as
> > Redline and Amsoil. But Mobil 1 is widely used beyond the race teams that
> > they directly sponsor, more so than any other motor oil.
>
> With that logic in mind, I suspect that Red Line's claims that their oils
> are (were?) used in CART are accurate.
>
> > I never claimed that Mobil 1 was superior to other synthetic oils (except
> > for Castrol Syntec as discussed in the article below), although I suspect it
> > is as least as good as any others. What I said was 1) it is the most widely
> > used oil on the top racing circuits, 2) it's usually the cheapest (except
> > for generic brands) at places like Wal-Mart, and 3) it's by far the most
> > readily available synthetic oil at service establishments and retail stores.
>
> I wasn't trying to say that Mobil 1 was clearly the best. I do use it
> myself, and will continue to do so.
>
> > If you read the Car and Driver below, you will find that some so-called
> > synthetics are really "chemically modified" mineral oils, which have been
> > tested as slightly lower in quality than Mobil 1 (although they are clearly
> > superior to ordinary mineral oils).
> > http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Caranddriver/columns/2000/November/200011_col
> > umns_bedard.xml
> > This above link will probably wrap to 2 lines and needs to pasted back
> > together.
>
> I didn't read it, but I've already known that the current Castrol Syntec
> uses a Type III hydrocracked petroleum base. The same goes for Valvoline
> MaxLife, but they don't market it as a "synthetic". That's more or less
> what the article was mentioning, right? This topic has been discussed
> numerous times on various auto NGs.
>
> > I stand corrected about Mobil 1 being the only synthetic oil supplied as
> > factory fill. In the article you mentioned, the BMW synthetic 5W-40 is
> > mentioned as the factory fill, and then it says that Mobil 1 5W-40 or
> > Valvoline 5W-40 synthetic may be substituted. I suspect that your are
> > correct about the BMW oil actually being Valvoline, because I do not believe
> > that Mobil 1 wants to "private label" its oil to anyone. The BMW M5 and Z8
> > require a synthetic 10W-60, which is a viscosity that Mobil 1 does not
> > manufacture. If Mobil 1 did make this viscosity, I have no doubt that BMW
> > would recommend it.
>
> Mobil does do "private label" sales. Mobil 1 was sold under the GM
> Goodwrench label for use in the Corvette. Mobil makes some of the
> relabelled Honda oil. The bottle even had the Mobil logo on the back.
> I've heard Honda 5W-20 oil is supplied by Mobil.
>
> As for the Castrol oil, that seems to be one of the only 10W-60 oils
> available. There are some from other companies, but none are from the
> big manufacturers.
>
> Yu-Ping Wang
> Berkeley, California
I saw a table a few years back that gave the test results for the
various synthetics; IIRC Mobil had a higher smoke point than Castrol,
but Castrol had a lower pour point or whatever you call it. I.e., at
least for the formulation at that time, the Mobil was superior in
terms of high temperature stability, but the Castrol was superior in
terms of low temperature fluidity. I don't know what real world
relevance these results would have.
I'm interested that you mentioned that the Maxlife has the same
hydrocracked base. Do you know any more about it? Thanks.
maf
> various synthetics; IIRC Mobil had a higher smoke point than Castrol,
> but Castrol had a lower pour point or whatever you call it. I.e., at
> least for the formulation at that time, the Mobil was superior in
> terms of high temperature stability, but the Castrol was superior in
> terms of low temperature fluidity. I don't know what real world
> relevance these results would have.
>
> I'm interested that you mentioned that the Maxlife has the same
> hydrocracked base. Do you know any more about it? Thanks.
I am not the person who you directed the above question to, but after
looking at their website, Valvoline Maxlife is not marketed as a
synthetic and there is no reason to be believe that it is a synthetic.
Maxlife is designed for engines with a high number of miles,
containing a higher viscosity and additives that compensates for
problems caused by wear associated with such high number of miles.
Valvoline markets its synthetic lubrications under the "SynPower"
name.
Regarding Castrol, here is a quote from the Car and Driver article
previously mentioned: "Late in 1997, Castrol changed the formula of
its Syntec 'full synthetic motor oil,' eliminating the polyalphaolefin
(PAO) base stock (that's the 'synthetic' part, which makes up about 70
percent by volume of what's in the bottle) and replacing it with a
'hydroisomerized' petroleum base stock."
The problem that Car and Driver has with the above change is that
Valvoline still charges as much (or more) than Mobil 1 (which is full
synthetic with a PAO base stock). At about $3.00 per quart, Syntec
would be a good alternative to Mobil 1 and better than any mineral
oil, but at its current price it doesn't measure up to true
synthetics.
BTW, Castrol is now owned by BP-Amoco.
y_p_w
> I saw a table a few years back that gave the test results for the
> various synthetics; IIRC Mobil had a higher smoke point than Castrol,
> but Castrol had a lower pour point or whatever you call it. I.e., at
> least for the formulation at that time, the Mobil was superior in
> terms of high temperature stability, but the Castrol was superior in
> terms of low temperature fluidity. I don't know what real world
> relevance these results would have.
The only problem is that the formulas have likely changed since then.
Castrol Syntec has (by a lot), and Mobil 1 somewhat (the third base
fluid)
> I'm interested that you mentioned that the Maxlife has the same
> hydrocracked base. Do you know any more about it? Thanks.
It's something I've heard many times in various auto NGs. And I
wouldn't say "the same", but a type III base nonetheless. Still
from all account, The current Castrol Syntec additive package may
be one of the best out there.
Yu-Ping Wang
Berkeley, California
y_p_w
> I am not the person who you directed the above question to, but after
> looking at their website, Valvoline Maxlife is not marketed as a
> synthetic and there is no reason to be believe that it is a synthetic.
> Maxlife is designed for engines with a high number of miles,
> containing a higher viscosity and additives that compensates for
> problems caused by wear associated with such high number of miles.
> Valvoline markets its synthetic lubrications under the "SynPower"
> name.
That's sort of what some folks find "dishonest" about the way Castrol
NA markets its current Syntec. Other oil makers produce type II
or type III based motor oils, but don't attempt to call them
"synthetic". The closest I can think of is that Chevron uses the
term "ISOSYN", probably referring the their use of type II base oil.
However - Chevron doesn't attempt to sell their oil at a premium
price.
> Regarding Castrol, here is a quote from the Car and Driver article
> previously mentioned: "Late in 1997, Castrol changed the formula of
> its Syntec 'full synthetic motor oil,' eliminating the polyalphaolefin
> (PAO) base stock (that's the 'synthetic' part, which makes up about 70
> percent by volume of what's in the bottle) and replacing it with a
> 'hydroisomerized' petroleum base stock."
I think that in some countries, the local Castrol division still
sells a PAO/ester motor oil. I suspect that the Castrol RS 10W-60
is such an oil.
> The problem that Car and Driver has with the above change is that
> Valvoline still charges as much (or more) than Mobil 1 (which is full
> synthetic with a PAO base stock). At about $3.00 per quart, Syntec
> would be a good alternative to Mobil 1 and better than any mineral
> oil, but at its current price it doesn't measure up to true
> synthetics.
>
> BTW, Castrol is now owned by BP-Amoco.
Makes sense. I believe Castrol is a British company.
Yu-Ping Wang
Berkeley, California
Matthew Edwards
"z" <gzuc...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:b91e2598.0202...@posting.google.com...
Hi. I don't know if this has been said already, but here in England, there
aren't many people using Mobile 1. When it was released here, they tested
it only in Yorkshire, before letting it loose on the rest of the country.
There was a huge problem with it though: if you were using it, and then
needed some more oil, you could only use Mobile 1. There was something in
it that didn't allow it to mix with other oils. Therefore, if you drove
from Yorkshire down to, say, London, and needed to buy some more oil, you
couldn't, because no other oil mixed with it. (I only know this because
I've worked at Shell for a while.)
The problem still exists; there is only one Shell oil which mixes with Mobil
1, (off the top of my head, I think it's the Ultra one, in the grey
bottles), where as the other two, (yellow and blue bottles) still do not
mix. I wouldn't know however, whether other oils mix with Mobil 1, but I do
know that all other oils mix with Shell's.
By the way, all Shell's oils in the UK (and I suspect Europe, though don't
quote me on that) are synthetic. Again, I don't know whether other oils are
or not.
Personally, I use the Shell oils, and would recommend those to anyone, not
just because I work for Shell, but because I've never had a problem with
them. I would definetely try to steer people away from using Mobil 1. As
the subject was "Mobil 1 vs. Castrol Syntech - Which one is better" though,
and Shell wasn't in question, I'd say Castrol, although I've never used it.
On another note, to do with petrol, why in the UK is the Octane levels
higher? Our Regular Shell unleaded is 92% Octane, and our Super Unleaded
(called Optimax) is 98%. In the US, however, when I've been, there, I've
noticed that the Super/Premium, whichever it's called, is only 89% and
regular, 81%. We run the same cars (some at least): Volvo, Saab, Ford
Focus, Ford Contour (called Mondeo), Cougar, most Hondas, and most Toyotas,
so why is yours a lower amount? If you use a lower octane level than what's
recommended, it can cause all sorts of problems, catalysts being one of
them. Do the car makers lower the rate it can take?
Matthew
--
Helping people is never more rewarding than when it's in your own self
interest.
maf
> Matthew
Probably a complete coincidence that both Castrol and Shell are UK owned
companies. There are different methods for measuring octane in the US and
the UK.
z
> On another note, to do with petrol, why in the UK is the Octane levels
> higher? Our Regular Shell unleaded is 92% Octane, and our Super Unleaded
> (called Optimax) is 98%. In the US, however, when I've been, there, I've
> noticed that the Super/Premium, whichever it's called, is only 89% and
> regular, 81%. We run the same cars (some at least): Volvo, Saab, Ford
> Focus, Ford Contour (called Mondeo), Cougar, most Hondas, and most Toyotas,
> so why is yours a lower amount? If you use a lower octane level than what's
> recommended, it can cause all sorts of problems, catalysts being one of
> them. Do the car makers lower the rate it can take?
>
>
One question is how is the octane tested. There are two tests,
Research Octane and Motor Octane, that give different numbers. The
octane numbers posted in the us are the average of the two.
Dean Dardwin
Dean
maf
> Gee, there's a surprise! What proof do you have that you can't mix
> them? Mobil 1 is compatible with can be used with ANY conventional
> oil or synthetic oil. Why you would want to mix them is another story.
> If it's not widely available, common sense says buy a few
> extra bottles and save them for a rainy day.
> Dean
Castrol are UK owned companies and it is part of their culture to spread
lies about non-UK companies.
y_p_w
> There was a huge problem with it though: if you were using it, and then
> needed some more oil, you could only use Mobile 1. There was something in
> it that didn't allow it to mix with other oils. Therefore, if you drove
> from Yorkshire down to, say, London, and needed to buy some more oil, you
> couldn't, because no other oil mixed with it. (I only know this because
> I've worked at Shell for a while.)
At least in the US, Mobil has never guaranteed that Mobil 1 was 100%
compatible with other synthetic oils. They do state that mixing with
a conventional oil should pose no problems. They used to (may still)
recommend chaing once with conventional oil if switching from a
synthetic. The problem is that some synthetic base oils didn't mix
properly with the PAO/ester blend. I don't know what they recommend
in Europe, but I would be surprised if they didn't think this out
thoroughly and make them accordingly.
> The problem still exists; there is only one Shell oil which mixes with Mobil
> 1, (off the top of my head, I think it's the Ultra one, in the grey
> bottles), where as the other two, (yellow and blue bottles) still do not
> mix. I wouldn't know however, whether other oils mix with Mobil 1, but I do
> know that all other oils mix with Shell's.
The PAO/ester blend seems to be the most common type of synthetic oil.
I would be surprised if such an oil didn't mix properly with Mobil 1.
> By the way, all Shell's oils in the UK (and I suspect Europe, though don't
> quote me on that) are synthetic. Again, I don't know whether other oils are
> or not.
>
> Personally, I use the Shell oils, and would recommend those to anyone, not
> just because I work for Shell, but because I've never had a problem with
> them. I would definetely try to steer people away from using Mobil 1. As
> the subject was "Mobil 1 vs. Castrol Syntech - Which one is better" though,
> and Shell wasn't in question, I'd say Castrol, although I've never used it.
Castrol Syntec, as produced by Castrol North America uses a type III base
oil. The debate is whether or not it is worth the $5 a quart that
synthetic oils go for here. As for Mobil 1, perhaps you can explain why
Porsche and Mercedes-Benz use Mobil 1 5W-40 as their ONLY factory fill.
They have a lot to lose if Mobil 1 were an inferior product or if oil
mixing were a problem.
> On another note, to do with petrol, why in the UK is the Octane levels
> higher? Our Regular Shell unleaded is 92% Octane, and our Super Unleaded
> (called Optimax) is 98%. In the US, however, when I've been, there, I've
> noticed that the Super/Premium, whichever it's called, is only 89% and
> regular, 81%. We run the same cars (some at least): Volvo, Saab, Ford
> Focus, Ford Contour (called Mondeo), Cougar, most Hondas, and most Toyotas,
> so why is yours a lower amount? If you use a lower octane level than what's
> recommended, it can cause all sorts of problems, catalysts being one of
> them. Do the car makers lower the rate it can take?
Europe = RON
U.S. = (RON+MON)/2 - this number is inevitably lower.
Since you don't already know this, I'm guessing that you're not an
expert on fuel. OTOH - you don't seem to be an expert on motor oils
either.
Yu-Ping Wang
Berkeley, California
Bob Zawarski
buy some and use it on my Mazda Millenia S after I rebuild the engine.
Bob Zawarski
Ignasi Palou-Rivera
> Don't waste your time with this Shell employee from the UK. Both Shell and
> Castrol are UK owned companies and it is part of their culture to spread
> lies about non-UK companies.
Just to clarify, Shell is only partly a UK company. The majority of
the company is Dutch. Hell, its name, at least the original name, is
Royal Dutch Shell!
--
Ignasi.
J Oat
GSM cellular technology, I do not trust what they said good or not good.
Go to cellular NG and see how many still insist GSM is superior eventhough
next gen cells in EU will be based on CDMA technology.
Just because a lot of folks used it does not mean they are right.
"maf" <m...@switchboard.net> wrote in message
news:6mU88.57$fI5.1...@news.uswest.net...
Huw
>
> Hi. I don't know if this has been said already, but here in
England, there
> aren't many people using Mobile 1. When it was released here, they
tested
> it only in Yorkshire, before letting it loose on the rest of the
country.
>
> There was a huge problem with it though: if you were using it, and
then
> needed some more oil, you could only use Mobile 1. There was
something in
> it that didn't allow it to mix with other oils. Therefore, if you
drove
> from Yorkshire down to, say, London, and needed to buy some more
oil, you
> couldn't, because no other oil mixed with it. (I only know this
because
> I've worked at Shell for a while.)
You may have worked with Shell for a while but you know nothing about
oil. Mobil 1 can be topped up with other oil with no problem,
and no, I do not use Mobil1.
>
> The problem still exists; there is only one Shell oil which mixes
with Mobil
> 1, (off the top of my head, I think it's the Ultra one, in the grey
> bottles), where as the other two, (yellow and blue bottles) still
do not
> mix. I wouldn't know however, whether other oils mix with Mobil 1,
but I do
> know that all other oils mix with Shell's.
>
> By the way, all Shell's oils in the UK (and I suspect Europe,
though don't
> quote me on that) are synthetic. Again, I don't know whether other
oils are
> or not.
Rubbish. Only a small selection of the Shell oils sold in the UK are
synthetic. Worked there long have you?
>
> Personally, I use the Shell oils, and would recommend those to
anyone, not
> just because I work for Shell, but because I've never had a problem
with
> them. I would definetely try to steer people away from using Mobil
1.
What a load of bolloney! Over the years I have used oil from Gulf,
Silkolene, Ovolene, Shell, Fuchs, Ambra, Castrol, BP, Texaco, Morris
and probably some others. I have never had a problem with any of
them. I buy on specification and value.
As
> the subject was "Mobil 1 vs. Castrol Syntech - Which one is better"
though,
> and Shell wasn't in question, I'd say Castrol, although I've never
used it.
And you know nothing about either.
Sorry to be so negative, but *Really*!
Huw
maf
news:1iv7kpn...@falstaff.mit.edu...
You are correct. The organization is a bit complex, but basically the Royal
Dutch/Shell group of companies is 60% owned by Royal Dutch Petroleum
(Netherlands) and 40% owned by Shell Transport & Trading PLC (UK). Both of
these companies are holding companies that are traded on the Amsterdam and
London stock exchanges respectively. Royal Dutch Petroleum is also traded as
an ADR (American Depository Receipt) on the NYSE under symbol RD; and Shell
Transport & Trading PLC is traded as an ADR (American Depository Receipt) on
the NYSE under symbol SC.
No Spam
Top posting moved to bottoms as that is how most western languages are
read, answer after the question
>"maf" <m...@switchboard.net> wrote in message
>news:6mU88.57$fI5.1...@news.uswest.net...
>> > Well let's see. You work for Shell and you are blasting ExxonMobil.
>> > Gee, there's a surprise! What proof do you have that you can't mix
>> > them? Mobil 1 is compatible with can be used with ANY conventional
>> > oil or synthetic oil. Why you would want to mix them is another story.
>> > If it's not widely available, common sense says buy a few
>> > extra bottles and save them for a rainy day.
>> > Dean
>> Don't waste your time with this Shell employee from the UK. Both Shell
>and
>> Castrol are UK owned companies and it is part of their culture to spread
>> lies about non-UK companies.
>Well I know very little about oil. But based on how Europe standardise on
>GSM cellular technology, I do not trust what they said good or not good.
>
>Go to cellular NG and see how many still insist GSM is superior eventhough
>next gen cells in EU will be based on CDMA technology.
>
>Just because a lot of folks used it does not mean they are right.
Hmmmm....so the fact that I can NOW use my GSM mobile in over 100
countries worldwide while those in the US have difficulty moving
across a state line is irrelevant then ;-)
(I've only used mine in about 25 countries, the US is not one of
them!!)
As an engineer in the comms business for many years I still find that
the US has the most incomprehensible comms (especially voice) setup
anywhere. I distinctly remember trying to make a call of about 200
miles distance in Florida about 10 years ago, by the time I had
figured out that I was being offered the choice of about 4 carriers
when I couldn't really care less which I used the call timed out
during setup. In the end after half a dozen call attempts it proved to
be the most expensive call (or series of calls) I have ever made from
a callbox. BT in the UK, even then, was far far preferable, heck even
France in the mid 90's with their stupid "19" IDD prefix and 3 waits
for dial tone during an international call were better.
--
No Spam
<snip>
>Hi. I don't know if this has been said already, but here in England, there
>aren't many people using Mobile 1. When it was released here, they tested
>it only in Yorkshire, before letting it loose on the rest of the country.
>
>There was a huge problem with it though: if you were using it, and then
>needed some more oil, you could only use Mobile 1. There was something in
>it that didn't allow it to mix with other oils. Therefore, if you drove
>from Yorkshire down to, say, London, and needed to buy some more oil, you
>couldn't, because no other oil mixed with it. (I only know this because
>I've worked at Shell for a while.)
This being the same Shell that released "Formula Shell" on an
unsuspecting public in the UK, after only EVER using it on new engines
in testing. I filled up with some (coincidentally in Yorkshire) and it
was the WORST move I ever made.
Within about an hour I had misfire problems and constantly shorting
plugs due to growth occurring across the electrodes, loss of fuel
supply, heavy engine vibration etc. It took weeks and many hours to
fix the damage involving removing every component in the fuel system,
in some cases more than one. All caused to my car by "Formula Shell"
after it scavenged deposits that had lain dormant in my cars fuel
system for a few years without causing any problems, sure I had the
cleanest fuel system this side of NASA but I couldn't give a shit as
the pain in my wallet and bleeding knuckles far outweighed any
advantage.
Despite documentary evidence they refused to meet my claim, a few
months later they withdrew the fuel after numerous complaints. I've
boycotted those cowboys since, even to the extent of using a fuel can
to top up my car on one of their forecourts to get me to the next
filling station.
--