I got this from another site.I posted this out of some of my Harley mags before .FYI a long read.



Hey guys, okay, I found these articles and did some cut and pasting to prove to you guys

that Castrol is not a synthetic. I got most of these from www.tdiclub.com if you want to

read for yourself.

I'd like to thank Randy Williams for all his help. Randy has been a big help in not only helping to expose this dirty secret from Castrol but at the Taurus Car Club, giving us advice on mod's and stuff.



A HUGE WARNING about the Castrol Syntech brand of oil!!!



It is not a true synthetic, but more a badly labelled 'hydro-cracked' oil that has a bituminous

(natural) oil base, and just enough additives to meet the governments description for a

'synthetic'.



Castrol, who got the formula from Shell, was recently taken to court for false advertising by

Mobil for this very thing. However, the court ruled in favor of Castrol in that they didn't falsely

lead the public, but this does not erase the facts brought out in the case that Castrol's oil is

'barely' a synthetic.





OKay Gentlemen,



Here is the exact (as much as I can make it) article from the Oct. 1999 Hart's Lubricants

World on the Mobil/Castrol Synthetic debate.



It looks like Castrol has pulled one over on all of us.... Please pardon the typos this is

going to be rough.



"Synthetic. The word has become almost a proscription in the industr, especially among

scientific and technical organizations, such as the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)

and the American Petroleum Institute (API).

Ask a marketer of motor oil products formulated with hydroprocessed mineral oils, and you

might get a definition that involves cost-efficiencies and consumer choices. Ask an

engineer involved in manufacturing polyalphaolefins (PAOs) or esters, and compositions

might be the determiing factor. Despite the intese debate over the origins of synthetics, an

absolute definition has remained inlimbo for many years, with much of the responsibility

placed on base oil manufacturers and lubricant marketers.

It was only recently, in a decision by the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Council

of Better Business Bureaus, that the first basic action an ruling in the United States set a

strong precedence for a broader description in the marketing of synthetics. In this first

installment of a two-part story, Lubricants World takes a look at the NAD's ruling and

explores the revivied debate surrounding the defintino of "synthetic".



In a ruling released in April 1999, the NAD addressed complaints filed by Mobil Oil Corp.

regarding the truthfulness of Castrol North America Inc.'s claim that its Syntec Provides

"superior engine protection" to all other motor oils, both synthetic and conventional, and

that Syntec's esters provide "unique molecular bonding." Mobil charged that the

advertisements inaccurately represented that the current formulation of Syntec is synthetic.

The challenge was filed based on statements Castrol made in a series of television

commercials, Web site publications, package labels, and brochures.

The NAD divided its decision to address three issues raised in the complaint. Is the

reformulated Syntec synthetic motor oil? Has Castrol substantiated its superiority claims?

Has Syntec been degraded?



The NAD determined that the evidence presented by the advertiser constitiutes a

reasonable basis for the claim that Castrol Syntec, as currently formulated, is a synthetic

motor oil. NAD noted that Mobil markets hyudroisomerized basestocks as synthetic in

Europe and elsewhere. NAD noted that the actions taken by the SAE to delete any

referance to "synthetic" in its description of basestocks in section J354 and API's

consequent removal of any mention of "synthetic" in API 1509 were decisions by the

industry not to restrict use of the term "syntetic" to the definition now profferred by Mobil.

Further, the SAE Automotive Lubricants Reference Book, an extensivley peer-reviewed

publication, states base oils made through the processes used to create Shell's

hudroisomerized basestock, severe cracking, and reforming processes may be marketed

as "synthetic".

Despite its prior ruling, the NAD advised that Syntec could not advertise a superior

protection claim.

The NAD determined that though Mobil presented clear evindence that Castrol has made a

major change to Syntec's formulation, it was not sufficient to demonstrate that Syntec has

been "degraded".

In a statement to Lubricants World, Castrol's legal counsel said,"The NAD's decision was

clearly correct. In accepting Castol's position on the appropriate defintion of a synthetic

basestock and concluding that Castrol Syntec is a fully synthetic oil, the NAD accepted

the overwhelming evidence Castrol presented, which included th opinions of leading

scienteist.. and statements from Shell, Exxon, and other industry sources. The NAD also

relied on the SAE's rejection of a restrictive definition of the type advanced by Mobil. In fact,

although it had the right to do so, Mobil did not attempt to appeal the NAD's decision."

Mark Sztenderosicz,a senior research engineer from Chevron Products Co.'s Base Oil

Technology Team, stated his company agreed with the NAD's decision. "We feel strongly,"

he said, "that 'synthetic' is a fairly broad term and a number of basestocks besides PAOs

fit the description. To the extent that the NAD came to a similar conclusion and was

unwilling to limit 'synthetic' to a narrow definition, we agree. We further agree wiht what we

consider to be a commonsense interpretation that consumers perceive the word 'synthetic'

to mean something manmade, but not made necessarily from a particular compound or

component."

Mobil contended that Castrol misleads consumers that Syntec is a fully synthetic motor oil

despite the fact that Syntec is no longer synthetic. The challenger alleged that after years

of manufacturing Syntec with PAO, Castrol replaced PAO, which had constituted nearly

70% of the volume of the product, with hydroprocessed mineral oil in approximately

December 1997. As a result of an independent laboratory test conducted by Savant Inc.,

Mobil maintained that samples of Syntec purchased in June and December 1997 contained

93% and 80% PAO. Other samples of Syntec, one purchased in December 1997 and four

purchased in 1998, contained no PAO, and instead contained 100% mineral oil.

Furthermore, Mobil alleged that Castrol degraded Syntec by substituting hydroprocessed

mineral oil for PAO to the detriment of the consumer. Even though Syntec was able to

meet the minimum industry standards, Mobil contended that in no way does it prove the

current Syntec is as good as it was when it was made with PAO.

Castrol defended its claim that Castrol Syntec is synthetic based on the nature of the

basestocks used in the formulation (Shell's hydroisomerized basestocks). This is

substantiated by the opinions of chemistry experts; authorities from Shell and Exxon; the

SAE's Automotive Lubricants Reference Book; a paper by Dr. Martin Voltz, a Mobil

scientist; and an independant motor oil expert. Castrol also contends that its data show the

current formulation of Syntec provides more protection than the old formulation and is, in

fact superior to Mobil 1, Mobils synthetic oil.

In response Mobils contention that Castrol deceived its consumers by not informing them of

the change in the formulation, the advertiser submitted a stated by Richard Kabel, a motor

oil expert. Kabel asserted that motor oil manumfacturers, including Mobil, rebularly make

changes in their formulations without disclosing these changes to consumers. He stated

that the industry certification and licensing program is designed to provide motor oil

manufacturers with the flexibility to modify their formulations as long as the oil continues to

meet industry standards."



Sorry folks, this is too much all at once. I'll type more tomorrow. There's four more pages to

type.



Anybody think that pure mineral oil will do a good job protecting your engine at 200F or that

it will be friendly to your 'extremely warm' turbo bearings, even with 30 seconds of cool

down time??? I think not. I am not one for semantics and this is pure legalese to me. It is

mineral oil, and that is that.



Greetings,



While the hunt for the Oct. issue of Hart's Lubricants World continues in earnest, here is

what I got from an Amsoil Jobber that I know who is fortunate enough to have access to the

magazine.



"FYI, According to Mobil oil company, Castrol has been selling their full

synthetic Syntec for the last two years, with nothing in the bottle but

100% petroleum oil. Not a single ingredient that can be defined as

synthetic in any stretch of the imagination. This information just came out

in Hart's Lubricant World magazine. They, as well as, other oil companies,

are using what is called a hydrocracking process to further refine the

crude oil from the ground and calling it a synthetic because it comes close

to meeting some of the parameters that synthetic oil meets. I suggest you

get a copy of this article ASAP and show it to your garages and quick

lubes, especially the ones that handle Castrol products. This in my

opinion, is a simple bait and switch move by a large corporation. It is

also fraud in my opinion and I hope this really bites them in the behind.

I called my Castrol Xpress lube center and told him about what they have

been doing and got quite a response. The owner is pulling all his Syntec from

his stock and making Castrol take it back and also upped his Amsoil stock

levels. He along with his manager said they will never sell another quart

of a misrepresented Castrol product. This just is indicative of what

motivates most synthetic marketers to begin with. We as Amsoil dealers know

that people who use synthetics do so because of the perceived protection

they are getting and won't settle for a cheapened product. This has been

evidenced by the success of our series 2,000 line. Castrol has severely under estimated

why people use synthetics. This

could really be a God send for our market once this information gets out

to the general public. I will be giving a copy of this article to our local

paper and hopefully they will publish part of it. You all should look at sources in your local

area to get the message out. If you post anything on any chat rooms on the internet, be

careful to quote the article from Lubricants World and not your words..... "





Mickey, I'm getting the feeling from a lot of people now (most whom have at least seen the

article) that your previous explosive flame of Castrol 'Syn-Lie' was right on target..... This is

just foul.



Gentlemen,



The article posted above is all of a sudden very difficult to get a hold of. I am trying, but not

having much success. However I have heard from an Amsoil jobber following the case

closely that Chevrolet has just pulled the Castrol Syntec from the list of acceptable oils to

be used in the Corvette.





------------------

June H. Han

jhan@tauruscarclub.com

 

too much for me to read but thats ok because i dont use that **** anyways...

 

We sold a lot of that stuff at midas. Oh well, not my problem

 

Thats interesting. Ive always used GTX and been happy with it. But if they are selling GTX in a Syntec bottle I think its very decietfull.



Im gonna try to do some research on it. I may never use castrol again.

 

That article was originally written back in 1999. There have been some formulation changes since then. While I do use synthetic oils but not Castrol, they do make some group IV (polyalphaolefin) based oils now.

 

Big ******* deal. There's no dairy in an Arby's Jamocha shake, and I don't have a clue what the hell McNuggets are really made of, but that doesn't make them taste any worse.



If it meets the governments description of synthetic, doesn't that pretty much qualify it? If it's badly labelled, that's only because the whiney little snot reading it thought that synthetic meant something that it evidently doesn't. Getting all worked up over nothing, the goofy little alarmist. The guy that wrote this article is probably the same kid who snitched to the teacher when kids were cutting class. Don't be that guy, I hate that guy.

 

The big deal is that it once was synthetic and now it is mineral and still labeled synthetic... Did the price drastically go down once they changed to mineral? No.

 

Does it cost less to make a high quality mineral based oil than the synthetic oils?, do the high quality mineral oils actually offer less wear protection than the synthetic oils?

 

Less wear protection? That's mostly based on the additive package as a motor oil isn't a motor oil without them. The synthetics will resist breakdown better and last longer. That's worth it to me. There are 5 groups of oils. Groups I-III are the "conventionals" which are paraffin base stock. Paraffin is a wax. Look at a candle. What makes these base stocks different is the amount of filtering between them. The higher the group the better filtered out they are. These oils can contain anywhere between 3-10% contaminants in the final product you put in your car. The more impurities you remove, the longer lasting your oil is. That alone makes it better. Most people use group II oils. Groups IV-V are the "synthetics". Group IV is only POA's while group V is any base stock that is not a paraffin or POA base. A group V isn't necessarily etter then a group IV or vice versa but they are both better than the group I-III oils. Don't think of oils as synthetics and conventionals. Base your judgement of oils on what they do and how well they do it. Any group of oil with a poor additive package can be terrible at it's job. Fortunately those companies that will make a group IV and V oil will make sure this isn't an issue so you can be pretty well assured that if you are using one of them that you've got a good product. Royal Purple is a group IV while Redline and Amsoil are group V. All good stuff. I have no idea how a tougher oil that performs better for longer and resists breakdown better is such a bad thing to some people. Oil is the lifeblood of the engine. Why skimp there? If I needed a blood transfusion and was given a choice of lower quality blood that may have some impurities (such as disease or infection) vs a better quality blood that was more pure, it wouldn't be much of a decision. Why risk it? As far as I'm concerned a couple of dollars difference a quart is a small price for added protection and security. There's really no excuse to ot use it other than someone blatantly not caring about their engine but if tis were the case they wouldn't change the oil at all.