New Castrol Edge 8x better wear protection than Mobil 1
02-01-2009, 10:55 AM
#21
Instructor
Thread Starter
Member Since: Feb 2005
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.castroledgeusa.com/#/faq
Have a look.
http://www.castroledgeusa.com/#/why-upgrade/results
Results of the Seq IVA wear test. Edge does meet GM 4718M.
Have a look.
http://www.castroledgeusa.com/#/why-upgrade/results
Results of the Seq IVA wear test. Edge does meet GM 4718M.
Last edited by NEO1; 02-01-2009 at 11:05 AM.
02-02-2009, 04:55 PM
#22
Instructor
Thread Starter
Member Since: Feb 2005
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As reported here last July, first Valvoline claimed its Synpower motor oil provided 4X better wear protection than Mobil 1. Then in December Valvoline turned up the heat by further stating that Mobil 1 5W-30 actually failed the Sequence IVA engine test, and not by a small margin.
Now Castrol has jumped on the bandwagon and raised the bar, claiming its new Castrol Edge "provides 8X better wear protection than Mobil 1 5W-30", again citing the Sequence IVA test.
Either Valvoline and Castrol have some amazing new oils, or ExxonMobil has a problem. Even if it turns out they don't have a technical problem, they sure as heck have a marketing challenge. Yet for whatever reasons, they remain silent - at least for now. I'm sure we'll hear from them soon!
For more information, see Castrol's website or tune into tonight's Super Bowl!
Now Castrol has jumped on the bandwagon and raised the bar, claiming its new Castrol Edge "provides 8X better wear protection than Mobil 1 5W-30", again citing the Sequence IVA test.
Either Valvoline and Castrol have some amazing new oils, or ExxonMobil has a problem. Even if it turns out they don't have a technical problem, they sure as heck have a marketing challenge. Yet for whatever reasons, they remain silent - at least for now. I'm sure we'll hear from them soon!
For more information, see Castrol's website or tune into tonight's Super Bowl!
02-03-2009, 10:00 AM
#23
Racer
Member Since: Apr 2004
Location: Cotati CA
Posts: 306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a side note, I ended up using Valvoline synthetic in my Pontiac last oil change because of the Mobil 1 shortage. (i was saving it for the vette). I have noticed less engine noise at start up with the Valvoline than with Mobile 1. I may stick with it for the Pontiac. Waiting to see what it looks like at 5K miles.
02-03-2009, 11:42 AM
#24
Le Mans Master
Here's my 2 cents since it's Sunday morning and I can't be out driving 
I haven't seen the actual specs or analysis on Edge yet, so I don't know much about it. What I do know is PAO or Polyalphaolefin is the main lab produced synthetic base for Group IV stock Synthetic Oils. Only oils using this formulation are true synthetic oils (like Mobil 1) Any "synthetic" Base Group III are all dino based oils that are manipulated and have additives to enhance their capabilities, thus labeled synthetic. This was the basis of the much hyped Mobil-Castrol controversy, where Mobil filed a complaint with the National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau claiming that Castrol was engaging in false advertising by calling Syntec "full synthetic" since it was being made with Group III base oil. Castrol was able to present enough "evidence" to convince the NAD that Group III base oil could legitimately be called synthetic, so they ruled in Castrol's favor. It merely means that as far as the NAD is concerned, an oil company is not falsely advertising an oil as "full synthetic" if that oil is made from Group III base oil. Does that mean it's not good or substandard oil? I don't think so.... In fact, I agree with many of you who believe oil technology has come a long way, even plain old dino oil is light years better than it ever was and more than sufficient for 98% of the vehicles on the road today. I've seen some guys change oil once a month, some once a year and yet, the only oil related failures we see are due to low levels because it was burnt off or leaked and wasn't checked until there was a problem that disabled the car completely.
That being said, some have preferences due to their driving style, climate, performance desires.Personally, I like the benefits of a good synthetic oil. I first used Mobil 1 in my cars in 1976 (yes, I'm THAT old
) Since then, I've tried every synthetic that came along and is currently on the market in my area (Mobil 1, AmsOil, Redline, Royal Purple, Valvoline, Penzoil, etc...even Walmart's SuperTech in the DD )and the one the works best for me is the Castrol Syntec European Formula 0w-30. I am using it in my 465RWHP C6, my turbo modded WRX, and my two daily drivers. It's engineered to meet more stringent European Manufacturer standards (VW, Audi, Mercedes, Opel, BMW and Porsche), similar to the Mobil 1 0w-40 (which, as far as I know, is the only Mobil 1 oil approved for use in any 1998+ Mercedes-Benz gasoline engined car.....for example, Mercedes Spec 229.5 oil change interval is 18.4K miles!) It is the only 'true' Group IV base stock PAO synthetic made by Castrol. The Castrol 0w-30 Eurpoean Formula is made in Germany and repeated Blackstone oil analysis is the best I've seen for my personal vehicles. It has great flow characteristics, better shear protection and stability numbers, good low and high temp viscosity numbers, noise, etc. Even though it is a 0W30 oil it is borderline shy of a 40-weight oil in thickness when hot, but allows for cold climate starts down to -40°F. Here is some info on it, but if you Google it or go to the popular oil review and analysis site you can read more. You can usually find it at AutoZone for a decent price.
SAE 0W-30: Castrol SYNTEC 0W-30 European Formula is engineered to meet the Mercedes Benz 229.5 specification*. The 0W-30 viscosity grade is ideal for winter conditions where low temperature pumpability is required. A unique, low-temperature formulation provides exceptional pumpability in cold weather and allows for unaided engine starts down to -40ºF. Exceeds all car and light truck manufacturer’s warranty requirements for the protection of gasoline, diesel and turbocharged engines where API SL, SJ, SH, CF or CD is recommended.
Exceeds European ACEA: A3, B3, B4; VW 502 00, 505 00, 503 01; MercedesBenz 229.1, 229.3, 229.5; BMW LL-01; GMLLA-025, GM-LL-B-025 and the engine protection requirements of ILSAC GF-3 for API Certified Gasoline Engine Oils.
I haven't seen the actual specs or analysis on Edge yet, so I don't know much about it. What I do know is PAO or Polyalphaolefin is the main lab produced synthetic base for Group IV stock Synthetic Oils. Only oils using this formulation are true synthetic oils (like Mobil 1) Any "synthetic" Base Group III are all dino based oils that are manipulated and have additives to enhance their capabilities, thus labeled synthetic. This was the basis of the much hyped Mobil-Castrol controversy, where Mobil filed a complaint with the National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau claiming that Castrol was engaging in false advertising by calling Syntec "full synthetic" since it was being made with Group III base oil. Castrol was able to present enough "evidence" to convince the NAD that Group III base oil could legitimately be called synthetic, so they ruled in Castrol's favor. It merely means that as far as the NAD is concerned, an oil company is not falsely advertising an oil as "full synthetic" if that oil is made from Group III base oil. Does that mean it's not good or substandard oil? I don't think so.... In fact, I agree with many of you who believe oil technology has come a long way, even plain old dino oil is light years better than it ever was and more than sufficient for 98% of the vehicles on the road today. I've seen some guys change oil once a month, some once a year and yet, the only oil related failures we see are due to low levels because it was burnt off or leaked and wasn't checked until there was a problem that disabled the car completely.
That being said, some have preferences due to their driving style, climate, performance desires.Personally, I like the benefits of a good synthetic oil. I first used Mobil 1 in my cars in 1976 (yes, I'm THAT old
) Since then, I've tried every synthetic that came along and is currently on the market in my area (Mobil 1, AmsOil, Redline, Royal Purple, Valvoline, Penzoil, etc...even Walmart's SuperTech in the DD )and the one the works best for me is the Castrol Syntec European Formula 0w-30. I am using it in my 465RWHP C6, my turbo modded WRX, and my two daily drivers. It's engineered to meet more stringent European Manufacturer standards (VW, Audi, Mercedes, Opel, BMW and Porsche), similar to the Mobil 1 0w-40 (which, as far as I know, is the only Mobil 1 oil approved for use in any 1998+ Mercedes-Benz gasoline engined car.....for example, Mercedes Spec 229.5 oil change interval is 18.4K miles!) It is the only 'true' Group IV base stock PAO synthetic made by Castrol. The Castrol 0w-30 Eurpoean Formula is made in Germany and repeated Blackstone oil analysis is the best I've seen for my personal vehicles. It has great flow characteristics, better shear protection and stability numbers, good low and high temp viscosity numbers, noise, etc. Even though it is a 0W30 oil it is borderline shy of a 40-weight oil in thickness when hot, but allows for cold climate starts down to -40°F. Here is some info on it, but if you Google it or go to the popular oil review and analysis site you can read more. You can usually find it at AutoZone for a decent price.SAE 0W-30: Castrol SYNTEC 0W-30 European Formula is engineered to meet the Mercedes Benz 229.5 specification*. The 0W-30 viscosity grade is ideal for winter conditions where low temperature pumpability is required. A unique, low-temperature formulation provides exceptional pumpability in cold weather and allows for unaided engine starts down to -40ºF. Exceeds all car and light truck manufacturer’s warranty requirements for the protection of gasoline, diesel and turbocharged engines where API SL, SJ, SH, CF or CD is recommended.
Exceeds European ACEA: A3, B3, B4; VW 502 00, 505 00, 503 01; MercedesBenz 229.1, 229.3, 229.5; BMW LL-01; GMLLA-025, GM-LL-B-025 and the engine protection requirements of ILSAC GF-3 for API Certified Gasoline Engine Oils.
02-14-2009, 04:06 PM
#26
Drifting
Kind of odd that Valvoline and now Castrol are making these claims, and Exxon Mobil has not come forward and refuted the claims. Just maybe Exxon has been sitting on their laurels and the others have passed them by? I would think a company like Exxon would have pounced by now if the claims were false.
There are many ways to measure the effectiveness of an oil. Some companies use various (and sometimes obscure) wear tests to claim their product is XXX times better than Mobil 1. Mobil, and now Exxon-Mobil, formulate their wear package based on running engines from 100,000 to 1,000,000 miles. They then tear down the engines and measure the wear of ALL of the components. Mobil 1 is formulated to provide the best overall wear protection for the engine.
Which do you think is the better (and more expensive) method of formulating oil for maximum engine protection?
02-14-2009, 04:23 PM
#27
All excellent info, though I believe after M1 lost their case against Castrol they changed M1 to a Grp III (making it cost competitive with the cheaper Grp III's who now were calling themselves "synthetics"), but then came out with their M1 Extended Performance which is a Grp IV.
Not the case at all. Exxon-Mobil is not in the habit of wrestling pigs. People with good critical thinking skills are not persuaded by this type of marketing. And, it is a waist of time to answer anyone else.
There are many ways to measure the effectiveness of an oil. Some companies use various (and sometimes obscure) wear tests to claim their product is XXX times better than Mobil 1. Mobil, and now Exxon-Mobil, formulate their wear package based on running engines from 100,000 to 1,000,000 miles. They then tear down the engines and measure the wear of ALL of the components. Mobil 1 is formulated to provide the best overall wear protection for the engine.
Which do you think is the better (and more expensive) method of formulating oil for maximum engine protection?
There are many ways to measure the effectiveness of an oil. Some companies use various (and sometimes obscure) wear tests to claim their product is XXX times better than Mobil 1. Mobil, and now Exxon-Mobil, formulate their wear package based on running engines from 100,000 to 1,000,000 miles. They then tear down the engines and measure the wear of ALL of the components. Mobil 1 is formulated to provide the best overall wear protection for the engine.
Which do you think is the better (and more expensive) method of formulating oil for maximum engine protection?
02-14-2009, 05:36 PM
#28
Team Owner
Member Since: Jun 2005
Location: Northern, VA
Posts: 46,106
Received 2,481 Likes
on
1,944 Posts
St. Jude Donor '15
"In honor of jpee"
02-14-2009, 07:00 PM
#29
Drifting
02-14-2009, 07:43 PM
#30
WHT: I would disagree. First consideration is profit/reduced mfg cost. That consideration means - develop a formulation that meets certain minimum requirements that makes the most amount of money for the shareholders.
Do not think for a second that not all oil companies target profit margin, minimum requirements as design priorities. Hence - the cheapest way to get to that point is the one that will keep those employees in their jobs.
When an oil is selected for factory fill - the first and foremost consideration is the agreement between the oil manufacturer and the car company - it is all about the money first - quality second.
Testing, I agree, is the one area that consumers can leverage for making decisions for themselves. The SEQ IVA test is one out of many tests. Mobil should provide the data that consumers can use to draw the conclusions that Mobil claims. All oil manufacturers should. I also agree that most other oil companies will leverage the one test their oil performs well at as marketing collateral - as they should. I would NOT discount that as irresponsible marketing.
In short, if a claim is made that an oil is the best, I would expect to see proof. Being factory fill tells me they are great negotiators and are able to sell that oil to GM for a great price and meet their minimum requirements for use - and make plenty of money doing it. Any other comment outside of that would have to be accompanied with proof.
BTW: just because we have not seen many oil related failures at all does not mean there is no other oil that will outperform M1 in an LSX engine. Come on - lets be objective here. The choice by GM to use M1 5w-30 has more to do with cost and fuel mileage than quality of the product. Which is also why GM uses other oils for the same vehicle in other nations.
Do not think for a second that not all oil companies target profit margin, minimum requirements as design priorities. Hence - the cheapest way to get to that point is the one that will keep those employees in their jobs.
When an oil is selected for factory fill - the first and foremost consideration is the agreement between the oil manufacturer and the car company - it is all about the money first - quality second.
Testing, I agree, is the one area that consumers can leverage for making decisions for themselves. The SEQ IVA test is one out of many tests. Mobil should provide the data that consumers can use to draw the conclusions that Mobil claims. All oil manufacturers should. I also agree that most other oil companies will leverage the one test their oil performs well at as marketing collateral - as they should. I would NOT discount that as irresponsible marketing.
In short, if a claim is made that an oil is the best, I would expect to see proof. Being factory fill tells me they are great negotiators and are able to sell that oil to GM for a great price and meet their minimum requirements for use - and make plenty of money doing it. Any other comment outside of that would have to be accompanied with proof.
BTW: just because we have not seen many oil related failures at all does not mean there is no other oil that will outperform M1 in an LSX engine. Come on - lets be objective here. The choice by GM to use M1 5w-30 has more to do with cost and fuel mileage than quality of the product. Which is also why GM uses other oils for the same vehicle in other nations.
02-14-2009, 11:05 PM
#31
Heel & Toe
Member Since: Nov 2008
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums...355192&fpart=4
Castrol, like Ashland, has a found a flaw in Mobil 1. They will be running a commercial during the Super Bowl to annouce their new line of oils "Edge" which are officially GM 4718M certified and good for 15,000 miles or 1 year drain intervals. They also claim 8X better than Mobil 1 on the Seq IVA wear test
Castrol, like Ashland, has a found a flaw in Mobil 1. They will be running a commercial during the Super Bowl to annouce their new line of oils "Edge" which are officially GM 4718M certified and good for 15,000 miles or 1 year drain intervals. They also claim 8X better than Mobil 1 on the Seq IVA wear test
GM 3 years ago to prevent vendors "claiming" to meet or exceed GM spec's changed the rules.
They began testing and "approving" engine oils and ONLY those on GM's approval list can be used without voiding GM warranty and this oil you mention is not on the list.
If you worry about warranty your best to get the GM approval list and watch in the future as GM posts new oils that were tested and approved.
