By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
or, just browse the results in this Google search:
http://google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22castrol+syntec%22+synthetic+mobil
Basically, the API definitions of "sythetic" are vague enough to be twisted to say that just because a particular compound is not found is nature, means its synthetic. Like for example, if you took human blood, and put it in a centrifuge, you could separate out the plasma from the red and stem cells. Then, by the logic used by the court that ruled on the Mobil v. Castrol case, any of those 3 things is now a "synthetic" material.
Go figure.
So, they are proportionally the MOST generous, and certainly did not give nothing.
-juice
Anyway, here's a re-print of the Lubricants World article on an Amsoil web site:
http://www.1st-in-synthetics.com/articles7.htm
Castrol has reformulated Syntec once (if not more) since then.
"Degraded?
The NAD determined that though Mobil presented clear evidence that Castrol has made a major change to Syntec's formulation, it was not sufficient to demonstrate that Syntec has been "degraded.""
-Dennis
So, when Castrol "reformulated" their "synthetic" oil, they passed that savings onto consumers, in the form of a 50% price cut, right?
Consumers are entitled to know what they are buying. And you are entitled to throw your money away as you see fit. But there are a lot of people to whom it makes a big difference. Its a matter of prinicple, not semantics.
And paying twice to three times as much to buy hydrocracked dino oil is not a good consumer experience.
(/quote)
To my point: I've used GTX in my '79 Accord, '86 Jetta, '93 LeSabre and the Forester. All but the Forester did time in SC heat.
rex: To your point: given my driving and maintenance habits the cost/benefit ratio is such that the additional cost of using "synthetics" of any variety isn't worth it.
Ed
This is a hoax that surfaced soon after Sept. 11th and has just recently been revived. Check this out: http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/cars.htm.
Pat
Host
Sedans Message Board
I saw an old Subaru sedan with a silver "4.0 liter" tag at the rear right hand side. It's liked a Legacy. The drive drove liked crazy and the car seemed to be powerful.
Have Subaru even made/import a 4.0L sedan to North America ?
Thanks.
twrx
Cheers,
-wdb
-mike
I have not looked closely at the backseat of the RAVA. They are neat small vehicles. Toyota oughta install a 220 hp powerplant in one of those. That would be a comparison!
Claude
Hutch
I would also like to see proof of why hydrocracked base stocks are not as good as PAO's, etc. And do different base stocks make that much of a difference to the average driver anyway? Even the parrafin base stocks in the GTX seem to do fine in my dad's underpowered V6 pickup towing in SC.
People can go on and on about what they've heard or read, but I want to see definitive info. Just trying to learn all I can. :-)
-Dennis
-juice
Stephen
Unlike domestics???
I can't find a listing for 2002 in the books at the stores, that's why I wonder.
Thanks,
Ken
> I read recently that ExxonMobil has reformulated Mobil 1 so that it is no longer a true 100% synthetic oil. I read that it now uses conventional oil as a base stock. Is this true?
This is the response I received from ExxonMobil:
"This rumor is not true. Mobil 1 is not made from hydrocracking
petroleum, it is made from converting a gas in the form of Decene, converting
it to a PAO synthetic
(group 4)."
It is true that regular base stocks cost about half the price of PAO synthetics such as those used by Redline, Amsoil, et cetera.
How you want to verify that is up to you. Im not in the lubrication industry, dont know anyone in it, and have no interest in delving into the matter myself. It certainly stands to reason that it should be so, obviously it is more expensive to to synthesize PAO than to refine Group III base.
But the overall point is not that one is necessarily better for the average driver or not. Although I think its fairly evident that its not, Syntec sells for 2-3 times the cost of regular dino oil.
Are you a Castrol shareholder or employee? It certainly seems like you go to a lot of trouble to defend their questionable marketing practices and record of product misrepresentation.
http://www.v8sho.com/SHO/Mobil1.htm
Although, the response you got sounds a bit moer genuine. The Decene gas process you said they mentioned is an actual polymerization process. I found this online:
"While AOs can be used directly as lubricants in the higher ranges, the largest lubricant market is as a precursor to polyalphaolefin (PAO). It represents a larger portion of the synthetic lubricant market in Europe than in North America (NA) and the rest of the world, although consumption in NA is increasing.
The demand for higher performing lubricants continues to increase. The shortage of 1-decene due to a lack of selective production has encouraged substitutes. For some PAO production, 1-octene and 1-dodecene have been used. Additionally, high viscosity index petroleum-based stocks have been substituted where synthetic lubricants previously were used. This reduces the effective demand for C10 AOs."
Note the comment about petrol-based stocks being substituted for synthetic lubricants. This is the category that Syntec at least falls into. If Mobil sent you a claim that their product uses the decene gas process its a likely guess they are using a GTL (gas to liquid) process for their basestock production. This is not the same as a PAO basestock, by definition, and lags it in performance by a bit.
Oil is always one of the most talked about internet topics on-line, right up there with manual vs. automatic. I just love a good debate I guess. :-)
-Dennis
-juice
The IS300 and the WRX really aren't in the same league because they appeal to different people. The IS300 was made to compete with BMW 3 series, and it's pretty good as far as that comparison goes. The WRX is only $25k, and the IS300 starts around $30k, and has near-luxury features. I've always driven front-wheel drive cars, and an AWD car is an easier transition than a rear-wheel drive car, which would oversteer more. The WRX is mostly neutral, but can be pushed into oversteer. The WRX has so much more than good straight line acceleration, IMHO.
Dop50, The part number for the WRX filter is PN 1528 AA060 as per scoobymods.com. They talk about the fumotovalve installation and its benefits. http://www.scoobymods.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=169&referrerid=0
Thats two seconds off the potential time!
Ross
Back to the point, that's actually something I want to know too, but haven't really found out much about, other than the 8.7 sec on Edmunds for the Wagon...which seems kinda slow.
6.8 to 7 sec...can anyone second this? AH? I remember you had a lotta posts about AT - tho that was mostly about the AWD!
If it's 6.8 to 7...that's not too shabby for my preferences at all...not the 5.7 with MT but still decent. Plus the convenience/laziness of driving AT.
Check out the following link (by clicking on "Specs" and scrolling down to "Performance Data"):
http://www.edmunds.com/new/2002/subaru/impreza/wrxawd4drsportwagon20l4cylturbo4a/
Later...AH
PS: I just found that the above link does not work. So go to "New Cars" and then click on "Subaru" and then scroll down to "2002 Subaru Impreza WRX AWD 4dr Sport Wagon (2.0L 4cyl Turbo 4A)", and you will find the 6.7secs listed as the 0-60 time for the Auto-WRX-Sportwagon.
http://www.edmunds.com/new/subaru/index.html
Later...AH
You're missing out on what makes a Subaru fun if you're only concerned about 0-60 times. What does SubieGal say? Any fool can go fast in a straight line. :-) [p.c. mode] the preceding was a general statement and not directed at any one individual [/p.c. mode]
http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/roadtests/spin/48462/article.html
"...From a standing start, the automatic amplifies the engine's sluggish low-end response. Step on the throttle after coming off the brake, and the WRX dribbles forward. In our first acceleration run, we recorded an unimpressive 0-to-30-mph time of 4.0 seconds on the way to an 8.7-second 0-to-60. Better results can be obtained by using a brake torque launch technique ... Done this way, the WRX winds up to about 3,000 rpm and then shoots forward vigorously once the brakes are released. Our best acceleration run gave us a 0-to-60 time of 6.7 seconds with the quarter-mile occurring in 15.1 seconds at 89.0 mph..."
-Dennis
(BTW, I live in Tampa, Florida, if anyone has some local dealer info, please pass it on.)
Welcome to the board!
-mike
A note about options.... I suppose a person could order one with the options he wants, but it just seems easier (and there's no waiting) to buy one off the lot, as is, if they have what you like. Mine came with the upgraded speakers, turbo gauge, rear spoiler, upgraded security system, and short throw shifter. I am quite happy with it!
As for quick starts, I learned my lesson a long time ago, (in an old '50 Chevy with a 3 speed on the column) when I went from a quick stop to reverse and popped the clutch, I broke an axle. I don't pop the clutch anymore.
Now, what I do is, I start the car rolling, then nail the accelerator. I may not get the lowest ET, but I don't have to buy parts either.
One other note: When I was at the Subaru dealership, I was talking to the manager about the possibility of the STI version. He said they are due to come to the USA early in 2003 to see if they can pass the emissions, "IF" they do, they will likely bring in 1700 the first year. Now, what that means, is, there is no guarantee they will pass, and if they do, they will be very hard to come by. The only differences the way I understand it, is, the STI will come with a 6 speed tranny, 17" wheels, a little bit larger turbo, (same engine), an STI exhaust system, and a water cooled intercooler, that's about it. They don't know for sure what the HP will be yet, because they may have to change a few things to pass emissions. Anyway, what I'm saying is, if you are waiting for it to come out, you may have a long wait.
Happy driving!
Ken
WRX>STi - Ken, the STi has just a few more things than you mentioned. Take a look at the engine improvements alone:
The Active Valve Control System electronically adjusts the intake valve timing through a range of 35 crankshaft degrees. This produces optimum power and torque while minimizing fuel consumption and emissions.
The high strength engine block features:
Semi closed deck design, providing reinforcement around cylinder tops, while maintaining the cooling advantage of a full open deck design.
Forged pistons, for heightened durability and strength under high thermal loads.
Connecting rod construction draws on new design and manufacturing processes introduced in Subaru’s highly successful H6-3.0 engine, used in the Outback H6.
Hollow inlet valves reduce valve train inertia, enabling the valves to follow the camshaft profile even at high engine speeds.
Sodium-filled exhaust valves dissipate heat from the exhaust valve head.
An engine oil cooler is located between the oil filter and engine block.
A large diameter STi exhaust system completes the powerful engine package"
http://www.autoweb.com.au/start_/showall_/id_SUB/doc_sub0112171/article.html
Getting up to 260-280 isn't that difficult or expensive. Doing it reliably is another story. :-)
-Dennis
Q: Is there a chip out to modify the comp on the WRX?
Q: is the auto WRX geared in a similer fasion to the manual or vastly different.
A: the turbo wouldent be hurt by break standing cause it only takes a few seconds...it wouldent get warm even by then. Infact I break stand in my bonniville all the time though only to about 1000 rpm (idle is usually 600-700), and iv had it for over 200k miles, it just gives it a little extra pep.
--6.7 is very good for an auto car of that weight. I would gladly trade the 1 sec difference for the daily commute through traffic...It gets dangerous shifting every second in the rediculous 65-35 back to 65 style driving we have around here. I love the wagon/hatchback version. I bet the STI version would be 6.2 sec if it had auto.
Anyway, my point is, that the difference between the two, plus the very limited (proposed) availability (if they in fact become available at all), may not be worth the wait. On the other hand, maybe it would be. But why not buy one now?, enjoy it, and if they improve on it later, trade up, if you get the chance. Why miss out on a good thing? Waiting on a better thing!
Look how long it took to get the WRX in the states! You could almost wear one out waiting for the STi. (Possibly!) Of course, that's just MY opinion. Hehe!
Thanks anyway, Dennis.
This is why I like this board so much, it's amazing how quick someone will give you the facts. All you have to do is ask, or make an uninformed statement. Hehe! I love it!
Ken
So, I did not see the point in the reviewer mentioning about the non-brake-torqued time for the Auto-WRX (other than to make it look bad - maybe he is a stick-shift afficionado ??), since nowhere do they publish the times of cars, when driven without clutch-dumping (manuals) or brake-torquing (Automatics). So that 8.7 secs time was meaningless from the point of doing a comparison, was my point. From the way he has written the review, it almost seemed as if he was ticked off at being asked to drive an Auto-WRX.
From the way you posted this excerpt, it seems as if you genuinely believed that a manual-WRX's 0-60 time is honestly a 5.7 or 6.0 or whatever it is, with no clutch-dumping !!!! Hell, I would predict if you drive the manual-WRX normally, you would get an 8.2secs 0-60, if the Auto gets 8.7secs. So does anyone publish this 8.2secs 0-60 for the manual-WRX ?? Hell no !
Of course, as I always say, 0-60 or any such acceleration numbers are entertaining but nothing more. I would any day of the week take a better handling Miata to a crude handling (fast in a straight line) but more powerful Chevy Camaro.
Later...AH
If you prefer an auto to a manual fine, but don't argue that the auto is faster(or even close) in the case of any small displacement engine with very limited low rpm torque. NO, power braking an auto is not going to give you anywhere near the launch you can get with the 5spd.
I don't know what the specific gearing of the auto is but I do know that the final gearing is very close to 5th gear in the manual. That means the manual has 1 extra gear with which to make use of the maximum power band.
This is a silly discussion.
- Hutch
I know how the manual times are achieved. In the mags they say they drop the clutch at around 4,000 rpms.
Someone asked about the auto's 0-60 times and you said that they were wrong, but in fact they were right.
I've said it before. I am not an automatic tranny basher. You need to chill and go for a drive. :-)
-Dennis
I wanted to clean up my post above (#5040), but had connection problems.
-Dennis
In a street race though, wouldn't less gears be better? Because there is time lost in shifts, even on a MT? Just curious about that.
-mike
Stephen
Thanks