Castrol gtx.

Starting today, Castrol GTX is half price at Asda. Is this oil recommended for P38 Vogue V8?

If so, I will stock up on this deal.
Chris.

I use it if that helps, 10w-40 is the grade that was suggested to me.

As long as the label on the oil meets the required standards from the manufacturer i.e. A3 etc. then it will be fine. Castrol products are generally massively overpriced for their performance (average) so even at half price you may find other oils that meet the various standards cheaper such as common bulk oils like "Car Lube" or "Comma" which are perfectly good.

mobile 1 full syn for me..not crappy gtx..mind you you got a pooey buick v8..

regular oil changes are the key..one can use ok oil if you change it often..

ie my bikes get good oil,but it is changed every 1000mile..me diesel rangie gts emi 10/40 every 3000miles..and me 2 door rangie gets mobile 1 every 3000 miles..(gearbox oil changed at same time too)

maybe excessive,but i have striped me engines after (bike) 50000 mile of this and it was still "new"....

zen said:

mobile 1 full syn for me..not crappy gtx..mind you you got a pooey buick v8..

regular oil changes are the key..one can use ok oil if you change it often..

ie my bikes get good oil,but it is changed every 1000mile..me diesel rangie gts emi 10/40 every 3000miles..and me 2 door rangie gets mobile 1 every 3000 miles..(gearbox oil changed at same time too)

maybe excessive,but i have striped me engines after (bike) 50000 mile of this and it was still "new"....

Click to expand...

agreed ive only ever used mobil 1 in my p38 v8s never had any problems you need the oil to circulate and return to the sump quickly,thick oil is a no go

OK, Zen, so I am about to buy a pooey Buick V8. So maybe you can tell me why it's pooey?

Also, is full syn the oil to use for this 10 year old engine rather than crappy GTX?

gtx will be fine...change it often

buick pooey cos it just is..old fashioned under powered fuel guzzling ohv ex yankie poo.

OK, Zen, so which V8 should I look for?

well if you want a rangie you have no choice..

Zen, The BMW V8 that replaced the "buick" had a worse torque curve, weighed more, wasn't any more powerful or that more efficient and they go bang at about the same mileage. The ol' Rover V8 is so easy to rebuild you can forgive it its shortcoming!

For bikes, I stick with whatever oil makes the gearbox feel good, mine's awful with Castrol, Morris synth and it's a smooth as silk. Mobil 1 is very good car oil, you could stretch intervals a little with that, I wouldn't with any other oil.

StuckAgainSteve said:

Zen, The BMW V8 that replaced the "buick" had a worse torque curve, weighed more, wasn't any more powerful or that more efficient and they go bang at about the same mileage. The ol' Rover V8 is so easy to rebuild you can forgive it its shortcoming!

For bikes, I stick with whatever oil makes the gearbox feel good, mine's awful with Castrol, Morris synth and it's a smooth as silk. Mobil 1 is very good car oil, you could stretch intervals a little with that, I wouldn't with any other oil.

Click to expand...

not sure on that power figure mate, the m62 4.4 was a poor replacement for the m60 in terms of durability but a lot more powerfull than the rv8. in the bmw the 4.4 was 286 bhp and 300ish torques. no landrover factory rv8 was near that as far as I am aware. de restricted with a laptop the m62 4.4 will easily do 345 hp. the much stronger m60 4.0 will do 335hp and doesnt loose timing chains or headgaskets like the m62 but landrover didnt use it sadly.

Okay it was more powerful but it was a much peakier engine, the Rover V8, especially in its last guise, was far more suited to offroad driving and towing. The torque curve of the later Jag engine was much more like it, mucho grunt from tickover onwards - like the antique Rover.

I have the m60 4.0 in my BMW and it is not only indistructable compared to most engines of the era and later (as shown by its m62 replacment) but more powerfull , especially when de-restricted. not many manufacturers sold a 32 valve all alloy quad cam v8 in 93 with forged crank and rods and duplex double row chains and one coil per cylinder. The lexus for example, a very hardy engine but less power and more primitive in terms of igntion (same system as previous gen of bmw using dizzy caps etc still).

I can assure you the power and torque are there all through the rev range as I have the rolling road print out from the de-restrtiction/mapping session. If we ever meet I shall show you.

I cant speak for the m62 4.4 but to be honest most things are better than a 50's design rv8 4.6 with continued block liner issues and an out of date injection system. as with all things though the m62 4.4 needs looking after properly as does the rv8 and a lot depends on that apart from the block liner 94mm hell.

Didn't the later BMW engines also suffer slipped liner problems? I certainly recall some major problems with later BMW engines...

it was the nikasil lined bores. no liners in effect the ally of the block was impreganted with nikasil during casting then the bores were etch honed to reveal the hard nikasil which was in effect the working surface.

Problem was the germans didnt account for the high sulpher in uk petrol (us being mugged by the oil companies once again) the sulpher damaged the nikasil and caused wear issues. the good thing was bmw replaced these with a short engine free of charge up to 12 years after the car was new regardless of if you were the orginal owner or not.

I cant see any lanrdover dealer doing that (they would be rubbing there hands "sorry sir the engine isnt part of the warrently on your brand new p38) or many 4.6 rv8 going for 12 years in the first place

BTW the bmw exchange ones were replaced with alusil short engines which arnt effected by the sulpher- which we no longer have in the fuel anyway lol

fett said:

it was the nikasil lined bores. no liners in effect the ally of the block was impreganted with nikasil during casting then the bores were etch honed to reveal the hard nikasil which was in effect the working surface.

Problem was the germans didnt account for the high sulpher in uk petrol (us being mugged by the oil companies once again) the sulpher damaged the nikasil and caused wear issues. the good thing was bmw replaced these with a short engine free of charge up to 12 years after the car was new regardless of if you were the orginal owner or not.

I cant see any lanrdover dealer doing that (they would be rubbing there hands "sorry sir the engine isnt part of the warrently on your brand new p38) or many 4.6 rv8 going for 12 years in the first place

BTW the bmw exchange ones were replaced with alusil short engines which arnt effected by the sulpher- which we no longer have in the fuel anyway lol

Click to expand...

The M62 is a decent engine, most BMW engines are excellent, all I'm saying is in this application the Rover V8 was probably more suited to towing and off-roading, the Thor Rover V8 4.6 has far, far more torque under 3K revs – night and day - not even close. The later Jag engine was lighter, had more torque and power and was more fuel efficient than the beemer lump – but then it should be, it's a more modern engine.

Many of the BMW nikasil problems were actually not nikasil problems at all, they were due to incorrectly honed bores. (i.e. a manufacturing fault) the same fault appeared in the all alloy six. The nikasil problems which affected early Jag engines (97-99) were genuine nikasil problems, a reaction with sulphur caused the nikasil to flake. BMW used the nikasil excuse to hide the fact that they mismanufactured hundreds of thousands of engines before they realised. BMW also replaced many engines without telling the owners, my mates brand new 328 started burning oil, BMW said there's a fault with the anti-emissions system and the parts are on back order, a month later he got his car back, when he went to sell the car on to buy an M3 the AA man spotted the engine numbers do not match, BMW bought my friends 328 off him to keep him quiet and sold him the M3 cheap – which then blew up but that's another story...

Yes we do get mugged by the oil companies, “our” oil (the finest and lowest sulphur crude in the world) gets shipped off to the US while we refine Saudi crap for our use.

p38 range rover engines with hydraulic lifters should be run on 10w40 or 15w40 mineral oil and should be changed every 3000 miles.

the design of the engine does not lend itself to needing synthetic oils just regular oil and filter changes.

Hallbeckengineering said:

p38 range rover engines with hydraulic lifters should be run on 10w40 or 15w40 mineral oil and should be changed every 3000 miles.

the design of the engine does not lend itself to needing synthetic oils just regular oil and filter changes.

Click to expand...

3000 miles??! Some people just get carried away with their oil changes. That's just wasteful.

Hallbeckengineering said:

p38 range rover engines with hydraulic lifters should be run on 10w40 or 15w40 mineral oil and should be changed every 3000 miles.

the design of the engine does not lend itself to needing synthetic oils just regular oil and filter changes.

Click to expand...

The best oil would would be motorcycle oil with high zinc content, to keep the tappets from eating themselves. Modern car oil has little or no zinc as it damages catalytic converters. The frequent oil changes are to reduce sludge build up which afflicts the Rover V8.

StuckAgainSteve said:

The M62 is a decent engine, most BMW engines are excellent, all I'm saying is in this application the Rover V8 was probably more suited to towing and off-roading, the Thor Rover V8 4.6 has far, far more torque under 3K revs – night and day - not even close. The later Jag engine was lighter, had more torque and power and was more fuel efficient than the beemer lump – but then it should be, it's a more modern engine.

Many of the BMW nikasil problems were actually not nikasil problems at all, they were due to incorrectly honed bores. (i.e. a manufacturing fault) the same fault appeared in the all alloy six. The nikasil problems which affected early Jag engines (97-99) were genuine nikasil problems, a reaction with sulphur caused the nikasil to flake. BMW used the nikasil excuse to hide the fact that they mismanufactured hundreds of thousands of engines before they realised. BMW also replaced many engines without telling the owners, my mates brand new 328 started burning oil, BMW said there's a fault with the anti-emissions system and the parts are on back order, a month later he got his car back, when he went to sell the car on to buy an M3 the AA man spotted the engine numbers do not match, BMW bought my friends 328 off him to keep him quiet and sold him the M3 cheap – which then blew up but that's another story...

Yes we do get mugged by the oil companies, “our” oil (the finest and lowest sulphur crude in the world) gets shipped off to the US while we refine Saudi crap for our use.

Click to expand...

They didnt try and hide it on mine , I have the bill nil cost to owner but parts cost alone came to £1700 in 1995. mind you the car cost £40k then

Not heard your story about the mis manufacture before and have been in the bmw circle a long time. also in europe it only affected UK cars due to our ****e fuel but an intersting story, I shall see if anyone else has heard that bit.