2 year supertech synthetic user needs edumication

Messages
889
Location
MI
first of all where is supertech actually manufactured at? whats a "Group III" Oil? I'm i using the wrong oil? I have been using Supertech synthetic for 2 years... cuz I ddrive 90% city, 5% highway, 5% dirt roads in my 1999 Hyundai tiburon and I drive HARD... MY engine is still doing fine.. i also do regular maintenance.. so that helps.. ha!
 
Messages
1,715
Location
Texas & BWI Area
There is plenty on the 'net' to explain that. Please search for the Mobil 1, Castrol, NAD decision. To summarize the Chemistry aspect: (yes, this is oversimplified) Group III: Crude oil--->Fractional Distillation & Severe Hydrocracking, Additives---->Castrol Sham-Tec Real Synthetics, Group 4 and Group 5: Ethylene Gas (C2H4) ---->gas to liquid synthesis---> PAO's Organic Compound XXX ----->Esters Bottom line, Synthetics are assembled "ground up", where as Group III are highly refined/refinished crude. The controversy of the group III's lays in pricing to the same market of Mobil 1, and arguably falsly using the name Synthetic to lure in customers. So in effect Group III companies try to play there product as if it was Redline, Amsoil, Royal Purple, Mobil 1, etc. Not only is it apples and oranges in comparison...it is no where near chemically same. All they have in common is Carbon...as do most compounds on earth *lol* Fraud alert. If you want Mobil 1 at a good price Walmart has long had a Mobil 1 synthetic oil change for 30$...just bring your own quality filter (or in house SuperTech) or they will dump in a Fram. Side note: The Wal Mart SuperTech Filter built by Champion is a quality unit. Do a search plenty of Group III/Group 4&5 explanations. Pardon my angst.
 
Messages
8,937
Location
SC
Just to clarify, hydrocracking and the synthesis process to produce PAO are both catalytic processes that utilize hydrogen, heat, and pressure. And both use molecular reshapping catalysts. So it's really an over simplification to state that Group III (or even Group II) base oil is just "highly refined" crude oil. In hydrocracking/isodewaxing, the larger molecules of the feedstock are cracked and reshaped into smaller molecules, and the residual wax is isomerized, to form a base oil. And the final step is further hydrofinishing. With PAO, the smaller molecules of the feedstock are "built up" and shaped to form a base oil. And the final step is further hydrofinishing. As I pointed out in another thread, in the early days of gasoline production, when demand began to rise with the advent of cars powered by internal combustion, the oil companies had to develop a new way to produce gasoline since the amount produced naturally through distillation wasn't enough. What they came up with was "cracking" the larger crude molecules to produce gasoline. This "cracked" gas was commonly referred to at the time as "synthetic gasoline" and was universally lauded for its superior properties, including a much higher octane than "natural gasoline." Hydrocracking involves the restructuring of the feedstock molecules to the point that they don't resemble their original state at all. It would seem, then, that the final product of hydrocraking can lay claim to being "synthetic"—at least in some sense of the word.
 
Messages
1,462
Location
MD
The synthetic Super tech seems to be a good choice.A good way to find out if it's been keeping your engine clean is by taking a peep under the valve cover.Whether by taking it off or getting a good look through the oil filler cap.
 

Korean_redneck

Thread starter
Messages
889
Location
MI
quote:
Originally posted by Alan: The synthetic Super tech seems to be a good choice.A good way to find out if it's been keeping your engine clean is by taking a peep under the valve cover.Whether by taking it off or getting a good look through the oil filler cap.
My car has sludge under the oil cap.. but thats how it was when i bought my car.. the previous owner was female. it was poorly maintained.. i saved its life.
 
Messages
371
Location
New Hanover, PA
SuperTech Synthetic at $2.97 per quart = no worries. Manufactured by Warren Distribution. Look at the bottom of the oil bottle. You will see WPP = Warren Performance Packaging, or something like that. It should be fine for 5,000 mile changes in an older car. Why not do a Used Oil Analysis to find out for sure?
 

Korean_redneck

Thread starter
Messages
889
Location
MI
quote:
Originally posted by FordSVTGuy: SuperTech Synthetic at $2.97 per quart = no worries. Manufactured by Warren Distribution. Look at the bottom of the oil bottle. You will see WPP = Warren Performance Packaging, or something like that. It should be fine for 5,000 mile changes in an older car. Why not do a Used Oil Analysis to find out for sure?
Whats a used oil analysis? I change my oil 3,000 iles because my manual saids 3,000 in severe driving.. so i drive 90% city..thats severe I think and I always use Hyundai Geniune parts.
 
Messages
11,284
Location
Spring HIll
quote:
Originally posted by mikemc: I like the Supertech in that they are actually charging a fair price for a group 3 'synthetic'.
Great point. At least we know it's Group 3 and it can hold it's own to 7K in a Ford Ranger over in the UOA section. Maybe this can force other oil companies bring their price down on Group 3 oils???
 
Messages
3,666
Location
St. Charles County, Missouri
[Welcome!] If you're changing at 3000 miles, you're probably changing too often. Most group III oils should be good for 5K minimum. I have no problem with 4K changes with ST dino in an 01 Elantra. You should do a used oil analysis to see what's going on before pushing any further than 5K. Look at the used oil analysis threads on this forum to see what we're talking about. I think the Hyundai oil filter is probably a good one. Certainly larger than the recommended filter in the Champion Labs (ST) lineup, although I'm a bit confused because a larger filter is recommended for 02 Elantras, essentially the same as my 01. SuperTech filters should work well, however, for 5K changes and save you some $$$ over the OEM ones. [ May 10, 2004, 11:31 AM: Message edited by: csandste ]
 
Messages
371
Location
New Hanover, PA
FYI. Used oil analysis is where you take a sample of oil from your motor and mail to a test laboratory for analysis. They can check for the presence of wear metals, fuel, water, antifreeze..ect. I have only done this once and plan on doing it periodically in the future. I feel that a $20 analysis might save me more if it detects a problem early enough... Blackstone labs is a site sponsor here, so if you were interested, you could visit their site and get additional info... [Cheers!]
 

Korean_redneck

Thread starter
Messages
889
Location
MI
quote:
Originally posted by csandste: [Welcome!] If you're changing at 3000 miles, you're probably changing too often. Most group III oils should be good for 5K minimum. I have no problem with 4K changes with ST dino in an 01 Elantra. You should do a used oil analysis to see what's going on before pushing any further than 5K. Look at the used oil analysis threads on this forum to see what we're talking about. I think the Hyundai oil filter is probably a good one. Certainly larger than the recommended filter in the Champion Labs (ST) lineup, although I'm a bit confused because a larger filter is recommended for 02 Elantras, essentially the same as my 01. SuperTech filters should work well, however, for 5K changes and save you some $$$ over the OEM ones.
We have the same 2.0 litre engine. hows yoru car running? maybe i should run on dino Supertech oil like you. TO EVERYBODY, thanks for the information.. this is the first automotive forum where theres smart people.
 
Messages
1,462
Location
MD
There is something to be said about running conventional oil with decent OCI's.Usually many things on the car will wear out(some very exspensive)before the engine "wears out".And usually at something over 100K,people start to usually get tired at looking at the car anyways. Out with the old,in with the new [Cheers!] .
 
Messages
9,427
Location
Pensacola & Vero Beach FL
quote:
Originally posted by G-Man II: Just to clarify, hydrocracking and the synthesis process to produce PAO are both catalytic processes that utilize hydrogen, heat, and pressure. And both use molecular reshapping catalysts. So it's really an over simplification to state that Group III (or even Group II) base oil is just "highly refined" crude oil. In hydrocracking/isodewaxing, the larger molecules of the feedstock are cracked and reshaped into smaller molecules, and the residual wax is isomerized, to form a base oil. And the final step is further hydrofinishing. With PAO, the smaller molecules of the feedstock are "built up" and shaped to form a base oil. And the final step is further hydrofinishing. As I pointed out in another thread, in the early days of gasoline production, when demand began to rise with the advent of cars powered by internal combustion, the oil companies had to develop a new way to produce gasoline since the amount produced naturally through distillation wasn't enough. What they came up with was "cracking" the larger crude molecules to produce gasoline. This "cracked" gas was commonly referred to at the time as "synthetic gasoline" and was universally lauded for its superior properties, including a much higher octane than "natural gasoline." Hydrocracking involves the restructuring of the feedstock molecules to the point that they don't resemble their original state at all. It would seem, then, that the final product of hydrocraking can lay claim to being "synthetic"—at least in some sense of the word.
G-Man: I've got to respectfully disagree with this position, which I see as pretty much a restatement of the Castrol "party line." My problem with it is that it relies upon a stretching of the meaning of the word "synthetic" beyond what had evolved as the reasonably understood meaning of the word. Sure, there is a very involved process that goes on with the "hydrocracking" of oils, and yes, it is more than just traditional fractional distillation that produces "traditional" oils. But the fact remains that the process is performed upon crude lube stocks that still contains the coctail of hundreds, perhaps thousands of trash compounds that are inevitably a part of crude oil, and which cannot be economically removed, at least not completely. So sure, you get some "synthesized" molecules in a G-III, but you're also getting the soup of unwanted oddball compounds (less most of the wax) that are always a part of a dino oil. Group-IV and above don't have this problem. Yes, they start with a petrochemical too (ethylene gas, for the most part). But ethylene gas is an isolated homogenous compound that is not "tainted" with the potpurri of unwanted junk that even a good dino lube stock brings to the hydrocracking process. The result is a pure, undiluted stock of PAO molecules tailored to just the lubricating task for which it is designed. Yes, it looks like most G-IIIs do fine in routine use, but to me, that's not the point. What I really don't like is Castrol's abuse of the term "synthetic." Interpret it as you will, but you've got to admit that the "average Joe" who reaches for a "synthetic" oil probably does not think he's getting what's truly a dino lubestock based product. If Castrol wants to be honest and fair about this, they need to cut the price to reflect true production cost, tell the WHOLE truth about their products, or perhaps even both. [ May 11, 2004, 09:45 AM: Message edited by: ekpolk ]
 
Messages
8,937
Location
SC
quote:
Originally posted by ekpolk: Sure, there is a very involved process that goes on with the "hydrocracking" of oils, and yes, it is more than just traditional fractional distillation that produces "traditional" oils. But the fact remains that the process is performed upon crude lube stocks that still contains the coctail of hundreds, perhaps thousands of trash compounds that are inevitably a part of crude oil, and which cannot be economically removed, at least not completely.
If you read the literature on current all-hydroprocessing technology (most notably Chevron's IsoSyn system, which is licensed globably to other oil companies) you'll find that something on the order of 99.99% of these "trash compounds" are either converted or destroyed during hydrocracking and/or hydrofinishing. That's why the finished product is colorless (water-white) and odorless, just like neat PAO.
 
Messages
9,427
Location
Pensacola & Vero Beach FL
quote:
Originally posted by G-Man II:
quote:
Originally posted by ekpolk: Sure, there is a very involved process that goes on with the "hydrocracking" of oils, and yes, it is more than just traditional fractional distillation that produces "traditional" oils. But the fact remains that the process is performed upon crude lube stocks that still contains the coctail of hundreds, perhaps thousands of trash compounds that are inevitably a part of crude oil, and which cannot be economically removed, at least not completely.
If you read the literature on current all-hydroprocessing technology (most notably Chevron's IsoSyn system, which is licensed globably to other oil companies) you'll find that something on the order of 99.99% of these "trash compounds" are either converted or destroyed during hydrocracking and/or hydrofinishing. That's why the finished product is colorless (water-white) and odorless, just like neat PAO.

OK, to be fair, I'll dig around some and check it out. Assuming that what you say is correct, I still have two problems with the way Castrol, and those who follow its strategy, are playing ball. First, as I stated, they "hi-jacked" the word "synthetic", getting a court (actually and administrative law judge) to approve for them a definition of the word that takes it into an area where it had not been normally used before. I certainly felt lied to after having used Syntec for a year and then finding out what it was. Second, I have a real problem with Castrol secretly ditching its PAO formulation, replacing it with a new G-III base oil that costs half as much to produce, and then continuing to sell it to the public for the same full price, without disclosing what they're doing. Yes, I happen to be a free market believer, but I also think that some form of corporate ethics standards should be followed. NOt for Castrol, though. They are happy to exploit the careful use of partial truth to continue making themselves a windfall from folks who think they're getting one thing, when the whole truth is that they're getting something else. [ May 11, 2004, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: ekpolk ]
 
Messages
8,937
Location
SC
quote:
Originally posted by ekpolk: OK, to be fair, I'll dig around some and check it out. Assuming that what you say is correct, I still have two problems with the way Castrol, and those who follow its strategy, are playing ball. First, as I stated, they "hi-jacked" the word "synthetic", getting a court (actually and administrative law judge) to approve for them a definition of the word that takes it into an area where it had not been normally used before.
While you're digging around, you may want to do some research on the infamous Mobil-Castrol "lawsuit." I've posted several times about this, but the notion that there was some sort of lawsuit regarding the use of the term synthetic still persists and is attaining "urban legend" status. There was not and never has been any suit AT LAW regarding the use of the term "synthetic" for Group III base oil, and no court or ALJ has made a ruling on this matter. Mobil simply filed a complaint with the National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau in the US claiming that Castrol was engaging in false advertising by calling Syntec "full synthetic" since it was now 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 rulled in Castrol's favor. This ruling has no "legal" standing. 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. The NAD is merely a self-regulatory arm of the BBB and has no legal standing whatsoever in the U.S. Hence, their ruling in this matter does not make it "legal" to claim that a Group III oil is "synthetic." It merely means that for any entity willing to abide by the NAD's guidelines, a Group III oil can be ADVERTISED under those guidelines as a synthetic.
 
Messages
9,427
Location
Pensacola & Vero Beach FL
quote:
Originally posted by G-Man II: While you're digging around, you may want to do some research on the infamous Mobil-Castrol "lawsuit." I've posted several times about this, but the notion that there was some sort of lawsuit regarding the use of the term synthetic still persists and is attaining "urban legend" status. There was not and never has been any suit AT LAW regarding the use of the term "synthetic" for Group III base oil, and no court or ALJ has made a ruling on this matter. Mobil simply filed a complaint with the National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau in the US claiming that Castrol was engaging in false advertising by calling Syntec "full synthetic" since it was now 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 rulled in Castrol's favor. This ruling has no "legal" standing. 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. The NAD is merely a self-regulatory arm of the BBB and has no legal standing whatsoever in the U.S. Hence, their ruling in this matter does not make it "legal" to claim that a Group III oil is "synthetic." It merely means that for any entity willing to abide by the NAD's guidelines, a Group III oil can be ADVERTISED under those guidelines as a synthetic.
You are quite correct, there was no "lawsuit." I was careless with my terminology. On the other hand, and I'll have to do some confirmation digging on this too, I understand that there was a stipulation (agreement) between Mobil and Castrol to the effect that the decision was to be binding on them and was not appealable. This is a great example of the hazy netherworld of alternate disupte resolution, and how confusing its results can be. Without doubt, the NAD decision has no value as enforceable precedent for any parties other than Castrol or Mobil. And the only reason it "binds" them is the agreement between them. But while it may have no true legal effect for anyone, the decision sends a strong message to all who peddle oils, snake and otherwise: say whatever you want, if you push hard enough, and are crafty enough, we'll just redefine the words to suit your taste (and profit boosting plan). You really haven't addressed my concerns, though. Whoever puts their seal of approval on Castrol's use of the word "synthetic," it still amounts to an unethical misleading and financial cheating of customers. Why won't they tell customers what it really is? Of course, if people found out that they were paying PAO prices for G-III, they'd probably choose PAO. On the other hand, fully informed customers might legitimately choose to buy G-III oil for what it should cost (about $2/qt less than Castrol actually charges). Do you really think it's legit for Castrol to suggest to customers that they're making the same thing as Mobil, and charge the same price for it, when they're really making something else and quietly doubling their profits? [ May 11, 2004, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: ekpolk ]
 
Top