Additive packs are more important than base oil

[LouDawg]

Is this fair to say? I was just thinking maybe the stampede from GroupIV to GroupIII is justified by many manufacturers because they claim the additive packs are so much "better" or "more important" or whatever. Moreover, the final blend/formula takes into account how the classes of base oils, suppliers, VI's, etc. perform with various types of additives and additive packs and how they complement each other.

Maybe as Mobil keeps saying, it's the final performance that's more important than the base oil. (No, I'm not buying Mobil because of how they've gone about it.)

So maybe we put too much focus on the base oil and not enough focus on the additive packs and/or the overall chemistry?

I'm not saying, I'm just saying...

 

[DINO_NO]

Additives are a big part of oil. But base stocks do make a difference. Maybe because group III and IV are around the same corner, dosent mean if you have a group I with a #@$%! load of additives dosent mean it's going to be good.

 

[JAG]

All my opinions based on research and some testing....between Group 3 and 4, add pack can make up the difference. When you get to extremes like trying to make a good Group 1 based motor oil, no add pack can make up for the weaknesses in typical modern uses. Such an oil could work ok for very short intervals though. It just wouldn't be chemically stable enough to last and it would be very volatile. If pure basestock was used (no additives), the engine's life would be super short. Rings would coke up without detergents/antioxidants/dispersants, wear would be super high without anti-wear additives, it would get very acidic, corrosion would occur, it would thicken from oxidation, etc.

In short, small differences in basestocks (like Group 3 vs 4) can be overcome with additives. Big ones can't (e.g. Group 2 vs 4) in many cases. One case that it CAN is anti-wear over short intervals. Long drain capability or extreme temps...nope.

 

[Merkava_4]

Quote:

---

I'm not saying, I'm just saying...

---

. . . .

 

[DINO_NO]

"Rings would coke up without detergents/antioxidants/dispersants"
Very true, back years and years ago, people changed their piston rings around every 3000 miles.

 

[Bryanccfshr]

Niether.
It's the final product performace that counts.

I respect companies such as Schaffers for their forwardness with the contents of their oils. They make excellent oils that perform in synergy between base oils and additives, This is the ideal. Not simply grp IV puritinism for a semantic advantage. Due to the many variables involved in formlating it is probably best to look at results of tests such as UOA's and fuel economy data to make a judgerment on the quality of an oil in a particular application. In other words leave it to the chemist and tribologist to design the oils and the users to judge the worthiness. Leave the marketers out of the loop and the world is nicer

 

[06VtecV6]

Quote:

---

Niether.
It's the final product performace that counts.

I respect companies such as Schaffers for their forwardness with the contents of their oils. They make excellent oils that perform in synergy between base oils and additives, This is the ideal. Not simply grp IV puritinism for a semantic advantage. Due to the many variables involved in formlating it is probably best to look at results of tests such as UOA's and fuel economy data to make a judgerment on the quality of an oil in a particular application. In other words leave it to the chemist and tribologist to design the oils and the users to judge the worthiness. Leave the marketers out of the loop and the world is nicer

---

I concur wholeheartedly

 

[Z_ombie]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Niether.
It's the final product performace that counts.

I respect companies such as Schaffers for their forwardness with the contents of their oils. They make excellent oils that perform in synergy between base oils and additives, This is the ideal. Not simply grp IV puritinism for a semantic advantage. Due to the many variables involved in formlating it is probably best to look at results of tests such as UOA's and fuel economy data to make a judgerment on the quality of an oil in a particular application. In other words leave it to the chemist and tribologist to design the oils and the users to judge the worthiness. Leave the marketers out of the loop and the world is nicer

---

I concur wholeheartedly

---

I second that!

 

[ELS]

I'm not educated in the area of "oil grouping".

But this is how I see it.

To me, there are sorta 4 groups.

Dino oil
Great Dino oil

Synthetic oil
Great Synthetic oil.

I may be extremely wrong about that, but that's the way I see it.

I believe there are dino oils, then I believe there are BETTER dino oils, such as Chevron/Texaco products.

I believe there are Synthetic oils that claim to be synthetic such as Castrol, SuperTech, Pennzoil, Quaker State, and probably Shell & Mobil 1. Then I believe there are great synthetics such as Amsoil and maybe some others I don't know of.

Mobil has just done the best job of marketing... and Quaker State/Pennzoil is doing what it can now to match that. It's just that Mobil 1 is embedded now.

Anyways, right or wrong, that's how I see it.
And none of these oils would be #@$%! without the additive package.

All-in-all, in the past, I have not been one to buy into the synthetics. But I have started to try some in certain applications because of convenience and the sharp dino price increases seen since Katrina.

At $3 a quart for some of the synthetic "labeled" oil... why not see what it's about? But I feel like a 'boob' after looking at a reciept and realizing I paid $4.06 a quart for Shell 5w40 without realizing it.

 

[bonnie john]

can't say i've heard that one b4

Quote:

---

Very true, back years and years ago, people changed their piston rings around every 3000 miles.

---

 

[Lexura]

Quote:

---

Is this fair to say? I was just thinking maybe the stampede from GroupIV to GroupIII is justified by many manufacturers because they claim the additive packs are so much "better" or "more important" or whatever. Moreover, the final blend/formula takes into account how the classes of base oils, suppliers, VI's, etc. perform with various types of additives and additive packs and how they complement each other.

Maybe as Mobil keeps saying, it's the final performance that's more important than the base oil. (No, I'm not buying Mobil because of how they've gone about it.)

So maybe we put too much focus on the base oil and not enough focus on the additive packs and/or the overall chemistry?

---

If Mobil has cheapened up on the base oil, how do we know it has not cheapened up on the additive package?
Trust the same marketing depart? Sorry, find another sucker. Trust is cheap, show us scientific data.

If you care about additive package, you would raise the same question about additives as you would about base oil. It is NOT choice of base/additive package that Mobil has chosen to use, it is about Mobil's credibility.
In fact, VOA posted on BITOG have shown TBNs have been decreasing on my old favorite oil M1 0w-20. The trend is pretty clear for me, Mobil will reap as much profit as possible: it could care less what raw material to cut cost on, as long as it brings $? Check out the financial statement from XOM lately, have you ever wonder how they made $39B while crude oil price has been increasing since the war?

 

[ELS]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Is this fair to say? I was just thinking maybe the stampede from GroupIV to GroupIII is justified by many manufacturers because they claim the additive packs are so much "better" or "more important" or whatever. Moreover, the final blend/formula takes into account how the classes of base oils, suppliers, VI's, etc. perform with various types of additives and additive packs and how they complement each other.

Maybe as Mobil keeps saying, it's the final performance that's more important than the base oil. (No, I'm not buying Mobil because of how they've gone about it.)

So maybe we put too much focus on the base oil and not enough focus on the additive packs and/or the overall chemistry?

---

If Mobil has cheapened up on the base oil, how do we know it has not cheapened up on the additive package?
Trust the same marketing depart? Sorry, find another sucker. Trust is cheap, show us scientific data.

If you care about additive package, you would raise the same question about additives as you would about base oil. It is NOT choice of base/additive package that Mobil has chosen to use, it is about Mobil's credibility.
In fact, VOA posted on BITOG have shown TBNs have been decreasing on my old favorite oil M1 0w-20. The trend is pretty clear for me, Mobil will reap as much profit as possible: it could care less what raw material to cut cost on, as long as it brings $? Check out the financial statement from XOM lately, have you ever wonder how they made $39B while crude oil price has been increasing since the war?

---

Sounds like I might not be far off the mark then about Mobil 1.

And to think they sued Castrol for that....

 

[Turbodriven]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Niether.
It's the final product performace that counts.

I respect companies such as Schaffers for their forwardness with the contents of their oils. They make excellent oils that perform in synergy between base oils and additives, This is the ideal. Not simply grp IV puritinism for a semantic advantage. Due to the many variables involved in formlating it is probably best to look at results of tests such as UOA's and fuel economy data to make a judgerment on the quality of an oil in a particular application. In other words leave it to the chemist and tribologist to design the oils and the users to judge the worthiness. Leave the marketers out of the loop and the world is nicer

---

I concur wholeheartedly

---

I second that!

---

This quote came to mind...

"What is the difference between unethical and ethical advertising? Unethical advertising uses falsehoods to deceive the public; ethical advertising uses truth to deceive the public."
-Vilhjalmur Stefansson

 

[LouDawg]

Kind of like the new Havoline with "Deposit Shield". Wonder how much of that is legitimate additive improvements and how much of it is cost-reduction and/or profit-enhancing changes that are spun by marketing folks as the latest and greatest technological advance?

Nothing wrong with making money...just wonder how many of these claims are legitimate improvements by tribologist, chemists, and engineers versus how many are marketing hoo-haa smoke and mirrors.

 

[Triple_Se7en]

Quote:

---

And to think they sued Castrol for that....

---

Nobody got sued!!!!

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

If Mobil has cheapened up on the base oil, how do we know it has not cheapened up on the additive package?
Trust the same marketing depart? Sorry, find another sucker. Trust is cheap, show us scientific data.

---

I concur. Trust went out the window with their obfuscation. Remember when they use to brag about using the best basestocks available?

http://www.exxonmobilsynthetics.com/Publ..._Sales_FAQs.asp

So far Amsoil has been forthright with their Grp III vs Grp IV/V use and capabilities. SOPUS will straight out tell you their PP is Grp III based. Same with Schaeffers and others. But we can't blame Mobil, because they don't exist anymore, it's now Exxon-Mobil. Maybe we should call the current stuff EM 1 instead of M 1? I guess Exxon figured that adding Mobil to their name would help with their credibility. As far as I know, Mobil didn't have any Tanker Captains with a drinking problem.

 

[JAG]

Quote:

---

If Mobil has cheapened up on the base oil, how do we know it has not cheapened up on the additive package?

---

UOAs.

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

So maybe we put too much focus on the base oil and not enough focus on the additive packs and/or the overall chemistry?

---

Depends on what you're trying to achieve. If you're trying to meet a minimum set of specifications, Grp III and the right add pack may be all that's needed to achieve your goal. On the otherhand, if your goal is to build the very best oil with current technology, using the best basestocks and addpacks would seem to be mandatory by definition.

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If Mobil has cheapened up on the base oil, how do we know it has not cheapened up on the additive package?

---

UOAs.

---

Yep, and we know from Terry's comments that there was a definite turn for the worse correlated with the time-frame of the change for many of the formulas.

 

[JAG]

Only versions I like right now for sure are 0W-40 and 5W-40 TDT. The 20 and 30 weights are ho-hum IMO. Have high hopes for new High Mileage versions and new 15W-50. We shall see.