All API SN Conventional Oils somewhat synthetic?
- Thread starter Farmer
- Start date
- Status
technically speaking: modern API SN graded conventional oil is a blend, or can be referred to as "GrpII+.
(*in other words: you can perceive it loosely as sort of a semi-syn*)
Exactly what ratio do they blend Gp 2, Gp3 and Gp4 and beyond to the mix to obtain the desired result, nobody seems to know.
One thing for certain though: after reading so many years of API /ILSAC requirements, etc. it seems certain that there should no longer be Gp1 type base oil in the mix, for it does not satisfy the volatility requirements imposed on ILSAC-GF5, or even most engine manufacturer's valvetrain tests...
Q.
(*in other words: you can perceive it loosely as sort of a semi-syn*)
Exactly what ratio do they blend Gp 2, Gp3 and Gp4 and beyond to the mix to obtain the desired result, nobody seems to know.
One thing for certain though: after reading so many years of API /ILSAC requirements, etc. it seems certain that there should no longer be Gp1 type base oil in the mix, for it does not satisfy the volatility requirements imposed on ILSAC-GF5, or even most engine manufacturer's valvetrain tests...
Q.
Beaverland sounds good eh?
And what about dem liberals eh?
Look at Petro-Canuck's website and base oil process.
It was soo good and ahead of it's time, Chevron copied it.
Just like the Arrow aircraft, another Canuck invention gone south eh?
And what about dem liberals eh?
Look at Petro-Canuck's website and base oil process.
It was soo good and ahead of it's time, Chevron copied it.
Just like the Arrow aircraft, another Canuck invention gone south eh?
MolaKule
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Farmer
I read this somewhere and stating all/most API SN's Conventional Oils are somepart synthetic? Does anyone know about this and could you clear this up for me? Thanks.
A conventional base oil by definition is a refined mineral oil and it is by definition NOT a synthetic.
I read this somewhere and stating all/most API SN's Conventional Oils are somepart synthetic? Does anyone know about this and could you clear this up for me? Thanks.
A conventional base oil by definition is a refined mineral oil and it is by definition NOT a synthetic.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: Farmer
I read this somewhere and stating all/most API SN's Conventional Oils are somepart synthetic? Does anyone know about this and could you clear this up for me? Thanks.
A conventional base oil by definition is a refined mineral oil and it by definition NOT a synthetic.
Only a few synthetic blends even mention the ratio.
I'm guessing if the synthetic content is significant enough to mention then they would just for the extra cash.
Originally Posted By: Farmer
I read this somewhere and stating all/most API SN's Conventional Oils are somepart synthetic? Does anyone know about this and could you clear this up for me? Thanks.
A conventional base oil by definition is a refined mineral oil and it by definition NOT a synthetic.
Only a few synthetic blends even mention the ratio.
I'm guessing if the synthetic content is significant enough to mention then they would just for the extra cash.
wemay
Site Donor 2023
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
A conventional base oil by definition is a refined mineral oil and it is by definition NOT a synthetic.
+1
A conventional base oil by definition is a refined mineral oil and it is by definition NOT a synthetic.
+1
Originally Posted By: Justin251
I'm guessing if the synthetic content is significant enough to mention then they would just for the extra cash.
Or maybe they use the same model as numerous other tiered products, like beer. Busch costs less than Bud at the store. Busch doesn't cost less to make or is of any less "quality."
I'm guessing if the synthetic content is significant enough to mention then they would just for the extra cash.
Or maybe they use the same model as numerous other tiered products, like beer. Busch costs less than Bud at the store. Busch doesn't cost less to make or is of any less "quality."
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: Justin251
I'm guessing if the synthetic content is significant enough to mention then they would just for the extra cash.
Or maybe they use the same model as numerous other tiered products, like beer. Busch costs less than Bud at the store. Busch doesn't cost less to make or is of any less "quality."
Supply and demand. More people demand Bud Light and are willing to pay more for it. Busch is cheaper so they can retain a market share from those who want to spend less and still drink beer.
It's similar to how Supertech or QSUD will never outsell M1. They can however price their products cheaper and take a market share from the more budget minded syn users.
Oil and beer are both highly subjective.
Originally Posted By: Justin251
I'm guessing if the synthetic content is significant enough to mention then they would just for the extra cash.
Or maybe they use the same model as numerous other tiered products, like beer. Busch costs less than Bud at the store. Busch doesn't cost less to make or is of any less "quality."
Supply and demand. More people demand Bud Light and are willing to pay more for it. Busch is cheaper so they can retain a market share from those who want to spend less and still drink beer.
It's similar to how Supertech or QSUD will never outsell M1. They can however price their products cheaper and take a market share from the more budget minded syn users.
Oil and beer are both highly subjective.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: Farmer
I read this somewhere and stating all/most API SN's Conventional Oils are somepart synthetic? Does anyone know about this and could you clear this up for me? Thanks.
A conventional base oil by definition is a refined mineral oil and it is by definition NOT a synthetic.
I would not rely on definitions in the US since what is called "synthetic" here is *not* synthetic. AFAIK, GrII is hydrotreated, whereas GrIII is hydrocracked *mineral* oil. Same story with "organic" food: just word playing and marketing.
Originally Posted By: Farmer
I read this somewhere and stating all/most API SN's Conventional Oils are somepart synthetic? Does anyone know about this and could you clear this up for me? Thanks.
A conventional base oil by definition is a refined mineral oil and it is by definition NOT a synthetic.
I would not rely on definitions in the US since what is called "synthetic" here is *not* synthetic. AFAIK, GrII is hydrotreated, whereas GrIII is hydrocracked *mineral* oil. Same story with "organic" food: just word playing and marketing.
IIRC there will be blended in some higher groups, FAE and other slickifiers in ILSAC GF5 (not API service SM alone) to meet required for cert GF5 and it's higher anti varnish and stay in grade capabilities, and med-long drain capabilities.
Last edited:
I don't know for sure but I suspect some US oils which are sold as 'conventional' 5W30 do indeed contain some Group III.
If an oil formulator needs a particularly low CCS to pass the Sequence VI fuel economy test or a higher than average KV100 to pass Seq IV wear (especially if their ZDDP tech is a bit iffy) or they need more ashless dispersant to pass Seq IIIG/Seq VG, then any of these factors could conceivably tip you over the NOACK 15% Max limit. If this happens your first response would be plug in some Group II+ but if you don't have it available, adding a splash of Group III fixes the problem. You would probably be talking about 5 - 10% Max and the amount might vary with individual batches of base oil.
With such small amounts in the blend, it might not be worthwhile for the oil blenders to start bandying about words like 'semi-synthetic'. All the oil blenders already have both synthetics and conventional oils in their products slate. Why confuse the picture with 'semi' when the upgrade path is already straight-firward.
If an oil formulator needs a particularly low CCS to pass the Sequence VI fuel economy test or a higher than average KV100 to pass Seq IV wear (especially if their ZDDP tech is a bit iffy) or they need more ashless dispersant to pass Seq IIIG/Seq VG, then any of these factors could conceivably tip you over the NOACK 15% Max limit. If this happens your first response would be plug in some Group II+ but if you don't have it available, adding a splash of Group III fixes the problem. You would probably be talking about 5 - 10% Max and the amount might vary with individual batches of base oil.
With such small amounts in the blend, it might not be worthwhile for the oil blenders to start bandying about words like 'semi-synthetic'. All the oil blenders already have both synthetics and conventional oils in their products slate. Why confuse the picture with 'semi' when the upgrade path is already straight-firward.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Joe90_guy
I don't know for sure but I suspect some US oils which are sold as 'conventional' 5W30 do indeed contain some Group III.
If an oil formulator needs a particularly low CCS to pass the Sequence VI fuel economy test or a higher than average KV100 to pass Seq IV wear (especially if their ZDDP tech is a bit iffy) or they need more ashless dispersant to pass Seq IIIG/Seq VG, then any of these factors could conceivably tip you over the NOACK 15% Max limit. If this happens your first response would be plug in some Group II+ but if you don't have it available, adding a splash of Group III fixes the problem. You would probably be talking about 5 - 10% Max and the amount might vary with individual batches of base oil.
With such small amounts in the blend, it might not be worthwhile for the oil blenders to start bandying about words like 'semi-synthetic'. All the oil blenders already have both synthetics and conventional oils in their products slate. Why confuse the picture with 'semi' when the upgrade path is already straight-firward.
I've also seen the term "Part Synthetic" on Castrol HM, so it looks like some oil companies try to market the splash of Group III.
I don't know for sure but I suspect some US oils which are sold as 'conventional' 5W30 do indeed contain some Group III.
If an oil formulator needs a particularly low CCS to pass the Sequence VI fuel economy test or a higher than average KV100 to pass Seq IV wear (especially if their ZDDP tech is a bit iffy) or they need more ashless dispersant to pass Seq IIIG/Seq VG, then any of these factors could conceivably tip you over the NOACK 15% Max limit. If this happens your first response would be plug in some Group II+ but if you don't have it available, adding a splash of Group III fixes the problem. You would probably be talking about 5 - 10% Max and the amount might vary with individual batches of base oil.
With such small amounts in the blend, it might not be worthwhile for the oil blenders to start bandying about words like 'semi-synthetic'. All the oil blenders already have both synthetics and conventional oils in their products slate. Why confuse the picture with 'semi' when the upgrade path is already straight-firward.
I've also seen the term "Part Synthetic" on Castrol HM, so it looks like some oil companies try to market the splash of Group III.
I agree with Joe (for once). Although I believe most conventional are in fact Group II based. As soon as a blender gets above 10% (as Joe mentioned) then the words "synthetic blend" might start to get thrown around.
Generally in today's environment the treat rate on the additive package stays fairly constant, with the key variables being the base oil mix and the VII concentrations. This means that they may not have the flexibility to increase the dispersant level / AW chemistry levels, so a splash of Group III is the next best option.
Generally in today's environment the treat rate on the additive package stays fairly constant, with the key variables being the base oil mix and the VII concentrations. This means that they may not have the flexibility to increase the dispersant level / AW chemistry levels, so a splash of Group III is the next best option.
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: Justin251
I'm guessing if the synthetic content is significant enough to mention then they would just for the extra cash.
Or maybe they use the same model as numerous other tiered products, like beer. Busch costs less than Bud at the store. Busch doesn't cost less to make or is of any less "quality."
That stuff isn't actually beer anymore. It's carbonated water with alcohol and a flavour syrup added.
I didn't believe it either til I actually looked into it. It's cheap for a reason and why craft brewed beers cost so much.
Sorry for the thread jack.
Quest pretty much hit this one outta the park.
Go Jays
And bye bye Harper
Originally Posted By: Justin251
I'm guessing if the synthetic content is significant enough to mention then they would just for the extra cash.
Or maybe they use the same model as numerous other tiered products, like beer. Busch costs less than Bud at the store. Busch doesn't cost less to make or is of any less "quality."
That stuff isn't actually beer anymore. It's carbonated water with alcohol and a flavour syrup added.
I didn't believe it either til I actually looked into it. It's cheap for a reason and why craft brewed beers cost so much.
Sorry for the thread jack.
Quest pretty much hit this one outta the park.
Go Jays
And bye bye Harper
Last edited:
I believe it's still possible to formulate a SN 5W-20 or 5W-30 without using any GP III but you would have to use a high percentage of GP II+. So it might be easier/cheaper for a formulator to just use a GP III as a correcting fluid applied to the GP II stocks a formulator may have.
Or if you're Shell and are producing 22,000 barrels/day of GTL synthetic base oils to simply use that to formulate your so-called conventional finished oils.
Or if you're Shell and are producing 22,000 barrels/day of GTL synthetic base oils to simply use that to formulate your so-called conventional finished oils.
5W20 with all Group II isn't so much a problem but 5W30 could be.
Just remember that although there are loads of oil companies, there are only four additive companies and they are the ones who will define the formulations. It may be just one of three technologies used needs Group III.
Just remember that although there are loads of oil companies, there are only four additive companies and they are the ones who will define the formulations. It may be just one of three technologies used needs Group III.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Clevy
That stuff isn't actually beer anymore. It's carbonated water with alcohol and a flavour syrup added.
I didn't believe it either til I actually looked into it. It's cheap for a reason and why craft brewed beers cost so much.
Interesting. Where can I find more info on this?
That stuff isn't actually beer anymore. It's carbonated water with alcohol and a flavour syrup added.
I didn't believe it either til I actually looked into it. It's cheap for a reason and why craft brewed beers cost so much.
Interesting. Where can I find more info on this?
Originally Posted By: timeau
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: Farmer
I read this somewhere and stating all/most API SN's Conventional Oils are somepart synthetic? Does anyone know about this and could you clear this up for me? Thanks.
A conventional base oil by definition is a refined mineral oil and it is by definition NOT a synthetic.
I would not rely on definitions in the US since what is called "synthetic" here is *not* synthetic. AFAIK, GrII is hydrotreated, whereas GrIII is hydrocracked *mineral* oil. Same story with "organic" food: just word playing and marketing.
Organic foods is more than just a marketing word. Farmers and processors have to meet strict requirements in order to have there products marked "organic". Now "Natural" can be a play and marketing of words.
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: Farmer
I read this somewhere and stating all/most API SN's Conventional Oils are somepart synthetic? Does anyone know about this and could you clear this up for me? Thanks.
A conventional base oil by definition is a refined mineral oil and it is by definition NOT a synthetic.
I would not rely on definitions in the US since what is called "synthetic" here is *not* synthetic. AFAIK, GrII is hydrotreated, whereas GrIII is hydrocracked *mineral* oil. Same story with "organic" food: just word playing and marketing.
Organic foods is more than just a marketing word. Farmers and processors have to meet strict requirements in order to have there products marked "organic". Now "Natural" can be a play and marketing of words.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
I believe it's still possible to formulate a SN 5W-20 or 5W-30 without using any GP III but you would have to use a high percentage of GP II+. So it might be easier/cheaper for a formulator to just use a GP III as a correcting fluid applied to the GP II stocks a formulator may have.
Or if you're Shell and are producing 22,000 barrels/day of GTL synthetic base oils to simply use that to formulate your so-called conventional finished oils.
It must be profitable as a source of a base oil over crude oils?
I believe it's still possible to formulate a SN 5W-20 or 5W-30 without using any GP III but you would have to use a high percentage of GP II+. So it might be easier/cheaper for a formulator to just use a GP III as a correcting fluid applied to the GP II stocks a formulator may have.
Or if you're Shell and are producing 22,000 barrels/day of GTL synthetic base oils to simply use that to formulate your so-called conventional finished oils.
It must be profitable as a source of a base oil over crude oils?
- Status