Amsoil and Group III

[glennc]

Originally Posted By: JAG
Your viewpoint reminds me of judging a book by its cover.

But look at the title of this thread. To continue your analogy, the whole thread is about the cover - so yes, in this context, we are talking about the cover. I don't think the OP has said that having Grp III would necessarily make it a lower performing oil. He's wondering whether it has some Grp III, plain and simple, which seems like a reasonable thing to consider on an oil forum.

And for posters stating that it doesn't make any difference, well perhaps it doesn't, but I bet most of you have had similar doubts in the past, and maybe even expressed them here, if not about Amsoil then about some other synthetic.

As for judging a book by its cover, I think that would be more like judging an oil by its bottle. Amsoil has a really cool bottle that makes me think it must be a really great oil. Redline has a very basic bottle that hasn't changed in decades (ever?) and makes me wonder what the big deal is about what's inside. The Amsoil bottle looks like a lot of effort (money) went into making it look appealing, but the Redline bottle is the easiest bottle ever to pour from.

There: That is judging an oil by its cover.

 

[ericthepig]

BerndV - (someone correct me if I'm wrong here - it's been a while since I read these articles) - grp III bases are "widely" varying in quality and technology. There are simple "inexpensive" grp IIIs, and the upper end of grp IIIs is still a moving target (moving upward btw). I can't remember if they called them "super Grp IIIs", but that's what I'll call them here. Meanwhile, PAOs apparently have less wiggle room for improvements in technology. The technology of the grp IIIs now have them meeting, and in some cases surpassing, PAOs in all but extreme cold applications.

The grp III base stock chosen will have a varying price pt depending on the technology. Then you have the add pack - which makes up a significant percentage of the oil. This add pack can be relative expensive (grp V, etc) or relatively cheap.

Bottom line, if you have a "super" or near "super" grp III and a very high performance add pack, then are you ready to argue that the company is still being deceptive (and greedy) on the price pt of their oil compared to a PAO basestock oil?

Take Amsoil for example - they have to make a profit - but I don't think anyone has every accused them of going cheap on their ingrediants. So, what is the cost of creating the XL line of oil? What level of grp III are they using? What's in their add pack? Several questions to answer before they can be accused of making something "cheap" and then selling it for top dollar.

 

[Turk]

So, should we have a "Super III" and a "Sub III" ??

 

[ericthepig]

btw - I wrote "relatively expensive" on the add pack (which is true). But perhaps I should've wrote "VERY expensive" (which can also be true).

On that note - my opinion of PAO basestocks have even dimmed a bit since I learned that esters have to be added to solve the non-polarity issue of the PAOs. You pay top dollar for the PAO, then you pay more for solving "problems" with the PAO. Since I don't live where the temps reach neg. 40C, a top quality grp III (as judged by spec sheets and UOAs) has found favor in my eyes (fwiw).

 

[BerndV]

Originally Posted By: JAG
Originally Posted By: BerndV
Because Group III base oils do not meet the classic definition of a synthetic that Molakule mentioned earlier in this thread: "consisting of chemical compounds which were not originally present in crude oil (petroleum), but were artificially made (synthesized) from other compounds."
One reason Group III is used in oils labeled "fully synthetic" is because performance close to that of PAO/POE formulation can be achieved at a lower price point. This is confirmed in the link Pablo provided at the start of this discussion that explained why Amsoil changed the XL line to Group III. The other reason is because, unfortunately, manufacturers can legally get away with it.
That definition is not relevent. Another reason Group III may be used is to keep product cost the same and substitute some PAO for some uber-expensive POE (NOT all created equal!) or some kick-butt additive package. That same cost oil may outperform an oil meeting the no longer relevent definition above. Your viewpoint reminds me of judging a book by its cover.
In this case, judging a book by it's cover would mean reading the "fully synthetic" label and assuming that the base oils are artificially synthesized from non-petroleum compounds. Manufacturers using Group III in the product and labeling it "fully synthetic" are actually hoping we will judge it by the cover. Molakule's definition of synthetic is not only relevant, but more importantly, it is accurate. Even if a 100% Group III oil outperformed Group IV/V in every respect, it is still not a synthetic. Remember, this is not a performance argument. It is a matter of definitions, semantics, and truth in labeling. We have some obscure regulatory body to thank for the fact that lubricant manufacturers can now get away with labeling something "synthetic" when in fact it is not. This does not mean that high priced boutique producers like Amsoil and Redline cannot be upfront with consumers about what they are selling. Redline has chosen to be honest and Amsoil has chosen to join Exxon-Mobil by obfuscating.

 

[buster]

It's all about the specifications met and endorsements, not how you get there. The finished product is all that matters.

TomNJ couldn't have said it better. It's foolish to lock yourself into promoting or using one base oil when we know that will change in time with new technology.

 

[BerndV]

Originally Posted By: buster
It's all about the specifications met and endorsements, not how you get there. The finished product is all that matters.

TomNJ couldn't have said it better. It's foolish to lock yourself into promoting or using one base oil when we know that will change in time with new technology.
Nothing in this thread has anything to do with specifications, endorsements, finished product, or the promotion of one base oil. I know you are not obtuse. Read my last post again.

 

[salesrep]

obfuscating."to make obscure" Had to look that one up. Good stuff y'all.

 

[Johnny]

I agree with salesrep, good stuff.

BerndV, I do have one question for you, what oil do you use?

 

[salesrep]

Originally Posted By: buster

TomNJ couldn't have said it better. It's foolish to lock yourself into promoting or using one base oil when we know that will change in time with new technology.


Seems to me that there is a moly thread deep in the archives that has some parallels here.

 

[ericthepig]

Originally Posted By: Johnny
I agree with salesrep, good stuff.

BerndV, I do have one question for you, what oil do you use?


He uses Redline because he gets an employee discount from Redline.

 

[BerndV]

Originally Posted By: Johnny
I agree with salesrep, good stuff.

BerndV, I do have one question for you, what oil do you use?
I have been using Redline 5W-30 in my Sequoia with 10k OCI's since I bought it new. It now has just over 70k. My 96 Camry 4 cylinder gets Mobil 1 10W-30 HM. IMO the best overall oil out there for $4.60 per quart (5 quart wally world jug). And yes, I am quite certain that it is a cocktail of Group III, PAO, POE, and AN along with a very solid additive package. I was considering running Amsoil SSO in the Camry this coming winter for the sake of experimentation. That is what prompted my inquiry to Amsoil about the Group III content to begin with. And no, I do not have any vested interest in Redline.

 

[ericthepig]

jk on the last post.

BerndV - so who are you upset with - the governing body that allowed "synthetic" to be used for grp III, or the companies that use the description for a product that is not 100% grp IV/V ?

If you're upset with the companies - then note - you're definition of "synthetic" and the marketing definition of "synthetic" are two different things. That's just the way it is. Therefore, by definition, there is no issue with "truth in advertising" here.

You also seem to indicate that companies are using this "synthetic" label to put a premium price on an inferior and/or cheaper to manufacture product. The burden of proof is on you in both of these allegations (cheaper and inferior) - especially when taking the whole product into consideration (ie, various percentages and technologies of base oils, and various technologies of add. packs.)

 

[Johnny]

Originally Posted By: BerndV
Originally Posted By: Johnny
I agree with salesrep, good stuff.

BerndV, I do have one question for you, what oil do you use?
I have been using Redline 5W-30 in my Sequoia with 10k OCI's since I bought it new. It now has just over 70k. My 96 Camry 4 cylinder gets Mobil 1 10W-30 HM. IMO the best overall oil out there for $4.60 per quart (5 quart wally world jug). And yes, I am quite certain that it is a cocktail of Group III, PAO, POE, and AN along with a very solid additive package. I was considering running Amsoil SSO in the Camry this coming winter for the sake of experimentation. That is what prompted my inquiry to Amsoil about the Group III content to begin with. And no, I do not have any vested interest in Redline.


I think both of the products you are using are great. As a matter of fact, a few times in the past I have used both of them. I had a new 1988 Saab turbo that was Red Line lubricated from front to back while I owned it. Great products.

The only reason I asked is that it appears you have really gotten worked up over this and I am concerned about your blood pressure rising. After all, it's just oil. And, since you do not use Amsoil, then why care what they say or said. Let it go and enjoy Red Line, Mobil 1, your family, and the BEAUTIFUL state that you live. As a matter of fact, this afternoon I want you to turn off your computer, go outside, take in the fresh air and thank the good lord for what you do have.

 

[ericthepig]

Hey BerndV - all your posts are the mussings of a simpleton. Now, go outside and enjoy yourself.

 

[BerndV]

Actually, I am not the least bit "upset". However, I do find discussions of this nature far more intriguing than the prosaic "should I stick with 5W-30 or can I use 0W-30 in my Chevy Cobalt?". Now that I know that my posts are the mussings(sic) of a simpleton, I will promptly quit my consulting job, resign my membership in Mensa, and go to work for Jiffy Lube!

 

[ericthepig]

 

[ericthepig]

Originally Posted By: ericthepig
BerndV - so who are you upset with - the governing body that allowed "synthetic" to be used for grp III, or the companies that use the description for a product that is not 100% grp IV/V ?

If you're upset with the companies - then note - you're definition of "synthetic" and the marketing definition of "synthetic" are two different things. That's just the way it is. Therefore, by definition, there is no issue with "truth in advertising" here.

You also seem to indicate that companies are using this "synthetic" label to put a premium price on an inferior and/or cheaper to manufacture product. The burden of proof is on you in both of these allegations (cheaper and inferior) - especially when taking the whole product into consideration (ie, various percentages and technologies of base oils, and various technologies of add. packs.)


I found the the above quoted post unusually insightful. Anyone w/ comments/responses?

 

[buster]

I think your right eric. Good points.

 

[JAG]

BerndV, do you think PAO comes from a non-petroleum source?

Eric, you are very insightful IMO, as is your above post in particular.