Amsoil and Group III

[glennc]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
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.


On a formulationg note, GroupII+ and GroupIII also have the same problem.

Holy [censored] I didn't know that! I have wondered why PP, for example, often has mediocre UOA results compared to dinos, as do Grp IV synthetics (my opinion), and assumed the "polarity" argument would not fly as PP is Grp III and therefore (I assumed) polar. Now you say Grp III is also not polar!? That majorly helps to convince me that polarity is important to wear performance, explains the YB apparent better wear compared to PP, explains why I have been more impressed with Maxlife blend than Maxlife Syn, with conventionals than Grp III syns in general, and so on. So far that was a missing piece in my opinion of various oils - an open question. I thought, if polarity is important, the how come the mediocre wear performance of syns extends to Grp III synthetics? It was a thorn in the side of my theory that polarity explains Grp IVs' non-exceptional performance. Now I learn that Grp III is also non-polar and it all falls into place. Maybe Grp III is just less polar, that would be even better to match my subjective observations.

My new opinion? Run a totally ordinary conventional if you are mostly concerned about wear. Of course syns will still work fine over normal engine lifespans and will help with non-wear aspects of performance, no argument there.

Thanks for the clarification. I'd intended to ask about or research this particular detail but hadn't gotten around to it.

Sorry for the rushed post.

 

[buster]

glenn most conventionals are now Group II+ or Group III.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
mediocre wear performance of syns

?????

ALL oils have polar elements in them. Base oil or otherwise.

 

[glennc]

Yes Buster and Tempest, I'm aware of those things, except I think most conventionals are only partly Grp II+/III, right?

Anyway, if there is a continuum of polarity loss between less-refined conventionals and Grp IV PAOs, it would match very well with my admittedly subjective observations from UOAs. I've said many times here, like a broken record, that the most basic conventionals seem to give equal or better wear performance than higher group oils, not necessarily without exception, but in general. I've also formed something of a notion, which has been at least informally corroborated, that the proportion and degree of polarity in the molecular mix of the final blend is of some importance.

No doubt one major disruptive variable is the quality of the add pack. If polarity is relevant to film strength, then a good AW add pack that acts when the film is breached would undoubtedly independently affect the performance of an oil.

 

[ericthepig]

Originally Posted By: buster
glenn most conventionals are now Group II+ or Group III.


Yeah, this is what I was thinking. If it's a grp II+ and above issue, then we're pretty much stuck with it, or soon will be w/ SN oils and beyond.

 

[BerndV]

Originally Posted By: ericthepig
I found this in Wikipedia's dictionary (under "synthetic oil")-

"Group III base stocks are considered synthetic motor oil ONLY in the United States. [1]. Group III based lubricants are not allowed to be marketed as "synthetic" in any market outside of the USA."

Perhaps this is well known (I didn't know it) and I'm not sure that this adds anything to our discussion, but it's interesting.
PT Barnum must be smiling!

 

[Shannow]

It's transferred to Oz now...or some time ago actually.

 

[BerndV]

To quote an article cited in another current thread: "Even though the chemistry of these base stocks is close to a synthetic product, most industry players do not refer to Group IIIs as "synthetic," since their base stocks are refined rather than synthesized".

 

[ericthepig]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
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.


On a formulationg note, GroupII+ and GroupIII also have the same problem.


I "understand" the polarity structure of an H2O molecule - but with a long chain hydrocarbon I suppose it's more complex - and perhaps it's the unsaturated bonding sites themselves that are giving it some polarity. If this is the case, then grp ||+ and III should indeed be fairly electrically neutral. So the new base oils just fail in this respect and need help. Argh.

 

[ericthepig]

Originally Posted By: BerndV
To quote an article cited in another current thread: "Even though the chemistry of these base stocks is close to a synthetic product, most industry players do not refer to Group IIIs as "synthetic," since their base stocks are refined rather than synthesized".


BerndV – my own post never challenged the scientific definition of "synthesized" - I simply pointed out the commercial use of the word. And I also questioned those that believe manufactures using grp III in some percentage are overpricing their product.

 

[BerndV]

Polarity is another significant advantage of Polyol Ester base oils.

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: BerndV
Polarity is another significant advantage of Polyol Ester base oils.


Yes, but the esters only stack so high. Everything else is just filler. So do you really need a high % ester content? IMHO, no.
As someone stated before, the additives in the oil are much more polar than any base stock.