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.
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.