Originally Posted By: 4WD
that can is pretty
that can is pretty
Are Group III Synthetics Chasing Their Tail?
- Thread starter ndfergy
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: slacktide_bitog
that can is pretty
It should be; it was fabulously expensive, compared to either conventional oils of its day, or to today's Mobil1 when inflation is factored in.
that can is pretty
It should be; it was fabulously expensive, compared to either conventional oils of its day, or to today's Mobil1 when inflation is factored in.
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
Thanks SOJ, great explanation.
Notwithstanding my silly tin foil hat thing, that’s more or less what I was thinking in reference to your second to last paragraph:
It's interesting that once you eliminate relatively oxidatively unstable Group I from the engine oil equation (as is the case in the US), you end up with a range of base oils whose resistance to oxidation exceeds their needs in real life usage (US OCIs are still very low in comparison to the rest of the world). At this point you don't really need to fret much about sludge, varnish, viscosity increase, etc. You sort of reach a point where the only true differentiating points between finished oils, as you move up the base oil scale (from Group II to Group III to GTL to PAO), are Noack and a bit less VII.
Notwithstanding my silly tin foil hat thing, that’s more or less what I was thinking in reference to your second to last paragraph:
It's interesting that once you eliminate relatively oxidatively unstable Group I from the engine oil equation (as is the case in the US), you end up with a range of base oils whose resistance to oxidation exceeds their needs in real life usage (US OCIs are still very low in comparison to the rest of the world). At this point you don't really need to fret much about sludge, varnish, viscosity increase, etc. You sort of reach a point where the only true differentiating points between finished oils, as you move up the base oil scale (from Group II to Group III to GTL to PAO), are Noack and a bit less VII.
Originally Posted By: OhOMG
Observation: The very vast minority of the population. Not limited to, though We discuss things like how to get every single drop of oil from an engine, pan, filter, lines etc when minutiae such as this make not one iota of difference. Still, though, it's fun, and informative.
So how do you know so much about Bitog having joined only recently? Do we know you as another (or previous) name?
Observation: The very vast minority of the population. Not limited to, though We discuss things like how to get every single drop of oil from an engine, pan, filter, lines etc when minutiae such as this make not one iota of difference. Still, though, it's fun, and informative.
So how do you know so much about Bitog having joined only recently? Do we know you as another (or previous) name?
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Originally Posted By: slacktide_bitog
Originally Posted By: 4WD
that can is pretty
I agree,that can is a work of art! It'd be interesting to see a voa of it.
Originally Posted By: 4WD
that can is pretty
I agree,that can is a work of art! It'd be interesting to see a voa of it.
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: OhOMG
Observation: The very vast minority of the population. Not limited to, though We discuss things like how to get every single drop of oil from an engine, pan, filter, lines etc when minutiae such as this make not one iota of difference. Still, though, it's fun, and informative.
So how do you know so much about Bitog having joined only recently? Do we know you as another (or previous) name?
What kind of a question is that? Are you the only one with oil knowledge, or the only one that reads technical details?
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Originally Posted By: slacktide_bitog
Originally Posted By: 4WD
that can is pretty
I agree,that can is a work of art! It'd be interesting to see a voa of it.
Oh yes! That is indeed a nice can!
Originally Posted By: OhOMG
Observation: The very vast minority of the population. Not limited to, though We discuss things like how to get every single drop of oil from an engine, pan, filter, lines etc when minutiae such as this make not one iota of difference. Still, though, it's fun, and informative.
So how do you know so much about Bitog having joined only recently? Do we know you as another (or previous) name?
What kind of a question is that? Are you the only one with oil knowledge, or the only one that reads technical details?
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Originally Posted By: slacktide_bitog
Originally Posted By: 4WD
that can is pretty
I agree,that can is a work of art! It'd be interesting to see a voa of it.
Oh yes! That is indeed a nice can!
Originally Posted By: ndfergy
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: ndfergy
Given that arbitrary possibility, and putting on our tin foil hats, how close to that number do you think was determined scientifically vs. economically after the Mobil, Castrol ruling?
And what ruling was that? Please show what was decided and dictated AT LAW to constitute a ruling?
Sounds like you're trying to propagate wife's tales about group IIi without objective assessment.
Poor choice on my part. Decision is the correct word. Here's the link to NAD Case #3526 (03/01/99) I found this morning on a forum.
Their conclusion:
CONCLUSION NAD concluded that the advertiser provided a reasonable basis for its claims that Castrol Syntec is “synthetic” and contains “patented stabilizers [that] seek out and neutralize harmful particles” and “exclusive chemical esters.” NAD also concluded that Syntec’s advertising did not imply that Syntec’s ingredients now are the same as they have always been. However, NAD determined that the advertiser’s evidence was insufficient to support its superiority claims (“protects in ways other oils can’t,” “Nothing protects better than Castrol Syntec Full Synthetic,” and “Together, the bonding and additive technology provide the best protection you can buy”) as against conventional or synthetic motor oils, or to support the claim that its esters provide “unique molecular bonding.” Consequently, NAD recommends that these claims be modified or discontinued.
As far as my statement you referenced: I now agree I was misinformed on how varies entities operate. I was under the assumption there was one big round table, if you will, with all parties concerned in reaching that decision. The viscosity indexes of various groups are determined by the SAE/API with them being neutral on the wording of synthetic.
I do not have an agenda. Oil is oil. I do not tuck it in at night and sing it lullaby's. All I care about is the best bang for my buck whether it's synthetic or otherwise.
Wholly agree. Now I only wish more were in this camp.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: ndfergy
Given that arbitrary possibility, and putting on our tin foil hats, how close to that number do you think was determined scientifically vs. economically after the Mobil, Castrol ruling?
And what ruling was that? Please show what was decided and dictated AT LAW to constitute a ruling?
Sounds like you're trying to propagate wife's tales about group IIi without objective assessment.
Poor choice on my part. Decision is the correct word. Here's the link to NAD Case #3526 (03/01/99) I found this morning on a forum.
Their conclusion:
CONCLUSION NAD concluded that the advertiser provided a reasonable basis for its claims that Castrol Syntec is “synthetic” and contains “patented stabilizers [that] seek out and neutralize harmful particles” and “exclusive chemical esters.” NAD also concluded that Syntec’s advertising did not imply that Syntec’s ingredients now are the same as they have always been. However, NAD determined that the advertiser’s evidence was insufficient to support its superiority claims (“protects in ways other oils can’t,” “Nothing protects better than Castrol Syntec Full Synthetic,” and “Together, the bonding and additive technology provide the best protection you can buy”) as against conventional or synthetic motor oils, or to support the claim that its esters provide “unique molecular bonding.” Consequently, NAD recommends that these claims be modified or discontinued.
As far as my statement you referenced: I now agree I was misinformed on how varies entities operate. I was under the assumption there was one big round table, if you will, with all parties concerned in reaching that decision. The viscosity indexes of various groups are determined by the SAE/API with them being neutral on the wording of synthetic.
I do not have an agenda. Oil is oil. I do not tuck it in at night and sing it lullaby's. All I care about is the best bang for my buck whether it's synthetic or otherwise.
Wholly agree. Now I only wish more were in this camp.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Does a 0W oil have to be pao,or can a grp 3 oil acieve a 0W rating?
in PCEO 0Wxx oils can be met most of the time with Group III - although not all Group III's are equal and some 0W20 formulas may still require a PAO.
in HDEO 0Wxx oils are most likely PAO based. This is because the treat rate of the additive package is much higher in HDEO and the DI package can influence the viscosity of the final blend, making it harder to meet the CCS and MRV requirements to be classified as a 0W oil. 5W oils in HDEO can be achieved with Group III.
in HDEO 0Wxx oils are most likely PAO based. This is because the treat rate of the additive package is much higher in HDEO and the DI package can influence the viscosity of the final blend, making it harder to meet the CCS and MRV requirements to be classified as a 0W oil. 5W oils in HDEO can be achieved with Group III.
The biggest challenges I come across with Group III and PAO's for synthetics isn't so much the performance, but the read across guidelines for both API and ACEA.
VGRA and BOI rules are much tighter on Group III than on Group II. This is because when the BOI rules were first implemented, Group III was a niche product and much less mainstream then it is today.
An issue with extending the BOI and VGRA rules to make them more flexible is the cost of running the programs. Group III suppliers (50% of the world's production is held by 3 players) don't want to pay for it - why would they if it enables their competition to sell more base oil, and additive companies won't do it, because they already run the programs for most of the big players for their additives and a BOI program is super-exepensive (think in the Millions).
VGRA and BOI rules are much tighter on Group III than on Group II. This is because when the BOI rules were first implemented, Group III was a niche product and much less mainstream then it is today.
An issue with extending the BOI and VGRA rules to make them more flexible is the cost of running the programs. Group III suppliers (50% of the world's production is held by 3 players) don't want to pay for it - why would they if it enables their competition to sell more base oil, and additive companies won't do it, because they already run the programs for most of the big players for their additives and a BOI program is super-exepensive (think in the Millions).
Originally Posted By: Solarent
The biggest challenges I come across with Group III and PAO's for synthetics isn't so much the performance, but the read across guidelines for both API and ACEA.
VGRA and BOI rules are much tighter on Group III than on Group II. This is because when the BOI rules were first implemented, Group III was a niche product and much less mainstream then it is today.
An issue with extending the BOI and VGRA rules to make them more flexible is the cost of running the programs. Group III suppliers (50% of the world's production is held by 3 players) don't want to pay for it - why would they if it enables their competition to sell more base oil, and additive companies won't do it, because they already run the programs for most of the big players for their additives and a BOI program is super-exepensive (think in the Millions).
In my experience, AddCo's end up paying for BOIs whether they like it or not. The big oil companies predicate you getting their business on you completing full testing in whatever base oils and VIIs they specify. In fact the many of the AddCos would rather pay for a 3-way Group III BOI than a 15-way Group I/II BOI!
The biggest challenges I come across with Group III and PAO's for synthetics isn't so much the performance, but the read across guidelines for both API and ACEA.
VGRA and BOI rules are much tighter on Group III than on Group II. This is because when the BOI rules were first implemented, Group III was a niche product and much less mainstream then it is today.
An issue with extending the BOI and VGRA rules to make them more flexible is the cost of running the programs. Group III suppliers (50% of the world's production is held by 3 players) don't want to pay for it - why would they if it enables their competition to sell more base oil, and additive companies won't do it, because they already run the programs for most of the big players for their additives and a BOI program is super-exepensive (think in the Millions).
In my experience, AddCo's end up paying for BOIs whether they like it or not. The big oil companies predicate you getting their business on you completing full testing in whatever base oils and VIIs they specify. In fact the many of the AddCos would rather pay for a 3-way Group III BOI than a 15-way Group I/II BOI!
For the big companies, I think you are right... at least in some cases.
I know of one European based oil company that is having a [censored] of a time with BOI on Group III. Their supplier only tested Yubase and refuses to do anything else. The problem is their NA based blending plants/partners only use S-Oil.
Smaller companies have it even worse. If your addco partner doesn't have the base oil already covered, you are SOL. I run into that with PetroCanada's Group III all the time, it's almost never covered.
I know of one European based oil company that is having a [censored] of a time with BOI on Group III. Their supplier only tested Yubase and refuses to do anything else. The problem is their NA based blending plants/partners only use S-Oil.
Smaller companies have it even worse. If your addco partner doesn't have the base oil already covered, you are SOL. I run into that with PetroCanada's Group III all the time, it's almost never covered.
Originally Posted By: Solarent
For the big companies, I think you are right... at least in some cases.
I know of one European based oil company that is having a [censored] of a time with BOI on Group III. Their supplier only tested Yubase and refuses to do anything else. The problem is their NA based blending plants/partners only use S-Oil.
Smaller companies have it even worse. If your addco partner doesn't have the base oil already covered, you are SOL. I run into that with PetroCanada's Group III all the time, it's almost never covered.
Things must have changed since I was last in the game. Back then, the AddCo's fought like cat and dog over every little scrap of business there was to be had. If a base oil (like PC Group III) was uncovered, then covering it was seen as as a way to locking yourself in and everyone else out. Some of the BOIs I ran were on obscure, low volume, God awful quality Group Is that few others would be prepared to test but over the years the business came in an the test spend got covered.
Having said that, it probably is about time the balance of power in the industry was shifted. It's great dining at The Ritz if you know someone else is going to pick up the tab. It's very different if you have to pay the bill from your own wallet. If oil companies want something outside the norm, then they should be prepared to pay for it. Maybe if more oil companies were forced to pay the full cost of oil development programs, they might not be so quick to agree with every new daft spec test that comes along that the OEMs want.
For the big companies, I think you are right... at least in some cases.
I know of one European based oil company that is having a [censored] of a time with BOI on Group III. Their supplier only tested Yubase and refuses to do anything else. The problem is their NA based blending plants/partners only use S-Oil.
Smaller companies have it even worse. If your addco partner doesn't have the base oil already covered, you are SOL. I run into that with PetroCanada's Group III all the time, it's almost never covered.
Things must have changed since I was last in the game. Back then, the AddCo's fought like cat and dog over every little scrap of business there was to be had. If a base oil (like PC Group III) was uncovered, then covering it was seen as as a way to locking yourself in and everyone else out. Some of the BOIs I ran were on obscure, low volume, God awful quality Group Is that few others would be prepared to test but over the years the business came in an the test spend got covered.
Having said that, it probably is about time the balance of power in the industry was shifted. It's great dining at The Ritz if you know someone else is going to pick up the tab. It's very different if you have to pay the bill from your own wallet. If oil companies want something outside the norm, then they should be prepared to pay for it. Maybe if more oil companies were forced to pay the full cost of oil development programs, they might not be so quick to agree with every new daft spec test that comes along that the OEMs want.
Originally Posted By: OhOMG
What kind of a question is that? Are you the only one with oil knowledge, or the only one that reads technical details?
Definitely not. It was just a question, no need to extrapolate it into something I didn't say about technical competence.
You just remind me of someone who frequents this board off and on. That's all.
What kind of a question is that? Are you the only one with oil knowledge, or the only one that reads technical details?
Definitely not. It was just a question, no need to extrapolate it into something I didn't say about technical competence.
You just remind me of someone who frequents this board off and on. That's all.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
