Are There "100%" or "Full" Synthetic Oils Using Dino For Their Additive Carrier?
- Thread starter pscholte
- Start date
- Status
Yes, and most (if not all) PAO-based synthetics did just that for years. The "100% synthetic" applied to the base oil, not the additive package.
I don't think any PAO or ester based synthetics now use mineral oil as the additive carrier. With the solvency provided by the esters, it just isn't necessary.
According to an MSDS sheet I saw about a year ago......Mobil 1 still uses mineral oil as a "carrier" for their additive package. RP does the same as well.
[ July 14, 2003, 12:00 AM: Message edited by: sbc350gearhead ]
[ July 14, 2003, 12:00 AM: Message edited by: sbc350gearhead ]
For the record all PAO's start with a petrolium oil or gas, and then instead of refining it, they chemically break it down and build it back to the PAO base stock that they want.
MolaKule
Staff member
"I am learning a lot from you guys about which oils are REALLY synthetic, but one question remains. Can you call yourself "100%," "Full," or "Whole" Synthetic and still use dino oil to carry your additives? "
Thanks, and we learn from each other as well. Yes, they may legally and ethically claim that.
Some additives are supplied in mineral oil bases, but I can tell you that those additives that are supplied in mineral oils are at a ratio of 99% additives to 1% base oil. The mineral oil is only used when an additive needs its solvency characteristics. However, most additives today are incorporated into a synthetic ester format that is solvent in both synthetic and mineral oils, so you will see less and less of this "exclusive of mineral oil carriers" message.
[ July 14, 2003, 10:58 AM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]
Thanks, and we learn from each other as well. Yes, they may legally and ethically claim that.
Some additives are supplied in mineral oil bases, but I can tell you that those additives that are supplied in mineral oils are at a ratio of 99% additives to 1% base oil. The mineral oil is only used when an additive needs its solvency characteristics. However, most additives today are incorporated into a synthetic ester format that is solvent in both synthetic and mineral oils, so you will see less and less of this "exclusive of mineral oil carriers" message.
[ July 14, 2003, 10:58 AM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]
Thanks, 'Kule...the fact that mineral oil carriers are disappearing completely from sytnthetic formulations actually may be of little significance in the overall performance of the oil, but I like the fact that the claim of 100% synthetic means exactly that.
Again...thanks
Again...thanks
Group 3 oils are made with dino oil basestocks. Yet they can legally call themselves "full synthetic".
Castrol Syntec and Shell Rotella T 5w-40 are two prime examples of Group 3 oils with "full synthetic" right on the label.
MolaKule
Staff member
To qualify that statement, we are assuming the base oil is > = 75% synthetics such as PAO's and esters. The rest of the oil would be additives that may have some mineral oils as carriers.
I wouldn't have a problem if a "100% synthetic" oil was 98%-99% PAO, ester or alkylated aromatic with 1-2% carrier (mineral) oil. If the mineral oil content was that small, it would have practically no effect on the oil in 99% of the possible applications ... not even most racing.
It's just that it's a slippery slope. You KNOW that there would be the bean counters within the company who would want to raise this to 5%, 10% or even 20% or more to raise profits as Group I or II mineral oil is roughly a quarter to a third the price of PAO.
Anyway, far more insidious is the switch from PAO to a Group III mineral oil while allowing companies to continue calling the product "syntheic."
--- Bror Jace
It's just that it's a slippery slope. You KNOW that there would be the bean counters within the company who would want to raise this to 5%, 10% or even 20% or more to raise profits as Group I or II mineral oil is roughly a quarter to a third the price of PAO.
Anyway, far more insidious is the switch from PAO to a Group III mineral oil while allowing companies to continue calling the product "syntheic."
--- Bror Jace
It has to be a communist plot. Imagine the nerve of those companies sullying the good name of "synthetic" with a product for all intents and purposes virtually free of waxes, sulfated organics, and aromatics through severe heat and pressure hydrogen/catalytic isomerization! (Never mind that chemists have long been comfortable with the notion that isomerization is a process that re-arranges molecular structure into a desired form - one of the accepted definitions of "synthesis".)
MolaKule
Staff member
That statement and definition may be accepted by the bean counters and marketers, but the only chemists who support that definition are the ones on Shell and Chevron's payrolls.
And British Petroleum, Conoco, and Citgo... "German" Castrol 0W-30 notwithstanding, it's unlikely that BP will switch back to PAOs across the board anytime soon. For one thing the logistics of deriving sufficient methane gas* from which to polymerize are insurmountable for general usage of PAOs. (Unless someone figures out how to isomerize PAOs from petroleum. But, then you fellows would face the discomforting prospect of deciding whether isomerization derived PAOs could still lay claim to the "synthetic" moniker any longer.
)
*There's already a shortfall of methane production vs. usage with the very real liklihood of it getting worse in the near future.
[ July 15, 2003, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: Ray H ]
*There's already a shortfall of methane production vs. usage with the very real liklihood of it getting worse in the near future.
[ July 15, 2003, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: Ray H ]
MolaKule
Staff member
PAO's and Shell's new cousins can be made from a number of readily available refinery gasses such as ethylene, etc., using different catalysts.
“That statement and definition may be accepted by the bean counters and marketers, but the only chemists who support that definition are the ones on Shell and Chevron's payrolls.”
What about the chemists at Castrol?
Oh, that’s right, Castrol probably doesn’t even employ chemists. They are not a refiner … maybe not even a blender. Maybe a bottler? They probably do their best work as an importer.
Anyway, they probably only employ marketing execs, finance execs, P.R. flacks and lawyers. Lots and lots of lawyers.
-- Bror Jace
What about the chemists at Castrol?
Oh, that’s right, Castrol probably doesn’t even employ chemists. They are not a refiner … maybe not even a blender. Maybe a bottler? They probably do their best work as an importer.
Anyway, they probably only employ marketing execs, finance execs, P.R. flacks and lawyers. Lots and lots of lawyers.
-- Bror Jace
OK Bror,
I realize you are being "tonguish
in cheekish" with some (OK, maybe most) of your answer...but what does Castrol ACTUALLY DO? Refine...blend...what
(I'm still trying to recover from the "liquid tungsten" and "we're a synthetic... REALLY" episodes.)
TNX
[ July 16, 2003, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: pscholte ]
I realize you are being "tonguish
TNX
[ July 16, 2003, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: pscholte ]
pscholte, I'm not really sure.
I've always thought that Castrol USA (in New Joisy) was a franchisee of the British Castrol Corporation and did very little development themselves. However, I can't imagine they don't have at least a couple dozen chemists on their payroll.
There are others here who know much, much more detail about the companies, where they get their basestocks from, etc ...
I know that the first batches of Group III came from Shell ... but I don't keep too current on this stuff.
I do know they don't have the capabilities of a Chevron, Shell, Mobil or even Ashland.
--- Bror Jace
I've always thought that Castrol USA (in New Joisy) was a franchisee of the British Castrol Corporation and did very little development themselves. However, I can't imagine they don't have at least a couple dozen chemists on their payroll.
There are others here who know much, much more detail about the companies, where they get their basestocks from, etc ...
I do know they don't have the capabilities of a Chevron, Shell, Mobil or even Ashland.
--- Bror Jace
- Status
Similar threads
