base stock blending

[jstutz]

This post has nothing too do with any brand of oil or anything, it is just something that has confused me a little about blending different quality base stocks. Consider this: Worst quality group 1 blended with best quality group 3. I think it is obvious that blending the grp 3 in will improve VI and reduce the need for so many VII. Is this then the only advantage. Consider a standard off the shelf synthetic blend. It seems to me that you still have the negative effects of the lower quality base stocks, just less of it. Anyone know of any good white papers on this. So in the blend, lets say you push the limit of the lower quality stock, wouldnt the lower quality molecules then start to form sludge, even know the higher quality molecules dont. It seems like in real life it dont happen like this but i guess i dont see why.

 

[Steve S]

I am guessing but I am sure lots of blending is to meet a specific end as cheaply as possible.

 

[jstutz]

Originally Posted By: Steve S
I am guessing but I am sure lots of blending is to meet a specific end as cheaply as possible.


Yea probably, im just talking in theory.

 

[BobFout]

So, you want to add honey to feces and see how it tastes?

 

[jstutz]

Originally Posted By: BobFout
So, you want to add honey to feces and see how it tastes?

sure, i guess so. I know that many oils today use blends of some type so i figured it may spark some pretty interesting discussion.

 

[znode]

No, you're on the mark. If you blend 50% III with 50% I the result will be fairly bad and definitely worse than 100% II, if only because the gap between I and II is much larger than the II to III gap. And the Group I will definitely start oxidizing badly and sludging in the blend, when it is used. According to API definitions anything is Group I that meets VI of 80, so a Group I stock (depending on what died eons ago) could have a horrific amount of mono/poly-cyclic aromatics, and still qualify.

On the other hand, the difference between Group II and III is much smaller, since Group II must meet >90% paraffinic/naphthenic saturates (alkanes/cycloalkanes), the II/III dividing line being 120 VI.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Group I is pretty much ever used in API motor oil today, since it simply won't pass anything.

 

[jstutz]

Originally Posted By: znode
No, you're on the mark. If you blend 50% III with 50% I the result will be fairly bad and definitely worse than 100% II, if only because the gap between I and II is much larger than the II to III gap. And the Group I will definitely start oxidizing badly and sludging in the blend, when it is used. According to API definitions anything is Group I that meets VI of 80, so a Group I stock (depending on what died eons ago) could have a horrific amount of mono/poly-cyclic aromatics, and still qualify.

On the other hand, the difference between Group II and III is much smaller, since Group II must meet >90% paraffinic/naphthenic saturates (alkanes/cycloalkanes), the II/III dividing line being 120 VI.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Group I is pretty much ever used in API motor oil today, since it simply won't pass anything.


Very informative reply, thank you very much. I realize that grp 1s are rarely used but i just used it it illustrate the point i was trying to get across. I was really thinking about actual off the shelf blends, or something real world. Im just trying to understand the advantages of blending a higher quality basestock with lower one because it still has the lower quality basestock in it. I guess if you had a 50/50 blend and ran at the limits of the lower quality one, it is better to have 50 percent of your oil oxidizing than 100 percent.Plus the added benefit of having to use less VII. It makes you wonder, if synthetic blends today really have a place, being that the quality of standard dino is so good and the gap between them and grp 3 is fairly small. Seems like a 15% grp three mix in a primarily gr2+ is not much benefit.

 

[tenderloin]

All-Hydroprocessed Base Oils Eliminate Need for Expensive Correction Fluids:
Simplify Blending for GF-4
Tougher specifications have made it harder and harder for lubricant manufacturers to compete. Consequently, some blenders have been forced into elaborate three-way blending schemes, requiring two base oils and as much as 50% of expensive correction fluid. This cumbersome, inefficient solution requires additional base oil tanks and increases the chance of costly mistakes.

By using Chevron’s all-hydroprocessed Group II base oil you can produce GF-4 quality lubricants with a simple one step blending process. Because they are all-hydroprocessed, our base oils have:
higher purity
better oxidation stability
higher VI
lower CCS viscosity
lower volatility

Consequently, NO correction fluid is needed to meet GF-4 specs! Your additive supplier knows how to take advantage of Chevron's
high-quality base stocks.

http://www.chevron.com/products/sitelets/baseoils/gf4.aspx

Base oils
http://www.chevron.com/products/sitelets/baseoils/grp2_typical.aspx

Grp lll Base Oils
http://www.chevron.com/products/sitelets/baseoils/grp3_typical.aspx

 

[jstutz]

We probably cant know this because most oil blends are highly guarded , but the post from znode makes me think that you could potentially have a standard dino that is better than a syn blend.

Case A; lowest quality grp2 basestock blended with 10 to 15 percent lowest quality grp.

Case B; 100% best quality grp 2.

A or B?

Assume add packs are exactly the same. You could charge more for case A but may not have any more money in it at all.

 

[mechanicx]

I'm thinking there is still Group I oil out there. I'm not sure what it is being blended in.

 

[jstutz]

Originally Posted By: tenderloin
All-Hydroprocessed Base Oils Eliminate Need for Expensive Correction Fluids:
Simplify Blending for GF-4
Tougher specifications have made it harder and harder for lubricant manufacturers to compete. Consequently, some blenders have been forced into elaborate three-way blending schemes, requiring two base oils and as much as 50% of expensive correction fluid. This cumbersome, inefficient solution requires additional base oil tanks and increases the chance of costly mistakes.

By using Chevron’s all-hydroprocessed Group II base oil you can produce GF-4 quality lubricants with a simple one step blending process. Because they are all-hydroprocessed, our base oils have:
higher purity
better oxidation stability
higher VI
lower CCS viscosity
lower volatility

Consequently, NO correction fluid is needed to meet GF-4 specs! Your additive supplier knows how to take advantage of Chevron's
high-quality base stocks.

http://www.chevron.com/products/sitelets/baseoils/gf4.aspx

Base oils
http://www.chevron.com/products/sitelets/baseoils/grp2_typical.aspx

Grp lll Base Oils
http://www.chevron.com/products/sitelets/baseoils/grp3_typical.aspx


Man, that is great stuff. As long as i have been on bitog and as much googling as i have done, i have not seen those sheets. What i find interesting, is how thin the base stocks are. I figured they would be much thicker than that. This is absolutely the most information about a specific blends from any manufacturer that i think i ever saw. Thanks again for the links.

 

[tenderloin]

Some GF-5 info

 

[jstutz]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
I'm thinking there is still Group I oil out there. I'm not sure what it is be blended in.


I have heard that there was still small amounts of grp 1 in some of the 20w40 oils and i think i even heard that delvac 15w40 has used a blend of all three basestocks. I have no idea where i heard this or if the product they were referring to was older. I have a hard time believing that any current 15w40 that is CJ rated uses any grp 1s though. I think i remember reading also about some of the accel very old rating oils using grp 1 still. Problem is you never know if what your reading is correct especially when your just googling around hundreds of random sites.

 

[jstutz]

ternderlion, is chevron the only one that releases this kind of info? this is the kind of stuff that most would call proprietary. Maybe you just have to know where to look.

 

[znode]

Originally Posted By: jstutz
Im just trying to understand the advantages of blending a higher quality basestock with lower one because it still has the lower quality basestock in it. I guess if you had a 50/50 blend and ran at the limits of the lower quality one, it is better to have 50 percent of your oil oxidizing than 100 percent. Plus the added benefit of having to use less VII.
[...]
...makes me think that you could potentially have a standard dino that is better than a syn blend.


Exactly. In theory synblend increases the stability of the base by a) decreasing the VII percentage and b) increasing the oxidative stability.

In the real world, in the best case it could be that. In the worst case it absolutely could be worse, if the unscrupulous company decides to use a cheaper II + a bottom-rung III, or simply use cheaper II + a tiny amount of III, just enough to meet "blend" definition (what is it, >3%?). Said company can definitely also make the synblend more expensive.

The truth is, as with most things, somewhere in between. Some synblends are probably just marketing gimmicks and no better than dino at all. Some synblends are a tad bit better than a dino, but totally not worth the cost. And some synblends are quite a bit better and possibly worth the cost. Throw in different companies, different regions, different facilities, batch-to-batch variability, engine variability, temperature variability, and what you end up having is the mother of all cr*pshoots.

Originally Posted By: jstutz
Seems like a 15% grp three mix in a primarily gr2+ is not much benefit.


Benefit? It would depend on the quality of the II. As tenderloin linked, you can have anywhere from avg VI 102, to VI 118 for II+, just from Chevron alone. And if you refer to 100N base stock sample analyses here a good Group II+ nearly DOUBLES the oxidative resistance of a lower-end Group II.

 

[d00df00d]

It's not really like that. Other than the first two, the groups don't lie on a continuum from bad to good. They all have different properties and they fit together with the additives like pieces of a puzzle.

On the first question by the OP: A group I/III blend wouldn't "average out" the goodness of the two base stocks. It would have lots of impurities and part of the oil would cook off pretty quickly. It can't be compared to a group II oil because it would not be a viable product.

On the second question, comparing a syn blend do a dino with "exactly the same" add packs: Again, not a good way to visualize things because the additive pack works synergistically with the the base stock. Making part of the formulation "better" or "worse" doesn't necessarily have the same effect on the total formulation. It's conceivable that you could have a "better" base stock but a worse overall oil if the "better" base stock's properties don't match well with the additive package.

 

[znode]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
It's not really like that. Other than the first two, the groups don't lie on a continuum from bad to good. They all have different properties and they fit together with the additives like pieces of a puzzle...additive pack works synergistically with the the base stock...


I know what you're saying, but I think in this particular discussion we can pretty safely ignore solvency-based additive compatibility. Synblends almost never go over 50% syn for that reason, and the vast majority is III blend "with the same additives". Correct me if I'm wrong here.

 

[jstutz]

Wow, You all have been very helpful. I want to read over the links in the page very carefully and ill chime back in. I did notice that looking over the chevron pages, that the 5w20 and the 5w30 uses blends that are higher quality than the 10w30 and 10w40 oils. Also there grp2 + stock 5R has a VI of 118, almost the cutoff for grp3. I always wondered if some companies used very good grp 2 basestocks and were marketed as name brand dinos, while other companies ie ST or some off brand would use a basestock that has a VI of 121 and call it 100% synthetic. You pay 50% more and potentially get very little benefit. I apologize for spelling, its getting late and its been a long day.

 

[INDYMAC]

I found this article on the Lubrication Engineers, Inc. website. It's called "Beyond synthetics vs. mineral base stocks". It's a pdf file, so I just copied and pasted here:

As lubricant manufacturers search to improve their
profitability, a trend has been emerging from the
major oil lubricant manufacturers and independent
commodity oil blenders. This trend is to emphasize
synthetic lubricants, an issue that appears to be
coming up frequently in sales presentations to
lubricant end users. While the trend is for improved
lubrication from the users standpoint, they can be
led down the wrong path that a synthetic based
lubricant will always provide superior performance.
To help the end user choose the right path they must
be provided with some basic knowledge of how the
different types of lubricants are formulated with
respect to performance in the application.

Lubricant Types
There are four principal types of finished lubricants
being produced today. The first and oldest is mineral
oils with no additives. These oils are typically seen in
the limited applications where no enhancement to
the base oil is needed. Applications of this type are
API SA engine oil, barrier oils, seal oils, technical
oils, etc.
The second type is mineral base oils with additives.
These lubricants make up the majority of the
commercially available lubricants in the marketplace
today. Applications of this type of lubricant are
engine oil, hydraulic oil, turbine oil, gear oil, air
compressor oil, etc. These types of lubricants are
applicable with the exception of high or low
temperature or where a hostile environment is
affecting the lubricant.
The third type is synthetic base oils with additives.
These oils make up a small part of the overall
lubricant marketplace but are increasing due to their
popularity with many lubricant end users. For the
past decade the end user has been told, in
passenger car motor oil advertising campaigns from
the majors, that these lubricants perform better than
mineral based oils.
Due to the strategic advertising directed at the
general public for passenger car motor oil, most
lubricant end users believe that synthetic equals
superior performance over any other type of
lubricant regardless of the application.
Synthetic base oils can be many different types of
compounds with many being limited to one specific
application. The majors push synthetic base oil
lubricants because the primary synthetic is PAO
(poly-alpha-olefin). PAO is a primary product
produced by two of the major oil companies in the
United States. They heavily market these synthetic
lubricants because the PAO base oil provides them
with improved profitability over mineral base oil
lubricants. One only needs to compare pricing of a
mineral oil based passenger car motor oil to that of a
synthetic base to see that the pricing would improve
the marketer’s profitability. Independent commodity
oil blenders have also jumped on the synthetic
bandwagon because it helps them improve
profitability.
A limited number of high performance lubricant
manufacturers go beyond the synthetic vs. mineral
oil argument to truly formulating a superior enhanced
lubricant. These lubricants are formulated for
superior performance in a specific range of
applications without limitations to the base oil type or
performance additives used. If the high performance
lubricant manufacturer believes that synthetic base
oil with additives is needed for the application then
this is how the lubricant is formulated. In most cases
however, these manufactures know that mineral
base oil with properly selected and balanced
conventional and proprietary additives can be
formulated with a robust treat level to provide
superior application performance. Thus, the lubricant
end user is given a lubricant that provides superior
performance at the most economical cost for the
application. This is why the lubricant end-users are
looking at a synthetic in the first place, because of
their desire for a superior performance lubricant.

Enhanced Lubricants
To describe the concept of formulating an enhanced
lubricant that is application specific we must first look
at the strengths and weaknesses of both the mineral and
synthetic base oils. Strengths of the synthetic base
lubricants are applications where high or low temperatures
are expected or a hostile environment would be detrimental
to mineral oil based lubricant. A source that explains this
more in detail is the Shell lubricants website at shelllubricants.
com/syntheticlubricants/
synthetic_descriptions.pdf. Strengths of the mineral oil are
improved additive solubility, natural oxidation resistance
characteristics, better seal compatibility and lower base oil
cost.
Weaknesses of the synthetic based lubricants are: limited
additive solubility, reversal of ester based synthetic base oil
to an acid, seal incompatibility with some seal materials,
and a significantly higher per gallon cost compared to most
mineral based oil. Mineral base oils have limitations in high
and low temperature applications and certain atmospheres.

Mission of the Enhanced Lubricant Formulator
The high performance lubricant manufacturer must educate
lubricant end users that lubricants are formulated beyond
the base oil, whether it is mineral or synthetic base oil.
Enhanced lubricants that are formulated and manufactured
by a high performance lubricant manufacturer are designed
to provide the highest level of performance in a specific
application. This performance is proven in both laboratory
tests and actual field applications. What the lubricant end
user seeks is improved performance in their particular
application. By seeking a synthetic lubricant, they perceive
they are asking for a lubricant that will give them superior
performance when compared to the commercial grade
lubricant they have been using with limited success.
Enhanced lubricants are designed significantly beyond the
minimal formulating done for commercial grade mineral or
synthetic base oil lubricants. When formulating these
enhanced lubricants, research staff looks for synergistic
combinations between the base oil (synthetic or mineral),
conventional additives and proprietary additives. This
synergy is what allows the product to provide the maximum
performance for the application.

Formulation of Enhanced Lubricants
As we have discussed earlier, the first step in formulating is
to decide if the application needs mineral or synthetic base
oil. Determine which one will provide the superior
application performance. Should the research person use a
synthetic base oil which limits additive choice and
concentration or a mineral base oil which allows a wider
range of additive chemistries at a higher, more robust
treatment concentration?
The second step is to determine what conventional
additives and what quality levels are available to build the
core of the lubricant around. While commercial grade
lubricants are formulated only to a minimal performance
level, an enhanced lubricant is formulated well beyond this
point. This is accomplished by looking for synergy with high
quality component additives, which “enhance” the
performance of the lubricant. Additional additive
components are then added at optimum treat levels to
assure the enhanced lubricant will deliver maximum
performance for the specific application. If the formulation
requires synthetic base oil, the main issue is still the
additive concentration needed for superior performance.
Many times synthetic base oil will not hold enough additive
in solution to deliver the needed performance for the
application.
The third and final step of formulating an enhanced
lubricant is choosing which proprietary additives should be
used? Through basic research and proven field
performance, high performance lubricant manufacturers will
have a number of proprietary additives that work in specific
applications and have proven will enhance the performance
of the lubricant. One or more of these additives will be used
to fine-tune the enhanced lubricant.

The Educated End User
Once a lubricant end user understands what is involved in
formulating an enhanced lubricant it becomes easy to see
where a synthetic lubricant might not be the superior
product for the particular application. Also, the price of the
enhanced lubricant is now more justified because the
customer understands that there is a technology and
performance level beyond that of the lubricant that has
been used in the specific application.
Sure, the synthetic lubricant manufacturer recommends a
synthetic. He recommends a synthetic because it brings
him better profitability than the commodity mineral base oil
lubricant that he is also selling. An article discussing
synthetics in the June 2003 edition of Lubricants World
covers how the public has embraced the synthetic concept
and how they do not understand what they are really
receiving for the extra money they spend. The article
indicates that consumers were “becoming more acquainted
with the word “synthetic” and the impression was favorable
in terms of better performance than was perceived as
available from conventional motor oil.” The article goes on
to state that “the public is enraptured by the concept and
so the market is growing, despite a higher price.”
In the continuing debate about synthetic versus mineral
oils, the end user is really only interested in protecting the
investment they have in their equipment. High performance
lubricant manufacturers have lubricants to provide this
protection beyond that offered by major oil lubricant
manufacturers and commodity oil blenders.

Beyond Synthetics vs. Mineral Basestock or What Happened to the Application?
08/03/2006 by Scott Schwindaman

 

[jstutz]

thank, pretty good read.