Benefits of Conventional over Synthetic

[kschachn]

And yet you cite UOAs as your only source of data. And are you saying you know exactly when ExxonMobil transitioned away from a higher-PAO formulation for your comparison? You do know that for flagship products it has never been 100% PAO, nor is it 0% PAO today.

ExxonMobil did a pretty good piece on VISOM citing 0W-40 data. If you read through the presentation they show that some parameters are worse yet some are better. And from a performance standpoint they can (and do) make the claim that some key aspects are superior.

http://www.motor-talk.de/forum/aktion/Attachment.html?attachmentId=695007

Originally Posted By: deven
Originally Posted By: kschachn
You are correct that the reason ExxonMobil went to severe hydrocracking from a majority PAO based oil was cost, but they have shown that the performance is nearly identical (and superior in some aspects).

You have any hard data to back this claim up because I'd love to see it and by this I don't mean UOA's as in my book they dont mean much. I am looking for tear downs and micrometer measurements of engines using Mobil 1 oils when the were PAO and when they were not. Heck I have even followed the UOA's of Mobil 1 before and after using Gp III synthetics and in many UOA's the iron numbers have gone up after they changed to Group III. But I am really interested in your evidence of tear downs. Thanks.

 

[deven]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
And yet you cite UOAs as your only source of data. And are you saying you know exactly when ExxonMobil transitioned away from a higher-PAO formulation for your comparison? You do know that for flagship products it has never been 100% PAO, nor is it 0% PAO today.

ExxonMobil did a pretty good piece on VISOM citing 0W-40 data. If you read through the presentation they show that some parameters are worse yet some are better. And from a performance standpoint they can (and do) make the claim that some key aspects are superior.

http://www.motor-talk.de/forum/aktion/Attachment.html?attachmentId=695007

Originally Posted By: deven
Originally Posted By: kschachn
You are correct that the reason ExxonMobil went to severe hydrocracking from a majority PAO based oil was cost, but they have shown that the performance is nearly identical (and superior in some aspects).

You have any hard data to back this claim up because I'd love to see it and by this I don't mean UOA's as in my book they dont mean much. I am looking for tear downs and micrometer measurements of engines using Mobil 1 oils when the were PAO and when they were not. Heck I have even followed the UOA's of Mobil 1 before and after using Gp III synthetics and in many UOA's the iron numbers have gone up after they changed to Group III. But I am really interested in your evidence of tear downs. Thanks.

No one knows when they transitioned to predominantly Gp III basestocks. I cite UOA's because even they point to a lesser quality oil but like I said I am not interested in them because they really don't tell you much other than a catastropic failure about to happen. When you have real world data rather than papers to read then I will listen. On paper the New York Yankees have the highest payroll and some of the best baseball players in the world but that doesnt always translate into them being the best team in the world. Just because something may be best on paper doesn't necessarily mean its best in your engine.

 

[SilverC6]

The variability in people that comprise a baseball team has nothing to do with consistency in a motor oil.

With consistent blending/base stocks/additive packages, a motor oil will perform to specification with predictable regularity.

You can look Warren oils for example.

Review the VOA for the many versions of Warren dino oil packaged in Peak, Super Tech, and a myrad of other private label and house brand bottles.

You'll see amazing consistency in the motor oil's characteristics and little variation in the components of their respective additive packages.

Any way, PYB 5W-20 will remain a real bargain until SOPUS works through the glut of GTL in their "pipeline."

In the future, I believe you will see more GTL use instead of less as it becomes the prevalent base stock out there.

 

[jrustles]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Great tirade, but how does that relate to performance?


'b-b-but muh performance.'

The last strawman in the lineup. Entirely expected, a little late TBH. The 'tirade' is still about getting deceived and consequently ripped off- not about performance, but I'll touch on that later on anyway- because that's still not equal.

So, now, regardless of how sinfully cheap it is to produce the GrIII (and also the hydroprocessed GrII/+ which is also technically synthetic- ask yourself where the line should be drawn) we are now expected to accept a FULL SYNTHETIC retail pricing structure based on some arbitrary "cost-per-unit-of-performance-stability" chart???? lol wut? Where's the chart? In the marketeers' heads?

But we cannot blame the marketeers for their brazen confidence in their price structure, because we've sent a clear message in our response to the market changes that allowed such dishonest deceit.

Our market response has essentially been "hur dur yes sir, I'll pay equal or more, decades later for your new highly refined, highly additized GrIII based oils, than I ever did for your old PAO/POE/AN/Coconut ester oils of the past, derp and I'll happily do it. In fact I'll throw in some free brand-defense council time to try and influence any of my 'trouble-making' consumer peers that may pop up, on the house. On me, as a reward"

That's the message we've sent. That's pretty stupid right?

The result: Instead of expecting a retail product to more closely reflect it's cost to produce regardless of how it performs, like how retail USED TO BE, we're now adhering to some unofficial, unrecognized, arbitrary value-pricing scale of cost-per-"performance" because they've won the right to misappropriate the word "synthetic" where we can apply it to highly refined oils. But then only GrIII, not GrII/+? What?

Okay, then. So what are the going rates? Where's the chart or scale? Do I pay an extra dollar per quart for every ten degrees of improved oxidative stability? $1.50/qt more for every half-centipoise increase in HTHS?

Orrrr is the pricing totally arbitrary and we just getting ripped way the heck off?

lol. but seriously....


Originally Posted By: kschachn

so what?


hahaha, I love that.

Well, since there is no suggested retail pricing structure based on relative performance parameters of automotive oils, we're all getting ripped off and spending our own personal time defending such actions.

brilliant.

Surely, nothing I say will change the market or the perception of GrIII. I will still occasionally use them, as a matter of convenience. But at the very least people should have an IDEA going forward, of how they're being manipulated.

This sneaky "Equivalency value pricing in the face of fractioned production costs" is actually a HUGE RACKET plaguing the entire retail realm, not just motor oil. Made in China anyone? The Chinese product seems like an incredibly great value to US. "WOW, this light bulb is retailing 20% cheaper than it used to be", but is now costing 92% LESS to produce!!

The Chinese and the old USA made bulb may just be "equivalent**" to it's predecessor on some limited lifetime scale, but we all know that the contracting brand (and consequently us, the consumer) gets what THEY pay for. We inherit the value that THEY paid for, not what WE paid for. The contracting brand gets to stuff THEIR pocket and is real benefactor.


So, as far as equivalency? I'll believe it when blenders NO LONGER need PAO/POE and other synthetic fluids for the base of any of their highest-demand lubes.(*not true synthetic fluids used as additives to GrIII based oils)

I'll buy 'unequivocal equivalency' when the toughest oil specifications to satisfy, like Jet II Turbine oils or other mission critical apps where lives are at stake, synthetic POE gear oils (from the big names themselves), LL04. MB229, A3/B4,
OR EVEN THE equivalent Euro M1, Castrol, flavours from familiar lineups, all switch over to American-style majority GrIII-base, instead of GrIV/V-base... heck, I'll even give synthetic credit to GrIII when the rest of the world agrees to label "hydro-synthese" as "vollsynthese" or whatever.....
but until then, the GrIII remains relegated as 'the cheapstuff with adequate performance' that we can erroneously brand as "FULL SYNTHETIC" on this continent alone.

/tirade

 

[kschachn]

You might, as long as that is less expensive to produce than hydrocracking crude oil. But no one yet at least has shown performance improvements via GTL. Remember, Visom was an intermediate product according to ExxonMobil, only being used until they get their own GTL facilities in place.

Originally Posted By: SilverC6
In the future, I believe you will see more GTL use instead of less as it becomes the prevalent base stock out there.

 

[kschachn]

And it is nowhere near "sinfully cheap" to produce severely hydrocracked synthetic oil. GTL proves it. Cheaper than PAO but you really have to stop focusing on price. Availability of supply is just as big of a concern.

 

[kschachn]

That will never happen for the most part. For optimum performance PAO is still needed in the final mix. But you do realize that just adding Group III to PAO is not a one-to-one relationship, where the percentage of Group III directly degrades the performance of the finished product by an equal amount? There is a synergy that I sure don't understand but the oil companies do. ExxonMobil is all over that in their papers.

Originally Posted By: jrustles
So, as far as equivalency? I'll believe it when blenders NO LONGER need PAO/POE and other synthetic fluids for the base of any of their highest-demand lubes.(*not true synthetic fluids used as additives to GrIII based oils)

 

[stickybuns]

Originally Posted By: jrustles

Well, since there is no suggested retail pricing structure based on relative performance parameters of automotive oils, we're all getting ripped off and spending our own personal time defending such actions.


Markets work like this: Products get priced at whatever level is possible to sell a desired quantity which maximizes profits. Economics 101 basics. All your moaning about relative performance parameters not setting price is moot. Its not reality.

 

[yvon_la]

Sadly todays engine durability is engineered Around synthetic oil.true,graphene is gona be a nice cheat for say valvoline premium conventional or similar low additive count.but we have yet to see graphene avail say in local store (walmart etc)

 

[Tom NJ]

There is no relationship between cost and price in marketing. Cost is always driven as low as possible through raw material selection and negotiations with suppliers. Price is set in the marketplace by competition and consumer perceived value. If the price is higher than the cost you have a successful business model.

Perceived value is where oil companies cash in on the word "synthetic". For decades, synthetic base oils were defined by the SAE and were distinctly superior (PAO, Esters, etc) to conventional Grp I base oils. As a result the word synthetic became perceived by consumers to designate a much better oil at a much higher price.

The SAE eliminated the definition of "synthetic" in 1996 and a few years later Grp IIIs assumed the title. While consumers still hold the long established perception of superiority for synthetics, the difference from conventionals today could be as little as just a single VI point (although usually somewhat more).

With the perceived value being so high and Grp III so cheap, oil companies have a strong driver to push synthetics.

Conventional Oil, price @ WM = $3/qt in jugs, Grp II base oil with VI of 110 & base oil cost of $0.88/qt.

Synthetic Oil, price @ WM = $5/qt in jugs, Grp III base oil with VI of 120 & base oil cost of $1.34/qt.

Both oils meet the very same specifications and have the very same certifications.

So the word "Synthetic" on the label gets the oil company 46¢/qt higher cost with a $2/qt higher price, and the consumer gets 10 VI points.

And technically the difference by definition could be as little 1 VI point and the price could be as much as $4/qt higher when sold in quart bottles.

Nice deal, at least for them.

Of course some synthetics are still greatly superior to conventionals, but the word synthetic no longer has meaning.

Tom NJ

 

[jrustles]

Thank you Tom for weighing in with your valuable input. As they say 'the facts speak for themselves'

 

[wemay]

Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
There is no relationship between cost and price in marketing. Cost is always driven as low as possible through raw material selection and negotiations with suppliers. Price is set in the marketplace by competition and consumer perceived value. If the price is higher than the cost you have a successful business model.

Perceived value is where oil companies cash in on the word "synthetic". For decades, synthetic base oils were defined by the SAE and were distinctly superior (PAO, Esters, etc) to conventional Grp I base oils. As a result the word synthetic became perceived by consumers to designate a much better oil at a much higher price.

The SAE eliminated the definition of "synthetic" in 1996 and a few years later Grp IIIs assumed the title. While consumers still hold the long established perception of superiority for synthetics, the difference from conventionals today could be as little as just a single VI point (although usually somewhat more).

With the perceived value being so high and Grp III so cheap, oil companies have a strong driver to push synthetics.

Conventional Oil, price @ WM = $3/qt in jugs, Grp II base oil with VI of 110 & base oil cost of $0.88/qt.

Synthetic Oil, price @ WM = $5/qt in jugs, Grp III base oil with VI of 120 & base oil cost of $1.34/qt.7

Both oils meet the very same specifications and have the very same certifications.

So the word "Synthetic" on the label gets the oil company 46¢/qt higher cost with a $2/qt higher price, and the consumer gets 10 VI points.

And technically the difference by definition could be as little 1 VI point and the price could be as much as $4/qt higher when sold in quart bottles.

Nice deal, at least for them.

Of course some synthetics are still greatly superior to conventionals, but the word synthetic no longer has meaning.

Tom NJ


Thank you for putting it so succinctly.

 

[dlundblad]

I cant believe how many pages this thread has already.

I like conventional more because I enjoy changing my oil a bit more frequently.

 

[Nick1994]

Originally Posted By: dlundblad
I cant believe how many pages this thread has already.

I like conventional more because I enjoy changing my oil a bit more frequently.

Lol I like how people buy conventional to save money cause it's cheaper.

I can't believe people are worried about saving a few dollars on an oil change.

 

[dave1251]

Spending more money equals what?

 

[wemay]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
Spending more money equals what?


You beat me to it Dave. And to expound on your thoughts, dlundblad never said he uses it because 'it's cheaper', he said he likes changing his oil more often. Nothing wrong there. Unfortunately some people like telling others how to spend their money and on what.

 

[Cooper]

Really, this is a debate that can go on and on. If your car specs synthetic, use it. If it doesn't, don't, or do. Whichever.

But, today's conventional oils are so much different than a few years ago. I would trust PYB just as much as I trust PP if my cars were specced for it and I didn't want to run the same oil in both the make it as simple as possible on my stash.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: jrustles
Thank you Tom for weighing in with your valuable input. As they say 'the facts speak for themselves'

And think of the Canadian market in respect to what Tom says. I can get a jug of primarily PAO Delvac 1 for $25, any day of the week. Any vanilla Group III synthetic at Walmart or Canadian Tire is going to be close to $50, if not more. Even Walmart Canada's and CT's best sales have trouble rivaling Imperial Oil's pricing (or those at the SOPUS distributor, for that matter).

I'm not sure how it's the oil companies' fault when we're dumb enough to pay that kind of markup in this country.

 

[KrisZ]

Originally Posted By: wemay
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Spending more money equals what?


You beat me to it Dave. And to expound on your thoughts, dlundblad never said he uses it because 'it's cheaper', he said he likes changing his oil more often. Nothing wrong there. Unfortunately some people like telling others how to spend their money and on what.

Exactly, and that snobbish outlook can always be extended to those using the "cheap" or "fake" synthetics by those using more expensive or boutique oils.

 

[kschachn]

That is just absolutely not true. For new products that required a significant investment in research and development that is the case since a company has to recoup its costs. It is also true that unique products there is usually a price premium since they are the only game in town. But for the majority of goods and services a corporation markets your statement is just false. There is a direct correlation between cost and price.

With all the competition in the marketplace what else do you think drives it? Especially in this example with Group III hydrocracked oil.

Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
There is no relationship between cost and price in marketing. Cost is always driven as low as possible through raw material selection and negotiations with suppliers. Price is set in the marketplace by competition and consumer perceived value. If the price is higher than the cost you have a successful business model.