Can't find the original message, but I read on here a couple of weeks ago a post that stated there was information that indicated that a blend of conventional and 25% syn was almost just as good as a full syn...any further on this? Is this true?
Blend...just as good as full syn?
- Thread starter guill
- Start date
- Status
Regarding semi-syn. It falls under the 'weakest link' rule. With synthetic formulations, every aspect of the oil is maximized. With the intro of mineral based components the chain is now weakened as every aspect of mineral base performance is not to the level of synthetic, thus every aspect of the synthetic performance is compromised. i.e. the weakest leak in the chain is now the mineral based component. Chain is now only as strong as the weakest link, mineral based oil. Not worth consideration.
George Morrison, STLE CLS
MolaKule
Staff member
I would say that for Schaeffer's Blend (Supreme 7000 series) with with their additive package and Moly AW additive, it is close to the performance of a full synth. It has about 17% PAO on the average.
The problem with the other blends is that we don't know how much PAO or esters are in them, and if their additive package contains the same AW additives as Schaeffer's.
The only downside (if there is one) is the voltatility numbers are higher than for full synths.
Patman
Staff member
The blends you find in the stores are only 10% synthetic, and not even the good stuff either, but 10% group 3 petroleum base, so really they are a huge scam.
I could be wrong but I thought Schaeffer used closer to a 28-30% mix of PAO in it's base oil. This blend is unique in that it can perform just as well as a full synthetic. I don't know of any other blend out there (other than possibly Royal Purple) that can claim this.
Hi Patman,
I'm curious as to why you include the Royal Purple in the synth blend category with Schaffers 7000?
From what I understand, and I believe it was Terry who posted this, RP street oil uses a fully PAO base stock. However, it is in their additive carrier oil that they use mineral oil--and this is the reason for the disclaimer on the RP FAQ.
From what I understand though, most companies use a mineral carrier oil, even Mobil 1. This is why Mobil used to put a small disclaimer in the back of their bottle that said something like "100% synthetic, exclusive of carrier oil". Mobil probably doesn't feel the need to put this anymore because since Castrol can call their Group 3 mineral oil a "synthetic".
Does anyone here know if I am correct on this or am I not understanding it correctly?
quote:I think a correction needs to be applied to the above statement.. "With synthetic formulations, every aspect of the BASE oil is maximized" as this does not include the additives. As a rule, George has a point that many blends are very limited in the amount of actual synth used in the process. BUT there is exceptions to every rule and in the case of SCHAEFFERS, this is one. Their blend contains a much higher level of synth but also since now the GF-3 requirements, you'll find that a lot of the mineral base stocks are much closer to a synth in terms of durability and perfomance. This has really tighten the market for many "full" synth's and has caused some rift between manufactures. Consider the recent news on amsoil changing their formulation in one of their products. So, don't just look at this base oil issue as the end to all ends when looking at oil. I have been preaching a long time that there is more to oil than just base oil, and many times I look at many posts and always see people stating synth is the only way to go. IMO, I find that most will not ever push a motor to the point of needing a full synth. This isn't to say it isn't needed or not worth it, but in a lot of cases you'll find that a blend or even some regular mineral oils will sufice exceptionally well in the same application. Is the blends a waste of money or not as good as a full synth? There is always some areas that the blend won't have the advantage over a full synth but for the most part you'll find that the full synth doesn't normally shine untill you start extending drains, and even then, there is some mineral oils that can also extend. Of course not as far as the synths but point being, don't limit your sights on synths only. Look at your applicatoin and see if you need such. I myself don't sell a full synth to anyone unless their applciations require it and you'd be suprised to how many times that has been. Here are some examples on how a good blend can compare to a full synth.. mobil vs blend.. http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000008 amsoil vs blend http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000053 Now this is not representitive of all blends as schaeffers is a specialized oil that is designed with a little more engineering than most IMO. Keep in mind, when looking at oils, factor in all aspects of the oil and not just the base stock as many always seem to indicate. The only way to really do this if you are looking for the best, is to do oil analysis on your applications, giving you the true picture what works for you as a lot of people don't need our blends or synths, but maybe just a good standard mineral. btw, let me add that M1's new SS oil has been proving out to be an excellent oil as well with the new formulation they came out with since the recent addition of a barrier additive, not the change in the base oil, again proving my point that it's not just base oils you have to look at.
Originally posted by GeorgeCLS: Regarding semi-syn. It falls under the 'weakest link' rule. With synthetic formulations, every aspect of the oil is maximized. With the intro of mineral based components the chain is now weakened as every aspect of mineral base performance is not to the level of synthetic, thus every aspect of the synthetic performance is compromised. i.e. the weakest leak in the chain is now the mineral based component. Chain is now only as strong as the weakest link, mineral based oil. Not worth consideration. George Morrison, STLE CLS
Patman
Staff member
kalbri, I stand corrected then. From reading Royal Purple's website in the past, I had thought it was not a full synthetic, because of how they always say it's technology was "beyond synthetic" or something to that effect. So I had thought it's street oils were a blend.
I believe the Schaeffers consistently shows good TBN retention and goes the distance in above normal intervals. It really does hold it's own to some synthetics but possibly the real question is does the Schaeffers Blend even have a competitor on the market? don't imo think there is one close to it. From what I tried to figure out the Mobil 10/30 Blend has 9-12 percent PAO and a HTHS of 3.1. That is .1 less than Pennzoil 10/30 Dino. The Shaeffers is 3.5 in their 10/30.The PAO shows in the pumpability as well,the Schaeffers in the 4700 range and Mobil at 5500 both in 10/30 wts. Last I looked the Mobil was at 2.50 a quart as well. IMO not exactly a bargain compared to the Schaeffers but I have seen no evidence of anyone on this board using it or analysis of that Mobil Blend either.
Citgo is the only other PAO blend I know of in the USA other than a Racing 15/40 from another company. Are there more available?
The Group III's blended with a lower group dino? C'mon! I gotta ask why then I tell myself Marketing.
I will thow a additive in one ever now and then but to build a semi syn from 4 quarts of this ,1 quart of that would seem not the best way to lube a motor imo
Guill,
When you blend together synthetic and petroleum basestocks, there is some synergism. In other words, adding 30% synthetic generally improves the properties of the basestock blend by more than 30%. I would expect a blend of this type to perform about midway between a straight petroleum oil and a full, PAO/Ester synthetic.
However, all things being equal a full synthetic basestock with a robust additive package will outperform a synthetic blend with the same additive chemistry. The synthetic basestocks have inherently better physical/chemical properties, so they require less "doping" with additives to provide low and high temp performance. For example, PAO basestocks normally don't require pour point depressants - these are even required for Group III
"synthetics". The PAO's and Esters also tend to be more resistant to high temp oxidation and don't require as much VI modifier. Esters also serve to provide solvency/detergency and function as supplemental anti-wear additives. What you find in actual use is that additive depletion is slower with the PAO/Esters, given the same additive chemistry. So they are able to maintain their original properties longer under the same conditions.
this topic makes me want to go out, buy regular oil, and throw a quart of mobil1 in with it the next time i change my oil. there is always a lot of grunting about that, but w.t.h.
for warranty reasons, i won't go past 7500 miles on my oil changes. subaru recommends 7500 for regular service and 3000 for severe. i have about a 60 mile round trip to work and back. i used mobil1 tri-syn on my last car with 7500 mile changes, and that just seems like overkill for that kind of highway miles.
due for an oil change in about 1000 miles (3 weeks), so hopefully someone will fix all my problems for me by then. ![[I dont know]](/forums/graemlins/dunno.gif)
the cool thing about the next oil change is the fumoto oil drain valve that will be installed.
thanks for letting me ramble.
c
the cool thing about the next oil change is the fumoto oil drain valve that will be installed.
thanks for letting me ramble.
cOK, I'm going to stir this up a little as I can see something that might need to be answered since synths are being held up in a shining light here.
It has been said more than once that full synths have better base oils and do more for your engine. Aside from the obvious of pourpoints, why is it that redline uses exceptionally high levels of
Ca, 3131 ppm
P, 1261 ppm
Zn, 1334 ppm
Moly, 557 ppm
Amsoil
ph 1440
zinc 1573
ca 3123
m1 ss
Mo 88
ph 1020
zn 1009
ca 3343
Havoline
Zinc: 2100
Calcium: 4169
Phosphor: 1593
Now notice that the numbers above seem to corelate with what schaeffers uses in these blends.
Mo 179
Ph 1435
Zinc 1374
Calc 3308
To quote TooSlick.."Esters also serve to provide solvency/detergency and function as supplemental anti-wear additives" The interesting one..Calcium levels in all of the above mentioned oils show to be considerably higher than any of the mineral oils... hmmm, calcuim is a dispersant/detergent additive. What will that do for an oil? oh yeah, help keep the tbn up longer, fight off acids and maybe help the base oil to live a longer life?
Zinc levels, again higher than normal mineral oils, thats an antiwear additive..
phos levels are higher than normal mineral oils, thats and antiwear and ep additive...
Are you seeing my picture here... Why is it, that these synths' with all the forces that the esters offer in their base stock oil run so much more of these additives than conventional mineral oils?
The Schaeffers blends, I think understandably needs those as it isn't a full synth... but the interesting point is, the blend that has been compared to m1 and amsoil's full synths and has maintained a good run along side these full synth's in little tests, has approx the same levels of ca,zn,ph and a little higher mo in most but a whole lot less than redline.. This is what bugs me about these statements, synths are better for wear protection..etc..., you sure it's really not the additional additives that your reading this into?
The other statement.."What you find in actual use is that additive depletion is slower with the PAO/Esters, given the same additive chemistry. So they are able to maintain their original properties longer under the same conditions. "
Didn't seem to hold true either comparing the numbers on the board. This again runs back to the basic additive chemistry, not so much the base stock as many oils ppm analysis show the actual additives and how much it contains in the oil and the tbn is showing the base oils ability to fight acids but this is also dependant on the detergents and antioxidant additives more so than the base oil.
So, back to the original question... Why is it if you look at all the oil analysis for virgin sample oils, you'll find that the synth's have higher levels of these additives than the standard mineral counter parts if the base oil does all of what you say? Would it not be reasonable that the synth's would require less as the base oil already offers all these advantages with out all of this assistance?
quote:George, That is the best description I have ever heard about blends, I have always tried to explain it that way, but never came out right. Now I can use the weakest link rule, to easily explain my position on blends. Good Job!
Originally posted by GeorgeCLS: Regarding semi-syn. It falls under the 'weakest link' rule. George Morrison, STLE CLS
quote:So, if you believe in the weakest link rule, wouldn't the carrier oils for the additive package be the weakest link in the full synths? I really don't know the chemistry involved or how x amound of mineral base will effect y amount of syn base, but I'll throw out my 2 cents here. Schaeffer's blend is the best blend motor oil I've heard about. What puts it over the top is it's additive package. I do believe that, as Bob has stated, it is probably all that is needed in a street car. Getting back to the original question. Given two oils, a)blend with 25% syn and b)full syn with the exact same additive package, I believe the full syn will be signifigantly better. Now, I'm not sure if the difference is signifigant as used by the normal daily drivin car. IMHO, overkill is not a bad thing.
Originally posted by msparks:quote:George, That is the best description I have ever heard about blends, I have always tried to explain it that way, but never came out right. Now I can use the weakest link rule, to easily explain my position on blends. Good Job!
Originally posted by GeorgeCLS: Regarding semi-syn. It falls under the 'weakest link' rule. George Morrison, STLE CLS
MolaKule
Staff member
I guess this is the first time I have had to disagree with a ERAU fellow graduate. Sorry George.
The weakest link is NOT the base oil. The weakest link would be a less than optimum (crummy) additive package.
I have a paper in my files by a synth author that clearly states that a poorly formulated synth is worse than even a mediocre dino or blend. And in the distant past (thankfully), there have been a few.
While I am still a proponent of synth bases and use those for racing formulations and aerospace propulsion, a well formulated dino or blend is still a good value for short to medium drain intervals and street use.
I think the Schaeffer's 7000 series blends have the best price/performance values that I have investigated to-date.
Well the point I'm trying to make here is although synth's are usually a good oil, it is not the end all solution for car engines and especially not for some diesels. synth's have their place, and in some areas they really serve well but this constant idea that a full synth will do better no matter what is not true when it comes to car/truck engines. I am seeing way to many reports showing some outstanding results with blends, minerals as well as some synths. Funny thing though is that the synth's are not shining as much as they used to and mostly that is contributed to better mineral base stocks but also some of the minerals/blends are using a better additive package. Which brings me to point two... additives, I dont' care which oil you use, if you ignore the types of additives used, and the concentration levels you are missing the boat. These additives are extremely important to any oil and with a weak additive package, as George puts it... that is the weakest link in the oils.
So what is the consensus today? Do you believe that this still stands true? I still am on the fence, one day I think only full synthetic, then the next, I may want to use a blend.
Quote:AT the end of the day, it will still come down to personal choice. No matter how much good advice you read as we have in this thread, we BITOGERS are still going to flip flop and debate this. The only way some of us will ever make a choice and stick with it is if an Iraqi insurgent has you held at gun point threatening to cut off your head if you refuse to stick to one brand.
So what is the consensus today? Do you believe that this still stands true? I still am on the fence, one day I think only full synthetic, then the next, I may want to use a blend.
Hmmm...on that note...If I were held at gunpoint and forced to choose a brand of synthetic (today), I would choose M1 for syn. For conventional, I'd choose Mobil Clean 5000 after reading BOBISTHEOILGUY'S post. It would seem the MC 5000 bost a lot of additives in their desire to live up to the number on the front of the bottle...that or Havoline
Either way, I'd make my choice and be happy I'm still alive...LOL
Either way, I'd make my choice and be happy I'm still alive...LOL- Status
