Boutique/Expensive Oils over standard brands?

[4wd]

You contradict yourself since someone noted an M1 product to challenge your HFO comments - and you come back with made across the pond and expensive - I already noted it was not Walmart oil - like Motul is -? Not where I live. Most know there are no oils at Walmart as good as yours. Plenty of us here can afford whatever. But one pony advice is not what we are here for.
Yes this thread like many got sidetracked and never went into if I run X then drain Y etc - much granularity on the car in question - just back to the old tired it's not "synthetic" - well let's cut GIV off "synthetic" too just in case some petrochemical building blocks got cracked along the way.
And since you obviously are hitting Google for only your narrative driven info - take a breather and see some FCPA stuff on French companies. Total has grown on the back of economic sanctions when we try to avoid conflict that way - and they come in the back door. 3 of 10 top FCPA fines are French companies - completely dispoportional to how many major companies are worldwide - and the only oil company is Total.
I just exposed some bias and have before. I tend to use Shell & XOM products since they are both up to the job and are supporting my region - and I'm buying stuff from 3-4 others too. FF on some serious cars come from these OEM's.
Who I see as one of the best oil advisors on this site uses and recommends several oils based on value.
You signature and writing here suggests you are obsessed with Motul - your ears are covered - but you can't force it on others and you will not take the place of the better advisors making fun of good price point products
(just go back to your first rode the White Horse in statements ...)

 

[d00df00d]

To be fair, Motul really does make very good stuff.

The problem in this thread isn't the hearty endorsements of Motul. They've earned them. The problem is that many of the claims around those endorsements are suspect.

 

[mightymousetech]

Originally Posted By: gryffinwings
Originally Posted By: gryffinwings
Originally Posted By: DeepFriar
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL


In that context, Fuchs and Motul are both set apart from that group as they carry extensive OEM approvals across a wide range of products. When I think of boutique I subsequently do not think of these brand. In my mind, these are in a separate category of "premium blenders" which are not of the same scale as perhaps Valvoline, but that is because they don't cater to the lower tier conventional oil market.



Yes. They are positioned as "premium" brands with most premium specifications accounted for (I tend to key on Porsche A40. I don't own one but, to me, if it can handle aircooled it's OK by me). Don't know about Fuchs but Motul produces their own alcohol-based esters so perhaps they exceed the "blender" title but I agree with your point.


Gryffinwings - I noticed you mentioning quarts in one of the earlier posts. Note that Motul is in 5 liter jugs so when evaluating price for price remember you need to do a liter-quart conversion and, in addition, don't be tripped up by gallon vs. 5 liter jugs.

Recently my daughter had been running low on oil in the 2006 Civic SI. Looking back at the invoices part of the problem seems to have been that there were times when an oil change shop (I know, I know...) would refill with 5 QUARTS or worse, sometimes with 1 Gallon. The SI takes 5.8 quarts which is more or less equal to 5 liters. So sometimes she was starting almost 1 or two quarts low. And THEN she doesn't check it for 5,000 miles! I can get her the 5 liter Motul jugs for $35 or so and ship it to her place. Job done.


I stand corrected, here's my correction.

Mobil 1 10w30 High Mileage is 5 quarts = 4.73 Liters = $22.80 USD at Walmart
Motul 8100 X-Cess 5w40 is 5 Liters = 5.28 Quarts = $44.95 USD at ECS Tuning plus $20 dollars shipping
Motul 8100 X-Cess 5w40 at 5 Liters + 1 Liter = 6.34 Quarts = $54.90 with free shipping at ECS Tuning.

However please let me know where you are getting Motul for $35 dollars, that's pretty good price in my opinion.


Nevermind I found a better price on amazon. Here's a link:

Amazon link for Motul 8100 X-cess 5w40


Back when I was using Motul 5W40, I would buy it on Amazon by the case. Sometimes it is even cheaper than currently showing. I have seen it for as low as $119/case, or 20L. Less than $30/jug.

https://www.amazon.com/Motul-007250-4PK-...00+x-cess+5w-40

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: mightymousetech


Back when I was using Motul 5W40, I would buy it on Amazon by the case. Sometimes it is even cheaper than currently showing. I have seen it for as low as $119/case, or 20L. Less than $30/jug.

https://www.amazon.com/Motul-007250-4PK-...00+x-cess+5w-40


Yes, I got a screaming deal on their 0w30 on Amazon a while back, something like $5/L.

 

[Flying_A]

Originally Posted By: 4WD
You contradict yourself since someone noted an M1 product to challenge your HFO comments - and you come back with made across the pond and expensive - I already noted it was not Walmart oil - like Motul is -? Not where I live. Most know there are no oils at Walmart as good as yours. Plenty of us here can afford whatever. But one pony advice is not what we are here for.


Sorry? HFO? Certainly the majors can and do make some great stuff but often the comparables that have wide accessibility are pretty standard in terms of formulation yet to your point still offer great value. Like you stated, Mobil 1 ESP is not your average M1 product. I think we can both agree on that.

Originally Posted By: 4WD

And since you obviously are hitting Google for only your narrative driven info


Wow... Is it possible that the narrative here at BITOG is being challenged in this thread? The narrative of you know, peddling big oil products that may not be as good as other worthy choices out there? Maybe there are people who have insight to those differences for various reasons that are completely legitimate?

Originally Posted By: 4WD

- take a breather and see some FCPA stuff on French companies. Total has grown on the back of economic sanctions when we try to avoid conflict that way - and they come in the back door. 3 of 10 top FCPA fines are French companies - completely dispoportional to how many major companies are worldwide - and the only oil company is Total.


Ok... May be this was in response to the OP inquiring about Quartz products? Not sure what this has to do with Motul or the discussion overall.

Originally Posted By: 4WD

I just exposed some bias and have before. I tend to use Shell & XOM products since they are both up to the job and are supporting my region - and I'm buying stuff from 3-4 others too. FF on some serious cars come from these OEM's.
Who I see as one of the best oil advisors on this site uses and recommends several oils based on value.


And that is entirely your choice to do so, and I have the choice to that as well when making my lube choices. The original poster inquired about boutique oils, I was merely pointing out the key differences vs brands that you may prefer. He didn't ask what oil was best for the money.

Originally Posted By: 4WD

You signature and writing here suggests you are obsessed with Motul - your ears are covered - but you can't force it on others and you will not take the place of the better advisors making fun of good price point products
(just go back to your first rode the White Horse in statements ...)


Look man, I was purely trying to bring a level of, I suppose "knowledge" to the post about a brand that in my opinion that is unknown in North America and is in my opinion, overlooked. While yes, it is true, I'm a firm believer in their products due to real world experiences- dropping 30 degrees in oil temps going to 300V is one or getting terrible brake fade and it practically disappearing going to the RBF product. It's not because of the marketing (there is none) or my butt dyno but things that I can feel or see with my own eyes. That's what has made me a believer and why I have made may be an overly-passionate case for this brand.

 

[wemay]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
To be fair, Motul really does make very good stuff.

The problem in this thread isn't the hearty endorsements of Motul. They've earned them. The problem is that many of the claims around those endorsements are suspect.


wholeheartedly agree

 

[4ever4d]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: 4ever4d
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I look at it this way. Simply put, keep in mind most if not all of the boutique oil companies are getting their "supplies" from major oil companies like XOM and Shell. Do you really think they get anything better than XOM and Shell would use for their own oils? We'd like to believe that's the case, proving it is another story.

True, but how they are blending the components and the amount of each used could be the difference between the two.


True, and on the other hand, maybe not. I've yet to see factual proof one way or another.

I agree. It would be interesting to really know for sure.

 

[gryffinwings]

Originally Posted By: 4ever4d
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: 4ever4d
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I look at it this way. Simply put, keep in mind most if not all of the boutique oil companies are getting their "supplies" from major oil companies like XOM and Shell. Do you really think they get anything better than XOM and Shell would use for their own oils? We'd like to believe that's the case, proving it is another story.

True, but how they are blending the components and the amount of each used could be the difference between the two.


True, and on the other hand, maybe not. I've yet to see factual proof one way or another.

I agree. It would be interesting to really know for sure.


We'll probably never know for sure, industrial secrets, proprietary technology, etc, etc.... But..... it would be nice to know the basic break down of a specific oil.....

 

[Flying_A]

Bizol has a half decent explanation of this... Not great but but does provide some insight to what is potentially out there:

http://bizol.us/1118/

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Flying_A
Bizol has a half decent explanation of this... Not great but but does provide some insight to what is potentially out there:

http://bizol.us/1118/


Another repetition of the "lawsuit against Castrol" myth... It wasn't a lawsuit. It was a complaint to the National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau.

Also, Group II included in the definition of synthetic? Seriously? And that chart -- how on earth do they know base oil percentages like that, let alone can they put single percentages on whole grades that include dozens or hundreds of different products?

The rest seems generally plausible, but those flaws make the article as a whole seem more than a little suspect.

 

[Flying_A]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: Flying_A
Bizol has a half decent explanation of this... Not great but but does provide some insight to what is potentially out there:

http://bizol.us/1118/


Another repetition of the "lawsuit against Castrol" myth... It wasn't a lawsuit. It was a complaint to the National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau.

Also, Group II included in the definition of synthetic? Seriously? And that chart -- how on earth do they know base oil percentages like that, let alone can they put single percentages on whole grades that include dozens or hundreds of different products?

The rest seems generally plausible, but those flaws make the article as a whole seem more than a little suspect.


Totally agree, I'm surprised they put all of that in writing... I just remember coming across that link sometime ago and really don't know anything about them as a company or their products.

I mean, is it really that unbelievable that Grp II's can be used in a "synthetic" product considering known Gp II+ oils are performing pretty darn well in extended OCI's?

 

[gryffinwings]

Group IIs are Synthetic????? Mind blown.... whose idea was that? Honestly I think we need to adopt laws similar to Germany. Maybe we would actually get more variety of better synthetic oils. *SMH*

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Flying_A
I mean, is it really that unbelievable that Grp II's can be used in a "synthetic" product considering known Gp II+ oils are performing pretty darn well in extended OCI's?

It's pretty darn unbelievable to me. Everything I've heard from an authoritative source has said Group III is the only arguable category, and I and II are definitely NOT considered synthetic.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: gryffinwings
Group IIs are Synthetic????? Mind blown.... whose idea was that?

Whoever wrote that article, for all we know. Until we hear it from more authoritative sources, it's bunk.

To be fair, what you call which type of basestock is meaningless in the end. What matters is how the product works. The only reason the "Group II = synthetic" claim matters here is that it casts doubt on the article's credibility.

 

[Nyogtha]

As a Chemical Engineer, from a strict perspective, any base oil that includes hydroisomerization (catalytic dewaxing) in its processing steps is synthesized as chemical reaction is used to change the molecular strucyure of the end product from the feed, not just seperation processes. Before the advent of catalytic dewaxing, solvent extraction followed by physical dewaxing, followed by hydroprocessing for contaminant removal was the route to produce Group II base oils and is still a technically viable route to producing Group II base oils today. However physical dewaxing requires chilling, and refrigeration is the most expensive BTU there is in a petroleum refinery. So economic viability vs. catalytic dewaxing especially in newer construction or revamped units, tends to not be as competitive. With the oil still hot from hydroprocessing for contaminant removal, catalytic dewaxing is a natural followup processing step now, versus chilling to remove wax followed by hydroprocessing to remove contaminants. Catalytic dewaxing also opens up a wider crude slate and increases process yield.

Since there's no API definition of a Group II+ nor a Group III+ base oil, this leaves those definitions in the realm of marketing terms only, until at some time a standardized formal definition is adopted by API (if ever).

It should be noted even Group IV base stocks undergo hydroprocessing in order to saturate the olefin chains converting them to paraffin chains, despite the common term of PAO. You'll see the term "hydrogenated" on Group IV base stock descriptions and SDS. That's what this is associated with, not contaminant removal such as sulfur or dewaxing as PAO manufacture starts off with high purity ethylene feedstock.

But it's also worth noting current definitions of synthetic base oil have been determined through attorneys, judges, and legal systems in courts of law revolving around marketing decisions - not Chemical Engineers using fundamental chemical processing terminology definitions.

 

[gryffinwings]

Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
As a Chemical Engineer, from a strict perspective, any base oil that includes hydroisomerization (catalytic dewaxing) in its processing steps is synthesized as chemical reaction is used to change the molecular strucyure of the end product from the feed, not just seperation processes. Before the advent of catalytic dewaxing, solvent extraction followed by physical dewaxing, followed by hydroprocessing for contaminant removal was the route to produce Group II base oils and is still a technically viable route to producing Group II base oils today. However physical dewaxing requires chilling, and refrigeration is the most expensive BTU there is in a petroleum refinery. So economic viability vs. catalytic dewaxing especially in newer construction or revamped units, tends to not be as competitive. With the oil still hot from hydroprocessing for contaminant removal, catalytic dewaxing is a natural followup processing step now, versus chilling to remove wax followed by hydroprocessing to remove contaminants. Catalytic dewaxing also opens up a wider crude slate and increases process yield.

Since there's no API definition of a Group II+ nor a Group III+ base oil, this leaves those definitions in the realm of marketing terms only, until at some time a standardized formal definition is adopted by API (if ever).

It should be noted even Group IV base stocks undergo hydroprocessing in order to saturate the olefin chains converting them to paraffin chains, despite the common term of PAO. You'll see the term "hydrogenated" on Group IV base stock descriptions and SDS. That's what this is associated with, not contaminant removal such as sulfur or dewaxing as PAO manufacture starts off with high purity ethylene feedstock.

But it's also worth noting current definitions of synthetic base oil have been determined through attorneys, judges, and legal systems in courts of law revolving around marketing decisions - not Chemical Engineers using fundamental chemical processing terminology definitions.


Very interesting, so that's the very basics of processing for Group II base stock, can you explain a bit on Group III base stock? I want to understand how those can be interpreted as synthetic.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
As a Chemical Engineer, from a strict perspective, any base oil that includes hydroisomerization (catalytic dewaxing) in its processing steps is synthesized as chemical reaction is used to change the molecular strucyure of the end product from the feed, not just seperation processes. Before the advent of catalytic dewaxing, solvent extraction followed by physical dewaxing, followed by hydroprocessing for contaminant removal was the route to produce Group II base oils and is still a technically viable route to producing Group II base oils today. However physical dewaxing requires chilling, and refrigeration is the most expensive BTU there is in a petroleum refinery. So economic viability vs. catalytic dewaxing especially in newer construction or revamped units, tends to not be as competitive. With the oil still hot from hydroprocessing for contaminant removal, catalytic dewaxing is a natural followup processing step now, versus chilling to remove wax followed by hydroprocessing to remove contaminants. Catalytic dewaxing also opens up a wider crude slate and increases process yield.

Since there's no API definition of a Group II+ nor a Group III+ base oil, this leaves those definitions in the realm of marketing terms only, until at some time a standardized formal definition is adopted by API (if ever).

It should be noted even Group IV base stocks undergo hydroprocessing in order to saturate the olefin chains converting them to paraffin chains, despite the common term of PAO. You'll see the term "hydrogenated" on Group IV base stock descriptions and SDS. That's what this is associated with, not contaminant removal such as sulfur or dewaxing as PAO manufacture starts off with high purity ethylene feedstock.

But it's also worth noting current definitions of synthetic base oil have been determined through attorneys, judges, and legal systems in courts of law revolving around marketing decisions - not Chemical Engineers using fundamental chemical processing terminology definitions.

Interesting! Thanks for chiming in and clarifying.

Group I/II/III is defined based on sulfur content, saturates, and viscosity index, right? I suppose it makes sense that if you synthesize a base oil with a low enough VI (
Any idea if the marketing usage of the term "synthetic" would accommodate those base oils, or if that term is reserved for base oils with higher VIs etc.?

 

[gryffinwings]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
As a Chemical Engineer, from a strict perspective, any base oil that includes hydroisomerization (catalytic dewaxing) in its processing steps is synthesized as chemical reaction is used to change the molecular strucyure of the end product from the feed, not just seperation processes. Before the advent of catalytic dewaxing, solvent extraction followed by physical dewaxing, followed by hydroprocessing for contaminant removal was the route to produce Group II base oils and is still a technically viable route to producing Group II base oils today. However physical dewaxing requires chilling, and refrigeration is the most expensive BTU there is in a petroleum refinery. So economic viability vs. catalytic dewaxing especially in newer construction or revamped units, tends to not be as competitive. With the oil still hot from hydroprocessing for contaminant removal, catalytic dewaxing is a natural followup processing step now, versus chilling to remove wax followed by hydroprocessing to remove contaminants. Catalytic dewaxing also opens up a wider crude slate and increases process yield.

Since there's no API definition of a Group II+ nor a Group III+ base oil, this leaves those definitions in the realm of marketing terms only, until at some time a standardized formal definition is adopted by API (if ever).

It should be noted even Group IV base stocks undergo hydroprocessing in order to saturate the olefin chains converting them to paraffin chains, despite the common term of PAO. You'll see the term "hydrogenated" on Group IV base stock descriptions and SDS. That's what this is associated with, not contaminant removal such as sulfur or dewaxing as PAO manufacture starts off with high purity ethylene feedstock.

But it's also worth noting current definitions of synthetic base oil have been determined through attorneys, judges, and legal systems in courts of law revolving around marketing decisions - not Chemical Engineers using fundamental chemical processing terminology definitions.

Interesting! Thanks for chiming in and clarifying.

Group I/II/III is defined based on sulfur content, saturates, and viscosity index, right? I suppose it makes sense that if you synthesize a base oil with a low enough VI (
Any idea if the marketing usage of the term "synthetic" would accommodate those base oils, or if that term is reserved for base oils with higher VIs etc.?


A synthetic Group II doesn't make sense to me because the inherent origin of the base stock which is crude oil. By definition synthetic is completely man made with chemical synthesis and meant to imitate a natural product, therefore Synthetic is not a product from nature. I just can't get it in my head that Group 1-3 can be called synthetic.

 

[Nyogtha]

I don't really see the term synthetic as applicable to Group 1 oils due to lack of chemical reaction being the difference between feedstock and product. Group 1 is produced by solvent extraction of aromatic compounds (a physical process), followed by dewaxing via temperature reduction and vacuum filtration (also physical processes).

Group II typically involves hydroprocessing but without catalytic dewaxing, it's generally of milder severity that takes organic sulfur and converts it to hydrogen sulfide, organic nitogen to ammonia, and organically bound oxygen to water - all relatively easy to seperate from oil via physical processes. It also removes organometallic compounds which irreversibly react with the hydrotreating catalyst, permanently reducing its activity. There's a matter of hydrotreating severity - how high a temperature and how high a hydrogen partial pressure a reactor is operated at with a particular feedstock. At particular severity and catalyst selection, one can also accomplish a fair degree of aromatics saturation - converting aromatics to naphthenes, doing the job of solvent extraction by chemical reaction instead of physical solvent extraction, or as a polish to solvent extracted feedstock. But in general, to the largest degree, the molecular shapes that go in are the molecular shapes that come out.

Isomerization is chemical reaction to rearrange the molecule structure. Parrafins that are completely straight chain are the most waxy (highest pour point), paraffins that are highly branched are less waxy (lower pour point). Now if I can convert high pour parrafin to low pour paraffin chemically, I increase the available lube oil yield from a given crude oil, and don't have to necessarily select specific low wax crudes for my lube oil production. This process uses a catalyst tailored to this reaction instead of conversion of bound other species and is also carried out in a high hydrogen environment to keep the catalyst pores from rapidly plugging up with side reaction coke. All hydroprocessing cataysts are very porous, total surface area is measured in square neters per gram, and the more rapidly they plug up the less activity they have.

So lubricating oils of Group 1 and older steps for Group II don't really change the product molecular structure to a large degree. Physical processes are the primary means for getting the desirable molecular size & structure.

Catalytic dewaxing (hydroisomerization) takes molecules of the desireable size and not undesirable structure (aromatics) then significantly changes the molecular structure to what's more desireable, thereby synthesizing material that wouldn't make good lubricating oil base stock, rather than physically seperating a naturally occuring fraction of crude oil molecules with some polishing to get desireable lubricating oil base stock.

 

[gryffinwings]

Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
I don't really see the term synthetic as applicable to Group 1 oils due to lack of chemical reaction being the difference between feedstock and product. Group 1 is produced by solvent extraction of aromatic compounds (a physical process), followed by dewaxing via temperature reduction and vacuum filtration (also physical processes).

Group II typically involves hydroprocessing but without catalytic dewaxing, it's generally of milder severity that takes organic sulfur and converts it to hydrogen sulfide, organic nitogen to ammonia, and organically bound oxygen to water - all relatively easy to seperate from oil via physical processes. It also removes organometallic compounds which irreversibly react with the hydrotreating catalyst, permanently reducing its activity. There's a matter of hydrotreating severity - how high a temperature and how high a hydrogen partial pressure a reactor is operated at with a particular feedstock. At particular severity and catalyst selection, one can also accomplish a fair degree of aromatics saturation - converting aromatics to naphthenes, doing the job of solvent extraction by chemical reaction instead of physical solvent extraction, or as a polish to solvent extracted feedstock. But in general, to the largest degree, the molecular shapes that go in are the molecular shapes that come out.

Isomerization is chemical reaction to rearrange the molecule structure. Parrafins that are completely straight chain are the most waxy (highest pour point), paraffins that are highly branched are less waxy (lower pour point). Now if I can convert high pour parrafin to low pour paraffin chemically, I increase the available lube oil yield from a given crude oil, and don't have to necessarily select specific low wax crudes for my lube oil production. This process uses a catalyst tailored to this reaction instead of conversion of bound other species and is also carried out in a high hydrogen environment to keep the catalyst pores from rapidly plugging up with side reaction coke. All hydroprocessing cataysts are very porous, total surface area is measured in square neters per gram, and the more rapidly they plug up the less activity they have.

So lubricating oils of Group 1 and older steps for Group II don't really change the product molecular structure to a large degree. Physical processes are the primary means for getting the desirable molecular size & structure.

Catalytic dewaxing (hydroisomerization) takes molecules of the desireable size and not undesirable structure (aromatics) then significantly changes the molecular structure to what's more desireable, thereby synthesizing material that wouldn't make good lubricating oil base stock, rather than physically seperating a naturally occuring fraction of crude oil molecules with some polishing to get desireable lubricating oil base stock.


Interesting, I can understand why someone might go ahead and call group 3 synthetic. However, for the heck of it, I looked up the definition of Semi-Synthetic, and that process you explained is exactly that.

Definition from a good search:

sem·i·syn·thet·ic

adjective CHEMISTRY
adjective: semi-synthetic
(of a substance) made by synthesis from a naturally occurring material.

Mirriam-Webster Dictionary Definition of SemiSynthetic

Thank you for sharing!