Well, … what about the Carbon and Hydrogen molecules in the PAO? They weren’t synthesized. If one defines the “synthetic” label too narrowly, even PAO’s need not apply. Are we going force PAO producers to make their C/H molecules in a nuclear reactor from electrons/protons/neutrons so the C/H molecules are manmade and “synthetic” too?
And what about any non-manmade molecules that don’t get converted in the PAO process? If they’re making PAO from ethylene and a few molecules of ethylene aren’t converted and still exist in the finished Mobil 1 product, are we going to allow that product to be called 100% synthetic, or full synthetic? Or force Grp IV producers to remove any of those remaining ethylene molecules before the synthetic label can be applied. And then there is the issue of the additives, Ca, Mg ….etc.
One could debate the semantics of “synthetic” all day, but at some point you have to draw a line on what’s reasonable given the information and circumstances. There may not be one final definitive answer like in mathematics where 2+2=4. The courts have to make a judgement call (like in common law) on what a reasonable man would expect or decide. What it really comes down to is -- were the consumer interests well served by calling Grp III synthetics? And the answer is emphatically yes. It was a “reasonable” decision because of the excellent performance of Grp III’s. If the performance of GRp III’s weren’t anywhere near “traditional” synthetic motor oil, then I think consumers would have cause for concern.
And what about any non-manmade molecules that don’t get converted in the PAO process? If they’re making PAO from ethylene and a few molecules of ethylene aren’t converted and still exist in the finished Mobil 1 product, are we going to allow that product to be called 100% synthetic, or full synthetic? Or force Grp IV producers to remove any of those remaining ethylene molecules before the synthetic label can be applied. And then there is the issue of the additives, Ca, Mg ….etc.
One could debate the semantics of “synthetic” all day, but at some point you have to draw a line on what’s reasonable given the information and circumstances. There may not be one final definitive answer like in mathematics where 2+2=4. The courts have to make a judgement call (like in common law) on what a reasonable man would expect or decide. What it really comes down to is -- were the consumer interests well served by calling Grp III synthetics? And the answer is emphatically yes. It was a “reasonable” decision because of the excellent performance of Grp III’s. If the performance of GRp III’s weren’t anywhere near “traditional” synthetic motor oil, then I think consumers would have cause for concern.
