Chevron Phillips Synfluid® PAO FAQ

[Gokhan]

Chevron Phillips explains the superiority of PAO in oxidation tests among its other desired properties in this FAQ. https://www.cpchem.com/what-we-do/solutions/polyalphaolefins/faq Here is an excerpt:

• Has the quality of Group III base oils achieved equality with PAOs?

Group III mineral oils and Group IV PAOs are not of the same quality. Some properties such as Viscosity Index (VI) or °C viscosity can approach those of PAOs. However, Group III base stocks are derived from multiple feedstock choices and processing technologies, which create variability in the properties. PAOs on the other hand are derived from a clearly defined processing technology using petrochemically pure alpha olefins. So, whether used for gear or engine oils, PAOs provide more consistent properties and a level of purity not available from other base oil groups. The uniquely beneficial quality of PAOs has been demonstrated in a series of European engine tests. Three stringent test standards required by Volkswagen and Mercedes-Benz engines show the impact of the variability of Group III oils: This data illustrates lot-to-lot variability, which has been recognized for the Group III oils. While one lot of Group IIIA mineral oil passed this battery of tests, it is quite different from the quality of the other Group III stocks. Group IIIB was unable to consistently pass the TDI or M111 tests. Furthermore, the arbitrary distinction of 120 VI between Group II and III oils makes the quality requirements even more confusing. For instance, many producers have tailored production to "Group II+" stocks at 118-119 VI, just below the ambiguous Group III limit of 120VI. The VI of PAOs typically only varies one to two points. This is one clear benefit of using a carefully designed base oil. With today's oils requiring a higher-quality lubricant base stock to meet more stringent tests, polyalphaolefins are perfectly tailored and consistently manufactured to meet the challenge.

• Today's lubricants demand better oxidative stability. What advantages do Synfluid® PAOs have?

Oxidative stability is a critical property enabling oils to resist sludge formation and degradation while in service. PAO-based lubricants offer a significant advantage in oxidative stability. The rotary bomb bench test is a strong predictor of how base oils will perform in many automotive and industrial applications. The chart below shows rotary bomb (ASTM D2272) results between Synfluid® PAOs and some mineral oils. Synfluid® PAOs have been carefully designed to yield oxidative induction times greater than 2,500 minutes with 0.5 percent antioxidant. This is a far greater benefit than can be achieved from other base oils. PAOs also resist viscosity increases upon oxidation, which is important in sequence IIIE and VW T4 engine tests. These combined benefits provide the properties required for severe service applications and extended drain intervals. The advantages offered in oxidative stability, coupled with superior volatility and low-temperature viscometrics, clearly demonstrate that Synfluid® PAOs are the highest-quality base oils available in the industry.

• Pressures in the lubricants industry demand higher oxidative stability. What is the key to optimizing fluid performance when using Synfluid® PAOs?

There are indeed pressures in the industry that require improved oxidative stability. Engine oil tests such as VW T-4 and Seq. III F challenge formulators, and their suppliers, to step up performance for the next generation of engine oils. The relationship between antioxidants (A.O.) and PAO plays an integral part of meeting the challenge for top-tier oils. Regarding the A.O. package, an optimal PAO formulation will be different than that of mineral oils. For instance, a 100 percent aminic antioxidant package will yield the best performance in the Rbot test for PAO. In contrast, a mineral oil will require various antioxidants depending upon the structural makeup. Pressures in the lubricants industry demand higher oxidative stability. This chart illustrates another benefit of using Synfluid® PAOs at increased antioxidant treat rates. Using the same PAO, we achieved 15 percent higher oxidative stability by increasing the A.O. concentration from 0.5 percent to 1 percent. The key to unlocking the full potential of your formulation requires using the right combination and concentration of antioxidant and Synfluid® PAO.

• High-performance base oils are required to pass many European engine tests. I know PAOs will perform, but can they be economical?

In the past three years, European specifications for volatility and oxidative stability have become significantly more stringent. Specific tests such as the Volkswagen T-4, TDI and Peugeot TU-5 have increased the demand for higher-quality base oils. The superior benefits of PAOs enable formulators to meet these challenges. The chart below illustrates how Chevron Phillips Chemical has come up with an economical solution to a VW T-4 engine test. The chart compares two different formulations, one with PAO and another with Group III mineral oils The End of Test viscosity increase left very little room for error in the Group III formulation. Blending lower-quality base oils into this formulation would compromise the passing mark. In contrast, the Synfluid® PAO formulation achieves a pass with as little as 30 percent PAO, the balance being Group I mineral oil. We believe that it is possible to achieve a passing mark with even lower amounts of PAO, further reducing costs. European specifications, as well as those in other regions, are expected to tighten. This will increase the dependence on high-quality base oils such as PAOs. Challenges like these truly reveal the performance advantages of Synfluid® PAOs.

• I have read about higher oxidative stability in Synfluid® PAOs. Can this benefit improve a finished formulation?

The benefit of a lubricant to the end user is an important question, and the behavior of a base oil is only one of many variables affecting the performance of a finished formulation. A process enhancement at Chevron Phillips Chemical's manufacturing facility has resulted in up to a 30 percent improvement in oxidative stability when used with aminic antioxidants in Rotary Bomb Oxidation Tests (RBOT). Focusing on the components of the additive package can further influence the performance of the formulation. No matter what the combination of additive or base oil, one thing is certain: When you begin with a higher-quality base oil, you will achieve a better formulation in the end. The chart below shows an example of an engine oil formulation with two different quality PAOs. This formulation achieved a 13% benefit when the PAO was directly substituted with Synfluid® PAO. In our experience, some commercially available additive packages are designed to take better advantage of a specific base stock. For instance, boosting the additive package with an additional 0.4% aminic antioxidant, in combination with the Synfluid® PAO base oil, achieved a 35 percent improvement in HPDSC results. A similar approach can be applied to your formulations or applications. If you would like us to test your formulation or have questions about our formulating experience, give us a call. We'll be happy to help you solve your lubricant concerns.

 

[buster]

Good stuff. Even when using PAO at lower treat rates, the impact is pretty significant.

 

[jurko]

Since Synfluid PAO is made by Chevron would it be save to say that it is used in Chevron Havoline PRO DS FULL SYNTHETIC MOTOR OIL 5W-40 and EURO 5W-40 and what %?

 

[kstanf150]

Thanks for the information Very interesting for sure Just a side note is all this is and I have zero data to back it up I switched out my f250 6.2L to Redline 5W-30 about 150 miles ago Just returned from a road trip to East Tennessee this evening Round trip I avg 15.0 mpg That's not great to some around here, but that's the best mpg I've ever recorded in 40K miles of driving So, I'd say your story has some merit !!

 

[blingo]

Then of course contemporary testing is meant to be severe, on the bench CEC-L109 e.g. https://www.infineuminsight.com/en-gb/articles/passenger-cars/testing-engine-oil-oxidation/ CK-4 also not really blind for oxidation, as recently illustrated. And still modern formulations for longest OCI just perform even with their 65 to 85% (msds) standard GTL: https://www.shell.de/geschaefts-und...-rimula-r6-lme-plus-product-brochure.pdf Should get quite troublesome these days to obtain real-world hockey-stick-curves doubling to tripling sensible oil lifes in vehicles with just any PAO.

 

[4WD]

Havoline sells low cost so if they use even a splash of this … I'm thinking the rest is Grp3/Grp2+

 

[blingo]

When Chevron by itself once took lots of PAO out of a machine oil and replaced it by F-T, the oil improved from 475 mins to 680 mins (D 2272). Unfortunately again this only went into a note in a patent and not straight into some VII-free 10W-40 that no one wanted. Or only from Amsoil as 10W-40/40 someone could have wanted or however. Just alternatives out there and one of 'em being PAO.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted by blingo

When Chevron by itself once took lots of PAO out of a machine oil and replaced it by F-T, the oil improved from 475 mins to 680 mins (D 2272). Unfortunately again this only went into a note in a patent and not straight into some VII-free 10W-40 that no one wanted. Or only from Amsoil as 10W-40/40 someone could have wanted or however. Just alternatives out there and one of 'em being PAO.

OK... If you look more carefully at that patent, oil improves further if you replace the GTL by petroleum-based Group III, and it improves even further if you replace the petroleum-based Group III with petroleum-based Group II. So, the oil quality rates as Group II > Group III > GTL > PAO according to that table in that patent. You need to realize that patents are not scientific publications. In fact they cannot even be considered as product guides. They serve the mere legal purpose of preventing someone else from using someone's design, regardless of it being good or bad.

 

[kschachn]

No corporation that submits a patent application will disclose corporate trade information in the patent unless it is either absolutely necessary for the award, or if they have very poor patent lawyers. In fact, if you can deceive your competitors with the information included in the award then all the better.

 

[blingo]

We're not even talking about the same patent, Gokhan?! This was not the one including "table 3" (where you told me, that all this bunch of oils would have had no problem passing 216h-limits without antioxidants) before which ExxonMobil, not Chevron then, had compared engine oils over CEC-L109 testing. It was not too specific about the complete uniformity of treatment, but easily sufficient to call it a case. Same here, while this is older and mentioning for a machine oil swapping out a great deal of PAO for higher F-T: A blend of Chevron Clarity® Synthetic Paper Machine Oil ISO 220 is made by replacing greater than fifty percent of the polyalphaolefin base oil with a FT derived base oil having the properties as shown in Table Xl. Both the original paper machine oil and the improved paper machine oil contain the same ashless antiwear additive package. A component of the ashless antiwear additive package is an antioxidant additive concentrate. By replacing a significant portion of the base oil in the paper machine oil with the FT Derived Base Oil A the resulting improved paper machine oil has a result in the rotary pressure vessel oxidation test by ASTM D 2272-02 greater than 680 minutes, which is at least 200 minutes greater than the result in the original paper machine oil (475 minutes). Engine or gears, bench or engine tests, cooling bypassed or not, virtual Großglockner or paved Pikes Peak... nothing won't ever matter of course if you just don't allow yourself to consider anything but your current explaining. What PAO and GTL specifics?.. for example would have been reasonable questions now. Or what this D 2272 had been worth in the first place when R6 LME Plus (your T6 Multi Vehicle I'd expect) perhaps didn't care about although beeing entirely about great OCI. Such questions are always adequate, even when some funny pic photographed from a monitor lends itself to being interpreted.

 

[blingo]

I remain more than open for real reasoning what ranges of oxidation resistance - from unadditized to per state of the art individually additized - the contenders may actually show off. Even more interesting and relevant of course remain performances of engine oils (and gear oils etc.). You, after Tom NJ had said

Originally Posted by Tom NJ

Compared to GTL, PAO brings a major advantage in low temperature fluidity, and a small advantage in oxidative stability. Compared to PAO, GTL brings a major advantage in cost, and small advantages in VI, additive solubility, seal compatibility, and lubricity. They are comparable in thermal stability, coking tendencies, volatility, and hydrolytic stability. Most of these differences can be mitigated through additive technology and blending with other base oils, except cost. Tom NJ/VA

yourself seemed more open a few months ago: https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...es-compared-to-gtl-pennz-pup#Post4977627 With one of Rudnicks books not necessarily further from t h e t r u t h than now with a photograph and some Chevron FAQ. Rudnicks book even had the GTL 10W-40/40 - kind of - that one seemingly couldn't get if he wanted. If now I could and wanted instead of Amsoil ACD 10W-30/30 for example, as I'm more about usable engine oils: What would you teach me to expect from one over the other? Two or three times the OCI with the PAO? Or better something like about the same? I'm actually harmless and so happens to be this fictious question as one of the two may not even exist ;-( But with whatever you know by now about PAO (and mPAO) and F-T derived: what's to be expected, when each is reasonably about long intervals? Or maybe what to expect from the Rimula competing with a PAO-strong rival regarding viscosity increase or corrosivity. As far as I know or heard, PAO might even be the most problematic in formulating and therefore a base stock better not left to anyone formulating something. That's a finishing line of course you can make me strike out if need to. Just an additional gross caveat.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted by blingo

We're not even talking about the same patent, Gokhan?! This was not the one including "table 3" (where you told me, that all this bunch of oils would have had no problem passing 216h-limits without antioxidants) before which ExxonMobil, not Chevron then, had compared engine oils over CEC-L109 testing. It was not too specific about the complete uniformity of treatment, but easily sufficient to call it a case. Same here, while this is older and mentioning for a machine oil swapping out a great deal of PAO for higher F-T: A blend of Chevron Clarity® Synthetic Paper Machine Oil ISO 220 is made by replacing greater than fifty percent of the polyalphaolefin base oil with a FT derived base oil having the properties as shown in Table Xl. Both the original paper machine oil and the improved paper machine oil contain the same ashless antiwear additive package. A component of the ashless antiwear additive package is an antioxidant additive concentrate. By replacing a significant portion of the base oil in the paper machine oil with the FT Derived Base Oil A the resulting improved paper machine oil has a result in the rotary pressure vessel oxidation test by ASTM D 2272-02 greater than 680 minutes, which is at least 200 minutes greater than the result in the original paper machine oil (475 minutes). Engine or gears, bench or engine tests, cooling bypassed or not, virtual Großglockner or paved Pikes Peak... nothing won't ever matter of course if you just don't allow yourself to consider anything but your current explaining. What PAO and GTL specifics?.. for example would have been reasonable questions now. Or what this D 2272 had been worth in the first place when R6 LME Plus (your T6 Multi Vehicle I'd expect) perhaps didn't care about although beeing entirely about great OCI. Such questions are always adequate, even when some funny pic photographed from a monitor lends itself to being interpreted.

OK, if that patent were so great, why in the world Chevron is still making the the Clarity paper-machine oil out of PAO? PAO is specifically praised four times in the product data sheet. Chevron Clarity® synthetic paper-machine and EP gear oil 150, 220, 320, 460 product data sheet

 

[blingo]

Praised, yes. That's just it. Not data but gospel, praise, belief. All those can change of course. As this might gave gone from 475h to 375h (PDS) now? Could one say fun fact? :-) Maybe ask you again a few months down the road, what I'd have to expect from engine oils. Such books are already quite an amount of advertising and non the less are FAQ and PDS... Edit: Minutes of course. Please excuse. Not wanting to be that funney.

 

[Gokhan]

This whole argument about GTL, Group III, and even Group II being better base oils than PAO and searching and digging fringe references and iffy patents to prove it reminds me of historical revisionism. Historical revisionism

 

[blingo]

To try extending your claims that way you'd at least have to put up the other patent again ;-) I don't want to establish new world orders with Groups II+ and III at the top and PAO at the bottom although they became quite good / can be well supported and so are still used troughout CK-4 and FA-4 under severe testing ( with CEC-L-109 too severe Infineum quasi said). What I turned against were other things and partly can still be checked - although your second thread about it already disappeared, as the first one's still there: https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...an-advantage-with-a-vw-turbo#Post5451550

 

[blingo]

For oxidation among usual Groups II, III and IV it's all in the treatment, say "Lubricant Additives Chemistry And Applications" by Rudnick and "Surface Activity Of Petroleum Derived Lubricants" by Lilianna Z. Pillon

 

[Gokhan]

The RBOT (rotating bomb oxidation test) test, which is now called RPVOT (rotating pressure vessel oxidation test), is entirely useless for comparing different lubricants or as an estimation of the actual oxidation performance of a lubricant. This test is seldom used these days for this reason. It has poor repeatability and reproducibility and a multitude of problems. For example it can show that a virgin oil sample has a shorter RPVOT oxidation time than a used oil sample. The problem with RPVOT is that the way the oil and antioxidant are degraded during the test has nothing to do with what goes in an actual engine. The way the test is run is such that the oil is put in a vessel pressurized by 90 psi pure oxygen and containing a copper coil that serves as an oxidation catalyst. Then the vessel is heated to 150 °C and then rotated at 100 rpm until the oxygen pressure drops to 25 psi. The time it takes for the pressure to drop in the rotating test is the time result of the RPVOT test. RPVOT-time results will be all over the place because of the way the oil and antioxidants react during the test. The screenshot I posted was for Sequence IIIE, which has been replaced by IIIF, IIIG, and now IIIH. It is an actual engine test like the Volvo/Mack T-13 engine test that tests for oxidation among other things. This is ExxonMobil's take: Developing turbine oils beyond RPVOT—ExxonMobil This is Petro Canada's take: Choosing the right turbine fluid This is a good reference: Residue analysis on RPVOT test samples for single- and multiple-antioxidant turbine lubricants Here is an excerpt: "There have been countless instances of problematic turbine engine failures that have yielded used oil samples with a darker than normal appearance and a foul odor, yet conventional used oil testing of these samples has shown quite normal test results. Even on normally operating turbine engines, the routine predictive analysis of the lubricant for remaining useful life has been considered to be less of a science, and closer to an art form, for many decades. The most popular test for measuring oxidation stability, Rotating Pressurized Vessel Oxidation Test (RPVOT), has been widely used and touted as an industry standard, while at the same time, the test results are often ignored, especially when the results come into conflict with other test data or other operating criteria. Typical examples of this phenomenon, are when the RPVOT of the new oil is lower in value than the RPVOT of the in-service oil, or when the in-service oil RPVOT results are far out of range with the new oil data, yet the oil has only been in use for a short period of time and no other abnormal parameter can be found with the oil. Some real-life RPVOT data are given in this paper in the section titled RPVOT Reproducibility Issues. It is the authors experience that true, blind, interlaboratory round-robin testing for RPVOT, cannot achieve the reproducibility values as specified by ASTM D 2272 method. The RPVOT test is designed to be a performance test for measuring the remaining test life of inservice oils. It takes into account the natural antioxidative properties of the base-oil as well as the oxidation inhibiting capabilities of the antioxidant additive for the base-oil. The RPVOT does this by stressing the oil in a pressure vessel with oil, water, copper catalyst, heat, and pure oxygen. The test is considered to be complete (formulated and natural antioxidants depleted), when the oxygen pressure drops (base-oil undergoing rapid oxidation) by a specified amount below the maximum pressure developed. Therefore, once the test is completed, the antioxidants should be totally depleted and the base-oil undergoing accelerated oxidation resulting in increased acid number (AN) and viscosity values with respect to the new oil. Since interlaboratory testing found poor reproducibility values for RPVOT, the authors took a closer look at the residual oils from different RPVOT tests and found that the AN and viscosity values of numerous residual oils were not increased with respect to the new oil. Consequently, it was decided to investigate further into this phenomenon by studying the oils as brand name groups, and to widen the scope of testing of the residual oils, to include FTIR spectroscopy (base-oil oxidation), voltammetry (antioxidant depletion) and colorimetric stain (Varnish Potential Index) analyses. It was discovered that six different types of oils using mono-type antioxidant additive packages were fully oxidized during the RPVOT test, as measured by the AN, kinematic viscosity, FTIR spectroscopy, voltammetry and Varnish Potential Index. These oils are called sensitive to the RPVOT test. In contrast to the mono-type additive packages, three different types of oils using complex (synergistic) antioxidant additive packages were found to not fully oxidize during the RPVOT test, as measured by the same criteria. These oils are called nonsensitive to the RPVOT test. This paper demonstrates that while the exact antioxidant chemistry of branded turbine oils remains as trade secrets of the oil refiners, there should be an assessment made, by the oil refiner, of whether or not their brand of oil is sensitive or nonsensitive to RPVOT testing. This assessment should then be made part of the product specification sheet. This will help clear up much confusion in the minds of many turbine engine owners and operators. It is also recommended to the ASTM committee that further study may be required to answer the fly question: Can the RPVOT test method be modified to allow testing of nonsensitive oils?" A similar paper by the same author: The importance of monitoring individual antioxidants in multicomponent AO additive packages

 

[blingo]

Our problem with the screenshot of course was and remains that it generally doesn't allow speculation about base oil blends leading to the different delays. None. The tests of formulated products - where bases get bumped in such relations as it's all in the treatment - by the numbers simply don't teach about bases. As a matter of principle never could, even back in the times of IIIE they couldn't. And for then distant future of now they just did no more.

 

[Jackson_Slugger]

Originally Posted by Gokhan

This whole argument about GTL, Group III, and even Group II being better base oils than PAO and searching and digging fringe references and iffy patents to prove it reminds me of historical revisionism. Historical revisionism

Yep, just weird...

 

[LubricatusObsess]

With gasoline engine trends heading toward dirtier combustion and more frequent OCI's, why would anyone care about "best" base stocks or pure PAO anymore? Yes, I understand these small GDI engines are highly stressed, but the % oxidation is being changed out more frequently due to the contaminants of stoichiometric direct gasoline injection - soot & fuel dilution (incomplete combustion due to insufficient atomization time). The API base stock group definitions show a high % hydrogenation saturation for Group III as a minimum. So my challenge to the experts is - why isn't Group III / GTL good enough for more frequent OCI's needed to remove contaminants (5k or so)? Yes, I know not everyone has a GDI gasoline engine. Yet.