Not open for further replies.
Good read there, Bob

However, I thought you were one of the "proponents" (lack of a better word) of non-PAO type oils such as Schaeffer Synth-blends
because it seems the article is geared towards downplaying Group III and praising PAO.


Are you more referring to off-the-shelf type oils like Castrol, Havoline, Quaker State, etc? Because I have a feeling that you're going to say that "...a well formulated dino oil can perform like OR outperform leading PAO synths." which is the case with Schaeffer's Blend

Basically, I'm curious as to your standing based on the article that you have presented.


I do not believe Bob wrote this article because most of it is worded the same as the NPRA's 1999 Group III write up - either that or Bob WAS the original author of that write up.

It was referring to modern Group IIIs.
Please thank the CLS for posting! Very Good.

"The API and SAE were unable to resolve the debate and eliminated the word, 'synthetics' from its terminology, books, and guides.'

Wow, if this isn't sticking your head in the sand, I don't know what is. It is not surprising that
the API would do this, but the SAE? I know the API is in the backpocket of the petro companies,
and the SAE has a weak set of internals. This is why I dropped my membership to the SAE.

> "The argument was made that VHVI's are created by chemically converting the molecules of a selected feedstock to a different set of molecules, predominately through chemical rearrangement or decomposition of the structure feed material."

Which is what I said, conversion and synthesis are two different processes and definitions.

> "PAOs are derived from a chemical process that combines small molecules to make larger complex molecules of a desired type."

As are Group V's, which has been the WORKING definition of synthetics since the German's, Standard Oil, and Union Carbide did their synthesis work in the '30's.

I still believe this should be decided in a court where expert witnesses like organic chemists
could testify. When a case is brought before a marketing/business group, one that has no expertise in chemistry, on what basis do you think they will decide the case -
Marketing language or Technical definitions?????
why can't they market their oils w/ the group #s ?


Mobil Drive CLean, Group I oil

Pennzoil Group II

Quaker STate Group III synthetic


oh wait, then they'd be telling the truth and lose out on sales! Doesn't that sound familiar (tobacco industry, wireless industry - both in regards to health issues)
One of misconceptions that Bob's article cleared up for me was who makes PAO's. I was under the impression that the ExxonMobil Chemical Company was the world's only maker but the article listed several makers. I revisted EMCC's website where I thought I read the claim and found:

"ExxonMobil Chemical is the world’s only manufacturer of both low and high viscosity Polyalphaolefins (PAO)..."

Somehow I missed that, "both low and high viscosity" qualification the first time I saw it.
Most companies other than Mobile are good at making 4 and 8 cSt (100 C) PAO's, which are used in most full synth and blend oil formualtions, but Mobil has the ability to make base oils all the way past 100 cSt, which gives them the ability to formulate oils of various viscosities
without the use of heavy addtive dosages, such as VII's.
I was looking at VHVI group III base fluids from Pet-Can. They show four grades ranging from 2.5-8.0 cSt. Are most of the engine oils blended from these relative light-weights with added bright stock?
You mentioned PAOs up to 100cSt@100C. What is the viscosity range of group IIIs?
Not open for further replies.