Current synthetics that are PAO based

[turtlevette]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL


And the common thread with those applications is that they are covered by a manufacturer cert/approval process. There's no requirement for a specific base oil, there is a requirement for a specific level of PERFORMANCE.


Porsche uses Mobil 1 0w-40 in their race cars, as we've had confirmed on here multiple times. GM uses it in their Corvette Race Program cars. This seems to rather boldly contradict the premise of your post.


I think there is considerable pressure to recommend a widely available oil for convenience sake rather than Red Line or other special oil.

I once wrote a spec and put it out for bid that no manufacturer could meet. I took a lot of grief over that.

Think about this. Why are all the auto makers coming out with specs now? That was unheard of 10-20 years ago. People just used anything they wanted to use. I believe they are concerned about what's going on with oil labeling. You keep hearing the line here about using any oil you want and the engine will still hit 300k miles. I don't think the auto makers feel that way about it or they wouldn't be creating these new specs. They're trying to push the oil maker.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette


I think there is considerable pressure to recommend a widely available oil for convenience sake rather than Red Line or other special oil.


I don't think so. The list of oils meeting the plethora of European approvals/certs isn't all that long. Specialty oils carry no approvals, there is no guarantee as to their performance.


Quote:
I once wrote a spec and put it out for bid that no manufacturer could meet. I took a lot of grief over that.


Would love to hear the details of that.


Quote:
Think about this. Why are all the auto makers coming out with specs now?


They aren't. What you are seeing is north American and Japanese makes getting on-board with what has been commonplace in Europe and in the diesel arena for close to half a century.

Quote:
That was unheard of 10-20 years ago.


No, it was very common with European cars and diesels. GM also had the "Corvette spec", which was an approval that Mobil 1 5w30 proudly carried.

Quote:
People just used anything they wanted to use. I believe they are concerned about what's going on with oil labeling. You keep hearing the line here about using any oil you want and the engine will still hit 300k miles. I don't think the auto makers feel that way about it or they wouldn't be creating these new specs. They're trying to push the oil maker.


I disagree in part. Oil labelling has had a big effect on perceived problems in North America for quite some time. VW caught a lot of flack over this in the past because dealers and local oil change shops were not using extended-drain capable lubricants in these extended drain applications leaving to sludge and engine failure. They were using "Syntec" 5w30 in an application that required an approved lubricant like SLX Professional 5w30. Both Castrol "synthetic" oils but the difference in performance was obvious.

There has been similar issues with BMW, though not to the same extent.

And the automakers are creating these new specs to deal with newer, longer, OCI lengths, as well as the increasing demands of the applications which are now more frequently sporting things like DI, forced induction (or both), higher power density....etc. All of which are much harder on an oil than in days gone by.

These OEM testing regiments, particularly those established by the Euro marques are extensive and demanding. The limits for wear, deposits (varnish/sludge) and acid neutralization clearly defined.

Manufacturers like Mercedes maintain lists of approved lubricants for their applications. Not all of these oils are readily available (or available at all in North America) but they guarantee a level of performance. They have passed the requirements necessary to carry a given Mercedes approval. And which approval that is depends of course on your application. They have different approvals for different things. Because these different applications have different performance requirements.

With a boutique lubricant you are relying solely on the oil manufacturer to guarantee the performance of the product. That they have performed adequate testing that correlates well with the requirements of your application. Obviously there are cases like with Castrol's 5w30 and the VW applications where their "premium product" is simply not as good as the actual approved product. Both made by the same oil manufacturer. Both carrying the same SAE grade on the bottle and marketed as synthetic. One passes VW's performance requirements, one doesn't. Run at the dictated intervals in these applications it is quite obvious that there was a significant performance difference between those two oils.

So, you can trust the blender, who is out to make money. Or you can trust the OEM, who's already made money off your purchase and buy the approved product that you KNOW has been GUARANTEED to pass the performance requirements for your application and the oil company/blender, if they've chosen to play that game, still makes money.

One cannot simply posit performance based on what you think is in the bottle. Oils are a series of compromises, each increase in strength in one area potentially having an adverse effect on another. Over-boosted cleaning power may lead to increased wear, overboosted low temp performance may lead to increased volatility or deposit formation....etc. This is why OEM testing regiments exist. The scope of the API approval process is simply not demanding enough for many manufacturers and their applications and so they define their own requirements that go above and beyond that. This requires actual testing and validation. This is a GUARANTEE of performance, not implied. And this is why judging an oil based on some arbitrary value assigned to a particular base stock is nothing but a fool's errand.

 

[buster]

Originally Posted By: Ayrton
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
I think it does matter and a lot of us care. The Germans care and care enough to have a law about it.

And yet it is also the Germans who have thought up of some of the most stringent PCMO oil specs currently in existence such as MB 229.5 and VW 504.00. And guess what? You do not need PAO/Ester to meet them.


I believe way back at the time of that leaked M1 powerpoint, it mentions that they were the only company at the time who could make some of the Euro specs like 229.5 without heavy PAO. Of course, that has now changed as there are others who meet it without heavy PAO too.

I believe PAO has some strong attributes and at one time it had properties that was hard for non-PAO to match. Today, for most oil requirements and specifications, Group III+ can get you there. There was truly an advancement in these non-PAO products that has slowly reduced the number of PAO products even for tough specs like 229.5.

If you think about it, it's because the industry became more advanced and a lot of R&D got us to this point. Therefore, I see it as a real positive thing. It didn't happen overnight. A lot of advancement took place to see Group III+ reach this quality level.

PAO seems like it will still be used in some products for a while and it is also in some common products in a small percentage of the formulation. It still has a place too. It's a very high quality ingredient available to these manufacturers.

I can easily get drawn into being fascinated by the heavily PAO based products. Nevertheless, they are more of the old way of making an oil in truth. Most of the industry has moved on from relying on them so heavily.

Plus, while oil prices have went up, the difference you must spend now for a product like Mobil 1 over a conventional oil is a smaller jump in price (overall it seems at least). In that way, we have benefited from these advancements too.


I agree.

There are about 18 different components in Mobil 1. The overall performance is the sum of all those parts. The base oil is no doubt a significant part. The higher end Group III+'s are on par with many PAO's.

PAO seems to be used as a booster to the majority Group III base oils on the market. I'm just thinking the Japanese MSDS. Then you have the additive package and it gets more complicated.

The bottom line, most oils that meet the same specs will perform similarly.

 

[buster]

There will be some very rare cases where a boutique brand can fill a very small niche demand due to a very specific need outside the norm.

Amsoil/RP/RL are good at capturing that market.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Think about this. Why are all the auto makers coming out with specs now? That was unheard of 10-20 years ago. People just used anything they wanted to use. I believe they are concerned about what's going on with oil labeling. You keep hearing the line here about using any oil you want and the engine will still hit 300k miles. I don't think the auto makers feel that way about it or they wouldn't be creating these new specs. They're trying to push the oil maker.

I use about every name brands conventional and synthetic in my 20 years old LS400 with 350+k miles without major engine problems. The only problem is it just had slight oil leak pass the original valve cover gasket on passenger side about a month or so ago. I may need to either tighten the bolts or replace the gasket or using high mileage oil.

The OCI's are 6-8k/6mo with dino and 12-16k/12mo with synthetic, the FCI is one a year(filter is reused once with dino).

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Flareside302
I look at it this way. in certain applications. G-IV/G-V is better. like racing or a serious built engine that gets beat on as a daily driver...

the better the base stock to start building with, IMO using the right Additives you'll have a much better oil than any G-III could dream of. and that for me is enough to be a Amsoil Signature series fan, and dominator line fan.

but g-III oils have they're place.


Seriously built engines?

I'd argue that applications like the Ford Shelby GT500, GT1000, the ZR1, basically anything wearing an AMG or ///M badge, the GT-R, Porsche....etc are the most demanding applications. They have to make that kind of power and continue to do so for well beyond their warranty period to retain their prestige.

And the common thread with those applications is that they are covered by a manufacturer cert/approval process. There's no requirement for a specific base oil, there is a requirement for a specific level of PERFORMANCE.

Oils like Mobil 1 0w-40, Pennzoil Ultra 5w-40, these oils meet the performance requirements for most of those applications yet do not meet your personal definition of "better" because they are not predominantly G-IV/V.

Porsche uses Mobil 1 0w-40 in their race cars, as we've had confirmed on here multiple times. GM uses it in their Corvette Race Program cars. This seems to rather boldly contradict the premise of your post.


Times a dozen. SRT specs the 0w-40 (or did until Sopus came to play)) for a long time in everything, some of which were definitely high powered platforms.

All this standardization is saving money. It's the same reason the mfgrs have brought all their durability testing to one standard instead of the differences there used to be depending on where you sold the car...

 

[kschachn]

On the other hand, I pretty much agree with the court ruling that allowed the redefinition of synthetic. How familiar are you with the process of severe hydrocracking? At some point the line of what is "synthetic" and what is not became blurred. In a sense it is breaking down crude oil into mono-components and then reassembling them into a lubricant. As opposed to starting with (usually) natural gas and working your way up. Reasonable people can reasonably argue with which is which, but severe hydrocracking does break it down pretty good.

Originally Posted By: TrevorS
On the one hand, it is better to know and to not be tricked into thinking we are getting something that is not truly synthetic.

 

[AHC]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: virginoil
Originally Posted By: sHERM
What current synthetic oils are PAO group IV based ? I have heard that Mobil 1 Extended Performance is?


Question is obsolete. It doesn't matter. Who cares. More important things in life. Its been debated into oblivion. No longer considered valid. More marketing than performance based. Question should be retired. We have all moved on. Makes 2/5ths of 3/8ths difference for street driven cars. Hydro-cracked XHVI oils rule.


I think it does matter and a lot of us care. The Germans care and care enough to have a law about it. A refined product is not a synthetic. It's not a manmade substance. It's purified dyno.

This is what happens when you let a judge make a technical call an engineer should be making. That's what's wrong with this country. MBAs and lawyers are running things. That philosophy didn't put a man on the moon.

If you want mediocrity put business people in charge.


That right there is Gospel.

 

[Capa]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR

I use about every name brands conventional and synthetic in my 20 years old LS400 with 350+k miles without major engine problems. The only problem is it just had slight oil leak pass the original valve cover gasket on passenger side about a month or so ago. I may need to either tighten the bolts or replace the gasket or using high mileage oil.

The OCI's are 6-8k/6mo with dino and 12-16k/12mo with synthetic, the FCI is one a year(filter is reused once with dino).


I agree that any oil and basically any appropriate oil weight will take a vehicle 200,000+ miles. Now HTSS_TR, not everyone has a Lexus that can go 400,000 miles like us