Do group I oils work better than their additives would suggest?

[csandste]

I clipped this from a UOA for a new Toyota. Supposedly the factory fill is identical to Mobil Drive Clean. I added the additive count for the UOA for my Elantra. Supertech 10w30.

ST/Drive Clean
MOLYBDENUM 2/42
CALCIUM 1951/1720
MAGNESIUM 6/5
PHOSPHORUS816/694
ZINC 934/820
BARIUM 1/2


My analysis showed very little wear, a clean engine, but comments were that the additive pack looked very weak. With the exception of moly, surely an important omission, it does look stronger than Drive Clean.

Both Super Tech and Drive Clean (and maybe Valvoline?) have shown real world results that look better than their additives would indicate.

I think that both Super Tech and Drive Clean have a large percentage of group I base stocks.

I always heard that Drive Clean's numbers may be a bit weak for oil performance, flash point, etc. but that the name was more than advertising. Drive Clean did keep engines cleaner.

Question-- Is there something inherent about group I basestocks that produce pretty good real world results, even if the additive package appears weak? Does the group I base stock have a detergency that group II doesn't?

[ September 25, 2003, 03:43 PM: Message edited by: csandste ]

 

[sbc350gearhead]

I think it has been mentioned, that group I oil has a natural antioxidant ability. I don't know how much it is worth though.

 

[Mystic]

I have come across information somewhere to the effect that Group II and Group III base stocks and PAOs can potentially make sludge problems worse. Even if there is any truth to this, how much longer will Group I oils be able to hang in there and continue to meet any more demanding motor oil standards? Probably not much longer.

And I don't think it would hurt if there was some Moly in Valvoline. Somebody else pointed out look what Valvoline can achieve with a Group I oil and relatively few additives-they still meet the requirments!

 

[JohnBrowning]

I think you are barking up the wrong tree looking for something significant about group I oils. They are inferior in every way when you look at the finished product. They are cheaper to make, additves mix easier due to so called natural detergency. I think the detergency is from the solvents used to refine them and left over impuritys.

It is my opion that if a cheap oil is wanted then at least look at a group II or II+. The misabilty and solvency can be solved by the addition of esters!

To the best of my knoldge their is no performance argument that can be made to show they are supior to synthetic products!

 

[csandste]

Absolutely no assertation on my part that they could compete with group III, just more detergency than group II and II+. Of course the first premise was based (from memory) on Johnny's comment that ST had a lot of group I stock. Now it looks like Super Tech may really be Warren Performance and not Specialty Petroleum after all. I did think Drive Clean had a pretty good reputation and a fair amount of group I base stocks however.

[ September 25, 2003, 06:43 PM: Message edited by: csandste ]

 

[Drstressor]

Yes, as JohnBrowning states, the only "advantage" is better solvency because of the higher content of polar components than better base stocks. But this property makes them much more prone to further oxidation. Plus, the heterogeneity of their hydrocarbon composition makes them less responsive to oxidation inhibitors.

 

[CJH]

quote:

---

Question-- Is there something inherent about group I basestocks that produce pretty good real world results, even if the additive package appears weak? Does the group I base stock have a detergency that group II doesn't? [/QB]

---

I can show you a UOA of mine that showed low wear numbers at 7,200 miles, but the oil had thickened over 20% and was high in insolubles. Would I want to put something like that in my engine because the wear numbers were good? NO WAY!

You have to look at the oil choice from a broad perspective. One good UOA does not necessarily make a good choice. I would not draw a conclusion that a weak additive package is desirable because someone turned a good UOA with it.