Examples of "low quality" oil?

And the assumption is that a bargain basement SP is still probably better than a super top-of-the-line SM from 20 years ago,
I don't think one can reasonably come to that conclusion. Yes, SP sets the bar higher than SM, but without a benchmark on the performance of the SM-era product in question it's like saying Grade A beef from 2023 is better than the best cuts were in 2003 because the grading system was improved; was made more rigorous.

One thing we could say is that the SP product would be less liable to lead to LSPI, as it would have a low calcium additive package while the SM product will have a high calcium additive package.

Several conversations with @buster have revolved around how Mobil was often generations ahead on specifications, able to walk existing product through the updated API approvals with ease. Perhaps the only real deviation from that was with SN+/SP with the reformulation relative to LSPI prevention and the swapping of calcium-based detergents for magnesium.
 
Interesting - I have never seen a 5W-30 conventional rated SP / GF6A. All the stuff on the retail shelves shows as "synthetic blend". All just marketing names I know, but there were people here looking for conventional 5w-30 not that long ago.

Also interesting is the retail 10W-30 is still listed and sold as "conventional"
Supertech All Mileage says conventional on their labels.
 
Supertech All Mileage says conventional on their labels.
That is for marketing tier placement and differentiation where ILSAC GFxx/API SN+/SP.
Fully Synthetic is used as marketing term also.

The base stock blend is assuredly not majority Group 1 solvent dewaxed (cas number: 64742-56-9)
 
That is for marketing tier placement and differentiation where ILSAC GFxx/API SN+/SP.
Fully Synthetic is used as marketing term also.

The base stock blend is assuredly not majority Group 1 solvent dewaxed (cas number: 64742-56-9)
Quaker State All Mileage 10w40 has it labeled as a conventional oil. While not a 5w30 as being discussed It nevertheless is labeled as a conventional. It is also rated as an API SN oil.
 
What do you consider a conventional oil to be, disregarding the labeling?
Considering the acceptance of group 3 oils being considered synthetic that is hard to determine. However I would consider an oil that has less than 25% of group 3 or 5-10 percent poa to be conventional. We have been told on this board that the base oil means little in many situations and more attention should be given to the add pack. I think API or some regulatory group should set some kind of real standards regarding the labeling and classification of what is and is not a synthetic blend and or full synthetic. While group 3 oils are highly refined they are not really synthetic and should really not be allowed to be sold as such. I know that Mobil tried to stop that from happening but failed. For example
Super Tech Full Synthetic HM 5w30 is 15-40% CAS#72623-87-1, CAS#64742-64-1 15-40% ,CAS#64742-54-7 10-30%. Not a full syn by any real means.
 
I don't think one can reasonably come to that conclusion. Yes, SP sets the bar higher than SM, but without a benchmark on the performance of the SM-era product in question it's like saying Grade A beef from 2023 is better than the best cuts were in 2003 because the grading system was improved; was made more rigorous.
What I'm getting at is that in general today's oils are better than those of 20 years ago, and even those were more than capable of allowing the engine to outlast the rest of the vehicle.

I think API or some regulatory group should set some kind of real standards regarding the labeling and classification of what is and is not a synthetic blend and or full synthetic. While group 3 oils are highly refined they are not really synthetic and should really not be allowed to be sold as such.

Surely nobody cares at this point. We've been having this silly argument for two decades now.

The proof is in the pudding; whether they're hydrocracked and hydrotreated oil, GTL basestocks from natural gas, esters, PAOs, or other stuff, they all perform very similarly and very well.

Most of the grumpiness about synthetics is due to the fact that the word is vague in terms of what's being done. I mean, if you take something like heavy fuel oil or slack wax and hydrocrack/hydrotreat it, you've done a LOT more than refine it- you've fundamentally changed what it is. You've taken something of high molecular weight and cracked it into much smaller molecules- presumably the ones you want for motor oil. While it's not "synthetic" in the most strict definition of the word, it's functionally the same- why would it matter whether you went that route to get your 25 carbon molecules, or if you strung together smaller molecules from natural gas or some other feedstock? Either way, you've got pure 25 carbon molecules to work with, regardless of where they started out.

What we've got now is about what we should have- a performance category that's named "synthetic" for historical reasons without necessarily getting all pedantic about what "synthetic" means. And we've got a category called "Conventional" for the same historical reasons which doesn't mean refined petroleum oil anymore, and hasn't for quite some time.

There are performance specs that oils meet, and then the rest is all marketing, including the whole business of whether it's synthetic or not. Without some sort of controlled and exhaustive testing, it's all smoke and mirrors; nobody can prove that regular old QS green bottle is worse than Pennzoil Platinum Ultra in real world conditions over time. They can trot out the specs, and certain metrics, but there just isn't the data to actually show what, if any of that stuff, makes any difference.
 
Last edited:
What I'm getting at is that in general today's oils are better than those of 20 years ago, and even those were more than capable of allowing the engine to outlast the rest of the vehicle.



Surely nobody cares at this point. We've been having this silly argument for two decades now.

The proof is in the pudding; whether they're hydrocracked and hydrotreated oil, GTL basestocks from natural gas, esters, PAOs, or other stuff, they all perform very similarly and very well.

Most of the grumpiness about synthetics is due to the fact that the word is vague in terms of what's being done. I mean, if you take something like heavy fuel oil or slack wax and hydrocrack/hydrotreat it, you've done a LOT more than refine it- you've fundamentally changed what it is. You've taken something of high molecular weight and cracked it into much smaller molecules- presumably the ones you want for motor oil. While it's not "synthetic" in the most strict definition of the word, it's functionally the same- why would it matter whether you went that route to get your 25 carbon molecules, or if you strung together smaller molecules from natural gas or some other feedstock? Either way, you've got pure 25 carbon molecules to work with, regardless of where they started out.

What we've got now is about what we should have- a performance category that's named "synthetic" for historical reasons without necessarily getting all pedantic about what "synthetic" means. And we've got a category called "Conventional" for the same historical reasons which doesn't mean refined petroleum oil anymore, and hasn't for quite some time.

There are performance specs that oils meet, and then the rest is all marketing, including the whole business of whether it's synthetic or not. Without some sort of controlled and exhaustive testing, it's all smoke and mirrors; nobody can prove that regular old QS green bottle is worse than Pennzoil Platinum Ultra in real world conditions over time. They can trot out the specs, and certain metrics, but there just isn't the data to actually show what, if any of that stuff, makes any difference.
But there is a difference. Maybe not so much of whether this or that oil is better but what you are actually getting. The way it is now a company can pretty much label their oil any way they want as far as conventional, blend or synthetic. It is in some ways false advertising. You can have an oil made with 1% synthetic and call it a blend. You can have an oil called a full synthetic and not have any synthetic oil in it at all. The vast majority of those that see synthetic listed on a bottle of oil think that it what it is. Most are not checking on automotive forums to make sure the oil they are using is really what it says it is.
 
But there is a difference. Maybe not so much of whether this or that oil is better but what you are actually getting. The way it is now a company can pretty much label their oil any way they want as far as conventional, blend or synthetic. It is in some ways false advertising. You can have an oil made with 1% synthetic and call it a blend. You can have an oil called a full synthetic and not have any synthetic oil in it at all. The vast majority of those that see synthetic listed on a bottle of oil think that it what it is. Most are not checking on automotive forums to make sure the oil they are using is really what it says it is.
This makes no sense and is not true. These generalizations you are making are not based in reality.
 
Considering the acceptance of group 3 oils being considered synthetic that is hard to determine. However I would consider an oil that has less than 25% of group 3 or 5-10 percent poa to be conventional. We have been told on this board that the base oil means little in many situations and more attention should be given to the add pack. I think API or some regulatory group should set some kind of real standards regarding the labeling and classification of what is and is not a synthetic blend and or full synthetic. While group 3 oils are highly refined they are not really synthetic and should really not be allowed to be sold as such. I know that Mobil tried to stop that from happening but failed. For example
Super Tech Full Synthetic HM 5w30 is 15-40% CAS#72623-87-1, CAS#64742-64-1 15-40% ,CAS#64742-54-7 10-30%. Not a full syn by any real means.
Group designations for base stocks is based on performance, not method of manufacture. You're making the same mistake many people on this board make, that they think it designates otherwise. Neither the API nor manufacturer approvals care about method of production only the final performance of the finished product.

Hydrocracked base stocks that meet the performance requirements for a Group III are synthesized, all day long. Your understanding of chemistry is lacking. I no longer work in a research laboratory but when I did I could make you a horribly performing motor oil that is 100% synthetic. Would you want that?

Let me ask you this - is a GTL derived Group III stock synthetic?
 
Last edited:
Let me ask you this - is a GTL derived Group III stock synthetic?

I have seen people on this very message board claim otherwise, because they're not PAO. Which is rather astounding to me, because GTL derived basestocks are about as synthetic as synthetic gets in a chemical sense.

Basically there's a segment of people around here who feel like the marketing fluff surrounding retail oils is not stringent enough, and they fixate on the word "synthetic" for that. It's effectively obsolete in that sense- they're all synthetic to a greater or lesser degree these days. Nobody really uses old-school group 1/2 base stocks anymore- the various standards and manufacturer-required viscosities pretty much rule that out. Beyond that, the whole "synthetic" vs. "non-synthetic" argument is kind of moot when you consider that the Group III IV and V definitions are based on performance and/or composition- Group IV is PAO, Group V is (according to Exxon) "esters, certain bio-base stocks, naphthenic stocks, biolubes and all other base stocks that do not meet the Group I-IV definitions".

But Group III is pretty much everything else that's high performing- GTL basestocks, hydrocracked slack wax (like used in Shell Helix Ultra in the day), hydrotreated/hydrocracked petroleum, etc... And it's even got a set of performance standards as well- >= 120 VI, >= 90% saturates, <= 0.03% sulfur.

It may have made sense back in the day... like 20+ years ago, to look at oils as "conventional", meaning Group I/II, and "synthetic" meaning group IV/V, when that's all the base stocks there were. But with the advent of Group III, and especially with GTL and other ways of producing base stocks, it pretty much lost its meaning. And that's why the infamous Castrol/Mobil lawsuit went down the way it did- "synthetic" no longer meant "group IV/V", but could encompass Group III based on the way it performed.

So now we've got a retail category (not a chemical or industry one) for "synthetic" oil that's there strictly because of consumer inertia and preference. People want to buy "synthetic" oils for their car, thinking they're necessarily better, even though it doesn't necessarily mean anything.

If there aren't relevant performance standards or laws regulating it, it's all marketing. For EVERYTHING. Columbian coffee isn't anything special, and neither are arabica beans. Some of the most highly regarded Italian espresso blends are part robusta, for example. But they market it like 100% Arabica Columbian coffee is super amazing. Or bottled water. Much of it is just rebottled city water with some added chemicals like magnesium chloride for taste.
 
It's effectively obsolete in that sense- they're all synthetic to a greater or lesser degree these days. Nobody really uses old-school group 1/2 base stocks anymore- the various standards and manufacturer-required viscosities pretty much rule that out.
Interestingly, this is where Mobil's (and I'm sure there are competitor products) EHC "Group II+" (Group II) products enter the picture, due to exactly that problem. The standards and performance requirements drove up formulation costs, so the industry worked to find a way to drive those costs back down.
Screenshot 2024-12-31 at 11.50.26 AM.webp

Screenshot 2024-12-31 at 11.50.57 AM.webp

Screenshot 2024-12-31 at 11.51.29 AM.webp

Screenshot 2024-12-31 at 11.52.10 AM.webp

Screenshot 2024-12-31 at 11.53.33 AM.webp


There's now even a new ultra-low viscosity EHC base, EHC-20L (2.1-2.6cSt) for formulating the new ultra-light grades while avoiding the cost of Group III.
 
Group III is a collection of mostly saturated branched hydrocarbons that started with crude oil or natural gas where the molecules were broken and rearranged by man to create a higher performance base oil.

PAO is a collection of saturated branched hydrocarbons that started with crude oil where the molecules were broken and rearranged by man to create a higher performance base oil.

POE is a collection of saturated branched oxygenated hydrocarbons that started mostly with crude oil where the molecules were broken and rearranged by man to create a higher performance base oil.

The end result is higher performance base oils that the industry has chosen to label synthetic.

Who cares how you got there.
 
Quick lube places know that car manufactures request oil sample before they pay warranty claims on blown engines. They do not want the litigation and bill for engines sent out with non spec oil. In fact they will tell you no to conventional oil if your engine calls for synthetic.
 
Quick lube places know that car manufactures request oil sample before they pay warranty claims on blown engines. They do not want the litigation and bill for engines sent out with non spec oil. In fact they will tell you no to conventional oil if your engine calls for synthetic.
Which engines call for synthetic as a “spec”?
 
Back
Top