FAQ on differences between Group III and Group IV

[GregH]

One area that Group 4 base oils excel in is cold weather properties. Cold cranking performance is easier to obtain.
On the other Group 3 areas think about it this way
a: Oil is built in stages
b: Base oil
c: additives

More stable base oil means less additives are needed to make up for inferior base oil properties. Common sense here guys. Although I am not saying that there is enough difference in the 2 groups to write home about.
Just my 2 cents
Greg Harrison

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

However, I am left to conclude that use of Group IV does not always mean that the final product is superiour to ALL Group III formulations.

---

I don't think I've ever seen anyone semi-knowledgeable about this subject disagree with this point given the limitations you outlined above.

However, one point I'm trying to make is some here are giving Group III based products a free ride.

Whenever someone mentions a Group III based product, the standard reply is, "oh, that's OK, it can be made just as good as a Group IV based product." OK, but where's the proof all Group III products are being made to be just as good as as their previous Group IV counterparts? How many of the products used in that Czech paper were ever available in the US? How many are still being produced today...anywhere?

If just meeting the API/ACEA standards is adequate, fine, choose and buy on value.

However, what I've seen when comparing specs on previous Group IV/V formulations that have moved to Group IIIs is a general lowering of FP and HTHS, and an increase in PP, CCS, MRV, NOACK. Further, as this transition has been taking place, many of those properties are no longer being published. What is it they're hiding?

If you want to pay a premium for a product that has less costly ingredients and hope that it performs just as well based only on a company's reputation, have at it. Oh wait, isn't this the same company that tried to get everyone to believe that Group IV products were inherently superior?

 

[Tom NJ]

Hi 427,

I do not consider formulating motor oils to be my expertise, but I have had enough exposure over the years to give an opinion. My comments are not related to any specific company.

If I were formulating for my personal car and driven entirely by the highest performance possible, I would use PAO, a good dose of polyol ester (30-50%), and some high viscosity PAO to replace part of the VI improver. I would also consider ANs if I could show a real performance synergy. I acknowledge that this approach is overkill for my car and driving style, but I would go this route because I tend to be a purist and am not concerned with cost.

On the other hand, if I were formulating for the driving public, selling the oil, and running a business, I would now have to take value into account. A Rolls Royce may be a great car, but it does not offer value to the average Joe. If I were driven entirely by value I would probably incorporate some Grp III and reduce the POE. This would produce a lower cost oil, still meet the targets you listed, and remain overkill for the vast majority of customers.

Using Grp III creates value, after which a company needs to decide how to distribute that value, i.e. give it to their customers, to their shareholders, or share it with both. I don’t want to comment on the decisions and actions of other companies as I do not have all of their facts. My concern is what do I get for what I paid, and I don’t judge that by the base oil composition alone. I also take into account the brand name, approvals, claims, guarantees, convenience, and reputation of the formulating company. These also have value to me and justify a higher price. So long as I am happy with the value I received, I don’t begrudge a company for making profit for their shareholders. If I did there are a lot of industries I would shoot before the oil industry, such as medical, drugs, bottled water, jewelry, most repairs, etc.

To be clear, I personally consider PAO to be superior to most Grp IIIs and have long stood against calling Grp IIIs “synthetic”. That said, the more I read the more I am slowly coming around to the quality of Grp IIIs, and in some cases such as Grp III+ even wavering a bit on the synthetic tag. With as much as 90+ % of the molecules structurally changed by man I can at least see their point. The purist in me still prefers Grp IV/V, but my practical side has no problem at all with using Grp III, or Grp III/IV/V blends for extended OCIs, especially with other value factors considered.

Tom

 

[Oil Changer]

Quote:

---

If I were formulating for my personal car and driven entirely by the highest performance possible, I would use PAO, a good dose of polyol ester (30-50%), and some high viscosity PAO to replace part of the VI improver. I would also consider ANs if I could show a real performance synergy.

---

I want, I want!

Where do I send the check? Another great post Tom, thanks for your involvement.

 

[buster]

Quote:

---

I would use PAO, a good dose of polyol ester (30-50%), and some high viscosity PAO to replace part of the VI improver

---

Sounds like Redline, Mobil/Amsoil MC oils. Checkout the specs of Mobil V-Twin. Nothing but PAO/Ester.

Quote:

---

On the other hand, if I were formulating for the driving public, selling the oil, and running a business, I would now have to take value into account. A Rolls Royce may be a great car, but it does not offer value to the average Joe. If I were driven entirely by value I would probably incorporate some Grp III and reduce the POE. This would produce a lower cost oil, still meet the targets you listed, and remain overkill for the vast majority of customers.

Using Grp III creates value, after which a company needs to decide how to distribute that value, i.e. give it to their customers, to their shareholders, or share it with both. I don’t want to comment on the decisions and actions of other companies as I do not have all of their facts. My concern is what do I get for what I paid, and I don’t judge that by the base oil composition alone. I also take into account the brand name, approvals, claims, guarantees, convenience, and reputation of the formulating company. These also have value to me and justify a higher price. So long as I am happy with the value I received, I don’t begrudge a company for making profit for their shareholders. If I did there are a lot of industries I would shoot before the oil industry, such as medical, drugs, bottled water, jewelry, most repairs, etc.

---

Agree 100%

Quote:

---

I personally consider PAO to be superior to most Grp IIIs and have long stood against calling Grp IIIs “synthetic”.

---

 

[JAG]

There is a factor that is rarely discussed that benefits mineral oils: sulfur. It provides an antioxidant function according to the Shell document below. They say that unadditized mineral oils can have higher oxidation resistance than unadditized PAO. That was news to me! My own note: I think it provides lubricity as well. It's motor oils (additized basestocks) we are interested in ultimately so this matter is only academic but I mention it for the curious-minded people that purifying mineral oils takes out many undesirable components but it also takes out sulfur which is good in some ways (and bad in others like bad for the environment).
http://www.shell-lubricants.com/syntheticlubricants/synthetic_descriptions.pdf
So this contradicts something I said earlier. My bad.

Another link below contradicts something else I said earlier. I said that PAOs are not improving and are all essentially equal (with exception of VHV PAOs). Not true according to Chevron Phillips. My bad again. At least I'm not afraid to admit it!
http://www.cpchem.com/enu/pao_f_faq13.asp

 

[427Z06]

My job is done. I got JAG to admit he was wrong...twice! Just kidding.

Thanks for your input Tom.

I'll rest my case at this point as I believe we covered most aspects of this subject.

 

[buster]

Ferndog who works for Pennzoil said PP uses varying base oils depending on the market. They switch often. I wonder if this is due to the varying quality of Group III's? I wonder if they are even using the best Group III's? I would think that being it's Pennzoil's flagship product that they do use high quality Group III's.

 

[buster]

Quote:

---

Mike,

We don't use any Group III base oils in our fully synthetic race oil
formulas. We actually found that a blend of Group IV and Group V works
the best for durability and power. We've done extensive base oil testing
since 1999 when we began having our own oil blended, and a blend of
group IV and group V has always proven to perform the best in our NASCAR
engines.

Thanks,

---

For extreme high performance, Group IV's/V's are the best. This was from JGR. I had asked them awhile back what base oils they use.

 

[yannis]

Doug Hillary posted in rennlist forum that Ferrari uses the same group 3+ ,XHVI Shell base stock in F1 racing.
Buster who's that JGR?

 

[buster]

Joe Gibb's racing. yannis, it comes down to the chemist and his "school of thought" so to speak.

 

[ewetho]

I would suppose Joe Gibbs Racing

 

[bruce381]

Quote:

---

The purist in me still prefers Grp IV/V, but my practical side has no problem at all with using Grp III, or Grp III/IV/V blends for extended OCIs, especially with other value factors considered.

Tom

---

Tom both of us were around before GPII, but I got so much info over load from CVX on there RLOP oils that sorry to say but sometimes think of CVX RLOP GPII as a SYN.
I remember a ASTM D-943 test from LZ that showed a >10,000 hours which was only done at that time with a PAO.

Bruce