Aren't group IV oils less prone to sludging, since they're not petroleum based?
Group 3 vs 4 Oil
- Thread starter west1
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: BeanCounter
Originally Posted By: sangyup81
Group 4 is yesterday's synthetic base stock. Group 5 Esters outperform them.
They are comprised and engineered differently. Comparing them on a linear, progressive format would likely be illogical.
Who's talking spec sheets? If you want an oil to last a long time, hold additives in suspension, be compatible with seals, withstand the demands of turbos, and all the other stuff any automotive oil spec demands then why would Group 4 be preferred over Group 5 for any other reason than cost?
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: sangyup81
Group 4 is yesterday's synthetic base stock. Group 5 Esters outperform them.
Well that's pure nonsense.
Thank you for your constructive post. If you can name applications where the Group 4 out there is better than any Group 5 that's out there then please enlighten me.
Originally Posted By: sangyup81
Group 4 is yesterday's synthetic base stock. Group 5 Esters outperform them.
They are comprised and engineered differently. Comparing them on a linear, progressive format would likely be illogical.
Who's talking spec sheets? If you want an oil to last a long time, hold additives in suspension, be compatible with seals, withstand the demands of turbos, and all the other stuff any automotive oil spec demands then why would Group 4 be preferred over Group 5 for any other reason than cost?
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: sangyup81
Group 4 is yesterday's synthetic base stock. Group 5 Esters outperform them.
Well that's pure nonsense.
Thank you for your constructive post. If you can name applications where the Group 4 out there is better than any Group 5 that's out there then please enlighten me.
Originally Posted By: sangyup81
Originally Posted By: BeanCounter
Originally Posted By: sangyup81
Group 4 is yesterday's synthetic base stock. Group 5 Esters outperform them.
They are comprised and engineered differently. Comparing them on a linear, progressive format would likely be illogical.
Who's talking spec sheets? If you want an oil to last a long time, hold additives in suspension, be compatible with seals, withstand the demands of turbos, and all the other stuff any automotive oil spec demands then why would Group 4 be preferred over Group 5 for any other reason than cost?
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: sangyup81
Group 4 is yesterday's synthetic base stock. Group 5 Esters outperform them.
Well that's pure nonsense.
Thank you for your constructive post. If you can name applications where the Group 4 out there is better than any Group 5 that's out there then please enlighten me.
You're right. Your post that we quoted was highly intelligent and informative...
Originally Posted By: BeanCounter
Originally Posted By: sangyup81
Group 4 is yesterday's synthetic base stock. Group 5 Esters outperform them.
They are comprised and engineered differently. Comparing them on a linear, progressive format would likely be illogical.
Who's talking spec sheets? If you want an oil to last a long time, hold additives in suspension, be compatible with seals, withstand the demands of turbos, and all the other stuff any automotive oil spec demands then why would Group 4 be preferred over Group 5 for any other reason than cost?
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: sangyup81
Group 4 is yesterday's synthetic base stock. Group 5 Esters outperform them.
Well that's pure nonsense.
Thank you for your constructive post. If you can name applications where the Group 4 out there is better than any Group 5 that's out there then please enlighten me.
You're right. Your post that we quoted was highly intelligent and informative...
Originally Posted By: BeanCounter
You're right. Your post that we quoted was highly intelligent and informative...
And calling them apples and oranges when they are used for the same application? I listed reasons why Group 5 is superior at what it's used for. Do you have a "logical" rebuttal or are you going to keep using ad hominem arguments?
You're right. Your post that we quoted was highly intelligent and informative...
And calling them apples and oranges when they are used for the same application? I listed reasons why Group 5 is superior at what it's used for. Do you have a "logical" rebuttal or are you going to keep using ad hominem arguments?
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: Unleashedbeast
Do I believe it, not in the least. They wanted an excuse to continue making profit after their PAO shortage.
That may be. But do you have proof that the new formulation protects engines any less than the old one?
Due to usage patterns that don't take Synthetics anywhere near what they are capable of, the issue becomes more about how we're getting what we're paying for instead of getting more than what we've payed for like in the past. Doesn't bother me personally but I can see why some people might get a bad taste from it.
Originally Posted By: Unleashedbeast
Do I believe it, not in the least. They wanted an excuse to continue making profit after their PAO shortage.
That may be. But do you have proof that the new formulation protects engines any less than the old one?
Due to usage patterns that don't take Synthetics anywhere near what they are capable of, the issue becomes more about how we're getting what we're paying for instead of getting more than what we've payed for like in the past. Doesn't bother me personally but I can see why some people might get a bad taste from it.
Hi,
it is interesting to note that in 2009 a Senior Mercedes Benz person at Untertuerkeim - with previous lubricants supply and testing responsibilites (VOA. UOA, Field Testing) - asked me "why people would ever buy expensive "Boutique" lubricants when all of the lubricants on their Approved List perform at or near the same in service"!
This was confirmed to me again at the Nurburgring in May 2010 by an Ex Mercedes Benz prototype development Engineer - now working with another engine maker/Oil Company on engine development tasks!
The MB List contains a mixture of "synthetic" type lubricants
I can endorse their comments!!
it is interesting to note that in 2009 a Senior Mercedes Benz person at Untertuerkeim - with previous lubricants supply and testing responsibilites (VOA. UOA, Field Testing) - asked me "why people would ever buy expensive "Boutique" lubricants when all of the lubricants on their Approved List perform at or near the same in service"!
This was confirmed to me again at the Nurburgring in May 2010 by an Ex Mercedes Benz prototype development Engineer - now working with another engine maker/Oil Company on engine development tasks!
The MB List contains a mixture of "synthetic" type lubricants
I can endorse their comments!!
Last edited:
Hi,
sangyup81 - I suspect it is a value added marketing move
I have been involed with ester based lubricants since the 1950s and been involved in the development and refinement of a number of Castrol products. I have watched a number of primarily ester based lubricanst fail in servive
As a previous Poster stated - the lastest good performers are Grp 3 products - and many will contain some Grp 4 and Grp 5 components - and it is the Additive package that will make the Blender's intentions come true! These can be designed for the task and achieve it!!
A 100% ester based engine lubricant will be an underperformer in typical everyday automotive use!
sangyup81 - I suspect it is a value added marketing move
I have been involed with ester based lubricants since the 1950s and been involved in the development and refinement of a number of Castrol products. I have watched a number of primarily ester based lubricanst fail in servive
As a previous Poster stated - the lastest good performers are Grp 3 products - and many will contain some Grp 4 and Grp 5 components - and it is the Additive package that will make the Blender's intentions come true! These can be designed for the task and achieve it!!
A 100% ester based engine lubricant will be an underperformer in typical everyday automotive use!
I can't say much about esters in the 1950s but today's ester based PCMOs are definitely not what I would consider to be underperformers. Just because Castrol couldn't do it in the 50's doesn't mean Red Line, Motul and Nissan can't. Otherwise, you're saying these companies are tricking us into paying >$10 per quart?
Originally Posted By: sangyup81
I can't say much about esters in the 1950s but today's ester based PCMOs are definitely not what I would consider to be underperformers. Just because Castrol couldn't do it in the 50's doesn't mean Red Line, Motul and Nissan can't. Otherwise, you're saying these companies are tricking us into paying >$10 per quart?
They are not 100% Ester either though.
I can't say much about esters in the 1950s but today's ester based PCMOs are definitely not what I would consider to be underperformers. Just because Castrol couldn't do it in the 50's doesn't mean Red Line, Motul and Nissan can't. Otherwise, you're saying these companies are tricking us into paying >$10 per quart?
They are not 100% Ester either though.
Last edited:
The Nissan "Ester" oil contains only about 1% of an ester type friction modifier because of a special DLC coating they use. Redline says their ester formulations are blended with PAO.
As base oils, properly selected esters will excel in oxidative stability, volatility, lubricity, cleanliness, and additive solubility compared to PAOs, but I would be concerned about seal compatibility in a 100% ester based formula. Furthermore, these base oil "property advantages" do not translate into real world "performance advantages" for most users, and additives may trump base oil differences. Not saying base oils mean nothing, just not everything.
The best base oil for you is the one that best meets your individual needs, including cost, and for most people that is a blend.
Tom NJ
As base oils, properly selected esters will excel in oxidative stability, volatility, lubricity, cleanliness, and additive solubility compared to PAOs, but I would be concerned about seal compatibility in a 100% ester based formula. Furthermore, these base oil "property advantages" do not translate into real world "performance advantages" for most users, and additives may trump base oil differences. Not saying base oils mean nothing, just not everything.
The best base oil for you is the one that best meets your individual needs, including cost, and for most people that is a blend.
Tom NJ
RP is Group IV.
Originally Posted By: HangerHarley
RP is Group IV.
Some make absolute statements about base oil formulations without knowing for sure the exact proprietary blend that particular manufacture is using.
When asked, these are direct quotes from Royal Purple:
"Royal Purple Automotive lubricants use a proprietary blend of synthetic base oils, including Group IV and V stock."
"We make over 60 specific engine oils and use synthetic base stocks in all of them although our exact formulations are considered proprietary."
Look closer, "proprietary blend of synthetic base oils". Today Group III, IV, and V base oils are considered synthetic. Royal Purple could be using any of them in their formulations, but again, "exact formulations are considered proprietary".
RP is Group IV.
Some make absolute statements about base oil formulations without knowing for sure the exact proprietary blend that particular manufacture is using.
When asked, these are direct quotes from Royal Purple:
"Royal Purple Automotive lubricants use a proprietary blend of synthetic base oils, including Group IV and V stock."
"We make over 60 specific engine oils and use synthetic base stocks in all of them although our exact formulations are considered proprietary."
Look closer, "proprietary blend of synthetic base oils". Today Group III, IV, and V base oils are considered synthetic. Royal Purple could be using any of them in their formulations, but again, "exact formulations are considered proprietary".
Originally Posted By: sangyup81
There's no such thing as an oil that only uses group 4 basestock. All oils that contain group 4 contain group 3 or group 5 so that additives can be held in suspension by the oil.
Group 4 is yesterday's synthetic base stock. Group 5 Esters outperform them.
This is absolutely correct. There is ONE oil Called AMTECOL that is 85% PAO(IV) and the rest additives. I wonder if everything just falls to the bottom of the oil bottle..lol PAO's are not that good by themselves. That is why almost all oils are blends to some degree. Get the Motomaster and don't worry about it. Either get a mediocre filter and change midway or a quality filter and go the distance. Up to you.
There's no such thing as an oil that only uses group 4 basestock. All oils that contain group 4 contain group 3 or group 5 so that additives can be held in suspension by the oil.
Group 4 is yesterday's synthetic base stock. Group 5 Esters outperform them.
This is absolutely correct. There is ONE oil Called AMTECOL that is 85% PAO(IV) and the rest additives. I wonder if everything just falls to the bottom of the oil bottle..lol PAO's are not that good by themselves. That is why almost all oils are blends to some degree. Get the Motomaster and don't worry about it. Either get a mediocre filter and change midway or a quality filter and go the distance. Up to you.
Originally Posted By: sangyup81
Originally Posted By: BeanCounter
You're right. Your post that we quoted was highly intelligent and informative...
And calling them apples and oranges when they are used for the same application? I listed reasons why Group 5 is superior at what it's used for. Do you have a "logical" rebuttal or are you going to keep using ad hominem arguments?
I can make statements all day long that "X is better than Y because....", but without factual, empirical data to back up a blanket statement, you're really reaching for something you can't prove. Ester based oils and PAO oils are going to have different engineered specs, composition, and the like. Appropriately, they are going to perform better or worse in different manners, in different environments/scenarios. Not all that hard to grasp.
Originally Posted By: BeanCounter
You're right. Your post that we quoted was highly intelligent and informative...
And calling them apples and oranges when they are used for the same application? I listed reasons why Group 5 is superior at what it's used for. Do you have a "logical" rebuttal or are you going to keep using ad hominem arguments?
I can make statements all day long that "X is better than Y because....", but without factual, empirical data to back up a blanket statement, you're really reaching for something you can't prove. Ester based oils and PAO oils are going to have different engineered specs, composition, and the like. Appropriately, they are going to perform better or worse in different manners, in different environments/scenarios. Not all that hard to grasp.
Why don't you go with a semi-synthetic? Cheap and good.
Originally Posted By: sangyup81
Just because Castrol couldn't do it in the 50's doesn't mean Red Line, Motul and Nissan can't.
Red Line and Nissan aren't selling 100% ester-based products though. I believe Nissan's oil in particular is a group III oil with a minuscule amount of an unknown type of ester. Even Tom NJ, whose word I value above all others here when it comes to esters, says that a 100% ester based oil isn't optimal and can cause seal compatibility issues.
The last "semi-definitive" word I've heard on the subject of Red Line is that it is no more than 60% POE, the rest being PAO and additives.
Just because Castrol couldn't do it in the 50's doesn't mean Red Line, Motul and Nissan can't.
Red Line and Nissan aren't selling 100% ester-based products though. I believe Nissan's oil in particular is a group III oil with a minuscule amount of an unknown type of ester. Even Tom NJ, whose word I value above all others here when it comes to esters, says that a 100% ester based oil isn't optimal and can cause seal compatibility issues.
The last "semi-definitive" word I've heard on the subject of Red Line is that it is no more than 60% POE, the rest being PAO and additives.
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
The Nissan "Ester" oil contains only about 1% of an ester type friction modifier because of a special DLC coating they use. Redline says their ester formulations are blended with PAO.
As base oils, properly selected esters will excel in oxidative stability, volatility, lubricity, cleanliness, and additive solubility compared to PAOs, but I would be concerned about seal compatibility in a 100% ester based formula. Furthermore, these base oil "property advantages" do not translate into real world "performance advantages" for most users, and additives may trump base oil differences. Not saying base oils mean nothing, just not everything.
The best base oil for you is the one that best meets your individual needs, including cost, and for most people that is a blend.
Tom NJ
Disregard my previous post.
The Nissan "Ester" oil contains only about 1% of an ester type friction modifier because of a special DLC coating they use. Redline says their ester formulations are blended with PAO.
As base oils, properly selected esters will excel in oxidative stability, volatility, lubricity, cleanliness, and additive solubility compared to PAOs, but I would be concerned about seal compatibility in a 100% ester based formula. Furthermore, these base oil "property advantages" do not translate into real world "performance advantages" for most users, and additives may trump base oil differences. Not saying base oils mean nothing, just not everything.
The best base oil for you is the one that best meets your individual needs, including cost, and for most people that is a blend.
Tom NJ
Disregard my previous post.
- Status