Group III Synthetics better than Group IV?

[Ron AKA]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TooSlick:
Pablo,
You can choose to really optimize the low temp propertes or the high temp properties, but not both. Petro Canada does the former; Redline does the latter. Most other synthetics like Amsoil and Mobil 1 are somewhere in the middle.
Your choice....

---

I agree that PetroCan is obviously working to optimize the low temperature properties. But, is it really a given that it follows this compromises the high temperature performance? The % of aromatics in the base oil from PetroCan is extremely low, and the flash point of the finished 0w30 product for example is very high, and compares quite favourably to the other PAO synthetics. Flash point is not everything, but it seems to be an indicator, that they are not using heavy amounts of VHVI 2 base stock (FP 177C, PP -42C) to get the low temperature performance. See data tables below.

I do agree with the comments about pour point depressant additives and that they likely have a finite life. That may be the real story on the good group III oils at this point in time. On the other hand I've seen it noted in a few places including the original posted article in this thread that Group IV base stock has poorer solubility of additives, so that may limit what can be done for them as well.

 

[BlazerLT]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ron AKA:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlazerLT:
Seriously, you have some issues bud, three threads you have been set straight and then you just ignore that thread and start up another one.

---

I'm sorry that I have upset you. It obviously concerns you that someone may suggest the XD-3 oil is not the greatest thing since sliced bread. Perhaps you need to look at things a little more objectively, rather than conclude a PAO oil is the only thing that works.

Not sure about getting set straight, just because someone posts unpublished data on a dated (GF-3) oil that gives better specs. If M1 has better low temperature performance I would like to know about it, as that has been my standard oil for years. However, if they don't publish the data then who really knows what it is? It would not surprise me that M1 now contains Group III, and perhaps there is some chance specifications have changed.

If you want to discuss this subject like an adult, I don't mind. However, if you want to continue your line of just firing juvenile insults, I won't bother to respond to your posts any longer.

---

It doesn't matter what anyone says and proes to you, you will just start another thread with the same question being asked based on a couple numbers in the technical data.

Seriously, anyone touting and arguing that a group 3 is better than a PAO basestock is just being ignorant.

I suggest you RE-READ the three threads you have already commented on and learn from what everyone has proven to you already.

Like here:

http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=016056;p=2#000044

 

[Hirev]

quote:

---

Are you suggesting GTL was/is the magic ingredient in PP? I was kind of wondering the same, but am not sure GTL base oil is available yet.

---

Well yes... PP was GTL till December 05 when the PP formula was changed "Improved" to Group III. Don't know if it was a performance issue or a dollar issue (profit). All the info is on this board if you want to do some searching.

 

[Ron AKA]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hirev:

quote:

---

Are you suggesting GTL was/is the magic ingredient in PP? I was kind of wondering the same, but am not sure GTL base oil is available yet.

---

Well yes... PP was GTL till December 05 when the PP formula was changed "Improved" to Group III. Don't know if it was a performance issue or a dollar issue (profit). All the info is on this board if you want to do some searching.

---

Thank you. I will have to do some searching of the older threads. My understanding however, is that GTL's are still group III's. Or at least Chevron seems to think they are:

"Incredibly, one new base oil feedstock is natural gas. In this decade, we will see a new type of ultraperformance base oil derived from wax which is derived from natural gas via the Fischer-Tropsch process (see Related Reading at end of article). The plants making these super-synthetic Group III base oils will employ the latest hydroprocessing technology."

I think I have seen e-mails from Pennzoil posted here saying their base oil is Group III and always has been. This would not seem to rule out a GTL component. With the current price of crude oil so high, and natural gas now coming down to more reasonable levels, the economics could tip quite favourably to the GTL process.

 

[Blue99]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but to the best of my knowledge, base oils produced from the waxy GTL feedstocks are only available from limited pilot projects and no production has reached the shelf as a GF-4 motor oil.

The big push for GTL is to get the new construction completed & online for the 2009/2010 time frame. The majors lubricant market players, Shell, ExxonMobil & Chevron all have ventures underway in either the Gulf region or the petroleum producing nations of Africa.

The big advantage of a GTL base oil is a very pure, high VI index with good heat resistant properities, at a moderate cost.

While GTL feedstocks for lubricants will be a byproduct of the ultra-clean diesel fuel production, it is estimated that the yield will be huge and that just a single one of these new facilities will be capable of supplying 2-5% of the world demand for base oil feedstocks.

 

[Patman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToyotaNSaturn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TooSlick:
Pablo,

You can choose to really optimize the low temp propertes or the high temp properties, but not both. Petro Canada does the former; Redline does the latter. Most other synthetics like Amsoil and Mobil 1 are somewhere in the middle.

Your choice....

---

It makes sense that Petro Canada is aiming for cold temp performance. I've never thought of Canada as a tropical paradise.

---

Actually you would be surprised at the average winter temps in the major Canadian cities. Most of them are actually a lot warmer than you'd think. Vancouver for instance very rarely gets below the freezing mark in the winter. And Toronto usually hovers right around the freezing mark or a bit higher on most winter days. Sub 0F days in Toronto don't happen too often. The really really cold parts of Canada have a lot less people living there.

So in other words, the major cities which have the most people really don't see super cold temps, so the market for oils with super cold weather performance isn't an absolute necessity up here. 99% of the people up here could do just fine with a 5w30 and they'd never have trouble starting on a winter morning.

 

[mshu7]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlazerLT:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ron AKA:
Is it possible that we have reached a point in time (2006) where the Group III's have become so good that they exceed the performance of the traditional Group IV synthetics? The article at the link below is a bit dated (2003), but it does raise the point that the gap at that time had become very narrow. Even at that time Group III's were said to have some advantages over PAO's.

"A modern Group III oil can actually outperform a PAO in several areas important to lubricants, such as additive solubility, lubricity and antiwear performance."

And, while PAO's as pure base oils have very low pour points their performance is degraded with the additive pack. The reason Petro Canada 0w30 outperforms the ESSO XD-3 in CCS and MRV viscosity?

This all makes me wonder if this trend continues will we will get to the point of paying a premium for the Group III's due to their higher performance?

Evolution of Base Oil Technology

---

This is the third thread that he has brought up on his opinion that for some reason Petro-Canada 0w30 is the best oil in the whole wide world and his basis that it beats everything is based on asome technical data and pure opinion.

An since when does XD3 have a poor additive pack?

Seriously, you have some issues bud, three threads you have been set straight and then you just ignore that thread and start up another one.

How many threads do we need with you whoring Pet-Can 0w30 which is just a hydro-cracked synthetic ripoff.

Get your head out of the sand and just stop this ridiculous circle.

---

This isn't the only message board he's littering with his opinions...

 

[427Z06]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ron AKA:
Title: Group III Synthetics better than Group IV?

---

In a word, NO. But since the answer is a lot more involved depending on the final formulation and the application, you'll continue to irritate people with incorrect generalized inferences.

 

[427Z06]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ron AKA:

---

Compare pourpoints and flashpoints of VHVI Grp IIIs to PAOs:

PAO properties

 

[bruce381]

Look

GTL is not commercially avalilable Yet but pilot plants have made some to tweak the process.

EOP IMHO also is/was cominmg from pilot plants and Pennzol dropped it for the time being or whatever reson It was a in house project to make base oils out of something they (Shell) has a lot of.

GPIII is getting better since PAO has seen the hand writing on the wall about GTL which is way cheaper to make ans/is as good PAO producers are NOT putting money ionto improvements since feed stock an be sold for more anyway the industry is uncertain.

GTL is NOT EOP which was in PP different animal.

I do AGREE with the Chevron guys and if you read the charts Chevron which is same process as Pet Canada have very CLOSE to PAO peoduct specs BUT not BETTER or even EQUAL but close.

AS far as finished lubes with correct additive use the GPIII will perform on a par with a PAO.

So thats about it really no agrument if you look at all the oils mentioned to me pretty clear
since no one uses "plain un additized oils anyway".
bruce


PAO

 

[buster]

bruce delivers as usual.

 

[Ron AKA]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 427Z06:
Compare pourpoints and flashpoints of VHVI Grp IIIs to PAOs:

---

If we compare 4 cSt base oil there is a major advantage of PAO's in native pour point. However, as the Chevron article points out a good portion of that disappears when all the additives are put in and the viscosity brought into the requirement of the typical 5w30 or so grades.

On native flash point I don't see a significant advantage.

 

[Ron AKA]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 427Z06:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ron AKA:
Title: Group III Synthetics better than Group IV?

---

In a word, NO. But since the answer is a lot more involved depending on the final formulation and the application, you'll continue to irritate people with incorrect generalized inferences.

---

It was a question to promote discussion, not a statement of fact. And, I agree the answer is not clear. However, I'm coming to the conclusion (only my humble opinion) that some of the better Group III's may be better than the poorer Group IV's. And of course this also implies that better Group IV's are better than poor Group III's.

 

[goodvibes]

Better grp IVs are better than any grp IIIs and Bruce may tell us that any true grp IV is better but that's only base stocks and there's a lot more than that to motor oil. When you look at a great grp 3, do you know that some of that goodness doesn't come from using a grp IV for solvency? You're drawing conclusions from not enough info. There are people on this board that actually know the answer and any amount of hedging or opinion wont make you right.

 

[427Z06]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ron AKA:

quote:

---

Originally posted by 427Z06:
Compare pourpoints and flashpoints of VHVI Grp IIIs to PAOs:

---

If we compare 4 cSt base oil there is a major advantage of PAO's in native pour point. However, as the Chevron article points out a good portion of that disappears when all the additives are put in and the viscosity brought into the requirement of the typical 5w30 or so grades.

On native flash point I don't see a significant advantage.

---

So...you think you're breaking new ground here? Let me clue you in. If you would do a search, you'd see many dozens of discussions on this topic. Even the article you referenced, or one similar to it, was discussed at least several times.

The part that irritates people is that you treat them like they're ninnies asking for proof of all their statements. Don't worry, the veterans will chime in if they see anything too silly. You, on the other hand, are the new kid on the block. Heck, I don't know how many times I had to point out mistakes in your posts. In short, you act like we're all too stupid to have noticed things you just happen to run across now. This very post I'm quoting is another example.

 

[Ron AKA]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 427Z06:
So...you think you're breaking new ground here? Let me clue you in. If you would do a search, you'd see many dozens of discussions on this topic. Even the article you referenced, or one similar to it, was discussed at least several times.

The part that irritates people is that you treat them like they're ninnies asking for proof of all their statements. Don't worry, the veterans will chime in if they see anything too silly. You, on the other hand, are the new kid on the block. Heck, I don't know how many times I had to point out mistakes in your posts. In short, you act like we're all too stupid to have noticed things you just happen to run across now. This very post I'm quoting is another example.

---

Thanks for the warm welcome.

 

[buster]

Ron, seriously try using the search button. So much information on this site. The interesting articles section also has a lot of good information.

 

[Ron AKA]

quote:

---

Originally posted by buster:
Ron, seriously try using the search button. So much information on this site. The interesting articles section also has a lot of good information.

---

I appreciate what you are saying and I have spent quite a bit of time searching old posts. I have taken the time to thank those who have posted valuable information.

However, this is September 10, 2006 and a new day. As you may suspect I have spend time at many forums and one of the common expectations is that newcomers will search all the previous posts, take them as fact, ask no questions, and go away without bothering all the wise elders who already know it all. Most forums would die if that really happened. The reality is that people come to forums for discussion not to read old posts, which by the way are pretty difficult to search through. Further I have been here long enough to see that there are very widely differing opinions of what is fact and what is not, among the respected elders. So I would suggest that if you expect a newcomer to read all posts, digest it all, and agree with it all, that is asking a bit much.

Perhaps you could point me towards a thread that questioned the value of high HTHS and that examples of it such as Redline really costs HP and fuel mileage? I did so to great protest from some and agreement by others. I think that may have been a first on this forum.

Also, again unpopular, but I also suggested that a Group III Canadian oil may be one of the best Group III's on the market, and I know you probably don't agree but better than some so called Group IV's.

If you want to point out inaccuracies in my conclusions I will be happy to change them and even apologize with typical Canadian politeness. To tell me I'm stupid and lazy..., sorry does not elicit much respect.

 

[427Z06]

Welcome to life, Ron.

 

[BlazerLT]

Gain some knowledge before you come into the forums and start to tell people what is better than what.

Heck, you started judging oils by their base oil and viscosity index. That will get you disrespected pretty fast here.

Coming into a forum brimming with people educated in the oil industry and their respective products and trying to argue against common knowledge here is not a way to gain respect either.

First it is about Tech2000 0w30 then about Petro Canada 0w30 how great it is, and now you are arguing about the basestock of it.

The only reason they can call is synthetic is through a loophole in the law.

All it is is a highly refined conventional oil.