Group III Synthetics better than Group IV?
- Thread starter Ron AKA
- Start date
- Status
Call me crazy. I enjoy the debate. At least when it is backed by more facts than just calling someone ignorant. If you really don't care for his threads, simply do not read them. There are a few people that I do exactly that with. Your blood pressure will probably thank you too.
I definitely agree.
Call me ignorant, but I'm truly lost.
Why are so many of you proclaiming the PAO based lubricants superior if the GroupIII or even GroupII based oils perform as well?
At least according to Terry Dyson:
"Guys, base oils are one component of a complex mixture for a lube. Unfocus from the base oils and look at the total chemistry. For the average guy the best way is through UOA. Procuring test results that are reasonably accurate and using a service that can compare to a data base of that engine with that oil in that environment. We try to do that and it works.
If a Havoline 5w30 works well for someone who wants to change oil at 7500 miles , why run redline 5w30 for the same timeframe when the wear control and cleanliness are essentially the same?
The term synthetic and conventional are nearly meaningless any longer. Marketing has you believing that if the term "synthetic" is on the bottle label for a fully formulated lube and its better, not true any more.
There is a major US oil company selling excellent lubricants as "syn" when they are base grp III,the add pack is so superior and hand in glove with the base oils that this generally lower retail cost formula significantly lowers wear over oils that cost 2 and 3 times more.
Why use the higher priced GRPIV or V oils unless you have temp issues etc?"
[ September 12, 2006, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: avette ]
Why are so many of you proclaiming the PAO based lubricants superior if the GroupIII or even GroupII based oils perform as well?
At least according to Terry Dyson:
"Guys, base oils are one component of a complex mixture for a lube. Unfocus from the base oils and look at the total chemistry. For the average guy the best way is through UOA. Procuring test results that are reasonably accurate and using a service that can compare to a data base of that engine with that oil in that environment. We try to do that and it works.
If a Havoline 5w30 works well for someone who wants to change oil at 7500 miles , why run redline 5w30 for the same timeframe when the wear control and cleanliness are essentially the same?
The term synthetic and conventional are nearly meaningless any longer. Marketing has you believing that if the term "synthetic" is on the bottle label for a fully formulated lube and its better, not true any more.
There is a major US oil company selling excellent lubricants as "syn" when they are base grp III,the add pack is so superior and hand in glove with the base oils that this generally lower retail cost formula significantly lowers wear over oils that cost 2 and 3 times more.
Why use the higher priced GRPIV or V oils unless you have temp issues etc?"
[ September 12, 2006, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: avette ]
And Bruce381 in this thread is basically saying the same thing:
"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...
...AS far as finished lubes with correct additive use the GPIII will perform on a par with a PAO.
Are you guys saying these two industry Pro's don't know what they're talking about?
"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...
...AS far as finished lubes with correct additive use the GPIII will perform on a par with a PAO.
Are you guys saying these two industry Pro's don't know what they're talking about?
I will reply to whatever thread I want and if you actually read the thread you will realise that I have responded to the many other threads that he has created on the same topic.quote:
Originally posted by B00SS:
Call me crazy. I enjoy the debate. At least when it is backed by more facts than just calling someone ignorant. If you really don't care for his threads, simply do not read them. There are a few people that I do exactly that with. Your blood pressure will probably thank you too.
Bwahahaha, best comment to date.
So Terry and Bruce are not experts?quote:
Originally posted by Hirev:
Holy cow sounds like some people here are digging a grave for PAOs. Here a little something from some experts, to read on Group III vs Group IV.
I find it hard to believe judging by what I've seen so far on this site.
Benny,
If you do a search on "toyotnsaturn" you will find he has posted what seems to be the consensus of the forum. Since that time, I believe the thinking is that Penszoil Platinum is now Group III.
For Canadian oils ESSO XD-3 is said to be Group IV. PetroCan synthetic is Group III, and this MAY be the same oil as is sold at Walmart as TECH2000. No consensus on that one.
Hope that helps,
Please only let me in the shallow water folks. I recognize my inexpertness regarding oil formulation every time I look at this keyboard. But it seems that we have come a long way in the direction of Grp III, Grp Iv, and Grp V being closer to being equal over the past few years. Progress is what it is in spite of my keyboard.I suppose the real test for dividing the basestocks is 25K drain intervals during a heat wave closely followed by iceberg barrage. Personaly I don't care much for extended drains: too much oppurtunity for filter malfunctions and such. OTOH a little reserve capacity in the oil never hurts either. Rickey.
One common problem that has reoccured consistantly over the years by many members on this board (myself included) is the obsession over "one" component of an oil. First it was moly , followed by viscosity (thick vs thin) , then ZDDP and last, base oils used. It's the end product that matters. To specifically address the question, Group III's are very close to PAO's, but are still not as good in many areas.
Lot to read here. A few of my thoughts on it:quote:
Originally posted by Hirev:
Holy cow sounds like some people here are digging a grave for PAOs. Here a little something from some experts, to read on Group III vs Group IV.
Link Here
And Here
More Here
A bunch of Facts
Fully agree the consistency of PAO is much better than the whole Group III, for the reasons given. That is the reason why one should be selective as to which Group III they use. That is what determines good Group III's from poor ones. GTL's will probably reach the ultimate for Group III's in this respect. It is also the reason why Group IV's have not improved as much lately.....less to do.
I thought the VI comment perhaps was a bit bias. The best III's equal or better PAO for native base oil VI. But again if you compare the average III, then probably true.
And then the interesting one on pour point depressant effect on VHVI III's. The graph has been posted here often as an example as to why PAO's are superior. Your link gave this dialogue, which exlains:
"The Scanning Brookfield chart on this page demonstrates the difference in viscometrics between a Synfluid® PAO and a pour point depressed mineral oil. A Group III mineral oil with a 0.1% PPD achieves an improved pour point, but to the detriment of the low-temperature viscometrics. You would expect the viscosity to improve with a lower pour point, but the opposite is true. As a result, the jump in the viscosity adversely effects the ability to pump at low temperatures. Some specifications have a low temperature MRV requirement. You see, "the jump hurts the pump."
However, I think that does not necessarily mean that Group III's are bad. What it really means is that if you are selecting one, don't do it based on pour point. Select a Group III that has good CCS and MRV viscosity, which is the real measure - as your posted article points out. And if you look at the specs you will find some of the Group III's are excellent and outperform PAO's, even though their Pour Point is signficantly poorer. And for a negative example look at the Quaker State full synthetic which rivals PAO's in pour point, but has miserable CCS and MRV. Your article is a good explaination as to why.
So all in all good articles but one needs to read closely to determine what they really mean. If anyone is digging a grave for PAO's I would suggest the biggest enemy is just production cost. GTL's from areas where gas production is restricted (flared), are going to make those products pretty attractive, as I believe Bruce pointed out.
Buster I agree that performance is the great equalizer. One that some do not like (and are usually Consumer Report haters!).
To be fair though, Group III's may not just equal IV's in some areas and lag behind in others. At least Chevron noted in my original posted article that III's are better when it comes to "additive solubility, lubricity and antiwear performance". Wonder if that antiwear performance makes Terry's guarded comments on some magic Group III more believable?
Ron, realize that companies will slant information to favor what they produce or can produce more economically. Esters are in a league of their own when it comes to lubrication, surpassing PAO's in every application if cost was no objective. See Molekule's thread Here.
In talking with Maxima's tech rep, you can find an ester for almost every application that will outperform a PAO. Their are hundreds of esters available and they are costly. I'm bringing esters into the picture because what is used in Formula 1 racing is usually the best of the best. The track is the testing ground for oil companies working closely with racing teams. With that said, Redline, XOM, Elf, Motul, Castrol and others all use PAO/Ester based oils. When they all start using Group III's, if we could ever find out, I'll believe you. Until then, I think the racing crowd uses esters and pao's for a good reason.
In talking with Maxima's tech rep, you can find an ester for almost every application that will outperform a PAO. Their are hundreds of esters available and they are costly. I'm bringing esters into the picture because what is used in Formula 1 racing is usually the best of the best. The track is the testing ground for oil companies working closely with racing teams. With that said, Redline, XOM, Elf, Motul, Castrol and others all use PAO/Ester based oils. When they all start using Group III's, if we could ever find out, I'll believe you. Until then, I think the racing crowd uses esters and pao's for a good reason.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked