Group III vs Group IV

Messages
34,157
Location
Southern NJ
If many think that a group III with a very good additive package such as Schaeffer's can perform as well as fully synthetic oil, why don't other companies such as Mobil start paying more attention to the additive package then the base oil? From what I've read on here, it sounds like the additive package is more important then the base oil. We see Schaeffer's performing as well or better then Mobil1 at times. You would think that it would be a cost cutting measure. How significant is the base oil if this is what some European oils are doing? Mobil seems to stress the significance of using a PAO. [I dont know] [ June 09, 2003, 10:59 PM: Message edited by: buster ]
 
Messages
3,332
Location
BC, Canada
Buster, What is your ideal additive package, or maybe better said, what do you feel is missing from typical engine oils if anything that you would like to see changed? Do you agree with the following statments? The new high-tech base oils when used in the manufacture of engine oils, out-perform conventionals in these functions: 1. The base oils have a higher VI so they flow better at low temperatures and thin out less at high temperatures. 2. As a result of their higher VIs these "high-tech" oils may pass a multi-grade test without or with very little VI improver added to the formula, protecting the engine better at high and low temperature extremes. 3. The high-tech base oils resist oxidation and as a result provide a longer service life than conventional oils. 4. The longer service life of these high-tech lubricants is also dependent on the additive package which must be of sufficient quantity and quality for the added expected life of the lubricant. 5. The added service life of the lubricant is only possible with an improved filtration system that matches the service life of the lubricant, or filters must be changed out at a different interval than the lubricant. 6. Extending the service life or drain intervals of any lubricant or fluid beyond the manufactures recomenditions should only be done with the support of a used oil analysis program until a new data base-line is established.
 

buster

Thread starter
Messages
34,157
Location
Southern NJ
quote:
What is your ideal additive package, or maybe better said, what do you feel is missing from typical engine oils if anything that you would like to see changed? Do you agree with the following statments?
Thanks for posting that info. That helps to start. I really don't know too much about the chemistry aspect of oils like the other posters. But what I've read on here suggests, at times, that using a Group III base oil with an excellent additive package can yield great results. I could be mistaken but it seems Mobil 1 uses more PAO then other fully synthetic oils and less esters. Cost has a lot to do with it being it's a OTC oil. But if you look at Schaeffer's, they use a GIII with a very well built additive package and it competes favorably withy M1. I do see where the PAO allows lower flow temps. Many seem to think the additive package is more important so my thinking was why not cut the oils to a group III and beef up the additive package. However, oils like Syntec are not that impressive with the base oil or additive package. I agree with everything said in your post (how could I not being I'm not a chemist [Big Grin] ). So if you took M1 for example, and made it a group III, but added much more esters then it currently has, and increased the amount of Moly, would it perform as well or better? It does seem however that other then Schaeffer's, the group III's are no match for the PAO based oils. [ June 10, 2003, 06:14 PM: Message edited by: buster ]
 

Al

Messages
19,238
Location
Elizabethtown, Pa
Well as you said-Group III can't match PAO's on low temp. performance. Also I don't think they can go as extended. I'm not sure that Schaeffer's 700 series was group III. I thought it was a Group II + PAO's. Also- I'm not sure I have seen enough of Shaeffer's 700 series analysis to say its better than Mobil 1 especially in the higher milage intervals. Many of the earlier posts we have seen with the Shaeffer's series oils were those that Bob posted. I'm not faulting Bob here but it just seeems that that the analysis posted were the better ones. [Wink] Some of Mobil's less than stellar showing may also be due to the fact that it is a very low viscosity 30 wt.
 

Patman

Staff member
Messages
21,994
Location
Oakville, Ontario
quote:
Originally posted by Al: Well as you said-Group III can't match PAO's on low temp. performance. Also I don't think they can go as extended. I'm not sure that Schaeffer's 700 series was group III. I thought it was a Group II + PAO's.
Al, the Schaeffer blend 5w30 is group 3 and PAO, while the 10w30 blend is group 2+ and PAO.
 
Messages
40,655
Location
Great Lakes
quote:
Originally posted by buster: If many think that a group III with a very good additive package such as Schaeffer's can perform as well as fully synthetic oil, why don't other companies such as Mobil start paying more attention to the additive package then the base oil?
They do try to improve the additive package. That's why we now have M1 SuperSyn that replaced the old TriSyn.
 
Messages
130
Location
New York
Just from a chemo-philophical standpoint, I think it's better to engineer the base stock to provide as many of the properties desired, then achieving them by using additives. Remember while the additives provide certain beneficial characteristics, they don't provide lubrication, and they displace the base stock, which does. Also, the additives seem to be more succeptable to breakdown/depletion than the base stock. VII is notorious for this. It's used to beef up the high temp viscosity, but then it shears, and the viscosity drops. As far as I know, base stock doesn't shear.
 
Top