Group III vs PAO - Which is the way to go ...?

[javacontour]

This is a timely topic where is that Power Point "like" presentation that Bob had up that goes into the pros and cons of each of these oils.

I was looking for it to answer another question, but cannot seem to find it.

TB

 

[GregH]

Well here is another opinion. I don't KNOW enough to make a concrete statement about this, I will offer an opinion.
Group 3 base oil appears to be good stuff. A definite improvement in stability over group 11 and 1.
Group 3 oil appears to be cheaper to produce but we get charged the SAME amount for it as PAO.
Group 3 oil appears to lose some solvency when compared to group 1 oil and thus the blender would have to add either an ester or Group 1 to maintain that feature, same for PAO?
Group 3 appears to suffer in the cold weather cold cranking area as opposed to PAO.
Overall probably a good product just marketed under a black cloud.
Just my 2 cents adjusted for inflation!
GregH

 

[Patman]

The link is fine, it isn't trying to sell us something, it's informational, which is always allowed here.

 

[Shannow]

From the other castrol reply, it's got me thinking again.

"Meets or exceed specification xyz."

When an oil meets a spec, and another does also, would courts (or tribunals) state that one is better or worse than the other ?

The castrol reply seemed to use those issues. Our competitor meets this standard, so do we. We are equally as good.

 

[VeeDubb]

quote:

---

Originally posted by buster:
Thanks for the link GSV.

I think it's pretty simple in that for extended drains, PAO's are the way to go. M1 and Amsoil both feel this way. For shorter drains, III's are fine. Intervals are going up from what I see and I'd feel better with a PAO then grp III.

---

I think this pretty much sums up my attitude about the two oils too. For longer drain, there is little doubt which I'd go with. But for sub-6k drains, I look for lowest wear numbers. While I haven't done a direct comparison in my personal engine, I do look for trends in the same type of engines (e.g. vw 1.8Ts)

 

[Bror Jace]

Yes, thanks again for that link GSV. That was the one I was referring to over in the "Boycott Castrol!!" thread.

--- Bror Jace

 

[Ray H]

quote:

---

Originally posted by GSV:
...and AFAIK all Chevron synths are Group III derived...

---

Maybe not. ChevronTexaco's MSDSs list either 1-decene...yadayadayada... (PAO) or hydroisomerized (Group III) base stocks are used in the production of their various viscosity range Chevron Supreme and Havoline synthetic motor oils, and in that order.

If I'm not mistaken, there aren't that many synthesizers of PAO base stocks, and Exxon/Mobil is the largest in the U.S.? Think about this for a moment. Maybe the reason most mass-market brands of motor oils have migrated to Group III base stocks is only partially the result of the base oil cost differential. Could there also be corporate "political" reasons of not wanting to be at Exxon/Mobil's "mercy" in the synthetic base stocks supply chain? Also consider that since PAOs begin life as methane (natural gas), and there are sound economic reasons for using the diminishing methane resources as motor oil, the cost can only go up for PAOs. Don't believe this? Check your home-heating gas bills over the next several months and compare them with last year's. Most gas utilities have already announced rate hikes for the coming winter.

[ October 17, 2003, 03:55 PM: Message edited by: Ray H ]

 

[Mystic]

Like I put in another post, I think that Group III motor oils must meet three requirments:

1. They have to outperform conventional motor oils and have performance approaching synthetic oils.

2. They have to cost less then synthetic oils. Otherwise, if a Group III costs the same as Mobil 1, why not just buy Mobil 1?

3. They have to be able to flow very well in extreme cold. Some people use synthetic oils just for the wintertime. And there is some evidence that Group III oils may not flow any better in the cold then some conventional motor oils.

If all of these conditions are met, why not use a Group III if the price is right? If you can find a Group III for $2.00-$3.00 and it has performance approaching a synthetic oil, flows well in the cold, and outperfoms all convnetional motor oils, why not go for it?

But if Group III oils do not met any one of the conditions above, why bother?

If a Group III cannot outperform conventional motor oils that cost $1.00 to $1.50 a quart, what is the point?

If a Group III cannot flow good in the cold, what is the point-you are using that Mobil 1 in Minnesota in the wintertime for a reason. To reduce wear in the wintertime and for easier starts.

If a Group III costs as much as Mobil 1, why not just use Mobil 1?

 

[TooSlick]

GSV,

Read the article in Lubes and Greases again ...

The quoted price difference between Group III and PAO basestocks was $1.50-$2.00/gallon - that's only 35 to 50 cents per quart. A Group III basestock will generally require a more robust additive package to stabilize it, so there really isn't the cost savings everyone thinks there is. Companies like Petro Canada, Chevron and Shell that sell Group III based synthetics for $15.00/gallon all make their own basestocks in-house. They are also selling these products at a fairly low profit margin in order to gain market share. When Castrol switched from PAO to Group III basestocks, they probably only saved about fifty cents per quart on the fully formulated oil.

The data I've seen indicates that a Group III basestock with an OPTIMIZED additive package will perform like a PAO up to perhaps 10,000 miles. The extended drain market will continue to be dominated by the PAO/Ester synthetics.

I recommend the following SAE Paper:

#2000-01-2920

"Formulation Capabilities with API Group III Synthetic Fluids" by Petro Canada.

Part of this paper compares a 5w-30, Group III and 5w-30, PAO based synthetic - using the exact same additive chemistry and VI modifier. The comparison was done in Ford taxicabs w/ 4.6L, V-8 engines. Oil analysis was performed after 7500 mile and 12,000 mile change intervals and engines were torn down and rated for wear and deposits. These results showed essentially equivalent performance from the Group III and PAO based oils in all respects - wear/deposits/oil degradation ....

 

[Propflux01]

From all the PAO vs GIII posts, maybe castrol knew what they were doing after all.....

 

[VeeDubb]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TooSlick:
GSV,

Read the article in Lubes and Greases again ...

The quoted price difference between Group III and PAO basestocks was $1.50-$2.00/gallon - that's only 35 to 50 cents per quart. A Group III basestock will generally require a more robust additive package to stabilize it, so there really isn't the cost savings everyone thinks there is. Companies like Petro Canada, Chevron and Shell that sell Group III based synthetics for $15.00/gallon all make their own basestocks in-house. They are also selling these products at a fairly low profit margin in order to gain market share. When Castrol switched from PAO to Group III basestocks, they probably only saved about fifty cents per quart on the fully formulated oil.

The data I've seen indicates that a Group III basestock with an OPTIMIZED additive package will perform like a PAO up to perhaps 10,000 miles. The extended drain market will continue to be dominated by the PAO/Ester synthetics.

I recommend the following SAE Paper:

#2000-01-2920

"Formulation Capabilities with API Group III Synthetic Fluids" by Petro Canada.

Part of this paper compares a 5w-30, Group III and 5w-30, PAO based synthetic - using the exact same additive chemistry and VI modifier. The comparison was done in Ford taxicabs w/ 4.6L, V-8 engines. Oil analysis was performed after 7500 mile and 12,000 mile change intervals and engines were torn down and rated for wear and deposits. These results showed essentially equivalent performance from the Group III and PAO based oils in all respects - wear/deposits/oil degradation ....

---

Thank you for posting that TooSlick. It's something I've suspected all along.

 

[GSV]

Too Slick,
You are right about the price per gallon. I boogered that one up. I think the rest of the paper was accurately summarized.

Ultimately though, I think it is safe to say that a PAO basestock will outperform a Group III albeit by smaller margins than we might suppose. At least until the thermometer drops. (Maybe people in warm areas don't need to be overly concerned about this.)

Perhaps 7500 or 12,000 miles is not an extreme enough test to find the limits of a good group III? 3MP's test has changed my perceptions of the OCIs that I follow. {7500 miles on Mobil 1 now seems short) Will I change my habits in a big way?

As I mentioned before, look forward to a published UOA of the Chevron Supreme Synthetic in 6 months or so.

As an Amsoil rep would you prefer to see the top of the line Amsoil formulations stick to PAO, move to Group V or change to Group III?

take care

 

[Jay]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TooSlick:


...Do you really have any factual information that would indicate Group III stocks are significantly inferior to PAO's? I'd also like to know if you have ever compared a Group III based oil to a PAO synthetic using oil analysis under the same conditions. A simple Yes or No will suffice...

---

The Chevron paper was a big influence in my opinion of Group III. Forget the text, just look at the charts. They tell the story. MolaKule has also said that Group III basestocks are much closer to Group II than PAO in performance.

I've tried a group III 5w-20 oil in my Acura RSX and I was very pleased with it. It was less volatile than the synthetic 0w-20 I usually use. The cold temp performance of the Group III oil is poor so I would never use it in the winter, and I also worry that it would leave more deposits than the synthetic oil. So the answer to your 2nd question is yes.

 

[TooSlick]

GSV,

Performance of a fully formulated oil is due to the combination of basestock blend, additive chemistry and VI improver. Using the less expensive Group III stock, it may be possible to formulate a better oil at the same "price point" compared to using a PAO in some applications. I've seen excellent results from some of the 5w-40, Group III based oils like Petro Canada, Valvoline Synpower, Shell Rotella T, etc ....They are very good values, particularly for an older engine where you want something thicker than 5w-30 or 10w-30.

To answer your other question, I'd like to see Amsoil work on improving the solvency of some of their formulations. This would reduce oxidation and thickening over long drain intervals. They have 30 years of experience with the blended PAO/Ester basestocks, so I can't imagine them switching at this point. A bit more ester would be nice, but it comes at a price ....

Tooslick

 

[buster]

quote:

---

To answer your other question, I'd like to see Amsoil work on improving the solvency of some of their formulations. This would reduce oxidation and thickening over long drain intervals. They have 30 years of experience with the blended PAO/Ester basestocks, so I can't imagine them switching at this point. A bit more ester would be nice, but it comes at a price ....

---

I assume then that the S2k has more estes in it then the ASL/ATM line. The trend seems to be going to higher groups like V and now VI. Shell has a group six oil that was mentioned awhile ago. In the American market though, I can see why groups II and III are dominant. Cost and the 3k mile drain that is embedded in our heads hasn't been done away with yet. If manufactures start pushing for extended drains, PAO's will over take the market I assume.

 

[Sin City]

TooSlick, very informative thread. Thanks for all the information.

[ October 19, 2003, 12:51 AM: Message edited by: Sin City ]