Grp III only "synthetic" in US, really?

[GMorg]

I keep reading here and elsewhere that only in the US can Grp III oils be marketed as synthetic. As far as I can tell, some european countries have specific legal language that prevents GrpIII from being marketed as synthetic. However, it seems that in much of the rest of world "synthetic" oil can be based on grp III. Does anyone here KNOW how extensive the ban on Group III as synthetic really is?

I know the story about the NAD evaluation of Mobil vs Castrol. I also know that in that case it was shown that Mobil had been marketing GrpIII in oils labelled as synthetic in some parts of the world at the time of the dispute. I am not trying to re-live this argument. I am trying to find out the extent of the GrpIII as synthetic ban. Clearly, it is not only the US that allows GrpIII oils to be marketed as synthetic.

 

[Shannow]

Back in the day, Shell played an honest card calling their XHVI oils "mineral based with the performance of a synthetic".

Now, they are synthetic, and everything else is synthetic.

I can get M1 0W-40 synthetic for $86/5L, or Mobil 3000 5W-40 "full synthetic" for $55. Or Castrol 0W-40 for nearly $90, or Magnatec SP "full synthetic" for $200/20L drum.

So I'd guess that there are synthetics and synthetics downunder as well.

 

[Bluestream]

I think Germany is the only place where a Group III cannot be called synthetic. Its all in what your definition of synthetic actually is

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Bluestream
I think Germany is the only place where a Group III cannot be called synthetic. Its all in what your definition of synthetic actually is


That is my understanding as well.

 

[ahoier]

Wow, missed the thread regarding this "ban" - is this why MaxLife no longer carries the "Synthetic Blend" label on the new redesigned labels...?


Noticed, Castrol GTX notates "PART SYNTHETIC" lol..sounds kinda "goofy" to me

But, eh.....


I always got a kick of the "Synthetic Blend" fiends who would storm Walmart awwww they don't got any synthetic blend...


Well [censored], the only thing left with the label "Synthetic Blend" is MotorCraft - which they carry in 15W-40, 5W-20, and 10W-30...



People paying more just for the "blend" label on the bottle, and a 2% of "synthetic" to meet the "blend" regulations

 

[JAG]

Yes, an XOM document on their reformulation of 0W-40 with Visom Group III stated that only in Germany was this change to be communicated with the consumers. It was not necessary elsewhere.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: JAG
Yes, an XOM document on their reformulation of 0W-40 with Visom Group III stated that only in Germany was this change to be communicated with the consumers. It was not necessary elsewhere.


IIRC, Visom is GIII+.

 

[volk06]

Originally Posted By: ahoier
Wow, missed the thread regarding this "ban" - is this why MaxLife no longer carries the "Synthetic Blend" label on the new redesigned labels...?


Noticed, Castrol GTX notates "PART SYNTHETIC" lol..sounds kinda "goofy" to me

But, eh.....


I always got a kick of the "Synthetic Blend" fiends who would storm Walmart awwww they don't got any synthetic blend...


Well [censored], the only thing left with the label "Synthetic Blend" is MotorCraft - which they carry in 15W-40, 5W-20, and 10W-30...



People paying more just for the "blend" label on the bottle, and a 2% of "synthetic" to meet the "blend" regulations

Valvoline took the blend off the label for marketing reasons only. it was 20-30% syn. The latest msds for Motorcraft reveals its 60% synthetic.

Mobil super HM is a blend as well.

 

[Spazdog]

"Champagne" only comes from the Champagne region, Asiago only comes from a small area of Vicenza, and a Group III is not synthetic....unless you buy any of these in the United States.

 

[tom slick]

Synthetic has unfortunately become a term for the oil's performance, losing its real meaning.

 

[Bayman]

I remember when a synthetic oil was really a synthetic oil, thanks Castrol.

 

[GMorg]

My understanding was that Mobil was already blending GrpIII with PAO and calling the final product Synthetic. In fact, a significant argument that helped Castrol win their case was that the they weren't the first or only company using GrpIII in their "synthetic" oils. I am not defending Castrol. I just find it annoying that people can state that this situation is only in the US and that only Castrol was using GrpIII in synthetic oils when neither position appears to be true. I wish we had a way to tolerate everyone's opinions and no one's false statements.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: GMorg
My understanding was that Mobil was already blending GrpIII with PAO and calling the final product Synthetic. In fact, a significant argument that helped Castrol win their case was that the they weren't the first or only company using GrpIII in their "synthetic" oils. I am not defending Castrol. I just find it annoying that people can state that this situation is only in the US and that only Castrol was using GrpIII in synthetic oils when neither position appears to be true. I wish we had a way to tolerate everyone's opinions and no one's false statements.


I don't think that at this point Mobil was using anything other than a PAO base. However Ashland and SOPUS were/are also players, neither of which were making PAO-based lubes. That left Mobil and a few boutique guys (Amsoil for example) as the only ones trying to "stick to their guns" so to speak.

Castrol was able to demonstrate that Group III was close enough to the performance of PAO that it could be marketed as offering equal performance, lending less value to the term "synthetic" and ultimately leading to the use of the term in conjunction with primarily GIII-based oils. This trend started in North America and quickly spread to the rest of the world with the exception of Germany.

 

[DrDusty86]

Mobil hater..on standby..tag me..tag me..
I'm kidding....It's still a fine product

 

[JHZR2]

IMO it has to be looked at another way too... Define synthetic? Are we talking not natural form, or are we talking synthesized from a monomer?

If we are talking the former, how many steps make it so? If we are talking the latter, how do we determine the difference between a naturally derived monomer and one that was synthesized?

If the monomer was derived from cracking crude, is it natural or synthetic? If I can so severely hydro treat my crude that it looks like a different chemical, but was obtained via a different route, is that a problem?

If I get 99.999% pure c8 by either distilling it from crude, polymerizing ethylene or polymerizing carbon dioxide and hydrogen, does my end product have a different characteristic?

 

[Shannow]

IIRC from the era, the definition of synthetic was "built up" from monomers, or the esterification of alcohols and acids.

But to be "synthetic", the base-stock had to be greater than 50% (Syn blends were less than), and Mobil still had lower base stock additive carriers.

Breaking bonds and straightening up molecules wasn't considered synthesising.

But modern stuff has seen the lines blurred so grey in terms of end product, (and Mobil has been playing the same games anyway) that the old argument is at best dropped, as it's no longer meaningful.

 

[semaj281]

Originally Posted By: tom slick
Synthetic has unfortunately become a term for the oil's performance, losing its real meaning.

Nothing wrong with that IMO. If cracked crude can perform just as well as pure c8, the synthetic vs. conventional distinction becomes a matter of semantics.

 

[Shannow]

IMO, if that's the case, then the term "synthetic" should be dropped in it's entirety.

The word carries an implication of synthesis, which gives the performance....if it's purely performance based, then synthetic isn't descriptive of that.

 

[semaj281]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
IMO, if that's the case, then the term "synthetic" should be dropped in it's entirety.

The word carries an implication of synthesis, which gives the performance....if it's purely performance based, then synthetic isn't descriptive of that.

And if that's the case none of these Group III "synthetics" should be called synthetic.

 

[david_ES2]

I just find the term misleading and confusing now for most uninformed people.