Grp III only "synthetic" in US, really?

[ARCOgraphite]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
.
I doubt that XOM blends special oils for the relatively small German market alone.
More at German automaker performance specifications:

 

[ARCOgraphite]

Here's the kicker - if Ilasc GF specs weren't so relatively wimpy and marginal then you could buy an API oil by spec rather than the meaningless marketing term 'synthetic' which means absolutely nothing regarding the oils performance unless augmented by ACEA and other manufactuirers approvals. Do we need an elevetaed API high(er) performace spec? Or just allow the domestic manufacturers to ALL start their own spec/equirements beyond ILSAC/API (as they have been of late)with Honda HTO-06, DEXOS-I, II, etc. With "average" engines performance way beyond the 1hp/cu-in its time for something MUCH better, not just a tad bit improved.

 

[fpracha]

Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
The irritating part is the extra cost attached to the word "synthetic." I think GpIII base stocks might be overpriced given the costs to produce them vs a PAO.


Group III base oils cost only 25 to 40 cents/quart more than Group II base oils, while the finished oil carries a much higher price. Of course synthetics often also have a more robust additive system which adds a little more to the cost.

+1.
While agreeing i would tend to err on the side of caution... lets not put the whole blame on PAOs or otherwise simply comparing PAOs vs. GrpIII for cost assessment. PAOs are increasingly less likely to be the main culprit for the higher cost of the formulated final product. The additive system & the quality of the additives and the blending techniques are all equally important. This is definitely true for specialist long drain oils!

 

[ltslimjim]

Originally Posted By: 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?


Synthetically altered/improved OR synthetically created to improve upon that which could already be had.

 

[fpracha]

Originally Posted By: ltslimjim
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Define synthetic? Are we talking not natural form, or are we talking synthesized from a monomer?

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?

Synthetically altered/improved OR synthetically created to improve upon that which could already be had.

+1.
Synthetic is exactly A + B --> C.
(There can be no in betweens or borderline arguments to the above,
other than "pure opinions" and a "schools of thought" nature to such debates.)