GTL base stocks better than PAO/POE?

Pennzoil motor oil
Status
Not open for further replies.
According to link below, formulators of companies like Fuchs and Castrol got their hands on GTL base oil as early as 2003.

"some of the oil majors discussing GTL projects have already begun to distribute samples of GTL base oils from pilot plants to additives makers and to independent lubricant marketers such as Fuchs and Castrol, and the feedback is gushing. “They really love the material. It’s very close to PAO quality. The viscosity index is in the 135-150 range, whereas Group IIIs have a viscosity index in the 120 to 150 range”

GTL article
 
Quote:
samples of GTL base oils from pilot plants to additives makers


Thee key phrase here is samples of GTL base oils from pilot plants.
 
Originally Posted By: Solarent
Originally Posted By: TXCarGeek
Why are higher VIs preferable? I've been meaning to ask this.


When it comes to base oils, the only difference between a conventional oil (Group II) and a synthetic oil (Group III) is the natural VI; anything over 120 is classed as Group III which is sold as synthetic.

There is a big difference between the natural VI of a base oil, and the VI of a finished oil. Finished oils can have a wide range of VI resulting from the use of viscosity index improvers, pour point depressants and a mixture of different types of base oils.

Shannow you said:
"Way more to base oils than you're VI fixation."

No one ever said there wasn't but the question was about base oil classifications so what part of Solarent's explanation didn't you understand?
 
You must be thinking of a different question to the one in your quote...

The answer to the one in the quote is that VI is not the "ONLY" difference between base-stocks, which I answered with a link that had "OTHER" differences between them.
 
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
At a given viscosity, the Noack volatility of GTLs are about the same as PAOs. The GTLs, however, often have a higher VI which allows a slightly more viscous base oil blend for a given W grade. This is what gives the finished oil the lower Noack.

With respect to seal compatibility, GTLs are only slightly better than PAOs, and PAO/ester blends can be well balanced for elastomer seals. The materials in head gaskets are not significantly affected by the base oils.

Tom NJ



Catterham may seem very concerned with VI, but obviously Toyota and Mazda also are very concerned so it has to be important.

My concern/obsession analogous to Catterham with VI is seal and gasket life. Typically an engine's life if reasonably maintained is constrained by gasket, o-rings, and ring seal life. I would much rather start with a petroleum based oil be it GTL or grpIII than a polar base that is balanced (read counteracted) to prevent its intrinsic nature to cut thru gaskets and seals.

It blows my mind that anyone would use a polar base stock for anything short of an engine specifically and costly designed for polar attack at the molecular level along with the hydroscopic nature. This is why there aren't GL5 approved PAO/ester oils, the certifying bodies finally got smart and identified oil leakers as a major contributor to pollution.

As a ChE I find reading this forum fascinating but I think there is a bit of missing the forest for the trees. Mobil moved away from polar basestocks and took a lot of flack but it wasn't just a cost savings. Those true synthetic basestocks with all their polar nature are just not a good choice for seal and gasket life, and God only knows what the moisture does. The issue just seems so overlooked here.
 
Last edited:
^^^I can see your point here, as concerns PAO/POE base stocks, but, is it NOT possible for any/some manufacturer to design/produce; seals/gaskets/o rings/etc. which CAN AND WILL stand up to the polar nature of these base stocks for a long term engine life?
confused2.gif


Or do these even exist if i wanted them used in a re-build of my current engine?
21.gif
 
Originally Posted By: regal55
This is why there aren't GL5 approved PAO/ester oils, the certifying bodies finally got smart and identified oil leakers as a major contributor to pollution.


What???????? That simply is not true.
 
I think you meant GF-5? GL-5 is a SAE gear protection rating.


Quote:
0W-30 (AZO): API SN (Resource Conserving), SM… ILSAC GF–5, GF-4… ACEA A5/B5, A1/B1; Chrysler MS-6395; Suitable as a replacement for GM dexos1™ (supersedes LL-A-025, 6094M and 4718M)
 
Quote:
Solarent: There are many different ways to get from the natural VI of the base stock to the finished viscosity characteristics of a fully formulated oil. [perhaps Molakule would like to chime in with some more specific examples]

I can't speak to the GC 0w30 formulation specifically, but if I were to venture a guess, using a blend of heavier, high VI base stocks, or some of the new viscosity modifiers that are not polymer based could be an option. I don't know anyone who can say conclusively that a finished oil has absolutely no Viscosity modifiers in it except maybe the team who made the formula. It also depends on what your definition of VI improvers are too I suppose. (in my books, any viscosity modifier or compound you use to increase the VI counts as a VI improver - some other people only count the traditional polymers)


There are in fact hundreds of ways to arrive at a specific VI.

Any oil formulation can have various base oil-type mixes of different viscosities to achieve a target VI.

The low temp spec is usually achieved with low viscosity base oils, and then mid viscosity base oils are added for the mid-range, and then a small percentage of high viscosity base oils may be added for high temp stability AND shear resistance.

Generally, a bench formulation starts out with a mix of base oils of various viscosities close to the VI, adds the PI package, and then adds a VII to "trim" or "tweak" the VI for the viscosity range. The PI package can affect the viscosity slightly so the tweak with a VII is done after the PI package is added.


Additional ASTM tests and then fleet testing may require further "adjustments."

Again, fixating on a particular base oil or additive component tells us nothing about the performance of the totality of the finished product.
 
Last edited:
I've started running this bad boy.
Are these good specs? And would this be GTL base?
 

Attachments

  • 20200810_194555.webp
    20200810_194555.webp
    49.5 KB · Views: 45
  • 20200810_194613.webp
    20200810_194613.webp
    62.3 KB · Views: 44
  • 20200810_194620.webp
    20200810_194620.webp
    37.5 KB · Views: 43
yowps3 said:
I've started running this bad boy.
Are these good specs? And would this be GTL base?
Click to expand...
Yes, it’s GTL, it says made from natural gas on the front and it states it’s using “pure plus technology”. It’s got MB 229.5 and LL-01 specs so you’re good. Also it Depends on the application as well.
 
Averroes said:
Yes, it’s GTL, it says made from natural gas on the front and it states it’s using “pure plus technology”. It’s got MB 229.5 and LL-01 specs so you’re good. Also it Depends on the application as well.
Click to expand...
How is it possible to have SN+ and A3/B4? Does that mean the HTHS is 3.5?
 
Given equivalent additive packs, PAO is definitely a winner. Not sure why this is even a question. There is a reason PAO base cost 3-4x times GTL.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
Group 3 + GTL vs Group 3 + PAO
Replies
7
Views
1K
Sam_Julier
R
Does Shell/Pennzoil GTL Cause Less GDI Intake Valve Deposits?
3 4 5
Replies
84
Views
4K
Roberts9156
T
GTL base oil synthesis
Replies
19
Views
1K
kschachn
H
Shell GTL oil (Helix Ultra) with bad specs compared to PAO oil
Replies
17
Views
5K
Triple_Se7en
G
Understanding viscosity and sheer strength of different oils
Replies
10
Views
976
Tricknologist
Back
Top Bottom