If PAO is polymerized from ethylene gas and GTL base oils are polymerized from methane gas, how can you call one "truly" synthetic and not the other? I think what will happen is that another "group" may be created.
What if the gases are polymerized into a synthetic slack wax which is then used as the feedstock for XHVI base oil? Would the fact that the feedstock is the product of polymerization (and hence synthetic) mean that a base oil produced from the isomerization of that feedstock would qualify as "synthetic"? (The plot thickens.)
Interesting point that perhaps molekule can answer.
Here is my undergraduate-layman level of organic chemistry understanding.
To synethesize Ethylene you can start with Benzene that come as a by product of fractional distillation of Crude Oil.
Under this synthesis a PAO is based on fossil fuel This kind of self defeats my hatred of Castrols Group III aregument
However in the alternate synthesis you can start with man made Benzene and move on to the Ethylene and finally the PAO's.
Is my understanding correct??
Interesting comment in one of the links;
Industrial customers put value on performance.
Consumers put value on the word synthetic.
My favorite is that GTL base lubes will available up to 9 cSt.
I now wonder if German Castrol will be available in 15W50 soon, for about the same price as GTX?
I suppose some people will still be pushing PAO engine oil blends five or six years from now.
And some people will still spend 4X the money for them for no real or imagined performance edge.
But, at least they will have the warm fuzzy feeling gained from using a real synthetic.