new valvoline "next gen" 50% recycled oil

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: ferrari512
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Successful troll is negative troll!
smile.gif


I'm sure in your obsessive Google-phu, "ferrari", you've probably come across five articles that support the contention that recycled oil is every bit as good, if not superior, than oil refined from crude for every lame article from Aman, Jordan. I'm also sure you must have come to the conclusion that refining used motor oil is now economically viable...

Here's an article in the "Scientific American." You know, actual science...

Originally Posted By: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=can-oil-be-recycled&page=2
What is re-refined oil used for then?

Franceschi: It's used essentially as a refined crude lubricant. Re-refined oil used to have a bad color associated with it because in the old days they didn't have modern technologies. They did some filtering and poured it over clay. They had these very, sort of, antique technologies. It did not make a high quality oil and it got a very bad reputation.

Today, with modern technologies, you could use it for passenger car motor oil, automatic transmission fluid, hydraulic fluid, heavy-duty motor oil. There's no difference between oils re-refined with modern technologies and refined oil from virgin crude.


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=can-oil-be-recycled&page=2



This has nothing to do with a paper on in depth analysis on recycled oil using AA technology that is specific for metals or FTIR.


And the paper has nothing to do with Nextgen, as the recycled oil was analyzed with AA over five years ago...

Quote:
You guys be the Nextgen fluffers all you want but there are other people on this site that might change their mind, thats good enough for me.


It was hardly a "paper?" In-depth analysis? It was an abstract article summarizing findings and its conclusion was:

Quote:
They conclude on a positive note regarding the re-use of engine oils. "If these re-refined oils are manufactured correctly, there is then no reason not to use them," they say, "The requirement is, above all, that the re-refining process is perfect and the oils are alloyed correctly just like virgin-base oils."
 
Originally Posted By: ferrari512
Its the CEP process, the same process used since the late 90s


No, it isn't the "same":

Quote:
Scientists have already been using a process known as pyrolysis for recycling oil. It involves heating the oil to a high temperature in the absence of oxygen, and causes the oil to break down into a mixture of gases, liquids, and solids. While the gases and liquids can be converted to fuel, the Cambridge scientists state that traditional pyrolysis doesn't heat the oil very evenly, making the fuel conversion process difficult and impractical.

What they did, however, was to add a microwave-absorbent material to samples of waste oil, before subjecting it to pyrolysis by heating it with microwaves. The addition of the material caused the oil to heat more evenly, allowing almost 90 percent of it to easily be converted into a mixture of conventional gasoline and diesel.

Study leader Howard Chase, a professor of Biochemical Engineering, believes that their unique brand of pyrolysis shows great potential for being scaled up to the commercial level.


http://www.gizmag.com/microwaves-utilized-to-convert-used-motor-oil-into-fuel/18261/
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Originally Posted By: ferrari512
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Successful troll is negative troll!
smile.gif


I'm sure in your obsessive Google-phu, "ferrari", you've probably come across five articles that support the contention that recycled oil is every bit as good, if not superior, than oil refined from crude for every lame article from Aman, Jordan. I'm also sure you must have come to the conclusion that refining used motor oil is now economically viable...

Here's an article in the "Scientific American." You know, actual science...

Originally Posted By: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=can-oil-be-recycled&page=2
What is re-refined oil used for then?

Franceschi: It's used essentially as a refined crude lubricant. Re-refined oil used to have a bad color associated with it because in the old days they didn't have modern technologies. They did some filtering and poured it over clay. They had these very, sort of, antique technologies. It did not make a high quality oil and it got a very bad reputation.

Today, with modern technologies, you could use it for passenger car motor oil, automatic transmission fluid, hydraulic fluid, heavy-duty motor oil. There's no difference between oils re-refined with modern technologies and refined oil from virgin crude.


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=can-oil-be-recycled&page=2



This has nothing to do with a paper on in depth analysis on recycled oil using AA technology that is specific for metals or FTIR.


And the paper has nothing to do with Nextgen, as the recycled oil was analyzed with AA over five years ago...

Quote:
You guys be the Nextgen fluffers all you want but there are other people on this site that might change their mind, thats good enough for me.


It was hardly a "paper?" In-depth analysis? It was an abstract article summarizing findings and its conclusion was:

Quote:
They conclude on a positive note regarding the re-use of engine oils. "If these re-refined oils are manufactured correctly, there is then no reason not to use them," they say, "The requirement is, above all, that the re-refining process is perfect and the oils are alloyed correctly just like virgin-base oils."


It has everything to do with Nextgen, Ashland buys recycled base oil from various sources they dont re refine it themselves, a rerefining plant is a big undertaking with permits, design and plans most plants are from the late 90s, they didnt design and build a brand new plant in the last few years.

As the article stated if the process is perfect and oils are alloyed correctly but its cost prohibitive for the result of a recycled base oil that costs $10.00 + a gallon vs virgin base oil that costs $6.00 a gallon.
 
Originally Posted By: ferrari512


It has everything to do with Nextgen, Ashland buys recycled base oil from various sources they dont re refine it themselves, a rerefining plant is a big undertaking with permits, design and plans most plants are from the late 90s, they didnt design and build a brand new plant in the last few years.


Um, Ashland has their own refineries. And whether the plants were designed in the 1990s, 1970s, or now--they can be upgraded. That's like saying that a refinery that traditionally has refined crude from Central America cannot refine African crude...

Please provide some evidence that Ashland just "buys recycled oils." And even if they do, several refineries specializing in recycled oil have sprouted up...

Quote:
As the article stated if the process is perfect and oils are alloyed correctly but its cost prohibitive for the result of a recycled base oil that costs $10.00 + a gallon vs virgin base oil that costs $6.00 a gallon.


The article is five years old and based on the research of Jordanian scientists...
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Originally Posted By: ferrari512
Its the CEP process, the same process used since the late 90s


No, it isn't the "same":

Quote:
Scientists have already been using a process known as pyrolysis for recycling oil. It involves heating the oil to a high temperature in the absence of oxygen, and causes the oil to break down into a mixture of gases, liquids, and solids. While the gases and liquids can be converted to fuel, the Cambridge scientists state that traditional pyrolysis doesn't heat the oil very evenly, making the fuel conversion process difficult and impractical.

What they did, however, was to add a microwave-absorbent material to samples of waste oil, before subjecting it to pyrolysis by heating it with microwaves. The addition of the material caused the oil to heat more evenly, allowing almost 90 percent of it to easily be converted into a mixture of conventional gasoline and diesel.

Study leader Howard Chase, a professor of Biochemical Engineering, believes that their unique brand of pyrolysis shows great potential for being scaled up to the commercial level.


http://www.gizmag.com/microwaves-utilized-to-convert-used-motor-oil-into-fuel/18261/



Pyrolysis is a process that cracks the oil to make fuel products at over 800 degrees F plus, the chains are fractioned to make fuel products,this would destroy the base oil.
 
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Originally Posted By: ferrari512


It has everything to do with Nextgen, Ashland buys recycled base oil from various sources they dont re refine it themselves, a rerefining plant is a big undertaking with permits, design and plans most plants are from the late 90s, they didnt design and build a brand new plant in the last few years.


Um, Ashland has their own refineries. And whether the plants were designed in the 1990s, 1970s, or now--they can be upgraded...

Quote:
As the article stated if the process is perfect and oils are alloyed correctly but its cost prohibitive for the result of a recycled base oil that costs $10.00 + a gallon vs virgin base oil that costs $6.00 a gallon.


The article is five years old and based on the research of Jordanian scientists...


Upgraded how?

Tear everything down and change the technology? Valvoline is not in the business of re refining oil, they buy their base oil from various sources and add their own additives.

Who cares if they are Jordainian?
 
Ferrari512, what is your purpose for repeatedly bashing re-refined oil? Is there an end goal you are trying to accomplish? We can't change your mind, and you can't change ours. So now what?
 
Originally Posted By: ferrari512
[/quote]

Upgraded how?


To refine used motor oil?

Quote:
Tear everything down and change the technology? Valvoline is not in the business of re refining oil, they buy their base oil from various sources and add their own additives.


Again with the unprovable assertions...

Quote:
Who cares if they are Jordainian?


I do.
 
Trolling is fun for some people.

Recycled oil is just as safe as regular oil. Either you get oil that has some soot and [censored] in it, or oil that has some leftover prehistoric dinosaur in it.

Either or will be treated just fine.

Unless its City Star oil, in that case its recycled from french fry trucks and spit in until its the right consistency but thats different.
 
Originally Posted By: Loobed

Ferrari512, what is your purpose for repeatedly bashing re-refined oil? Is there an end goal you are trying to accomplish? We can't change your mind, and you can't change ours. So now what?





So those that dont have a opinion can hear both sides of the issue and make their own decision, not biased with marketing hype. That simple.
 
Doesn't this web site already have VOA and UOA reports of nextgen? Find them, make your conclusions.
 
Originally Posted By: ferrari512

Re refining used oil is a much different process than refining raw crude.

There are many different challenges to reclaim used oil vs raw crude such as metals, lead, arsenic,fuel,soot,bitumen etc., plus they need to crack the oil to restore the color and get the carbon out from the combustion process in motors.


I'm not really convinced (so far) that trace amounts of metals and a few other minor items are going to significantly affect the performance of a motor oil. After all, even after a couple thousand miles on a new oil change, one's engine is dumping trace amounts of iron, copper, lead ..etc into the oil and the oils still perform well. Even the synthetics on 10K mile oil changes or longer perform well. The cleaning process for used oil appears to deal with these issues quite effectively as far as I can see. The VOA appears good but it may not give the whole picture. On the other hand, I do have some concerns with re-refined motor oils, but it has to do with the quality of the base oils. I'll address this issue in another post.

Originally Posted By: GMorg
From the article cited by ferrari512, the authors state,

"Many authoritative sources, as well as this study, have thoroughly substantiated that there is essentially no difference in virgin-base stock oils and re-refined-base stock oils"

and

"Re-refining results in clean high quality base stocks."

Article:
Mohammad A. Al-Ghouti and Lina Al-Atoum. Virgin and recycled engine oil differentiation: A spectroscopic study. Journal of Environmental Management. Volume 90, Issue 1, January 2009, Pages 187–195


It's true. But they very likely forgot to mention that they're referring to Group I re-refined base stocks, not Group II's. It's old information and testing done on outdated Group I base oils and formulations.

That's why we see statements like …

Quote:
Petrotex

According to studies performed by various agencies within the US government, re-refined base oil is equal to, or better, than virgin base oil. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
"Extensive laboratory testing and field studies conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the US Army, the US Department of Energy, the US Postal Service and the EPA concluded: re-refined oil is equivalent to virgin oil, passes all prescribed tests, and can even outperform virgin oil."

icis

Extensive field testing has demonstrated that re-refined base oil is virtually indistinguishable and equivalent in appearance and quality to virgin base oil. In addition, US Federal regulations state that re-refined oil is equivalent to new oil when the re-refined oil meets the API Standards.
Some members of the Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association (ILMA), based in Alexandria, Virginia, find that for certain applications, the re-refined base oils allow for a better performing finished product, according to Jeffrey Leiter, the ILMA's general counsel. Some blenders prefer re-refined oil because it has characteristics that give it enhanced performance, thus requiring the addition of a lower amount of additives.


Here in NA(North America), because of the high use of Group II base oils in motor oils and a relatively high proportion of recycled oils coming from this area (going back 10+ years), the used oil will have a mix of very good high saturated paraffinic oil (Group II and up) mixed with varying amounts of Group I's. Re-refiners can produce a very good Group I (I+) with 80 - 85% saturates from this mix rather than the typical Group I with 75% or less saturates (>= 25% aromatics). It's like mixing a GII/GI to get a GI+ oil. If I was looking for a GI oil for some application, re-refined oil would be one of my first choices. Re-refiners produce very good GI/I+ oils because of the high paraffinic (saturate) content of much of the used oil Groups. In fact, these re-refined GI base oils should probably be generally quite a bit better than the Group I virgin oils.

The statements like "outperform virgin oil" and "lower amount of additives" do not apply to re-refined Group II base oils -- only Group I. If they tested Group II formulations, I'd like to know what tests they did to arrive at the conclusion that re-refined base stocks are as good as virgin ones.
 
The concern I have with re-refined motor oils has to do with the quality of the Group II base oils being used. Group II base oils must be > 90% saturates, which means 10% or less aromatics. This is a somewhat loose specification. There is a sizable difference between a Group II with 99% saturates and one with 92% saturates (1% aromatics vs 8%). The GII base oil with a low 1% aromatics will be a much higher performing base oil than the 8% one from a thermal/oxidative POV.

From the Kramer article …

Quote:
INFLUENCE OF GROUP II & III BASE OIL COMPOSITION ON VI AND OXIDATION STABILITY.pdf

In short, with 500N the oxidation rate doubled when the wt% aromatic molecules increased from 1% to 8.5%. With 100N it doubled when the wt% aromatic molecules increased from 1 wt% to 6.3 wt%. … … … … The key assumption that the Group II aromatics are highly reactive in nature and oxidize quickly relative to the majority of saturates is also consistent with our finding that these compounds are aromatic naphthenes.


Where is Valvoline getting its re-refined oil? It appears from Evergreen/CEP …

Quote:
greencar

Essentially, Valvoline is adding its respected name but not new technology to recycled oil. Like all existing commercial re-refiners in North America, used oil is recycled using a next-generation process from Evergreen Oil, Inc, and its engineering affiliate CEP (Chemical Engineering Partners). The process includes vacuum distillation and hydrotreating, or hydrofinishing, to remove unwanted sulfur and saturate the aromatics and unsaturated hydrocarbons. The finished product is approved as API Group II Base Oil. The process produces three quarts of refined lubricating oil from one gallon of used oil.


Ok, so let's go to CEP and Evergreen and check their Group II base oil spec's.

CEP … … saturates … VI … (listed as Evergreen base oils)
4.3 cSt … … 90.5 … 102
7.2 cSt … … 92.0 … 107

Evergreen … saturates … VI … (I think these are updated spec's)
4.3 … … … … 92 … … … 105
7.0 … … … … 95 … … … 111

So, the 4.3cSt (a 100N) base oil, which will be a major component of a 5W-30 barely limps over the 90% saturates limit for a Group II base oil (90.5 and 92). That means these oils have 8.0 - 9.5% aromatic compounds which means less than half the thermal/oxidative stability as the Group II base oils from Chevron, Petro-Canada, ConocoPhillips which are >99% saturates (only 6.3% aromatics halves stability for a 100N Kramer). While these re-refiners can claim it's an API Group II oil because it meets the minimum spec's (>90% saturates), the saturate content indicates they are not near as good as the Group II base oils from the major refineries.

The problem (it appears to me), is that the recycling facilities only have mild hydrotreators, and not severe hydrocrackers (a more severe form of hydrotreating as Kramer calls it). Without these more severe hydrotreators or hydrocrackers, re-refiners have limited ability to upgrade the used oils and get rid of the unsaturated aromatic hydrocarbon compounds. Modern re-refiners are probably being helped here by the high percentage of Group II's that are recycled from used motor oils these days which are all Group II or higher (at least the ones meeting the latest API spec's). But a hydrotreator that is not severe enough to break down and saturate the vast majority of the aromatics (and no significant cracking of the molecules), leaves the aromatic content in the used oil (whatever it happens to be) significantly unchanged. These 8.0 - 9.5% aromatic content Group II's are nowhere near as good as the Group II's with < 1% aromatics.

After mixing these re-refined base oils (50/50) with virgin Group II/II+/III stocks (
I would never consider a modern conventional motor oil made with all an 8 - 9% aromatic content Group II if better base oil formulations were available. Blending with 50% virgin base oils puts these oils in the … well … OK … 4-5% aromatics it's probably a decent oil category. Maybe … they will still perform very well -- but I do have some concerns. With Valvoline still recommending 3K mile oil changes on their site they don't give me a lot of confidence in their oils. 3K mile oil changes -- fine, but running a OLM out to 7K miles or more -- I don't know. That aromatic content has me a little concerned on how well these recycled motor oils will stand up in a severe service environment.
 
Thank you for a very educational post. Can you boil all of this down and post a question about final aromatics content in the NextGen Q&A thread for Valvoline to answer?

And some questions that occurred to me:

1. What is the source of aromatics in used motor oil?
2. Is there additive technology that can be used to overcome the negative effect that aromatics have on oxidative stability?
 
Last edited:
Quote:
Can you boil all of this down and post a question about final aromatics content in the NextGen Q&A thread for Valvoline to answer?
I would ask what the saturate level is in % of the re-refined Group II base oils being blended in the motor oil. Who knows, maybe they're better than what those Evergreen spec's are. Or one could ask what the saturate level of the final mix of base oils in % (after the 50/50 blending). I would be surprised is Valvoline wold be willing to divulge this info, but it may be worth a try.

Quote:
What is the source of aromatics in used motor oil?
That's a good question. 10+ years ago, around the turn of the century (API SL) when the industry was still transitioning to Group II base oils for motor oils, there was still a sizable chunk of Group I base oils being blended in 10W-30's (AFAIK) and the 10W-30 was still very popular then. So they would find their way into recycling/re-refining. These days everything (as far as motor oils go with the latest SM/SN spec's) appear to be Group II and up. Group I's are still being used in industry as they still represent a sizable portion of production (40-45% ? I think) of base oils in the US. If the source of used oil for re-refining was only or mostly motor oils, one would think that the aromatic content would be quite low -- perhaps < 5% or less???

Quote:
Is there additive technology that can be used to overcome the negative effect that aromatics have on oxidative stability?
That's the unknown quantity -- ~ 4% aromatics may not really be much of an issue in a fully formulated motor oil.The Group I/II base oil blends used for SL 10W-30's 10 years ago would pass the tests, so they could be labeled SL/GF-3, but they were not near as good as the 5W-30's that were being blended with all Group II/II+ at that time. It's like limping over the finish line as opposed to still going strong at the finish line. Those Group I blends would unlikely advertise the high level of performance touted for some of these Group II oils. PetroCanada pqiamerica advertises on the label … "Synthetic-like resistance to thermal breakdown". Agip used to advertise (when Group II were not common in Europe) … Agip “Super” oils are the best non-synthetic that you can buy. Agip uses Group II base oils for its non-synthetic. … The Group II base oils are 99.3% pure … … … Agip’s non-synthetics offer performance equivalent to most synthetics on the market.
 
Last edited:
Quote:
Can you boil all of this down and post a question about final aromatics content in the NextGen Q&A thread for Valvoline to answer?
A follow up question to the base oil one could be: Does the higher aromatic (lower saturate) content of re-refined base oils used in Nexgen affect performance in any way compared formulations with virgin base oils like VWB?
 
im putting the maxlife version in both our old beaters this weekend. after reading up on this online for almost a month, its aas safe as any other oil on the market. i know alot of people are skeptical, and with good reason, but i am not that old and i remember old gas stations selling there own "filtered" used oils beside the gas pumps. if valvoline is still a forward thinking company which they always have bee, im sure they have put alot of time and research into making sure the nextgen labeled oils are safe and jsut as good as any conventional oils on the market, so long as we follow regular oil change intervals listed in our owners manuals.

having said all that.... its a preference, anything i can do too curb our dependance on fossil fuels, im all for it so long as its safe for our engines.

AAP has it on special where we live with a purolator pure one filter, so im going too use it. thats not too say i will use anything, but i have used valvoline for years off and on and never had any problems with any of there products.

too each his/her own i guess.
 
I have been using Valvoline NextGen for a year now. No problems. It meets the specifications for my car: API certified, SAE 5W-30, Chrysler MS-6395. My car runs quieter on Valvoline NextGen conventional than Pennzoil conventional.
 
I picked up 40+ quarts of this the other day for 60$ or so.

And honestly I'm considering returning it to Walmart as opposed to autozone and getting 10 gallons of delo instead.

Why?

Delo is cheap and runs well in my rig. Why not my wife's?

Plus I grabbed 10w30 instead of a 40w like what is specced for my temp range.

Thoughts?

Delo vs nextgen...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

W
Oil for 2015 3.5 Ecoboost Police Interceptor
Replies
7
Views
392
edyvw
sloinker
Next oil change coming up. Board preference?
2 3
Replies
48
Views
3K
ATex7239
K
Choosing my next oil
2 3
Replies
41
Views
4K
OilUzer
W
Mazda 2.5T Oil Selection
Replies
2
Views
446
drtyler
Sweebation
Break in oil for 2005 LS2
Replies
15
Views
570
nascarnation
Back
Top