Oil "Myths" that are actually True?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The SAE synthetic lubricant definition was SAE J357. It "dissapeared" after the NAD Castrol/BP ruling.

" ... there is a grass-roots effort underway by the Synthetic Lubricants Council to band together interested parties to establish and promote a definition for "true synthetics" that distinguishes them as unique (and presumably better) compared to Group III. The Synthetic Lubricants Council, subject to its ChemStar panel guidelines." Tom Glenn, July 2004
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: BeanCounter
Isn't that an oxymoron, like "jumbo shrimp"?
crazy2.gif


I'm just picking, but I somewhat understand what you're saying. The closest thing I can think of are misconceptions that may be partly true in result, but the reasoning behind it is skewed. This may fall under false "myth" though so...I dunno...

EDIT: I think you mentioned a few in your revision of the first post. Maybe true, but not for the conceived reasoning.


One such myth that is partially true is the myth that ATF is a great cleaner in engines ..and to use it as a flush (like so many do with a solvent or MMO -whatever).

The myth was based on it being recommended in a GM TSB to quiet SBC noisy lifters in hmmm..some 1970 (iirc) engines. It was used as a thinning agent, but since it quieted lifters it was assumed to be cleaning.
 
Full Synthetic CAN cause leaks. I know it is not supposed to, but it sure has here and there.

20W CAN destroy an engine. If it is older and not designed for it.

Low ZDDP can surely puke a high performance cam and valvetrain.

Some boutique oils ARE superior - very much so.

So like a joke or fable, myths often have some basis in reality.
 
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
The SAE synthetic lubricant definition was SAE J357. It "dissapeared" after the NAD Castrol/BP ruling.

" ... there is a grass-roots effort underway by the Synthetic Lubricants Council to band together interested parties to establish and promote a definition for "true synthetics"


The Synthetic Lubricants Council abandoned that effort shortly after it started. SAE J357 dropped its definition of "synthetic" lubricants in 1996. Too many influencial members who wanted to promote Group IIIs as synthetic as I recall.

Tom NJ
 
Originally Posted By: mechtech2
Full Synthetic CAN cause leaks. I know it is not supposed to, but it sure has here and there.

20W CAN destroy an engine. If it is older and not designed for it.

Low ZDDP can surely puke a high performance cam and valvetrain.

Some boutique oils ARE superior - very much so.

So like a joke or fable, myths often have some basis in reality.


All good Lies have some Truth in them.

Also, i wonder about the "Dirty Oil" Myth.. I dont know HOW someone can say that Dirty Oil does NTO need to be changed (Oil Darkens as it suspends Contaminants.. Someone said Oil Color does NTO determine if it needs to be changed. But based on WHY Oil Color Changes, i dont see how its nto true)...
 
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
The SAE synthetic lubricant definition was SAE J357. It "dissapeared" after the NAD Castrol/BP ruling.

" ... there is a grass-roots effort underway by the Synthetic Lubricants Council to band together interested parties to establish and promote a definition for "true synthetics"


The Synthetic Lubricants Council abandoned that effort shortly after it started. SAE J357 dropped its definition of "synthetic" lubricants in 1996. Too many influencial members who wanted to promote Group IIIs as synthetic as I recall.

Tom NJ


Were you in favor of it?
 
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
The SAE synthetic lubricant definition was SAE J357. It "dissapeared" after the NAD Castrol/BP ruling.

" ... there is a grass-roots effort underway by the Synthetic Lubricants Council to band together interested parties to establish and promote a definition for "true synthetics"


The Synthetic Lubricants Council abandoned that effort shortly after it started. SAE J357 dropped its definition of "synthetic" lubricants in 1996. Too many influencial members who wanted to promote Group IIIs as synthetic as I recall.

Tom NJ


Interesting. So what exactly WAS the SAE J357 definition of "synthetic".
 
Originally Posted By: JCCADILLACMOBILE
Originally Posted By: mechtech2
Full Synthetic CAN cause leaks. I know it is not supposed to, but it sure has here and there.

20W CAN destroy an engine. If it is older and not designed for it.

Low ZDDP can surely puke a high performance cam and valvetrain.

Some boutique oils ARE superior - very much so.

So like a joke or fable, myths often have some basis in reality.


All good Lies have some Truth in them.

Also, i wonder about the "Dirty Oil" Myth.. I dont know HOW someone can say that Dirty Oil does NTO need to be changed (Oil Darkens as it suspends Contaminants.. Someone said Oil Color does NTO determine if it needs to be changed. But based on WHY Oil Color Changes, i dont see how its nto true)...


Because, it doesn't tell you the CONDITION of the oil. Some oils, come so dark from the factory they look like used motor oil, but are in fact, unused. Oil can be completely black, and still havebe completely fine to use.It's a chemical reaction that causes oil to change color, not necessarily dirt.

Also,5W-20 is not THAT thin. Look around, 90% of new Fords are specced for 5W-20. Crown vics that see 300,000+ mile duty as police cars, and taxis live on 5W-20. Our expedition uses 5W-20 and is perfectly fine.

Group III is highly, highly refined. It can be considered synthetic. It is inherently better than "true synthetic" PAO (Group IV) oils.
 
Valvoline MaxLife Full Synthetic DOES look almost INVISIBLE, it is so light.. Valvoline MaxLife Synthetic Blend looks a VERY LIGHT Amber. Darker than the Full Synthetic, yes.. but the Full Synthetic was SOOo Clear, it did look ALMOST like Water.

Lucas pours like Syrup. i AM Talking about the "Stabilizer."

I wonder if the Oil suspending Contaminants WOULD make it Darker! I cant imaginge it making it Lighter.. ESPECIALLY not with Valvoline MaxLife FULL Synthetic...

V. MaxLife F.S. = LLightest Oil i have ever seen. I could barely see it on my Dipstick, had to hold it to light and could BARELY distinguish the "Line" on Dipstick.. that is how light it is.
 
Originally Posted By: JCCADILLACMOBILE
Valvoline MaxLife Full Synthetic DOES look almost INVISIBLE, it is so light.. Valvoline MaxLife Synthetic Blend looks a VERY LIGHT Amber. Darker than the Full Synthetic, yes.. but the Full Synthetic was SOOo Clear, it did look ALMOST like Water.

Lucas pours like Syrup. i AM Talking about the "Stabilizer."

I wonder if the Oil suspending Contaminants WOULD make it Darker! I cant imaginge it making it Lighter.. ESPECIALLY not with Valvoline MaxLife FULL Synthetic...

V. MaxLife F.S. = LLightest Oil i have ever seen. I could barely see it on my Dipstick, had to hold it to light and could BARELY distinguish the "Line" on Dipstick.. that is how light it is.


Yes, but some oils are just as dark out of the bottle. Dark oil does not usually mean it cannot do its job, or poeple would change their oil every 500 miles or maybe even less.
 
Originally Posted By: Art_Vandelay
Were you in favor of it?

Originally Posted By: CompSyn
Interesting. So what exactly WAS the SAE J357 definition of "synthetic".

Yes at the time I was in favor of differentiating "true" synthetics from Group IIIs, and was working toward it. Without the backing of the large PAO producers, however, it wasn't going anywhere. The PAO producers I spoke with felt that Group IIIs would raise the total demand for synthetics and their boat would rise with the tide. To some extent that was true, but the net effect was painful for them.

I don't remember the full text of the last SAE J357 definition of "synthetic" in 1995, but a condensed version extracted from the actual SAE text that I used in a presentation some years ago was:

"Chemical compounds...produced by chemical synthesis...and manufactured by organic reactions...from relatively pure organic starting materials."

This was consistent with the generally accepted technical definition since the 1970s. Since 1999, however, the word synthetic has become a marketing term, differentiated from Group II mineral oil by a single VI point. I can see some Group III+s (VI 140+), however, as entitled to the term.

A letter I wrote to the editors of Lubes&Greases magazine in 2004 on this subject is here:

"Regarding T. Glenn's excellent column in your July issue ("The Synthetic Definition of Synthetics," page 40):

My Webster's dictionary is very clear on the definition of the word synthetic. It says, "produced by synthesis; specifically, produced by chemical synthesis, rather than of natural origin." It then goes on to define synthesis as "the formation of a complex compound by the combining of two or more simpler compounds, elements, or radicals."

It further defines synthesis as "to produce by synthesis rather than by extraction, refinement, etc." This is very much in agreement with the old SAE definition, and it clearly excludes highly refined mineral oils such as Group IIIs.

A synthetic material is quite simply one produced by synthesis, and synthesis is a process, not a performance level. Producers of true synthetics have invested in the word synthetic for over 50 years, and to see its meaning diluted for profit is disheartening.

Vinyl upholstery can be made to look and feel like leather, but it isn't leather, and the consumer has a right to know that- especially if they are paying leather prices.

Group IIIs are excellent products and can offer real value in many application, but the word synthetic is already taken. I'm sure their marketing folks can find a new word to invest in without hijacking ours."


T. Schaefer, Hatco Corp. Fords, N.J.

Lubes & Greases, Sept. 2004, Vol. 10 Issue 9, page 46

Tom NJ
 
So Tom, do you consider group 3 based oils such as Ultra, Platinum, Synpower, etc true "synthetic oils" today?
 
Originally Posted By: mechtech2
Full Synthetic CAN cause leaks. I know it is not supposed to, but it sure has here and there.


Does a synthetic cause the problem, or does it simply find it?
Something to think about...
 
Originally Posted By: qship1996
So Tom, do you consider group 3 based oils such as Ultra, Platinum, Synpower, etc true "synthetic oils" today?

Frankly I've given up on the "true" versus "fake" synthetic debate. The industry has decided that Group IIIs are synthetic, and my opinion will not change that. Sort of like punching a brick wall because you believe it shouldn't exist - just gets you bloody knuckles.

Eventually I accept that what is...is.

Tom NJ
 
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ

Frankly I've given up on the "true" versus "fake" synthetic debate. The industry has decided that Group IIIs are synthetic, and my opinion will not change that. Sort of like punching a brick wall because you believe it shouldn't exist - just gets you bloody knuckles.

Eventually I accept that what is...is.

Tom NJ


I don't really argue it much either, per se.
I just refer to them as "synthetic" or true synthetic, in normal conversation. Quotations around synthetic applied pretty blatantly.
 
Originally Posted By: rudolphna


Group III is highly, highly refined. It can be considered synthetic. It is inherently better than "true synthetic" PAO (Group IV) oils.
How's that? Please expound. But, I do understand the "better for the oil co's bottom line" aspect of it.
 
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Originally Posted By: rudolphna


Group III is highly, highly refined. It can be considered synthetic. It is inherently better than "true synthetic" PAO (Group IV) oils.
How's that? Please expound. But, I do understand the "better for the oil co's bottom line" aspect of it.


It is pretty well accepted that in pure, base stock form, Group III is a much lubricant than Group IV PAO is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom