PAO and PPD

[Seth]

Interesting read in layman's terms:
Catalytic isomerization converts the
base stock’s paraffins, linear hydrocarbons
that tend to crystallize and form
wax, into branched hydrocarbons with
short branches. These branches break
up the crystallinity and make a fluid
more amenable to be used as base oil for
lubricants. Catalytic isomerization lowers
the pour point — but not to the levels
characteristic of PAO fluids. In most cases,
PPD additives are still required to be used
with Group III oils.

http://corporate.lubrizol.com/PressRoom/MediaCoverage/pdflibrary/Cold_Point_Single.pdf

 

[harrydog]

This only reinforces my assertion that Group III oils are simply not as good as Group IV or V. Yet the disturbing trend (disturbing to me but apparently not to most) is that most all of the major oil companies are moving away from Group IV/V and going to Group III for their high priced "synthetic" oils, and the ONLY reason is economic. I for one will continue to seek out and buy "real" synthetic oil as long as it's available. If more people did that, maybe the trend would not continue but I'm afraid that's not going to be the case.

 

[Blue99]

Seth - Thanks for posting this article. From the technical side, I find this section to be of great interest:

Quote

While lubricants based on Group III oils perform similar to PAO-based fluids in many ways, the low-temperature flow characteristics of Group III oils simply are not as good as those of PAO fluids. A number of feedstocks are used to make Group III oils, including highly paraffinic slack wax as well as hydrocracker bottoms and raffinates.

Manufacturers often employ catalytic isomerization techniques to convert linear paraffins to branched paraffins, thus improving low-temperature properties and maximizing production yield. Catalytic isomerization converts the base stock’s paraffins, linear hydrocarbons that tend to crystallize and form wax, into branched hydrocarbons with short branches. These branches break up the crystallinity and make a fluid more amenable to be used as base oil for lubricants.

Catalytic isomerization lowers the pour point — but not to the levels characteristic of PAO fluids. In most cases, PPD additives are still required to be used with Group III oils.

End Quote

 

[Blue99]

Quote:

---

...and the ONLY reason is economic.

---

That's not entirely true, it's a complicated issue and you are skipping over some key points.

1. The motor oil buying public wants to see the ILSAC GF-4 approval & the API starburst emblem on the side of a bottle of synthetic oil to satisfy their new car warranty requirements. Grp III formulations, with VI improvers & friction modifiers, provide an easy option to passing the SEQ VIB fuel economy test. Just ask Amsoil about the XL line of oils & the GF-4 certification.

2. Most of the motor oil buying public & probably as high as 70% of Bitog members don't need & won't use the cold temp performance advantage of PAO based synthetic oils. Or the extended drain capabilities, or the hot/high temperature capabilities.

And I realize this is

, but both PAO & Grp III formulations have a place in the motor oil marketplace and it's up to the user to match his/her needs to the performance properties of the oil.

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

The motor oil buying public wants to see the ILSAC GF-4 approval & the API starburst emblem on the side of a bottle of synthetic oil to satisfy their new car warranty requirements.

---

Which is perfectly understandable. But why then do they bamboozle the public into thinking they need a psuedo-synthetic for 3 times the price of all the other GF-4 oils that will meet the requirements of the 'majority of people' as you say? The manufacturer is not going to honor the warranty "more vigorously" just because you used the most expensive GF-4 oil unless it was spec'd from the get-go.

 

[harrydog]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

...and the ONLY reason is economic.

---

That's not entirely true, it's a complicated issue and you are skipping over some key points.

1. The motor oil buying public wants to see the ILSAC GF-4 approval & the API starburst emblem on the side of a bottle of synthetic oil to satisfy their new car warranty requirements. Grp III formulations, with VI improvers & friction modifiers, provide an easy option to passing the SEQ VIB fuel economy test. Just ask Amsoil about the XL line of oils & the GF-4 certification.

2. Most of the motor oil buying public & probably as high as 70% of Bitog members don't need & won't use the cold temp performance advantage of PAO based synthetic oils. Or the extended drain capabilities, or the hot/high temperature capabilities.

And I realize this is

, but both PAO & Grp III formulations have a place in the motor oil marketplace and it's up to the user to match his/her needs to the performance properties of the oil.

---

It's economic. Period.
Regarding your point 1... You say easy, I say less expensive. It's really the same thing.
Even Group II oils have the GF-4 approval & the API starburst emblem on the side of a bottle. If you're paying substantially more for "synthetic" oil, you should be getting substantially more, regardless of whether or not you really "need" it as you mention in point 2.

 

[Blue99]

"It's economic. Period."

Alright, well, obviously you have information as to the formulation costs of a Group III synthetic vs. a Group IV PAO synthetic.

Please show me the costs to verify your "economic" claim & why you are getting "gyped" by buying a Grp III formulation.

I'll be waiting to review this info with great interest...

In the mean time, you may wish to get out a pencil & make a list of PAO synthetic formulations that do meet the GF-4 spec.

Didn't do alot of writing?

Hmm, well then, how about writing down the sources of PAO base oils available to blenders in the US marketplace.

Still not much on your list, eh?

Maybe then you will understand my comment about being more complicated than just economic.

 

[Max_Wander]

...$90 billion quarters can't be wrong...

 

[harrydog]

So are you saying that PAO/ester basestocks can not be made to meet the ILSAC GF-4 standard? Or that it is just more costly (or complicated if you like) to do so?
Looking at the GF-4 specifications, I find it hard to believe that a GroupIV/V oil can not be made to meet those standards while a Group III oil can, but then I will readily admit that I don't know that for sure.
If PAO basestocks are in short supply, that certainly complicates things, but it is an economic complication. I think if the demand were there, supply would increase.

 

[TimVipond]

Quote:

---

In the mean time, you may wish to get out a pencil & make a list of PAO synthetic formulations that do meet the GF-4 spec.

---

Amsoil TSO 0W30
Amsoil ASL 5W30
Amsoil ATM 10W30

 

[Blue99]

Tim - the API website may not be up-to-date, but only the XL line is listed as meeting GF-4.

http://eolcs.api.org/DisplayLicenseInfo2.asp?LicenseNo=0995

You may have access to more current info at the Amsoil Corporate site.

In any case , the point is that of all the brands with a synthetic motor oil in the line-up, very few are GF-4 to meet the warranty requirements of an owner with a 2007 model vehicle, or a 2006 thru 2004 with under the 36,000 mile (or whatever) warranty or the maintenance warranty purchased from the dealer.

Mobil 1 is really the only commonly available OTC brand that meets the GF-4 warranty requirements.

 

[Blue99]

Harrydog - The whole point is, it's not just economics & maybe now, I've got your attention.

And indeed, PAO base oils are not widely available, the only 2 major suppliers in the US are Chevron-Phillips Chemical (CP Chem) and ExxonMobil Chemical. BP-Amoco had a PAO facility in Texas, but it was shut down 2-3 years ago due to oversupply in the PAO markets.

Also, consider this - both Chevron and ConocoPhillips have a 50% ownership in ChevronPhillips Chemical, but neither company has a PAO synthetic formulation among their various lubricant brands.

Yes, a major hurdle to cross, is beating the PAO reference oil used in the GF-4 fuel economy test. Conventional oils use the temporary shear of viscosity improvers and friction modifier additives to beat the PAO reference oil by 1-2%, PAO formulations need another method.

So, both the major motor oil brands and a huge group of the ILMA independents go the Grp III route, which is where the additive companies have already provided the R&D to pass the GF-4 tests.

Take a look at the list of API SM/GF-4 that carry the term "synthetic" in the label. Every SM* (asterisk) oil on this list is also GF-4 and API Starburst.

http://eolcs.api.org/default.asp Please insert the term "synthetic" into the brand search box.

Of all the synthetic motor oils on this list, I do not recognize any as PAO formulations. So the current trend is "Synthetic" on the label equals Grp III & a PAO formulation is indeed rare.

 

[PT1]

Pennzoil Platinum is GF-4

 

[TimVipond]

Blue99. The Amsoil products I specified meet and exceed the GF-4 specifications, but are not certified by API for reasons mentioned at https://www.amsoil.com/dealer/askamsoil/api_licensing/api_licensing.aspx . Hope this helps.

 

[Blue99]

That's what I thought - most people want the API Starburst right on the label vs. the "meets or exceeds" verbage when dealing with their warranty anxieties.

My post above should have included "full PAO formulations to meet the warranty requirements of 2007, 06, 05 vehicles etc.

The point is very few PAO formulations exist that are licensed API starburst & have passed GF-4 for newer vehicles.

 

[TimVipond]

The Amsoil products I listed do indeed exceed the warranty requirements of 2007, 06, 05 vehicles etc., even without the API starburst. They have never voided a factory warranty in 35 years.

 

[harrydog]

Blue99 -
Thanks for the information regarding the existing PAO suppliers. It's interesting that there was an oversupply a couple of years ago, which was, I assume, because not enough people were buying the PAO/ester based synthetics, due to the higher cost of those oils.
If I understood you correctly, I think you said that the same methods are used to help both Group II and Group III oils pass the GF-4 tests. It makes sense that that is where most of the R&D money has gone because that's where probably 90+% of the market share is.
In the end, although it is a complicated situation, it still really comes down to economics, and I'm not saying that just to be argumentative. Even everything you've said so far still comes down to economics in the end.
But regardless of the reasons, I am still unhappy with the trend away from "true" synthetics.

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

The point is very few PAO formulations exist that are licensed API starburst & have passed GF-4 for newer vehicles.

---

Just because there are few, if any, it doesn't necessarily imply they can't be built. The fuel economy increase from GF-3 to GF-4 wasn't that great. And if Amsoil is to be believed, there's your evidence that it can be made, and be made profitably, and that at least some research has been conducted in the past.

http://www.innovene.com/liveassets/bp_in...ration_PAOs.pdf

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

Please show me the costs to verify your "economic" claim & why you are getting "gyped" by buying a Grp III formulation.

---

It's common knowledge that PAOs are more expensive than group III basetocks. Have a look at the latest issue of The Lube Report:

http://www.imakenews.com/lng/e_article000750723.cfm

Group IIIs prices are close to Group IIs and II+s.

And the article first referenced states:

Group III oils have considerable appeal in addressing each of these factors. Compared with Group I and Group II oils of equal kinematic viscosity measured at 100 degrees Celsius, Group III base stocks have lower volatility, improved thermal/oxidative stability and often improved low-temperature fluidity. These attributes are shared by API Group IV synthetics (polyalphaolefins), but Group III oils are considerably less expensive than PAOs.

I'm sure there are hundreds of other references available.

 

[Blue99]

The Grp III base oil pricing at Lube Reports is for the Korean oils produced with the ExxonMobil catalyst and is really more closely related to Grp II+ in properties than a fully hydro-cracked Grp III.

Please post the base oil cost per gallon of a 4-5cSt, fully hydro-cracked Petro-Canada or Chevron Grp III.

And then let's look at a Shell XHVI or the XOM Visom from Fawley.

To me, it's a bit mis-leading to dump all Grp III base oils into the same performance or price bucket!