PAO properties compared to GTL? (Pennz PUP)

[Linctex]

I sure do learn a lot from y'all - - I love the technical discussions. I'm curious: After this thread (Mobil 1 AnnProt primarily 0w-20 based thread) https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4622850/ I would like to know: How does primarily PAO-based 0W-20 or 5w-20 (Mobil 1 EP or AP?) oil properties compared to GTL? (Pennz P.U.P. 0W-20 or 5w-20) There's a lot to consider....HTHS, NOACK, etc. etc..... I know it's impossible to determine anti-wear additive recipes, etc. etc. etc.... . . I'm not really concerned about "everyday, light-duty commuter work". I wonder how they would do in "extreme/severe duty" (very high piston ring temps, for example) Any thoughts?

 

[MolaKule]

I think the GTL compares very well to PAO, but no finished oil formulation today contains ONLY PAO or GTL or Group III, or Group II. I wish people would understand this and get off this "one base oil" only mentality. https://bobistheoilguy.com/

 

[BrocLuno]

I'm to dumb to play a 2 base stringed instrument OTOH - it seems to be an uphill battle to get folks to see that ALL oils short of jet engine lubes are a blend that includes dino. The "Synthetic" guys just don't get that they have a significant percentage of dino as a carrier for the add pak

 

[Cujet]

Originally Posted By: BrocLuno

The "Synthetic" guys just don't get that they have a significant percentage of dino as a carrier for the add pak

And yet conventional oil continues to result in stuck piston rings, clogged oil ring drain holes, coked turbo and oil lines, along with the associated varnish and sludge. The quality synthetics avoid all of this.

 

[hemitruck]

I thought the base was a highly refined Dino base as compared to reg conventional!.

 

[Linctex]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule

no finished oil formulation today contains ONLY PAO or GTL or Group III, or Group II.

I really wasn't trying to insinuate this... I did use the word "based" hoping no one would assume I referring to 100% make-up. I'm curious to know which properties are comparable/similar between the two, ...and which properties seem to be opposite of each other (if that's even possible)

 

[Linctex]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule

I wish people would understand this and get off this "one base oil" only mentality. https://bobistheoilguy.com/

I think for the sake of a scientific discussion, I'd like to know some of the "deeper" characteristics & parameters of each type of blending stock... ...rather than all the other "relatively generic" info that gets parroted repeatedly through the threads.

 

[Bryanccfshr]

This article goes into a little comparison. http://www.infineuminsight.com/insight/sep-2014/uncertainty-ahead-for-base-stocks An Intersting point, the automotive demand for low viscosity basestock is straining the supply chain of PAO. GTL production at the time of publication was not high enough to close that gap. GTL seems to have similar but more controlled NOACK volatility over PAO GTL and grp III+ Seem to outperform PAO in viscosity index while PAO has an advantage in pour point. In a fully formulated oil this is all a bunch of hokey, the whole is greater than the sum of individual parts.

 

[Sylvatica]

Originally Posted By: Bryanccfshr

This article goes into a little comparison. http://www.infineuminsight.com/insight/sep-2014/uncertainty-ahead-for-base-stocks

Interesting article, thanks.

 

[Linctex]

Originally Posted By: Bryanccfshr

This article goes into a little comparison. http://www.infineuminsight.com/insight/sep-2014/uncertainty-ahead-for-base-stocks An interesting point, the automotive demand for low viscosity basestock is straining the supply chain of PAO. GTL production at the time of publication was not high enough to close that gap.

.....and it's been several years now. I just first heard of GTL for the first time maybe 2 years ago.

Originally Posted By: Bryanccfshr

In a fully formulated oil this is all a bunch of hokey, the whole is greater than the sum of individual parts.

. Hypothetical: Let's say you are a chemical engineer and a CLS. (R.I.P. George) You get hired by say..... Ashland oil, and your new job is to develop a synthetic oil product that will be marketed as a peer against Pennz Ultra Platinum and Mobil 1 Extended Performance (I chose these two as they seem to be exceedingly popular. Sorry Castrol fans). You can choose any basestocks and additives you wish to choose - - Including PAO and GTL. Here's the hard answer - they are both so good, what would you choose to blend with, and why?

 

[BrocLuno]

With the supposed test being Ashland - I think we have the answer in Synpower

 

[BrocLuno]

Originally Posted By: Cujet

Originally Posted By: BrocLuno

The "Synthetic" guys just don't get that they have a significant percentage of dino as a carrier for the add pak

And yet conventional oil continues to result in stuck piston rings, clogged oil ring drain holes, coked turbo and oil lines, along with the associated varnish and sludge. The quality synthetics avoid all of this.

See here's the problem I have with that premise. We have coked turbos - really with correctly configured drains? How about all the millions of OTR trucks with turbos running cherry red on good old dino HDEO with OCI at 20,000 miles ... Clogged oil ring drains, seems to be related to some makes and to a world of Jiffy Lube oil changes. Are you sure that would have happened on a premium dino, or just bulk oil ... There are obviously good dinos (Delo, Delvac, etc.) and bad dinos. There are good synthetics and I'm sure there are bad ones too. Up to the operator to buy the appropriate oil. Just the synthetic is not going to protect anyone ...

 

[Linctex]

Originally Posted By: BrocLuno

With the supposed test being Ashland - I think we have the answer in Synpower

It's just the first name that popped in my head

 

[Bryanccfshr]

Originally Posted By: Linctex

Originally Posted By: Bryanccfshr

This article goes into a little comparison. http://www.infineuminsight.com/insight/sep-2014/uncertainty-ahead-for-base-stocks An interesting point, the automotive demand for low viscosity basestock is straining the supply chain of PAO. GTL production at the time of publication was not high enough to close that gap.

.....and it's been several years now. I just first heard of GTL for the first time maybe 2 years ago.

Originally Posted By: Bryanccfshr

In a fully formulated oil this is all a bunch of hokey, the whole is greater than the sum of individual parts.

. Hypothetical: Let's say you are a chemical engineer and a CLS. (R.I.P. George) You get hired by say..... Ashland oil, and your new job is to develop a synthetic oil product that will be marketed as a peer against Pennz Ultra Platinum and Mobil 1 Extended Performance (I chose these two as they seem to be exceedingly popular. Sorry Castrol fans). You can choose any basestocks and additives you wish to choose - - Including PAO and GTL. Here's the hard answer - they are both so good, what would you choose to blend with, and why?

You left budget out of the question. Competitive pricing for a performance standard is the name of the game. A developer can always over engineer a product a machine or a building for the targeted performance target. Being able to meet the performance target in a budget range is more financially rewarding than developing the best possible oil ever. It’s easy to develo0 the best ever, not many people are willing to pay for the cost differential in the final, Product that would be marginally different (most likely unmeasurable or noticeable tothe consumer) than a more cost competitive product. If my career was on the line I would design a product to compete on production cost as well as performance. The best possible product is probably out there..but does it provide a material difference to performance that you would be willing to pay for? For most applicationsm I would bet people would say no. And most those who would agree to pay more for absolute best, don’t actually require it but have personal reasons.

 

[Nyogtha]

Originally Posted By: Linctex

Originally Posted By: Bryanccfshr

This article goes into a little comparison. http://www.infineuminsight.com/insight/sep-2014/uncertainty-ahead-for-base-stocks An interesting point, the automotive demand for low viscosity basestock is straining the supply chain of PAO. GTL production at the time of publication was not high enough to close that gap.

.....and it's been several years now. I just first heard of GTL for the first time maybe 2 years ago.

Originally Posted By: Bryanccfshr

In a fully formulated oil this is all a bunch of hokey, the whole is greater than the sum of individual parts.

. Hypothetical: Let's say you are a chemical engineer and a CLS. (R.I.P. George) You get hired by say..... Ashland oil, and your new job is to develop a synthetic oil product that will be marketed as a peer against Pennz Ultra Platinum and Mobil 1 Extended Performance (I chose these two as they seem to be exceedingly popular. Sorry Castrol fans). You can choose any basestocks and additives you wish to choose - - Including PAO and GTL. Here's the hard answer - they are both so good, what would you choose to blend with, and why?

Ashland no longer has any ownership interest in petroleum refining and lubricating oils. Marathon purchased Ashland's interest in the Marathon Ashland JV last decade. Marathon Petroleum sold the former Ashland St. Paul Park refinery, which is now owned by Andeavor after passing through a few owners. Marathon Petroleum still owns the former Ashland refineries at Catlettsburg, KY & Canton, OH. Only these 3 Ashland refineries were still operating in 1998 when the Marathon Ashland JV was formed; Ashland had 8 refineries at one point in time prior to that. Ashland spun Valvoline off as a wholly seperate entity a few years ago. Ashland specified Ashland wished to focus on less capital intensive businesses.

 

[Linctex]

Originally Posted By: Bryanccfshr

You left budget out of the question. Competitive pricing for a performance standard is the name of the game.

I was hoping to avoid swinging this thread towards a marketing discussion. I'd really like to hear some chemical discussions about how PAO and GTL are similar, or not similar. I mean..... are they REALLY THAT MUCH alike?!?

Originally Posted By: Bryanccfshr

For most applications I would bet people would say no. And most those who would agree to pay more for absolute best, don’t actually require it but have personal reasons.

Which is EXACTLY why Amsoil and Redline still exist!

 

[Nyogtha]

If the XOM PowerPoint prese tation regarding PAO & their VISOM base stock which they consider Group III+ and a precursor to GTL base stock was still available via link with phoyos, charts, graphs, etc. this would be pretty easy as GTL base stock is a step beyong Group III+ even in the article you posted. However, there are enough copied excerpts I think in the main long thread on M1 - PAO & VISOM that you can get a decent idea. https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/1990677/1 The Shell Bintulu GTL plant has been in operation since 1993, and SASOL has used coal to liquids tech and later GTL for decades.

 

[SonofJoe]

Here's my twopenneth worth... In the beginning, there were solvent extracted/dewaxed Group I mineral base oils. They were cheap, available in huge volumes and almost singlehandedly enabled the mass adoption of the motor car. On the downside, these somewhat aromatic oils oxidised readily (so you needed to change them frequently) and they have limited Viscosity Index (VI). The latter factor was a problem for piston engined aircraft in that to make an oil capable of handling the low temperatures you encounter as you fly higher, you end up with a mineral oil with an unacceptably high volatility (BTW, you can make higher VI solvent extracted Group Is but only at the expense of far lower process yields). So clever Fritz invents synthetic base oils; both crude PAOs & diesters. They're way more resistant to oxidation because they contain no aromatic structures. They also have inherently higher VI which means you can now make oils capable of handling low temperatures with acceptable volatility. Perfect for keeping the Luftwaffe in the air! There's only one downside & that's that they're very complex to make & very expensive. Typically PAO costs 4 to 5 times as much as mineral oil with esters even more so! In the years since the war, we've seen various attempts to 'meld' the benefits of both of these type of base oils. Initially the push was to add additives to confer on Group Is, the higher stability & VI that you see with synthetics. There's only one problem with this and that's that all additives tend to push up Noack. Group IIs, when made in bulk, are if anything cheaper to make than Group Is, are far more stable (less aromatics, no hetro-atoms) but give very little VI improvement over & above Group Is. This means they are brilliant for 15W40 HDDOs where Noack & cold-flow aren't a big deal but where oil longevity is. However use them to make a 5W30 PCMO and you'll hit the age old constraint of high volatility (14.9% might be technically on-grade but IMO it is too high!). Cue Group III base oils. These are similar to Group IIs but are hit with a far higher hydrocracking severity to get their VI up. This however comes at the expense of lower process yields so they are a bit more costly to produce. You can now make a 5W30 with a decent Noack. You can even make a 0W20 out of Group III but of course Noack goes up accordingly. You can push the severity harder still to get Visom Group III+ but again this comes at a cost. Now normally you might resort to PAO to make a low Noack 0Wxx oil but Shell figured that using Friedel-Crafts Gas-To-Liquids technology, they could take 'free' stranded gas, convert it primarily to standard fuel products and importantly get a bottoms product that is almost as good as PAO but way cheaper. So they built, at STAGGERINGLY VAST expense, the one-of-its-kind, Pearl GTL plant in Qatar. I'm sure there were lots of reasons why Shell, and Shell alone, went down the path of GTL base oil but I suspect reduced cost over PAO was the main driver. Personally I like Group II oils used properly and wouldn't much thank you for PAO or GTL on the grounds that neither is worth what it brings to the table...

 

[Ducked]

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe

Personally I like Group II oils used properly and wouldn't much thank you for PAO or GTL on the grounds that neither is worth what it brings to the table...

Do you mean "neither is worth what it costs to bring to the table..."? Otherwise it seems self-contrdictory.

 

[Bryanccfshr]

Originally Posted By: Linctex

Originally Posted By: Bryanccfshr

You left budget out of the question. Competitive pricing for a performance standard is the name of the game.

I was hoping to avoid swinging this thread towards a marketing discussion. I'd really like to hear some chemical discussions about how PAO and GTL are similar, or not similar. I mean..... are they REALLY THAT MUCH alike?!?

Originally Posted By: Bryanccfshr

For most applications I would bet people would say no. And most those who would agree to pay more for absolute best, don’t actually require it but have personal reasons.

Which is EXACTLY why Amsoil and Redline still exist!

This applies to just about any business. Unless you are your own independent entity, you are developing product with company money, the company expects ROI. Your job is to create value within the boundaries you are given. We should not despair that there are real world limitations. Without those pressures, new technologies and ideas would never come about. We get some pretty awesome consumer products available to us that are not expensive. You can go to a boutique, but they have to keep the doors open and the price people are willing to pay is even limited there.