Pour points and Prostitution

[Geonerd]

Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Oil companies aren't selling a composition, they are selling a performance level. How they get to that performance level is their business and the formulations are proprietary. Businesses have a right to protect their technology, and we have a right to not buy their products if we disagree with how much they choose to tell us. Just a free market at work.

The comparison to food products isn't fair - we do not drink motor oils (although there are some BITOGers that I wonder about

) The MSDS reveals all we need to know about the formulation from a health perspective.

Tom NJ


The problems is that they seldom state any objective performance values. The 'performance' they are trying to sell is entirely subjective and based entirely on advertising hype.

Fair enough, but they shouldn't be surprised when Joe Sixpack points to a $2/qt oil and asks "Both are SM, WV50x.xx, etc. certified. Why should I pay 4x as much for your pseudo-synthetic glop?" The expected answer, "Because ours is better!" really doesn't fly.

IMO, nothing in the motor oil business is a true trade secret. Every major player has a lab of chemists that routinely dissect the competition's oil. It's only the 'good-little-consumer' who doesn't know what is in the bottle.

-Moo

 

[tig1]

Wasn't the entire M1 line of oil disrupted by hurrican Ike? And the reason for the disruption was XMs PAO plant in Beaumont was flooded? So if M1 doesn't have PAO in it, why were their stocks of oil depleted al over the country?

 

[Art_Vandelay]

Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Oil companies aren't selling a composition, they are selling a performance level. How they get to that performance level is their business and the formulations are proprietary.


Are there or are there not differences between PAO Group IV and Group III Synthetics?

And the consumer isn't entitled to that information?

The detergent package in gasoline might be proprietary but the grade isn't. If it has alcohol added to it that's disclosed as well.

The word Synthetic is the selling point of the product. Fifteen years ago if someone were buying Synthetic motor oil they were purchasing a uniform product. Today that is not the case. It's a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.

The oil companies are within their right for now, I will give you that simply because it's legal to do it. The FTC should mandate labeling standards that call for disclosure of the base stock or blend basis. How that causes a hardship for the oil industry is beyond me.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: Art_Vandelay
It's a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.

A breach of what? The definition of the word synthetic has been determined by NAD to include any substance that does not by itself form in nature. This includes both group III and IV.

 

[Art_Vandelay]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: Art_Vandelay
It's a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.

A breach of what? The definition of the word synthetic has been determined by NAD to include any substance that does not by itself form in nature. This includes both group III and IV.


It also includes partially hydrogenated cottonseed oil.

Say you purchased 5w30 Mobil 1 in 1995(it was PAO based), now you buy it and it's not, without indication, then you have a breach of the implied warrant of merchantablitiy. ExxonMobil is selling a premium product, marketed to be the best of its kind. If it has been materially altered there is liability there.

 

[The Critic]

Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Oil companies aren't selling a composition, they are selling a performance level. How they get to that performance level is their business and the formulations are proprietary. Businesses have a right to protect their technology, and we have a right to not buy their products if we disagree with how much they choose to tell us. Just a free market at work.

The comparison to food products isn't fair - we do not drink motor oils (although there are some BITOGers that I wonder about

) The MSDS reveals all we need to know about the formulation from a health perspective.

Tom NJ


+1

Yet, I still agree with Art to an extent. I think oil companies should just remove the word synthetic from their labeling, and just sell the engine oils on a performance basis.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Quote:
Say you purchased 5w30 Mobil 1 in 1995(it was PAO based), now you buy it and it's not, without indication, then you have a breach of the implied warrant of merchantablitiy. ExxonMobil is selling a premium product, marketed to be the best of its kind. If it has been materially altered there is liability there.


Terms like "best of its kind" are normally considered marketing puffery.

And who is to say that ExxonMobil's product is not premium anymore? It is premium if it delivers premium performance, and this can be achieved in more than one way (not only through the use of PAO). Alas, I know you don't agree with this point of view.

 

[SubieHo]

Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Oil companies aren't selling a composition, they are selling a performance level. How they get to that performance level is their business and the formulations are proprietary. Businesses have a right to protect their technology, and we have a right to not buy their products if we disagree with how much they choose to tell us. Just a free market at work.

The comparison to food products isn't fair - we do not drink motor oils (although there are some BITOGers that I wonder about

) The MSDS reveals all we need to know about the formulation from a health perspective.
Tom NJ


Well I think this gets to the heart of the issue at hand. Are these artificial distinctions between performance and composition acceptable to consumers? Although group III finished lubes will perform just as well and sometimes better than a PAO finished lube in many applications, in some cases, performance and composition are inextricably linked. For example, UOAs show that the SM M1 15W50 is shearing down to an SAE 30 at 100C for a viscosity loss 50% greater than that of their SH 15W50 when run in my motorcycle at the same time/mileage OCIs.

As for proprietary formulations, there is an extensive body of patent laws and nearly 10,000 government employees at the US Office of Patents and Trademarks to protect technological innovation, encourage new innovation, etc...

Free market? Markets are never and have never been entirely free nor do they always self-correct? The world is in the midst of once again realizing that Adam Smith's invisible hand exists only in theory.

Originally Posted By: Art_Vandelay

An oil that uses PAO as its base stock. At a percentage that is in line with these:

- Mobil 1 0W-40
- German Castrol 0w30 Green (hopefully Gold too)
- Amsoil 0W-30

The new Gold formula is assuredly a PAO finished lube, sharing identical viscometric, flash point, and pour point properties as Castrol Edge 0W30 available in the EU. Castrol blends the same base oils for both finished lubricants. Germany is a country that does have more precise regulations regarding base oils that can and cannot be classified as "synthetic," restricting the term for traditional synthetics.

Through deductive reasoning then, if Castrol Edge 0W30 is classifed in Germany (and on the German MSDS) as a "synthetic base stock" with "proprietary performance additives" and German Castrol (gold) is comprised of the same base stocks as the former, then German Castrol (gold) is a traditional synthetic.

Those "proprietary performance additives" might be a different story.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
A breach of what? The definition of the word synthetic has been determined by NAD to include any substance that does not by itself form in nature. This includes both group III and IV.


I think that's incorrect, as Group III are removing double bonds, cross linking, aromatics etc and filling the gaps with hydrogen.

They are making molecules that are definitely found in nature, just making them in a more consistent manner.

Shell used to tell the truth down here, WRT XHVI, saying that it was highly refiled mineral oil, "offering synthetic performance", and charging a mid way price.

 

[Shannow]

There's a definition here
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=CgsH...result#PPA89,M1

that should put the issue to bed

 

[Tom NJ]

Hi Art,

Originally Posted By: Art_Vandelay
Are there or are there not differences between PAO Group IV and Group III Synthetics?


Differences in chemical composition, yes. Differences in base oil properties, yes. Differences in finished oil performance, not necessarily.

Originally Posted By: Art_Vandelay
And the consumer isn't entitled to that information?


Sorry, no. It would be nice if all products listed all of their ingredients, and for that matter published all of their data as well, but that is the company's decision. Our decision is whether ot not to buy their products. We are entitled to information related to health and safety, not specific ingredients.

Originally Posted By: Art_Vandelay
The word Synthetic is the selling point of the product.


Thanks to the NAD, the word "synthetic" has been reduced to a single VI point separating Group II from Group III. It is now a meaningless marketing term.

Originally Posted By: Art_Vandelay
It's a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.


With no legal definition of "synthetic", there is no implied warranty, and merchantability relates to meeting its claims and working in the recommended applications.

I understand your feelings Art, and like you would like to know the base oil mix in the oils I use, but where do we stop when it comes to requiring ingredient disclosure? Companies have a right to keep their formulations confidential except with respect to hazardous components. If they refuse to respond to our questions, we have the right to switch to a brand that is more forthcoming. IMHO, government should only step in when their claims or packaging are deceptive.

Tom NJ

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
A breach of what? The definition of the word synthetic has been determined by NAD to include any substance that does not by itself form in nature. This includes both group III and IV.


I think that's incorrect, as Group III are removing double bonds, cross linking, aromatics etc and filling the gaps with hydrogen.

Incorrect or not, that is the NAD definition. Castrol fought with Mobil long and hard to make sure it is what it is, at least in the US.

 

[Tom NJ]

Actually the NAD only ruled that Castrol could call its SynTec oil "synthetic". IIRC, Castrol was using a high quality Grp III+ at the time. The rest of the producers decided to interpret the Castrol ruling as applying to all Grp IIIs, and so began the flood of new lower cost synthetics.

While in theory those who used lower quality Grp IIIs could have been challenged, the increased profits were so compelling and the risk of further action so low that they all jumped on the bandwagon.

Tom NJ

 

[Art_Vandelay]

Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Actually the NAD only ruled that Castrol could call its SynTec oil "synthetic". IIRC, Castrol was using a high quality Grp III+ at the time. The rest of the producers decided to interpret the Castrol ruling as applying to all Grp IIIs, and so began the flood of new lower cost synthetics.

While in theory those who used lower quality Grp IIIs could have been challenged, the increased profits were so compelling and the risk of further action so low that they all jumped on the bandwagon.

Tom NJ


Sounds like collusion.

 

[Tom NJ]

Here is a quote from a 1999 article on the NAD decision that sums it up well:

"An expert familiar with PAOs disagrees. He said, “The market is reading too much into the decision and trying to cast a broader net for other mineral oil basestocks. It is very important to note that Castrol’s claim was made for a very specific product from a very specific feedstock. Castrol argued that Shell’s XHVI from a slack wax stream is synthetic. The spokesperson indicated this is the part of the decision that has the largest potential impact. The quality of Group III products in inconsistent, and their physical properties are different from one manufacturer to the next. If these products were to be classified as synthetic, and suppliers use some of the poorer quality Group IIIs in the synthetic market, consumers will be misled and the high-margin niche that has been developed by present-day synthetics will erode.”

Tom NJ

 

[Art_Vandelay]

Originally Posted By: Tom NJ

The quality of Group III products in inconsistent, and their physical properties are different from one manufacturer to the next.

Tom NJ


Is that an actual fact?

 

[Tom NJ]

Hi Art,

Yes there is a difference in quality among Group IIIs depending on the process and feedstocks used. VIs can range from 120 to mid 140s, which is an indication of the levels of aromatics versus branched alkanes. The NAD's "synthetic" ruling was specifically for Shells slack wax derived XHVI, which is among the best of the Group IIIs and often refered to as Group III+. The low end of Group IIIs are no match for PAO, but the high end are (except for pour point and volatility).

Tom NJ

 

[Art_Vandelay]

Thanks Tom.

There are no such differences among Group IV(PAO) based products?

 

[deven]

For a second I thought this was in the wrong forum

 

[Tom NJ]

Originally Posted By: Art_Vandelay
Thanks Tom. There are no such differences among Group IV(PAO) based products?


Yes there are some differences among PAOs with respect to composition, i.e. some are made with 1-decene, some with 1-dodecene, and some with mixed alphaolefins, but performance is consistently high. They are all built up from pure chemical building blocks so purity and consistency can be controlled.

Tom NJ