PQIA announces Certification Program

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Solarent

Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
958
Location
Ohio
Tom Glenn's column in November LNG
Quote:
...the Petroleum Quality Institute of America will expand its motor oils certification program to include a "Certified Synthetic" mark. This mark will be based on an audit of the blender's records to verify the use of Group III and and API-licensed, base-oil-and-additive combination.
I did a search of their website and it looks like the development of this is still in progress. It's nice that the PQIA is stepping up to help with the policing of marketing claims for lubricants. They've already done fantastic work with viscosity grades and additive levels - based on the limited data available. So if blenders cooperate with this certification program it should do well for the industry. Hopefully it won't cost much to participate.
 
At the end of September they had a summit in Cleveland which was pretty cool. They were able to get a lot of speakers from all types of the industry and there was even a tour of Lubrizol's engine test labs. I hope they do more events like that in the future!
 
Good stuff Tom and Tom! So will this just more or less confirm the use of Group III or higher, but not necessarily percentages or confirmation that an oil is predominately Group III or higher?
 
Quote:
This mark will be based on an audit of the blender's records to verify the use of Group III and an API-licensed, base-oil-and-additive combination
Reading that tells me it will be extremely easy to pick out generic oils that have nothing more than the minimum requirements for API compliance. I get the intent behind it, but I suspect the arguments against it will be very easy to make by smaller blenders (and well received by customers) who can't, or won't want to, make the full investments into their own API licensing. The thread title excited me, but the actual details of what they are proposing are.....underwhelming. It isn't about the technical aspects, performance, or even the actual ingredients of the product. It is about holding the proper licenses (which I'm not saying is a bad thing) and not deviating from the status quo. The real hit will be in additive chemistry rather than base oil though. I suspect it will limit the willingness of companies to experiment/innovate even more than the current specifications do.
 
Well what I'd like to see them do is set down a standard for the measurement of filters so we have some honest standard in place rather than comparing apples to oranges like we do with the industrial Buffalo Chips of today standards.
 
Originally Posted By: MotoTribologist
Quote:
This mark will be based on an audit of the blender's records to verify the use of Group III and an API-licensed, base-oil-and-additive combination
Reading that tells me it will be extremely easy to pick out generic oils that have nothing more than the minimum requirements for API compliance. I get the intent behind it, but I suspect the arguments against it will be very easy to make by smaller blenders (and well received by customers) who can't, or won't want to, make the full investments into their own API licensing. The thread title excited me, but the actual details of what they are proposing are.....underwhelming. It isn't about the technical aspects, performance, or even the actual ingredients of the product. It is about holding the proper licenses (which I'm not saying is a bad thing) and not deviating from the status quo. The real hit will be in additive chemistry rather than base oil though. I suspect it will limit the willingness of companies to experiment/innovate even more than the current specifications do.
You make good points - but I do think it is a step in the right direction. I'll give you an example - Multi-Vehicle ATF. I cringe every-time I see a data sheet for one of these products many of them claiming conflicting performance credentials and Suitable for use or recommended for descriptors which don't come close to what the OEM fluid or specification actually requires. Because of some of the work of the PQIA and a few interested parties the NCWM Handbook 150 now has specific requirements for how these can be labeled. I foresee this being a similar process for the PQIA certification program. If I was making oil, I would not be afraid to innovate - there are plenty of companies that have API compliant product lines and then those that fall outside the donuts - and I'm not talking about boutique oils - all of the majors have either high mileage, or extended performance type products which are not API certified. It gives me more confidence knowing that they have the capability to meet the OEM specifications and then have chosen to innovate - rather than some guy in his garage who doesn't even know what GF-5 is.
 
Originally Posted By: MotoTribologist
Quote:
This mark will be based on an audit of the blender's records to verify the use of Group III and an API-licensed, base-oil-and-additive combination
Reading that tells me it will be extremely easy to pick out generic oils that have nothing more than the minimum requirements for API compliance. I get the intent behind it, but I suspect the arguments against it will be very easy to make by smaller blenders (and well received by customers) who can't, or won't want to, make the full investments into their own API licensing. The thread title excited me, but the actual details of what they are proposing are.....underwhelming. It isn't about the technical aspects, performance, or even the actual ingredients of the product. It is about holding the proper licenses (which I'm not saying is a bad thing) and not deviating from the status quo. The real hit will be in additive chemistry rather than base oil though. I suspect it will limit the willingness of companies to experiment/innovate even more than the current specifications do.
The crux of the matter will be in the details. I don't see PQIA's actions as advancing the demarcation between Group I to III base oils and synthesized base oils. Referencing GMAN's post: https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=950311&page=1
Quote:
...Mobil simply filed a complaint with the National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau in the US claiming that Castrol was engaging in false advertising by calling Syntec "full synthetic" since it was now being made with Group III base oil. Castrol was able to present enough "evidence" to convince the NAD that Group III base oil could legitimately be called synthetic, so they [ruled] in Castrol's favor. This ruling has no "legal" standing. It merely means that as far as the NAD is concerned, an oil company is not falsely advertising an oil as "full synthetic" if that oil is made from Group III base oil...
1) The NAD decision was a bad one, 2) Why would Mobil introduce a complaint against a competitor in a business environment rather than in say, a Chemistry Council, the SAE, the API, etc., unless it would ultimately benefit Mobil as well, 3) With all of the legal and technological resources at Mobil's beckoning, why did Mobil not pursue this issue a court of law, unless it would ultimately benefit Mobil as well, 4) the BBB/NAD had no real knowledge experts to consider or to refute the issue of the chemistry, 5) why would a major producer of synthetic base oils base their primary argument on marketing and labeling instead of the chemistry? Why not redirect your funds toward proving your case instead of funding NASCAR and Super Bowl adds? As I have stated before, the only way to clean up this mess is to bring this issue before some type of major Chemistry Council, debate the issue, and issue a finding. PQIA is doing good work in identifying bad lubricants and they should continue to do so, and Tom Glenn is a super guy. But who or whom will decide if the MO will get a stamp of approval? I see (if I counted correctly) only three PhD's out of thirteen PQIA advisory board members, and they are not independents, but rather are associated with either additive companies or large base oil manufacturers. The rest of the board advisory members appear to hold MBA's or some such.
Quote:
...I also understand that, short of auditing a blender's records, there are no analytical tests to unequivocally prove a synthetic motor oil is in fact synthetic.
Tom Glenn, LNG, Nov. 2017. First of all, let's check the blender's records. Ahh, he is using a Phillip's Ultra-S® Group III. Check off #1! The additive supplier has approved or listed Phillip's Ultra-S® Group III as one of the G III base oils. Check off #2! Now, who is going to determine if the additive concentration is within reason and by what standard? Who is going to determine if the VII concentration is within reason and by what standard? So now the Blender can say he is producing a synthetic PCMO because of Check off #1,2? But, but, what have we accomplished? We are still saying that Group III is synthetic. ??? Secondly, how much money do you want to spend on analytical resources? We can determine, with various analytical instrumentation, what is in a mix by using the principles and processes of Physical and Analytical chemistry, but it will not be done with a low cost BlackStone report. Those who say the analytical process is equivocal are misinformed.
 
Last edited:
Molakule - clearly you have strong feelings about Group III being called synthetic. Do I dare ask you to explain them/provide some of your reasoning why/? I know you have addressed it many times - but I come down on the other side of the fence on this. Maybe its' the Canadian in me...
 
Originally Posted By: Solarent
Molakule - clearly you have strong feelings about Group III being called synthetic. Do I dare ask you to explain them/provide some of your reasoning why/? I know you have addressed it many times - but I come down on the other side of the fence on this. Maybe its' the Canadian in me...
I am interested in this, too. I have no issue with using Group III/III+ oils, but I also see no harm in some consistent labelling scheme that would separate out oils that are predominantly IV/V.
 
Originally Posted By: Virtus_Probi
Originally Posted By: Solarent
Molakule - clearly you have strong feelings about Group III being called synthetic. Do I dare ask you to explain them/provide some of your reasoning why/? I know you have addressed it many times - but I come down on the other side of the fence on this. Maybe its' the Canadian in me...
I am interested in this, too. I have no issue with using Group III/III+ oils, but I also see no harm in some consistent labelling scheme that would separate out oils that are predominantly IV/V.
That's pretty much how I feel. Using grp III is fine because it certainly performs. Calling it "synthetic" is not something I tend to do though. That is reserved for grp IV and V for me. Now I just need the rest of the industry to see it my way.
 
So in other words, it will attempt to set a minimum viscosity index for oils that are labeled synthetic? That would like up with the designations already in place.
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
So in other words, it will attempt to set a minimum viscosity index for oils that are labeled synthetic? That would like up with the designations already in place.
But it would be better at it.
 
Originally Posted By: LaCocina27
Originally Posted By: kschachn
So in other words, it will attempt to set a minimum viscosity index for oils that are labeled synthetic? That would like up with the designations already in place.
But it would be better at it.
No, the current designations aren't for finished products. They are for formulators and manufacturers to determine interchangeability between base stocks.
 
What is this limited data of which you write? PQIA's VOAs are quite good and tell you everything you need to know about the quality of the basestock blend used in any oil they test. The synthetic versus faux synthetic thing is such old news that really meant nothing then and means even less now. What counts is performance, which can only be determined with oil analysis.
 
We know the answer. PCMO is produced to a price point, some spend more monies on ads & fancy bottles than upgrade an ADD PACK
 
Originally Posted By: Virtus_Probi
Originally Posted By: Solarent
Molakule - clearly you have strong feelings about Group III being called synthetic. Do I dare ask you to explain them/provide some of your reasoning why/? I know you have addressed it many times - but I come down on the other side of the fence on this. Maybe its' the Canadian in me...
I am interested in this, too. I have no issue with using Group III/III+ oils, but I also see no harm in some consistent labelling scheme that would separate out oils that are predominantly IV/V.
Clearly, I can't answer for Molakule... Synthetic..synthesized Is making something, creating something from lesser parts...that's what it always meant. Hydrotreating was removing undersirable bonds and creating more uniform molecules through modifying existing chemistries, which were obtained from the hodge podge of what was dug up...Shell did their XHVI from slack wax, it's great...back in the day, they referred to it as "Mineral oil with the performance of synthetic"...which it DID with the VI classification. Per another thread recently, where does GrII start, and III end ? My personal POV is that * GrII/III is not "syntesized" * GTL is genuinely synthetic. * XHVI is mineral oil obtained and has the "performance" of a synthetic...and is in itself really good, as it's always been.
 
There has been a meme in recent years that "synthetic is a level of performance", not a chemistry, which then clearly makes any delineation of "synthetic" from CAS numbers superfluous. If the original "ruling" was that GrIII was synthetic based on molecular meddling and ultimate performance, then any GrII that reaches a "synthetic" level of performance (e.g GrII+ ISOSYN where did the II+ come from, and why hasn't anyone made a GrIII-, or a GrIV-?) is synthetic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top