PQIA announces Certification Program

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
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.


Exactly, and that is what various groups and corporations do - attempt to change the meaning of words and phrases in order to gain an advantage in either the market place or in the social engineering arena.

Originally Posted By: Shannow
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.


Spot on!

If they get away with this kind of further sillyness, then something can mean anything I or some group can convince you of.

Originally Posted By: Shannow
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.


Agreed. GTL should not be considered a Group III or III+ oil and it should have its own API classification as does PAO.

Originally Posted By: Soalrent
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 will place White Paper in the Forum, Science and Technology of Oils and Lubricant Additives, entitled, "Synthetic Base Oils and the Debate Over Same," and you and others can present your case as well in the thread.

Hopefully, the debate can focus on the purely technical aspects of the issue.

 

[kschachn]

But the reason the first synthetic PCMO was called "synthetic" was because it was made from PAO, and PAO doesn't come out of the ground like crude oil does. It could just as well have been called "Super PAO Oil" but back then that wasn't nearly as scientific and exciting as calling it synthetic. Just the fact that it was synthetic wasn't really the point, it was the superior properties of the oil that were the selling features. Today the word synthetic is synonymous with "higher performance than standard mineral oils", whatever higher performance means exactly. If there was a chemical compound that could be pumped out of the ground and used to formulate a higher performance motor oil then this would meet the criteria for the "performance" part of the term synthetic (at leas as it is being used today).

Look at it this way, it has been a few years since I have worked in a chemistry lab but I could easily synthesize an oil and call it synthetic, but it would be an atrocious motor oil. Just as you wish to change the grading system to refer to HTHS, it would be better to change the definition of synthetic but I don't see that happening anytime soon. As a result it really does have to be based on performance and not on how it is obtained.

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: kskchachn
Today the word synthetic is synonymous with "higher performance than standard mineral oils", whatever higher performance means exactly.


That is what some producers want it to mean.

Let's debate that issue in the thread mentioned above.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Agreed. GTL should not be considered a Group III or III+ oil and it should have its own API classification as does PAO.

Why? Within the confines of API 1509 Appendix E (where the group designations are defined) it fits as it should. Group designations are not for finished products despite being used that way.

 

[Shannow]

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/synthesize

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
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.


I've been guilty of following this meme myself.
Mea Culpa!
Way back in the seventies one could buy M1 and rest assured that it really did use a Grp IV basestock.
In its early versions, this oil caused horrendous seal leaks and in its AV formula resulted in the destruction of quite a few GA piston engines due to its inability to scavenge and suspend lead salts.
Time and the technical state of the art move on.
It's past time to come up with a real performance standard for finished oils.
We all know that all oils meeting any given spec or cert aren't equal.
Most of us couldn't care less what basestock blend is used.
We simply want to be able to select the best OTS oil for our engines using actual numbers as applied to a finished oil.
Therefore, I contend that the Grp III versus Grp IV or V debate is meaningless.
We all want performance without regard to the groups used in the basestock blend of any finished oil.
A real performance standard will also never happen because no one in the industry would be happy to see one and the industry rules in standards and certs.

 

[Shannow]

But that's essentially what PQIA already do...give us real world (albeit limited) performance data.

What would "certified synthetic" tell us about the performance of the oil ?

 

[SilverFusion2010]

It's to the point where it's hard to find bad oil. If it meets API SN and has sufficient viscosity then you are good.

 

[jaj]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
...It's past time to come up with a real performance standard for finished oils.
We all know that all oils meeting any given spec or cert aren't equal.
Most of us couldn't care less what basestock blend is used.
We simply want to be able to select the best OTS oil for our engines using actual numbers as applied to a finished oil.
...A real performance standard will also never happen because no one in the industry would be happy to see one and the industry rules in standards and certs.


Let's see, there's BMW LLxx; MB 229.xx, Porsche A40 and Cxx, GM Dexos, Ford WSS-M2C-9xx, and so on. Similarly, CAT, Daimler and the rest of the HD engine manufacturing community publishes a whole range of standards for HDEO's. Then in Europe, the engine manufacturers have banded together in the ACEA, which in turn publishes common standards for engine oils.

My point is that on a global basis, engine OEM's have given up waiting for the oil industry standards to meet their needs, so they've published standards that ensure that oils will work in their engines.

To be fair, the oil industry has responded well - API SN has ushered in an era where base stock debates have become muted. An SN conventional oil will run the same extended OCI's as a premium synthetic, and engine teardowns won't reveal which oil was in which engine.

The PQIA cert that this thread started about is really about quality assurance - is the oil in the container actually the oil that's on the label? If the label states API SN, is the oil API SN?

I think it's worthwhile to have this certification so the public knows that if they buy a product that claims to meet a standard, that the product actually does.

 

[fdcg27]

You've reinforced my point.
The are plenty of OTS oils that meet these various certs available at bargain prices at least on this side of the boarder. Price of the finished oils isn't the problem.
This being the case, there could be universal oil performance standards which would obsolete maker's certs.
API is a bit of a weak sister, but ACEA seems more willing to venture beyond the basics.
Why can't we simply have oils objectively rated for various levels of application demand?
In combination with the established grades, we could have a more accurate view of what would be closer to optimal for our engines as we use them.
Now, PQIA's quality assurance initiative might be a good thing, but it's doubtful that any name brand oil would fail to meet the specs/certs that are claimed for it.
This is probably true for most of the smaller players as well, since their oils are typically formulated either by a major blender or through the use of the cookbook instructions provided by both basestock and add pack suppliers.

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Therefore, I contend that the Grp III versus Grp IV or V debate is meaningless.


In terms of Truth In Advertising and the accepted textbook chemical definition of "synthesis" I think the debate needs to begin anew.

A Review of Mineral and Synthetic Base Oils Post #4567302

 

[wemay]

Thank you all for this incredibly informative thread and the links to others.

If performance is your measure of a synthetic, what are the data points most important in making that determination? Is it Noack, VI, Flash/Pour point? A combination?

If formulation is your measure, how much GrpIII(+) or above, vs the rest constitutes a syn?

These questions, i'm sure are simplistic but are coming from a layperson so forgive my ignorance.

For example, below are two oils, one a marketed as a conventional - GTX with an excellent Noack:


And Pennzoil Gold (sythetic blend) with excellent numbers across the board:


Current oils seem to present synthetic levels of performance in certain areas and not, in others.

 

[SuperSalad]

Originally Posted By: wemay
Thank you all for this incredibly informative thread and the links to others.

If performance is your measure of a synthetic, what are the data points most important in making that determination? Is it Noack, VI, Flash/Pour point? A combination?

If formulation is your measure, how much GrpIII(+) or above, vs the rest constitutes a syn?

These questions, i'm sure are simplistic but are coming from a layperson so forgive my ignorance.

For example, below are two oils, one a marketed as a conventional - GTX with an excellent Noack:


And Pennzoil Gold (sythetic blend) with excellent numbers across the board:


Current oils seem to present synthetic levels of performance in certain areas and not, in others.

Formulation is the metric I use to classify synthetic vs non-synthetic.

For me, to constitute a synthetic product, it would need no more than 0% Group III oil. The base fluid content should only contain group IV and V base oils. Additives will most certainly contain mineral oil, so it isn't likely to ever truly have 0% mineral oil, but the base oil portion of a synthetic formula should contain no group III, II, or I.