Been working on this for a bit, because I figured it could clear up some confusion. Admins suggested I throw it out to you all for comment, so here it is. What do y'all think?
_________________________________________________________
There are a lot of arguments about what oil is or isn't "really synthetic." This is because the line between "synthetic" and "not synthetic" has faded.
Here's why:
It's just not a useful distinction any more.
It's important to remember why the line was drawn in the first place: up until 20-30 years ago, the only way to get better performance than a conventional oil was to use base stocks that were entirely synthesized. Hence, "synthetic" = "better."
Things have changed in a big way since then. It's now possible to get that kind of performance from a base stock that is derived from crude oil, but chemically modified. "Derived from crude oil" means conventional, right? But it's chemically modified, like synthetic. So, which is it?
What about a base stock that is like the above, but built up (i.e. synthesized) from methane like a traditional synthetic? The process is like the synthetic, but the product is like the weird conventional/synthetic hybrid. Again, which is it?
It's neither. And both. And it doesn't matter.
The only reason the oil companies still use the word "synthetic" is that people think it means "high-end." Think about that for a second and let the irony sink in. The oil companies use the term "synthetic" -- and charge a lot of money for it -- because people sit around and play armchair quarterbacks about the labeling. In other words, all the Internet dust-ups about what is "real synthetic" or "fake synthetic" are part of the reason the oil companies use those meaningless labels in the first place!
Now, think about WHY you care what's in your oil. The reason is that we want an oil that works well for us. That can be estimated from from its specs and approvals, without requiring you to know even the first thing about what it's made of. If an oil carries Honda HTO-06 approval, you can be totally sure it'll do a great job of controlling high-temp deposits in a turbocharged engine. If it carries Mercedes-Benz 229.5 approval, you know it's a good long-drain oil for high-performance gasoline engines. If it has a high viscosity index with a low HTHS viscosity, it might be great for fuel economy but not very shear-stable. We don't have to know anything about how the base oils were made.
To put it simply: If it performs well, it could be made of canola oil and broken dreams, and that wouldn't matter. If it performs poorly, it could be made of unicorn dust and the blood of kings, and that wouldn't matter.
The QUALITY and PROPERTIES of the base stock are what matter, combined with HOW THEY ARE USED in the total formulation. The terms "synthetic" and "non-synthetic" have nothing to do with quality and properties. They're about how oil is manufactured -- and even on that point, the line between them is blurry.
One could argue that the Group 1 through 5 classification is still worth something because it also encompass a few basic properties like viscosity index (higher group number = higher VI). But even that system doesn't tell you much because you could still have a terrible oil with "higher" base stocks, or a great oil with "lower" base stocks.
And even if any of this DID matter, there's still the fact that you'd never know enough about what different oils are made of! The companies will never divulge their actual formulations. All they ever do is tell you certain aspects that they think will sound best to you, while keeping the important details a secret. And as we all know, the devil is in the details.
Meanwhile, performance data -- in the form of approvals and specs -- are readily available and easy to match with your application.
So, let's stop making a fuss about labeling and focus instead on what really matters:
Can the oil perform, or can it not?
That's what we really care about, and it's what we have some hope of figuring out. Why not cut to the chase?
Of course, it's anyone's right to use the term "synthetic" as a synonym for "high end." That's technically a wrong use of the word, but it ain't the first and it won't be the last. Everyone says shocks or struts when the real word is dampers, and no one expects that to change any time soon. Life's too short to quibble about this stuff anyway.
Just remember that splitting hairs about what is or isn't "truly synthetic" is no different from a playground battle over whose imaginary robot has a bigger laser cannon. You'd never know, anyway -- and even if you could, it wouldn't matter.
It really is that simple.
_________________________________________________________
There are a lot of arguments about what oil is or isn't "really synthetic." This is because the line between "synthetic" and "not synthetic" has faded.
Here's why:
It's just not a useful distinction any more.
It's important to remember why the line was drawn in the first place: up until 20-30 years ago, the only way to get better performance than a conventional oil was to use base stocks that were entirely synthesized. Hence, "synthetic" = "better."
Things have changed in a big way since then. It's now possible to get that kind of performance from a base stock that is derived from crude oil, but chemically modified. "Derived from crude oil" means conventional, right? But it's chemically modified, like synthetic. So, which is it?
What about a base stock that is like the above, but built up (i.e. synthesized) from methane like a traditional synthetic? The process is like the synthetic, but the product is like the weird conventional/synthetic hybrid. Again, which is it?
It's neither. And both. And it doesn't matter.
The only reason the oil companies still use the word "synthetic" is that people think it means "high-end." Think about that for a second and let the irony sink in. The oil companies use the term "synthetic" -- and charge a lot of money for it -- because people sit around and play armchair quarterbacks about the labeling. In other words, all the Internet dust-ups about what is "real synthetic" or "fake synthetic" are part of the reason the oil companies use those meaningless labels in the first place!
Now, think about WHY you care what's in your oil. The reason is that we want an oil that works well for us. That can be estimated from from its specs and approvals, without requiring you to know even the first thing about what it's made of. If an oil carries Honda HTO-06 approval, you can be totally sure it'll do a great job of controlling high-temp deposits in a turbocharged engine. If it carries Mercedes-Benz 229.5 approval, you know it's a good long-drain oil for high-performance gasoline engines. If it has a high viscosity index with a low HTHS viscosity, it might be great for fuel economy but not very shear-stable. We don't have to know anything about how the base oils were made.
To put it simply: If it performs well, it could be made of canola oil and broken dreams, and that wouldn't matter. If it performs poorly, it could be made of unicorn dust and the blood of kings, and that wouldn't matter.
The QUALITY and PROPERTIES of the base stock are what matter, combined with HOW THEY ARE USED in the total formulation. The terms "synthetic" and "non-synthetic" have nothing to do with quality and properties. They're about how oil is manufactured -- and even on that point, the line between them is blurry.
One could argue that the Group 1 through 5 classification is still worth something because it also encompass a few basic properties like viscosity index (higher group number = higher VI). But even that system doesn't tell you much because you could still have a terrible oil with "higher" base stocks, or a great oil with "lower" base stocks.
And even if any of this DID matter, there's still the fact that you'd never know enough about what different oils are made of! The companies will never divulge their actual formulations. All they ever do is tell you certain aspects that they think will sound best to you, while keeping the important details a secret. And as we all know, the devil is in the details.
Meanwhile, performance data -- in the form of approvals and specs -- are readily available and easy to match with your application.
So, let's stop making a fuss about labeling and focus instead on what really matters:
Can the oil perform, or can it not?
That's what we really care about, and it's what we have some hope of figuring out. Why not cut to the chase?
Of course, it's anyone's right to use the term "synthetic" as a synonym for "high end." That's technically a wrong use of the word, but it ain't the first and it won't be the last. Everyone says shocks or struts when the real word is dampers, and no one expects that to change any time soon. Life's too short to quibble about this stuff anyway.
Just remember that splitting hairs about what is or isn't "truly synthetic" is no different from a playground battle over whose imaginary robot has a bigger laser cannon. You'd never know, anyway -- and even if you could, it wouldn't matter.
It really is that simple.
