PROPOSED STICKY: On "real" vs. "fake" synthetics

[ledslinger]

The topic isn't performance, it is identification of base stock origin, refined/processed vs synthesized.

If you think it irrelevant, only consider a lubricant's performance important, not what its made of, or just don't care, this thread may not be interesting.

 

[Solarent]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: Solarent
for clarity it would be good to offer a definition of API groups I & II as conventional, and III, IV & V as synthetic. (Even if you don't agree this is widely accepted in the industry)

For example
III - Synthetics derived from petroleum sources (including GTL)
IV - Synthetics derived from PAO
V - Others

True, but not really on topic.

What's useful to engineers is one thing; what's useful to everyday people trying to make a call about engine oil is something else.

Bickering about base oils is almost always unproductive for everyday people. Bickering about "synthetic" vs. "non-synthetic" is worse than unproductive. That's the point.



I agree with your point - but you also said this:
Quote:
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(You should add: "of the finished oil." . 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.


In my opinion the line isn't blurry at all. And if this is going to be a sticky, I think explaining the groups will be helpful. In your post, you assume that many of the readers are already knowledgable, but really many of them aren't and that's how a lot of these unproductive bickering threads get started. (By someone new asking a seemingly innocent question)

 

[d00df00d]

Fair points. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Brian Barnhart]

As long as people are willing to pay a considerable premium for oils marketed as “synthetic”, and those oils marketed as “synthetic” offer greater profit for the oil companies, the use of the term “synthetic” isn’t likely to change. This situation is further ensured by API/ILSAC who makes no distinction between “synthetic” and “conventional” in their oil classifications.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: Brian Barnhart
API/ILSAC who makes no distinction between “synthetic” and “conventional” in their oil classifications.

And rightfully so, since "synthetic" is not a spec.

 

[s1mp13m4n]

Thank you for this thread. Yes, it should be a sticky. Just for fun, do not forget Amsoil's use of the term "hydrocracked" to prove that their oil is a real synthetic while some others are fake. LOL

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: s1mp13m4n
Just for fun, do not forget Amsoil's use of the term "hydrocracked" to prove that their oil is a real synthetic while some others are fake. LOL

And just for fun, some of Amsoil's oils are hydrocracked.

 

[Trav]

Originally Posted By: Solarent
I like the premise, for clarity it would be good to offer a definition of API groups I & II as conventional, and III, IV & V as synthetic. (Even if you don't agree this is widely accepted in the industry)

For example
III - Synthetics derived from petroleum sources (including GTL)
IV - Synthetics derived from PAO
V - Others

I also propose if they make this a sticky they first have to get rid of another one, I hate it when the first page of threads is half filled up with stickies (even if they are useful)


Thats why this article is not really Bitog relevant, Bitog is not just a NA forum but international
In Germany there is a legal definition of synthetic and conventional.
When you buy a full synthetic there it is, top shelf, usually a bend of group IV and V with no I, II or III by law.

Under this system its a safe bet that the full synthetic will outperform any other oil that isn't lasted as one on the shelf and by a very wide margin.
It is the best, it performs the best and it is the longest lasting. Even some well known oils tried to go American definition synthetic (AKA a dino based synthetic or blend) and found the needed to go back to a true synthetic oil even though the US formula met specs and worked well in America for the OCI recommended it didn't work in Germany for the 18K mile OCI in use there.

The labeling gave the switch away, it has to conform to legal guidelines.
Fact is a BMW LL 04 oil in the US may very well be a true synthetic but because the labeling laws are so meaningless we will never know only guess. With the law there is no guesswork.

 

[wemay]

I'm in Trav's corner here. We all know the merits of GrpIII, that isn't up for discussion. But accepting that they are synthetics is fair game. No matter how many approvals are found on the bottle. We tread a slippery slope when accepting marketing terms as fact, and I don't feel it is my place to defend these companies for their labels. I do agree that no matter what Grp designation the oil falls under, if it meets the required certs, it'll do the job.

 

[Cujet]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: Cujet
Group III synthetics are still unable to handle the heat of certain turbocharger shafts. The difference is that modern turbo's are designed to delay failure regardless of oil type. However, that does not mean coking has been avoided. The shaft regularly reaches 900 degrees F and no type of water cooled housing stops that.

Good point. So what's the implication for the OP?


Knowing what you are purchasing matters. In fact, I'd argue that it matters more today, than every before. Ford is cranking out "Ecoboost" engines at a frantic pace. Those turbochargers cost as much as some replacement engines! Keeping those turbo's alive with oils that are known performers will serve some people very well. Others will have clean engines and coked turbo internals.

I keep my vehicles a very long time. I'd rather postpone expensive repairs using valid information.

 

[JAG]

Viscometrics at very low temperatures is one area in which PAOs generally significantly outperform Group III basestocks. They are a major reason that Mobil 1 0W-20 (regular and EP) and 0W-30 have such good low temperature viscometrics. The PAO in them also benefits their volatility. To some people, those traits are worth having. The major competitors' oils in those viscosity grades using more Group III than Mobil 1 is using generally fall short in low temp.viscometrics. This is not an endorsement of Mobil 1; it just happens to serve as an example for my point.

With some oils, their manufactures do provide a partial or complete description of the basestocks that are used.

I think that using the measure of goodness of "does the oil do the job or not" is overly simplistic, at least when the requirements of what constitutes success and failure are poorly set. Motor oil performance is more nuanced than something simple like a phone charging cord where little else matters than does it function and how long it continues to function. Fuel economy benefits are one example of a performance aspect that "does it work or not" does not apply to. A suitable question could be how much money will oil A save me compared to oils B, C, and D? Another reasonable measure of goodness someone may have is how long of an OCI interval can I use oils A, B, C, and D given such and such performance requirements (ending TBN, TAN, viscosity change, etc)?

 

[Nate1979]

Originally Posted By: Trav
Originally Posted By: Solarent
I like the premise, for clarity it would be good to offer a definition of API groups I & II as conventional, and III, IV & V as synthetic. (Even if you don't agree this is widely accepted in the industry)

For example
III - Synthetics derived from petroleum sources (including GTL)
IV - Synthetics derived from PAO
V - Others

I also propose if they make this a sticky they first have to get rid of another one, I hate it when the first page of threads is half filled up with stickies (even if they are useful)


Thats why this article is not really Bitog relevant, Bitog is not just a NA forum but international
In Germany there is a legal definition of synthetic and conventional.
When you buy a full synthetic there it is, top shelf, usually a bend of group IV and V with no I, II or III by law.

Under this system its a safe bet that the full synthetic will outperform any other oil that isn't lasted as one on the shelf and by a very wide margin.
It is the best, it performs the best and it is the longest lasting. Even some well known oils tried to go American definition synthetic (AKA a dino based synthetic or blend) and found the needed to go back to a true synthetic oil even though the US formula met specs and worked well in America for the OCI recommended it didn't work in Germany for the 18K mile OCI in use there.

The labeling gave the switch away, it has to conform to legal guidelines.
Fact is a BMW LL 04 oil in the US may very well be a true synthetic but because the labeling laws are so meaningless we will never know only guess. With the law there is no guesswork.

Germany's definition is more marketing than the US. Gp III is just as much a synthetic product as IV and V unless someone has found a source of Gp III in the ground?!? Why are the chemical reactions to synthesize GpIII "less" of a chemical synthesis process whereas the chemical reactions to make GpIV or V are? All this is is a marketing designation trying to say IV and V are more synthetic and hiding behind the law to do so. From a scientific standpoint III, IV and V are all synthesized (as opposed to just purified).

As a chemist I'm insulted at the ignorance of the German definition.

 

[Trav]

Hey i didn't write the law and i certainly didn't argue it in court. The law says it isn't synthetic. Period end of story there is no debate, that horse left the barn years ago!
If you think you have information the oil companies chemist didn't know maybe you should argue the case for them. Just sayin.

It is what it is, like it or not. I don't think the court cares if you or anyone else feels wronged or insulted. I am sure engineers working for the oil companies all had their say.
Group III is based on earth oil regardless of what is done to it.
BTW i think the Germans know just a little but about synthetic oils and what it is and isnt. IMO Its a good law and hope they never change it!

 

[turtlevette]

Originally Posted By: Nate1979


Germany's definition is more marketing than the US. Gp III is just as much a synthetic product as IV and V unless someone has found a source of Gp III in the ground?!?
As a chemist I'm insulted at the ignorance of the German definition.


You think group 1 and 2 come straight out of the ground? They are refined. Group 3 is more intensely refined. Its pretty simple for me.

You are a Chemist?

 

[jk_636]

So where do you go to find out what group certain oils are? I wouldn't have the slightest idea where to find information on whether it was a group 3,4 etc. ?

 

[Nate1979]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: Nate1979


Germany's definition is more marketing than the US. Gp III is just as much a synthetic product as IV and V unless someone has found a source of Gp III in the ground?!?
As a chemist I'm insulted at the ignorance of the German definition.


You think group 1 and 2 come straight out of the ground? They are refined. Group 3 is more intensely refined. Its pretty simple for me.

You are a Chemist?



Yes I am a PhD Chemist (but not in oil industry so I learn details every day about this topic).

This is why the definitions of synthetic are stupid. The Groups have nothing to do with synthetic or not. GP II also goes through synthetic processes. What I don't like is that people confuse purification (distillation, solvent refining) which are not chemical reaction type synthetic processes with Synthesis processes (like hydrocracking, GTL, etc).

GTL is GPIII. Is it not synthetic?

 

[KrisZ]

Severely hydrocracked oils require a lot of PPDs and VII to achieve their cold performance properties. These break down rather quickly causing degradation of cold performance, heck even the synthetics, by German standards, had trouble retaining their cold pumpability properties on the extended OCIs, the last time Europe was hit by a really cold winter.

That is why most "synthetics" in NA cannot be used for extended OCIs. They are glorified conventionals, pure and simple.

 

[kschachn]

Agreed. On another thread about this topic I made the case that Germany will eventually be hindered by their own definition some day.

Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Germany's definition is more marketing than the US. Gp III is just as much a synthetic product as IV and V unless someone has found a source of Gp III in the ground?!? Why are the chemical reactions to synthesize GpIII "less" of a chemical synthesis process whereas the chemical reactions to make GpIV or V are? All this is is a marketing designation trying to say IV and V are more synthetic and hiding behind the law to do so. From a scientific standpoint III, IV and V are all synthesized (as opposed to just purified).

 

[kschachn]

I have a minor in chemistry so I only know enough to be dangerous, but I always laugh when people say that Group III severely hydrocracked oils are "purified" or just otherwise just more highly distilled.

Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Yes I am a PhD Chemist (but not in oil industry so I learn details every day about this topic).

This is why the definitions of synthetic are stupid. The Groups have nothing to do with synthetic or not. GP II also goes through synthetic processes. What I don't like is that people confuse purification (distillation, solvent refining) which are not chemical reaction type synthetic processes with Synthesis processes (like hydrocracking, GTL, etc).

GTL is GPIII. Is it not synthetic?

 

[Solarent]

I love how a potential sticky post about how much a waste it is to have futile discussions on real synthetics vs fake synthetics has now devolved into a debate on real vs fake again. Only on BITOG!