I think the lines are blurred now with some of the better Gr3 oils.
Quaker State Euro 5W-40 not GTL(?)
- Thread starter jeremy94
- Start date
I'm not sure what you're getting at in your first statement. GTL is a group III base stock that is derived from a synthetic feedstock. Yes, that is correct.
https://www.shell.com/what-we-do/oil-and-natural-gas/gas-to-liquids.html
For those who want to fully understand the chemistry of the process:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer–Tropsch_process
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/14/4202
Ed
Does have a nice approval list on the back of the bottle!!!
....a synthetic feed stock which in turn is derived from natural gas. Be concise. Synthetic feedstocks also have other sources. It has to be natural gas derived synthetic feedstock to get a GTL product. That’s all I am saying.
The real question - since QS Euro can be had for $23/5QT whereas PPE costs about $46/5qt in the US…about double the price, is there any real benefit? Say for a high performance vehicle? Daily haulers, probably not worth it and a shorter interval may be more beneficial.
Especially not when Mobil 1 ESP is on the shelf at Walmart for $28.
4WD
$50 site donor 2025
Snagged it!
Considering that they are both Group III and qualify for the same interchange, no. If an approval had a specific VI or saturates requirement then it wouldn’t require a GTL base stock per se. Other Group III bases can meet that, or a blend. Nothing would “require” it to be GTL produced.
Perhaps some ultra-low viscosity oils likes 0w16 where GTL can be substituted for PAO but crude based Gr3 cannot.
GTL is superior to G3 crude in terms of NOACK.
Dated but relevant article from Infineum https://www.infineuminsight.com/en-gb/articles/uncertainty-ahead-for-base-stocks/
Last edited:
Of course it can as long as the VI, saturates and other attributes are acceptable. A GTL base Group III requires less hydrocracking to achieve those results but there are high-quality Group III bases besides those derived from GTL.
Are there any low viscosity crude-based Gr3 which match that of GTL? Genuinely interested because I looked before posting and couldn't find any info.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
That's a good question. GTL vs VISOM vs Yubase for example:
Shell GTL 4:
KV100: 3.8-4.2cSt
CCS: 1,000cP
Pour: -30C
Noack: 12%
Flash: 215C
VISOM 4:
KV100: 3.9-4.1cSt
CCS: 1,650cP
Pour: -18C
Noack: 14.8%
Flash: 200C
YU-4 plus:
KV100: 4.2cSt
CCS: 1,190cP
Pour: -18C
Noack: 13.5%
Flash: N/A
Plus GTL is a precursor anyway, so you can make any grade you want including fuels. GTL is gas-to-liquids and the plants synthesize any molecular weight molecules that are useful (online they state that lubricants are actually a minor part of the production at the Pearl plant). The same is generally true for any hydrocracked product. I’d say that for a GTL product the real advantage is the lack of contaminates, not a specific viscosity.
Plus the fact they get to utilize all the stranded gas that was otherwise flared. Just don’t ask the cost of the plant.
Plus the fact they get to utilize all the stranded gas that was otherwise flared. Just don’t ask the cost of the plant.
Thanks for the clarification!
For some reason, I can't get excited about the hydrocracking levels and/or the starting base stock considering that companies are always innovating or tweaking stuff.
Maybe 5% of the elite on bitog care about that. I apologize in advance if that % is much higher if not lower!
And on top of the base stock, there are other variables like add packs, etc.
I can only look at the approvals or a specific approval if or when I want to be selective. You already read that some previously higher group or PAO oil are now Group III or 3+, etc.
Let's say one oil has a lower pour point or this base vs. that but for example has an inferior vm or add pack ... How do you account for that?
Companies can and will tweak the formulation for the better or the price but they can't tweak the spec or the tests they have to pass or the approvals!
I always seek the YouTube approvals before I purchase an oil.
