Real synhetic oil??

Messages
3
Location
Sacramento
i posted a message a while ago. What a nice experience. Thanks for the quick response. Well! Correct me if i am wrong: The Castrol Full Synhetic, Valvoline Ful Syn and Mobile 1 are not real full synhetic oil???? How about Pennzoil Synhetice-so far, no one said it's a scam????? If that's the case, i can only limit myself to buy Pennzoil Oil-Full Syn from "WALMART"? What do you think? Thanks so much!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Messages
948
Location
st. Louis
Of all the on the shelf oils you mention, only Mobil 1 is a real synthetic. If you look around you can find info on base oil groups. For a very general summary of base oil groups, here goes....tech heads don't beat me up for generalizing. Group I and II are dino (non-synthetic) oils. Group III is somewhat disputed. It is a very highly refined dino oil. Legally it can be classified as synthetic and performs almost as well as some of the real synthetics. This is the primary base oil for Syntec, Valvoline and Pannzoil 'synthetics'. Don't get Molekule started on this group. Group IV consists of Polyalphaolephins (PAO's). Man-made. Synthetic. Good stuff. Amsoil and Mobil 1 are based heavily on this. Group V....other...mostly esters but also some more advanced and exotic oils. Mobil 1 has esters in addition to the PAO's. Redline is said to be mostly esters. As for real synthetic blends, Schaeffer's is Groups II and IV.
 
Messages
3,202
Location
Far North East Texas
Valvoline, Castrol, Quaker State, & Pennzoil synthetics(USA) are all group III petroleum based oils, not PAO based, hence not real synthetic. Mobil 1 is PAO based, real synthetic oil.
 

Patman

Staff member
Messages
22,001
Location
Guelph, Ontario
Now that the Syntec 0w30 is from Germany, it's another group 4 full synthetic on the market. The other Syntec viscosities are group 3 though.
 
Messages
8,937
Location
SC
Adding to what Patman said, there is some pretty strong evidence that the Castrol Syntec 0w30 (made in Germany) is mostly a Group V (ester) oil. Its extremely low pour point (-81°F) is the giveaway.
 
Messages
450
Location
Louisville, KY
quote:
Originally posted by G-Man II: Adding to what Patman said, there is some pretty strong evidence that the Castrol Syntec 0w30 (made in Germany) is mostly a Group V (ester) oil. Its extremely low pour point (-81°F) is the giveaway.
Anyone have the HTHS on that oil? Fred... [Smile]
 
Messages
34,201
Location
South Jersey
quote:
Adding to what Patman said, there is some pretty strong evidence that the Castrol Syntec 0w30 (made in Germany) is mostly a Group V (ester) oil. Its extremely low pour point (-81°F) is the giveaway.
It will be nice to have some other group IV's on the shelf other then M1. Mostly esters though would make fairly expensive dont you think?
 

Patman

Staff member
Messages
22,001
Location
Guelph, Ontario
quote:
Originally posted by palmerwmd:
quote:
Originally posted by G-Man II: Adding to what Patman said, there is some pretty strong evidence that the Castrol Syntec 0w30 (made in Germany) is mostly a Group V (ester) oil. Its extremely low pour point (-81°F) is the giveaway.
Anyone have the HTHS on that oil? Fred... [Smile]

Yep, it's 3.6. Not bad for a 30wt oil (although it is a very high 30wt at 12.1 cst at 100c)
 
Messages
450
Location
Louisville, KY
Wow, sounds like a really good oil. Maybe I'll switch to the dark side (30weight oils) someday.... Fred... [Smile] [ May 18, 2003, 08:18 PM: Message edited by: palmerwmd ]
 
Messages
4,478
Location
Southern California
Group-IIIs are NOT merely "highly refined" petroleum oils. These base stocks are severely pressure-heat-catalyst hydro-cracked to the point of isomerizing naphthenic rings into straightline carbon chains and saturating relatively unstable double carbon-to-carbon and carbon-to-oxygen bonds with difficult to displace hydrogen-to-carbon single bonds. As such, according to Chevron's research, more than 90% of the raffinate is converted to desirable lube molecules, and that was the basis upon which the BBB's national advertising division concluded Group-IIIs were entitled to carry the moniker, "synthetic". "Synthetic" is a catch-all term that refers to beginning with one substance and reformulating to a specific, desired compound and/or molecular weight. The two recognized organic chemical processes to achieve that end are "polymerization" (building larger molecules from smaller ones to a desired molecular weight as in ExxonMobil's production of PAOs) and "isomerization" as described previously. The test results comparing Group-IIIs and PAOs are uncomfortably close, and presumably more so with the recent, unofficially designated, "Group-III+" base stocks. My only problem with Group-III based finished lube products is that the respective marketers are trying (and succeeding) in getting a Group-IV price from consumers for a base stock that's MUCH cheaper to produce. The two largest world-wide refiners of Group-III base stocks are the aformentioned ChevronTexaco company and another company you may have heard of - ExxonMobil. (You know, the company that makes Mobil1...) I have a personal suspicion that Mobil will at some point start phasing out PAOs in Mobil1. Not a matter of "if", but rather, "when". Get used to it; the handwriting's on the wall.
 
Messages
4,478
Location
Southern California
G-Man, your well-founded chastening jogged my memory to a fact I neglected to consider when disputing mormit's claim about Group-III base stocks. My survey of available on-line information about Group-IIIs a year ago also uncovered a notation in a Chevron white paper that European producers had developed the earliest Group-III base stocks in the mid or late 1950s through VERY chilled solvent/filtration wax extraction - and, as such would legitimately be considered "very highly refined", indeed. Apologies, mormit. But this technique did not address elliminating or converting naphthenics or aromatics, so the finished product had a low temperatue advantage, but, little else. The development of Group-III base stock production through the technique of severely hydrocracked isomerization came about much later and results in the virtual conversion of naphthenics, aromatics, and most waxes to the good stuff. Not quite as low a pour point as PAOs, but the difference can be easily tended to with a pour point depressant in the final lube product. I believe the severely hydrocracked technique was a Chevron development, but, someone correct me if this is wrong. [ May 19, 2003, 01:35 PM: Message edited by: Ray H ]
 
Messages
308
Location
SF/Bay Area, CA
Without getting into a lot of technospeak, let's discuss the advantages of Group III vs. Group IV base oils. More specifically, where do Group IV oils truly shine? Properly formulated (and this is key) Group III-based oils have been shown to perform equal to or even better than their Group IV-based counterparts in the tests that count relative to what you would expect out of using a Group IV oil, namely, oxidation (hi temp) and low temp viscosity properties. Just because it is made out of a PAO does not categorically mean that it is going to last longer or flow better in industry standard tests. That being said, PAOs still have their place when things get extreme. You can still get an oil so hot as to differentiate Group III and Group IV oils (remember the Mobil frying pan commercial?). Likewise, you can get an oil so cold to differentiate Group III vs. Group IV. From my perspective, if you live in Alaska or do a lot of towing in the desert or you just want that added level of insurance (or, if as a frequenter of this site, you are heavily into oil analysis and extended drains), Group IV oils offer a distinct advantage. For the rest of the world, Group III oils are sufficiently superior. Just remember...being a Group IV does not solely make an oil the "best".
 

MolaKule

Staff member
Messages
21,908
Location
Iowegia - USA
quote:
Group-IIIs were entitled to carry the moniker, "synthetic". "Synthetic" is a catch-all term that refers to beginning with one substance and reformulating to a specific, desired compound and/or molecular weight. The two recognized organic chemical processes to achieve that end are "polymerization" (building larger molecules from smaller ones to a desired molecular weight as in ExxonMobil's production of PAOs) and "isomerization" as described previously. The test results comparing Group-IIIs and PAOs are uncomfortably close, and presumably more so with the recent, unofficially designated, "Group-III+" base stocks.
I find it interesting, that prior to the recent BBB marketing ruling fiasco between Mobil and Castrol, the technical definition of Synthetic was stable and very well defined. There have been constant attempts to redefine synthetics in order to market the Group III's as such and to command a higher price against the unsuspecting public. In the context of the chemistry and the rheology of lubricating fluids, the definition of a synthetic lubricant is not that it is reformulated, but structurally built up from basic monomers and other building blocks through polmerization, to perform in a "planned and predictable manner;" an oil that is not simply transformed hydrocarbons, but an oil that is derived from basic molecular hydrocarbons, polymerized, and then cataylized, if necessary, to yield a fluid that in no way has the same strucure as it's petroleum cousins. I have yet to see anyone show that the isomerization process alone follows that definition.
 
Messages
8,937
Location
SC
quote:
Originally posted by 68redlines73: Properly formulated (and this is key) Group III-based oils have been shown to perform equal to or even better than their Group IV-based counterparts in the tests that count relative to what you would expect out of using a Group IV oil, namely, oxidation (hi temp) and low temp viscosity properties.
I have never seen a published study that shows any Group III base oil outperforming PAO. Group III is always close, but PAO always "wins" in EVERY category. (Just go to Chevron's base oil page and look at the comparison of their UCBO to PAO.) Can you point us to the study or studies you are referring to that show a Group III outperforming PAO?
 
Messages
8,937
Location
SC
quote:
Originally posted by 68redlines73: Try this for starters...read the section entitled SYNTHETIC PERFORMANCE. [Smile]
I'm quite familiar with this study. Take a look at Fig 12, Fig 13, and Fig 14. What you'll see is that Group III comes CLOSE to PAO performance, but it NEVER matches it or exceeds it.
 
Messages
8,937
Location
SC
quote:
Originally posted by Ray H: Group-IIIs are NOT merely "highly refined" petroleum oils. ...
Ray brings up a valid point. However, IMO, the only Group III base oils that can lay claim to the term "synthetic" are wax isomerates, where the feedstock is nothing but waxy raffinate or slack wax. The so-called "new" Group III+ category are wax isomerates, and they've been around for years. Shell's XHVI is a wax isomerate. Exxon's ExxSyn is, too. Chevron's IsoSyn technology does employ isomeration of the wax elements, but the feedstock is still distilled crude.
 
Messages
308
Location
SF/Bay Area, CA
I'm glad you're very familiar with this article. First, I quote:
  • Pour Point - Fully formulated Group III-based lubricants are very responsive to pour point depressant additives, and can demonstrate pour points of -50°C or below when the Group III base oil are manufactured with modern isomerization catalysts such as Chevron’s ISODEWAXING® catalyst. Products such as motor oils made with the lighter-grade PAOs, on the other hand, typically have higher pour points than the base fluid, so the gap in final product pour point between PAO-based and UCBO-based lubricants is much smaller than in the base fluids themselves. Moreover, it is entirely possible with modern Group III manufacturing technology to produce base oils of even lower pour point, although this is not currently common in the industry precisely because there is very little need for pour performance below –50°C.
  • Cold Crank Simulator - This performance makes the UCBO very effective for formulating fuel-efficient multi-viscosity engine oils in the 0W-20 to 0W-50 range, one that has historically been achieved only with PAO-based products.
  • Noack Volatility - The viscosity index of modern Group III oils typically match or exceed PAO so they can match the volatility of PAOs at a reasonable distillation cut width.
  • Oxidation Stability - Here Group III oils routinely challenge PAO performance.
You stated "Group III comes CLOSE to PAO performance, but it NEVER matches it or exceeds it". I think the above quotes dispute your position. And when you combine the above statements with the reality that not all blenders and research efforts are equal, the reality of my original statement rings true. Properly formulated oils based on Group III can surpass oils of a similar function based on Group IV oils. Reality is that some companies are able to mix and match base oils and additives better than others (in other words, just because it's made with PAO does not make it better than a similar product made with Group III). Personally, I'd go with a brand that I trust. Part of my trust is built on brands that actually perform research vs. just blend and market.
 
Messages
4,478
Location
Southern California
There may be a little apples-oranges comparisons going on here. Those referenced charts merely compare raw base stocks - and you're right that the Group-III base stocks fall a bit short, G-Man. However, the abstract's claim of Group-III based oils' superiority (VI, CCS Viscosity, Noack volatility, and oxidation stability)* was in reference to finished product. Most of us don't pour raw lube base stock into our engines. I also found the Chevron paper's comment about European formulators substituting Group-IIIs for PAOs in their "synthetics" particularly interesting. (So much for the technical definition of "synthetic"... Or is the term, "synthetic" purely defined by America-centric semantic protocols?) Have Europeans "flipped" again back to PAOs for their synthetic oils? Has it actually been established just what the base stocks of the recently available green-colored German Castrol 0W-30 are? *To be fair to PAOs, this could still be misleading depending on the stability of the additive package that allows the alleged superiority of Group-III finished product. If the Group-III based products' additive package craps out over actual operating temperature time and mileage, PAOs' natural inherent stability could still maintain a protection and performance advantage. [ May 20, 2003, 12:16 PM: Message edited by: Ray H ]
 
Messages
8,937
Location
SC
quote:
Originally posted by 68redlines73: You stated "Group III comes CLOSE to PAO performance, but it NEVER matches it or exceeds it". I think the above quotes dispute your position. And when you combine the above statements with the reality that not all blenders and research efforts are equal, the reality of my original statement rings true. Properly formulated oils based on Group III can surpass oils of a similar function based on Group IV oils. Reality is that some companies are able to mix and match base oils and additives better than others (in other words, just because it's made with PAO does not make it better than a similar product made with Group III). Personally, I'd go with a brand that I trust. Part of my trust is built on brands that actually perform research vs. just blend and market.
Baloney. This article was written by Chevron chemists. The above quotes are nothing but "spin" on how CLOSE Chevron's UCBO comes to the performance of PAO. If you look at the actual tables in the appendix which compare Group III and PAO in various performance tests, it's quite clear that Chevron's Group III does NOT outperform PAO. Are there Group III PCMOs out there that post better specs that some other PAO PCMOs? Yes. Is there a Group III PCMO out there that posts better specs than ANY PAO PCMO? Nope.
 
Top