Renaming Conventional, SynBlend, and Synthetic.

[RamFan]

Ever since the Castrol and Mobil incident with the BBB deciding in favor of Castrol it seems that ideologies have triumphed over common sense. The current system calls Group I, II, and II+ as conventional, any combination of Group III and Group I, II, or II+ as synthetic blend, any combination of Group III and Group IV or V as Full Synthetic also called "not a real synthetic" by those who disagree with the BBB's decision.

In order to make these arguments go away, and as a step to make oil purchasing less confusing for those who may not be 'in the know' aka the average consumer, I think there should be a revision in how an oil is marketed/labeled. In my opinion the following might be a more appropriate method of labeling motor oil.

Any combination of Group I, II, and II+ should be conventional.
Any combination of Group III, IV, and V should be syn-blends.
Any combination of Group IV and V should be full synthetic.

What do you guys think?

 

[Quattro Pete]

You're opening another can of worms here, trying to establish what is and what isn't a full synthetic.

Group III does not come from the ground. It requires substantial processing, so why can't it be called synthetic?

Also, maybe I'm wrong, but does it really matter to an average consumer (aka not a BITOG member) what the composition is? Aren't performance and approved specifications the most important aspects at the end of the day? A high quality Group III/IV blend combo may offer better performance than a low quality blend of group IV or V. It's not all just about the groups. Add packs play just an important role as the base oils themselves.

More and more mfgs are replacing Group IV with Group III/III+ content nowadays, which does not necessarily make them worse products, because the technology does not stand still.

 

[NateDN10]

It doesn't really matter. Pick an oil that meets the specs you want (whether it's what your owner's manual recommends or some other more stout specification you like better) and call it a day.

 

[RamFan]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
You're opening another can of worms here, trying to establish what is and what isn't a full synthetic.

Group III does not come from the ground. It requires substantial processing, so why can't it be called synthetic?

Also, maybe I'm wrong, but does it really matter to an average consumer (aka not a BITOG member) what the composition is? Aren't performance and approved specifications the most important aspects at the end of the day? A high quality Group III/IV combo may offer better performance than a low quality group IV or V. It's not all just about the groups anymore.



I think that Group III is more of a synthetic than it is a conventional due to how higly refined it is, but none the less it most certainly does come from the ground.

And yes I know this is going to open a can of worms lol, but this is a genuine interest of mine and I think that the current naming system is flawed and it allows some oil companies to charge a whole lot more then they should be able to. Renaming the products could fix this problem.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: RamFan
I think that the current naming system is flawed and it allows some oil companies to charge a whole lot more then they should be able to. Renaming the products could fix this problem.

You're assuming that there needs to be a direct relationship between cost and price. That's not how business works. The idea is to charge for performance. And if you can deliver the same level of performance at a lower mfg cost, my hats off to you. More money for the shareholders. More successful business.

 

[RamFan]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: RamFan
I think that the current naming system is flawed and it allows some oil companies to charge a whole lot more then they should be able to. Renaming the products could fix this problem.

You're assuming that there needs to be a direct relationship between cost and price. That's not how business works. The idea is to charge for performance. And if you can deliver the same level of performance at a lower mfg cost, my hats off to you. More money for the shareholders. More successful business.



While your response handles the economic side, which I genuinly appreciate, I'm always up for a good economic debate. My main purpose was to dive into the science of the basestocks. The pricing was just a secondary point that I slid into the conversation for some stupid reason, so that is my mistake.

 

[Artem]

Originally Posted By: RamFan
Ever since the Castrol and Mobil incident with the BBB deciding in favor of Castrol it seems that ideologies have triumphed over common sense. The current system calls Group I, II, and II+ as conventional, any combination of Group III and Group I, II, or II+ as synthetic blend, any combination of Group III and Group IV or V as Full Synthetic also called "not a real synthetic" by those who disagree with the BBB's decision.

In order to make these arguments go away, and as a step to make oil purchasing less confusing for those who may not be 'in the know' aka the average consumer, I think there should be a revision in how an oil is marketed/labeled. In my opinion the following might be a more appropriate method of labeling motor oil.

Any combination of Group I, II, and II+ should be conventional.
Any combination of Group III, IV, and V should be syn-blends.
Any combination of Group IV and V should be full synthetic.

What do you guys think?





I have to agree with how you labeled things. If there are some highly refined oils, they should be labeled as a blend.

A "full" synthetic oil should only wear the 100% synthetic label.

 

[TTK]

Well let's face it....Group IV and Group V can also "come from the ground". Even if made from natural gas, it comes from the ground.
ALL "synthetic" or "fully synthetic" motor oils, regardless of base stock, are syn-blends because of the additive carrier oil, unless you consider Group III full synthetic.
What I would really like to see is an "ingredients" list on motor oil similar to food.

 

[simple_gifts]

A forced naming system based on basestocks implies a level of performance; that is just wrong.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: simple_gifts
A forced naming system based on basestocks implies a level of performance; that is just wrong.

Thank you. That was really my point. Kudos to you for phrasing it succinctly.

 

[Tom NJ]

Originally Posted By: RamFan
What do you guys think?


Nice idea, but unless you have a plan to make the entire oil industry change the established marketing protocol, it's all academic.

Tom NJ

 

[tinmanSC]

Originally Posted By: simple_gifts
A forced naming system based on basestocks implies a level of performance; that is just wrong.

+1

The labels only have meaning if you intend them to represent a level of performance. This is not the case with the group III vs IV vs V debate. A higher group number does not necessitate better performance. So, the groups are in there rightful place in the current system: no where obvious. Just forget it. Focus on the performance of the product as made by the blender

 

[chubbs1]

RamFan, I agree with you 100% classification wise, but the case for the argument is null because nothing will change at the top and the quality of the major grp.II,II+,III,IV,V are all (for the most part) very good. There are very few oil related failures in PCMO engines barring owner incompetence and design flaw. Most aren't up on lubes like we are and their vehicles are running fine on cheap grp. II and lousy oil filters.

 

[chubbs1]

Originally Posted By: simple_gifts
A forced naming system based on basestocks implies a level of performance; that is just wrong.


Why is it wrong? I doubt you bought a Grp IV (as indicated in your signature) at a premium price if you thought $14 5qt. PYB would be the same performance level. Am I totally misunderstanding you or are you contradicting yourself? I am fully open for suggestions.

 

[CATERHAM]

With the inclusion of GP III oils in the synthetic grouping that pretty much rendered the label "synthetic" a marketing tool although in Europe you still can't slap the "synthetic" label on a GP III based oil.
But quite frankly it is only to motor oil newbies that the label "synthetic" matters.
The bottom line is performance and how that's achieved matters little.

 

[RamFan]

Originally Posted By: simple_gifts
A forced naming system based on basestocks implies a level of performance; that is just wrong.


I don't see how it would imply anymore performance then is currently implied. Assumptions made by the consumer based on how an oil is advertised would exist regardless of how much a labeling system is regulated.

 

[glum]

So a bottle of group II with a single drop of group IV is a "syn blend"?

 

[dwendt44]

Originally Posted By: glum
So a bottle of group II with a single drop of group IV is a "syn blend"?


Technically YES.

Although most blends are 10%-20%. Supposedly, GM's
Dexos 1 oil is ~40%.

 

[SL8R]

Originally Posted By: RamFan
Ever since the Castrol and Mobil incident with the BBB deciding in favor of Castrol it seems that ideologies have triumphed over common sense. The current system calls Group I, II, and II+ as conventional, any combination of Group III and Group I, II, or II+ as synthetic blend, any combination of Group III and Group IV or V as Full Synthetic also called "not a real synthetic" by those who disagree with the BBB's decision.

In order to make these arguments go away, and as a step to make oil purchasing less confusing for those who may not be 'in the know' aka the average consumer, I think there should be a revision in how an oil is marketed/labeled. In my opinion the following might be a more appropriate method of labeling motor oil.

Any combination of Group I, II, and II+ should be conventional.
Any combination of Group III, IV, and V should be syn-blends.
Any combination of Group IV and V should be full synthetic.

What do you guys think?




I think this ruling is 12 years old and civilization as we know it has not collapsed in the interim, nor are the streets clogged with inoperable vehicles that have ground to a halt due to people who were not "in the know" running "not real synthetics", so just let it go.

 

[RamFan]

Originally Posted By: SL8R

I think this ruling is 12 years old and civilization as we know it has not collapsed in the interim, nor are the streets clogged with inoperable vehicles that have ground to a halt due to people who were not "in the know" running "not real synthetics", so just let it go.




This isn't a "people aren't using real synthetics" thread, or a thread trying to push conventional or synthetic oils.

I think that the current legally allowed marketing terms are allowing companies to be slightly deceitful and exploit the ignorance of oil users who do not research the product they use.

Let me be clear, I think the majority of oils today are excellent and will meet user's needs just fine.