Renaming Conventional, SynBlend, and Synthetic.

[Tgator]

I can see both sides of this...on the one hand, performance certainly is the bottom line. But then...I don't want to do UOAs with every oil change, trying different oils to establish for myself what the relative levels of performance are. Not that that would necessarily be all that valid anyway...what with changes of season, driving pattern, miles on engine, etc. Not to mention that you might conclude that oil xyz was the best...but then the mfg changes the formula, the competition does the same...
So how does one really arrive at a measurement of performance for the bucks? Theory, VOAs, UOAs, anecdotal evidence, opinion, heresay? Not saying that none of those have value, but...you guys enlighten me please, I'm not aware of anything I'd call a legitimate, unbiased, non-sponsored, comprehensive set of evidence of various oils' relative performance.
So...absent that, as someone said, it would maybe be informative, if not necessarily conclusive, to have a list of ingredients and their porportions. At least then you'd know you're not paying for the priciest ingredients but getting mid-grade contents.

 

[RamFan]

Originally Posted By: Tgator
I'm not aware of anything I'd call a legitimate, unbiased, non-sponsored, comprehensive set of evidence of various oils' relative performance.


Here ya go: http://www.pqiamerica.com/

 

[Gene K]

If I were going to change something I would simply require the manufacturer to disclose the rough percentages on the back of the bottle. IE 60% GIII, 20% GIV (PAO), 10% GV (POE) and 10% GI (Carrier).

 

[aquariuscsm]

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 agree.

 

[ckmarsh]

I use group 3 oil but you can only lable it as a full syn in the US. so in the usa they can put 10% group 3 oil in a bottle of group 1 or 2 oil and call it syn-blends you dont have any way of knowing what you have and sending them e mails dont work so the truth is its deceitful .
Someone said mobil has PAO in it but how would you know they would never tell me anything but at least I know full syn is a group 3 and a good base oil.

I am really glad I found this website its helped me a lot.

 

[RF Overlord]

First, someone has to define the meaning of "full". I take it to mean "...as opposed to partial." as in full-synthetic versus synthetic-blend. I would call Group IV and V oils "true" synthetics, but I'm not sure that is any less confusing to the average Joe.

The whole thing boils down to this: do the so-called "full synthetic" oils perform at a higher level than "synthetic-blend" oils...and do those in turn perform at a higher level than "conventional" oils? If so, then the current naming system is valid based on perceived performance.

 

[sangyup81]

Your definition of synthetic blend implies that Group III is always mixed with Group IV or Group V and it is not always

In Europe, they call oils with Group III Synthetic Technology which is different enough from Full Synthetic over there

 

[A_Harman]

When I read the first post in this thread, I swore I wasn't going to post in it because it's a moot subject, but I just can't help throwing in my .02:

Group III is not synthetic oil. By definition, synthetic means "put together from smaller pieces." This is not what happens in the process of making GrpIII base stocks. The refiner starts off with long chains of paraffins and cracks them down to short chains, then rearranges them by isomerization. Whoever it was that decided to let Castrol call glorified GrpII "synthetic" made a mistake. But now that the camel has his nose under the tent, we're stuck with a debased definition of the concept of "synthetic oil."

 

[BobFout]

Originally Posted By: A_Harman
When I read the first post in this thread, I swore I wasn't going to post in it because it's a moot subject, but I just can't help throwing in my .02:

Group III is not synthetic oil. By definition, synthetic means "put together from smaller pieces." This is not what happens in the process of making GrpIII base stocks. The refiner starts off with long chains of paraffins and cracks them down to short chains, then rearranges them by isomerization. Whoever it was that decided to let Castrol call glorified GrpII "synthetic" made a mistake. But now that the camel has his nose under the tent, we're stuck with a debased definition of the concept of "synthetic oil."


Synthetic means not found naturally. Man-made.

 

[RamFan]

Originally Posted By: BobFout
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
When I read the first post in this thread, I swore I wasn't going to post in it because it's a moot subject, but I just can't help throwing in my .02:

Group III is not synthetic oil. By definition, synthetic means "put together from smaller pieces." This is not what happens in the process of making GrpIII base stocks. The refiner starts off with long chains of paraffins and cracks them down to short chains, then rearranges them by isomerization. Whoever it was that decided to let Castrol call glorified GrpII "synthetic" made a mistake. But now that the camel has his nose under the tent, we're stuck with a debased definition of the concept of "synthetic oil."


Synthetic means not found naturally. Man-made.


Since my [censored] is comprised of the foods I eat, and processed foods are not found naturally, I guess that means my [censored] is man-made/synthetic.

An element of something being synthetic is a chemical change, to the best of my knowledge Group III oils are not chemically altered. I don't believe Group III is conventional, but they are more of a pseudo-synthetic, meaning they are closer to synthetic then they are conventional. Completely IMO.

 

[BobFout]

Originally Posted By: RamFan
Originally Posted By: BobFout
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
When I read the first post in this thread, I swore I wasn't going to post in it because it's a moot subject, but I just can't help throwing in my .02:

Group III is not synthetic oil. By definition, synthetic means "put together from smaller pieces." This is not what happens in the process of making GrpIII base stocks. The refiner starts off with long chains of paraffins and cracks them down to short chains, then rearranges them by isomerization. Whoever it was that decided to let Castrol call glorified GrpII "synthetic" made a mistake. But now that the camel has his nose under the tent, we're stuck with a debased definition of the concept of "synthetic oil."


Synthetic means not found naturally. Man-made.


Since my [censored] is comprised of the foods I eat, and processed foods are not found naturally, I guess that means my [censored] is man-made/synthetic.

An element of something being synthetic is a chemical change, to the best of my knowledge Group III oils are not chemically altered. I don't believe Group III is conventional, but they are more of a pseudo-synthetic, meaning they are closer to synthetic then they are conventional. Completely IMO.


Never walked in the woods have ya? Bear scat, deer scat, everywhere a scat scat.

Group III oils, especially with GTL, bear little to no resemblance to what they started as.

 

[A_Harman]

To the best of my knowledge, GrpIII oils are not GTL. Classic syn oils were GTL, produced by polymerization of ethylene gas. That adheres to the definition I put in my first post: "Put together from smaller pieces."

GrpIII is analytic: "Broken down from larger pieces."

 

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted By: BobFout
Synthetic means not found naturally. Man-made.


By that definition, any motor oil can be considered synthetic because fractional distillation changes the form of the crude oil into one that is not found naturally.

 

[BobFout]

Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Originally Posted By: BobFout
Synthetic means not found naturally. Man-made.


By that definition, any motor oil can be considered synthetic because fractional distillation changes the form of the crude oil into one that is not found naturally.


It must be close enough to the original since it's still called conventional oil, and Group III different enough to be called synthetic. There are quantifiable metrics and parameters.

Conventional still can't handle the same conditions as synthetic (even Group III). Something must be different in the base stocks

 

[RamFan]

Originally Posted By: BobFout
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Originally Posted By: BobFout
Synthetic means not found naturally. Man-made.


By that definition, any motor oil can be considered synthetic because fractional distillation changes the form of the crude oil into one that is not found naturally.


It must be close enough to the original since it's still called conventional oil, and Group III different enough to be called synthetic. There are quantifiable metrics and parameters.

Conventional still can't handle the same conditions as synthetic (even Group III). Something must be different in the base stocks

Yes however a Group III also can not handle some situations as well as a Group IV or Group V. So too call Group III oils under the synthetic name just as you would a Group IV or V is equally false. There needs to be some differentiation.