Rotella T synthetic base stock?

[Wrehch]

I just read this on another site. What's everyone's thought's?

"It is true that ROTELLA T Synthetic is Group III (not PAO) based, but you must keep in mind that not all Group III base oils are created equal. ROTELLA T Synthetic is made with Shell's XHVI base oil, which unlike other Group IIIs does not begin as distilled crude oil, hence of all Group III base oils, XHVI is truly the only one that can legitimately be called "synthetic." XHVI is a wax isomerate, meaning that it is made from the slack wax removed from distilled crude in normal solvent dewaxing. This slack wax is catalytically transformed (isomerized) and hydrofinished into a chemically pure base oil which rivals PAO in virtually every category. There are other "synthetic" oils out there based on Group III, but Shell's is unique in that it uses XHVI base oil. Chevron and Petro-Canada produce Group III base oils that come close to XHVI, but even though these oils are all hydroprocessed and utilize the same type of isomerization technology employed in the making of XHVI, they are not the same thing. Only XHVI is made from pure petroleum slack wax and its CAS number is 92026-09-4. The CAS number for the more typical all-hydroprocessed Group III base oils is 64742-54-7. If you want to know what your "synthetic" oil is made from, take a look at the MSDS and look for these numbers. (The CAS number for PAO is 68037-01-4)."

 

[jmac]

Sounds like what has already been posted on this site.

 

[Wrehch]

I must have missed that post or post's. I didn't realize it was processed from slack wax.

 

[Tempest]

92026-09-4 is not a valid CAS#.

 

[another Todd]

So why does that make it a better group III. I am skiddish of putting anything in my engine that is made of "wax". And, I thought the additive pac was more important than the base oil.

 

[Steve S]

Quote:

---

I am skiddish of putting anything in my engine that is made of "wax".

---

What about the Rotella made from wax makes you skiddish? ever see crude oil? How about gas before it is made into PAO?

 

[-SyN-]

Check the used oil analysis

I have seen alot of great ones.
Very good oil.
I guess it depends on your OCI.
I wouldn't go past 6K miles without a used oil analysis.

 

[another Todd]

I actually have a bottle of crude oil from Alaska. If you let it sit all the crude drains off the glass, almost completely and leaves the glass clear or nearly so. Now, when I think of wax, I think of parafin and it being a solid causing sludge in the engine. So again, why is a group III made out of wax better than a different group III?

 

[JHZR2]

because when you do severe processing of a feedstock, the form that it was before is irrelevant - you are making severe changes, that form new, thermodynamically stable compounds that are happy as-is, and are not going to do anything else funny unless reacted again.

Here is an example: If I take natural gas, and steam reform it to CO and Hydrogen, then do a synthesis reaction to make it into a different distribution of various hydrocarbons, say diesel, does it care what form it was before???

Another example - in hydrodesulfurization reactors in refineries, they steam reform natural gas to make hydrogen, to help crack open the thiophenic molecules (sulfur carriers). Now, why can they use natural gas to do this??? why not electrolyze water to do this??? It would be cleaner... Why? because it is what is cheap, and because the hydrogen does not care if it came from a cracked diesel, or a natural gas, or an electrolyzer. It has changed form, and does not cre, as it is thermodynamically stable.

Mass is conserved, energy is conserved, feedstock is irrelevant, so long as the precursors (gasoline or NG in my case, slack wax in yours) dilutes the new product. In a refining process, a distillation should take care of that, as the molecular weights are likely very different.

So, all Im saying is that within chemical reactions, generally the new product will not care where it came from, so long as any byproducts of its feedstock do not create significant impurity or have some effect upon the final product.

Based upon results and the arenas where XVHI is used, we can be reasonably sure that Shell does not allow any bad thins to happen, and that the basestock works quite well.

Hope this helps!

JMH

 

[another Todd]

OK, I think I got it now. Thanks

 

[BMWR1150GS]

Quote:

---

because when you do severe processing of a feedstock, the form that it was before is irrelevant - you are making severe changes, that form new, thermodynamically stable compounds that are happy as-is, and are not going to do anything else funny unless reacted again.

Here is an example: If I take natural gas, and steam reform it to CO and Hydrogen, then do a synthesis reaction to make it into a different distribution of various hydrocarbons, say diesel, does it care what form it was before???

Another example - in hydrodesulfurization reactors in refineries, they steam reform natural gas to make hydrogen, to help crack open the thiophenic molecules (sulfur carriers). Now, why can they use natural gas to do this??? why not electrolyze water to do this??? It would be cleaner... Why? because it is what is cheap, and because the hydrogen does not care if it came from a cracked diesel, or a natural gas, or an electrolyzer. It has changed form, and does not cre, as it is thermodynamically stable.

Mass is conserved, energy is conserved, feedstock is irrelevant, so long as the precursors (gasoline or NG in my case, slack wax in yours) dilutes the new product. In a refining process, a distillation should take care of that, as the molecular weights are likely very different.

So, all Im saying is that within chemical reactions, generally the new product will not care where it came from, so long as any byproducts of its feedstock do not create significant impurity or have some effect upon the final product.

Based upon results and the arenas where XVHI is used, we can be reasonably sure that Shell does not allow any bad thins to happen, and that the basestock works quite well.

Hope this helps!

JMH

---

SO JMH, should I switch from Delvac 1300 15w40 to Rotella T for use in my CAT 3126 diesel? It pushes a 26,000 lb. motor home.

What's your recommendation?

 

[JHZR2]

Quote:

---

SO JMH, should I switch from Delvac 1300 15w40 to Rotella T for use in my CAT 3126 diesel? It pushes a 26,000 lb. motor home.

What's your recommendation?

---

all of the HDEO's, 5w-40 and 15w40 from major manufacturers are excellent. However, youll find that the trend is that we are moving to 5w-40, with no ill-effects. The spread, the VIs, etc. are very shear stable, and they work great.

synthetic 5w-40 oils are a really good move, IMO - if you can justify the cost. For a daily driver that is specced for 15w40, a 5w-40 is a prudent move, as it has better cold start properties. For long-haul engines, that arent started/stopped as much, it may be a moot point, but the extreme operations performance may be a useful benefit, as well as the ablity to extend oil change intervals.

If it were my vehicle, Id be going to a syn 5w-40, especially considering the deal that rotella syn and schaeffer's 5w-40 are. Then again, Id be extending OCIs with UOA, to help offset the cost, and would not mind the benefit that syn oils add in their robustness under severe ops.

It comes back to the economics for your driving profile, your use, your change intervals, etc.

IMO it is a smart move, and I'd do it.

Good luck!

JMH

 

[BillionPa]

its like if crude oil is a cow, Shell XHVI is perfectly cooked filet mignon, and "lesser" Grp3 oils are T-bone, with some parts you just cant eat..... wait, what?