So who uses Exxon-Mobil EHC basestocks?

[csandste]

On several occasions I've posted the links to Mobil's sheet promoting EHC45 and 65 base stocks. The take is that if a blender uses these Group II base stocks, they won't have to use Group III. If, not, then (about 50%) Group III is necessary for 5w20 and 5w30 SN/SN+ certification. So my question is: What blenders use these Exxon Mobil base stocks? and Are group II, EHC base stocks as good as other refiner's Group III base stocks? I've done some Googling on this and can find no one stating that they use the EHC's. Since most people would think Group III is superior, it's probably not the kind of thing a vendor would promote. I can post the link to EHC base stocks, but I've done that about four times in the last few months. If anyone wants to see it, I can repost again.

 

[OVERKILL]

I've posted it several times as well, including snaps from it. I would wager that the customer list would surprise most people on here, but I am sure it cannot be shared due to reasons of confidentiality.

 

[csandste]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL

I've posted it several times as well, including snaps from it. I would wager that the customer list would surprise most people on here, but I am sure it cannot be shared due to reasons of confidentiality.

OK-- Then the second part of my question. It's every bit as good as Group III. It meets spec and it's all about a good ad pack, base oil counts for little, especially if it's SN+. Agree or disagree?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by csandste

Originally Posted by OVERKILL

I've posted it several times as well, including snaps from it. I would wager that the customer list would surprise most people on here, but I am sure it cannot be shared due to reasons of confidentiality.

OK-- Then the second part of my question. It's every bit as good as Group III. It meets spec and it's all about a good ad pack, base oil counts for little, especially if it's SN+. Agree or disagree?

It's close enough to Group III performance to allow it to stand-in for it in many (not all) applications. It's similar to how Group III can replace PAO in many (not all) applications. So while in both instances the product is not quite as good, it's "good enough"

 

[csandste]

When I got on this board in 2002, there was much more of a belief that a stout add pack was more important than the base stocks. PYB was king. The post below this states just the opposite: that the base stock is everything and that stout add packs are nothing but harmful grit. Constantly new things to provide befuddlement.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by csandste

When I got on this board in 2002, there was much more of a belief that a stout add pack was more important than the base stocks. PYB was king. The post below this states just the opposite: that the base stock is everything and that stout add packs are nothing but harmful grit. Constantly new things to provide befuddlement.

It's a blend of traits and I don't think can be distilled out so easily, despite efforts to do so. Base stocks are a significant component of performance at the extremes, which, while additives help with, they can only help so much. This is why POE is used for jet turbine oil, regardless of additives, Group III or PAO aren't good enough. In a PCMO/HDEO, a properly formulated PAO-based lube will have better oxidation resistance than any of the lower groups. Cold temperature performance? Nothing in any of the groups below PAO can touch it for performance, even with all the PPD's in the world. BUT You can use the "best" base oil and still blend a mediocre product. "Every day" performance relies on a synergistic relationship between the bases and various additives to meet all the typical performance metrics for a lube from cold sump to spirited driving. The proper selection of bases of course plays a role, but it's the overall package that results in the performance. So, personally, I tend to seek out an oil that's got PAO as a base (see signature) but blended by a well-known entity with access to current additive technology. And of course I also look at approvals.

 

[Mainia]

[/quote] It's close enough to Group III performance to allow it to stand-in for it in many (not all) applications. It's similar to how Group III can replace PAO in many (not all) applications. So while in both instances the product is not quite as good, it's "good enough" [/quote] And with that comment, I could easily see our top tier boutique oil companies being on that list too.

 

[sloinker]

Originally Posted by Mainia

It's close enough to Group III performance to allow it to stand-in for it in many (not all) applications. It's similar to how Group III can replace PAO in many (not all) applications. So while in both instances the product is not quite as good, it's "good enough" [/quote] And with that comment, I could easily see our top tier boutique oil companies being on that list too.[/quote] So you are inferring that Driven,Red Line, Amsoil etc. are using group II base stocks and claiming they are group IV and V?

 

[andyd]

I like you guys who can discuss stuff like what is more important: Base stock or add pack.? Adds class to the discussion group. Camrys do fine on " meets or exceeds" Now that that is taken care of, let's fix something.

 

[benjy]

reading in the past i remember that within oil groups quality varies, so likely a top of line group II prolly compares to a bottom of line group III. oil blenders want to keep us in the dark as much as possible while advertising we are the best, instead of actually being so because advertising is cheaper than blending a better product + as usual its always about $$$$. big name oils that advertise + sponsor racing etc must recover $$$ hence higher pricing IMO