" Some Group III base oils outperform POA based Group IV"

[Fasternet]

PAO seems to have an allure to it and has for quite sometime. Don't forget the Moly content too. Can't seem to get away from it here. Yes, we all know it's not the components of the oil but the performance of a finished one.

 

[Deleted member 89374]

Don't forget the Moly content too.

Certain formulators say that Moly lasts much longer as a friction reducer in motor oil than other organic friction reducers.

 

[Scuder]

the exact same oil that Team Penske uses right-out-of-the-bottle in the Verizon IndyCar Series."

Back in the "old days", USAC actually used to monitor stuff like this at the track. I'm not sure if anybody does anymore.
Then again, is it one quart of the production stuff in a 16 quart system with 15 quarts of magic lube? Of maybe this application for 500 miles isn't really that big a deal anyway. Indycar engines are pretty limited these days on specs (rpm, boost, etc) and blown engines are very rare now.

A little over thirty years ago, I took a discarded, empty bottle off the ground from the Penske/Rick Mears pit at a race at Nazareth, PA. I took it to the office on Monday and called Oil City for info on the batch number printed on the bottle. Pennzoil GT 20W-50, batch size was 25,000 gallons. Same stuff as was on the shelf at Kmart.

 

[nthach]

the exact same oil that Team Penske uses right-out-of-the-bottle in the Verizon IndyCar Series."

Back in the "old days", USAC actually used to monitor stuff like this at the track. I'm not sure if anybody does anymore.
Then again, is it one quart of the production stuff in a 16 quart system with 15 quarts of magic lube? Of maybe this application for 500 miles isn't really that big a deal anyway. Indycar engines are pretty limited these days on specs (rpm, boost, etc) and blown engines are very rare now.

As far as I know, all forms of sanctioned racing at the top tiers(NASCAR, NHRA, F1, IndyCar, V8 Supercars, JGTC, DTM) have strict standards for fuel and are highly standardized for engines. I would imagine the oil used in those engines are standardized and all the brand endorsements are marketing speak.

It varies by the specific product. EP 0w20 has 70-80% PAO base, though, IIRC. It is the highest in their product line, I think. Some may have little or even possibly none.

Mobil was proud of the SuperSyn/TriSyn formulation of M1 and it carried a price difference over Syntec and Performax way back in the day. However, with the rise of GTL GIII as well as plentiful supply from South Korea, XOM had to cut corners and introduce a “premium” product with PAO. XOM does make AN and POE basestocks but good luck selling that at an acceptable price point for the consumer.

 

[High Performance Lubricants]

There is a difference in additive response from base oil to base oil. I can tell you conclusively that we have formulations where the additives are exactly the same for both the group III as well as the group IV base oils. When measuring the final product we see better data in the group III than the PAO version. The results would be with respect to oxidation stability via PDSC and RPVOT as well as 4 ball wear.

What an oil does is much more important than what an oil is.

As already stated you will have a hard time solving good cold temperature performance without PAO. (In a straight grade). We recommend the best final product based on the application not what it is formulated with.

David

 

[OVERKILL]

XOM does make AN and POE basestocks but good luck selling that at an acceptable price point for the consumer.

Mobil uses both of those base stocks, in whatever quantity is required, in their Mobil 1 product line. AN's add increased solubility and will dissolve deposits. It also has some slight seal swell capability. However, it isn't extremely polar like POE, so it doesn't produce the issue of surface competition with the additive package. POE has more seal swell capability.

So, if your base oil blend is mostly PAO, which has both poor additive solubility and tends to shrink seals, you can get away with using less POE (so you have less surface competition to deal with, which means your additive package can be lightened a bit) if you add AN's to the mix. This improves the overall formula. Mobil also likely uses AN's (likely without the POE, but that's a guess on my part) in their oils that don't have much if any PAO in them, as an alternative to lower group carrier oils, which will improve the overall performance of the product.

Since XOM produces all of these bases in house, it isn't a big price hit like it would be for other blenders/manufacturers.

 

[IndyFan]

As far as I know, all forms of sanctioned racing at the top tiers(NASCAR, NHRA, F1, IndyCar, V8 Supercars, JGTC, DTM) have strict standards for fuel and are highly standardized for engines. I would imagine the oil used in those engines are standardized and all the brand endorsements are marketing speak.

Mobil was proud of the SuperSyn/TriSyn formulation of M1 and it carried a price difference over Syntec and Performax way back in the day. However, with the rise of GTL GIII as well as plentiful supply from South Korea, XOM had to cut corners and introduce a “premium” product with PAO. XOM does make AN and POE basestocks but good luck selling that at an acceptable price point for the consumer.

Well, it has some great stats and is on rollback at Wallyworld right now for $26.xx per jug. And it has performed well for me. So there's that.

It does now say "Triple Action Formula" on the front, but some weights of EP don't have much PAO and say the same thing, I think.

 

[OVERKILL]

Does all M1 contain PAO? I think not or at least not in the amount one might think.

No, Mobil uses PAO where they need to in order to meet whatever performance targets they've set for a given product. That may be a stay-in-grade requirement for a 0w-xx where a heavier base oil blend is desired, or extended drain capabilities, which is what traditionally drove PAO use in Euro oils.

Basically, if you are trying to make a 0w-xx with low Noack, high base oil viscosity and minimal VII load, you will likely have to use PAO. Its cold temperature performance is simply unrivalled. This doesn't mean the base oil blend needs to be dominated by PAO like Ravenol 0w-40 or HPS's SuperCar 0w-40 (which also uses AN's and POE to counteract PAO's caveats) but if you look at Castrol's Euro 0w-40 or Mobil 1 0w-40, both products keep ending up with PAO in them, and if Castrol could avoid PAO, they absolutely would, like they do with their Euro 5w-40. Remember, this is the company that brought us Group III in the first place to save money, lol.

But, as @Rod Knock alluded to, Mobil will use whatever they feel is necessary, they don't limit themselves to a specific portfolio of base oils. So, often we see varying amounts of PAO in their 0w-xx's, some of them being dominated by it (EP 0w-20, M1 0w-16), some having a decent slug of it (ESP X2 0w-20, FS 0w-40), some having a splash of it (ESP X3 0w-30) and some having none (HM 0w-20, AFE 0w-20). Mobil seems to focus on the performance of the finished product, not the cheapest possible way to make a given grade.

 

[MontePrix28]

There is a difference in additive response from base oil to base oil. I can tell you conclusively that we have formulations where the additives are exactly the same for both the group III as well as the group IV base oils. When measuring the final product we see better data in the group III than the PAO version. The results would be with respect to oxidation stability via PDSC and RPVOT as well as 4 ball wear.

What an oil does is much more important than what an oil is.

As already stated you will have a hard time solving good cold temperature performance without PAO. (In a straight grade). We recommend the best final product based on the application not what it is formulated with.

David

So are you saying that, assuming reasonable oil change intervals, you see group III based oils performing better than PAO based oils? ie comparing a GIII vs PAO based oil both at 5,000 miles, you see better results with the group III oil?

 

[High Performance Lubricants]

So are you saying that, assuming reasonable oil change intervals, you see group III based oils performing better than PAO based oils? ie comparing a GIII vs PAO based oil both at 5,000 miles, you see better results with the group III oil?

With us that is true even for long drain applications. Absolutely. I cannot speak for other companies. We are highly additized compared to commodity oils. That does not mean the same would not be true. It does mean I don’t have first hand knowledge of other peoples formulas to know they would be the same in order to do a true A to B comparison.

Our longest drain products use Group III, AN, and Ester.

David

 

[Cujet]

A little over thirty years ago, I took a discarded, empty bottle off the ground from the Penske/Rick Mears pit at a race at Nazareth, PA. I took it to the office on Monday and called Oil City for info on the batch number printed on the bottle. Pennzoil GT 20W-50, batch size was 25,000 gallons. Same stuff as was on the shelf at Kmart.

That's too funny. I have a kind of similar story. As an ERAU student in Daytona I would wander over to the speedway on Wed for free admission when I heard them testing. I watched a well known race team with "yellow" all over their car, pour quart after quart of M1 into the yellow bottles


I recall the oil being quite thin for the time, maybe 5W-30, and learning that they achieved a higher qualifying speed with the thinner oil vs. the commonly used 20W-50.

Come race day, they used the yellow bottles with good results, as I remember it.

Today, some race teams are able to use amazingly "thin" oils in some very high output engines. Managing oil temperatures exactly has helped make this possible

 

[DirectRejection]

Today, some race teams are able to use amazingly "thin" oils in some very high output engines. Managing oil temperatures exactly has helped make this possible

Agreed !

 

[Jackson_Slugger]

Which if true is really silly if you know how the Group designations are defined and why they are defined that way. Manufacturing processes have nothing to do with them and Annex E even states this in the text. It's all about chemical composition, viscosity index and levels of impurities.

Can you link to the exact page that infers this? I was looking around but I didn't see it.

I don't think so.

They appear to be arguing that a finished product, blended using Group III, can, in some instances and in some areas, out-perform one blended with PAO. Since most of the oil's performance is dictated by the additive package, that's an accurate statement.

And no, as @kschachn noted, GTL is a hydrocracked base oil, which is what makes it Group III. The feedstock is what makes it different, and the Fischer-Tropsch derived feedstock is less waxy, which is what improves the cold temperature performance (amongst other things).

I can't link a page since it has been significantly shortened and simplified and it was a while ago I actually read it, but I am sure that at one point the front page as was actually several links deep and far more comprehensive with at least a page or more on each Group. But here is one of the sniped blurbs that still exist about slightly less than halfway down the page:

Gas-to-Liquid (GTL) base oils:​

The API classifies GTL base oils as Group III or unofficially it has been called, “Group III+.” It is this author’s view that the GTL process results in a “synthesized” oil and should be given a separate API classification as they do PAO, or moved to the Group V classification. A separate, future debate can address this issue and will not be further discussed here in this white paper.

Feel free to argue with the author...

 

[OilUzer]

Few observations:

Most people can handle 10W and 5W covers even more people.
if you really need 0W e.g. some parts of AK or N. US/Canada, etc. you should also get a block heater ...

why get a 0W and a wider spread oil (with higher vm) if it's not really needed? Seems like 0W pushes you more and more into pao/poe territory.
I personally avoid 0W-Thick mainly because of high vm (vii) amounts.
iirc, @Gokhan was saying a high quality grp iii (gtl?) can also get you the 0W.

Also it sounds like there are more challenges to formulate with grp iv/v with regards to seals and the need to have a perfect shrinkage/swelling balance in order to "neutralize" each other ... wouldn't this create more risk?
Not sure if the existing "seal tests" are a quick & dirty test(s) or are a long interval (e.g. 100-200K miles) tests. Maybe they are. idk

Basically, what I'm getting at, if it's really not needed why risk it?
I also don't have any engines that require an oil with a "very high thermal stability and excellent oxidation resistance" ...

btw, I'm not afraid of grp iv/v but came from dino and short oci with very good results (i.e. other parts of my cars fell apart before the engines) ... so a high quality grp iii is big step from that. lol
I pay attention to what approvals or tests the oil passed but don't go out of my way to get a very high % grp iv/v. If some is mixed in there, it's ok. I asked a grp iii question in another thread and I think @OVERKILL said a grp iii (or a high quality? grp iii) is more than enough for an average driver.

If I had a high revving, hot running, fancy European turbo and no speed limits, it would be another story.
Us poor people drive GF-x type of cars.

 

[OVERKILL]

I can't link a page since it has been significantly shortened and simplified and it was a while ago I actually read it, but I am sure that at one point the front page as was actually several links deep and far more comprehensive with at least a page or more on each Group. But here is one of the sniped blurbs that still exist about slightly less than halfway down the page:

One can see the author's point about the building blocks setting it apart (feedstock in this case, which I mentioned) and still understand WHY it falls under the Group III category (because it is hydrocracked). It does have some performance advantages over traditional Group III due to the purity of what comes out of the FT process (and lower wax content) but ultimately it does still go through the same process. The argument for it having its own group is because of the nature of that feedstock and that it goes through FT, a point which does have merit, making it different from other HC bases, but ultimately it is that final HC process that puts it in the Group III category.

Make sense?

Per your original post though:

I think they're arguing that GTL can be on par with GIV and I think the front page basically states that GTL, while considered GIII, could be a V or VI but isn't for technical reasons...

- It can't be Group IV because PAO is the only base in that group. PAO has its own category.
- It COULD be Group V, if it didn't already fall under Group III because it is HC (that's the technical reason you allude to). Both esters and AN's fall under Group V. It's for anything that doesn't fit into the other groups.
- I suppose they could create Group VI and put it in there, but that doesn't really make sense because if it wasn't III, it would be V.

Anyways, the argument being made in the OP is about a finished product though, not about just the base oil, which was the main point I was making in my reply to you.

 

[OVERKILL]

Few observations:

Most people can handle 10W and 5W covers even more people.
if you really need 0W e.g. some parts of AK or N. US/Canada, etc. you should also get a block heater ...

Thing is, that most OEM's are moving toward the 0w-xx oils because of fuel economy benefits, as, more often than not, they have a higher VI. They also tend to be synthetic and with the push for ever increasing performance standards, there's very little reason NOT to go with that Winter rating if the final product can do everything else demanded of it.

why get a 0W and a wider spread oil (with higher vm) if it's not really needed? Seems like 0W pushes you more and more into pao/poe territory.

That's not necessarily true though, it depends on the formulation. A PAO-based 0w-40 may have less VII than an el-cheapo 5w-30 for example.

I personally avoid 0W-Thick mainly because of high vm (vii) amounts.
iirc, @Gokhan was saying a high quality grp iii (gtl?) can also get you the 0W.

Yes, you can definitely blend a 0w-xx with Group III. The problem you run into is that you end up having to use a very light base oil, which increases volatility and requires more VII. So, this makes it more difficult to meet certain performance standards, which is why Castrol 0w-40 and M1 0w-40 both have decent slugs of PAO in them.

Also it sounds like there are more challenges to formulate with grp iv/v with regards to seals and the need to have a perfect shrinkage/swelling balance in order to "neutralize" each other ... wouldn't this create more risk?
Not sure if the existing "seal tests" are a quick & dirty test(s) or are a long interval (e.g. 100-200K miles) tests. Maybe they are. idk

It's a standardized test that's been around for decades, I'm sure it is quite reliable at this juncture. But yes, PAO introduces the challenge, and cost, of having to be blended with something else (usually POE and AN's) to balance out the seal compatibility. If you can meet your performance targets without having to do this dance, why wouldn't you? That's why we only see certain oils with PAO in them.

Basically, what I'm getting at, if it's really not needed why risk it?

It's not a risk really, at this juncture, it's just a cost. That's one of the reasons M1 0w-40 was so well regarded here. It's a premium Euro lube that could often be purchased on sale for a price that didn't make it any more expensive than more conventional peers. Same with Castrol 0w-40. Same with M1 EP 0w-20, which is a wicked bargain for a PAO-based lube.

I also don't have any engines that require an oil with a "very high thermal stability and excellent oxidation resistance" ...

And you don't live in Winnipeg, lol.

btw, I'm not afraid of grp iv/v but came from dino and short oci with very good results (i.e. other parts of my cars fell apart before the engines) ... so a high quality grp iii is big step from that. lol
I pay attention to what approvals or tests the oil passed but don't go out of my way to get a very high % grp iv/v. If some is mixed in there, it's ok. I asked a grp iii question in another thread and I think @OVERKILL said a grp iii (or a high quality? grp iii) is more than enough for an average driver.

If I had a high revving, hot running, fancy European turbo and no speed limits, it would be another story.
Us poor people drive GF-x type of cars.

Yes, I've said that, and it's absolutely true. What matters, as @kschachn has emphasized time and time again, is the performance of the finished product and in many instances, you can even get there using Group II+ (Mobil's EHC bases for example) and Group III together. If you've got an app that calls for Dexos and that blend meets the performance requirements, it's "good enough". Sure, you could spend twice as much or more on a more premium lube, but odds are you won't ever see the difference.

That said, there have been applications where the spec lube just isn't up to the task. Honda's VCM V6 is one such example. A Euro lube holds up much better based on @Trav's experience. There are others I'm sure, but, these are not the majority.

 

[930.engineering]

Mobil uses both of those base stocks, in whatever quantity is required, in their Mobil 1 product line. AN's add increased solubility and will dissolve deposits. It also has some slight seal swell capability. However, it isn't extremely polar like POE, so it doesn't produce the issue of surface competition with the additive package. POE has more seal swell capability.
So, if your base oil blend is mostly PAO, which has both poor additive solubility and tends to shrink seals, you can get away with using less POE (so you have less surface competition to deal with, which means your additive package can be lightened a bit) if you add AN's to the mix. This improves the overall formula. Mobil also likely uses AN's (likely without the POE, but that's a guess on my part) in their oils that don't have much if any PAO in them, as an alternative to lower group carrier oils, which will improve the overall performance of the product.

Thanks again. While not new at all, it apparantly needs to be said every
second day for those ignorant refusing to read the forum and just start
another thread with the ever same questions. I solute you and all those
who have the patience to explain that the 1000th time.

https://www.lube-media.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Lube-Tech062-Newbaseoilsposeachallengeforsolubilityandlubricity.pdf

Thanks. It's all there:

the fact remains that, the greater the degree of hydrotreatment,
the lower the solubility:
Severely hydrotreated base oils, as well as GTL (gas-to-liquid)
base stocks and PAO (polyalphaolefins), are often regarded as
“dry” base oils because they only contain fully saturated nonpolar
hydrocarbon (isoparaffin) molecules.
This trend can be easily seen if aniline point values are compared.
Lower aniline point means higher solvent power. For high-
aromatic products, such as aromatic extracts, the aniline
point is around 20-40°C; for naphthenic base oils, 70-100°C
depending on the degree of refining and viscosity; for Group I
paraffinic base oil, 90 to 110°C; and for Group II-IV base oils,
100-130°C or higher. It is interesting to note that the aniline
point steadily increases with the increasing viscosity of the oil for
oils with identical polarity. For instance, in the series PAO 2, 4, 5,
6, 8, 10, 40, it raises from ca 100°C for the lightest to ca 160°C
for the heaviest homologue. This is because, as can be shown by
thermodynamic arguments based on the Hildebrand solubility
theory, aniline point depends upon the product VM(δanil-δoil)2
where VM is the average molecular volume, and δanil and δoil are
the Hildebrand solubility parameters for the aniline and for the
oil, respectively. Increasing the average molecular volume raises
the aniline point.
Low solubility not only makes it difficult to dissolve some
essential additives, but it also compromises some essential
quality parameters, such as dispersancy and seal compatibility.
For instance, PAOs are unbeatable in terms of pour point and
volatility, and at the same time, have the lowest lubricity and
solubility ranking.
This is normally compensated by using solubility improvers in
finished lubricant formulations. Theoretically, any chemical
compound addition of which causes a drop in aniline point or
an increase in the seal compatibility index in the base oil may be
regarded as a solubility improver. However, in practice, many
other requirements have to be met, such as flash point, pour
point, viscosity index, etc. This limits formulators to one of the
following strategies:
.................
.................
(iii) Blend with synthetic esters.
..................

Basically, what I'm getting at, if it's really not needed why risk it?

What 'risk' exactly are you talking about? Are you blending base
oils and additives or are you just using finished products?

There is no 'pure group 4' PCMO existing. Finished 'PAO based'
engine and transmission oils will contain some group 1, group 2,
group 3 and/or group 5. That's what you can buy. Or miss buying.
However I widely accept what you say about 0W, pour points and
cold performance in general. Perhaps not required for the majority
though many have experienced some cold winter night they didn't
expect. You likely won't run coolant mixed exactly to the lowest
temp you experienced the winter before. Sometimes margin does
matter.
.

 

[Jackson_Slugger]

.....- It can't be Group IV because PAO is the only base in that group. PAO has its own category.
....

Wow, really nitpicking now. Let's get one thing straight before you wander more into strawman territory, I never said it could be Group IV. Maybe reread my original post a bit closer or something IDK...

 

[OVERKILL]

Wow, really nitpicking now. Let's get one thing straight before you wander more into strawman territory, I never said it could be Group IV. Maybe reread my original post a bit closer or something IDK...

I wasn't trying to nitpick, I'm sorry if you took it that way. I was just pointing out how the Groups are defined. You called out V and VI (and VI doesn't exist). I was simply explaining (for the benefit of the board and others who might be reading this exchange) why it couldn't fit into the other groups outside of III.

I mean, we could get really pedantic and acknowledge that Group II+ and III+ don't officially exist either. They are constructs of the oil industry to help set apart certain products whose performance is exceptional within the existing II/III categories, but the products themselves still fall under the definitions for those groups.

 

[Jackson_Slugger]

Correct. I admit that I started the post early this morning that actually had to work and got distracted. But I think I was meandering into something a bit more wholistic regarding GTL overall, perhaps mainly SOPUS.

It seems their North American oils all use at least a majority of GTL yet they have several lines of the typical "Good, Better, Best, & Extremely Bestist!"

What I'd really like to know is what is the difference between Shell RTG and the base Pennzoil synthetic vs. Platinum and and Ultra Plat. And Quaker State Synthetic. All have pretty low pour points and seem to perform well in certifications and look similar in PDS. But is there a tangible difference in some GTL "Group III+" oils as far as how they are hydrocracked and the quality of their basestocks? Or do they just add more Ester to the flagship oils like Ultra?

That's really kind of where I wanted to go, because it seems like there are very real differences even within GTL where some are on par with say VISOM and others might be pretty close to top PAO in performance...