Some questions for the "polymerization = only true syn" folks...
- Thread starter G-MAN
- Start date
- Status
I am really curious about the use of this "XHVI" in Europe. If we can get get some good analysis numbers we should all be impressed. I've read on another thread that Shell VII's are used in Amsoil products and are a "known quantity". I think Buster posted that.
From what I've been able to determine from research, ShellVis is considered the most shear stable VI improver available. Pennzoil has used it for years, and Castrol uses it, I believe. I wasn't aware that Amsoil uses it, too.
When Castrol first switched from Mobil's PAO to a Group III base oil, it was to Shell's XHVI. Given that Shell's XHVI oils had been marketed as "synthetic" for years in Europe, it could be that Castrol didn't think marketing an XHVI-based Syntec as "synthetic" would be a problem. And truth be told, I'd be willing to bet if Mobil hadn't lost such a lucrative base oil contract in the switch, I doubt if they would have raised such a fuss over it. Otherwise, why hadn't they gone after Shell for labeling Helix Ultra as "fully synthetic"?
Edit: I would like to see some Helix Ultra reports, too. But there doesn't appear to be too many European posters on here--or Ferrari owners who change their own oil.
[ December 22, 2002, 08:33 AM: Message edited by: XHVI ]
MolaKule
Staff member
XHVI,
"I'm talking about the base oil used to formulate motor oil. "
And what are the liquids resulting from Shell's FT process and how do they arrive at the
finished product?
I have given you a number of references to explore and to support my stance, now please
provide your references.
"FWIW, I don't think Shell really cares if people accept their XHVI based oils as "synthetic." "
Then why label it as such?
Kule
"I'm talking about the base oil used to formulate motor oil. "
And what are the liquids resulting from Shell's FT process and how do they arrive at the
finished product?
I have given you a number of references to explore and to support my stance, now please
provide your references.
"FWIW, I don't think Shell really cares if people accept their XHVI based oils as "synthetic." "
Then why label it as such?
Kule
I honestly don't know why you keep bringing Shell into this. To my knowledge, Shell has done some limited production of XHVI using FT, but that is NOT the primary source of this base oil. My point in even mentioning Shell's XHVI in this thread is that when ANY company goes to FT base oil, the process to make it will be essentially the same process Shell now uses to produce its XHVI. The DIFFERENCE is the feedstock. Shell's current XHVI feedstock is the slack wax produced through conventional solvent dewaxing. The feedstock for base oil produced by FT is the FT produced waxy raffinate. But the process to produce the base oil in both cases is isomerization of the wax.
As for your "stance," what is it? I've looked back over this thread and I don't see your point, nor an answer to my original question: Would an FT produced base oil be considered synthetic since the only polymerization that takes place in the process is in the creation of the feedstock?
MolaKule
Staff member
"A bit of history and on to the Rest of the Story.
Franz Fisher and Hans Tropsch developed a catalyst (the Fischer-Tropsch catalyst or FT) in 1925 that converted coal
gas into petroleum products. Germany was deficient in oil resources, but had major coal reserves, and by 1941 had
converted coal gas to 740,000 tons of petroleum.
FT is based on a complex series of reactions that reduce carbon monoxide to CH2 groups linked to form hydrocarbons. Thus, Shell was not the first to use this process! So the FT process (in a nutshell) converts gasses to liquid
petroleums.
From the paper above, the Ethylene-alpha-Olefin-Polymer, or EOP, is a created by a polymerization process using the
Zeigler-Natta (metallocene) catalysts only after the basic raw materials, are in place, visa vis, the monomers of ethylene, propylene, and butene.
"By utilizing the SSC, the authors have developed an innovative technology that directly polymerizes inexpensive and abundant monomers including ethylene, propylene, and butene. (Heilman, et. al., (2000)). The polymerization reaction
typically occurs at 50 C and 2 atm [30 psi] and with high monomer conversion. Reaction products have demonstrated to exhibit comparable physical and chemical properties to PAO's."
So in my view, and Penzoil/Quaker State Chemists, and the University of Amherst Chemists, and various organgic chemistry texts dispute your definition of synthetics which do not follow the literature's definition of what is a true synthetic.
Edit: Cleaned up typos and added references.
1. Lubrication Engineering, June 2002, pp. 29-33, by Wei Song, et. al.,"New High Performance Synthetic Hydrocarbon
Base Stocks."
2. Bodner, Pardue, "Chemistry: An experimental Science," Chapter 24, The Organic Chemistry of Carbon.
3. Morrison and Boyd, "Organic Chemistry," Sixth Edition, Chapter 31, Macromolecules: Polymers and Polymerization.
[ December 21, 2002, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: MolaKule ] "
And I don't know why you refuse to provide technical details. My point was stated in the above response with technical references.
Are we going to make this discussion a discussion of opinions or will it be based on technical facts?
Franz Fisher and Hans Tropsch developed a catalyst (the Fischer-Tropsch catalyst or FT) in 1925 that converted coal
gas into petroleum products. Germany was deficient in oil resources, but had major coal reserves, and by 1941 had
converted coal gas to 740,000 tons of petroleum.
FT is based on a complex series of reactions that reduce carbon monoxide to CH2 groups linked to form hydrocarbons. Thus, Shell was not the first to use this process! So the FT process (in a nutshell) converts gasses to liquid
petroleums.
From the paper above, the Ethylene-alpha-Olefin-Polymer, or EOP, is a created by a polymerization process using the
Zeigler-Natta (metallocene) catalysts only after the basic raw materials, are in place, visa vis, the monomers of ethylene, propylene, and butene.
"By utilizing the SSC, the authors have developed an innovative technology that directly polymerizes inexpensive and abundant monomers including ethylene, propylene, and butene. (Heilman, et. al., (2000)). The polymerization reaction
typically occurs at 50 C and 2 atm [30 psi] and with high monomer conversion. Reaction products have demonstrated to exhibit comparable physical and chemical properties to PAO's."
So in my view, and Penzoil/Quaker State Chemists, and the University of Amherst Chemists, and various organgic chemistry texts dispute your definition of synthetics which do not follow the literature's definition of what is a true synthetic.
Edit: Cleaned up typos and added references.
1. Lubrication Engineering, June 2002, pp. 29-33, by Wei Song, et. al.,"New High Performance Synthetic Hydrocarbon
Base Stocks."
2. Bodner, Pardue, "Chemistry: An experimental Science," Chapter 24, The Organic Chemistry of Carbon.
3. Morrison and Boyd, "Organic Chemistry," Sixth Edition, Chapter 31, Macromolecules: Polymers and Polymerization.
[ December 21, 2002, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: MolaKule ] "
And I don't know why you refuse to provide technical details. My point was stated in the above response with technical references.
Are we going to make this discussion a discussion of opinions or will it be based on technical facts?
Okay, let's try this again.
So, this should get us back to a modified version of my original question: Would a base oil made from isomerizaing FT produced waxy raffinate be considered "synthetic" since the only polymerization that takes place in the process is in the creation of the feedstock itself?
XHVI,
If these oils had the same performance characteristics as PAO's and cost as much to make as PAO's, then I believe they would be accepted as synthetic.
It is the price gouging as much as the deceptive advertising that has folks p----- off about this entire issue....
If these oils were being sold for $2.50-$3.00/quart and clearly marked as "Group III" oils, I think this issue would go away ....
There should be a third catagory for synthetic blends and hydroisomerized petroleum oils, to avoid customer confusion.
[ December 23, 2002, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: TooSlick ]
If these oils had the same performance characteristics as PAO's and cost as much to make as PAO's, then I believe they would be accepted as synthetic.
It is the price gouging as much as the deceptive advertising that has folks p----- off about this entire issue....
If these oils were being sold for $2.50-$3.00/quart and clearly marked as "Group III" oils, I think this issue would go away ....
There should be a third catagory for synthetic blends and hydroisomerized petroleum oils, to avoid customer confusion.
[ December 23, 2002, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: TooSlick ]
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2002
- Messages
- 4,193
If someone will pay for two analysis I will go to Germany and purchase 7 liters of Shell Helix Ultra 0w-40, 5w-30, or Helix Ultra AB 5w-30 and run it in my BMW to give us all a virgin and a used oil analysis of this product.
Any takers??? I can go in February.
edited to reflect the true quantity that I need for the bimmer.
[ December 23, 2002, 05:52 PM: Message edited by: FowVay ]
Any takers??? I can go in February.
edited to reflect the true quantity that I need for the bimmer.
[ December 23, 2002, 05:52 PM: Message edited by: FowVay ]
I will pay for your analysis if you will bring me back 7 liters also. I will even pay for my 7 liters.
I would request that we let Terry Dyson do the analysis.
[ December 23, 2002, 06:16 PM: Message edited by: Johnny ]
I would request that we let Terry Dyson do the analysis.
[ December 23, 2002, 06:16 PM: Message edited by: Johnny ]
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2002
- Messages
- 4,193
What viscosity do you want? Keep in mind that synthetic oil in Europe can cost $15/liter. Shell Helix is available in 0W-40, 5W-40, and 5W-30, plus a few manufacturer specific labels such as the Helix AB 5W-30 which is specified for Mercedes-Benz and applicable to BMW's longlife requirement. I'll make the phone call tomorrow and either fly there and get it or have it shipped.
For about the fifth time, I DO NOT WORK FOR SHELL. PERIOD. Sheesh.
For everyone who keeps asking me if I work for Shell, the next time someone posts that they like Chevron, or Mobil, or Havoline, or whatever, I want you to be sure you ask if they work for those companies. I mean, surely the only reason anyone would like one oil over another is because they work for the company that makes it.
FowVay: 5W40, it's going in my VW Eurovan. If you want to talk more about this, send me an emai at [email protected]
That 0/40 might be as close as your local John Deere dealer,,about 99 percent sure but not betting the farm on thisquote:
Originally posted by FowVay:
If someone will pay for two analysis I will go to Germany and purchase 7 liters of Shell Helix Ultra 0w-40, 5w-30, or Helix Ultra AB 5w-30 and run it in my BMW to give us all a virgin and a used oil analysis of this product.
Any takers??? I can go in February.
edited to reflect the true quantity that I need for the bimmer.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Sticky
- Locked
