Synthetic Base Stocks

[Spooner65]

Most people post with "What should I use in my..." or "How does XYZ hold up compared to ABC?"

Thats not what I am concerned with. What I want is the data. I have seen the VOAs, but I would like to know more about the base stocks, who falls where, and does it make a difference.

For example, I know Rotella T6 is a Group III but some people call it III+. I would like information on this as well.

What is the difference between a Group III and a IV, and an IV versus a V. Is V better than IV?
I dont need to pick an oil, I've got all of that figured out. I am rather just thirsty for knowledge.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Spooner65
For example, I know Rotella T6 is a Group III but some people call it III+. I would like information on this as well.

I thought that all along, too, but according to Chevron's test of the competition, they found that T6 5w-40 in CJ-4 has some PAO content. Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40 is primarily PAO. A link to the paper in question is somewhere on the forum here, but don't ask me where.

Nonetheless, it doesn't matter terribly much. Each type of base stock has its own advantages and disadvantages. That's why most of these will have a mix of base stocks. As for Group V, I can't think of any HDEOs that are primarily Group V off the top of my head. I'm fairly certain the Delvac 1 has some esters in it as well, and probably a bit of other base stocks, too, for solvency.

Some will say Group IV and V are the true synthetics. I'm fine with that definition, but I'm mostly concerned with the performance of the oil as a complete package. In other words, if it's advertised and priced as a synthetic (regardless of group numbers present), it had better perform as such. The specifications an oil meets are a better metric of its performance as opposed to focusing upon the base stock.

Pure Base Stock X doesn't make a good automotive lubricant in the first place. Additives are necessary, of course, and base stock mixtures let blenders accomplish a lot more than limiting themselves to one base stock.

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: Spooner65
Thats not what I am concerned with. What I want is the data. I have seen the VOAs, but I would like to know more about the base stocks, who falls where, and does it make a difference.

I dont need to pick an oil, I've got all of that figured out. I am rather just thirsty for knowledge.



Data? You want data? You can't handle the data! (Shameless movie quote spoof, I know ...)

Seriously, are you looking for data, or technical info? Data is more accurately described as resultant points of measurment associated with either chaotic or controlled situational inputs. Whereas technical information is knowledge gleaned from credible sources familiar with a topic.

Hence - wanting to know about base stocks of products is really a quest for tech info, not data.


Data will speak to you, if you let it. And data will often tell you that base stock selection is pretty much moot these days. There are many roads to the same destination. I don't really care about base stocks any more than I give a hoot about which lubes have more moly, less calcium, more magnesium, less zinc, etc, etc. I care about results; I want to know how they perform.

I'll drag out an old analogy here:
I'd rather know the end score of a ball game, than the starting roster.

 

[Ken2]

The oil companies keep their recipes secret (a) to allow more puffery, and (b) to allow them to change the mix when ingredient prices change.

The lower chart on this page shows the base oil categories...I, II, & III are petroleum.
http://www.infineum.com/API/API_2013/main.swf?page=11

Notice the notes at the bottom.
Infineum is one of the major manufacturers of lubricant additives, owned by Royal Dutch Shell and ExxonMobil. Others are Chevron Oronite, Acton, Lubrizol.

In any case, pick your oil by the experiences of yourself and others, not by an ingredient list.

 

[weasley]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Some will say Group IV and V are the true synthetics.


Will people stop saying this!! Group IV is PAO which is, by anyone's definition, synthetic - yes.

Group V, however, is defined by the API as "anything not in groups I through IV". So yes, it does include esters, polyglycols and the like but it also includes MVI and low VI naphthenic mineral oils and vegetable oils, which nobody in their right mind would class as "true synthetic".

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: weasley
Will people stop saying this!!

There are tribologists, some on this very board, who are the "some" when I say that some will say Group IV and V are the true synthetics.

You might not like it, and I couldn't care less either way how people want to define the term since it's meaningless when written on a bottle of oil, anyhow. That doesn't mean that your displeasure with one view of the definition is going to change some purists' views.

"Synthetic" is pointless and a marketing term, really. That even applies in Germany. When you make labelling laws, oil companies invent words. An oil meets various stringent specifications and has certain properties, or it does not, end of story.

 

[Spooner65]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3

Seriously, are you looking for data, or technical info?


Technical Information.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: Spooner65
For example, I know Rotella T6 is a Group III but some people call it III+. I would like information on this as well.

What is the difference between a Group III and a IV, and an IV versus a V.

http://www.zddplus.com/TechBrief10 - Oil Base Stocks.pdf