Synthetic really Dino?
- Thread starter ScottB
- Start date
- Status
In my experience - True synthetics vs hydrocracked group III give comparable used oil analysis on my car. In a performance car (high oil temps and what not) true synthetic would do better.
My vocabulary is too limited to produce an appropriate comment that would get past the filters.
You might wanna call ExxonMobil and explain to the company that, A> you're a BITOG member, and that, B> you posted that the company longer uses PAOs in its Mobil 1 lines of motor oils. I'm sure the company will give your call all the courtesy it deserves...
If I was gonna go for the gold and blow big bux on syn oil It'd be Castrol syntec, or redline. I tend to stick with the bigger oil companies and less of the botique oils like amsoil and stuff; hard to get. I used amsoil and didn't see any difference vs mobil 1. I do believe that Syns flow better at low temps. I tried filling a diff at 30F and it took forever. and the syn stuff was fine. That's where syns shine... low temps. Pick the right Visc, and change it regularly with a good filter. Life goes on.
I'm a bit surprised to see so many BITOGers in this thread claim that if you start with conventional, then its not a synthetic, no matter what hydrocracking or other process you put it through to change its chemistry, and that only the oils with a Group IV and V base stock are synthetic oils. That's been my position all along, but in prior threads on the topic, if I remember correctly, most people claimed that hydrocracking so changed the molecular structure of conventional oil that what resulted was a synthetic. Well, not in my opinion.
I actually agree with the use of the term 'synthetic' for GroupIII oils made by severe hydrocracking. The process takes hydrocarbons, breaks them down, and rebuilds to the desired structure. Sounds like 'man made' to me.
I think people get too hung up on the source of the hydrocarbons used in the synthetic process (GIII Severe Hydrocracked vs GIV PAO) that creates the final molecules. The bottom line is performance and price.
I'll agree that it seems very likely that the companies marketing GroupIII synthetic oils are using a less expensive base stock to produce an oil that doesn't perform quite as well (in bench tests...I've seen nothing to suggest it really matters in actual service the way most people use them) as the oils produced using the PAO process, yet costs the consumer just as much.
And if corporate greed or whatever gets you fired up, more power to ya. It doesn't change the fact (IMO) that GroupIII oils are synthetic, if by synthetic you mean "man-made" vice whatever 'synthetic' is supposed to convey in terms of horsepower, engine life, fuel economy, teeth whiteness, erectile function etc. from a marketing standpoint.
Matt89, OUT.
I think people get too hung up on the source of the hydrocarbons used in the synthetic process (GIII Severe Hydrocracked vs GIV PAO) that creates the final molecules. The bottom line is performance and price.
I'll agree that it seems very likely that the companies marketing GroupIII synthetic oils are using a less expensive base stock to produce an oil that doesn't perform quite as well (in bench tests...I've seen nothing to suggest it really matters in actual service the way most people use them) as the oils produced using the PAO process, yet costs the consumer just as much.
And if corporate greed or whatever gets you fired up, more power to ya. It doesn't change the fact (IMO) that GroupIII oils are synthetic, if by synthetic you mean "man-made" vice whatever 'synthetic' is supposed to convey in terms of horsepower, engine life, fuel economy, teeth whiteness, erectile function etc. from a marketing standpoint.
Matt89, OUT.
If VI is not the best indicator of base oil quality why do we see it posted ad nauseum that good synthetics need less VII than poor ones and conventionals. The reality is that there is no difference between good group III's and IV's. And if you want to dig deeper into base oils then we need to start talking about the final finished qualities. i.e. what is the flashpoint once you put some oil in that can dissolve the additives. And, once you get the additives in and the oil blended to final viscosity, what then is the CCS and MRV rather than focusing on pour point.
But then we have discussed that all before. The base oil classification system needs an overhaul. There is no such thing as group II+. It is either group II or III. But if a group III oil is better than average, and better than group IV based on VI, should it be called a III+ or a VI+??
But then we have discussed that all before. The base oil classification system needs an overhaul. There is no such thing as group II+. It is either group II or III. But if a group III oil is better than average, and better than group IV based on VI, should it be called a III+ or a VI+??
- Status