Synthetic?

[Unleashedbeast]

I love how people speak so highly of group III and III+ base stocks...right up until you being up two topics....

They have higher NOACK Volatility and a measurable decrease in efficiency/mpg compared to group IV/V blends.

 

[RamFan]

Originally Posted By: Unleashedbeast

They have higher NOACK Volatility and a measurable decrease in efficiency/mpg compared to group IV/V blends.


Have any literature on that statement?

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: Unleashedbeast

They have higher NOACK Volatility

But is the difference large enough to be meaningful in the real world?

Quote:

and a measurable decrease in efficiency/mpg compared to group IV/V blends.

Please provide links to studies that concluded this.

 

[GMorg]

Merkava wrote: "A true synthetic doesn't exist. If it did, it wouldn't mix with anything petroleum based."

This doesn't make sense to me. Which definition of synthetic would make this statement true.



As for G-oil, the technology for the base oil is essentially severely hydrocracked animal fat. The current feed stock appears to be beef fat (tallow). The nature of the contaminants may be different, but the final products should be very similar to crude-based hydrocracked.

 

[Merkava_4]

Originally Posted By: GMorg
Merkava wrote: "A true synthetic doesn't exist. If it did, it wouldn't mix with anything petroleum based."

This doesn't make sense to me. Which definition of synthetic would make this statement true.


That depends on what your definition of synthetic is. In my mind, a true synthetic oil wouldn't mix with petroleum based oil. The same way silicone based grease doesn't mix with petroleum based grease. Have you ever tried to mix Permatex Ultra Slick assembly lube #81950 (which is petroleum based) with SuperLube #21030 synthetic grease? I have and they don't mix at all. What we need is a silicone based engine oil.

 

[buster]

Some chemists would only define a synthetic as a Group V. Amsoil dealers used to apparently do this in the early days of Amsoil's diester formulations. They would tell people that the PAO Mobil 1 synthetic wasn't a real synthetic. Of course we know that has all changed since then. Guy from Redline told me this.

Oils are complex mixtures these days. There are about 18 base oil and additive components to Mobil 1. Same for the others I'd assume.

 

[engineerscott]

Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
A true synthetic doesn't exist. If it did, it wouldn't mix with anything petroleum based.


Huh??? Care to explain that statement?

 

[engineerscott]

Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Originally Posted By: GMorg
Merkava wrote: "A true synthetic doesn't exist. If it did, it wouldn't mix with anything petroleum based."

This doesn't make sense to me. Which definition of synthetic would make this statement true.


That depends on what your definition of synthetic is. In my mind, a true synthetic oil wouldn't mix with petroleum based oil. The same way silicone based grease doesn't mix with petroleum based grease. Have you ever tried to mix Permatex Ultra Slick assembly lube #81950 (which is petroleum based) with SuperLube #21030 synthetic grease? I have and they don't mix at all. What we need is a silicone based engine oil.


A "true" synthetic oil is made by man from non-oil components (for example, acids and alcohols). However, the end result is still a hydrocarbon compound that shares many similarities with naturally derived oils, the main difference being that the synthetic will contain a limited and highly specific range of molecules that are designed to fulfill a specific role. Naturally derived oils will contain a variety (in the case of Group II a wide variety) of molecules that taken together can be designed to also fulfill a specific role. There is no reason that synthetic and naturally derived oils can not be mixed.

I think you have a preconceived notion of what a synthetic oil is that does not mesh with reality.

 

[GMorg]

Combustion of hydrocarbon produces CO2 and water. Combustion of silica oils produces water and sand! I don't want a silica oil around combustion. Sand does not belong in oil!

Some of the halogenated hydrocarbons are also very stable and some do not mix with hydrocarbons. However, combustion results in some very nasty acids.

Regardless of your definition of a synthetic hydrocarbon, it will still be a hydrocarbon and will likely be fully immiscible in petroleum oils.

 

[Unleashedbeast]

Originally Posted By: RamFan
Originally Posted By: Unleashedbeast

They have higher NOACK Volatility and a measurable decrease in efficiency/mpg compared to group IV/V blends.


Have any literature on that statement?


Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Please provide links to studies that concluded this.


I don't need literature or studies. Every vehicle I have ever owned has shown an increase in efficiency using a true group IV/V base stock compared to over the counter commonly bought group III, even better than Mobil 1's group III/IV blends. Not one of my cars has gained less than 1 mpg on the highway using true synthetics.

I track efficiency over thousands of miles with multiple vehicles using a mpg tracking site www.fuelly.com, and very detailed notes.

*The next reply to my post will be very predictable*

"Your individual results are meaningless. We want a wide study for conclusion."

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: Unleashedbeast

They have higher NOACK Volatility

But is the difference large enough to be meaningful in the real world?


Very much so! The less oil that accumulates inside the supercharger and intake on my GT500 the better. Using true group IV/V synthetics has shown far less oil accumulation using true synthetics compared to group III base stocks. Yes, I can tell a big difference between 6% NOACK and 10-13% NOACK. Even my oil catch can approves.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: Unleashedbeast


*The next reply to my post will be very predictable*

"Your individual results are meaningless. We want a wide study for conclusion."

That's great that it's working for you. I haven't observed anything like this personally.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: Unleashedbeast


*The next reply to my post will be very predictable*

"Your individual results are meaningless. We want a wide study for conclusion."

That's great that it's working for you. I haven't observed anything like this personally.


Same here.

 

[Solarent]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: Unleashedbeast

They have higher NOACK Volatility

But is the difference large enough to be meaningful in the real world?


Yes and no; as you move to a lower viscosity oil, typically that means an increase in your NOACK Volatility which can have negative effects especially in automotive situations. This is in a large part what has removed viscosity from the number one consideration in wear protection. (Now the additive package has equal or greater weight in the formulation IMO).

As far as improved fuel economy over Group III vs Group IV or V there isn't much evidence for this based on oil formulation where the only things change is the base oil. A Gr.III can provide excellent FEI when combined with the right additives - I would even go so far as to say superior to some Gr. IV or V depending on the additive package. (Although there are some on BITOG that would strongly disagree with that). But looking only at FEI of an oil, you can see wide ranges from oils that are Gr III and Gr. IV/V.

My question about all of this is how do you know that an oil is actually from a Gr IV / V ??? I know that certain companies (ie Amsoil) make all kinds of claims regarding their basestocks, but I am confident (as has been discussed in length in many places on BITOG) that most of the MAJORS won't expose the entire properties of their basestock blends to the general public - and I am confident that there isn't any oil company that uses only one basestock molecule type in a finished oil anymore, but a combination of a couple of basestocks from either the same group or from different groups all under the marketing catch phrase "synthetic".

This is why I agree 100% with Pete when he said that the performance of a finished oil is much more important than what base stock is used. If you are coming at it from an environmental perspective that is a little bit different, but IMO this isn't really the place for a debate on the environmental impact of oil production. Unless someone wants to start a thread on that in the Oil Industry section and then have at her...

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: Unleashedbeast

I don't need literature or studies. Every vehicle I have ever owned has shown an increase in efficiency using a true group IV/V base stock compared to over the counter commonly bought group III, even better than Mobil 1's group III/IV blends. Not one of my cars has gained less than 1 mpg on the highway using true synthetics.

HT/HS has probably the biggest impact on MPG. What was the HT/HS of the oils you were comparing?

 

[Pablo]

Quote:
I know that certain companies (ie Amsoil) make all kinds of claims regarding their basestocks....


Regardless of what you read here, Amsoil makes amazingly few claims about the actual basestocks used. Yes they say synthetic oil is superior (they sell, it, so well, duh) - but what they say about basestocks is that an oil is the whole oil packaged up, not just because of one basestock.

 

[Unleashedbeast]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
HT/HS has probably the biggest impact on MPG. What was the HT/HS of the oils you were comparing?


Used Mobil 1 5W-20 (non-EP) in a 2008 Mustang GT for 30,000 miles. Changed to Amsoil 0W-30 (10.5 cSt - 3.1 HT/HS), gained an average of 1 mpg.

Motorcraft 5W-50 (rapidly shears to 14 cst in 2,000 miles), changed to Amsoil 10W-40 (cSt 14.6 - 4.3 HT/HS). GT500 also gained ~ 1 mpg despite being more viscous than MC at a common temp.