True Synthetic

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: nap
d00df00d - I agree that you cannot directly map basestocks into performance levels. However we also know that some performance levels (eg BMW LL and the like) are very difficult (if at all) possible to attain with let’s say Grp I stock. So when seeing such unusual combination of ingredients and claims , a good dose of skepticism is advisable, and can save you from buying into those oils that PQIA finds from time to time on the shelves and labels them as “Don’t Buy”.

So yes, there is value in investigating the basestocks too. Especially with some brands declining to publish all the performance parameters that could be of interest to the customer (NOACK comes to mind). And there’s nothing left for him other than trying to infer some properties from the basestock.

I appreciate the agreement. Beyond that, I'm not sure I follow what you're saying here.

Some of what you're saying seems entirely in line with what I said, i.e. there's a clear but imperfect correlation between base stocks and performance levels -- no more, no less.

The rest seems sensible in theory but I don't see the practical value. When was the last time you saw a company trying to claim their Group I/II product met performance criteria that require synthetics by definition? In the absence of claims as insane as that, how is it meaningful to even speculate about "unusual combination of ingredients and claims" or "trying to infer some properties from the basestock" when we don't even know what the ingredients or base stocks are?

 

[nap]

Our comrades at oil-club.ru are actually trying to find out what basestocks are used in various oils, as an example you can run this through google translate

http://www.oil-club.ru/forum/topic/14974-shell-helix-ultra-ect-c2c3-0w-30-svezhee/

the translation is very poor but one can eventually understand it’s about not finding much Grp III as they were initially expecting.

Additionally there’s the good old method of reading MSDS.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: nap
Our comrades at oil-club.ru are actually trying to find out what basestocks are used in various oils, as an example you can run this through google translate

http://www.oil-club.ru/forum/topic/14974-shell-helix-ultra-ect-c2c3-0w-30-svezhee/

the translation is very poor but one can eventually understand it’s about not finding much Grp III as they were initially expecting.

That's all FTIR, which is better than nothing. But as Tom NJ and Mola Kule have explained, it's not a good method. There are all kinds of ways the results could be misleading. You need to use gas chromatography.


Originally Posted By: nap
Additionally there’s the good old method of reading MSDS.

MSDSs give the bare minimum info necessary to inform people about safe handling etc. They never give full detailed info because that would be proprietary.

 

[nap]

We’re now in strawman territory. The argument was about whether knowing the basestocks is useful knowledge. While you’re now arguing about the difficulty in getting such knowledge.

 

[d00df00d]

We're in some kind of territory, for sure....

Does anyone else in this thread not see what I'm saying here?

 

[4WD]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: nap
Our comrades at oil-club.ru are actually trying to find out what basestocks are used in various oils, as an example you can run this through google translate

http://www.oil-club.ru/forum/topic/14974-shell-helix-ultra-ect-c2c3-0w-30-svezhee/

the translation is very poor but one can eventually understand it’s about not finding much Grp III as they were initially expecting.

That's all FTIR, which is better than nothing. But as Tom NJ and Mola Kule have explained, it's not a good method. There are all kinds of ways the results could be misleading. You need to use gas chromatography.


Originally Posted By: nap
Additionally there’s the good old method of reading MSDS.

MSDSs give the bare minimum info necessary to inform people about safe handling etc. They never give full detailed info because that would be proprietary.


Some less than others … would this one not get you in the ballpark?

 

[d00df00d]

That particular PAO has a 100º C viscosity of 4 cSt and a Noack volatility of 13.4%. If we know it makes up 60-70% of the oil, are we to conclude that Mobil 1 Extended Performance 0W-20 is water-thin and cooks off faster than some conventionals?

Of course not. We know that's ridiculous because we've seen the specs and performance of the finished lube. It gets those partly from the 60-70% that the MSDS discloses, and partly from the 30-40% that the MSDS says nothing about. 30-40% is enough to make or break a finished lube's performance many, many times over.

If that example doesn't make my point obvious, I find it hard to imagine what will.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
That's a great example. It's about as informative as MSDSs get, showing you exactly which chemical makes up the bulk of the base oil -- yet it still leaves out 30-40% of the finished lube's composition, which is enough to make or break its performance many times over.


Sure, but if your sole interest was to know how much PAO Mobil put in it, because you have confidence in their ability to blend a quality finished product, then that at least gives one a solid idea.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Sure, but if your sole interest was to know how much PAO Mobil put in it, because you have confidence in their ability to blend a quality finished product, then that at least gives one a solid idea.

(See my edit BTW)

If all you want is a warm and fuzzy feeling, then yeah, by all means have at it. But even that has pitfalls because you might foreclose on other good options just because their MSDSs aren't so forthcoming.

Reading tea leaves like this isn't just incompletely informative; it can be positively misleading.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Sure, but if your sole interest was to know how much PAO Mobil put in it, because you have confidence in their ability to blend a quality finished product, then that at least gives one a solid idea.

(See my edit BTW)

If all you want is a warm and fuzzy feeling, then yeah, by all means have at it. But even that has pitfalls because you might foreclose on other good options just because their MSDSs aren't so forthcoming.

Reading tea leaves like this isn't just incompletely informative; it can be positively misleading.


It's more like PAO is expensive, if you know the product has a good slug of PAO in it, and is from a reputable blender, that makes it a better bargain than a similarly spec'd product that doesn't have PAO in it at the same price. That's why I've claimed that M1 EP 0w-20 is a such a good deal in the past.

In this instance, since I have complete confidence that Mobil can blend a quality lubricant, I'm not overly concerned about what the rest of the lube is comprised of and finding that out is, as you've stated, nary impossible. I'm not trying to read tea leaves to figure out "the secret formula"

I just like to know what product has a lot of PAO in it, as do many others on here, is my impression.

 

[d00df00d]

I see what you're saying, and I don't disagree strongly enough to make an issue of it beyond what I've already said, so

for the counterpoints.

 

[Tom NJ]

The OP's question was are there any "true synthetics" out there (which presumably he defines as Group IVs and Vs) or are they all blends (presumably he means with Group IIIs). The answer is we don't know for sure. There are some blenders that claim their products are based on Groups IV and V, but usually don't say exclusively, i.e. no Group III. If a blender definitively states his product is based exclusively on Groups IV and V and contains no Group III, and you trust them, then yes such products may exist, but read their words carefully.

Otherwise you need to look at GC graphs to know what they are doing.

 

[4WD]

Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
The OP's question was are there any "true synthetics" out there (which presumably he defines as Group IVs and Vs) or are they all blends (presumably he means with Group IIIs). The answer is we don't know for sure. There are some blenders that claim their products are based on Groups IV and V, but usually don't say exclusively, i.e. no Group III. If a blender definitively states his product is based exclusively on Groups IV and V and contains no Group III, and you trust them, then yes such products may exist, but read their words carefully.

Otherwise you need to look at GC graphs to know what they are doing.




Exactly … don’t know why a company would waste a bunch of GIV/GV stock on 15w40 when it’s more applicable to 0W20.
It seems a formulator has something similar to CAFE to balance from product to product …
The last thing I want as a consumer is a new law on “synthetic” that will drive up the cost to meet a target specification …

 

[d00df00d]

Mentioned MPT earlier in the thread:

http://mptindustries.com/mpt_products/automotive.htm

Quote:
MPT Thirty-K Full Synthetic High Performance Motor Oils are all comprised of 100% synthetic ester and polyalphaolefin basestocks with no highly refined petroleum (Group I, II or III) or viscosity modifiers.


Not that I've done anywhere near an exhaustive survey of the market, but they're the only company I've seen use language that strong. They also have no meaningful track record. Could be a coincidence, but I suspect not...

 

[kschachn]

And with absolutely no certifications as well. They can yap about their composition all day long but the proof is in the certs.

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Mentioned MPT earlier in the thread:

http://mptindustries.com/mpt_products/automotive.htm

Quote:
MPT Thirty-K Full Synthetic High Performance Motor Oils are all comprised of 100% synthetic ester and polyalphaolefin basestocks with no highly refined petroleum (Group I, II or III) or viscosity modifiers.

Not that I've done anywhere near an exhaustive survey of the market, but they're the only company I've seen use language that strong. They also have no meaningful track record. Could be a coincidence, but I suspect not...

 

[DGXR]

Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Synthetic chemicals are defined by the final processing steps, not the origin of matter from billions of years ago.

In chemistry, a synthetic molecule is made by reacting two or more smaller molecules, elements, or radicals to create a new larger and more complex molecule.

In lubricants, synthetic is a marketing term implying higher performance through the exclusive use Group III, Group IV and/or selected Group V base oils. Group III base oils do not technically meet the chemistry definition of synthetic, however, since 90+% of its molecules were created new by man by altering or rearranging mineral oil molecules, many feel the term synthetic does applies. Others apply it by place more emphasis on the base oil performance properties than on how it was made.

There are some motor oils that claim to use only "true" synthetic base oils, but there is no reason to believe these oils will perform better due to these base oils, as the additive system plays a greater role in the finished oil performance. You can be sure, however, that they will be more expensive.

All definitions of "synthetic" lubricants are based on the base oil content only, exclusive of additives or small amounts of diluent oil.

While this may be academically interesting, none of it really matters when selecting a motor oil. You only need to be concerned with the specifications and approvals the oil has, and the reputation of the oil manufacturer making such claims.


Originally Posted By: pscholte
You guys did not answer OP’s question. While Group III (hydrocracked, highly refined) oils are lumped into the synthetic category, the only true synthetics are Group IV (PAO) and Group V (ester) oils but these will very likely have a conventional component to carry the additives as syns don’t do that job well. Your task is to research which oils are what: headstart...Redline and Motul make Group V oils.


Strictly my opinion, these are the best answers so far. True, no true synthetic oil is 100% synthetic ingredients -- the base oil may be true synthetic but other necessary components / additives / modifiers prevent it from being 100% synthetic. It is counter-intuitive (and confusing) to see that the oils labeled "full synthetic" are usually Group III (hydrocracked) and not true synthetics, although they offer excellent value (performance vs cost)... which is what really matters to the average consumer, and to *most of us BITOGers also.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: pscholte
BITOG needs a class in how to discern an OP’s real question and then answer it. OP wants to know what is a synthetic according to currently accepted criteria, not some esoteric peripheral opinion. Sheesh.

To make matters worse, it's a rather complex question, when you really think about it. Things like Shell's GTL qualify as a Group III but fits, at least to me, the technical definition of "synthetic." Then throw in the reality that very few SN/GF-5 examples really need Group IV or V base stocks to get that SN/GF-5 and dexos1 that dominate the market, and it's a loaded question.

 

[virginoil]

Originally Posted By: 1JZ_E46
Esters will not show up on any SDS. They are non-hazardous. They do not show up on the SDS linked above.. Only group 3/4 will.


You said that you were butting out of this thread on the 23 May 2018.

Hmmmmmmmmmm!