What is now considered the holy grail of dino?

[wemay]

Along with GTX i forgot to include VWB and Havoline 10W30


Let's not forget... Synthetic is best for long drain intervals, freezing winter startups and more importantly, valve cover removal gawking by bitogers. Joking of coarse.

 

[D1dad]

The quietest oil I've ever used is shell clean engine. Probably close to PYB which I haven't used in yrs.

 

[Gokhan]

I think Mobil 1 was actually right that calling Group III base oils synthetic was false marketing. This is because Group II and Group III base oils are made using the same hydroprocessing techniques -- the only difference is the severity of the process. If the viscosity index (VI) is 119 or less, it is called Group II, and if the VI is 120 or more, it is called Group III. There is no difference in the "synthesis" process between Group II and Group III otherwise. Castrol paid some scientists to testify that these processes are chemical reactions that can be considered synthesis. However, the great falsehood here is that if Group III can be called synthetic, Group II can also be called synthetic because identical types of chemical processes are used.

All hydroprocessing route to high-quality base-oil manufacture using Chevron ISODEWAXING® tech
Guan-dao Lei (1), Arthur Dahlberg (1), and Kamala Krishna (2)
(1)Chevron Products Company, 100 Chevron Way, Richmond, CA 94801
(2)Chevron Energy Technology Company, 100 Chevron Way, Richmond, CA 94801

All this said the key differentiator of base-oil quality for petroleum-based oils (Group II and Group III) is the viscosity index (VI). The viscosity index directly correlates with the oxidation resistance, pour point, and Noack volatility. Having base oils with higher viscosity index also reduces the amount of viscosity-index improvers (polymers dissolved in oil), which reduces engine and turbocharger deposits and reduces wear in extreme-shear environments (such as the valvetrain and timing chain). Therefore, you're generally better off with the highest-viscosity-index base oil you can find. In other words the more "synthetic" an oil is, the better the oil performs. You should be able to rate how synthetic an oil is by how high its base-oil viscosity index is, but usually there is no information available on the base-oil viscosity index. I did create a calculator that can estimate the base-oil viscosity and base-oil viscosity index in the white papers/technical discussions section.

There is still a caveat: The pressure - viscosity coefficient (PVC) decreases with the increasing viscosity index (VI). A lower PVC can arguably increase engine wear in certain regimes, and for those applications Group II base oils, which have the highest pressure - viscosity coefficient (PVC) may perhaps be more beneficial.

I use synthetic in my application, as this is what is recommended by Toyota. I don't know the type of the base oil in the Japanese factory fill 0W-16. TGMO 0W-16 by ExxonMobil is GTL-based, probably similar to the GTL-based Mobil Super 0W-16. Mobil 1 0W-16 is PAO-based (with some Group V alkylated naphthalene (AN) base stock as for all non-FS and non-ESP Mobil 1 oils).

 

[RDY4WAR]

Originally Posted by Gokhan
I think Mobil 1 was actually right that calling Group III base oils synthetic was false marketing. This is because Group II and Group III base oils are made using the same hydroprocessing techniques -- the only difference is the severity of the process. If the viscosity index (VI) is 119 or less, it is called Group II, and if the VI is 120 or more, it is called Group III. There is no difference in the "synthesis" process between Group II and Group III otherwise. Castrol paid some scientists to testify that these processes are chemical reactions that can be considered synthesis. However, the great falsehood here is that if Group III can be called synthetic, Group II can also be called synthetic because identical types of chemical processes are used.

All hydroprocessing route to high-quality base-oil manufacture using Chevron ISODEWAXING® tech
Guan-dao Lei (1), Arthur Dahlberg (1), and Kamala Krishna (2)
(1)Chevron Products Company, 100 Chevron Way, Richmond, CA 94801
(2)Chevron Energy Technology Company, 100 Chevron Way, Richmond, CA 94801

All this said the key differentiator of base-oil quality for petroleum-based oils (Group II and Group III) is the viscosity index (VI). The viscosity index directly correlates with the oxidation resistance, pour point, and Noack volatility. Having base oils with higher viscosity index also reduces the amount of viscosity-index improvers (polymers dissolved in oil), which reduces engine and turbocharger deposits and reduces wear in extreme-shear environments (such as the valvetrain and timing chain). Therefore, you're generally better off with the highest-viscosity-index base oil you can find. In other words the more "synthetic" an oil is, the better the oil performs. You should be able to rate how synthetic an oil is by how high its base-oil viscosity index is, but usually there is no information available on the base-oil viscosity index. I did create a calculator that can estimate the base-oil viscosity and base-oil viscosity index in the white papers/technical discussions section.

There is still a caveat: The pressure - viscosity coefficient (PVC) decreases with the increasing viscosity index (VI). A lower PVC can arguably increase engine wear in certain regimes, and for those applications Group II base oils, which have the highest pressure - viscosity coefficient (PVC) may perhaps be more beneficial.

I use synthetic in my application, as this is what is recommended by Toyota. I don't know the type of the base oil in the Japanese factory fill 0W-16. TGMO 0W-16 by ExxonMobil is GTL-based, probably similar to the GTL-based Mobil Super 0W-16. Mobil 1 0W-16 is PAO-based (with some Group V alkylated naphthalene (AN) base stock as for all non-FS and non-ESP Mobil 1 oils).


Drag racing engines is a good example of where a group I or II mineral oil would be superior. They typically run at oil temps
Conventional oils tend to have greater miscibility at lower temperatures.

 

[LeoStrop]

Originally Posted by Gokhan

What's the king of Group II then? It is conventional HDEO. Group II doesn't get any better than in a conventional HDEO in terms of the base-oil quality as well as the additive package. If you are OK with the viscosity in your climate, you can't find a better Group II oil than a conventional HDEO.

 

[Mad_Hatter]

Originally Posted by Gokhan
I think Mobil 1 was actually right that calling Group III base oils synthetic was false marketing. This is because Group II and Group III base oils are made using the same hydroprocessing techniques -- the only difference is the severity of the process. If the viscosity index (VI) is 119 or less, it is called Group II, and if the VI is 120 or more, it is called Group III. There is no difference in the "synthesis" process between Group II and Group III otherwise. Castrol paid some scientists to testify that these processes are chemical reactions that can be considered synthesis. However, the great falsehood here is that if Group III can be called synthetic, Group II can also be called synthetic because identical types of chemical processes are used.

Doesn't the more severe hydroprocessing, cracking and finishing produce a base oil with features (high VI, better oxidative/temp stability) more similar to a grp4 than a grp2? So it's about more than process, no??

Plus, from a marketing standpoint..."synthetic" rolls off the tongue better than "unconventional base oil"....‚

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter
Originally Posted by Gokhan
I think Mobil 1 was actually right that calling Group III base oils synthetic was false marketing. This is because Group II and Group III base oils are made using the same hydroprocessing techniques -- the only difference is the severity of the process. If the viscosity index (VI) is 119 or less, it is called Group II, and if the VI is 120 or more, it is called Group III. There is no difference in the "synthesis" process between Group II and Group III otherwise. Castrol paid some scientists to testify that these processes are chemical reactions that can be considered synthesis. However, the great falsehood here is that if Group III can be called synthetic, Group II can also be called synthetic because identical types of chemical processes are used.

Doesn't the more severe hydroprocessing, cracking and finishing produce a base oil with features (high VI, better oxidative/temp stability) more similar to a grp4 than a grp2? So it's about more than process, no??

Plus, from a marketing standpoint..."synthetic" rolls off the tongue better than "unconventional base oil"....‚

"From a processing standpoint, modern Group III base oils are manufactured by essentially the same processing route as modern Group II base oils. Higher VI is achieved by increasing hydrocracker severity or by changing to a higher VI feed."

https://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/493/base-oil-technology

 

[TheLawnRanger]

ST 10w40

 

[Mad_Hatter]

Originally Posted by Gokhan

"From a processing standpoint, modern Group III base oils are manufactured by essentially the same processing route as modern Group II base oils. Higher VI is achieved by increasing hydrocracker severity or by changing to a higher VI feed."

https://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/493/base-oil-technology

Right, i get that the same equipment is used but the more severe processing a grp3 undergos produces a product with new molecular structures and PAO like properties. So from a performance perspective (lower pour points, higher VI and better resistance to oxidation and thermal breakdown), a grp3's more similar to a grp4 than it is to a grp2 - no? Doesn't this justify putting this unconventional base oil into a category all it's own and even going so far as to calling it a "synthetic", since it's more similar to a fully synthetic in almost every way than a grp2 mineral oil???

(I imagine this is what was debated, two sides of the fence, in the BBB ad case in re the definition of "synthetic")

 

[dlundblad]

Originally Posted by aquariuscsm
Pyb was the golden child forever on here. Is it still the king of dino oils?


That was a while back when crude was up and it was cheaper to dump GTL into the mix. PQIA should still have the test on their site. Those days are long gone. This was 10w30. Not sure on others.

Nowadays, I think they are all pretty much identical. As mentioned, many are blends anyways. In fact, thinner dino oils were technically blends before many manufacturers marketed them as such.

 

[demarpaint]

I'd say the title still goes to PYB.

 

[demarpaint]

I'd say the title still goes to PYB.

 

[THORROMIG]

Formula Shell when on sale at Home Depot. Quaker State Advanced Durability for everyday pricing -- 5W30 or 10W30.

 

[aquariuscsm]

Originally Posted by dlundblad
Originally Posted by aquariuscsm
Pyb was the golden child forever on here. Is it still the king of dino oils?


That was a while back when crude was up and it was cheaper to dump GTL into the mix. PQIA should still have the test on their site. Those days are long gone. This was 10w30. Not sure on others.

Nowadays, I think they are all pretty much identical. As mentioned, many are blends anyways. In fact, thinner dino oils were technically blends before many manufacturers marketed them as such.


Didn't PYB also have a really high TBN back then between 9-10?

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter
Originally Posted by Gokhan

"From a processing standpoint, modern Group III base oils are manufactured by essentially the same processing route as modern Group II base oils. Higher VI is achieved by increasing hydrocracker severity or by changing to a higher VI feed."

https://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/493/base-oil-technology

Right, i get that the same equipment is used but the more severe processing a grp3 undergos produces a product with new molecular structures and PAO like properties. So from a performance perspective (lower pour points, higher VI and better resistance to oxidation and thermal breakdown), a grp3's more similar to a grp4 than it is to a grp2 - no? Doesn't this justify putting this unconventional base oil into a category all it's own and even going so far as to calling it a "synthetic", since it's more similar to a fully synthetic in almost every way than a grp2 mineral oil???

(I imagine this is what was debated, two sides of the fence, in the BBB ad case in re the definition of "synthetic")

That is correct.

However, there is no fundamental difference between Group II and Group III. Basically if you have a base oil and you measure VI = 119.49, it's called Group II, and if you measure VI = 119.50, it's called Group III, even though it's the same base oil with two different measurements giving slightly different results within random measurement error.

The critical quantity here is the VI. This is why base-oil manufacturers label their base oils as Group II, Group II+, Group III, Group III+, Group III++, etc. You can have a Group II and a Group III oil with VI = 118 and VI = 122, respectively, and you will see virtually identical performance. On the other hand, they make Group III oils with VI = 145 and higher, which is better than PAO VI. They will perform substantially better than cheap Group III. GTL has a very high VI as well, typically VI = 135 or higher.

This is why I don't fully agree with the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Council of Better Business Bureaus siding with Castrol. The distinction (the VI = 120 limit) between Group II and Group III is fairly arbitrary, and these days most Group II base oils have VI close to 120; so, you're not getting a different oil when you buy a contemporary conventional oil with base-oil VI = 118 vs. a low-grade synthetic oil with base-oil VI = 122, such as the Castrol Edge products (excluding the Euro formulations), which use the lowest-quality (lowest-VI) Group III base oils they can find. They are at the lower edge of synthetic oils, right, which puts you and your engine on the edge.

 

[Mad_Hatter]

Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter
Originally Posted by Gokhan

"From a processing standpoint, modern Group III base oils are manufactured by essentially the same processing route as modern Group II base oils. Higher VI is achieved by increasing hydrocracker severity or by changing to a higher VI feed."

https://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/493/base-oil-technology

Right, i get that the same equipment is used but the more severe processing a grp3 undergos produces a product with new molecular structures and PAO like properties. So from a performance perspective (lower pour points, higher VI and better resistance to oxidation and thermal breakdown), a grp3's more similar to a grp4 than it is to a grp2 - no? Doesn't this justify putting this unconventional base oil into a category all it's own and even going so far as to calling it a "synthetic", since it's more similar to a fully synthetic in almost every way than a grp2 mineral oil???

(I imagine this is what was debated, two sides of the fence, in the BBB ad case in re the definition of "synthetic")

That is correct.

However, there is no fundamental difference between Group II and Group III. Basically if you have a base oil and you measure VI = 119.49, it's called Group II, and if you measure VI = 119.50, it's called Group III, even though it's the same base oil with two different measurements giving slightly different results within random measurement error.

The critical quantity here is the VI. This is why base-oil manufacturers label their base oils as Group II, Group II+, Group III, Group III+, Group III++, etc. You can have a Group II and a Group III oil with VI = 118 and VI = 122, respectively, and you will see virtually identical performance. On the other hand, they make Group III oils with VI = 145 and higher, which is better than PAO VI. They will perform substantially better than cheap Group III. GTL has a very high VI as well, typically VI = 135 or higher.

This is why I don't fully agree with the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Council of Better Business Bureaus siding with Castrol. The distinction (the VI = 120 limit) between Group II and Group III is fairly arbitrary, and these days most Group II base oils have VI close to 120; so, you're not getting a different oil when you buy a contemporary conventional oil with base-oil VI = 118 vs. a low-grade synthetic oil with base-oil VI = 122, such as the Castrol Edge products (excluding the Euro formulations), which use the lowest-quality (lowest-VI) Group III base oils they can find. They are at the lower edge of synthetic oils, right, which puts you and your engine on the edge.

I see what you did there.....‚

I agree that the 119/120 is arbitrary and kinda silly especially when you consider Chevron and others can mfg a grp2+ with a VI of 119 (or was it 115?)...but they have to cut it off somewhere, don't they? Maybe given the advancements in refining this calls for a revisit to the VI question, in re groups??

Fwiw I'm not suggesting grp2's are demonstrably inferior to grp3's or 4... I'm not making that case. It's been well proven that with the right additives a finished lube using grp2/2+ can rival grp3 finished lubes in many areas...so it's very capable and has some decided advantages over a grp3 or 4, like broader additive selection IIRC. Maybe that's why it's the go to base oil for what, 90% of the pcmo/hdeo industry??

 

[DirectRejection]

I miss Exxon Superflo in the red bottle.

 

[OilUzer]

Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by aquariuscsm
Pyb was the golden child forever on here. Is it still the king of dino oils?

Define dino. I guess you mean Group II. Both Group II and Group III are petroleum-based, so they are equally dino in that respect, even though Group III can be legally labeled synthetic in US.

I guess the four-letter derogatory word "dino" (no offense on actual dinosaurs) go back to early days of BITOG, when many people still didn't consider anything other than PAO (Group IV) and Group V base stocks synthetic.

Here is a long read on the history of "What is synthetic?" wars:

A defining moment for synthetics: Parts I & II -- Katherine Bui, Lubricants World, Oct/Nov 1999

All this said for our purposes, let's assume dino means Group II, as few oils use Group I these days except in small amounts as solvents. In fact let's drop the word dino and use Group II.

Group II oils excel in pressure - viscosity coefficient in comparison to Group III and PAO oils. By the way GTL is considered to be a Group III oil, albeit a very high-quality one.

While some downplay the importance of the pressure - viscosity coefficient, one BITOG user who rebuilds race engines told me that they got far lower wear rates in unambiguous UOAs with Group II than with PAO. Is it the pressure - viscosity coefficient that makes the difference? It's possible. That was his explanation and I couldn't come up with a different explanation myself.

Finally to answer OP's question, I don't even know if PYB is Group II. We know Pennzoil has used generous amounts of GTL in PYB, and many times PYB has been fully GTL.

What's the king of Group II then? It is conventional HDEO. Group II doesn't get any better than in a conventional HDEO in terms of the base-oil quality as well as the additive package. If you are OK with the viscosity in your climate, you can't find a better Group II oil than a conventional HDEO.


Q:
According to fig 2, group II for example has higher viscosity than group IV at relatively high (er) pressures ... higher viscosity is desirable if I understand it correctly ... are the higher pressure numbers realistic? are those typical pressure in the hydrodynamic region between shaft & bearings for example? Just curious, to get a nice viscosity delta, the pressure needs to be high or at least over the 300 Mpa region! I have no idea what the typical pressures are and not challenging you but that is a lot of pressure (1Mpa = 145 psi) !

Q2:
Wouldn't high viscosity have a negative impact at some point e.g. If the pressure gets too high? What is a good balance ?

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted by OilUzer
Q:
According to fig 2, group II for example has higher viscosity than group IV at relatively high (er) pressures ... higher viscosity is desirable if I understand it correctly ... are the higher pressure numbers realistic? are those typical pressure in the hydrodynamic region between shaft & bearings for example? Just curious, to get a nice viscosity delta, the pressure needs to be high or at least over the 300 Mpa region! I have no idea what the typical pressures are and not challenging you but that is a lot of pressure (1Mpa = 145 psi) !

Q2:
Wouldn't high viscosity have a negative impact at some point e.g. If the pressure gets too high? What is a good balance ?

Pressures this high are only experienced in direct contact -- boundary, mixed, and elastohydrodynamics regimes, not in the hydrodynamic regime where the oil film is thicker than the asperities. In other words this only applies to the valvetrain, timing chain, and parts of the piston rings and cylinder liners. This is not the same as the oil pressure in the lubrication system, which is typically between 4.3 - 71 psi, depending on the rpm.

With regard to your second question, no, higher viscosity is better in the case of direct contact, as it protects against wear and scuffing and reduces friction.

 

[OilUzer]

Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by OilUzer
Q:
According to fig 2, group II for example has higher viscosity than group IV at relatively high (er) pressures ... higher viscosity is desirable if I understand it correctly ... are the higher pressure numbers realistic? are those typical pressure in the hydrodynamic region between shaft & bearings for example? Just curious, to get a nice viscosity delta, the pressure needs to be high or at least over the 300 Mpa region! I have no idea what the typical pressures are and not challenging you but that is a lot of pressure (1Mpa = 145 psi) !

Q2:
Wouldn't high viscosity have a negative impact at some point e.g. If the pressure gets too high? What is a good balance ?

Pressures this high are only experienced in direct contact -- boundary, mixed, and elastohydrodynamics regimes, not in the hydrodynamic regime where the oil film is thicker than the asperities. In other words this only applies to the valvetrain, timing chain, and parts of the piston rings and cylinder liners. This is not the same as the oil pressure in the lubrication system, which is typically between 4.3 - 71 psi, depending on the rpm.

With regard to your second question, no, higher viscosity is better in the case of direct contact, as it protects against wear and scuffing and reduces friction.


Thank you. I understand that we are not talking about the typical oil pressure and the oil pressure gauge that the drivers are accustomed to ...

What is a typical "direct contact" pressure for example? I've never seen or studied those numbers. That's why I said 300 Mpa or more sound very high but may be those are realistic pressures in the regimes you have listed.