What is the best "bang for your buck" Group III SYN?

Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
415
Location
Augusta Ga
I am just looking for the best priced Grp III Synthetic oil. I have run M1, Amsoil and GC in the past in my Toyota 4.0L V-6. I have had great UOA so far. But I am the froogle type and I do like cheap oil. My 32 cent Pennz Plat. is the next oil on deck for this vehicle. Off the top of my head , Motorcraft even though its a blend its grp III right? Any other suggestions? Amsoil XL series?
 
Joined
May 4, 2005
Messages
1,508
Location
Colorado
It seems it would be tough to beat Rotella T. Much better fortified than Supertech, isn't it? Or am I misinformed on that? I thought there was still much debate on whether Mobil Clean 5000 was group III. In the end, if you are frugal and want a good oil why not run a good dino, or for that matter a cheap dino? Say, Havoline at the "good" end and Supertech or anything on sale at the "cheap" end. Or if you can get the Checker $0.49/qt on Chevron Supreme, that has got to be the best deal in recent memory, period, on a very good oil. - Glenn
 
Joined
Dec 12, 2002
Messages
43,673
Location
'Stralia
Dunno for sure, but Castrol Magnatec SP 5W-40 is about half the price of Mobil 1 0W-40, AND it contains esters.
 
Joined
Feb 15, 2003
Messages
1,381
Location
Southeast Kentucky
Go to Mobil1 web site and look under FAQ's for Mobil Clean 5000 for the base oil composition. It very clearly states the base stock composition is non-synthetic.
 
Joined
Oct 22, 2003
Messages
13,132
Location
By Detroit
Maybe we need to have two "best bang for the buck" answers, one for PCMO and one for HDMO as he may not want to run HDMO, especially if he is going to run 30 weight which is hard to find in HDMO in multigrade. My PCMO recommendation is Maxlife Synthetic.
 
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Messages
585
Location
Tinley park il
Isn't rotella T full syn generally used for diesels? I know it can be run in gas engines with no problem but isn't it too thick for a 4 cylinder application for example?
 
Joined
Nov 3, 2002
Messages
11,247
Location
PA
"It very clearly states the base stock composition is non-synthetic" I don't think Mobil consider G-III to be synthetic. That's thier positin in various pleadings, I thought that was common knowledge. Did Mobil say what base it WAS rather than what is was not?
 
Joined
Oct 9, 2004
Messages
6,497
Location
New Braunfels
Member Member # 702 posted January 22, 2006 03:17 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dunno for sure, but Castrol Magnatec SP 5W-40 is about half the price of Mobil 1 0W-40, AND it contains esters. I do like the Magna tech line but Castrol lost alot of oppurtunity by trying to market it as "startup" oil here in the Americas. Not knowing what it was when it was prevalent on the shelves I passed it up as another "nitch" oil.
 
Joined
Jan 16, 2003
Messages
4,478
Location
Southern California
speedtc, both Group II and Group III base oils are hydrocracked. The difference is the catalyst used, the heat, and the hydrogen pressure in the reactive vessel. Motorcraft syn-blends are a blend of both group types. Audi Junkie, please expand on your unsupported assertion that Mobil Clean 5000's base oils are entirely Group III in composition. Yes, I'm very skeptical. Just because EM states the base oil composition of this blend is not synthetic, by no means allows for the automatic assumption that it's entirely Group III. A blend of Group II and Group II+ base stocks is not only entirely possible, but more likely, probable. [ January 22, 2006, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: Ray H ]
 
Joined
May 4, 2005
Messages
1,508
Location
Colorado
I didn't want to get in this debate actually, but it seems to me that if Mobil Clean 5000 were all group III then Mobil would use SOME language to capitalize on that in promoting the product. They would not call it a synthetic, since their official position is that synthetic means group IV and above, but it seems they'd say something to the effect that is was an improved mineral oil, that it had some characteristics similar to synthetics, or perhaps position it directly opposite other companies' grp III synth offerings. - Glenn
 
Joined
Oct 9, 2004
Messages
6,497
Location
New Braunfels
I agree Ray H, It does not make economic sense to use straight Grp III when it isn't marketed as such. The Grp II And II+ are nicely hydrorefined and fit the needs better. This is not a premium product and it would be poor corporate policy to use more expensive to produce base oil than neccesary to meet the performance requirements of the minimum Spec oil level. I would have to divest stock in any corporation that wasted money like that. On the other hand When you Pay for a premium product then you should get it. Ever since that Carpy fellow came here this rumor has persisted but is not based on one substantiated fact. A business fact is that if Exxon mobil increased it's high VI parrqafin streams (grp III) it would compete with exisating infrastructure producing PAO's. Mobil held the proccess closely for so long it's competitors created Grp III to avoid paying outragous "licensing" fees to use the PAO production process. For most uses I think a high quality well formulated Grp III matches the performance of PAO in all but the most extreme cold temperatures. The high temp oxidation difference appears to be marginal at best. With the proper additives a Grp III can outperform a cheaply formulated PAO. I like PAO and ester synthetics but it's sort of like having the latest I-pod. It's mostly the thrill of advanced tecvhnology. But in truth Grp III and III+ (EOP) are newer and more cutting edge than the PAO or ester production methods.
 
Joined
Nov 3, 2002
Messages
11,247
Location
PA
Ray, didn't you see the whole line of posts from Carpy, our resident XOM tech? iirc, follow-up calls to XOM by members confirmed his asertions.
 
Top