What's the point of eliminating straight dino and replacing it with a blend?

I’m referring to the bottles of oil written « conventional » on it at the store you buy oil. That is the subject of this discussion. These bottles of oil would meet performance requirements of the majority of the cars on the roads if someone decide to use them. Claiming they are being discontinued because they don’t meet performance requirements is toilet.
I just looked at 10 oil containers of current product in 5W30 grade.
Only 2 containers were exhibiting "Conventional" and that was Traveller (Martin Lubricants) and SuperTech.
The Majors are using the terms "Motor Oil" or "Synthetic Blend" .

Herein lies a point of contention: "Conventional" is now a misnomer with OLM drain oils - or at least a "moving target" as most all ILSAC lubricant will require group II and III hydrocracked base stocks AND advanced additive packages to meet GF-6A minimum performance standards and requirements. That leaves Conventional out.

And of course the industry confused "Synthetic" by allowing finished product built largely from severely "processed crude" oil to be labeled as a "Full Synthetic Motor Oil". Then others confuse true understanding further still by saying "synthetic oil is made in a laboratory". That must be one honkin' big lab! Developed yes, manufactured ? That is a falsehood.

Synthetic on the label does not automatically mean a higher performance level / or specification is met in a finished product. But you can pass a test with a C- or a B+. What do you desire for your car?

This is why many members here will suggest you should choose by the approvals and specs met and the good ole' API Certified Donut being displayed on the bottle - is this not what is required your vehicle Owners Manual?

- Ken

edit 30MAY22_1117hrs added "to be labelled as"
 
Last edited:
Many new cars are still fine with conventional and you don’t like that, not my problem. I’m here to argue, not sure how you can teach something else than being arrogant.
I explained it, pretty clearly, earlier in the thread. It isn't arrogance, just noting that if you had put in the effort to read and understand the material, you wouldn't have asked the question.

It has nothing to do with the car being "fine with it" and everything to do with the approvals that the product caries and thus, tests it has to pass.

Let's take GM DEXOS for an example, which sets the bar higher than the basic API SP (and previously SN) approval. As these specifications and approvals evolve, product formulation necessarily does as well, and that has led to what the OP has observed, which is less product branded as "Conventional" on the shelf. This is because a purely conventional oil is simply unable to pass the performance requirements. Shell's yellow bottle Pennzoil product, their lowest tier, is indicated as being a synthetic blend on their website now for example, even though some pages still make reference to it being conventional, and this isn't an oil that carries DEXOS. The last conventional MSDS for this specific product is dated 2014, all the newer ones are now "Synthetic Blend", also indicated on the TDS.
Screen Shot 2022-05-30 at 10.28.09 AM.jpg



If we go back to SN:

1. Here's a 5w-30 SN example (no DEXOS) which Mobil shows can be blended entirely using their Group II+ base family. This is technically "conventional" and would be labelled as such, even though the method for producing this base oil is the same as producing Group III (hydrocracking).
Screen Shot 2022-05-20 at 1.21.33 PM.jpg


2. Here's an SN DEXOS 5w-30, you'll notice that we can't eliminate Group III with EHC and that the final product still has 45% Group III in it, making it a synthetic blend. This is what I'm talking about when I mention the approvals.

Screen Shot 2020-09-08 at 9.02.43 AM.jpg
 
I’m referring to the bottles of oil written « conventional » on it at the store you buy oil. That is the subject of this discussion. These bottles of oil would meet performance requirements of the majority of the cars on the roads if someone decide to use them. Claiming they are being discontinued because they don’t meet performance requirements is toilet.
Again, the bottles marked "conventional" are disappearing because they can't meet the performance requirements and if the company is being honest with branding, it will be designated a synthetic blend.

Now, that doesn't apply to all grades. Some grades are much easier to formulate using what would still be considered "conventional" bases like Mobil's EHC Group II+. A 10w-30 for example, 10w-40 or 15w-40. But a 5w-30 can't carry the DEXOS approval and not be a synthetic blend at minimum, because a conventional base simply can't provide the required performance, follow?

Newer cars more and more frequently call for grades that have traditionally been synthetic or synthetic blend anyways, like 0w-20.

Oil manufacturers also don't have a tendency to produce obsolete spec oils, which is why Pennzoil yellow bottle is a blend now. It had to be to meet the performance requirements of SN or SP (whenever that change was introduced) and even if your car is old enough to call for SM, finding SM oil is going to be close to impossible unless you manage to find old stock, which clearly isn't what this thread is about, it's about current product on the shelf and the fact that bottles labelled as "conventional" are disappearing, the reason for which I believe I've sufficiently explained.
 
Again, the bottles marked "conventional" are disappearing because they can't meet the performance requirements and if the company is being honest with branding, it will be designated a synthetic blend.

Now, that doesn't apply to all grades. Some grades are much easier to formulate using what would still be considered "conventional" bases like Mobil's EHC Group II+. A 10w-30 for example, 10w-40 or 15w-40. But a 5w-30 can't carry the DEXOS approval and not be a synthetic blend at minimum, because a conventional base simply can't provide the required performance, follow?

Newer cars more and more frequently call for grades that have traditionally been synthetic or synthetic blend anyways, like 0w-20.

Oil manufacturers also don't have a tendency to produce obsolete spec oils, which is why Pennzoil yellow bottle is a blend now. It had to be to meet the performance requirements of SN or SP (whenever that change was introduced) and even if your car is old enough to call for SM, finding SM oil is going to be close to impossible unless you manage to find old stock, which clearly isn't what this thread is about, it's about current product on the shelf and the fact that bottles labelled as "conventional" are disappearing, the reason for which I believe I've sufficiently explained.
Brings up a great point of if there is even any "Regular conventional" oil anymore. I agree.
 
Not getting into formulations, as Overkill pointed out, there are still plenty 10W-30 PCMO's labeled as such.
Yep, as I noted, there are some grades that can still be blended using groups below III, however, the most popular grades, coupled with the latest approvals, can't, which is why those examples have disappeared or are disappearing.
 
With todays modern engines and their complicated VVT and cylinder deactivation systems plus pistons that are short with rings close to the top, I would want the clean running synthetic oil over a conventional any day.
 
EHC… Wow. Does that stand for Exxon Hydro Cracked. So many mind numbing 3 letter acronyms.
Think Enhanced Hydro Carbon or Enhanced Hydro Cracked.

The products are manufactured using Mobil's proprietary catalysts, MSDW for dewaxing:

Then MAXSAT for hydrofinishing:
 
I'm convinced this is nothing but an excuse to raise prices. I've been buying my oil at Walmart for years, their Super Tech dino to be exact. Over the last year, I've watched the price of their dino go from $2.37 a qt, to today's price of $5.35 a qt, which is more than double of what it used to be. They no longer offer any conventional oil, it's now either a blend, or a full syn. I have no way of knowing how much of this price increase is due to the switch over, or how much is just inflation, but whatever it is, I refuse to pay that much for a non-full syn store brand oil. I went over the Rural King and found that they still sell a straight conventional oil for just $2.99 a qt, so I bought that.
In the long run to have synthetic blend and full synthetic would and should bring better pricing. Less inventory then having conventional, synthetic blend and full synthetic. But as mentioned conventional base oil can’t meet the standards that the automakers govt and epa want.
 
The ONLY reason I was buying straight conventional was because of the price difference. Now there may not be a cost benefit to buying a blend. I use nothing but full syn in my wife's vehicle, mainly because it's a turbo...
If it's a Turbo, the oil should have API SN+ or greater and never do extended OCI
 
I explained it, pretty clearly, earlier in the thread. It isn't arrogance, just noting that if you had put in the effort to read and understand the material, you wouldn't have asked the question.

It has nothing to do with the car being "fine with it" and everything to do with the approvals that the product caries and thus, tests it has to pass.

Let's take GM DEXOS for an example, which sets the bar higher than the basic API SP (and previously SN) approval. As these specifications and approvals evolve, product formulation necessarily does as well, and that has led to what the OP has observed, which is less product branded as "Conventional" on the shelf. This is because a purely conventional oil is simply unable to pass the performance requirements. Shell's yellow bottle Pennzoil product, their lowest tier, is indicated as being a synthetic blend on their website now for example, even though some pages still make reference to it being conventional, and this isn't an oil that carries DEXOS. The last conventional MSDS for this specific product is dated 2014, all the newer ones are now "Synthetic Blend", also indicated on the TDS.
View attachment 102003
Here is some wording that leaves some imagination as to why. Pennzoil Platinum is licensed Dexos approved and is described as premium full synthetic but Pennzoil Ultra Platinum is not Dexos approved but is described as superior full synthetic. Maybe Dexos is engine or emission system specific and should not be applied to all applications, but I do not know.
 
Here is some wording that leaves some imagination as to why. Pennzoil Platinum is licensed Dexos approved and is described as premium full synthetic but Pennzoil Ultra Platinum is not Dexos approved but is described as superior full synthetic. Maybe Dexos is engine or emission system specific and should not be applied to all applications, but I do not know.
Eh, I think that's just Pennzoil being Pennzoil.

M1 EP 5w-30 is dexos and M1 5w-30 is dexos. M1 Truck and SUV 5w-30 is dexos, M1 AFE 0w-30 is dexos and heck even Mobil Super Synthetic 5w-30 is dexos.
 
Here is some wording that leaves some imagination as to why. Pennzoil Platinum is licensed Dexos approved and is described as premium full synthetic but Pennzoil Ultra Platinum is not Dexos approved but is described as superior full synthetic. Maybe Dexos is engine or emission system specific and should not be applied to all applications, but I do not know.
Eh, I think that's just Pennzoil being Pennzoil.
It's just a simple business decision that IMHO goes like this:

Why pay GM licensing fees for Dexos when you are not selling Pennzoil Ultra Platinum in stores but only almost exclusively online? It also helps keep the price down. Good motor oil at an affordable price is the winning combination for sales, not to mention that it makes your brand a popular choice amongst DIY-ers.

That's just my two cents, of course. Maybe I'm wrong.

And yes, I am Mobil 1 biased. However, I still think that Pennzoil Ultra Platinum is a decent product. I would have no problem running it in a GM vehicle that calls for Dexos, even if it's not Dexos licensed. Not approved, but licensed, as there is a distinction. Dexos is not a lubricant approval but merely a license that GM draws profits from. As someone here on BITOG said, "GM is better at designing oil specifications than designing cars."
 
  • Like
Reactions: pbm
M1 EP 5w-30 is dexos and M1 5w-30 is dexos. M1 Truck and SUV 5w-30 is dexos, M1 AFE 0w-30 is dexos and heck even Mobil Super Synthetic 5w-30 is dexos.
I found it interesting, and somewhat surprising, that M1 EP 5W-30 is Dexos approved and that M1 EP 5W-30 HM is not. To be specific, I'm using Dexos 1-2 as an example, can't speak to Dexos 1-3 from first-hand knowledge.

Parenthetically, Mobil describes Dexos as an approval:

M1 Approve.JPG
 
Last edited:
I found it interesting, and somewhat surprising, that M1 EP 5W-30 is Dexos approved and that M1 EP 5W-30 HM is not. To be specific, I'm using Dexos 1-2 as an example, can't speak to Dexos 1-3 from first-hand knowledge.

Parenthetically, Mobil describes Dexos as an approval:

View attachment 102074
Doesn't surprise me at all, the High Mileage oils have different additives and are often a bit heavier for the grade which likely precludes them from meeting the requirements for dexos.
 
And the speculation continues… But Ultra is considered superior by Pennzoil.
Yup, Pennzoil does WEIRD stuff. IMHO, Mobil's long list of dexos approved oils shows that it's not difficult to produce them, which must mean that Shell has other reasons.
 
Back
Top