when is fully synthetic is NOT a fully synthetic!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
384
Location
UK
I have now become totally disollusioned with oil manufacturer with their costant use of "fully synthetic" labels.

It appears nearly all the manufacture's in europe mis-using (representing) the term and their oil is a mix of group 3 with 4 or 5.

What is worse is they are not honest about it and hide the real truth behind the misleading details/ specificaion they publish.

Even mobile who I recently contacted, said they no longer like to classify their oil in terms of true synthetic or not. I don't really understand what the issue is with calling a spade a spade: you want FS, you pay more. You want to pay less, then pick a semi.

So I have given up as it is next to impossible to get accurate and honest information from the suppliers.

PS are today's group 3 as good as group 4 or %5
 
Yes, that ist a game the companys play.. The last one here was MOTUL how tried to sell their oils as "Fully Synthetic" here in Germany, but get sued and lost on court. They had to re-lable all their Oils here in Germany. But their oils are still sold as "Fully Synthetic" in the rest of the World. Go Figure.

Same for MOBIL, while their oil is sold as "Full Synthetic" worldwide, the have to sell it as "SHC Technology" here in Germany, because it dont contain enough PAO / Group IV.

If i want to buy reall full Synthetic oil here in Germany, i can get some from ROWE, Liqui Moly and Ravenol, they carry some in their catlouge.

According to this and other forums, todays Group III oils are almost as good as Group IV oils. On your everyday car you want see a difference.
 
Even mobile who I recently contacted, said they no longer like to classify their oil in terms of true synthetic or not. I don't really understand what the issue is with calling a spade a spade: you want FS, you pay more. You want to pay less, then pick a semi.

PS are today's group 3 as good as group 4 or %5
Today's fully synthetic may cost less to produce than synthetic technology so that doesn't hold water.
Reason why they use Grp III in some applications is because the additives do blend better than in Grp IV.
Full Synthetic or Synthetic Technology will provide you with equally as good a service.
 
From a "racers" point of view, the M1 synthetics we use hold up very well. No turbocharger coking and no piston ring sticking or carbon buildup. No varnish, sludge or unusual deposits.

I clearly understand these oils are not PAO based products like in the past. However, the excellent results of today's better quality oils speak for themselves.
 
Since there's no offcial definition (except one single court decision in Germany;
remember even in Germany there's no specific law existing), it's just up to you.

There are some companies who make some PCMOs and some transmision oils,
that would meet even the most stringent definitions of 'synthetic', among them
are Amsoil, Castrol (transmission oils), HPL, Penrite, Ravenol, Redline, perhaps
some more.


Today's fully synthetic may cost less to produce than synthetic technology so that doesn't hold water.

Would you mind to provide any evidence for this thesis?


Reason why they use Grp III in some applications is because the additives do blend better than in Grp IV.

The main reason using group 3 is still cost. Also, nobody is using group 4 only as a base
oil. Group 4 base oils are blended with group 2 (cheap) or group 5 (esters, ANs, much
more expensive) for solubility. Since pure PAO products don't exist the supposed inferior
solubility of PAO based PCMOs is a myth.
That said, the more you refine group 3 (for lower Noack, increased flash point, higher VI)
the more you increase aniline point, inevitably resulting in lower solubility and it ends up
to be very similar to PAO. You again have to blend these HC group 3 base oils with some
group 2 (cheap, but weakening overall performance) and/or group 5 (very expensive but
likely enhancing overall performace). You see, no, it's not that simple.


Full Synthetic or Synthetic Technology will provide you with equally as good a service.

That depends on the definition of 'good service'. 'Performance' depends on so many
variables, the finished product is what counts. I'm not the one to say you can't blend
a top-class product with majority group 3, but it's certainly easier using group 4 and 5
without being constrained by cost restrictions. Note, when you're looking for ultimate
performance data oils (lowest Noack, highest flash points, lowest pour point, maybe
highest HTHS for a given SAE viscosity) you'll likely end up with group 4 and 5 based
oils preponderantly. Is it just coincidence?
.
 
Oil characteristics are more important than the method used to achieve those characteristics.
In this case, the destination is more significant than the route used to get there.

Would you mind providing one single example of a group 3 based
5W-30 or 0W-40 with a pour point of -60°C/-76°F, a flash point near
250°C/482°F and Noack of ~6 %? I'd say theses are 'characteristics'
and the likely truth is, there's none existing. Except those using PAO
and esters and/or ANs of course.
Well, you could easily argue these performance charateristics won't
matter, but it still isn't true that group 3 performs the same. It doesn't.
While I fully agree performance matters more than how it is achieved
it's still misleading from the point that potential performance isn't the
same, while many contributions claim it is. It doesn't help to 'confirm'
their misbelieve.
.
 
We all have Castrol to thank for this mess, which is why when given a choice, I will always boycott Castrol.
Both ExxonMobil and Castrol were selling Group III based synthetics world-wide for many years prior to the NAD decision here in the US. Because of this, had the dispute progressed any further ExxonMobil knew they would lose. Your argument has no merit in reality.
 
Would you mind providing one single example of a group 3 based
5W-30 or 0W-40 with a pour point of -60°C/-76°F, a flash point near
250°C/482°F and Noack of ~6 %? I'd say theses are 'characteristics'
and the likely truth is, there's none existing. Except those using PAO
and esters and/or ANs of course.
Well, you could easily argue these performance charateristics won't
matter, but it still isn't true that group 3 performs the same. It doesn't.
While I fully agree performance matters more than how it is achieved
it's still misleading from the point that potential performance isn't the
same, while many contributions claim it is. It doesn't help to 'confirm'
their misbelieve.
.

Would you mind telling me how if an oil meets your requirements in what way the details of how that oil was produced matter to you?

It either meets your requirements or it does not.
 
And I’m also a little fuzzy on the importance of flash point and pour point in regards to engine operation.

Noack is probably a better metric than flash point for most applications. But all these specs have to be evaluated in regards to your requirements. If you're driving around Nome Alaska, then a -60C pour point is probably important to you. If your car is going to live full time in San Francisco, then not so much.

Everything must be viewed in light of what oil characteristics are needed to work in your application. What type of engine, what sort of driving, in what environment.
 
Since there's no offcial definition (except one single court decision in Germany;
remember even in Germany there's no specific law existing), it's just up to you.
There is a law regarding this in Germany, I posted the actual law some years ago and it still in affect. It is not up to you, as Christian noted Motul had to relabel their products so I would say it was not up to them.
 
Pour point though has been shown to be an inadequate performance parameter for winter starting, it’s why the winter rating methodology was revised in the late 80s. Oils that should have been pumpable per the pour point were not and caused engine failures.

Sounds good to me. My point has been that focusing on how the oil is made is less important than whether it is up to the task your equipment, driving, and environment present.
 
Would you mind telling me how if an oil meets your requirements in what way the details of how that oil was produced matter to you?
It either meets your requirements or it does not.

No, you brought up the term 'characteristics' and there are differences.
Individual 'requirements' are a different discussion I wasn't talking about.
Don't mix one with the other.


Noack is probably a better metric than flash point for most applications.

Probably true.


But all these specs have to be evaluated in regards to your requirements. If you're driving around Nome Alaska, then a -60C pour point is probably important to you.

When we're talking about 'performance charatestics' it doesn't matter what's
personally important for me or you or anyone else.


There is a law regarding this in Germany, I posted the actual law some years ago and it still in affect. It is not up to you, as Christian noted Motul had to relabel their products so I would say it was not up to them.

Don't take it personally, but you can't have posted any German law about
synthetic oil since it simply never existed. As pointed out there's just a court
decision. You may have read it like I did. Granted this decision has a similar
effect to a law as it restrains companies from cheating when advertising.
.
 
The performance of the finished lubricant is what really matters, and Group 3 base oils perform well enough in their finished form that the industry is allowing them to be labeled as "fully synthetic." I have mixed feelings about this. Feelings aside, the point is this: if you are running super long OCIs and/or are really torturing the oil, then you probably should insist on Group 4 or 5 synthetics which are in fact real synthetics and will hold up to these extreme conditions. But in normal vehicles with reasonable OCIs not being wrung out every day, it doesn't matter all that much and Group 3 oils will work just fine. Just be sure it meets the spec required by the manufacturer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top