when is fully synthetic is NOT a fully synthetic!

[Shel_B]

p.s: have you been able to get more oil out of your Camry? I wonder if sludge barriers have formed in the head or pan ?

I believe you and others have totally misread my comment and question. In any case, thanks for asking.

 

[MolaKule]

...We know that back in 1999, that Castrol Syntec IS Group III. With the people here on BITOG being so knowledgeable, resourceful and with an unwavering attention to detail down to the molecular level, are there no data sheet to conclusively identify this to be true or not?

I am not sure why this is being rehashed here for the umpteenth time, but there is no public "data sheet" since much of the data presented to the BBB/NAD group was proprietary. Whether or not the BBB/NAD understood any of the results of the analysis is questionable.

Do you really think non-chemistry people would understand any of this documentation if published in the public domain?

Mobil had documented results from molecular analysis executed by Savant labs:

https://www.savantlab.com/oil-and-fluid-testing/

which supported their case.

We are not here as a judge and jury to redefine the outcome of this business ruling.

This was NOT a court case, as so many have misunderstood, but a business decision by the BBB/NAD.

 

[4WD]

I am not sure why this is being rehashed here for the umpteenth time, but there is no public "data sheet" since much of the data presented to the BBB/NAD group was proprietary. Whether or not the BBB/NAD understood any of the results of the analysis is questionable.

Do you really think non-chemistry people would understand any of this documentation if published in the public domain?

Mobil had documented results from molecular analysis executed by Savant labs:

https://www.savantlab.com/oil-and-fluid-testing/

that showed this to be the case.

We are not here as a judge and jury to redefine the outcome of this business decision.

We past umpteenth 5 years ago …

 

[Tom NJ]

Castrol claimed that Mobil marketed Group III type oils as synthetic in Europe through its alliance with British Petroleum. I am not aware of any claims that Mobil marketed such products under a Mobil brand. I could be wrong.

NAD Synthetic Article

 

[Tom NJ]

Tom, I was trying to find the post to which you which you clicked Like, talking about yield stress in an oil pump - to which, if there is any, could create to taking in air and not oil. I couldn't find it, as I'm working myself, but the topic does sometimes come up about a Positive Displacement oil pump, to which I asked (at my visit to High Performance Lubricants) if there was, then, such thing as a Negative Displacement pump, and the only thing I could think of is if it is already sitting in oil, maybe it's only moving something already inside of it, as opposed to pumping it. If that makes sense, please forgive me if I'm missing something or if a Negative Displacement pump does not exist.

I would then also have a thought to if a Group 4 or Group 5 - or whatever blend of Group 3 and 4, as per Mobil 1 and really many oils, I am sure, all perhaps partially blended.. would have resilience or superiority in such a scenario, of if one performs better or not, or if it is only that either there is yield stress at the oil pump, or there is not.

I never heard of a "negative displacement pump", but then I am not a mechanical engineer. A positive displacement pump maintains a constant flow rate despite changes in pressure, such as a gear pump. A "non-positive displacement pump" may change flow rate based on pressure changes. A thicker oil increases the pressure but should not decrease the flow rate in a positive displacement pump.

Regardless of the pump type, the oil must be able to flow under its own weight to fill the gap left on the intake side of the pump or else the pump will suck air. This is what happened in the winter of 1980/81 when a Quaker State oil "froze" in the sump, seizing camshafts and destroying some thousand engines. This oil passed all of the industry low temperature flow specifications at the time, but a new additive caused the oil to set up unexpectedly under a very specific temperature profile experienced in the mid-west, and this phenomenon was not caught by the standard tests. Quaker State to their credit made good and paid for all of the damage.

Learning from this, the industry set out to develop a new test that would catch this type of freezing, resulting in the MRV test now used in J300. This test measures yield stress and sets limits designed to prevent the oil from gelling during cold cycles.

 

[Tom NJ]

Spell check got ya

Thanks - fixed it (Castro to Castrol)

 

[CleanSump]

I don't care anymore. It works or it doesn't.

 

[930.engineering]

Well if x oil and z oil both met the requirements of the manufacturer and let you drive you car to the wrecking yards with equal engine performance why would it matter what the base oil blend is?

Is this actually the case for any kind of car? I've read about hundreds of Mini owners
suffering from engine problems. Of course no oil's able to compensate for design flaws,
but when it comes to wear on cam lobes, HPFP lobes and piston rings there are surely
differences between oils and I'll gladly pay the premium for what I think is superior. My
classic Porsche is worth way too much money and it definitely won't ever see a wrecking
yard. So why should I skimp on maintainance? When you did buy your (or any of your)
car(s), did you choose it because it's just good enough?

Oil performance beyond what your engine needs to deliver the life and service you want is irrelevant. Nevertheless, I agree that once we know such higher performance exists we tend to want it anyhow. Human nature (or at least BITOG nature).

Tom, while I agree with your second sentence, I believe 'irrelevant' isn't appropriate in your
first sentence. Internet forums are loaded with IVD issues on DI engines. I'm a strong believer
that Noack loss is an important contributor. When an appropval allows for 11 % Noack and
there are (approved) oils available with just 6 %, wouldn't you agree that using the latter is a
more sensible choice? Same with piston ring deposits. Lower Noack is simply just better on
any engine endangered by such issues and it more than likely doesn't harm in all others.

Sorry I believe you are not correct. I could look it up again but I don't see the any point, the difference does not as much difference today as it once did in most applications.

https://www.bizol.com/company/education/lubricant-knowledge-base/synthetic-oil/

Where do they claim there's a law defining synthetic oils? Actually it's just that cheating is
prohibited by law, and one court made one decision (against Motul if I remember correctly).

Btw, from the same website, would you believe this claim?

A high VI means that synthetic oil retains its viscosity when hot.

.

 

[travis8352]

Oil performance beyond what your engine needs to deliver the life and service you want is irrelevant. Nevertheless, I agree that once we know such higher performance exists we tend to want it anyhow. Human nature (or at least BITOG nature).

Exactly! Humans usually want better than we need so we get that warm fuzzy feeling we crave so much

 

[travis8352]

But are your expectations lessened if you buy a less expensive cake? Don't many folks here look for less expensive oils, or at least want to pay less for the oil they purchase? Maybe not Dream Whip, put perhaps Reddi Whip.

View attachment 83426

Here is how it worked for me
Step 1: mobil 1 is best! Lets checkout bitog...
Step 2: hmm group 3 in mobil 1 what????
Step 3: castrol bad!!!! They ruined synthetic oil
Step 4: check every msds looking for pao oils
Step 5: amsoil and redline are the best!!!
Step 6: hmm group 3 works just fine for 99 percent of vehicles
Step 7: run mobil 1 like you always did with no issues and be happy with all the new found knowledge about oil

 

[Odd_Ball]

I guess what it comes down to is this analogy. If you go to a bakery and order a cake that you pay top dollar for, you expect real whipped cream, not Dream Whip.

If the cake comes with industry approvals and a spec sheet I'm ok with it.

 

[Tifosi]

I am not sure why this is being rehashed here for the umpteenth time, but there is no public "data sheet" since much of the data presented to the BBB/NAD group was proprietary. Whether or not the BBB/NAD understood any of the results of the analysis is questionable.

Do you really think non-chemistry people would understand any of this documentation if published in the public domain?

Mobil had documented results from molecular analysis executed by Savant labs:

https://www.savantlab.com/oil-and-fluid-testing/

which supported their case.

We are not here as a judge and jury to redefine the outcome of this business ruling.

This was NOT a court case, as so many have misunderstood, but a business decision by the BBB/NAD.

Because the part about XOM doing the same thing as Castrol did BEFORE 1999 is news to me and apparently, I am not alone in this. Unlike some people here on BITOG, I don’t claim to know everything, all I am doing is asking a simple question, can anyone provide solid, conclusive evidence that XOM was doing the exact same thing that they accused Castrol was doing back in 1999? This has nothing to do with how technical an individual is or isn’t.

 

[travis8352]

If the cake comes with industry approvals and a spec sheet I'm ok with it.

Id compare it to immitation vanilla vs real vanilla or pancake syrup vs real maple syrup.

 

[Tom NJ]

Tom, while I agree with your second sentence, I believe 'irrelevant' isn't appropriate in your
first sentence. Internet forums are loaded with IVD issues on DI engines. I'm a strong believer
that Noack loss is an important contributor. When an appropval allows for 11 % Noack and
there are (approved) oils available with just 6 %, wouldn't you agree that using the latter is a
more sensible choice? Same with piston ring deposits. Lower Noack is simply just better on
any engine endangered by such issues and it more than likely doesn't harm in all others.
.

I agree that a Noack volatility lower than industry specifications may provide better performance in some engines. The same is true of other oil characteristics, and I'm not saying that we can't build oils that perform better in certain respects than those that skinny-by approval specifications. That's why I said "beyond what your engine needs to deliver the life and service you want". If you have a DI engine or other problem engine you should indeed choose an oil with those oil characteristics that allow the engine service and life you want, such as a lower Noack.

 

[930.engineering]

Because the part about XOM doing the same thing as Castrol did BEFORE 1999 is news to me and apparently, I am not alone in this. Unlike some people here on BITOG, I don’t claim to know everything, all I am doing is asking a simple question, can anyone provide solid, conclusive evidence that XOM was doing the exact same thing that they accused Castrol was doing back in 1999? This has nothing to do with how technical an individual is or isn’t.

There's a PDF or PowerPoint document from XOM explaining the reasoning,
pros and cons of that change from the earlier 2000s. I'm certain it's linked
several times on this forum. That question has been discussed plenty of times
on bitog, or let's say, it has been beaten to death.

 

[ripcord]

"Better" is such a subjective word. When my kids were little, Mrs. Butterworth's syrup was "Better" than the real maple syrup Mom and Dad preferred. To some, better motor oil is the oil that keeps the engine running as long as you want it to for the least amount of money. For others, better means the lowest carbon deposits, still others would say better is the least amount of ring or bearing wear. Horses for courses.

 

[MolaKule]

...Can anyone provide solid, conclusive evidence that XOM was doing the exact same thing that they accused Castrol was doing back in 1999?...

Okay, different question.

I have NOT seen any conclusive evidence that this was the case.

From the reference given previously:

"...Castrol also maintained that basestocks like shell's hydroisomerized basestock are marketed as synthetic in 37 countries, including the United States, and that Mobil's real interest is in protecting its market dominance. The advertiser {Castrol] argued that Mobil, through its alliance with British Petroleum, has also marketed hydroisomerized basestocks as synthetic in Europe and elsewhere..." [emphasis mine.]

This was Castrol's 'alleging' rebuttal in an effort to go on the offensive.

The hydroisomerized basestocks in question here and being discussed appear to be GTL basestocks. I consider these basestocks, by the academic definition of 'synthesis,' to be synthetic basestocks.

But I have seen no evidence to support this allegation, so it remains an unsubstantiated allegation.

 

[Tifosi]

Okay, different question.

I have NOT seen any conclusive evidence that this was the case.

From the reference given previously:

"...Castrol also maintained that basestocks like shell's hydroisomerized basestock are marketed as synthetic in 37 countries, including the United States, and that Mobil's real interest is in protecting its market dominance. The advertiser {Castrol] argued that Mobil, through its alliance with British Petroleum, has also marketed hydroisomerized basestocks as synthetic in Europe and elsewhere..." [emphasis mine.]

This was Castrol's 'alleging' rebuttal in an effort to go on the offensive.

The hydroisomerized basestocks in question here and being discussed appear to be GTL basestocks. I consider these basestocks, by the academic definition of 'synthesis,' to be synthetic basestocks.

But I have seen no evidence to support this allegation, so it remains an unsubstantiated allegation.

Thank you!!!

The reason I asked was because of what forum member kschachn posted on page 2 of this thread (Please see the quote below) about XOM doing the exact same thing as Castrol did prior to 1999. It is certainly possible that I am simply ignorant to this, IF this is true, but I am definitely not going to just accept what "Kenny from Danville" says without some sort of an attempt of verification. Nothing personal to kschachn.

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.

 

[SR5]

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.

Yes and in North America you have HPL, Redline and Amsoil.
In Australia and New Zealand we have Penrite and Nulon.

So we can all get Group IV & V full synthetic oils if we want them. Sure they may take a bit more coin and a bit of effort, but they are there for us on the open market.

And this is where the market forces come into effect, if we all started to buy it, then it would be cheaper and easier to find. But we don't, we mostly just talk about it.

 

[SR5]

BTW I did once buy Penrite 10-Tenths (100% PAO & Ester) because I had to taste the good stuff.

Guess what? From the drivers seat it felt like any other oil except I paid a lot more, sure if I did double the distance it may have equaled out. Just another path to the same place.