Why no M1 0W-20 Fully synthetic oil?

[4WD]

Why is it Group III then?

I’d just as soon see the German SHC thing than hear this forever …

You are not going to run a Group I oil 20k with a 6 quart sump … so a consumer needs to know there is something different for the cost …

 

[BrocLuno]

Mostly I get Redline and Motul 300V as synthetics. M1 - as marketing

 

[Nyogtha]

Originally Posted By: 4WD
Why is it Group III then?

I’d just as soon see the German SHC thing than hear this forever …

You are not going to run a Group I oil 20k with a 6 quart sump … so a consumer needs to know there is something different for the cost …


It's Group III because it's not any other group, so someone said do.

Much like hydroisomerization not qualifying as synthesis chemistry - someone said so, who I doubt has ever worked with hydroisomerization directly. Someone else like me may say differently. I don't care if the feedstock us C4, C5, or C6 hydrocarbon, or lube oil stock. It's synthesizing the end product from a feedstock that's not the end product, rather than plucking out the desireable molecules from the surrounding molecules.

 

[Shannow]

So GrII is synthetic too...after all, it's altering the molecules, rather than sorting them.

 

[Virtus_Probi]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
So GrII is synthetic too...after all, it's altering the molecules, rather than sorting them.


Yeah, that is where all this gets even more confusing.
One thing I don't quite understand is if GrIII represents a more complete conversion of the base oils to a given product than GrII or GrIII actually results in a different chemical end product than GrII?

 

[4WD]

Well, last I heard all these big oil companies have chemical divisions … a petrochemical flow stream is and has been using NG for building blocks for many products … hence the SHC thing has some logic to it.
(But are they not using the word “synthesized”)

However ~ you can take any US based “synthetic” - and scrolling down their product line they are allowed to use many combinations of base stock ~ but it tends to be GIII/GIV/GV in the mix. It’s different enough to be called something different … and still have OEM approvals that “boutique” lubes don’t carry.

Knowing that ~ when I buy a $23 jug (and some have rebates) = I don’t feel like a consumer being cheated …
And BTW: Some who are hung up on this subject are not even buying full tilt GIV/GV products …
I have no use for most of these products = but happy they exist for a niche application …

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: 4WD
Why is it Group III then?

Because as a base stock it meets the requirements of API 1509 Appendix E which defines the criteria for each Group designation.

Note that these designations are actually for the interchangeability of base stocks for formulators and manufacturers, not as an overall designation of the finished product. Strictly speaking the Group designations should not be used for finished motor oils but obviously it is commonly done. The reason is that the sum total of a fully formulated motor oil is more than the properties of the base stock(s).

 

[4WD]

And the companies that make and not just mix products … will always use a combination that meets specs at an affordable price. I hear folks here claim Amsoil is not expensive … but I go to the website and it’s $12/quart (not even sure about shipping since I closed the page) … my OLM will shut me down at 7k anyway …

 

[ARCOgraphite]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: 4WD
Why is it Group III then?

Because as a base stock it meets the requirements of API 1509 Appendix E which defines the criteria for each Group designation.

Note that these designations are actually for the interchangeability of base stocks for formulators and manufacturers, not as an overall designation of the finished product. Strictly speaking the Group designations should not be used for finished motor oils but obviously it is commonly done. The reason is that the sum total of a fully formulated motor oil is more than the properties of the base stock(s).


CatchCan and I have been back and forth on this.

The only thing I can think of is that the finished product is yet again a paraffin not a POA or di-ester or Flourocarbon. It is synthetic built up from simple, pure building blocks not distilled , hydroisomerised crud mineral stock.
you would think it would be in group V as that is an "everything else" catch can. Again a Paraffin is not something else other than a perfect synthesis of a dino constituent.

At least "Fully Synthetic Oil" speaks the truth here. For good or bad or indifferent. I'm no PAO (grpV) fan, my complaint is more at the BAMBOOZELING the BIG OIL is giving the average Joe.

 

[Patman]

I miss the days when Bob would come in and remind us that it's not the base stock that's as important as the entire finished package of the oil. He proved many times that Shaeffer oil with it's blended base stock could perform extremely well due to it's quality additive package. So we really shouldn't get so hung up on the PAO percentage of an oil. M1 makes very good oils, don't worry if they are mostly group 3, as they are still very good oils that have given people long engine life for decades now.

 

[kschachn]

GTL is hydroprocessed just like other Group III base stock. It's about certain performance specifications that determine interchangeability eligibility of the base stocks, not about anyone's imagination of what the finished product should be called.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

Originally Posted By: Patman
I miss the days when Bob would come in and remind us that it's not the base stock that's as important as the entire finished package of the oil. He proved many times that Shaeffer oil with it's blended base stock could perform extremely well due to it's quality additive package



I recall reading part of a paper by ELF on Formula(X) racing oil development and they found that blends worked better than 100% synthetic AFA getting the engine to the finish intact and making power. Not the same duty as PCMO but a interesting nugget
Nobody said synthetic is "BETTER", my complaints are about truth in advertising and the VERY slippery slope.

And Yes I know BP started it, but XOM caved when it was realized there is money to be made.

And last time I ran the current M1 oil theynot perform as well ( power, smoothness, no ring sticking ) as some I've used in the past when they WERE textbook full synthetic.
Only two times they worked VERY well, but it was a good two times.

a) M1 R 4T MC oil and

the (b) formula just before tri synthetic came out.

Long time ago now.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Originally Posted By: Patman
I miss the days when Bob would come in and remind us that it's not the base stock that's as important as the entire finished package of the oil. He proved many times that Shaeffer oil with it's blended base stock could perform extremely well due to it's quality additive package



I recall reading part of a paper by ELF on Formula(X) racing oil development and they found that blends worked better than 100% synthetic AFA getting the engine to the finish intact and making power. Not the same duty as PCMO but a interesting nugget
Nobody said synthetic is "BETTER", my complaints are about truth in advertising and the VERY slippery slope.

And Yes I know BP started it, but XOM caved when it was realized there is money to be made.

And last time I ran the current M1 oil they did not perform as well (power, smoothness, no ring sticking ) as some I've used in the distant past when they WERE textbook full synthetic.
Only two times they worked VERY well, but it was a good two times.

a) M1 R 4T MC oil and

the (b) formula just before tri synthetic came out.

Long time ago now.

 

[BrocLuno]

See, that's what gets me. Delo is good Grp II+ oil and works well and long. But folks treat it as the lost step child because it can't claim "synthetic" ... M1 has been up and down for me in various engines. Sometimes good and sometimes not (serious cold start noise in HM engines).

But, folks here mostly say they use synthetic and swear up and down it's the best, largely meaning M1 or similar. I don't see where it's better than Chevron Supreme, Delo, etc., in clean engines, wear, or most other variables that count ... Then there was the stretch that had old Pennz Yellow Bottle being secretly 1/2 syn ...

Then along comes the 0W-XX's and all have to be pretty well made. PAO, Ester, not necessarily - but good formulations with some usually present. And that means brand is less important than grade to do a job. So where does that leave the fan boys (& girls)?

 

[4WD]

You mean the Chevron fans … what makes it any better than the categories it competes in?

Sure ~ If you don’t have extreme conditions … or plan really long runs …(please no more 18 wheeler analogies) don’t have to use anything exotic …

But we have had an auto industry struggling for every tiny MPG gain … so when I’m forced to use 0w20 in a new $60k vehicle … it’s likely to wind up an “imaginary oil” cause real oil can’t get there …

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: 4WD
But we have had an auto industry struggling for every tiny MPG gain … so when I’m forced to use 0w20 in a new $60k vehicle … it’s likely to wind up an “imaginary oil” cause real oil can’t get there …

Where are you being forced to use a particular grade of oil? Does anything in the literature for your car state that the warranty is invalidated by the use of a different grade?

People make that claim all the time (and we had a thread about it) but no one was ever able to show where the choice of grade was related to warranty.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Patman
I miss the days when Bob would come in and remind us that it's not the base stock that's as important as the entire finished package of the oil. He proved many times that Shaeffer oil with it's blended base stock could perform extremely well due to it's quality additive package. So we really shouldn't get so hung up on the PAO percentage of an oil. M1 makes very good oils, don't worry if they are mostly group 3, as they are still very good oils that have given people long engine life for decades now.


We go around again...

Synthetic is a word with a definition.

Synthetic, as a word doesn't describe a performance level.

Synthetic as a word isn't delineated by viscosity index.

 

[Nyogtha]

Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: 4WD
Why is it Group III then?

Because as a base stock it meets the requirements of API 1509 Appendix E which defines the criteria for each Group designation.

Note that these designations are actually for the interchangeability of base stocks for formulators and manufacturers, not as an overall designation of the finished product. Strictly speaking the Group designations should not be used for finished motor oils but obviously it is commonly done. The reason is that the sum total of a fully formulated motor oil is more than the properties of the base stock(s).


CatchCan and I have been back and forth on this.

The only thing I can think of is that the finished product is yet again a paraffin not a POA or di-ester or Flourocarbon. It is synthetic built up from simple, pure building blocks not distilled , hydroisomerised crud mineral stock.
you would think it would be in group V as that is an "everything else" catch can. Again a Paraffin is not something else other than a perfect synthesis of a dino constituent.

At least "Fully Synthetic Oil" speaks the truth here. For good or bad or indifferent. I'm no PAO (grpV) fan, my complaint is more at the BAMBOOZELING the BIG OIL is giving the average Joe.


PAO is hydroprocessed to saturate the remaining double bonds converting to a parrafin before use as a motor ool base stock. This iz a final step in the synthedis at the PAO manufacturing facility. That's why you see it's olefin name followed by the word "hydrogenated". If left in olefin form it would be too reactive and degrade rapidly in use as a motor oil base stock. It's the olefins, and in particukar diolefins, that are the cause of gums & varnish in motor gasoline as they react with oxygen at ambient temperature. You would have a crankcase & engine full of nothing but sludge if PAO that had not been hydrogenated to convert it to paraffin was used in your motor oil. You couldn't add enough antioxidant to make any sort of OCI reasonable. Going gorward, ehen referring yo PAO, let's remember to include "hydrogenated" to honestly reflect its chemical form as a paraffin in actual use.

 

[crazy_raccoon]

Well from the first original first post I think he is wondering why Mobil 1 doesn't offer it in the regular basic full synthetic version of their oils instead of AFE, EP and AP....but that was some pages ago...

 

[4WD]

Just this … but ask 10 folks and get 10 interpretations: