Mobil 1 now containing GTL

[4WD]

Or admission it is cheaper - both of these companies have been in GTL and LNG for decades and always evolving in how they are used. (Or not used and need to use in house). Both of these companies are loaded with NG.
Think about how cheap NG was relative to crude when much of this happened...
Targets like clean diesel might go out ahead of lubes - just management decisions...
Obviously they share add packs too ...

 

[weasley]

Originally Posted By: UltrafanUK
That article is really worth reading as it explains that GTL base stocks have a variety of advantages over group 3 (Hydrocrack synthetics) AND are less contaminated.

You need to read it again. Nowhere does it say that GTL base stocks are "less contaminated". It does say "with this particular conversion process, the result is an extremely pure, synthetic crude oil that is virtually free of contaminants such as sulfur, aromatics and metals." So the synthetic 'crude' that is created is less contaminated than natural crude oil.

Also, GTL base stocks are API group III by definition (and they are also hydrocracked synthetics), so they cannot have advantages over group IIIs. They arguably have advantages over other group IIIs, but then there are other high quality sources of group III too (so-called group III+).

Originally Posted By: UltrafanUK
...that part of the reason might be the fact that new oil is not filtered well enough to remove all contaminants, so the fact that a GTL based oil does not contain them could be significant.

This is a bit of a leap. There are many sources of 'contamination' in an engine oil (if you define contamination as anything present that you would rather was not). There are left-over processing residues, catalyst agents, filter media, particles from the blending and filling processes and so on. Some of this comes with the base oil and some from the additives. GTL oils use the same source of additives as other oils, so will bring the same carry-over with them. The sorts of 'contaminants' that might come over from crude oil will not be the sort that can be filtered out in production.

I don't doubt that you found the Ultra oil to be good in your application (after all, your user name rather gives us a clue), but there will be myriad reasons why this is the case without reading between the lines of a 14 year old article.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: KingCake
You guys are reading the MSDS wrong. The MSDS is not a recipe.

I don't believe we are reading it wrong and we are well aware that it isn't a recipe.

Originally Posted By: KingCake
There's lots of stuff in the oil that won't be on the MSDS, and there's stuff on the MSDS that doesn't have to be in the oil. When it says < some % it could literally mean there is 0%. The are allowed to perform this kind of trickery to protect trade secrets.


I think you might need to go look at the MSDS. They do not simply say less than a given number, rather an appropriately vague RANGE of percentages is presented.

Here is the ExxonMobil MSDS search engine

Choose USA. Plug in 0w-40. Go to the 2nd page and click in the MSDS for the product we are discussing here. You'll see that the RANGE given for constituency of CAS # 848301-69-9 is presented as being 40 - < 70%. So between 40 and some number less than 70%. That's a good 30% spread, appropriate vague but still indicative of a solid percentage of this particular product appearing in the finished product. That's all we are taking away from these discussions, nobody is assuming that an MSDS is an "oil recipe" and we are well aware that there are many components not shown in the MSDS that are likely in the finished oil. Mobil covers this in their own little blurb shown on the MSDS actually:

Originally Posted By: ExxonMobil
As per paragraph (i) of 29 CFR 1910.1200, formulation is considered a trade secret and specific chemical identity and exact percentage (concentration) of composition may have been withheld.


Indicating that they will not provide exact percentages (hence the ranges presented) and that the actual formula is a trade secret and so only what is required for safety purposes is divulged, which leaves plenty out.

 

[4WD]

Yep, the MSDS is a safety document reviewed by HSE, engineers, legal, and management folks, to keep both the site personnel and companies safe - and can wind up outside of original intent in search of strategic or technical confidentiality ...

 

[UltrafanUK]

Originally Posted By: weasley
Originally Posted By: UltrafanUK
That article is really worth reading as it explains that GTL base stocks have a variety of advantages over group 3 (Hydrocrack synthetics) AND are less contaminated.

You need to read it again. Nowhere does it say that GTL base stocks are "less contaminated". It does say "with this particular conversion process, the result is an extremely pure, synthetic crude oil that is virtually free of contaminants such as sulfur, aromatics and metals." So the synthetic 'crude' that is created is less contaminated than natural crude oil.

Also, GTL base stocks are API group III by definition (and they are also hydrocracked synthetics), so they cannot have advantages over group IIIs. They arguably have advantages over other group IIIs, but then there are other high quality sources of group III too (so-called group III+).

Originally Posted By: UltrafanUK
...that part of the reason might be the fact that new oil is not filtered well enough to remove all contaminants, so the fact that a GTL based oil does not contain them could be significant.

This is a bit of a leap. There are many sources of 'contamination' in an engine oil (if you define contamination as anything present that you would rather was not). There are left-over processing residues, catalyst agents, filter media, particles from the blending and filling processes and so on. Some of this comes with the base oil and some from the additives. GTL oils use the same source of additives as other oils, so will bring the same carry-over with them. The sorts of 'contaminants' that might come over from crude oil will not be the sort that can be filtered out in production.

I don't doubt that you found the Ultra oil to be good in your application (after all, your user name rather gives us a clue), but there will be myriad reasons why this is the case without reading between the lines of a 14 year old article.


The article does say that GTL base stocks contain less contaminants and if you read up on what causes a jump in wear rates when the oil is changed, contaminants are listed as one factor, although the action of the new detergents on the old anti wear layer is more significant.

I base my oil selection on UOA results and Ultra was as good as the more expensive LM Synthoil High Tech. It produced much better figurers than Edge or M1.

 

[4WD]

GIII+ might just stick. Cracked...Low sulphur, BTEX, aromatic ... Paraffin nature so reckon they have worked some solvency issues ... Guess they have to balance how much is directed to fuels vs lubes and who wants some feedstock ...
Should help moderate how much of the more expensive base fluids go in the mix ...
But on the other hand - sure have been some amazing runs made on good Dino. ....

 

[bobbydavro]

Originally Posted By: UltrafanUK
Originally Posted By: weasley
Originally Posted By: UltrafanUK
That article is really worth reading as it explains that GTL base stocks have a variety of advantages over group 3 (Hydrocrack synthetics) AND are less contaminated.

You need to read it again. Nowhere does it say that GTL base stocks are "less contaminated". It does say "with this particular conversion process, the result is an extremely pure, synthetic crude oil that is virtually free of contaminants such as sulfur, aromatics and metals." So the synthetic 'crude' that is created is less contaminated than natural crude oil.

Also, GTL base stocks are API group III by definition (and they are also hydrocracked synthetics), so they cannot have advantages over group IIIs. They arguably have advantages over other group IIIs, but then there are other high quality sources of group III too (so-called group III+).

Originally Posted By: UltrafanUK
...that part of the reason might be the fact that new oil is not filtered well enough to remove all contaminants, so the fact that a GTL based oil does not contain them could be significant.

This is a bit of a leap. There are many sources of 'contamination' in an engine oil (if you define contamination as anything present that you would rather was not). There are left-over processing residues, catalyst agents, filter media, particles from the blending and filling processes and so on. Some of this comes with the base oil and some from the additives. GTL oils use the same source of additives as other oils, so will bring the same carry-over with them. The sorts of 'contaminants' that might come over from crude oil will not be the sort that can be filtered out in production.

I don't doubt that you found the Ultra oil to be good in your application (after all, your user name rather gives us a clue), but there will be myriad reasons why this is the case without reading between the lines of a 14 year old article.


The article does say that GTL base stocks contain less contaminants and if you read up on what causes a jump in wear rates when the oil is changed, contaminants are listed as one factor, although the action of the new detergents on the old anti wear layer is more significant.

I base my oil selection on UOA results and Ultra was as good as the more expensive LM Synthoil High Tech. It produced much better figurers than Edge or M1.


Ive never seen a jump in wear rate due to contaminants, usually these are a non issue and wear increases are due to Zddp becoming less available as it goes from ZDDP to transitional phosphates until its expired. There are paper about soot contaminants causing wear, however this is a secondary effect of ZDDP availability impacted by soot.

Have you got these UOA?

I see GTL as a Group III without wax which helps pour point, however the same mineral type diluents will exist in additives and VIIs. PPD type and treat may also need to change but the reality is it is a Group III+ which still relys on the additive to give the performance

 

[Ohle_Manezzini]

My C5 ran all of its previous owner life (90k miles) with dino at 10k miles Oci. 15w40 or 20w50 mineral SJ or SL. It has just a hint of a little varnish. Manual calls for fully synthetic Total Quartz 9000 5w40. I'm trying a dexos 1 for cleaning, but the thin varnish is still there, untoucheable.

 

[Popsy]

I had great luck cleaning some mild varnish with SHU 5W40, old (not GTL) and current formula.
BTW Total Quartz 9000 5W40 isn't a full synth, and by experience (with its "Energy" version), it doesn't clean as well...but it stays clear longer.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: Popsy
BTW Total Quartz 9000 5W40 isn't a full synth, and by experience (with its "Energy" version), it doesn't clean as well...but it stays clear longer.


Is that a good thing?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: Popsy
BTW Total Quartz 9000 5W40 isn't a full synth, and by experience (with its "Energy" version), it doesn't clean as well...but it stays clear longer.


Is that a good thing?


I would posit those two statements go hand-in-hand, what are your thoughts?

 

[kschachn]

I agree they would go hand-in-hand. It was his use of word "but" rather than "and" which I was going after.

Maybe just picking apart statements on my part. I read it to take that staying clear longer was somehow good.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
I agree they would go hand-in-hand. It was his use of word "but" rather than "and" which I was going after.

Maybe just picking apart statements on my part. I read it to take that staying clear longer was somehow good.


As did I

 

[Jetronic]

It can be... depends what the source of the colouring is...

 

[Jetronic]

Originally Posted By: bobbydavro


Ive never seen a jump in wear rate due to contaminants, usually these are a non issue and wear increases are due to Zddp becoming less available as it goes from ZDDP to transitional phosphates until its expired. There are paper about soot contaminants causing wear, however this is a secondary effect of ZDDP availability impacted by soot.



How severe is the soot impact on ZDDP availability?

Ironically, diesel engines tend to put more soot in their oil but also are most likely to run low- or mid-saps oil with less ZDDP.

 

[Ohle_Manezzini]

I think it depends on the size of the soot particles. Diesel engines tend to mke a lot of soot, but from the nano particle size, so it doesn't interfere much. Now, the soot tend to agglomerare and together bake over time, making clusters that are harmfull to parts clearances, where the wear appears.

 

[kschachn]

Do you know that for a fact or do you just think it happens? The reason I ask is because at a former employer I studied carbon agglomerates for over two years, and even at extremely high temperatures (in excess of 2000 deg. C) where the amorphous structure of the carbon began to crystallize, it did not alter the bonding of the individual carbon particles. Just wondering where you may have seen evidence that these clusters form by anything other than a weak attraction.

Originally Posted By: Ohle_Manezzini
I think it depends on the size of the soot particles. Diesel engines tend to mke a lot of soot, but from the nano particle size, so it doesn't interfere much. Now, the soot tend to agglomerare and together bake over time, making clusters that are harmful to parts clearances, where the wear appears.

 

[Ducked]

Originally Posted By: CELICA_XX
No one answered what FS stood for...


Couldn't be short for "FFS!, Enough with the Undefined Acronyms, already" could it?

No, I suppose not......Pity.

 

[kschachn]

I still want to know about the carbon thing, carbon is a favorite subject of mine.

 

[jayg]

Originally Posted By: Ohle_Manezzini
My C5 ran all of its previous owner life (90k miles) with dino at 10k miles Oci. 15w40 or 20w50 mineral SJ or SL. It has just a hint of a little varnish. Manual calls for fully synthetic Total Quartz 9000 5w40. I'm trying a dexos 1 for cleaning, but the thin varnish is still there, untoucheable.


I almost freaked out thinking this was a Corvette. That definitely would have been a mistake. I take it this is some diesel Citroen we are talking about. lol