Yes. Group III oils can be marketed as synthetic because their molecules have been refined and rearranged so much. However, the base oil is not as important as the specifications that the finished oil meets. Also, the quality of the additive package is equally important. Today, even group III oils can meet the toughest ACEA specifications and manufacturer approvals.
Who has better base stock 5w40 delo or rotella?
- Thread starter Sealbilly
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Pajero
Now from what I understand, U.S. Courts have defined synthetic oil. Which I don't agree, that is for Chemist.
No US court has defined it. I'm not a chemist either (I have a minor in Chemistry), but there is a lot more to severe hydrocracking than there is to hydroprocessing oils. Hydroprocessing does not break large numbers of C-C bonds like hydrocracking does. Most of the people who make long and loud arguments against hydrocracked oils being synthetic typically have no real idea of what is involved.
Here is a good overview:
http://inside.mines.edu/~jjechura/Refining/08_Hydroprocessing.pdf
Now from what I understand, U.S. Courts have defined synthetic oil. Which I don't agree, that is for Chemist.
No US court has defined it. I'm not a chemist either (I have a minor in Chemistry), but there is a lot more to severe hydrocracking than there is to hydroprocessing oils. Hydroprocessing does not break large numbers of C-C bonds like hydrocracking does. Most of the people who make long and loud arguments against hydrocracked oils being synthetic typically have no real idea of what is involved.
Here is a good overview:
http://inside.mines.edu/~jjechura/Refining/08_Hydroprocessing.pdf
kschachn, I know the official definitions from the API for base oils. They involve the percent of saturates and sulfur, and the viscosity index. However, all the oils in groups I-III happen to be refined from crude oil or natural gas. That is all I am trying to say.
Originally Posted By: ZraHamilton
kschachn, I know the official definitions from the API for base oils. They involve the percent of saturates and sulfur, and the viscosity index. However, all the oils in groups I-III happen to be refined from crude oil or natural gas. That is all I am trying to say.
As is PAO and many group v sources.
Nothing wrong or right about the source of the base oils.
The final formulated product is what we should focus on. A nice isosysn synthetic blend or a gtl product that is properly formulated both sound like good purchases to me.
There is no superiority in having PAO basestock. None. They need a lot of help to be a part of good engine oils.
kschachn, I know the official definitions from the API for base oils. They involve the percent of saturates and sulfur, and the viscosity index. However, all the oils in groups I-III happen to be refined from crude oil or natural gas. That is all I am trying to say.
As is PAO and many group v sources.
Nothing wrong or right about the source of the base oils.
The final formulated product is what we should focus on. A nice isosysn synthetic blend or a gtl product that is properly formulated both sound like good purchases to me.
There is no superiority in having PAO basestock. None. They need a lot of help to be a part of good engine oils.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: ZraHamilton
Sucked out of the ground are groups I-III. Created in a lab are groups IV and V.
I am not arguing about the quality or performance of the oils.
Being 'sucked out of the ground' is inconsequential to the classification of GTL, and GTL is not "refined" from crude oil.The GrIII used in Delo and Rotella are produced from syncrude that was made by the Fisher-Tropsch process. GTL-FT oils have nothing to do with actual crude oil at any step of manufacture process. The only real difference is that Chevron's FT syncrude feedstock is crude oil and Shell's natural gas. In this case, the base oils are virtually identical in performance.
Also as mentioned, the "+" that sometimes suffixes GrII and GrIII is an informal (read: marketing, not technical) designation that is often used to distinguish bases with viscosity indexes on the top half of their respective groups.
Sucked out of the ground are groups I-III. Created in a lab are groups IV and V.
I am not arguing about the quality or performance of the oils.
Being 'sucked out of the ground' is inconsequential to the classification of GTL, and GTL is not "refined" from crude oil.The GrIII used in Delo and Rotella are produced from syncrude that was made by the Fisher-Tropsch process. GTL-FT oils have nothing to do with actual crude oil at any step of manufacture process. The only real difference is that Chevron's FT syncrude feedstock is crude oil and Shell's natural gas. In this case, the base oils are virtually identical in performance.
Also as mentioned, the "+" that sometimes suffixes GrII and GrIII is an informal (read: marketing, not technical) designation that is often used to distinguish bases with viscosity indexes on the top half of their respective groups.
I agree with everything you just said. All I was trying to say was that all group III base oils are made from crude or natural gas, and groups IV and V are not.
Originally Posted By: ZraHamilton
I agree with everything you just said. All I was trying to say was that all group III base oils are made from crude or natural gas, and groups IV and V are not.
Can you explain to us the synthesis process for polyalphaolefins and esters, and what the feed stock origin is for them?
I agree with everything you just said. All I was trying to say was that all group III base oils are made from crude or natural gas, and groups IV and V are not.
Can you explain to us the synthesis process for polyalphaolefins and esters, and what the feed stock origin is for them?
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Sealbilly
... Lots of information i don't understand, that's the reason for the question.
I, too, understand very, very, very little of the chemistry, especially when it delves into such finite a topic.
But ... I don't have to, to glean the benefits of a well-made product.
There are SEVERAL roads to the same destination. The GOAL is to have a product that reduces wear, does a good job of cleaning for the intended OCI, and does so at a decent price.
Despite all the marketing hype and lube-brand bias on this site, there's no evidence that this topic actually matters for us. If you run OCIs that are "normal" (out to 15k miles), I don't care what base stock you run, you're not going to see any statistical difference in wear control. None whatsoever. If anyone thinks I am wrong, then post up your proof. And by "proof" I mean credible data from real world applications, understanding the mean and deviation of the wear trends. Otherwise, this is just the typical BITOG dive into the abyss.
... Lots of information i don't understand, that's the reason for the question.
I, too, understand very, very, very little of the chemistry, especially when it delves into such finite a topic.
But ... I don't have to, to glean the benefits of a well-made product.
There are SEVERAL roads to the same destination. The GOAL is to have a product that reduces wear, does a good job of cleaning for the intended OCI, and does so at a decent price.
Despite all the marketing hype and lube-brand bias on this site, there's no evidence that this topic actually matters for us. If you run OCIs that are "normal" (out to 15k miles), I don't care what base stock you run, you're not going to see any statistical difference in wear control. None whatsoever. If anyone thinks I am wrong, then post up your proof. And by "proof" I mean credible data from real world applications, understanding the mean and deviation of the wear trends. Otherwise, this is just the typical BITOG dive into the abyss.
So I like to look at the history of a product group. Seems XOM got the first million mile engine (Cummins) on Delvac, followed shortly by Chevron (Caterpillar). As far as I know, Shell has not posted a million mile engine ...
So from a wear standpoint, I'd be looking at XOM and Chevron as having very good formulations, and for a long time
So from a wear standpoint, I'd be looking at XOM and Chevron as having very good formulations, and for a long time
Originally Posted By: BrocLuno
So I like to look at the history of a product group. Seems XOM got the first million mile engine (Cummins) on Delvac, followed shortly by Chevron (Caterpillar). As far as I know, Shell has not posted a million mile engine ...
So from a wear standpoint, I'd be looking at XOM and Chevron as having very good formulations, and for a long time
A million miles on a truck engine is no big deal, lots of them have gone over a million on all the oils. I'm driving a Cummins isx with over 800,000 miles and it gets whatever the owner feels like putting in, whenever he gets around to doing it. One thing is for sure, he would never spend extra for synthetic.
So I like to look at the history of a product group. Seems XOM got the first million mile engine (Cummins) on Delvac, followed shortly by Chevron (Caterpillar). As far as I know, Shell has not posted a million mile engine ...
So from a wear standpoint, I'd be looking at XOM and Chevron as having very good formulations, and for a long time
A million miles on a truck engine is no big deal, lots of them have gone over a million on all the oils. I'm driving a Cummins isx with over 800,000 miles and it gets whatever the owner feels like putting in, whenever he gets around to doing it. One thing is for sure, he would never spend extra for synthetic.
Million miles might not be that big a deal today, but back in the day it was NEWS
So the folks that could do it got a lot of press. The refiners were working hard to get a blend with and add pak that would do it. These guys did it and they had both the lab data and real world tests to back it up. The results sold a lot of lube oil
Once you have the secret sauce, it not that hard to continue tweaking the formula as time goes by. But, you gotta get there first, as far as formula.
So the folks that could do it got a lot of press. The refiners were working hard to get a blend with and add pak that would do it. These guys did it and they had both the lab data and real world tests to back it up. The results sold a lot of lube oil
Once you have the secret sauce, it not that hard to continue tweaking the formula as time goes by. But, you gotta get there first, as far as formula.
Well it's clear that XOM was the first to meet the million-mile spec.
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
Agreed ~ right perspective ~ guess you could call the Astrodome no big deal now … pretty big deal in 1965 …
Originally Posted By: ZraHamilton
Sucked out of the ground are groups I-III. Created in a lab are groups IV and V.
I am not arguing about the quality or performance of the oils.
Then since PAO is primarily made from ethylene gas, which is primarily sourced from Natural Gas, then that makes PAO a group III by your definition.
Sucked out of the ground are groups I-III. Created in a lab are groups IV and V.
I am not arguing about the quality or performance of the oils.
Then since PAO is primarily made from ethylene gas, which is primarily sourced from Natural Gas, then that makes PAO a group III by your definition.
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Then since PAO is primarily made from ethylene gas, which is primarily sourced from Natural Gas, then that makes PAO a group III by your definition.
I think most ethylene is produced from cracking higher molecular weight hydrocarbons, not synthesized from methane. But yeah, that was the basis for my question to him asking how it is produced and what the feed stocks are.
Pretty hard to make anything that is a hydrocarbon without getting it out of the ground. Even the carbon and hydrogen in the atmosphere ultimately came from the ground, and those are oxides which are thermodynamically unfavorable as precursors for synthesis.
Then since PAO is primarily made from ethylene gas, which is primarily sourced from Natural Gas, then that makes PAO a group III by your definition.
I think most ethylene is produced from cracking higher molecular weight hydrocarbons, not synthesized from methane. But yeah, that was the basis for my question to him asking how it is produced and what the feed stocks are.
Pretty hard to make anything that is a hydrocarbon without getting it out of the ground. Even the carbon and hydrogen in the atmosphere ultimately came from the ground, and those are oxides which are thermodynamically unfavorable as precursors for synthesis.
- Status
