Exxon Mobil - slow on Group III interchange
- Thread starter Pablo
- Start date
- Status
Well that is sad news for us mixologists. Not only is it chancy to dope our oil when using Group III synthetic, but also it is chancy to mix two different brands Gp III. Even a single brand may be a bad mix. Glad to hear Schaeffers has integrety in this matter. Now if I didn't have a 122 quart stash, I could get some Schaeffers.
Triple_Se7en
$50 Site Donor 2024
I mix oil Group I & II brands and different viscosities all the time. The only time I'll blend synthetics is when I have a leftover jug or two -- then I mix it with same brand name dino to produce a syn-blend. I don't worry about additive depletion doing this. My OCIS are 3K dino - 4.5K syn-blends and 6.5K for synthetics.
So I feel I'm out of the woods with concerns issued in this XOM hyperlink.
So I feel I'm out of the woods with concerns issued in this XOM hyperlink.
Sounds like the Mr Cox is stating a conclusion we have come to here. Not all Grp III's are created equal. They certainly need to better classify the base stock than by the VI and a gross saturate content of 10%. Many grp III oils just squeek under that , while others rival PAO's in purity and VI. Shells XHVI and Exxonsmobil's VISOM are examples of high quality group III's. Conocos Super S for example wprobably would not be a compatible replacement for XHVI or VISOM. Super S
It also sounds like Group III should not be called synthetic. As the process' results truly vary in composition.
In my mind a synthetic molecule is designed to an exact and non varying standard.
Chris
In my mind a synthetic molecule is designed to an exact and non varying standard.
Chris
Which many group III's are designed to meet. Others have more variation.
Doesn't this article call into question some of Amsoils claims about API certification?
They claim the 'formula' approved is fixed, and any variation would require re-certification.
This suggests that that claim is bogus.
Just asking.
They claim the 'formula' approved is fixed, and any variation would require re-certification.
This suggests that that claim is bogus.
Just asking.
What Amsoil is talking about is in regard to (true) synthetic oils - there is no "allowable" interchange, hence the need to re-certify. One of the points of the article, I do believe.
So this begs the question: how can we tell how discriminating our providers are with their GIII base stocks? How good is Motorcraft's GIII in their syn blend?
This just adds more uncertainty to the whole thing.
This just adds more uncertainty to the whole thing.
Amen.
I suspect in comparing Group III oils, the better Group III would have lower NOACK and lower pour point. I'm sure other parameters could be looked at also. So maybe we can sort these oils out.Quote:
So this begs the question: how can we tell how discriminating our providers are with their GIII base stocks? How good is Motorcraft's GIII in their syn blend?
This just adds more uncertainty to the whole thing.
Just buy Maxlife Synthetic which Valvo techs told me is a Group III/PAO blend and has higher levels of PAO than regular Maxlife (which MSDS says 12-22%).
Hearsay from a valvo promoter?
I tried maxlife conventional and found it the least satisfactory from a subjective non-scientific perspective, but I'm sure it did the job just fine for 4k mostly city mi. Meanwhile, despite the various oils I pour in it, the engine happily outlives the rest of the car.
- Status
Similar threads
