GTL and hydrocracking are both a synthesis process, so you're covered there in terms of those paraffins. That should cover most of the field.
If an oil is labeled as 'full synthetic' should it contain paraffin ?
- Thread starter Otto Mann
- Start date
- Status
Actually, the GTL synthesis process is identical to all other Group III processes—that's why GTL it is considered to be an API Group III base stock. The difference is only in the feedstock. GTL Group III base stocks start from a natural-gas-derived paraffin wax, whereas conventional Group III base stocks start from a petroleum-derived paraffin wax called slack wax. The wax goes through the hydrogenation process, which synthesizes it into a lubricant base stock.
In fact, there is really no difference between API Group II and Group III. The same hydrogenation synthesizers are used to make either base stock. The difference is only in the viscosity index VI, which is arbitrarily set to a minimum of 120 by API to be considered a Group III—hence synthetic—instead of a Group II. The viscosity index VI is controlled by the severity of hydrogenation process, which is adjustable on the same equipment, and the higher the VI, the higher the base-oil quality is. Therefore, the quality of "synthetic" Group III base stocks vary greatly when the VI increases from the minimal 120 to around 150. Castrol for example uses the lowest-quality Group III base stocks with VI in the low 120s, whereas Shell uses high-quality Group III base stocks with VI close to 140. High VI can be achieved either through petroleum wax or GTL wax, but it's much easier and cheaper with GTL wax. I read somewhere that GTL base stocks are actually cheaper than Group I and Group II base stocks.
Hydroprocessing explained
These are some great articles on how Group II, Group II+, Group III, Group III+, and GTL base oils are made through hydroprocessing, as well as how Group I base oils are made through refining. Mineral base oils, conventional refiningHydroprocessing of base oils/overviewLube hydrotreating and...
bobistheoilguy.com
CleanSump
Site Donor 2022
To make it simple:
If you are reading the MSDS and it says "Distillates (petroleum), hydrotreated heavy paraffinic" it does not mean candle wax or the stuff you grandmother sealed jelly jars with. Details as to what the word means in motor oil formulation has been answered by the more knowledgeable members kind enough to answer.
If you are reading the MSDS and it says "Distillates (petroleum), hydrotreated heavy paraffinic" it does not mean candle wax or the stuff you grandmother sealed jelly jars with. Details as to what the word means in motor oil formulation has been answered by the more knowledgeable members kind enough to answer.
I am convinced beyond doubt that the term 'full synthetic oil' is categorically and unequivocally a marketing term and nothing else, further more I am positive that one would more quickly find an honest member of Congress before discovering a -true- full synthetic engine oil.
A sincere thank you to all who responded.
A sincere thank you to all who responded.
But it's not really about the process, API Annex E specifically states that isn't relevant to the Group designations. It's about the base stock chemical composition and properties:
E.1.2 DEFINITIONS
A base stock is a lubricant component that is produced by a single base stock manufacturer to the same
specifications (independent of feed source or manufacturer’s location); that meets the same base stock manufacturer
specification; and that is identified by a unique formula, product identification number, or both.
Yeah you kind of made that clear in your remaining posts. Doesn't make it true however.
End performance is what matters but many people get hung up on lots of other things.
What did it was getting a reply from a major maker of engine oil refusing to to inform me if paraffin is in their oils, said it was proprietary info; there are many synthetic blends and very very very very few-if any- true synthetic oils. In fact the most synthetic of the synthetic just may be the stuff made from methane, Wally World baby that is where I am going from now on-$4.53/qt-regular price.
What do you consider to be a "true" synthetic?
Most add packs are blended in a group I base oil because of its solubility. So you can make an oil that's 100% PAO base oil, blend in an add pack, and it'll technically be a "synthetic blend" then since you have group I base oil in there.
Going the other way, ZDDP (the most common anti-wear additive) is a synthetic ester therefore, you could say, any conventional oil that contains ZDDP (ie: all of them) are actually syn-blends.
If you mean group IV PAO synthetics as being "true" synthetics, they're not always desirable. They're rather "dry" which makes them harsh on seals, they have very poor solubility, and additive response is rather weak. The only time a PAO synthetic is actually advantageous is with extreme cold starts. Other than that, group III/III+ base oils can perform as good or better in the temperature range commonly seen by most engines. (0-250*F) There's also some cases where group III actually produces higher HTHS ratings than PAO.
The point is, forget the marketing terms and pay more attention to the oil's actual properties. Focus on what an oil does rather than what an oil is.
Most add packs are blended in a group I base oil because of its solubility. So you can make an oil that's 100% PAO base oil, blend in an add pack, and it'll technically be a "synthetic blend" then since you have group I base oil in there.
Going the other way, ZDDP (the most common anti-wear additive) is a synthetic ester therefore, you could say, any conventional oil that contains ZDDP (ie: all of them) are actually syn-blends.
If you mean group IV PAO synthetics as being "true" synthetics, they're not always desirable. They're rather "dry" which makes them harsh on seals, they have very poor solubility, and additive response is rather weak. The only time a PAO synthetic is actually advantageous is with extreme cold starts. Other than that, group III/III+ base oils can perform as good or better in the temperature range commonly seen by most engines. (0-250*F) There's also some cases where group III actually produces higher HTHS ratings than PAO.
The point is, forget the marketing terms and pay more attention to the oil's actual properties. Focus on what an oil does rather than what an oil is.
Yes, API explicitly states that "synthetic is a marketing term" in their "Appendix E" base-oil manual.
Given that fact, why is it so hard to make the logical conclusion that if synthetic is a marketing term, full synthetic, true synthetic, etc. are all marketing terms as well?
See the following study about oils with "paraffin" and without. Some "true synthetics" were the worst performers, while some oils with "paraffin" were the best performers. That should convince you that you can't judge an oil's quality from whether it is made of API Group III, IV, or V.
That said, some high-VI Group III base oils, such as GTL, have approached the PAO quality these days. Given the additive-package factor, the small difference in the quality may have no significance in the finished oil.
Given that fact, why is it so hard to make the logical conclusion that if synthetic is a marketing term, full synthetic, true synthetic, etc. are all marketing terms as well?
See the following study about oils with "paraffin" and without. Some "true synthetics" were the worst performers, while some oils with "paraffin" were the best performers. That should convince you that you can't judge an oil's quality from whether it is made of API Group III, IV, or V.
Better base oil (PAO) not necessarily better performance: A study of 5W-40 oils
This is a Czech study from early 2000s, using fourteen mostly A3/B3 5W-40 oils purchased in 1999. Interestingly, they determined the base-oil composition, namely the PAO, HC, and ester content of each oil, using chromatography. Then, they performed an oxidation test based on the standard IP 48...
bobistheoilguy.com
That said, some high-VI Group III base oils, such as GTL, have approached the PAO quality these days. Given the additive-package factor, the small difference in the quality may have no significance in the finished oil.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
There are plenty of oils that meet the definition of full synthetic.
By the BBB standard for the rest of the world, Group III is sufficient to meet the definition of "full synthetic", which is why you see so many oils labelled thusly on store shelves.
By the German standard, Group III is not sufficient, so the oil needs to be ~75% of Group IV or V, which includes PAO, AN's, Esters...etc. The remaining 25% is reserved for the additive package, viscosity index improvers (VII) and carrier oil.
That said, there is very little in the way of performance difference between Group III and PAO for the most part. While PAO has no wax, and thus insanely good cold temperature performance (and better oxidation resistance), as a blended product, a Group III-based product, particularly blended with other bases like PAO, will approach PAO-based lube performance at a much lower cost.
If your goal is simply to have an oil that meets the German definition, there are plenty available, even approved ones, like Ravenol. If approvals aren't your thing, Redline white bottle is also majority PAO with some POE in it.
My issue isn't with the performance of one type of oil over another central to my problem is that I thought, and yes silly me, that a full synthetic oil was simply that an oil -manufactured- using synthetic, read; man made (or person made) components. To discover that those so called full synthetic oils are nothing of the kind but rather they are products which use crude oil components to suspend some synthetic components : in reality the 'full synthetic' is nothing more than a synthetic blend or semi synthetic oil.
There are a whole lotta shenanigans going on with the marketing of engine oils and the best proof I can offer is the terse refusal for a company to simply say that they do or do not use paraffin.-they know the magnitude of the scam for sure.
Appreciate the replies and info, some is way way above me but it was nice to be able to read through it and even nicer that people took the time to present it.
There are a whole lotta shenanigans going on with the marketing of engine oils and the best proof I can offer is the terse refusal for a company to simply say that they do or do not use paraffin.-they know the magnitude of the scam for sure.
Appreciate the replies and info, some is way way above me but it was nice to be able to read through it and even nicer that people took the time to present it.
You have no idea what you’re talking about. Many things have been explained to you in this thread in detail and yet you continue to use incorrect terminology. You have no clue what a paraffin is or is not and you labor under that misunderstanding. I think it’s clear from this entire exchange that you neither want to learn nor do you really care as that’s not your purpose here.
Aside from what you can figure out from a MSDS, no company is going to tell you exactly what is or isn't in their oil. These are generally held as trade secrets.
And I really don't like the whole "does your oil have paraffin in it?" question. As someone pointed out, it conjures images of the blocks of white wax that you can buy in the grocery story. But methane (a gas) is a paraffinic hydrocarbon, so don't think that any given "paraffin" is some evil thing that's going to form sludge in the bottom of your crankcase. These are whole ranges of hydrocarbons with wildly divergent physical properties - from a gas to a liquid to a solid at STP.
I just don't find the question to be terribly relevant.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Yes, it sounds like he's actually concerned about wax (PAO has no wax) but is instead using paraffin, the misuse of which has been extensively explained so I don't believe I need to belabour that point.
No, that's not why. Almost no company will tell you what is in their oil because that's a trade secret and propriety information. There are very few exceptions to this. This is like calling Coca-Cola a scam because its formula is kept a secret.
Last edited:
It's interesting that you say "Castrol uses the lowest-quality Group III base stocks with VI in the low 120s, whereas Shell uses high-quality Group III base stocks with VI close to 140". I've always thought of Castrol's synthetics to be at least as good as the competitions so I'm now assuming it's their 'additive package' that achieves this?
Yes, the additive package is usually what "saturates" the performance of the base oil. A higher-quality base oil improves the Noack and CCS. When new, higher performance specs (such as ILSAC GF-6) are made, it's the additive package that changes and typically not the base oil. Some base oils, such as POE-containing ones, have other advantages like higher cleaning ability (solvency).
Gentlemen, I readily admit that my knowledge on the topic is somewhat limited with regard to the chemistry however one does not have to be a chemist to know that there probably is no such thing as a true 'full' synthetic motor oil unless one is paying $30 or so usd/qt.
Which one of the big boys successfully defended themselves regarding an industry law suit in the '90's and the points of contention were what again?
Which one of the big boys successfully defended themselves regarding an industry law suit in the '90's and the points of contention were what again?
M1 EP 0W-20 and M1 AFE 0W-16 have virtually no Group III—are made almost entirely of PAO and AN—but are under $5 per quart.
- Status
Similar threads
