I'm getting disgusted!

[dnewton3]

Sorry if it came off as hostile; didn't mean it that way.

But I DID mean to challenge you into thinking about your selection, and apparent preference for PAOs. Too many people are convinced (via marketing hype and rhetoric) that only synthetics will save their baby from premature death. I would know; I'm a recovering synthaholic.

Synthetics are awesome products, and they can be a very good choice when used with their benefits and limitations in mind. I, myself, use synthetics in some applications. But they are NOT a one-size-fits-all answer for everything.

All that in mind, you are not wrong to use what you want; yes, that is your freedom. I applaud your recognition of that. And I support it.

But I find it odd that you seem "disgusted" at your perceived lack of lube choices, when most any of the mass-market ones (both dino and syn) will perform very well. "Disgusted" being your choice of words, indicating an extreme repulsion or aversion. Really? You're "disgusted" by anything other than Delvac 1? Bit of an oil biggot, are we? I believe we agree that you have not shown a "need" for synthetics, but we also agree you are free to choose them. That in mind, just what is wrong with Amsoil, M1 TDT, Schaeffers and others? Again, are you pre-disposed to the concept of the inputs, with no regard for the outputs? I am challenging you to re-assess your method of measurement; to re-think the measuring stick you use. You haven't yet shown why synthetics are a "must have", so it's reasonable to presume your Dmax will suffice with a w-i-d-e variety of products. And there are thousands of UOAs to validate this very point. Even if you were to put the topic of conventional oils aside, and focus on synthetics, am I to beleive that you simply find Amsoil, TDT and Schaeffers to be so inferior that they will never see the inside of your valve covers?

To me, at least, your initial post was a bit of a rant as to how other products (some of them highly respected, for good reason) simply didn't measure up to your gold-standard Delvac 1.


All that said, again want to apologize if I offended you.

 

[k1rod]

Thank You. My choice of the term "Disgusted" really isn't anything to do with deep revulsion or contempt. It's more part of my sometimes toung in cheek sense of humor that doesn't translate well when not seen in person.

What I am mildly unhappy about is that Mobil, since losing their lawsuit against Castrol, has significantly shifted their formulations away from more costly PAO basestocks and more towards hydrocracked group III's, III+s. In that same time, I have started to see Mobil 1 producing UOA's with wear metals no better than many conventional oils produce. There are also many other people on this site also being greatly surprised by this revelation.

I get the sense that cost is now driving the formulations at Mobil rather than the main purpose being to produce the best possible formulation (obviously within reasonable costs).

I sort of feel like I did when I found out that Milwaukee Electric Tool had been bought by a company in Hong Kong. "There goes another great American product."

 

[dnewton3]

OK - I can see part of your contention here. Don't know that I fully agree with it, but I think I can understand your basis for the conversation.

I think Mobil is discovering a few things. There are certainly people who will pay top dollar for a top product, regardess of the price. And some of them will actually use the product to its full extent.

But there are a whole lot of people that simply use synthetics because of the word "synthetic" being on the bottle, and Mobil (and others) can capitalize on the market by offering mutiple products to target audiences.

If you want Devlac 1, it's still available, and you'll just have to seek it out, and pay the hefty price. But TDT is not an inferior product by any means. Neither are many of the other brands we've named. If it's THAT important to you, you can seek out a small lubricant blend facility and have a custom made product for yourself. There are times when some of the smaller places end up blending batches for a customer base, and you might be wanting something they run once a quarter, so you could purchase a little of the "excess". But it would still be expensive. I live near Indy, and DA Lubricants does this. I can often get a PAO based ATF (AutoTrans-5) for FAR less than a licensed TES-295 ATF in five gallon pails.

Mobil has just come late to the game that others are playing. They are now opening themselves into a market where the competition has been for years. And, to be honest, I'm not totally familiar with TDT, but I'm not convinced it's a group III anyway. Is it possible it's a group IV with a slightly different add pack? We may never know for sure; it's not in the company's best interest to give away all it's secrets. Just because they won't tell you the exact formulation of TDT, does not mean they have made it from something other than a group IV. They risk losing you as a customer by not sharing that info, but there is a LONG line of people behind you that simply trust the Mobil 1 name, and are not that picky; they'll buy it if you don't.

And like I've pounded away on many times, the inputs (PDS) are interesting, but the outputs (UOAs) are telling. To that end, I see Mobil 1, Amsoil, T6, VPBE, and others being excellent, capable products.

 

[Oldwolf]

Originally Posted By: mongo161
You can always use some Dino Mobil Delvac 1300 Super in 15w40 and add a couple of quarts of Synthetic to the Dino. Problem solved.


That is how I blend my winter use 5W40 for my MB diesel. I use the Widman viscosity calculator to tell me how much M1 0W40 and Delvac 15W40 to blend to get a 40C viscosity equal to Mobil 1 5W40. It takes something like 3Qts 0W40 and 5Qts 15W40 for my 8 qt sump.

 

[Ken2]

Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Have you considered Schaeffer Supreme 9000?
It's a fully-synthetic 5w40.
Quite a lot more stout than M1 TDT.
Actually it is a blend of Group III and Group IV (PAO) base oils. Used oil analysis will show it superior to Delvac 1 and lower cost.

 

[Tom NJ]

Originally Posted By: k1rod
These are great points. PAO's are tough on seals, and almost always require a mineral oil to support the additive package. But PAO's are inherently anti Newtonian so they don't require large amounts of very unstable long chain polymer VI improvers to achieve the viscosity range. VI improver breakdown is like letting free radicals run amok in your body. It's very bad. PAO's definately have their downside but they are also the most stable formulations out there.


A few technical points that may be helpful for you:

1. All VI Improvers are not bad. There are many different chemistries and grades, some of which are very shear stable. They play an important role in engine oils and virtually all multi-grade oils contain some.

2. The amount of VI Improver in a given oil grade (which is not as relevant as the VII chemistry) is dictated mainly by the VI of the base oil mix. Standard Group IIIs have the same VI as 4 cSt PAO (mid 120s). Group III+ has a higher VI than 6 cSt PAO (~140 vs high 130s).

3. Both Group IIIs and PAOs are Newtonian fluids, meaning their viscosity does not change with shear rate. Finished multi-grade motor oils containing VIIs are non-Newtonian, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. The temporary shearing of the polymeric VI Improvers (think compressibility) reduces friction is high shear areas of the engine such as the bearings and cylinder walls.

4. POEs are as shear stable as PAOs, and are considerably more oxidatively stable.

Motor oils are very complex mixtures and there are no simple rules of thumb for judging the oil's performance. All base oils have pluses and minuses, and the best performance for a given application is often achieved by a blend that matches the pluses of one with the minuses of another. A classic example is PAO with ester.

Few people are willing to pay for performance they don't need, and therefore cost is an important factor in delivering value. The fact that Group IIIs have a lower cost allows formulators to maximize value, which is good.

I understand the feeling of betrayal from ExxonMobil when they reformulated their Mobil 1 line to contain Group III, but bear in mind that they blend Group III+ with PAOs, ANs, high visc PAO, and sometimes POEs. That is a high cost and well balanced mixture that delivers more value to 99% of consumers than a pure PAO or pure ester based oil.

Balance, synergy, and value are the name of the game, not dedication to single base oil chemistry. Oil companies must be flexible and change with new value technologies or they will be pushed out by their competitors.

Tom NJ

 

[Gokhan]

Great information, Tom NJ, thanks.

The bottom line, as I understand with my very limited knowledge of base-stock chemistry, is Group IV and Group III are not necessarily superior to each other.

Even more importantly, as long as it's made of a quality base stock, whether it's Group II or above, the balance of additives in the product and the choice of the proper viscosity grade and oil-change interval for your application is probably what ultimately determines the performance and durability, not whether it's Group II, III, IV, or V.