PAO or Ester ?

[Ben99GT]

Originally Posted By: Wilhelm_D
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Red Line plainly states that they use polyol ester as the base stock in all of their motor and gear oils, and when questioned they state they use PAO as their additive carrier. They won't get in to percentages at all.


They use phrases such as "fully-synthetic ester formula" and "contain PE Polyol Ester base stocks".


Right off of a quart of RL 5W-30, "Designed to provide the greatest protection by using the highest-quality polyol ester base-stocks and higher levels of antiwear additives (ZDDP)."

Quote:
Okay. A PAO based motor oil with 20% diester or polyolester is a "fully-synthetic ester formula".

I have taken their material to indicate they use a lot of polyolester, but it's not clear that's the base stock.


RL has always made it abundantly clear.

"Rather than cutting costs by blending in petroleum products, Red Line's motor oils and gear oils use superior ester base stocks that provide extreme stability at high temperatures and superior film strength at lower temperatures..."

Quote:
It turns out that you can add a polyolester to a PAO or Group III base and get most of the benefits with better seal compatibility and lower cost.


There are so many different esters out there, some less polar than others, that it's possible to make a 90+% ester based oil that is fully compatible with seals; or so I've read from some of our resident ester engineers. It's such a generalization, like saying "esters" are hygroscopic when we know high molecular weights esters aren't particularly hygroscopic at all.

 

[DieselTech]

Originally Posted By: FLHRGator
I think DieselTech's point is that instead of answering the OP's question about Amsoil with data about Amsoil you compared the Redline formulation (which none of us know) with the Amsoil formulation (which either you don't know exactly or do know and won't tell us) and then tied them together with the word "probably" and all of a sudden RL and Amsoil contain almost the same amount of esters. It just smacks of marketing, not answering the OP's question.

I'm not criticizing you. Just maybe trying to see if I get DT's point.


You get my point.

 

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: FLHRGator
I think DieselTech's point is that instead of answering the OP's question about Amsoil with data about Amsoil you compared the Redline formulation (which none of us know) with the Amsoil formulation (which either you don't know exactly or do know and won't tell us) and then tied them together with the word "probably" and all of a sudden RL and Amsoil contain almost the same amount of esters. It just smacks of marketing, not answering the OP's question.

I'm not criticizing you. Just maybe trying to see if I get DT's point.


Fine I understand that, no problem. And maybe I was over dramatic, but the way you put it, sorta drifts from what I was responding to:

Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: ZZman
Amsoil is PAO

Redline is Ester



Not 100% true. (but often repeated on BITOG) And you can see this misinformation has lead the OP down the wrong path.

Amsoil has PAO's, Redline has PAO's. Amsoil has esters and Redline has esters. Depending on which oil we are talking about Redline probably does use more esters in their motor oils, but some/most are 30-40%+ PAO. Amsoil is probably higher at 50%+ PAO.


The only reason I used "probably" is because there is a high probability that Amsoil IS over 50% PAO, but I don't know for sure. And I think it IS useful information that Redline contains PAO, something it appears that is not widely known on BITOG. It was NOT a slam. Enough said.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: FLHRGator
I think DieselTech's point is that instead of answering the OP's question about Amsoil with data about Amsoil you compared the Redline formulation (which none of us know) with the Amsoil formulation (which either you don't know exactly or do know and won't tell us) and then tied them together with the word "probably" and all of a sudden RL and Amsoil contain almost the same amount of esters. It just smacks of marketing, not answering the OP's question.

I'm not criticizing you. Just maybe trying to see if I get DT's point.

You may have gotten DieselTech's point, but you didn't get Pablo's. The point was not that Red Line and Amsoil use about the same amount of esters. The point was simply that they both use both esters and PAO.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Right off of a quart of RL 5W-30, "Designed to provide the greatest protection by using the highest-quality polyol ester base-stocks and higher levels of antiwear additives (ZDDP)."


Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
RL has always made it abundantly clear.

"Rather than cutting costs by blending in petroleum products, Red Line's motor oils and gear oils use superior ester base stocks that provide extreme stability at high temperatures and superior film strength at lower temperatures..."

Neither of those statements directly states that the base oil is majority ester.

 

[Ben99GT]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Right off of a quart of RL 5W-30, "Designed to provide the greatest protection by using the highest-quality polyol ester base-stocks and higher levels of antiwear additives (ZDDP)."


Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
RL has always made it abundantly clear.

"Rather than cutting costs by blending in petroleum products, Red Line's motor oils and gear oils use superior ester base stocks that provide extreme stability at high temperatures and superior film strength at lower temperatures..."

Neither of those statements directly states that the base oil is majority ester.


RL states they are using POE base stocks, they have stated in the past they use PAO as a carrier, look at the HTHS numbers for a given viscosity, look at TAN in VOAs, what other conclusion can be reasonably drawn?

 

[d00df00d]

I remember hearing that RLI's base oils were something like 20% ester and 80% PAO, and those show huge TANs in VOAs as well.

Beyond that, I don't have the expertise to comment on what you are saying. All I'm saying is that the direct statements you quoted don't give any information as to the actual proportion of POEs in Red Line's base oils.

 

[JAG]

Oxidation measurement by FTIR picks up on the oxygen atoms in esters, unintentionally, since the test is done to measure oxidation of oils. But this first fact can be useful for oil nerds like us. UOA(s) and/or VOA(s) of Red Line posted on BITOG have shown values around 155, which is a clear sign of a large ester presence. Here are VOAs of 0w-20 Red Line, Renewable Lubricants (RLI), and Honda oils: VOAs

RLI oils have shown similar FTIR oxidation measurements as Red Line, as is the case in the above VOAs.

Amsoil oils' oxidation measurements have been much smaller than Red Line's.

 

[Pablo]

JAG - I wish someone else would rebut your statements, I don't want to be Dr. Defensive.

First of all, just to throw oxidation numbers up like that, does not make sense, without mentioning scale or methodology. Someone could drag up another lab with an oxidation number and comparing the number would be meaningless. If that link had Amsoil in it, OK, point taken, but it doesn't.

Can you produce numbers? Maybe find one from this lab:

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1465508#Post1465508

Comparing Oxidations that way means little. Although the commentary is interesting.

 

[Wilhelm_D]

Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Right off of a quart of RL 5W-30, "Designed to provide the greatest protection by using the highest-quality polyol ester base-stocks and higher levels of antiwear additives (ZDDP)."


At one time Mobil 1 used "the highest-quality polyol ester base-stocks", about 5% if I recall correctly.

Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
RL has always made it abundantly clear.


What they have not said, and for comparison read the material at Motul, is this:

"Red Line uses nothing but polyolester base stocks".

Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
There are so many different esters out there, some less polar than others, that it's possible to make a 90+% ester based oil that is fully compatible with seals; or so I've read from some of our resident ester engineers. It's such a generalization, like saying "esters" are hygroscopic when we know high molecular weights esters aren't particularly hygroscopic at all.


I've read the same materials.

Since none of the posters actually produce and market a polyolester-based fully formulated motor oil, I take it with a grain of salt.

I've had some experience with polyolester-based fully formulated motor oils. In fact, I still have an opened can of All Proof on my shelf.

My impression? I don't use a polyolester-based fully formulated motor oil in my own car, and I don't recommend one to people I know.

Advertising hype and performance are two different and separable things.

 

[JAG]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
JAG - I wish someone else would rebut your statements, I don't want to be Dr. Defensive.

First of all, just to throw oxidation numbers up like that, does not make sense, without mentioning scale or methodology. Someone could drag up another lab with an oxidation number and comparing the number would be meaningless. If that link had Amsoil in it, OK, point taken, but it doesn't.

Can you produce numbers? Maybe find one from this lab:

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1465508#Post1465508

Comparing Oxidations that way means little. Although the commentary is interesting.

There's no need to be defensive. That you used the word "rebut" tells me there is defensiveness. As you know, there are different ways, in terms of base oils and correction fluids, to build great oils. One may be better in some respects and worse in others. Here is a UOA data set, done by the lab Terry Dyson partners with, of Amsoil and Red Line oils. Note the very large difference in oxidation values. Since it is a UOA and not a VOA, the values will be higher than in their virgin states. You can see that Red Line's oxidation measurement is higher (by ~20 units) in this UOA than it was in the Red Line in the VOA I posted earlier. UOAs

I didn't search long enough to find the lab methodology used in the oxidation test by the lab Dyson partners with. It doesn't matter anyhow in the case of the above UOAs because they obviously are done with the same methodology. FYI, Polaris Labs' oxidation method is ASTM ASTM E2412 and the units are abs/cm (absorbance units per centimeter). Polaris Labs

 

[Tom NJ]

Originally Posted By: Wilhelm_D
The original Mobil 1 was a 5W-20 PAO based formula.

The original Amsoil was a 10W-40 diester based formula put together by what was then Emery Industries.


Just to clarify for the history buffs, the original Mobil 1 was based on PAO with 15-20% polyol esters. The original Amsoil was put together by Hatco.

Tom NJ

 

[Pablo]

My word choice didn't come out right....

Based on that theory, it does look like Redline uses more esters that register higher on the oxidation readings.

Anyway, I'm not doubting Redline uses more esters, I was merely stating (way back when) to say Amsoil doesn't use esters, when they clearly do, is just not correct.

 

[LargeCarManX2]

I believe that "Neo oils" as well, have a majority of Ester product in the formula as well!

Amsoil at one time...was in this majority catagory, however, they have found that PAO is equally (or close to equal) a great oil base, and most likely....changed about the same time as Mobil did to a majority PAO.

It's kinda like buying water, ...is one really better than another for a buck more a bottle? or is filtered tap water fine?

 

[Zedhed]

I'm not so sure that some grades of M1 have much PAO at all. I'm sure that 0w-40 and 0w-30 has a significant amount of PAO, but some of the others ???? IMHO, M1 is using Grp III basestocks now.

 

[Wilhelm_D]

Originally Posted By: Zedhed
I'm not so sure that some grades of M1 have much PAO at all.


At the actual in-engine use level it is basically irrelevant.

Within a specified viscosity the grades of Group III that ExxonMobil uses perform like a polyalphaolefin.

 

[LargeCarManX2]

Tom forgot to tell you the Amsoil/Hatco formula, or.....maybe he signed a do not disclose formula statement I believe Tom was a part of Hatco is memory suits me well?

Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: Wilhelm_D
The original Mobil 1 was a 5W-20 PAO based formula.

The original Amsoil was a 10W-40 diester based formula put together by what was then Emery Industries.


Just to clarify for the history buffs, the original Mobil 1 was based on PAO with 15-20% polyol esters. The original Amsoil was put together by Hatco.

Tom NJ

 

[Tom NJ]

Didn't mention the formula because Wilhelm was correct - 10W-40 based 100% on a diester (Ditridecyl Adipate). Of course that original formula has been retired for over 30 years, but it performed quite well back then and was API certified.

Yes, worked at Hatco for 38 years, now retired.

Tom NJ

 

[Zedhed]

Originally Posted By: Wilhelm_D
Originally Posted By: Zedhed
I'm not so sure that some grades of M1 have much PAO at all.


At the actual in-engine use level it is basically irrelevant.

Within a specified viscosity the grades of Group III that ExxonMobil uses perform like a polyalphaolefin.



Then why would other oil companies use more expensive PAOs and Esters? Because they like spending money? or they like trying to market a more expensive product? Your statement doesn't make sense in light of economic pressures.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Zedhed
Then why would other oil companies use more expensive PAOs and Esters? Because they like spending money? or they like trying to market a more expensive product? Your statement doesn't make sense in light of economic pressures.

I think PAOs still flow better at very low temps and have a tiny advantage in terms of resistance to breakdown. If you need an oil that will do cold starts in Siberia and summer track days in Arizona, and don't care about cost, you'll still want to consider PAO.

The thing is, those advantages are absolutely immaterial to 99% of cars on the road. They won't even come close to the extreme conditions where PAO will show an advantage over a good group III base stock. Meanwhile, a group III base stock gives the oil company a lot more flexibility to optimize its additive package to provide benefits that 99% of people CAN use.

It's not about "better" or "worse" any more. It's about suitability. PAO is more suitable for the most extreme conditions and less suitable for everyday stuff. Group III is the other way around. The fact that one is cheaper than the other is a nice bonus for the companies that make their money on "everyday" oils.