true synthetic oil

[350zriot]

I have been wondering, is there a big difference between normal synthetic and true synthetic? I only know that Mobile 1 0w40 and Castrol 0w30 are the true synthetic ones. Is this all for brands that make true synthetic?
i want engine oil that has thick 40 weight rather than light 40 weight like mobile 1. Castrol 5w40 seems like it's what i need but it's not true synthetic, and not sure how thick it is for vq.
Any thick 40 weight engine oil suggestions for 350z vq engine? i autocross, and will be drifting.
thanks

 

[chevrofreak]

Rotella T6 5w-40 isn't PAO or Ester, but it is a hydroisomerized slack wax, with a very decent viscosity index and stable viscosity index improvers. It also has some Mo-DTC in it as a friction modifier. That's what I would use.

 

[Lead Shoes]

AFAIK, Mobile 1 stepped down to using Group III oils, so its not a "true" synthetic anymore..

 

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: Brenden
AFAIK, Mobile 1 stepped down to using Group III oils, so its not a "true" synthetic anymore..



Maybe some folks would take this as gospel if the name was Mobil.

It's bad enough the OP misspelled it....

It's not even worth worrying about "true synthetic oil" anymore. It really isn't.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
It's not even worth worrying about "true synthetic oil" anymore. It really isn't.

^^ This.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: 350zriot
I have been wondering, is there a big difference between normal synthetic and true synthetic?

No. There is more to a properly formulated oil than just the base fluid.

 

[Tom NJ]

Base oil quality is no longer defined by just three simple categories consisting of conventional, semi-synthetic, and synthetic. With the introduction of new processes and feed stocks over the past dozen years, we now have numerous base oils grades and blends thereof, resulting in a continuum of base oil quality, such as:

Grp I
Grp I & II blend
Grp I & III blend
Grp II
Grp II & III blend
Grp II+
Grp III
Grp III & IV blend
Grp III+
Grp III & IV & V blend
Grp III+ & IV & V blend
Grp IV & V blend

While the exact quality order of such base oil selections is debatable and dependent on component grade and ratios, the point is that the quality steps are now so small as to make labels such as semi-synthetic and synthetic difficult if not impossible to place. The industry chose to draw a line between Grp II and Grp III in defining “synthetic”, but the difference is merely a single VI point, and therefore meaningless from a performance standpoint.

Certainly there is a meaningful difference between the low end and high end of the spectrum, such as Grp I vs a Grp IV/V blend, but the difference between adjacent levels, and really even levels that are three, four, or five apart, is easily blurred by the additive system.

Hence, the great debate over “synthetic” versus “true synthetic” is dead. The use of the word synthetic today only signifies that the base oil blend leans toward the higher end of quality continuum, and translating that further into finished oil performance becomes a stretch.

Unless you have a special engine or driving conditions, you are better served concentrating on specifications and approvals rather than base oils for estimating oil performance.

Tom NJ

 

[Johnny]

Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Base oil quality is no longer defined by just three simple categories consisting of conventional, semi-synthetic, and synthetic. With the introduction of new processes and feed stocks over the past dozen years, we now have numerous base oils grades and blends thereof, resulting in a continuum of base oil quality, such as:

Grp I
Grp I & II blend
Grp I & III blend
Grp II
Grp II & III blend
Grp II+
Grp III
Grp III & IV blend
Grp III+
Grp III & IV & V blend
Grp III+ & IV & V blend
Grp IV & V blend

While the exact quality order of such base oil selections is debatable and dependent on component grade and ratios, the point is that the quality steps are now so small as to make labels such as semi-synthetic and synthetic difficult if not impossible to place. The industry chose to draw a line between Grp II and Grp III in defining “synthetic”, but the difference is merely a single VI point, and therefore meaningless from a performance standpoint.

Certainly there is a meaningful difference between the low end and high end of the spectrum, such as Grp I vs a Grp IV/V blend, but the difference between adjacent levels, and really even levels that are three, four, or five apart, is easily blurred by the additive system.

Hence, the great debate over “synthetic” versus “true synthetic” is dead. The use of the word synthetic today only signifies that the base oil blend leans toward the higher end of quality continuum, and translating that further into finished oil performance becomes a stretch.

Unless you have a special engine or driving conditions, you are better served concentrating on specifications and approvals rather than base oils for estimating oil performance.

Tom NJ


This post should put an end to the debate, but Lord knows it won't.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Johnny
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Base oil quality is no longer defined by just three simple categories consisting of conventional, semi-synthetic, and synthetic. With the introduction of new processes and feed stocks over the past dozen years, we now have numerous base oils grades and blends thereof, resulting in a continuum of base oil quality, such as:

Grp I
Grp I & II blend
Grp I & III blend
Grp II
Grp II & III blend
Grp II+
Grp III
Grp III & IV blend
Grp III+
Grp III & IV & V blend
Grp III+ & IV & V blend
Grp IV & V blend

While the exact quality order of such base oil selections is debatable and dependent on component grade and ratios, the point is that the quality steps are now so small as to make labels such as semi-synthetic and synthetic difficult if not impossible to place. The industry chose to draw a line between Grp II and Grp III in defining “synthetic”, but the difference is merely a single VI point, and therefore meaningless from a performance standpoint.

Certainly there is a meaningful difference between the low end and high end of the spectrum, such as Grp I vs a Grp IV/V blend, but the difference between adjacent levels, and really even levels that are three, four, or five apart, is easily blurred by the additive system.

Hence, the great debate over “synthetic” versus “true synthetic” is dead. The use of the word synthetic today only signifies that the base oil blend leans toward the higher end of quality continuum, and translating that further into finished oil performance becomes a stretch.

Unless you have a special engine or driving conditions, you are better served concentrating on specifications and approvals rather than base oils for estimating oil performance.

Tom NJ


This post should put an end to the debate, but Lord knows it won't.

Agreed on both points.

 

[Sayjac]

Originally Posted By: Johnny
This post should put an end to the debate, but Lord knows it won't.
Yeah, where's ARCO.. when you need him?

Nice summary by Tom.

 

[ZZman]

How do you know these oils are "true synthetics"? Mobil and Castrol do not give out their base oil formulation info.

Really doesn't matter much for your average street car. Group III is so good and most oils are a combo of the different groups anyway.

Plus the add pack plays a huge if not most important part of the formulation.

 

[FL_Rob]

If you want to spend the money,Motul 300V or Redline are two options and both are ester based.To what ratio???????
Is there a big difference? Yes,but you would need to be racing in 24 hours of LeMans or the Rolex 24hour at Daytona to need that kind of difference.Dont 'drive' yourself nuts on this.
And good luck racing.

 

[Autografe]

Don't the advances in petro-chemical science make terms like synthetic and synthetic blend more marketing terms than accurate descriptors? I suppose Castrol started the confusion when it won its lawsuit over labeling. That is why I find this forum so interesting. It enables one to make informed purchasing decisions without being held hostage to now fairly outdated terms like synthetic and semi-synthetic. It would seem that the differences between dino, semi-synthetic and synthetic is more a continuum than a matter of discrete steps. As marketing terms maybe they are necessary for a buying public less educated on oil than many of the members of this forum. I consider myself a rank beginner on the subject but I am learning something new everyday.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Autografe
I suppose Castrol started the confusion when it won its lawsuit over labeling.

It wasn't a lawsuit. It was a complaint to the National Advertising Review Council: http://www.bbb.org/us/Advertising-Review-Services/

Also, I wouldn't say Castrol "started" it. They were merely the first to bring the issue to public attention.


Originally Posted By: Autografe
That is why I find this forum so interesting. It enables one to make informed purchasing decisions without being held hostage to now fairly outdated terms like synthetic and semi-synthetic.

That's the hope. Well said.


Originally Posted By: Autografe
It would seem that the differences between dino, semi-synthetic and synthetic is more a continuum than a matter of discrete steps. As marketing terms maybe they are necessary for a buying public less educated on oil than many of the members of this forum.

Fair point. The only problem is that they generate distinctions where none exist, and they may obscure distinctions that really do matter (e.g. between OEM and third-party specifications and approvals).

 

[Autografe]

Mea Culpa on the Castrol reference. I sometimes half remember things. I just seem to recall that Castrol was on one side and Mobil the other over the use of the term synthetic.

I realize that the suitability of any engine oil depends on more than the the base stock. Additive packages etc will effect the oils performance. I think I was trying to say that an oil with group III base stocks may perform very well but that a large number of consumers who care about such things believe when the are buying full synthetics they are getting majority group IV/V base stocks and are upset when they find out that it may not be so,even if the particular base stock used doesn't fully indicate how well that oil may perform in their particular application.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Autografe
I think I was trying to say that an oil with group III base stocks may perform very well but that a large number of consumers who care about such things believe when the are buying full synthetics they are getting majority group IV/V base stocks and are upset when they find out that it may not be so,even if the particular base stock used doesn't fully indicate how well that oil may perform in their particular application.

Of course. And given that "synthetic" has become synonymous with "good," you can't blame them. That's exactly why we need to disentangle those two ideas. People SHOULDN'T feel cheated if they find out a "synthetic" oil is primarily Group III instead of IV/V because that's not a meaningful distinction.

 

[RamFan]

Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Base oil quality is no longer defined by just three simple categories consisting of conventional, semi-synthetic, and synthetic. With the introduction of new processes and feed stocks over the past dozen years, we now have numerous base oils grades and blends thereof, resulting in a continuum of base oil quality, such as:

Grp I
Grp I & II blend
Grp I & III blend
Grp II
Grp II & III blend
Grp II+
Grp III
Grp III & IV blend
Grp III+
Grp III & IV & V blend
Grp III+ & IV & V blend
Grp IV & V blend

While the exact quality order of such base oil selections is debatable and dependent on component grade and ratios, the point is that the quality steps are now so small as to make labels such as semi-synthetic and synthetic difficult if not impossible to place. The industry chose to draw a line between Grp II and Grp III in defining “synthetic”, but the difference is merely a single VI point, and therefore meaningless from a performance standpoint.

Certainly there is a meaningful difference between the low end and high end of the spectrum, such as Grp I vs a Grp IV/V blend, but the difference between adjacent levels, and really even levels that are three, four, or five apart, is easily blurred by the additive system.

Hence, the great debate over “synthetic” versus “true synthetic” is dead. The use of the word synthetic today only signifies that the base oil blend leans toward the higher end of quality continuum, and translating that further into finished oil performance becomes a stretch.

Unless you have a special engine or driving conditions, you are better served concentrating on specifications and approvals rather than base oils for estimating oil performance.

Tom NJ


Can we make this a sticky???

 

[Papa Bear]

Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Base oil quality is no longer defined by just three simple categories consisting of conventional, semi-synthetic, and synthetic. With the introduction of new processes and feed stocks over the past dozen years, we now have numerous base oils grades and blends thereof, resulting in a continuum of base oil quality, such as:

Grp I
Grp I & II blend
Grp I & III blend
Grp II
Grp II & III blend
Grp II+
Grp III
Grp III & IV blend
Grp III+
Grp III & IV & V blend
Grp III+ & IV & V blend
Grp IV & V blend

While the exact quality order of such base oil selections is debatable and dependent on component grade and ratios, the point is that the quality steps are now so small as to make labels such as semi-synthetic and synthetic difficult if not impossible to place. The industry chose to draw a line between Grp II and Grp III in defining “synthetic”, but the difference is merely a single VI point, and therefore meaningless from a performance standpoint.

Certainly there is a meaningful difference between the low end and high end of the spectrum, such as Grp I vs a Grp IV/V blend, but the difference between adjacent levels, and really even levels that are three, four, or five apart, is easily blurred by the additive system.

Hence, the great debate over “synthetic” versus “true synthetic” is dead. The use of the word synthetic today only signifies that the base oil blend leans toward the higher end of quality continuum, and translating that further into finished oil performance becomes a stretch.

Unless you have a special engine or driving conditions, you are better served concentrating on specifications and approvals rather than base oils for estimating oil performance.

Tom NJ


Tom, that's great !! We could designate our synthetics on a scale of 1 to 10 ......
Grp 1 & 2 blend could be "Full Synthetic (1) Oil"
Grp 2 & 3 blend could be "Full Synthetic (2) Oil"
..etc....etc.

No.. wait... that would be far too simple and straightforward

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Papa Bear
We could designate our synthetics on a scale of 1 to 10 ......
Grp 1 & 2 blend could be "Full Synthetic (1) Oil"
Grp 2 & 3 blend could be "Full Synthetic (2) Oil"
..etc....etc.

No.. wait... that would be far too simple and straightforward

You missed part of his post:
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
...the exact quality order of such base oil selections is debatable and dependent on component grade and ratios...

In other words, what he listed might not be the case for all base stocks. For example, he listed "Grp III & IV blend" below "Grp III+", but it's entirely possible that it might be the other way around. Don't get hung up on the exact list he made. The important part is what he said next:
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
...the point is that the quality steps are now so small as to make labels such as semi-synthetic and synthetic difficult if not impossible to place.


The list is just an illustration that base stocks are more like a spectrum than a ladder.

 

[chevrofreak]

Originally Posted By: Papa Bear
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Base oil quality is no longer defined by just three simple categories consisting of conventional, semi-synthetic, and synthetic. With the introduction of new processes and feed stocks over the past dozen years, we now have numerous base oils grades and blends thereof, resulting in a continuum of base oil quality, such as:

Grp I
Grp I & II blend
Grp I & III blend
Grp II
Grp II & III blend
Grp II+
Grp III
Grp III & IV blend
Grp III+
Grp III & IV & V blend
Grp III+ & IV & V blend
Grp IV & V blend

While the exact quality order of such base oil selections is debatable and dependent on component grade and ratios, the point is that the quality steps are now so small as to make labels such as semi-synthetic and synthetic difficult if not impossible to place. The industry chose to draw a line between Grp II and Grp III in defining “synthetic”, but the difference is merely a single VI point, and therefore meaningless from a performance standpoint.

Certainly there is a meaningful difference between the low end and high end of the spectrum, such as Grp I vs a Grp IV/V blend, but the difference between adjacent levels, and really even levels that are three, four, or five apart, is easily blurred by the additive system.

Hence, the great debate over “synthetic” versus “true synthetic” is dead. The use of the word synthetic today only signifies that the base oil blend leans toward the higher end of quality continuum, and translating that further into finished oil performance becomes a stretch.

Unless you have a special engine or driving conditions, you are better served concentrating on specifications and approvals rather than base oils for estimating oil performance.

Tom NJ


Tom, that's great !! We could designate our synthetics on a scale of 1 to 10 ......
Grp 1 & 2 blend could be "Full Synthetic (1) Oil"
Grp 2 & 3 blend could be "Full Synthetic (2) Oil"
..etc....etc.

No.. wait... that would be far too simple and straightforward

That wouldn't work, since a Group I and II mix contains no synthetic oil, and a II and III mix would be a synthetic blend.