SL/CF rated oils

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bottgers: "The Chevron 'SL' isn't 'CF' rated, but dino oil doesn't get any more 'premium' than this stuff."

Um, I think Johnny might disagree with you there.
wink.gif
Isn't Chevron Supreme a Group II while Pennzoil a Group II+?

I have to say that a year or more ago I would've assumed that having a diesel "CX" rating on an oil would mean that it would be better for a gas engine. Not so anymore. Some qualities (additives) of the double duty oils may actually be worse as the additive package is asked to do some very different (not necessarily better or worse) things.

Oh, and ...

C = Compression ignition
S = Spark ignition

grin.gif
 
The grey film stories have been around for years. I've heard it from several mechanics who have torn down engines for one reason or another, and every one where the owner had used Pennzoil (dino), the inside of the engine parts had a grey film all over them. To this day, Ive never heard what causes this, but it only happened to Pennzoil engines. This makes me leary of using Pennziol.

So Johnny, can you tell me why you think Pennzoil's SL is superior to Chevron's?
 
Never said it was, never said it was not. They (Pennzoil, Quaker State, Valvoline, Castrol, Chevron, Texaco, Mobil, Shell, etc) are all good SL rated oils. A person just has to choose the one they thinks works best for their application.

If you would have asked me this question 5 years ago we had them beat hands down. Now all of the above are using Group II or Group II+ base stocks. The playing field has narrowed.
 
Molakule, I wonder if the lead problem is somehow related to Mobil 1 causing catastrophic failure in aircraft engines which caused it to be removed from that service? Seems like it was something to do with the leaded gas. RW
 
I believe the case (it's been a few years now) was whether or not lead sludge caused oil blockages in some oil passages which led to engine failure. I never read the court transcript so I do not know the outcome. Mobil got a blackeye in the Aviation industry for that one, which I personally believe was not deserved.

Amsoil faced a similar suit (with their Avoil) even before Mobil had their suit. It was claimed that lead sludge had blocked a passageway and caused a similar engine failure.

[Does one see any similarities here?]

Amsoil proved in court that the passageway under dispute was not a passageway at all, but that it was a casting well not meant to pass oil. Needless to say, Amsoil destroyed the plaintiff in court and Amsoil won.

Subsequently, Amsoil no longer sold Avoil in the USA but is selling it in the rest of world, the last I heard.

The reason I believe both companies withdrew their respective oils from the US market was because of the litgigous nature of some people in the US and the Tort lawyer system here, which is badly in need of reform.
 
"Gross's suit is being handled by Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein of San Francisco, a law firm that specializes in large class-action cases and participated in
the $4.25 billion silicone gel breast implant settlement, the $2.2 billion GM pickup truck settlement, and the $5.26 billion Exxon Valdez verdict. We'd guess Mobil
is taking the suit seriously. . . On the day Gross filed his class-action
suit, his lawyers sent a three-page press release plus the full 37-page complaint to the editors of numerous aviation publications. "

My point exactly.
mad.gif


If the aircraft engine manufacturer's had also qualified the oil, why were they not named in the suit?
 
Bror Jace said--

"As for bad films (and I'm not talking about the Star Wars prequel movies ), I think they are a thing of the past. In my circles, it was Quaker State that had the reputation for gooing things up with a thick, waxy residue. With ALL oils having been reformulated for lower volatility and higher detergency 3+ times in the past decade alone, I can't imagine this could still be a problem ... even if it ever was."

I hope I'm not crediting the wrong party, but I think MolaKule stated that with the exception of additives, there had been no real advances in dino. oil. That any advantages of computerization at the refinery were for things like scheduling, and that dino. oils had really not advanced that much as far as base stock.

Hope I got the right party's thoughts-- I'm headed into a meeting and don't have time to look this up but
confused.gif
Commentz pleeze....
 
Bror,

"As for the aviation-synthetic problem, I had heard from a few good sources that PAOs from a decade or more ago had very poor lead-scavenging abilities. But, even if newer PAOs, aromatics and esters have overcome this, you'll find a lot of older Av guys to whom "synthetic" is a dirty word. "

Maybe in the private piston-engine categories, but not in the commercial turbine-engine categories.

csandste,

I stated that dino base oil technology had not progressed to any extent, but that additive technology had progressed.
 
Question for MolaKule...

"csandste,

I stated that dino base oil technology had not progressed to any extent, but that additive technology had progressed."

Not getting into the semantics of group 3, wouldn't use of group 2 and 2+ oils be an advancement?
 
BroJace: It was 5 years ago when we came out with our PureBase (Group II+ oils). Every multi-vis oil we make was and is made from the Group II+ base stocks. Our Dexron III/Mercon is also made from the Group II+. We knew it would just be a matter of time before all of our major competitors would start using this technology. Chevron has had this technology for years. But until this year, all they used it in was their Delo 400. The big producers of the Group II and Group II+ base stocks are, Pennzoil/Conoco, Chevron, Exxon, and Petro Canada. The last three are selling the product to others like Valvoline, Castrol, and Quaker State.

I also agree with csandste the the Group II, Group II+, and Group III base stocks are a major improvement and advancment over the old way of refining oil. It's also very expensive to do it. The refinery in Louisiana cost Pennzoil/Conoco $250 million.
 
Johnny-- I sort of asked this before, but where does your Specialty Petroleum subsidiary in Shreveport get its base stock? You said it wasn't a refinery but a blending plant and that it was a separate operation purchased by QS before the merger.

Think the family lines and relationships of oil and filter suppliers are fascinating. Wish we could hunt the paper supplier to Champion Labs and get him on this site. He was essentially the Johnny of the filter industry. Might have to dig through the old Edmunds posts and see if we can't raise him up.

Agree with Bror Jace (?) that he was probably bored by Edmunds. So many new posters that you are constantly answering the same questions over and over.
 
csandste: I believe it is Exxon at this time. I also think the Quaker State base stock comes from Exxon. I will try to find out for sure about this. If it's not Exxon, then it's Chevron. I know we do not purchase anything from Petro Canada.

Now I know someone will ask why the Quaker State base stock is not supplied by the Pennzoil refinery. The reason is that Pennzoil uses all it produces for the Pennzoil products. Just to give you an idea of the volume I am talking about, nation wide there is more Pennzoil sold than Quaker State and Valvoline put together, and they are number two and three in market share and volume for passenger car motor oils.
 
It looks like one of those things where someone's using a synthetic when it is not economically justified bites them on the bottom line. Low utilization engines typically have there oil changed on a time(read semiannual) basis instead of a mileage or hours running basis. Of course this is a moot point for cars since most of us are running unleaded gasoline.
 
Johnny: "If you would have asked me this question 5 years ago we had them beat hands down. Now all of the above are using Group II or Group II+ base stocks."

Is this when Pennzoil went to their "Pure Base" formula?
confused.gif


widman, are you saying everything with the "Isosyn" label uses a 100% Group II+ oil? Not even a blend? I'd like to believe this as I loaded up on the stuff about 6 months ago, mostly oil for Dad's Merc and some Delo 400 15W40 for our lawn & garden equipment.

As for the aviation-synthetic problem, I had heard from a few good sources that PAOs from a decade or more ago had very poor lead-scavenging abilities. But, even if newer PAOs, aromatics and esters have overcome this, you'll find a lot of older Av guys to whom "synthetic" is a dirty word.
shocked.gif


MolaKule, why go after Mobil and not the engine manufacturers? Simple: deeper pockets.
rolleyes.gif


As for bad films (and I'm not talking about the Star Wars prequel movies
wink.gif
), I think they are a thing of the past. In my circles, it was Quaker State that had the reputation for gooing things up with a thick, waxy residue. With ALL oils having been reformulated for lower volatility and higher detergency 3+ times in the past decade alone, I can't imagine this could still be a problem ... even if it ever was.
 
Bror, I'm not sure that ISOSYN isn't part Group III or something more. I know that it is at least group II+, and that it works real well. They don't tell us everything.
 
csandste " Not getting into the semantics of group 3, wouldn't use of group 2 and 2+ oils be an advancement?"

All refineries and their operations are expensive, whether refining Base I, II, or III.

What is the advancement here? A slightly improved VI, maybe a few percentages less sulfur.

What major chemical advancements in dino base stock have been made? I know of none.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top