API SN part synthetic???

Status
Not open for further replies.

wemay

Site Donor 2023
Joined
Apr 4, 2012
Messages
17,249
Location
Everglades
I have read on here, various occassions, that API SN 'is partly synthetic'. Is this a fact or a logical guess?

I do know that when you read what enhancements SN brought to the fray, turbo protection is one of them...
 
For quite a few it is in fact a fact.

That's why even cheap brand SN oil advertises themselves as synthetic blend, like Smittys, Cam2, Kendall, and Citgo.

The premium brands don't always advertise it though, presumably not to steal sales from their more expensive oils, and also some people may be scared of that S-word.

PQIA reports show a low NOACK for PYB, indicating it may have some GTL in there.

Furthermore, Maxlife has always been synthetic blend, but they're just starting to advertise that now. (This information is on Valvoline's website)

People on here have linked to trade publication articles that indicate most if not all SN dino having group III in it.
 
Thanks tommygunn, excellent response making complete sense.

Lends some credence to my placebo sensation of QSGB feelng, sounding better than anything else I've tried in the Hyundai.
 
Last edited:
Since "synthetic" could be used to refer to any hydrocracked mineral oil, and since most base oils are hydrocracked to some degree due to specification demands, as tommygunn mentioned above technically all modern motor oils are 'synthetic', semi- at worst.

Again, it's a meaningless terminology in the North American market. I doubt SN oils are mandated to contain 'synthetic' fluids, that's more of a consequence of satisfying specifications, and enabled by economies of scale as mentioned above
 
I would think an oil company would take advantage of the fact that 'all our oils are syn!' and mkt themselves as such. To some degree they would be correct.
 
Originally Posted By: wemay
I would think an oil company would take advantage of the fact that 'all our oils are syn!' and mkt themselves as such. To some degree they would be correct.


True, but then you would have half the population worried that their car that has ran on "conventional" oil for years would throw a rod on day one of running something with a "synthetic" :)
 
Originally Posted By: Jaymus
Originally Posted By: wemay
I would think an oil company would take advantage of the fact that 'all our oils are syn!' and mkt themselves as such. To some degree they would be correct.


True, but then you would have half the population worried that their car that has ran on "conventional" oil for years would throw a rod on day one of running something with a "synthetic" :)


You're right, everyone has to be catered to.
 
API SN is not part-synthetic at all in general. The API SN NOACK is 15%, which is the Group II standard. Look at the official NOACK specs for PYB. They are all close to 15%, which is plain Group II. They may have thrown GTL into a batch or two, as API allows oil manufacturers to substitute for higher-quality base oil without retesting them (see the API base-oil interchangeability guidelines [PDF file]), but don't count on getting anything part-synthetic when you buy something labeled conventional.

On the other hand, GM dexos1 specifies 13% NOACK, which makes it part-synthetic or fully synthetic.
 
Hey my PU in my stash is SN. Does that mean it's part synthetic?

lol.gif
 
Originally Posted By: wemay
Originally Posted By: Jaymus
Originally Posted By: wemay
I would think an oil company would take advantage of the fact that 'all our oils are syn!' and mkt themselves as such. To some degree they would be correct.


True, but then you would have half the population worried that their car that has ran on "conventional" oil for years would throw a rod on day one of running something with a "synthetic" :)


You're right, everyone has to be catered to.


if they labeled it all synthetic, then what would they upsell to the oil nerds? on what distinction could they tier the products? how high is the demand for old style base stocks that require more fixing to meet current specs, than the recent gr II+/IIIs? so of course production is shifting towards the latter. it's inevitable for a modern, brand name 'entry level' certified motor oil to be built with II+ at least. PQIA's tests are revealing even better performance in certain parameters, than we've ever seen before in 'conventional' oil. whether that's base stock technology or additive tech responsible for the disparity- is still up for debate. imo the oil landscape has been in an evolution boom, and the terms 'conventional' and 'synthetic' as used here in north america, is just even more of a blur than it was before
 
There was a point in time where I believed pao was better than group 3 and so on.
Now I couldn't care less. After reading that Porsche feels any oils that meet their spec are equal and interchangeable,then who am I to think I know better than they do.
If a lube such as m1 0w-40,castrol euro 0w-40,liqui-moly 0w-40. All meet the Porsche a-40 spec which means Porsche says they are equal and interchangeable.
So I now only concern myself with formal approvals and couldn't care less what the formula contains.
With of course some ceratec for luck
 
Originally Posted By: Clevy

So I now only concern myself with formal approvals and couldn't care less what the formula contains.
With of course some ceratec for luck


i'll always care about what the formula contains.
smile.gif
always.

following directions is fine, esp if it's porsche because cafe is not their prime directive,long life protection is; but isn't it nice to know why you're following those directions? okay, that's clearly not for everyone. we see people getting hung up hard on numerical values without any concept of relativity- ie how those numbers relate in the real world. people would dump out a mistakenly installed, fresh pan of 5w30 in their 5w20 recommended application, or 10w30 in their 5w30 recommended app in the middle of July because it's not the 'correct number' lol. they'll toss the oil down the drain and repurchase or force the quicky lube to replace it. yeah, that makes sense.

meanwhile in the real world, the imagined detriments remain imaginary.

they'll never question why their manual has only one recommended grade, whilst the rest of the world has multiple grtades based on conditions- they'll never know tha's the case to even question it. to them the manual says one thing, period. end of discussion, i'm checking out now.

they would rather order the 'correct' oil from mars, rather than run something with a different 'number' that they had a million free gallons of. i'm no advocating running an inadequate or inappropriate lube, but without you knowing and making those distinction, the manufacturer or their engieers arent going to give you a free personalized consultation; you have to find out that 5w30 in a 5w20 app in July will be okay, if not offer better protection- yourself. that requires thinking-something unfortunately many people have talked themselves out of because how could they ever understand what they might need to know, they're not a professional. we can't be specialists in a day, but we can learn what we need to learn if you apply yourself enough. i dont need to be a trained chef to make a wicked meal, or to tell when something tastes like [censored], or to identify herbs/ingredients. could you imagine telling someone that their taste is invalid because they're not a chef and that their identification of a certain herb or spice is erroneous because it hasn't been examined by GC or confirmed by a trained chef? would you further tell them that even trying to make the distinction is an insult to professional chefs worldwide because they're playing chef? of course not. to do so would be the height of pretension, would it not?

i'm a strong proponent of autodidaction; strong enough to not be intimidated by any subject, but humble enough to realise the scope of knowledge in any given 'field of study'


Originally Posted By: Provi
I heard a rumor that VWB 5w-30 is 94% synthetic.


i read on a red lobster bathroom wall that it was more like ten thousand percent gr IIX with a million parts per hundred of tri-nuclear moly. haw haw haw
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top