Base Stock Formulations and Percentages

[m6pwr]

I know that the base stock of most oils is usually a blend of different types or groups; e.g., a little bit of grp IV, some of grpV, more of grp III, etc. And I know that the exact formulations are proprietary, but I wonder is there any rule or practice that says in order to be advertised as, say, a PAO oil that the oil contain at least 50% or more PAO?

There is a rule (I think it comes from the Fed BATF) that says in order for a wine to be labelled as Cabernet Sauvignon, it must be derived from at least 51% cabernet sauvignon grapes. The rest can be vintner choice of blending grapes like merlot, etc. I'm wondering if there is something similar for motor oils.

And while I'm at it, is there any motor oil today that is advertised as a grp IV PAO? I remember that you used to see that in marketing literature, but I don't see it any more (probably because grp III+ is good enough for most applications). Instead, you see references or claims that the oil base stock performs like a PAO or rivals the performance of a PAO; e.g. Pennzoil Ultra Platinum GTL base stock.

 

[kschachn]

No.

I also think that in the end the German law will come around to bite them. It will exclude formulations from being called "synthetic" when their properties may be superior to what the definition allows.

Originally Posted By: m6pwr
I know that the base stock of most oils is usually a blend of different types or groups; e.g., a little bit of grp IV, some of grpV, more of grp III, etc. And I know that the exact formulations are proprietary, but I wonder is there any rule or practice that says in order to be advertised as, say, a PAO oil that the oil contain at least 50% or more PAO?

There is a rule (I think it comes from the Fed BATF) that says in order for a wine to be labelled as Cabernet Sauvignon, it must be derived from at least 51% cabernet sauvignon grapes. The rest can be vintner choice of blending grapes like merlot, etc. I'm wondering if there is something similar for motor oils.

And while I'm at it, is there any motor oil today that is advertised as a grp IV PAO? I remember that you used to see that in marketing literature, but I don't see it any more (probably because grp III+ is good enough for most applications). Instead, you see references or claims that the oil base stock performs like a PAO or rivals the performance of a PAO; e.g. Pennzoil Ultra Platinum GTL base stock.

 

[Nate1979]

Since when do oils advertise the group of oil they contain? Why would consumers care or even know what it meant?

 

[MolaKule]

Quote:
And I know that the exact formulations are proprietary, but I wonder is there any rule or practice that says in order to be advertised as, say, a PAO oil that the oil contain at least 50% or more PAO?


The answer is no, and this topic has been discussed ad nauseam here on BITOG.

 

[lubricatosaurus]

Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Since when do oils advertise the group of oil they contain? Why would consumers care or even know what it meant?
Amsoil used to emphasize PAO advertising. Its not mentioned much otherwise, as in the part-PAO Mobil1 0w-40 or some Motul oils.
Amsoil's looked like:

yet its probably deprecated now. Main Amsoil website doesn't appear to have it.

 

[kschachn]

Maybe they don't emphasize it because it is not depreciated. Maybe it is improved.

Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
Amsoil used to emphasize PAO advertising. Its not mentioned much otherwise, as in the part-PAO Mobil1 0w-40 or some Motul oils.
Amsoil's looked like:

yet its probably deprecated now. Main Amsoil website doesn't appear to have it.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
I also think that in the end the German law will come around to bite them. It will exclude formulations from being called "synthetic" when their properties may be superior to what the definition allows.

Agreed, or they simply start to invent words. Besides, if a European application requires a certain specification, I would suggest it's best to buy by that specification, rather than base stock. I can find some pretty dated PAO examples here, with very few specifications and approvals.

 

[lubricatosaurus]

Lessons learned from Exxon-Mobil's experience with taking 0w-40 to a blend of Group III and PAO is notable. Also, Shell has decided to use a good Group III Gas-to-Liquids basestock and I don't know how much PAO or esters to their current Pennzoil synthetics.

Here is a quote from some googled bobistheoilguy discussions which outline what M1 0w-40 went through in the past 20 years:

Originally Posted By: buster
Quote:
A natural evolution of the formulation

The Mobil 1 formulation strategy has always been based on selecting the best components available. We now have the very high quality Group III+ base stock, ‘Visom’ exclusively available to ExxonMobil. As we developed the Mobil 1 ESP technology we found that combining Visom with PAO could deliver a formulation of equivalent performance to an all PAO formulation.

Competitive advantage

Visom is the only non-PAO stock that can deliver the required performance to formulate a 0W grade oil that meets European OEM engine oil specifications. Visom is not available to our competition.

To support Mobil 1 growth

Global PAO capacity is limited. As we quickly approach this limit, new base stocks must be explored to ensure we can support the continued growth of the Mobil 1 family of products.

To ensure continuity of supply

As we saw with the 2005 hurricane, the more flexibility we have in our formulations, the better placed we are to withstand disruption to our supply. We can balance PAO and Visom supply fluctuations to ensure we can always deliver the final product to our customers.

To maintain market relevant pricing

As PAO supply has tightened globally, raw material costs have increased substantially. In the future, an exclusively PAO formulation may be priced out of the market or result in significant margin erosion.

To prepare for next generation basestocks (GTL)

Commencing 2010, the next generation of base stocks derived from Natural Gas (Gas To Liquids) will enter the market. These high quality basestocks will arrive in substantial quantities and will probably be used in the majority of competitive premium formulations. Visom is viewed as a precursor of GTL, and hence it’s use now in our flagship formulations eases our transition to a GTL world, and helps us understand how to maintain flagship performance using these high quality non-PAO basestocks.



Apparently XOM let this go public because it was found online. It's a PowerPoint presentation.

I can tell you that from reading it, the current M1 formulations are better than ever. TEOST testing is extremely good. Mobil 1 is their flagship product and there is no evidence at all that Mobil 1 is any worse than it used to be. In fact, it's a better oil.

They also show some OEM proprietary testing results and the new 0w40 has improved cam wear protection.

 

[lubricatosaurus]

Motul takes a marketing approach with PAO thats strange. They claim other oils just mix in some PAO and can't compete with their oils based on just doing that.

"WHAT DOES TECHNOSYNTHESE MEAN?
Nowadays, the terms 'synthetic', 'semi-synthetic', and 'synthetic base', are overused and confusing. It is not enough just to add a few percent of PAOs (poly-alpha-olefins) to claim to rival the performances of oils using Motul synthesic techniques.
All these techniques using synthetic products have been developed for over 50 years by Motul, which fully masters them. They are now grouped under the generic name 'TECHNOSYNTHESE', a registered trademark." -- Motul's website

 

[m6pwr]

Lubricatosaurus: Thanks for the info. Guess I missed these discussions before.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: kschachn
I also think that in the end the German law will come around to bite them. It will exclude formulations from being called "synthetic" when their properties may be superior to what the definition allows.

Agreed, or they simply start to invent words. Besides, if a European application requires a certain specification, I would suggest it's best to buy by that specification, rather than base stock. I can find some pretty dated PAO examples here, with very few specifications and approvals.


I still applaud them for their sticking to the the intent of "synthetic" as a definition. The talk on BITOG that "synthetic" is a performance level, ignores the actual meaning of the word.

There needs to be a new word, or as Garak points out, just look at the actual performance requirements.

 

[Garak]

Well, I am a stickler when it comes to the synthetic definition. Of course, putting group numbers on oil jugs would just confuse the heck out of most people who don't hang out here. I would prefer if they called Group III stuff here synthetic technology or something similar, but we do have to watch what we wish for. I can find you a couple Co-op oils that trumpet their PAO content, but you may not want to be using them on something new under warranty. Their 0w-30 PCMO doesn't even have ILSAC approval, for instance.

So, we have something with great base stocks, but no actual certification. I think there's a secret law somewhere that prohibits an actual SN/GF-5 PAO oil.

In fairness, the Co-op product is competitively priced and I'm sure quite suitable, but you get my drift. I believe their HDEO 0w-40 (primarily PAO) has some of the same failings when it comes to certifications.

In all seriousness, while there isn't any law prohibiting an SN/GF-5 PAO oil, I highly doubt it makes much economic sense to produce such a product, particularly if it's not going for something beyond basic SN/GF-5 certification.

 

[lubricatosaurus]

Agreed performance specs an oil meets is really the goal. That said, I do want to get a glimpse into the world of the engine oil formulator & oil companies to see if their product is marginal though. Like what was said recently where the formulators might be pressured by investors to cheapen the stew:
Originally Posted By: Joe90_guy
Who exactly do you think pressures the AddCo's to make marginal oils in the first place? I remember in one meeting with your favourite oil company, where their guy went through the breakdown of the pack wanting to shave something substantial off every single component. I remember specifically him questioning the level of antifoam in the pack


It boils down to how to make an oil cheap that still meets a target spec. Garak's example of an SN oil with PAO might actually be economically feasible if using PAO allowed the formulator to reduce levels (cost) of the additive pack (VII, AW, FM, etc.) to compensate.

I'd venture a guess that all engine oils that meet 229.5 & A40 contain a big chunk of PAO in it. If there was a cheaper alternative, they would use it, since PAO is considered expensive.

It is interesting to see how basestocks and additives can be manipulated with consumer labelling to game the system:

"At the risk of showing
how easy it is to game the
system, what’s to stop a
blender from heavily diluting
its detergent-inhibitor
and viscosity modifier additives
with a Group II 100N
diluent oil, to the point
where the DI/VM treat is
greater than half the blend
— and then call the finished
product “synthetic,” even
though it contains less than
50 percent Group III?
With Group II base oils
costing about 35 percent
less than Group III and finished
synthetic oils selling for roughly 50 percent more
than conventional, a strong
incentive for cheating certainly
exists — and sources
say it is taking place."--- http://www.maximumoilchangeintervals.com/asset-LnG/lubes-n-greases-magazine-2014-08-issue.pdf

And notice in that same magazine issue, Exxon Mobil's continued investment in PAO is very strong headed into the future, so they think it's important.

 

[Jetronic]

Gulf Formula GMX 5w-30

it's a 229.5 oil without PAO; pure grIII

 

[lubricatosaurus]

Originally Posted By: Jetronic
Gulf Formula GMX 5w-30 it's a 229.5 oil without PAO; pure grIII

How do you know? Reference somewhere?

 

[MolaKule]

Quote:
It boils down to how to make an oil cheap that still meets a target spec. Garak's example of an SN oil with PAO might actually be economically feasible if using PAO allowed the formulator to reduce levels (cost) of the additive pack (VII, AW, FM, etc.) to compensate.


It's called, "Blending Optimization."

Quote:
Who exactly do you think pressures the AddCo's to make marginal oils in the first place? I remember in one meeting with your favourite oil company, where their guy went through the breakdown of the pack wanting to shave something substantial off every single component. I remember specifically him questioning the level of antifoam in the pack


A commercial additive company offers additive packages with specific levels of chemistry that are to be used with specific base oils, especially for certification purposes.

One can order a special additive package from commercial additive suppliers but you have to have a minimum volume order and this can get expensive.

If a formulator values his reputation, he will have language in any contract specifying the components and levels of treatment, with subsequent QC testing with reports.

 

[Jetronic]

Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
Gulf Formula GMX 5w-30 it's a 229.5 oil without PAO; pure grIII

How do you know? Reference somewhere?


I posted the MSDS for this oil before. was quite telling.

GVX (I believe, the not full-saps version anyway) has part PAO in it.

 

[lubricatosaurus]

Originally Posted By: Jetronic
GVX (I believe, the not full-saps version anyway) has part PAO in it.


OK, I found the MSDS's for GMX vs. GVX:

GMX: 75% Group III, 3% Ester

GVX: 65% Group III, 0.2% Ester, 25% PAO

Looks as if the GMX got away with getting 229.5 using Group III only, with more ester in trade.

 

[Jetronic]

is it ester, or is the antiwear additive? seen something about phosphorus?

 

[lubricatosaurus]

Originally Posted By: Jetronic
is it ester, or is the antiwear additive? seen something about phosphorus?
Phosphorodithioic acid, mixed O, O-bis(1,3-dimethylbutyl and isoPr)
esters, zinc : 1 - 3 % is the "bundle" stated in the MSDS for GMX, but we know zddp AW is only about 0.1% (1000 ppm) of that, so I'm guessing most in there is ester. You know MSDS style, they don't want to be too exact in stating percentages so as not to give away the recipe.

By contrast, that same "bundle" of chemicals there in GVX is in much smaller amounts, meaning ester is not high in GVX, ostensibly because it has the expensive PAO and doesn't need a lot of esters.
http://www.gulf.nl/fileadmin/user_upload...GMX%205W-30.pdf
http://www.gulf.nl/fileadmin/user_upload...GVX%205W-30.pdf

I'm estimating all this based on MSDS comparative numbers, and a formulator can add a lot of detail here. It does make sense that to meet 229.5, you might need Esters to help your all GroupIII basestock GMX. Seems that might be cheaper than going with a substantial amount of the expensive PAO though, so smart on Gulf's part(????) maybe.