"Most" synthetic version of Mobil 1?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lol

I guess it went right over some of your heads when i put the quotation marks around real synthetic.

Seems that you all have in mind what real sythetic is.

Some other threads you all complain that some " sythetics" are nothing more than refined dino oils.


The reason i want the most "real synthetic."

I want what i am paying for.

Thats it.

And I HATE PENNZOIL.
that is my personal opinion. MINE.
 
Originally Posted By: RegDunlop
Lol

I guess it went right over some of your heads when i put the quotation marks around real synthetic.

Seems that you all have in mind what real sythetic is.

Some other threads you all complain that some " sythetics" are nothing more than refined dino oils.


The reason i want the most "real synthetic."

I want what i am paying for.

Thats it.

And I HATE PENNZOIL.
that is my personal opinion. MINE.


OP, read this...

http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/533/base-oil-trends

Performance of Base Oils and Future Trends - The Evolution of Base Oil Technology - Part 3


Chevron Global Lubricants Chevron Global Lubricants Chevron Global Lubricants Chevron Global Lubricants
Tags: industrial lubricants
This is the third of a three-part series on base oil technologies and applications.

Lubrication technology evolved slowly from ancient times until the 1950s. Solvent-refining technology then emerged and displaced naturally occurring petroleum distillates due to improved lubricant properties. In the 1970s and 1980s, hydroprocessing technologies, especially hydrocracking, allowed the manufacture of Group II base oils. These were recognized as a separate API category in 1993 due to their positive differentiation over previous stocks. Hydroisomerization processes convert wax to very high-quality base oil. Modern hydroisomerization technologies, such as Isodewaxing®, became widely accepted and commercialized rapidly after 1993. Widespread licensing of this technology has created an abundant supply of Group II oils that have exceptional stability and low-temperature performance relative to their Group I predecessors. This type of technology is now used to make almost half of all base oils in North America.

A similar trend is emerging with Group III base oils, especially those made using modern hydroisomerization. These oils provide equivalent performance to traditional PAO-based synthetic oils for most products and can be manufactured in volumes and at price points unachievable by PAO. This equivalent performance was validated by the 1999 ruling of the National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau which allowed lubricants made with Group III oils to be labeled “synthetic.”

Group III vs. PAO (Group IV) Performance
Historically, polyalphaolefins (PAOs) have had superior performance characteristics such as viscosity index (VI), pour point, volatility and oxidation stability that could not be achieved with conventional mineral oils. With modern base oil manufacturing, VI, pour point, volatility and oxidation stability all can be independently controlled.

A modern Group III oil can actually outperform a PAO in several areas important to lubricants, such as additive solubility, lubricity and antiwear performance. Group III base oils can now rival PAO stocks in pour point, viscosity index and oxidation stability performance. Some of the key measures for finished lubricant performance where Group III must compete with Group IV include:

Pour Point
Cold Crank (property)
NOACK Volatility
Oxidation Stability
Pour Point
Pour point is one property where a gap certainly exists, but pour point depressants have closed the performance gap significantly. It is important to understand that the pour point of the fully formulated lubricant (base oils plus additives) is the critical property. Base oils manufactured with modern isomerization catalysts respond well to small doses of pour point depressant additives. For example, turbine oils formulated with conventional Group II base oils (-12°C base oil pour point) are available with a formulated pour point of -36°C. Fully formulated Group III base lubricants can be made with pour points of -45°C or below.

On the other hand, in a traditional synthetic lubricant the additive package will typically degrade the pour point of the PAO blend stock, bringing the pour point of the PAO-based finished lubricant close to that made with Group III stocks. This means that Group III base oils available today can be formulated into lubricants suitable for all but the very coldest applications.

Cold Crank Simulator
Viscosity in engine journal bearings during cold temperature startup is a key factor in determining the lowest temperature at which an engine will start. Viscosity by Cold Cranking Simulator (CCS), as measured by ASTM Method D5293, is determined under conditions similar to those experienced in engine bearings during starting. For base oils, this viscosity is determined almost entirely by viscosity and VI. Because Group III stocks typically have VIs comparable to that of 4 cSt PAO, one would expect comparable CCS performance. This is demonstrated in Figure 1, where it can be seen that a 4 cSt Group III base oil, with a kinematic viscosity of 4.2 cSt at 100°C and a VI of 129 has similar CCS values to PAO 4, with a viscosity of 3.9 cSt and VI of 123.



Figure 1. Cold Cranking Performance,
Group III Comparable to PAO

If we were to blend the PAO to a 4.2 cSt viscosity, their CCS values would be virtually identical. Both have about half the CCS value of a 4 cSt Group II base stock of about 100 VI. Thus, Group III stocks work very well for formulating fuel- efficient, synthetic, multigrade engine oils in the 5W-20 to 10W-40 range. 0W-20 and 0W-30 engine oils, with their extremely low temperature performance requirements, will continue to be dominated by PAO-base fluids for the next few years.

Noack Volatility
Noack volatility of an engine oil, as measured by ASTM D5800 and similar methods, has been found to correlate with oil consumption in passenger car engines. Strict requirements for low volatility are important aspects of several recent and upcoming engine oil specifications, such as ACEA* A-3 and B-3 in Europe and International Lubricant Standardization and Approval Committee (ILSAC) GF-3 and GF-4 in North America. Low volatility oils are also required for modern heavy-duty engine oils. Figure 2 shows that from a blender’s perspective, Group III base oils are as effective as PAOs for achieving these low volatility requirements in engine oil applications.



Figure 2. Group III Performance vs. PAO,
Comparable Noack Volatility

Volatility is a strong function of VI. The VIs of modern Group III oils typically match or exceed PAO, so they can match the volatility of PAO VIs at a reasonable distillation cut width.

Oxidation Stability
Oxidation and thermal stability are among the most important advantages that synthetics bring to the table. Better base oil stability means better additive stability and longer life. High stability is the key to making the premium-quality lubricants of the future with longer drain intervals. Here, Group III oils routinely challenge PAO performance.

The stability of modern Group III stocks is well predicted by their VI, because VI is an indication of the fraction of highly stable isoparaffinic and saturated structures in the base oil.1 Unlike older generation Group III stocks, which can have more than five percent aromatics, modern Group III stocks also undergo subsequent severe hydrofinishing after hydrocracking and hydroisomerization. Consequently, they have exceptional purity with aromatics levels of much less than one percent, resulting in high thermal and oxidative stability. On the other hand, PAO stability depends largely on residual olefin content, which can be present at significant levels - up to five percent. Even though PAOs have generally excellent oxidation stability, in many applications such as engine oils or high-temperature compressor oils, their performance is matched by modern, severely processed Group III base oils.

In some applications, even Group II-based lubricants can provide competitive oxidation resistance to traditional synthetics. Group II base oil technology, along with specially designed additives, can match traditional synthetic oils made from PAO in applications such as turbine oils. The benefits of severe hydroprocessing are shown in Figure 3, which compares a Group II oil with a Group I.



Figure 3. Higher Base Oil Quality Extends Turbine Oil
Life as Measured by the Turbine Oil Stability Test

The Turbine Oil Stability Test (TOST), or ASTM D943, measures the time required for a turbine oil to oxidize to the point where the acid number reaches 2.0 mg KOH/g.

Turbine oils contain only about one percent additives, so this test is a good measure of the inherent stability of the base oil. Unadditized Group I base oils fail in about 200 hours. A turbine oil formulated with Group I base oil typically fails in less than 7,000 hours. A high-quality Group II oil formulated with the same additive package at the same additive treat rate can run more than twice as long before it fails. In actual service, well-formulated Group II-based turbine oils provide excellent lubrication with change intervals of three to five years.

The benefit of all-hydroprocessed Group III base oils in oxidation stability is illustrated in Figure 4 for hydraulic oils formulated by using the same additive system in four different base oils.



Figure 4. Oxidation Stability,
Acid Number in Hydraulic Oils

Here, the time required to reach an acid number of 2.0 (defined by neutralization of 2.0 mg of KOH/g of oil) in the Universal Oxidation Test (ASTM D4871), a common measure of oil oxidation, was substantially longer for the Group III formulation than for either the Group I or II products. Moreover, the performance of the Group III product was essentially the same as that for an oil formulated with a PAO.

Table 1 lists a variety of North American lubricants which are formulated using all-hydroprocessed Group III base stocks.

Click Here to See Table 1

These products include engine oils, industrial oils and driveline fluids, and are targeted at the same performance levels achieved by traditional synthetic formulations.

Evolution
Looking to the future, the trend is toward lubricants and base oils with even higher purity, lower volatility and longer life. The molecular structure of base oils will be designed to provide ever higher lubrication performance. Selectivity toward desired molecular compositions will be enhanced by employing better hydroprocessing catalysts, feedstocks and process improvements.

Incredibly, one new base oil feedstock is natural gas. In this decade, we will see a new type of ultraperformance base oil derived from wax which is derived from natural gas via the Fischer-Tropsch process (see Related Reading at end of article). The plants making these super-synthetic Group III base oils will employ the latest hydroprocessing technology. Dubbed GTL, for gas-to-liquids, these base stocks are already being referred to as Group III+, or “Super-Group III.” ChevronTexaco’s brand name for these products is FTBOTM base oils (FT for Fischer-Tropsch). They will have VIs significantly higher than PAOs, and they will be used to make the fuel-efficient, long-life automotive and industrial oils of the future.

Other competing technologies are likely to emerge as well. New feeds for manufacturing PAOs have been proposed, and the quality of these traditional synthetic oils continues to improve.2 Unfortunately for PAO producers, their feedstock prices will continue to be relatively high, and the authors believe that this will relegate PAO-based lubricants to smaller, specialized markets in the future. Driven by the substantially lower price of Group III oils, the synthetic automotive lubricant market in North America is rapidly converting most of its volumes to Group III base stocks.

Selected top-tier lubricants requiring PAO will continue to coexist with Group III oils as they have for years in Europe. But widespread availability of modern Group II and III mineral oils is accelerating the rate of change in lubricant markets. New and improved base oils are helping engine and equipment manufacturers economically meet increasing demands for better, cleaner lubricants.

As base oil technology continues to evolve and improve, consumers will enjoy even greater protection of automobiles, trucks and expensive machinery such as turbines. Lubrication performance that previously was achieved only in small-volume niche applications, using PAO and other specialty stocks, is now widely available using the new generation of Group II and Group III oils.
 
Originally Posted By: RegDunlop
And I HATE PENNZOIL.
that is my personal opinion. MINE.

Still, most opinions are usually formed based on something. So, what made you hate Pennzoil? Just curious...

I don't have a horse in this race. I pay for performance, and not for individual ingredients.
 
Lol

No it is the opposite, it seems that you have in mind what a real synthetic is.

I suggest you look into what a severely hydro-cracked Group III oil really is and that not all are the same.

Originally Posted By: RegDunlop
Lol

I guess it went right over some of your heads when i put the quotation marks around real synthetic.

Seems that you all have in mind what real sythetic is.

Some other threads you all complain that some " sythetics" are nothing more than refined dino oils.
 
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: RegDunlop
And I HATE PENNZOIL.
that is my personal opinion. MINE.

Still, most opinions are usually formed based on something. So, what made you hate Pennzoil? Just curious...


What's odd is that if you look back through his previous posts you find this gem:

Originally Posted By: RegDunlop
I never trusted Pennzoil products , but after using Pennzoil Ultra in my good car last OCI I now think it is a good product.


Look around a while and you'll see he's had a history of posting unsubstantiated rumors (stuff he's "heard") about Pennzoil, but it's a bit schizophrenic as noted above.
 
Does the lasting longer make the oil better or is an oil that [protects ] better but lasts a shorter period of time the better oil?
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: RegDunlop
And I HATE PENNZOIL.
that is my personal opinion. MINE.

Still, most opinions are usually formed based on something. So, what made you hate Pennzoil? Just curious...


What's odd is that if you look back through his previous posts you find this gem:

Originally Posted By: RegDunlop
I never trusted Pennzoil products , but after using Pennzoil Ultra in my good car last OCI I now think it is a good product.


Look around a while and you'll see he's had a history of posting unsubstantiated rumors (stuff he's "heard") about Pennzoil, but it's a bit schizophrenic as noted above.


Great catch.
Trolling.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: RegDunlop
And I HATE PENNZOIL.
that is my personal opinion. MINE.

Still, most opinions are usually formed based on something. So, what made you hate Pennzoil? Just curious...

I don't have a horse in this race. I pay for performance, and not for individual ingredients.

I agree.

This is a little difference but similar to "Pay for Performance". Some years ago we had 2 movie formats: VHS and DVD, cost to make DVD was lower than VHS but selling price was higher, but people still buy/rent DVD more because of higher quality.
 
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: RegDunlop
And I HATE PENNZOIL.
that is my personal opinion. MINE.

Still, most opinions are usually formed based on something. So, what made you hate Pennzoil? Just curious...

I don't have a horse in this race. I pay for performance, and not for individual ingredients.

I agree.

This is a little difference but similar to "Pay for Performance". Some years ago we had 2 movie formats: VHS and DVD, cost to make DVD was lower than VHS but selling price was higher, but people still buy/rent DVD more because of higher quality.
off topic but remember Sony Beta Max ? Much better machine wise but the Sony corporate license greed killed it and VHS
Be came the platform that sold . Beta Max was better.
 
Originally Posted By: CT8
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: RegDunlop
And I HATE PENNZOIL.
that is my personal opinion. MINE.

Still, most opinions are usually formed based on something. So, what made you hate Pennzoil? Just curious...

I don't have a horse in this race. I pay for performance, and not for individual ingredients.

I agree.

This is a little difference but similar to "Pay for Performance". Some years ago we had 2 movie formats: VHS and DVD, cost to make DVD was lower than VHS but selling price was higher, but people still buy/rent DVD more because of higher quality.
off topic but remember Sony Beta Max ? Much better machine wise but the Sony corporate license greed killed it and VHS
Be came the platform that sold . Beta Max was better.



Off topic?

Who cares this entire thread is off topic.

I came here for a simple answer to a simple question, ( with the simple limitation that nobody try and convince me to use a sopus product, as every thread on this site devolves to-- never valvoline or castrol guys just the....paid sopus trolls) and instead I got non-answers and ad hominen attacks.

VHS vs Beta max? How about bluray vs hd dvd....another case where the better technology lost.
 
The interesting part of all of this is that you answered your own question in your opening post. Mobil 1 EP was the right way to go with your thinking in this instance. I understood what you were asking in your original post. It's when you start off with a question like yours it is going to get a bit wild. I wish it wasn't like that at times either. Not necessary in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: RegDunlop
Originally Posted By: CT8
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete

Still, most opinions are usually formed based on something. So, what made you hate Pennzoil? Just curious...

I don't have a horse in this race. I pay for performance, and not for individual ingredients.

I agree.

This is a little difference but similar to "Pay for Performance". Some years ago we had 2 movie formats: VHS and DVD, cost to make DVD was lower than VHS but selling price was higher, but people still buy/rent DVD more because of higher quality.
off topic but remember Sony Beta Max ? Much better machine wise but the Sony corporate license greed killed it and VHS
Be came the platform that sold . Beta Max was better.



Off topic?

Who cares this entire thread is off topic.

I came here for a simple answer to a simple question, ( with the simple limitation that nobody try and convince me to use a sopus product, as every thread on this site devolves to-- never valvoline or castrol guys just the....paid sopus trolls) and instead I got non-answers and ad hominen attacks.

VHS vs Beta max? How about bluray vs hd dvd....another case where the better technology lost.




Off topic? That's par for the course on BITOG, but you did get some good answers while it was on-topic. I really liked the article from Machinery Lubrication that wemay quoted. It shows that severely hydrocracked and isomerized group III base oils can get within a few percent of PAO's on performance.

But you never made it clear what property you were looking for in your definition of "best". M1 EP will give long life. M1 AFE will give improved fuel economy. Going from a 5w20 to a 0w20 may get you more of the "good" stuff because it is needed to meet the cold flow performance.
 
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
It shows that severely hydrocracked and isomerized group III base oils can get within a few percent of PAO's on performance.

Agreed, and PAO content doesn't add something magical, anyhow, not even value. We do have primarily PAO lubes that are nothing special in various ways, including some that aren't certified, and still aren't anything special based upon lacking such certifications.

There is a reason the oil companies more and more often are blending base stocks, and it isn't just because they're watering the product down, or anything nefarious.
 
There's no performance benefit to formulating with PAO?, is that why the M1 racing oil is ~80% PAO? Just for giggles. Even LUCAS makes their REAL RACING lubes with very high % PAO base. (Now there's proof that trickle down DOESNT work
smile.gif


You don't mess with a guys 50-100K $ engine with MISLEADING terminology.

AFE has little PAO vs EP according to the XoM SDS - which may be worthless AFA formulation goes. Xom don't have to reveal base stock at all giving its not particularly hazardous. More at the DPAW. Im no PAO fanboy buy as i've said hundreds of times - give me what you say your selling me on the bottle.
 
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
There's no performance benefit to formulating with PAO?, is that why the M1 racing oil is ~80% PAO? Just for giggles. Even LUCAS makes their REAL RACING lubes with very high % PAO base. (Now there's proof that trickle down DOESNT work
smile.gif


You don't mess with a guys 50-100K $ engine with MISLEADING terminology.

AFE has little PAO vs EP according to the XoM SDS - which may be worthless AFA formulation goes. Xom don't have to reveal base stock at all giving its not particularly hazardous. More at the DPAW. Im no PAO fanboy buy as i've said hundreds of times - give me what you say your selling me on the bottle.



Which misleading terminology are you refering?
 
I too like to hate a product for ambiguous reasons.

Don't you try to convince me tof try Mello yellow. Mountain dew is all I want. I'm sure you all like Mello yellow but I hate it and I'm not telling you why. So don't ask me why. Please don't ask me why. I'm serious it's my personal opinion so don't challenge me on that. It's very personal and very much a secret. Do don't ask.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top