The Myth of the Mobil 1 v Castrol lawsuit

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've read every page of the Mobil v Castrol pleadings. The NAD rulled correctly for this reason: They consulted chemical reference manuals for the definition of "synthetic". The wording in the manuals stated that a substance need only be "changed substantially" to be consiudered "synthetic". G-III oils meet this definition.
People think of the commonplace defintion of synthetic, derived from it's Latin < Greek roots: Sunthesis: sun- [together] + tithenai- [to put]. This implies two seperate componets are joined, but that describes even the simplest chemical reaction....easy to see how the reference manual definition is more correct.
 
Quote:


I've read every page of the Mobil v Castrol pleadings. The NAD rulled correctly for this reason: They consulted chemical reference manuals for the definition of "synthetic". The wording in the manuals stated that a substance need only be "changed substantially" to be consiudered "synthetic". G-III oils meet this definition.




If you go back to my very first postings back in 2002 you'll see that I, too, agreed with the NAD ruling. The changes that occur at the molecular level due to catalytic hydrocracking are such that not only is the feedstock "changed substantially," it's changed totally. The same goes for hydroisomerization of waxy feedstocks: total transformation at the molecular level from one substance to a totally different substance.

I would add that under this definition of "synthetic," hydrocracked Group II could just as legitimately be called "synthetic."
 
Quote:


Quote:


Next, the base oil uniformity in the PAO is very superior. In a PAO synthetic the viscosity is uniformly manufactured so if some oil consumption occurs due to heat or burn off what is left behind is the same viscosity. Not so with the Group III base oils. In the petroleum based Group III they average to a viscosity but actually have varying amounts of light and heavy oils in the mix. Any burn off or volatility of the oil usually sees the lighter elements burn off first and leave behind the heavier elements. In time the oil's viscosity becomes thicker. As an example look at the amount of volatility you see in a typical synthetic made from PAO base oils. It is much less, but still slightly occurs. Why? Because even the Group IV PAO motor oils need additives and those additives are mixed into a petroleum base oil carrier. This is how the additives are introduced into the motor oil. Therefore when a Group IV PAO is additized it receives some petroleum and it's that small amount of petroleum that is volatile. In the Group III motor oils the volatility will be higher than the Group IV. That's just chemistry. They do better than the Group II oils, and that is expected, but cannot compete with the PAO based Group IV under duress or high heat operation.




90% of what you've said here is inaccurate. I would encourage you to read more and post less until you get a solid handle on the facts.



I get this from time to time, but never with it comes certified reliable information to show anything that proves your point. Educate me. What makes this inaccurate? Group III oils do not hold up as well in turbo application. Lots of information on that, yet no one seems to prove to me that the Group III base oils are equal under extreme applications. How do I change my opinion based on "you're wrong" posted by someone. Where do you get it that Group III lubricants are equal to Group IV? I really want to know!!!!
confused.gif


I'm not angry nor am I being hostile. I have a need to be educated and keep seeing a drought!
grin.gif
 
See group three oils are highly refined/hydrocracked. they might be group 3s still but the only "real world disadvantage" is flow rate when it gets really cold.
 
Quote:


I get this from time to time, but never with it comes certified reliable information to show anything that proves your point. Educate me. What makes this inaccurate? Group III oils do not hold up as well in turbo application. Lots of information on that, yet no one seems to prove to me that the Group III base oils are equal under extreme applications. How do I change my opinion based on "you're wrong" posted by someone. Where do you get it that Group III lubricants are equal to Group IV? I really want to know!!!!
confused.gif


I'm not angry nor am I being hostile. I have a need to be educated and keep seeing a drought!
grin.gif





The answers you (allegedly) seek are already here on BITOG. If you want to pay my going rate of $125 per hour I'll be glad to do copious searches for you and post the relevant threads. Otherwise, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the search tool and have at it.
 
I think Gremil makes some very good points.
"They do better than the Group II oils, and that is expected, but cannot compete with the PAO based Group IV under duress or high heat operation."
The question behind this would be how much duress and heat does it take to seperate the differences?

Also.

"In the petroleum based Group III they average to a viscosity but actually have varying amounts of light and heavy oils in the mix."

There lies another question. how many feedstocks go into engine a to compose "its" groupIII? and how much variance is there based on this mixture?
 
Quote:


I think Gremil makes some very good points.
"They do better than the Group II oils, and that is expected, but cannot compete with the PAO based Group IV under duress or high heat operation."
The question behind this would be how much duress and heat does it take to seperate the differences?




The answer to your "question behind this" would be the only thing that would make his statement valid.

Quote:


"In the petroleum based Group III they average to a viscosity but actually have varying amounts of light and heavy oils in the mix."

There lies another question. how many feedstocks go into engine a to compose "its" groupIII? and how much variance is there based on this mixture?




The exact same thing can be said of PAO based motor oils. Various weights of PAO base oils are blended to come up with just the right VI for each grade of finished product. And if we're talking Group III base oils, and not finished product, he's mistaken. A given weight of Group III is not made up by mixing different fractions. The catalyst, the temperature, and the time of reaction determines the finished viscosity of the base oil.
 
G-man your going rate is low $125 an hour. here in vancouver i recently found myself in trouble with the law im paying $450 an hour!! this is my personal lawyer too, his rate is $650 for regular clients!
 
Last edited:
Quote:


you know from what I remember Mobil started this cause Castrol used the SYNTEC label when Mobil was thinking about using it.









laugh.gif



G thanks for posting this.
 
Quote:


G-man your going rate is low $125 an hour. here in vancouver i recently found myself in trouble with the law im paying $450 an hour!! this is my personally lawyer too, his rate is $650 for regular clients!




I have to base my rates on what the prevailing rates are in my area of the state. I am on the low side, but since I just opened my practice, it's about right. (But let's stay on topic, please.)
 
OK, since nobody wanted, or could, give credible information on this I will give you the reason I am certain I am correct. This can be done by anyone for free saving the 125 dollar fee for services yet to be rendered with no guarantee of quality.

First, take a gander at the technical data sheets of motor oils branded "synthetic" made by Castrol (Syntec), Chevron and Shell. Then compare those figures to the motor oils branded "synthetic" made by Mobil (Mobil 1), AMSOIL (the 20 plus motor oils that do not have the "XL" badge) and Redline. Now in order to be fair and compare "apples to apples" you need to pick a viscosity and stay with it. For example if you are comparing 5W-30 you need to make sure every oil is 5W-30 in every brand.

Make a note, while this isn't easy, many companies put their technical data in different places on their websites, others make them "available on demand" and you'll have to ask for the information. But being resourceful you will come to the same conclusion as I did:

Group III motor oils are not as thermally stable - volatility (NOACK % loss) favors the Group IV.

Pour points are not at as cold a temperature for the Group III oils compared to the Group IV oil despite the fact that the Group IV oil have little or no VI additives.

Viscosity index always favors the Group IV.

Fire point always favors the Group IV.

4 Ball wear test tends to favor the Group IV.

Shear stability favors the Group IV.

If I were comparing Group III to Group II, the differences would have been obvious. Group III are a lot better. But not up to the Group IV oils.

Also, the statement saying that PAO base stocks are made from varying viscosities flies in the face of fact. Where did that information come from? I don't doubt this is done, but by whom and where? I know for a fact the PAO base oils are made to a viscosity. Why o why would anyone feel it necessary to mix several to get a "average?"

Once again, did I get it wrong? Show me, I'd like to think I have an open mind.
smile.gif
 
Quote:


Also, the statement saying that PAO base stocks are made from varying viscosities flies in the face of fact. Where did that information come from? I don't doubt this is done, but by whom and where? I know for a fact the PAO base oils are made to a viscosity. Why o why would anyone feel it necessary to mix several to get a "average?"




No one said PAO base stocks were made from varying viscosities. You, however, made that claim about Group III base stocks, and it's not true.
 
Quote:


OK, since nobody wanted, or could, give credible information on this I will give you the reason I am certain I am correct. This can be done by anyone for free saving the 125 dollar fee for services yet to be rendered with no guarantee of quality.

First, take a gander at the technical data sheets of motor oils branded "synthetic" made by Castrol (Syntec), Chevron and Shell. Then compare those figures to the motor oils branded "synthetic" made by Mobil (Mobil 1), AMSOIL (the 20 plus motor oils that do not have the "XL" badge) and Redline.




Right. Don't pay any attention to the wealth of info that has been posted on BITOG by real world users and experts alike. Just look at the PDS from each company.
smirk.gif
 
Quote:


Quote:


Also, the statement saying that PAO base stocks are made from varying viscosities flies in the face of fact. Where did that information come from? I don't doubt this is done, but by whom and where? I know for a fact the PAO base oils are made to a viscosity. Why o why would anyone feel it necessary to mix several to get a "average?"




No one said PAO base stocks were made from varying viscosities. You, however, made that claim about Group III base stocks, and it's not true.




You made that statement just a few post ago. You said that the same thing could be said about Group IV PAO base oils referring to mixing of viscosities.

I think the fact that the Group III oils are more thermally stable than Group II shows that the viscosities are more uniform. That being said, the fact that the viscosity isn't as stable as Group IV shows that there are more of the lighter elements burning off causing the viscosity change. There must be some lighter elements there for this to happen. Just makes sense.
 
Quote:


Quote:


Quote:


Also, the statement saying that PAO base stocks are made from varying viscosities flies in the face of fact. Where did that information come from? I don't doubt this is done, but by whom and where? I know for a fact the PAO base oils are made to a viscosity. Why o why would anyone feel it necessary to mix several to get a "average?"




No one said PAO base stocks were made from varying viscosities. You, however, made that claim about Group III base stocks, and it's not true.




You made that statement just a few post ago. You said that the same thing could be said about Group IV PAO base oils referring to mixing of viscosities.




I did not. This is just further evidence that you're more interesting in posting your half-baked notions than reading. Here is what I posted:

"The exact same thing can be said of PAO based motor oils. Various weights of PAO base oils are blended to come up with just the right VI for each grade of finished product. And if we're talking Group III base oils, and not finished product, he's mistaken. A given weight of Group III is not made up by mixing different fractions. The catalyst, the temperature, and the time of reaction determines the finished viscosity of the base oil."

Quote:


I think the fact that the Group III oils are more thermally stable than Group II shows that the viscosities are more uniform. That being said, the fact that the viscosity isn't as stable as Group IV shows that there are more of the lighter elements burning off causing the viscosity change. There must be some lighter elements there for this to happen. Just makes sense.




Makes sense to you, perhaps. However, to someone who knows what they are talking about, Group IIIs are typically more thermally stable because they are more fully saturated with less aromatic content. It has nothing to do with viscosity. The "lighter elements" are the aromatics. Since PAO has ZERO aromatic content, it is of course going to be more thermally stable than any base oil that even has trace elements of aromatics. The Group IIIs that comes the closest to PAO are the wax isomerates (like Shell's XHVI) because they have virtually no aromatics since the feedstock is 100% paraffin.
 
Quote:


Quote:


Quote:


Quote:


Also, the statement saying that PAO base stocks are made from varying viscosities flies in the face of fact. Where did that information come from? I don't doubt this is done, but by whom and where? I know for a fact the PAO base oils are made to a viscosity. Why o why would anyone feel it necessary to mix several to get a "average?"




No one said PAO base stocks were made from varying viscosities. You, however, made that claim about Group III base stocks, and it's not true.




You made that statement just a few post ago. You said that the same thing could be said about Group IV PAO base oils referring to mixing of viscosities.




I did not. This is just further evidence that you're more interesting in posting your half-baked notions than reading. Here is what I posted:

"The exact same thing can be said of PAO based motor oils. Various weights of PAO base oils are blended to come up with just the right VI for each grade of finished product. And if we're talking Group III base oils, and not finished product, he's mistaken. A given weight of Group III is not made up by mixing different fractions. The catalyst, the temperature, and the time of reaction determines the finished viscosity of the base oil."

Quote:


I think the fact that the Group III oils are more thermally stable than Group II shows that the viscosities are more uniform. That being said, the fact that the viscosity isn't as stable as Group IV shows that there are more of the lighter elements burning off causing the viscosity change. There must be some lighter elements there for this to happen. Just makes sense.




Makes sense to you, perhaps. However, to someone who knows what they are talking about, Group IIIs are typically more thermally stable because they are more fully saturated with less aromatic content. It has nothing to do with viscosity. The "lighter elements" are the aromatics. Since PAO has ZERO aromatic content, it is of course going to be more thermally stable than any base oil that even has trace elements of aromatics. The Group IIIs that comes the closest to PAO are the wax isomerates (like Shell's XHVI) because they have virtually no aromatics since the feedstock is 100% paraffin.



You make a good point, and that would probably explain why Shell's synthetic seems to post good numbers. However, there is a reason why the Group IV synthetics shine. Nothing I've seen will make me go to a Group III despite the lower price. If I had not choice, I would use the Group III motor oils. But having a choice I will continue to favor Group IV.
 
Quote:


OK, since nobody wanted, or could, give credible information on this I will give you the reason I am certain I am correct. This can be done by anyone for free saving the 125 dollar fee for services yet to be rendered with no guarantee of quality.

First, take a gander at the technical data sheets of motor oils branded "synthetic" made by Castrol (Syntec), Chevron and Shell. Then compare those figures to the motor oils branded "synthetic" made by Mobil (Mobil 1), AMSOIL (the 20 plus motor oils that do not have the "XL" badge) and Redline. Now in order to be fair and compare "apples to apples" you need to pick a viscosity and stay with it. For example if you are comparing 5W-30 you need to make sure every oil is 5W-30 in every brand.

Make a note, while this isn't easy, many companies put their technical data in different places on their websites, others make them "available on demand" and you'll have to ask for the information. But being resourceful you will come to the same conclusion as I did:

Group III motor oils are not as thermally stable - volatility (NOACK % loss) favors the Group IV.

Pour points are not at as cold a temperature for the Group III oils compared to the Group IV oil despite the fact that the Group IV oil have little or no VI additives.

Viscosity index always favors the Group IV.

Fire point always favors the Group IV.

4 Ball wear test tends to favor the Group IV.

Shear stability favors the Group IV.

If I were comparing Group III to Group II, the differences would have been obvious. Group III are a lot better. But not up to the Group IV oils.

Also, the statement saying that PAO base stocks are made from varying viscosities flies in the face of fact. Where did that information come from? I don't doubt this is done, but by whom and where? I know for a fact the PAO base oils are made to a viscosity. Why o why would anyone feel it necessary to mix several to get a "average?"

Once again, did I get it wrong? Show me, I'd like to think I have an open mind.
smile.gif






Specs do not equal a good motor oil. You could have the most amaznig substance on paper, a NASA-engineered product, but if a engine only needs certian parameters to operate, "better" serves no function. Less costly base means more can be spent on additives, which is where current science is at. Really, do I need a super-PAO to run my Honda around? Can PAO be worse in seal stability, solubility and even overall wear? yeah. Longer ocis? Umm, my mfg calls for 10k on dino oil, check the new Honda Civic 10k on Havoline 5w-20 as a reference, then go blend a cheaper than $2 PAO oil than works better and get back to me.
laugh.gif
 
Of course, Group III oils are better than petroleum. You didn't mention oil drain intervals on the engine above, but clearly well maintained. The vast majority of engines out there are not well maintained.

I deal with German car repair shops a lot because of my association with my own German cars. They have noticed severe sludging with Syntec to the point of complaining. Is this the oil's fault? For one, using Syntec in some of those engines violates the manufacturer's warranty anyway. It's a good bet these cars were not properly maintained.

Many companies manufacturing a "synthetic" Group III motor oil actually do manufacture a Group IV synthetic in Europe. What's more these Group IV synthetics they market in Europe are certified for the BMW LL-04, Mercedes 229.51 and VW 505.01. Why aren't the Group III "synthetics" certified for these specifications?

I'm not being mean spirited, but I would like to know the answer since that is one fact that escapes me. Anyone have an idea why? The German car dealer say it is because those oils won't pass the strict specifications that not only must have great resistance to volatility, but be used for extended oil drain intervals. Are they blowing smoke up my rear or is this a factual statement?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top