The Myth of the Mobil 1 v Castrol lawsuit
- Thread starter G-MAN
- Start date
- Status
Gremil, … a few points …
Not always, one has to dig a little deeper here to ferret out more of the facts. It would be more correct to say VI generally favors GIV over GIII. There are 2 types of Group III base oils, hydrocracked and wax isomerates.
Hydrocracked Group III base oils (this represents most of the Group III production) typically have a VI in the 123 - 128 range although Chevrons UCBO 7R (7cSt) is 135 -- very close to PAO's which are typically in the mid to high 130's.
Group III+ (wax isomerates from XOM, Shell) typically have a VI 140+. The wax isomerates in this article patentstorm… were 141 - 147. This is better than PAO's (which are usually under 140).
There are also GTL (gas-to-liquids) which fall into the Group III category, and they have specifications and properties almost identical to wax isomerate GIII+'s. Major production of GTL base oils was suppose to start around 2008, but have been pushed back as much as 6 years. One article I read hinted that some people actually consider these GIII GTL's a step up from PAO's.
Also, the lighter PAO base oils (4cST) see a significant drop in VI over the heavier PAO's -- and have a VI usually in the mid-low 120’s. The Chevron-Phillips chevron 4cSt PAO is listed at 123, even lower than many 4 cSt Group III’s which come in around 123-128. The 4cSt GIII+’s (XOM, Shell) have a VI of 141-143 -- much higher than equivalent PAO's. This might be a concern with 0W blends like 0w-30 -- which can use a significant about of 4 cST PAO.
Depends. The shear stability of GIII+ based oils are probably better than PAO's. But again the overall picture even comparing to GIII's isn't always so simple. Consider 2 Amsoil synthetics and their VI…
Amsoil XLF 5w-30 (GIII) 173
Amsoil ASL 5w-30 (PAO) 185
There is a 12 point spread in the VI of these 2 finished oil formulations. The PAO base oils probably have about a 12 point VI advantage over the GIII base oils -- lets say 138 vs 126. In that case both finished oil blends need to make up a 47 point VI spread. This means essentially that the PAO blend will likely be using as much VII's as the GIII blend (assuming VII's affect both base oils similarly) to make the VI spread. Since it's essentially the VII's that shear down (and not the base oil), these 2 oils should probably exhibit very similar sheer stability. Modern VII's are likely better than they were in the past, so this is less of a concern today.
The fire point of GIII base oils is essentially a match for that of PAO's. The volatility of GIII base oils is very close to that of PAO base oils. Even though the GIII base oils are close to the PAO's in volatility -- and a match for fire point. The advantage of blending with PAO’s over GIII (for NOACK) is that PAO’s flow better in the cold, so, one can blend with higher viscosity base oils and still meet the cold specifications (CCS/MRV) for that oil blend. This translates to perhaps as much as a couple % NOACK advantage based on using a thicker base oil -- and perhaps a little fire point advantage. GIII+’s (both wax isomerates and GTL's) have better cold flow properties than GIII so they would be very close to the PAO's and shouldn't give up much at all in the way of NOACK.
PAO's certainly have a couple of advantages over standard Group III's, but I don't think that difference so large as to be really … that … concerned with it. I can live with a few % higher NOACK considering the price of GIII motor oils -- they represent good value. If only PAO's were available for synthetic oils, we'd be paying more -- because the base oils are quite a bit more expensive. Does one want a GIII motor oil at $6, or a PAO base one at $8? When I think of the great price deals some people here have gotten brand name synthetics for (the stashers -- you know who are
) I don't think we'd be seeing these type of deals if they were PAO based motor oils.
My observation is that a few of the numbers on the data sheets (particularly for NOACK) don't really seem that accurate some of the time.
Not always, one has to dig a little deeper here to ferret out more of the facts. It would be more correct to say VI generally favors GIV over GIII. There are 2 types of Group III base oils, hydrocracked and wax isomerates.
Hydrocracked Group III base oils (this represents most of the Group III production) typically have a VI in the 123 - 128 range although Chevrons UCBO 7R (7cSt) is 135 -- very close to PAO's which are typically in the mid to high 130's.
Group III+ (wax isomerates from XOM, Shell) typically have a VI 140+. The wax isomerates in this article patentstorm… were 141 - 147. This is better than PAO's (which are usually under 140).
There are also GTL (gas-to-liquids) which fall into the Group III category, and they have specifications and properties almost identical to wax isomerate GIII+'s. Major production of GTL base oils was suppose to start around 2008, but have been pushed back as much as 6 years. One article I read hinted that some people actually consider these GIII GTL's a step up from PAO's.
Also, the lighter PAO base oils (4cST) see a significant drop in VI over the heavier PAO's -- and have a VI usually in the mid-low 120’s. The Chevron-Phillips chevron 4cSt PAO is listed at 123, even lower than many 4 cSt Group III’s which come in around 123-128. The 4cSt GIII+’s (XOM, Shell) have a VI of 141-143 -- much higher than equivalent PAO's. This might be a concern with 0W blends like 0w-30 -- which can use a significant about of 4 cST PAO.
Depends. The shear stability of GIII+ based oils are probably better than PAO's. But again the overall picture even comparing to GIII's isn't always so simple. Consider 2 Amsoil synthetics and their VI…
Amsoil XLF 5w-30 (GIII) 173
Amsoil ASL 5w-30 (PAO) 185
There is a 12 point spread in the VI of these 2 finished oil formulations. The PAO base oils probably have about a 12 point VI advantage over the GIII base oils -- lets say 138 vs 126. In that case both finished oil blends need to make up a 47 point VI spread. This means essentially that the PAO blend will likely be using as much VII's as the GIII blend (assuming VII's affect both base oils similarly) to make the VI spread. Since it's essentially the VII's that shear down (and not the base oil), these 2 oils should probably exhibit very similar sheer stability. Modern VII's are likely better than they were in the past, so this is less of a concern today.
The fire point of GIII base oils is essentially a match for that of PAO's. The volatility of GIII base oils is very close to that of PAO base oils. Even though the GIII base oils are close to the PAO's in volatility -- and a match for fire point. The advantage of blending with PAO’s over GIII (for NOACK) is that PAO’s flow better in the cold, so, one can blend with higher viscosity base oils and still meet the cold specifications (CCS/MRV) for that oil blend. This translates to perhaps as much as a couple % NOACK advantage based on using a thicker base oil -- and perhaps a little fire point advantage. GIII+’s (both wax isomerates and GTL's) have better cold flow properties than GIII so they would be very close to the PAO's and shouldn't give up much at all in the way of NOACK.
PAO's certainly have a couple of advantages over standard Group III's, but I don't think that difference so large as to be really … that … concerned with it. I can live with a few % higher NOACK considering the price of GIII motor oils -- they represent good value. If only PAO's were available for synthetic oils, we'd be paying more -- because the base oils are quite a bit more expensive. Does one want a GIII motor oil at $6, or a PAO base one at $8? When I think of the great price deals some people here have gotten brand name synthetics for (the stashers -- you know who are
My observation is that a few of the numbers on the data sheets (particularly for NOACK) don't really seem that accurate some of the time.
Last edited:
Only problem is the VI of the finished product is never simply the VI of the base oil plus the VI improver. There may even be 2 or 3 different base oils in the mix and all three have different VIs. The additive package will have an affect on the finished VI.
I was thinking along the same lines as GMAN. You also have to consider Esters. Some of Amsoil's oils use up to 4-7 different base oils.
I agree with your overall point though.
XOM has also produced new PAO's which have even higher VI than before.
The who marketing of motor oil should just reflect a "Good"-"Better"-"Best" 3-tier system. Maybe as a sub-text, "Best, w/Synthetics) moniker. As chaotic as Mobil's line is, I think they took a step in this direction with the Clean and EP lines' miles-specific label.
As interesting as it is from a technical standpoint, don't care about the chemical origin of the oil I use as long as it works.
As interesting as it is from a technical standpoint, don't care about the chemical origin of the oil I use as long as it works.
tdi jerry
$100 Site Donor 2024
well i have used Mobil 1 for over twenty years now and it has always done a good job for me.Mobil 1 ow40 meets the specs for my two cars a vw beetle 2.0 gas engine vw spec 502.0 and a tdi oil spec 505.0 i see no reason two change as the vw specs are on the bottle.
Well, since you like using VW and its dealers I figurfed I ll chime in. I have a 2002 GTI with the 1.8T and according to my owners manual it specifies the viscosity, 5w-40, 5w-30 can be used in a pinch, and gives you what certifications need to be met, API SJ, ACEA A3, VW 502 00.
Here is the direct quote from the manual:
"To assure that the oil you use is of the highest quality required by your vehicle the following terms must appear on the oil cotainer singly or in combination with other designations:
-VW 502 00 or VW 500 00 or VW 501 01
-ACEA A2 or ACEA A3
-API Service SJ"
It never mentions anything regarding the group of the oil, which naturally would confuse the majority of the consumers.
Also, the dealerships themselves used whatever oil and viscosity they felt like was appropriate for them until the Passat sludging issues came about. After that the dealerships started telling customers that they need to use synthetic, which of course was about 3 times more expensive. Going from a $30 oil change to a $90+ oil change did not sit well with customers.
I used to bring my car to the dealership for about 2 years and they were probably putting in Pennzoil 10w-30, which was the cheapest oil for them. I drove for 20 000 miles with this kind of oil, at least I was changing it every 3000 miles, and my UOAs are coming out fine with 65 000 miles on the car and synthetics from 20 000 miles onward.
AS for the dealerships having some special Euro oils, that is also false. Maybe for the TDIs,(505.01 specd), but that is about it.
If a dealership carries Elf LDX 5w-40 you might call it special, considering that you wont find it over the counter. It still can be ordered online.
Most VW dealers carry the Castrol Syntec 5w-40, once made in Belgium now in the US.
I checked it at different dealerships and it is the exact same oil you can get at AutoZone.
Most There are plenty of 502 00 oils that are group III and are doing fine on the UOAs.
As others have stated, group III oils are doing a great performance job when compared to PAOs nowadays.
JHZR2
Staff member
There were some recent trolling posts, but based upon the responses by some, Id say there is a lack of understanding regarding what actually occurred regarding labeling of synthetics. Recommend folks review this thread.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
