Does PAO content matter?

[burla]

Originally Posted by madeej11
We're all very elated that you " thoughtfully" pulled up that chart for us burla. Talk about tooting your own horn! Don't do us any favors, please.


once again not discussing the gragh, but talking about Burla's horn. Let me guess, you are a true blue oil guy?

 

[burla]

Originally Posted by SonofJoe
I know an awful lot about base oils, I really do, & I can put my hand on heart & say that chart is a complete load of bollocks!!

Mineral oils, & especially Group III's, do not cease to function above 260F (127C). Any Group III oil will sail through the Sequence IIIG engine test which runs flat out for 100 hours with a bulk oil temp of 150C (302C). The oil won't even break sweat.

There aren't any internal combustion engine tests that I know of that go any hotter than 150C but some of the French OEM specs call for lab glass wear tests that maintains the oil in a highly oxidative environment for several days at 170C (338F) and Group III-based oil eat this test for breakfast.

Is PAO better than Group III? Yes in absolute terms, but it also costs about four times as much as Group III. I'm guessing that with a bit if tweaking, I could run my car on a diet of the finest single malt Scotch if I so chose. However, like most other rational people I choose to run it on unleaded petrol because it's cheaper to do it that way!


At least this is a proper conversation, thanks you for that. However, you do realize it wasn't just a graph? There was a link explaining the paper on the graph. And thanks for pointing out the $$, this is the cut and dry of the issue, is it necessary to spend that money for marginally better product, maybe not. But I can tell you myself and many others are finding themselevs in new vehicles that are out of tolerance, ticks and knocks are a sure sign of this. And, in those out of tolerance areas heat way above what we are discussing is happened. metal banging will create heat? And as it turns out, every week we have an ester/pao based fluid end another engine tick/knock.

why? either you don't believe this, ok conversation over. Or you believe that this event is happening, that pao/ester are quieting engines that have tried every group 3 they could think of and bothered to document it. These are not done by me and are posted here. But hey, it is much better to have 20,000 posts and claim to know everything and discount what every day guys are doing to deal with these tighter tolerance engines that are having uncomfortable symptoms, as opposed to questioning what you "know" about pao and actually thinking about what is going on. The real sucky part, it isn't "name" brand oils that are having this phenomenon. Only an oil that spit on following the crowd and spit on moving their production to just being another group 3 in a sea of group 3. But hey as oils guys I'm sure you embrace all information and discuss formulations and possible benefits. LMAO on that one, lol. That was the old BITOG, the new bitog a bunch of guys in love with their post count spreading disinformation anytime mentions anything but group 4 oil, LMAO. so standard, so funny, one trick ponies all of you. Anytime someone even asks a question about pao or esters the same crowd can't wait to say nah don't worry your pretty lil head over it. Does anyone besides me want to provide facts about this point of view as I did on my point of view? anyone? crickets.

 

[RazorsEdge]

Originally Posted by burla
Originally Posted by SonofJoe
I know an awful lot about base oils, I really do, & I can put my hand on heart & say that chart is a complete load of bollocks!!

Mineral oils, & especially Group III's, do not cease to function above 260F (127C). Any Group III oil will sail through the Sequence IIIG engine test which runs flat out for 100 hours with a bulk oil temp of 150C (302C). The oil won't even break sweat.

There aren't any internal combustion engine tests that I know of that go any hotter than 150C but some of the French OEM specs call for lab glass wear tests that maintains the oil in a highly oxidative environment for several days at 170C (338F) and Group III-based oil eat this test for breakfast.

Is PAO better than Group III? Yes in absolute terms, but it also costs about four times as much as Group III. I'm guessing that with a bit if tweaking, I could run my car on a diet of the finest single malt Scotch if I so chose. However, like most other rational people I choose to run it on unleaded petrol because it's cheaper to do it that way!


At least this is a proper conversation, thanks you for that. However, you do realize it wasn't just a graph? There was a link explaining the paper on the graph. And thanks for pointing out the $$, this is the cut and dry of the issue, is it necessary to spend that money for marginally better product, maybe not. But I can tell you myself and many others are finding themselevs in new vehicles that are out of tolerance, ticks and knocks are a sure sign of this. And, in those out of tolerance areas heat way above what we are discussing is happened. metal banging will create heat? And as it turns out, every week we have an ester/pao based fluid end another engine tick/knock.

why? either you don't believe this, ok conversation over. Or you believe that this event is happening, that pao/ester are quieting engines that have tried every group 3 they could think of and bothered to document it. These are not done by me and are posted here. But hey, it is much better to have 20,000 posts and claim to know everything and discount what every day guys are doing to deal with these tighter tolerance engines that are having uncomfortable symptoms, as opposed to questioning what you "know" about pao and actually thinking about what is going on. The real sucky part, it isn't "name" brand oils that are having this phenomenon. Only an oil that spit on following the crowd and spit on moving their production to just being another group 3 in a sea of group 3. But hey as oils guys I'm sure you embrace all information and discuss formulations and possible benefits. LMAO on that one, lol. That was the old BITOG, the new bitog a bunch of guys in love with their post count spreading disinformation anytime mentions anything but group 4 oil, LMAO. so standard, so funny, one trick ponies all of you. Anytime someone even asks a question about pao or esters the same crowd can't wait to say nah don't worry your pretty lil head over it. Does anyone besides me want to provide facts about this point of view as I did on my point of view? anyone? crickets.




This forum isnt what it used to be thats a fact,hence the reasoning I do not post much.

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted by burla
Originally Posted by Joekar
I'm starting to dig in to oil info... I looked at this site 3 years ago and people were saying PAO's aka group 4 synthetic was the good stuff... Now I reading that Penzoil Platinum Ultra and Mobile 1 extended performance are group 3. I read that these are group 3 because group 3 absorb the additive packages better and 100% PAO group 4 won't do that... So now I'm confused... What is the latest info on this as to what is the most protective and best for cars and trucks? I'm looking to always do 10,000 mile changes at the cheapest price with most protection...


For some unknown reason there is a very "large" group of people that tramp around BITOG and the pimp group 3 oils and less as if they are the bees knees. Quite frankly, I don't get it. I hope they are getting paid, then I could respect that. But to your question, [censored] YEAH it matters. By nature other group oils have better performance in the cold and heat, and every engine has it's hot spots, and when a group 3 travels through that spot, it degrades, it shears, much more then other group of oils, Why are the "lifetime" fluids pao? The decision to dumb us down and call group 3 synthetic time is coming to an end. We are seeing with the goals of this government the will have to look at the real synthetic oils. I wont spend more time discussion it because the hacks will hate on me til the sun sets, so let me leave you with a graph that explains the white paper out there. Yes you can dress up a mineral oil, but guess what, you can dress up a pao as well, lol. That is the yellow sections of the graph. Mineral oils never out perform pao if you do the same things to the pao that you did to the mineral oil to get the mineral oil to perform better. The real argument is does it matter in an engine that is forgiving when it comes to lubrication. That is the only point against top tier fluids, the downsides of the fluids have been long since solved late last century.

link from machinelube









This is rather comical at least it would be if you did not tout this as a personal pilgrimage. What is the viscosity range of the tested lubes in this graph? Because 30 grade slack wax is stable at a significantly higher tempature then this.

 

[Tom NJ]

That graph is far too generalized to be useful. My company sold over 50 different polyol esters, ranging from stable enough to provide six years of no drain service in jet engines to less stable than Group I mineral oils. Pour points ranged from +20°F to - 90°F, flash points from 400°F to 600+°F, and Noacks from >30% to
I have seen countless such temperature range graphs over my 38 years in the business and they all differ depending on the specific base oils they choose and who is making the graph. Somehow they usually tend to favor the products made by the presenter.

Certain generalizations can be made, such a saturated POEs are more high temperature stable than most hydrocarbons base oils, and PAOs tend to have better low temperature flow at a given viscosity than most other chemistries, but to be useful you need to know which POE or PAO of PAG is being presented, how well it was made, and what test method was employed. If the full property range of each chemistry class was presented in the graph it would be clear how meaningless the graph is.

 

[wemay]

Originally Posted by Tom NJ
That graph is far too generalized to be useful. My company sold over 50 different polyol esters, ranging from stable enough to provide six years of no drain service in jet engines to less stable than Group I mineral oils. Pour points ranged from +20°F to - 90°F, flash points from 400°F to 600+°F, and Noacks from >30% to
I have seen countless such temperature range graphs over my 38 years in the business and they all differ depending on the specific base oils they choose and who is making the graph. Somehow they usually tend to favor the products made by the presenter.

Certain generalizations can be made, such a saturated POEs are more high temperature stable than most hydrocarbons base oils, and PAOs tend to have better low temperature flow at a given viscosity than most other chemistries, but to be useful you need to know which POE or PAO of PAG is being presented, how well it was made, and what test method was employed. If the full property range of each chemistry class was presented in the graph it would be clear how meaningless the graph is.



When a level-minded, unbiased poster speaks, perspective is given.

Thank you Tom.

 

[StevieC]

TomNJ, wemay that should be made a sticky.

 

[Virtus_Probi]

Originally Posted by wemay
Originally Posted by Tom NJ
That graph is far too generalized to be useful. My company sold over 50 different polyol esters, ranging from stable enough to provide six years of no drain service in jet engines to less stable than Group I mineral oils. Pour points ranged from +20°F to - 90°F, flash points from 400°F to 600+°F, and Noacks from >30% to I have seen countless such temperature range graphs over my 38 years in the business and they all differ depending on the specific base oils they choose and who is making the graph. Somehow they usually tend to favor the products made by the presenter.
Certain generalizations can be made, such a saturated POEs are more high temperature stable than most hydrocarbons base oils, and PAOs tend to have better low temperature flow at a given viscosity than most other chemistries, but to be useful you need to know which POE or PAO of PAG is being presented, how well it was made, and what test method was employed. If the full property range of each chemistry class was presented in the graph it would be clear how meaningless the graph is.

When a level-minded, unbiased poster speaks, perspective is given.
Thank you Tom.

Thank goodness for knowledgeable industry insiders like TomNJ and SonofJoe!!

 

[DirectRejection]

Awesome, Tom NJ.
TY Sir.
I never knew there were such wide discrepancies
within Group IV, Group V synthetics.

 

[burla]

Originally Posted by wemay
Originally Posted by Tom NJ
That graph is far too generalized to be useful. My company sold over 50 different polyol esters, ranging from stable enough to provide six years of no drain service in jet engines to less stable than Group I mineral oils. Pour points ranged from +20°F to - 90°F, flash points from 400°F to 600+°F, and Noacks from >30% to
I have seen countless such temperature range graphs over my 38 years in the business and they all differ depending on the specific base oils they choose and who is making the graph. Somehow they usually tend to favor the products made by the presenter.

Certain generalizations can be made, such a saturated POEs are more high temperature stable than most hydrocarbons base oils, and PAOs tend to have better low temperature flow at a given viscosity than most other chemistries, but to be useful you need to know which POE or PAO of PAG is being presented, how well it was made, and what test method was employed. If the full property range of each chemistry class was presented in the graph it would be clear how meaningless the graph is.



When a level-minded, unbiased poster speaks, perspective is given.

Thank you Tom.



Assume this Tom, when someone uses a pao in their formula, they use it for a reason, when someone uses an ester in their formula, they use it for a reason. It is very likely they are not putting them there to match some random hydrocracked group 3 oil. Businessmen are not spending more money on a pao in order to be standard. They wouldn't be choosing a product that doesn't perform. What all of you "oil guys" are protecting is an idea that quality doesn't matter, and when that doesn't sell the argument becomes well it all depends you can't say pao or ester are generally better then group 3. And yet we are seeing widepsread use of different base oils because they are mechaically heating fluids past what they have previously worked at, they use oils to thin to protect bearings, they have applications prone to have ticks that sound like knocks and end up with pre mature cam/lifter fails. And the industry is experimenting more and more with the real synthetic oil. I'm sure business is good tom, and getting better everyday for the pao/esters.

 

[PimTac]

We don't need childish insults here.

 

[burla]

Originally Posted by PimTac
We don't need childish insults here.


Just curious, do you even discuss oil? The OP asked a question you haven't spend much time addressing. Is there anything oil related you feel like say'n?

 

[oil_film_movies]

To answer the question "does PAO matter", usually YES, and it comes down to 2 example cases to meet dexos1 performance in a 0w-20: M1 AFE and M1 AP.... both are dexos1 .... Yet, Mobil thinks more PAO is necessary to get the extra performance for longer drain intervals. They don't like spending extra $$$ on PAO for fun after all, so PAO must be a premium ingredient, and key to its success.
M1 AFE: ~35% PAO
M1 AP: ~65% PAO
That's one example of what the experts at Exxon-Mobil have done. It speaks volumes.

That said, I wonder if it would have been cheaper to formulate the base oil using GroupIII+Ester (no PAO) ???? Maybe. They chose not to. They minimize cost to get the requirements met, so maybe using a lot of esters to get the extra performance is not very cost effective.
What complicates this a little is that M1 AP, with more PAO, also allegedly has better anti-oxidants. This means, of course, that the additive chemicals count toward the extra performance too.

Yet, its clear that more PAO is usually a sign performance is up.

Then you could see what Ravenol does: They use PAO+esters all over their product lines, and end up with stellar NOACK & PP numbers, indicating it performs at a high level. Again, PAO is there.

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted by burla
Originally Posted by wemay
Originally Posted by Tom NJ
That graph is far too generalized to be useful. My company sold over 50 different polyol esters, ranging from stable enough to provide six years of no drain service in jet engines to less stable than Group I mineral oils. Pour points ranged from +20°F to - 90°F, flash points from 400°F to 600+°F, and Noacks from >30% to
I have seen countless such temperature range graphs over my 38 years in the business and they all differ depending on the specific base oils they choose and who is making the graph. Somehow they usually tend to favor the products made by the presenter.

Certain generalizations can be made, such a saturated POEs are more high temperature stable than most hydrocarbons base oils, and PAOs tend to have better low temperature flow at a given viscosity than most other chemistries, but to be useful you need to know which POE or PAO of PAG is being presented, how well it was made, and what test method was employed. If the full property range of each chemistry class was presented in the graph it would be clear how meaningless the graph is.



When a level-minded, unbiased poster speaks, perspective is given.

Thank you Tom.


When a sycophant replies it is as clear as day.

Assume this Tom, when someone uses a pao in their formula, they use it for a reason, when someone uses an ester in their formula, they use it for a reason. It is very likely they are not putting them there to match some random hydrocracked group 3 oil. Businessmen are not spending more money on a pao in order to be standard. They wouldn't be choosing a product that doesn't perform. What all of you "oil guys" are protecting is an idea that quality doesn't matter, and when that doesn't sell the argument becomes well it all depends you can't say pao or ester are generally better then group 3. And yet we are seeing widepsread use of different base oils because they are mechaically heating fluids past what they have previously worked at, they use oils to thin to protect bearings, they have applications prone to have ticks that sound like knocks and end up with pre mature cam/lifter fails. And the industry is experimenting more and more with the real synthetic oil. I'm sure business is good tom, and getting better everyday for the pao/esters.



This is full of assumptions. I asked a question specifically to you have not and you have not answered. Yet you scold others in this thread and resort to name calling. You have presented very general data to support your view. We need details because your view does not support industry specs both OEM and lubericantion which are met by primarly group III blends from ACEA, API, ISLAC, GM, Honda, Mercedes, BMW, Ferrari, and a slew of others.

 

[SonofJoe]

It's a fair question that Burla raises. Why do people use PAOs & esters in PCMO? Here's why from my perspective...

Thinking back, I ran three programs with PAO.

The first (and the very first program & ever ran) was a 0W40 Euro development. Back then (it was 20 years ago) there was only one way to get the oil's viscometrics right & that was with PAO. The first generation Group III's just weren't good enough in the cold-flow department. The oil contained some ester for one reason only; seal compatibility. Had it not been for seals, I would happily left it out because contrary to what people generally think, esters really aren't that great as base oils go. Interestingly, this program was one of my rare failures with the oil failing badly on cam wear resulting in the program being abandoned.

The second program was a Euro 0W30 FF thing. The base oil mix was PAO, Ester (again purely for seals) & as much Group III I could squeeze in (for cost reasons) consistent with getting the oil's viscometrics balanced out. The DI was fat (possibly morbidly obese!). Technically the program was a success & I recall some absolutely stellar, off-the-scale test passes. However the thing I learnt most from this program is that OEMs, oil companies & people in general all loathe paying top dollar for anything! The product sold for a few years but in pathetically tiny amounts. I never looked back & checked but I doubt we ever came even remotely close to recouping the gargantuan amount of cash we spent in bringing this bloody stuff to market.

The third program was an oddball 5W40 development. It happened a bit later on in my career when I was a bit more technically & commercially savvy. The base oil system was a mix of light PAO (minimised), light Group III & heavy Group I (the customer had no heavy PAO or Group III & heavy Group I was essential for keeping the Noack down). Note this system DIDN'T need ester to pass seals & I was very happy to leave it out. The DI was extremely skinny (anorexic?) & it was a minor miracle that I got the oil to squeak through all the tests it had to pass. The thing I learnt from this program was that all Business Managers are lying, two-faced idiots & should all be drowned at birth.

 

[TiredTrucker]

I have come to appreciate blends. Even with full syn oils. The few applications I use full syn, I like the ones that are a combo of Group III and Group IV. Each group brings something special to the party, so why not take advantage of both?

 

[ka9mnx]

^ Agree...

 

[burla]

Originally Posted by SonofJoe
It's a fair question that Burla raises. Why do people use PAOs & esters in PCMO? Here's why from my perspective...

Thinking back, I ran three programs with PAO.

The first (and the very first program & ever ran) was a 0W40 Euro development. Back then (it was 20 years ago) there was only one way to get the oil's viscometrics right & that was with PAO. The first generation Group III's just weren't good enough in the cold-flow department. The oil contained some ester for one reason only; seal compatibility. Had it not been for seals, I would happily left it out because contrary to what people generally think, esters really aren't that great as base oils go. Interestingly, this program was one of my rare failures with the oil failing badly on cam wear resulting in the program being abandoned.

The second program was a Euro 0W30 FF thing. The base oil mix was PAO, Ester (again purely for seals) & as much Group III I could squeeze in (for cost reasons) consistent with getting the oil's viscometrics balanced out. The DI was fat (possibly morbidly obese!). Technically the program was a success & I recall some absolutely stellar, off-the-scale test passes. However the thing I learnt most from this program is that OEMs, oil companies & people in general all loathe paying top dollar for anything! The product sold for a few years but in pathetically tiny amounts. I never looked back & checked but I doubt we ever came even remotely close to recouping the gargantuan amount of cash we spent in bringing this bloody stuff to market.

The third program was an oddball 5W40 development. It happened a bit later on in my career when I was a bit more technically & commercially savvy. The base oil system was a mix of light PAO (minimised), light Group III & heavy Group I (the customer had no heavy PAO or Group III & heavy Group I was essential for keeping the Noack down). Note this system DIDN'T need ester to pass seals & I was very happy to leave it out. The DI was extremely skinny (anorexic?) & it was a minor miracle that I got the oil to squeak through all the tests it had to pass. The thing I learnt from this program was that all Business Managers are lying, two-faced idiots & should all be drowned at birth.




Thank you, I hope there is some more conversation on oil in this thread, good or bad it ok with me so long there is thought behind it. I guess I am biased because I had an ester/pao take away a tick that many group 3's have in my engine. under those circumstances, who wouldn't have bias? The long term uoa's by guys on the board using ester/pao have been incredible, so good it took us all by surprise. The first uoa weren't great, maybe it is leaching of ions or left over wear from the condition, I do not know. I know by the third uoa we had two guys uoa's so good it didn't even resemble normal hemi wear, as hemi's tend to be high wear engines.

Anyhow, my apologies for being biased, I do wish the crowd that always shows up to spit on group 4/5 oils actually take another look at the benefits. At ram forum there is an every growing group reaping the benefits, at least one member a month ends hemi tick by using ester/pao, sometimes 3 members a month, but every month the number keeps growing, we can be found at ram forum. You may think that is silly, but when it's your engine knocking and all you had to do was quiet it was to use a saturated group 4/5 oil, then you would understand first hand the benefits of this formula, and when you add the fact the uoa's are killing it then it gets even better, and now add that to the tendency for these engines to eat up cams/lifters at 70k-100k miles, you understand why we are researching lubrication and are searching for answers to protect those engines. The bad news is lack of options, the good news the results have been so good there is little question that Redline 5w30 has an 80% there abouts chance at killing a tick.knock that a group 3 oil left behind. If that didn't keep happening for now 6 plus years I wouldn't be talking about it. Many many guys have done the work, the legitimacy has come from the group effort on this issue. The other ram forum has done a lot of work on identifying the cam/lifter issue with numbers, out forum has done a lot hunting for lubrication answers, and this was what we found.

We do not have long term results if this actually leads to prolonged cam life, however the uoa's coming back strongly suggesting that Redline 5w30 not only quiets the hemi tick, but may extend the life of the cam/lifters as wear numbers with long term use have been very good. I have nothing left to add, thanks to those who took the OP's question seriously.

 

[oil_film_movies]

Originally Posted by SonofJoe
The third program was an oddball 5W40 development. It happened a bit later on in my career when I was a bit more technically & commercially savvy. The base oil system was a mix of light PAO (minimised), light Group III & heavy Group I (the customer had no heavy PAO or Group III & heavy Group I was essential for keeping the Noack down). Note this system DIDN'T need ester to pass seals & I was very happy to leave it out. The DI was extremely skinny (anorexic?) & it was a minor miracle that I got the oil to squeak through all the tests it had to pass. The thing I learnt from this program was that all Business Managers are lying, two-faced idiots & should all be drowned at birth.


That would be a marketing nightmare in the U.S. Did the evil business managers market it as "full synthetic"? If so, that's illegal in the U.S., as its a "synthetic blend" here. Germany has even stricter definitions of "full synthetic". I don't know about the rest of the western world. .... UNLESS, what if you counted the Group I as part of the DI ? Then, one could label it as "full synthetic", important because that sells better to the consumer.

 

[RDY4WAR]

Sorry, what is "DI?"