Fully Synthetic Question

Status
Not open for further replies.
Someone like Molakule can come along and bust my chops if I'm out of line, but ... I understand that PAO and Ester oils have a hard time accepting the commercial add paks and require some petroleum as a carrier. Therefor, even what we would all agree is "full synthetic" is actually a sophisticated syn-blend
coffee2.gif


So you may not be getting 100% synthetics, even if the label says so. I'm not sure what the limit is on carrier content ... I do know that European Synthetics have stricter labeling constraints. So if you are looking for a "real" synthetic you may be looking at Red Line, Amsoil, Motul 300V, or another Euro product ...

As I understand it, even Mobil1 is now partly Group III or III+ ... Except maybe for AFE or one of the variants ...

Some folks tout synthetics as superior w/o defining what superior is ... I have never found a professional paper that shows that full synthetics actually lubricate better. If anyone knows of one, please point me there? I have been looking a long time. If it actually lubricated better, I might be interested. Have not seen that ...

I understand about better heat stability and even extended drain intervals. But that does not meet my definition of "superior". Although, when I used to build desert bike motors, I ran Motul 300V because I needed the heat stability. I needed an oil that would survive and lubricate. But for water cooled cars and trucks, that is not what I need.

I want superior lubrication. Near zero wear, even on cold starts (by Cali stds
laugh.gif
), and fuel dilution handling (carbs/cams). I can get those properties in most good, well refined oils.

So far PAO's have not proved the price premium worth it - to me ... And the USA marketing just makes it more confusing. So I have to rely on personal knowledge, information from friends who race or build motors, etc.

BITOG is a good place to hash out issues, but MUCH is opinion and facts are hard to come by. Folks here do try and some info sneaks out into the daylight. But on average, it's marketing tripe repeated. EX: Chevron claims a percentage less wear with their new CK4 oils over their previous CJ4 oils (which were very good). But they fail to explain why and what factors have changed to get this improvement ...
 
Its actually quite simple.

Semi syntheic is gooder than conventional

Full synthetic is gooder than semi synthetic.

Gooder for what is left to the student to figure out.

That is all.
 
Originally Posted By: ArcticDriver

BTW, a thanks to Linctex for lending a helping hand with an informative post.


Any Time.
That's how I roll....
19.gif
 
With all this truth/deception in advertising and mystery concoctions, uninformed opinions and oil horror stories, I gave up, found a distributor with great discounts on bulk purchases of Red Line and never looked back. I suffer the abuse of those that are experts on specialty oils that tell me it a racing only oil that can't possibly run extended OCI's. I didn't tell my 2 vehicles that because I'm doing 10K OCI's and 20K filter intervals and I'm getting great UOA's.

With bulk purchases, I'm now just under $9/quart for 0w-30 engine oil with similar reductions on other Red Line products. It's a father/son business and that makes it just that much better. We wonder through the warehouse digging the stuff out and talk about all the local gossip.


Link to UOA
 
I was talking to a Castrol tech on the phone a few years ago.

Their Edge 0W40 and 10W60 was Group IV PAO based, but that doesn't mean there isn't some Group III in it (to a larger amount) or even Group I or Group V for additive solubility (to a lesser amount).

Their Edge 5W30 and 5W40 is Group III based. Yet my Edge 5W30 is a Euro A3/B4 oil and carries the OEM certs MB 229.5 and BMW LL-01, so it's no slouch.

Their full synthetic Magnatec is probably Group III based, but the "intelligent" molecule would be a Polar molecule and therefore most likely a Group V (ester or AN) component.

Castrol GTX is their conventional oil, which traditionally means Group I or Group II. But nobody users Group I now days (except to aid add pack solubility), so it's mostly Group II but with probably a small amount of Group III to push it over the line for all the API SN tests it needs to pass.

It's always hard, as the manufactures don't tell what they use and also regularly change the formula. Then if you use a touch of Group I to aid add pack solubility, do you talk about it?, probably not. But if you use a touch of Group V for the same reason, do you talk about it?, probably yes.

Castrol never talk about Group V but it's probably there in small amounts. Mobil 1 do talk about Group V but that doesn't mean it's there in large amounts.

Me ? I follow the specs the oil carries. Your starter is API SN , then you can add Dexos on top for a better quality probuct. The next level up for me is the Euro ACEA specs, A5/B5 for an ILSAC style oil, A3/B4 for a performance and long life oil, C3 for a mid-SAPS oil. If I want more then OEM specs like Porsche A40 etc.

Your ProDS is a good oil and probably a Group III synthetic, nothing wrong with that.
 
Last edited:
Just to rattle on a bit more.

Some people consider only Group IV (PAO) and Group V (Ester, AN, etc ) as true synthetics oils. But most people now also consider Group III oils as synthetic.

But focusing too much on the base oil can be misleading. Let's look at Euro oils and two big OEM specs that require high quality oils, MB 229.5 and BMW LL-01.

Now the Euro grade Castrol Edge 5W30 A3/B4 is "only"' Group III based but it carries both MB 229.5 and BMW LL-01. The Group IV PAO based Edge 0W40 also carries MB 229.5 and BMW LL-01 even though it contains no esters. Yet M1 0W40 FS which is PAO based and contains Esters, has recently lost it's BMW LL-01 spec.

You can talk about how all M1 products contain PAO and Esters, yet none of the new M1 formula are rated BMW LL-01. Yet the "fake synthetic" Group III Edge does carry BMW LL-01. This is not to insult M1 products, I am happily using M1 myself right now and I'm sure M1 will get their BMW cert back again at some stage. But I use this example to illustrate that it's the fully formulated product that counts, not how they got their, and I prefer to follow specifications over base oil groups.

OP your Pro-DS is API SN, ILSAC GF-5, Dexos1 and HTO-06, so I consider it a good oil.
 
Originally Posted By: SR5
Just to rattle on a bit more.

Some people consider only Group IV (PAO) and Group V (Ester, AN, etc ) as true synthetics oils. But most people now also consider Group III oils as synthetic.

But focusing too much on the base oil can be misleading. Let's look at Euro oils and two big OEM specs that require high quality oils, MB 229.5 and BMW LL-01.

Now the Euro grade Castrol Edge 5W30 A3/B4 is "only"' Group III based but it carries both MB 229.5 and BMW LL-01. The Group IV PAO based Edge 0W40 also carries MB 229.5 and BMW LL-01 even though it contains no esters. Yet M1 0W40 FS which is PAO based and contains Esters, has recently lost it's BMW LL-01 spec.

You can talk about how all M1 products contain PAO and Esters, yet none of the new M1 formula are rated BMW LL-01. Yet the "fake synthetic" Group III Edge does carry BMW LL-01. This is not to insult M1 products, I am happily using M1 myself right now and I'm sure M1 will get their BMW cert back again at some stage. But I use this example to illustrate that it's the fully formulated product that counts, not how they got their, and I prefer to follow specifications over base oil groups.

OP your Pro-DS is API SN, ILSAC GF-5, Dexos1 and HTO-06, so I consider it a good oil.

I didn't realize that M1 0w40 was PAO based and contained esters. Do you have a reference for that info?
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
[/quote]
No, the terms "full synthetic" and "100% synthetic" are synonymous. That's not the issue. The argument comes in with the definition for the word "synthetic", not "full" or "100%". Some people do not believe that severely hydrocracked synthetics are "synthetic".


Originally Posted By: Gebo
Thank you! Now I "fully 100%" understand Molakule's response. You are THE man!
smile.gif


If you were close I'd give you a big kiss. On the cheek. Naw, on 2nd thought, just a big hug.


I'll pass on the kiss but can always use a big Hug.
smirk.gif
My grandsons are very good at giving hugs.
cool.gif


I am an originalist, a believer in the original, chemical definition of a synthetic lubricant product, which is why I have argued against conventionally defined Group III's as being a synthetic. In my view, a severely hydrocracked product does not equate to a synthetic.

Now, I do believe that there is room for discussion on GTL's and as to whether or not they are really synthetics and whether they really belong in the Group III classification.

In response to Bruno (and no I don't bust "chops"
smile.gif
), esters have very good solving capabilities and was one of the original reasons for using them in conjunction with PAO's, since PAO's had almost zero solving capabilities. Another reason for using Esters was to attain some seal swell, since PAO's don't have this capability either.

Today, the Group V alkylated naphthalene's (AN's) are used to obtain solving capabilities and some seal swell in majority PAO based fluids, if ester-based ashless dispersants are not used.

So in my view, a base oil mix for a "100% Synthetic lubricant" or a "Full Synthetic" is composed of a majority of Group IV and Group V base oils.

In reality, I have blenders wanting to call my Group III, IV, and V base oil mixes for formulations "100% Synthetic" or "Full Synthetic." I give them my sincere opinion on what constitutes a real 100% Synthetic lubricant, but their marketing departments often overrule my "sincere" opinion.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: harrydog
Originally Posted By: SR5
Just to rattle on a bit more.

Some people consider only Group IV (PAO) and Group V (Ester, AN, etc ) as true synthetics oils. But most people now also consider Group III oils as synthetic.

But focusing too much on the base oil can be misleading. Let's look at Euro oils and two big OEM specs that require high quality oils, MB 229.5 and BMW LL-01.

Now the Euro grade Castrol Edge 5W30 A3/B4 is "only"' Group III based but it carries both MB 229.5 and BMW LL-01. The Group IV PAO based Edge 0W40 also carries MB 229.5 and BMW LL-01 even though it contains no esters. Yet M1 0W40 FS which is PAO based and contains Esters, has recently lost it's BMW LL-01 spec.

You can talk about how all M1 products contain PAO and Esters, yet none of the new M1 formula are rated BMW LL-01. Yet the "fake synthetic" Group III Edge does carry BMW LL-01. This is not to insult M1 products, I am happily using M1 myself right now and I'm sure M1 will get their BMW cert back again at some stage. But I use this example to illustrate that it's the fully formulated product that counts, not how they got their, and I prefer to follow specifications over base oil groups.

OP your Pro-DS is API SN, ILSAC GF-5, Dexos1 and HTO-06, so I consider it a good oil.

I didn't realize that M1 0w40 was PAO based and contained esters. Do you have a reference for that info?


All M1 oils contain esters and PAOs. Here is a link on esters.
,and PAOs






https://mobiloil.com/en/faq/ask-our-auto...tly-mineral-oil






https://mobiloil.com/en/faq/ask-our-auto-experts/questions-for-auto-experts/what-is-ester-oil
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: MolaKule


I am an originalist, a believer in the original, chemical definition of a synthetic lubricant product, which is why I have argued against conventionally defined Group III's as being a synthetic. In my view, a severely hydrocracked product does not equate to a synthetic.

Now, I do believe that there is room for discussion on GTL's and as to whether or not they are really synthetics and whether they really belong in the Group III classification.




For what it's worth, there's an interesting article on GTL found in Machinery Lubrication:

http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/422/gas-to-liquids

I suspect the term 'synthetic' is a lawyerized result of hairsplitting over semantics. That GTL didn't come from that black gooey stuff we call 'crude oil' somehow makes the result of the GTL process 'Synthetic.' Well, yeah, in one sense because it sure didn't come out of the ground that way, but on the other hand, well . . . it still came out of the ground just like the gooey black liquid crude oil.

The lawyers nitpick with the advertisers and come up with this fine line that Group I and Group II started off as crude oil and was distilled down to base stock, add a bunch of detergents, additives, friction modifiers (and God knows what else) and presto, you have Motor Oil. Now for the guys tinkering around with natural gas (since like the 1920s?), well, since it didn't start as crude oil, we'll call it Group III since you twisted the gas into a liquid and did all sort of un-naturals acts in the chemistry.

What about Group IV and Group V ? Ummm . . . all those plastics and polymers. Polymers . . plastics . . . a polymer made by polymerizing an alpha-olefin becomes a PAO . . . but comparatively, there isn't enough natural cellulose, rubber, silk or wool to produce enough natural polymers to process. And synthetic polymers like synthetic rubber, phenol formaldehyde resin (or Bakelite), neoprene, nylon, polyvinyl chloride (PVC or vinyl), polystyrene, polyethylene, polypropylene, polyacrylonitrile, PVB, silicone have to be processed from something.

You need carbon, hydrogen and oxygen molecules, and the most abundant supply of carbon and hydrogen in a nice sometimes neat package is . . . ooopsie, crude oil !


Okay, back to square one.

15.gif
 
Originally Posted By: SR5
OP your Pro-DS is API SN, ILSAC GF-5, Dexos1 and HTO-06, so I consider it a good oil.

Happy birthday!

Back on topic, it seems Chevron marketing out west here has changed a bit. The distributor is no longer advertising Chevron PCMOs, but the Havoline ones, and one of the few retailers carrying Havoline now has none. Sheesh.
 



Gebo this Chevron Havoline Pro DS is a very good oil like SR5 said. Being that it has the Dexos specification and HTO-06. One thing to note is the very low CCS on the latest Havoline tested by PQIA. It was 3860. That is quite low and not all too far off from Amsoil that was 3400.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: bbhero



Gebo this Chevron Havoline Pro DS is a very good oil like SR5 said. Being that it has the Dexos specification and HTO-06. One thing to note is the very low CCS on the latest Havoline tested by PQIA. It was 3860. That is quite low and not all too far off from Amsoil that was 3400.


That's good to know I just got 5 Jugs of this on sale. Only its 10w-30 its going to be my summer oil in my Toyota. Makes me feel like I got an early Christmas.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Pajero
Would it be safe to say that all European synthetic oil is truly synthetic? Or is that a misnomer?


Pajero


No the situation in Europe is mostly the same with group III and III+ oils being marketed as synthetic. As someone already mentioned a highly respected OEM spec like MB's 229.5 doesn't come near to guaranteeing true synthetic oil. Indeed going off the the price, MB's own brand oil can't be a true synthetic either as bought from the right source it's about 1/3rd the price of something like Motul 300V.
 
Originally Posted By: bbhero



Gebo this Chevron Havoline Pro DS is a very good oil like SR5 said. Being that it has the Dexos specification and HTO-06. One thing to note is the very low CCS on the latest Havoline tested by PQIA. It was 3860. That is quite low and not all too far off from Amsoil that was 3400.


Havoline Pro DS may be a Group III oil, but, it is still good oil. They took apart an engine in Las Vegas running Havoline. Here are the results.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmbYUNZ5E9w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67eWDB4bAFY
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
New to us!
Replies
17
Views
1K
bubbanik
C
Motorcraft synthetic blend vs full synthetic
Replies
7
Views
2K
Rinspeed
F
Oil Recommendation Nissan VQ40DE + opinions on current oil/filter
2
Replies
31
Views
712
ka9mnx
P
Boutique (Amsoil etc) vs premium normal (Mobil1 etc)?
2 3
Replies
55
Views
8K
JohnnyJohnson
C
Need Guidance re (hopefully) Non-Synthetic Motor Oil for a '99 Camry L4 (5SFE) Sludge-Prone Engine
Replies
12
Views
800
GSCJR
Back
Top