Group III Synthetics better than Group IV?

[Ron AKA]

quote:

---

Originally posted by bruce381:
GTL is not commercially avalilable Yet but pilot plants have made some to tweak the process.

---

In the research I have done, that was my conclusion as well. However there appears to be plants which will go commercial this year. The focus though seems to be on fuel stock not lubricants.

http://www.ameinfo.com/95469.html

And others which have just been announced.

http://webbolt.ecnext.com/coms2/news_62413_ENE

 

[bruce381]

Ron You are correct my statment should have said "to date" but I agree they are coming Chevrons plant in Quatar?? will use gas that has Zero value now since it is burned off so GTL will have a feedstock that is "free" compared to PAO or even GPIII which feedstock has at least a fuel value.

Yes I like GPIII the trend is to reduce usage of PAO and use more GPIII in Engine and industrial use areas where Ultra low PP in not needed.

BUT remember this when a bases stock such as VHVI 6 cSt is "additized" to bring PP down to say -40 the additives WILL eventually oxidize and LOSE its PP depressing properties and as such a ULTR long life oil would/should be made with the lowest amounts and most stable additives for "fixing" the finished fluid properties.

Thus a PAO would be better at LOW temp without PPD and will not lose that property through use.

Also someone said that GPIII use PAO to solvency sorry wrong a PAO is about or more "drier" than a GPIII both need a ester for additive solubility even a GPII to some degree.
bruce

 

[427Z06]

PAO advancements.

 

[bruce381]

interesting but somewhat old info I think PAO mfg will talk about all kinds of new stuff coming out
and they may but price and cost to modify plants is very high with a market that is already lost big to GPIII.

The atricle talks about GPIII comparisons which are valid and they are right that new feedstock sources must be looked at.

BUT still GTL with low/free feedstock cost should have them very worried and they are. A lot of the "latest" product develepment on PAO like the super syn oils had beed worked on years ago and some new suff talked about has been in work years ago IMHO tho any real NEW work is an exspensive **** shoot till GTL prove or disprove how good/cheap/avalible they will be to jury is still out with everyone kinda looking over ther shoulder.
bruce

 

[buster]

GTL could be the next big thing....

 

[Hirev]

I think the GTL stuff has already came and went. The PP GTL formula sure did not last long.

 

[MC5W20]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ron AKA:

quote:

---

Originally posted by bruce381:
GTL is not commercially avalilable Yet but pilot plants have made some to tweak the process.

---

In the research I have done, that was my conclusion as well. However there appears to be plants which will go commercial this year. The focus though seems to be on fuel stock not lubricants.

http://www.ameinfo.com/95469.html

And others which have just been announced.

http://webbolt.ecnext.com/coms2/news_62413_ENE

---

One more, boring read but some good info on startups of GTL plants.

http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/specials/nationalday/news/20060901p2g00m0dm032000c.html

 

[427Z06]

quote:

---

Originally posted by bruce381:
interesting but somewhat old info I think PAO mfg will talk about all kinds of new stuff coming out

---

No doubt. Most of the info presented here is old info. Let me remind you of the original topic:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ron AKA:
Group III Synthetics better than Group IV?

---

Whenever someone presents a topic as general and open to interpretation, it'll end up being debated ad infinitum.

The problem is that Ron went from thread to thread telling people he had all the answers to people's Canadian cold weather needs. And when some one told him essentially your same words:

quote:

---

Originally posted by bruce381:
BUT remember this when a bases stock such as VHVI 6 cSt is "additized" to bring PP down to say -40 the additives WILL eventually oxidize and LOSE its PP depressing properties and as such a ULTR long life oil would/should be made with the lowest amounts and most stable additives for "fixing" the finished fluid properties.

Thus a PAO would be better at LOW temp without PPD and will not lose that property through use.

---

He didn't like the answer, and started another thread.

So bruce, go ahead, knock yourself. Maybe it's the case you like to see your posts in the thread.

 

[bruce381]

Sorry this thread went all over I'll be quite now.

bruce

 

[BennyL]

lets break up this fight, and RELAX!

allow me to ask a newbie question of my own: which oils are generally considered the best in Group 3?

 

[MGBV8]

Will GTL need an ester for additive solubility?

 

[bruce381]

probably yes
bruce

 

[Bryanccfshr]

Bruce, or one of the true pros could probably better explain this but the fact that the purer an oil is in terms of lack of aromatic HC's the less solvency it has. A clean oil is a dry oil unless it's not a hydrocarbon. Grp II-IV have little solvency ester and naphtanic based additives (such as what AN that Mobil uses) are very solvent Napthanics hurt the overall VI when added to oils whiles esters can actually improve it in many cases.

We are talking about fringe performance parameters here most transportation vehicles whill never be challenges with. That is why Grp III and GTL baser oils ar ebecoming more practical from a cost to performance ratio point of view. If you live in the arctic circle or for some reason drive with oil temps above 250 as a matter of habit then you need to investigate this fringe. If you don't knoif you are in the fringe of performance then you certainly are not.

 

[Ron AKA]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BennyL:
lets break up this fight, and RELAX!

allow me to ask a newbie question of my own: which oils are generally considered the best in Group 3?

---

I would, but that would start it all over again.

 

[427Z06]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ron AKA:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BennyL:
lets break up this fight, and RELAX!

allow me to ask a newbie question of my own: which oils are generally considered the best in Group 3?

---

I would, but that would start it all over again.

---

Stop posting inaccuracies like this:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ron AKA:
Actually the best low temperature specifications I have seen are with Petro Canada's 0w30 synthetic.

---

in post like this:

http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=016056;p=2#000028

and people won't have to CORRECT your mistakes.


This whole GTL venture was an attempt to prove you were correct in your previous post. Very lame, dude.

 

[427Z06]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bryanccfshr:
We are talking about fringe performance parameters here most transportation vehicles whill never be challenges with. That is why Grp III and GTL baser oils ar ebecoming more practical from a cost to performance ratio point of view. If you live in the arctic circle or for some reason drive with oil temps above 250 as a matter of habit then you need to investigate this fringe. If you don't knoif you are in the fringe of performance then you certainly are not.

---

Sure. But let's recall Ron's original premise.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ron AKA:
Is it possible that we have reached a point in time (2006) where the Group IIIs have become so good that they exceed the performance of the traditional Group IV synthetics?

---

The day Group IIIs become so good they exceed the performance of the traditional Group IV synthetics in all properties, everyone, including ExxonMobil will drop Group IVs like a hot potato.

Ron just won't accept the fact that he was wrong in previous threads, and is now using the GTL topic to obfuscate the fact that he was spewing misinformation in other threads.

 

[TooSlick]

427ZO6,

The article on advanced PAO's was very interesting...thanks for locating it.

I find evidence that these types of basestocks are already being used in some of the top tier synthetics. How else to explain something like the Amsoil 0w-40 with a Noack of only 6.7% and a VI of 195. Their first generation of this oil a few years back. had a Noack of approx 11% as I recall, so that's a huge improvement.

TS

 

[BennyL]

seriously, i just wanna be on the "ins" when it comes to knowing which oil is which group.

can someone just shoot me off some names of companies that use group III oils for theit synthetic line-up, and some companies that use group IV.

and what do "most" board members agree to be tops in each group?

 

[Bryanccfshr]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 427Z06:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bryanccfshr:
We are talking about fringe performance parameters here most transportation vehicles whill never be challenges with. That is why Grp III and GTL baser oils ar ebecoming more practical from a cost to performance ratio point of view. If you live in the arctic circle or for some reason drive with oil temps above 250 as a matter of habit then you need to investigate this fringe. If you don't knoif you are in the fringe of performance then you certainly are not.

---

Sure. But let's recall Ron's original premise.

---

Which of course is inacurate do to the way each is made. PAO is superior to grp III on the fringe of performance which most people never need. Living where we do I care if the pour point goes up 20 degrees?
I can see that the premise of the thread is incorrect but being superior does not neccesarily = beneficial.

 

[javacontour]

First we have to define better.

To some, better is in the performance characteristics. To others, better would be relative performance / dollar spent.

Still others may have far different criteria for defining better.

It's a vague question, what is meant by better?