How do YOU define synthetic?

Status
Not open for further replies.
quote:

Originally posted by moribundman:
Synthetic motor oil is to non-synthetic oil what a Twinkie is to any other cream-filled sponge cake.
tongue.gif


(visions of Ghostbusters when Spengler is describing the level of background activity)

Dr. Egon Spengler: I'm worried, Ray. All my readings point to something big on the horizon.
Winston Zeddemore: What do you mean, big?
Dr. Egon Spengler: Well, let's say this Twinkie represents the normal amount of psychokinetic energy in the New York area. Based on this morning's reading, it would be a Twinkie thirty-five feet long, weighing approximately six hundred pounds.
Winston Zeddemore: That's a big Twinkie.
 
While I fully agree with the idea that Grp III base oils, and their highly iso-paraffinic hydro-carbon structure, have a synthetic nature, my mind still separates the Grp III's from PAO's, esters, EOP's and the other synthetic fluids.

I think with the upcoming GTL basestocks, the definition of synthetic will tilt more towards a fluid with origins not derrived from a barrel of crude oil.

Curiously, the definition of synthetic is not muddied in the synthetic fuels industry.

The GTL fuels derived from natural gas are clearly synthetic and any competing product that is highly/severely refined from a barrel of crude oil most likely will not be allowed to share the synthetic label.

Just my 2 cents!
smile.gif
 
Synthetic oil , IMHO, is 100% Group IV or V, or a mix of both base stocks.

Group III is great stuff but it is severely hydrocracked oil.

Why can't we demand the US oil industry provide consumers with labels which state :

Full Synthetic [Group IV, V ]

Severely Hydrocracked [ Group III ]

Hydrocracked [ Group II ]

Group I

'Blends' could list percentages of basestocks

And perhaps a special labeling category for various technologies like GTL, or special processes like EOP, or ZOIL's Castrol GC basestock.
 
Usually when I think synthetic I think of an oil that is capable of extending oil changes, won't sludge up at 10,000 miles and having excellent winter performance, and keeping things clean among other things.

How long can a group III be run for? I personally wouldn't dare go over 7,500 miles, but I really just don't know anything about group III oils because my main concern with extending oil changes with any dino oil is the possibility of sludge and varnish buildup.

I just want there to be some kind of designation for my oil saying that it is at least comparable to another other of the same class(synthetic), and that if I was running oil X at 10,000 miles, than oil Y will probably be just fine having an oil analysis that isn't catastrophic with a similar mileage.

If I were to use a synthetic such as Amsoil, Mobil 1, GC, and didn't know that a cheap synthetic such as Supertech Synthetic wasn't of the same class and sludged up an engine with 7,500 miles when, say, it was doing just fine with the synthetics at 10,000 miles than where is the destinction of such, thats what bugs me the most about all of this. That is why I wish there was a more standardized way of determining oxidation control because it seems that people are focused on viscosity retention over the period of an oil change, even though it's probably still possible that we can still be leaving sludge and varnish behind at the same time.

I'm thinking maybe we should just have more designation to it, such as Amsoil's 25,000/35,000 mile recommendation and Mobil 1's 15,000 mile designation because to me that means that it won't sludge up if I run it that long and that UOA's will determine within that limit when I should be replacing it.
 
quote:

Originally posted by Thatwouldbegreat:
Why can't we demand the US oil industry provide consumers with labels which state :

Full Synthetic [Group IV, V ]

Severely Hydrocracked [ Group III ]

Hydrocracked [ Group II ]

Group I

'Blends' could list percentages of basestocks


I agree.

There are all kinds of situations and contexts in which to define "sythetic," but here's my 2 cents regarding "synthetic" as applied to motor oil: the base stock must consist primarily of molecules that are assembled from smaller molecules.
Conventional oils have base stocks that are simply refined from crude oil or are molecules broken down from larger molecules (hydrocracked).
 
Hydrocracking, tends to make larger molecules from small ones and small molecules from large ones in the same process. With heat, pressure, and time, hydrogen and feedstock approach an equilibrium around a mean length. So, big from small and small from big in the same reaction.

I think that many want "synthetic" to mean "designed" and other want it to mean "artificial".

And somewhere in the above arguments, one must make "conventional" mean something other than "of convention" or "historically routine".

I think that the key is to know the performance of the final product and to not worry about the word "synthetic."
 
So just how different are the molecules of "synthetic" oil base stocks made from natural gas vs. those made from petroleum oil? Are the basic molecules of the finished products from either somehow "better" than the other as a lubricant? If so how/why?

If somehow they both have similar/disimilar properties of their molecular make up then maybe that should be the deciding factor as to which is, or isn't better as a base stock. I guess I just don't get all the fuss about which is what, which is better, when no one compares the molecules. That should be the real proof! Both raw materials come from the ground as hydrocarbons, right? Often from the same fields/wells? Does the method of molecular extraction really matter to me as an engine oil consumer? If I end up with an engine oil of specific molecules sythezised to perform to a certain level, with adequate additives, why does it matter which raw material was used to produce it? Double steam distilled water from either our local sanitary sewage system vs. distilled water from Old Faithful at Yellowstone Park should work equally well in my car's battery. I know H2O is a much simpler molecule than oil molecules but what am I missing here that really matters?
 
SaturnIonVue,

You have summed it up.. It doesn't matter what route is taken to get the base oil, all that matters is the performance of the final product.
PAO is a synthesized hydrocarbon after all HCO is still HCO, the result is much like that of a solid VHVI GRP III.

I question the need for ultra pure gas formed HCO when the first thing you do to PAO when you put it in an engine and start it is introduce Aromatics to the oil through the combustion process. This is like showering before jumping in a swamp. All that expense to build a "perfect" base oil and we go and dump fuel and aromatic compounds into the oil that we were trying to avoid having in our oil in the first place.
In conclusion the PAO is better than Grp III. That is until it is in the crankcase and ran. Then the field has leveled and all that "purity" advantage is out the window. If not on a molecular level on a volumetric one.
 
If it is a PAO and/or synthetic ester formulation, it is a synthetic.

If it is a prcessed hydrocracked group 3, it is just a good dino in my mind.

Especially when they charge synthetic price for something that is justified as synthetic through a loophole.
 
Most Mobil 1 formulations contain Alkylated Napthalenes, which ExxonMobil classifies as Group V. Does that qualify as a "synthetic"? Much of the Group III process is not just breaking molecules apart, but adding hydrogen in the presence of a catylist to saturate the molecules. Is that not combining that some here read as the definition?

For those that think that engines sludge up when run extended drains with something "inferior" to PAO or esters, comment on this. I just took the valve cover off my 144,000 mile BMW and not a bit of sludge or even varnish was visible. This was using Chevron Delo 400 (Group II+) on 6-8000mile intervals. I'll post pictures when I figure out how.
 
quote:

Originally posted by Jimbo:
... For those that think that engines sludge up when run extended drains with something "inferior" to PAO or esters, comment on this. I just took the valve cover off my 144,000 mile BMW and not a bit of sludge or even varnish was visible. This was using Chevron Delo 400 (Group II+) on 6-8000mile intervals. I'll post pictures when I figure out how.

I thought BMW demanded synthetic oil, as VW/Audi now does. I keep debating whether the [nonturbo] 2.8 engine needs synthetic. (I claim it doesn't, unless one wants to take advantage of stretched OCIs.)
 
It is interesting to note Mobil started out calling there synthetics, SHC for synthesized hydrocarbons. Mobil found out that John Q Public did not understand or care for the SHC designation. Mobil found the public accepted the term synthetic much better. So John Q Public got what he wanted. Can you blame Mobil?
 
By definition, group 5 currently means "not groups 1-4." So, group 5 can be naturally occuring, synthetic, partially degraded, hydrogenized, anything. Group 5 may or may not be "synthetic."

If added to you motor oil, the esterified fatty acids found in bacon would be group 5!
 
I don't care what the rest of the marketter call Synthetic, my definition of synthetic is something that last 7.5k to 15k per OCI in a turbo-charged car. Anything that fail this, even a Group 4, is not a synthetic oil.
 
I think that when it comes to motor oil, that "synthetic" and especially "real synthetic" are terms used by the uninformed and by marketing departments. I also think that bacon is among the most wonderful things mankind has created.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom