Hyundai Tucson 2.0 non turbo recommended oil.

[ARCOgraphite]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Most "Fully Synthetic Oil" is NOT synthetic oil. ( Shell has bucked this trend a bit with majority base GTL oils, I havent thoroughly studied or understood why the product is considered group III and not group V. I recall the VI and sulfur % is beyond the upper margin of Group III.

Then you don't understand what the Group designations mean. How is GTL different than any other hydrocracked lubricant in terms of Group designation? It isn't. There's no upper limit to the VI of a Group III oil.
Then enlighten Me, Oh Great Harasser!

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Then enlighten Me, Oh Great Harasser!

Sure thing. From API 1509, Appendix E:

Quote:
c. Group III base stocks contain greater than or equal to 90 percent saturates and less
than or equal to 0.03 percent sulfur and have a viscosity index greater than or equal to 120
using the test methods specified in Table E-1.

d. Group IV base stocks are polyalphaolefins (PAO). PAOs can be interchanged without additional
qualification testing as long as the interchange PAO meets the original PAO manufacturer’s
specifications in physical and chemical properties. The following key properties need to be met
in the substituted stock:

1) Kinematic viscosity at 100°C, 40°C, and -40°C
2) Viscosity index
3) NOACK volatility
4) Pour point
5) Unsaturates

e. Group V base stocks include all other base stocks not included in Group I, II, III, or IV.

I left off the descriptions for Group I and II because they are not relevant. The "test methods" in Table E-1 are standard ASTM tests for saturates, viscosity and sulfur content.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

(MONKY SORRY FOR THE SEMI_HIJACK)

Thanks, I am well aware of the basic specs. I was trying to get some insider API insight into this truly odd categorization of GTL base oils.

GTL basestock are NOT refined petroleum oil ( prereq for group I-III) AND they likely meet Vi >120 and exhibit sulfur less than 300ppm and are highly saturated.

Is it the paraffin stigma keeps it (wrongly! IMO) in with the non-synthetic petro category? I Can somewhat understand why excellent slackwax based products are there ( as they are built from group I byproducts). IIRC XOM VISOM is a slackwax based product.

 

[kschachn]

They are the same type of hydrocarbon molecules as other Group III products, and are hydrocracked just the same.

It's amusing that you who rail against all things Group III are somehow trying to make this Group III product into something it is not. In no respect is it oddly categorized, it is exactly where it belongs.

Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
TL basestock are NOT refined petroleum oil ( prereq for group I-III) AND they likely meet Vi >120 and exhibit sulfur less than 300ppm and are highly saturated.


Bingo, they meet the definition for Group III. Is hydrocracking not refining (although I don't see your favorite term "highly refined" anywhere in the actual requirements, only in the article you must be reading.) This is what I read:

Quote:
E.1.2.1 A base stock is a lubricant component that is produced by a single manufacturer to the same
specifications (independent of feed source or manufacturer’s location); that meets the same manufacturer’s
specification; and that is identified by a unique formula, product identification number, or both.
Base stocks may be manufactured using a variety of different processes including but not limited to
distillation, solvent refining, hydrogen processing, oligomerization, esterification, and rerefining.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Synthesized form Syngas could not be considered group V if saturation, Sulfur and VI meet the category?

What are the specific saturation, sulfur and VI requirements for a a Group V oil?

 

[ARCOgraphite]

API appears to not have a place for iso-paraffins in group V.

Therein lies my argument.


GTL base oils can exhibit group III properties but they are not refined petroleum !

I-III built around refined pertroleum product - not synthesized

An orphaned product. I might just have to see what RDS chemist or marketers have to say on this subject

 

[Virtus_Probi]

Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
API appears to not have a place for iso-paraffins in group V.

Therein lies my argument.


GTL base oils can exhibit group III properties but they are not refined petroleum !

I-III built around refined pertroleum product - not synthesized

An orphaned product. I might just have to see what RDS chemist or marketers have to say on this subject


Hydrocracking results in a chemical change to the feedstock, it is not a refining process of simply isolating certain chemical elements already present in the starting product (I am using refining in its strictest sense, obviously a modern refinery does a lot more than refine).
The confusing thing for me is that Group II is generally also hydrocracked and one could argue that it should also be referred to as synthetic. I would guess that the distinction for Group III vs. II is a matter of the degree of chemical modification to the starting product and/or the percentage of that product that is actually modified, I would certainly welcome enlightenment on that topic.

 

[Brons2]

Originally Posted By: Monky
Hi guys,

I just purchased a 2016 Hyundai Tucson non turbo, I was looking on the owner manual and the oil suggested is 5W-20 but also 5W-30 can be used, my question is if conventional, semi synthetic or full synthetic should be used, owner's manual does tell me which one. Would you suggest brand and OCI please? The manual says to change my oil every 7500 miles but I don't know if they refer to conventional oil.

Thanks for any help!


I've had 3 Kia/Hyundai cars and I've used whatever 5w30 synthetic is on sale. When I tried 5w20 they consumed more oil. I recommend the OEM filter, you can get them cheaper on eBay.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: Virtus_Probi
The confusing thing for me is that Group II is generally also hydrocracked and one could argue that it should also be referred to as synthetic. I would guess that the distinction for Group III vs. II is a matter of the degree of chemical modification to the starting product and/or the percentage of that product that is actually modified, I would certainly welcome enlightenment on that topic.

The definitions of Groups I, II and III are pretty well defined as to the relative quality of the base stock. It's not a matter of the degree of chemical modification, it is a matter of the chemical composition.

The title of API 1509 Appendix E is API Base Oil Interchangeability Guidelines for Passenger Car Motor Oils and Diesel Engine Oils which I think illustrates very well the misapplication of those grades designations here on Bitog. If you look at Appendix E in the proper context (as per the title and the first few paragraphs) it is used to give guidance in how base stocks can be interchanged by manufacturers and blenders. In that context the different Groups make sense. If instead you are trying to craft some grand measure of "quality" through the group designations then it will fail, particularly with Group IV and Group V since those are essentially catch-all categories. The first three do give relative quality indicators (for base stocks) but the last two do not. Those two groups give no indication as to the overall performance of the finished product. For example, I could formulate a motor oil that meets the definition of a Group IV but would be a wholly unsuitable motor oil. I could probably do it even easier for a Group V with stuff laying around my kitchen. But since the Group designations are for interchangeability directed to the manufacturer or blender, then it makes perfect sense.

Sure most blenders and formulators that take the effort to formulate a Group IV oil will no doubt formulate a good motor oil considering the cost of the base stocks, but they certainly wouldn't have to and neither would they have to do so for any of the other groups. Thinking that API 1509 Appendix E exists to predict finished product quality is a misapplication of the purpose of of the Group designations.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
I-III built around refined pertroleum product - not synthesized

An orphaned product. I might just have to see what RDS chemist or marketers have to say on this subject

They are categorized around chemical specifications to allow interchangeability under API 1509 Appendix E. What "RDS chemist" or marketers have to say is not relevant.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

Classification? Of course its more than interchangeability.

BTW, Appendix E worked well for Xom and the M1 product failure in the past.