Does anybody know if this oil is a group 3 or group 4 base stock? I really like this oil. It gives me a little more oil pressure for summer temps. My 4.7 runs just as smooth and peppy as it did on 10w30. I've tried 15w40 in the past and the engine felt sluggish.
Shell Rotella T6 Synthetic 5w-40
- Thread starter Hemi426
- Start date
- Status
Base stock is a Group III with some PAO in it.
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: BobFout
It's a group III+.
I don't really know what that means, as opposed to any other designation, and I've been around here a long time.
To say that it's "group III+", would infer that it's somehow "better" than group III? Would someone say that Mobil 1 is "Group IV-" (minus) because it has some marginal amount of base oils other than PAO?
Nearly all lubricants available commercially on the mass market are "blends". They are not "pure", but rather a maturation of primary and secondary base stocks, with differing additives packages, all based upon the consumer and/or vendor goals.
T-6 is a group III product; severely hydro processed oil. It's got quite a bit of VII to get such a broad grade range. I do know that it performs quite well, typically putting forth stellar UOAs. I'm not confident whether it has PAO in it or not; but I don't really know that it matters, either. I guess knowing the "inputs" of an oil makes for interesting chatter, but the "results" are MUCH more telling of a product's capability. Would you rather know the starting roster of a base-ball team, or the final score?
It's not "perfect", but no oil is. It's a good fit for a wide variety of applications and has a good performance/dollar ratio. It is primarily thought of as group III.
It's a group III+.
I don't really know what that means, as opposed to any other designation, and I've been around here a long time.
To say that it's "group III+", would infer that it's somehow "better" than group III? Would someone say that Mobil 1 is "Group IV-" (minus) because it has some marginal amount of base oils other than PAO?
Nearly all lubricants available commercially on the mass market are "blends". They are not "pure", but rather a maturation of primary and secondary base stocks, with differing additives packages, all based upon the consumer and/or vendor goals.
T-6 is a group III product; severely hydro processed oil. It's got quite a bit of VII to get such a broad grade range. I do know that it performs quite well, typically putting forth stellar UOAs. I'm not confident whether it has PAO in it or not; but I don't really know that it matters, either. I guess knowing the "inputs" of an oil makes for interesting chatter, but the "results" are MUCH more telling of a product's capability. Would you rather know the starting roster of a base-ball team, or the final score?
It's not "perfect", but no oil is. It's a good fit for a wide variety of applications and has a good performance/dollar ratio. It is primarily thought of as group III.
Last edited:
Dnewton, the Evolution section here explains it.
http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/533/base-oil-trends
Googling for group III+ also nets some more info.
http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/533/base-oil-trends
Googling for group III+ also nets some more info.
Last edited:
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: BobFout
Dnewton, the Evolution section here explains it.
http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/533/base-oil-trends
Googling for group III+ also nets some more info.
My apologies; wasn't trying to pick on you; not my intent.
It's just that, like I said, there is no "pure" oil; they all exist with some secondary base stocks and varying additive packages. No one ever dares to refer to Mobil 1 as a "Group IV-" just because it has some lower base stocks in it to help carry the additives. Mobil 1 is not PURE PAO, but we all consider it group IV. It's a manipulated oil product just like T6, Edge, Synpower, and everything else.
Is a group III+ the "same" as a group IV-? We've heard of group II+, but would that be much different than a group III-? Are we splitting hairs so thin? Are we even concerned about the percentage of each base stock used? What makes something a "PAO" when it may have 51% group IV, but if it only had 48% group IV, what would it then be called?
Conceptually, it's like debating the merrits of a "C+" versus a "B-". The distinction is there, but it's so whacked and overblown because the you also have to include the sub-topics to give it frame of reference.
The reality is that marketing folks will never want well defined descriptions with % content on their product labeling; that would make it too easy to know what you're buying ...
I makes litte sense to keep sub-dividing the subdivisions ... Perhaps it's time for the lube industry to redefine the entire class description system.
Dnewton, the Evolution section here explains it.
http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/533/base-oil-trends
Googling for group III+ also nets some more info.
My apologies; wasn't trying to pick on you; not my intent.
It's just that, like I said, there is no "pure" oil; they all exist with some secondary base stocks and varying additive packages. No one ever dares to refer to Mobil 1 as a "Group IV-" just because it has some lower base stocks in it to help carry the additives. Mobil 1 is not PURE PAO, but we all consider it group IV. It's a manipulated oil product just like T6, Edge, Synpower, and everything else.
Is a group III+ the "same" as a group IV-? We've heard of group II+, but would that be much different than a group III-? Are we splitting hairs so thin? Are we even concerned about the percentage of each base stock used? What makes something a "PAO" when it may have 51% group IV, but if it only had 48% group IV, what would it then be called?
Conceptually, it's like debating the merrits of a "C+" versus a "B-". The distinction is there, but it's so whacked and overblown because the you also have to include the sub-topics to give it frame of reference.
The reality is that marketing folks will never want well defined descriptions with % content on their product labeling; that would make it too easy to know what you're buying ...
I makes litte sense to keep sub-dividing the subdivisions ... Perhaps it's time for the lube industry to redefine the entire class description system.
Last edited:
dnewton3
Staff member
Well, you certainly have educated me on a new topic. Thanks!
OTOH, I still don't like the way products are sub-labeled. It is ambiguous at best. But I also understand that I'm not the only person they market to.
OTOH, I still don't like the way products are sub-labeled. It is ambiguous at best. But I also understand that I'm not the only person they market to.
Last edited:
Did anyone catch the statement about how all major oil companies are rapidly switching their automotive oils to these groupIII base oils? That would include I suppose EOM who is the producer of M1.
Originally Posted By: D-Roc
Hey Hustler, any ideas on that 1.8% fuel dilution? I thought your vis was low for a moment, but I'm sure your Miata doesn't have a large sump, so 1.8% of gasoline would probably bring you down to 30wt...
You are correct. I hold about 5-quarts. The oil dropped to about a30wt. I leaned it out a lot in cold start and fuel dilution reduced considerably.
Hey Hustler, any ideas on that 1.8% fuel dilution? I thought your vis was low for a moment, but I'm sure your Miata doesn't have a large sump, so 1.8% of gasoline would probably bring you down to 30wt...
You are correct. I hold about 5-quarts. The oil dropped to about a30wt. I leaned it out a lot in cold start and fuel dilution reduced considerably.
- Status
Similar threads
