'Synthetic' as the word relates to motor oil

[The_Nuke]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Having a bad day there, Adam? Tomorrow is another day, and it'll be better. Hang in there.


My court-appointed therapist is constantly telling me the same thing, and she has yet to be right.

But in the interest of feeding the bears, I’ll pose the same question to you that I pose to her: it is not fair to automatically disqualify Olympic weight lifting contestants for something as simple as sudden, uncontrollable urination.

 

[sloinker]

I agree with jooksing. If you are led to believe that you are buying something of inherent value but something else is actually sold to you, then I consider it bait and switch. PAO's and ester based oils have inherent advantages over class III oils and cost more to produce. When the manufacturer infers you are buying these more costly ingredients due to labeling and marketing then you are being ripped off. That being said, any oil that meets the specifications of the manufacturer are probably going to serve you well. If you have mitigating factors and need a higher level of protection then that is where you need to possibly step up and buy a more expensive oil with a stronger class IV/V base. Racing, towing in heat, extreme cold etc. Nothing wrong with class III and I suppose the additive package is a real strong player in any oil you may choose.

 

[4WD]

Which 100% synthetic do you buy to get your money’s worth?

 

[Hammehead]

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

Originally Posted By: sloinker
If you think you have mitigating factors and arbitrarily want a "higher" level of protection then that is where you may decide to waste more money and buy a more expensive oil. Racing, towing in heat, extreme cold etc. Even though it's handled fine by Group III synthetics!


I fixed your statement first, but... which exotic car manufacturer requires an exclusively Group IV/V oil for their engines? Oh... zero, you say, even including the Bugatti Veyron? So why would a "true" synthetic be required for anything else on the road?

 

[Trav]

It is interesting especially with the new GTL pure base stocks being offered. GTL is created by the Fischer–Tropsch process and the oil derived from that process was considered a true synthetic.

Fast forward 80 years and Royal Dutch Shell list their Fischer–Tropsch process derived Pearl GTL as a grp III which is usually reserved for Hydrocracked, why would they rate a true synthetic that has already accepted and a true synthetic under the law since 1926 as a lower rank oil?
The best reasonable theory I have read is it was done in a veiled attempt to get a grp III oil listed as a true synthetic in Germany.
Once this was accepted the flood gates would be opened for all other grp III HC oils to rate the legal full synthetic label, the scheme was seen through and the plan backfired.

https://www.tc2.ch.tum.de/fileadmin/tuchtc2/www/ICP1/ICP1_1314/9-FT_synthesis-2013_PW.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_process

As I said I read that theory and to me it sounds most reasonable and the only real explanation. Sorry Car51 these kinds of topics on an oil forum are interesting to many, if you don't like them move on from the thread but you decided to move on period. Your decision, take care.

 

[Trav]

Originally Posted By: 4WD
Which 100% synthetic do you buy to get your money’s worth?


GTL oils.

 

[Linctex]

Originally Posted By: Jooksing
What I found interesting in the article is that XOM complained about Castrol not being a real Syn in 1999. From what I understand Mobil 1 switched to group 3 in the early 2000.


Once upon a time many years ago -
in the 1970s…
the minimum wage was $1.85 per hour, Mobil 1 was *indeed* 100% pure synthetic
but cost $6-$7 per can.

Interesting story about 100% synthetic oil…
You should look up Mobil AV-1

This was an aircraft oil… 100% synthetic oil
marketed for piston engine aircraft use.

It was a complete and total disaster.

Mobil had to buy thousands of new engines for multiple aircraft owners.

Ironically……………………
It’s actually good thing the current mobil 1 formula is not 100% synthetic.
Certain additives perform better in an engine when they are carried by a mineral-based oil

 

[Jooksing]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: Jooksing
If I pay for Kobe beef I better be getting Kobe beef...

That's not a good analogy. If you are buying engine oil based on its individual ingredients, you are buying it for the wrong reasons, IMO.

I would focus on the oil's overall performance, as indicated by the particular engine manufacturer specs that it meets. It's not the individual ingredients that matters. It's how the formulation as a whole performs. There is more to an oil than just base oil.


"Kobe/waygu" is not fda regulated in the US. Kobe snobs would not consider American Kobe beef as "real" Kobe beef.

I guess a better analogy would be "natural" on foods. You do have a good point on focus on performance.

Before I joined I was more inline with majority of people only understanding 3 types of oil, conventional oil, syn blend , and blend...being good better best...(ie marketing) Ty those for the education.

 

[aquariuscsm]

Do pao's and esters actually offer better lubrication over crude? Or do they exist to offer lower pour points?

 

[Jooksing]

I did read about that airplane fiasco. They just settle the cases and now most people never heard about it.

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: Jooksing
Car 51 sorry as I am a new member. So this is new to me. I still thought M1 is a full syn. Don't leave cause of my ignorant post. But why so mean?

What I found interesting in the article is that XOM complained about Castrol not being a real Syn in 1999. From what I understand Mobil 1 switched to group 3 in the early 2000.

If I pay for Kobe beef I better be getting Kobe beef... I guess I was not due to marketing.


M1 was not a grp 3 only in the early 2000s. Your understanding is once again wrong. Also correct your YouTube videos, that the UOAs you posted were not M1.

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: Jooksing
I did read about that airplane fiasco. They just settle the cases and now most people never heard about it.


You mean that leaded aviation gasoline was not compatible with synthetic oils?

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Jooksing
I must have stepped on poo.. Seems like I attract flies. I do not have a "side" on whether M1 is or is not a Syn. But I am interested to understand the argument. Hope there is like minded people out there.

Do you have an issue with Mobil 1, though, or Mobil, or Exxon-Mobil?

Now, I would consider that Group IV and V and perhaps GTL oils are technical synthetics. However, most oil companies have a marketing position where Group III is considered a synthetic, and I can do much about it. Of course, may oils out there are blends of various base stocks, too. Also, given what we call synthetics out there, and given what I'd "like" them to be, I'm not prepared to be buying Red Line, for instance, just to ensure I have a technical synthetic, either.

 

[JAG]

Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: Jooksing
I did read about that airplane fiasco. They just settle the cases and now most people never heard about it.

You mean that leaded aviation gasoline was not compatible with synthetic oils?

The issue was exacerbated by too much PAO base oil and not enough polar oils, not synthetics, in general. PAO has a lousy ability to suspend contaminants, including the lead fuel additive. Esters and alkylated naphthalenes have good to excellent ability to suspend contaminants.

 

[4WD]

We heavy lifted GTL kit in 1990 and the technology was old then …
Still hydrocarbon based … and this is still a tired debate … I’m happy with what we have.
How about a voice of reason … SR5: are we getting cheated buying lubes in the US?

 

[Jooksing]

Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: Jooksing
Car 51 sorry as I am a new member. So this is new to me. I still thought M1 is a full syn. Don't leave cause of my ignorant post. But why so mean?

What I found interesting in the article is that XOM complained about Castrol not being a real Syn in 1999. From what I understand Mobil 1 switched to group 3 in the early 2000.

If I pay for Kobe beef I better be getting Kobe beef... I guess I was not due to marketing.


M1 was not a grp 3 only in the early 2000s. Your understanding is once again wrong. Also correct your YouTube videos, that the UOAs you posted were not M1.


I thought they switch the formula from mostly 4 to 3. (Ok one thread said in 2006) Correct me if I am off.

Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: Jooksing
I did read about that airplane fiasco. They just settle the cases and now most people never heard about it.


You mean that leaded aviation gasoline was not compatible with synthetic oils?
Article I read just pointed out that they sold an aviation oil that later disappeared from the market with a given reason, lawsuits build their cases and the company quietly settled them.

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: Jooksing
I must have stepped on poo.. Seems like I attract flies. I do not have a "side" on whether M1 is or is not a Syn. But I am interested to understand the argument. Hope there is like minded people out there.

Do you have an issue with Mobil 1, though, or Mobil, or Exxon-Mobil?

Now, I would consider that Group IV and V and perhaps GTL oils are technical synthetics. However, most oil companies have a marketing position where Group III is considered a synthetic, and I can do much about it. Of course, may oils out there are blends of various base stocks, too. Also, given what we call synthetics out there, and given what I'd "like" them to be, I'm not prepared to be buying Red Line, for instance, just to ensure I have a technical synthetic, either.

I have been using M1 for 4 years because it was held in high regard by everyone until my recent car heart attack. I have not heard about half of the brands you guys talk about so I am open to testing other stuff. Someone in Slickdeals told me it was not a "real" synthetic which peaked my interest...love the name btw.

 

[Garak]

I don't worry too much about whether something is a technical synthetic or not. Performance counts most, despite me not "liking the way things are." No matter how I slice definitions, Mobil 1, Valvoline SynPower, Pennzoil Platinum, and so forth do have certain inherent advantages over their conventional counterparts. That being said, not everyone will be able to capitalise on those advantages. If I'm not about to buy a 0w-30 ILSAC, for instance, and stick to a 5w-30 ILSAC, I'm not getting the cold weather advantages of a synthetic. If I'm going to change my oil at 3,000 miles, I'm not getting the potential long drain advantages of a synthetic.

I've used a lot of conventional over the years and will do so again. And, there are plenty of brands and varieties and tiers with which to experiment. Despite the kinds of horror stories we hear, I have complete faith in Mobil Super conventional, Mobil 1, Pennzoil conventional, Pennzoil Platinum, Castrol GTX, Castrol Syntec, Valvoline conventional, Valvoline SynPower, Shell HDEO conventional, Shell HDEO synthetic, Chevron's products, and so forth, ad nauseum, in any vehicle for which the oil meets the specifications, viscosity, and service category.

 

[Jooksing]

That is a level headed approach.

I liked the article in explaining what the groupings are especially as a newborn bitog. I am reading the sub forum but it was overwelming.

 

[Revving2Redline]

Well spoken sir. As long as its a general synthetic oil,meets API and does good on UOA reports and is under 7 bucks a qt that enough for me. I'll use Sopus,M1 as my go to oils.