'Synthetic' as the word relates to motor oil

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: RubentheIowan
This (edit-mod) Cars or whatever the [censored] is name is, is a true idiot. dude, just leave already lol


I sure hope you enjoy your vacation calling anyone a vulgar name. Thay was totally uncalled for!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pretty simple … you want to feel like you got “real synthetic” ? Buy Redline at twice the cost of the Walmart jugs.
But in an average motor … don’t expect twice the performance and it’s all good …

BTW: when you type Mobil 1 … that is just a trade name ~ they make many, many, formulas worldwide and are known for using 3 or so base fluids in various ratios … so even generalizations don’t work …

Agree that Garak summed it up well …
 
Originally Posted By: Jooksing
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.

After that entire (ultimately locked) thread you still think that was M1 in the sump? Are you serious?
 
Originally Posted By: JLTD
In the US, oil blenders are allowed to say the oil is synthetic if it contains some synthetic oil. Outside the US, it must actually be synthetic oil to be labeled that way.

So...M1 is a synthetic blend, which is to say it has some synthetic but in actuality is is mostly a Group III oil, from what I have read.

All because of advertising....

The nonsense just keeps coming.
 
I will ask my 18 yr old HS Sr. daughter about synthetic, she is at that age where she knows everything. People have been using conventional oil for decades without blowing up in their engines, millions of vehicles on the road today with over 300K miles with plain jane conventional oil. Don't get me wrong, synthetic oil has its advantages but let's not drink the whole jug of synthetic cool aid. For the vast majority of vehicles plain dino oil is more than adequate. If I lived in an extreme cold climate like Canada or extreme heat climate like Kuwait I would likely switch to a synthetic or at least a semi synthetic. Manufactures like to play on words when describing their products. Synthetic or 100% synthetic should be the same thing. Then there are semi synthetics , are they 50% synthetic, 20% synthetic , 75% synthetic? or do they add 10% and call it good. Similar to games that grocery products use with juice, orange juice might be 100% juice or it might be 50% juice, anything less than 10% and by law they call it an orange drink. seems like that if M1 states that it is synthetic then it should be, unless they are lying. There was a lawsuit a few years back between Mobil and Castro, Mobil was claiming that Castrol wasn't really a true synthetic.
 
Originally Posted By: car51
Originally Posted By: JAG
Thank you jooksing. MPT makes some interesting oils. It’s a good article on the basics of motor oil. Anyone that says who cares about it should keep it to himself and question why he is in this forum.


WHO CARES!!!


Dude, what is your deal?

You post oil filter pictures on an almost daily basis. Surely you care?

Some people like the chemistry behind the forum and others like the mechanics. Different strokes for different folks.
 
Originally Posted By: car51
Originally Posted By: JAG
Thank you jooksing. MPT makes some interesting oils. It’s a good article on the basics of motor oil. Anyone that says who cares about it should keep it to himself and question why he is in this forum.


Anyone that rrally gives a (edit-mod) wouldn't ask if M1 is a synthetic. How about you keep your "opinion" to yourself. Thanks


Sorry dude, it isn't.

NOT AN OINION.
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: Jooksing
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.

After that entire (ultimately locked) thread you still think that was M1 in the sump? Are you serious?

I can agree to that it is not what M1. Is supposed to be. But not agreeing that it is not XOM fault. I got it out of their sealed bottle.

Originally Posted By: BJD78
I will ask my 18 yr old HS Sr. daughter about synthetic, she is at that age where she knows everything. People have been using conventional oil for decades without blowing up in their engines, millions of vehicles on the road today with over 300K miles with plain jane conventional oil. Don't get me wrong, synthetic oil has its advantages but let's not drink the whole jug of synthetic cool aid. For the vast majority of vehicles plain dino oil is more than adequate. If I lived in an extreme cold climate like Canada or extreme heat climate like Kuwait I would likely switch to a synthetic or at least a semi synthetic. Manufactures like to play on words when describing their products. Synthetic or 100% synthetic should be the same thing. Then there are semi synthetics , are they 50% synthetic, 20% synthetic , 75% synthetic? or do they add 10% and call it good. Similar to games that grocery products use with juice, orange juice might be 100% juice or it might be 50% juice, anything less than 10% and by law they call it an orange drink. seems like that if M1 states that it is synthetic then it should be, unless they are lying. There was a lawsuit a few years back between Mobil and Castro, Mobil was claiming that Castrol wasn't really a true synthetic.


That is what the article is about, the types and lawsuit...
I would think your 18year old will say oil is just oil.
 
Ok … but all ships rise with the tide. Who would argue that GII+ (the good dino) would be where it is today without the technology that produced the other basestocks …
 
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.


YouTube videos really bug you... Are you an agent of XOM? I took off the M1 label in the title still not enough? If there others out there I want them to contact me. That is all.
 
Originally Posted By: Jooksing
Originally Posted By: kschachn
There was no lawsuit FWIW. Along with "court ruling" people like to use those words but it isn't accurate.

I guess that's true with XOM and Castrol, it was a complaint. But the lawsuit of the airplane engine is here.
https://www.avweb.com/news/news/182891-1.html


Totally different topic about a totally different oil formulation.
 
Last edited:
I found this interesting. How does the GTL stack up against an oil with primarily a PAO base? Is there any reason it was not put into group V other than the one I mentioned in a previous post?

Quote:
Gas-to-Liquid (GTL) base oils:

The API classifies GTL base oils as Group III or unofficially it has been called, “Group III+.” It is this author’s view that the GTL process results in a “synthesized” oil and should be given a separate API classification as they do PAO, or moved to the Group V classification. A separate, future debate can address this issue and will not be further discussed here in this white paper.
 
Originally Posted By: Trav
I found this interesting. How does the GTL stack up against an oil with primarily a PAO base? Is there any reason it was not put into group V other than the one I mentioned in a previous post?

I have no idea what you posted before, but the reason is that it is chemically identical to the rest of Group III base stocks and the viscosity index is greater than 120.

The other reason is because API 1509 Appendix E (which defines the Group designations) is solely concerned about base stock interchangeability and within those narrow confines the origin of the stock has no relevance (it even says that in the text).
 
Originally Posted By: Jooksing
I can agree to that it is not what M1. Is supposed to be. But not agreeing that it is not XOM fault. I got it out of their sealed bottle.

Without dredging that business up too much, or rehashing what was in the other thread, look at it from XOM's (or any other major's) point of view. They know what they put in sealed bottles. What came out of your sealed bottle is not what XOM puts in their sealed bottles. Their first reaction would be a counterfeit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top