SOPUS Natural Gas Syn Oils Actually Cleaner ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
3,806
Location
PNW
As the title states - are the SOPUS (Pennzoil) synthetic oils really cleaner than say M1 or Castrol like synthetic oils strictly due to formulation from natural gas ?
 
Last edited:
GTL and hydro cracked Group 3 should both be very clean, maybe GTL is slightly cleaner. I think which one of them will be "cleaner" is moot because as soon as you start driving the contaminant from fuel burning starts and it is really the additives that makes the difference.
 
Always been curious about that myself. On the Molecular level it is cleaner (less impurities) thus it cleans better because of less impurities? All additives being equal, the base oil (less impurities) cleans better...how does that work? Great question.
 
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
GTL and hydro cracked Group 3 should both be very clean, maybe GTL is slightly cleaner. I think which one of them will be "cleaner" is moot because as soon as you start driving the contaminant from fuel burning starts and it is really the additives that makes the difference.

And just to be clear, GTL feed stocks are also hydrocracked and result in a Group III finished product.
 
8% more piston cleanliess versus M1 , so the GTL base stock being non - petroleum oil makes the difference ?
 
Will the difference actually make a difference during the engines life? People fall for the marketing claims whether valid or not.
 
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
It's liquidy ball bearings!


Great, now some newb is going to throw ball bearings in his oil fill hole and trash his engine because of you!
Proud of yourself???

;^)
 
Does GTL provide any meaningful performance advantage over other Group IIIs? I'm not sure?

But where the rubber hits the road from my perspective is the Shell Middle Distillate Synthesis(SMDS) as it relates to a newer technology to hit the consumer market in recent years that has been in development since the early 1970s and cost upwards of 19-Billion to bring to fruition. So there again, in my view, it's a newer and exciting technology that in many instances can be purchased for less money then similar competitors, e.g., $9.99 for 5qts after MIR? That just works for me.
 
Earth is a carbon based planet. I would like SOPUS to make synthetic oil from a gas giant, such as Jupiter, in a vacuum. That would be impressive. We are always trying to get the best oil, etc. We will turn to oil ourselves; except for cremation.
 
Originally Posted By: Krieg
Earth is a carbon based planet. I would like SOPUS to make synthetic oil from a gas giant, such as Jupiter, in a vacuum. That would be impressive. We are always trying to get the best oil, etc. We will turn to oil ourselves; except for cremation.


Whoa...like you are a very deep thinker dude.
grin.gif


Thanks to OP for a great topic !
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
SOPUS didn't do GTL to make a better product, but that is a good byproduct. They did it for another reason.


Why did they do it?

Anything to do with a NG glut?
 
Originally Posted By: GemStater
Does GTL provide any meaningful performance advantage over other Group IIIs? I'm not sure?

But where the rubber hits the road from my perspective is the Shell Middle Distillate Synthesis(SMDS) as it relates to a newer technology to hit the consumer market in recent years that has been in development since the early 1970s and cost upwards of 19-Billion to bring to fruition. So there again, in my view, it's a newer and exciting technology that in many instances can be purchased for less money then similar competitors, e.g., $9.99 for 5qts after MIR? That just works for me.


Does the Shell Advanced 4T Ultra use SMDS technology?

Thanks

http://www.shell.com/motorist/oils-lubri...ance-ultra.html
 
I cannot attest to the cleanliness of this base stock. But, according to Chevron's Oronite site on LSPI:
"Aside from the detergent system, there are many other additive and lubricant compositions that can influence LSPI. Molybdenum compounds, for example, not only provide frictional benefits, but also have been shown to decrease LSPI when used at high levels. Base oils also affect LSPI events. Both the quality of the base stock (i.e. Group II versus Group III) and the viscosity can have secondary effects on LSPI. The effect on LSPI from these other lubricant aspects are not as significant as the detergent system, but can shift the LSPI frequency in oils that are more prone to LSPI."
So, there is an element of the type of base stock possibly contributing to LSPI. I have read this in a couple of other studies, also.
 
While I am posting stuff the Oronite site, how about this:
"New and upcoming engine oil specifications include LSPI prevention. ILSAC GF-6 is expected to include a Ford engine test to discriminate oils based on LSPI event prevention (reduction). Thus, all oils that make GF-6 claims will need to be formulated to address LSPI. Additionally, many OEMs are developing in-house LSPI tests for their own engine designs. For example, GM's dexos1™ specification now includes a GM stochastic pre-ignition test. This test is similar to the Ford test used in GF-6, albeit at different operating conditions.

When comparing the many and varied tests for LSPI impact, it is important to understand the characterization and quantification of an LSPI event can have a bigger impact than different OEM hardware. It is known that LSPI can lead to high pressures, thus one obvious way to quantify LSPI is to monitor the in-cylinder pressure for abnormal spikes. Another approach is to simply monitor for any cycle where combustion starts before the spark, as that is undoubtedly pre-ignition. While these differences in details may seem trivial, they can significantly impact the interpretation of the test results, and in turn, formulations.

It is important to ensure that any new engine oil specifications be based on performance (such as in the newly available engine tests) rather than on chemical limits. Although lowering calcium was one of the initial levers identified for reducing LSPI, it is not the only lever, and calcium detergents have benefits in other performance areas. Oronite has established a firm understanding of formulating for future specifications with LSPI requirements, while still being committed to delivering performance in piston deposit control and neutralizing acids from combustion processes."
 
Originally Posted By: Virtus_Probi
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
It's liquidy ball bearings!


Great, now some newb is going to throw ball bearings in his oil fill hole and trash his engine because of you!
Proud of yourself???

;^)
Liquid ball bearings !!!
eek.gif
 
GTL base oils have very high resistance to oxidation, which is good. They also have a high Viscosity Index and require relatively low levels of VII polymer, which is good. As a result of their high VI, oils made from GTL tend to have relatively low Noack volatility, which is good.

However GTL base oils have very poor innate solvency properties. And there's the dilemma. Because of their high resistance to oxidation, low VII content and low Noack, you shouldn't get a lot of deposit formation with GTL base oils so they should in theory be very 'clean'. However should circumstances be such that you do create even a small amount of chemical 'gunk' in the oil, don't expect the oil to hold it up in solution like a Group I oil might. Rather expect it to plop out somewhere where the engine is relatively cold.

If I was being asked to chose between GTL and PAO, and there was no difference in cost, I would probably opt for the PAO oil only because PAO oils tend to be formulated with a slug of ester base oil to improve seal elastomer compatibility. Ester base oils tend to have both very high solvency and a degree of polarity which makes them ideal for keeping 'gunk' in the oil and off metal surfaces. This is just my personal opinion and not based on fact. Feel free to disagree!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top