This mark will be based on an audit of the blender's records to verify the use of Group III and an API-licensed, base-oil-and-additive combination
Reading that tells me it will be extremely easy to pick out generic oils that have nothing more than the minimum requirements for API compliance. I get the intent behind it, but I suspect the arguments against it will be very easy to make by smaller blenders (and well received by customers) who can't, or won't want to, make the full investments into their own API licensing.The thread title excited me, but the actual details of what they are proposing are.....underwhelming.
It isn't about the technical aspects, performance, or even the actual ingredients of the product. It is about holding the proper licenses (which I'm not saying is a bad thing) and not deviating from the status quo. The real hit will be in additive chemistry rather than base oil though. I suspect it will limit the willingness of companies to experiment/innovate even more than the current specifications do.
The crux of the matter will be in the details.
I don't see PQIA's actions as advancing the demarcation between Group I to III base oils and synthesized base oils.
Referencing GMAN's post:https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=950311&page=1
...Mobil simply filed a complaint with the National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau in the US claiming that Castrol was engaging in false advertising by calling Syntec "full synthetic" since it was now being made with Group III base oil. Castrol was able to present enough "evidence" to convince the NAD that Group III base oil could legitimately be called synthetic, so they [ruled] in Castrol's favor. This ruling has no "legal" standing. It merely means that as far as the NAD is concerned, an oil company is not falsely advertising an oil as "full synthetic" if that oil is made from Group III base oil...
1) The NAD decision was a bad one,
2) Why would Mobil introduce a complaint against a competitor in a business environment rather than in say, a Chemistry Council, the SAE, the API, etc., unless it would ultimately benefit Mobil as well,
3) With all of the legal and technological resources at Mobil's beckoning, why did Mobil not pursue this issue a court of law, unless it would ultimately benefit Mobil as well,
4) the BBB/NAD had no real knowledge experts to consider or to refute the issue of the chemistry,
5) why would a major producer of synthetic base oils base their primary argument on marketing and labeling instead of the chemistry? Why not redirect your funds toward proving your case instead of funding NASCAR and Super Bowl adds? As I have stated before, the only way to clean up this mess is to bring this issue before some type of major Chemistry Council, debate the issue, and issue a finding.
PQIA is doing good work in identifying bad lubricants and they should continue to do so, and Tom Glenn is a super guy.But who or whom will decide if the MO will get a stamp of approval?
I see (if I counted correctly) only three PhD's out of thirteen PQIA advisory board members, and they are not independents, but rather are associated with either additive companies or large base oil manufacturers. The rest of the board advisory members appear to hold MBA's or some such.
...I also understand that, short of auditing a blender's records, there are no analytical tests to unequivocally prove a synthetic motor oil is in fact synthetic.
Tom Glenn, LNG, Nov. 2017.
First of all, let's check the blender's records. Ahh, he is using a Phillip's Ultra-SŪ Group III. Check off #1! The additive supplier has approved or listed Phillip's Ultra-SŪ Group III as one of the G III base oils. Check off #2! Now, who is going to determine if the additive concentration is within reason and by what standard? Who is going to determine if the VII concentration is within reason and by what standard?
So now the Blender can say he is producing a synthetic PCMO because of Check off #1,2? But, but, what have we accomplished? We are still saying that Group III is synthetic.
Secondly, how much money do you want to spend on analytical resources? We can determine, with various analytical instrumentation, what is in a mix by using the principles and processes of Physical and Analytical chemistry, but it will not be done with a low cost BlackStone report.
Those who say the analytical process is equivocal are misinformed.