True Synthetic

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: burla
Group 3's do not out perform group 4/5. Group 3's WITH a bunch of additives can make it look similar on a stat sheet. But until they develop a self healing vii, people in an oil form should spend more time and energy availing themselves with the benefits of true synthetics. And they (the oil industry) have made the determination that gf-6b will have to be group 4/5 because they can't get there with group 3. WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU? lol

The market interests here are way to strong for people to get accurate info.


There is so much false information in this it's too much to attempt to refute. I will say your simply wrong.

 

[ZZman]

Yes, they cost more money than many want to spend.

 

[Tom NJ]

Originally Posted By: burla
And they (the oil industry) have made the determination that gf-6b will have to be group 4/5 because they can't get there with group 3. WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU? lol


Group IIIs will likely be a significant blend component in GF-6B oils. Many Group IIIs, especially Group III+, have equal or higher VIs than the commonly used Group IVs and Group Vs, and will have no problem meeting the HTHS and W grade requirements when blended with Group IVs and Vs. The more expensive Group IVs and Vs will be used as necessary for Noack and viscometric requirements.

 

[Pajero]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
I hear people complaining about some synthetics are actually not. PP is made from natural gas, but it is called synthetic. In any product, go back far enough to the source components, and it is not man made materials in anything. We don't know how to create any material, only change what is already created. Technically nothing is synthetic.


How true! We are a carbon planet, including ourselves....Redline is my favorite full synthetic oil, but it's quite spendy and not needed for most applications.

Respectfully,

Pajero!

 

[pscholte]

Originally Posted By: 1JZ_E46
Originally Posted By: pscholte
BITOG needs a class in how to discern an OP’s real question and then answer it. OP wants to know what is a synthetic according to currently accepted criteria, not some esoteric peripheral opinion. Sheesh.


Actually we don’t. Thanks though.


Beautiful I tell you. Two year Member #73644 uses the “Royal ‘We’” with 15 year member #1767. This one ought to be preserved for the “insolent Hall of Fame.” Come back when you learn some humility.

 

[1JZ_E46]

Originally Posted By: pscholte
Come back when you learn some humility.


I’m good. Thanks.

 

[rigelkentaurus]

In an oil refinery, the only steps that does not involve some sort of chemical reaction are separation processes. Fractionation, solvent extraction and the like. Generally, any processing step after the Pipe Still involves chemical reactions: Cat Crackers, Hydrocrackers, Coker, Hydrotreaters. Even those units all have some sort of separation steps after the chemical reaction step.

Refineries making lube stocks select the input crude oil based properties and make up of the crude. Some crudes are well identified as superior for lube stock production and other crudes not so much - think of this as a continuum of choices - selection of the right crude is the first step of having the best make-up of the final lube stocks. Streams of intermediates are frequently recombined sourcing from several processing units prior to an additional step. (Think a Cat Cracker stream, combine with a Coker Stream and even a Vacuum Pipe Still stream combining to then be hydrotreated).

Unlike the making of a pure single molecule product like isobutyl alcohol, the vast majority of products from an oil refinery (notable exception being the light ends: ethane, propane, butane, etc) are made of up literally hundreds and thousands of different molecules. Kind of hard for me to get too caught up in what is a synthetic lube stock, which contains thousands of different molecules, how many of those were processed in a Cat Unit or Coker, etc?

A high percentage of the final volume of gasoline is the product of chemical reactions, so it should be considered synthetic also? (goes through Reforming, Cat Cracking, Cokers, Hydrocrackers, Hydrotreaters, Alkylation, Isomerization)

 

[Zee09]

....

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: maxdustington
The Germans differentiate between PAO based synthetic and hydrocracked mineral oil.

I would consider PAO based actual synthetic and hydrocracked mineral super refined dino. One is fabricated and one is highly refine natural ingredients.

From what I understand the original M1 was mostly PAO. A VOA of that would likely crash the board.


Why? A VOA doesn't give any idea as to base oil makeup

True. B-S told me they can't tell the difference between synthetic and dino oil.

 

[OilUzer]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
... We don't know how to create any material, only change what is already created. Technically nothing is synthetic.


Aren't we ALL synthetic if God created everything!

 

[Subdued]

Originally Posted By: pscholte
Originally Posted By: 1JZ_E46

Actually we don’t. Thanks though.


Beautiful I tell you. Two year Member #73644 uses the “Royal ‘We’” with 15 year member #1767. This one ought to be preserved for the “insolent Hall of Fame.” Come back when you learn some humility.

Are you for freaking real?

This is an internet forum, talk about needing some humility!

 

[burla]

can skip to page 4 below, kinda doubt it will sink in because of the marketing interests against real synthetic oil, but regardless if they don't develop a self healing vii, there will be different base oils then group 3 hydro cracked.

file:///home/chronos/u-b54961518247b8f7900a85720ac0e65d88ffd564/Downloads/pc11_dexos%20(2).pdf

 

[pscholte]

Originally Posted By: Subdued
Originally Posted By: pscholte
Originally Posted By: 1JZ_E46

Actually we don’t. Thanks though.


Beautiful I tell you. Two year Member #73644 uses the “Royal ‘We’” with 15 year member #1767. This one ought to be preserved for the “insolent Hall of Fame.” Come back when you learn some humility.

Are you for freaking real?

This is an internet forum, talk about needing some humility!



I double checked just to be sure...I am real alright. It would seem it is not a true “internet forum” anymore unless there is incivility. That is NOT how BITOG started out. It’s OK; in the larger scheme of things engine oil is a “minor player.”

 

[1JZ_E46]

Originally Posted By: pscholte
I double checked just to be sure...I am real alright. It would seem it is not a true “internet forum” anymore unless there is incivility. That is NOT how BITOG started out. It’s OK; in the larger scheme of things engine oil is a “minor player.”


Edit: my comment was rude and insensitive. I’m butting out of this thread. Cheers.

 

[pscholte]

Exactly what i am talking about. Shooting off your mouth when you dont even know my background. Have you ever been hunted by terrorists I have. Have you visited countries now forbidden to US citizens. I have. Have you lived outside the Continental US multiple times. I have. You are typical of today’s internet denizen. Hides behind a cryptic handle and shoots off his mouth about things he has NO IDEA of. It’s ok...i got your mo. Im done


Sorry to other posters for this...

 

[1JZ_E46]

Originally Posted By: pscholte
Exactly what i am talking about. Shooting off your mouth when you dont even know my background. Have you ever been hunted by terrorists I have. Have you visited countries now forbidden to US citizens. I have. Have you lived outside the Continental US multiple times. I have. You are typical of today’s internet denizen. Hides behind a cryptic handle and shoots off his mouth about things he has NO IDEA of. It’s ok...i got your mo. Im done


Sorry to other posters for this...


Creating a straw man argument to put me in the wrong because I don't "know you". Very original. You're right, I have no idea who you are or your background. We're all just ones and zeros here trying to help others and learn. One thing that I've learned after being on this site is that it's the whole oil package and specifications/approvals that matter (as has been contemplated by industry professionals on this site over and over and over again), not just base oil that certain members here fantasize (and speculate) about. I will admit that when I first joined BITOG I used to be a base-stock nut. I came around.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Synthetic chemicals are defined by the final processing steps, not the origin of matter from billions of years ago.

In chemistry, a synthetic molecule is made by reacting two or more smaller molecules, elements, or radicals to create a new larger and more complex molecule.

In lubricants, synthetic is a marketing term implying higher performance through the exclusive use Group III, Group IV and/or selected Group V base oils. Group III base oils do not technically meet the chemistry definition of synthetic, however, since 90+% of its molecules were created new by man by altering or rearranging mineral oil molecules, many feel the term synthetic does applies. Others apply it by place more emphasis on the base oil performance properties than on how it was made.

There are some motor oils that claim to use only "true" synthetic base oils, but there is no reason to believe these oils will perform better due to these base oils, as the additive system plays a greater role in the finished oil performance. You can be sure, however, that they will be more expensive.

All definitions of "synthetic" lubricants are based on the base oil content only, exclusive of additives or small amounts of diluent oil.

While this may be academically interesting, none of it really matters when selecting a motor oil. You only need to be concerned with the specifications and approvals the oil has, and the reputation of the oil manufacturer making such claims.





Group III GTL lubricants do not necessarily fall within this definition. Otherwise I agree. GTL creates, in the first stage, synthesis gas, which is a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide. iIt is manufactured from natural gas by partial oxidation. Subsequent Fischer-Tropsch synthesis produces a wax, which is NOT the same wax as would be removed from crude oils themselves. F-T is not a selective process, and produces a wide distribution of hydrocarbons (the "alpha"), which need to subsequently be processed.

In that regard, Id argue that your definition that "In chemistry, a synthetic molecule is made by reacting two or more smaller molecules, elements, or radicals to create a new larger and more complex molecule." applies to GTL at minimum. What the source of the wax is (GTL, other refining byproducts) is a different argument.

But the whole "true synthetic" characteristic being important for PCMO is a bit of a wife's tale anyway. And for most uses, the nature of the basestock, so long as it is a variant that offers some reasonable level of oxidative stability and flow performance (which Group III does admirably, though not as well as PAO and others) is more than fine.

The fact that it appears (to me at least) that finished lubes have not kept up with inflation levels for other products, means something too...

 

[HYUNDAIFAN0001]

Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Synthetic chemicals are defined by the final processing steps, not the origin of matter from billions of years ago.

In chemistry, a synthetic molecule is made by reacting two or more smaller molecules, elements, or radicals to create a new larger and more complex molecule.

In lubricants, synthetic is a marketing term implying higher performance through the exclusive use Group III, Group IV and/or selected Group V base oils. Group III base oils do not technically meet the chemistry definition of synthetic, however, since 90+% of its molecules were created new by man by altering or rearranging mineral oil molecules, many feel the term synthetic does applies. Others apply it by place more emphasis on the base oil performance properties than on how it was made.

There are some motor oils that claim to use only "true" synthetic base oils, but there is no reason to believe these oils will perform better due to these base oils, as the additive system plays a greater role in the finished oil performance. You can be sure, however, that they will be more expensive.

All definitions of "synthetic" lubricants are based on the base oil content only, exclusive of additives or small amounts of diluent oil.

While this may be academically interesting, none of it really matters when selecting a motor oil. You only need to be concerned with the specifications and approvals the oil has, and the reputation of the oil manufacturer making such claims.

I knew some day those organic chemistry classes in college would pay off.

Great (and highly accurate) summary on this topic. Thanks.

 

[Tom NJ]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2

In that regard, Id argue that your definition that "In chemistry, a synthetic molecule is made by reacting two or more smaller molecules, elements, or radicals to create a new larger and more complex molecule." applies to GTL at minimum. What the source of the wax is (GTL, other refining byproducts) is a different argument.


I agree GTL base oils meet the chemistry definition of "synthetic", as do PAOs and synthetic esters.

 

[330indy]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: pscholte
You guys did not answer OP’s question. While Group III (hydrocracked, highly refined) oils are lumped into the synthetic category, the only true synthetics are Group IV (PAO) and Group V (ester) oils but these will very likely have a conventional component to carry the additives as syns don’t do that job well. Your task is to research which oils are what: headstart...Redline and Motul make Group V oils.


Redline as a whole no longer blends a primarily group V PCMO any longer. The majority is a blend with about 10% of the base an ester.



And what is the source of this information of "blend with about 10% ester base" for Redline ?