PAO properties compared to GTL? (Pennz PUP)

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted by Bryanccfshr
The links are broken for me,

Oops, thanks for the heads-up. Let's try again.

Everything you wanted to know about GTL but you were afraid to ask.

From "Synthetics, Mineral Oils, and Bio-Based Lubricants: Chemistry and Technology" edited by Leslie R. Rudnick.

There are even what I call base-oil-quality index (BOQI) curves -- that is NOACK vs. CCS -- in the last page.

 

[StevieC]

Still getting a Do-Not-Enter symbol and blank space thereafter.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted by StevieC
Still getting a Do-Not-Enter symbol and blank space thereafter.

Currently fixing my last post. I must have linked them from the private album.

...

Done fixing it. It now works even when I'm not logged in to Google.

 

[Nyogtha]

I haven't read them, but I doubt those pages say the Shell XHVI stocks mentioned by you and Shannow to be from a GTL process. Can you confirm Gokhan?

 

[jongies3]

One of the main properties is that finding a oil with PAO in it is a lot easier than finding PUP anywhere! Lol

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted by Nyogtha
I haven't read them, but I doubt those pages say the Shell XHVI stocks mentioned by you and Shannow to be from a GTL process. Can you confirm Gokhan?

Yes, it's in the first page. It says, since 1993 - 1994, XHVI has used the Fischer - Tropsch wax (GTL wax) from the Bintulu, Malaysia, plant as the feedstock to generate the XHVI base stock. Before 1993, it used slack wax obtained from crude oil as the feedstock.

So, XHVI has been GTL since 1993 - 1994.

A more detailed reference:

https://www.researchgate.net/public...yst_will_optimize_product_yield_in_Qatar

Abstract: Shell was the first oil marketer to commercialize gas-to-liquids (GTL) technology for base oil production, with the commissioning of the multi-purpose GTL facility in Bintulu, Malaysia, in 1993. Bintulu produced detergent feedstocks, a range of Fischer-Tropsch (FT) commercial wax grades and a feedstock, a so-called waxy raffinate (WR), to produce base oil. WR production involves the hydro-isomerization of a FT wax made from a first generation FT wax synthesis catalyst, using a fixed bed reactor, with the wax having a maximum carbon number of ∠100. This FT wax is then hydrocracked and hydroisomerized. Shipped to Shell facilities in Japan and France, the WR was solvent de-waxed, becoming the first commercially available GTL base oil in the market. This was a 5 cs grade marketed as Shell XHVI™. In 2009, the first phase of Shell's GTL facility in Qatar will be on stream. It will include substantial base oils facilities, producing a full range of viscosity grades from 2 to > 9 cs. With a total capacity of the first phase of 70,000 bpd, the output of the Qatar plant will be just under five times the capacity of Bintulu. Shell's first generation GTL base oils had exceptionally high VI (> 140), good Noack volatility characteristics, high saturates content (> 99%) and a predominantly iso-paraffin content. The difference between first generation Shell GTL base oils from Bintulu and the second generation is primarily due to new proprietary catalysts, which lead to higher yield of material in the lubricating oil carbon number range and the use of a Shell catalytic de-waxing technology for final de-waxing of the base oils, rather than solvent de-waxing.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by Nyogtha
I haven't read them, but I doubt those pages say the Shell XHVI stocks mentioned by you and Shannow to be from a GTL process. Can you confirm Gokhan?


The stuff that I have was from the "slack wax" days/.

 

[Nyogtha]

OK, so confirmed prior to 1993 the original Shell XHVI process did not use GTL technology, but that beginning in 1993 Shell began using GTL technology to produce XHVI base stocks. Difference beteween the process, and the base stock, as I was discussing in my earlier posts this thread, as Shannow was in the Shell XHVI retail products he shows from the mid-80's.

Anything in that book regarding the yield from catalytic dewaxing vs solvent dewaxing?

 

[Gokhan]

It appears that Pennzoil Platinum and Quaker State Ultimate Durability have been GTL (produced in Bintulu, Malaysia) long before PurePlus (produced in Pearl, Qatar) was introduced. This explains their excellent performance back then and not much performance change since the introduction of PurePlus.

 

[Gokhan]

And, finally, here comes the performance comparison of Group III, GTL, and PAO.

As expected, GTL readily beats Group III.

However, interestingly, GTL seems to beat PAO in many instances as well. Go figure. GTL can have slower oxidation, less engine deposits, and higher BOQI than PAO according to this data.

 

[OVERKILL]

Great info Gokhan!

I would note that the section about achieving that level of performance with GTL still hinges on PPD's as covered in section 19.8, which can be impacted by service. It definitely makes a case for why Shell pursued it however.

 

[alcyon]

Originally Posted by BrocLuno
Originally Posted by Cujet
Originally Posted by BrocLuno
The "Synthetic" guys just don't get that they have a significant percentage of dino as a carrier for the add pak


And yet conventional oil continues to result in stuck piston rings, clogged oil ring drain holes, coked turbo and oil lines, along with the associated varnish and sludge.

The quality synthetics avoid all of this.


See here's the problem I have with that premise. We have coked turbos - really with correctly configured drains? How about all the millions of OTR trucks with turbos running cherry red on good old dino HDEO with OCI at 20,000 miles ... Clogged oil ring drains, seems to be related to some makes and to a world of Jiffy Lube oil changes. Are you sure that would have happened on a premium dino, or just bulk oil ...

There are obviously good dinos (Delo, Delvac, etc.) and bad dinos. There are good synthetics and I'm sure there are bad ones too. Up to the operator to buy the appropriate oil. Just the synthetic is not going to protect anyone ...

It doesn't negate the fact that clogged turbo lines happens with a lot of cars, which you may say have improperly designed plumbing, the synthetics definitely helps with these prone to clogging with dino turbo engines.

 

[CT8]

What we need to ask ourselves is why are we so swayed by marketing claims? Will we ever see the claimed differences over the life of our vehicles? Bitog seems to chase marketing claims like vultures finding road kill. New and improved !

 

[Patman]

Originally Posted by CT8
What we need to ask ourselves is why are we so swayed by marketing claims? Will we ever see the claimed differences over the life of our vehicles?


Most people probably won't, but what about those people on here that want to keep their cars for 300k plus? I bet the better cleaning ability of the more premium oils will pay off in the long run for them.
Besides, some people just sleep better at night knowing they are using a better oil.

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted by Patman
Originally Posted by CT8
What we need to ask ourselves is why are we so swayed by marketing claims? Will we ever see the claimed differences over the life of our vehicles?


Most people probably won't, but what about those people on here that want to keep their cars for 300k plus? I bet the better cleaning ability of the more premium oils will pay off in the long run for them.
Besides, some people just sleep better at night knowing they are using a better oil.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted by CT8
What we need to ask ourselves is why are we so swayed by marketing claims? Will we ever see the claimed differences over the life of our vehicles? Bitog seems to chase marketing claims like vultures finding road kill. New and improved !

No, GTL, PAO, etc. are not marketing claims. They are specific base-oil technologies, with a lot of scientific research taking place on them.

 

[bbhero]

Originally Posted by Patman
Originally Posted by CT8
What we need to ask ourselves is why are we so swayed by marketing claims? Will we ever see the claimed differences over the life of our vehicles?


Most people probably won't, but what about those people on here that want to keep their cars for 300k plus? I bet the better cleaning ability of the more premium oils will pay off in the long run for them.
Besides, some people just sleep better at night knowing they are using a better oil.




^^^^

I agree. And very well stated. I'm at 254k miles now and the grey goose is rolling good.

 

[CT8]

Originally Posted by BrocLuno
Originally Posted by Cujet
Originally Posted by BrocLuno
The "Synthetic" guys just don't get that they have a significant percentage of dino as a carrier for the add pak


And yet conventional oil continues to result in stuck piston rings, clogged oil ring drain holes, coked turbo and oil lines, along with the associated varnish and sludge.

The quality synthetics avoid all of this.


See here's the problem I have with that premise. We have coked turbos - really with correctly configured drains? How about all the millions of OTR trucks with turbos running cherry red on good old dino HDEO with OCI at 20,000 miles ... Clogged oil ring drains, seems to be related to some makes and to a world of Jiffy Lube oil changes. Are you sure that would have happened on a premium dino, or just bulk oil ...

There are obviously good dinos (Delo, Delvac, etc.) and bad dinos. There are good synthetics and I'm sure there are bad ones too. Up to the operator to buy the appropriate oil. Just the synthetic is not going to protect anyone ...

There are no marketing claims made as such.

 

[CT8]

Originally Posted by bbhero
Originally Posted by Patman
Originally Posted by CT8
What we need to ask ourselves is why are we so swayed by marketing claims? Will we ever see the claimed differences over the life of our vehicles?


Most people probably won't, but what about those people on here that want to keep their cars for 300k plus? I bet the better cleaning ability of the more premium oils will pay off in the long run for them.
Besides, some people just sleep better at night knowing they are using a better oil.




^^^^

I agree. And very well stated. I'm at 254k miles now and the grey goose is rolling good.
You guys are saying your engines wouldn't make the miles unless syn oil is used?

 

[bbhero]

CT8 I believe that a motor certainly can make over 300k miles on "conventional" oil. No doubt. If it is changed regularly and is a very good product.

Having said that ... A car like my car run on a synthetic oil probably was a good thing. The oil shears quite a bit and it is has not even five qts so the overall oil temp gets a bit warm.

For awhile now I have been running Mobil Super in my car... So obviously I am not afraid of "regular" oil.