G-Oil SAE 5W-30 Green Bio-Based Full Synthetic

[pjf]

From Walmart, I recently purchased engine oil produced by Green Earth Technologies: G-Oil SAE 5W-30 Green Bio-Based Full Synthetic Motor OIL API SM. It is unique in that it is made not from petroleum but rather from animal fat. Green Earth Technologies claims that its oil is “Not classified as hazardous to humans or dangerous to the environment.”

While I cannot verify Green Earth Technologies’ claims, I did submit a sample to WearCheck for VOA. I then compared the WearCheck results to another set of VOA results from the Petroleum Quality Institute of America (PQIA). PQIA’s VOA results can be found at:

http://www.pqiamerica.com/January2012A/January2012R2/goil.htm
Code:


G-OIL G-OIL

WEAR

CONTAMINANT PQIA CHECK



Silicon 4 6.5

Potassium 8 24

Sodium 10 5.3

Fuel (%) --
Glycol -- --

Water (%) --
Soot (%) -- --

Sulfation -- --

Nitration -- --



G-OIL G-OIL

OIL WEAR

CONDITION PQIA CHECK



Boron 215 358

Barium
Calcium 1966 3782

Magnesium 8 21

Molybdenum 74 113

Sodium 10 5.3

Phosphorus 676 1247

Sulfur 2695 5291

Zinc 762 1257

Visc@40C 54.9 55.78

Visc@100C 10.0 9.77

VI 172 161

Oxidation -- --

TAN -- 1.44

TBN 7.2 --



G-OIL G-OIL

WEAR

WEAR PQIA CHECK



PQ -- --

Iron
Nickel
Chromium
Titanium
Copper
Aluminum 2 3.7

Tin
Lead

The VOA results obtained by the PQIA and by WearCheck are similar in many respects. However, there are 4 parameters in which the WearCheck measurements vary greatly from that of the PQIA: calcium, phosphorus, sulfur and zinc. For each of these 4 items, WearCheck’s measurements were twice as high as those from the PQIA. Whether the differences are due to variations in oil samples or variations in analysis techniques remain to be determined.

 

[OilNerd]

I sent in one from Blackstone, last year, that was more in line with PQIA's numbers.

Calcium 1682
Phosphorus 589
Zinc 722

GET G Oil (Street) 5w30 SM VOA

 

[dparm]

I wonder if there was a formulation change.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

That looks truly misformulated! The Sufur will track with the Boron and the sulfur is over limit as is phos - also, the Ca is way to high. Dont run it and notify PQI and GET. If you got the bucks, try another analysis - but this really looks to be a QA issue on GET's blenders hands. It would make a good additive oil booster though!

 

[MolaKule]

Quote:
It is unique in that it is made not from petroleum but rather from animal fat. Green Earth Technologies claims that its oil is “Not classified as hazardous to humans or dangerous to the environment.”

While I cannot verify Green Earth Technologies’ claims,


And none of us in the industry have been able to verify the claims as well.

 

[yonyon]

It's oil. Without a metric buttload (I think that's a technical term) of metallic additives how toxic is it likely to be?

Back when I worked at a gas station way back in the day a customer who worked for the state's DEP told me that while we have to report a spill of 5G or more of gasoline (partly because of evaporated hydrocarbons but mostly due to the extreme risk of getting MTBE into the water supply) they don't care if we pump the whole 10,000 gallon tank of deisel fuel into the woods because it's just oil and bugs will eat it.

It's probably hazards to lab rats in California, but so is distilled water. They must use some pretty fragile lab rats there.

 

[MolaKule]

I was referring to the claim of
Quote:
that it is made not from petroleum but rather from animal fat.


There is Ultimately Biodegradeable and Readily Biodegradeable. Big difference.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

But back to the emperor with no cloths - what about the suspected gross misformulation?

 

[MolaKule]

I wouldn't go so far as to say misformulation, but maybe a reformulation between the two time periods of analysis.

As Perry Mason would say, "What was the timeline here?"

 

[MolaKule]

Quote:
I was referring to the claim of
Quote:
that it is made not from petroleum but rather from animal fat.


There is Ultimately Biodegradeable and Readily Biodegradeable. Big difference.


In my view, if the base oil was majority fractionated esters of tallow, I would think the oil would be Readily Biodegradeable in it's virgin form.

 

[pjf]

Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
But back to the emperor with no cloths - what about the suspected gross misformulation?

I have just sent an email to WearCheck's customer service representative asking that its laboratory double-check its results. I did point out that there is a big difference between the WearCheck analysis and the PQIA analysis. I will let you know what WearCheck's response is when I receive it.

 

[pjf]

In April, I sent a sample of G-Oil Bio-Based Synthetic 5W-30 to WearCheck for VOA. The results from WearCheck varied greatly from the results published by the PQIA (http://www.pqiamerica.com/January2012A/January2012R2/goil.htm).

The first two columns of figures below shows large differences in the measurements of calcium, phosphorus, sulfur and zinc. In May, I asked WearCheck to double-check its measurements by retesting the original sample that I sent in April. As you can see, the new May measurements are more in line with those published by the PQIA.
Code:


April May

WEAR WEAR

CONTAMINANT PQIA CHECK CHECK



Silicon 4 6.5 4.6

Potassium 8 24 0.0

Sodium 10 5.3 3.4

Fuel (%) --
Glycol -- -- --

Water (%) --
Soot (%) -- -- --

Sulfation -- -- --

Nitration -- -- --



April May

OIL WEAR WEAR

CONDITION PQIA CHECK CHECK



Boron 215 358 227

Barium
Calcium 1966 3782 2374

Magnesium 8 21 11

Molybdenum 74 113 72

Sodium 10 5.3 3.4

Phosphorus 676 1247 787

Sulfur 2695 5291 3142

Zinc 762 1257 843

Visc@40C 54.9 55.78 55.78

Visc@100C 10.0 9.77 9.77

VI 172 161 161

Oxidation -- -- --

TAN -- 1.44 1.44

TBN 7.2 -- --



April May

WEAR WEAR

WEAR PQIA CHECK CHECK



PQ -- -- --

Iron
Nickel
Chromium
Titanium
Copper
Aluminum 2 3.7 1.7

Tin
Lead

Here is WearCheck's explanation for the difference in measurements between April and May for the same sample:

"I sent you the updated report yesterday and the updated readings fall within the ‘standard ranges’ published on the web link you provided."

"New motor oils are difficult to test for metals because of the viscosity modifiers. Once the oil is in use and has had some mechanical action performed on it, it is much easier to obtain more accurate readings for additives."

Hence, there was no misformulation. Rather the original testing performed in April was flawed.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

Thanks for following up. This is why I dont have UOA /VOA performed. Cant trust the results. The Recent QS DEFY was flawed too - and many here were quick to wrongly write-off SOPUS for a bamboozle.

 

[MolaKule]

Quote:
New motor oils are difficult to test for metals because of the viscosity modifiers. Once the oil is in use and has had some mechanical action performed on it, it is much easier to obtain more accurate readings for additives."



What a lame and inaccurate response.

 

[friendly_jacek]

+1.

Once I received UOA from a lab (that I will not name here) with some absurd results that made no sense whatsoever. When I called them about it they didn't seem to be embarrassed about it or apologetic. They retested and came up with some nonsense numbers (but different). There is no quality control whatsoever in this industry and I'm not doing UOA anymore as I cannot trust the results.