Well, its been a while since we've had a good dino vs. synthetic thread....
08-26-03, 06:49 PM
#1
Blow up or win
Thread Starter
Well, its been a while since we've had a good dino vs. synthetic thread....
...and here's some additional fuel for the fire from BMW Motorcycles of Orlando. I've been a die hard user of 30W dino (hey, I live in TUCSON!) in my FD3S with frequent (2,000 mile) changes for ten years but I think I may need to change my ways - I like their logic:
Synthetic Oils:
Snake or Miracle Oil?
You might be surprised to hear us referring to “synthetic oil” as “snake oil.” We have used synthetics since day one and switched completely to synthetics in 1993 when BMW endorsed their use. Thirteen years and tens of thousands of quarts of synthetic oil later, why then the sudden change? Because the name “synthetic oil” itself is not a true indicator of a premium quality product. Let’s dig a little deeper to understand why.
Group III and IV Base Stocks
The current definition of “synthetic oil” for labeling purposes includes Group III and Group IV base stocks. In simple terms, Group III is Group II conventional crude oil that undergoes additional processing. Group IV on the other hand is engineered oil built at the molecular level to produce a completely uniform base stock. We simply don’t believe crude oil refined extra steps qualifies as synthetic or that it will provide anywhere near the same level of protection.
Maybe you’re just jumping to conclusions here. Surely a respected scientific community made the determination that Group III oils were just as good as Group IV to be called synthetics! No. Ok, then it must have been an engineering community that could have proven the virtues of one against the other through comprehensive testing. Wrong again! The fact is that there is no definition offered by any respected scientific or engineering community defining what constitutes “synthetic oil.”
Ok, then who could have made such an important decision? Would you believe the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Council of Better Business Bureaus? Why on earth would the NAD get involved in deciding what constitutes synthetic oil? It’s simple; in 1997 Castrol changed the base stock in their Syntec product line from Group IV to Group III. Complaints were filed against Castrol for continuing to call their product synthetic oil. Without any scientific or engineering definitions, the NAD took it upon themselves to make the determination. Since Group III is Group II processes through extra steps, the NAD felt it was a reasonable basis for the claim that Castrol Syntec was synthesized.
Since this momentous decision, a number of other companies have followed suit switching their synthetic products to Group III base stock. Most these products are still sold at a premium price level since consumers are willing to pay more for synthetics. The problem is that consumers are paying more because they believe they are getting a substantially better product! I believe people are buying “snake oil” they think is better due to a ruling by the NAD.
Group III vs. Group IV
Wait a minute, in testing Group III oils test almost as good as Group IV. Wouldn’t this be an indicator that Group III oils are just as good?
If you bought a new car you more than likely noticed the estimated fuel averages for city and highway driving. Like most of us, you probably haven’t seen that mileage other then on the sticker. Several factors affect your actual mileage including individual driving styles, engine break-in, gas quality, weather, road surface, etc. We all know these facts and realize these estimates are simply standardized measurements that allow us to compare different vehicles tested under the same conditions. It doesn’t mean we should expect that level of performance.
In a similar manner, oils are tested using an assortment of standardized tests. Oils can be compared against each other based on test results, chemical makeup and additives. In the real world, these oils are used in a wide variety of operating conditions and exposed to a number of contaminates including condensation, exhaust blow by and air particulate. Not to mention environmental conditions, vehicle maintenance and individual driver demand. All of these variables combined place unique demands on your oils. Here too, real world performance varies from the test environment.
We have first hand experience with the results of 3,000-6,000 miles of use on oils in the real world heat and humidity of Florida on a modern clean burning engine. Conventional oils are pushed to and in some cases beyond their limits. We were not surprised to see these oils breakdown under these conditions. What did surprise us was the poor performance of some synthetic oils.
Our records show which specific oil or oils were used in each and every service. We also ask new customers or those that do their own service what oils they use and when they last changed it when we find sludge for example in their motor.
Could the oil be breaking down because they are running it well beyond the recommended limits?
Is it a case that they are simply using low grade oils?
Almost everyone was following BMW's mileage and/or time recommendations for their oil changes. All the oils that performed poorly were either Group II or the "so called" synthetic Group III base stock oils!
Group IV Advantage
Crude oil is comprised of a wide range of different size molecules. The size of individual molecules ultimately determines the thickness or viscosity of the oil. The larger the molecule size, the thicker the oil. For engine oils, a medium sized molecule yields the desired fluid viscosity. Crude oil is refined to remove unwanted molecules. However, the resulting Group II and III products are still comprised of a cocktail of various size molecules.
In hot engines the smaller molecules evaporate which is generally perceived as oil consumption. Of greater concern is the fact that the remaining oil is thickening as a direct result of losing the smaller molecules. Larger molecules tend to have weaker bonds that break or sheer. Gears in motorcycle engines not typically found in automotive applications contribute to molecular sheer. The broken molecules bond with free oxygen or other free molecules growing into very large molecules forming sludge that further increases oil viscosity.
Group IV base stock oils are comprised of molecules that are all exactly the same size. These molecules are engineered to provide the desired viscosity and a very strong molecular bond. As a result, there are no small molecules to evaporate and molecules are highly resistant to breaking or shearing. Therefore, these oils are highly resistant to forming sludge or viscosity changes. Group IV oils hold up better in higher temperatures under all conditions.
Bottom Line
Now to answer the question regarding which oil type and approach is better.
Conventional oil (Group II or III) changed more frequently than the recommended interval.
Synthetics oil (Group IV) changed at the vehicle manufacturers recommended interval.
The fact is that a Group IV synthetic is the only way to go. Conventional oils do not hold up well in our experience even when changed at three times the recommended interval. If you calculate the just cost of the oil, filters and gaskets alone, it costs more. Then there's the issue of disposing of the waste oil and filter. These items are controlled substances in the State of Florida regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Our first hand experience has shown that engineered Group IV synthetic base stock oils are still going strong at 6,000 miles. What happens if you're on the road traveling or something comes up and you accidentally run past the recommended change interval? Which oil would you rather have in the crankcase? Why put yourself through the extra work and expense of conventional oils. Do the job right and ride with confidence between services.
Just be on the look out for "snake oil" disguised as synthetic. You want to be sure you’re getting Group IV PAO base stock oils for your motor and driveline.
ã 2003 BMW of Orlando, Inc. All rights reserved
Synthetic Oils:
Snake or Miracle Oil?
You might be surprised to hear us referring to “synthetic oil” as “snake oil.” We have used synthetics since day one and switched completely to synthetics in 1993 when BMW endorsed their use. Thirteen years and tens of thousands of quarts of synthetic oil later, why then the sudden change? Because the name “synthetic oil” itself is not a true indicator of a premium quality product. Let’s dig a little deeper to understand why.
Group III and IV Base Stocks
The current definition of “synthetic oil” for labeling purposes includes Group III and Group IV base stocks. In simple terms, Group III is Group II conventional crude oil that undergoes additional processing. Group IV on the other hand is engineered oil built at the molecular level to produce a completely uniform base stock. We simply don’t believe crude oil refined extra steps qualifies as synthetic or that it will provide anywhere near the same level of protection.
Maybe you’re just jumping to conclusions here. Surely a respected scientific community made the determination that Group III oils were just as good as Group IV to be called synthetics! No. Ok, then it must have been an engineering community that could have proven the virtues of one against the other through comprehensive testing. Wrong again! The fact is that there is no definition offered by any respected scientific or engineering community defining what constitutes “synthetic oil.”
Ok, then who could have made such an important decision? Would you believe the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Council of Better Business Bureaus? Why on earth would the NAD get involved in deciding what constitutes synthetic oil? It’s simple; in 1997 Castrol changed the base stock in their Syntec product line from Group IV to Group III. Complaints were filed against Castrol for continuing to call their product synthetic oil. Without any scientific or engineering definitions, the NAD took it upon themselves to make the determination. Since Group III is Group II processes through extra steps, the NAD felt it was a reasonable basis for the claim that Castrol Syntec was synthesized.
Since this momentous decision, a number of other companies have followed suit switching their synthetic products to Group III base stock. Most these products are still sold at a premium price level since consumers are willing to pay more for synthetics. The problem is that consumers are paying more because they believe they are getting a substantially better product! I believe people are buying “snake oil” they think is better due to a ruling by the NAD.
Group III vs. Group IV
Wait a minute, in testing Group III oils test almost as good as Group IV. Wouldn’t this be an indicator that Group III oils are just as good?
If you bought a new car you more than likely noticed the estimated fuel averages for city and highway driving. Like most of us, you probably haven’t seen that mileage other then on the sticker. Several factors affect your actual mileage including individual driving styles, engine break-in, gas quality, weather, road surface, etc. We all know these facts and realize these estimates are simply standardized measurements that allow us to compare different vehicles tested under the same conditions. It doesn’t mean we should expect that level of performance.
In a similar manner, oils are tested using an assortment of standardized tests. Oils can be compared against each other based on test results, chemical makeup and additives. In the real world, these oils are used in a wide variety of operating conditions and exposed to a number of contaminates including condensation, exhaust blow by and air particulate. Not to mention environmental conditions, vehicle maintenance and individual driver demand. All of these variables combined place unique demands on your oils. Here too, real world performance varies from the test environment.
We have first hand experience with the results of 3,000-6,000 miles of use on oils in the real world heat and humidity of Florida on a modern clean burning engine. Conventional oils are pushed to and in some cases beyond their limits. We were not surprised to see these oils breakdown under these conditions. What did surprise us was the poor performance of some synthetic oils.
Our records show which specific oil or oils were used in each and every service. We also ask new customers or those that do their own service what oils they use and when they last changed it when we find sludge for example in their motor.
Could the oil be breaking down because they are running it well beyond the recommended limits?
Is it a case that they are simply using low grade oils?
Almost everyone was following BMW's mileage and/or time recommendations for their oil changes. All the oils that performed poorly were either Group II or the "so called" synthetic Group III base stock oils!
Group IV Advantage
Crude oil is comprised of a wide range of different size molecules. The size of individual molecules ultimately determines the thickness or viscosity of the oil. The larger the molecule size, the thicker the oil. For engine oils, a medium sized molecule yields the desired fluid viscosity. Crude oil is refined to remove unwanted molecules. However, the resulting Group II and III products are still comprised of a cocktail of various size molecules.
In hot engines the smaller molecules evaporate which is generally perceived as oil consumption. Of greater concern is the fact that the remaining oil is thickening as a direct result of losing the smaller molecules. Larger molecules tend to have weaker bonds that break or sheer. Gears in motorcycle engines not typically found in automotive applications contribute to molecular sheer. The broken molecules bond with free oxygen or other free molecules growing into very large molecules forming sludge that further increases oil viscosity.
Group IV base stock oils are comprised of molecules that are all exactly the same size. These molecules are engineered to provide the desired viscosity and a very strong molecular bond. As a result, there are no small molecules to evaporate and molecules are highly resistant to breaking or shearing. Therefore, these oils are highly resistant to forming sludge or viscosity changes. Group IV oils hold up better in higher temperatures under all conditions.
Bottom Line
Now to answer the question regarding which oil type and approach is better.
Conventional oil (Group II or III) changed more frequently than the recommended interval.
Synthetics oil (Group IV) changed at the vehicle manufacturers recommended interval.
The fact is that a Group IV synthetic is the only way to go. Conventional oils do not hold up well in our experience even when changed at three times the recommended interval. If you calculate the just cost of the oil, filters and gaskets alone, it costs more. Then there's the issue of disposing of the waste oil and filter. These items are controlled substances in the State of Florida regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Our first hand experience has shown that engineered Group IV synthetic base stock oils are still going strong at 6,000 miles. What happens if you're on the road traveling or something comes up and you accidentally run past the recommended change interval? Which oil would you rather have in the crankcase? Why put yourself through the extra work and expense of conventional oils. Do the job right and ride with confidence between services.
Just be on the look out for "snake oil" disguised as synthetic. You want to be sure you’re getting Group IV PAO base stock oils for your motor and driveline.
ã 2003 BMW of Orlando, Inc. All rights reserved
08-26-03, 07:33 PM
#2
2/4 wheel cornering fiend
The only problem with this lonnnnng essay is that they never specify exactly "how" poorly the Group III oils performed. Did they actually send the oil out for testing by a laboratory? Or are they simply basing their judgement on sludge buildup or the like in a customer's motor?
They also don't specify which brand oils are Group III or Group IV oils, and this little important fact isn't printed on the label (for example, obviously Castrol Syntec is a Group III; Mobil One claims to be a Group IV PAO- which stands for polyalphaolefin- but rumors persist that since the Castrol NAD ruling, they changed their compounds to be competitive price-wise.
For more detailed (and researched) info on motor oil, I'd humbly suggest that interested parties get the August issue of Sport Rider magazine (which has a detailed definition and explanation of the additives and compounds used in various motor oils), and the October issue on newsstands now (where chemical analysis of various brand oils was performed, along with various lab tests, plus a dyno test of dino vs. racing synthetic).
Oh yeah, one more important fact: it should be noted that BMW motorcycles are far easier on oil than a high-revving (as in 15,000 rpm), high power (as in 152 hp from a naturally aspirated 988cc motor) sportbike.
They also don't specify which brand oils are Group III or Group IV oils, and this little important fact isn't printed on the label (for example, obviously Castrol Syntec is a Group III; Mobil One claims to be a Group IV PAO- which stands for polyalphaolefin- but rumors persist that since the Castrol NAD ruling, they changed their compounds to be competitive price-wise.
For more detailed (and researched) info on motor oil, I'd humbly suggest that interested parties get the August issue of Sport Rider magazine (which has a detailed definition and explanation of the additives and compounds used in various motor oils), and the October issue on newsstands now (where chemical analysis of various brand oils was performed, along with various lab tests, plus a dyno test of dino vs. racing synthetic).
Oh yeah, one more important fact: it should be noted that BMW motorcycles are far easier on oil than a high-revving (as in 15,000 rpm), high power (as in 152 hp from a naturally aspirated 988cc motor) sportbike.
Last edited by Kento; 08-26-03 at 07:39 PM.
08-26-03, 08:01 PM
#4
don't race, don't need to
OK, so the group IV will resist breaking down under high temp, high pressure applications (read rotary and turbos). Can someone conjecture (search for THAT word in an insurance cost thread!) as to the ability to resist thinning of each type of oil when exposed to large amounts of blowby (the fuel smell in our oil unless you're Goodfella)? Would the larger molecules in the group II and III resist solvation better than the homogeneous mixture?
And combustion, for us'n still running the OMP. I would suspect the group IV would burn cleaner, as the longer chain aliphatics of the group II and III will require more energy to burn. Perhaps this is why the rotor look like such **** when torn down, huh? Of course, oil detergents will combust in a not so friendly way (? I'm basing this in the fact that detergents I use in the lab are really long aliphatic (carbon) chains), so we are looking for a relatively low detergent homogeneous mixture of oil that DOESN't leak past EVERY seal in the engine when used and resists solvation in non-polar solvents well. Any scientific studies yeilding such an animal?
Just though I'd do my part to keep the level of discussion above referring to one another as attracted to younger members of a similar reproductive subgroup.
Or worse.. Republicans!!
And combustion, for us'n still running the OMP. I would suspect the group IV would burn cleaner, as the longer chain aliphatics of the group II and III will require more energy to burn. Perhaps this is why the rotor look like such **** when torn down, huh? Of course, oil detergents will combust in a not so friendly way (? I'm basing this in the fact that detergents I use in the lab are really long aliphatic (carbon) chains), so we are looking for a relatively low detergent homogeneous mixture of oil that DOESN't leak past EVERY seal in the engine when used and resists solvation in non-polar solvents well. Any scientific studies yeilding such an animal?
Just though I'd do my part to keep the level of discussion above referring to one another as attracted to younger members of a similar reproductive subgroup.
Or worse.. Republicans!!
08-26-03, 08:29 PM
#5
2/4 wheel cornering fiend
Originally posted by spurvo
OK, so the group IV will resist breaking down under high temp, high pressure applications (read rotary and turbos). Can someone conjecture (search for THAT word in an insurance cost thread!) as to the ability to resist thinning of each type of oil when exposed to large amounts of blowby (the fuel smell in our oil unless you're Goodfella)? Would the larger molecules in the group II and III resist solvation better than the homogeneous mixture?
OK, so the group IV will resist breaking down under high temp, high pressure applications (read rotary and turbos). Can someone conjecture (search for THAT word in an insurance cost thread!) as to the ability to resist thinning of each type of oil when exposed to large amounts of blowby (the fuel smell in our oil unless you're Goodfella)? Would the larger molecules in the group II and III resist solvation better than the homogeneous mixture?
And combustion, for us'n still running the OMP. I would suspect the group IV would burn cleaner, as the longer chain aliphatics of the group II and III will require more energy to burn. Perhaps this is why the rotor look like such **** when torn down, huh? Of course, oil detergents will combust in a not so friendly way (? I'm basing this in the fact that detergents I use in the lab are really long aliphatic (carbon) chains), so we are looking for a relatively low detergent homogeneous mixture of oil that DOESN't leak past EVERY seal in the engine when used and resists solvation in non-polar solvents well. Any scientific studies yeilding such an animal?
08-27-03, 09:03 AM
#7
What Subscription?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Aiken SC USA
Posts: 5,926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by weaklink
so which synthetics are group IV? Is this clearly represented on the label?
so which synthetics are group IV? Is this clearly represented on the label?
Trending Topics
08-27-03, 09:11 AM
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: South Florida
Posts: 617
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Mobile One claims to be but there is some question about it, as indicated previously in the thread, then how can we reliably find out? I have a hard time believing a reputable company would blatantly lie about the specifics like that, but who knows?
jds
jds
08-27-03, 09:23 AM
#9
Blow up or win
Thread Starter
Originally posted by bureau_c
If Mobile One claims to be but there is some question about it, as indicated previously in the thread, then how can we reliably find out? I have a hard time believing a reputable company would blatantly lie about the specifics like that, but who knows?
jds
If Mobile One claims to be but there is some question about it, as indicated previously in the thread, then how can we reliably find out? I have a hard time believing a reputable company would blatantly lie about the specifics like that, but who knows?
jds
08-27-03, 09:45 AM
#10
Waiting for the RX-9
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Original Mobil1 was fully PAO synthetic. Then they got into that scrap caused by Castroil. I suspect the 'Tri-Blend' was a blend and this caused them to lose face and sales.
Now they promote 'SuperSyn' and I am very suspicous that it is a way of saying 'We are not 100% PAO'. Whatever, I am sure it is one of the best possible oils for rotary's unless you want to spend the $$$ for Redline.
I think 'Greed is Good' may have lowered the spec for Mobil1, but it is still the reasonably priced oil and is cheap insurance.
Now they promote 'SuperSyn' and I am very suspicous that it is a way of saying 'We are not 100% PAO'. Whatever, I am sure it is one of the best possible oils for rotary's unless you want to spend the $$$ for Redline.
I think 'Greed is Good' may have lowered the spec for Mobil1, but it is still the reasonably priced oil and is cheap insurance.
08-27-03, 09:51 AM
#11
This is really old news. In fact a few years ago I believe it was Mobile1 that filed a lawsuit against other companies using the groupIII stocks and calling their oils "synthetic". I think Castrol was one of the companies Mobile was out to get on that one.
08-27-03, 12:06 PM
#12
Resident Retard
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Cockaigne
Posts: 1,918
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
old news perhaps, but still relevant. I read that PAO (group IV) technology was a trade secret for mobil. Possibly they are the only "wal mart" and by that I mean mass market grade IV oil. Castrol is not, and valvoline refuses to disclose their base oil, so I suspect they are not using grade IVs as well. Amsoil uses grade IV. I could not find anything on royal purple. I "asked the expert" on the castrol website if their oil was really synthetic since it did not use grade III base oils. I could post back my findings.
08-27-03, 12:37 PM
#13
Mod Powers...gone!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,522
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm....here is some info that I found.
This is essentially, a potential product purchase list by the state of North Carolina (Dec. 16, 2002).
http://www.doa.state.nc.us/PandC/q9150-1.pdf
In it, it lists various types of oils they need to purchase for things like compressors, various vehicles, etc. (2 cycle, motor oil, hydraulic oil, etc.).
Of interest is the category for motor oils.
They list 4 categories for motor oils. Category 2, is for synthetics, group III base allowed. Category 3, is for group IV and V only.
In the writeup, (for category 2) Amsoil, Coastal, and Royal Purple were considered.
For category 3 (where only group IV oils were allowed), only Chevron was considered.
Hmm... Interesting stuff. Does this mean that Royal Purple and Amsoil are using grade III base oil in their synthetic formulas?
This is essentially, a potential product purchase list by the state of North Carolina (Dec. 16, 2002).
http://www.doa.state.nc.us/PandC/q9150-1.pdf
In it, it lists various types of oils they need to purchase for things like compressors, various vehicles, etc. (2 cycle, motor oil, hydraulic oil, etc.).
Of interest is the category for motor oils.
They list 4 categories for motor oils. Category 2, is for synthetics, group III base allowed. Category 3, is for group IV and V only.
In the writeup, (for category 2) Amsoil, Coastal, and Royal Purple were considered.
For category 3 (where only group IV oils were allowed), only Chevron was considered.
Hmm... Interesting stuff. Does this mean that Royal Purple and Amsoil are using grade III base oil in their synthetic formulas?
08-27-03, 12:40 PM
#14
Mod Powers...gone!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,522
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This one, is a writeup by some employees at Chevron.
http://www.chevron.com/prodserv/BaseOils/docs/ebot.pdf
This article talks in great detail about the continued technology involving today's base oils. And how the line you define a "true" synthetic is being blurred more and more.
This article also talks about Mobil's initial "true" synthetic, when they first introduced it.
Very interesting article.
http://www.chevron.com/prodserv/BaseOils/docs/ebot.pdf
This article talks in great detail about the continued technology involving today's base oils. And how the line you define a "true" synthetic is being blurred more and more.
This article also talks about Mobil's initial "true" synthetic, when they first introduced it.
Very interesting article.
08-27-03, 12:54 PM
#15
Mod Powers...gone!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,522
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.oilmaintenance.com/ml/200203/LubSelect.asp
"Definition of Synthetic Lubricants - Buyer Beware
For many years, PAOs and other chemically synthesized basestocks were the only lubricant products that could be advertised as synthetic. The National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau broadened the definition of synthetic lubricants to include products made with Group III basestocks in a 1999 ruling. This created confusion in the marketplace as to what the customer was actually buying when he specified “synthetic motor oil.” 2
Some lubricant marketers also promote semisynthetic engine oils that are a blend of synthetic basestock and conventional mineral oils. Semisynthetic engine oils could have as little as 10 to 20 percent synthetic in the formulation. These products can be purchased at a lower cost than full synthetics. Performance features, especially with respect to low temperature flow, high temperature evaporative loss and oxidation stability, are generally inferior to full synthetics, although they may be perfectly adequate for many applications. There is no requirement for oil marketers to specify the amount of synthetic basestock in finished semisynthetic oil, or to state whether the synthetic component is a Group III or Group IV base oil.
The point here is to be sure that the performance features are understood when purchasing a synthetic engine oil. Ask the oil marketer for product data sheets, test results, especially data that shows lubricant performance under stressed conditions, and field test reports in equipment that is relevant for your operations."
"Definition of Synthetic Lubricants - Buyer Beware
For many years, PAOs and other chemically synthesized basestocks were the only lubricant products that could be advertised as synthetic. The National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau broadened the definition of synthetic lubricants to include products made with Group III basestocks in a 1999 ruling. This created confusion in the marketplace as to what the customer was actually buying when he specified “synthetic motor oil.” 2
Some lubricant marketers also promote semisynthetic engine oils that are a blend of synthetic basestock and conventional mineral oils. Semisynthetic engine oils could have as little as 10 to 20 percent synthetic in the formulation. These products can be purchased at a lower cost than full synthetics. Performance features, especially with respect to low temperature flow, high temperature evaporative loss and oxidation stability, are generally inferior to full synthetics, although they may be perfectly adequate for many applications. There is no requirement for oil marketers to specify the amount of synthetic basestock in finished semisynthetic oil, or to state whether the synthetic component is a Group III or Group IV base oil.
The point here is to be sure that the performance features are understood when purchasing a synthetic engine oil. Ask the oil marketer for product data sheets, test results, especially data that shows lubricant performance under stressed conditions, and field test reports in equipment that is relevant for your operations."
08-27-03, 01:30 PM
#16
2/4 wheel cornering fiend
Originally posted by DomFD3S
http://www.oilmaintenance.com/ml/200203/LubSelect.asp
The point here is to be sure that the performance features are understood when purchasing a synthetic engine oil. Ask the oil marketer for product data sheets, test results, especially data that shows lubricant performance under stressed conditions, and field test reports in equipment that is relevant for your operations."
http://www.oilmaintenance.com/ml/200203/LubSelect.asp
The point here is to be sure that the performance features are understood when purchasing a synthetic engine oil. Ask the oil marketer for product data sheets, test results, especially data that shows lubricant performance under stressed conditions, and field test reports in equipment that is relevant for your operations."
Trying to determine whether a certain brand oil is indeed a Group III or Group IV without an expensive lab analysis is a total crapshoot. That info is not listed on the label. The reason is that-- as you'd expect-- the companies consider that type of information on their product in a competitive marketplace proprietary ("proprietary" meaning their "secret formula")
While the Chevron article is informative, you need to remember that they of course are promoting their own product (which is a quality product-- this is not intended as a slight on Chevron/Mobil1).
You also need to remember that many oils are constantly being reformulated and developed. When many of the first "synthetic" oils were marketed, there were some initial problems caused by incompatibility with certain engines and usage (synthetic oils were originally formulated for aircraft engines, which, contrary to public perception, have different demands on oil than an automobile). This resulted in synthetic oils initially getting a "bad rap" because of engine problems that were attributed to the oil. However, continued R&D has enabled synthetics to overcome their initial glitches and perform as intended (of course, the same could be said for the ability to make cheaper additives and base stocks perform almost as good as more expensive formulations). That same R&D has enabled many oils that were previously thought to be inferior (Group III) to perform quite well. As good as Group IV PAOs? That, of course, is open to much debate.
Again, I recommend you grab the August and October issues of Sport Rider Magazine, and check out the oil stories in each. There's a lot of unbiased information there, with many relevant lab tests. The stories and info in them are not the end-all for motor oil; the performance requirements of motor oil are many and varied, and there's no way to actually say unequivocally that "this oil is the absolute best". But the info there is available for all to see.
Just tryin' to get the right information out there.
08-28-03, 08:47 AM
#19
Mod Powers...gone!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,522
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kento
I happend to drop by the store last night, so I went to the magazine section and picked up a copy of Sport Rider (October 2003 is on the newstands now). Informative article regarding the various tests performed.
Now, I have to see about getting the August/September 2003 issue. (Can back issues be ordered?)
I happend to drop by the store last night, so I went to the magazine section and picked up a copy of Sport Rider (October 2003 is on the newstands now). Informative article regarding the various tests performed.
Now, I have to see about getting the August/September 2003 issue. (Can back issues be ordered?)
08-28-03, 12:03 PM
#21
Mod Powers...gone!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,522
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As Kento said, "The stories and info in them are not the end-all for motor oil; the performance requirements of motor oil are many and varied, and there's no way to actually say unequivocally that "this oil is the absolute best". But the info there is available for all to see."
The testing in that issue, is pretty good. Quite simply, the best short discussion on the various types of testing and oils that I've ever seen in a magazine. I was very impressed by what they had to say in the article.
The testing in that issue, is pretty good. Quite simply, the best short discussion on the various types of testing and oils that I've ever seen in a magazine. I was very impressed by what they had to say in the article.
08-29-03, 09:42 AM
#22
Resident Retard
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Cockaigne
Posts: 1,918
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
castrol replies...
In 1998, Castrol upgraded SYNTEC, by switching to a new and specially
engineered hydroisomerized base stock. Before we made the change, we
conducted an extensive proprietary testing program that proved that the
new hydroisomerized base stock allowed us to blend a synthetic product
that was superior to the old PAO base stock formula. This was
challenged by a competitor who was a major manufacturer of PAO base
stock, before the NAD (National Advertising Division of the Better
Business Bureau). This resulted in a rejection of our competitor's
position when the NAD, relying on industry standards and the extensive
expert testimony of leading scientists here and in Europe, completely
upheld our position. After months of study, the NAD agreed that SYNTEC
is fully synthetic. As the NAD found, the assumption of our competitor
that there is only one way to formulate a synthetic motor oil is wrong.
No two conventional motor oils, synthetic blends or full synthetic motor
oils are formulated exactly the same way. Motor oil manufacturers have
different formulation philosophies: We are proud to say that Castrol's
philosophy is one of continual innovation, leading-edge technology, and
ultimate performance. Please see as follows some of the significant
mistakes included in the article
SYNTEC is not made with petroleum base stock. Just as PAO is derived
from complex chemical reactions starting with ethylene gas, SYNTEC's
base stock is synthesized using sophisticated processes and chemical
reactions. The molecular structures of the starting compounds are
fundamentally altered to produce a fluid with vastly improved properties
capable of attaining the highest levels of formulated synthetic
lubricant performance.
The inference here is that SYNTEC's base stock does not provide these
properties, which it does. SYNTEC's performance standards in these
areas is unsurpassed. It meets the toughest industry standards.
The list of industry credentials that SYNTEC passes are extremely
relevant to the ultimate quality of the oil, and thus the advanced
protection provided to SYNTEC users. These credentials are further
evidence that SYNTEC provides the highest level of performance
available. SYNTEC is engineered to surpass the minimum performance
levels specified by U.S auto makers for the mass market.
A product that "exceeds" a standard meets it, and that's the case with
SYNTEC. We would never claim to exceed any industry standards that we
did not actually meet. Castrol not only continues to stand by the high
quality of the SYNTEC formula, but also the high quality of the
relationship we have with our consumers.
Castrol Consumer Relations.
engineered hydroisomerized base stock. Before we made the change, we
conducted an extensive proprietary testing program that proved that the
new hydroisomerized base stock allowed us to blend a synthetic product
that was superior to the old PAO base stock formula. This was
challenged by a competitor who was a major manufacturer of PAO base
stock, before the NAD (National Advertising Division of the Better
Business Bureau). This resulted in a rejection of our competitor's
position when the NAD, relying on industry standards and the extensive
expert testimony of leading scientists here and in Europe, completely
upheld our position. After months of study, the NAD agreed that SYNTEC
is fully synthetic. As the NAD found, the assumption of our competitor
that there is only one way to formulate a synthetic motor oil is wrong.
No two conventional motor oils, synthetic blends or full synthetic motor
oils are formulated exactly the same way. Motor oil manufacturers have
different formulation philosophies: We are proud to say that Castrol's
philosophy is one of continual innovation, leading-edge technology, and
ultimate performance. Please see as follows some of the significant
mistakes included in the article
SYNTEC is not made with petroleum base stock. Just as PAO is derived
from complex chemical reactions starting with ethylene gas, SYNTEC's
base stock is synthesized using sophisticated processes and chemical
reactions. The molecular structures of the starting compounds are
fundamentally altered to produce a fluid with vastly improved properties
capable of attaining the highest levels of formulated synthetic
lubricant performance.
The inference here is that SYNTEC's base stock does not provide these
properties, which it does. SYNTEC's performance standards in these
areas is unsurpassed. It meets the toughest industry standards.
The list of industry credentials that SYNTEC passes are extremely
relevant to the ultimate quality of the oil, and thus the advanced
protection provided to SYNTEC users. These credentials are further
evidence that SYNTEC provides the highest level of performance
available. SYNTEC is engineered to surpass the minimum performance
levels specified by U.S auto makers for the mass market.
A product that "exceeds" a standard meets it, and that's the case with
SYNTEC. We would never claim to exceed any industry standards that we
did not actually meet. Castrol not only continues to stand by the high
quality of the SYNTEC formula, but also the high quality of the
relationship we have with our consumers.
Castrol Consumer Relations.
09-05-03, 12:43 PM
#24
Airflow is my life
Interesting, weve had 2 similar discussions right next door in the 1st gen forum.
https://www.rx7club.com/forum/showth...5&pagenumber=2
https://www.rx7club.com/forum/showth...5&pagenumber=1
https://www.rx7club.com/forum/showth...5&pagenumber=2
https://www.rx7club.com/forum/showth...5&pagenumber=1
