Listing Oils by Base Stock instead of "synthetic"

GeWilli

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Aug 6, 1999
Location
lost to new england
TDI
none in the fleet (99.5 Golf RIP, 96 B4V sold)
Listing Oils by Base Stock instead of \"synthetic\"

Just an idea that came to me.

I think the SAE should require that oils list the base stocks (Group I, II, III, IV, V) used in the oil and have it labeled next to the SAE viscosity.

It would totally clear up any confusion as to what each oil contains. It would make things simpler for the customer if they want to mix oils. Lubrizol has a mixing compatibility guideline on their site as to which base stock is generally compatible with anouther base stock (there are not too many restrictions but there are some).

Heck Castrol wouldn't be sued by Mobil anymore.

The vaule of Chevron and other oils that use GII or GIII oils would become appearant.

I like the idea. We should pose it to the API and SAE.

Any thoughts?
 

TwoSlick

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 10, 1999
Location
Dixie
TDI
2002 Audi TT Roadster, 1990 Audi 100
Re: Listing Oils by Base Stock instead of \"synthetic\"

GeWilli,

Oil manufacturers really don't want people comparing their products on the basis of technical specifications - this would force them to spend $$$ to upgrade them. They would much rather you just bought oil based on brand loyalty....
 
M

mickey

Guest
Re: Listing Oils by Base Stock instead of \"synthetic\"

That's why Quaker State is still in business!

-mickey
 
S

SkyPup

Guest
Re: Listing Oils by Base Stock instead of \"synthetic\"

Three associations are responsible for setting world wide references for lubrication oils in commerce, API, SAE and ASTM.
 

Passat1.8Tm

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 3, 1999
Re: Listing Oils by Base Stock instead of \"synthetic\"

SkyPup, unless I misunderstand you, I think you mean that three organizations are responsible for setting *U.S.* references for lubrication oils in commerce, API, SAE and ASTM, and, even then, you forgot the fourth -- ILSAC. Also, don't forget the role of the CEC and ACEA in Europe, and Japan has it's own standards bodies too, but I don't know what they are.
 

GeWilli

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Aug 6, 1999
Location
lost to new england
TDI
none in the fleet (99.5 Golf RIP, 96 B4V sold)
Re: Listing Oils by Base Stock instead of \"synthetic\"

I got a reply from the API this morning in response to this letter that was send to the API, SAE and to Lubrizol:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
I am a member of an internet forum (www.TDIclub.com) that has been
discussing oils and base stocks and viscosity and longevity and all the
stuff that makes our friends look at us funny.

One of the topics is Castrol calling the Syntec a full synthetic oil.
The article in Hart's really started the whole thing. The cars most of
us drive are supposed to run Syntec in a special 5w40 formula for our
diesel engines, as per VW's service guidelines.

The fact that bothers all of us is that Castrol uses a Group II base
stock and they call it a Full Synthetic oil, when in fact it seems to be
the same base that Chevron uses in their Supreme oil, or that Penzoil
uses in PureBase labeled oils or that Quakerstate uses in the
nonsythetic variety.

This all gets to the point of an idea that I had and wanted to bounce it
off someone in the industry.

Would it not benefit the consumer by requiring Oil companies marketing
an engine oil to have displayed next to the viscosity what the base
stock is? No one would have to be concerned about misleading marketing
and such.

Can you and anyone there comment on this? Or direct me to someone that
might be able to? Please feel free to phone or email me in response.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the first reply, from the API.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Mr. Williams,
You're caught in the middle of a contentious issue among lubricant
manufacturers. Everyone has their own definition of "synthetic." The only
one we subscribe to is that all PAO oils are considered synthetic. The rest
are a matter of interpretation. Many Group III's are labeled synthetic. It's
possible Castrol uses a Group II/Group IV blend. If the Group IV is the
highest concentration, they can get away with the synthetic tag.

I doubt lubricant manufacturers will agree to put Base Stock numbers on
their oil bottles. Most folks don't understand the principle (or care). They
just want oils that meet their vehicles warranty requirements.

If it helps, I can provide our description of base stocks--it's very brief.
If you want it, let me know.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
 

GeWilli

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Aug 6, 1999
Location
lost to new england
TDI
none in the fleet (99.5 Golf RIP, 96 B4V sold)
Re: Listing Oils by Base Stock instead of \"synthetic\"

And now this from the same person:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Mr. Williams,
I'll send our definition of base stocks. In the meantime, you may want to
visit the Castrol website. The company provides some specs on its oils,
including viscosity index numbers. Anything above 120 VI is considered a
Group III or IV base stock.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I responded:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
I looked at the Castrol Company Web site but have not been able to find
anything other than the specific gravity, and the 40 and 100C viscosity
tests.

There are plenty of oils that have a VI above 120 that are using Group II
basestocks and even solvent refined stocks. Most of the group IV/V blends
(mobil 1, amsoil) have a VI above 160.

Are the base stocks sorted by Viscosity index or production methods?

Sorry to be such a pest but this is an issue that I find almost obsessive at
the moment, for some reason, much to the bafflement of my friends.

-Geoff Williams<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

and got this in reply
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Geoff,
Be careful. You may be confusing VI in a finished product against VI in a
base stock. Multigrades contain VI improvers that would skew any
measurement.

Also keep in mind that companies blend base stocks. A Group IV/Group II
blend could easily exceed the 120 mark.

I'll send the base stock description and a recent article on synthetics.
Both should help you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message has been edited by GeWilli (edited February 11, 2000).]
 

Passat1.8Tm

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 3, 1999
Re: Listing Oils by Base Stock instead of \"synthetic\"

AFAIK, Syntec is a group III/V blend. This I've pieced together from multiple sources.

The first was a Pennzoil chemist whom I had asked about the composition of Purebase. I asked if it was hydroisomerized like Castrol's Syntec. He said that is was isodewaxed (which is a form of hydroisomerization), but that it was group II, not the group III used in Syntec. He said if I wanted even better performance than group III, I could use Pennzoil's Performax synthetic which was a IV/V (PAO/Ester) blend.

The second source is Castrol, which explicitly states that it uses esters (group V) in Syntec's formulation.

The third clue is the fact that Syntec has much lower cold-cranking viscosity than comparable Pennzoil oils. Pennzoil 10W-30, for example has a CCSV of 3500 cP @ -20 C, while Syntec 10W-30 is 2000 cP @ -20 C. Across all grades, the CCSV is comparable to Mobil 1 and other PAO/Ester synthetics, this argues for it being group III.

Fourth is that Mobil claims, as mentioned in the Hart's article, to have tested Syntec and found no PAOs, so that rules out a group II/IV blend.

The third, and most recent piece of evidence came from Shell when I inquired about their new line of synthetic blends, which have specs very similar to Syntec. Shell replied that they were using a group III and PAO blend, while Syntec uses a group III and Ester blend.

So, I'm quite convinced that Syntec is a III/V blend, that probably isn't as good as a IV/V blend (most full synthetics), but is better than a I/IV or II/IV blend (e.g., DuraBlend), III/IV blend (Shell), or straight II (Pennzoil).

Incidentally, I wonder if this means that Syntec Blend is a I/V or II/V blend. Also, does anyone know what conventional GTX or Shell or Valvoline are? I or II?

BTW, I think labeling oil with the group of the basestock used is a good idea, but I agree that most people wouldn't care. Also, without knowing the proportion of various basestocks, or the performance of the additive package, the extra info might not help much, but it would be better than nothing.


[This message has been edited by Passat1.8Tm (edited February 11, 2000).]
 

Dominique Cormann

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 21, 1999
Location
Guelph, Ontario Canada
Re: Listing Oils by Base Stock instead of \"synthetic\"

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>There are what, 5 different base stocks? how confusing can that be? huh?[/b]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the issue might be that knowing the base oil only will tell you part of the story.

I was really big into knowing the base oil of a product. I still am, but now I'm starting to pay more attention to the additive packages. That kind of info though is hard to come by since its proprietary to the company making the oil.

I think oil companies would fight very hard if a governing body tried to make them say what base oil was used. I think I might have to agree with them to some degree. It would give the average, not so well educated consumer a false understanding of which product to buy.

Look at shell rotella vs chevron delo. Perfect example. The oils cost about the same. One is a group II and one is a group I. Neither product is superior to the other completely. They are pretty much split on which specs they are superior in. Shell spent more money on a better additive package, and under normal temps, it performs better. If you operate it a cold region, the chevron product performs better. I live a region where temp affect performance the most so I go with the delo.

You see though how that would take more thinking then the average consumer would spend? So I think it would give them the false understanding that group II oils are superior period. They won't stop to think about the additive package. I would like the information, I just think it would make things worse for the average consumer.

Passat,

The oils you mentioned:

I'm assuming you mean the conventional line from Shell, Valvoline and Castrols GTX...they are all group I oils.

The newest version of Shell rotella apparently has some group II in it.

This is what Shell said when I asked:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>

Dear Dominique;

Thank you for your patience. Now that the fuel advisors have
returned we can provide a response.

Rotella T 0w40 fully synthetic is a mix of mainly PAO with some
diester. It is not group III. Our synthetic blends are mix of
mineral oil and PAO. Our mineral oils are mix of group I and II to
achieve the best results.

Keep in mind that just looking at base oils and numbers on a data
sheet doesn't give you the secret of good oil. Check also what the
product has achieved in an engine, in the real life. We have several
trucks with more than 1 million miles on plain mineral oil. One even
reached almost 2 millions miles.

The Rotella T is a careful balance of good base oil, one of the best
viscosity improver and a selected additive package. This is the
recipe for the genuine million mile oil.

Sincerely,

Lenore - Customer Support

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


------------------
My Project GTD and diesel page http://kozmik.guelph.on.ca/gtdproject




[This message has been edited by Moderator (edited March 20, 2001).]
 
Top