Attention: TDR Forum Junkies Oil Man is back and tired after 4 days of classes about oils and how they ‘re built from the ground up.
I would first like to start by saying that I don’t want to make anyone mad or step on any toes or for that matter even get into a long drawn out argument. I’m just going to relate to you some of the information that I learned these past 4 days.
There has been a lot of comments and some speculation on the TDI about Base oil Groups I, II, III, and IV lately. The fact is that some of the comments were good and some of them were not the whole answer to what the guys are looking for. I’m not saying that anyone lied or tried to cover up anything, I’m just saying that there is much more than people think about the quality of oils than just the type of base oil group you use in your engine oil. For instance, EVERY oil is made from petroleum oil including PAO’s except group V which are made from vegetable oils, and they are primarily used in the production of synthetic esters. I found out that a mixture of 70% Group I petroleum and 30% Group IV PAO would be classified by API as a Group I oil. I’ve heard it mentioned on the TDI that 20% PAO would give about 80% of the benefits of a synthetic oil. Although I don’t know if that is exactly correct it makes some since. Think about it, if you can call an oil a Group I and have 30% synthetic PAO in it then can you call the Group I oil a poor quality oil? No I don’t think so, especially if you don’t know what the processes were that the oil went through in the refining. It could have had more processes done in refining and more times and might have started with a better group I base crude like the mid-continent quality.
When you formulate lubricants with a robust additive treat, you’ll see no difference in end product performance regardless of whether you started with a Group I, II, or III. (NOTE: If you start with a mid-continent crude basestock, the highest quality in the world, you would see the same end results. However, if your crude basestock is a middle east crude, for example, you’d see poorer performance than you would on a mid-continent basestock if both were refined to the same level due to sulfur content and impurity contents in the crude. )
Blenders who only blend to the minimum performance standards may be able to see some slightly better oxidation resistance results in their end product of they start off with a Group III base stock. (But again they’ll have additive solubility or stability problems). With Group III base stocks there is no real synthesizing occurring. Basically you are starting with a crude petroleum (not vegetable) basestock and “cleaning it up”. There are no specific hydrocarbon chain lenghts.
Group IV base stocks are PAO’s. You start with a crude petroleum (not vegetable) basestock and completely break it down. Then you “synthesize” or create hydrocarbon chains of a specific set length.
Saturates refers to how many carbon-hydrogen bonds you have after refining. This means that the more saturated the carbon structure is with hydrogen the more inherent oxidation stability you have, but the hydrocarbon structure is much less friendly to attaching additives (i. e. poor additive solubility).
Some info about Castrol
Castrols’ Syntec synthetic engine oil originally started out using a PAO or Group IV Base Stock. And they initially purchased this PAO from Mobil Oil (remember Mobil Chevron and Unical refine crudes and “build” PAO’s or synthesized hydrocarbons).
When Castrol switched the crude oil basestock used in their Syntec Motor Oil from a PAO (Group IV) to a petroleum (Group III), Mobil sued them for false advertising since “Mobil” believed a true synthetic would only be a PAO (Group IV).
Since Castrol continued to “advertise” their Syntec Motor Oil as a synthetic, the NAD (National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau) was called upon to make a ruling. And, the NAD felt that enough synthesizing of the curde petroleum basestock takes place to call Syntec, manufactured with a Group III petroleum basestock, a synthetic.
Most significant to us is the NAD’s ruling in Mobils favor that disallows Castrol from claiming its Syntec Motor Oil offers superior performance over other petroleum or synthetic motor oils. This means Castrol could not “prove” superior performance with Group III basestocks over any other API Group.
SAE removed its “technical definition” of synthetic from their standards in 1995 and 1996, but their Automotive Lubricants Reference Book states that VHVI basestocks (Group III) can be “marketed” as a synthetic. This means that SAE and API view synthetic as a marketing term not a technical definition.
On another subject. PC-9, Yes it is true that the API lubricants committee voted in November 1999 to include only Group I and II base oils in the test matrix for PC-9. They excluded Groups III, IV, and V. Yes it is true that if companies with Groups III, or IV basestocks wish to try and qualify for the PC-9 category and be approved, then it would cost them a minimum of $700,000 and probably more like $1,300,000 to get a single oil approved. I don’t see this happening. Why the only three companies that produce the Group III or IV base oils (Chevron, Petro-Canada, and Motiva) are producing all they can right now and sell every drop they can produce. The Group III and IV base stocks are for engine oils (espec. PCMO or passenger car motor oils)
There are 18 refiners, 9 for Group I, 6 for Group II and 3 for Group III and IV. One of the main reasons that the API voted not to include the Group III or IV was that if Group III or IV were included then the engine manufactures would require the use of the highest type of mfg. This would almost make it a monopoly be cause of the three manufactures of Group III and IV only two mfg. the vis for engine oils the other is for SAE 250 and above. This would put a serious strain on the other oil companies to buy the base oils from the other two companies, and right now the two companies cannot produce the amount of base oil that it would take to meet the volume needed. This means that the spec would be useless because very few could find any of the oil to purchase (or a massive shortage). Another thing was that the OEM’s were concerned about soot carrying capability of the Group III and IV.
Do you really want the API to recommend that only Group III or IV oils can be used? This would give an already massive amount of power to two oil companies, what do you think the price of oil would be then??? If you are concerned about the price of fuel now think about if the two oil companies could squash the other oil companies out of business. They would not only charge an UN Godly amount for the base oil, but they would control more of the fuel and the price of that would go even higher then it is now. I for one think that the API made the right choice for all of us.
Sincerely, Kevin
I would first like to start by saying that I don’t want to make anyone mad or step on any toes or for that matter even get into a long drawn out argument. I’m just going to relate to you some of the information that I learned these past 4 days.
There has been a lot of comments and some speculation on the TDI about Base oil Groups I, II, III, and IV lately. The fact is that some of the comments were good and some of them were not the whole answer to what the guys are looking for. I’m not saying that anyone lied or tried to cover up anything, I’m just saying that there is much more than people think about the quality of oils than just the type of base oil group you use in your engine oil. For instance, EVERY oil is made from petroleum oil including PAO’s except group V which are made from vegetable oils, and they are primarily used in the production of synthetic esters. I found out that a mixture of 70% Group I petroleum and 30% Group IV PAO would be classified by API as a Group I oil. I’ve heard it mentioned on the TDI that 20% PAO would give about 80% of the benefits of a synthetic oil. Although I don’t know if that is exactly correct it makes some since. Think about it, if you can call an oil a Group I and have 30% synthetic PAO in it then can you call the Group I oil a poor quality oil? No I don’t think so, especially if you don’t know what the processes were that the oil went through in the refining. It could have had more processes done in refining and more times and might have started with a better group I base crude like the mid-continent quality.
When you formulate lubricants with a robust additive treat, you’ll see no difference in end product performance regardless of whether you started with a Group I, II, or III. (NOTE: If you start with a mid-continent crude basestock, the highest quality in the world, you would see the same end results. However, if your crude basestock is a middle east crude, for example, you’d see poorer performance than you would on a mid-continent basestock if both were refined to the same level due to sulfur content and impurity contents in the crude. )
Blenders who only blend to the minimum performance standards may be able to see some slightly better oxidation resistance results in their end product of they start off with a Group III base stock. (But again they’ll have additive solubility or stability problems). With Group III base stocks there is no real synthesizing occurring. Basically you are starting with a crude petroleum (not vegetable) basestock and “cleaning it up”. There are no specific hydrocarbon chain lenghts.
Group IV base stocks are PAO’s. You start with a crude petroleum (not vegetable) basestock and completely break it down. Then you “synthesize” or create hydrocarbon chains of a specific set length.
Saturates refers to how many carbon-hydrogen bonds you have after refining. This means that the more saturated the carbon structure is with hydrogen the more inherent oxidation stability you have, but the hydrocarbon structure is much less friendly to attaching additives (i. e. poor additive solubility).
Some info about Castrol
Castrols’ Syntec synthetic engine oil originally started out using a PAO or Group IV Base Stock. And they initially purchased this PAO from Mobil Oil (remember Mobil Chevron and Unical refine crudes and “build” PAO’s or synthesized hydrocarbons).
When Castrol switched the crude oil basestock used in their Syntec Motor Oil from a PAO (Group IV) to a petroleum (Group III), Mobil sued them for false advertising since “Mobil” believed a true synthetic would only be a PAO (Group IV).
Since Castrol continued to “advertise” their Syntec Motor Oil as a synthetic, the NAD (National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau) was called upon to make a ruling. And, the NAD felt that enough synthesizing of the curde petroleum basestock takes place to call Syntec, manufactured with a Group III petroleum basestock, a synthetic.
Most significant to us is the NAD’s ruling in Mobils favor that disallows Castrol from claiming its Syntec Motor Oil offers superior performance over other petroleum or synthetic motor oils. This means Castrol could not “prove” superior performance with Group III basestocks over any other API Group.
SAE removed its “technical definition” of synthetic from their standards in 1995 and 1996, but their Automotive Lubricants Reference Book states that VHVI basestocks (Group III) can be “marketed” as a synthetic. This means that SAE and API view synthetic as a marketing term not a technical definition.
On another subject. PC-9, Yes it is true that the API lubricants committee voted in November 1999 to include only Group I and II base oils in the test matrix for PC-9. They excluded Groups III, IV, and V. Yes it is true that if companies with Groups III, or IV basestocks wish to try and qualify for the PC-9 category and be approved, then it would cost them a minimum of $700,000 and probably more like $1,300,000 to get a single oil approved. I don’t see this happening. Why the only three companies that produce the Group III or IV base oils (Chevron, Petro-Canada, and Motiva) are producing all they can right now and sell every drop they can produce. The Group III and IV base stocks are for engine oils (espec. PCMO or passenger car motor oils)
There are 18 refiners, 9 for Group I, 6 for Group II and 3 for Group III and IV. One of the main reasons that the API voted not to include the Group III or IV was that if Group III or IV were included then the engine manufactures would require the use of the highest type of mfg. This would almost make it a monopoly be cause of the three manufactures of Group III and IV only two mfg. the vis for engine oils the other is for SAE 250 and above. This would put a serious strain on the other oil companies to buy the base oils from the other two companies, and right now the two companies cannot produce the amount of base oil that it would take to meet the volume needed. This means that the spec would be useless because very few could find any of the oil to purchase (or a massive shortage). Another thing was that the OEM’s were concerned about soot carrying capability of the Group III and IV.
Do you really want the API to recommend that only Group III or IV oils can be used? This would give an already massive amount of power to two oil companies, what do you think the price of oil would be then??? If you are concerned about the price of fuel now think about if the two oil companies could squash the other oil companies out of business. They would not only charge an UN Godly amount for the base oil, but they would control more of the fuel and the price of that would go even higher then it is now. I for one think that the API made the right choice for all of us.
Sincerely, Kevin
