Is the synthetic you are using really synthetic???

[RustyJC]

Originally posted by HEYBOSS

But then we have to consider that oil breaks down right? Wrong! That is also a myth!

I don't want to replay the iRV2.com thread, but mineral oil base stocks can break down (i. e. , be chemically and/or physically changed) in service. That's why lube oil analysis on large industrial engines monitors factors such as oxidation, nitration and viscosity.



The base stock can be oxidized by exposure to excessive heat. Nitration results from exposure to excessive atmospheric air (which is 73% nitrogen) on the cylinder walls of "lean burn" engines - those with more air than a stoichiometrically perfect mixture (does a Diesel have excess air?) Viscosity change, among other causes, can result from the long chain hydrocarbon molecules being mechanically sheared as they pass through gears, close tolerance bearing assemblies, etc.



The myth that oil never wears out is just that, a myth.



Rusty

 

[Cooker]

To add to the info about RP here is an answer from an RP tech: "RP street oils contains mostly PAO, with a small percentage di-ester and mineral oil as carriers. "



Please do not try to interrupt this as saying it is a blend. A conventional carier oil does not make a PAO a blend. Mobil has been putting conventional carrier oil in Mobil 1 for a long time now, purely for the sake of additive soluability. Group III and Group IV motor oils can have problems with additive soluability. Usually conventional oil or esters are put into a PAO oil.

 

[SilverFox]

RustyJC and Others,



I don't want to replay the IRV2 thread either but I also know that most on this thread haven't read the IRV2 thread so will add RV Roadie's answer to your claim that oil does indeed break down. Understand I'm not taking sides here, just want everyone to hear both sides of the issue.



Here is what RV Roadie says. Probably too long for most to read anyway.



Hi Rusty,

I have defer to API and SAE in their analysis with their facilities, engineers, and level of expertise, of used engine oil still being usable. As well as the other sources who have tested it, and examined the engines that used plain ol' used engine petroleum oil that was recycled.



And that is not to disregard your background at all.



That is why I use top sources, and more than one of them. It is reasonable to assume that some engineers might have a different take on it, but when the majority of top engineers agree, it seems to be a pretty valid premise.



I have no problems with your position Rusty, that's what makes a poker game. I did provide a lot of data points however.



Did you miss the part about Castrol TranSynd "synthetic" ATF being actually petroleum based?



I also acknowledge that shear forces and temperatures above the boil/flash point of any lubricant, synthetic or petroleum based, will cause some degradation.



Do you also acknowledge that PAO Group IV base stocks are also subject to the same factors, and somewhat more resistant to them, but not immune to them?



Or are you saying that at the point in the analysis when PAO is determined to need to be changed, that no shear degradation has occurred?



This becomes a chicken or egg debate if we go down that road. Is the high heat that oxidizes oil, before which point it was not lacking in its molecular lengths or lubrication properties/additives, the result of another failure mechanically or otherwise? Or before the oil burned had it somehow lost its properties?



A diesel by defintion runs hotter than gas engines. And at higher pressures. If a part fails due to condensation and storage, or a bubble in a cast or machined part, then creates extreme temps, wouldn't you agree that no lubricant of any type can at that point "put scrambled egg back into the shell?"



So the cost/benefit analysis goes like this. Does the percentage of extra protection, at temps and tolerances that should not occur in our engines/transmissions if the operator has sufficient gauges and knowledge to avoid operator error, and lubricant changes were performed at appropriate intervals justify that tiny extra level of protection?



To be clearer, if someone operates their vehicle at 350 degrees transmission temp for prolonged periods, it makes no difference what the transmission fluid is, the temps warp the metal parts, melt the plastic parts, and the transmission is soon a lump. Does it make any difference of a transmission fluid protects to 400 degrees in that scenario, instead of 350? That is operator error. No gauge to monitor temps in a machine that is operating under severe duty.



"In an engine" is a little vague here Rusty. For example, shear is a critical factor in a jet engine where tolerances are so close that shear is a daily factor. As are much higher temps than in our RV and passenger vehicle engines.



If you check the MSDS' of the available group IV synthetics they have similar, lower, or slightly higher boil/flash points, by at most 40 degrees F. But all of them are well above the temps in an engine that is in reasonbly good operating condition right?



Granted the shear resistance of PAOs is significantly better than petroleum based stock. Are you saying they will never shear?



But the question remains, how do the re-refiners get an end product from only used oil, that is comparable to virgin unsheared oil, if your premise is true?



Which raises another question. I really don't know . . . yet!



Are there any companies that are recycling the synthetics back to engine lubricants that pass the tests as the recycled petroleum oils do? That is, meets the same standards as the virgin product?



If your premise is that there is no degradation of PAO base stock, and that holds true, I certainly think they would.



I didn't say that was your premise, but asked if it was.



RV

 

[RustyJC]

To illustrate Cooker's point about carrier oils for the additive package, one of my jobs at Thanksgiving is making giblet gravy for the dressing. If I take dry flour and put it directly into the boiling broth, it will do nothing but form huge lumps. In effect, that's what would happen to many additive agents if they were put directly into the Group 4 PAO base stock.



But, if I take the same amount of flour and add hot water while stirring, I can add just enough hot water to get all of the flour into a liquid suspension. I then pour the hot water & flour mix into the boiling broth (stirring all the time), and it disperses evenly, thickening the giblet gravy. The mineral oil serves the same function as the hot water in this illustration.



Rusty

 

[TractorNut]

SF. . yes. . I will change the oil much earlier in the BMW this time. . I don't think the dealer really knows that the Castrol oil is not a True synthetic. . It says on the filler Castrol Synth only... It is a 2002 model. . I figured they would have know by then that it was not a true synthetic and changed the specs for the car... I told her about it last night. . and she was shocked too... I really don't think the dealers know either... I am going to do some calling today, and try to get some more info. . mainly about the BMW. . not worried about the Cummins, she always get fresh oil... (Going to change it today... ) But might call about my JD oil. . I believe that it is a Class III oil... I our JD engines we classify our JD +50 oil as an extended intervals with our filters (mostly FleetGaurd's) but that is in our engines, depending on conditions. . it is not listed as a synthetic...

I am getting confused about what is what... I am clueless about Rearend oils and ATF's and everything else now... Just thought that a Synth. . was not from Dino... (feel like crawling back under my rock. . )

Is there a good place to get the the MSDS sheets on line for these products... I believe that someone stated that should tell us????

That's for keeping this going... Good stuff. .

Bryan

 

[RustyJC]

This is precisely what I was trying to avoid, but since it has been posted, let's play the game out to the end.



Please note the following excerpts from RV Roadie's post:

Originally posted by SilverFox

I also acknowledge that shear forces and temperatures above the boil/flash point of any lubricant, synthetic or petroleum based, will cause some degradation.



Do you also acknowledge that PAO Group IV base stocks are also subject to the same factors, and somewhat more resistant to them, but not immune to them?



Or are you saying that at the point in the analysis when PAO is determined to need to be changed, that no shear degradation has occurred?



Granted the shear resistance of PAOs is significantly better than petroleum based stock. Are you saying they will never shear?



If your premise is that there is no degradation of PAO base stock, and that holds true, I certainly think they would.

The above would indicate that RV Roadie has misunderstood what I said. He thinks my premise is that base stocks (dino or synthetic) do not degrade. In truth, as I said earlier, my premise is that base stocks can degrade if exposed to certain conditions within the engine, so in effect RV Roadie and I wound up agreeing that degradation can and does take place.



The balance of the thread then turned to recycled oil, which is the original tangent RV Roadie was heading down. Roadie's contention is that, so long as the performance characteristics (e. g. , viscosity, viscosity index, etc. ) of the base stock weren't changed, what does it matter if the recycled oil contains sheared or oxidized molecules? That's where I basically left the discussion since I've never nor do I ever plan to run recycled oil in any of my engines or any of our customers' engines that our company operates or maintains. Therefore, the whole recycled oil performance question is moot to me.



Rusty

 

[SilverFox]

RustyJC,



I neither agree or disagree with what you have to say. Just wanted to post what I considered to be the other side of the equation.



One thing I do want to point out is that the "quote" in your post (above) originally came from RV Roadie. The forum's software makes it look like the "quote" were my words. Just don't want anyone to be confused by this.

 

[Elite1]

The biggest key to synthetics isn't degradation, our pour point temp. 's. (those are just nice extras) A true synthetic (such as Mobile1)causes less friction in the motor therefore the the components last longer.

Case in point: the Corvette ZR1, when Corvette came out with this High performance engine as an option to the regular corvette motor, the GM engineers soon realized they made a mistake. They couldn't fit a large enough radiator in the chasis to cool this high horsepower engine, it ran too hot. Solution to the problem Mobile1, less friction= less heat. The Car comes with Mobile1 from the factory... . if you don't use Mobile1 your warranty is voided. Synthetics offer better protection, less friction. (period)

 

[illflem]

Isn't this discussion sort of moot when you find out something the synthetic oil manufactors will never tell you - that the chemicals used to make PAO (Poly Alpha Olefin) come from petroleum?

We ran into this problem at work when one of the researchers developed a canola oil based motor oil. Excellent stuff, right up there with PAO base stocks. Problem was the American Petroleum Institute (API) wouldn't certify it because it wasn't derived from petroleum. When asked why they certify PAOs their reply, you guessed it, PAOs are derived from petroleum.



Coming soon - dino oil derived from natural gas whose qualities put PAOs to shame at a fraction of the price.

 

[RustyJC]

Originally posted by illflem

Isn't this discussion sort of moot when you find out something the synthetic oil manufactors will never tell you - that the chemicals used to make PAO (Poly Alpha Olefin) come from petroleum?

Not to me - the feedstock to synthesize the PAOs has to come from somewhere. The critical difference (to me, at least) is that Group 4 oil base stocks have molecules that are specifically created for the job at hand (and, yes, they are still hydrogen and carbon based molecules). Group 3 oil base stocks are severely hydrocracked crude oil, but they still aren't comprised of the molecules you would use if you were building a base stock up specifically for this service.



And, yes, a future base stock synthesized from methane (CH4) will still be hydrocarbon-based.



Rusty

 

[Hohn]

Originally posted by illflem

You can pretty much tell by the price which "synthetics" are group III or IV. Group III are little more expendsive than dino but not as expendsive as PAO

Yeah, and if you splurge and get the Ester-based oils (Redline) you will certainly know it!



Is there ANY diesel engine oil more expensive than the Redline at $30 a gallon??



Justin

 

[Hohn]

Originally posted by RustyJC

Not to me - the feedstock to synthesize the PAOs has to come from somewhere. The critical difference (to me, at least) is that Group 4 oil base stocks have molecules that are specifically created for the job at hand (and, yes, they are still hydrogen and carbon based molecules). Group 3 oil base stocks are severely hydrocracked crude oil, but they still aren't comprised of the molecules you would use if you were building a base stock up specifically for this service.



And, yes, a future base stock synthesized from methane (CH4) will still be hydrocarbon-based.



Rusty

Yeah, what Rusty said. Check my sig for the cake quote and you will see the point...

 

[badams1]

Mobil 1 guy

Got the first response from David (pet eng) at Royal Purple but it was hurried and non sp[ecific. He is in Las Vagas at a big oil convention and is very busy at this time. I won't publish his E mail direct because he was a bit hard on one of the non API approved products that we have been including in our discussion. He did not knock Mobil 1 Delvac but was comparing their process of blending to be like M 1. He did not address the catagory 3 issue at all or anything about their Syncromesh being certified for NV5600 but that does not mean that it isn't a good product for that application. What I think he said is that their product is superior to all other products because of their Synerlic additive package. He mentioned catagory 4 blend stock as primary but said that carriers are used at a small ratio to blend their additives as all synthetic oil producers do. Thats the best that I could get at this time but my return Email asked the specific questions about cat 3 and the NV5600 issue. I have 0w-30 2000 Amsoil in my NV 5600 now and do not feel compfortable with it although it was recommended by the Amsoil guy on their tech line and I have it in writting on a Email for proof. By the way David is the engineer that quoted that the 4 ball wear test is not repeatable as I discussed in this thread earlier. That is why API does not accvept it as valiad because it is not accurate science and can be skewed to promote hoky results for sales hype so they do not stoop that low to sell there products. I got a similar answer from Exxon a while back. Read my earlier comments on for more detail.

 

[badams1]

Mobil 1 guy

I talked to David (eng. ) at Royal Purple today and he has cleared the whole issue up about their 15w-40w diesel oil being a true PAO catagory 4 blend oil with a very small amount of catagory 1 oil to be used as a carrier for the synthetic additive package. The Synerlic additive technology is truly a step ahead of the competition. There is no catagory 3 oil in their formula and that goes for their other spark rated oils as well. The synerlic additive in the true PAO Synromesh is also an excellent replacement for the NV5600 fill so there it is. They have plenty of insurance to back up their claims and if you have a real lubrication issue that is in truth their fault they stand behind their product. That does not mean that we can tear something up and blame them because lab analysis will prove the issue if it was a lubrication failure or something else. Royal Purple is the real deal and worth the price and it is API certified. Thats my story and I am sticking to it. Hammer down.

 

[SilverFox]

If I were a synthetic oil user I would certainly consider RP. I did want to use a synthetic in the differentials but made the mistake of buying 5 gallons of Shell Spirax-S synthetic that is not synthetic. By the time that's all gone, it'll probably be time to trade trucks.