Garandman
Elite Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2014
- Messages
- 3,131
- Location
- Mount Sunapee NH / Dorchester, MA
- Tractor
- Kubota L3200 HST
What - a 150 ci engine with 290hp at the wheels is, like, hard? :laughing:
Synthetic Engine Oil Base Stocks
- Thread starter DeereMann
- Start date
- Views: 12201
Yep - pretty high specific output there. Hard to use All of that Output, All the Time, and still hang onto a license though :shocked: .
An argument can be made that a lot of the recent turbo engines (stuck on econoboxes) probably have a worse real-world time of it. Not all, but most people who buy premium sports cars take care of them - top quality lubes, changed on schedule, if not before.
Something like a Chevy (just an example, not a GM bash) Sonic is probably more likely to receive indifferent maintenance than a WRX. I've seen turbos taken out on sedately driven Volvos, just cause Grampa was unintentionally stretching the OCI out too far.
Rgds, D.
OP
DeereMann
Platinum Member
Well, I tried Shell (Pennzoil) Platinum for the first time in my vehicles. I saw reports on BITOG that the cleanliness is better and the infamous Chrysler/Dodge HEMI engine 'tick' is damped. From more than one report. By jiminy it did reduce my HEMI 'tick'. Not sure what that means - suspect less piston slap? HEMI head should have nothing to do with piston slap, but never did see what caused it.
Anyway, Platinum cost less than Mobil 1 @ WallyWorld...was on sale for $23/jug vs. $27/jug for Mobil 1 (both jugs = 5 U.S. quarts).
From former Mobil employees I've talked with, Exxon takeover of Mobil really put a damper on product development and quality. So I'll keep going with Platinum in my vehicles. Still using Mobil 1 Turbodiesel 5W-40 in my tractor. Not sure if Shell T6 is 'better'.
Anyway, Platinum cost less than Mobil 1 @ WallyWorld...was on sale for $23/jug vs. $27/jug for Mobil 1 (both jugs = 5 U.S. quarts).
From former Mobil employees I've talked with, Exxon takeover of Mobil really put a damper on product development and quality. So I'll keep going with Platinum in my vehicles. Still using Mobil 1 Turbodiesel 5W-40 in my tractor. Not sure if Shell T6 is 'better'.
nova3930
Gold Member
I always thought that tick was valve train noise. Could be wrong about that though...
OP
DeereMann
Platinum Member
Can't see how HEMI configuration would contribute to valve train ticking? Valve orientation transverse across block instead of longitudinal means longer pushrods. That's about it, right?
nova3930
Gold Member
I always thought the geometry difference required a little more clearance between rods, lifters, valves, etc. An oil that maintains viscosity and "stays put" a little better could counteract tick from that. I'm far from an expert in Dodge engines so don't take anything I'm saying as gospel though...
OP
DeereMann
Platinum Member
I'm no expert either, it's just an interesting phenomenon. Your theory sounds plausible - of course the longer valve train to the exterior head side would have to have looser cold clearance to make up for the increased thermal expansion of longer parts. I'll bet that has something to do with it.
Maybe Platinum oil formula has higher antiwear additive content?
OP
DeereMann
Platinum Member
The Society of Tribologists published the following API Base Stock Group definition table, so I am repeating here. Otherwise got to pay API $125 for the full standard (API 1509)........
No doubt Mobil switched from Group IV (PAO) to Group III (hydrocracked crude) base stocks sometime in the last couple decades. And - from a shear strength standpoint, there is no doubt - in general - Group IV is superior to Group III. Of more concern is the breakdown stability. Though Group III is 97% saturated hydrocarbon, I'll bet Group IV is 100%. I just wish we had the OPTION to choose, instead of deceptive Oil Company Marketing games.
I'm fairly certain Exxon being allowed to buy Mobil didn't help - Exxon was known as E&P (Exploration & Production = wholesale crude) producer, while Mobil was expert at finished products & Marketing. The guys I knew in Mobil said Exxon decimated their research & development capability. *sigh*
Table 1 API Base Oil Categories
No doubt Mobil switched from Group IV (PAO) to Group III (hydrocracked crude) base stocks sometime in the last couple decades. And - from a shear strength standpoint, there is no doubt - in general - Group IV is superior to Group III. Of more concern is the breakdown stability. Though Group III is 97% saturated hydrocarbon, I'll bet Group IV is 100%. I just wish we had the OPTION to choose, instead of deceptive Oil Company Marketing games.
I'm fairly certain Exxon being allowed to buy Mobil didn't help - Exxon was known as E&P (Exploration & Production = wholesale crude) producer, while Mobil was expert at finished products & Marketing. The guys I knew in Mobil said Exxon decimated their research & development capability. *sigh*
Table 1 API Base Oil Categories
cowpie1
Silver Member
Yeah, but when talking about the differences between Group III and Group IV, they may show in a lab setting, but in the real world, it would not be noticeable by all but the extreme high performance engine crowd. And so many get caught up in the Group III / Group IV debate, that they forget the additive package in the oil makes the biggest difference. A Group IV with a lousy add pack will not deliver the results of a Group III with a very strong add pack. And lubricants made from whale blubber oil in the 1800's are still, technically, classified as "true" synthetics. But I sure wouldn't want it in my engine.
It is a package deal... base oil plus add pack. You can't base any real solid conclusions on only one aspect of an oil, like the base oil it is made from. This is why the Petroleum Quality Institute of America, in it's testing, showed that Pennzoil Ultra flat out knocked the crap out of Mobil 1 in the 5w30 PCMO category. The PU is a Group III and the Mobil 1 is a Group III / Group IV combo. Just by the base oil, the Mobil 1 should have been on top, right? But it wasn't. And the Penn Ultra Group III turned in the lowest NOACK (burn off rate) of any oil in the group tested, including the boutique brands which tout their Group IV base stock. You just can't judge things by only one component of an oil.
So, in essence, it really doesn't matter if it is a Group III, Group IV, or a combo of the two. It is the overall package.
It is a package deal... base oil plus add pack. You can't base any real solid conclusions on only one aspect of an oil, like the base oil it is made from. This is why the Petroleum Quality Institute of America, in it's testing, showed that Pennzoil Ultra flat out knocked the crap out of Mobil 1 in the 5w30 PCMO category. The PU is a Group III and the Mobil 1 is a Group III / Group IV combo. Just by the base oil, the Mobil 1 should have been on top, right? But it wasn't. And the Penn Ultra Group III turned in the lowest NOACK (burn off rate) of any oil in the group tested, including the boutique brands which tout their Group IV base stock. You just can't judge things by only one component of an oil.
So, in essence, it really doesn't matter if it is a Group III, Group IV, or a combo of the two. It is the overall package.
OP
DeereMann
Platinum Member
I hear ya, cowpie1, but (1) how do we know what the base stocks actually are for any given synthetic oil marketer and, (2) how can SOPUS/Shell/Pennzoil claim their synthetic base stock is 'made from natural gas' and still only be an API Group III which, by definition, is a severely hydrotreated refined crude? Natural gas can not be 'refined' nor hydrotreated, it can only be synthesized into longer chain hydrocarbons, which, by definition, is a synthetic manufactured Group IV.
It is more than academic - the base stock does most of the work in terms of the actual lubrication & film strength that separates moving parts, hence directly affects part longevity. In addition, the most saturated & uniform base stock also provides the most resistance to breakdown, whether by shearing or oxidation - despite the additive packs.
So, not only do I want to know what I am getting for my money, I want to be able to choose what I am getting for my money, and all the marketing obfuscation prevents me, the consumer, from being able to do that. Hence my rant.
:hissyfit:
It is more than academic - the base stock does most of the work in terms of the actual lubrication & film strength that separates moving parts, hence directly affects part longevity. In addition, the most saturated & uniform base stock also provides the most resistance to breakdown, whether by shearing or oxidation - despite the additive packs.
So, not only do I want to know what I am getting for my money, I want to be able to choose what I am getting for my money, and all the marketing obfuscation prevents me, the consumer, from being able to do that. Hence my rant.
:hissyfit: