Different types of Oil???

[Junkman]

I am still waiting to hear an answer to what this statement means...... /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( The (Rotella) 15W-40 is dino based oil and the 5W-40 is supposed to be hydrocracked dino that they can legally market as synthetic. )</font> .

 

[JeffRey30747]

I made that statement basing it loosely on the Castrol Syntec legal situation. I think it was Mobil that sued claiming that Castrol Syntec wasn't "synthetic" enough to carry that label. Castrol won and still sells Syntec as a "full synthetic" oil. I have the opinion that most of this is just a lot of creative marketing on the oil company's behalf and a hydrocracked oil isn't really as good as a PAO based oil, but since you can't just create matter out of nowhere, you have to start with something to refine into synthetic lubricants. As the others who are more knowledgeable than me on this subject stated above, that happens to be petroleum base stocks also. It is definitely one of those "gray area" issues. My understanding is that Rotella synthetic is hydrocracked and Mobil Delvac is a PAO. Does anyone know this to be true or false?

Jeff

 

[RalphVa]

Some high pressure hydrotreated oils are virtually equal in performance to PAO type oils. Exxon developed a HP hydrotreat process and installed the equipment in its Baytown, TX refinery (largest lube oil plant in the world) just about the time I retired in 1998. Just about that time they were also started negotiations with Mobil to merge. So, with availability of the almost ideal oil in a PAO available from Mobil, guess they decided to not make a big marketing deal out of their new oil. I suspect they're just blending it into the stuff that they can up in Baytown. That was one of the options, but with lower payout, as it reduces the amount of additive they have to use to make canned oil specs.

For instance, canned oil specs are generally about 140 VI (viscosity index) vs. about 100 VI from the straight solvent-processed, lightly hydrotreated oils. This new special hydrotreated oil was very close to 140 VI and therefore needed little VI improver. Think its pour pour was still a tad high, maybe around 0 vs. -40 needed in the canned oil and about what the natural pour is for PAOs. It still needed some pour point depressant, some detergents, etc.

They might have chosen to sell some of this new type oil to outfits like Castrol that used to buy almost all its oil from Exxon/Esso. This may be the stuff some of those outfits are canning up. Some other manufacturers likely developed their own similar processes as well. Think Chevron had a similar one that Exxon thought hard about licensing.

It's been near 5 years since I retired. Other things could have happened.

Ralph

 

[cp1969]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( well I do believe that synthetics are better protection. Why else would the top end car makers ask you to use them. Sure you can get 200,000 out of a car on dino but how good is the power compared to when it was new. Proof for me who USED to believe synthetic was a rip off was watching drag racing;John Force came out of his funny car laughing his *-# off. the camera guy asked why John replied he made his burnout and full run with zero oil presure the engine was fine. I was sold, if a 1000 hp. + engine could live like that there was something good in synthetics. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif )</font>

That sounds like a severe test, but is it? At 9000 rpm for 4.5 seconds, that engine revolved a whopping 675 times without oil pressure. Double, triple, or quadruple that number to include burnout, etc, and you still don't have much. Admittedly, it is a high-horsepower situation (probably more like 6,000 hp, not 1,000) but the time spend under power is very short. I wouldn't put a lot of stock in synthetics because of John Forces zero oil pressure run. It may have been that only his gage was erroneous.

Also, most of the tests advertised as 'torture testing' by various organizations are anything but that. Vehicles that accumulate running time rapidly without cooling cycles in between are the easiest type of duty an engine can see.

Are synthetics worth it? Probably not for most people, especially if you are still required to change oil at the interval specified by the manufacturer (during warranty). Once you're out of warranty, synthetic oil can withstand extended drains more favorably than dino, but it would seem that the filter would still need changing at the original interval. If I have to get under there to change a filter, I might as well just change the oil while I'm at it. To me, changing the filter is always the worst part of it.

 

[chipsterama]

castrol and mobil have spent millions to confuse the synthetic engine oil market. mobil uses a true pao synthetic base oil for their mobil 1, whereas castrol syntec and chevron delo 400 synthetic 5w-40 use a group III ucbo(unconventional base oil) which is not truely a traditional synthetic but qualifies since it exhibits synthetic characteristics. a synthetic oil can reduce wear in any engine when compared to a conventional mineral oil since it has a naturally higher viscosity index (the ability of an oil to maintain its viscosity over a wide temperature range). keeping in mind that viscosity is directly related to the film of oil between moving surfaces, the higher the vi, the better the film strength, the less wear. oil is not oil, grease is not grease. there are major differences. even synthetics are not synthetics. if someone is really dedicated maximizing engine life, then use primrose duragard armor plate with moly-d . it is available in staight weights and multi-viscosity. it controls the corrosive effects of acids better than any other oil and contains a patented proprietary form of molebdenum called moly-d that eliminates wear, increases power, and improves performance. it just seems that people who use their products never have problems.

 

[BobCorazza]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Yes, the good old oil debate /forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif The only ones I'd rather read about are the Husky-Stihl and the HST-gear debates. )</font>

Bottome line ... Synthetics are <<snip.. snip..>>
<cut> <snip> PERIOD.

Now on to the real purpose of my post...
Stihl is the greatest.
HST is the best transmission type I have ever used!

 

[Junkman]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( ..........Bottome line ... Synthetics are <<snip.. snip..>>
<cut> <snip> PERIOD.

Now on to the real purpose of my post...
Stihl is the greatest.
HST is the best transmission type I have ever used! )</font>

My Husky is better than your Stihl any hour of any day of any week of any month of any year of any decade for many decades to come!!! /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif and your dog wears combat boots!!!! /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif LOL /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif We now return to the debate of the oils after this commercial message from your local advertiser.

 

[alpha]

Yea you might think that John Force in his 1000+ hp funny car with the lack of oil presure was for a short time(it turned out he did have a bad pump) but if ya add up the time for a burn out pre stage and the run thats alot of time for no oil 20 seconds? probebly no one will change the oil that they use, synthetic fans or dino fans but for all the money in an engine I will spend an extra$5 at walmart for rotella synthetic why wear out an engine sooner, keep the power you get from day one. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[RET]

alpha, kinda the same reasoning why I just recently converted over to synthetic. Price difference is negligible when you look at the total annual family budget. There's no denying that it is the superior lubricant in extreme conditions...simple chemistry and physics. The only point of contention is whether or not it provides any benefit for our mostly non-extreme applications in CUT's and pick'em up trucks.
Benefits are most likely unmeasurable in the majority of applications, unless the equipment was specifically designed for syn oil. And independant studies are sorely lacking. But, from a chemistry/scientific/physics point of view, there's no doubt it is superior. I don't think anybody debates the ultimate superiority of syn., just its superiority in a given situation.
So....Again...bottom line...it comes down to what makes you feel good....'cause none of us can prove beyond a reasonable doubt whether dino or syn will help out tractors/trucks last longer.
Here's why I decided to spend an extra few bucks a year on syn. : I just recently bought an 04 new-design F150. Oil requirement is 5W-20 (as many Ford engines have gone to).
The owner's manual got a little free advertising by stating fairly strongly that they recommended their Ford synthetic blend 5W-20 oil.
So, if Ford really wishes I would use a syn. blend, why not go one small step better and go 100% syn.? Plus, by doing it myself rather than using the dealership, I will still come out ahead.
Anyway, there's still some uncomfortable feelings deep inside about that watery 5W-20 oil....I know, it shouldn't be there with today's oil technology, but it is.
r

 

[chipsterama]

I assume dino means dinosaur, which would refer to the good old mineral based petroleum oil that comes from the ground. the 5w-40 hydrocracked oil is still mineral based, but is much more refined. the hydrocracking technology was developed by chevron and basically takes most of the impurities out of the base oil that would otherwise cause it to oxidize more rapidly. the better base oil has enabled the major oil co. to produce lubes that can be considered "synthetic", but only in performance and not in method of production. a true synthetic motor oil will cost around $20-$25 per gallon, whereas the imitation synthetics run around 14-16.