Full Synthetic is NOT 100% Synthetic, it’s a marketing gimmick! Amsoil is real 100% Synthetic motor oil!

Grumpy Bear · November 3, 2019

1 hour ago, Cowpie said:

I am confused to some degree. If Ester and PAO base oils are so significant in and of themselves, and there less need for an add pack with them, then why does the Redline have a high level of Moly, Boron, and Zinc/Phosphorus? Why does the Amsoil Signature also have prodigious amounts of additives also? I have been berated here that full synthetics base oils don't need the additives like "substandard" oils do. Did they just throw in a significant ppm of those additives just to get a laugh?

Cliff you started this conversation stating that 1.) Group II and III lubricants have come so far that Esters are no longer relevant. You're still banging that gong.

Then you state that due to this that 2.) it is NOW all about the additives and you parade the Schaeffer moly and boron numbers as a "Boat Load" and ramble about playing cards.

I provide laboratory proof that Schaeffer's is at best middle pack in that regard so now:

3.) You're attacking the base oil again? Mister your isolating one aspect as you please. For instance I've noticed that one of your favorites is that POA's don't hold additives well thus they can not be used alone. True! So in the regard a Group I base is superior to this fine synthetic molecule but it thermally degrades like crazy. You then try to extrapolate that into 'all' synthetics. OR pick a single weakness of a base and condemn it in totality. There is no perfect single base. EVERYONE of them needs help. The question is how much? It's why Red Line is not totally Ester nor is Schaeffer for that matter. Why the PAO in Schaefer if Group III is the end all be all. and why so much sodium? Really? Tit of Tat?

Here's the problem and you're not alone it this regard; you think additives, elemental additives, are PRIMARALLY what lubricates and protects a motor. You also believe that elemental additives are all the additives there are and miss the entire point of additives. Especially EP additives.

Keeping one part from physically touching another part is what protects the motor. FILM THICKNESS is what gets that job done. That is job #1. Elemental additives haven't a thing to do with film thickness. Chain length, chain structure, chain composition, pressure and temperature determine dynamic film thickness. Because we like moving parts to not consume allot of energy in the process we like the resistance of our lubricant to be low. Film thickness and viscosity are NOT mutually exclusive. 1.) Esters have a thicker film that mineral oils for the same viscosity. Enough so that rule of thumb? One SAE viscosity grade lower will give the same film thickness and strenght.

2.) Esters and POA's have a high natural viscosity index. That is they change viscosity FAR less with temperature than mineral oils.

Because mineral oils lack in this regard they are fortified with polymeric thickeners which are ADDITIVES. As are pour point suppressants. The elemental additives all combine are still in the ppm range with a trace of carrier solvent to hold them in solution. A few percent of the can no matter what the base oils. The polymerics on the other hand In a mineral oil can be as much as 30% of the can. Esters require far less of these additive so that the total package is less than 10%. In some cases no thickeners at all are added. Unlike even highly refined mineral oils Esters require zero pour point suppressants in anything but Artic conditions.

3.) Polymeric thickeners are not shear stable.

When I say there less need for an add pack with them, I mean TOTAL ADDITIVE PACKAGE. Not just elemental.

As far as the high levels. I could only guess. But I'd bet it has something to do with Red Lines target customers. RACERS and track day cars that like to push temperatures and loads beyond normal or reasonable. I've never seen a lubricant with to much film thickness, film strength detergency, to slippery and so on. As long it stay's put.....let's dance.

Cowpie · November 3, 2019

I said esters and PAO's offer nothing exceptional compared to modern Group II and Group III base oils except in some niche applications. At least try and state what I said and not your own perceptions. I never said they were "irrelevant". It gets sad when folks try to twist things to make another seem to state things they didn't.

And while a listing of elements in a motor oil may show it as "middle of the pack" does not make it so in actual application.

Pennzoil conventional 10w30, as tested by the Petroleum Quality Institute of America, shows far better formulation and even significantly lower NOACK than many full synthetics. Just in the PQIA testing it flat out put Mobil 1 to shame on several levels. PQIA even retested the oil, thinking they goofed up somewhere. But should it be used in areas that call specifically for a full synthetic? Probably not.

Again, it all goes back to the results. I took a 1974 Pontiac Catalina to over 250,000 miles using only a straight 30 weight conventional oil. That 400 V8 motor was still all original and still good with low oil consumption. The body of the car died a horrible death from body cancer, but the motor was still fine. What would a full synthetic had done better in that vehicle?

Same for my heavy truck. Over a million miles and engine still original and uses no more oil than it did at 50,000 miles. With 40 good looking UOA's. What difference would a motor oil that is better than the "middle of the pack" oil I use have offered that would make any difference. Now granted, the syn blend HDEO I use could be considered "middle of the road", but it sure has done an exceptional job that could not have been done any better by a PAO or Ester based oil. So what would be the benefit of paying more for something that couldn't deliver any better results?

And depending on the spread, PAO's and Esters also require viscosity modifiers in varying amounts. it still doesn't imply it is a negative that a mineral oil may require more. The primary anti friction components are from Moly, Boron, Zinc/Phosphorus (ZDDP). Reqardless of base oil, these need to be added to provide what the base oil cannot. So that a conventional oil may need more VM does not take away from the quality. In fact, polymeric viscosity modifiers contribute greatly to increased soot handling ability (critical in today's emission laden diesel engines) and engine internal cleanliness, as per Lubrizol, one the largest add pack suppliers. The base oil, conventional or synthetic, bring very little to the party to in this regard, so VM is needed in virtually all applications.

https://www.lubrizoladditives360.com/vm-series-part-2/

Edited November 3, 2019 by Cowpie

flyingfool · November 3, 2019

i would like to see someone run a modern LS engine on penzoil5w-30 for 250,000miles and do a tear down , I too have my doubts about the synthetics. if it where not for the Variable valve timing actuator and cylinder deactivation , gizmos, all you need to do is lower the thermostat temp so you reduce the oil sludge effect on non-synth oil. and I bet we could go back to standard oils.

Edited November 3, 2019 by flyingfool

KARNUT · November 3, 2019

i would like to see someone run a modern LS engine on penzoil5w-30 for 250,000miles and do a tear down , I too have my doubts about the synthetics. if it where not for the Variable valve timing actuator and cylinder deactivation , gizmos, all you need to do is lower the thermostat temp so you reduce the oil sludge effect on non-synth oil. and I bet we could go back to standard oils.

So all the vehicles manufacturers are using it for, grins?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

txab · November 18, 2019

Posts removed, thread re-opened. Everyone should be on their best behavior from here on. Personal comments about other members should be avoided.

Edited November 20, 2019 by txab

Grumpy Bear · November 19, 2019

Valvoline Synthetic product. (Ashland Oil) MSDS link below

https://www.whatsinproducts.com//brands/show_msds/1/14373

Distillates (Petroleum), Hydrotreated Heavy Paraffinic 10 - 15%

Heavy Paraffinic Distillate 1.5 - 5% (add pack carrier oil, conventional)

Lubricating oil, hydrotreated spent 50 - 60%.

So what is this "spent" material?

Lubricating oils (petroleum), hydrotreated spent. A complex combination of hydrocarbons obtained by treating a spent lube oil with hydrogen in the presence of a catalyst. It consists predominantly of hydrocarbons having carbon numbers predominantly in the range of C15 through C50.

Wait a minute....USED OIL??? :crackup: This is the definition of FULL Synthetic? And who segregates conventional, ATF's, gear oils and synthetics in their waste oil streams? Kid you not, Ran this rabbit down the whole...I didn't start out looking for it but.

And people wonder about me....?

Sources:

US national library of medicine.

Commercial Product Information Base

EPA

ECHA European Chemical Agency

Pennsylvania Right to Know Law (page 10 of msds)

txab · November 20, 2019

Going forward... since a few people disagree with decisions that have been made:

Site rules:

Quote

We require all posts to be positive, constructive, and on topic. We may delete individual posts that could ruin a good topic thread.

We reserve the right to remove any topics we deem inappropriate or disruptive to our community. Please note that, from time to time, topics may be removed for being inappropriate even though your individual post in that topic may have been perfectly fine. Please do not feel this reflects badly on you.

Grumpy Bear · November 20, 2019

Slicker than deer guts on a brass doorknob.

Oyster mucus. Wiki says of it: It is a viscous colloid containing inorganic salts, antimicrobial enzymes (such as lysozymes), immunoglobulins, and glycoproteins such as lactoferrin and mucins, which are produced by goblet cells in the mucous membranes and submucosal glands.

If you've ever eaten an oyster raw you know what 'slippery' is. That is 'lubricity'. Water on the other hand is not very slippery (except on ice :lol: ) and it is also not very viscous. Take away?

Lubricity and viscosity are independent and not the same quality.

For example oil between the piston skirt and the cylinder wall. Viscosity is how easy the oils molecules mover over each other. Lubricity is how easy the oil moves over the skirt/walls molecules.

The link below is a paper on friction and I don't expect you to slog through the entire thing but I would point out the quote from section 6....

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11249-016-0791-7

Figure
5 compares the EHD friction coefficients at 5% SRR of four oils from different API base fluid groups. As expected, Group 1 base oil have higher friction than Group 2, and these are usually higher than Group 3 and Group 4. This corresponds to a decreasing proportion of cyclic and branched aliphatic content. [end quote]

Take away?

Lubricity is a function of chemistry. That chemistry dictates the order and in that order Esters lead, PAO's second and so on. It does matter how hard the mineral oils are hydrotreated. That said they can not, by the very nature of their chemistry every be superior to Esters in lubricity. Esters are simply not mineral oil chemisties. That is to say a Group II hydrotreated mineral oil will indeed be more lubricious than one not hydrotreated and yet will never rival a PAO or Diester or NPG Polyol Ester. (In ascending order of lubricity).

Grumpy Bear · November 20, 2019

Viscosity and Film Thickness.

Just like viscosity and lubricity many believe that film thickness is the sole function of viscosity. It isn't. Film thickness is certainly influenced by viscosity but it is also subject to the liquids temperature, naturally, and density and that density varies between identical viscosities at identical temperatures dependent upon? Chemistries!

So much so that an Ester/PAO of identical viscosity at equal temperatures to a Group III mineral oil or lower will have a film thickness roughly one SAE viscosity spec higher. That is to say a 20W PAO/Ester will have about the same film thickness as a mineral oil 30W. Why? Density difference. Chemical structure dictates density independently of absolute viscosity.

Again a mineral oils film to viscosity relationship can be improved by hydrotreating but it can never surpass the higher group oils. It can only close the distance. Of course Ester science evolves just as rapidly.

https://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/30835/lubricant-film-strength

If you decide to read this document keep in mind that it is written from a reference point of a single base oil type v viscosity so that they seem to be the same thing. You will run across this phrase:

Quote

Film strength can be described as the lubricant’s ability to lessen the effects of friction and control wear by means other than the film thickness.[end quote]

In other words this is written considering one base type with assistance from additive support.

My comments above are written toward the difference in base oil without such chemical support. In example; how much load it takes to 'rupture' the film and permit surface to surface contact based solely on the chemisty of the fluid under consideration. Again Ester/PAO blends win that battle as well.

Edited November 20, 2019 by Grumpy Bear

Cowpie · November 20, 2019

Except viscosity is not thickness. Viscosity is resistance to flow. Ask Isaac Newton in the next life.

Grumpy Bear · November 20, 2019

3 hours ago, Cowpie said:

Except viscosity is not thickness. Viscosity is resistance to flow. Ask Isaac Newton in the next life.

This is exactly what I am saying. Evidently I did a poor job. My bad.

Yes, they are two separate properties. I don't see where I said other but okay, I'm not reading though your eyes. If that's the way you read it, that 's the way you read it.

That said many people believe they are the same thing. Reason I wrote the post was to dispel that notion. Density also factors into thickness and the very reason that two completely different fluid chemistries can have the same viscosity and yet differ in film thickness. That density difference favors esters over mineral oils at the same viscosity in this regard. (paragraph 2 in the referenced post)

Hope that is clearer. Have a nice day.

Edited November 20, 2019 by Grumpy Bear

Grumpy Bear · November 20, 2019

To be clear...

I've reread a bunch of old post on the topic of lubrication chemistry and something jumped out at me that deserves a note of caution. Something I do at 3 AM when sleep eludes me and my mind is racing. Anyway this caution is about points of reference and other tools meant to alter a perception.

1.) To be clear, when I am speaking about these differences in the properties of base oils my point of reference is the base oil and without consideration to any additive package. I note that in rebuttal to these post the conversation often changes point of reference to include the additive package. Mixed references only confuse the issues at hand. My attempts to rectify this on the fly I see are mostly ignored. Reference changes promote an agenda but do not promote the facts.

2.) Papers you can access online are often written with an intentionally limited focus whose conclusions are valid only within the scope of that focus. Pay attention to focus. When broad statements are made by people that have read those papers that exceed the papers focus, those conclusions are no longer valid.

Sometimes limited focus is done to simplify the writing of a topic to an intended audience whose knowledge of he subject is assume to be equal to the writer. Sometimes that limit focus tool is used to 'dumb down' a complicated subject whose intended audience does not share the breadth of knowledge of the writer.

3.) And yes, sometimes it is done to lead the audience to an entirely different conclusion that what the facts of the science support by 'crafty acts' of language manipulation. Kid you not there are courses that teach this technique. It's called marketing. Marketing isn't just sales promotion of a product but includes personal promotions and promotion of ideas not mainstream. Read the words. Read the grammar. Read the context. Watch the punctuation. Watch for words like, may, can, should, might, could, under these conditions and so on. What is this articles intentions? Think, please.

Carefully read this threads subject line. It's focus is about the marketing practice in the use of words to intentionally lead one to some other conclusion than the truth by word craft. When Joe Average reads the word FULL it means without exception, completely, entirely.... That is not what the industry uses as a definition and they intentionally keep that definition cloudy so that the words can be said to promote a lie without legal liability for the same.

Court battles have been fought over the meaning of the term Synthetic. Exxon/Mobil knew what it meant when they sued Castrol. It means synthesis of a molecule not found in nature. They lost that exchange and now the industry definition is any synthesized molecule. By that definition oxygen and hydrogen synthesized by the below procedure are synthetics.

Source Scientific American. Method of Making Oxygen from Water in Zero Gravity Raises Hope for Long-Distance Space Travel

This is possible using a process known as electrolysis, which involves running a current through a water sample containing some soluble electrolyte. This breaks down the water into oxygen and hydrogen, which are released separately at the two electrodes.

Question. Are these two elements, O2 and H2 really synthetics? Do they posses some additional properties because they were synthesized?

KARNUT · November 20, 2019

To be clear...

I've reread a bunch of old post on the topic of lubrication chemistry and something jumped out at me that deserves a note of caution. Something I do at 3 AM when sleep eludes me and my mind is racing. Anyway this caution is about points of reference and other tools meant to alter a perception.

1.) To be clear, when I am speaking about these differences in the properties of base oils my point of reference is the base oil and without consideration to any additive package. I note that in rebuttal to these post the conversation often changes point of reference to include the additive package. Mixed references only confuse the issues at hand. My attempts to rectify this on the fly I see are mostly ignored. Reference changes promote an agenda but do not promote the facts.

2.) Papers you can access online are often written with an intentionally limited focus whose conclusions are valid only within the scope of that focus. Pay attention to focus. When broad statements are made by people that have read those papers that exceed the papers focus, those conclusions are no longer valid.

Sometimes limited focus is done to simplify the writing of a topic to an intended audience whose knowledge of he subject is assume to be equal to the writer. Sometimes that limit focus tool is used to 'dumb down' a complicated subject whose intended audience does not share the breadth of knowledge of the writer.

3.) And yes, sometimes it is done to lead the audience to an entirely different conclusion that what the facts of the science support by 'crafty acts' of language manipulation. Kid you not there are courses that teach this technique. It's called marketing. Marketing isn't just sales promotion of a product but includes personal promotions and promotion of ideas not mainstream. Read the words. Read the grammar. Read the context. Watch the punctuation. Watch for words like, may, can, should, might, could, under these conditions and so on. What is this articles intentions? Think, please.

Carefully read this threads subject line. It's focus is about the marketing practice in the use of words to intentionally lead one to some other conclusion than the truth by word craft. When Joe Average reads the word FULL it means without exception, completely, entirely.... That is not what the industry uses as a definition and they intentionally keep that definition cloudy so that the words can be said to promote a lie without legal liability for the same.

Court battles have been fought over the meaning of the term Synthetic. Exxon/Mobil knew what it meant when they sued Castrol. It means synthesis of a molecule not found in nature. They lost that exchange and now the industry definition is any synthesized molecule. By that definition oxygen and hydrogen synthesized by the below procedure are synthetics.

Source Scientific American. Method of Making Oxygen from Water in Zero Gravity Raises Hope for Long-Distance Space Travel

This is possible using a process known as electrolysis, which involves running a current through a water sample containing some soluble electrolyte. This breaks down the water into oxygen and hydrogen, which are released separately at the two electrodes.

Question. Are these two elements, O2 and H2 really synthetics? Do they posses some additional properties because they were synthesized?

Word salad. Lawyers know them well. Being involved in lawsuits over patents, ours. It amazing how a life’s work can come down to whether it’s a capital letter or not. A famous person years ago stated, it depends on what you’re meaning of the word is, is. Yes a lawyer, among other things.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cowpie · November 20, 2019

The new Gas To Liquid (GTL) that SOPUS (Shell, Pennzoil, Quaker State, et al) has jumped on board with a vengeance is a base oil made from natural gas. Group IV PAO is made from ethylene gas, making it dependent on crude oil / natural gas also for its base stock. Yet, GTL is classed as a Group III. And in sample testing, the GTL base oils perform virtually the same as the Group IV PAO's. So for the average user, there is no appreciable difference that they would glean from a higher priced PAO. And PAO has a lower natural lubricity than a mineral derived oil, so it requires additional lubricity compounds. And PAO is is very non polar, meaning that it has a lower natural solvency, lower additive solubility, lower lubricity and film strength. PAO is top tier when it comes to oxidation stability. PAO still depends on Group III or Group V in the mix for additive solubility. The former being less expensive.

In reciprocating compressors, PAO can form hard deposits. It still would seem that the average user is not going to benefit much from using a primarily PAO based motor oil. It isn't a bad thing, but it is not heads and shoulders above Group III base oils. Each group has its own unique pros and cons. So it still seems to come down to the quality of the add pack that makes the most substantive difference.

Esters can provide substantive lubrication at extreme temps and make for a good boundary lubricant. But the addition of Molybdenum and Boron in a semi syn or full syn base oil can accomplish the same task, especially in relation to the average user. And it is interesting that SOPUS, Amsoil, Schaeffer, and others put a considerable dose of Moly and Boron in their add packs. So yet again, the average user is probably not going to see any appreciable benefit from using an ester based motor oil. The bang for the buck just isn't there.

All the above is why I just use a Group III (75%) and Group IV PAO (25%) blend. Cost is more reasonable and it is more than capable of getting the job done.

Edited November 20, 2019 by Cowpie

Grumpy Bear · November 20, 2019

While true that Ethylene is a naturally occurring RAW MATERIAL the PAO itself made from it is in fact a molecule not found in nature. Give that some thought. Nothing synthetic has an initial raw material source God himself did not create. This is a reference point issue and the reference point for synthetic is the end product, not the raw material.

IN this excerpt below note the ambiguity noted in bold red? Then look at properties chart. What this means is that it won't damage (dissolve) most common sealing materials but slowly over time is will shrink them. Esters swell them thus the statement in green. More importantly note the fairly long list of advantages over and above thermal stability. Lastly note that area in orange. This does not translate to ICE's and is specific to that particular service. this is a great example of reading the context for clarity.

From Machinery Lubrication:

Polyalphaolefin does not contain ring structures, double bonds, sulphur, nitrogen components or waxy hydrocarbons. The absence of these structures and materials results in a very non-polar base oil with a high viscosity index (of approximately 130), excellent low-temperature flow and pour-point characteristics, good oxidation stability and compatibility with mineral oils, paints and seals commonly found in lube oil systems. Because of their controlled structure, PAOs do not contain lighter, more volatile (small) hydrocarbons. This lowers their volatility, creates less hydrocarbon tailpipe emissions and raises the flash point.

PAOs are used extensively in automotive fluids as well as hydraulic, gear and bearing oils, working in extremely cold climates or hot applications. They are also employed as base fluids in some wide temperature range greases. One application in which they have not worked well is in high-temperature (high-pressure) reciprocating air compressors where valve deposits have been an issue.

However, nothing is perfect, and polyalphaolefin base oils do have a few negative characteristics. These include the tendency to shrink seals and trouble dissolving common oil additives. Therefore, they are commonly blended or combined with organic ester synthetic base oils to provide a blended base oil that does not have these negative characteristics. Polyalphaolefins also have poor fire resistance and biodegradability.

[end quote] Because of their controlled structure, PAOs do not contain lighter, more volatile (small) hydrocarbons. (from above first quoted paragraph) Groups 1 to 3 are a broad spectrum of hydrocarbons ranging as wide as C15 to C50 (we saw this in the MSDS posted on Valvoline) if you remember. PAO's do not. Chemically tailored to a very narrow range of chain length. Exact selection depending on desired viscosity mainly.