Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 20:48:33 -0400 From: Malt_Hound <Malt_Houndnospamm*yahoo.com> Subject: Re: synthetic oil
Sleeker GT Phwoar wrote: > In article <YrGdnewB5uAIXl_fRVn-2gnospamphia.com>, > Malt_Houndnospamm*yahoo.com says... > >>Not from my experience or understanding. Please cite some references. >>Everything I have read or heard indicates that it is a true synthetic. >>It's Castrol Syntec that is labeled as a "fully synthetic" but is a >>cracked petroleum based oil. That is not necessarily a bad thing, just >>different. >> > > Below is an article written by John Rowland, Silkolene/Fuchs Chief R & D > Chemist for 40 years. > > Quote: > > Costs of synthetics vary considerably. The most expensive are the > ?Ester? types originally only used in jet engines. These cost 6 to 10 > times more than high quality mineral oils. The cheapest synthetics are > not really synthetic at all, from a chemists point of view. These are in > fact specially refined light viscosity mineral oils known as > ?hydrocracked?. These have some advantages over equivalent mineral oils, > particularly in lower viscosity motor oils such as 5w-30 or other oils > with a low ?W? rating such as 5w-50 etc and they cost about 1.5 times > more than good quality mineral fractions. We use several different > grades of this base oil, where appropriate. This is the ?synthetic? > which is always used in cheap oils that are labelled ?synthetic?. Yes > it?s a cruel world, you get what you pay for! > > Now, you may ask, why are these special mineral oils called ?synthetic?? > Well, it was all sorted in a legal battle that took place in the USA > about ten years ago. Sound reasons (including evidence from a Nobel > Prize winning chemist) were disregarded and the final ruling was that > certain mineral bases that had undergone extra chemical treatments could > be called ?synthetic?. Needless to say, the marketing executives wet > their knickers with pure delight! They realised that this meant, and > still does, that the critical buzz-word ?synthetic? could be printed on > a can of cheap oil provided that the contents included a few percent of > ?hydrocracked? mineral oil, at a cost of quite literally a few pence. > > So, the chemistry of ?synthetics? is complex and so is the politics! > > The economics are very simple. If you like the look of a smart well- > marketed can with ?synthetic? printed on it, fair enough, it will not > cost you a lot; and now you know why this is the case. But, if you drive > a high performance car, and you intend to keep it for several years, and > maybe do the odd ?track day?, then you need a genuine Ester/PAO (Poly > Alpha Olefin) synthetic oil, such as PRO S or PRO R. This oil costs more > money to buy, because it costs us a lot of money to make, very simply, > you always get what you pay for! > > UNQUOTE: While all of the above is credible and seems accurate, it *is* written by a guy trying to sell his company's brand of oil, and he never says anything about Mobil 1 specifically. > > Here is a link to some specs of oils. > http://www.opieoils.co.uk/lubricants.htm > Read through this stuff. It seems to indicate that Mobil 1 is a true synthetic. I don't see any verbage that indicate sotherwise. > And Biased toward AMSoil but, > http://www.bestsyntheticoil.com/amsoil/index.shtml#mobil2 > "Nothing Outperforms Mobil 1? Wrong!! > Just compare the technical specifications. We've got the data on the new > Mobil 1 SuperSyn 5w30 and we've compared it to AMSOIL 5w30. Guess who > comes out on top in every category? You guessed it ... AMSOIL! > > According to the ASTM D4172 Four Ball Wear Test, Mobil 1 SuperSyn 5w30 > allows 50% more wear than AMSOIL 5w30. 50%! What about NOACK volatility > (the measure of an oil's rate of consumption under high heat/stress > conditions)? Mobil 1 consumes at a rate nearly double that of AMSOIL. > And how about TBN (Total Base Number - the measure of an oil's ability > to neutralize acid build-up and corrosion)? AMSOIL has a TBN value > nearly 50% higher than Mobil 1. > > Of course, there are other areas where AMSOIL comes out on top as well > such as a viscosity index score that is 12 points higher than the Mobil > 1 product which isn't even on the charts (we didn't want to beat up on > them too badly). Why don't you take a look at the charts for yourself? > " Biased? No kidding. That's the understatement of the century. Everyone that has half a brain would quickly realize that Amsoil is a multilevel marketing scheme only one step removed from Shakley. Yes, they sell some reasonably good products (at an extremely inflated price), but their evidence is suspect and cannot be believed. Of course their self-interests are obvious. How about this link? http://neptune.spacebears.com/cars/stories/mobil1.html Considering that this test is being performed by someone that has no particular interest in either brand, I think it speaks volumes. > > And this link goes into quite a lot of detail over both Syntec, and > Mobil 1 and the PAO Synthetic/Cracked petroleum synthetic debate too. > http://www.clubwrx.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-4702.html So a couple of guys on a bulletin board are arguing the merits of Mobil 1 and Castrol. I have heard most of this before except the part about Mobil 1 being "downgraded" from PAO based synthetic to a cracked mineral, and frankly, this does not seem like a completely credible source. So, when will you show me any evidence that Mobil 1 is not a "true synthetic" oil? BBS posts don't cut it... -Fred W
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
