Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2005 02:12:55 GMT From: Dan <dannospamam.com> Subject: Re: synthetic oil
On 6/30/2005 7:48 PM, Malt_Hound wrote: > 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 Wasn't Mobil 1 originally partly synthetic, then it was reformulated recently into fully synthetic? I am pretty sure that SAAB recommends using Mobil 1 in my 2004 9-3 Aero (according to my dealer).
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
