If you want to run good oil then this is for you
02-27-2014, 08:59 AM
#24
Melting Slicks
I have a long retired chemical engineer cousin who actually has his name (one of many) on the patent for Mobile 1. He has waxed on about the 10-carbon molecule chains and other chemical engineering stuff that's frankly way over my head. He's told me that back in the day, they engineered an oil similar to Mobil 1 that was used on special aircraft. That oil was then over $40. per quart , and that the oil was very close to zero wear, but that's all he could say. After cutting thru the babble, he basically told me that the synthetics were all the same basic chemical design. The only real differences were the additives. I've taken him for his word & use Mobil1 5w30.
02-27-2014, 10:33 AM
#26
Drifting
I do not have any direct knowledge of this product. However, those who have read some of my other oil posts may find the following of interest. From the description on their web site, the base oil for this formulation sounds like group 3 synthetic that may be processed somewhat more severely than most group 3 synthetics. More on that in a second, but their web site descriptions of it being mineral oil, and highly refined sweet crude mineral base do not seem to carry any special significance since all of those terms are generic and could apply to any group 3 base oil.
The short version of “groups” is that 2 is conventional oil, 3 starts as conventional but is subjected to a very high severity process called hydrocracking, 4 is poly alpha olefin, and 5 is ester. Any and all combinations of 3, 4, and 5 can be called full synthetic. Most would agree that group 3 is by a narrow margin, the lowest quality, but it is also by far the cheapest. At various times, various brands have claimed to be groups 4 or 5, but they no longer do, so you figure out what that means. Hint: everybody now uses non-trivial content of group 3 in their full synthetics. This is not a very serious quality issue because additives keep getting better, and that tends to level the playing field such that small differences in base oil quality get less and less significant with time.
So where does this oil fit in? While not an official designation, I’ve called one other new type of base stock group 3+. That group is the material from the GTL process (gas to liquids). While that material emerged since I retired, I know enough to say that it should clearly be better than standard group 3, and probably as good as groups 4 and 5. The oil in this thread may be in a similar position. If the base stock really is water white as claimed, it has been hydrocracked more severely than most group 3 base stocks, which do retain a trace of color. Thus it may have lower naphthene and heteroatom content than most group 3 oils. However, it can’t conceivably be any better than the GTL stuff, since that material has zero naphthene and heteroatom content. And the GTL material is essentially equivalent to groups 4 and 5 (all have their minor plusses and minuses, with none a clear winner).
So the bottom line on base stock is that in the best case, it is a smidgen better than others. When I say a smidgen better, it assumes they are using 100% of this material which I’m calling group 3+, with no standard group 3 base. That’s a somewhat dangerous assumption, because while their web site implies that’s the case, it does not clearly state it. Since all other brands contain at least some group 3, and since groups 3+, 4, and 5 are essentially equivalent, then if their oil truly contains zero standard group 3, its base would be slightly better.
But now there’s the final issue – additive package. Once you are into a full synthetic, differences in oil performance are more a function of additive package than of the exact combo of groups 3, 4, 5 base stocks. The thing that would trouble me is that little companies don’t have the financial resources to fund the very expensive engine testing that is required to validate and compare additive packages. That doesn’t rule out the possibility that they have a terrific seat of the pants guy who chooses a terrific additive blend. But you have to ask yourself, what do I want to bet my engine on? The presence of a great seat of the pants additive guy, or the presence of a huge budget to do the hugely expensive engine testing to be sure they have the additive package right? I’d personally lean toward the latter and go with the big guys, but of course, I came from a career with one of the big guys. Some will prefer the boutique approach, and if the boutique additive guy is first rate, the result can be first rate. The risk is that it won’t be backed up with anywhere near as much testing as the big guys.
The short version of “groups” is that 2 is conventional oil, 3 starts as conventional but is subjected to a very high severity process called hydrocracking, 4 is poly alpha olefin, and 5 is ester. Any and all combinations of 3, 4, and 5 can be called full synthetic. Most would agree that group 3 is by a narrow margin, the lowest quality, but it is also by far the cheapest. At various times, various brands have claimed to be groups 4 or 5, but they no longer do, so you figure out what that means. Hint: everybody now uses non-trivial content of group 3 in their full synthetics. This is not a very serious quality issue because additives keep getting better, and that tends to level the playing field such that small differences in base oil quality get less and less significant with time.
So where does this oil fit in? While not an official designation, I’ve called one other new type of base stock group 3+. That group is the material from the GTL process (gas to liquids). While that material emerged since I retired, I know enough to say that it should clearly be better than standard group 3, and probably as good as groups 4 and 5. The oil in this thread may be in a similar position. If the base stock really is water white as claimed, it has been hydrocracked more severely than most group 3 base stocks, which do retain a trace of color. Thus it may have lower naphthene and heteroatom content than most group 3 oils. However, it can’t conceivably be any better than the GTL stuff, since that material has zero naphthene and heteroatom content. And the GTL material is essentially equivalent to groups 4 and 5 (all have their minor plusses and minuses, with none a clear winner).
So the bottom line on base stock is that in the best case, it is a smidgen better than others. When I say a smidgen better, it assumes they are using 100% of this material which I’m calling group 3+, with no standard group 3 base. That’s a somewhat dangerous assumption, because while their web site implies that’s the case, it does not clearly state it. Since all other brands contain at least some group 3, and since groups 3+, 4, and 5 are essentially equivalent, then if their oil truly contains zero standard group 3, its base would be slightly better.
But now there’s the final issue – additive package. Once you are into a full synthetic, differences in oil performance are more a function of additive package than of the exact combo of groups 3, 4, 5 base stocks. The thing that would trouble me is that little companies don’t have the financial resources to fund the very expensive engine testing that is required to validate and compare additive packages. That doesn’t rule out the possibility that they have a terrific seat of the pants guy who chooses a terrific additive blend. But you have to ask yourself, what do I want to bet my engine on? The presence of a great seat of the pants additive guy, or the presence of a huge budget to do the hugely expensive engine testing to be sure they have the additive package right? I’d personally lean toward the latter and go with the big guys, but of course, I came from a career with one of the big guys. Some will prefer the boutique approach, and if the boutique additive guy is first rate, the result can be first rate. The risk is that it won’t be backed up with anywhere near as much testing as the big guys.
02-27-2014, 11:02 AM
#28
Race Director
I do not have any direct knowledge of this product. However, those who have read some of my other oil posts may find the following of interest. From the description on their web site, the base oil for this formulation sounds like group 3 synthetic that may be processed somewhat more severely than most group 3 synthetics. More on that in a second, but their web site descriptions of it being mineral oil, and highly refined sweet crude mineral base do not seem to carry any special significance since all of those terms are generic and could apply to any group 3 base oil.
The short version of “groups” is that 2 is conventional oil, 3 starts as conventional but is subjected to a very high severity process called hydrocracking, 4 is poly alpha olefin, and 5 is ester. Any and all combinations of 3, 4, and 5 can be called full synthetic. Most would agree that group 3 is by a narrow margin, the lowest quality, but it is also by far the cheapest. At various times, various brands have claimed to be groups 4 or 5, but they no longer do, so you figure out what that means. Hint: everybody now uses non-trivial content of group 3 in their full synthetics. This is not a very serious quality issue because additives keep getting better, and that tends to level the playing field such that small differences in base oil quality get less and less significant with time.
So where does this oil fit in? While not an official designation, I’ve called one other new type of base stock group 3+. That group is the material from the GTL process (gas to liquids). While that material emerged since I retired, I know enough to say that it should clearly be better than standard group 3, and probably as good as groups 4 and 5. The oil in this thread may be in a similar position. If the base stock really is water white as claimed, it has been hydrocracked more severely than most group 3 base stocks, which do retain a trace of color. Thus it may have lower naphthene and heteroatom content than most group 3 oils. However, it can’t conceivably be any better than the GTL stuff, since that material has zero naphthene and heteroatom content. And the GTL material is essentially equivalent to groups 4 and 5 (all have their minor plusses and minuses, with none a clear winner).
So the bottom line on base stock is that in the best case, it is a smidgen better than others. When I say a smidgen better, it assumes they are using 100% of this material which I’m calling group 3+, with no standard group 3 base. That’s a somewhat dangerous assumption, because while their web site implies that’s the case, it does not clearly state it. Since all other brands contain at least some group 3, and since groups 3+, 4, and 5 are essentially equivalent, then if their oil truly contains zero standard group 3, its base would be slightly better.
But now there’s the final issue – additive package. Once you are into a full synthetic, differences in oil performance are more a function of additive package than of the exact combo of groups 3, 4, 5 base stocks. The thing that would trouble me is that little companies don’t have the financial resources to fund the very expensive engine testing that is required to validate and compare additive packages. That doesn’t rule out the possibility that they have a terrific seat of the pants guy who chooses a terrific additive blend. But you have to ask yourself, what do I want to bet my engine on? The presence of a great seat of the pants additive guy, or the presence of a huge budget to do the hugely expensive engine testing to be sure they have the additive package right? I’d personally lean toward the latter and go with the big guys, but of course, I came from a career with one of the big guys. Some will prefer the boutique approach, and if the boutique additive guy is first rate, the result can be first rate. The risk is that it won’t be backed up with anywhere near as much testing as the big guys.
The short version of “groups” is that 2 is conventional oil, 3 starts as conventional but is subjected to a very high severity process called hydrocracking, 4 is poly alpha olefin, and 5 is ester. Any and all combinations of 3, 4, and 5 can be called full synthetic. Most would agree that group 3 is by a narrow margin, the lowest quality, but it is also by far the cheapest. At various times, various brands have claimed to be groups 4 or 5, but they no longer do, so you figure out what that means. Hint: everybody now uses non-trivial content of group 3 in their full synthetics. This is not a very serious quality issue because additives keep getting better, and that tends to level the playing field such that small differences in base oil quality get less and less significant with time.
So where does this oil fit in? While not an official designation, I’ve called one other new type of base stock group 3+. That group is the material from the GTL process (gas to liquids). While that material emerged since I retired, I know enough to say that it should clearly be better than standard group 3, and probably as good as groups 4 and 5. The oil in this thread may be in a similar position. If the base stock really is water white as claimed, it has been hydrocracked more severely than most group 3 base stocks, which do retain a trace of color. Thus it may have lower naphthene and heteroatom content than most group 3 oils. However, it can’t conceivably be any better than the GTL stuff, since that material has zero naphthene and heteroatom content. And the GTL material is essentially equivalent to groups 4 and 5 (all have their minor plusses and minuses, with none a clear winner).
So the bottom line on base stock is that in the best case, it is a smidgen better than others. When I say a smidgen better, it assumes they are using 100% of this material which I’m calling group 3+, with no standard group 3 base. That’s a somewhat dangerous assumption, because while their web site implies that’s the case, it does not clearly state it. Since all other brands contain at least some group 3, and since groups 3+, 4, and 5 are essentially equivalent, then if their oil truly contains zero standard group 3, its base would be slightly better.
But now there’s the final issue – additive package. Once you are into a full synthetic, differences in oil performance are more a function of additive package than of the exact combo of groups 3, 4, 5 base stocks. The thing that would trouble me is that little companies don’t have the financial resources to fund the very expensive engine testing that is required to validate and compare additive packages. That doesn’t rule out the possibility that they have a terrific seat of the pants guy who chooses a terrific additive blend. But you have to ask yourself, what do I want to bet my engine on? The presence of a great seat of the pants additive guy, or the presence of a huge budget to do the hugely expensive engine testing to be sure they have the additive package right? I’d personally lean toward the latter and go with the big guys, but of course, I came from a career with one of the big guys. Some will prefer the boutique approach, and if the boutique additive guy is first rate, the result can be first rate. The risk is that it won’t be backed up with anywhere near as much testing as the big guys.
Good summary…………well stated.Larry
02-27-2014, 11:57 AM
#29
Moderator
Member Since: Dec 2002
Location: Lakewood Ranch, FL
Posts: 40,091
Received 3,589 Likes
on
1,626 Posts
Rule on Commercial Posting
Supporting vendors pay for the considerable bandwidth charges on the Forum, making it free for the rest of us. In exchange, they get the privilege of using the Forum to market and promote their goods and services. Historically, we allow them to post in the generation sections and the regional sections to market and promote their products/services.
Forum members are welcome to sell a Corvette or Corvette parts they purchased for their own personal use. They also are welcome to use the Forum to purchase items for their personal use. Anything else is considered to be a commercial sale or a commercial purchase for the purpose of re-selling. Please check the sales rules regarding eBay sales and links:
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/foru...eir-parts.html
Members are not prohibited from mentioning it when they have a good (or bad, for that matter) experience with a non-supporting vendor. But such mentions cannot be so specific (address, phone number, e-mail address, URL, price, part number, offer to send contact information via PMs, etc.) or so frequent that they become marketing and promotional references.
Only supporting vendors can post Group Purchase threads. Only supporting vendors are permitted to post threads to gauge interest in a product.
Members can include a mention of their personal businesses in their signatures so long as the enterprise does not compete with an existing supporting vendor, is not Corvette-related and is not so detailed (address, phone number, e-mail address, offer to send contact information via PMs, etc.) or so frequently appended to their posts that it becomes inappropriate marketing and promotion. The same applies on references to other Internet automotive communities.
For details and pricing on the site's supporting vendor program, contact the advertising team at Internet Brands through this link:
http://www.internetbrandsauto.com/contact
Forum members are welcome to sell a Corvette or Corvette parts they purchased for their own personal use. They also are welcome to use the Forum to purchase items for their personal use. Anything else is considered to be a commercial sale or a commercial purchase for the purpose of re-selling. Please check the sales rules regarding eBay sales and links:
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/foru...eir-parts.html
Members are not prohibited from mentioning it when they have a good (or bad, for that matter) experience with a non-supporting vendor. But such mentions cannot be so specific (address, phone number, e-mail address, URL, price, part number, offer to send contact information via PMs, etc.) or so frequent that they become marketing and promotional references.
Only supporting vendors can post Group Purchase threads. Only supporting vendors are permitted to post threads to gauge interest in a product.
Members can include a mention of their personal businesses in their signatures so long as the enterprise does not compete with an existing supporting vendor, is not Corvette-related and is not so detailed (address, phone number, e-mail address, offer to send contact information via PMs, etc.) or so frequently appended to their posts that it becomes inappropriate marketing and promotion. The same applies on references to other Internet automotive communities.
For details and pricing on the site's supporting vendor program, contact the advertising team at Internet Brands through this link:
http://www.internetbrandsauto.com/contact