On 2 May 2005 10:40:45 -0700, "y_p_w" <y_p_w@hotmail.com> wrote:

>George Macdonald wrote:
>> On Sun, 01 May 2005 17:01:09 GMT, y_p_w <y_p_w@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I still dunno wjhat you mean by "better" - there are limits to what
>> you can do with oil. Excessive additives to get, e.g. a higher acid
>> buffering factor for extended mileage, often bring other compromises.
>> IMO the oils we have in the U.S. are as good as anywhere. The Euros
>> get screwed at retail - that's how it is.<shrug>
>
>What I meant by "better" is that apparently the API standard is
>not as stringent at ACEA A1. Longer oil change intervals don't
>freak out most European car owners.

It's no big deal - all politics and marketing IMO. If you bought one of
those long interval cars, would you follow the umm, "directions"?:-)

>> Like I've been saying, having the auto mfrs define oil "standards"
>> is madness. Lubricants mfrs are just as likely to ignore them --
>> VW's presence in the U.S. is precarious enough that it would not be
>> surprising -- though their oils very likely perform at least as well.
>> If I were a lube mfr I would not go to the trouble of listing every
>> single auto mfr's half-baked "specs" on the container. I am also
>> suspicious that this is all part of the current fad for "free"
>> maintenance.
>
>The "free maintenance" thing seems to be primarily BMW and Mercedes-
>Benz. I remember when Mitsubishi was offering a limited time
>free maintenance offer.

I believe all the auto mfrs are toying with the idea of "free" maintenance
- they usually start with "free" during warranty, to see how it flies. The
dealers love it of course - gives them a prime opportunity to sabotage,
err, inspect unrelated items for later replacement... on your $$s.

>As for the other stuff, you'll find any number of different
>"manufacturers' standards" on bottles of motor oil these days.
>The VW/BMW/MBZ standards are on the beginning. I've seen motor
>oil bottles listing stuff like GM 4718M (Corvette), and various
>standards from Ford, Chrysler, and GM. I've even seen fairly
>ordinary bottles of Exxon Superflo 5W-30 claiming to meet GM's
>cold-weather pumping standard (forgot the spec #).

Let me out it this way: such listings are not going to sway my choice of
oil.

>> >The impression I got was that the kind of "severe duty" driving
>> >we see in the US is uncommon.
>>
>> I dunno what you mean by "severe". If it's extreme temps, in general
>> there are likely less places in Europe with the temp extremes we see
>> but they do exist. To me, the worst thing you can do to an oil is
>> pollute it with water and combustion contaminants... leading to
>> sludge formation. Modern oils stand up to sustained high temps quite
>> well, certainly much better than in the past, and engines work better
>> to keep things controlled.
>
>Nah - I meant short-trip driving, stop & go, trailers, or excessive
>idling.

Other than the big trailers you see here, IME, no - the Euro/UK regime is
more severe, especially short trip... though you will see lots of
small-engined cars there pulling what they call a "caravan" at certain
times of the year.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

 

George Macdonald wrote:
> On 3 May 2005 12:38:36 -0700, "y_p_w" <y_p_w@hotmail.com> wrote:

I know George says he's on vacation, but......

> >I thought the problem with heavily polar ester molecules is that
they
> >"compete" with other additives for metal surface area. I was under
> >the impression that one would rather have ZDDP bonding to metal
parts
> >than esters.
>
> They play different roles and take effect under different conditions.
The
> MoDDC supposedly "plates" to cam lobes/tappets under extreme
> pressure/scuffing; the polar molecule is supposed to allow the oil to
cling
> to upper engine parts during drainback. I don't see how the could
> "compete" - one is an additive, the other a blending agent.

The way it was told to me by a lube chemist is that very polarized
ester molecules and antiwear compounds electrostatically bond to the
surface and that they "compete" to bond to the metal surface area.

> > Castrol used to advertise the polarized nature of the
> >esters in Syntec and alleged protection properties until the FTC
> >shut them down. I've heard that Castrol's new "Start Up" motor oil
> >contains polarized esters, and I suppose they believe the clingy
> >nature of esters helps with startup.
>
> They've been selling under the same marketing blurb in the U.K. for
> several years - Magnatec or some such name. Dunno why the FTC would
> have shut them down when you see all the other snake oil claims.

Remember the claims of Castrol Syntec with "FSX"? They had the
TV spots where several engines were run on a bench, then drained
of oil. One by one the engines quit until the one running Syntec
was the only one still working. They also had the ad where they
drained an engine of Syntec, put one quart in, and ran it. They
were told to stop those claims because it didn't represent the
way most people use motor oil, and didn't explain that there might
be damage as a result of such use even if they didn't completely
die.

 

On 3 May 2005 12:38:36 -0700, "y_p_w" <y_p_w@hotmail.com> wrote:

>George Macdonald wrote:
>> On 2 May 2005 12:50:32 -0700, "y_p_w" <y_p_w@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >BTW - going back to an ancient discussion, the third component in
>> >Mobil 1's "Tri-Synthetic" oil is apparently alkylated naphthalene.
>> >There's even suggestions that the current "SuperSyn" Mobil 1
>> >products don't use esters in favor of alkylated napthalenes. They
>> >must be doing something right, since many used oil analysis results
>> >indicate that it holds its viscosity extremely well, and there's
>> >speculation that the oil itself contains no VI improvers in all
>> >weights.
>>
>> I recall bringing up the lack of VI improver here shortly after
>> SuperSyn came out - Mobil never came out and said it directly but
>> it was strongly hinted at in their SuperSyn docs that it had the
>> same effect as VI improvers and allowed their elimination form
>> the formula. My own experience, with alarming noises on low temp
>> starts, indicates that the initial Mobil1 SuperSyn had (dangerously)
>> insufficient high pressure friction reducer... something brought up
>> in some of the Forums and which was later corrected with
>> (increased ?) MoDDC.
>
>SuperSyn is just the HVI PAO.

Yes, I was working on the understanding that we *knew* that... and that
they are high molecular weight.

> The newer Mobil 1 EP oils are touted
>as containing 50% more SuperSyn. They're also alleged to be of
>slightly higher viscosity at operating temps. Makes sense to me.

Of course. It was the SuperSyn blending agent which raised pour point on
the Mobil1 SuperSyn vs. the previous Tri-Synthetic.

>BTW - I had an used oil analysis done on a sample of Mobil 1 (SL
>SuperSyn) 5W-30. It's not for a Honda. It was after the 2nd time
>I'd used Mobil 1 5W-30 in this car. The molydenum level was a
>fairly ordinary 52 PPM, which was actually less than their
>"universal" averages. Molydenum levels were really high in the
>factory fill (894 PPM), although I understand it could have come
>from the (moly plated) rings breaking in, assembly lube, or breakin
>additive. Zinc and phosphorous levels for the Mobil 1 5W-30 seem
>to be rather low too (API SL mandate?). The viscosity was also
>right where it should be after 3700 miles. I've heard reports of
>5W-30 oil w/ VI improver shearing down to 5W-20 after use.
>
>><http://www.exxonmobilchemical.com/Public_PA/WorldwideEnglish/Newsroom/Newsreleases/chem_nr_280403.asp>
>>
>><http://www.exxonmobilchemical.com/Public_Products/Synthetics/Synthetic_Lubricants_and_Fluids/Worldwide/Grades_and_Datasheets/Syn_Grade_GradeAlkylated.asp>
>>
>><http://www.exxonmobilchemical.com/Public_Files/Synthetics/Synthetic_Lubricants_and_Fluids/Worldwide/Data_Sheet_Synesstic_v5.pdf>
>>
>><http://www.exxonmobilchemical.com/Public_Files/Synthetics/Synthetic_Lubricants_and_Fluids/Worldwide/Synthetics_GeneralBrochure.pdf>
>>
>> Thanks for the links.
>>
>> >From what I've read, the AN base oil is supposed to provide many of
>> >the benefits that esters bring without lots of the drawbacks.
>> >They're supposed to be cheaper, don't swell the seals as much, have
>> >high detergency, and don't compete as much with additives for
>> >surface area.
>>
>> That still leaves the polar molecule of the esters missing from the
>> formula - I don't have exact details but AN is, based on my hazy
>> chemistry memory, I'd think, only very mildly polar.
>
>I thought the problem with heavily polar ester molecules is that they
>"compete" with other additives for metal surface area. I was under
>the impression that one would rather have ZDDP bonding to metal parts
>than esters.

They play different roles and take effect under different conditions. The
MoDDC supposedly "plates" to cam lobes/tappets under extreme
pressure/scuffing; the polar molecule is supposed to allow the oil to cling
to upper engine parts during drainback. I don't see how the could
"compete" - one is an additive, the other a blending agent.

> Castrol used to advertise the polarized nature of the
>esters in Syntec and alleged protection properties until the FTC shut
>them down. I've heard that Castrol's new "Start Up" motor oil
>contains polarized esters, and I suppose they believe the clingy
>nature of esters helps with startup.

They've been selling under the same marketing blurb in the U.K. for several
years - Magnatec or some such name. Dunno why the FTC would have shut them
down when you see all the other snake oil claims.

BTW I'm off on vacation for a couple of weeks so won't be participating
further in this thread.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

 

On Tue, 03 May 2005 19:12:10 -0700, SoCalMike
<mikein562athotmail@hotmail.com> wrote:

>George Macdonald wrote:
>>
>> It's no big deal - all politics and marketing IMO. If you bought one of
>> those long interval cars, would you follow the umm, "directions"?:-)
>
>yeesh. mobil1 now has a 15(?)k mile oil i saw at wallyworld. now whats
>so different/better/special that they can say itll last 15k miles?

I believe the German mfrs are copying Porsche with their in-engine "oil
analyzer" which advises if the oil should be changed before the 15K is
up... depending, of course, on driving profile. When your oil sump
capacity is measured in gallons, it makes more sense.:-)

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

 

SoCalMike wrote:

> George Macdonald wrote:
>
>>
>> It's no big deal - all politics and marketing IMO. If you bought one of
>> those long interval cars, would you follow the umm, "directions"?:-)
>
>
> yeesh. mobil1 now has a 15(?)k mile oil i saw at wallyworld. now whats
> so different/better/special that they can say itll last 15k miles?

More "SuperSyn" (HVI PAO) which makes it slightly thicker at operating
temps. Boosted detergent and total base number. Alleged to resist
viscosity breakdown exceptionally well.

Actually the Mercedes-Benz electronic system with a 229.5 spec oil is
supposed to allow for up 25K miles depending on conditions. The only
Mobil oil that meets that spec is Mobil 1 0W-40.

> FWIW, that would be 5 years between oil changes for me.

So you walk a lot? :-)

 

John Horner wrote:

> Having looked at a lot of the used oil analysis results on
> www.bobistheoilguy.com, I have personally come to the view that Mobil-1 is a
> greatly overrated oil. At "normal" oil change intervals it does not seem
> to showed lower wear metals than do any of the good conventional oils or any
> of the much-maligned Group III synthetics. In fact, in many cases Mobil-1
> seems to show high iron numbers in used oil analysis than do other oils.
>
> Those of you who think you are doing your car some big favor by changing the
> oil every 3mo/3,000 miles and using Mobil-1 are in most cases just pouring
> money down the drain. Turbos, sub-artic dwellers, etc. being some
> exceptions.

Sure - can accept that. Current car has a turbo. Last car was a GS-R
with the 8000 RPM redline. The main advantage of PAO synthetics is
resistance to oxidation under extreme conditions. Mobil 1 is my choice
because it's easy to find.

I actually ran an extended drain test on an '89 Integra on SH Mobil 1
10W-30. The wear metals were fairly normal after 11K miles/1 year.
There was a borderline high lead level though. The analysis was
similar to a typical car at a 4000 mile oil change.

 

George Macdonald wrote:
>
> It's no big deal - all politics and marketing IMO. If you bought one of
> those long interval cars, would you follow the umm, "directions"?:-)

yeesh. mobil1 now has a 15(?)k mile oil i saw at wallyworld. now whats
so different/better/special that they can say itll last 15k miles?

FWIW, that would be 5 years between oil changes for me.

 

Having looked at a lot of the used oil analysis results on
www.bobistheoilguy.com, I have personally come to the view that Mobil-1 is a
greatly overrated oil. At "normal" oil change intervals it does not seem
to showed lower wear metals than do any of the good conventional oils or any
of the much-maligned Group III synthetics. In fact, in many cases Mobil-1
seems to show high iron numbers in used oil analysis than do other oils.

Those of you who think you are doing your car some big favor by changing the
oil every 3mo/3,000 miles and using Mobil-1 are in most cases just pouring
money down the drain. Turbos, sub-artic dwellers, etc. being some
exceptions.

Just my well studied personal opinion, do with it as you like :).

John

 

George Macdonald wrote:
> On 2 May 2005 12:50:32 -0700, "y_p_w" <y_p_w@hotmail.com> wrote:

> >BTW - going back to an ancient discussion, the third component in
> >Mobil 1's "Tri-Synthetic" oil is apparently alkylated naphthalene.
> >There's even suggestions that the current "SuperSyn" Mobil 1
> >products don't use esters in favor of alkylated napthalenes. They
> >must be doing something right, since many used oil analysis results
> >indicate that it holds its viscosity extremely well, and there's
> >speculation that the oil itself contains no VI improvers in all
> >weights.
>
> I recall bringing up the lack of VI improver here shortly after
> SuperSyn came out - Mobil never came out and said it directly but
> it was strongly hinted at in their SuperSyn docs that it had the
> same effect as VI improvers and allowed their elimination form
> the formula. My own experience, with alarming noises on low temp
> starts, indicates that the initial Mobil1 SuperSyn had (dangerously)
> insufficient high pressure friction reducer... something brought up
> in some of the Forums and which was later corrected with
> (increased ?) MoDDC.

SuperSyn is just the HVI PAO. The newer Mobil 1 EP oils are touted
as containing 50% more SuperSyn. They're also alleged to be of
slightly higher viscosity at operating temps. Makes sense to me.

BTW - I had an used oil analysis done on a sample of Mobil 1 (SL
SuperSyn) 5W-30. It's not for a Honda. It was after the 2nd time
I'd used Mobil 1 5W-30 in this car. The molydenum level was a
fairly ordinary 52 PPM, which was actually less than their
"universal" averages. Molydenum levels were really high in the
factory fill (894 PPM), although I understand it could have come
from the (moly plated) rings breaking in, assembly lube, or breakin
additive. Zinc and phosphorous levels for the Mobil 1 5W-30 seem
to be rather low too (API SL mandate?). The viscosity was also
right where it should be after 3700 miles. I've heard reports of
5W-30 oil w/ VI improver shearing down to 5W-20 after use.

><http://www.exxonmobilchemical.com/Public_PA/WorldwideEnglish/Newsroom/Newsreleases/chem_nr_280403.asp>
>
><http://www.exxonmobilchemical.com/Public_Products/Synthetics/Synthetic_Lubricants_and_Fluids/Worldwide/Grades_and_Datasheets/Syn_Grade_GradeAlkylated.asp>
>
><http://www.exxonmobilchemical.com/Public_Files/Synthetics/Synthetic_Lubricants_and_Fluids/Worldwide/Data_Sheet_Synesstic_v5.pdf>
>
><http://www.exxonmobilchemical.com/Public_Files/Synthetics/Synthetic_Lubricants_and_Fluids/Worldwide/Synthetics_GeneralBrochure.pdf>
>
> Thanks for the links.
>
> >From what I've read, the AN base oil is supposed to provide many of
> >the benefits that esters bring without lots of the drawbacks.
> >They're supposed to be cheaper, don't swell the seals as much, have
> >high detergency, and don't compete as much with additives for
> >surface area.
>
> That still leaves the polar molecule of the esters missing from the
> formula - I don't have exact details but AN is, based on my hazy
> chemistry memory, I'd think, only very mildly polar.

I thought the problem with heavily polar ester molecules is that they
"compete" with other additives for metal surface area. I was under
the impression that one would rather have ZDDP bonding to metal parts
than esters. Castrol used to advertise the polarized nature of the
esters in Syntec and alleged protection properties until the FTC shut
them down. I've heard that Castrol's new "Start Up" motor oil
contains polarized esters, and I suppose they believe the clingy
nature of esters helps with startup.

 

On 2 May 2005 12:50:32 -0700, "y_p_w" <y_p_w@hotmail.com> wrote:

>George Macdonald wrote:
>> On Sun, 01 May 2005 17:01:09 GMT, y_p_w <y_p_w@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >My manager is Italian. He told me that in Italy one can't even add
>> >oil to a car; it has to be taken to a licensed repair shop.
>>
>> I'd like to know how they enforce that.
>
>Apparently enforcement isn't a huge issue. I think it might be legal
>to top off the fluids, but a full oil change is only supposed to be
>performed by a licensed shop. Customizing a car yourself is near
>impossible. The only legal way to do that would be through a licensed
>performance tuner. There are actually restrictions on what kind of
>tires can be placed on any given car, and he told me it's even on the
>registration card.

I'd no idea the Italians were such sheep - kinda out of character I'd
think.:-)

>> >I know there's no particular reason why. However - people are
>> >paying the prices we're paying for Mobil 1 - just for "conventional"
>> >oils. Those oils may be better than what we consider "conventional"
>> >though.
>>
>> I still dunno wjhat you mean by "better" - there are limits to what
>> you can do with oil. Excessive additives to get, e.g. a higher acid
>> buffering factor for extended mileage, often bring other compromises.
>> IMO the oils we have in the U.S. are as good as anywhere. The Euros
>> get screwed at retail - that's how it is.<shrug>
>
>Everyone seems to forget that boosting the additives means less base
>oil.
>
>BTW - going back to an ancient discussion, the third component in
>Mobil 1's "Tri-Synthetic" oil is apparently alkylated naphthalene.
>There's even suggestions that the current "SuperSyn" Mobil 1 products
>don't use esters in favor of alkylated napthalenes. They must be
>doing something right, since many used oil analysis results indicate
>that it holds its viscosity extremely well, and there's speculation
>that the oil itself contains no VI improvers in all weights.

I recall bringing up the lack of VI improver here shortly after SuperSyn
came out - Mobil never came out and said it directly but it was strongly
hinted at in their SuperSyn docs that it had the same effect as VI
improvers and allowed their elimination form the formula. My own
experience, with alarming noises on low temp starts, indicates that the
initial Mobil1 SuperSyn had (dangerously) insufficient high pressure
friction reducer... something brought up in some of the Forums and which
was later corrected with (increased ?) MoDDC.

><http://www.exxonmobilchemical.com/Public_PA/WorldwideEnglish/Newsroom/Newsreleases/chem_nr_280403.asp>
><http://www.exxonmobilchemical.com/Public_Products/Synthetics/Synthetic_Lubricants_and_Fluids/Worldwide/Grades_and_Datasheets/Syn_Grade_GradeAlkylated.asp>
><http://www.exxonmobilchemical.com/Public_Files/Synthetics/Synthetic_Lubricants_and_Fluids/Worldwide/Data_Sheet_Synesstic_v5.pdf>
><http://www.exxonmobilchemical.com/Public_Files/Synthetics/Synthetic_Lubricants_and_Fluids/Worldwide/Synthetics_GeneralBrochure.pdf>

Thanks for the links.

>From what I've read, the AN base oil is supposed to provide many of
>the benefits that esters bring without lots of the drawbacks. They're
>supposed to be cheaper, don't swell the seals as much, have high
>detergency, and don't compete as much with additives for surface area.

That still leaves the polar molecule of the esters missing from the formula
- I don't have exact details but AN is, based on my hazy chemistry memory,
I'd think, only very mildly polar.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

 

jim beam wrote:
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/15/2/7

Shoving 0W20 down our throats to reduce C02 by millions of tonnes (its
a British story) seems to be the future.

Note that even 5W30 specs are more like 5W25 in actual grade, if there
were such a thing. Also interesting that this story proclaims oil
increases in viscosity with use. B.S., the modifiers break down and
the oil reverts to its true state, which is thin, not thick.

This story is a tree hugger event.

Still sticking with 10W30.

 

George Macdonald wrote:
> On Sun, 01 May 2005 17:01:09 GMT, y_p_w <y_p_w@hotmail.com> wrote:

> >My manager is Italian. He told me that in Italy one can't even add
> >oil to a car; it has to be taken to a licensed repair shop.
>
> I'd like to know how they enforce that.

Apparently enforcement isn't a huge issue. I think it might be legal
to top off the fluids, but a full oil change is only supposed to be
performed by a licensed shop. Customizing a car yourself is near
impossible. The only legal way to do that would be through a licensed
performance tuner. There are actually restrictions on what kind of
tires can be placed on any given car, and he told me it's even on the
registration card.

> >Als0 - that was a discount price from an internet retailer. It
> >might be more expensive at your average retailer.
>
> Discount of such items in the U.K. is a minor activity - most people
> who DIY get their stuff from similar outlets to us like Asda, which
> is owned by Wal-Mart... though they rarely get such high discounts.

Almost sounds like Japan.

> >I know there's no particular reason why. However - people are
> >paying the prices we're paying for Mobil 1 - just for "conventional"
> >oils. Those oils may be better than what we consider "conventional"
> >though.
>
> I still dunno wjhat you mean by "better" - there are limits to what
> you can do with oil. Excessive additives to get, e.g. a higher acid
> buffering factor for extended mileage, often bring other compromises.
> IMO the oils we have in the U.S. are as good as anywhere. The Euros
> get screwed at retail - that's how it is.<shrug>

Everyone seems to forget that boosting the additives means less base
oil.

BTW - going back to an ancient discussion, the third component in
Mobil 1's "Tri-Synthetic" oil is apparently alkylated naphthalene.
There's even suggestions that the current "SuperSyn" Mobil 1 products
don't use esters in favor of alkylated napthalenes. They must be
doing something right, since many used oil analysis results indicate
that it holds its viscosity extremely well, and there's speculation
that the oil itself contains no VI improvers in all weights.

<http://www.exxonmobilchemical.com/Public_PA/WorldwideEnglish/Newsroom/Newsreleases/chem_nr_280403.asp>
<http://www.exxonmobilchemical.com/Public_Products/Synthetics/Synthetic_Lubricants_and_Fluids/Worldwide/Grades_and_Datasheets/Syn_Grade_GradeAlkylated.asp>
<http://www.exxonmobilchemical.com/Public_Files/Synthetics/Synthetic_Lubricants_and_Fluids/Worldwide/Data_Sheet_Synesstic_v5.pdf>
<http://www.exxonmobilchemical.com/Public_Files/Synthetics/Synthetic_Lubricants_and_Fluids/Worldwide/Synthetics_GeneralBrochure.pdf>

>From what I've read, the AN base oil is supposed to provide many of
the benefits that esters bring without lots of the drawbacks. They're
supposed to be cheaper, don't swell the seals as much, have high
detergency, and don't compete as much with additives for surface area.

These are Mobil's trademarked names for their base oils:

PAO: SpectraSyn
High Viscosity Index PAO: SuperSyn or SpectraSyn Ultra
Esters: Esterex
Alkylated Naphthalenes: Synesstic

 

George Macdonald wrote:
> On Sun, 01 May 2005 17:01:09 GMT, y_p_w <y_p_w@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I still dunno wjhat you mean by "better" - there are limits to what
> you can do with oil. Excessive additives to get, e.g. a higher acid
> buffering factor for extended mileage, often bring other compromises.
> IMO the oils we have in the U.S. are as good as anywhere. The Euros
> get screwed at retail - that's how it is.<shrug>

What I meant by "better" is that apparently the API standard is
not as stringent at ACEA A1. Longer oil change intervals don't
freak out most European car owners.

> Like I've been saying, having the auto mfrs define oil "standards"
> is madness. Lubricants mfrs are just as likely to ignore them --
> VW's presence in the U.S. is precarious enough that it would not be
> surprising -- though their oils very likely perform at least as well.
> If I were a lube mfr I would not go to the trouble of listing every
> single auto mfr's half-baked "specs" on the container. I am also
> suspicious that this is all part of the current fad for "free"
> maintenance.

The "free maintenance" thing seems to be primarily BMW and Mercedes-
Benz. I remember when Mitsubishi was offering a limited time
free maintenance offer.

As for the other stuff, you'll find any number of different
"manufacturers' standards" on bottles of motor oil these days.
The VW/BMW/MBZ standards are on the beginning. I've seen motor
oil bottles listing stuff like GM 4718M (Corvette), and various
standards from Ford, Chrysler, and GM. I've even seen fairly
ordinary bottles of Exxon Superflo 5W-30 claiming to meet GM's
cold-weather pumping standard (forgot the spec #).

> >The impression I got was that the kind of "severe duty" driving
> >we see in the US is uncommon.
>
> I dunno what you mean by "severe". If it's extreme temps, in general
> there are likely less places in Europe with the temp extremes we see
> but they do exist. To me, the worst thing you can do to an oil is
> pollute it with water and combustion contaminants... leading to
> sludge formation. Modern oils stand up to sustained high temps quite
> well, certainly much better than in the past, and engines work better
> to keep things controlled.

Nah - I meant short-trip driving, stop & go, trailers, or excessive
idling.

My current car is turbocharged, so I figure Mobil 1 is a good choice
for the application.

 

On Sun, 01 May 2005 17:01:09 GMT, y_p_w <y_p_w@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>George Macdonald wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 01 May 2005 02:16:34 GMT, y_p_w <y_p_w@hotmail.com> wrote:
<<snip>>

>>>I think one thing we tend to forget is value added tax is part of the
>>>typical price. Here's one online UK souce for Mobil 1 0W-40:
>>>
>>><http://www.camskill.co.uk/products.php?plid=m1b8s25p33&tbv=MOBIL_OILS_/_MOBIL_1_-_0W40_4L_Accessories_&_Misc_Parts_Oils_-_Mobil&PHPSESSID=c719cd6dd1c9fd8eeec8e926dde21527>
>>>
>>>So at an exchange rate of 1.9092 that would be about $61. A 5 quart
>>>container of Mobil 1 at a US Wal-Mart is typically $19-22 depending
>>>on location (I haven't seen 0W-40 in this weight though). Even at
>>>a typical US auto parts store price of $5/qt + sale tax, the UK
>>>stuff should be at least twice as expensive (including all taxes).
>>
>>
>> First, the exchange rate is artificially high right now because of
>> investment conditions in the U.S. Second, the discounting of goods, in
>> general, in the U.K. and Europe is no where near as developed as in the
>> U.S. People get their legs broken for undercutting the franchises.
>> Basically free enterprise does not work very well in the EU and UK in
>> particular. I'm sure you've seen posts here from U.K. owners bemoaning the
>> lack of discounting, i.e. competitive pricing for parts. Possibly they
>> even still have RPM (Resale Price Maintenance), like we used to have here.
>
>My manager is Italian. He told me that in Italy one can't even add
>oil to a car; it has to be taken to a licensed repair shop.

I'd like to know how they enforce that.

>Als0 - that was a discount price from an internet retailer. It might
>be more expensive at your average retailer.

Discount of such items in the U.K. is a minor activity - most people who
DIY get their stuff from similar outlets to us like Asda, which is owned by
Wal-Mart... though they rarely get such high discounts.
<<snip>>

>>>Again - VAT and other taxes are added.
>>
>>
>> But it has nothing to do with crude price and the price you see includes
>> VAT - it's illegal to advertize goods at a price without the VAT included.
>> Like I said, there's no reason the price should be 3-4x higher. In fact if
>> you compare against the price of a premium petro-based engine oil in the
>> U.K., Mobil1 costs ~2x the price... about the same price ratio as in the
>> U.S.
>
>I know there's no particular reason why. However - people are paying
>the prices we're paying for Mobil 1 - just for "conventional" oils.
>Those oils may be better than what we consider "conventional" though.

I still dunno wjhat you mean by "better" - there are limits to what you can
do with oil. Excessive additives to get, e.g. a higher acid buffering
factor for extended mileage, often bring other compromises. IMO the oils
we have in the U.S. are as good as anywhere. The Euros get screwed at
retail - that's how it is.<shrug>

>>>>As for VW and a 5W-30, I've no idea what VW is currently recommending but
>>>>they have always tended to specify a higher viscosity oil than say Honda...
>>>>e.g. a 20W-50 when Honda was on a 10W-30 for a temperate climate. Other
>>>>than that it's no big deal.
>>>
>>>They've got a spec # to look for, and pretty much only a few "synthetic"
>>>oils are marketed as meeting said specs in the US.
>>
>>
>> If VW has a spec # (what is it ?) which is not covered by off the shelf
>> products, all the more reason to avoid their cars.
>
>It's a bunch of standards - VW 502.00 for gasoline and 505.00/505.01
>for diesels and 503.00/503.01 for extended-drains. I can find oil
>meeting those standards on the shelf at AutoZone or other parts stores.
>Not many choices and they're pricey, but no more so than the Mobil 1
>I'm currently using.
>
><http://www.volkswagen-environment.de/buster/buster.asp?i=_content/praxis_1650.asp>
>
>Mercedes-Benz has the 229.3 and 229.5 standards for extended drains.
>However, MBUSA covers all maintenance during the warranty period.

Like I've been saying, having the auto mfrs define oil "standards" is
madness. Lubricants mfrs are just as likely to ignore them -- VW's
presence in the U.S. is precarious enough that it would not be surprising
-- though their oils very likely perform at least as well. If I were a
lube mfr I would not go to the trouble of listing every single auto mfr's
half-baked "specs" on the container. I am also suspicious that this is all
part of the current fad for "free" maintenance.

<<snip>>

>>>I've talked to people in Europe, and it's my impression that most people
>>>take their cars for longer drives and generally take taxis or public
>>>transportation in cities.
>>
>>
>> Yeah well I've lived there and I still visit and drive there. Inner city
>> dwellers of large cities may not even bother with the hassle of owning a
>> car... just renting as necessary. I can assure you that suburban and
>> smaller city people drive a lot of short trips.
>
>The impression I got was that the kind of "severe duty" driving we see
>in the US is uncommon.

I dunno what you mean by "severe". If it's extreme temps, in general there
are likely less places in Europe with the temp extremes we see but they do
exist. To me, the worst thing you can do to an oil is pollute it with
water and combustion contaminants... leading to sludge formation. Modern
oils stand up to sustained high temps quite well, certainly much better
than in the past, and engines work better to keep things controlled.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

 

George Macdonald wrote:

> On Sun, 01 May 2005 02:16:34 GMT, y_p_w <y_p_w@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>George Macdonald wrote:
>>
>>>On 29 Apr 2005 11:08:52 -0700, "y_p_w" <y_p_w@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>George Macdonald wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On 28 Apr 2005 11:03:18 -0700, "y_p_w" <y_p_w@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>If you read the article I linked to, the proposed supplement to the
>>>>>>weight scales included a "triangle" representing additional
>>>>>>performance ratings. These were fuel economy increase (over the
>>>>>>reference oil), HTHS (high temperature high shear) performance, and
>>>>>>cold weather pumping temprature. Of course properly making an oil
>>>>>>means trading off some of that fuel economy for high shear
>>>>>>performance (i.e. you've got to make it thicker).
>>>>>
>>>>>Sounds to me like "properly making an oil" is going to lead to
>>>>>extortionate pricing. Hate to sound cynical but this is all
>>>>>tinkering with specs and the lube companies appear to be manouvering
>>>>>to position themselves tactically in the marketing war. The
>>>>>fractions of a mpg which can be achieved through lubricant tampering
>>>>>are miniscule & irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>>The cost of making petroleum oils is going up with the cost of crude.
>>>>That being said, the price of oils in North America is still quite
>>>>reasonable. That $5 quart of Mobil 1 I might buy off the shelf at
>>>>Wal-Mart (that meets some European standards) is going to be about
>>>>3-4 times more in Europe.
>>>
>>>
>>>Do you have accurate pricing data on that? There's no reason that Mobil1
>>>should cost 3-4 times more in Europe, assuming that an exact equivalent is
>>>available there at all. First, if you're thinking Euro gas prices are 3-4x
>>>US price, those are due to extortionate pump taxes, something we narrowly
>>>missed - the crude is basically the same price.
>>
>>I was reading that in a Lubes & Greases article on the increased use of
>>PAO.
>>
>>I think one thing we tend to forget is value added tax is part of the
>>typical price. Here's one online UK souce for Mobil 1 0W-40:
>>
>><http://www.camskill.co.uk/products.php?plid=m1b8s25p33&tbv=MOBIL_OILS_/_MOBIL_1_-_0W40_4L_Accessories_&_Misc_Parts_Oils_-_Mobil&PHPSESSID=c719cd6dd1c9fd8eeec8e926dde21527>
>>
>>So at an exchange rate of 1.9092 that would be about $61. A 5 quart
>>container of Mobil 1 at a US Wal-Mart is typically $19-22 depending
>>on location (I haven't seen 0W-40 in this weight though). Even at
>>a typical US auto parts store price of $5/qt + sale tax, the UK
>>stuff should be at least twice as expensive (including all taxes).
>
>
> First, the exchange rate is artificially high right now because of
> investment conditions in the U.S. Second, the discounting of goods, in
> general, in the U.K. and Europe is no where near as developed as in the
> U.S. People get their legs broken for undercutting the franchises.
> Basically free enterprise does not work very well in the EU and UK in
> particular. I'm sure you've seen posts here from U.K. owners bemoaning the
> lack of discounting, i.e. competitive pricing for parts. Possibly they
> even still have RPM (Resale Price Maintenance), like we used to have here.

My manager is Italian. He told me that in Italy one can't even add
oil to a car; it has to be taken to a licensed repair shop.

Als0 - that was a discount price from an internet retailer. It might
be more expensive at your average retailer.

>>>Second, the higher price of Mobil1 in the U.S. vs. petro-based basestock
>>>lubes is due to the cost of producing it: ethlyene has its own world market
>>>driven price (China is sucking it up curently); two separate polymerisation
>>>reactions are required, plus recycling and back-end refining to produce the
>>>PAO mix of decene dimer, trimer and tetramer. IOW the manufacturing costs
>>>swamp the cost of the crude, which has already been through a couple of
>>>refining steps to get to ethylene and those costs would be no higher in
>>>Europe.
>>
>>Again - VAT and other taxes are added.
>
>
> But it has nothing to do with crude price and the price you see includes
> VAT - it's illegal to advertize goods at a price without the VAT included.
> Like I said, there's no reason the price should be 3-4x higher. In fact if
> you compare against the price of a premium petro-based engine oil in the
> U.K., Mobil1 costs ~2x the price... about the same price ratio as in the
> U.S.

I know there's no particular reason why. However - people are paying
the prices we're paying for Mobil 1 - just for "conventional" oils.
Those oils may be better than what we consider "conventional" though.
>
>>>>I think one of the reasons why they want to go to this is because
>>>>the API specs are starting to become irrelevant for some carmakers.
>>>>BMW, VW, Mercedes-Benz and others are saying ignore the API quality
>>>>grades and SAE weight scales in favor of their own performance
>>>>standards. I'm not an expert, but I've learned enough to realize
>>>>that saying an oil is an SAE 5W-30 meeting API SM may not be
>>>>adequate for many carmakers. A 5W-30 synthetic oil suitable for
>>>>a typical Japanese-designed engine won't be the right choice for
>>>>a VW.
>>>
>>>
>>>You need some slop in the definitions of what a number means in terms of
>>>how the product behaves; lubricants cannot be made to a high level of
>>>precision without incurring disproportionate costs. We also must have
>>>lubricants which cover a range of use conditions - it would be madness to
>>>make and label the "ideal oil" for different classes of engines. I trust
>>>SAE to come up with some improved method of expressing product
>>>suitability/quality more than any group of car mfrs... and without ending
>>>up with highly specific lubricant specs by the car mfr or even engine.
>>
>>Even so, the "typical" viscosity range for a VW spec 0W-30 isn't going
>>to be anywhere near that of one meeting GF-4 (the "starburst").
>
>
> By definition it's going to be near in terms of SAE ratings. If you're
> worrying about a few points of viscosity, you're fretting about nothing -
> it doesn't matter.

I realize that most engines tend to be tolerant - some more so than
others. VW's position may simply be from a German tendency to
overthink everything.

>>>As for VW and a 5W-30, I've no idea what VW is currently recommending but
>>>they have always tended to specify a higher viscosity oil than say Honda...
>>>e.g. a 20W-50 when Honda was on a 10W-30 for a temperate climate. Other
>>>than that it's no big deal.
>>
>>They've got a spec # to look for, and pretty much only a few "synthetic"
>>oils are marketed as meeting said specs in the US.
>
>
> If VW has a spec # (what is it ?) which is not covered by off the shelf
> products, all the more reason to avoid their cars.

It's a bunch of standards - VW 502.00 for gasoline and 505.00/505.01
for diesels and 503.00/503.01 for extended-drains. I can find oil
meeting those standards on the shelf at AutoZone or other parts stores.
Not many choices and they're pricey, but no more so than the Mobil 1
I'm currently using.

<http://www.volkswagen-environment.de/buster/buster.asp?i=_content/praxis_1650.asp>

Mercedes-Benz has the 229.3 and 229.5 standards for extended drains.
However, MBUSA covers all maintenance during the warranty period.

>>>>>>Doesn't a lot of that have to do with the performance of available
>>>>>>oils at a given time? The European carmakers seem to have gone
>>>>>>through the additional step of publishing their own standards and/
>>>>>>or publishing approval lists. While brand name can't really be
>>>>>>mandated in the US, I see no reason why there couldn't be a list
>>>>>>of "recommended" products.
>>>>>
>>>>>There's no magic here - there are certain materials, basestocks,
>>>>>which are available and certain additives which help enhance certain
>>>>>performance aspects. From there, there are limits to what can be
>>>>>achieved. To me this is all hot air from companies prepping
>>>>>themselves to make additional profit out of regulations. As usual,
>>>>>first we'll have voluntarily applied new specs... followed by new
>>>>>regs... probably in the name global warming... blah... blah... blah.
>>>>>Statistics will be presented which show the "huge potential benefits"
>>>>>but it's really all BS. I already feel a hand in my pocket.:-)
>>>>
>>>>The materials are still improving. I researching the stuff in the
>>>>lubes publications, Mobil is developing a more advanced PAO
>>>>manufacturing process. Hydrocracking is still being improved.
>>>
>>>
>>>And most cars still run just fine on good old petro-based, vacuum
>>>distilled, dewaxed basestocks. PAO is about as far as you can go here -
>>>it's the ultimate *reasonable* cost lubricant; if you know of something
>>>better, please tell how it's better - a branched chain paraffin brings the
>>>VI advantage of the paraffin without the wax of a straight chain... that's
>>>about all there is to it. Of course, more recently the SuperSyn PAOs have
>>>allowed VI to be bumped up at the cost of a slight increase in pour-point,
>>>but with the advantage of reduced or zero VI improver additives - a
>>>relatively minor improvement.
>>
>>Of course Red Line blends polyol ester oils. Among more mainstream
>>oil makers, there's Motul with a variety of ester-only oils.
>
>
> So what! Some ester blending agent is needed in all PAO synthetics to
> cover seal swell. Ester-only oils have been proven time and time again to
> be unsuitable for auto-IC engines - wrong lubricant for the job.

I don't use them simply because they're awfully expensive. I have
used ester-only gear lubes though.

>>>While it is probably possible to make PAO molecules which are more tightly
>>>controlled as to their form and characteristics, I doubt that there would
>>>be significant benefits from them... and the closer you get to a single
>>>molecule, the higher the price is going to get. You're also going to have
>>>to deal with the cons which are bound to be present in that single
>>>molecule... or tightly controlled group of molecules. There's a reason,
>>>e.g., that we don't all burn 2,2,4-trimethyl pentane in our SI engines.
>>>
>>>While we may, after all, get those "better" PAOs, I don't expect some
>>>quantum leap in performance from them. Funny thing is, that in Europe,
>>>people tend to drive much shorter distances per trip, which means that the
>>>engine oil has to deal with faster and higher pollution by water + the
>>>dissolved contaminants. In the end, it's cheaper to replace the oil than
>>>develop something to handle that abuse. I really don't think there's a big
>>>market for a 15,000mile oil - I certainly wouldn't let oil go that long.
>>
>>I've talked to people in Europe, and it's my impression that most people
>>take their cars for longer drives and generally take taxis or public
>>transportation in cities.
>
>
> Yeah well I've lived there and I still visit and drive there. Inner city
> dwellers of large cities may not even bother with the hassle of owning a
> car... just renting as necessary. I can assure you that suburban and
> smaller city people drive a lot of short trips.

The impression I got was that the kind of "severe duty" driving we see
in the US is uncommon.

>>>As for hydrocracking being improved, that's how the process industry works
>>>- that's why they employ chemical engineers... to improve yield and quality
>>>with the same basic equipment. In the end, hydrocracking, as applied to
>>>lubricant grade petroleum, is just an attempt to produce something nearly
>>>as good as PAO, without having to start by steam cracking naphtha. They
>>>have to do *something* with what comes out of the bottom of a pipestill -
>>>the more $$ they get for it, all the better for them. If they can get some
>>>govt. wag to slap a sticker on it, even better.... for them.
>>
>>I thought perhaps the hydrocracked product should be replacing so-called
>>"conventional" oils, which is happening to some degree.
>
>
> But it's still being sold as "synthetic" and priced close to synthetic. It
> may also be present, in relatively small quantities, as a blending agent in
> petro-based stuff, to help meet VI and other specs.

I was referring to Group II oils marketed by Chevron-Texaco and
Pennzoil - like "IsoSyn" and "PureBase".

 

On Sun, 01 May 2005 02:16:34 GMT, y_p_w <y_p_w@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>George Macdonald wrote:
>> On 29 Apr 2005 11:08:52 -0700, "y_p_w" <y_p_w@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>George Macdonald wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 28 Apr 2005 11:03:18 -0700, "y_p_w" <y_p_w@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>If you read the article I linked to, the proposed supplement to the
>>>>>weight scales included a "triangle" representing additional
>>>>>performance ratings. These were fuel economy increase (over the
>>>>>reference oil), HTHS (high temperature high shear) performance, and
>>>>>cold weather pumping temprature. Of course properly making an oil
>>>>>means trading off some of that fuel economy for high shear
>>>>>performance (i.e. you've got to make it thicker).
>>>>
>>>>Sounds to me like "properly making an oil" is going to lead to
>>>>extortionate pricing. Hate to sound cynical but this is all
>>>>tinkering with specs and the lube companies appear to be manouvering
>>>>to position themselves tactically in the marketing war. The
>>>>fractions of a mpg which can be achieved through lubricant tampering
>>>>are miniscule & irrelevant.
>>>
>>>The cost of making petroleum oils is going up with the cost of crude.
>>>That being said, the price of oils in North America is still quite
>>>reasonable. That $5 quart of Mobil 1 I might buy off the shelf at
>>>Wal-Mart (that meets some European standards) is going to be about
>>>3-4 times more in Europe.
>>
>>
>> Do you have accurate pricing data on that? There's no reason that Mobil1
>> should cost 3-4 times more in Europe, assuming that an exact equivalent is
>> available there at all. First, if you're thinking Euro gas prices are 3-4x
>> US price, those are due to extortionate pump taxes, something we narrowly
>> missed - the crude is basically the same price.
>
>I was reading that in a Lubes & Greases article on the increased use of
>PAO.
>
>I think one thing we tend to forget is value added tax is part of the
>typical price. Here's one online UK souce for Mobil 1 0W-40:
>
><http://www.camskill.co.uk/products.php?plid=m1b8s25p33&tbv=MOBIL_OILS_/_MOBIL_1_-_0W40_4L_Accessories_&_Misc_Parts_Oils_-_Mobil&PHPSESSID=c719cd6dd1c9fd8eeec8e926dde21527>
>
>So at an exchange rate of 1.9092 that would be about $61. A 5 quart
>container of Mobil 1 at a US Wal-Mart is typically $19-22 depending
>on location (I haven't seen 0W-40 in this weight though). Even at
>a typical US auto parts store price of $5/qt + sale tax, the UK
>stuff should be at least twice as expensive (including all taxes).

First, the exchange rate is artificially high right now because of
investment conditions in the U.S. Second, the discounting of goods, in
general, in the U.K. and Europe is no where near as developed as in the
U.S. People get their legs broken for undercutting the franchises.
Basically free enterprise does not work very well in the EU and UK in
particular. I'm sure you've seen posts here from U.K. owners bemoaning the
lack of discounting, i.e. competitive pricing for parts. Possibly they
even still have RPM (Resale Price Maintenance), like we used to have here.

>> Second, the higher price of Mobil1 in the U.S. vs. petro-based basestock
>> lubes is due to the cost of producing it: ethlyene has its own world market
>> driven price (China is sucking it up curently); two separate polymerisation
>> reactions are required, plus recycling and back-end refining to produce the
>> PAO mix of decene dimer, trimer and tetramer. IOW the manufacturing costs
>> swamp the cost of the crude, which has already been through a couple of
>> refining steps to get to ethylene and those costs would be no higher in
>> Europe.
>
>Again - VAT and other taxes are added.

But it has nothing to do with crude price and the price you see includes
VAT - it's illegal to advertize goods at a price without the VAT included.
Like I said, there's no reason the price should be 3-4x higher. In fact if
you compare against the price of a premium petro-based engine oil in the
U.K., Mobil1 costs ~2x the price... about the same price ratio as in the
U.S.

>>>I think one of the reasons why they want to go to this is because
>>>the API specs are starting to become irrelevant for some carmakers.
>>>BMW, VW, Mercedes-Benz and others are saying ignore the API quality
>>>grades and SAE weight scales in favor of their own performance
>>>standards. I'm not an expert, but I've learned enough to realize
>>>that saying an oil is an SAE 5W-30 meeting API SM may not be
>>>adequate for many carmakers. A 5W-30 synthetic oil suitable for
>>>a typical Japanese-designed engine won't be the right choice for
>>>a VW.
>>
>>
>> You need some slop in the definitions of what a number means in terms of
>> how the product behaves; lubricants cannot be made to a high level of
>> precision without incurring disproportionate costs. We also must have
>> lubricants which cover a range of use conditions - it would be madness to
>> make and label the "ideal oil" for different classes of engines. I trust
>> SAE to come up with some improved method of expressing product
>> suitability/quality more than any group of car mfrs... and without ending
>> up with highly specific lubricant specs by the car mfr or even engine.
>
>Even so, the "typical" viscosity range for a VW spec 0W-30 isn't going
>to be anywhere near that of one meeting GF-4 (the "starburst").

By definition it's going to be near in terms of SAE ratings. If you're
worrying about a few points of viscosity, you're fretting about nothing -
it doesn't matter.

>> As for VW and a 5W-30, I've no idea what VW is currently recommending but
>> they have always tended to specify a higher viscosity oil than say Honda...
>> e.g. a 20W-50 when Honda was on a 10W-30 for a temperate climate. Other
>> than that it's no big deal.
>
>They've got a spec # to look for, and pretty much only a few "synthetic"
>oils are marketed as meeting said specs in the US.

If VW has a spec # (what is it ?) which is not covered by off the shelf
products, all the more reason to avoid their cars.

>>>>>Doesn't a lot of that have to do with the performance of available
>>>>>oils at a given time? The European carmakers seem to have gone
>>>>>through the additional step of publishing their own standards and/
>>>>>or publishing approval lists. While brand name can't really be
>>>>>mandated in the US, I see no reason why there couldn't be a list
>>>>>of "recommended" products.
>>>>
>>>>There's no magic here - there are certain materials, basestocks,
>>>>which are available and certain additives which help enhance certain
>>>>performance aspects. From there, there are limits to what can be
>>>>achieved. To me this is all hot air from companies prepping
>>>>themselves to make additional profit out of regulations. As usual,
>>>>first we'll have voluntarily applied new specs... followed by new
>>>>regs... probably in the name global warming... blah... blah... blah.
>>>>Statistics will be presented which show the "huge potential benefits"
>>>>but it's really all BS. I already feel a hand in my pocket.:-)
>>>
>>>The materials are still improving. I researching the stuff in the
>>>lubes publications, Mobil is developing a more advanced PAO
>>>manufacturing process. Hydrocracking is still being improved.
>>
>>
>> And most cars still run just fine on good old petro-based, vacuum
>> distilled, dewaxed basestocks. PAO is about as far as you can go here -
>> it's the ultimate *reasonable* cost lubricant; if you know of something
>> better, please tell how it's better - a branched chain paraffin brings the
>> VI advantage of the paraffin without the wax of a straight chain... that's
>> about all there is to it. Of course, more recently the SuperSyn PAOs have
>> allowed VI to be bumped up at the cost of a slight increase in pour-point,
>> but with the advantage of reduced or zero VI improver additives - a
>> relatively minor improvement.
>
>Of course Red Line blends polyol ester oils. Among more mainstream
>oil makers, there's Motul with a variety of ester-only oils.

So what! Some ester blending agent is needed in all PAO synthetics to
cover seal swell. Ester-only oils have been proven time and time again to
be unsuitable for auto-IC engines - wrong lubricant for the job.

>> While it is probably possible to make PAO molecules which are more tightly
>> controlled as to their form and characteristics, I doubt that there would
>> be significant benefits from them... and the closer you get to a single
>> molecule, the higher the price is going to get. You're also going to have
>> to deal with the cons which are bound to be present in that single
>> molecule... or tightly controlled group of molecules. There's a reason,
>> e.g., that we don't all burn 2,2,4-trimethyl pentane in our SI engines.
>>
>> While we may, after all, get those "better" PAOs, I don't expect some
>> quantum leap in performance from them. Funny thing is, that in Europe,
>> people tend to drive much shorter distances per trip, which means that the
>> engine oil has to deal with faster and higher pollution by water + the
>> dissolved contaminants. In the end, it's cheaper to replace the oil than
>> develop something to handle that abuse. I really don't think there's a big
>> market for a 15,000mile oil - I certainly wouldn't let oil go that long.
>
>I've talked to people in Europe, and it's my impression that most people
>take their cars for longer drives and generally take taxis or public
>transportation in cities.

Yeah well I've lived there and I still visit and drive there. Inner city
dwellers of large cities may not even bother with the hassle of owning a
car... just renting as necessary. I can assure you that suburban and
smaller city people drive a lot of short trips.

>> As for hydrocracking being improved, that's how the process industry works
>> - that's why they employ chemical engineers... to improve yield and quality
>> with the same basic equipment. In the end, hydrocracking, as applied to
>> lubricant grade petroleum, is just an attempt to produce something nearly
>> as good as PAO, without having to start by steam cracking naphtha. They
>> have to do *something* with what comes out of the bottom of a pipestill -
>> the more $$ they get for it, all the better for them. If they can get some
>> govt. wag to slap a sticker on it, even better.... for them.
>
>I thought perhaps the hydrocracked product should be replacing so-called
>"conventional" oils, which is happening to some degree.

But it's still being sold as "synthetic" and priced close to synthetic. It
may also be present, in relatively small quantities, as a blending agent in
petro-based stuff, to help meet VI and other specs.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

 

y_p_w wrote:

>
>
> George Macdonald wrote:
>
>> On 29 Apr 2005 11:08:52 -0700, "y_p_w" <y_p_w@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> The cost of making petroleum oils is going up with the cost of crude.
>>> That being said, the price of oils in North America is still quite
>>> reasonable. That $5 quart of Mobil 1 I might buy off the shelf at
>>> Wal-Mart (that meets some European standards) is going to be about
>>> 3-4 times more in Europe.
>>
>>
>>
>> Do you have accurate pricing data on that? There's no reason that Mobil1
>> should cost 3-4 times more in Europe, assuming that an exact
>> equivalent is
>> available there at all. First, if you're thinking Euro gas prices are
>> 3-4x
>> US price, those are due to extortionate pump taxes, something we narrowly
>> missed - the crude is basically the same price.
>
>
> I was reading that in a Lubes & Greases article on the increased use of
> PAO.
>
> I think one thing we tend to forget is value added tax is part of the
> typical price. Here's one online UK souce for Mobil 1 0W-40:
>
> <http://www.camskill.co.uk/products.php?plid=m1b8s25p33&tbv=MOBIL_OILS_/_MOBIL_1_-_0W40_4L_Accessories_&_Misc_Parts_Oils_-_Mobil&PHPSESSID=c719cd6dd1c9fd8eeec8e926dde21527>
>
>
> So at an exchange rate of 1.9092 that would be about $61. A 5 quart
> container of Mobil 1 at a US Wal-Mart is typically $19-22 depending
> on location (I haven't seen 0W-40 in this weight though). Even at
> a typical US auto parts store price of $5/qt + sale tax, the UK
> stuff should be at least twice as expensive (including all taxes).

The same store has Mobil 1 0W-40 in liter bottles at £9.99 (or about $19
US). I've seen Mobil 1 0W-40 as low as $4.38 (Wal-Mart) to $5.50 (auto
parts store).

<http://www.camskill.co.uk/products.php?plid=m1b8s25p42&tbv=MOBIL_OILS_/_MOBIL_1_-_1_0W40_1L_Accessories_&_Misc_Parts_Oils_-_Mobil&PHPSESSID=c719cd6dd1c9fd8eeec8e926dde21527>

 

George Macdonald wrote:
> On 29 Apr 2005 11:08:52 -0700, "y_p_w" <y_p_w@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>George Macdonald wrote:
>>
>>>On 28 Apr 2005 11:03:18 -0700, "y_p_w" <y_p_w@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>If you read the article I linked to, the proposed supplement to the
>>>>weight scales included a "triangle" representing additional
>>>>performance ratings. These were fuel economy increase (over the
>>>>reference oil), HTHS (high temperature high shear) performance, and
>>>>cold weather pumping temprature. Of course properly making an oil
>>>>means trading off some of that fuel economy for high shear
>>>>performance (i.e. you've got to make it thicker).
>>>
>>>Sounds to me like "properly making an oil" is going to lead to
>>>extortionate pricing. Hate to sound cynical but this is all
>>>tinkering with specs and the lube companies appear to be manouvering
>>>to position themselves tactically in the marketing war. The
>>>fractions of a mpg which can be achieved through lubricant tampering
>>>are miniscule & irrelevant.
>>
>>The cost of making petroleum oils is going up with the cost of crude.
>>That being said, the price of oils in North America is still quite
>>reasonable. That $5 quart of Mobil 1 I might buy off the shelf at
>>Wal-Mart (that meets some European standards) is going to be about
>>3-4 times more in Europe.
>
>
> Do you have accurate pricing data on that? There's no reason that Mobil1
> should cost 3-4 times more in Europe, assuming that an exact equivalent is
> available there at all. First, if you're thinking Euro gas prices are 3-4x
> US price, those are due to extortionate pump taxes, something we narrowly
> missed - the crude is basically the same price.

I was reading that in a Lubes & Greases article on the increased use of
PAO.

I think one thing we tend to forget is value added tax is part of the
typical price. Here's one online UK souce for Mobil 1 0W-40:

<http://www.camskill.co.uk/products.php?plid=m1b8s25p33&tbv=MOBIL_OILS_/_MOBIL_1_-_0W40_4L_Accessories_&_Misc_Parts_Oils_-_Mobil&PHPSESSID=c719cd6dd1c9fd8eeec8e926dde21527>

So at an exchange rate of 1.9092 that would be about $61. A 5 quart
container of Mobil 1 at a US Wal-Mart is typically $19-22 depending
on location (I haven't seen 0W-40 in this weight though). Even at
a typical US auto parts store price of $5/qt + sale tax, the UK
stuff should be at least twice as expensive (including all taxes).


> Second, the higher price of Mobil1 in the U.S. vs. petro-based basestock
> lubes is due to the cost of producing it: ethlyene has its own world market
> driven price (China is sucking it up curently); two separate polymerisation
> reactions are required, plus recycling and back-end refining to produce the
> PAO mix of decene dimer, trimer and tetramer. IOW the manufacturing costs
> swamp the cost of the crude, which has already been through a couple of
> refining steps to get to ethylene and those costs would be no higher in
> Europe.

Again - VAT and other taxes are added.

>
>>I think one of the reasons why they want to go to this is because
>>the API specs are starting to become irrelevant for some carmakers.
>>BMW, VW, Mercedes-Benz and others are saying ignore the API quality
>>grades and SAE weight scales in favor of their own performance
>>standards. I'm not an expert, but I've learned enough to realize
>>that saying an oil is an SAE 5W-30 meeting API SM may not be
>>adequate for many carmakers. A 5W-30 synthetic oil suitable for
>>a typical Japanese-designed engine won't be the right choice for
>>a VW.
>
>
> You need some slop in the definitions of what a number means in terms of
> how the product behaves; lubricants cannot be made to a high level of
> precision without incurring disproportionate costs. We also must have
> lubricants which cover a range of use conditions - it would be madness to
> make and label the "ideal oil" for different classes of engines. I trust
> SAE to come up with some improved method of expressing product
> suitability/quality more than any group of car mfrs... and without ending
> up with highly specific lubricant specs by the car mfr or even engine.

Even so, the "typical" viscosity range for a VW spec 0W-30 isn't going
to be anywhere near that of one meeting GF-4 (the "starburst").

> As for VW and a 5W-30, I've no idea what VW is currently recommending but
> they have always tended to specify a higher viscosity oil than say Honda...
> e.g. a 20W-50 when Honda was on a 10W-30 for a temperate climate. Other
> than that it's no big deal.

They've got a spec # to look for, and pretty much only a few "synthetic"
oils are marketed as meeting said specs in the US.

>>>>Doesn't a lot of that have to do with the performance of available
>>>>oils at a given time? The European carmakers seem to have gone
>>>>through the additional step of publishing their own standards and/
>>>>or publishing approval lists. While brand name can't really be
>>>>mandated in the US, I see no reason why there couldn't be a list
>>>>of "recommended" products.
>>>
>>>There's no magic here - there are certain materials, basestocks,
>>>which are available and certain additives which help enhance certain
>>>performance aspects. From there, there are limits to what can be
>>>achieved. To me this is all hot air from companies prepping
>>>themselves to make additional profit out of regulations. As usual,
>>>first we'll have voluntarily applied new specs... followed by new
>>>regs... probably in the name global warming... blah... blah... blah.
>>>Statistics will be presented which show the "huge potential benefits"
>>>but it's really all BS. I already feel a hand in my pocket.:-)
>>
>>The materials are still improving. I researching the stuff in the
>>lubes publications, Mobil is developing a more advanced PAO
>>manufacturing process. Hydrocracking is still being improved.
>
>
> And most cars still run just fine on good old petro-based, vacuum
> distilled, dewaxed basestocks. PAO is about as far as you can go here -
> it's the ultimate *reasonable* cost lubricant; if you know of something
> better, please tell how it's better - a branched chain paraffin brings the
> VI advantage of the paraffin without the wax of a straight chain... that's
> about all there is to it. Of course, more recently the SuperSyn PAOs have
> allowed VI to be bumped up at the cost of a slight increase in pour-point,
> but with the advantage of reduced or zero VI improver additives - a
> relatively minor improvement.

Of course Red Line blends polyol ester oils. Among more mainstream
oil makers, there's Motul with a variety of ester-only oils.

> While it is probably possible to make PAO molecules which are more tightly
> controlled as to their form and characteristics, I doubt that there would
> be significant benefits from them... and the closer you get to a single
> molecule, the higher the price is going to get. You're also going to have
> to deal with the cons which are bound to be present in that single
> molecule... or tightly controlled group of molecules. There's a reason,
> e.g., that we don't all burn 2,2,4-trimethyl pentane in our SI engines.
>
> While we may, after all, get those "better" PAOs, I don't expect some
> quantum leap in performance from them. Funny thing is, that in Europe,
> people tend to drive much shorter distances per trip, which means that the
> engine oil has to deal with faster and higher pollution by water + the
> dissolved contaminants. In the end, it's cheaper to replace the oil than
> develop something to handle that abuse. I really don't think there's a big
> market for a 15,000mile oil - I certainly wouldn't let oil go that long.

I've talked to people in Europe, and it's my impression that most people
take their cars for longer drives and generally take taxis or public
transportation in cities.

> As for hydrocracking being improved, that's how the process industry works
> - that's why they employ chemical engineers... to improve yield and quality
> with the same basic equipment. In the end, hydrocracking, as applied to
> lubricant grade petroleum, is just an attempt to produce something nearly
> as good as PAO, without having to start by steam cracking naphtha. They
> have to do *something* with what comes out of the bottom of a pipestill -
> the more $$ they get for it, all the better for them. If they can get some
> govt. wag to slap a sticker on it, even better.... for them.

I thought perhaps the hydrocracked product should be replacing so-called
"conventional" oils, which is happening to some degree.

 

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 23:41:06 GMT, "John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>
>> There's no magic here - there are certain materials, basestocks, which are
>> available and certain additives which help enhance certain performance
>> aspects. From there, there are limits to what can be achieved. To me
>> this
>> is all hot air from companies prepping themselves to make additional
>> profit
>> out of regulations. As usual, first we'll have voluntarily applied new
>> specs... followed by new regs... probably in the name global warming...
>> blah... blah... blah. Statistics will be presented which show the "huge
>> potential benefits" but it's really all BS. I already feel a hand in my
>> pocket.:-)
>
>
>Interestingly enough, the improved base stock refining methods which have
>been coming on line and continue to do so (GTL, gas-to-liquid, is the next
>one coming along) have followed a learning curve similar to electronics.
>Not only are the base stocks getting better, they are getting cheaper to
>produce.
>
>Have a look at this recent paper internal to ExxonMobil as one example:
>
>http://www2.exxonmobil.com/corporate...generation.pdf
>
>See page 7 where they say:
>
>"Technology Paradox: Lowest cost process makes highest quality product"

According to that paper, GTL does *not* produce something better than PAO,
rather something which *almost* approaches PAO in some respects at lower
cost... which is partly due to the use of "cheap natural gas" as a
feedstock. It's being proposed a competitor to the hydrotreated
petro-based lubes... which some lubricants companies are selling for close
to the price of a real (PAO) synthetic. Kind ironic really.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

 

Oh sh*t, you're on to me. I don't have a clue what all the various
needs of an engine is, but I do know that the amount of allowable
contact, and the possible film strength varies a lot at different
points within the engine. The metal components will vary too, so with
all these variables there's no meaning behind the question that you
asked. There WILL be metal-to-metal contact in the valve train at
times. Also at the top ring/cylinder. And even in crankshaft to
bearings when lugging an engine.