This explains what happened between Mobil 1 & Castrol, setting the record straight!
==============================================================================
== Hydrocracked Basestocks: Affecting an Industry" ==
==============================================================================
In April of 1999, the lubricants industry saw a legal ruling that has created
a loophole the size of Jupiter for "synthetic" motor oil manufacturers to hop
through.
That is the month that the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Council
of Better Business Bureaus ruled that Castrol could continue to label and
market its Syntec motor oil as "synthetic" even though the lube contained no
PAO or ester basestock whatsoever.
You see, in late 1997 or early 1998 Castrol made a significant change to its
Syntec formulation and didn't bother to tell anyone. Instead of using the
polyalphaolefin (PAO) basestock it had used for years, the company had moved
to now using a super highly refined petroleum oil basestock instead.
Mobil threw a fit and in 1999 filed a complaint against the Castrol company
claiming that the product had been degraded and that Castrol's superiority
claims were no longer substantiated. Mobil wanted Castrol to either move back
to using a PAO base or be required to relabel the oil so as to make it clear
that this was NOT a synthetic lube at all.
After all, it is significantly cheaper to manufacture an oil from a
hydrocracked petroleum basestock than from a PAO basestock. So, Castrol was
maintaining an unfair advantage in the market-place by pricing its Castrol
Syntec product similarly to other PAO based synthetic oils while spending
significantly less to manufacture it.
Moreover, Castrol used to get its PAO basestock from Mobil for its Syntec
formulation. Now it was getting hydrocracked petroleum oil basestocks from
Shell. Obviously, this was eating into Mobil's profits.
Mobil wanted it stopped ... immediately.
A LITTLE BACKGROUND
It's important to understand a few things in order to fully grasp the
importance of this complaint and the subsequent ruling by the NAD.
First, understand that motor oil basestocks are divided into five main groups
which, for the most part, establish a "quality grade" ranking structure of
sorts. For years, motor oil basestocks have been classified as either Group I,
Group II, Group III, Group IV or Group V. In fact, there is actually what are
considered Group II+ basestocks as well, which, in simplest terms are simply
the best of Group II basestocks.
This grouping classification system ranks basestocks by quality grade from
lowest to highest in terms of the viscosity index of the basestock. Group I
lubes will have low viscosity index (VI), while higher Groups will have
higher VIs.
Viscosity index is important because the higher the VI of an oil, the less
viscosity change there is with temperature changes. In other words, the less
the oil thickens up in cold temperatures, and the less if thins out in hot
temperatures. At both ends of the spectrum, the less change in viscosity, the
better protection the oil affords the engine it is put in.
Most automotive petroleum oils fall in the Group II and Group II+ categories.
These are oils with viscosity indexes below 120 (Group I lubes generally
being below 100). Group III petroleum basestocks with VI over 120 (this
requires significant purification of the base, which makes these basestocks
more expensive than Group I and Group II bases.
Group IV consists of PAO basestocks which will have VI above 140. These are
bases that were traditionally referred to as "synthetic". There are also
Group V basestocks which are ester bases. This type of base is less commonly
used, and has a wider range of performance characteristics than PAO's which
offer more consistent performance characteristics. Esters too have always
been considered "synthetic", the term referring, more or less, to the aspect
of man-made basestock creation.
PAOs and Ester basestocks are designed in a lab from a molecular level. Group
I - III petroleum basestocks are, of course, pumped from the ground and then
refined. They are not "created" by man, but only refined by man. Hence, they
had not been termed "synthetic" previous to the NAD ruling.
SO WHAT ... WHY DO I CARE ABOUT HYDROCRACKING?
Well, first and foremost, there are quality issues. You see, although PAOs,
which, prior to 2000 were the most common basestock used in "synthetic" oils,
have very consistent performance characteristics from one type to another,
super-purified VHVI (very high viscosity index) Group III petro basestocks do
not.
I should make it clear that, when I say hydrocracks, I'm actually referring
to a number of slightly different refining processes that can yield a VHVI
Group III petroleum basestock. These processes will combine two or more of
the following: hydrocracking, wax isomerization, solvent extraction,
hydroconversion, hydrotreating, and others.
These processes, often used in conjunction with each other, all yield
petroleum basestocks with high viscosity indexes, higher oxidation stability
and the ability to minimize deposit build-up due to oil contamination and
high temp burn-off.
But, understand that, in order to break into the Group III "elite" a
petroleum oil only has to post a VI score of 120 or better. In other words, a
Group II basestock could have a VI of 119, while, if it was just 1 point
higher, it would be considered a Group III base.
Meaning, of course, that it is theoretically possible for a Group III oil to
perform only marginally better than a Group II base oil. It is, however,
theoretically possible for a Group III base oil to perform nearly as well as
a PAO base, if it is refined to the point of having a VI score up near 140 or
so.
The key here is to understand that the majority of oil companies out there
are going to go with "adequate" and "reasonably priced" as their criteria for
establishing what basestock they are going to use. In other words, if their
intent is to create a "synthetic" lube using a Group III basestock, many
companies will choose a Group III basestock with a VI closer to 120 than 140.
Similarly, oil companies intending to manufacture a standard petroleum oil
are many times more likely to utilize a Group II base which may have a VI
closer to 100 than 120, which results in a lower quality oil.
So, even a low-grade Group III base which is sold as synthetic will still be
significantly better than most Group II petroleum lubes which are likely to
have VI's closer to 110 than 120.
Unfortunately, that same Group III "synthetic" will also be of significantly
lower quality than a Group IV PAO synthetic basestock which will have a VI of
140 at a minimum.
BUT "BRAND X" HYDROCRACK HAS A VI OF 150 ... WHAT ABOUT THAT?
Well, in the full version of my book, "The Motor Oil Bible", this issue is
explained in great detail, but I will provide the basics of how this works
here in this article.
There is a type of additive called a viscosity index improver or VI improver
which is designed to raise the viscosity index of an oil beyond that which is
already attained by the basestock used. These are long chain polymers which
are coiled up in cold temperatures and expand quickly in warm temperatures.
These additives prevent an oil from thinning out considerably in high
temperature operation by expanding to counteract the natural thinning of the
basestock. This can raise the VI number considerably.
However, there is a drawback to this. It creates a false sense of oil quality.
When a customer checks the technical specifications of two oils, VI is one of
the items often compared. Typically, the oil with the higher VI, all other
things being equal, will "get the nod" because it is assumed it is the oil of
higher quality.
But, unfortunately, it is entirely possible that the oil with the higher VI,
actually has a lower basestock VI, but uses more VI improver additive to
boost the VI score.
Because VI improvers are used up over time, it is entirely possible that an
oil with a very high VI out of the bottle could end up with a very low VI
over the course of a standard oil change interval. Thus, more thinning of the
oil would occur at high temperatures, and less effective protection would be
acheived.
Thus, if you had a crystal ball and could actully know the original VI of the
basestock of two oils, you would have a MUCH more effective means of
comparing the quality of the two lubes. But, alas, most of us just simply
can't afford the high price of a good crystal ball these days. So, we have to
settle for a "best guess".
SO HOW DO I KNOW WHAT I'M BUYING?
Good question. And a tough one to answer. The truth is, in many cases you
don't. So, the smart thing to do is to go with the oil that you DO know
what's in it. But, how is that possible? Well, in many cases, you might
actually have to call the company and specifically ask whether the oil is a
PAO base or not (if you're looking for a synthetic).
If you're not looking for synthetic, then, you simply want to read the
labeling and product literature carefully. Sometimes, embedded within all of
the verbage can be clues as to the nature of the basestock (Group I, II or
III), but not always.
One tell tale way of knowing whether the VI is "true" or "boosted" is to take
a look at the other specs. If the flash point seems extremely low for an oil
with such a good VI, then the VI is probably "boosted" with improvers. If the
oil has a really good VI, but a low HT/HS score, the same could be true. You
just have to watch carefully.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THIS "SYNTHETIC" ISSUE?
Well, that's an even tougher issue to answer because there was SOME ambiguity
even before the NAD ruling on hydrocracks. Now, it is significantly worse for
consumers. You're just about completely in the dark.
Here's what I mean:
Even before the NAD ruling, there were ways to produce a lower quality lube
and still price it as high as other higher quality lubes without the customer
being any the wiser. Labeling terminology was "sneaky".
Oils were labeled Synthetic, Full Synthetic, 100% Synthetic, or even
Synthetic Blend. What does all that mean? Well, NOW it means almost nothing,
but even before the 1999 ruling, it wasn't entirely clear.
You see, Synthetic and Full Synthetic are basically the same thing, but they
don't necessarily mean what you think. Full synthetic didn't (and doesn't)
actually mean that the entire base of the oil was "synthetic" (back then PAO
or ester). What it meant was that there was a "significant" portion that was
synthetic, and that portion could range quite a bit.
So, full synthetic told you that you had something better than a "blend"
which would typically be more like 10 to 20% synthetic, and something not
quite so good as a 100% synthetic lube, which would be just what it says (100%
PAO or ester base - before 1999).
So, prior to 1999, at least, if you could find an oil that said 100%
synthetic, you knew it was truly synthetic from the ground up. Anything else
was somewhat sketchy, but if you knew the terminology, at least you had a
fighting chance.
Unfortunately, most people didn't (and still don't). So, they'd purchase a
Full Synthetic assuming that meant the entire base was manufactured from
synthetic basestocks, but that wasn't necessarily true.
NOW, IT'S TEN TIMES WORSE
The truly sad thing is that the ambiguity is even worse now. Since
synthetic basestock can now refer to Group III oils, in addition to the
traditional Group IV and Group V bases, all the terminology is watered down
even more.
Now, it is possible for a 100% synthetic oil to be 100 percent Group III
basestock, 100% PAO, 100% ester or a combination of any of the three. Or, a
full synthetic could be part PAO, part Group III, part Group I or II, etc.
You just don't know what percentage of what is actually in there. Could be 0%
PAO, 50% Group III and 50% Group II. Could be 50% PAO and 50% Group III,
although, depending upon the company, they'd probably label that a 100%
synthetic lube.
And what about a blend? I think you get the picture at this point. You could
buy a blend, thinking that you're getting the best of both worlds and be
getting 90% Group II base and 10% low quality Group III base (that might as
well be labeled Group II because it's only got a VI of 122) - theoretically.
NOW THAT YOU'RE THOROUGHLY CONFUSED AND DEPRESSED ...
How important this is to you depends upon your perspective. To some, this
doesn't amount to a hill of beans, except that they may be paying a premium
price for a very non-premium oil. For others, this could be crucial. For
instance, if you've got a very high performance application, you really are
going to want PAO or ester base oils for best protection.
The only way to know for sure that's what you're getting is to contact the
company tech department in most cases, and start asking questions. Sometimes,
even this won't be much help. But, I can assure you, if a company is using a
100% "true" synthetic base (PAO and/or some type of ester), they'll tell you.
That is now a HUGE selling point, now that so many "synthetic" oils are
actually Group III oils.
So, if you ask, and the tech rep sidesteps the question and won't give you a
straight answer, you can pretty much bet the oil is NOT a full PAO/ester base.
Currently, the only oils out there that I'm about 99% certain are 100% "true"
synthetic base oils are AMSOIL, NEO, Redline, Klotz and possibly a few others.
In most cases, the premium price oils ARE "true" synthetics. But, even then
you can't be completely sure because I'd just about be willing to bet my life
that there is at least one "premium" synthetic out there which is NOT a
true synthetic at all.
At any rate, that's my two cents. I hope this at least helps you understand
just a bit better what is happening in the industry right now that is
affecting you in a large way. Don't get stuck purchasing an inferior product
at a superior price because you don't know what's in your oil. Do some
research. Or ask me and see if I've done the research already and can tell
you.
==============================================================================
== Hydrocracked Basestocks: Affecting an Industry" ==
==============================================================================
In April of 1999, the lubricants industry saw a legal ruling that has created
a loophole the size of Jupiter for "synthetic" motor oil manufacturers to hop
through.
That is the month that the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Council
of Better Business Bureaus ruled that Castrol could continue to label and
market its Syntec motor oil as "synthetic" even though the lube contained no
PAO or ester basestock whatsoever.
You see, in late 1997 or early 1998 Castrol made a significant change to its
Syntec formulation and didn't bother to tell anyone. Instead of using the
polyalphaolefin (PAO) basestock it had used for years, the company had moved
to now using a super highly refined petroleum oil basestock instead.
Mobil threw a fit and in 1999 filed a complaint against the Castrol company
claiming that the product had been degraded and that Castrol's superiority
claims were no longer substantiated. Mobil wanted Castrol to either move back
to using a PAO base or be required to relabel the oil so as to make it clear
that this was NOT a synthetic lube at all.
After all, it is significantly cheaper to manufacture an oil from a
hydrocracked petroleum basestock than from a PAO basestock. So, Castrol was
maintaining an unfair advantage in the market-place by pricing its Castrol
Syntec product similarly to other PAO based synthetic oils while spending
significantly less to manufacture it.
Moreover, Castrol used to get its PAO basestock from Mobil for its Syntec
formulation. Now it was getting hydrocracked petroleum oil basestocks from
Shell. Obviously, this was eating into Mobil's profits.
Mobil wanted it stopped ... immediately.
A LITTLE BACKGROUND
It's important to understand a few things in order to fully grasp the
importance of this complaint and the subsequent ruling by the NAD.
First, understand that motor oil basestocks are divided into five main groups
which, for the most part, establish a "quality grade" ranking structure of
sorts. For years, motor oil basestocks have been classified as either Group I,
Group II, Group III, Group IV or Group V. In fact, there is actually what are
considered Group II+ basestocks as well, which, in simplest terms are simply
the best of Group II basestocks.
This grouping classification system ranks basestocks by quality grade from
lowest to highest in terms of the viscosity index of the basestock. Group I
lubes will have low viscosity index (VI), while higher Groups will have
higher VIs.
Viscosity index is important because the higher the VI of an oil, the less
viscosity change there is with temperature changes. In other words, the less
the oil thickens up in cold temperatures, and the less if thins out in hot
temperatures. At both ends of the spectrum, the less change in viscosity, the
better protection the oil affords the engine it is put in.
Most automotive petroleum oils fall in the Group II and Group II+ categories.
These are oils with viscosity indexes below 120 (Group I lubes generally
being below 100). Group III petroleum basestocks with VI over 120 (this
requires significant purification of the base, which makes these basestocks
more expensive than Group I and Group II bases.
Group IV consists of PAO basestocks which will have VI above 140. These are
bases that were traditionally referred to as "synthetic". There are also
Group V basestocks which are ester bases. This type of base is less commonly
used, and has a wider range of performance characteristics than PAO's which
offer more consistent performance characteristics. Esters too have always
been considered "synthetic", the term referring, more or less, to the aspect
of man-made basestock creation.
PAOs and Ester basestocks are designed in a lab from a molecular level. Group
I - III petroleum basestocks are, of course, pumped from the ground and then
refined. They are not "created" by man, but only refined by man. Hence, they
had not been termed "synthetic" previous to the NAD ruling.
SO WHAT ... WHY DO I CARE ABOUT HYDROCRACKING?
Well, first and foremost, there are quality issues. You see, although PAOs,
which, prior to 2000 were the most common basestock used in "synthetic" oils,
have very consistent performance characteristics from one type to another,
super-purified VHVI (very high viscosity index) Group III petro basestocks do
not.
I should make it clear that, when I say hydrocracks, I'm actually referring
to a number of slightly different refining processes that can yield a VHVI
Group III petroleum basestock. These processes will combine two or more of
the following: hydrocracking, wax isomerization, solvent extraction,
hydroconversion, hydrotreating, and others.
These processes, often used in conjunction with each other, all yield
petroleum basestocks with high viscosity indexes, higher oxidation stability
and the ability to minimize deposit build-up due to oil contamination and
high temp burn-off.
But, understand that, in order to break into the Group III "elite" a
petroleum oil only has to post a VI score of 120 or better. In other words, a
Group II basestock could have a VI of 119, while, if it was just 1 point
higher, it would be considered a Group III base.
Meaning, of course, that it is theoretically possible for a Group III oil to
perform only marginally better than a Group II base oil. It is, however,
theoretically possible for a Group III base oil to perform nearly as well as
a PAO base, if it is refined to the point of having a VI score up near 140 or
so.
The key here is to understand that the majority of oil companies out there
are going to go with "adequate" and "reasonably priced" as their criteria for
establishing what basestock they are going to use. In other words, if their
intent is to create a "synthetic" lube using a Group III basestock, many
companies will choose a Group III basestock with a VI closer to 120 than 140.
Similarly, oil companies intending to manufacture a standard petroleum oil
are many times more likely to utilize a Group II base which may have a VI
closer to 100 than 120, which results in a lower quality oil.
So, even a low-grade Group III base which is sold as synthetic will still be
significantly better than most Group II petroleum lubes which are likely to
have VI's closer to 110 than 120.
Unfortunately, that same Group III "synthetic" will also be of significantly
lower quality than a Group IV PAO synthetic basestock which will have a VI of
140 at a minimum.
BUT "BRAND X" HYDROCRACK HAS A VI OF 150 ... WHAT ABOUT THAT?
Well, in the full version of my book, "The Motor Oil Bible", this issue is
explained in great detail, but I will provide the basics of how this works
here in this article.
There is a type of additive called a viscosity index improver or VI improver
which is designed to raise the viscosity index of an oil beyond that which is
already attained by the basestock used. These are long chain polymers which
are coiled up in cold temperatures and expand quickly in warm temperatures.
These additives prevent an oil from thinning out considerably in high
temperature operation by expanding to counteract the natural thinning of the
basestock. This can raise the VI number considerably.
However, there is a drawback to this. It creates a false sense of oil quality.
When a customer checks the technical specifications of two oils, VI is one of
the items often compared. Typically, the oil with the higher VI, all other
things being equal, will "get the nod" because it is assumed it is the oil of
higher quality.
But, unfortunately, it is entirely possible that the oil with the higher VI,
actually has a lower basestock VI, but uses more VI improver additive to
boost the VI score.
Because VI improvers are used up over time, it is entirely possible that an
oil with a very high VI out of the bottle could end up with a very low VI
over the course of a standard oil change interval. Thus, more thinning of the
oil would occur at high temperatures, and less effective protection would be
acheived.
Thus, if you had a crystal ball and could actully know the original VI of the
basestock of two oils, you would have a MUCH more effective means of
comparing the quality of the two lubes. But, alas, most of us just simply
can't afford the high price of a good crystal ball these days. So, we have to
settle for a "best guess".
SO HOW DO I KNOW WHAT I'M BUYING?
Good question. And a tough one to answer. The truth is, in many cases you
don't. So, the smart thing to do is to go with the oil that you DO know
what's in it. But, how is that possible? Well, in many cases, you might
actually have to call the company and specifically ask whether the oil is a
PAO base or not (if you're looking for a synthetic).
If you're not looking for synthetic, then, you simply want to read the
labeling and product literature carefully. Sometimes, embedded within all of
the verbage can be clues as to the nature of the basestock (Group I, II or
III), but not always.
One tell tale way of knowing whether the VI is "true" or "boosted" is to take
a look at the other specs. If the flash point seems extremely low for an oil
with such a good VI, then the VI is probably "boosted" with improvers. If the
oil has a really good VI, but a low HT/HS score, the same could be true. You
just have to watch carefully.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THIS "SYNTHETIC" ISSUE?
Well, that's an even tougher issue to answer because there was SOME ambiguity
even before the NAD ruling on hydrocracks. Now, it is significantly worse for
consumers. You're just about completely in the dark.
Here's what I mean:
Even before the NAD ruling, there were ways to produce a lower quality lube
and still price it as high as other higher quality lubes without the customer
being any the wiser. Labeling terminology was "sneaky".
Oils were labeled Synthetic, Full Synthetic, 100% Synthetic, or even
Synthetic Blend. What does all that mean? Well, NOW it means almost nothing,
but even before the 1999 ruling, it wasn't entirely clear.
You see, Synthetic and Full Synthetic are basically the same thing, but they
don't necessarily mean what you think. Full synthetic didn't (and doesn't)
actually mean that the entire base of the oil was "synthetic" (back then PAO
or ester). What it meant was that there was a "significant" portion that was
synthetic, and that portion could range quite a bit.
So, full synthetic told you that you had something better than a "blend"
which would typically be more like 10 to 20% synthetic, and something not
quite so good as a 100% synthetic lube, which would be just what it says (100%
PAO or ester base - before 1999).
So, prior to 1999, at least, if you could find an oil that said 100%
synthetic, you knew it was truly synthetic from the ground up. Anything else
was somewhat sketchy, but if you knew the terminology, at least you had a
fighting chance.
Unfortunately, most people didn't (and still don't). So, they'd purchase a
Full Synthetic assuming that meant the entire base was manufactured from
synthetic basestocks, but that wasn't necessarily true.
NOW, IT'S TEN TIMES WORSE
The truly sad thing is that the ambiguity is even worse now. Since
synthetic basestock can now refer to Group III oils, in addition to the
traditional Group IV and Group V bases, all the terminology is watered down
even more.
Now, it is possible for a 100% synthetic oil to be 100 percent Group III
basestock, 100% PAO, 100% ester or a combination of any of the three. Or, a
full synthetic could be part PAO, part Group III, part Group I or II, etc.
You just don't know what percentage of what is actually in there. Could be 0%
PAO, 50% Group III and 50% Group II. Could be 50% PAO and 50% Group III,
although, depending upon the company, they'd probably label that a 100%
synthetic lube.
And what about a blend? I think you get the picture at this point. You could
buy a blend, thinking that you're getting the best of both worlds and be
getting 90% Group II base and 10% low quality Group III base (that might as
well be labeled Group II because it's only got a VI of 122) - theoretically.
NOW THAT YOU'RE THOROUGHLY CONFUSED AND DEPRESSED ...
How important this is to you depends upon your perspective. To some, this
doesn't amount to a hill of beans, except that they may be paying a premium
price for a very non-premium oil. For others, this could be crucial. For
instance, if you've got a very high performance application, you really are
going to want PAO or ester base oils for best protection.
The only way to know for sure that's what you're getting is to contact the
company tech department in most cases, and start asking questions. Sometimes,
even this won't be much help. But, I can assure you, if a company is using a
100% "true" synthetic base (PAO and/or some type of ester), they'll tell you.
That is now a HUGE selling point, now that so many "synthetic" oils are
actually Group III oils.
So, if you ask, and the tech rep sidesteps the question and won't give you a
straight answer, you can pretty much bet the oil is NOT a full PAO/ester base.
Currently, the only oils out there that I'm about 99% certain are 100% "true"
synthetic base oils are AMSOIL, NEO, Redline, Klotz and possibly a few others.
In most cases, the premium price oils ARE "true" synthetics. But, even then
you can't be completely sure because I'd just about be willing to bet my life
that there is at least one "premium" synthetic out there which is NOT a
true synthetic at all.
At any rate, that's my two cents. I hope this at least helps you understand
just a bit better what is happening in the industry right now that is
affecting you in a large way. Don't get stuck purchasing an inferior product
at a superior price because you don't know what's in your oil. Do some
research. Or ask me and see if I've done the research already and can tell
you.
![[confused]](/images/smilies/confused.png "Confused [confused]")
![[rofl]](/images/smilies/icon_smile_rofl.gif "ROFL [rofl]"){kind=icon}
![[driving]](/images/smilies/icon_smile_driving.gif "Driving [driving]"){kind=icon}
![[thumb]](/images/smilies/icon_smile_thumb.gif "Thumbs Up [thumb]"){kind=icon}