the future of motor oil?

On 29 Apr 2005 11:08:52 -0700, "y_p_w" > wrote:

>George Macdonald wrote:
>> On 28 Apr 2005 11:03:18 -0700, "y_p_w" > 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.

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.

>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.

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.

>> >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.

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.

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.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

George Macdonald wrote:
> On 29 Apr 2005 11:08:52 -0700, "y_p_w" > wrote:
>
>
>>George Macdonald wrote:
>>
>>>On 28 Apr 2005 11:03:18 -0700, "y_p_w" > 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.

y_p_w wrote:

>
>
> George Macdonald wrote:
>
>> On 29 Apr 2005 11:08:52 -0700, "y_p_w" > 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>

On Sun, 01 May 2005 02:16:34 GMT, y_p_w > wrote:

>
>
>George Macdonald wrote:
>> On 29 Apr 2005 11:08:52 -0700, "y_p_w" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>George Macdonald wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 28 Apr 2005 11:03:18 -0700, "y_p_w" > 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

George Macdonald wrote:

> On Sun, 01 May 2005 02:16:34 GMT, y_p_w > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>George Macdonald wrote:
>>
>>>On 29 Apr 2005 11:08:52 -0700, "y_p_w" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>George Macdonald wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On 28 Apr 2005 11:03:18 -0700, "y_p_w" > 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 17:01:09 GMT, y_p_w > wrote:

>
>
>George Macdonald wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 01 May 2005 02:16:34 GMT, y_p_w > 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 17:01:09 GMT, y_p_w > 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.

George Macdonald wrote:
> On Sun, 01 May 2005 17:01:09 GMT, y_p_w > 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

On 2 May 2005 10:40:45 -0700, "y_p_w" > wrote:

>George Macdonald wrote:
>> On Sun, 01 May 2005 17:01:09 GMT, y_p_w > 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

On 2 May 2005 12:50:32 -0700, "y_p_w" > wrote:

>George Macdonald wrote:
>> On Sun, 01 May 2005 17:01:09 GMT, y_p_w > 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