What kind of motor oil is everyone running?

[nova]

I don't get why people argue over what base stock an oil is comprised of. Buy the performance not the composition.

[wbt]

Originally Posted by nova

I don't get why people argue over what base stock an oil is comprised of. Buy the performance not the composition.

Then just run Castrol GTX and call it done...

[FrankT]

Royal Purple 5w30 in the engine, also Royal Purple in the diff and M6 tranny.

[nova]

Originally Posted by wbt

Then just run Castrol GTX and call it done...

Did you miss this part

Originally Posted by nova

I don't get why people argue over what base stock an oil is comprised of. Buy the performance not the composition.

or are you being obtuse on purpose?

IF Castrol GTX performed the same as a good synthetic, then yes I would say use it, but it doesn't so I don't. Its doesn't provide the same wear protection, contaminate suspension, oxidation resistance or any of the other things that a good quality synthetic provides. Yet again "buy the performance."

But IF the petroleum engineers at Castrol found a way make plain jain Castrol perform exactly the same as Mobil 1, and especially if it was on the GM4718M list, then WTF exactly would you care what exactly its made of?

In the same thread, given equal performance, WTF exactly do you care whether an oil is composed of Group III, IV or V base stock? If you can't do a double blind randomized test, running the standardized wear tests and at the end match the oil to the engine based on wear again WTF do you care what base stock the oil is?

Now I see you're using Amsoil, which is probably where your comment really originates. Gotta justify spending $8-$9/quart somehow I guess. From the advent of synthetic oils in the 30's to when Amsoil started back in the 70s until probably the early 90s, Group IV+ oils really were superior to everything else on the market since everything on the market was either Group II or crappy Group III. With the development of extremely high quality Group III oils, it is no longer a given that Group IV+ is better. It depends on the quality of the Group III stock and virtually all modern synthetics are composed partially or entirely of high quality Group III.

Mobil 1 is a great example. It used to be composed of Group IV+ base stock. Now nobody is quite sure what the composition is, but it has at least a fair portion of Group III base stock in it if not entirely comprised of it, and surprisingly enough it provides the same wear protection as the old stuff.

BUY THE PERFORMACE NOT THE COMPOSITION!

[Ject]

Royal Purple 5w30 motor oil

Also Royal Purple 75w90 gear oil in rear differential

[jehartley]

Originally Posted by nova

Did you miss this part



or are you being obtuse on purpose?

IF Castrol GTX performed the same as a good synthetic, then yes I would say use it, but it doesn't so I don't. Its doesn't provide the same wear protection, contaminate suspension, oxidation resistance or any of the other things that a good quality synthetic provides. Yet again "buy the performance."

But IF the petroleum engineers at Castrol found a way make plain jain Castrol perform exactly the same as Mobil 1, and especially if it was on the GM4718M list, then WTF exactly would you care what exactly its made of?

In the same thread, given equal performance, WTF exactly do you care whether an oil is composed of Group III, IV or V base stock? If you can't do a double blind randomized test, running the standardized wear tests and at the end match the oil to the engine based on wear again WTF do you care what base stock the oil is?

Now I see you're using Amsoil, which is probably where your comment really originates. Gotta justify spending $8-$9/quart somehow I guess. From the advent of synthetic oils in the 30's to when Amsoil started back in the 70s until probably the early 90s, Group IV+ oils really were superior to everything else on the market since everything on the market was either Group II or crappy Group III. With the development of extremely high quality Group III oils, it is no longer a given that Group IV+ is better. It depends on the quality of the Group III stock and virtually all modern synthetics are composed partially or entirely of high quality Group III.

Mobil 1 is a great example. It used to be composed of Group IV+ base stock. Now nobody is quite sure what the composition is, but it has at least a fair portion of Group III base stock in it if not entirely comprised of it, and surprisingly enough it provides the same wear protection as the old stuff.

BUY THE PERFORMACE NOT THE COMPOSITION!

Why the insult? Obtuse, eh? Listen, WFC because we can and wish to talk about it. If you don't want to participate without insulting someone, then don't.

The forum is here to discuss, argue, and participate in discussions. Unless someone is obviously trolling, why be so aggressive? WTF do you care?

[nova]

Originally Posted by jehartley

Why the insult? Obtuse, eh? Listen, WFC because we can and wish to talk about it. If you don't want to participate without insulting someone, then don't.

Firstly, Mr. Civility, obtuse isn't an insult as I'm using it. purposefully obtuse = purposefully lacking perception ie ignoring the obvious meaning. It might be wise to pick up a dictonary before you go accusing someone of slinging insults....

Believe me, should I decide to insult someone there's not going to be any ambiguity about it.

Originally Posted by jehartley

The forum is here to discuss, argue, and participate in discussions. Unless someone is obviously trolling, why be so aggressive? WTF do you care?

Secondly I care because his response to me was absolutely asinine and asinine posts like that are borderline trolling. I just pointed out all the reasons his asinine comment is asinine. And WTF do you think that is except "discuss, argue, and participate in discussions"?

If you want pleasant you probably should look elsewhere besides me....

[jehartley]

Originally Posted by nova

Firstly, Mr. Civility, obtuse isn't an insult as I'm using it. purposefully obtuse = purposefully lacking perception ie ignoring the obvious meaning. It might be wise to pick up a dictonary before you go accusing someone of slinging insults....

Maybe you're the one who should pick up a dictionary, eh? To imply someone is obtuse is basically to call them stupid. Rarely is obtuse used for any other purpose than to imply stupidity. If you want to backtrack and take a sliver of the meaning of obtuse (sounds to me as though you skimmed a Thesaurus...great for you) to try and mask your obvious insult, go right ahead, but it doesn't change my statement one bit.

Believe me, should I decide to insult someone there's not going to be any ambiguity about it.

Nice. Internet tough guy, eh? Love people like you. If this is an attempt to goad me, consider yourself successful, and do your worst.

Secondly I care because his response to me was absolutely asinine and asinine posts like that are borderline trolling.

It wasn't asinine...again, maybe you should pick up that dictionary your so fond of but can seem to comprehend.

I just pointed out all the reasons his asinine comment is asinine. And WTF do you think that is except "discuss, argue, and participate in discussions"?

It's called being a dick.

If you want pleasant you probably should look elsewhere besides me....

Thanks for the clarification that you're a dick. Seriously, you don't seem like a very bright bulb. If you don't understand what I mean by contributing without insulting, I rather doubt that you understand much of what is going on period. That might explain why you don't believe that Castrol GTX performs the same as a good synthetic, too. In fact, it also explains how you could make such a uninformed statement about base stocks not meaning much. I mean, hell, in one breath you say base stocks don't matter, then you go on to praise their current level of quality...which is it?

You come off as being a bit below average. Is that correct, or do you just not present yourself very well?

[nova]

Originally Posted by jehartley

Maybe you're the one who should pick up a dictionary, eh? To imply someone is obtuse is basically to call them stupid. Rarely is obtuse used for any other purpose than to imply stupidity. If you want to backtrack and take a sliver of the meaning of obtuse (sounds to me as though you skimmed a Thesaurus...great for you) to try and mask your obvious insult, go right ahead, but it doesn't change my statement one bit.

I really don't give a damn how most people use it, I know how I use it. Specifically

OBTUSE: not quick or alert in perception, feeling, or intellect; not sensitive or observant; dull.

Purposefully not observant ie ignoring an obvious meaning. Now was that hard?

You reading your own meaning into my statements is your problem not mine.

Originally Posted by jehartley

Nice. Internet tough guy, eh? Love people like you. If this is an attempt to goad me, consider yourself successful, and do your worst.

Think mighty highly of yourself huh? Its an attempt to get your to MYOB. How about you do that and we'll all be a little happier.

Originally Posted by jehartley

It wasn't asinine...again, maybe you should pick up that dictionary your so fond of but can seem to comprehend.

For one so quick to complain about me being insulting you sure bring enough of them to the table. Let me help you again.

Asinine:foolish, unintelligent, or silly; stupid:

To respond me saying "buy the performance not the composition" by saying "just use product X that has measurably inferior performance is both foolish and silly ie asinine.

Originally Posted by jehartley

It's called being a dick.

Thanks for the clarification that you're a dick. Seriously, you don't seem like a very bright bulb.If you don't understand what I mean by contributing without insulting, I rather doubt that you understand much of what is going on period.

And again with the insults. So much for just wanting a pleasant discussion of things. Guess insults are only bad when its somebody else slinging them

Originally Posted by jehartley

That might explain why you don't believe that Castrol GTX performs the same as a good synthetic, too.

I don't because it quantifiably doesn't perform as well.

This is where my engineering degree and my background in test and evaluation comes in handy understanding such things. Like every other product that has to meet certain requirements, there are standardized tests used to quantify things such as oxidation resistance, contaminant dispersion, wear protection, volatility etc. and provide a basis for performance comparisons and to determine whether said requirements were met.

A "conventional" Group III Castrol does NOT have the same performance in many areas that a "synthetic" Group III, Group IV or Group V oil would. The oil group only gives you the composition and source while the performance differential between conventional and synthetic comes in the processing and additive packages.

Let me say it again BUY THE PERFORMANCE, NOT THE COMPOSITION.

Originally Posted by jehartley

In fact, it also explains how you could make such a uninformed statement about base stocks not meaning much. I mean, hell, in one breath you say base stocks don't matter, then you go on to praise their current level of quality...which is it?

WTF are you talking about? I would dare you to point out where I said "base stocks don't matter." What I said was "don't worry about the composition as long as it performs." The only time you have to worry about composition is when it doesn't perform.

Maybe you need some other source besides myself. Here let me help you with that...

Performance of Base Oils and Future Trends - The Evolution of Base Oil Technology

Hmm, this is interesting:

A modern Group III oil can actually outperform a PAO in several areas important to lubricants, such as additive solubility, lubricity and antiwear performance. Group III base oils can now rival PAO stocks in pour point, viscosity index and oxidation stability performance.

So again, given comparable performance, why do you care about the base composition?

Originally Posted by jehartley

You come off as being a bit below average. Is that correct, or do you just not present yourself very well?

And again more insults. You come across as a hypocrit, is that correct or do you just not present yourself very well?

[spyderbuddy]

Royal purple
purple used it in my impala 106000
in my sonoma 146000
after rebuild in my fiat sypder 240000 (on clock) 25000 before taken out by a female driver.
i have had good luck with both mobil 0ne and royal purple
hot rod tv did a comparison and out of the two royal purple free'ed up hp
also ran royal purple ice in the raditor, really could not see a differance

[danhr]

pennzoil ultra 5w30

[jehartley]

Originally Posted by danhr

pennzoil ultra 5w30

How's that working for you? Awesome oil on paper...base stock, add pack...love that 13TBN, and the first few UOA's coming in at BITOG show it is an oustanding performing oil. I just put it in my Sierra, and the Camaro is next.

[brandotron]

5 qts of whatever full synthetic is on sale, half a quart of the same but a thicker weight (to quiet my chattering valvetrain), and any filter but Fram--usually Delco.

[FirstLSK]

I believe the question was asked -- why do you care what basestocks an oil manuf. uses.

Answer: Because knowledge is power. If you know the difference between the basestocks and you research what basestock an oil manuf. uses, then you can cut through the advertising propaganda and know what you are paying for. Research, as much as possible, what basestock they use and what is in their additive package.


There are five specific categories of base oils. These categories define the type of base stock the oil is formulated from. The categories are as follows. Note that the base oil group category is followed by the manufacturing method and then a description of the oil characteristics for each category.

Group I - Solvent Freezing: Group 1 base oils are the least refined of all the groups. They are usually a mix of different hydrocarbon chains with little or no uniformity. While some automotive oils on the market use Group I stocks, they are generally used in less demanding applications.

Group II - Hydro processing and Refining: Group II base oils are common in mineral based motor oils currently available on the market. They have fair to good performance in lubricating properties such as volatility, oxidative stability and flash/fire points. They have only fair performance in areas such as pour point, cold crank viscosity and extreme pressure wear.

Group – III Hydro processing and Refining: Group III base oils are subjected to the highest level of mineral oil refining of the base oil groups. Although they are not chemically engineered, they offer good performance in a wide range of attributes as well as good molecular uniformity and stability. They are commonly mixed with additives and marketed as synthetic or semi-synthetic products. Group III base oils have become more common in America in the last decade.

Group IV -Chemical Reactions: Group IV base oils are chemically engineered synthetic base stocks. Polyalphaolefins (PAO's) synthetics, when combined with additives, offer excellent performance over a wide range of lubricating properties. They have very stable chemical compositions and highly uniform molecular chains. Group IV base oils are becoming more common in synthetic and synthetic-blend products for automotive and industrial applications. The future belongs to the Group IV basestocks.

Group V - As Indicated: Group V base oils are used primarily in the creation of oil additives. Esters and polyolesters are both common Group V base oils used in the formulation of oil additives. Group V oils are generally not used as base oils themselves, but add beneficial properties to other base oils.

Note that the additives referred to in the Group V description are not aftermarket type oil additives. The additives referred to are used in the chemical engineering and blending of motor oils and other lubricating oils by the specific oil company that produces the finished product.


.