I have been doing some research on the net and other forums about dino oil.

Which do you guys think is more important, the base oil or the additive package?

I have always thought Pennzoil to be a top notch product even though some here put it down and cite wivestails and urban legends about its use. One forum I studied where oil is analized very often Pennzoil shows to be one of the best dino oils. Castrol GTX also shows very well. Mobil Dino had a few issues and most said it was due to the group I base stock.

In my very limited studies on the issue I have found that higher grade base stocks seem to fare better than low grade stock and high end additive packages. Notice I said "limited". I don't claim to be authoritive on the issue I'm just trying to learn more.

I have read that Pennzoil uses a Group III base and this is the reason for the good reports. Mobil dino uses a Group I base with additives to make up the difference. So what is it that works, the additives or base stock?

Some other things I have noticed on specific brands of dino:

Pennzoil-depends on the group, the more people seem to know about the subject the more they seem to like Pennzoil. I belive this to be true. I have seen Pennzoil poured in to many race cars (oval track)with high dollar racing engines.

Castrol GTX-spoken highly of everywhere I have seen. Maybe this is from its racing background? testing seems to back up the fact that GTX is a fine product.

Quaker State dino- pretty much it is not held in high regard anywhere on the net. No concrete info just the common screams of "quaker state sucks"

Mobil dino- good brand history but the dino is not considered to be at the head of the class of dino.

Havoline- Nothing is ever really said about it except that some use it and like it. I have not seen any negative comments.

Valvoline- A lot of loyal users but some issues compared to others. Sludge rumors in certain high RPM designs which were not backed up.

Shell- Hardly ever mentioned anywhere but here. Go figure. It is rumored to replace QS as the supertech (walmart) brand of oil on one site.

Chevron-talked about very little but always held in very high regard.

I am just stating some impresions I got from a massive oil related internet session the other day. I do not claim that any information I have relayed is fact. It is only opinion of the authors and my impression of thier postings.

I think the people here are less brand influenced and I would like to have some input on the dino issue from the users here.

Remember we are talking about dino ONLY!

Thanks
Stab

 

my 2 cents...

I guess that i'm of the belief that any thing that is great, has to be built on a superior foundation, i.e. I lean more to a good quality base stock, rather than adding a bunch of additives to a low quality base stock.

I believe that in most cases, the reason that oil companies have went down the routes that they have with their dino oil is more along the lines of cost driven vs quality driven.

 

Nice work and great post, thanks - I'll have to think awhile and recover a bit from being knocked around the barn by a cow in labor -

I did subscribe to the thread though - and rated it a "5" - BEST!

Glenn ...

 

Stab,
Just what we have needed (and I AM serious): A new subject to discuss.
Very interesting question you have posed, and one I have never given serious thought.
So, I shall now give it some serious thought.....
Hmmmmmmmmm....
Having given it some serious thought I can say that I do not know. But here are my thoughts....

I'm guessing that it depends on the specific application.

Under what could be considered mildly demanding usage (regular changes, few/no short trips, good rings, etc) I'd say the base stock probably is more important. I'd guess the additive package would not be in great demand in such situations. Thinking about the anti-wear additives, if never called upon (i.e. needed) then the specifics of type and quantities would become academic. With no short trips, no contamination, etc. the detergent package would be less critical. If the climate was very cold, then pour point might be an issue, but I'll assume equal pour point temps for the oils under consideration.

NOW....what about other situations??? Well if you are running a motor that has seen many miles, has worn rings, sees many short trips, etc, then additives might come more into play. Things like detergent package and anti-wear additives would (I'd reason) take precedent over the base stock. Possible exception: a motor that runs on the high end temp wise. Then, flash point would be a big concern. Low flash point and you're cooking off oil inside your crankcase....ooohhh...not good. Extened drain intervals and the detergent package gets more important.

I've long thought (and I guess still do) that many of the "wive's tales" and antecdotal stories we hear about crud, coking, etc might just have more to do with HOW the oil was used and less to to with WHICH oil was used. I have learned a lot and will concede that there are differences between dino oils. That is stating the obvious what with Mobil dino (apparently) being group I and Chevron's Iso-syn being examples of what can now be bought as dino oil.

If one believes that a Group III oil is inherently, and perhaps more importantly, demonstrably superior than a GroupI, then the answer is obvious: base stock is more important. If you're driving a "beater" then base stock might jump to the back seat and additive package become more important.

Have I successfully dodge the question as it relates to ME and MY truck ?????

I can honestly say I do not know.

I'm going to sit on the side lines now and see what my esteemed counterparts have to say.....

Take it from here guys !!!! (and tell me if you think I'm full of crap)

Brian A

 

If I understand correctly base oils for dino are either I,II,III base stocks. Group IV would be PAO/esters and be considered real synthetics. Right?

I understand that Group III base stocks are "hydrocracked" and that some Group III based oils are sold as full synthetics even though they are just very high quality dino. Right?

Just want to make sure I am up to speed.

I hate to bring up synthetics but it is for explanation purposes only and NOT to involve the virtues/benefits of synth oil in to the disscussion.


I have noticed that Havoline, Mobil dino, and Exxon superflo are always about 50 cents cheaper than Pennzoil and GTX. Could the latter group be higher because of the higher level of base stock? It would make sense to me if that were the case.

I don't know enough about the Chevron yet but it may be the sleeper dino at 1.08/quart at wal mart even though they only have it in 10w-30 and 10w-40 when I use 5w-30.

I wish I could find out more about the Shell that Brian and I like so much but I am thinking it might be a Group I or II base with more of a additive package compared to a Group III base oil. If so it sure seems to get the job done based on the testing Brian has done on the oil. Considering how good the Shell fared in Brians test maybe it evens out between additives/base stock. Who knows?

 

Stab - I was at Wally-World less than a week ago (Staunton, VA anyway) and they were, for the 1st time, stocking Chevron Supreme in 5W30 - I was glad to see that myself.

And I think Brian is about to go into the "Designer" oil marketing business with his comments - but I don't think you're "full of crap" - on the contrary - I think you may be full of Formula Shell - but not crap!

Thanks Gents' - and Brian's right - we needed this thread - thank you Mr. Stab ...

Glenn ... PS - I SHALL RETURN!

 

Just one addition. Pennzoil, and Quaker State come from
the same refinery, they are basically the same oil....

 

Super Tech oil filters ($2) come from the same factory as various $10 and up oil filters (Champion Labs). Soes that make them the same?


I do not believe Pennzoil and Quaker State are the same oil. Why doesn't QS advertise the same "purebase" and "Z7" as Pennzoil when these are obiously considered a big deal and a selling point of the brand?

Are you stating that Pennzoil and Quaker State only have one refinery? I don't know that to be true or not but that seems a little unrealistic to me.

 

Also from what I have read QS is a Group II base stock while Pennzoil is a group III. That is a huge difference to me.

 

The same may be said of Havoline and Chevron. They have identical technical specs. The Havoline that comes out of the Chevron refinery may be a repackaged Chevrom Supreme oil. Pretty sure, but not certain. Not true for the Havoline that comes out of the Shell "Equilon" refinery. That's a different brew entirely. I've seen some oil analysis reports for Chevron oil, and it posts some decent real life numbers. Never seen any for Havoline.

In response to your original question, I think the cop-out answer is that both base oil and the additive package are important. That may be why Mobil Drive Clean (a good additive) oil and a Valvoline (a good base oil) both show good results in oil analsis tests. And given the proliferation of good dino oils that have both, there seems little reason to have to choose one over the other. My $.02

 

A little off the subject of the thread but...
Shell's MSDS list the oil as "Hydrotreated".
this would make it a Group II or Group III. (probably a group II is my guess)
There is some good info around om the subject.
Here is a link to a technical paper if you really want to learn more...
http://www.chevron.com/prodserv/baseoils/docs/ebot.pdf
This is a VERY good paper and offers a lot of good info.

In summary:
GroupI = Solvent refined
Group II = Hydroprocessed or Hydrotreated (diff name for same thing)
Group III = Hydrocracked or severly hydroprocessed (diff name for same thing)
Group IV = PAO

Perhaps we should start a new thread for educational purposes??

Brian A

 

So the Havoline/Chevron is different from the Havoline/Equilon?

Interesting.

I looked at several different weights of Havoline at wal mart earlier tonight and they were all Equilon.

Would one version go to the east and the other the west?

I think the Chevron had a San Francisco address on the back.

HHHhhhMMMMmmmmm?


Brian I think a new thread on the different stocks would be a good idea. That way we could keep this on track. Whatever "on track" means I don't know.

Maybe we should start a data base with the make up of different oils (base stock and additive package) and maybe some analysis from various members? This of course would be a long term project but I am game. I may even use my Chevy p/u as a test mule. We already have your info from the Shell/Mobil 1 test so we are off to a good start. It would be excellent if several people here would get involved. This website could become a very important part of the internet for real world info on engine oils. Maybe I'm dreaming here but I think we have a good base of folks and we could really start learning about oil in the real world instead of talking about "what ifs".

What do you think?

 

What do I think ????
I think you beat me to the punch. Honestly, I came back to the computer from the kitchen to post a message suggesting just what you mentioned. I say...
Let's do it !



Brian A

 

I guess I'll cop out and say its not either, it's the whole package.

As an example Castrol Syntec is a Group III which by all accounts should be a pretty good base stock as compared to GroupII/GroupI bases. But Castrol GTX appears to work better when looking at used oil analysis.

My leanings are actually towards the additives now. The reason is they are responsible for:
Multi-Vis performance (stay in grade, high temp/high shear)
Boundary Lubrication
Acid Neuturalization
Detergency - cleaning
Cold weather performance

I'm probably missing some other key issues there also.

The base stock just needs to be there and not evaporate. Well maybe that's an oversimplification I have seen used oil analysis of Dino that beats Group IV synthetic on wear numbers. Unfortunately, it's always difficult to draw any conclusions because there are inevitably too many variables to say for sure.

 

I get the impression that you are a Pennzoil user and that you want some validation of your choice. I don't use it and so can't do that for you. I will, however, throw this into the mix: the most significant advances in modern motor oil technology have been the development of the additive packages. These have allowed for viscosity mixes, corrosion control, and wear and pressure resistance factors unimaginable not too many years ago.


Edit: rgiles scooped me on this one, I see just now.