Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Hobbies & Interests
Preppers' Corner
Generator question
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Shadowrider" data-source="post: 2304231" data-attributes="member: 3099"><p>That's easily explained. The blenders were blending to a specification minimum which is just about what all of them do. Meaning that when they say it meets API specs it really does...when you pour it out of the bottle. But 15 minutes of run time in the engine and it might be a different story. The API specs have gotten better over the years and staying in spec after a set interval of actual usage in an engine is one facet. That's somewhat recent in the last few years too.</p><p></p><p>But Terry Miller is really correct in regards to base stocks that they all use. They are set specific types and all the oil companies start with these so they are starting with the same stuff. They are classified as Groups 1 through 5 with 1 & 2 being conventionally refined dino, Group 3 being hydro cracked dino and commonly called synthetic but not even close in reality, Group 4 being polyalphaolefin and Group 5 being esthers which are mega bucks expensive and usually only used as an additive. Each step up costs more money to produce. A lot of crude won't even make Group 3 these days. Where it gets different among the companies is the additive package that they add to those base stocks. Everyone has their own "recipe" and it varies greatly while the end product end up being about identical overall. They all just "blend up" to just barely meet the API specs. This is where Amsoil has utterly trounced all the others over the years. They have always went far, far above the specs with their additive packages and that's where the most cost to manufacture it is at. Back in the '70s and '80s do you remember the Mobil 1 commercials on TV where they put regular oil and their synthetic oil in a skillet and heated it up? The regular oil was reduced to sludge while the Mobil 1 would still pour out. That was actually a great representation of the difference between dino and synthetic. Back then Mobil 1 was real synthetic but our wonderful .gov changed the game and now the regular Mobil 1 line isn't real synthetic at all, it's made from group 3 base stocks. The Extended Performance is since it's blended from Group 4 stocks, so it is a real synthetic. But notice all these years Mobil wouldn't go with an extended drain interval while Amsoil has been at 25,000 miles or one year and has been since 1972. That's the additive package difference right there. Today Mobil has gotten much closer to Amsoil but only with their Extended Performance line.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Shadowrider, post: 2304231, member: 3099"] That's easily explained. The blenders were blending to a specification minimum which is just about what all of them do. Meaning that when they say it meets API specs it really does...when you pour it out of the bottle. But 15 minutes of run time in the engine and it might be a different story. The API specs have gotten better over the years and staying in spec after a set interval of actual usage in an engine is one facet. That's somewhat recent in the last few years too. But Terry Miller is really correct in regards to base stocks that they all use. They are set specific types and all the oil companies start with these so they are starting with the same stuff. They are classified as Groups 1 through 5 with 1 & 2 being conventionally refined dino, Group 3 being hydro cracked dino and commonly called synthetic but not even close in reality, Group 4 being polyalphaolefin and Group 5 being esthers which are mega bucks expensive and usually only used as an additive. Each step up costs more money to produce. A lot of crude won't even make Group 3 these days. Where it gets different among the companies is the additive package that they add to those base stocks. Everyone has their own "recipe" and it varies greatly while the end product end up being about identical overall. They all just "blend up" to just barely meet the API specs. This is where Amsoil has utterly trounced all the others over the years. They have always went far, far above the specs with their additive packages and that's where the most cost to manufacture it is at. Back in the '70s and '80s do you remember the Mobil 1 commercials on TV where they put regular oil and their synthetic oil in a skillet and heated it up? The regular oil was reduced to sludge while the Mobil 1 would still pour out. That was actually a great representation of the difference between dino and synthetic. Back then Mobil 1 was real synthetic but our wonderful .gov changed the game and now the regular Mobil 1 line isn't real synthetic at all, it's made from group 3 base stocks. The Extended Performance is since it's blended from Group 4 stocks, so it is a real synthetic. But notice all these years Mobil wouldn't go with an extended drain interval while Amsoil has been at 25,000 miles or one year and has been since 1972. That's the additive package difference right there. Today Mobil has gotten much closer to Amsoil but only with their Extended Performance line. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
Hobbies & Interests
Preppers' Corner
Generator question
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom