Switched to Mobil 1

10 manual says 0w-20 or 5w-20 for the 2.7

 

Motor oils regardless of synthtic or dino are made up of "base stock" that API groups as Group I through Group V.

When "synthetics" first appeared, they were made up of polyalphaolefin (PAOs) that would fall in the API base stock "Group IV's".

Dino oils were made using petroleum derived Group I and Group II base stocks. A further refinement by "Hydrocracking" of Group II base stocks, begot Group III base stocks that allowed higher viscosity indexes.

Group III base stocks are cheaper than Group IV. API then classified Group III base stocks as a synthetic and shortly afterwards, Mobil 1 started to use Group III base stocks.

Many "purist" decried that Mobil 1 is no longer a "true" synthetic because they use a base stock that was derived from a former petroleum base stock. IIRC, even Castrol tried suing Mobil 1 to have them remove the "Synthetic" label and eventually lost with final irony of Castrol moving to Group III base stock for their synthetic offering.

Arguing about Group III vs. Group IV is about akin to arguing politics, abortion and gun control. You will never get a consensus as both do the job admirably well.

To the purist, what sets apart what I call "boutique" brands like Amsoil, Royal Purple and Redline, is that they for the most part stick to the more expensive Group IV base stocks.

What separates petroleum base and synthetic oils is very little at the engineering level. Both use many of the same additive packs to their base stocks and what separates the base stocks is just different processing and hydrocracking.

At the marketing level, oil companies like people who buy synthetics as the profit margins are higher for very little more that is expended to make the same petroleum oil.

 

Technically, he will have different viscosities at both times, but the point is that the difference is small enough neither he nor his engine will really care.

Hootbro covered most of it.

Group IV and V base stocks are synthesized in a lab and are about as pure as a man-made compound can be. Group III base stocks are highly refined and pretty damn close.

In all other countries outside the USA, lubricants using group III base stocks have to be labeled "synthetic blend" or "partially synthetic". They only get away with "Fully Synthetic" here in the US because the oil companies have deep pockets for Senators that pass marketing legislation.

In any event, Mobil 1 is a fine oil - it's what I run in my daily driver and what I have in my Taco right now. I'm just switching out to Royal Purple at the next oil change because I like overkill.

Gotta argue that one - group V and IV bases aren't cracked IIRC, they're synthesized. Essentially, I consider cracking to be jerry-rigging a petroleum product into the same ballpark as the fully synthetic base stocks. I'd rather have the ground-up real McCoy.

 

Thanks for the technical info guys... Bottom line though: Sounds like everyone that claims "Yeah, when I switched to M1 (or PP, etc.) I noticed mpg. gains for sure." ARE full of it or if they really did see an improvement, it wasn't because they switched to these oils right?? Is it proven at all that a marketed "synthetic" oil is going to make a significant difference in mpg., engine life, decreased wear as opposed to a quality dino?

 

Regular oil changes matter more than synthetic vs. dino. There's very little evidence suggesting synthetics are majorly better, but there's some compelling anecdotal evidence. I've talked to some guys in automotive (and seen similar posts from guys on this site that worked in automotive) about synthetic vs. dino, and they say there's a BIG difference in sludge factor above 100k miles.

Basically, it sounds like if you plan to keep it for ever, synthetic from the get go is a better move.


Also, this is food for thought:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqvhRi7-iMA

 

No argument from me, as I should have explained it better as you have. My reference to hydrocracking was in relation to Group III.

Not many people understand "hyrocracking" breaking down the various hydrocarbon molecules and how the many products of cooking raw crude in the refinery process gets us the various products like kerosene, propane, naptha and a host of others.

It is not all hype nor are people full of it when it comes to synthetics. It has been measurable proven that synthetics have "somewhat" higher margins of better performance but the question is at what cost?

Some engines require synthetics because of these higher margins but in engines that have lower operating margins that call out petroleum oil, petroleum oil does the job fine. Use of synthetics in engines that traditionally by design call for petroleum oil, can be false economy.

Basically people want "the best" and with synthetics being only an extra $10-$20 for an oil change, people will pay it and be content with more from the placebo effect than anything. Now if the cost was $100+ for synthetics, many would be just content with the petroleum oil.

 

Not to mention anything made out of plastic or most synthetic fibers.
Probably better than 50% of our existence began as crude.

 

my truck has 133k miles and has always had conventional oil, (valvoline High Mileage since 100k miles) i have always been a fan of mobil 1. I used it in my 03 taco and loved how it ran. The engine felt so smooth! what do you guys think about making the switch now so late in life? I think mobil makes a high mileage synthetic?