Anybody ever heard of 'HYDROCRACKED OIL'? Am I pronouncing this correctly? I've heard Conoco and Penzoil use this process in refining their crude and, once they're done refining, it's crystal clear. The only color that you see in the oil is that of the additives.

Any insight?

RP

 

Yeah Ive heard about this but dont quite fully understand. Castrol Syntec is another example of hydrocracked oil and it is because of them that there is some controversy over hydrocracking and "synthetic oil." Castrol has gotten in hot water for calling this oil synthetic when it really isnt. I dont know the specifics but they are trying to lobby that it in fact is synthetic.

The way that I understand is that hydrocracked oil is better than plain old dino oil. But it isnt as good as synthetic and it shouldnt be called a syn. Someone posted an article about this before on this board. Do a search and maybe you can come up with something. I would but I gotta run.

Later

 

http://www.htlubricants.com/eng/cana...more.html?vhvi


Here's the whole story in PDF.

http://www.htlubricants.com/eng/pdf/2000_Handbook.pdf

 

This process is also used by Chevron. They were the first ones in the USA to develope this process and has since licensed it to other oil manufacturers, Pennzoil being one of them. It is called a group two base stock and is of a very high purity. Even though Chevron has since licensed the process to others, they are still ahead of the others in the further development of base oils. Although this is not a synthetic base oil, it's performance has been proven to be very close to a synthetic.

 

I too had wondered what "hydrocracked" meant. Seems to me I saw the word on the label of the Motorcraft 5W20 last time I was wandering through the local Walmart. Thanks for the info and links.

ernie

 

The Quest for Knowledge!!!!


http://www.lubrizol.com/ReadyReferen...basestocks.htm

Viscosity Index (VI) is an empirical number indicating the degree of change in viscosity of an oil within a given temperature range. It is determined by measuring the kinematic viscosities of the oil at 40 and 100°C and using the tables or formulas included in ASTM D 2270. A high VI signifies a relatively small change in viscosity with temperature, whereas a low VI reflects a large viscosity change with temperature. Most mineral base oils have a VI between 0 and 110, but the VI of synthetic fluids often exceeds 120. The incorporation of polymers often increases the VI of the base oils to over 110.

http://www.lubrizol.com/ReadyReferen...nterchange.htm

 

Thanks a bunch for the responses.

So is the general concensus that Synthetic has better protection than the hydrocracked?

RP

 

With the group III base stocks that are becoming available now, you will easily get similar performance benefits that a synthetic will offer. It's not really the hydrocracked process, as that has been around for awhile. It has more to do with the Iso-dewaxing process and the hydro-polishing that is used in the cracking process of crude oil. Synthetics are good for extreme performance and racing applications, but in my opinion, save the money and use a good top quality conventional oil. I happen to use Chevron Supreme motor oil and have had excellent results with it.

 

Chevron Supreme is only a group II oil, this is marginally better than a convnetionally distilled group I base oil.

To really compare to a synthetic you have to go to a full group III with a VHVI oils. the Group II's still do not have the cold temperature pumpability of a synthetic. Also some you still have some long chain hydrocarbons that break down a reletively low temps.

As far as a full group III goes about the only one is Castrol Syntec. This a very good oil, but it is usually the same price as a full synthetic PAO/Ester based oil. So you are not saving money.

Lastly we are only talking 1 part of the equasion, the other part being additives. You have to remember that the additves make up a very important part of your engine oil and if you are using a great base stock combined with relitively cheap additves you can run into problems, things like the oil staying in grade(VI improvers) or foaming, or acid buildup or soot(mostly diesels) the list goes on.

Now I am a cheapskate. If I can find a way to save money you know it will be done. Hence the reason I use oil that Costs $8 a quart, but in the long run gives me over 50% savings per oil change. Also I get better fuel mileage, which further increases my savings.

 

There is a huge difference between a group II base stock and a group I base stock. Group I base stock is solvent cracked base oil which doesn't remove near the impurities that the hydro-finishing and Isodewaxing process does in a group II oil. If you have seen a sample of each it is even obvious to the eye. The group I being a yellowish-amber color, while the group II is almost water white.

If what you are after is pour point and extreme high temperature, then yes, a synthetic will be better, but in the real world very few of us will ever reach those extremes. The better conventional oils cover the real world temperature extremes very well.

I'm glad you brought up the additive issues. Tests have shown that synthetics often don't have as good as additive package as the top conventional oils because of the cost. If they were to take the cost of a synthetic base stock along with a top additive package it would be priced out of the market for the majority, so oil companies will make small sacrifices to keep the cost down. Amsoil is one who doesn't do this and that's why it is quit a bit higher than Mobil 1 and other typical synthetic motor oils. I'm not advocating against Synthetics, as they serve a purpose for some applications, but when I read where people are using synthetics and changing their oil every 2500 to 3000 miles, to me they are not using the full benefit of a synthetic so they would be just as well off to use a good conventional oil IMHO. I know I will get some disagreements on this, but for every high mileage success story with synthetic oil, I bet I could find 2 high mileage success stories that have used conventional oils.

The bottom line, is that everybody has their personal opinions and I say do whatever you're comfortable with.

 

I agree here that the group II's are much better, what I was trying to compare to was the group III's to synthetics.

I don't know if I can agree with this. maybe in a temperate environment, but it seems these day's that in the far north and the deep south the temperature extremes are very hard on vehicles that have small engines that put out a lot more horsepower per cube than before. Anyone who works the 9-5 in a major city can probably attest to long periods in high temps.
Yes a good conventional will work but not as well for as long as a good synthetic. Or anyone who has to start their car in temps below 0--States like MN, ID, ND, SD, WI, AK and most of Canada.
This is oh so true. It's hard to believe it that companies spend millions and millions on trying to make a product that meets the need but at the cheapest cost instead of make the best possible product that will outperform in all aspects, which inturn will save money in the long run(auto manufactures are the best at this!!)
I agree 110% with you on this.
Also have to look at the fact that most people don't keep a vehicle long enough to realize the full benifits of a synthetic/high quality lubricant/filtration.

I have to totally agree with you on this also since only a fraction of total lubricant market uses synthetics. Also there have been cases where people have maintained their vehicles very well and have attained high mileage. (Subaru and Toyota are know for the commercial on this)
Also note though that you can get to high mileage on many frequent oil changes with conventional oil,
Here is the article:
http://www.pennzoil-quakerstate.com/...2002-02-07.htm

But what if you could do the same on oil changes that are 5-11 times longer?
I totally agree