API (American Petroleum Institute) never defined what "synthetic" is.

NAD (National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus) ruled that "Synthetic" is a marketing term and that it is the responsibility of the Marketer (the one who labels and markets the oil) to define what it is.

The "synthetic" oil business is regarded by many in the oil industry as a "religion" whose followers are holding a belief that "synthetic" is somehow superior, but lack the actual proof.

The information on following pages has been provided to enlighten the average consumer of Motor Oil, Gear Oil, ATF (Automatic Transmission Fluid) and Grease with information, which is seldom made publicly available by the oil industry.

What you do not know about oil, can harm your vehicle, and what you do not know about "synthetic" oil can cost you money, you need not spend to get the same or better performance for less.

One prevalent advertising ploy in the synthetic oil industry is that almost without an exception every company anywhere in the World claims to be the very "First".

To a casual observer it is quickly obvious that not every company can possibly be "First" and that sometimes a "second" or even the "latecomer" can actually be either "Better" or "Cheaper".

Similarly, you'll never find any financial institution to proudly proclaim:
"We are the ‘second’ XYZ bank".

However, there is the illusion in the consumer market that the claim of "First" somehow is identified with Quality or Superiority in the field of "synthetic" lubricants.

Examples:

AMSOIL   = "First in Synthetics" - The company did not exist before 1972

MOBIL = "First to Market Synthetic Oil" - Mobil 1 was introduced in 1974

Being "First" in anything, unless it is a sanctioned racing event, has no relation to Quality, Value or Performance of ANY product in the market place.

And quite often even in racing events being "First" is more a matter of luck than of ultimate superiority of performance.

Historical Facts

1927

1992

CASTROL reformulates Syntec motor oils with API Group III (petroleum) base stock from Shell

1996

Companies that Invent or develop certain products often proclaim and insist that only their products, are the ONLY ones to use, because after all "they" Invented it. So if someone Invented or developed something else that is same or better somewhere else, well it can not possibly be ANY GOOD –
Was not Invented here!

So, company that Invented PAO swears by it. Company that Invented Polyol swears by it. Company that Invented Ester swears by it. Company that Invented Poly-Glycol swears by it. Company that Invented stuff, that does not even have common generic name yet, swears by it.

The argument of superiority seems to fade somewhat, when the ultimate purpose "Lubrication" is compared to "Light".

Your objective is to have "Light".

You can achieve it with naturally occurring sources such as Sun or Moon.

You can achieve it with flame from Wood, Coal, Wax, Oil or whatever else will burn.

You can achieve it by making materials incandescent with heat such as molten metal, lava, etc.

You can achieve it by electric spark such as discharge lamps.

You can achieve it by electron flow in certain gases such as Neon.

You can achieve it by electron potential in electro-luminescent materials.

You can achieve it by chemical reaction either natural (firefly) or man induced (phosphorus).

Or you can achieve it by combination of effects such as in incandescent bulb or fluorescent tube.

If "Light" is your objective, what does it matter how it is generated as long as it serves it’s ultimate purpose, it allows you to "see".

You can spend eternity to argue the superiority of one source over the other, the relative wavelengths, energy efficiencies, the abundance of the source at any given time or location, but the ultimate result is that any and all of the above will provide "Light"

The fact that lubricant is "synthetic" or Man-made does not immediately render it superior to a Petroleum sourced product, or even one of Vegetable or Animal origin.

Just as chemically produced light might not be automatically superior to sunlight.

However, in some specific application it just might be the "ONLY" right light to use.

The superior "Lubricant" is the one that achieves its purpose in a specific application for a specific desired service life and service severity at a minimal cost (both financial and environmental).

The superiority of any lubricant has nothing to do with it being or not being "synthetic".

The only superiority of Man-made products is that the performance, composition, etc. is far more predictable, more consistent, than composition of any products from natural sources.

The performance repeatability of Man-made "synthetic" products is really the superior advantage over naturally sourced products.

For example:

Each "batch" of Base Oil produced, even from the Crude Oil from the same Oil Field, can vary in specifications and performance. And therefore the ultimate performance of the final product in a consumer application can NOT be totally predictable or repeatable.

There are dozens of well-documented episodes of Motor Oils, that failed to properly protect engines in the field, yet were produced the same way as other batches that had no apparent problems.

The "synthetic" Man-made products on the other hand can be made uniform day after day for years to come with virtually no distinction or variation in final performance.

"Synthetic" therefore is not better by virtue of being "synthetic"; but it is definitely better than "natural" by virtue of being uniform and consistent in quality and final performance.

"It can’t be any good because it was not invented here" is the absolutely worst approach to lubrication, and unfortunately is the source of many problems and inferior and very expensive products.

The curse of "Not Made here" is almost as bad, if not worse than the "Not Invented here".

Company that makes PAO will ultimately produce final lubricant, which is mostly PAO.

Company that makes Ester will ultimately produce final lubricant, which is mostly Ester.

Both will claim that their final lubricant is superior in every aspect of performance to the one made by the other competitor. Neither will acknowledge that their competitor’s product has ANY merit.

It is in most circumstances as silly as proclaiming the superiority of GREEN light over RED light, when the ultimate need is for a WHITE light. OK, so no matter what you do, you can only create "colored" light, but wait what if you ADD a BLUE light = end result of mix of RED-GREEN-BLUE (RGB) just like on your computer’s monitor is WHITE light.

So similarly mixing PAO with Ester is better than either alone, irrespective of the producer’s claims, but wait what if you ADD a Polyol as well, it will be better yet!

That’s why at SynLube, Inc. we DO NOT produce ANY base stocks, we just buy the very best from who ever has what WE need to formulate and blend the ABSOLUTELY BEST PERFORMING finished product.

We at SynLube, Inc. are not suffering from the "Not Made here" dilemma.

By not having multi million dollar investments tied up in production equipment that new developments can make instantaneously obsolete, we have the luxury of being very flexible and have the ability to make the BEST products at ALL times.

When something new or better becomes available we immediately incorporate it in our product development and testing.

While most other companies only use one or two "synthetic" Base Oils, and Mobil used to use three in their improved "Tri-synthetic" formula of Mobil 1, we at SynLube, Inc. have been using FIVE different Base Oil Fluids and THREE colloidal Solids in our SynLube™ Lube-4-Life™ products since 1969 !

This is not done with intend to be "different", but with intend to have the VERY BEST products.

However, our customers are ultimately protected from being the test guinea pigs, because nothing is released to our final customer unless it has been tested for over 150,000 miles and many years in our test vehicles and those of participating fleets.

When you get a SynLube™ product it is not NEW and IMPROVED, but it is PROVEN, DEPENDABLE and FULLY TESTED and when WE say FULLY - it is 100%!

Usually when reasonable intelligent people say that something is 100% or Full or Fully (something) then this to other reasonable intelligent people really means that:

"Full" or "Fully" is not really meaning that ALL of it (lubricant) is what it says.

"100% Synthetic" is not really a lie, when less than 100% of the finished product is "Synthetic", because cryptically it relates to something else (Base Oil), and therefore it is the TRUTH.

Except that {or "exclusive of" as they like to say}, it (100%) really does not relate to what you think

– The finished product – such as Motor Oil.

Example:

If you are a good detective you’ll notice that the statement on the Front label ends with an asterisk (*) and the statement on the Back label starts with an asterisk (*).

If you are really good, you’ll figure out that the asterisks are the magical "glue" that connects the two together and that what should be understood is:

Well, that is only the beginning of our decoding mission. When asked, majority of consumers has absolutely no idea what "carrier oil" is, or what the meaning of "exclusive of" really is.

So if you are totally confused at this point, do not despair, soon you shall be enlightened with a wisdom worthy of CLS (Certified Lubrication Specialist).

First, however, you have to either consult you dictionary (a technical one with specialties in oil industry well defined), or just have to take our word for it.

The usual suspects are: Additive, Base Oil, Base Stock, Carrier Oil, "exclusive of", Petroleum, Process Oil and Synthetic.

A base stock is a mineral hydrocarbon or synthetic lubricant component that is produced by a single manufacturer (independent of crude source or manufacturing location), that meets the same manufacturer’s specification, and that is identified by a unique formula, product identification number, or both.

Of, involving, or using synthesis

Produced by synthesis; specially: produced by chemical synthesis, rather than of natural origin

Not real or genuine; artificial [synthetic lubricant]

Something synthetic; specially, a substance produced by chemical synthesis

Man-made, not occurring in nature

Oils produced by "synthesis" (chemical reaction) rather than by extraction or conventional refinement.

Oils that previously were NOT considered as "synthetic" such as those that are produced by "severe refining", "hydrogenation" or other complex chemical processes that yield a more stable molecular uniformity and higher degree of purity that is not achievable through normal "conventional" refining process are NOW also labeled as "synthetic" by their respective producers (SHELL, ExxonMobil, BP, SUNOCO) - they however still are made from Petroleum Crude.

These "quasi-synthetics" are almost as good as PAO but much cheaper.

Patience, please, the ultimate truth will be revealed soon!

OK here is the reasoning for:

The "100% Synthetic" relates to the Base Oil or Base Stock, it and only it (the Base Stock) is synthetically made. In case of Mobil 1, it was originally PAO (Poly-alpha-olefin).

The "exclusive of carrier oil" means in English that the Carrier or the Process Oil that is used to "carry" the additives is not synthetic oil and therefore, the final product (Motor Oil)
is NOT 100% Synthetic, even though the Base Oil is 100% Synthetic.

All motor oils contain additives that provide extra protection against wear, corrosion and engine deposits. These additives are usually high molecular weight materials – sometimes even solids. Conventional carrier oil is used to make these additives soluble. All motor oils will contain some of this carrier oil, usually only amounting to a small percentage of the finished product.

Source of above Questions and Answers is www.mobil,com and Mobil 1 promotional literature from 1999.

Are you clear on the subject NOW?

Perhaps a small question still lurks on your mind, how small a "small percentage" is?

Well, for that we have to go to a company like Infineum that produces the additive packages such a PARANOX 5043 and PARANOX 5510 for synthetic lubricants.

The active ingredients are 1.94% to 4.07% by Mass (weight) the balance is Petroleum Oil.

That is about 98% or 96% of the "Additive Package" in ready to blend form is Petroleum Oil.

They (Infineum) recommend treat rate for FULLY FORMULATED lubricant (Motor Oil) of 10 to 20% of the finished product.

If 100% of the Base Oil is 100% Synthetic;

If 98% to 96% of the "Additive Package is Petroleum";

If 10 to 20% of the finished product is the Additive Package;

Then, how many % of Petroleum and how many % of Synthetic are in the finished Motor Oil?

SOLUTION:

When the treat rate is 10% and the Additive Package contains 2% of active ingredients,
then the finished product will be 90% Synthetic with 9.8% Petroleum and 0.2% of additives.

When the treat rate is 20% and the Additive Package contains 4% of the active ingredients,
then the finished product will be 80% Synthetic with 19.2% Petroleum and 0.8% of additives.

The "small percentage" (according to Mobil) actually is 9.8% to 19.2%.

Many investors would be thrilled to get such a "small percentage" return on their money !!

(Just for the record, the average dividends for Mobil and Exxon over last 20 years have been in 2% to 4% range, and they jointly term this as "significant" return on Shareholders’ Equity in their Annual Reports). Currently the ExxonMobil (XOM) stock trades at about $60.00 per share while the quarterly dividend is in 27 to 30 cent range (1.9%)

In recent press release ExxonMobil proudly proclaimed this: "Through its dividends, the corporation has shared its success with its shareholders for more than 100 years and has increased its annual dividend payment to shareholders for 23 consecutive years." - even this statement is not true since ExxonMobil did not exist 23 years ago as it were two separate and Independent companies (Exxon AND Mobil).

OK then "100% Synthetic Motor Oil" is not really "100% Synthetic Motor Oil", but it is perfectly OK to say that it is 100% Synthetic Motor Oil, because the Base Stock is 100% Synthetic and that is what you really mean when the Motor Oil contains as much as 20% of Petroleum, because the Petroleum is not the Base Oil but the Carrier Oil for the Additives !!!

Now if YOU do not understand that, as most people do not, well that is just way too bad.

After all you just might not be willing to pay so much more for Synthetic Motor Oil if you knew it was not "100% Synthetic", or would you ?

Well, you probably are (paying too much)!

Well, if you think that Mobil or (ExxonMobil now) is less than honest, or even down right deceptive, that is not the worst of it.

Many other brands of Synthetics (Shell, Castrol, Amsoil, etc.) are NOT fully "synthetic" at all, at least by the definition used for years by chemists in all chemical companies around the World.

Some years ago SHELL in Europe and specifically in then West Germany introduced Motor Oils that were manufactured from UHVI Petroleum Base stock that although made from conventional crude oil, was subjected to additional processing not common on "normal" or "typical" Base Oil production. These (UHVI = Ultra High Viscosity Index) Base Stock containing Motor Oils were labeled by SHELL as "Synthetic".

Companies like MOTUL, MOBIL, AGIP in their respective markets did not like that labeling one bit, because the SHELL "synthetic" products were sold for substantially less then their own Brands of "Synthetic" Labeled products.

So years of lawsuits court orders, appeals, contra-suits clogged the courts of several European countries. At different times and in different countries contrary decisions or judgements were made. What was "synthetic" in one country on one day was "not synthetic" in another country at the same time. A real confusion for a region of globe that aimed to "unify" in the near future and become one great continent of "EURO".

So now anytime you subject conventional petroleum oil to any unconventional process or reaction, irrespective of if it works (improves) or not the Base Oil, you can for all practical purposes call it "synthetic" i.e., Man-made.

SAE which had in its lubricant specifications not only definitions of what constitutes a "synthetic" but also a list of specific chemicals used as lubricants that were considered "synthetic".

Although SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) is US based organization, it aims at Global reach, and having one standard in the USA and yet another in most of Europe was deemed as bad as having English and Metric standards of measurements (at the same time).

The decision was made to go along with Europe (after all Metric is better), and as a result all reference to "synthetic" in respect to lubricants was deleted from ALL future SAE publications of SAE Standards relating to Lubricants.

Since SAE is a non-profit organization of Engineers, it had no desire nor financial might to involve itself in never ending lawsuits with mighty oil and chemical companies, so the simple "deletion" of all references to "synthetic" was perhaps the best and easiest decision.

When opportunity is there, it is only natural that some one will seize it.

It was CASTROL with their Syntec® Synthetic Motor Oil, which when first introduced up until December 1997 it was formulated with PAO sourced from Mobil.

In January 1998 CASTROL started to use much cheaper hydroprocessed petroleum base oils from SHELL. Mobil lost the opportunity to sell PAO to CASTROL.

Mobil Oil complained to National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, which in April 1999 finally ruled in CASTROL favor, specifically allowing Syntec® Motor Oil made from SHELL XHVI slack wax stream to be sold and promoted as "synthetic".

To celebrate the victory, CASTROL Company spokesperson said:

"CASTROL is proud to be a major worldwide provider of synthetic formulated lubricants, and looks forward to continued participation in this exciting market. CASTROL is committed to upgrading its products and producing the highest quality synthetic engine oils. We will continue to explore ways to ensure that Syntec® remains a leading performer in the synthetic category"

WOW, someone missed their calling to be a Politician !!!

So now "synthetic" can be marketed as "synthetic" even if it is not a "synthetic"!

A PENNZOIL with PENNZANE® is not any better and PENNZOIL claims are downright deceptive. The PENNZANE® which is touted as "developed for and used by NASA" has bee actually developed for used in vacuum pumps, and computer drives. It was never intended for or ever used in any engine! PENNZANE® in its pure form costs about $400.00 per US quarts.
It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that in the Consumer version of the "synthetic" motor oil that sells for under $4.00 there is about a drop of PENNZANE® in 5 Gallons  !

The Back Label of PENNZOIL "Synthetic" with PENNZANE® also instructs the user to: "change motor oil EVERY 3,000 miles for best performance" !

Why then it costs four times as much conventional Petroleum Motor Oil if it is not all that much better, and definitely does not last in service any longer?

No we are not the "First" and we are not the "Biggest" when it comes to lubricants, but being what we are, when it comes to lubrication, we are and can afford to be the "Best in the Solar System, not just the Earth".

And NOW - it is up to YOU the consumer and the vehicle owner or operator.

With every penny that you spend you vote for the product that you ultimately buy and use.

Or will you choose the very best product, that in the long run cost much less to use, than the mediocre?

When it comes to lubricants for your vehicle(s) the choice is simple:

…and then…