Mitch Haley wrote: > These days, I suspect all the major refinery name 'full synthetics' (note > that they don't and can't call them 100% synthetic) are made to be good > enough, and you just hope that good enough doesn't mean 'just barely > qualifies to not get us in trouble for false advertising'. > > If you want the best oil, you can get Amsoil for 75% of retail, which is > astronomical compared to the big name crap, but a good price compared to > applying an inflation index to the 1990 price of M1, when M1 was a group IV > oil made to be the best. > > I used to think Royal Purple was a cut above M1 / Syntec / etc, but I've seen > some oil analysis reports lately that put it slightly below M1. ....................................................
The Royal Purple and the Castrol lawsuits seemed to have opened up the naming controversies about synthetic. Marshall Booth investigated the synthetic oil business early on and found that Mobil was the only synthetic oil manufacturer worldwide. All other oil companies advertising synthetic were buying synthetic oil from Mobil. As a result the advertising claims of other oil companies became muddled. Here is an abstract of the report of the Castrol lawsuit: "A Defining Moment For Synthetics By Katherine Bui published October 1999 Lubricants World While the field is not wide open, a new ruling confirms that the definition of "synthetic" is still largely in the hands of marketers. Part 1 of 2 Synthetic. The word has become almost a proscription in the industry, especially among scientific and technical organizations, such as the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) and the American Petroleum Institute (API). Ask a marketer of motor oil products formulated with hydroprocessed mineral oils, and you might get a definition that involves cost-efficiencies and consumer choices. Ask an engineer involved in manufacturing polyalphaolefins (PAOs) or esters, and composition might be the determining factor. Despite the intense debate over the origins of synthetics, an absolute definition has remained in limbo for many years, with much of the responsibility placed on base oil manufacturers and lubricant marketers. It was only recently, in a decision by the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, that the first basic action and ruling in the United States set a strong precedence for a broader description in the marketing of synthetics. In this first installment of a two-part story, Lubricants World takes a look at the NAD's ruling and explores the revived debate surrounding the definition of "synthetic." The Ruling In a ruling released April 1999, the NAD addressed complaints filed by Mobil Oil Corp. regarding the truthfulness of Castrol North America Inc.'s claim that its Syntec® provides "superior engine protection" to all other motor oils, both synthetic and conventional, and that Syntec's esters provide "unique molecular bonding." Mobil charged that the advertisements inaccurately represented that the current formulation of Syntec is synthetic. The challenge was filed based on statements Castrol made in a series of television commercials, Web site publications, package labels, and brochures. The NAD divided its decision to address three issues raised in the complaint. Is the reformulated Syntec synthetic motor oil? Has Castrol substantiated its superiority claims? Has Syntec been degraded? Synthetic? The NAD determined that the evidence presented by the advertiser constitutes a reasonable basis for the claim that Castrol Syntec, as currently formulated, is a synthetic motor oil. NAD noted that Mobil markets hydroisomerized basestocks as synthetic in Europe and elsewhere. NAD noted that the action taken by the SAE to delete any reference to "synthetic" in its description of basestocks in section J354 and API's consequent removal of any mention of "synthetic" in API1509 were decisions by the industry not to restrict use of the term "synthetic" to the definition now proffered by Mobil. Further, the SAE Automotive Lubricants Reference Book, an extensively peer-reviewed publication, states base oils made through the processes used to create Shell's hydroisomerized basestock, severe cracking, and reforming processes may be marketed as "synthetic." Superior? Despite its prior ruling, the NAD advised that Syntec could not advertise a superior protection claim. Degraded? The NAD determined that though Mobil presented clear evidence that Castrol has made a major change to Syntec's formulation, it was not sufficient to demonstrate that Syntec has been "degraded."....snip http://www.1st-in-synthetics.com/a_defining_moment_for_synthetics.htm --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com _______________________________________ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
