Home    Savings    Test Results    Technical Information   Newsletter     Order    Contact and employment opportunities


Another Customer Achieves Tremendous Improvements

 

          Jeff McCabe of San Jose, California has implemented portions of the Hydrogen Boost System even before he became a paying customer, simply by reading the newsletters and applying what he learned.  In doing so Jeff has increased the fuel mileage of his 2002 Dodge Dakota by as much as 81%.  Jeff has now purchased the plans and operator’s manual and is looking to build one of the choices of electronic control circuits explained in the manual.  Jeff has already achieved 34.4 mpg with his truck.  EPA mileage figures for the 2002 Dodge Dakota V-6 automatic transmission are 18 mpg city and 19 mpg highway. 

Congratulations Jeff on your achievements and good luck with further improvements.  My 1992 Dodge Dakota was only able to achieve a 50% increase back in 2001 before we developed many parts of the Hydrogen Boost system.  Please keep us informed of your progress and pass the word about the benefits of the Hydrogen Boost system to those around you. 

 

 

”Synthetic” Oils, Are They Really?

 

Following is an e-group post I stumbled on while researching the Internet:

 

It will make you wonder, “What really is synthetic oil?”

 

 

>Ok boys and girls time to start another lubrication thread. If you're
>using Castrol Syntec or considering any synthetic oil for your
>motorcycle read on! Warning this may make your brain hurt...
>
>First off let me start by saying that I believe synthetic oils offer
>better performance than any convnetional motorcycle oil. That an
>automobile synthetic is ok to use in motorcycles provided it is NON
>Energy Conserving (hereby referred to as EC). The EC compounds are the
>dreaded anti-friction modifiers that supposedly cause clutch slippage
>in wet trannies. I say supposedly cause I've never actually tried to
>use them and have heard anectodal evidence that they do *not* cause
>clutch slip. I also believe that many motocycle oil brands are small
>time producers that cannot be counted on to make a product as uniform
>as the big boy refiners can. In other words Mobil 1 is vastly superior
>to any moto-oil IMHO even the ones labeled synthetic and you shall
>soon see why...
>
>Now a few years back mobil dropped their 10W-40 synthetic which was a
>non-EC blend and a wintertime favorite of mine. Curiously enough at
>the same time they introduced their motorcycle oil lineup and surprise
>surprise it was available in 10W-40. Some marketing genius apparently
>figured out that there isn't much of a need for non-EC car oils and
>they could charge $7.50/qt for motorcycle oil vs. the $4.50 they get
>labeling it as a car oil. This leaves 15W-50 mobil 1 as the only
>non-EC synthetic in their car oil lineup. This is what I've used in
>thousands of miles on my bikes with no problems whatsoever, but I was
>still left high and dry when it came to running a winter oil.
>
>Winter can see below freezing so you obviously need to run a lighter
>oil when it's colder out. For this reason I chose to run Castrol
>Syntec 5W-50. I figured it's a synthetic and has a light enough weight
>to run it in the colder temps.
>
>Except it isn't a synthetic! Yes that's right, Castrol is charging you
>$4+/qt for regular dino-oil! I stumbled across this info whilst
>looking at the performance data. Strangely enough the pour point of
>Syntec 5W-50 was higher than that of Mobil 1 15W-50! Pour point is the
>temperature that oil can still flow. The colder the better. Why then
>did a sythetic oil labeled as a 5W flow at only -15 degrees whilst the
>Mobil 1 which was a 15W flowed up to -55? This didn't make any sense,
>the 15W oil is supposed to be heavier than the 5W and the numbers
>should be reversed!
>
>Clearly something was up... more research into the issue.
>
>All synthetic oils used in performance applications are based on two
>kinds of base-stock compounds. PAOs and Organic Esters. The organic
>esters are superior to a certain degree (they're used in jet engines
>for their heat resistance) but the PAOs are more cost effective and
>offer superior detergent properties (keeping the engine clean) and
>tend to be the bulk of any sythetic oil including Mobil 1. Usually
>around 80% is a PAO and the rest are organic esters. In the synthetic
>oils that were pioneered in applications such as aviation and
>hi-perfomance this is what was used.
>
>That said there's a newer process of refining regular dino-oil that
>yields far better results than conventional refining. It's called
>hydrocracking or isodewaxing. This process yeilds better quality motor
>oil from petroleum stock because of far more agressive molecular
>manipulation which creates base oils that have some of the beneficial
>attributes of PAO and organic esters. While hydrocracked oils offer
>significant benefits over regular oil they do *not* outperform PAOs
>and Esters.
>
>Castrol Syntec was once a PAO/Ester based oil similar to Mobil 1.
>Around Decemeber of 1997 it was quietly changed to a
>hydrocracked/ester blend. This means that the bulk of the oil is in
>fact regular dino oil that has been subject to the hydrocracking
>process with a small amount of organic ester thrown in for good
>measure.
>
>Mobil took Castrol to task over this and filed a complaint with the
>BBB and FTC. During the long legal battle that followed Mobil claimed
>that Syntec was reformulated in 1997 without notice and that it could
>no longer call itself a synthetic. Castrol's response was that the
>isodewaxing process offered a significant benefit and altered the
>molecular structure of the base stock significantly enough to qualify
>calling it a "synthetic". They also asserted that since Mobil did
>derive their PAO/Ester basestocks from petroleum (duh) that any
>significant molecular manipulation of crude oil could be labeled as a
>synthetic product. Furthermore there is no real definition to explain
>what exactly a synthetic is since the SAE decided to drop the ball and
>avoid the issue altogether rather than issue a precise standard.
>Castrol used this defense to say that synthetic oils do not
>necessarily have to be composed of PAO/Ester compounds. That
>hydrocracking yields a sufficiently different product from regular oil
>to qualify as a synthetic.
>
>Interestingly enough I got this quote from an article on the whole
>legal battle:
>
> Joe Geagea, Chevron base oils products team manager, suggested,
>"Currently, there is no strict defintion in North America of what
>constitutes synthetic, and we don't expect this to change"
>
>So basically Mobil's assertion that only PAO/Ester based lubes can be
>classified as synthetic was tossed out on the grounds that there
>really is no strict specification of what a synthetic is and that
>Castrol's assertion that isodewaxing creates a product that is
>significantly altered from regular dino-oil qualifies it as a
>synthetic. In other words using the term synthetic is technically as
>meaningless as the words "pure" and "organic" currently are. Since
>there's no technical definition it is up to the manufacturer to decide
>what exactly it means.
>
>Now this is all fine and dandy but that still doesn't hide the fact
>that hydrocracked/isodewaxed oils do *NOT* outperform PAO/Esters. It
>also doesn't hide the fact that there are several isodewaxed oils on
>the market that are NOT labeled as synthetic nor are they sold for
>$4/qt as Syntec is. You can go out and buy some Penzoil Purebase for a
>lot less per quart than Syntec and get the same exact product. The
>only difference is that Syntec also has around 15% Esters added which
>do improve performance somewhat but in my mind that makes it a
>synthetic blend more so than anything else. While Syntec is a far
>better oil than the regular grades it is not as good as Mobil 1 nor
>does it have to cost $4 quart since there are plenty of isodewaxed
>oils on the market that sell for little more than regular dino-oil.
>
>So what's in Castrol semi-synthetic you ask? Good question. It's a
>blend of their hydrocracked oil and regular dino-oil. In other words
>you're just buying a better quality version of the SAME exact dino-oil
>when you get Syntec. Also note that Castrol is merely a marketer in
>the US and does NOT blend their own oils. It is done by third parties
>under license. In other words they have no direct control over what
>goes into the bottle other than doing spot checks on their blenders.
>
>Mobil 1 was always more expensive because it costs significantly more
>to produce PAO/Ester stocks. Castrol entered the game with a similar
>product and then quietly changed it to a far cheaper process whilst
>keeping the pricing the same. They made no announcements of doing so
>despite the fact that they no longer had to charge $4/qt since
>isodewaxed oils are far cheaper to produce. It took Mobil's
>independent testing whilst checking up on their competitors to bring
>this change to light.
>
>Thanks to this precedent set by Castrol one can now successfully call
>all isodewaxed dino-oil Synthetic. This is why you've seen scads of
>Synthetic oils popping up left and right not just in auto parts stores
>but in motorcycle dealer's shelves. One has to wonder just how many of
>these "synthetics" are in fact overpriced dino-oil that has been
>subject to the isodewaxing process. We all know that motorcycle oil
>manufacturers aren't full of marketing bullshit right? ;) Furthermore
>since Mobil's testing uncovered this unannounced change in Castrol's
>product line whats to keep anyone from selling relabled dino-oil as
>synthetic? You go stricly on the manufacturer's word.
>
>Even more interesting is that DESPITE the fact that Castrol made
>repeated claims that isodewaxing process qualifies as synthetic
>they're now currently stating that it is still a PAO/Ester blend.
>During the legal wrangling they never denied their oil was just an
>isodewaxed dino product, in fact they went to great lengths to call
>such a formulation a true synthetic. Either their tech reps are
>outright lying to cover up this whole fiasco now that it's all behind
>them or they are ill informed. Since their spec sheets still list
>Castrol syntec as a PAO/Ester blend despite the fact that independent
>testing proved otherwise I am inclined to believe that oil companies
>have absolutely no problem giving totally false information about
>their products just to make a buck.
>
>Imagine buying your heart medications and getting placebos instead
>because the manufacturer is too god damned cheap to put in the active
>ingredient...
>
>So the next time you plunk down $5 or more for a quart of synthetic
>with fancy claims realize that if it isn't a PAO/Ester blend chances
>are it is nothing more than ultra-refined dino-oil and that according
>to the FTC it is perfectly legal to do so. That there are companies
>out there such as Castrol selling oil for the same cost as more
>expensive to produce PAO/Ester blends despite the fact that they could
>do so for little more than the cost of regular oil. That despite what
>the spec sheet may say what goes into the the bottle may be a totally
>different animal.
>
>Interestingly enough Mobil has recently changed their Mobil 1 to a
>"Tri-Synthetic" formula. Does this mean they've added isodewaxed oil
>to the mix now that the FTC ruled it is ok to do so? I haven't found
>any specs as to what the mysterious third base stock is. Previously it
>was purely PAO and Organic esters.
>
>So anyone out there in lube land have any more info? Any corrections?
>If anyone has a better clue than I speak up.

 

 

Return to Newsletter Page

 

 

Hydrogen-Boost web pages and all information contained therein are hereby copyrighted. 

Reproduction, alteration, or any other use of the information (in part or in entirety) contained on these pages

 is strictly forbidden without express written permission of the author.