Synthetic blend engine oils have been in the market in one form or another for decades. I remember first hearing the term para-synthetic oil in the early 1980s. Although they were a niche within a niche back then, synthetic blends have since grown to become a significant market segment. And over the years, their definition has changed and blurred to a point where its difficult to know what is a synthetic blend and whats not.
From its inception until the late 1990s, the term synthetic was generally reserved for passenger car engine oil made with polyalphaolefin and ester base stocks – not solvent-refined oils. So when para-synthetics entered the market, they were presumed to contain a blend of synthetic and petroleum base oil. Few questioned the definition of synthetics, let alone para-synthetics, since their combined volume accounted for less than 1 percent of PCEO sales in the United States back then. But as demand grew, some in our industry started to care and ask questions.
The first sign of caring came in the 1990s when the term para-synthetic morphed into semi-synthetic. Although one can argue why this change occurred, some believe its because the prefix para by some definitions means similar to or resembles. As a result, consumers were left scratching their heads wondering if para-synthetics were in fact a blend of synthetic and conventional base oils, or just something similar to or resembling synthetic.
A bigger change followed when Castrol decided in 1997 to use hydrocracked API Group III base oil instead of PAO in its synthetic engine oils. Much has been written about this change and Mobils unsuccessful attempt to bar Group III from wearing the synthetic label. When Castrol prevailed in 1999, it changed the industry in a big way. Within two years of those fireworks most of the PAO in PCEO had been replaced by Group III due to its lower price. Meanwhile, following the 1994 launch of Valvolines Durablend line, yet another name change was taking place; the term semi-synthetic transitioned to what we now call synthetic blends.
Like their predecessors, synthetic blends were positioned to offer consumers a mid-tier choice between conventional engine oil and high-priced full synthetics. But even that changed in 2004 when Phillips 66 announced it would sell synthetic blends at conventional oil prices.
Understandably there was hoopla around that announcement. But as many in our industry were well aware, a good deal of the conventional engine oil in the market at that time was in fact synthetic blends, because formulators had no choice but to use some synthetic base oil in order to meet tough Noack volatility and viscometric requirements. From then on, the world of synthetic blends got much more interesting, and getting your arms around the volume of synthetic blends sold became much more complicated.
In todays market, lubricant manufacturers commonly use Group II base stock blended with some Group III and/or high-viscosity-index Group II (aka Group II+) to make the workhorse viscosity grades of their conventional engine oils. To make an SAE 5W-30, for example, a blender will typically use 30 to 40 percent Group III (depending on its viscosity index) along with some Group II. Alternatively, again depending on the V.I. of the base oil, they could get there using 50 to 60 percent Group II+ blended with a Group II. But whereas thats the science of blending, its not the reality of marketing.
Although theyre not labelled as such, many if not most of the conventional SAE 5W-20 and 5W-30 engine oils in the market today are de facto synthetic blends, because they contain some Group III as a correction fluid. Some leading PCEO marketers choose not to make this known, and instead maintain a presence in the conventional oil segment while also offering synthetic blends in the mid-tier space and full synthetics at the top tier.
Based on whats written on the label, synthetic blends comprise about 13 percent of the total volume sold; but that number is a far cry from the reality of whats in the bottle. Thats all well and good, and the way it should be from a market research perspective focused on brand and tier sales. At the same time, estimating the demand for Group III consumed in synthetic blends based on labels – rather than actual product composition – is flawed and dangerously misleading.
Heres why: Lets assume that no Group III is required to make SAE 10W-30 or 10W-40 or monograde oils, which together account for less than 10 percent of U.S. PCEO sales. Further assume there are no blenders stretching the definition of synthetic base oil to include high-V.I. Group II+ and labelling as synthetic blends products that contain no Group III. Also consider all SAE 0W-X to be full synthetics.
When thats done, calculating the volume demand for Group III in synthetic blends is primarily about the math of reverse engineering the composition of the SAE 5W-20 and 5W-30 sold in the United States. And that math says 45 to 50 percent of these grades (roughly 200 million gallons) are arguably synthetic blends. Thats a big difference from the approximately 60 million gallons, or 13 percent, labelled as such. And as future specifications ratchet up and require more Group III, you can be sure that number will climb.
And now for the not-so-secret secret about synthetic blends.
There is no analytical method to confirm if a synthetic blend contains any Group III synthetic base oil at all, nor for that matter an official definition of synthetics and synthetic blends. So maybe the word para-synthetic is indeed more apropos. Because even decades after it entered the market, more now than ever people are scratching their heads wondering whats a synthetic blend and whats not.
Tom Glenn is president of the consulting firm Petroleum Trends International, the Petroleum Quality Institute of America, and Jobbers World newsletter. Phone: (732) 494-0405. E-mail: tom_glenn@petroleumtrends.com