In 1999, when the Council of Better Business Bureaus National Advertising Division said engine oils made with API Group III base stocks could be marketed as synthetic, who expected it would lead to todays issues about what constitutes such oils? How could anyone have known, when the debate focused on Castrols use of the term synthetic on its Syntec motor oil formulated with Group III base oil? Castrol made a compelling and ultimately convincing argument that Group III base oils are in fact synthesized, and got the green light to continue calling Syntec a synthetic.
A reasonable extension of the decision is that all motor oils made with Group III are also synthetic. Case closed-well, sort of. What was not addressed back then and remains a growing concern today is that there are no rules, regulations or guidelines stating how much synthetic base oil is required to call a motor oil synthetic or a synthetic blend.
This is not the first time I have written about this issue, but it appears that little to nothing has been done to define what constitutes synthetics and synthetic blends and verify that the products making such claims are in fact what they claim to be. Instead, what we increasingly hear is that synthetic is only a marketing term, not a technical one. Further, most are resigned to the notion that, short of auditing blend records, there are no methods to conclusively prove if motor oil does in fact contain API Group III base oil.
Whereas this might be reason for me to move on and write about other hot topics in the lubricants business, there is a troubling hitch in the steps synthetics have taken over the past few years, resulting in a growing chorus of concern among marketers and blenders. This speaks to the legitimacy of synthetic motor oils currently in the market.
Majors, independent lubricant manufacturers and lubricant distributors alike say an increasing number of products in the market that claim to be synthetics are likely not. Instead, they are at best synthetic blends or, even more concerning, conventional motor oils bearing labels declaring the products to be synthetic or a blend.
Such allegations are typically based on a comparison of the costs for raw materials needed to make synthetics or synthetic blends versus the extraordinarily low prices for some synthetic PCMOs (i.e. $4.80 a gallon in bulk) currently pushed across the table by some marketers to installers. In short, the observers say, these motor oils must not be synthetic at price points at or below the cost of goods sold.
Another area where cheating is believed to be occurring is to use Group IIIs that are not qualified. Of concern here are those that secure an API license and additive package for a specific Group III and after doing so, blend with another Group III that is less expensive because its marketer has not made the investment in a full additive matrix qualification program. This type of cheating can be difficult to detect because the finished product will exhibit the viscometric properties you would expect of a synthetic.
Countering this, however, those selling extraordinarily low-priced synthetics say its understandable that majors and others take issue with competition. They argue that the big players in the business have to recover the costs of higher overhead. And to drive the point home, they often cite NASCAR sponsorships, Super Bowl ads and other high-cost marketing as examples of why the costs of some synthetics are significantly higher than others.
Putting those arguments aside, however, one cannot gloss over the fact that in todays market there is little to stop a blender or marketer (big or small) from slapping labels on motor oils made from API Group II oils and calling them synthetics or synthetic blends. Doing so undercuts blenders that use only Group III to make synthetics. Even among those taking the high road, questions still remain about how much Group III is or should be used in synthetic blends.
So here I am, once again writing about the need for our industry to come up with measurable and meaningful definitions for synthetics and synthetic blends. And yes, I am doing so with full understanding that some say specifications are unwelcome, since they could commoditize synthetics. I also understand that, short of auditing a blenders records, there are no analytical tests to unequivocally prove a synthetic motor oil is in fact synthetic.
The industry voices saying that something must be done are getting louder and more persistent. Adding to that is the real and present danger of a growing volume of faux synthetics and synthetic blends in the market. If it continues, these voices caution, the term synthetic will lose its luster along with the premium pricing it enjoys.
One approach is to assure consumers get what they pay for,and that there is a level playing field for lubricant manufacturers and marketers. With that goal, the Petroleum Quality Institute of America will expand its motor oils certification program to include a Certified Synthetic mark.This mark will be based on an audit of the blenders records to verify the use of Group III and an API-licensed, base-oil-and-additive combination.
Short of this, there is really no way to check if what appears on the label of a synthetic or synthetic blend is in fact whats in the bottle.
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. Email: tom_glenn@petroleumtrends.com