'00 Saturn SL2 - 4104 - 37,184 on AC Delco 5w-30

[dnewton3]

I noticed that the former SM 5w-30 SuperTech oil has a Noack volatility rating of 11.6 as verified by an idenpendent lab (PQIA data). PZ states their PU is at 11.9. Also, I've seen other VOA data that shows ST's FP is right up with PU and the new Mobil Super, above 220C.

So, if I am to accept oxidation and evaporative resistance VOA data, would it not be a fair conclusion that SuperTech dino oil is "better" than Pennzil Ultra? Well - "better" might admittedly be a stretch, but it would not be a stretch to call it "just as good". To be honest, I don't know how long ST could hold that impressive ability, but it at least shows there is now more than one dino oil choice with VOA stats (FP and Noack) that rival the premium synthetic PU.

In theory, based upon Noack and FP, the ST (SM) would resist coking just as well as the PU. Now, it may not resist it as long as the PU, and it may not "clean" as well as the PU. But when it comes to indicators that show it able to resist coking, it's right in there with the "best" of them. Think about that for a moment; the lowly WallyWorld oil can perform on par with PU, at least when it comes to coking, if we accept Noack and FP as indicators. WOW! The SM ST oil would be able to resist coking, for some duration of time, as well as the PU. To say otherwise would be to ignore the factual data.

That is now two dino oils (Mobil Super and ST) that show VERY competitive stats to those of the PU, based upon VOA data. Understandably, they will shift in use, and a UOA can track that. But it certainly proves my claim that some dino oils have the ability to resist coking for some reasonable period of time. And that shows that synthetics are not "better"; for some period of time, the dinos are "just as good" at resisting oxidation and coking.

Makes one have to step back and take notice; perhaps some people (most of you here) need to adjust the goggles and see the reality. Either the ST SM oil is way "better" than people think, or the PU is not nearly as impressive as some think. You cannot ignore the fact the Mobil Super and SuperTech are on par with PU, for some portion of time. Which goes directly to my point to claim that synthetics are not "better", but they do last "longer".

So, again, I offer to put my money where my mouth is; I'll pay for my portion of the experiment with ARX.

Any takers?

 

[Turk]

It is kinda amazing how threads (& personal conversations) evolve...

1st of all, no, I am not putting ARX in my Saturn, but thank you for the offer.

We all love data, comparisons, etc of different oils and we're learning a lot.

Here's PU's description off their TDS:

PENNZOIL ULTRA™ FULL SYNTHETIC MOTOR OIL PRODUCT DESCRIPTION

PENNZOIL ULTRA™ FULL SYNTHETIC MOTOR OIL with Hyper Cleansing Technology™, from the maker of the leading motor oil in America, is an advanced proprietary synthetic formula designed to exceed the toughest car manufacturer standards and engineered to keep your engine closer to factory clean. Because at Pennzoil we know, a cleaner engine is better protected, more efficient and delivers optimum performance. PENNZOIL ULTRA™ FULL SYNTHETIC MOTOR OIL is specially formulated for consumers who are committed to buying a synthetic lubricant, and who want nothing but our best motor oil.

APPLICATION PENNZOIL ULTRA™ FULL SYNTHETIC MOTOR OIL with Hyper Cleansing Technology™ is compatible with all engine sealing materials, other synthetic oils and all conventional oils and is suitable for all cars, SUV’s, light vans and trucks, gasoline and turbocharged engines, under all driving conditions. FEATURES Hyper Cleansing Technology™ Low Volatility Oil

BENEFITS
 Seeks out and dissolves contaminants safely into the oil before they form deposits in the engine.

 Helps to prevent the build-up of sludge, damaging deposits, corrosion and engine wear.

 Helps clean-up engines by gently lifting sludge deposits off engine surfaces and dissolving them safely into the oil.

 Provides oil stability and endurance under extreme conditions (heat, load and speed) for protection against viscosity and thermal breakdown.

 Provides proven protection for critical engine parts.

 Helps protect emissions systems.

I'd like to have the time (maybe later) to throw VOA & UOA FP, NOACK, Calcium, etc. into Excel or Minitab of several oils and analyze. Problem is, we don't have all the "other" info. from the Mfg's. like Ester amounts, etc...

As you know, it's "thermal breakdown" that I'm out to avoid.

 

[Nickdfresh]

Originally Posted By: eagle23
...

It's your money, your car, your choice. The Saturn is very bad about coking rings; proven....


I believe this problem was somewhat rectified in the last few years of the Saturn SL's...

 

[ltslimjim]

Sir, you took 1 stat and really stretched it out of it's own context. Within context, PU is certainly BETTER at resisting coking out of the bottle > dino. Gah...there 'was' a VOA of PU 5w-20 on the forum here but I can't seem to find it.

I thought my last post might have given you some giggles or man laughs or whatever.

...just to be more conversational so as to say I've seen a lot of mixed information as far as 'released' info from companies like SOPUS regarding their oils.

I think it's pretty obvious, even as you pointed out, that Ultra probably aleady has esters and as SOPUS has claimed to even have PAO in it to some extent. The whole thread debating over Ultra's quality comes to mind, which I think JOD posted.

I brought up Lubegard to make a point regarding price, if that is the concern about overpaying for short interval services, etc. Heck, it claims:

Quote:
Reduces hot engine oil temperatures

Gives improvement in friction and wear performance over major brands of motor oil

Helps reduce smoking by restoring flexibility to valve stem seals for improved sealing, also providing outstanding upper cylinder lubricity as it frees up sticking rings.

Inhibits oxidation and extends engine oil life.


Liquid Wax Esters. Claims to increase conventional GF-4 relative oil life from 3,000 miles to 4,500. Sounds a lot like your idea for ARX?

 

[ltslimjim]

For instance, this Ultra PDS claims 6.4% NOACK for API-SN/ILSAC GF-5 5w-30. FP is 224c.

http://www.epc.shell.com/Docs/GPCDOC_X_cbe_24855_key_140006587313_201112051449.pdf

I also like the point JOD brought up as it is certified for Honda's turbo requirement.

The most important question to tpitcher is: Do you have Ultra SM or SN flavor currently?

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: ltslimjim
Sir, you took 1 stat and really stretched it out of it's own context. Within context, PU is certainly BETTER at resisting coking out of the bottle > dino. Gah...there 'was' a VOA of PU 5w-20 on the forum here but I can't seem to find it.

I thought my last post might have given you some giggles or man laughs or whatever.

...just to be more conversational so as to say I've seen a lot of mixed information as far as 'released' info from companies like SOPUS regarding their oils.

I think it's pretty obvious, even as you pointed out, that Ultra probably aleady has esters and as SOPUS has claimed to even have PAO in it to some extent. The whole thread debating over Ultra's quality comes to mind, which I think JOD posted.

I brought up Lubegard to make a point regarding price, if that is the concern about overpaying for short interval services, etc. Heck, it claims:

Quote:
Reduces hot engine oil temperatures

Gives improvement in friction and wear performance over major brands of motor oil

Helps reduce smoking by restoring flexibility to valve stem seals for improved sealing, also providing outstanding upper cylinder lubricity as it frees up sticking rings.

Inhibits oxidation and extends engine oil life.


Liquid Wax Esters. Claims to increase conventional GF-4 relative oil life from 3,000 miles to 4,500. Sounds a lot like your idea for ARX?

I'm not familiar with the Lubegard products, so I cannot directly comment. At face value, I see merit to that product in this application. The reason I'm suggesting ARX is because I (and f'tanker') have personally used it, and I can attest to its great ability to break down coking that has occured, and keep it from happening. And I have good data to show it's abilities. My experiment was directly related to coked piston rings (compression and oil control). F-tanker was more sludge-removal based.

As for the Sopus stats, that's not unexpected. I've seen a lot of changes in Wix data over the years; probably as their products mature, so do the stats. And then there's always human error in data input. Kind'a reminds me of some of the information I dig up for GM fluids; it seems they can talk out of both sides of their mouth, and even get a third voice from the ventrilloquist dummy. It's entirely possible that the new SN fluids will all have lower Noack scores, simply because the industry OEMs are moving to much longer OCIs, and the lubes are all going to have to be more capable, even the dinos. The SN Ultra certainly outperforms it's predecessor SM, but then that is likely going to be true of all products, would you not expect?

Tpitcher - I didn't expect that you'd accept; you're clearly dead set on your path. Nothing wrong with that for you. But I think it's clear there are viable options besides some ultra-expensive (pardon the pun) synthetic. I will leave the offer open, should you change your mind.

Now, are you going to do UOAs all along the way with the PU? I'm not asking to poke at you; I'm curious because I really want to see how the data develops. I am not at all convinced that a UOA is going to give any clear indication that coking can be predicted. I think the only true indicator (from my last few days reading on the Saturn forums) is oil burning will greatly increase. Unfortunately, by then, the problem is past the "onset" phase and morphed into total poo.

On a side note, if someone has a Saturn that is already coked up, I'd be really interested to see how ARX would work in this extreme. I'd be willing to pony up for the experiment. Maybe that would help convince others of it's abilities. Any known takers?

 

[ltslimjim]

^Doesn't clev or chevy around here have a Saturn with consumption issues???

 

[Turk]

Originally Posted By: ltslimjim
For instance, this Ultra PDS claims 6.4% NOACK for API-SN/ILSAC GF-5 5w-30. FP is 224c.

http://www.epc.shell.com/Docs/GPCDOC_X_cbe_24855_key_140006587313_201112051449.pdf

I also like the point JOD brought up as it is certified for Honda's turbo requirement.

The most important question to tpitcher is: Do you have Ultra SM or SN flavor currently?

Oh gosh,

you know what?

I did a Google search for a few days ago PU and it gave me this: http://www.pennzoil.com/documents/PENNZOILULTRAFullSyntheticMotorOil.pdf

It's for SM! dnewton3's PU specs were also for SM... SN has a much better Noack number...

You have a link here for SN!

Thank you for that!

Yes, I am running SN.

 

[ltslimjim]

For the record, it appears Pennzoil is still only 'publishing' their SM specs. Define publish and 'why' they aren't just using the SN THEY have linked on their site if you search for it(on Shell's website anyway).

Yeah, reminds me of the Valvoline SynPower debate back when SN first was out and some people had links to SM some to SN...it was so upside down!

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: ltslimjim
Sir, you took 1 stat and really stretched it out of it's own context. Within context, PU is certainly BETTER at resisting coking out of the bottle > dino. Gah...there 'was' a VOA of PU 5w-20 on the forum here but I can't seem to find it.

I thought my last post might have given you some giggles or man laughs or whatever.

...just to be more conversational so as to say I've seen a lot of mixed information as far as 'released' info from companies like SOPUS regarding their oils.

I think it's pretty obvious, even as you pointed out, that Ultra probably aleady has esters and as SOPUS has claimed to even have PAO in it to some extent. The whole thread debating over Ultra's quality comes to mind, which I think JOD posted.

I brought up Lubegard to make a point regarding price, if that is the concern about overpaying for short interval services, etc. Heck, it claims:

Quote:
Reduces hot engine oil temperatures

Gives improvement in friction and wear performance over major brands of motor oil

Helps reduce smoking by restoring flexibility to valve stem seals for improved sealing, also providing outstanding upper cylinder lubricity as it frees up sticking rings.

Inhibits oxidation and extends engine oil life.


Liquid Wax Esters. Claims to increase conventional GF-4 relative oil life from 3,000 miles to 4,500. Sounds a lot like your idea for ARX?

I'm not familiar with the Lubegard products, so I cannot directly comment. At face value, I see merit to that product in this application. The reason I'm suggesting ARX is because I (and f'tanker') have personally used it, and I can attest to its great ability to break down coking that has occured, and keep it from happening. And I have good data to show it's abilities. My experiment was directly related to coked piston rings (compression and oil control). F-tanker was more sludge-removal based.

As for the Sopus stats, that's not unexpected. I've seen a lot of changes in Wix data over the years; probably as their products mature, so do the stats. And then there's always human error in data input. Kind'a reminds me of some of the information I dig up for GM fluids; it seems they can talk out of both sides of their mouth, and even get a third voice from the ventrilloquist dummy. It's entirely possible that the new SN fluids will all have lower Noack scores, simply because the industry OEMs are moving to much longer OCIs, and the lubes are all going to have to be more capable, even the dinos. The SN Ultra certainly outperforms it's predecessor SM, but then that is likely going to be true of all products, would you not expect?

Tpitcher - I didn't expect that you'd accept; you're clearly dead set on your path. Nothing wrong with that for you. But I think it's clear there are viable options besides some ultra-expensive (pardon the pun) synthetic. I will leave the offer open, should you change your mind.

Now, are you going to do UOAs all along the way with the PU? I'm not asking to poke at you; I'm curious because I really want to see how the data develops. I am not at all convinced that a UOA is going to give any clear indication that coking can be predicted. I think the only true indicator (from my last few days reading on the Saturn forums) is oil burning will greatly increase. Unfortunately, by then, the problem is past the "onset" phase and morphed into total poo.

On a side note, if someone has a Saturn that is already coked up, I'd be really interested to see how ARX would work in this extreme. I'd be willing to pony up for the experiment. Maybe that would help convince others of it's abilities. Any known takers?




chevyboy14. Send him a PM.

 

[Topo]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I didn't hijack anything. This thread was about two things.
1) your current UOA
2) your desire to have "better" results from PU
Does this ring a bell? "Comments welcome - thanks!" You stated that in your original post. So, did I misunderstand here? You posted your dino UOA, and you invited discussion. Are you upset simply because I'm disagreeing with the rationale of your maintenanace plan?

On topic? You have a nice UOA with dino oil.
On topic? You mentioned that you're going to now use PU because you believe it will "... help keep the rings from coking up." Of course, you have yet to put forth credible means of measuring the possible coking, but somehow I'm the one who's off base?


I stand stand by my comments on the topic of cleanliness.
There are two possible ways any lube product could clean:
1) the product could clean up existing dirt left behind from:
---a) no cleaning efforts whatsoever
---b) poor cleaning from another product
2) the product can help control soot/insoluble loading from some point in time moving forward

Regarding the first point:
You yourself have indicated that you have a "Creampuff" of a nice older vehicle; there is no reason to think it's anything but clean inside the engine so there is nothing to clean up from previous neglect, because there is no previous neglect. I HIGHLY doubt that your vehicle's 20 previous 1.6k mile OCIs left the engine anything but clean inside.
Regarding the second point:
You and Pablo have not put forth any conceptual reason to believe that the current soot/sludge loading rate would overload a quality dino oil at short-to-moderate OCIs.
And yet you still believe that synthetics are somehow "better" at cleaning. At 5k mile OCIs I seriously doubt the engine would be "cleaner" by using a syn. At 10k miles, it's certainly possible; at 15k miles it's probably an assurance. However, that goes precisely to the comments I made; synthetics don't clean "better" but they do clean "longer". I'm curious; by what measuring stick are you going to use for determining what "clean" means? I don't find your opinion worthy of scientific means. You have current PC counts? That would speak to filtration, but not detergents/dispersents.

You want to prove me wrong? Then why not PROVE it with UOAs and other quantifiable tools. Why not run several 5k mile OCI/UOAs with the Delco, and then later switch to a synthetic and run more UOAs. On top of that, why not pop the valve cover(s) off, and take some before/after pictures. Why not get a compression tester and measure the compression now, and then after the dino/syn experiment? Then you'll have some true data to compare/contrast your results.

I have already done such an experiment. I came to this "cleanliness" realization when Gary Allan and I did an experiment on my older Taurus. The previous owner (my dad) attended the "3 month/3k mile" OCI unveristy and got his mind-set diploma. When I later got the car, I pulled the valve covers off for some "before" pictures prior to ARX application testing. Gary and I were astounded at the cleanliness inside. In fact, we noted that there was nothing for ARX to clean up, but we forged ahead anyway. I also did compression testing pre-application. After the ARX treatment, I pulled the covers again and the pictures showed no improvment. No suprise here; you can't clean up what does not exist. I also tested the compression again; no significant changes happend in the cylinders that were already clean. The logical conclusion is that the soot/insoluble loading was never at a rate above what my dad's Jiffy-Lube OCIs and cheap bulk drum dino oil could handle.
Here is a picture of the engine before the ARX:

As you can see, after 87k miles of "normal" OCIs with dino oil, there simply was nothing to clean up. While my dad did 3k mile OCIs for the first 50k miles, I went to 5k miles OCIs for the next 37k miles. And yet, no discernable soot/sludge anywhere. The only logical conclusion? The dino oils were doing their job. Just how much "cleaner" do you suppose synthetics would have made this???

You misunderstand my position. I am not knocking the benefits of synthetics. I am correcting your misconception regarding the how/when/why of the benefits of synthetics. I have NEVER said there are not benefits to synthetics. In fact, I agree there are benefits; they come from extended OCIs. I, in fact, do indeed use synthetics myself in some applications.

I will aggre with Paul on one note; use what you want. But what you "want" and what you "need" are two entirely differnt things.



That is one handsome engine. I have no doubt most quality Dino's can do 5,000 miles and do it very well. But what is your opinion on how far Dino is really good at, just from your experiences.

 

[Turk]

dnewton3,

From a Saturn enthusiast's forum:

"I've rebuilt several engines that used cheap oil, and 2 engines that used M1 synthetic; it's well worth the extra money (the M1 engines had far less wear (within factory specs after 200k miles), and they were spotless inside)."

Like I have been trying to tell you....... Prevention. I will use Synthetic with confidence in my Saturn engine. Too bad that you don't like it. I will also not give in to the ARX you have been so highly touting.

Enough bantering, it's better.

 

[Bill in Utah]

Originally Posted By: tpitcher
dnewton3,

From a Saturn enthusiast's forum:

"I've rebuilt several engines that used cheap oil, and 2 engines that used M1 synthetic; it's well worth the extra money (the M1 engines had far less wear (within factory specs after 200k miles), and they were spotless inside)."

Like I have been trying to tell you....... Prevention. I will use Synthetic with confidence in my Saturn engine. Too bad that you don't like it. I will also not give in to the ARX you have been so highly touting.

Enough bantering, it's better.

Now with that data you have also the following to answer these questions;

1. What were the OCIs of each engine?

2. What was the use of each engine?

3. How was the other maintenance done on each engine? All of it was done the SAME for EACH engine through out their life?

Having to rebuild ANY engine @ 200k is not something I'd brag about no matter what engine or oil is being used. Syn prevented the engine from being torn down how?

Of course the person making the quoted statement showed all of the parts of EACH engine incl the measurement of each part?

The average saturn owner just drove the vehicle and could care less of oil type and OCI. The ones that "cared" for the vehicle and used Mobil 1 would have prob done SHORTER OCIs than the "normal, uncaring" owner so bottom line until someone shows me ACTUAL EQUAL treatment of each engine incl data for OCI and use statements like your friend at a internet web site has NO FACTUAL INFORMATION.

Sorry but seen comments like above and they don't hold water. They do cement a biased mindset that people have. It allows them to feel better on believing what they are doing.

Take care, bill

PS: I'd not use ARX either as I don't think (just like syn) that it would prevent the issue with the engine. If you do short OCIs with any oil your results are going to be the same. Take 2 engines (a very small data point) change the conventional one @ 5k and the syn one at 7,8,9,10k and tear down after x numbers of miles and then you have some ACTUAL data worth discussing.

Since you don't know how long you can run the syn (safely) I doubt prevention vs cost is known.

 

[Turk]

Of course we don't know the answer to those questions at the moment.

If there were answers, then someone will ask the next level of questions on filters, PCV, Revving, City vs. Highway. On & on! It's a never ending set of questions that anyone with half a brain can sit in front of a computer and challenge any person!

I knew one of you guys would ask these before I posted it, but still it needs to be said. I can sit here & poke apart anyone too, asking for more & more & more & more data. You of course know what I mean.......

This Saturn engine with hypereutectic pistons that has no drain ports or holes on the thrust faces, fairs better with Synthetic over regular ole dino. Varnish formation is what causes the problem with these and Synthetic withstands the higher temperature. Not all engines out there are that way, I am not talking about a Ford Fusion, Honda Civic or any other normal car of course - I'm talking about the Saturn!!

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: tpitcher
dnewton3,

From a Saturn enthusiast's forum:

"I've rebuilt several engines that used cheap oil, and 2 engines that used M1 synthetic; it's well worth the extra money (the M1 engines had far less wear (within factory specs after 200k miles), and they were spotless inside)."

Like I have been trying to tell you....... Prevention. I will use Synthetic with confidence in my Saturn engine. Too bad that you don't like it. I will also not give in to the ARX you have been so highly touting.

Enough bantering, it's better.

Sounds to me like synthetic did two things:
1) didn't prevent the coking
2) didn't prevent wear
Yes, it may retard those things, but apparently it cannot prevent them.


In regard to wear in your example, Bill brought up good points. We have no idea of the operating or maintenance program conditions of all those vehicles. It's nothing but anecdotal to discuss them.

But what we do know is that in this UOA (14 pages back) the AC Delco oil did a very nice job at holding wear down in your Saturn, and performed very well. No synthetic is going to do a "better" job at 4.1k miles by offering less wear, and your Camry UOA is a perfect example of that.

Your very own examples speaks to my notion that synthetics are not proven to be "better", but they can be made to last longer in the crankcase. Your own UOAs are living proof, and yet you cannot see the forest for the trees, in regard to wear. You have a dino UOA (this one) that shows wear at/near averages, and you have a synthetic UOA (Camry) that shows wear at/near averages. How much "better" did the M1 do, sir, at reducing wear? The obvious, correct answer is: it didn't! The synthetic probably cost 3x more money; did you get 3x less wear (as contrasted to universal averages) with the M1? NO! In fact, you didn't 2x or even 1.5x less wear. Your synthetic UOA is right at average, along with all the other people that use dino oils. Your Camry and Saturn UOAs are staring you in the face, and you still refuse to accept real world data. I'd be tempted to say I'm shocked, but I've become numb to the oil-biggotry that exists here.

Let me be clear, once again. I do believe there are advantages to using synthetics. I personally do use synthetics in some applications. I have synthetics in an engine, transfer case, transmission, etc. But I do NOT blindly use them because they are "better". I use them because I understand their benefits and limitations, and exercise a well designed and implemented maintenance program to get the return on my money.


As for the Saturn coking issues, I'll not agree that a syn is "better" than ARX until we get to see how ARX does with a heavily coked example. My offer to anyone with a coked-up Saturn is still open; let's see how ARX can do. I'll pay for the experiment. The "best" test would be a side-by-side experiement with two coked-up engines; one on dino/ARX and one on a premium syn. Then we can see which one "cleans better".

 

[Turk]

You forgot to mention...

The 4.1k mile UOA was with a precursor of 20 OCI's at an average of 1.6k miles - a very unique situation indeed! Of course it'll come out fine with any oil!

Again, I am IN NO WAY talking about your typical engine, it's the Saturn engine. Geez!

Why do you think the use of hypereutectic alloy pistons has been debated for so long!?!?

 

[dnewton3]

Hyperutectic indicates the metallurgical make up of the piston, not it's design. A forged piston could also be of the same design, and so could a normally cast piston. What does the metallurgy of the piston have to do with the fact that it's poor ring design won't allow drain back? I think you're confusing issues here. Do not confuse correlation with causation.

The use of 20 1.6k mile OCIs with Delco oil, and then your subsequent 4.1k mile OCI with Delco, only show that there was no reason to suspect any chemical "norming" talking place. Had you changed brands, it is possible that there may have been a shift in wear. But you didn't change brands, you only up'ed the OCI. Therefore the results in this UOA, which are right near the OCI duration average, show that this dino oil did it's job well. Had you run this oil further, it is reasonable to expect the cumulative effects of longer duration would contribute to higher numbers for wear metals, especially Fe. That would be true of a syn as well. However, at some point, the dino would begin to degrade at a faster rate than a syn; the advantage to the syn is the OCI duration. That is how it is "better".

 

[Turk]

Agreed.

This engine is caught well before the beaten to death, many thousands of Saturn engines demise. This is what I am out to prevent, making the same mistake over and over. Remember the definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over & over (dino in a Saturn engine) and expecting a different result. I am not that person.

 

[ltslimjim]

Okay, I want to break this down nice and clear.

Originally Posted By: tpitcher
dnewton3,

From a Saturn enthusiast's forum:

"I've rebuilt several engines that used cheap oil, and 2 engines that used M1 synthetic; it's well worth the extra money (the M1 engines had far less wear (within factory specs after 200k miles), and they were spotless inside)."

Like I have been trying to tell you....... Prevention. I will use Synthetic with confidence in my Saturn engine. Too bad that you don't like it. I will also not give in to the ARX you have been so highly touting.

Enough bantering, it's better.

tpitcher's decision isn't about wear for this app. It is completely based on a more stout oil that would prevent a coking issue, leading to a consumption issue and the potential for increased wear. He's trying to prevent it from developing which in the 'real world' means that these engines are mistakenly allowed to run too long on dino oil(who knows at what interval it goes downhill we simply do not know) and running your sump low will lead to higher wear alone, if synthetic prevents this from happening it's a win. Prevent the known issue from occurring and 'continue' to keep wear as good as it gets.

It's the same method/metals used to forge the piston vs design in another sense, I doubt M1 protected the engine from wear directly much better than dino, but it didn't allow the contributing factor arise out of these engines according to this rebuilder. I don't have experience with or any sort of depth of information relative to a specific metallurgy combined with a design flaw. That seems more like a good guess to blame the design than the materials used, which it seems we all understand it's the design.


Originally Posted By: dnewton3

Let me be clear, once again. I do believe there are advantages to using synthetics. I personally do use synthetics in some applications. I have synthetics in an engine, transfer case, transmission, etc. But I do NOT blindly use them because they are "better". I use them because I understand their benefits and limitations, and exercise a well designed and implemented maintenance program to get the return on my money.



I take issue with this because it really doesn't apply here.

tpitcher isn't some ordinary, completely ignorant to oil-related things person that automatically think synthetic = better, or the reversal (some still think synthetic will cause their car to bleed oil to death still, just outright).

He is a BITOG'er. Which says 'something', in a good way.

We know those that stand out here as stuck in their ways, but to me this person just isn't one of them. His use of conventional in this engine shows that he isn't an all syn for everything, because it is required for his peace of mind type as you say that bother you.

Just because the man wants to use synthetic and is very 'general' and non-specific beyond 'general' facts doesn't mean it is blind or that he doesn't know at least some of the depth behind the basic truths.

He already demonstrated accurate/solid reasoning in not performing long oil change intervals on dino oil in efforts to avoid a problem. +1. Good maintenance program. OCD? Perhaps, sorta like only syn folks.

To just let this bother you, and sounding as if you are lumping him with anyone that uses synthetic unless it's ABSOLUTELY necessary as 'blindly' using synthetic is really being...unbridled and irresponsible. ESPECIALLY when it's the guys flippin' choice in the end and that alone can justify using whatever he rightly chooses, it's not a wrong choice to use Ultra in this car. SN looks great, it has the goods. We know this. He already has it on hand, nothing more out of pocket. It's not a money thing for the reasonable/foreseeable future.

There is 'nothing' wrong with him using syn in this app, in fact the argument was that dino in this app may allow the issue to develop in the first place, let's not get it twisted that synthetic is a worse/bad choice compared to dino for this specific app. It would be 'equal' if both oils are allowed to be left in service past their limits of RESISTING this issue from reaching an onset stage even.

Spotless, far less 'wear', and within factory specs from a guy that is relaying he rebuilt the engines that used M1 vs 'cheaper' oil. Yeah, oil isn't the problem alone. It's the service maintenance. Why ignore the obvious? M1 is known for being good at keeping piston heads clean, like a lot of synthetics. That is specifically the issue here. Now, he says within factory spec on wear but doesn't define part/location; just generalized to the engine. He does say it's spotless and gave credit to the engines that used M1 as being within spec.

Which goes to my initial point, if you say that experience shared is credible, then bad maintenance program on dino 'probably' allowed the coking in those engines. This lead to oil consumption, and perhaps even not keeping the oil level topped off caused wear to increase in those saturn engines that used 'whatever' vs the ones the person pointedly states he credited M1 for keeping clean in the first place.

I hope someone does come along with a totally messed up Saturn with consumption problems and you help them out, then post the results for all to see. The combo may very well work for the proposed 5,000 mile intervals, but I simply don't see any less of a decision by staying with PU. I actually would think it's better not to have to use an additive like ARX for the life of the engine.

 

[Turk]

Yery well said, thank you.