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

[Bill in Utah]

Also lets also put in that when those engines that the "expert" that used conventional oils (and syn oils) started out ALL OILS were not as good as todays.

Todays conventional oil is better than yesterdays syns (yes I'll make that statement and stick with it) yet many engines that the "expert" in the other forum had a few that went 200k before tearing down. We know that the syn (or sorry Mobil 1 (hmmm another fan boy?) ones the specs on tear down were within spec how much was the conventional ones out?

Hey if you WANT to run syn your dollar and go for it. But please don't STATE as FACT that syn will prvent this or is better than that and get upset when someone questions the facts.

You or I don't KNOW if the same engines ran on todays oils would do better or worst but I'd bet they would. We do know that all oils have improved but peoples mindsets have not.

Bottom line is Tpitcher is a great guy and we enjoy his time on the board (like most others) but we all need to agree that without factual data using what is available today we can not state that syn will "fix" this problem and all is good.

Take care, bill

 

[dnewton3]

I realize that tpitcher isn't a novice here.

In this specific Saturn application, his greatest concern is to prevent coking. I believe he's correct in that a high-end syn has an elevated chance of reducing this phenomenon for a longer period of time; I can get behind that and find a reasonable thread of logic. Longer periods of time = longer OCI.

My entire pet-peeve (near hatred?) with the word "better" is that people rarely, (if ever), take the time to define just what that means in the context of how it's used for whatever topic it's applied to.

I think we can all accept a few things with 100% confidence for this Saturn:
1) a dino oil will not coke right out of the bottle
2) a syn oil will not coke right out of the bottle
3) at some point, a dino will coke in this application
4) at some point, a syn will coke in this application
So, the ONLY way a syn can be "better" is to outlast the dino oil. They both will function and resist coking for some duration, but eventually they both would fail if not for an OCI.

Initially, tpitcher's thoughts were that a syn would "clean better". Well, ARX can "clean" just as well for less cost. Then it was a matter of syn's resisting coking "better" based on Noack and FP, but there are clearly dino oils that rival in that regard too (comparing the SM oils; none of us were aware of the SN PU until late in the conversation). Bill's point is valid; oils today are not the oils from yesteryear. Where a dino oil might have coked at 2.3k miles 10 years ago when that car was designed, today's SN dino oils might coke not coke until 4.4k miles? (note: swagged examples of mileage). We don't know the true mileage limit, but we do know that today's oils are more resilient with more controls in manufacturing methods. That applies to both dinos and syns.

And it's painfully obvious by now that no one here (most certainly including myself) has any measurable way to predict that onset of coking. Only a significantly-escalated oil consumption rate is going to show coked rings, and by that time, it's too late, regardless of what oil is being used.

I agree that the only thing we can agree on is that we'll have to agree to disagree.


What I do hope, for the sake of comradery, is that his plan works in the manner he desires. I hope he keeps the "Creampuff" alive for a very long time.

 

[cchase]

Without getting involved in the debate here, just something to consider.

The debate here seems to be hinged not on whether "dino" or "synthetic" can be used longer, but on how "clean" it keeps critical engine components (the rings in this case).

So the question is (and this seems to be the crux of dnewton's argument) - does a "dino" oil completely prevent any and all coking up to a certain point, then begin leaving deposits, or does it begin leaving some deposits immediately.

In other words, if you were to plot deposits over time and compare between a synthetic and conventional oil, would the line for the conventional oil have a positive slope with origin at (0,0) or would it have a positive slope that originates somewhere along the x-axis (no deposits up to a certain point).

And, would a synthetic have a positive slope that begins further along the x-axis?

And critically, would the slope of the line for a conventional oil be higher, lower, or the same as a synthetic oil?

It seems to me that no one here has the "answers" they think they have, unless someone wants to provide graphs that illustrate this. To say that conventional oils prevent deposits as well as synthetic oils "up to" some interval is just as short-sighted as a blanket statement that synthetic oils automatically prevent issue.

And of course, it's a simplification to think of deposit formation being linear but the concept is easier when viewed that way

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
Also lets also put in that when those engines that the "expert" that used conventional oils (and syn oils) started out ALL OILS were not as good as todays.

Todays conventional oil is better than yesterdays syns (yes I'll make that statement and stick with it) yet many engines that the "expert" in the other forum had a few that went 200k before tearing down. We know that the syn (or sorry Mobil 1 (hmmm another fan boy?) ones the specs on tear down were within spec how much was the conventional ones out?

Hey if you WANT to run syn your dollar and go for it. But please don't STATE as FACT that syn will prvent this or is better than that and get upset when someone questions the facts.

You or I don't KNOW if the same engines ran on todays oils would do better or worst but I'd bet they would. We do know that all oils have improved but peoples mindsets have not.

Bottom line is Tpitcher is a great guy and we enjoy his time on the board (like most others) but we all need to agree that without factual data using what is available today we can not state that syn will "fix" this problem and all is good.

Take care, bill


How many conventional oils meet HTO-06?

There are certain things synthetic oils are better at. Whether those things are applicable to the application in question, well that's a whole other question.

This is why I singled out NOACK and FP, as they are relevant to the issue with this engine, which has nothing to do with hypereutectic pistons, (I'm not sure why that was brought up by the OP?) and everything to do with a poor design.

Nothing is going to STOP the issue from occurring from what I've seen. The BEST we can do is ward it off. And the best product for THAT is going to be the oil with the lowest NOACK and highest flashpoint.

And the oil that fits the bill there is Redline 5w30.


Better wear control and extended drains aren't the issue here. And so any discussion regarding those two points needs to have its context questioned, as they have nothing to do with the crux of the issue at hand: Poor oil control.

 

[dnewton3]

I disagree with that philosophy, CChase.

Cleaning is a matter of detergents and dispersents. Until your additive package is overwhelmed, they should both clean equally going forward. However, a significantly dirty engine might present challenges. (I am going to ignore the oxidation resistance topic for now, and only deal with "cleaning" aspect.)

Here's an example with some numbers put to it (I'm swag'ing the numbers for the concept; I have no proof of these magnitudes).

Consider this example in a reasonably clean engine.
Dino oil: has the capability to deal with up to 50mg of soot/insolubles due to add-pack.
Syn oil: more robust add pack means it can deal with 90mg of soot/insolubles due to add-pack.
The ability of both add-packs indicates that they can control contamination until overcome and depleted. Until that point occurs, contamination is to be deemed under control; the soot/insolubles stay in suspension and do not settle out or do significant damage.

Consider a newer, reasonably clean engine (such as Creampuff). As it runs, it has a (reasonably) linear soot/insoluble production rate. Let's assume a contamination rate of 10mg/1k miles traveled for that engine.

The dino oil would last until it's add-pack were overcome, and start to leave deposits around 5k miles. The Syn would last 9k miles until the add-pack were overcome. At 3k or 4k miles, neither add-pack is overwhelmed and both have capability left.

However ...
Even though a synthetic oil might have more add-pack, it cannot clean at a rate faster than the contamination is introduced into the system. An oil, regardless of how much add-pack exists, cannot clean any faster or "better" because the total is not yet high enough to put the advantage into play! Until the pollution total volume overcomes any oil add-pack, the add-pack will do it's job. Therefore (as I've said ad nauseum) syn's don't clean "better", but they can clean "longer". The amount of additive in the oil has no ability to affect the rate of contamination production; that is dependent upon each individual engine and driving pattern. "Cleaning" additives don't affect the production rate; they simply clean up after it happens.

Now, that does not neccessarily play out exactly the same with an engine that is already filthy. Here, a syn might clean a bit "better" because of "more" additives being available. But, it's all still relative. With a dirty engine, the detergents and dispersents have to deal not only with the ongoing production rate, but current existence of stuff previously left behind. They have have to clean the trash someone left behind AND the current trash production. So, a dino will become depleted sooner, but so will a syn. The relationship stays the same. One lasts "longer" than the other.

Which is why (several pages back) I made the analogy of the old couple with the maid. One maid can clean up after one elderly couple each week. Putting more maids in the home will not increase the amount of trash and dust the old folks leave about. Only if you introduce grandkids into the equation (change the trash production rate) would you need more maids to maintain an acceptable "cleanliness" level per week. Get it?

This is why "Creampuff" (the Saturn of this debate) isn't going to be "cleaned" any ""better" with a syn; it was already clean to begin with.

If you see it otherwise, please explain your logic.

 

[Norm Olt]

Originally Posted By: tpitcher
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!?!?



Obviously the ONLY totally 100%+ SAFE course of action is to continue that 1.6K OCI...

With anticipated future usage in the multi-hundred thousand mile range one can expect (and should start stocking up for) 63-64 oil & filter changes in the next 100K miles. Filters by the case. I predict many trips to the recycling center.

55 Gal drums, anyone?

Cheers!

 

[Turk]

You guys crack me up.

Now seriously:

I have heard PAO has more of a film strength than dino. Is that true? If so, that needs to be added to the list of factors as well. This has been entered into a part of my decision to merge into Group 4, btw...

Looks like I need to dedicate more time & start digging to do more comparison analysis and plotting of additives, FP's, NOACK's, etc of Syn vs. Dino. Someone's gotta do it.

 

[Bill in Utah]

Originally Posted By: tpitcher

Now seriously:

I have heard PAO has more of a film strength than dino. Is that true? If so, that needs to be added to the list of factors as well.

Looks like I need to dedicate more time & start digging to do more comparison analysis and plotting of additives, FP's, NOACK's, etc of Syn vs. Dino. Someone's gotta do it.

But does your engine NEED more film strength?

Millions of saturns out there seem to indicate that they don't. Are they throwing bearings? Are they throwing rods?

And to the comment about some oils meeting Honda's HTO-06 test where is the turbo in this app? And PLENTY of turbos see conventional oils then syns out there and last plenty. All conventional oils ARE spec'd for turbo use... (Mobil, QS, Pennzoil, Valvoline and so on)

Now would I run certain oils with force fed motors? Nope been saying that for close to 10 years here but I'd also not buy one so that takes care of that. (I also live in a area that DOES benefit from turbos unlike others)

Does Redline have the HTO-06 spec since it was discussed? Since that spec is so important I think it following Norm's OCI will take care of being "safe". 1,600 mile OCIs.

Now that should crack you up!

Take care, Bill

 

[Turk]

Need, no. Benefit? Yes, especially at very cold start-ups.

 

[Bill in Utah]

Originally Posted By: tpitcher
Need, no. Benefit? Yes, especially at very cold start-ups.



More vehicles are started without the "benefit" of syn over the decades and yet still seem to last. (like 8-9 times MORE)

That is a FACT not marketing.

But what does this have to do with your stopping coking concern? Does coking only happen at very cold start-ups?

Take care, Bill

 

[Turk]

Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
Originally Posted By: tpitcher
Need, no. Benefit? Yes, especially at very cold start-ups.



More vehicles are started without the "benefit" of syn over the decades and yet still seem to last. (like 8-9 times MORE)

That is a FACT not marketing.

But what does this have to do with your stopping coking concern? Does coking only happen at very cold start-ups?

Take care, Bill



Of course not, you (& I) know that.

It does have to do with wear though.

 

[abycat]

I have to say I respect 99% of all the post made by you guys in all the site. I didnt know squat about any lubricating oil before I read up on this site. I have to admit I Get fairly angry when I hear a diss about Bitog and its not many times but I think those 99% of members have some very good points and views about this and many subjects.

I think the reason that this thread is 11 pages long is beacause all the members are human and with that being said are unique to each other. If we all thought the same you would only have one answer. It may not be the right one but it would be a collective agreement.

I have enjoyed reading all the big number members posts and have leaned alot from them. tpitcher, Bill in utah, Dnewton, Caterham, there is way more but you guys Have alot of knowledge but still cant stop a bad design from being a bad design.

I think that tpitcher can do the best he can to keep his car running good and clean but still wont be able to overcome the design flaw. Without googling coking I have limited knowledge on it but I think its when an oil breaks down and turns to crud. So wouldnt flashpoint and NOACK and being syn be something to look at?

Also without googling the fix for the problem isnt just putting in new rings and giving it a hone for them the fix?
If it was a ring job in that car would be around 600$. If i had the book for it I think I could do it in my driveway in a weekend. So he might be wasting money trying to prolong the inevitable. If the car is pretty much mint he most likely wants to keep it for as long as possible.

Say he went for another 150,000M on it before needing new rings. Dino for that run with 3000m or 6 month oci's would get it there then the ring job. Syn for 150,000 with 6 months or 3000 and im saying he hits the 3000M exactly for my calculation would cost ME another 1000$ at least. If i put in PP or PU It would cost another at least 1500$ compared to the dino. So for the $ sake it would be worth it to just do the mechanical work which will have to be done at some point anyway.

If it were me I would use A good syn and a good filter and slow the ocd down a bit. I would get pretty bored with a car i drove for 150,000. Drive it for another 75,000 and sell it for still a good price. You could always use it for a trade in on a new car. A dealer would give you a good amount for that car. It doesnt sound like you want to get rid of it but man I love our new car. Good luck with the car and im glad its working out so far.

 

[Turk]

Here is a couple snips of some reading material on conventional vs synthetic:

---------

Petroleum base mineral oils have some limitations, depending upon the type of base stock used, the level of additives blended, and the operating conditions encountered. The main service difficulties within mineral oils are:

1.The presence of waxes, which can lead to poor lubrication at low temperature.

2.Poor oxidation stability at continuously high temperatures, which can lead to sludge and acid buildup.

3.The dependence of viscosity on temperature, which can cause the base oil to thin excessively at high temperature.

4.A natural high temperature application limit of about 320°C (608°F), above which the base oil decomposes and begins to coke (turns to a sooty substance). Under severe operating conditions, such as extremely high temperatures, or in very cold operating climates, the difficulties noted above are important factors in the selection of lubricants. Very often, the only solution is the selection of a synthetic oil.

--------

A construction equipment contractor was experiencing premature turbocharger failures when certain engines were operated under full load conditions and used around the clock. Investigation through oil analysis and diagnosis of the failed components revealed that the failures were caused by coking of the petroleum base oil within the turbocharger oil passages, thus restricting oil flow and resulting in bearing failure.

The initial cause of the oil coking condition was excessive temperatures within the turbocharger housing.

A fully synthetic diesel engine oil was selected of the same viscosity as the original conventional oil and installed. Premature turbocharger failures did not reoccur and oil operating temperatures dropped by about 8°.

http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/23715/conventional-vs-synthetic-oil

 

[ltslimjim]

^...and some will point out your car isn't ran around like a fleet vehicle, nor is it turbo. Still, an example of how synthetic is better in that context, it was a need.

Yes, this is true.

I agree with dnewton3's and Bill's recent posts. They all are spot on.

I genuinely feel we're on different ends of the stick when it comes to approaching this, but it's the same stick!! lol. You know what I mean. I definitely believe conventional oils have improved quite a bit and synthetics have as well.

To me, the price point for tpitcher is obviously not an issue. He can't overspend for PU when he already has plenty on hand, so future out of pocket and use/experience with PU may reach a point where he changes over to another oil. I'm sure we'll all be monitoring his future UOAs of that.

If this was someone with a coked up Saturn, I'm confident both methods of approach would definitely help clean up the coking. That's why most conversations have conventional this or try it with some MMO, or a good synthetic or even HDEO approach to cleanup attempts.

If this car makes it to 200,000 with consumption still reasonable but on the rise, perhaps he'd pay to replace the heads, if he just loves the car.

I vaguely remember reading something about an improved piston head design being available for this engine? Also, did someone mention in this thread about the 'design flaw' being less of an issue near the end of this generation of Saturn's engine.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
Originally Posted By: tpitcher

Now seriously:

I have heard PAO has more of a film strength than dino. Is that true? If so, that needs to be added to the list of factors as well.

Looks like I need to dedicate more time & start digging to do more comparison analysis and plotting of additives, FP's, NOACK's, etc of Syn vs. Dino. Someone's gotta do it.

But does your engine NEED more film strength?

Millions of saturns out there seem to indicate that they don't. Are they throwing bearings? Are they throwing rods?

And to the comment about some oils meeting Honda's HTO-06 test where is the turbo in this app? And PLENTY of turbos see conventional oils then syns out there and last plenty. All conventional oils ARE spec'd for turbo use... (Mobil, QS, Pennzoil, Valvoline and so on)

Now would I run certain oils with force fed motors? Nope been saying that for close to 10 years here but I'd also not buy one so that takes care of that. (I also live in a area that DOES benefit from turbos unlike others)

Does Redline have the HTO-06 spec since it was discussed? Since that spec is so important I think it following Norm's OCI will take care of being "safe". 1,600 mile OCIs.

Now that should crack you up!

Take care, Bill




Bill, I know you are being a turd

the HTO-06 spec is a high heat deposit control test. It was cited simply an example of a synthetic oil being necessary to meet a certain spec that would benefit this application, since deposit control is an issue when your oil control rings don't work well.

However, I think (and have repeatedly said) that the most important factors here to ward off the oil ring issue is running the oil that is going to be most resistant to burning off in the first place. In that case, you want the oil with the lowest NOACK and highest flash point. And that is of course why I mentioned Redline's 5w30.

 

[Bill in Utah]

Originally Posted By: tpitcher
Here is a couple snips of some reading material on conventional vs synthetic:

---------

Petroleum base mineral oils have some limitations, depending upon the type of base stock used, the level of additives blended, and the operating conditions encountered. The main service difficulties within mineral oils are:

1.The presence of waxes, which can lead to poor lubrication at low temperature.

2.Poor oxidation stability at continuously high temperatures, which can lead to sludge and acid buildup.

3.The dependence of viscosity on temperature, which can cause the base oil to thin excessively at high temperature.

4.A natural high temperature application limit of about 320°C (608°F), above which the base oil decomposes and begins to coke (turns to a sooty substance). Under severe operating conditions, such as extremely high temperatures, or in very cold operating climates, the difficulties noted above are important factors in the selection of lubricants. Very often, the only solution is the selection of a synthetic oil.

--------

A construction equipment contractor was experiencing premature turbocharger failures when certain engines were operated under full load conditions and used around the clock. Investigation through oil analysis and diagnosis of the failed components revealed that the failures were caused by coking of the petroleum base oil within the turbocharger oil passages, thus restricting oil flow and resulting in bearing failure.

The initial cause of the oil coking condition was excessive temperatures within the turbocharger housing.

A fully synthetic diesel engine oil was selected of the same viscosity as the original conventional oil and installed. Premature turbocharger failures did not reoccur and oil operating temperatures dropped by about 8°.

http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/23715/conventional-vs-synthetic-oil



12 year old book. I'm sure some things even if they were talking about YOUR app would have changed since then.

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL


Bill, I know you are being a turd

the HTO-06 spec is a high heat deposit control test. It was cited simply an example of a synthetic oil being necessary to meet a certain spec that would benefit this application, since deposit control is an issue when your oil control rings don't work well.

However, I think (and have repeatedly said) that the most important factors here to ward off the oil ring issue is running the oil that is going to be most resistant to burning off in the first place. In that case, you want the oil with the lowest NOACK and highest flash point. And that is of course why I mentioned Redline's 5w30.


No being more a smart donkey...

But what happens in a turbo has nothing to do with what happens in this app. We do not KNOW for FACT that taking the SAME engine today and running with TODAY'S oils the problem would not be one do we?

Just as we don't KNOW for FACT that running syn for 2,3,4,5k OCI WILL take care of this problem. Until we do BOTH can it be stated as FACT that x is "better" than y in this app IMO.

Take care, Bill

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah

Just as we don't KNOW for FACT that running syn for 2,3,4,5k OCI WILL take care of this problem. Until we do BOTH can it be stated as FACT that x is "better" than y in this app IMO.

Take care, Bill


thing is, no one "stated as fact" that syn would work better--at least that's not how I interpreted tpitcher's comments. It seems to me that he's making a logical inference that a synthetic oil which has lower noack, demonstrated superior results on the Seq IIIG test and meets the HTO-06 spec may work better. It's a logical inference with which I agree.

This has been met with a claim that the ONLY benefit of syn is that it works longer, with the ridiculous standard being basically "well, they work the same when they're poured out of the bottle". Um, OK, if one wants to parse words to that degree, then sure--the only advantage is that they work "longer", duration being measured from the moment one turns the key...

As I said a million posts ago, its fine to request proof, but ultimately unless you're willing to submit your car to a complete teardown, it's probably best to make an informed decision based on the information available. If I owned a car which was known to have an issue with coking/sludge deposits on the piston rings, I'd do the same. YMMV and all that...

 

[Turk]

Bill: Of course my Saturn is not a turbo...

BUT, if you link... breakdown protection from heat in a HTO-06 & turbo approved oils is highly desireable in the Saturn engine situation also.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah

No being more a smart donkey...

But what happens in a turbo has nothing to do with what happens in this app. We do not KNOW for FACT that taking the SAME engine today and running with TODAY'S oils the problem would not be one do we?


Well turbo's are hot, and so is a combustion chamber, piston....etc. And when your engine has poor oil control by virtue of a poorly designed oil control ring setup, having an oil that performs well in deposit control under high heat conditions, like at the oil control ring/piston interface is important. Because the rings stick, lose tension, and then stop working. That is the failure model for this engine.

Quote:
Just as we don't KNOW for FACT that running syn for 2,3,4,5k OCI WILL take care of this problem. Until we do BOTH can it be stated as FACT that x is "better" than y in this app IMO.

Take care, Bill


Oh, I don't think ANYTHING is going to take care of the problem. Once the rings stick and lose tension, it is game over. See the picture I posted earlier, that came from another thread on this topic for an example of what I'm talking about.

However, the fact of the matter is that Redline's 5w30 has the lowest NOACK of any oil that I can find. It also has the highest flash point. So 10 years ago or right now, there isn't an oil out there that I can find that is going to resist burn-off (and subsequently varnish and deposits leading to the rings sticking) better than it does.

This part of it is common sense. We KNOW this engine family has oil control issues that lead to a a particular failure model. We are trying to ward off the failure for as long as possible. Using the least volatile lubricant available is the method one would use to do this, hence my recommendation.

I'm not saying conventional oil from today isn't better than it was from 10 years ago. I'm saying conventional oil from then and conventional oil from now still don't come close to the figures for volatility resistance that Redline's lube does, and so for this defective application, it is my "best choice" recommendation.

 

[Turk]

Thank you. I think this thread is now..... Done.