Originally Posted By: Toptierpao
... but, for you to say that in normal drain intervals, they do not make a difference, I do not know what to tell you.
That's probably because you have no data to back up your claim, whereas I have more than 550 UOAs from all manner of Dmax applications that definitively proves my point. See this article ...
https://bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis-how-to-decide-what-is-normal/
HINT: Pay really close attention to the Duramax info.
... As mentioned, this is my 1st ever report on a diesel engine, so, I have no uoa on Delo oil.
So you are willing to call something better (Amsoil) or inferior (dino oils) even though you've never tested the alternative? That's just about as biased as someone could ever be. You have ZERO data to show how well the Delo/Delco did, but you're adamant about stating how much better a syn is in a normal application. You are the poster child of the uninformed in this regard.
Amsoil usually hires Southwest Research in Texas for 3rd party testing. They test for NASA and the military. Do you think they would risk their reputation to fudge results for little bitty Amsoil?
Did it ever occur to you that the testing done does not always relate to real world experiences? For example, some of the testing such as Amsoil's referrence to DD DFS93K222 scuff test. Amsoil did admirably, and indicates that a dino oil "failed". But that was AMSOIL'S determination, not the lab's determination! Additionally, the "test" is akin to running the first 30 hours at 50% load, then the balance of the test, up to 200 hours, at 80% load! That's simply not representative of real world wear. It is an ALT; accelerated lifecycle test. Those tests are notorious for absurd conditions that are not replicated in real life. Therefore, the results are not applicable to real world use. REAL WORLD DATA from thousands upon thousands upon thousands of UOAs shows that normal applications are not "better'ed" with syns in most all cases.
Plenty of technical papers out there on filtration and lubricants proving they DO make a difference. Talk to owners of fleets and owner operators of big rigs who have switched to synthetics. UPS, coast to coast uses Mobil 1 because it saves them a ton of money in repairs. Taxi fleets, ambulance ,garbage trucks, limos,the list goes on and on.
Yup - plenty of tests. Plenty of biased ALTs, as I described above. Not unlike the insane bias of the infamous GM filter tests that so many folks don't bother to buy, read and digest, as just one example. Or the "bus study" that details how much filtration has effects, but most ignore the fact it was run decades ago on diesel two-stroke engines (know to heavily produce soot and have fuel dilution issues), as opposed to our modern, common-rail, four-stroke clean running engines. Very, very few SAE papers are based on real world conditions that are directly applicable to our operational lives that most BITOGers endure.
Dino oils do not have the properties to protect in heat in any modern engine, its just not there.
I just don't by that bovine manure. Please, rather than blabber words, post up the evidence where all dino oils are failing miserably and syns are succeeding. Please show the UOAs of such which would substantiate your claim.
It’s like comparing a bias type tire to a high performance radial. They both get the job done, but, which is better? Agreed, dino may have a place for some. Such a place may be a vehicle that was on its last legs or on a lease where its not going to be yours.
Don't look now, but the vast majority of cars/trucks/tractors/generators/etc are run on dino oil. You'd better hurry up and tell those bazillion owner's all around the globe their engines are about to expire. Better tell XOM, SOPUS, Ashland/Valvoline, Castrol, etc all to stop selling dino oils for fear of a class-action lawsuit around the world.
I have taken apart commercial equipment(not mine) run hard all day. The owner used Mobil 1,labeled full synthetic. We know its marketing and not a true synthetic. Long story short,I talked him into trying a 100% true synthetic. Two years later, took that motor apart where hours on the engine was almost identical and the difference was night and day. The combustion chamber, piston tops, and ring lands of the true synthetic were spotless compared to regular Mobil 1 synthetic which had carbon deposits in all areas. Which engine do you think will run more efficiently and last longer over time even though both were running well?
Mobil 1 is not a "full synthetic"? Geez ... you'd better alert all the M1 lovers here that their PAO isn't as good as your PAO. Further, that's going to be some horrific news to the rest of the market. In fact, Mobil was the company involved many years ago in trying to restrict the word "synthetic" against other non-PAO lubes. And now you claim Mobil 1 is not a "full synthetic"? Oh, the horror!
I, too, have taken engines apart. I pulled the heads on a Vulcan V-6 that ran Mobil 1 exclusively for 5k mile OCIs using a Pure One filter. There were nice OEM cross-hatch hone marks still in the cylinders. I also had to pull the heads off our VG30E Villager engine; we ran dino oil for 5k mile OCIs with normal everyday filters such as M/C and Fram. Guess what? Beautiful cross-hatch marks in the cylinders. The syn did nothing over and above the dino lubes. Neither did the filters matter.
I read the link to your uoa. Just because we both have a Duramax engine, the uoa should not be directly compared to each other or anyone else for that matter as there are too many variables in the way they are used/driven, oils, terrain, emissions equipment and so on.
Clearly you don't understand the difference between micro and macro data analysis. We most certainly can compare/contrast results from separate units. It's done all the time. All around the world. It's what Six-Sigma concepts are based upon. It's used in the production of stuff such as: toothpaste, municipal water supplies, tires, refrigerators, firearms, ammunition, plastic food containers, light bulbs, etc, etc, etc, etc. Clearly you have zero idea of which you speak here. Again - read this article:
https://bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis-how-to-decide-what-is-normal/
And when you're done, read it again. Read it until you understand it, as many times as it takes.
So you were contemplating going another year on that oil where you used two quarts in 2400 miles??? Of course GM is going to tell you that that is almost acceptable. No truck/car and especially a Duramax with 55k on the clock should use that much oil. Your oil most likely vaporized due to the heavy work load placed upon it and probably oxidixed as well. Not good for internals.I know you will not, but, I would have at least switched brands if synthetics are a no no for you. You may be pleasantly surprised on your next trip like that.
I've run syns before. I've run dinos and semi-syns also. The oil consumption rate is based upon the fuel consumed. When lightly loaded, my Dmax uses almost no lube; when loaded heavily it will consume lube. And it's not just mine; it's most all of them. It's clear you don't understand this topic either. Interesting to me how you will take Amsoil's word of how great they are, but when GM makes a formal oil-consumption statement, you want to ignore it. Additionally, some amount of oxidation is actually good for the engine; it promotes the TCB layers. See SAE 2007-01-4133; buy it and read it.
I used to use Blackstone as well for our cars and commercial equipment, but, switched as their numbers were all over the place and all trust was lost. Their equipment is also out of date among other things.
Really? What equipment would that be? Please be specific in your acusation.
Maybe you want to read this first: https://bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis-2/
Please point out the antiquated machines and processes in their work environment.
I really do not want to go back and forth. We have very different opinions concerning dino vs synthetics, let’s just agree to disagree. You are a very smart man and on top of your game with your truck/records. On my next uoa,I would still like to hear your opinion if you do not mind. Respect.
You are right; we'll agree to disagree.
You stick to the syn mantra.
I'll stick to real world data and tangible results.
As I have said many times before, I'm not against synthetics. I am, however, very willing to challenge marketing hype and mindless regurgitation of irrelevant information when it's spread.
If you're happy spending that kind of money, and getting no better wear rates than any other normal application, then by all means do it. Just don't try to convince me that your way is the ONLY way to protecting an investment. You've still given no real world proof that your claims are substantiated.
