2010 FX4 | MS5K 5W-20 SN | 5.4L | 6,480mi

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
synthetics are not always needed, they can be a waste of money, and they are not always "better".
The natural oil is leaving behind VI modifiers and varnish which can't be sen in oil analysis. If this was my car, I would at least upgrade to the Mobil Super Synthetic.
 
Originally Posted By: theaveng
Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
synthetics are not always needed, they can be a waste of money, and they are not always "better".
The natural oil is leaving behind VI modifiers and varnish which can't be sen in oil analysis. If this was my car, I would at least upgrade to the Mobil Super Synthetic.


So your recommendation for his running at or near OEM OCIs is synthetic? Did you happen to notice he's already run MANY OCIs with that practice?

Sludge and varnish contributing components will show up in a Blackstone UOA, listed as insolubles. "Insolubles" includes not only oxidation and sludge, but also soot, as well as anything else that is not soluble (hence the term). It is a reasonable predictor of the tendency of the lube to want to form sludge. It is not an assurance, but it is a good predictor.

Light varnish is pretty much harmless in an ICE, and occurs as a discoloration of the metal surfaces. Varnish is much more of a concern in a turbine engine; that's not applicable here.

Sludge is certainly something to be avoided, but it's not as common as folks think, and is often moreso a function of poor engine design and not oil choice. His 5.4L engine (a Triton motor) is based on the mod-motor Ford engine family; they are not known to be sludgers, and are some of the better wearing engines produced in the last two decades. I have more than 600 UOAs for mod-motors (4.6, 5.4, 6.8), along with the statistical analysis to back up that statement.

Some amount of oxidation is actually beneficial; proven to be necesary to form the tribochemical barrier anti-wear layer, as seen in multiple SAE studies. Check out my UOA article on the lead website page for details.

Additionally, using synthetics is not an assurance of sludge being avoided; to the contrary, it might actually promote the very problem you are trying to avoid! Allow me to quote from a Noria article by Fitch:
"Additionally, we are seeing increasing use of low-solvency basestocks (hydrocracked and PAOs for instance) that could be amplifying problems. These basestocks, on one hand, are more thermally and oxidatively robust. On the other hand, they may be more prone to lay down and coagulate oil degradation products (oxides, salts, carbon fines, etc.), leading to sludge and varnish."
WHAT?????? A man (Fitch) with years of UOA analysis experience states that while the synthetic base stocks are more robust, the end result of the entire lube package may actually be counter productive? That is probably painful for a syn-loving-BITOGer to hear. What he is pointing out is that while synthetics to tend to resist the formation of oxidation/sludge, they also are more prone to deposit them once they do form! In short, synthetics will likely resist the development of sludge "better", but cannot hold those components in suspension as well and may subsequently drop them onto the part surfaces.


Nearly EVERYTHING in life has a trade off. Synthetics are great products when used in conditions that would differentiate their performance above alternatives. And as much as it might shock folks, I actually do use synthetics in some of my equipment. But they are not a one-size-fits-all answer for every application, and they do have negatives to off-set their positives. Even the term "synthetic" itself is too broad, because the different bases of synthetics do have different pros/cons.


If you believe that 2010_FX4 is at risk for sludge formation by using a quality conventional lube at/near OEM OCIs in his mod-motor, then I would ask for your statistical proof that the risk exists, and show documented proof of the results of your claim.
 
Last edited:
Varnish can interfere with close clearance items like lifters and cam rollers.

I'd rather run a synthetic that doesn't require VI modifiers, then a natural oil that is an SAE 5 oil that uses a ton of additives to convert it to 5W-20. AND the "super synthetic" is only a dollar more... it's worth the extra cash for peace-of-mind. He could make-up the extra cost by running a little longer (10,000 miles) and visiting the oil change shop less often.

Just my 2 minutes advice.
 
Or, he could run the existing product to 10k miles, and save the money.

All while protecting the engine every bit as well.

You need to better define the term "synthetic" before you start talking about VIIs. Many group III products still use them to some degree.

Ah, yes. The "peace-of-mind" mantra. Often goes hand-in-hand with the "cheap insurance" concept. Both of which are totally wasteful in this circumstance.
 
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Or, he could run the existing [natural] product to 10k miles, and save the money.
Yes and leave behind VI modifiers coated on his engine. (shrug). It's his car and he can do whatever he wants including running Slick50 for his fill. I'm just saying I would spend the extra 1 dollar to get the Synthetic and not have to worry about natural oil breakdown or VIM varnish.

What's wrong with cheap insurance?
Car insurance is required in my state (and now hospital insurance is required nationally thanks to Congress).
 
Last edited:
When you overbuy any product, and don't use it to it's full capacity, it's a waste. That's what's wrong with it.

I'll play this game, if that's the way you want to look at it.

Suppose you have a 25,000 car, that's less than 1 year old.

You shop for insurance. You get two quotes.

Smith Agency offers $30,000 coverage for $150/month.
Jones Agency offers $40,000 coverage for $250/month.

What one is the cheap insurance? Does it make sense to overpay for coverage that you cannot claim?

The same goes for lubes. If you do not operate in conditions that would compromise the conventional oil, there is no tangible benefit to a synthetic. It becomes an unrealized benefit. Get it?

He's not operating in any condition that would cause the dino lube to fail or degrade to a point where a syn would excel past the dino. Hence, the benefit is perceived, but not realized.

Your example of sludge and such is moot, because he's not pushing either lube to a point that one would fail to protect.

In a condition such as this, buying a syn because it's "cheap insurance" might make you sleep better, but it won't protect your engine better, no matter how much rhetoric and mythology you embrace.

Again- I'll accept tangible proof and real world data as evidence, but until you put those forward, you're not convincing me otherwise. If marketing hype and sales talk is good enough for you, that's fine. But I like my decisions based upon facts, not fiction.


PS - you need to keep the political comments to yourself, please. No RSP.
 
Last edited:
I don't know what RSP means. In any case it wasn't a political statement, but a fact. You're required to have car insurance. You're required to have hospital insurance.

You seem obsessed with the $$$ savings of natural oil. That's fine but for me the $$$ savings don't come from the $1 difference on the oil shelf. It comes from running synthetic so I don't have to visit the Jiffy Lube or Dealer so often. They charge $25 a visit. Cut those visits in half by switching to synthetic and you have $25 extra in your pocket.... which more than makes-up for the $1 extra cost on the oil bottle.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: theaveng
I don't know what RSP means. In any case it wasn't a political statement, but a fact. You're required to have car insurance. You're required to have hospital insurance.

You seem obsessed with the $$$ savings of natural oil. That's fine but for me the $$$ savings don't come from the $1 difference on the oil shelf. It comes from running synthetic so I don't have to visit the Jiffy Lube or Dealer so often. They charge $25 a visit. Cut those visits in half by switching to synthetic and you have $25 extra in your pocket.... which more than makes-up for the $1 extra cost on the oil bottle.



You can find MSS for $4/qt? If you want a better bang for your buck upgrade to QSUD. It meets more strict specs like HTO6.
 
Originally Posted By: theaveng
I don't know what RSP means. In any case it wasn't a political statement, but a fact. You're required to have car insurance. You're required to have hospital insurance.

You seem obsessed with the $$$ savings of natural oil. That's fine but for me the $$$ savings don't come from the $1 difference on the oil shelf. It comes from running synthetic so I don't have to visit the Jiffy Lube or Dealer so often. They charge $25 a visit. Cut those visits in half by switching to synthetic and you have $25 extra in your pocket.... which more than makes-up for the $1 extra cost on the oil bottle.



RSP is "religion, sex, politics"; leave them out of your posts. That is part of the rules you agreed to when joining just 6 days ago.

As for the savings, you're partly correct. But I do not advocate that conventional oils are always a better choice. If that is the impression you are getting then you are not understanding any of my posts. I am in favor of any product (lubes, fuel, toothpaste, beer, lumber, etc) being utilized fully. I abhor waste.

There are some lurkers and newbies here that want/desire good information to make sound decisions. There is plenty of clear evidence that certain choices would be "better" for any given set of circumstances. But there are precious few (if any) one-size-fits-all answers to anything in life. Synthetics are NOT an assurance of success, because the terms "best" and "success" are so poorly defined, especially here at BITOG.

You even admit that your own actions are an acknowledgement that synthetics can last longer; I've always said this it more often the cast than not. Synthetics are a tool to extend the OCI; they are a fiscal choice.

Too many people seek the lowest wear numbers in a UOA, but those can be artificially manipulated simply by adjusting the OCI. Rather, folks should be reviewing operational concerns, setting safe condemnation limits, and only then selecting a lube that fits into their maintenance program.

2010_FX4 here has tried the syn route, and been much more dedicated to his pattern that nearly any other BITOGer. Now he's trying conventional lube, and being just as thorough. And the results speak for themself. His wear rates are just as good with dino as with syn. Neither lube has shown any ability to distinguish itself by over or under performing against the standard norms. Therefore, akin to the mathematical transitive property concept, they are the same in capability for these conditions. His wear is low, his contamination is low, his lube properties are fine.

Just where is it that you would claim there is a clear advantage to his prior use of synthetic? Please provide your analytical proof and data sources that would suggest his course of action is flawed against the alternative.
 
Last edited:
I'll look at the QSUD and Mobil SuperSyn when I visit walmart tomorrow, see which one has better specs (and lower price).
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I do not advocate that conventional oils are always a better choice. If that is the impression you are getting then you are not understanding any of my posts. I am in favor of any product (lubes, fuel, toothpaste, beer, lumber, etc) being utilized fully. I abhor waste.
Good to know. So what car do you drive and what MPG does it get? You may be wasting gasoline compared to the 75 mpg I'm getting (50mpg in my beetle).
Quote:
2010_FX4 here has tried the syn route, and been much more dedicated to his pattern that nearly any other BITOGer. Now he's trying conventional lube, and being just as thorough. And the results speak for themself. His wear rates are just as good with dino as with syn.
I've not seen any of his other UOAs and didn't know he had tried Super Synthetic in the past. All I did was offer my opinion that I would spend the $1 extra/quart to replace Super5000 with SuperSyn and run longer intervals (10K probably). For some reason rather than say "thanks for your opinion" you're beating me over the head with until you force me to agree with you.

That will never happen. I refuse to submit to bullies.
 
QSUD has the better specs. Price may vary.

2010 FX4 did not use super synthetic, he used the top tier Pennzoil Ultra.
 
Originally Posted By: theaveng
I've not seen any of his other UOAs and didn't know he had tried Super Synthetic in the past. All I did was offer my opinion that I would spend the $1 extra/quart to replace Super5000 with SuperSyn and run longer intervals (10K probably).

All of my UOAs from the beginning until now can be found here; I have UOA'ed every OC including the factory fill. I have never used Mobil Super Synthetic; I used Pennzoil Ultra for the first 70K. This current run of Mobil Super 5000 will be ran out to 10K and I am quite sure that it will perform very well. Pennzoil Ultra costs 2.5x more than the MS5K that I am currently using which means it would have to be ran 25K to hit the ROI. Can PU be ran for 25K? Highly doubtful and the filter would also have to be changed pushing the ROI out even further.

Since I purchased the MS5K during some OR and AZ specials some months ago, MSS is much more than $1 more; with that said even at normal price for MS5K, MSS is about $2-$3 more than MS5K in my area. The results speak for themselves--even when towing fully loaded in high temperatures, the conventional oil still protects the engine every bit as good as the synthetic did. Each to his own, but as I have said before, it is my hope that my results prove that you do not need to reach for the synthetic by default to obtain "protection".
 
Okay cool. :) For me cutting OCI in half saves $25 at the dealer visit.

Will still be trying to get my dad to use Super Synthetic or Quakerstate Ultra synthetic, rather than a natural oil that is really a SAE0 with a ton of VI modifiers. After all his car will be my car someday. :)
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: theaveng
Will still be trying to get my dad to use Super Synthetic or Quakerstate Ultra synthetic, rather than a natural oil that is really a SAE0 with a ton of VI modifiers. After all his car will be my car someday. :)

I was in that group too (diehard synthetic user) and not trying to sway you, but with regular OCIs and provided there is not a known issue with the engine family or a design problem, my guess is it will last just as long using conventional versus a synthetic while saving more than 50% in the process. Modern conventional oils in SN API service are nothing to fear...
 
Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
Originally Posted By: theaveng
Will still be trying to get my dad to use Super Synthetic or Quakerstate Ultra synthetic, rather than a natural oil that is really a SAE0 with a ton of VI modifiers. After all his car will be my car someday. :)
I was in that group too (diehard synthetic user) and not trying to sway you, but with regular OCIs and provided there is not a known issue with the engine family or a design problem
He only runs 10 miles a trip. The engine could use the extra protection of a synthetic.
 
Originally Posted By: theaveng
Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
Originally Posted By: theaveng
Will still be trying to get my dad to use Super Synthetic or Quakerstate Ultra synthetic, rather than a natural oil that is really a SAE0 with a ton of VI modifiers. After all his car will be my car someday. :)
I was in that group too (diehard synthetic user) and not trying to sway you, but with regular OCIs and provided there is not a known issue with the engine family or a design problem
He only runs 10 miles a trip. The engine could use the extra protection of a synthetic.



What is the baseline you set for that comment?

To know if something is going to be "better", you need to establish some reference point.

Got a decent series of previous UOAs for his vehicle?
 
Originally Posted By: theaveng
He only runs 10 miles a trip. The engine could use the extra protection of a synthetic.

Are you referring to fuel dilution from the 10 miles per trip or something else? If it is fuel dilution running a synthetic will not help that condition, the oil will still degrade and just as quickly as a conventional will. The only thing to solve fuel dilution is to run the engine long enough to burn off the fuel or reduce the OCI to compensate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top