2010 FX4 | MS5K 5W-20 SN | 5.4L | 7,394mi

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: walk23
Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
Originally Posted By: walk23
Why would you change oils when you're getting such favorable results just to appease someone else's whims ?

Because sometimes proving a point is important especially when it can dispel multiple oil myths in the process. Besides, I am betting that any SN oil would run well in my engine and not just MS5K.


Following the posts, it looks like others influenced you to do something other than what you've been doing.

Meh

It just appears that way; once I post the UOA at 10K and again at 15K, I will disclose the oil and the points that were either proven or not proven.

 

[TrevorS]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
1- it says that a "baseline" would need to be established, and that would be done with a dino lube. To establish this criteria, one would need to run out a lube long enough that wear rates shifted (escalated) and condemnation levels were reached. Once those happened, then you could look at the OCI duration it took to get there, and then forumlate out an expected OCI duration of a syn, relative to the cost ratio. If syn cost 2x more money, then it would have to protect as well for 2x the distance.

2- No. A UOA does not cover every aspect of proper maintenance programs. It is a big chunk, but it is not everything. Some things can be inferred from the UOA, others not. Additionally, you'd want to perhaps to PCs, compression testing, visual inspections inside valve covers, monitor fluid consumptions, etc.

UOA are a direct view of lubricant health; they are an indirect view of equipment health. UOAs are the cheapest form of equipment "check-up" we have. We could do a tear down of an engine after every 30k miles, after each oil brand swap, and measure clearances and view for galling, pitting, scoring, etc. But that is cost and time prohibitive for most all of us. And so we rely on a UOA to indicate small shifts in wear, that would be precursors to larger events happening. It is important to note that UOAs cannot see particles generally larger than 5um, so an impending catastrophic event throwing large particles may never even been seen with a UOA. But then again, by the time your engine is in this condition, it's probably giving other clues (leaks, odors, noises) too.



2010_FX4 probably will not run out a dino all the way to see wear statistically shifting. That is his choice. But what he has proven here is that his self-imposed OCI duration is just as well served by dino fluids as super-premium syns. There was no tangible benefit to running PU over the MS5K; it was wasted money.


Yes I totally agree that many don't utilize the touted benefits of synthetics when it comes to intervals, thus not justifying the expense.

However, there is an argument, I think, that synthetic oils keep engines cleaner. Various manufacturers set standards for performance that oil companies end up meeting with semi synthetic or synthetic oils. These oils are tested over tens of thousands of miles and engines are inspected to verify performance to standard. For certain vehicles, synthetics are a requirement.

For vehicles with less stringent requirements, there is still a case for Synthetics. Toyotas prone to sludge issues benefit from synthetic. When one does not get round to an oil change, then there is more margin of safety with synthetic. A poster relayed the story of varnish / sludge after 10 years of 3k dino changes on a domestic vehicle. Sure that's just one anecdote but there are other examples (just as there are examples of varnish / sludge with syn oil)

I totally agree that those who are doing UOAs and still not utilizing synthetics are people whose logic baffles us. But I think there is an argument that its not a huge issue if people spend $10 extra on an oil change to go with synthetic. There are far bigger things we mis spend our money on because it makes us feel better.

From a personal point of view, I do go with synthetics when dino would do but only because I take advantage of free after rebate deals. I also do double the manufacturer oci in time terms and about 30% in mileage terms. I am thinking of doing a UOA to stretch it further. The only problem is I keep on changing oil depending on what FAR deal I get.

 

[dnewton3]

I don't think engines are kept "cleaner" with syns. I do agree that they would be kept at some level of "clean" for a LONGER period of time. There is a post here somewhere that has some great pictures to illustrate what I mean, but I'm not sure if I can find it. I'll look ...

It's all in the way one looks at the issues, be it "clean", or wear, or whatever.

I set condemnation limits, and then manage the OCI to those limits as best practical. This method maximizes the ROI, regardless of the product used.

Most folks set an arbitrary OCI, and then measure how much "stuff is in the bucket", so to speak. This method is a game to see who can get the lowest numbers, and it's always easy to simply shorten an OCI to get ever lower totals. There is NEVER any ability to maximize return this way; it becomes an ever-increasing circular reference to waste.

 

[dnewton3]

Aha! found the post and the link ....


http://www.eneos.us/images/SUSTINAtemp.jpg


Look at the pictures of the valve cover.

Compare the dino at 3k miles to syn at 6k miles; the level of "clean" is very similar.
Now look at the 6k mile dino and 12k mile syn shots; again, very similar results.

Now, again - this is about ROI. Did the syn "clean" anything "better"? It depends upon your point of view ...

If you pick an arbitrary OCI duration, then the syn might be able to sustain a level of clean you desire. But you could ALSO get that SAME level of clean with a dino, but you'd simply have to shorten the OCI! This is what I mean by a "game" of OCI duration. For ANY result you want to see, one can manipulate the OCI of ANY product, to get a specific result. Your synthetic cannot "clean" better than my dino oil, because all I have to do is shorten an OCI to get the same result.

And so, this is about ROI. HOW LONG can you sustain a level of clean, relative to the costs incurred.


I prefer to manage my maintenance plan in a more pragmatic manner. I set levels of condemnation for the lube and wear rates and totals. Until those are breached, then any fluid is acceptable. The "best" fluid is the one that sustains safe operational conditions for the least cost.


If you go back to those pictures, and think of the "clean" ratio, the syn keeps that exmaple clean for about a 2:1 ratio. As long as the syn does not cost 2x as much, it would be a good investment. But if the Sustina is more than 2x in cost, it would simply be "cheaper" to OCI more often with dino, and get the same result.


This is why I get so frustrated with folks that don't take ROI into account. They often have this mentality of "cost is no issue; I want the best for my truck/car/motorcycle/boat/sewing machine/etc." But they don't define what "best" means, and they have no ability to judge a level of performance that they don't measure to some practical manner. It's a "game" to see who can get the most clean, or lowest wear totals, etc.

Clean is a relative state of mind, not any different than wear rates and wear totals. You either pick fair minded condemnation points, and manage your program to those criteria, or you play a mind-game with the results and seek ever lower numbers in a futile effort to outdo the other guy, with no regard for your wallet.

Read my signature line.

 

[Errtt]

All interesting (2-me).
As far as cleaning, Pennzoil for example, they tout PYB has Active Cleaning Agents and they gave it 2 stars for the oil.
PP got 4 stars, and say drive an extra 550 miles/year (whats up with that), plus its 40% cleaner than industry standards, 8% more than M1.
PU they gave 5 stars touting highest level of cleaning and now its 25% more than M1.
Some others (thinking Castrol or QS, not sure) was touting combat sludge, so I wonder if folks run past (way over in some cases) the oil usable capabilities (TBN etc) because of the marketing scheme. Not considering UOAs etc.
I've known/heard many think as soon as the oil turns dark they think the oil is used up, bad, needs changing - not knowing the color isn't all end.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Errtt
Some others (thinking Castrol or QS, not sure) was touting combat sludge, so I wonder if folks run past (way over in some cases) the oil usable capabilities (TBN etc) because of the marketing scheme. Not considering UOAs etc.

You hit the nail on the head. Some oils certainly might be better at cleaning than others, but when you're comparing similar oils with similar certifications, that margin of "better" might be pretty darned slim, and I would have no concerns using any SN/GF-5 lube as directed, all the way from our re-refined Supertech up here to PU or M1 EP or Edge with Titanium.

 

[TrevorS]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Aha! found the post and the link ....


http://www.eneos.us/images/SUSTINAtemp.jpg


Look at the pictures of the valve cover.

Compare the dino at 3k miles to syn at 6k miles; the level of "clean" is very similar.
Now look at the 6k mile dino and 12k mile syn shots; again, very similar results.

Now, again - this is about ROI. Did the syn "clean" anything "better"? It depends upon your point of view ...

If you pick an arbitrary OCI duration, then the syn might be able to sustain a level of clean you desire. But you could ALSO get that SAME level of clean with a dino, but you'd simply have to shorten the OCI! This is what I mean by a "game" of OCI duration. For ANY result you want to see, one can manipulate the OCI of ANY product, to get a specific result. Your synthetic cannot "clean" better than my dino oil, because all I have to do is shorten an OCI to get the same result.

And so, this is about ROI. HOW LONG can you sustain a level of clean, relative to the costs incurred.


I prefer to manage my maintenance plan in a more pragmatic manner. I set levels of condemnation for the lube and wear rates and totals. Until those are breached, then any fluid is acceptable. The "best" fluid is the one that sustains safe operational conditions for the least cost.


If you go back to those pictures, and think of the "clean" ratio, the syn keeps that exmaple clean for about a 2:1 ratio. As long as the syn does not cost 2x as much, it would be a good investment. But if the Sustina is more than 2x in cost, it would simply be "cheaper" to OCI more often with dino, and get the same result.


This is why I get so frustrated with folks that don't take ROI into account. They often have this mentality of "cost is no issue; I want the best for my truck/car/motorcycle/boat/sewing machine/etc." But they don't define what "best" means, and they have no ability to judge a level of performance that they don't measure to some practical manner. It's a "game" to see who can get the most clean, or lowest wear totals, etc.

Clean is a relative state of mind, not any different than wear rates and wear totals. You either pick fair minded condemnation points, and manage your program to those criteria, or you play a mind-game with the results and seek ever lower numbers in a futile effort to outdo the other guy, with no regard for your wallet.

Read my signature line.


Thanks for the explanation. You're absolutely right. There is performance and there is performance over time in the same fill. Synthetic may be better for the latter but not the former.

Having said that, your number crunching suggest that longer oci's result in less wear, so if syn performs the same as dino but just for longer, isn't total wear going down as you're not putting in fresh syn as often as fresh dino?

I understand though that through monitoring, the dino may be within your wear limits regardless but all things being equal (excluding longevity), if time on oil helps to reduce wear, then syn has an advantage, no?

 

[fpracha]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Aha! found the post and the link ....
http://www.eneos.us/images/SUSTINAtemp.jpg

Look at the pictures of the valve cover.

If you go back to those pictures, and think of the "clean" ratio, the syn keeps that exmaple clean for about a 2:1 ratio. As long as the syn does not cost 2x as much, it would be a good investment. But if the Sustina is more than 2x in cost, it would simply be "cheaper" to OCI more often with dino, and get the same result.

Very right Jim; thank you for the useful link and this practical analogy!

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
This is why I get so frustrated with folks that don't take ROI into account. They often have this mentality of "cost is no issue; I want the best for my truck/car/motorcycle/boat/sewing machine/etc." But they don't define what "best" means, and they have no ability to judge a level of performance that they don't measure to some practical manner. It's a "game" to see who can get the most clean, or lowest wear totals, etc.

Clean is a relative state of mind, not any different than wear rates and wear totals. You either pick fair minded condemnation points, and manage your program to those criteria,

Defining "whats best" is a tricky proposition, specially for vehicle owners without technical expertise or proper knowledge/experience in this field.
Perhaps "whats best" to most owners means: to have good consistent fuel economy, personally acceptable oil life duration and a standard level of wear protection.
Only problem is that both oil life and wear protection are arbitrary numbers for most, simply because it requires a number os UOAs and engine-specific knowledge to be able to decide if the results of a given oil are within the "whats best" criteria.
What are your thoughts ?

Aren't there oils with the ability to keep LOW wear rates even when dirt accumulation is more than a cleaner reference ISO benchmark ?

 

[fpracha]

Originally Posted By: TrevorS

Having said that, your number crunching suggest that longer oci's result in less wear, so if syn performs the same as dino but just for longer, isn't total wear going down as you're not putting in fresh syn as often as fresh dino?
TrevorS, yes indeed, but its not plain synthetic base oil type that improves the wear numbers. The synthetic typically has a better overall formulation that contributes to lower wear "capability" for the synthetic formulated oil when used in the correct application. One size does not fit all...

 

[dnewton3]

What is seen in "typical" UOAs is a pretty fair generalization.

This would certainly apply with lots of proof in regard to wear rates, and conceptually applies to "cleaning".

Syn's do things longer; not better.

In many threads over the last year, I've tried to point out that until a product is compromised, and fails at it's task, then any alternative cannot offer a tangible advantage.

There is a difference between what is POTENTIAL and what is REALIZED. Some lubes might have the ability to clean more stuff, but unless the rate of contamination changes, the "dirt factor" is pretty much a constant. As long as the basic oils are able to keep up with the contamination, the syns really don't clean "better", they just clean longer. Oils generally do not change the rate at which contamination is introduced in an engine, tranny, etc. Therefore they cannot clean any faster than the rate at which the equipment and environment bring it into the equation.

When it comes to wear, neither has an advantage until a dino is usurped. The data from more than 10,000 UOAs in my database simply show this to be true. It is not the base stock that controls wear. The primary controller of wear is the tribochemical boundary layer established by the oxidation of the lube. Yes - you read that right; oxidation can be a good thing. Think of it as a protective coating on metal surfaces. It actually improves with age and heat. This is proven in SAE 2007-01-4133, it is completely evident in my UOA study and I show it in my "normalcy" article. Now - we all would agree that TOO MUCH of at good thing can be a bad thing. Too much oxidation can cause major issues. But it is completely false to think that all ox is bad; it's just not so. It can be desirable in the right dose. Every time you OCI, the detergent package attackes that desireable layer. That is why wear actually escalates at the front of an OCI, and then tapers to nearly nothing. And it contines that relationship, at least out to 15k miles for most applications. I say "at least 15k miles" because that is where the SAE study stopped, and my data is inconclusive past that point (because too few folks run OCIs past that to make for good data streams). It might last longer than 15k miles, but I have no proof. However, up to 15k miles, there exists incontraverible evidence. No amount of "yabuts" change that fact.

What is true of the majority of the market (BITOGers are a micro-fraction of the lube world) is that most folks simply do a decent job of following the OCI driven by either a prediated set limit (5k miles, etc) or the OLM. And when they do so, there is no need whatsoever to use a premium syn; any ol' qualified API lube in the correct spec and vis will do just fine. There is already PLENTY of safety margin built into an OEM OCI with a "normal" lube. One does not buy "cheap insurance" by using a syn in these circumstances; one is wasting money - big time.

I agree with fpracha; "best" is often poorly described, but that is because the underlying question is poorly defined. Simply asking " ... what's the best oil? ..." is an open ended question with no bounds, and so just about any lube could fill that void. Thoughtful questions with tight bounds and limitations end up with definitive, rational, seasoned answers. Same goes for the concepts of wear control, cleaning, etc. When one asks a detailed question, they can get some good advice. When they ask a hap-hazard question, they are open to quips, rhetoric and mythology.

This thread is 5 pages long, but if you go back and look at the DATA and not rhetoric, you can clearly see that syn has ZERO advantage over a dino in this application. The money spent on PU was total waste. There is no statistical shift in wear, there is no evidence that contamination contribution or control has changed, etc. In this application, with these limits, syns are a total waste; they paid NOTHING back in return. 2010_FX4 has run a detailed, consistent set of UOAs, and now he's realized the truth; syns are not a one-size-fits-all answer for everything. They don't do everything "better".

That is NOT to say that syns are worthless; that is not true at all. In fact (hold your breath ... ) I actually use syns in some of my applications! But I don't do so because some commercial tells me to do so. I choose syns based upon a total overview of the application in which I use them; I manage my maintenance program - it doesn't manage me. Many folks think I love to bashing syns, but that is completely untrue. Rather, I abhor waste. I actively challenge wasteful practices. I do so regardless of base stock of the lube. Go through this PCMO UOA forum alone and count up the number of syns run within 25% of the OEM OCI; it is the vast majority of UOAs. What a total and complete waste. That's not a fault of the lube; it's the poorly understood and practiced maintenace routine of the owner/operator.


Again, read my signature line; it is very accurate and true.

 

[TrevorS]

Dave, I read your signature line and your posts very closely.

But the question I have for you was that by your own finding of wear rates decreasing as OCI increases, synthetics that last longer than conventional oil (and conventional oils that last longer than other conventional oils), by definition will cause less wear if you use them for their maximum interval.

I read somewhere that Toyota says 5k oci on conventional and 10k on synthetic.

Lets say that that is in fact the life of each lube. At 5k, both oils have performed equally in terms of wear. But at 5k the conventional has to be replaced which starts a new cycle of wear. The synthetic continues and the wear rate goes down. At 10k, the synthetic has caused less wear than 2 x 5k conventional oci's.

Now if the synthetic was also changed at 5k, then wear would be the same. But since synthetics allow for longer oci's, then they will cause less wear if the oci takes advantage of the synthetic lube.

 

[dnewton3]

You're on the right track, but have your magnitudes off ...

Typically, in most UOA marco data, I see that there is little if any divergence between dino and syn, even out to 15k miles. However, the data becomes very thin past that point; it's not common for folks to extend their OCIs past that duration. Hence, I cannot assure anyone where the divergence would begin, but only that the divergence of performance potential must be at some point beyond the current data stream limit.

Once folks start greatly extending OCIs, then it's typical for bypass filtration to enter the picture. This is a good thing, but it also alters the view of the data, as an additional variable.

When you look at 2010_FX4's data, you can see that even up to 10k miles, the dino and syns performed on par. It is not fair of us to call either one better or worse than the other; that is a poor conclusion. But we can say that both lubes clearly performed on par within expected normal variation, and therefore by the mathematical transitive property (a=c; b=c; therefore a=b) we can infer they were the same. Dino oil gave "normal" results; syn oil gave "normal" results; dino and syn performed equally.

Also, don't forget that often we're only talking about fractional ppm in terms of wear rates. It is true to say that an OCI will generate an increase in wear rate, but it's often paltry in terms of oveall wear. Read my "normalcy" article and closely look at the wear rates as the OCI matures. Also, purchase the SAE article; it's a great read. The point to understand is that the wear rates will drop, dino on syn, as the OCI matures. Folks often think that changing oil is "better" for the engine in terms of wear, but that is completely false. It's ONLY true if the UOA indicates that wear is being adversely effected by the OCI duration; that is rarely the case.

Macro data simply and clearly indicates these two things, taken in a statistical view:
1) in "normal" use, there is no advantage to syns
2) in "normal" use, OCIs are much more frequent than necesary


I have been asked, in the past, about how much the data is predicated on syns versus dino lubes. Many are surprised at the answer; it does not matter. I don't look at the input data and make determinations; I look at results and draw conclusions. If we had 100 UOAs, and 90% of them were syn, while 10% were dino, we'd still have "normal" distribution data. Anything that performed "normal" would be "same as". Clearly, the input data would be heavily biased if 90 UOAs were based on syns, but when you compared/contrasted the data, and a dino was "normal" within that distribution curve, you can fairly and accurately claim the dino to be "same as" the syn. Conversely, if you had 90 dino UOAs and only 10 syn UOAs, and the syns performed "same as" the dinos, you could conclude that the syns had no performance advantage whatsoever. When the output data is within "normal" distribution, there is no significant statistical difference, regardless of the input origin.

This is why I firmly stand on dinos and syns being "same as" in regard to "normal" OCI duration and results. The data simply shows that they perform on par, so why pay more when you don't get more?

If one ran an OCI out far enough, I would fully suspect that at some point, the dino would fail and the syn possibly would continue to excel. But out to 15k miles, that isn't the case in most data streams.

 

[SteveSRT8]

#'s 1 and 2 are absolutely true, and reflect a major reorientation of my views since I became a member here. Saves a LOT of money and/or oil either way.

Modern dino is awfully good oil.

 

[FZ1]

10,000 max oci.

 

[TrevorS]

Is there a mileage at which an oil change results in significantly higher wear because the anti wear layer never gets going?

3000 miles perhaps

 

[TrevorS]

Another question, this conclusion that dino and synthetic are equivalent only applies in cases where the manufacturer spec allows a dino oil, right?

If the manufacturer spec necessitates a synthetic oil, would you still believe it to be possible that a dino could perform as well as a syn?

Rather than think about the German specs, how about Toyotas requirement of 0w20. In many cases, a 5w20 dino was previously allowable for those same engines. Would you have no hesitation in running a dino 5w20 in a 2014 Toyota that requires 0w20 for the same oci?

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: TrevorS
If the manufacturer spec necessitates a synthetic oil, would you still believe it to be possible that a dino could perform as well as a syn?

It's hard to know what the manufacturers are thinking for sure, but I suspect you're correct in drawing a distinction between the European and Japanese manufacturers' uses of synthetics. The Germans tend to use them to allow for long drains in the first place, along with avoiding seasonal oil changes (i.e. a 5w-30 or 10w-30 in winter, a 15w-40 in summer). The Japanese are doing so for the fuel economy and ultra-high VI advantages. Maybe some posters here who have experience with some of the older models and brand new models would know if there's been any difference in OCIs or a possible OLM recalibration when a switch was made from 5w-20 to 0w-20.

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: TrevorS
Is there a mileage at which an oil change results in significantly higher wear because the anti wear layer never gets going?

3000 miles perhaps

I would have to say "no" because I'm going to interpret your statement of "significantly hgher wear" as something that would be detrimental to the engine. Under that interpretation, there is no evidence as such.

If you read my normalcy article, and look at the data for those engines, you'll see that the Fe is always higher at the front end of an OCI, and continues downward out to 15k miles. That is also true of other wear metals (Cu, Pb, Cr, Al) generally, but I only used the Fe as an example.

I'll note that the wear rates at the onset of a fresh OCI are most certainly not going to be so high as to indicate real harm is done, but it also shows that frequent OCIs have no benefit in regard to wear. Most folks OCI because they believe it's "better" for the engine. But the data says otherwise. There is no benefit, in regard to wear, to frequent OCIs. And my data not only shows this, but so does the Ford/Conoco SAE study, which I strongly encourage folks to purchase and read.

So, in general, you'll not do harm do an engine with frequent OCIs. But you're not helping it in any manner either. And you're most certainly hurting your wallet. There is no logical manner to explain dumping fluid too soon, where no tangible benefit exists, and escalated wear is the result.

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: TrevorS
Another question, this conclusion that dino and synthetic are equivalent only applies in cases where the manufacturer spec allows a dino oil, right?

If the manufacturer spec necessitates a synthetic oil, would you still believe it to be possible that a dino could perform as well as a syn?

Rather than think about the German specs, how about Toyotas requirement of 0w20. In many cases, a 5w20 dino was previously allowable for those same engines. Would you have no hesitation in running a dino 5w20 in a 2014 Toyota that requires 0w20 for the same oci?


No - not really. Again, my conclusions are not based upon determination of inputs; I collect and analyze outputs. I would completely agree that most OEMs do predicate their OCIs on conventional oil base stocks, but that does not mean my data supports a conclusion of what they require. All I can tell you is that in many applications, dinos do as well as syns because the OCI is not long enough to show disparity of performance. My data is not delineated by what the OEM specs; it's processed on what transpires.


OEMs most often develop internal corporate specs for lubes (engine, tranny, diffs, etc). But those often mirror similar specs in the API catagories. There are times, however, when unique concerns make for individual lube requirements.


There are times when OEMs will spec fluids for "worst case" scenarios. I had this disucssion before about the Corvette. GM has for years now offered the car with M1 lube right from the factory. And I will be honest and tell you that I don't own one, so I've never taken the time to read the owner's manaul requirements for lubes. But the Corvette is a performane vehicle, and can be used in extreme use (racing, etc). Therefore, to protect the engine and lube in ultra-hot, competition type use, they spec'd a syn in the sump to make sure the drivetrain is protected from the very high under-hood temps. I got this info from another BITOG member, so I trust that he was being accurate in his descriptions. Apparently, when put to extreme use, the Vette oil temps would greatly escalate, and even when using a large oil cooler, the underhood temps put a traditional oil at risk. OK - I can accept that; seems plausible. But that means NOTHING to a person who owns a Vette, and only drives it on weekends down county roads at moderate speeds, to the club for a round of golf. They will NEVER put the lube in a postion to be compromised at such high temps, and therefore they don't "need" a syn, even though it's spec'd by the OEM.

There are other times when it's not ultimate competitive performance, but economy that drives the decisions. Some OEM do now spec 0w-20s and lubes in that catagory will be syns, and therefore you'd have a limited selection. But the OCI durations of those applications do not automatically infer that a dino would be inferior. If used in a moderate climate, I would expect a quality 5w-20 dino to do every bit as well as a 0w-20 syn, in "normal" use.

Other times, the OCI may be in play. I don't know of many OEMs that have multiple OCI schemes; they have one spec for an application and leave it at that. Therefore, it's really hard to know what the OEMs would prefer for dinos versus syns. One notable exception that I recall is I think M37Charlie once noted an application that showed either conventional or synthethic lube could be used (in his Moog, perhaps), but the OCI duration was the same!

Another excellent example would be Ford's recent SM and SN equivilants. While the FF lube is semi-syn, and you have an option of going full syn, they don't even offer a dino. But if you look at the specs, there are MANY aftermarket lubes that are fully licensed to Fords specs, but are dino oils. So, while many would decry the use of a dino in a "tough" application (say the EB engines), apparently Ford does not care. As long as it meets Ford's spec, it's good.

There is a large different between potentital use, and realzied use. That goes for severity of operation, OCI duration, temps, etc. What is possible is not often what is experienced. Therefore, I would offer that base stock selection, even by the OEM, is only relevant to the highest expected extreme of application. Even if the OEM specs a syn, that does not mean the user needs one. Read my signature line; ANY product can be under or over utilized, depending upon the application.

I am a BIG fan, no make that a H-U-G-E fan, of doing UOAs for comparison and contrast. Most BITOGers here theorize about what is possible. I'd rather experiment and know what really exists. You ask a lot of good questions, and I have tons of data to answer it, but if you really want to know how well something performs in your specific application, you'll have to do your own testing. But be forewarned; it will take at least several years and a few hundred thousand miles to really declare something "better" than an alternative. That is because micro analysis must be very diligently controlled. The reason is that in macro analysis you are pitting products against a standard and mass market statisticial results. In micro analysis, you are judging one product directly against another, and therefore you need a minimum of 30 data samples for each competitor, so it would take 60 OCIs to get a true view of the performance. 60 OCIs, at 5k miles per OCI, would be 300k miles of testing, patience, not to mention the expense of 60 UOAs!


Generally, once can theorize about the inputs, but I'd rather investigate the results. If you use an OEM spec'd fluid, you're assured excellent results for your engine. But your wallet may or may not suffer, depending upon OCI duration and useage factors.



Go all the way back to the front of this thread. Look at the data. Ford spec's the equivilant of an SM and SN lube for these engines. Both the PU and the MS5k meet that criteria. Did either outperform the other? We cannot say that because not enough data exists. But what we can say is that neither lube failed it's job, and both lubes put down numbers that were statistically equal; generally within first sigma deviation. Therefore, both lubes were "same as" in protection. But one cost a whole lot less for the same result. I focus on the tangible results we have in front of us. Both gave the same engine protection; one cost a lot less money. There is no other logical conclusion to draw from this data. Anything past that would need to be tested.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Go all the way back to the front of this thread. Look at the data. Ford spec's the equivalent of an SM and SN lube for these engines. Both the PU and the MS5K meet that criteria. Did either outperform the other? We cannot say that because not enough data exists. But what we can say is that neither lube failed it's job, and both lubes put down numbers that were statistically equal; generally within first sigma deviation. Therefore, both lubes were "same as" in protection. But one cost a whole lot less for the same result. I focus on the tangible results we have in front of us. Both gave the same engine protection; one cost a lot less money. There is no other logical conclusion to draw from this data. Anything past that would need to be tested.

Gents,

Great discussion and though I am the "source" of the data, I still continue to learn from the overall discussions. Thanks for keeping it lively and real!