are some engines just suited for dino oil use?

[JHZR2]

Hi,

I have a 98 Chevy s-10. I posted about my happiness with castrol start-up, which is most likely a low percentage synthetic blend with some polar molecules in it.

I have long researched what is the best oil for this engine. My conclusion every time is that pennzoil 10w-30 or similar dino oils tend to provide better wear rates than even synthetics do in this engine. My results have been kind of skewed due to odd OCIs because of my testing for an intake manifold leak, and the presence of glycol in my oil. My experience of my own (no ocis, but very accurate MPG records) is that at least there is no apparent economy advantage by using synthetics in this chevy engine.

But my question is this: Despite all the synthetic claims of superior protection, etc., are some engines just plain better off running dino over synthetic?

My fathers toyota and mothers plymouth saw great improvements when changing to synth over conventional, both in wear and economy. My older MB diesel saw better economy, but no difference in wear. My BMW saw no improvements in either wear or economy (the best wear rates Ive seen in older BMW engines are from delo 15w-40). So I have to wonder if some engines just dont take akin to synthetics, or if the actual 100C viscosity just doesnt match up right to what the engine wants.

Any comments, opinions, suggestions?

Thanks very much,

JMH

 

[TC]

You might go into the Used Oil Analysis section and compare UOAs for dino and syn oils for your S-10 engine. I'm a big fan of inexpensive brand name dino, but would guess that in pretty much ALL engines, synthetic would technically be the superior choice. But the benefits come at a cost, of course. (There was a similar thread recently -- there may have been some hypothetical scenarios in which dino could outperform syn -- you might search for that thread.) But my thoughts are that in the majority of -- if not all -- oil performance aspects, syn would have the advantage, with at least some of these advantages quantifiable through UOAs and other means. But whether syn is cost-effective for a given ride is another story altogether.

 

[Nosmo King]

The biggest challenge we face with new cars today is heat. The manufactures are doing everything possible to increase the efficiency of the internal combustion engine. One so called improvement is to move the ring pack higher up the pistons.


This now means much more varnish ,crud, build up in this critical area and synthetic is almost a must. Now ad turbos etc to these new modern engines and synthetic is almost mandatory.

 

[Jimbo]

Delo 400 claims to be formulated to keep the ring area clean. It is at very low temperatures where a synthetic might be an advantage. With a flash point of 446F, Delo exceeds some synthetics at high temps.

My older BMW also seemed happier with Delo than Syntec. Tripled oil consumption with no increase in gas mileage is not good. A UOA will be done when I reach my proposed OCI. I dont think Syntec can produce signifcantly better numbers than Delo.

 

[JHZR2]

tc, part of my reason for writing thisd post is that looking at UOAs from this site for the 4.3, I know that dino has outperformed synth in this engine. I will look for that link, thanks! I think that synthetics are tops for most vehicles, so long as you are willing to spend the $$$, which I am. But if I cant quantify the improvement by MPG, wear numbers, or at least smoother running and startup, then I am at a loss as to why to use it.

In the 4.3, dino seems to do better, the truck starts on the first cylinder firing, everytime, and no oil changes the economy... so it seems that dino is the winner.

JMH