Bottom line though, is a Group III properly formulated will out last a Group II with similar additives so on and so on... you can't deny that synthetics are superior from a chemical standpoint. Plus, most of us on here are only going 6-8k miles then jumping up and down claiming dinos are just as good. Yeah up until that mileage point they are as good, but try going 15k or more or running dino in a turbo for 8k miles. You'll need some AutoRx.
Beginning to have my doubts
- Thread starter Dagwood
- Start date
- Status
[
[
The evidence has clearly shown that quality syns and quality syn blends extend drain intervals, save money and time.
The harsher the environment the better syns and syn blends perform, which is not usually the case with most cars and drivers.
As with any product from couches to TV's, from carpet to dog food and oil to oil people are people. Some will by the cheapest thinking they are saving money, most will buy inbetween feeling out the value for their dollar and the smallest percentage will buy what they percieve to be the highest quality, which the price (not necessarily cost) will be higher.
The vast majority of the latter do so with engine oils to give their engines the best chance to perform at its optimum for the longest period of time. Cost savings being an achievable option as well.
I change my oil at the factory recommended oil change interval of 10,000 miles. I am currently spending 11 bucks a liter for my oil and will extend OCIs to 15k as soon as my warranty expires. It is hard to go that far on an oil interval but using oil analysis sealed the deal for the 10k OCIs
Historically synthetic oils had many advantages over dino oils. With current oils the differences are minimal. Synthetic oils are slightly less thick at start-up minimizing the elevated wear during the first 15 minutes of driving. This is why I use synthetics in some of my cars. I can get in the Ferrari and step on the gas sooner.
The other advantage is at 70 or 80 percent throttle and at high load where engine oil temperatures begin to get hot. Here synthetic oils excel in performance. The problem with stop and go short trip situations is that oils do not get up to temperature. Wear is high because you are always running thicker "start-up" oil. Water gets hot at low load situations, oil does not.
Oil additives work best at certain temperatures. Fortunately more additives are now used that are optimum at 80 - 150 F, the "short trip" oil temperatures.
The OCI has little to do with the base oil in todays motor oils and is mainly a function of the additives making any oil last as long as the market demands (almost).
I consider an oil to be cold below 150 F and hot above 280 F sump temperatures. At 180 - 240 F sump, I consider oil to be running in the designed, optimum range. Synthetic oils can run all day at the track at 300 F sump temperatures. Dino oil would not hold up as well. Older race cars that do not get this hot seem to do fine running dino oils.
My personal feeling is that the synthetic blend oils will be the best solution overall. I am using the MC in my Expedition and the SL600 V12 Mercedes.
aehaas
The other advantage is at 70 or 80 percent throttle and at high load where engine oil temperatures begin to get hot. Here synthetic oils excel in performance. The problem with stop and go short trip situations is that oils do not get up to temperature. Wear is high because you are always running thicker "start-up" oil. Water gets hot at low load situations, oil does not.
Oil additives work best at certain temperatures. Fortunately more additives are now used that are optimum at 80 - 150 F, the "short trip" oil temperatures.
The OCI has little to do with the base oil in todays motor oils and is mainly a function of the additives making any oil last as long as the market demands (almost).
I consider an oil to be cold below 150 F and hot above 280 F sump temperatures. At 180 - 240 F sump, I consider oil to be running in the designed, optimum range. Synthetic oils can run all day at the track at 300 F sump temperatures. Dino oil would not hold up as well. Older race cars that do not get this hot seem to do fine running dino oils.
My personal feeling is that the synthetic blend oils will be the best solution overall. I am using the MC in my Expedition and the SL600 V12 Mercedes.
aehaas
So how's the class-action suit going that Mercedes dealers filed against MB after MB alleged the affected dealers had filled customer car engines with conventional oil? The affected dealers claim in their brief they used MB oil and have the order/delivery receipts for sufficient MB oil as evidence for their counter claim. Meanwhile, didn't MB quietly drop the FSS oil monitoring system for the 2005 model year?
Speaking of SL600 Mercedes....
I caught a glimpse of one of those cars racing a BMW M3 in my rearview mirror in heavy traffic in the PA Turnpike (like two idiots) earlier this week.
Both cars got held up right in front of me, and it took a minute or so before a lane opened up for them to blast off again.
Much to my surprise, a small but distinct cloud of blue smoke emerged from the twin pipes on the SL600 as the car took off.
Hmmmmmm....
I caught a glimpse of one of those cars racing a BMW M3 in my rearview mirror in heavy traffic in the PA Turnpike (like two idiots) earlier this week.
Both cars got held up right in front of me, and it took a minute or so before a lane opened up for them to blast off again.
Much to my surprise, a small but distinct cloud of blue smoke emerged from the twin pipes on the SL600 as the car took off.
Hmmmmmm....
I only use synthetics in my high revving, hard working engines. Synthetics offer more protection at the ragged edge than a dino can offer. The only dino I'd use in the above situation is VR1 Racing, but I don't have a need for a thick 20W50.
"My personal feeling is that the synthetic blend oils will be the best solution overall. I am using the MC in my Expedition and the SL600 V12 Mercedes."
Hmmm.
Maybe synthetic blends are the answer. Good point...the best of both worlds and relatively inexpensive.
Hmmm.
Maybe synthetic blends are the answer. Good point...the best of both worlds and relatively inexpensive.
Not only have I had several go over the 400k mark on dino, my bro-in-law always raggs his loaded down with construction equipment on and off road, mainly highway miles, to the tune of 360-380+K and has to toast it for either body problems or wierd 'ghosts'.
My last one a Toyota was both, body problems and wired 'ghosts'... Maybe it didnt like me not stoping for
RR tracks and Speed Bumps
Any way I know of many many prople that go 300K+ and use dino. Theirs gets all gummed up mind you, but it still works okay.
Than MOST group II's. Not all ! There's always an exception.quote:
Originally posted by FordSVTGuy:
I agree with many of the things you say, but remember that synthetic oils like Mobil 1 can provide significantly longer drain intervals and add a measure of protection/cleanliness that even the group II oils of today cannot... If you use the syn oils the right way, they can be a good deal as well...
Bet I could. And the oil to compare would cost more.
Point is, Cost of Oil is not the only factor. Fuel savings and performance are built in too. Conside an oil that gave better gas milage, and think on todays gas prices. One oil I tested got me enough to lose just say about seveal bucks a day in Gas. Adding a fuel treatment, added an additional couple bucks
and the result with them as opposed without them is this.
Yesterday, a typical day for me I used 14 gallons.
Without them I would have spent an additional 3~ish gallons of gas or just say about 8.00 usd.
The synergestic effect of me spending about 80 Cents extra on fuel treatment and a total of about 4+fraction times your cost of oil, saved me on one single day 8.00 usd, then run the numbers. Some days I save only 2 bucks other days 4 or 6 bucks and many days 2-4 on each leg of my way of doing things.
And I already have 5000+ miles on the oil and plan to run it out to 10k, then after my court appearances
If I can I will change sooner or later after several tanks of gas start to not give me the same milage as they use to. Or just because I want to.
Any ways, the point is that even a small amount of a mpg difference can mean a couple bucks a month or more, a fill up, to the average Joe, at today's prices.
Bet I could. And the oil to compare would cost more.
Point is, Cost of Oil is not the only factor. Fuel savings and performance are built in too. Conside an oil that gave better gas milage, and think on todays gas prices. One oil I tested got me enough to lose just say about seveal bucks a day in Gas. Adding a fuel treatment, added an additional couple bucks
and the result with them as opposed without them is this.
Yesterday, a typical day for me I used 14 gallons.
Without them I would have spent an additional 3~ish gallons of gas or just say about 8.00 usd.
The synergestic effect of me spending about 80 Cents extra on fuel treatment and a total of about 4+fraction times your cost of oil, saved me on one single day 8.00 usd, then run the numbers. Some days I save only 2 bucks other days 4 or 6 bucks and many days 2-4 on each leg of my way of doing things.
And I already have 5000+ miles on the oil and plan to run it out to 10k, then after my court appearances
If I can I will change sooner or later after several tanks of gas start to not give me the same milage as they use to. Or just because I want to.
Any ways, the point is that even a small amount of a mpg difference can mean a couple bucks a month or more, a fill up, to the average Joe, at today's prices.
But the idea that synthetics yield better mileage than dinos isn't--as a rule--true.
In some cases one might switch to a syn from a dino and see better mileage, but there are just as many folks who show equal or even better mileage on dino oils.
It has more to do with viscosity and add pack--especially heavy doses of moly. And Havoline's lighter oils have 400+ ppm of moly these days, which is actually more than most syns on the market right now.
Dan
In some cases one might switch to a syn from a dino and see better mileage, but there are just as many folks who show equal or even better mileage on dino oils.
It has more to do with viscosity and add pack--especially heavy doses of moly. And Havoline's lighter oils have 400+ ppm of moly these days, which is actually more than most syns on the market right now.
Dan
"Yesterday, a typical day for me I used 14 gallons.
Without them I would have spent an additional 3~ish gallons of gas or just say about 8.00 usd."
Are you saying fuel add and oil added up to a improvement in mileage of 20%?
Sorry it is not possible, you can run water, ATF, Kryptonite or WD-40 you will only get an improvement of 3-4% any more than that and you had major engine problems.
But maybe I do not understand what you are saying I'm sorry then please explain to me.
Thanks
bruce
Without them I would have spent an additional 3~ish gallons of gas or just say about 8.00 usd."
Are you saying fuel add and oil added up to a improvement in mileage of 20%?
Sorry it is not possible, you can run water, ATF, Kryptonite or WD-40 you will only get an improvement of 3-4% any more than that and you had major engine problems.
But maybe I do not understand what you are saying I'm sorry then please explain to me.
Thanks
bruce
In general terms this is true. Not the rule but a good place to guess based on the market we have.
That said, the oil I use had no "moly pack" and yes its a dino.
Long and short of it is application, and the screw behind the wheel.
With coolant temps running 205-210F, and sump temps approximately 30-40F higher (or, 235-250F) per design, then the synthetic has the decided advantage of being able to deal with a failing cooling system. Number one neglected system on American cars is the cooling system. And they are prone to catastrophic failure. Engine oil provides most all the cooling of the bottom end, and overall is seen as dealing with as much as 40% of the engines heat rejection.
Until a "dino" can easily match this margin for failure -- and, as noted in an earlier post that the cost difference between dino & synthetic is insignificant over 200,000 miles -- then choosing a synthetic oil is a simple choice for this driver.
Arguing over pennies is fruitless as one's cost-per-mile -- all ownership costs -- is much more significantly affected by insurance, repairs and maintenance.
A new replacement engine is $$$$, and the cost of oil (if it can in any way help keep compression numbers up and blowby down for 12-15 yrs or 150,000-plus miles) is, again, insignificant.
Besides, none of it matters at all if there is even a small leak in the air intake system. As of this post there are about 450 threads under Air Filter at BITOG, and over 11,000 on Engine Oil.
The magic of marketing.
Until a "dino" can easily match this margin for failure -- and, as noted in an earlier post that the cost difference between dino & synthetic is insignificant over 200,000 miles -- then choosing a synthetic oil is a simple choice for this driver.
Arguing over pennies is fruitless as one's cost-per-mile -- all ownership costs -- is much more significantly affected by insurance, repairs and maintenance.
A new replacement engine is $$$$, and the cost of oil (if it can in any way help keep compression numbers up and blowby down for 12-15 yrs or 150,000-plus miles) is, again, insignificant.
Besides, none of it matters at all if there is even a small leak in the air intake system. As of this post there are about 450 threads under Air Filter at BITOG, and over 11,000 on Engine Oil.
The magic of marketing.
The magic of building on multiple falsehoods.
How many of you bother to order particle counts with your UOAs??? No, you don't see the whole picture. Granted, dinos do a fine job, as long as you stay within their envelope; physically, 30 wt fluids are all pretty much alike as far as separating two moving pieces of metal. But you'll have to tear down a selection of comparable engines run to 200k miles, half with 15k dino OCIs and half with 15k syn OCIs, and show me equal results before I'll buy the unqualified premise of this thread.quote:
Originally posted by fuel tanker man:
I think we do see the whole picture. I just think that many of you are too trusting of folks who urinate on your legs and tell you it's raining.
You see "all" within your narrow field of view, and smugly declare that that must be all, since you don't see anything else, not even dimly aware that there's more to see. You'd have been a lousy fighter pilot, FTM -- an Iraqi in a 30 year old MiG would bring you down from behind -- never seen and never considered, until, of course, his missile blew your tail off.
UOAs are fun and will alert you to bad trends or problems, but they are far from a "be all, end all." What are your last particle count trends? Done a tear down lately? Turn your head around some and look beyond where you're used to looking. . .
Okay. "Falsehood". Too strong a word. I'm tired, but willing to hear correction.
Here are references for "facts" (and my apologies to MolaKule and any others if the below is quoted leaving the incorrect impression):
Coolant Versus Sump Temperatures
Zoz, Steve, et. al., Engine Lubrication Model for Sump Oil Temperature Prediction
SAE Paper 2001-01-1073.
(Interesting Articles, 8/2003; paraphrase by MolaKule):
http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000196;p=0
Quote from post:
" . . on the average, the Oil Sump temperature is always 1.2 to 1.43 times higher than the coolant temp".
Average Coolant Temperatures
(from, MOTOR Magazine, 8/2003; first page):
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3828/is_200308/ai_n9294683
"When we talk about engine operating temperature, we're referring to average coolant temperature. For most late-model engines, this is in the range of 230[degrees] to 250[degrees]F. Thermostats are engineered to open in the range of 180[degrees] to 200[degrees]F. Heat transfers to the coolant as it circulates through the engine and the radiator then maintains the 230[degrees] to 250[degrees]F average."
Engine Cooling by Motor Oil :
(from, Interesting Articles, 6/2002; comment by Molakule):
http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000068;p=1
" . . Heywood's book
on "Internal Combustion Engines."
He starts with 100% fuel power (Energy/time)
and split the figures up. Here is the SI engine
data:
Brake - 27% (power to road)
Cooling - 25%
Oil - 14%
Exhaust 30% (end quote)
I've found in a Google search a number of references to "30% of engine cooling", but they were secondhand on retail sites or by editorialists and without attribution; I have no acccess to SAE papers to properly support or disprove.
In the same thread there is disagreement on the heat transfer abilities of synthetic versus, but I have seen no argument on this board of the superiority of synthetics over dino past, about, 280F [defined extreme service]. A coolant system failure, partial or total, leaves the engine oil holding the bag. Thus the point about having a margin for neglect or failure of the coolant system.
As to cost of ownership, if I use the EDMUNDS "True Cost to Own" feature to view the cost of buying, financing, maintaining, repairing, insuring and paying miscellaneous fees (see methodology employed), then my total cost in cents per mile, or CPM, is .46 for a 2001 Dodge Ram 1500. A total of $34,000 by the chart given.
Oil changes, even at my current cost of @ $50 at 7-8,000 miles equals about $400. Cheaper oil and filter at 5m miles would be 12 at $250. A difference of what percentage of my total cost?
What would be the installed cost of a new engine? $4000? More, less?
Am I to believe that a dino can, even in "normal" conditions exactly match a synthetic in engine cleanliness given comparable conditions? I've certainly seen engines that have run in excess of 150m miles, but they were not ever as clean as the ones run on synthetic.
As for the intake system, a spoonful of grit is all it takes. Yet we spend more time arguing over a small difference in oils.
For me, as stated, it is: margin of safety in preventing engine damge; an insignificant cost difference . . . and dirt infiltration is worth a whole lot more time in investigating and correcting.
Falsehood? Where?
Synthetics are my preference and that is stated as such.
Here are references for "facts" (and my apologies to MolaKule and any others if the below is quoted leaving the incorrect impression):
Coolant Versus Sump Temperatures
Zoz, Steve, et. al., Engine Lubrication Model for Sump Oil Temperature Prediction
SAE Paper 2001-01-1073.
(Interesting Articles, 8/2003; paraphrase by MolaKule):
http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000196;p=0
Quote from post:
" . . on the average, the Oil Sump temperature is always 1.2 to 1.43 times higher than the coolant temp".
Average Coolant Temperatures
(from, MOTOR Magazine, 8/2003; first page):
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3828/is_200308/ai_n9294683
"When we talk about engine operating temperature, we're referring to average coolant temperature. For most late-model engines, this is in the range of 230[degrees] to 250[degrees]F. Thermostats are engineered to open in the range of 180[degrees] to 200[degrees]F. Heat transfers to the coolant as it circulates through the engine and the radiator then maintains the 230[degrees] to 250[degrees]F average."
Engine Cooling by Motor Oil :
(from, Interesting Articles, 6/2002; comment by Molakule):
http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000068;p=1
" . . Heywood's book
on "Internal Combustion Engines."
He starts with 100% fuel power (Energy/time)
and split the figures up. Here is the SI engine
data:
Brake - 27% (power to road)
Cooling - 25%
Oil - 14%
Exhaust 30% (end quote)
I've found in a Google search a number of references to "30% of engine cooling", but they were secondhand on retail sites or by editorialists and without attribution; I have no acccess to SAE papers to properly support or disprove.
In the same thread there is disagreement on the heat transfer abilities of synthetic versus, but I have seen no argument on this board of the superiority of synthetics over dino past, about, 280F [defined extreme service]. A coolant system failure, partial or total, leaves the engine oil holding the bag. Thus the point about having a margin for neglect or failure of the coolant system.
As to cost of ownership, if I use the EDMUNDS "True Cost to Own" feature to view the cost of buying, financing, maintaining, repairing, insuring and paying miscellaneous fees (see methodology employed), then my total cost in cents per mile, or CPM, is .46 for a 2001 Dodge Ram 1500. A total of $34,000 by the chart given.
Oil changes, even at my current cost of @ $50 at 7-8,000 miles equals about $400. Cheaper oil and filter at 5m miles would be 12 at $250. A difference of what percentage of my total cost?
What would be the installed cost of a new engine? $4000? More, less?
Am I to believe that a dino can, even in "normal" conditions exactly match a synthetic in engine cleanliness given comparable conditions? I've certainly seen engines that have run in excess of 150m miles, but they were not ever as clean as the ones run on synthetic.
As for the intake system, a spoonful of grit is all it takes. Yet we spend more time arguing over a small difference in oils.
For me, as stated, it is: margin of safety in preventing engine damge; an insignificant cost difference . . . and dirt infiltration is worth a whole lot more time in investigating and correcting.
Falsehood? Where?
Synthetics are my preference and that is stated as such.
- Status
Similar threads
