Beginning to have my doubts

[ekpolk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by fuel tanker man:
Hey...

One of you guys need to show me the consecutive Redline UOAs where the wear trends down. So far, not a soul has come up with such evidence. It's likely a myth--but I'll reverse my opinion if someone shows the UOAs.

We do have some consecutive Redline UOA's here--but not one of them shows a downward trend in wear metals.

The Havoline UOA I mentioned earlier shows wear metals at half or less the Universal Averages with the exception of the Lead. But with Lead UA's at 9 ppm at around 6000 miles, the 22 ppm lead at 13K isn't out of line with the averages.

As for the oil thinning then re-thickening--being a layman I don't know how that can be determined. Perhaps one of you can tell us how we can know that...

Nonetheless, the oil did a fantastic job of protecting the engine.

Dan

---

As to the thin-then-thick mechanism, what happens, IIRC, is that early in the OCI, the oil can shear down some and therefore become thinner. Later in the OCI, as oxidation becomes more of a factor, it thickens. I'd defer to Terry on this and certainly would not try to pick this pattern from a UOA myself. None of my vehicles have themselves done this.

I'm not sure that with that lead level you can say, without some qualification, that the oil did a great job.

I also agree with the poster above who pointed out that you need to reduce the raw wear numbers to "per thousand miles" to compare them on a fair basis. I pushed this idea with one of my earlier UOA posts, but for the most part, it has not caught on. I'd be more impressed with a syn showing a 10 ppm lead after 15k miles than I would be with a dino showing 5 at 3k miles.

Dang, I can't find anything else to disagree with you about...

 

[fuel tanker man]

Well. The UA's for lead for the 5.7 GM engine are 9 ppm for a 5096 mile average drain. That's about 1.5 ppm per thousand miles. That's the average.

The Havoline 13K UOA showed 22 ppm of lead. That's about 1.7 ppm of lead per 1000 miles. 1.5 is the average, and this engine did 1.7 while still breaking in.

The Havoline did a good job.

Dan

 

[Dad2leia]

I personally use synthetics for the overkill factors involved. I like having that extra edge of protection in my engine, and I really don't mind paying for it. I realize that I'm probably the odd man out feeling this way, but in today's super high tech, tight tunning, and sensored-to-death fast rpm engines, I say that they NEED and REQUIRE all of the protection that they can can.

Don't get me wrong, petroleum based products have come a LONG way from "your father's Oldsmobile" days of lubrication, but they are limited, limited to the fault that they are a natural based product. Natural based products have natural imperfections and natural good qualities, but as much as we try, we cannot refine/hydrocrack/whatever all of the impurities out of the basestock. There is always something left, no matter how miniscule. Synthetics are man made, can be made consistent, perfect, if you will, and can have any/all properties that the lubrication engineer desires.

Another factor that has been brought up before is actual molecular structure of the oil. Natural lubes have different sized molecules. Synthetics are uniform, period. All of the molecules are the same thing, replicated over and over again in the laboratory.

It seems the real stumbling block is the price issue. "I want the best protection , but I don't want to pay anything over $3.49 (give or take) for it." If you want the best, expect to pay a premium. If you want adequate, pay a fair price. If your a cheap ***, you get what you pay for. Plain and simple truths that nobody really wants to hear, but their they are.

And yes, I do read the information part of these forums....

 

[merlin64]

Well put, Dad2leia. I too use synthetic for similar reasons. As I change my own oil, I have calculated the additional cost of synthetic oil changes at about $400 for 10 YEARS of driving. I will only too giddily pay a $40 per year premium to ensure the health of my $5000+ engine. After all, we are talking about one tank of gas, or less, worth of cost per year.

Let's face it, in our world of $4 coffee and $50 fillups, the additional cost of synthetic is truely an insignificant line item in the family budget, IMO.

 

[Robbie Alexander]

quote:

---

the TBN was said to be 14.0 after the near 9K run. This calls into question the whole UOA.

---

FTM, a lot of what you say I can relate. But:
there are oils that can go very many miles and have high TBN's... and the advancements they are making in oils today, are staggering... what was a good oil just a year or two ago can now be half the quality in the "newly improved version, as it was once before, these oils are always changing, and the MFG's are not necessarily telling anyone every time they tweek or test or change a blend.

There are a handful of oils that Hold their TBN and do it well. In fact there are oils that can have TBN when dumped at 20K + miles that look better on paper than Bran New Virgin Oils right out of the bottle. I know you and others may not believe me, but indeed there are oils that you could use, in todays economy, that even after 20000 miles, their viscosity would be better and the TBN greater, than many other oils on the market.

 

[Audi Junkie]

I'm running Havoline, non-synth and taking a look at the real needs of the cars I service. I have jugs of Mobil 1 in the garage for MIL's car, and am thinking...what's the point? It burns oil like crazy now, if I put the M1 in...basicly money down the drain. Looking at Maxlife 5w-30 for winter and topping it with ML 10w-40.

 

[Winston]

quote:

---

also have to keep in mind many of the people using synthetic run extended drain intervals, from what ive seen 5-10k. so of course the wear metals in a synthetic uoa will be higher simply because the oil was in longer.

---

Wear metals per 1k miles go down with longer OCI. Look at the really high mileage OCI's. The wear per 1k miles is always really low.

 

[fuel tanker man]

Agreed, sxg6. But when we look at the dino versus syn issue when mileage is similar (or if we adjust the longer drain's numbers to make it commensurate with the shorter drain's numbers) we still see what I'm talking about.

The only exception I've seen here lately is in the 5.7 GM engine. We have a new 13,000 mile run on Havoline 5W30 dino oil, and within a week of that one being posted we have an Amsoil run of about 8900 miles on the same engine where wear numbers were (adjusted for length of drains) better than the Havoline's. But this Amsoil UOA, I must say, seems suspicious. Aside from the fact that it showed up as a "timely rubuttal" to the power of the Havoline dino to protect for 13K miles, the TBN was said to be 14.0 after the near 9K run. This calls into question the whole UOA.

If syns truly protect better at start up, then where is the extra metal coming from? Is the synthetic chemistry perhaps allowing rusting, or corrosion? If the syn is truly the more capable wear mitigator, why don't the UOA's indicate it?

Guys, I think if you'll do what I suggest and seriously peruse the UOA's here, you will see that what I say it true: Dinos seem to mitigate wear metals better than syns. Sometimes it's just a little better, and sometimes it's a lot. Maybe you can find a credible exception to what I'm saying. If you do, I'll be the first to congratulate you.

Gary, I don't think the synthetic oil users were necessarily being hoodwinked over the years. I just believe that dinos have "caught up." But it is, of course, possible to hoodwink folks for generations. Lots of folks still buy Fram oil filters, STP (which many of you here lament) and other such well marketed items.

Dan

 

[Bill in Utah]

quote:

---

It seems the real stumbling block is the price issue. "I want the best protection , but I don't want to pay anything over $3.49 (give or take) for it." If you want the best, expect to pay a premium. If you want adequate, pay a fair price. If your a cheap ***, you get what you pay for. Plain and simple truths that nobody really wants to hear, but their they are.

And yes, I do read the information part of these forums....

---

Then Mobil 1 at $5 a quart will protect atleast 10 times better than .49 cent a quart Chevron oil since it's more expensive!


You get what you pay for!

Guess all the cars that have hundreds of thousands of miles using cheap what ever is on sale oil could go millions of miles if they were not so cheap!

Got it!

Take care, bill

 

[Dad2leia]

Bill in Utah, my statements were a generalization of information. I DIDN'T say that it couldn't be done with petroleum based oil, but you've got to admit, MOST not ALL consumers could give a hoot about whether their oil is changeds on time, or at all. My inlaws and not so immediate family is proof of that. The inlaws are lucky they change oil (I usually keep up with it) and my step granddad says that oil NEVER needs to be changed, that it's a rip off from the oil companies.

I've had vehicles myself that were strictly petroleum, for couple hundred thousand, before I discovered synthetic oil, so yes, it CAN be done, but when there is something clearly superior out there, USE IT!!!

 

[fuel tanker man]

Yep. Some of you guys are still laboring under the assumption that you are getting better protection from the more expensive syns.

Check the UOAs. The wear metal counts do not support the notion that syns protect better. And if you want to assert that prevention of sludge build up--in lieu of better wear metal counts--is a good reason to use synthetic oils then I would submit to you that there are cheaper ways to keep sludge out of your engine. (And not to mention the fact that syns can make sludge too; the add packs are generally carried in petroleum bases).

If someone can find me two same model engine UOAs here--one on syn, the other on dino--where the syn shows better numbers than the dino--you would at least be able to partially bolster your point that you're "getting what you pay for" when you buy a synthetic oil.

Otherwise, you're just kidding yourselves.

Here's a direct link to the search function to get you started...

http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=search

Dan

 

[Dad2leia]

You go your way, I'll go mine. If petroleum was ALL THAT, they wouldn't have developed synthetics for the automotive engine. Now before you say it was the money making ability involved, I do realize that is has a profit ability attached to it.

I just like having the most ability of an oil possible. You can still COOK a petroleum based product a lot faster than its synthetic counterpart. I still use petroleum, in the inlaws car, so I can comment on both. Which is exactly what I did.

The choice is still yours to decide.

 

[ekpolk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by fuel tanker man:
Yep. Some of you guys are still laboring under the assumption that you are getting better protection from the more expensive syns.

Check the UOAs. The wear metal counts do not support the notion that syns protect better. And if you want to assert that prevention of sludge build up--in lieu of better wear metal counts--is a good reason to use synthetic oils then I would submit to you that there are cheaper ways to keep sludge out of your engine. (And not to mention the fact that syns can make sludge too; the add packs are generally carried in petroleum bases).

If someone can find me two same model engine UOAs here--one on syn, the other on dino--where the syn shows better numbers than the dino--you would at least be able to partially bolster your point that you're "getting what you pay for" when you buy a synthetic oil.

Otherwise, you're just kidding yourselves.

Here's a direct link to the search function to get you started...

http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=search

Dan

---

This thread is becoming a welter of competing claims. One of the problems I have with your approach, Dan, is that you make your own claims, and then expect others to step in and disprove them. Why don't you go sift out a statistically significant, comparatively valid, set of UOAs that prove your position? You can't do this yourself.

You also have not explained how these very simple and basic $20-50 UOAs offer conclusive proof of the level of protection offered by the oil in question. They really don't. Wear metals are only one part of the equation. You did recognize another narrow angle, sludge formation, but there are still more factors involved in what is a very complex interaction of parts and chemicals.

I think it's very clear that over the last 10-20 years, dinos have come a long way from the days when GM actually prohibited the use of 10w-40 and garden variety 5w-30s were most effective at leaving crud in engines instead of protecting them. But the fact that dinos have improved does not mean that they are as good as syns.

There are several different ways to define "good" and "bad" with respect to oil. Wear metal generation would be one. Another would be longevity (which itself can be defined several different ways...). I'll give you the wear metal angle, at least under normal operating conditions. But you have yet to prove to me that dinos can hold up for a long OCI the way a syn can. Report back after you've successfully run a fill of Havo in your car for 15k miles.

You're kidding yourself laboring under the assumption that a $25 UOA tells you all you need to know about an oil's performance. . .

 

[Gary Allan]

Welp, I think with 7 pages of batting this back and forth ..we've said just about all we need to say at this point. Let's let this topic emerge on another day in a new thread.