OK, I'm going to stir this up a little as I can see something that might need to be answered since synths are being held up in a shining light here.
It has been said more than once that full synths have better base oils and do more for your engine. Aside from the obvious of pourpoints, why is it that redline uses exceptionally high levels of
Ca, 3131 ppm
P, 1261 ppm
Zn, 1334 ppm
Moly, 557 ppm
Amsoil
ph 1440
zinc 1573
ca 3123
m1 ss
Mo 88
ph 1020
zn 1009
ca 3343
Havoline
Zinc: 2100
Calcium: 4169
Phosphor: 1593
Now notice that the numbers above seem to corelate with what schaeffers uses in these blends.
Mo 179
Ph 1435
Zinc 1374
Calc 3308
To quote TooSlick.."Esters also serve to provide solvency/detergency and function as supplemental anti-wear additives" The interesting one..Calcium levels in all of the above mentioned oils show to be considerably higher than any of the mineral oils... hmmm, calcuim is a dispersant/detergent additive. What will that do for an oil? oh yeah, help keep the tbn up longer, fight off acids and maybe help the base oil to live a longer life?
Zinc levels, again higher than normal mineral oils, thats an antiwear additive..
phos levels are higher than normal mineral oils, thats and antiwear and ep additive...
Are you seeing my picture here... Why is it, that these synths' with all the forces that the esters offer in their base stock oil run so much more of these additives than conventional mineral oils?
The Schaeffers blends, I think understandably needs those as it isn't a full synth... but the interesting point is, the blend that has been compared to m1 and amsoil's full synths and has maintained a good run along side these full synth's in little tests, has approx the same levels of ca,zn,ph and a little higher mo in most but a whole lot less than redline.. This is what bugs me about these statements, synths are better for wear protection..etc..., you sure it's really not the additional additives that your reading this into?
The other statement.."What you find in actual use is that additive depletion is slower with the PAO/Esters, given the same additive chemistry. So they are able to maintain their original properties longer under the same conditions. "
Didn't seem to hold true either comparing the numbers on the board. This again runs back to the basic additive chemistry, not so much the base stock as many oils ppm analysis show the actual additives and how much it contains in the oil and the tbn is showing the base oils ability to fight acids but this is also dependant on the detergents and antioxidant additives more so than the base oil.
So, back to the original question... Why is it if you look at all the oil analysis for virgin sample oils, you'll find that the synth's have higher levels of these additives than the standard mineral counter parts if the base oil does all of what you say? Would it not be reasonable that the synth's would require less as the base oil already offers all these advantages with out all of this assistance?