Can't find the original message, but I read on here a couple of weeks ago a post that stated there was information that indicated that a blend of conventional and 25% syn was almost just as good as a full syn...any further on this? Is this true?
I think a correction needs to be applied to the above statement.. "With synthetic formulations, every aspect of the BASE oil is maximized" as this does not include the additives.quote:
Originally posted by GeorgeCLS:
Regarding semi-syn. It falls under the 'weakest link' rule. With synthetic formulations, every aspect of the oil is maximized. With the intro of mineral based components the chain is now weakened as every aspect of mineral base performance is not to the level of synthetic, thus every aspect of the synthetic performance is compromised. i.e. the weakest leak in the chain is now the mineral based component. Chain is now only as strong as the weakest link, mineral based oil. Not worth consideration.
George Morrison, STLE CLS
George,quote:
Originally posted by GeorgeCLS:
Regarding semi-syn. It falls under the 'weakest link' rule. George Morrison, STLE CLS
So, if you believe in the weakest link rule, wouldn't the carrier oils for the additive package be the weakest link in the full synths?quote:
Originally posted by msparks:
George,quote:
Originally posted by GeorgeCLS:
Regarding semi-syn. It falls under the 'weakest link' rule. George Morrison, STLE CLS
That is the best description I have ever heard about blends, I have always tried to explain it that way, but never came out right.
Now I can use the weakest link rule, to easily explain my position on blends.
Good Job!
Quote:
So what is the consensus today? Do you believe that this still stands true? I still am on the fence, one day I think only full synthetic, then the next, I may want to use a blend.