Dino better for engine "break in" period? Experts!
- Thread starter antiqueshell
- Start date
- Status
^Perhaps it's slightly better at covering the range of operational viscosity, among other characteristics, etc?
Patman
Staff member
Originally Posted By: addyguy
IF synthetics aren't 'slipperyer' than 'regular' oil, the WHY are they always used in applications calling for max fuel economy?
I'm not sure, but let's put it another way. If synthetic oils truly were more "slippery", wouldn't we see significantly lower engine wear in the used oil analysis posted on here? But after more than ten years on this site I have not seen that to be the case at all, many of the best used oil analysis on here have been with conventional oils.
IF synthetics aren't 'slipperyer' than 'regular' oil, the WHY are they always used in applications calling for max fuel economy?
I'm not sure, but let's put it another way. If synthetic oils truly were more "slippery", wouldn't we see significantly lower engine wear in the used oil analysis posted on here? But after more than ten years on this site I have not seen that to be the case at all, many of the best used oil analysis on here have been with conventional oils.
Originally Posted By: Patman
Originally Posted By: addyguy
IF synthetics aren't 'slipperyer' than 'regular' oil, the WHY are they always used in applications calling for max fuel economy?
I'm not sure, but let's put it another way. If synthetic oils truly were more "slippery", wouldn't we see significantly lower engine wear in the used oil analysis posted on here? But after more than ten years on this site I have not seen that to be the case at all, many of the best used oil analysis on here have been with conventional oils.
That's because conventional oils often leave considerable deposits. Those deposits, when tested contain large quantities of wear metals.
Aircraft engine manufacturers require mineral oil for break in. Interestingly enough, aircraft engines with oil consumption problems (poorly broken in rings) will often be "fixed" by a 50 hour run on mineral oils.
I know it's a different world, with air cooled engines, and huge tolerances. But, there is some validity to wear rates and oil type. Interestingly, aircraft engines show very little metals in used oil analysis. Yet, wear is rapid. But a test of the gunk deposited throughout the engine reveals where the metals go.
Originally Posted By: addyguy
IF synthetics aren't 'slipperyer' than 'regular' oil, the WHY are they always used in applications calling for max fuel economy?
I'm not sure, but let's put it another way. If synthetic oils truly were more "slippery", wouldn't we see significantly lower engine wear in the used oil analysis posted on here? But after more than ten years on this site I have not seen that to be the case at all, many of the best used oil analysis on here have been with conventional oils.
That's because conventional oils often leave considerable deposits. Those deposits, when tested contain large quantities of wear metals.
Aircraft engine manufacturers require mineral oil for break in. Interestingly enough, aircraft engines with oil consumption problems (poorly broken in rings) will often be "fixed" by a 50 hour run on mineral oils.
I know it's a different world, with air cooled engines, and huge tolerances. But, there is some validity to wear rates and oil type. Interestingly, aircraft engines show very little metals in used oil analysis. Yet, wear is rapid. But a test of the gunk deposited throughout the engine reveals where the metals go.
It depends on the honing finish (Ra) and pattern they used.
On a rebuilt that was honed with commonly found cylinder hones i would go with cheap dino and do some WOT with the engine pulling under load occasionally to promote a little ring and bore wear.
Modern production engines have a very fine plateau finish (almost mimicking a broken in bore) synthetic and conventional is a non issue as is engine break in for the most part.
On a rebuilt that was honed with commonly found cylinder hones i would go with cheap dino and do some WOT with the engine pulling under load occasionally to promote a little ring and bore wear.
Modern production engines have a very fine plateau finish (almost mimicking a broken in bore) synthetic and conventional is a non issue as is engine break in for the most part.
You guys corrected my use of "slippery" in defining engine oil frictional characteristics. Thank you.
Now it's time to correct the Red Line Company
From their Break In Oil additive description: "Allow piston rings to seat properly with less-slick oil".
http://www.redlineoil.com/product.aspx?pid=121&pcid=1
If I am missing something, please correct me (again). But, I do agree that new, modern auto engines can break in on either conventional or synthetic. My original point was that some companies/applications still recommend dino for break in, just not factory new auto engines.
Now it's time to correct the Red Line Company
From their Break In Oil additive description: "Allow piston rings to seat properly with less-slick oil".
http://www.redlineoil.com/product.aspx?pid=121&pcid=1
If I am missing something, please correct me (again). But, I do agree that new, modern auto engines can break in on either conventional or synthetic. My original point was that some companies/applications still recommend dino for break in, just not factory new auto engines.
- Status
