dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: gfh77665
Originally Posted By: GaleHawkins
That would be nice to see. To date I have not found any facts pointing to any passenger car legally driven in the USA on public roads will have any longer functional engine life running conventional oil that meets owner manual specs than running synthetic.
Try telling that to Honda 3.5L VCM owners. But before you do, look up some of the pics and posts Trav has posted here in the past. Good Luck.
The presumption here is that OCIs being equal? That is where the flaw resides.
Equipment longevity is a function of good maintenance practices. That does NOT mean that any one particular product or O/FCI is perfect and all others are hogwash.
Any engine can last equally long on either conventional or syn. The differnce is in the ROI for the OCI duration. A good maintenance program sets condemnation limits for wear rates, wear totals, contamination, etc. Then, you manage the package of products to that set of goals, and use the products that offer the highest return relative to the cost.
Using the VCM Honda as the example, it's not that syn will take the car further; that is bogus flawed logic. What you have to do is deterimine the safe OCI duration for any given product, and then find out which is the least cost alternative.
Example: Honda VCM and lube choices and filters.
1) use syn and Pure One filter; sustains your credible condition for 6k miles
2) use conventional and Classic filter; sustains your credible condition for 4k miles
Which is cheaper? If the more expensive option is greater than 50% cost, then it's cheaper to take the conventional route. If the syn is less than 50% greater in cost, it's cheaper to use the syn route. The premium route gave you 50% more distance; did it cost more or less than 50% to get you there? The POINT is to manage the system to an acceptable level of performance. You set criteria and judge each contender to that level. Then apply a cost analysis to see which allows the same condition to exist for less money.
Too many people try to back into this topic blindly. This is not unlike a current onoing thread in the gasser UOA section, but folks cannot see the forest for their blindness among the trees. If one says the following:
"I know syn is good for 5k miles, and I know it's best ...", I have to ask "Best contrasted to what?" Until you establish the abilities of some alternative, using fair criteria objectively viewed, then it's nothing but one-sided rhetoric.
If someone says to me that their engine failed by using conventional, my statement to them is that their lube didn't fail, their maintenance manager failed! If you allow your lube to be run into such a condition that it compromises the engine, then it's YOU at fault, not the lube. That tells me you cannot manage your conditions well and you make poor judgements. I don't care if it's conventional or syn; if you let the oil condition deteriorate to a point where it puts the engine at risk, then you're silly. That is not the lube's fault; it's YOUR fault for not managing the program effectively. To blame a lube for engine failure is to infer to me you have no idea how to manage a maintenance program. If you say to me "5k miles of conventional made my engine sludge up", then I'll say to you "You're an idiot for letting it get that bad." Further, if you over-ran a syn to the same horrific engine condition, it will still be just as bad, but you'd probably blame something other than the lube ....
Read my signature line; any product can be either over or under utilized. That is true of conventional and syn, standard and premium filters, etc.
There is ZERO assurance that syns will take an engine further than conventional. It is possible that they might be cheaper in that total lifecycle ONLY IF they can push the ROI out past the alternative.
Get it?
Premium products (syns and filters) are tools to try to extend the OCI such that there is a postive payout for their added expense. Nothing more; nothing less. There is zero data that proves premium products extend your lifecycle of equipment, when the alternatives are mangaged to the same fair condemnation points.
The issue at its core is this; folks arbitrarily set an O/FCI and then cram a product into it, rather than thoughtfully establishing safe condemnation limits, and managing their products to a fiscal resolution. It is the way we are programmed by marketing and our teachings from others. Only the truly inquisitive manage to break out of that mold.
Originally Posted By: GaleHawkins
That would be nice to see. To date I have not found any facts pointing to any passenger car legally driven in the USA on public roads will have any longer functional engine life running conventional oil that meets owner manual specs than running synthetic.
Try telling that to Honda 3.5L VCM owners. But before you do, look up some of the pics and posts Trav has posted here in the past. Good Luck.
The presumption here is that OCIs being equal? That is where the flaw resides.
Equipment longevity is a function of good maintenance practices. That does NOT mean that any one particular product or O/FCI is perfect and all others are hogwash.
Any engine can last equally long on either conventional or syn. The differnce is in the ROI for the OCI duration. A good maintenance program sets condemnation limits for wear rates, wear totals, contamination, etc. Then, you manage the package of products to that set of goals, and use the products that offer the highest return relative to the cost.
Using the VCM Honda as the example, it's not that syn will take the car further; that is bogus flawed logic. What you have to do is deterimine the safe OCI duration for any given product, and then find out which is the least cost alternative.
Example: Honda VCM and lube choices and filters.
1) use syn and Pure One filter; sustains your credible condition for 6k miles
2) use conventional and Classic filter; sustains your credible condition for 4k miles
Which is cheaper? If the more expensive option is greater than 50% cost, then it's cheaper to take the conventional route. If the syn is less than 50% greater in cost, it's cheaper to use the syn route. The premium route gave you 50% more distance; did it cost more or less than 50% to get you there? The POINT is to manage the system to an acceptable level of performance. You set criteria and judge each contender to that level. Then apply a cost analysis to see which allows the same condition to exist for less money.
Too many people try to back into this topic blindly. This is not unlike a current onoing thread in the gasser UOA section, but folks cannot see the forest for their blindness among the trees. If one says the following:
"I know syn is good for 5k miles, and I know it's best ...", I have to ask "Best contrasted to what?" Until you establish the abilities of some alternative, using fair criteria objectively viewed, then it's nothing but one-sided rhetoric.
If someone says to me that their engine failed by using conventional, my statement to them is that their lube didn't fail, their maintenance manager failed! If you allow your lube to be run into such a condition that it compromises the engine, then it's YOU at fault, not the lube. That tells me you cannot manage your conditions well and you make poor judgements. I don't care if it's conventional or syn; if you let the oil condition deteriorate to a point where it puts the engine at risk, then you're silly. That is not the lube's fault; it's YOUR fault for not managing the program effectively. To blame a lube for engine failure is to infer to me you have no idea how to manage a maintenance program. If you say to me "5k miles of conventional made my engine sludge up", then I'll say to you "You're an idiot for letting it get that bad." Further, if you over-ran a syn to the same horrific engine condition, it will still be just as bad, but you'd probably blame something other than the lube ....
Read my signature line; any product can be either over or under utilized. That is true of conventional and syn, standard and premium filters, etc.
There is ZERO assurance that syns will take an engine further than conventional. It is possible that they might be cheaper in that total lifecycle ONLY IF they can push the ROI out past the alternative.
Get it?
Premium products (syns and filters) are tools to try to extend the OCI such that there is a postive payout for their added expense. Nothing more; nothing less. There is zero data that proves premium products extend your lifecycle of equipment, when the alternatives are mangaged to the same fair condemnation points.
The issue at its core is this; folks arbitrarily set an O/FCI and then cram a product into it, rather than thoughtfully establishing safe condemnation limits, and managing their products to a fiscal resolution. It is the way we are programmed by marketing and our teachings from others. Only the truly inquisitive manage to break out of that mold.
Last edited:
