Further observations on syn vs. dino

[doctorb]

Thank you nickmckinney! In reading these threads I keep screaming "stick to the 6K premise" FTM started with.

This is all very interesting. I too was a M1 user until I came to this board and look at this information. Count me in the "switched to dino" group. I change my oil every 5K.

 

[jsharp]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jsharp:

quote:

---

Originally posted by T-Stick:
Further I might add, if used oil analysis have so many unidentifiable and thus uninterpretable variables, then there is no real basis at all by which to guage your engine's wear during extended drain. Yet Amsoil is the first to promote the accuracy of the used oil analysis in order to justify the extended drain interval. You can't have it both ways.

Here is a used oil analysis of my Tacoma with GTX (7.3K) and Syntec Blend (5k). I would like to see synthetic used oil analysis that surpasses it in a 3.4 litre with similar mileage.

http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=001528

http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=001004

---

I remember these. I was looking for them last night but forgot it was a Tacoma.

You've traded out some better numbers for worse numbers in other areas if you compare them to mine using 2 kinds of synthetic -

http://home.illicom.net/users/jsharp/personalphotos/OA/Toyota_oil_anaylsis_5.jpg

Which are better and how much longer will one engine last than the other?

---

I posted a link to 5 used oil analysis on my 3.4L Toyota, all synthetic. Care to point out how much better yours are using dino or a blend?

 

[ekpolk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by fuel tanker man:
{snip}If synthetics actually did produce markedly better wear metal counts in the "real world" we would have seen it here by now. There would be at least some used oil analysis in the archives here where that was the case. But no credible evidence to that effect has been brought forth at this time.

{snip}

---

Another false premise, and another instance of you simply ignoring those things that don't neatly fit in your preconceived view of how things are. So now, the only source of info we're allowed to consider in the syn vs. dino debate is the BITOG UOA collection -- and only those examples from it that you deem pertinent. You continue to side-step all the other evidence that's out there. For example, all those mfrs who spec syn only for their vehicles. Again, all those engineers just smoking crack when they called for syn-only? Gosh, its because those engines run hot (as you yourself said), and guess what -- dinos can't handle the heat, short or long term. You know, I think you just might see some extra wear metal when a dino fails in such an engine and the metal parts start rubbing w/o proper lubrication. You haven't had much to say about the recent Mercedes and VW dead engine debacles where dealers went cheap and used dinos instead of the called-for syns. But hey, feel free to ignore this too since it doesn't match your preconceived notion of how things are.

Our collection of used oil analysis is anything but a random and representative sampling of evidence representing "the way things are." Who comes here in the first place? Car care nuts, that's who. People who take good care of their engines and cars -- the very people we'd expect to see the best results from; careful dino users and careful syn users. In short, another reason why the global conclusions you draw from our UOA collection in favor of dinos just don't hold water. Where are the really bad results from those folks we all know who have cars who die early deaths??? Not there, of course, because those types never bother with used oil analysis in the first place.

You still continue to incorrectly characterize the metal counts we see on $20-50 simple used oil analysis as "wear" metal. You still haven't explained how you devine from these bare numbers what part of the number is actually from wear, and what part is from other sources. You can't of course. With particle counts, we'd start to have some more info on this, but very few BITOG-ers spring for PC used oil analysis, so at best, the jury's still out.

You claimed that those who disagree with you have been sifting the used oil analysis for results that don't match what you say, but have come up empty. I posted a number of results which directly contradict things you've said, but you just ignore that evidence and plow ahead pretending those facts aren't there.

I'm not putting any stock in your assertions until you find a way to integrate them with all of the facts that I can see with my own two eyes. So far, you've fallen far waaaay short. . .

 

[T-Stick]

In regards to start-up wear, the principle is certainly valid; but there is no data here which suggests it occurs in our normal USA climate in excess of synthetic oil wear. In fact the evidence appears to the contrary in the used oil analysis.

In regards to explaining going above 5k being risky:
1. There are a number of used oil analysis here above 5k where there were problems. I would not want to drive an additional 10-15k when I had a problem developing at 5k even if it was to establish an initial baseline for testing.

2. Any initially sound vehicle can easily develop minor problems within a 10-20k range which may not be detected because a number of used oil analysis were already done and everything was OK.
These issues may be non-issues at 5k OCIs, but can become serious detriments with extended OCIs.

3. The main issue with extended OCIs is not the TBN i.e. integrity of the oil; but rather the unavoidable accumulation of fine particulates.

There is less risk involved when running dino with 5k OCI than running synthetic to 10-20k. I believe that "normally" freshly installed dino at 5k will show less wear on an engine than synthetic with 5k worth of contaminants, during the next 5k, especially when the synthetic cannot show better wear in the first 5k. With extended OCIs there is always more contamination, hence always more risk.

I found it interesting when a technician of an oil analysis lab told me in a private e-mail that their records indicate a history of better protection on the average with dino over synthetic in most engines. In the strict scientific sense, this not empirical data -- obtained in a controlled environment under identical repeatable testing; but it certainly is evidence from which general conclusions may be safely drawn by a technician in this field.

 

[jsharp]

quote:

---

Originally posted by kanling:
Excellent thread.

So let us state the conclusions in a different way:
Synthetic Motor oils make sense for those who:
-Want to run long oil change intervals
-Operate frequently in extremely cold conditions
-Own a turbo or frequently run in extremely hot conditions (mountains, etc.)
-Those who are uncomfortable without doing the utmost to protect their engines (collector car owners, etc.) and cost of motor oil is not a concern.

I think there are plenty of people in those categories and that the synthetic dealers need not worry about losing customers due to this thread.

---

A lot of us have been saying those exact things for quite some time and used them as reasons for our choices of one oil type over another...

 

[Blue99]

quote:

---

Auto & Lube General Hospital it is...

---

FTM, as a tip, the undercurrent of editorial comments in this thread is what separates it from technical discussions on the main engine oil forum. Stick to the technical issues.

Yes, I probably agree with you, the Bitog UOA data base does not indicate a significant difference in wear metals for syn vs. conventional.

Blackstone also made that observation, on their website, at least a year ago.

As Terry Dyson often comments, wear metal analysis is not an exact science.

The wear metals in an oil stream can be from a variety of engine components, and from non-wear surfaces. And don't forget to include corrosive paticles, which may be a key, especially with synthetic oils.

A better method for wear measurement is needed to answer this question and I think the major engine testing labs will probably employ a radioactive tracing technique to very accurately measure syn vs. conventional differences.

IMHO, the better film strength of synthetic oils will generate less measurable wear over very long intervals, such as 100K miles, in an engine, than a conventional oil.

And used oil analysis, at every OCI for this engine, will demonstrate wear trends, but may not be an accurate indication of actual wear to wear surfaces and critical components.

 

[fuel tanker man]

Ekpolk, the "number of results" you posted was 2. Two links to extended drain OCI's on Mobil 1. One of the links was for an OCI which ran for a few years (though less than 15K miles) before the oil was drained and checked. And you assume (not to say you're wrong--but just to point out that you are in fact assuming) that dinos would have done much worse in the two instances you cited. Neither of these used oil analysis contradict my assertion that dinos are very favorably comparable to syns at wear reduction in reasonable length (5000 miles or so) OCIs.

I posted, in my original thread, several used oil analysis on same model engines where syn and dino were both used. There is relevance there, most folks will agree.

In order to effectively and directly contradict me, you (or someone else) would need to show two used oil analysis for the same model engine in about the same stage of its life.

How does posting links to extended drain used oil analysis do anything to counter my point that dinos mitigate wear metals just as well as syns do?

Dan

 

[Winston]

quote:

---

With extended OCIs there is always more contamination, hence always more risk.

---

There is always more contamination with higher mileage. However, the ppm of metals/1k miles drops with higher OCI.

quote:

---

There is less risk involved when running conventional with 5k OCI than running synthetic to 10-20k.

---

I have a problem with this statement too. There is probably less risk running syn to 7.5k than conventional to 5k. There might even be less risk running Mobil 1 Extended Performance to 10k than conventional to 5k.

 

[nickmckinney]

I still prefer synthetic in a manual gearbox, rear axle, power steering, etc. When I go road racing again I will run synthetic then as well.

However I came here a Mobil 1 man, I now have 3 cases of Havoline 5W20, Motorcraft filters, and VSOT in my garage thanks to BITOG.

 

[Pablo]

quote:

---

I found it interesting when a technician of an oil analysis lab told me in a private e-mail that their records indicate a history of better protection on the average with dino over synthetic in most engines.

---

I have seen the same email from Blackstone labs. I think it's on their website.

To me, it seems simple.

GOOD Modern AW additives prevent wear or should prevent wear. It doesn't seem to matter what base oil they are "dissolved" in. So what FTM, et al, are really trying to say (without statistical, randomized evidence) - there may be differences in
in brands of oils and add packs - but:

1) PPMwm (synthetic base) = PPMwm (petroleum base)

Let's a call this the null hypothesis (and you can also make one that says they aren't equal)

I will assume 1 is true. Again no analysis* has been presented and scrutinized, but we will assume it's true.

Taking the next tribological leap - it's only when you press the limits (so to speak) of the base oil (temp, pressure, time, etc) that (bad) things may start to happen. Some folks just want a base oil with better properties at these extremes. If you never press these limits, your wear metals may not show a delta.

* an analysis that accounts for ALL the variables. Essentially impossible and the reason FTM is figuratively flailing his schlong.

 

[T-Stick]

quote:

---

You still continue to incorrectly characterize the metal counts we see on $20-50 simple used oil analysis as "wear" metal. You still haven't explained how you devine from these bare numbers what part of the number is actually from wear, and what part is from other sources. You can't of course. With particle counts, we'd start to have some more info on this, but very few BITOG-ers spring for PC used oil analysis, so at best, the jury's still out.

---

It is understood that metal numbers do not necessarily always equate to wear numbers. But it is unreasonable to assume that they have no substantial correlation, when that is in fact what they are designed to indicate. No matter how this is explained, if synthetics tend to show higher metal numbers, it is most likely a reliable indicator of either higher wear or higher contamination, neither of which are normally a good thing.

 

[ekpolk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nickmckinney:
{snip}OK - SYNTHETIC LASTS AS LONG AS IT STAYS CLEAN - WE HAVE HEARD THIS OVER AND OVER ALREADY - GET OFF THIS SIDETRACK ALREADY!!!!!!!

Now can we please debate the question, does synthetic cause the same, less, or more wear up to 5K of use? Because 99.9% of the motoring public would laugh at a $20 used oil analysis over a $15 Jiffy Lube change.

Shoot 99.999% don't even know what a used oil analysis is

---

You can stick to a false premise if that's your druthers. I've kept going this way because I see the falsity of it.

What's your point about the proportion of the public that is uninformed about cars, engines, oils, etc. If they don't know or care what a used oil analysis is, then they're hardly going to be giving much thought to the relative wear characteristics of dinos vs. syns. . .

So, my $25 used oil analysis says "7" for iron and your says "9" over a span of however many miles you want, 3k, 5k, 7.5k. Who has more wear. You have absolutely no way to tell. How much corrosion do you have? No way to tell. Oh, you're lead is 2 ppm lower than mine. Is your wear lower??? You and FTM are just kidding yourselves. I will continue to throw the ** flag on this . . . even if you respond with your caps lock stuck. And I will continue to point out where you CAN see meaningful differences. If you don't like that, I'm sorry. If I start a thread on the premise that grass is blue and the sky is green, does that mean that no one is allowed to me I've got things bass ackwards?

I would also hasten to add that the name of this thread is "Further ovservations on syn vs. dino". . .

 

[T-Stick]

quote:

---

Which are better and how much longer will one engine last than the other?

I posted a link to 5 used oil analysis on my 3.4L Toyota, all synthetic. Care to point out how much better yours are using conventional or a blend?

---

I am not discounting your response at all, nor necessarily saying that mine is significantly superior or inferior. My premise was that I was not able (and was asking others) to find one UOA that showed any clear superiorority to mine, and the great majority of synthetic used oil analysis were definitely inferior. There is no basis from the data on this board which proves the advantages of synthetic in a 5k run. Furthermore the majority of the synthetic used oil analysis are below yours, which would make it rather the exception ... not?

----------------------------------------------

Those who insist on talking about extended drains and the necesary used oil analysis are simply

from the points in the opening post. No one ever denied their "potential" superiorority for extended drains -- it is not even the discussion. The fact that some feel compelled to bring it up shows they have no other way to counter the main premise on this particular topic. To those who point out a couple good extended drain results, I call to mind that there are also other reports of regular OCIs with synthetics which are inferior to those on conventional. Using their same logic, we could conclude then that all the few good extended OCIs are simply an anomaly, and inconclusive, with way too many variables to establish any kind of extended OCI premise. Again, each argument presented so far is a double-edged sword.

But most of all, if so many synthetic used oil analysis running up to 5k are showing themselves inferior in numbers to an equivalent conventional UOA in a "particular engine", why would anyone want to extend those largely inferior results into an extended drain interval, in that particular engine???? Why not change the oil with conventional to obtain another set of good 5k results??? Is the main object to see how long you can go till reaching the danger zone with an oil, or to use the best protection and OCI for that particular engine????

 

[ex_MGB]

I guess we're beginning to see the wisdom of Ex-Mo's oil strategy, 5k, 7.5k or 15k with EP.

Some people are in a position where they want once a year or 15k oil OCI's. I'm one as I have multiple vehicles out of warranty and the thrill of an oil change is gone.

There seems to be an underlying assumption in this thread that Mobil 1 Extended Performance for 15k is just hype. Personally, I highly doubt that is the case.

 

[ekpolk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by T-Stick:
{snip}

Those who insist on talking about extended drains and the necesary used oil analysis are simply

from the points in the opening post. No one ever denied their "potential" superiorority for extended drains -- it is not even the discussion. {snip}

---

Ummmmm, dude, you started this thread, and included in your initial post was this:

"3. You can run longer OCIs
This is typically true, though many of the longer drain intervals can compromise on increased wear and contaminants. Many engines will show a better used oil analysis with a dino at 5k than a synthetic at 10k (sometimes even 5k). The advantage of an increase of OCI may only be realized on some applications (taking an extended trip) and always poses a greater risk with increased contaminant levels. Oil can be changed easier than wear metals can be reinstalled back in an engine."

That, coupled with the title of the thread, which again, you wrote make the comments regarding the longer OCI aspect of syns very relevant to the discussion. I'm simply amazed at how some seem to have a preference for dealing in part- or half-truth. If the point is not to discuss, then why does this forum exist? You might just as well have titled it, "Everything I ever thought about oil is true." Then, set as a discussion parameter, "those who don't agree with me need not respond..."

Look, if you want to play the half-truth game, fine. Even in that constrained view, I respectfully don't buy the idea that conventional and synthetic oils are on exact parity in the strict short drain context. Most of you are reading these simple, cheap used oil analysis as if they generate complete, conclusive always-accurate truth. They just don't. They can't for the money. Alas, almost none of us can afford to do big-buck gas chrom. or other sophisticated tests every time.

None of you have yet explained how you parse apart the values for wear metal vs. other-source metal from a $25 used oil analysis. . .

Are you really telling me that the inside of the engine is seeing the same thing at 5k miles when it's filled with 95% exhausted dino vs when it's filled with a syn that will be good for another 10k miles? How do you discern this from your $25 used oil analysis? I'll save you the trouble: you can't.

 

[fuel tanker man]

quote:

---

Originally posted by T-Stick:

Those who insist on talking about extended drains and the necesary used oil analysis are simply

from the points in the opening post. No one ever denied their "potential" superiorority for extended drains -- it is not even the discussion. The fact that some feel compelled to bring it up shows they have no other way to counter the main premise on this particular topic. To those who point out a couple good extended drain results, I call to mind that there are also other reports of regular OCIs with synthetics which are inferior to those on dino. Using their same logic, we could conclude then that all the few good extended OCIs are simply an anomaly, and inconclusive, with way too many variables to establish any kind of extended OCI premise. Again, each argument presented so far is a double-edged sword.

---

That point bears repeating--so I'm doing so.

T-Stick hasn't denied the potential for syns to run longer.

That has nothing to do with wear metal mitigation potential in syn versus dino in 5K OCI's.

How many times must this be emphasized?

Do others of you out there understand my and T-Stick's points?

It's as if someone asks the simple question:

Which brand of tire might last the longest on my station wagon--Good Year or Michelin?

And instead of answering that simple question, a man goes into a diatribe about how the Michelin holds the road better, or gives a smoother ride, and commences to telling you why tread-depth gauges don't tell the whole story, etc...


Dan

 

[ekpolk]

And how many times must I repeat it ... T-Stick defined a broader set of issues than you did. He invited discussion of the longevity issue, having brought it up in the initial post in his own thread. To his credit, at least at that point, he was taking a more meaningful view of the complete truth of comparing dinos and syns.

I see your point, I really do, but I think you have to stop short after you state that dinos do just fine in the short-run, and not take the leap and make broadbrush, scientifically unsupportable comparisons of them to the synthetics.

 

[T-Stick]

I can see your point to a degree -- that the study could have been done better -- and more definitive data could have been obtained (which can be said for almost all testing). But on the other hand this is no basis for summarily dismissing the findings from the study entirely. In every case we examine, you seek the minute variables to discount the whole. If you equally apply this to anything you have posted, you are left with no support for anything you have said.

In your statistics training were you taught to dismiss everything on the basis of the possibility of a small variable??? It is interesting that in each case we examine and you dismiss, the data infers the same conclusion -- the opposite of your position. As the evidence mounts you are left with nothing to defend your case but the disputation of methodology -- which same criteria, when applied to your own position, leaves it unsupportable.

 

[fuel tanker man]

Gary,

I wasn't trying to make the argument that dinos are better than syns in all applications--I realize that isn't the case. I agree with Buster and others here that in extreme cold situations and in racing applications and in engines which are deemed by the manufacturer to benefit from synthetic oil--that synthetic is indeed best.

For the vast majority of us who are using 5K and shorter drains--is syn best? That's the question... Might I benefit my engine by using a syn in 5K drains--or would I be wasting my money?

This question seems pertinent, and I believe the debate should be free from tangents such as extended drain potential. If someone wants to claim that short dino OCIs will cause sludge to form and build up in your engine--that's a legitimate point to bring to the table. But the incessant banter of extended drains and links to extended drain results is, as T-stick has pointed out better than I, OT .

I don't see anything wrong with setting aside and discussing this singular issue. That's the best way to "get to the bottom" of a matter in my opinion.

Dan

 

[T-Stick]

"Can this be condensed to "They aren't worth it."

_____________________________________________

Years ago, yes, when dino was way behind synthetics. For the criteria I described, probably not. Not only has dino significantly improved, but we have found out that the claims of some syn companies are largely suspect when checked via used oil analysis. Synthetics will always have their place in specialized applications, as add packs, if petroleum shortages come, if the whole engine industry designs around it. My comments are based only the criteria I identified.