Further observations on syn vs. dino

[fuel tanker man]

I would have thought ekpolk would have liked this part of the CR study:

"Determining whether synthetic oils last longer than conventional ones would require a separate test project. To try to get some indication, we put Mobil 1 synthetic into three cabs and changed their oil every 12,000 miles.

We intended to compare the results of these tests with those from the three taxicabs whose Mobil 1 was changed at our normal interval, every 6,000 miles. Unfortunately, two of the three engines using the 12,000-mile interval developed problems. (We couldn't attribute those problems to the oil.) The third engine fared no worse than the three whose oil had been changed at 6,000-mile intervals."

The CR study also, according to the text, tested Pennzoil's synthetic in 10W30, and Valvoline's Dura-Blend semi-syn. In the 6000 mile runs, all oils performed equally at wear metal control.

Dan

 

[ekpolk]

Not to rabbit trail this again, but the blend is just that a blend, so it can't be plainly put in one category or the other. The Penz involved is a Group-III. Whether you call it a syn or a dino is up to you, but it is a fluid of a different origin than the PAO based M1. But even if you just grant those two "synthetic" status, it's still at best three vs. 15 or so. Still far from a balanced sampling. I think this little CR project would have carried a lot more persuasive weight if they had run an approximately equal number of different G-IV/V oils side by side with their dino cousins.

But again, of greatest concern, the use pattern is so atypical with respect to the consumers who were offered the data that I seriously doubt that the average consumer can use it to make a better choice for him or herself. CR clearly spend some money on this project, though I think the $ would have been better spent if they perhaps had "issued" a rotating set of test cars to a somewhat random group of civilians and let them run the oils under conditions more like the average consumer confronts in his "driving life."

 

[Winston]

quote:

---

But is the real thing all that simple and one dimensional??

---

This is what makes it so difficult.

You have bearing, cylinder wall, cam wear, and timing chain wear. All different.

You have cleanliness and seal pliability.

You have HTHS and Cold Cranking.

You have the "disired" life of your car. 100k or 300k.

You have viscosity modifiers that shear which are required for dino but not as much for syn.

Synthetic beats dino in some of these areas. But not necessarily all of them.

 

[ekpolk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by fuel tanker man:
{snip}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.

---

For stand-alone issues, sure. I, as you've probably surmised by now, don't see this as a stand-alone issue. Too many factors are intertwined and interdependent. Take, for example, the tendency of some dino multi-grades to shear down out of grade. This can have bearing (ooops) upon both the viability of the oil in the short term, upon formation of deposits, and upon the ultimate point of failure. This one phenomenon can lead you in several directions at the same time. Likewise, looking at metal accumulation by itself, and not considering the things its caused by, and the things it causes, shuts you off from considering other things that may bring death to your engine long before simple metal loss does.

 

[fuel tanker man]

How could one "bring death" to an engine without involving metal loss?

 

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

How could one "bring death" to an engine without involving metal loss?

---

Well ..technically you truly can't ..but that's not saying that the death of an engine had anything to do with lubrication related isssues. You can snap a crank, snap a cam, have a piston decide to take a trip ..and a few other things that I'm sure our broad membership can attest to the occurance of.

 

[1sttruck]

"How could one "bring death" to an engine without involving metal loss?"

Sludge, where typical used oil analysis have failed to pick up sludging problems.

Sticking rings/worn valve guide seals resulting in high oil consumption and heavy pollution, where typical used oil analysis won't pick that up either. One could add worn main seals resulting in continual oil contamination of a manual clutch.

Major component failures, where big parts are trapped in the oil filter or are not otherwise detected in the typical UOA. See the diesel UOA forum for a good example, and some aircraft maintenance sites for others.

Leaks in the fuel injection (I'm cheating as it's usually not an oil lubed system) resulting in a fire.

Poor radiator fluid maintenace (cheating again) reslting in corroded freeze plugs that leak excessive fluid.

 

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

quote: But is the real thing all that simple and one dimensional??

This is what makes it so difficult.

You have bearing, cylinder wall, cam wear, and timing chain wear. All different.

You have cleanliness and seal pliability.

You have HTHS and Cold Cranking.

You have the "disired" life of your car. 100k or 300k.

You have viscosity modifiers that shear which are required for dino but not as much for syn.

Synthetic beats dino in some of these areas. But not necessarily all of them.

---

At least in the confines of a relatively short OCI in regard to UOA.

 

[fuel tanker man]

Winston says: "Synthetic beats dino in some of these areas. But not necessarily all of them."

And Gary says: At least in the confines of a relatively short OCI in regard to UOA.

Gary... are you saying that you agree that dinos look better on used oil analysis than syns (on short OCIs)?

 

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

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

---

Okay ...the bold text is the REAL question here. That allows a much broader case for synthetics to be offered as opposed to just looking a 5k used oil analysis.


I use synthetics ..and I use them in any application that it makes sense to. My OCI's are 6 months. The mileage runs anywhere from 10k ..down to 5k (although the 5k one somehow managed to slip through the cracks to one year/9.5k

). I have a 4 season climate and I chose to run 40 weight oil in my jeeps.

In that/those service(s) a synthetic offers me things that dinos cannot. I have superior VI over like weighted dinos. I have the viscosity that I appear to need without near as much warm up penalty ..and can care less about it making the 6 month time frame.

Sure there are dinos that can accomplish a 6 month OCI ..regardless of the mileage (probably the HDEOs)..but not without trade offs in other areas.

That's why I tend to recommend a 6 month OCI to just about every average driver. I then qualify it with saying that if you have a 4 season climate of decent severity .. or do an inordinate amount of miles within the 6 month time frame ..you may consider a synthetic as a perferred option.

Now someone racking up 30 miles a day on a 6 day basis ..in South Carolina that doesn't do any towing or have a performance application (or a known design flaw)

..there would be no reason to not use your garden variety dino of choice in a 5w30 and be happy.

 

[ekpolk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by fuel tanker man:
How could one "bring death" to an engine without involving metal loss?

---

A good stiff dose of sugar in the gasoline would provide an accelerated, if somewhat artificial, example. A rapid overheat resulting in structural deformation (warped head, etc) would be a more "natural" example. Otherwise, as noted by 1stTruck (sludging, etc).

 

[T-Stick]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ekpolk:
Not to rabbit trail this again, but the blend is just that a blend, so it can't be plainly put in one category or the other. The Penz involved is a Group-III. Whether you call it a syn or a conventional is up to you, but it is a fluid of a different origin than the PAO based M1. But even if you just grant those two "synthetic" status, it's still at best three vs. 15 or so. Still far from a balanced sampling. I think this little CR project would have carried a lot more persuasive weight if they had run an approximately equal number of different G-IV/V oils side by side with their conventional cousins.

But again, of greatest concern, the use pattern is so atypical with respect to the consumers who were offered the data that I seriously doubt that the average consumer can use it to make a better choice for him or herself. CR clearly spend some money on this project, though I think the $ would have been better spent if they perhaps had "issued" a rotating set of test cars to a somewhat random group of civilians and let them run the oils under conditions more like the average consumer confronts in his "driving life."

---

No doubt it could have been "better" in order to draw some more broad-based conclusions. However this test does measure actual wear and does tell us this:

1. Synthetic oils do not offer measureable wear advantages in all engines over other similar engines using conventional, hence it cannot be said that synthetic advantages are real advantages to all engines. Nor can it be said that using a syn instead of a conventional in your engine will prolong its life. It may or may not.

2. If running a syn for 6,000 miles in your engine does not show any additional wear advantages, adding another 6k will not make it any better.

3. What conclusions may be drawn from this actual "wear study" does correlate with the results indicated by metal numbers from our data of used oil analysis, proving that the metal numbers do relate to actual wear to some degree, in that in both tests syns cannot establish any superiorority in the first 5k under normal operating conditions.

-----------------------------------------------
*If we have used oil analysis on certain engines which are better with a conventional than a syn in the first 5k, why would a person want to run the syn any longer and have the oil degrade even further, when changing to a conventional will give better them better wear protection in that engine? That is the whole point in this thread. If a conventional shows itself superior over a syn in 5k miles in a particular engine, that should tell us what the better oil is to use for maximum protection in that application. Adding additional miles to the syn only makes that situation even worse. So the 5k results are entirely relevant as a standard of judgement for normal applications.

 

[ekpolk]

T-Stick:

C'mon. I know this sounds like a finger in the eye, but have you ever taken a science or stats course? You're stating definite, broad conclusions as if one screwball study, with numerous flaws, performed by an organization with known biases and an active agenda, is all mankind needs to establish fundamental truth. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Problems, just a few of them, each of which would call into question your global, unqualified conclusions:

1. They're taxicabs. They get started up, and run all day. They are not subjected to anywhere near the cold starts per mile of use that a normal private vehicle would be. If you'd at least agree that there's a question about relative protection, dino vs. syn at startup, you can see a huge skew right there.

2. They used only one brand of true syn and of that in only one grade (10w-30). It's absolutely amazing that you'd generalize to making claims about syns in general based upon one test of one brand in one grade. Thats virtually the antithesis of competent sampling. You think you could predict the performance of, say, Amsoil S3000 5w30 from what a 10-year-old version of Mobil 1 10w30 did in taxi service? Of course not, but that's what you're doing anyway.

3. They used only one type of engine, the GM 4.3L V-6, with modded internals. Actually, as single choices go, this probably was not too bad an idea. I have not noticed that this engine has a particularly good or bad rep, so probably not much distortion from engine effects. But that said, you'd need to try several groups of different types and configurations of engines, and see from each a consistent pattern before you can start generalizing about oil instead of just oil in this engine. I think the only solid conclusion you can draw from this "study" is that strangely modified GM 4.3L V-6 engines are easy on oil. Big deal.

Could have been better??? Yeah, and Ted Bundy could have been a better person too. Look, if the propositions you believe in are so self-evident, there should be a lot more evidence out there, competent evidence, not this hokey NYC taxi mess.

BTW, my list is not all-inclusive. Must stop. I've got 325 miles of driving ahead of me this evening. See you all tomorrow.

 

[fuel tanker man]

The thing for you synthetic afficianados, though, is this:

No matter how extensive...

No matter how meticulous...

No matter how well regimented...

No matter how well funded...

No matter how all inclusive...

No matter how "real world perfect" the study is--you guys would take potshots at the outcome if it didn't show synthetics to be superior. There's not a doubt in my mind about that.

Oddly enough, it seems that in order for a man to remain firmly ensconced in the "syn camp" he must believe the following:

1. The Consumer Reports study was flawed and/or deliberately biased and therefore provided no useful information.

2. The used oil analysis here at BITOG--extensive as they may be--are not typical of what synthetic oils are really capable of in the "real world."

3. Blackstone Laboratory's observation and commentary that conventionals seem to show lower wear metals than syns in short drains is meaningless information from a novice source.

4. Copper and iron readings in synthetic used oil analysis aren't likely to have come from actual component wear.

5. If wear metal counts can be determined to have come from corrosion rather than actual wear that is somehow a good thing.

6. Synthetics reduce engine wear on start up, but this is something that used oil analysis are not capable of indicating.

7. Two thirty dollar used oil analysis along the course of a 15000 mile OCI plus twenty-five dollars for the oil is a more feasible approach to engine maintenance than three twelve dollar conventional oil changes in that same interval.

 

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

Oddly enough, it seems that in order for a man to remain firmly ensconced in the "syn camp" he must believe the following:

1. The Consumer Reports study was flawed and/or deliberately biased and therefore provided no useful information.

---

No, I wouldn't word it that way. It was probably the best attempt to determine the advantages, or lack there of, of synthetics in taxi cabs. Not too many dispute that oil lubricates. Under the confines of taxi cab use, the differences are not as apparent as they would be in passenger car use. The only problem is when you introduce a bunch of variables that would add compounded insult to the mix. Now it's assumed that taxi cabs take a beating. I would probably say that they do in terms of transmission (many more shifts) and the chassis (brakes, suspension, tires, etc.) ..but I think the oil remains at a fairly decent temp. The infamous "warm up" wear that the fine Dr. Aehaas via the reknowned Schieder remarks about is vitually non existant (probably representing 90% of all wear in consumer owned vehicles). The test virtually eliminated most of the detractors to conventional ..and eliminated virtually all the advantages of a synthetic.
Are you saying it was a good representitive test?

quote:

---

2. The used oil analysis here at BITOG--extensive as they may be--are not typical of what synthetic oils are really capable of in the "real world."

---

Most here aren't. They're used by anal and over cautious people who have too much money in their wallet and insist on the best. Why else would you use a synthetic for 3k/3m OCI. But, hey, it's their money. There has got to be something in your life you waste money on. If not, can you share a few hundred thousand of your million $$ savings? I could use it right now.

Seriously though ..there are many here who get enough utility out of a synthetic to justify their use. Or let me reword that. There are FAR MORE who under utilize their conventionals than those who under utilize their synthetics. There are still plenty here that are stuck in the 3k/3m prison ..for no good darn reason than because of habit. Quite a few synthetic users are older and aren't running themselves ragged ..and they don't put a whole bunch of miles on. When you see a 5k used oil analysis with a synthetic ..it could easily be a 6 month OCI ..for that individual, an alternative to 3month OCIs with a conventional.

You can also assume that a few of us here aren't into making a career of handling drain oil and spending our Saturday morning on car maintenance. Sure it may be fun ..or maybe it was fun and right now we've got other things to do with our time. Maybe heading to the casino or some other resort is more important than the money spent on one oil change and a used oil analysis. That is, under your formula ..your time has no value ..or a low value. Some don't consider it so. Me? I'm lazy ..at least when it comes to routine things. I enjoy the fact that two of my vehicle can get serviced twice a year and I don't have to worry about it. I've already proven the oil will go well beyond the distance (I've done my endurance runs) and have chosen a more practical routine.

quote:

---

3. Blackstone Laboratory's observation and commentary that conventionals seem to show lower wear metals than syns in short drains is meaningless information from a novice source.

---

I would say that they are most meaningful to the individual user. That is, "here are my results in my use with this oil in my engine". It would be difficult to say that those same (or like) results would be realized by anyone else. It may give you an idea on the characteristic nature of used oil analysis with certain engines. For example ..4.0 jeep engines shed Fe like dandruff compared to other engines. So I can reduce my Fe with whatever I do in my service ..but my Fe may have no corellation to anyone else's 4.0. Theirs can be half ..twice ..or identical. That's why it's always said that trends are important.

quote:

---

4. Copper and iron readings in synthetic used oil analysis aren't likely to have come from actual component wear.

---

Who knows? They may be "side effect" indicators. No one likes them ..but they live with them for the other advantages that the synthetic offers. Your point?

quote:

---

5. If wear metal counts can be determined to have come from corrosion rather than actual wear that is somehow a good thing.

---

No ..it's a determined thing. You know why it's occuring. I think the term corrosion is misapplied ...but we'll let it sit there.

quote:

---

6. Synthetics reduce engine wear on start up, but this is something that used oil analysis are not capable of indicating.

---

Well, I won't say that. I'll say that they "may" reduce some wear in extreme cold startup conditions. They WILL reduce parasitic losses during warm up for any engine when compared to a like viscosity conventional. No two ways about it.

quote:

---

7. Two thirty dollar used oil analysis along the course of a 15000 mile OCI plus twenty-five dollars for the oil is a more feasible approach to engine maintenance than three twelve dollar conventional oil changes in that same interval.

---

For some ..yes. For others ..no. Most of those doing those used oil analysis are doing two things. They are determining their limits ..and they enjoy playing with oil (curiosity). I found my limits ..now it's a once a year check up ..and 6 month OCIs. My cost, about about $60 for 18-20k. Not too bad if I can do that for another 80k (180k on the odo) ..by then I may have other issues to deal with

You can ask msparks or Doug Hillary about bypass filters. They will both redily admit that you probably will be doing more for the next owner of your car than you are for yourself in terms of engine wear realized savings. The same can surely be said for synthetics. Most will not have their vehicles that long. You can also make that arguement of used oil analysis.

So ...what does all this mean? Got me swinging from the lamp post

 

[Gary Allan]

FTM - I'll make the concession. There's no clear advantage to synthetics over a short duration in terms of used oil analysis presented in like mileage comparisons over mileage only determinations.

The one dimensional view was constructed from the get go to allow no other conclusion. The ultimate underlayment being "they aren't worth it". Now that you've got your pillar of truth to hold up that opinion ...let that underlayment be subjected to assault.

You could force the creation of a bunch of other threads to offer theses POVs ..and you can just not participate in them and rest on your laurals of this single trophy banner being held in tribute as the chariot marches down before the masses.

But is the real thing all that simple and one dimensional??

 

[T-Stick]

ekpolk,
By my acknowledging that syns are better for extended drains up front, I was making it obvious that it was not the point in the debate at all. The issue is whether the average driver in average circumstances gets better protection from a 5k dino change than from an extended syn usage. The used oil analysis here suggest that. So your insistence upon what was admitted up-front so as not to be debated is indeed "off-topic."

Secondly, in addition to the used oil analysis data we introduced to this particular discussion, FTM cited the consumer survey study. You summarily dismiss this primarily on the basis of variables, not enough tests, and their credibility. Were I to apply this same logic to your extended [off-topic] syn used oil analysis, I would have to also say they prove nothing because:
1. you have not taken at least 10 samples duplicating the exact same conditions
2. there are too many variables in a used oil analysis to determine if the metals are indicative of wear or not
3. We do not know if you are a credible source of information, as the used oil analysis numbers may be entirely fictitious as they were not posted by the lab, and the miles cited may be entirely bogus!

So now we must conclude, ON THE BASIS OF YOUR OWN CRITERIA, that you do not have any real-life data to support any of your arguments -- whether they are on or off topic!

 

[T-Stick]

For clarification to all:
My premise is not anti-synthetic, or that it is not superior in some applications; but rather that: for the normally aspirated engine, driven under normal conditions, in a temperate climate, by the normal American driver who will not do used oil analysis; he will be probably be better served by a 5k dino change than an extended syn change, in relation to the longevity of his engine. That premise I believe is supported by the large number of used oil analysis here.

This not stacking the deck or forcing the issue. If syns are clearly superior in all applications, they would show their worth within this given criteria, FOR THIS CRITERIA REPRESENTS THE MAJORITY OF AMERICAN DRIVERS.

 

[ekpolk]

No T-Stick, that's not right. You continue to misunderstand both what I'm saying and the proper use of data and statistics. You also don't have your facts correct. Dan cited the notorious NYC Consumer Reports taxicab "study." It was not a "consumer survey" in any way, shape for form. The gruesome design flaws are obvious, and I've cited them already (do you not see the problem with sampling 17 of one thing, one of another, and then making a comparison???). And once again, if you can't discern the difference between the type of broad conclusion you're trying to draw, and the way I suggest using UOA data, then you really still need to take that statistics class.

 

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

For clarification to all:
My premise is not anti-synthetic, or that it is not superior in some applications, but rather for the normally aspirated engine, driven under normal conditions, in a temperate climate, by the normal American driver who will not do used oil analysis, he will be probably be better served by a 5k dino change than an extended syn change, in relation to the longevity of his engine. That premise i believe is supported by the large number of used oil analysis here.

---

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