Is there any solid scientific evidence that Mobil 1 is good for extended drains?
- Thread starter TooManyWheels
- Start date
- Status
Patman
Staff member
There is no way that a synthetic oil is only 10% better than a dino oil. I can think of quite a few areas where synthetic is better, even if you change the oil every 3k. For one, try running that dino oil when it's -50 degrees outside. Better get ready to walk to work.
Also, what about the viscosity? Most 5w30 dino oils will shear back to a 20wt long before the 3k mark. Most 5w30 synthetics barely change their viscosity at all during a 3k interval. And what do you think happens inside the engine when a dino oil thins out? It's certainly not going to be very clean inside there!
I have a feeling this thread is just going to continue on and on without any resolution though.
Also, what about the viscosity? Most 5w30 dino oils will shear back to a 20wt long before the 3k mark. Most 5w30 synthetics barely change their viscosity at all during a 3k interval. And what do you think happens inside the engine when a dino oil thins out? It's certainly not going to be very clean inside there!
I have a feeling this thread is just going to continue on and on without any resolution though.
I am one of those folks that is neither a scientist, engineer or professional mechanic. I, like many, do my own auto maintenance on my cars and motorcycles for which I have the tools for. The only time my cars see a dealer is for warranty work. I probably know most of what I don't know and acknowledge my limitations when necessary. Having said that, this is how I 'feel' about the applications to this thread.
I used dino (Catrol I believe) for many years up until about 1994 and changed my oil every 4K miles or something appoximating the OEM schedule; no engine failures. I became a believer in synthetics and have been using them (M1) ever since and change my oil at intervals approximating the longer OEM schedule (about 6K miles). Will I change back to dino? Nope. It doesn't matter to me if the paper difference is 10%, 5% or 40%. I 'feel' the benefits of synthetics (or a blend like Schaeffers) far outweigh the nominal cost difference. I feel my engines are getting the best and will run better, longer and cleaner. At the extreme, we might be talking about an extra $100/yr. Heck, I pay $5 for a beer at any local bar and $75 for dinner with some bimbo. If I am being scamed for paying the difference between dino and synthetic, so be it.
Will I run these oils beyond the OEM long interval recommendation even after the warranty is over. Nope. Probably could but then again, the cost to me is nominal, I like relatively clean oil in my engines and I like changing oil (but not enough to do it every 3K miles).
Do I do UOAs? Not as of yet. Do I feel they are useful? Yes in a relative or trending sense for factors like relative wear over time or between different oils. Are they absolute in determining the exact or absolute amount of wear of i.e., a bearing. Probably not but I do not think that is the intended purpose folks or companies that manage fleets use UOAs. BTW, I been skimming off of others UAOs in helping me decide on which synthetics and additives (LC, #132) to use. I think I should make a donation to the board to carry my weight and will do so.
I find the information on this board to be very interesting and useful. Some recommendations and information I do indeed take into account in what I put into my vehicles and some I don't even though I know the information doesn't back up my decision. But I go into it with eyes wide open (or shut) because of the wealth on info and discussion on this board. Thanks.
I used dino (Catrol I believe) for many years up until about 1994 and changed my oil every 4K miles or something appoximating the OEM schedule; no engine failures. I became a believer in synthetics and have been using them (M1) ever since and change my oil at intervals approximating the longer OEM schedule (about 6K miles). Will I change back to dino? Nope. It doesn't matter to me if the paper difference is 10%, 5% or 40%. I 'feel' the benefits of synthetics (or a blend like Schaeffers) far outweigh the nominal cost difference. I feel my engines are getting the best and will run better, longer and cleaner. At the extreme, we might be talking about an extra $100/yr. Heck, I pay $5 for a beer at any local bar and $75 for dinner with some bimbo. If I am being scamed for paying the difference between dino and synthetic, so be it.
Will I run these oils beyond the OEM long interval recommendation even after the warranty is over. Nope. Probably could but then again, the cost to me is nominal, I like relatively clean oil in my engines and I like changing oil (but not enough to do it every 3K miles).
Do I do UOAs? Not as of yet. Do I feel they are useful? Yes in a relative or trending sense for factors like relative wear over time or between different oils. Are they absolute in determining the exact or absolute amount of wear of i.e., a bearing. Probably not but I do not think that is the intended purpose folks or companies that manage fleets use UOAs. BTW, I been skimming off of others UAOs in helping me decide on which synthetics and additives (LC, #132) to use. I think I should make a donation to the board to carry my weight and will do so.
I find the information on this board to be very interesting and useful. Some recommendations and information I do indeed take into account in what I put into my vehicles and some I don't even though I know the information doesn't back up my decision. But I go into it with eyes wide open (or shut) because of the wealth on info and discussion on this board. Thanks.
Enough fighting and name-calling, that is NOT what this site is about! If I had seen a tirade like this in one of my first 25 visits I'm not sure I'd send $90 ($50 US back when the exchange rate stank) to Bob. So QuadDriver, please do not even bother disputing me here, please no PM's or emails. You want a fight? You can't have one, I surrender, you win. 2 + 2 = 5 if you say so.
Just two 'anecdotes' that may or may not make you think that greatly respected people in their fields (Terry and MoleKule) may have a few points. I sure think I know what *I* am doing at work, I haven't been there over 20 years and I didn't have to take any special courses as a prerequisite before.
So, deep breath Rob, here we go:
http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=28;t=000002
Please read what Bob writes. Whole URL available but it's not a BITOG / oildrop URL so I shall refrain from posting it here. It shows that UOA can be very handy indeed, and accurate, and it's clear that UOA SAVED LIVES.
ITEM TWO: You challenged to see dead dino vs synthetic; who has done it? Well, I did. Disagree all you want, my opinion is this: Redline with 10 months and 14,000 km out-performed (dare I say kicked the butt of) regular oil that was in under 1 month, under 1000 KM. The dead-dino had an unfair advantage, too: The addition of a by-pass oil filter. Yet spectography (same for both used oils) found a 200 micron rust booger in the dead-dino. Lab rated RedLine as fine, the dead dino as 'marginal' at best.
Anecdotal? Perhaps. Slanted? Not a chance.
Want every detail? Check 'em out:
http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000344
http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000528
http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000371
I already concede that there are a few variables that made it less than stellar.
Now will you, QD, concede that good UOA is worthwhile? And that my used RedLine was more than just 10% better than the used dead-dino?
One thing that got me to go with Redline is their inference (not statement) (see their site) that Redline after 15,000 miles will beat stuff right out of the bottle. I was in total disbelief and had an idea to disprove them. As for the 10% stuff, I believe RL is at least 10% better than M1 (I respect M1) and it's at least 20 times better than the dead-dino stuff that came after it.
Just two 'anecdotes' that may or may not make you think that greatly respected people in their fields (Terry and MoleKule) may have a few points. I sure think I know what *I* am doing at work, I haven't been there over 20 years and I didn't have to take any special courses as a prerequisite before.
So, deep breath Rob, here we go:
http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=28;t=000002
Please read what Bob writes. Whole URL available but it's not a BITOG / oildrop URL so I shall refrain from posting it here. It shows that UOA can be very handy indeed, and accurate, and it's clear that UOA SAVED LIVES.
ITEM TWO: You challenged to see dead dino vs synthetic; who has done it? Well, I did. Disagree all you want, my opinion is this: Redline with 10 months and 14,000 km out-performed (dare I say kicked the butt of) regular oil that was in under 1 month, under 1000 KM. The dead-dino had an unfair advantage, too: The addition of a by-pass oil filter. Yet spectography (same for both used oils) found a 200 micron rust booger in the dead-dino. Lab rated RedLine as fine, the dead dino as 'marginal' at best.
Anecdotal? Perhaps. Slanted? Not a chance.
Want every detail? Check 'em out:
http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000344
http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000528
http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000371
I already concede that there are a few variables that made it less than stellar.
Now will you, QD, concede that good UOA is worthwhile? And that my used RedLine was more than just 10% better than the used dead-dino?
One thing that got me to go with Redline is their inference (not statement) (see their site) that Redline after 15,000 miles will beat stuff right out of the bottle. I was in total disbelief and had an idea to disprove them. As for the 10% stuff, I believe RL is at least 10% better than M1 (I respect M1) and it's at least 20 times better than the dead-dino stuff that came after it.
not people. oil companies. The '10%' figure, as you know from reading the threads, comes from the makers and blenders themselves. The properties and specs of the oil, the things measured to deterimine what kind/grade of oil it is, and what is measured in a UOA.quote:
Originally posted by G-Man II:
The problem is people throw out these terms like "10% better," when they are essentially meaningless and impossible to quantify.
Resolution? Nah...but it has been entertaining reading.
I posted the specs of I dunno, 7? 8? differnt oils, all in the same grade. My '10%' rule held (cept for amsoil XL7500) Since I did, everyone has said no way that can be true and the true difference between the oils is something unmeasurable. Oh ok, ya. Gets your teeth whiter too. I am not here to argue, I am, at best, the voice of reason and sanity. I *did* state many times syn oil is better. I ever looked up some numbers to prove it, and posted them. No one has disputed the veracity of the numbers themselves, but rather now maintain that specs dont tell you how good an oil is. Reading back on ANY thread on this site, I can find dozens of dozens of people raving about a VI here, a pour point, a low volatility here...but as soon as it was pointed out it s NOT THAT MUCH BETTER THAN DINO, the numbers no longer count. Does that mean that you are now going back to each append you have ever made on the subject and amending them??????
Well built Honda...big deal...I put 329,000 miles on my 2.8L Chev S-10 in 16 years with a mix of dino and synthetic...why does everyone think that Japanese vehicles are from outer space because they get alot of miles?The big three have millions of cars out there that get the same mileage..and more..by the way I run synthetic exclusive in my vehicles....you can ping &pong till the cows come home on this issue..but for a few bucks more a great synthetic wins hands down...then again, when a 5-6k drain is used..then the money difference with the dino is moot!quote:
Originally posted by Rexman:
You didn't specify what portion of the mileage was highway--this makes a BIG difference in judging what part the oil played in the car's longevity.
Also, just because an exceptionally well-built car like a Honda went 315k with a dino oil doesn't mean it couldn't have gone twice that with a good synthetic.
QD,
**WARNING** What follows is silly, if that offends you DO NOT READ!!!!!
One thing you must admit is that no one has yet been able to make dino oil that smells like gummy bears!!!
Teardown of an engine run on that stuff (as a reminder German Castrol 0W30) would HAVE to be more pleasant!!!
**WARNING** What follows is silly, if that offends you DO NOT READ!!!!!
One thing you must admit is that no one has yet been able to make dino oil that smells like gummy bears!!!
u mean its true? it smells like gummi bears?
Yes, that's what it smells like. Fruity and sweet; just like gummy bears.quote:
Originally posted by pscholte:
QD,
G-Man II made the original comment, so he should make an input...unless I have forgotten the smell of köstlich Gummi Bären, Sie riechen so zu mir nicht. We need to hear from the G-Man on this one.
MolaKule
Staff member
The question asked was what would be needed to improve M1 and I gave a list of items. This is not to say that M1 isn't already a good oil, it is. I can take just about any oil and tell you what would be needed to "improve" it. Affordability of the "super" oil for the average Joe is another issue.
Regarding wear measurements, my previous post was meant to say, "kg or m^3," not to infer density or kg/m^3. Most of the wear measurements I am familiar with use either mm (in) of material removed, mass of material removed in kg., or volume of material removed in m^3. For example, in SAE paper 922342, "Engine Oil Viscosity and Bearing Wear: Field Test Results," the bearing loss is measured in grams, or mass. In other papers, volume of mass removed is used, and in a paper on cam lobe wear, linear measurements of mm (in.) is used.
In the case of UOA's, the "density" of wear particles, or mass per volume, is used and is given in terms of ppm.
As to the first comment, UOA's WITH trending would spot unusual bearing wear, say an elevated copper/tin/lead reading. Which bearing out of the five would that be? No way to find out. The usefulness of the UOA would be to alert the owner or operator that a teardown might be necessary in the near future in order to avoid a failure on the road, disrupting deliveries, making that "sale," etc. Elevated glycol, etc would certainly alert the owner of a potential coolant leak. But to make a sweeping declaration that UOA's have no significance is totally false.
If there was only one bearing in the engine, and we knew its dimensions, I think we could confidently determine how much wear it had accumulated and how far over the limits it may have become.
As for the second comment, I am glad you finally declared your what your original premise to be, since in my view, your scattered comments and side issues obscured your original premise.
In answer to your second comment (or your original premise), my reply is "of course." It is a given. Fresh oil is always better than used oil. Given the economics of the situation, why would you change oil before the life of the oil is up? I think this is another area where the UOA's are useful. If the UAO shows the oil to still have life, that is, protecting the engine, then for economic reasons, one would leave it in the engine. More bang for the buck!
did I or did I not correctly explain the entire content of the oil in question? yes. your point?
With all due respect, you are utterly wrong. period. M^3 is a VOLUME (please lookitup)....kg/m^3 is a DENSITY. ppm is a RATIO. bearing wear, is now, has always been, and likely always will be given as a strict DISTANCE. I have been accused of being patronizing. This last post certainly qualifies, yet you dont have the basic concepts correct. Should I be amused or insulted?
We send a VOLUME of 4oz? of oil to blackstone. Returned is a paper giving a UOA which gives the RATIO of say Iron to oil. If we know the weight of iron and the weight of oil I guess we could determine the DENSITY of what was sent to blackstone labs. But lord only knows why that piece of info would be useful. Why not calculate the energy content in BTUs while we are at it? In no case, is any of the returned info sufficient to even GUESS as to the current DISTANCE between the crankshaft and the bearing surface. Of course, you could always "do the math" and post the results. Ill even pay you $20 for your trouble. Of note: .005" of missing material, times the known square area of the material face, can in fact be expressed as a volume, and if a periodic chart is nearby, can in fact be reduced to a density, but when the only provider of the data is a ratio that according to even SRI is close maybe 1/3 of the time....I believe the phrase I used was 'no strong correlation'. This has specific and non-ambiguous meaning in any analyis, be it scientific or statistical. I humbly suggest a little not-so-light reading to familiarize.
thank you for restating my point. Which is as I have stated numerous times and you have now come around to repeating: Wear cannot be substantiated or quantified without direct measurement. You call it invasive, I call it a teardown.
I didnt say they were. I did however say in a previous post they all pepper the claims and reports with the words 'may' and 'maybe'. If either of those words are used, a statement no longer becomes a statement of fact but rather supposition. It certainly changes the liability in a legal sense now doesnt it? Im not a lawyer, nor do I play one on tv, but someone who is can explain the niceties of that little detail.
I got a chuckle out of this. I thank you, but the 'facts' are: you declared: 'M1 could be better', I declared: 'It has not failed tests' and then queried: 'so how can it be better' then you answered me, but accused me of bringing up the subject? If I was mean and cynical Id reply at this point: 'lay off the booze', but im not so I wont. Of course this begs the questions: if M1 passes the same tests as its competitors, but you want it to have more 'stuff', is this just for a desire to have a super oil that no one else has?
”
Its obvious that the word obfuscate is another that you are gonna have to head for the dictionary for. My statement, to a person with average reading comprehension, is exactly what it says, an expert laments that other oil makers are making the same mistakes in formulation that they once did, and since it came right after your 'M1 could be better statement' - well you dont need an advanced degree to see the tie in. Or. maybe Im wrong, maybe you are having reading difficulties, while I am not a special education professional, I can word my posts in simpler terms if that would help you?
While I commend you on going to the dictionary for this one (where does one get a latin dictionary these days?) but alas, the context you used it in was all wrong.
Since you and others have made the statement that UOAs tell me how much wear has occured, you then therefore have decided with specific and finite limits what needs to be proved, i.e. 'Demonstrate than the analysis of a UOA is accurate with respect to the actual wear encountered'
I notice there are still no takers. Is that an omen?
Now that is a good example of obfuscation. Learn the difference. Revel in it.
Moral: you will get further with factual posts dealing with the subject at hand, rather than attacking posts or ad hominems (hey I can use latin to)
Im still waiting for the person with a fistful of UOA slips and a calculator to exclaim with confidence: "that motor has experienced 'xxxx' bearing wear and is 'yyyyy' close to (or over) the manufactuers limits. I recommend replacement of 'zzzzzzz'"
(of course this was not the topic when I originally replied, I believe my first reply was to try to get people to admit that changing the oil puts better oil in the crankcase than leaving what was in there, in there. note that no one has admitted that either. Talk about obfuscation.)
Now answer truthfully, how hard was it to read my first post in this thread on the first page? I never changed topic, the royal 'you all' did, and as I said before, each post I have ever made, each statement or assertion was ALWAYS made with an attempt at proper quoting to see what I was referring to.
However, this is why I dont think trending is working that well: I have seen a lot of UOAs for the same engine same oil, usually a filter is changed and the oil inside is dumped into the sample kit. From sample to sample, the solids loading and wear mettalics have not steadily increased, many times they DECREASE. Mind you, its the same oil. something is wrong with that process.
btw - did you check out my 'new topic'?
Yeah, I should have mentioned the Honda saw only highway miles, 30 miles each way commute. It is also an automatic. My Max and Miata are manual. I made 700 mile runs in the Max on the interstate through the mountains and will often go long duration high RPM WOT in 95 degree weather on a long uphill sweeper just to play with a Bimmer.
I can say from experience, at a rest stop or gas up, when you pop the hood, with dino oil you get a very strong smell and lots of cool down ticks. With M1, there is almost no smell and it sure seems like a lot less cool down ticks.
I'm wondering two things, in a highly stressed engine:
1. Does syn oil give off less crankcase emissions than dino, emissions that may tend to clog the EGR system? Seems like clogged up EGR's can be a real pain in some cars.
2. Do syns do a better job of "controlling" (minimizing and or dissipating) engine temps and thus help to keep the block (especially aluminum blocks) in "truer form" (less distortion) yielding "truer" operating clearances with resultant less (in comparison to dino oil) engine wear?
I can say from experience, at a rest stop or gas up, when you pop the hood, with dino oil you get a very strong smell and lots of cool down ticks. With M1, there is almost no smell and it sure seems like a lot less cool down ticks.
I'm wondering two things, in a highly stressed engine:
1. Does syn oil give off less crankcase emissions than dino, emissions that may tend to clog the EGR system? Seems like clogged up EGR's can be a real pain in some cars.
2. Do syns do a better job of "controlling" (minimizing and or dissipating) engine temps and thus help to keep the block (especially aluminum blocks) in "truer form" (less distortion) yielding "truer" operating clearances with resultant less (in comparison to dino oil) engine wear?
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2002
- Messages
- 4,204
In regards to the Honda Accord posts I'd just like to say that over the course of 315,000 miles and 18 years, the miles that this vehicle accumulated has ranged from farm vehicle duty, interstate cruiser, hunting camp transport, several stints in the Mall parking lot to teach several girlfriends how to drive a manual transmission, etc. When a vehicle accumulates this kind of age they have probably seen it all.
About the Japanese comment,,, my Honda rolled off a assembly line in Marysville, Ohio. That engine was assembled in the good 'ol USA along with a high percentage of other parts in that car. I have spent some time in Ohio and I may just agree with Greaser's comment about it being from "outer space".
Regardless of a persons preference for brand name or country of manufacture, Honda has built a incredible reputation which is well deserved. Heck, I should have kept that old thing and saved myself tens of thousands of dollars on the vehicles I have owned since then.
About the Japanese comment,,, my Honda rolled off a assembly line in Marysville, Ohio. That engine was assembled in the good 'ol USA along with a high percentage of other parts in that car. I have spent some time in Ohio and I may just agree with Greaser's comment about it being from "outer space".
Regardless of a persons preference for brand name or country of manufacture, Honda has built a incredible reputation which is well deserved. Heck, I should have kept that old thing and saved myself tens of thousands of dollars on the vehicles I have owned since then.
MolaKule
Staff member
For the question posed above, yes! It was difficult to sort out detail from your generalizations. An quite honesly, your SA responses detracted from the discussion at hand. We have had people come to the board with hidden agendas and chips on their shoulders.
Speaking of generalizations, can you point to the data of which you speak? As an expample of which you speak, if one changes oil between samplings, the amount of wear metals sampled (assuming constant wear in a sound engine) would show approximately the same wear metal density per analysis. One also has to examine the solids and particle size to make an interpretation. Proper analysis in the hands of a good and experienced analysts (such as TDyson) can help with lubrication decisions.
New topic, not yet! Will go over and look at it.
These are not direct quotes, but close e'nuf!
"UOA's are like blood tests" OK. But who gets (needs?) a blood test every 3 months other than a porn star, maybe?
"It's going to wear: there is no way to stop it"
Sure there is: STOP DRIVING!
This oil thang is getting into the guise of a religion, for God's sake! With a few false prophets, or two...
Holy Moly!
re: the "10% RULE" There are quite a few situations where a +10% differential can be established between two competing products. The REAL question is "Does it make any difference in the REAL world?"
A home equity mid-term loan at 5% vs. 5.5% may not really add up to much in savings if the interest isn't deductible, and less if there is a "loan fee" involved to get the lower rate. And "points".
If you don't live in Arctic or Saharan temperature ranges you may never need -47 degree pour points, etc.
$5 per quart (vs. 67 cents) may not be an option if you have a new vehicle under warranty to worry about.
Quaddriver (IMHO, of course) seems to be making two major points: he doesn't believe that UOA's can accurately measure bearing wear & that his recommendation/opinion is that using dino @ the manufacturer's NORMAL (vs. "severe service") OCI will not result in significantly greater engine wear than use of synthetic oils in the long run (I THINK that's the second point)... He may be right.
I prefer MY 100% unsubstantiated by empirical engineering evidence "fudge factor" of cutting the manufacturer's Normal OCI by 1/3rd and going with a high quality dino (except for the ZX-11) and a quality filter.
I keep my vehicles for a long time and have never have had any real mechanical work done (I don't consider water pumps, intake or exhaust manifold gaskets, etc. as true "mechanical work", like a rebuild, cam replacement, heads, etc.) O/T on a 2 stroke bike, rebuilt heads on a Chey V8, and bearings on a '51 Pontiac (done in place on a driveway).
I expect to get 100, 200K or more on my vehicles because I take d*** good care of them: and I do!
Cheers! to all: this has been time well spent!
"UOA's are like blood tests" OK. But who gets (needs?) a blood test every 3 months other than a porn star, maybe?
"It's going to wear: there is no way to stop it"
Sure there is: STOP DRIVING!
This oil thang is getting into the guise of a religion, for God's sake! With a few false prophets, or two...
Holy Moly!
re: the "10% RULE" There are quite a few situations where a +10% differential can be established between two competing products. The REAL question is "Does it make any difference in the REAL world?"
A home equity mid-term loan at 5% vs. 5.5% may not really add up to much in savings if the interest isn't deductible, and less if there is a "loan fee" involved to get the lower rate. And "points".
If you don't live in Arctic or Saharan temperature ranges you may never need -47 degree pour points, etc.
$5 per quart (vs. 67 cents) may not be an option if you have a new vehicle under warranty to worry about.
Quaddriver (IMHO, of course) seems to be making two major points: he doesn't believe that UOA's can accurately measure bearing wear & that his recommendation/opinion is that using dino @ the manufacturer's NORMAL (vs. "severe service") OCI will not result in significantly greater engine wear than use of synthetic oils in the long run (I THINK that's the second point)... He may be right.
I prefer MY 100% unsubstantiated by empirical engineering evidence "fudge factor" of cutting the manufacturer's Normal OCI by 1/3rd and going with a high quality dino (except for the ZX-11) and a quality filter.
I keep my vehicles for a long time and have never have had any real mechanical work done (I don't consider water pumps, intake or exhaust manifold gaskets, etc. as true "mechanical work", like a rebuild, cam replacement, heads, etc.) O/T on a 2 stroke bike, rebuilt heads on a Chey V8, and bearings on a '51 Pontiac (done in place on a driveway).
I expect to get 100, 200K or more on my vehicles because I take d*** good care of them: and I do!
Cheers! to all: this has been time well spent!
- Status
