Is there any solid scientific evidence that Mobil 1 is good for extended drains?

[Eiron]

quote:

---

Originally posted by novadude:
I only do about 15000-20000 miles / year. The other vehicle I maintain does about the same.

3k works for me... I'll be the first to admit it is not for everyone. Besides, changing oil is fun!

---

That's fine, but what if you didn't want to change oil every 2 to 3 weeks? If syn's no better than dino, how long would you comfortably extend your dino intervals to get out from that schedule? And would you modify that extended schedule for high-stress combinations like turbos & small sumps?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patman:
If only I knew then what I know now, I could've saved myself a lot of time and money back then!

---

Couldn't we all?!

[ July 11, 2003, 01:27 PM: Message edited by: Eiron ]

 

[QuadDriver]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ray Garlington:
QuadDriver

quote:

---

syn oil (any maker) and non 'generic' dino oil, differ as I have said numerous times by 10% on average. (I even allow the syn oil blenders to claim 15% to salve their injuries) Product data sheets are avail online and I invite all to peruse them.

---

Could you explain what you mean by 10% difference? I have read your previous comments, but never understood this point.

---

Ok, take for example, valvoline motor oils. A top seller. No history of failures, broad product line. Extremely popular with racers.

On their website you can find in the technical data sheets the following tidbits (im too lazy to cut and past so I grabbed a few key factors)

All 5-30 grades....

dino blend syn
pour point -39 -39 -40
NOACK 15 13 --
100* cst 10.7 11.06 11
40* cst 62.6 65.81 --
VI 162 161 164
TBN 7 8 --


(-- means the item was not given on the webpage)

as you can see, the more 'syn' the oil is, the better its characteristics are, but like I said,
Now I just hope to heck my crude formatting works when I post this!

 

[joe4324]

I'll do an extended drain test on DINO vs SYN...

I got a 98 Saturn SC2 with 72k miles on it. I just finished up an Auto-rx treatment and am currently about half-way through my cheap-o dino oil "rinse" I was planning on switching to M1 soon as Im done with the "rinse" but I'll gladly try what-ever dino oil you recomend quad for say a 5k interval (I'd prefer to do longer but I'd rather not have to wait 6 months...) Then after thats done I'll do a 500M "rinse" with some cheap dino then put M1 in for another 5k miles. do UOA's on both and see what happens. I know your saying that UOA's dont tell you everything you want to do. But they can atleast "hint" cant they? we could have terry run the tests himself. That or I could find an independant lab.

Who would be interested in seing this test done? I hear saturn Twin-Cam engines can be rough on Oil so maybe my car is a good cannidate. I'm kinda nervous about 5k on a non-synth oil though... (I know I know your saying it doesnt matter much) but I'll risk one for the team

 

[QuadDriver]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eiron:

quote:

---

Originally posted by GROUCHO MARX:
Eiron, are you doing all that driving on those vehicles yourself? When do you sleep?

---

Thankfully, no! My current job allows me to bike-commute year-round, but my last job had me driving close to 1500mi/mo. At the same time, my wife was driving about 1000mi/mo, so I was changing oil about 10 times a year (average of once every 5 wks). However, some folks here have said they're on the extreme end of frequency & change their oil every 3k miles/two weeks on one vehicle (obviously, an on-the-road job). Others take care of all the vehicles in the family, & keep dozens of filters & gallons of fresh oil on-hand to keep up with the demand.


P.S. (to everyone),
Though he commandeerd this thread quite effectively, I'm amused at the fact that QD still hasn't identified his purpose in doing so. Like a Grand Politician, he's simply let others state or guess at his intentions without saying so himself.
That doesn't mean there hasn't been some decent exchange, only that it's been very unfocused &, perhaps, with less merit than might otherwise have been achieved. (In my opinion.)

---

Your reply is disingenuous at best. From my first post to the last each has been a specific reply to a specific question (with proper quoting used), and I challenge you to show me different. If I were able to get posters (like yourself for example) to quit jumping around and stay on topic instead of flitting hither and yon, this would be a LOT shorter. The last few sets of intelligent questions show that not everyone is having such difficulties and perhaps the veil of fog is lifting.

Politician, I am not. Engineer, I am.

 

[pscholte]

QD,

Despite any and all compelling arguments you might have, despite what UOAs may or may not indicate, you must understand T H E B O T T O M L I N E...It's too late!!!! I'm hooked. I can't go back to dino...I JUST CAN'T, I tell you!!!! Is anyone out there listening? Does anyone understand? Does anyone care?

(I knew 5 pages of this was too much for the weaker among us...like me!)

[ July 11, 2003, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: pscholte ]

 

[QuadDriver]

quote:

---

Originally posted by pscholte:
QD,

Despite any and all compelling arguments you might have, despite what UOAs may or may not indicate, you must understand T H E B O T T O M L I N E...It's too late!!!! I'm hooked. I can't go back to dino...I JUST CAN'T, I tell you!!!! Is anyone out there listening? Does anyone understand? Does anyone care?

(I knew 5 pages of this was too much for the weaker among us...like me!)

---

fine, DONT go back to dino. I never asked anyone to do such, all I have EVER recommended in this thread is that EVERYONE CHANGE the oil in accordance with the long drain interval specified in the owners manual and use the oil grade specified in same manual.

 

[pscholte]

QD,

Really? That's it? That's what you were advocating all along? I can live with that...well, almost, I just can't bring myself to more than 5K even with syn...maybe this forum's influence will get me past that...seriously, however, despite the mortar rounds that have been lobbed, I admire your tenacity and the conviction you carry based on what you have OBSERVED first hand. You 've got credibility with me because I believe you speak based on what you have seen in your shop...even if you are stubborn and you blew up a Vulcan 3.0...(sorry, it just came out).

 

[MNgopher]

quote:

---

Originally posted by QuadDriver:
Ok, take for example, valvoline motor oils. A top seller. No history of failures, broad product line. Extremely popular with racers.

On their website you can find in the technical data sheets the following tidbits (im too lazy to cut and past so I grabbed a few key factors)

All 5-30 grades....

dino blend syn
pour point -39 -39 -40
NOACK 15 13 --
100* cst 10.7 11.06 11
40* cst 62.6 65.81 --
VI 162 161 164
TBN 7 8 --


(-- means the item was not given on the webpage)

as you can see, the more 'syn' the oil is, the better its characteristics are, but like I said,
Now I just hope to heck my crude formatting works when I post this! [/QB]

---

Only one problem - all of these oils are actually conventional dino oils - the Synpower is a Group III base oil and the Durablend contains no PAO.

We've just shown that these three dino oils are all relatively the same with a thin level of marketing separating the pricing, based on the data sheet.

[ July 11, 2003, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: MNgopher ]

 

[novadude]

Joe, I would LOVE to see the test you've proposed.

The problem is additive packages vary, so the syn vs. dino base test would not be apples-to-apples.

Would still be fun to see results!

How 'bout Chevron Supreme vs. Mobil 1?

 

[QuadDriver]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MNgopher:
Only one problem - all of these oils are actually conventional dino oils - the Synpower is a Group III base oil and the Durablend contains no PAO.

We've just shown that these three dino oils are all relatively the same with a thin level of marketing separating the pricing, based on the data sheet.

---

ok, point taken. travelling over to Mobils site,
I pulled in the data for 5-30 'drive clean' (dino oil) and 5-30 M1

(note - not all makers give the same data, i.e. not all list NOACK or fire point etc so I try to choose a sample subset that illustrates the point)

since the formatting previously failed, I will list each spec on one line with dine first, syn second:

cst at 40*: 62 vs 56
cst at 100*: 10.5 vs 10
VI: 159 vs 167
pour pt: -39 vs -45

as you can see, these numbers are pretty much in line with the valvoline numbers (all 3 types I listed) and differ by, in essence, my '10% rule'

I invite you to try one yourself!

What we will show, much to the chagrin of a lot of people, is that earth shattering differences do not exist.

 

[yannis]

As Bob demostrated in a recent test synthetics and some blends have a better detergent package.
It is also indisputable that synthetics retain their viscosity longer ,are more stable in extreme temperatures(turbo and winter)and don't need viscosity improvers and modifiers to maintain their viscosity. A 10W30 synthetic will be 10W30 after 3000 miles ,a dino rarely.

 

[yannis]

And we have to agree that synthetics cover tougher demands and approvals which is mentioned
isomewhere in the previous pages by an other author.

 

[mph]

quote:

---

Originally posted by QuadDriver:

cst at 40*: 62 vs 56
cst at 100*: 10.5 vs 10
VI: 159 vs 167
pour pt: -39 vs -45

---

I don't think it's surprising that two 5W-30 oils have similar viscosities.

The only number, out of those listed, which you would expect to differ is the pour point. Surely you don't think that one number captures all of the oil's protective properties.

 

[QuadDriver]

And just for grins, returning to amsoils site after a 4 year absence, I look at 5-30 xl7500 and regular 5-30, presented xl7500 - regular

cst at 100: 10.3 vs 11.7
cst at 40: 50.9 vs 63.4
VI: 196 vs 182
pour pt: -51 same
NOACK: 8.8 vs 6.9
TBN: 10.1 vs "> 11"

Interestingly, the '7500 mile only' oil performs far better than the original? And double interestingly, 5-30 is currently the top recommended oil in the USA and if you look at all the other XL7500 oils....their numbers are inline with the rest of the industry and product sheets I have from 5 years-ish ago. Cynically should I accuse them of stretching the truth just a weeee bit? ;-)

 

[QuadDriver]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mph:

quote:

---

Originally posted by QuadDriver:

cst at 40*: 62 vs 56
cst at 100*: 10.5 vs 10
VI: 159 vs 167
pour pt: -39 vs -45

---

I don't think it's surprising that two 5W-30 oils have similar viscosities.

The only number, out of those listed, which you would expect to differ is the pour point. Surely you don't think that one number captures all of the oil's protective properties.

---

What other numbers would you like? the number at which it bursts into flame? (same differences btw) or its density? (ditto)

Correct me if I am wrong, but the KnVi at 40 and 100 and the corresponding VI is the Largest reason why syn oil is touted for use at higher temps and loads. The second reson to use syn oil is it pours/flows at a lower temp. a couple degrees IS technically lower, but will only be realized in the dead of winter at the south pole..... Thats why I chose those data points - read up on it. But surely by now you are looking at the same data sheets and coming to the same conclusion: there are no earth shattering differences. Right?????

(ps - the viscosity index is a relative number that governs the 'thickening' of oil at various temps, higher= better. IT is what drives the 'protects against thermal breakdown' claim you hear in the ads)

 

[Mystic]

Take a look at your owner's manual. Unless they have changed a lot since I bought my 2001 Saturn, typically for USA cars they say if you drive under 'normal' conditions-change oil every 7500 miles or 6 months (something like that). If you drive under 'severe' conditions-change oil every 3000 miles or 3 months. Most of us supposedly drive under the severe conditions.

Let us say that you are using Chevron oil (about a buck and some change in my Checker Auto Parts Store, maybe less if bought on sale or by the case). About 5 bucks for a Wix oil filter. Depending on if your vehicle uses 4 or 5 quarts of oil, you can do an oil change yourself for about 10 bucks. Four oil changes a year will cost you 40-50 bucks. If you change oil every 7500 miles or 6 months, then half that amount (20-25 bucks).

So why drive that extra 3000 miles and 3 months to save 20-25 bucks? Why not be safe and change oil every 3000-4000 miles and every 3-4 months?

Let us say that you are using Mobil 1. You drive something like 12000-18000 miles a year. One oil change done by yourself is going to cost you something like 25-30 dollars, including oil filter. Two oil changes are going to cost you something like 50-60 dollars. So why try to take that oil change to an entire year? How much money are you going to save-25-30 bucks? Why not do an oil change every 6 months with the Mobil 1.

 

[joe4324]

quote:

---

Originally posted by novadude:
Joe, I would LOVE to see the test you've proposed.

The problem is additive packages vary, so the syn vs. dino base test would not be apples-to-apples.

Would still be fun to see results!

How 'bout Chevron Supreme vs. Mobil 1?

---

Sure I'll do it. I gotta find 5qts of chevron superem then. Shouldnt be too hard. Its going to take a while to get the results in (when my wife goes back to school there will be alot of driving. approx 400-600 a week

so it shouldnt take THAT long...

 

[Dan4510]

Problem is, the 10% difference QD cites so often only has to do with measured specs of oil that everyone produces. Do these figures really go to the heart of why synthetic is better? No

Several reasons for synthetics: If you keep your car a long time or put extreme demands on it. Synthetics help assure that these two goals can happen with much less chance of trouble. Dino oil has come a long way in the last 20 years, however, I used mobil 1 from when it first came out. Drove a k-car more than 160k with it, have 340 that I drag raced every week with more than a total of 1200 high rpm runs down the track.

Burned a valve on the reliant at 70k, pulled the engine down and the hone marks still in the cylinder, put stock rings back in it just to be sure. No cylinder ridge at all.

340 was torn down after all this abuse and hone marks still in cylinder. Bearings looked like new.

Dino oil would not have turned in this performance on either engine.

I finally submit that all these empirical numbers that QD points to making synthetic only 10% better dont capture other factors in performance that are probably more important in the final analysis. We dont have tests for them yet.

Like most empirical research, numbers dont tell it all....or in some cases only tell the most insignificant part of the story.

Dan

[ July 11, 2003, 03:38 PM: Message edited by: Dan4510 ]

 

[mph]

quote:

---

Originally posted by QuadDriver:
What other numbers would you like?

---

Wear numbers from UOA. I don't think VOA or specs tell you much about an oil's protective qualities.

quote:

---

Correct me if I am wrong, but the KnVi at 40 and 100 and the corresponding VI is the Largest reason why syn oil is touted for use at higher temps and loads.

---

A 30 weight oil has to fall within a narrow range of 100C viscosity, by definition. A 5W oil has to fall below a certain cold viscosity. Since 40 C is between these temperatures, I would expect the viscosity to fall in between, at a pretty similar value for any 5W-30 oil.

Now, if you looked at temperatures much higher or lower than those mandated by the 5W-30 rating, you might see the difference.

The synthetic VI benefit is that the base oil has a good VI to begin with. The dino oil requires additives (VII's) to get the VI of the finished product into the range necessary to meet the grade. So comparing VI of the finished product doesn't tell you much--you would need to compare the VI's of the base oils, without additives.

 

[yannis]

The numbers are not telling the hole true .....

This part is taken from a well respected oil company
"Conventional multiple grade mineral and semi-synthetic motor oils, as 100% synthetic super-multigrade lubricants (5W40, 5W50, 10W60...) use additives to boost their viscosity. These viscosity additives tend to loose efficiency when submitted to extreme conditions, which translates into a drop of viscosity and oil pressure."
Their " line benefit from the natural viscosity of synthetic ester basestocks, they need very little of such additives, or none
The ASTM D 4741 official test of HT/HS* (High Temperature High Shear) viscosity measures the viscosity of lubricants at very high temperature (150°C / 302°F) and shear (1 000 000 s-1). This test is considered to be a good model of the fluid's state when exposed to extreme shear and temperature as found in an engine.
The higher the benchmark, the best the oil film keeps up its viscosity, hence its resistance to high stress in hydrodynamic rating. Tests prove the best results are achieved with a high viscosity grade (50 or 60) at high temperature, and without viscosity boosters.
- Resistance to high temperature coking
While racing, when the engine is pushed to the extreme, or during pit stops and refuellings, the oil temperature reaches maximal values.
Same happens to usual cars when stuck in traffic jams, hard or fast-driven for long journeys, or stopped at busy toll-gates.
Hence the capital attention to avoid the carbonization of lubricants heated to high temperatures.The lubricant residues carbonized through overheating (i.e. charring) are weighed, the best benchmark being a low weight.
The test measures the coking of engine oils at a sustained high temperature (5 days at 160°C / 320°F) and blasted for 48 hours against an aluminum shim heated at 290°C / 554°F.
Tests prove the choice of basestocks, especially synthetic ester bases, to be a major promoter of resistance to high temperature coking."