dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: JXW
Ponch I have been using syn oils for over 20 years now. I have had conventional oil put in both my bike and cars over the years when I expected to get syn oils. On my bike I had some type of bulk HD oil put in it and I could tell within 5 miles something was wrong. The bike ran hot, was losing power and exhibited overall poor operating charateristics. This is a machine with a basic two cylinder air cooled engine, okay? I also had a same experience with a car that was filled with castrol GTX not the Castrol Syntec that I was using. Within 5 miles I called my wife and questioned her on the oil used to find that conventional was used by mistake.
Some people might eat 10 donuts a day or smoke two packs a day and live for 70 years--that doesn't mean they are healthy right? Same argument from me on conventional vs. syn. You can get by on conventional but syn is better all the way around. I know this from my real world experience, mileages driven and different applications (bikes, cars, trucks and tractors).
Conventional oils are better than ever but syn still leads them all hands down.
Forgive me for being rude, but that would be the mythology and rhetoric I speak of. I mean no personal afront, but I call into question your basis of "testimony". And your "seat-of-the-pants-o-meter" is calibrated how?
Countless thousands of used oil analysis show no statistically significant advantage to syn's in short-to-moderate OCI durations. Doug's data, gleaned from hundred's of thousands of miles, shows that syns can outperform in longer distances. And, as Jim mentioned, filtration plays a HUGE part of it.
The REAL valid use of used oil analysis is to monitor your oil health (which is a direct indication) and the equipment health (an indirect indication). Using safe, practical predetermined condemnation levels for wear metals, insolubles, vis, contaminants (soot, fuel, coolant, silicon/dirt, etc) will help determine when to change any oil.
I take exception to your comments. Not to taunt you, but to challenge you in a gentlemanly way. This is not about what argument might take place, but rather what good-natured debate might bring forth. Perhaps you are correct; perhaps your vehicles did miracuously perform "better" in five minutes of run time with syn's. But I find that hard to believe, and nearly impossible for you to quantify.
I'll be the first to admit I suffer from diarhea of the keyboard; many people think I ramble on, and perhaps I do. But I typically try to tie in my theory with hard data and evidence. There are so many used oil analysis here to prove my point. Doug's data is clearly showing us he knows how to operate a fleet with the right application of a maintenance program. I used to run such a program of facility maintenance at Ford.
I've never made such a blanket statement that synthetics are always the best or the worst. They are but one answer to a series of questions. A person who knows how to design and develop a proper maintenance program can get the "best" from any fluid choice. Often, it comes down to simple dollars and cents.
Ponch's question was well crafted and contained; he wanted opinions specific to the "other" claims for syn's. I think we showed how syn's can be of benefit, but only in certain circumstances. As for extended OCIs, that is CLEARLY one of syn's advantages, especially when used with superior filtration equipment.
So, your car and bike run "better" on synthetic after five minutes of an OCI? I appologize if I seem blunt, but I prefer data and evidence to hype any day. For people who want to make an "informed" decision, that is what it takes to prove/disprove the concept. We all have our rights to our opinions, and your's are just as valid as any member here. My opinion is neither superior nor subordinate to anyones. But at some point, some of us like to put the conjecture aside and look at real facts. We choose real world evidence shown via quantifiable means over audible and tactile supposition. Some members here come to find the truth existing in evidence and data, because they find hype and rhetoric so prominent in other sources.
Perhaps I am eating the doughnuts, but at least I'm not drinking the kool-aid.
Ponch I have been using syn oils for over 20 years now. I have had conventional oil put in both my bike and cars over the years when I expected to get syn oils. On my bike I had some type of bulk HD oil put in it and I could tell within 5 miles something was wrong. The bike ran hot, was losing power and exhibited overall poor operating charateristics. This is a machine with a basic two cylinder air cooled engine, okay? I also had a same experience with a car that was filled with castrol GTX not the Castrol Syntec that I was using. Within 5 miles I called my wife and questioned her on the oil used to find that conventional was used by mistake.
Some people might eat 10 donuts a day or smoke two packs a day and live for 70 years--that doesn't mean they are healthy right? Same argument from me on conventional vs. syn. You can get by on conventional but syn is better all the way around. I know this from my real world experience, mileages driven and different applications (bikes, cars, trucks and tractors).
Conventional oils are better than ever but syn still leads them all hands down.
Forgive me for being rude, but that would be the mythology and rhetoric I speak of. I mean no personal afront, but I call into question your basis of "testimony". And your "seat-of-the-pants-o-meter" is calibrated how?
Countless thousands of used oil analysis show no statistically significant advantage to syn's in short-to-moderate OCI durations. Doug's data, gleaned from hundred's of thousands of miles, shows that syns can outperform in longer distances. And, as Jim mentioned, filtration plays a HUGE part of it.
The REAL valid use of used oil analysis is to monitor your oil health (which is a direct indication) and the equipment health (an indirect indication). Using safe, practical predetermined condemnation levels for wear metals, insolubles, vis, contaminants (soot, fuel, coolant, silicon/dirt, etc) will help determine when to change any oil.
I take exception to your comments. Not to taunt you, but to challenge you in a gentlemanly way. This is not about what argument might take place, but rather what good-natured debate might bring forth. Perhaps you are correct; perhaps your vehicles did miracuously perform "better" in five minutes of run time with syn's. But I find that hard to believe, and nearly impossible for you to quantify.
I'll be the first to admit I suffer from diarhea of the keyboard; many people think I ramble on, and perhaps I do. But I typically try to tie in my theory with hard data and evidence. There are so many used oil analysis here to prove my point. Doug's data is clearly showing us he knows how to operate a fleet with the right application of a maintenance program. I used to run such a program of facility maintenance at Ford.
I've never made such a blanket statement that synthetics are always the best or the worst. They are but one answer to a series of questions. A person who knows how to design and develop a proper maintenance program can get the "best" from any fluid choice. Often, it comes down to simple dollars and cents.
Ponch's question was well crafted and contained; he wanted opinions specific to the "other" claims for syn's. I think we showed how syn's can be of benefit, but only in certain circumstances. As for extended OCIs, that is CLEARLY one of syn's advantages, especially when used with superior filtration equipment.
So, your car and bike run "better" on synthetic after five minutes of an OCI? I appologize if I seem blunt, but I prefer data and evidence to hype any day. For people who want to make an "informed" decision, that is what it takes to prove/disprove the concept. We all have our rights to our opinions, and your's are just as valid as any member here. My opinion is neither superior nor subordinate to anyones. But at some point, some of us like to put the conjecture aside and look at real facts. We choose real world evidence shown via quantifiable means over audible and tactile supposition. Some members here come to find the truth existing in evidence and data, because they find hype and rhetoric so prominent in other sources.
Perhaps I am eating the doughnuts, but at least I'm not drinking the kool-aid.
Last edited:
