New Car Oil Question

Status
Not open for further replies.
For the OP.....try PP 5w20/wix napa gold filter DONE!
thumbsup2.gif
 
Originally Posted By: PT1
For the OP.....try PP 5w20/wix napa gold filter DONE!
thumbsup2.gif



How about PP 5w20/with a Purolator PureOne?
thumbsup2.gif


Thanks for all the input guys, I still don't know which oil to use, but intend on using the one i choose instead of switching them up. I assume that is a good practice to have.

Question now is which oil filter. I don't know much about them, but know not to use a Fram. Which would you recommend?

Wix Napa Gold
Purolator PureOne
K&N
Mobil 1

Thanks guys.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: toyotaguy
this came from bill on 1/16/03. So maybe he does have a hidden love for synthetics

Wallmart just got some Mobil 1 10-30 in the 5 qt jugs here and went from $15.88 to $22.88!

The last 5 I bought was about 3 months ago for $12.88. Wish I bought more.

Pretty close to the single qt price.

Bill
And really what does this do for the thread?

Puzzled...
 
Originally Posted By: outsiderwv
Originally Posted By: PT1
For the OP.....try PP 5w20/wix napa gold filter DONE!
thumbsup2.gif



How about PP 5w20/with a Purolator PureOne?
thumbsup2.gif


Thanks for all the input guys, I still don't know which oil to use, but intend on using the one i choose instead of switching them up. I assume that is a good practice to have.

Question now is which oil filter. I don't know much about them, but know not to use a Fram. Which would you recommend?

Wix Napa Gold
Purolator PureOne
K&N
Mobil 1

Thanks guys.


Ok, if you want to pick an oil and stick with it( I feel this is a good idea vs a different oil every OC )then don't pick Quaker State. They change formulas and names more often than most people change their under shorts.
smirk2.gif
PP is a readily available, affordable, quality product that should serve you well and it should be available long term. It also meets all of your warranty requirements in the 5W-20 weight. Good choice.
thumbsup2.gif


As to filters. If you are going to insist on 3K OC's than there is no need to go for the K&N or M1 filters. You can but you can get by with a cheaper filter for that short OCI. The Wix/Napa Gold( same exact filter - different label and box )or Purolator filter are good choices. Actually, Bosch filters are Purolator made and are another excellent affordable filter that would be good for your 3K OC's. Actually, the Wix/Napa GOld and the Purolator/Bosch filters would even be ok for 5K OC's.

I personally would step up to the K&N or M1( Royal Purple filter too )if you will go to 5K OC's just for the better product but I tend to always go for the best I can even if it is a bit over the top. Any of those cheaper filters with some 5W-20 PP are perfectly fine for 3-5K OCI's.

Just avoid cheap filters like Fram.
37.gif


cheers3.gif
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: outsiderwv
Originally Posted By: PT1
For the OP.....try PP 5w20/wix napa gold filter DONE!
thumbsup2.gif



How about PP 5w20/with a Purolator PureOne?
thumbsup2.gif


Thanks for all the input guys, I still don't know which oil to use, but intend on using the one i choose instead of switching them up. I assume that is a good practice to have.

Question now is which oil filter. I don't know much about them, but know not to use a Fram. Which would you recommend?

Wix Napa Gold
Purolator PureOne
K&N
Mobil 1

Thanks guys.
Frams work. I'd use a Supertech over one.

Pretty well anything you buy will work excellent.

Take care,Bill
 
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
A more important question than "when" to switch to synthetic is "why" to switch to synthetic....

Thanks for that post. Every now and then I need something to realign my perspectives, and that did it for me.
wink.gif


Note: please skip this post if you don't like listening to conjecture based on observation. There are no hard facts in my post.

I favor synthetic myself for everyday use. On paper there are lots of reasons to use it over dino: fewer (or no) VIIs can lead to less friction/wear because VIIs aren't the world's best lubricant; since syns tend to have a lower viscosity in the morning when you start your car, you're already closer to the magical OT visc; resistance to high temps can help with hotspots in poorly designed engines; the (usually) beefier add pack can provide more cushion during short trip driving, etc., etc.

Those are a few of the reasons I spend the extra $10 for synthetic. Theoretically, there will be tangible benefits over the long haul. The problem is that I haven't seen these translate into real world longevity numbers in daily drivers. UOAs don't show a difference in wear metal numbers when neither the syn nor the dino has been run to additive depletion. Engine rebuilders don't report shorter engine life if a dino is used in normal driving conditions. I've never seen a synthetic oil marketer claim that their oil provides better wear protection than a run of the mill dino... just "no other oil protects better."

My opinion is that synthetics technically perform better than conventionals. I suspect the tangible benefits in most applications are small enough that they would be overshadowed by running a poorly fitted air filter for 15,000 miles. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the benefits of using synthetic over dino in a daily driver are likely negligible compared to other basic maintenance points like ensuring good cooling and good air/oil filtration. I think some of us (myself definitely included) tend to focus too much on the type/brand of oil as the one thing that keeps an engine running well when it really isn't.

OP: I think your Jeep will love you either way as long as you use a modern oil of an appropriate viscosity, maintain a safe oil level, and change it out before the oil is spent.

Mobil's oil filters have turned in a few spectacular particle counts in the UOA and Oil Filters subforums. K&N, P1, Amsoil, and others also look impressive and are sturdily constructed. For 3,000 mile runs I don't think they'll provide better tangible results than a Wix, Bosch, Purolator Premium Plus or the like.

Originally Posted By: Shagger
I like Pennzoil Platinum and Purolator Pure One filters personally.

That works well for a lot of people. Recent SynPower also feels nice in my Honda.
 
Originally Posted By: toyotaguy
Buying bottled water is a waste of money.
Buying starbucks instead of DD coffee is a waste of money.

Me buying synthetic is not a waste of money my opinion


That's a very interesting point...

Especially --as I often thought when I changed peoples' oil a decade ago when they complained about the price-- most people put at least as much money into their gas tank every week or two as they put into their crankcase every few months. Yet they don't seem to drive less, or a little slower, to save money on gasoline...
 
Last edited:
I just love smacking conjecture and mythology in the face with true hard facts and real data.

Let's review the basic claims of synthetics being "better".

1) They give better "protection"; I presume this means lower wear.
2) They run "cleaner"
3) They flow "better"
4) They give "better" fuel economy

Let's start with the "better protection".
Please look at the two links I'll provide. You can read the posts if you choose, but it's the raw data in the UOAs I want you to look at. These are dealing with HDEOs, but the reality is there, if you're willing to open your mind and compare/contrast real information ...

This one is of a Dmax running 15w-40 Delvac conventional oil.
http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/showthread.php?t=272289&highlight=used+oil

This one is of a Dmax running 5w-40 RTS.
http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/showthread.php?t=312777

OK - now look at the wear numbers and the OCI durations.

The first UOA report examples are at 7k and 9k miles. The wear metals are all really low, and only the Fe seems to be moving with the mileage exposure. It probably averages around 1.45ppm/1k miles. All other attributes were "normal" enough to not warrant discussion. Blackstone even suggests running up to 10k miles for the next OCI/UOA.

The second UOA examples are at 5k miles. The wear metals are all really low, and the Fe is a bit lower than the above example. However, on a wear/mile basis, this example of "synthetic" actually showed a slightly higher wear rate of Fe with 1.6ppm/1k miles. All other attriubutes were "normal" enough to not really warrant discussion. Oddly, Blackstone suggest sticking with the OCI/UOA plan at 5k miles.

So, we have a guy who runs dino 15w-40 in his Dmax, and actually gets a lower wear rate than the other guy with synthetic, regarding Fe. The Al, Cu, and Pb are all low enough that they just don't matter at all for the discussion. The insolubles are all good, the coolant is not an issue. The fuel was a bit higher in the synthetic lube vehicle, so that might have contributed a bit to the Fe, but the reality is that they were close enough to almost call them even.

Now, here's my point I've been banging on, some of you are ignoring continually. For moderate OCI durations, in non-extreme environments, just where is the synthetic "advantage"? These two engines are wearing about the same, even though they use different base stocks; one conventional and one synthetic.

Let's look at "cleanliness".
Synthetics run cleaner, some would say. But that is an over-rated and mis-understood concept. Base stocks don't clean engines; detergent packages do. It's the additives in oil that clean, not the oil itself. So, becasue synthetics are made to be run longer, they typically have more detergents in them. But if you already have a clean engine, and you OCI with moderation, the "dirtiness" of your oil and engine never get to a bad level in the first place. What good is tons of detergent if you dump it frequently? Having more cleaner than necessary is like me having way to much oil stashed in the garage; it makes me feel good, but I have no use for it because I can't use it all at once! Further, in both UOA vehicles, the insolubles (soot and oxidation byproducts) are pretty much the same. On top of that, detergents really only clean up what falls out of suspension. If your oil's dispersent package is working sell, there isn't much to "clean" because the anti-agglomerate additive should be doing it's job. The reality is that engine design and manufacture has much more to do with engine cleanliness than does lubricant base stock.

Let's look at "flow".
Two things affect flow; lubricity and viscosity. I'll agree that the base stock of synthetics might be a bit more "slippery" shall we say. But the grade of a dino compared to the grade of a synthetic is set by your choice of grade. Once up to temp, the viscosity of a "40" in one is about the same as a "40" in another. Truly synthetics do flow better a extreme low temperatures, but that probably is only really significant well below zero deg F.

Let's look at fuel economy.
That's somewhat affected by the viscosity. Choose a ligher grade, and you'll get better economy. I believe that the choice of grade has MUCH more to do with economy than does base stock. I agree that base stock does have an effect, but it's truly negligible in most cases; it's there, but barely percieveable.


How about a synopsis of the two UOA examples ...
One guy can basically can run his dino fluid for 10k miles, and get a very nice wear rate and overall performance. The other guy runs his synthetic for 5k miles, and yet gets about the same wear rates and overall performance. Does is seem logical to spend 2x more money ($20/gallon vs. $10/gallon) for the lubricant, and then dump it 2x more often (5k miles vs. 10k miles)? In effect, the "synthetic" is costing 4x more money, FOR THE SAME UOA RESULTS! There is no temperature concern in this environment. There is no real flow or grade issues. There is no significant economy savings.

Bring on the nay-saying, but for goodness sake, bring facts and UOA proof. This is the second post I've put up with some hard UOA facts. If you can't put up good data for your side of the discussion, please leave your rhetoric at home.

To the OP, outsiderwv. Do what you want; you have all the information you need to make an informed decision. If you REALLY want to know, how about trying a few UOAs with two different set up's, then tell us how it worked out for you, rather than ask us what's "best". Run PP with a M1 filter for a few 5k miles OCIs. Then run some PZYB with a common Purolator filter for 5k miles. Do the UOAs and let us know. Pull the valve covers and take some pictures. Show us which one is "better", and if the expense was worth it!
 
Last edited:
You state clear facts, which brings me to a comment my dad makes all the time. It is a little sarcastic comment of his and is directed at NO ONE. "Liars can figure but figures can't lie". We sometimes lie to ourselfs to justify, or just to feel better about a decision.

I think what it all boils down to with the synthetic vs. dino debate taking extended drains out of the equation is this: It is a psychological issue here, and the effects of good advertising. People buy insurance, and never need it, perhaps they want the comfort /insurance of knowing that if they're ever in -35*F temps, or stranded in the Mohave desert, in traffic, in July the oil is up to the task. That mentality can't be changed with facts. It's like the guy who buys the 4x4 for the possibility of one snow storm a year. JMO

AD
 
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I just love smacking conjecture and mythology in the face with true hard facts and real data....

...If you can't put up good data for your side of the discussion, please leave your rhetoric at home.

Was this directed at me? If so, please try reading my post again. How do you expect me to provide conclusive evidence that there's a complete LACK of evidence that synthetics outperform (protect, whatever) conventionals anywhere outside of a chemist's lab?
21.gif
I freely admitted that I run synthetic because it SHOULD perform better, but that there's no evidence that this translates into meaningful real world results.

Not to pick a fight, but I don't think that comparing the UOAs from two different viscosity grades in two different engines for two considerably different OCIs is more than anecdotal. Especially when there is evidence that suggests wear metal numbers are higher at the beginning of an OCI and don't rise again until the additive pack is nearing depletion or other factors come into play (filtration efficiency worsens, viscosity substantially changes due to fuel dilution or oxidation, etc.).
 
Thanks for all the input everyone. I have made my decision based upon all of the information included in this thread and that I have read elsewhere.

I plan on using PYB with a purolator pureone filter. If I am changing at every 3,000 miles then it should matter if I use synthetic or dino. The only extreme driving I am doing is frequent trips in which case either oil will be suitable.

Thanks so much for all of you help and information.
 
Originally Posted By: ADFD1
or stranded in the Mohave desert, in traffic, in July the oil is up to the task.


Check out this photo...

img0623vv0.jpg


Toyota Corolla 5 people on board with a trunk full.

Notice the speed. A/C is on. Water temp stayed @ 194 degrees. (scan gauge)

Oil? 5w-30 wt conventional.

(just outside Baker, CA)

Been doing this trip for DECADES. All my engines should excellent UOAs.

Don't trust or UOAs don't prove anything? I get hundreds of thousands of miles on my engines as does my family.

All on yesterdays conventionals. Todays ARE better.

Some of us are NOT MAKING this stuff up.
grin2.gif


Take care, Bill
 
Tropic - it was not directed at you indivudually. If I offended you, I apologize.

The UOA were actually as valid as any other ones you would see here. In fact, many people, including myself, belong to many different sites.

The UOAs were all from Dmax engines, they had similar driving styles and areas. Only the OCI and base stock were the large variables. The grade (40) is very comparible, if you understand visocisty. Once up to temp, a 5w-40 and a 15w-40 are basically the same grade. The cold start viscosity favors any lower gradiant number. A 10w-30 HDEO would flow better than a 15w-40 at start up, but not as well as a 5w-30 or 5w-40. It's not only the base stock, but also the viscosity that aids in start up flow.

The bottom line is that these UOAs show that spending 4x the money does not equate to 4x the protection. Were the wear metals 4x better? Was the oxidation/insolubles 4x better? Was the viscosity 4x better? No. No. No. So, in moderate duration, moderate environment operation, where's the "benefit" to synthetic?

Again, go back to the four items I listed as the claimed synthetic benefits:
1) better protection; not according to several UOAs I've posted
2) cleaner; not an attribute of the base stock (many high end dino fluids have as much detergents as synthetics)
3) better flow; not really an issue for temps in WV, or most of the States for that matter (only below zero)
4) better economy; quite true, and quite small when actually measured.

So, yet again, where is the ROI for dino v. synthetic in this scenario? Where is the proof that he'll find a "better" oil choice? I am being specifc to the OPs question, not some "one size fits all" debate.

PYB and PureOne filters every 3k miles will suit him nicely. About the only way he could improve upon that is to stretch the OCI out a bit.

And, if he does OCI the oil every 3k, he could at least change the PureOne filter every other OCI. But that's a topic for a whole other forum ...
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Tropic - it was not directed at you indivudually. If I offended you, I apologize.

The UOA were actually as valid as any other ones you would see here. In fact, many people, including myself, belong to many different sites.

The UOAs were all from Dmax engines, they had similar driving styles and areas. Only the OCI and base stock were the large variables. The grade (40) is very comparible, if you understand visocisty. Once up to temp, a 5w-40 and a 15w-40 are basically the same grade. The cold start viscosity favors any lower gradiant number. A 10w-30 HDEO would flow better than a 15w-40 at start up, but not as well as a 5w-30 or 5w-40. It's not only the base stock, but also the viscosity that aids in start up flow.

The bottom line is that these UOAs show that spending 4x the money does not equate to 4x the protection. Were the wear metals 4x better? Was the oxidation/insolubles 4x better? Was the viscosity 4x better? No. No. No. So, in moderate duration, moderate environment operation, where's the "benefit" to synthetic?

Again, go back to the four items I listed as the claimed synthetic benefits:
1) better protection; not according to several UOAs I've posted
2) cleaner; not an attribute of the base stock (many high end dino fluids have as much detergents as synthetics)
3) better flow; not really an issue for temps in WV, or most of the States for that matter (only below zero)
4) better economy; quite true, and quite small when actually measured.

So, yet again, where is the ROI for dino v. synthetic in this scenario? Where is the proof that he'll find a "better" oil choice? I am being specifc to the OPs question, not some "one size fits all" debate.

PYB and PureOne filters every 3k miles will suit him nicely. About the only way he could improve upon that is to stretch the OCI out a bit.

And, if he does OCI the oil every 3k, he could at least change the PureOne filter every other OCI. But that's a topic for a whole other forum ...


Just curious where you have come up with this 4X's the cost figure? Synthetic oil can be purchased for less than 2X the cost of conventional oil if you shop around.
 
Hey, what would you guys think of using a Mopar oil filter with PYB? The reason I ask is that Auto Zone had no model for any filters other than the standard Purolator (not PureOne) and I get free changes at the dealer so they would be using a Mopar filter. Any thing wrong with Mopar filters?
 
Mopar filters for the most part are decent quality and I would use them without hesitation. Combined with PYB would be great!
thumbsup2.gif
 
NHHemi - I was combining the cost of the fluid with the overly-frequent OCI, for a combined cost of OCI, for equal UOA results.

COST:
The synthetic costs 2x the money; agreed. There are times when it's a bit less, and there are times when it's a whole lot more. It's not uncommon to have to pay 3x the money for a PAO. But I used 2x because group III are reasonbly found in that price differential. PAO's only skew the debate in my favor. I used 2x to be "reasonable", as my example was dino HDEO to RTS.

OCI FREQUENCY:
In this one UOA example I showed, the synthetic was being changed at 5k miles intervals compared to capable dino's at 10k miles, infering that the synthetic is being changed 2x more often (at a minimum) than necessary.

Fluid costing 2x more money, changed 2x more often than needed, is: 2x + 2x = 4x

Let's put real figures to it. (First, let's keep the filter a "constant" so it does not figure into the issue. If you change the filter with the OCI, it would skew the debate even MORE in my favor).

Dmax engine holds 10 quarts; can easily get dino HDEO at $2/qrt on sale; That makes on OCI at 10k miles cost $20 with dino HDEO.

Run that same engine with 10 quarts of RTS; costs about $4/qrt on sale, changed every 5k miles. That's $40/OCI, done twice as often = $80 for 10k miles.

$80 is four times greater than $20.

For the same "protection" (UOA results).


Again, given these operating parameters:
a) Short to moderate OCIs and conventional filtration
b) non-extreme temps
There's not much logic to using synthetics, is there?

These were real world UOAs I put up, from other people. The UOAs show equal wear rates, regardless of lubricant base stock. The UOA shows insolubles, (and all other issues) on par, inferring the "cleanliness" was about equal. The temperatures were moderate. For all intents and purposes, these two engines were "protected" to the same level. The only difference was one costs 4x more money to maintain, for the same results. You can apply the same basic formulas to group III lubes in a small gas engine. 2x the cost; 2x the frequency; 4x the overall OCI cost.

Do you really believe that one guy got 4x the return on his money for just the "peace of mind" of using synthetics? That's some really expensive consulation ...
21.gif
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: outsiderwv
Hey, what would you guys think of using a Mopar oil filter with PYB? The reason I ask is that Auto Zone had no model for any filters other than the standard Purolator (not PureOne) and I get free changes at the dealer so they would be using a Mopar filter. Any thing wrong with Mopar filters?


MOPAR filters are fine for 3-5K.
 
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
NHHemi - I was combining the cost of the fluid with the overly-frequent OCI, for a combined cost of OCI, for equal UOA results.

COST:
The synthetic costs 2x the money; agreed. There are times when it's a bit less, and there are times when it's a whole lot more. It's not uncommon to have to pay 3x the money for a PAO. But I used 2x because group III are reasonbly found in that price differential. PAO's only skew the debate in my favor. I used 2x to be "reasonable", as my example was dino HDEO to RTS.

OCI FREQUENCY:
In this one UOA example I showed, the synthetic was being changed at 5k miles intervals compared to capable dino's at 10k miles, infering that the synthetic is being changed 2x more often (at a minimum) than necessary.

Fluid costing 2x more money, changed 2x more often than needed, is: 2x + 2x = 4x

Let's put real figures to it. (First, let's keep the filter a "constant" so it does not figure into the issue. If you change the filter with the OCI, it would skew the debate even MORE in my favor).

Dmax engine holds 10 quarts; can easily get dino HDEO at $2/qrt on sale; That makes on OCI at 10k miles cost $20 with dino HDEO.

Run that same engine with 10 quarts of RTS; costs about $4/qrt, changed every 5k miles. That's $40/OCI, done twice as often = $80 for 10k miles.

$80 is four times greater than $20.

For the same "protection" (wear metal results), according to the UOAs.


Again, given these operating parameters:
a) Short to moderate OCIs and conventional filtration
b) non-extreme temps
There's not much logic to "synthetic, is there?

These were real world UOAs I put up, from other people. The UOAs show equal results, regardless of lubricant base stock. The UOA shows insolubles, (and all other issues) on par, inferring the "cleanliness" was about equal. The temperatures were moderate. For all intents and purposes, these two engines were "protected" to the same level. The only difference was one costs 4x more money to maintain, for the same results. You can apply the same basic formulas to group III lubes in a small gas engine. 2x the cost; 2x the frequency; 4x the overall OCI cost.

Do you really believe that one guy got 4x the return on his money for just the "peace of mind" of using synthetics? That's some really expensive consulation ...
21.gif




Just too much to try to sort through. You use what makes you happy and I will use what makes me happy. WOW! I never thought anyone could drone on and on about something longer than I can.
LOL.gif
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top