People have problems with Conventional oils due to the marketing efforts of the syn oil producers. Different types of oils have their benefits. It all depends. If syn oils were the be all to end all all the commercial vehicles and fleet owners would run only syn oil. These people make a living with the vehicles and syn oils re used where they have the most benefits,
PYB in a 2010 Mustang GT
- Thread starter CrackyWainwright
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: hatt
PYB meets the Ford spec for that vehicle. I'd use it or similar if Platinum wasn't the same price or less, with rebates.
That's probably the only reason I'm not running PYB in all my cars. The M1, PP, QSUD, etc. end up being as cheap or cheaper after rebates. PYB is good stuff.
Prior to 2010 by DD's lived on only dino oil. My 1988 Crown Vic made do it to 212K miles (trans failure). My 1997 Lincoln made it to 232K (coolant system failure - the next owner ran it until the engine seized). All received 3K-4K OCI's at Quick Lubes with bulk oils and cheapo filters. I was reviewing the OCI's from my last Lincoln and was shocked I was paying $28-$37 for oil changes. These days, I do them myself on synthetic oil + synthetic filter for under $20.
PYB meets the Ford spec for that vehicle. I'd use it or similar if Platinum wasn't the same price or less, with rebates.
That's probably the only reason I'm not running PYB in all my cars. The M1, PP, QSUD, etc. end up being as cheap or cheaper after rebates. PYB is good stuff.
Prior to 2010 by DD's lived on only dino oil. My 1988 Crown Vic made do it to 212K miles (trans failure). My 1997 Lincoln made it to 232K (coolant system failure - the next owner ran it until the engine seized). All received 3K-4K OCI's at Quick Lubes with bulk oils and cheapo filters. I was reviewing the OCI's from my last Lincoln and was shocked I was paying $28-$37 for oil changes. These days, I do them myself on synthetic oil + synthetic filter for under $20.
hatt said:
Originally Posted By: Virtus_Probi
Originally Posted By: jdavis
Soooo, was the Rav4 quicker than your Forester XT?
I have a V6 Rav4 and it's a definitely a fun vehicle with a solid drive train.
Hard to say because they behave so differently!
The RAV4 just JUMPED off the line and, I think, felt quicker because of that. I totally enjoyed that vehicle from the get go.
The FXT has a bit of a delay which is supposed to be due more the CVT than the turbo, and I had to learn little tricks like popping the downshift lever (even in auto) and turning off the traction control when I really want it to respond. Once it gets going, it just plain rolls. It can be deceptive because it is so smooth...I have to merge 2 lanes down to 1 right after a light on my way home from work and decided to stretch it out just after I bought it. I had the impression that the FXT didn't respond that well, but looked down to find I was doing 80 in a 40 zone right after the merge...aaahhh!!! You don't even notice the auto CVT working, and manual mode paddle shifting is too slow to be of much use in 0-60 type dashes.
There are a few areas in which the FXT clearly feels better than the "RAV6" did...the Yo always seemed sluggish to me around 50mph, like it couldn't find the right gear when I wanted it to jump. No such dead spot with the FXT. I also have a long hill climb out of my neighborhood right after a stop sign, and, again, the RAV4 just seemed like it couldn't find the right gear to get up that hill in a hurry if I really wanted to get going. The FXT climbs it like a goat no matter what.
I think the published 0-60 times are a bit faster with the FXT, 6.2-6.4 secs compared to something like 6.6 for the RAV4 IIRC, but there are a lot of shenanigans involved in getting those...brake boosting, trac off, funny games with the manual/auto shifting. Seemed like you just stood on the RAV4 and it went, although I really wished that it had the manual shifting option like my wife's Avalon to play with.
I may have bought another RAV4 if they had kept the V6 option, but I was not enamored of the AWD system and I had an expensive repair on it. Did not want to shell out for the heavier RX350 and the local Acura dealer just plain messed with me when I went to buy an RDX (also with weak AWD). BMW X1 and the Infiniti QX50 were too small. The RAV4 was more fun for me, but the FXT probably really suits my needs better.
Thanks for the info! I'm surprised the decent mileage the Rav is getting, have only had it a couple weeks.
Originally Posted By: jdavis
Soooo, was the Rav4 quicker than your Forester XT?
I have a V6 Rav4 and it's a definitely a fun vehicle with a solid drive train.
Hard to say because they behave so differently!
The RAV4 just JUMPED off the line and, I think, felt quicker because of that. I totally enjoyed that vehicle from the get go.
The FXT has a bit of a delay which is supposed to be due more the CVT than the turbo, and I had to learn little tricks like popping the downshift lever (even in auto) and turning off the traction control when I really want it to respond. Once it gets going, it just plain rolls. It can be deceptive because it is so smooth...I have to merge 2 lanes down to 1 right after a light on my way home from work and decided to stretch it out just after I bought it. I had the impression that the FXT didn't respond that well, but looked down to find I was doing 80 in a 40 zone right after the merge...aaahhh!!! You don't even notice the auto CVT working, and manual mode paddle shifting is too slow to be of much use in 0-60 type dashes.
There are a few areas in which the FXT clearly feels better than the "RAV6" did...the Yo always seemed sluggish to me around 50mph, like it couldn't find the right gear when I wanted it to jump. No such dead spot with the FXT. I also have a long hill climb out of my neighborhood right after a stop sign, and, again, the RAV4 just seemed like it couldn't find the right gear to get up that hill in a hurry if I really wanted to get going. The FXT climbs it like a goat no matter what.
I think the published 0-60 times are a bit faster with the FXT, 6.2-6.4 secs compared to something like 6.6 for the RAV4 IIRC, but there are a lot of shenanigans involved in getting those...brake boosting, trac off, funny games with the manual/auto shifting. Seemed like you just stood on the RAV4 and it went, although I really wished that it had the manual shifting option like my wife's Avalon to play with.
I may have bought another RAV4 if they had kept the V6 option, but I was not enamored of the AWD system and I had an expensive repair on it. Did not want to shell out for the heavier RX350 and the local Acura dealer just plain messed with me when I went to buy an RDX (also with weak AWD). BMW X1 and the Infiniti QX50 were too small. The RAV4 was more fun for me, but the FXT probably really suits my needs better.
Thanks for the info! I'm surprised the decent mileage the Rav is getting, have only had it a couple weeks.
Well starting in extreme cold with conventional isn't very productive. Cold flow isn't very good. I would argue that very good syn oils flow in cold weather offering much better critical protection.
Also, under extreme heat they handle those stresses better. Take an air cooled v twin, on hottest days and you will run cooler with high quality syn.
Also, under extreme heat they handle those stresses better. Take an air cooled v twin, on hottest days and you will run cooler with high quality syn.
My fiancee owns a 2007 Mustang GT with only about 18,000 miles on it. We use 5W-20 Motorcraft in it. It runs fine.
Wayne
Wayne
- Status
Similar threads
