Syn vs Dino - Real world experience with engines

[StevieC]

So having torn apart and rebuilt many engines with my dad I have noticed that engine that run on Synthetic are generally much cleaner and don't have a gasoline odor to them when the valve covers and bottom ends are opened up.

With Dino most seem to have light to heavy varnish and/or some minor build up and always have a gasoline odour to them. Not that this causes any problem or reduction in life for the engine, but it is interesting to me.

Now I'm not talking about the engines that have been abused, but the ones that have had regular maintenance and have died because of an unforeseen manufacturing defect or overheating problem that wasn't caught before damage was done.

I just thought I would post this for discussion in case anyone else has noticed the same thing.

 

[Drew99GT]

Have you ever measured wear between comparable engines using dino vs. synthetic?

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Have you ever measured wear between comparable engines using dino vs. synthetic?
Yes but not to prove that the Syn did a better job than Dino specifically but because we were seeing if parts were suitable to be left in place or whether they needed replacement.

On average I would say that 90% of the same model engines compared that have run Syn versus Dino, there is not really that much difference in wear when you compare it proportionally to the mileage that was on the engine.

That being said there were some engines that did show much better results from running on syn but this is very rare.

All engines that ran on syn versus dino were a lot cleaner inside, but nothing that would cause any performance issues IMO, and no where near the "Using Dino will sludge your engine" we hear here sometimes.

 

[Drew99GT]

What about piston ring deposits, synthetic vs. dino?

 

[StevieC]

Unless the engine was burning oil, I have almost never seen anything more than a bit of varnish on the pistons with no deposits on the rings. (With Dino)

With Syn the rings/pistons generally don't have any varnish unless the engine was consuming oil.

Most of these engines were from the 80's / 90's and range between 200-300K KM (120K Miles - 180K Miles) and have used oils with, now obsolete ratings at some point and were driven in the city in stop/go traffic with occasional highway driving.

So with greater engine efficiency, better quality dino oils, and top-tier gasoline I don't see how Dino couldn't hold up just fine in 99% of engines out there.

I believe that Syn is nothing more than a waste of money if used when a vehicle doesn't specifically require it, and/or the cold climate doesn't make it a viable choice as the extra bit of cleanliness in the engine and same wear for the most part that I have seen makes it hard to justify the added cost over an engines life.

I just wish I knew about BITOG a long time ago and could have posted pics of engines to back up these experiences.

Getting back to my original post... The other difference I have noticed is that the Dino run engines seem to always have a strong gasoline smell when disassembled, whereas the syn run engines don't. I find it a bit weird and can't explain it.

 

[lexus114]

Originally Posted By: StevieC
Unless the engine was burning oil, I have almost never seen anything more than a bit of varnish on the pistons with no deposits on the rings. (With Dino)

With Syn the rings/pistons generally don't have any varnish unless again the engine was consuming oil.

Most of these engines were from the 80's / 90's and range between 200-300K KM (120K Miles - 180K Miles) and have used oils with, now obsolete ratings at some point.

So with greater engine efficiency and better oils, I don't see how Dino couldn't hold up just fine in 99% of engines out there.

I believe that Syn is nothing more than a waste of money if used when a vehicle doesn't specifically require it, and/or the cold climate doesn't make it a viable choice as the extra bit of cleanliness in the engine and same wear for the most part that I have seen makes it hard to justify the added cost.

I just wish I knew about BITOG a long time ago and could have posted pics of engines.


How about it Stevie!! the internet was just a little late in that respect.

 

[StevieC]

No, the engines were from the 80's/90's but the rebuilds were taking place in the late 90's and the 2000's so the internet was around then. Now BITOG wasn't but I could have still snapped pics for another website which I would have kept and could have posted here.

I was also much younger and believed a lot of MYTH's that I now know aren't true about Engine Oil. (Thanks to BITOG)

I had Cable internet back in '97.

Now Digital Cameras were still expensive back then...

 

[wulimaster]

Back in the early days of BITOG I found a posting on another forum about a comparison between synthetic and dino oil over a 6 year period covering 8 identical vehicles with mileage covered per vehicle during that period of 425K to 450K total.

The vehicles were 4x4 (I want to say Bronco II or something very similar) used in a hot dusty place (again memory fails me except Texas comes to mind) with many miles of dirt access roads.

The oils used were Mobil 1 at 5k oil change interval vs 3k OCI for the dino. The oil change interval wasn't given for the automatic transmission fluid nor was the ATF brand given but at the time, only Amsoil had an ATF for Ford transmissions so I suspect that was what was used.

The results were quite impressive and left a long lasting impression with me.

Engines on dino: 4 engine replacements at the 200k-250k mark due to failure to meet emissions testing due to oil consumption. Cost $4000 per vehicle.

Engines on synthetic: all 4 engines went the full 6 years without replacement.

Transmissions on dino: 4 rebuilt trannys and new torque convertors. Another $2k per vehicle.

Transmissions on synthetic: 1 replaced torque convertor. Unsure of cost as it was minor compared to the cost of a new transmission and I didn't bother trying to commit it to memory.

Fuel savings; Dino - baseline = $0; synthetic - paid for the oil

Oil costs: Dino - full costs + excess oil consumption; synthetic - paid for by fuel savings

Total cost savings for the synthetic ~ $8,000 per vehicle over the 6 years owned and 400,000+ miles.

The owner of the business replaced all 8 vehicles at the end of the 6 years. I believe he is using synthetic exclusively now.

Make what you will of this story. I believed it then and I still do based on my own observations over the last 19 years with synthetics.

I really wish I had saved a copy of the posting instead of having to rely on memory but I believed I captured it accurately enough.

 

[StevieC]

One thing I forgot to add to my post above... The only other advantage I see for Syns over Dino other than listed above is that you can run longer OCI's usually.

 

[ottotheclown]

Thank you for this post. I wish more like this appeared on this site. Your post reminded me of the Consumer reports study on the NYC cabs, the results were similar.Except they included the fact that 3mo. or 6mo. OCI did not seem to matter either.

 

[StevieC]

99% of the cars we have seen are run on good old bulk Dino from your Jiffy-boob style places and are changed out at 5-8K KM (3K-5K Miles).

 

[FrankN4]

SteveC

Very interesting. Do you happen to know if the synthetic oils were GP III, such as Valvoline. or GP IV, such as Mobil 1?

 

[Cup of Joe]

Originally Posted By: wulimaster
Back in the early days of BITOG I found a posting on another forum about a comparison between synthetic and dino oil over a 6 year period covering 8 identical vehicles with mileage covered per vehicle during that period of 425K to 450K total.

The vehicles were 4x4 (I want to say Bronco II or something very similar) used in a hot dusty place (again memory fails me except Texas comes to mind) with many miles of dirt access roads.

The oils used were Mobil 1 at 5k oil change interval vs 3k OCI for the dino. The oil change interval wasn't given for the automatic transmission fluid nor was the ATF brand given but at the time, only Amsoil had an ATF for Ford transmissions so I suspect that was what was used.

The results were quite impressive and left a long lasting impression with me.

Engines on dino: 4 engine replacements at the 200k-250k mark due to failure to meet emissions testing due to oil consumption. Cost $4000 per vehicle.

Engines on synthetic: all 4 engines went the full 6 years without replacement.

Transmissions on dino: 4 rebuilt trannys and new torque convertors. Another $2k per vehicle.

Transmissions on synthetic: 1 replaced torque convertor. Unsure of cost as it was minor compared to the cost of a new transmission and I didn't bother trying to commit it to memory.

Fuel savings; Dino - baseline = $0; synthetic - paid for the oil

Oil costs: Dino - full costs + excess oil consumption; synthetic - paid for by fuel savings

Total cost savings for the synthetic ~ $8,000 per vehicle over the 6 years owned and 400,000+ miles.

The owner of the business replaced all 8 vehicles at the end of the 6 years. I believe he is using synthetic exclusively now.

Make what you will of this story. I believed it then and I still do based on my own observations over the last 19 years with synthetics.

I really wish I had saved a copy of the posting instead of having to rely on memory but I believed I captured it accurately enough.





I guess you never found that write up again.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=1275&Number=18665#Post18665

 

[Bill in Utah]

I'm sure that oils have not improved since the "story" was run

(at least 7 years ago).

Plenty of vehicles going the distance with whatever iffy lube puts in every x thousands of miles.

I've seen many hard driven engines last 200k + with no problems with above as the maintenance SOP. All brands of engines not just Toyotas or Hondas.

There is a difference between NEED and WANT.

Take care, Bill

 

[ottotheclown]

You know the more you think about it; why doesn't a oil co. like amsoil or mobil do a test on identical vehicles to prove what they say about the benefitsof dino vs syn?How come nobody really ever did that but Consumer Reports?Amsoil shows GTX holds its own in some of their tests . But just think what it would be like in real life rather than 4 balls,54below zero etc.Some say syn. is a waste of money, a real life test could pretty much clear that up.Or maybe they have and who knows??????????

 

[friendly_jacek]

If synthetic oil decreases wear dramatically, why don't car makers require fully synthetic oil and extend engine/tranny warranty to 200,000 miles or so?

On the other hand, I see that in some extreme circumstances (very low or very high ambient temps) synthetic fluids could decrease failure rates.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
If synthetic oil decreases wear dramatically, why don't car makers require fully synthetic oil and extend engine/tranny warranty to 200,000 miles or so?

On the other hand, I see that in some extreme circumstances (very low or very high ambient temps) synthetic fluids could decrease failure rates.


Agree, the main advantage of syn oils is that they perform better at temperature extremes which you typically don't see.
I know domestic V8 taxis routinely put on 1M miles on bulk dino.

 

[BuickGN]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
If synthetic oil decreases wear dramatically, why don't car makers require fully synthetic oil and extend engine/tranny warranty to 200,000 miles or so?

On the other hand, I see that in some extreme circumstances (very low or very high ambient temps) synthetic fluids could decrease failure rates.


Agree, the main advantage of syn oils is that they perform better at temperature extremes which you typically don't see.
I know domestic V8 taxis routinely put on 1M miles on bulk dino.


I'm not one to believe that synthetics decrease wear much under normal conditions. I could see it in exterme cold with better flow on startup or with very high oil temps where a dino starts to fail but those aren't normal conditions.

As I've posted before, I've seen less wear with dino in the GN which is why I run it though Redline is on the short list to try. I'm a firm believer in a higher HTHS for reduced wear regardless of the 100c viscosity or syn vs dino.

 

[vxcalais]

Would you still expect to see these results with a SL or SM rated Group 1 mineral oil changed at 5000k's ?

 

[EricF]

I deal with a lot of the local taxi companies in my area, they buy the cheapest of everything, they want the lowest cost oil filter, lowest cost oil, won't consider anything synthetic unless they get it for the same price as dino oil, they also want the cheapest brake pads they can get.
AZ loses money on taxi's, but seem to not care about it.