Synergyn Additive

MolaKule · Jul 15, 2003

Synergen by Dyson Oil (Analysis Courtesy of Terry Dyson, no real relation!)
Silicon (Si) 0
Sodium (Na) 0
Potassium (K) 2
Molybdenum (Mo) 11
Phosphorus (P) 310
Zinc (Zn) 359
Calcium (Ca) 18
Magnesium (Mg) 1
Physical

Viscocity At 40 C (V40) NA
Total Acid Number (Tan) 0.8
Total Base Number (Tbn) 1
Viscosity At 100 C (V100) NRP
Particle

This is Dyson Oil's Synergyn additive. Thanks to Mr. Neil Womack for providing the sample.

This additive is in a beautiful clear blue/green viscous liquid of approx. 12-13 cSt. BTW, don't leave this add out in the open especially around children. The color is way too close to "Snow Cone" syrup.

The liquid is a viscous ester and olefin copolymer with a small amount of aromatic diphenylamine antioxidant/surfactant/FM.

I am somewhat suprized at the low levels of additives. The ZDDP AW/EP add level is low (1/4 the level of a formulated SL oil), as well as the detergent/dispersant package (1/10 the level of an SL oil). The boron level (not reported but calculated), should be at approx. 10 ppm.

It might boost the FM and oxidative properties of a poor oil, but IMHO, not much to write home to mama about.

I have no idea what the cost is per Oz. The bottle is about a 15 oz. bottle.
Ok, flogging time!

[ July 15, 2003, 03:27 PM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]

Hirev · Jul 15, 2003

I'am no expert on oil. But it sure seems like a guy would be better off with just using a better oil in the 1st place. Than to buy and add this stuff in.

Shannow · Jul 15, 2003

Nice concept in "subtractive" technology (one of those substances that dilutes the active ingredients of your oil).

Jay · Jul 15, 2003

From Synergyn's website:

quote:

Product Description:

Synergyn® Oil Treatment protects and reinforces the additive system in any lubricant so it will work better and last longer. In addition, Synergyn® increases the film strength of lubricants so you have less wear, lower temperatures and reduced oxidation. Synergyn® is a proprietary blend of ingredients and additives that improves the effectiveness and useful life of any lubricant. It may be used in any liquid lubricant and is effective in hydraulic systems, transmissions, gear boxes, speed reducers, differentials, transfer cases and hydrostatic drives, as well as all crankcase engine oils - diesel or gasoline. Synergyn® may be used in all lubricants, synthetic or petroleum based. Synergyn® makes any oil better.

I've always thought of this additive in the same light as Schaeffer's Penetro or Royal Purple's Synerlec. It's one of those mysterious fluids that makes Synergyn oil Synergyn. I'm not sure this analysis sheds any more light on the stuff, but it is interesting.

boxcartommie22 · Jul 15, 2003

one has to remember that these results are +/- 25% and are cude....even red lines virgin sample comes out far less zddp etc. then what red line tells you exactly how much is in all their oils..so i would take these virgin tests with a grain of salt...

cryptokid · Jul 15, 2003

also, synergyn additive might use components which wont show up on oil analisis.

keeping that in mind, the voa on most additives isnt too much help.

MNgopher · Jul 15, 2003

quote:

Originally posted by boxcartommie22:
one has to remember that these results are +/- 25% and are cude....even red lines virgin sample comes out far less zddp etc. then what red line tells you exactly how much is in all their oils..so i would take these virgin tests with a grain of salt...

I keep seeing this comment recently that Oil Analysis is +/- 25% on things. I'm curious as to why you say that?

Other folks have graciously already found out what is acceptable. Try this link: http://neptune.spacebears.com/cars/stories/margins.html

As you can see, it isn't +/- 25 %, but varies by material.

Neil Womack · Jul 15, 2003

Does not seem worth the $7.98 I paid for it.

Think I'll take my own advise and just stick with superior motor oils and change it at the needed interval.

MolaKule · Jul 15, 2003

quote:

also, synergyn additive might use components which wont show up on oil analisis.

keeping that in mind, the voa on most additives isnt too much help.

Well, the only thing not tested for were the sulfur, barium, and antimony elements. Any other element not reported was zero on the analysis listing.

Again, I am posting these (at my own expense) for both academic and practical reasons.

If you use these products with formulated oils, and your UOA's seem out of kelter from the VOA's, it might just be the additives have altered the reports. So if you do use these adds, tell Dyson or Blackstone or whomever so they can account for these adds.

BTW, a correction: I looked at the bottle and it now says "Synergyn Oil, Inc.," instead of Dyson Oil.

cryptokid · Jul 15, 2003

molakule, synergyn might not use sulfur, barrium or antimony elements.

what i meant is that it may use other elements. (not common to oil analisis)

similar to how auto-rx voa doesnt show anything worthwhile. (but yet we know theres things in it that dont show up in oil analisis)

do you get my point?

Chris A · Jul 15, 2003

Molecule, you have said (about Schaeffer #132)

quote:

With 60 ppm of Antimony Dithiocarbamates and the great penetro additives, I still think it is a great product and an excellent value.

.

Would any of the above showed up in this VOA? In other words, would the #132 VOA look any better than these other additive VOAs?

MolaKule · Jul 16, 2003

"molakule, synergyn might not use sulfur, barrium or antimony elements."

I am very confident there is sulfur in there, because of the general chemistry associated with this type of chemical mix; it just didn't show up in the economical analysis. For higher cost, we can have just about every element in the universe analyzed. Barium, I doubt it.
Antimony, quite possibly. Quite a few additives use antimony and moly for AW/EP and Friction Modification.

" what i meant is that it may use other elements. (not common to oil analisis)."

There are only a limited number of elements from the periodic chart available in additives or additive packages. And we know what they are.

"similar to how auto-rx voa doesnt show anything worthwhile. (but yet we know theres things in it that dont show up in oil analisis)"

"do you get my point?"

Sure do. The point with Auto-RX is that it is made of esters and doesn't contain any additive or additive elements that you find in formulated oil VOA's or UOA's, so no elements from the periodic chart SHOULD show up in an Auto-RX VOA. Esters are made of reacted acids and alcohols that never show their elemental heads in any FT-IR analysis.

Take an aggressive aromatic hydrocarbon solvent, such as toluene or xylene. Put it to the VOA test. What do see? Absolutely nothing. Will it dissolve and remove grease and oil? Sure. But there were no elements reported in the VOA. Why? Because the chemistries work differently for different applications. In chemistry, there is no "one shoe fits all."

When I said, 'The liquid is a viscous ester and olefin copolymer with a small amount of aromatic diphenylamine antioxidant/surfactant/FM.' The copolymer and esters and diphenylamines will not show up in the VOA. So how did I know? I do that part of the analysis myself separately and apart from the analysis lab and its instrumentation.

Using other analysis techniques from the physics and chemistry labs, one CAN detect the TYPES of esters, or PAO's, or mineral oils, and even where they came from and what chemicals they are made of. But that type of analysis will cost you 10 to 100 times the cost of a typical UOA shown here, because the instruments used for those higher level analysis are much more expensive.

[ July 16, 2003, 03:25 PM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]

MolaKule · Jul 16, 2003

"Would any of the above showed up in this VOA? In other words, would the #132 VOA look any better than these other additive VOA's?"

When we did the VOA for the #132, we had the opportunity at that time to use a more extensive analysis at good cost, which reported just about every element.

If we had that same test capability, the antimony might have shown up for the Synergyn, assuming it's there.

[ July 16, 2003, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]

boxcartommie22 · Aug 2, 2003

mol, we did voa on synergyn and there is a voa on #132 it had very little zddp and phos just as synergyn's oil treatment ..it seems to me that #132 is not very impressive either...please edu cate me on the diff of these additives

MolaKule · Aug 3, 2003

boxcar,

try this link and if you still have questions we'll try to answer them.

http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum;f=21;DaysPrune=75

boxcartommie22 · Aug 3, 2003

i just wanted the diff. between two additives and far as quality whats comparing whats in them and which is the very best or perhaps they are both in there own specific way.

MolaKule · Aug 4, 2003

Oh, OK, here's a little trade study (and I'll probably get flamed either way, but that's ok):

Well, neither supplement has even a 50% SL level of additives, and neither has much of a tbn, but they are designed as supplements, not fully formulated oils:

Synergyn - 2X more ZDDP than #132; a bit of boron, a bit of calcium sulfonate detergent and some magnesium for tbn.

#132 - 2X more Moly than Synergen; we know for sure that this supplement has 65 ppm of
Antimony DTC, we don't know if Synergen has this or not. Didn't test 132 for boron.

The #132 has more of the better carrier (diphenylamines) which is an antioxidant/surfactant/lubricity enhancer (FM) and is in ester format.

The Synergen is $8/15 oz while the #132 is $2.25/pint, or $0.53 for Synergyn verses $0.15/oz. for
the #132.

[ August 04, 2003, 04:53 PM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]

boxcartommie22 · Aug 4, 2003

THANK YOU VERY MUCH...i been using the 132 and the synergyn additive...about 8 ozs.132 and 12 oz of the synergyn

MolaKule · Aug 4, 2003

BTW, the first post was in error, as you can readily see. I have asked one of the moderators to remove it.

The second post is the one comparing Synergyn to #132.

Hope that helps in your decision making.

Let us know how it works out.

took care of it for you 'Kule,mark

[ August 05, 2003, 12:36 AM: Message edited by: rugerman1 ]

Motorbike · Mar 15, 2004

I have personally used this cool additive in the past . After adding it at the recommended treat rate of 2 oz per quart it creeps up the dipstick about an inch overnite . There is an ester in it that analysis does not pick up serving as a TBN booster and detergent of sorts .

Cost is 4.70 a bottle when purchased by the case and one bottle can treat some engines 3 times . Lower the treat rate a bit and one bottle does 10 quarts or two intervals with a 5 quart engine .

I also use it in the differential and 4spd tranny in my Vette and Motorcycle engines that set for long periods . This stuff is really good at keeping engine seals in good shape . I've done some garage tests that seems to go with the advertising on the bottle/website in this respect .

I did not run analysis but I took Pennzoil 10w-40 to over 7k miles if memory serves correct in a Miata 3 years ago .... me likeys

and used it with Mobil 1 before I switched entirely to the Synergyn Synlube that uses this in the formulated oil .

You cannot take and put this into any old synlube and turn it into a Synergyn oil though .

I still have a case of it . If time permits I'll throw some in a engine soon and run it out for you guys and do a UOA with Syntec or something.... it's good stuff for sure

[ March 16, 2004, 09:11 AM: Message edited by: Motorbike ]

Synergyn Additive

Similar threads