Synthetic drain offf

[RalphPWood]

I have a book written by Leslie R. Sachs a Harvard graduate with 5 degrees from 3 universities and James S. Bennett who has driven, repaired, rebuilt, bought sold and counsulted on a wide variety of used cars. He holds an advanced degree in management and is an expert motorcyclist. The book is "Cheap Wheels".
Under Synthetic Oils it says:
"Synthetics flow so well that they do not always stick to the engine parts when the engine is turned off, like regular oil will. SAE 5 w-30 synthetic flows far better than regular SAE 5 w - 30. This means that for a period of time when you start the car there is no lubrication on some parts of the engine because the synthetic oil has flowed away from some engine parts. The older the engine the easier it is for the oil to flow away. We don't recommend synthetic oils."
This got me thinking. I have a 1987 Camry 4 cylinder that runs smooth and doesn't use oil. It has 168,000 miles with no problems. I left it sitting for a week while I was on vacation. I ordinarily drive it 6 days a week. It was obvious that as the starter turned over the engine the compression was uneven. It smoothed out as soon as it started. Would it be a good test if I drained the synthetic and put in a good conventional oil and tried it again on my next vacation which is this month. Will the conventional oil stay in the rings better? The car had 116,000 mi on it when I bought it. I need to get over 200,000 on it. I know the history of the car. Bought it from a friend for $600.00.

Ralph

 

[JohnBrowning]

Well if you realy wanted to try it go for it. The prefered Dino'd are as follows: Chevron Supreme 10W30, Pennzoil 10W30, Delvac 1300 15W40, Delo 400 15W40, Havoline 10W30 and Schaffers 10W30 and 5W30. I listed them in random order. These have all showed consistent results and some good to decent numbers. The best value so far is Chevron Supreme at Walmart for $1 a quart. I would not trust a 5W30 conventional oil in my car. Most have been shown to shear badly and rather quickly! The 10W30's have all tested realy well.

[ August 06, 2003, 10:30 PM: Message edited by: JohnBrowning ]

 

[HOndaGuy]

keep the synthetic. Run what you have been running. I think most of the time, the more you change your brand of oil, the more you end up having additive clashing.

 

[unDummy]

5 degrees in what?? If chemical/petro/mech engineering isn't listed, then as far as I'm concerned, they're just blabbering.
An advanced degree in management doesn't make anyone an oil specialist.

Let them prove their statements.

 

[jsharp]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unDummy:
5 degrees in what?? If chemical/petro/mech engineering isn't listed, then as far as I'm concerned, they're just blabbering.
An advanced degree in management doesn't make anyone an oil specialist.

Let them prove their statements.

---

Agreed. How much more film thickness does he think dino oil has in a plain bearing with .003" clearance?

Bonus rhetorical question - How does this kind of thing get started when the conclusions don't even pass the common sense test?? Extending his theory, sludge would be best because it really "sticks" to surfaces...

[ August 06, 2003, 11:56 PM: Message edited by: jsharp ]

 

[NutBuster]

It has been my experience that synthetic oils "burn" more between changes in my car. I have read that synths have more of a tendency to "climb" higher into the cylinder bore, exposing it to more of the combustion cycle than conventional oil. I have also wondered if it's slippery enough to find its way through my valve guide seals faster than conventionals.

As for sticking to metal surfaces...I think that would make an interesting test. take an eyedropper and a plate of steel placed at a 45 degree angle...the two droplets could race each other to the bottom! If one of them craps out and doesn't make it, that would mean it's obviosly got more "cling".

**** , I should have been a scientist.

 

[Rat407]

Has anyone noticed a major wear metal increase in the engines that run synthetic for a long time in the UOA? If that were true that there was increased wear on start up you would think it would show up on the UOA, right? Also engines with the synthetic wouldn't last as long due to the increased wear all because it didn't "stick" longer than conventional oil. Now if the engine ran 24/7 never shutting down then synthetics would shine, according to this individual. 5 degrees, sounds like he spent a ton of money and 3/4 of his life in school and not out in the real world like the rest of us. Don't take me wrong, I'm not bashing or anything but if he was a Mechanical engineer, with a minor in Chemical engineering or vise versa then you could tend to believe him a little more. Right?

Did he show any kind of facts at all? Just was wondering.

 

[metroplex]

quote:

---

I have a book written by Leslie R. Sachs a Harvard graduate with 5 degrees from 3 universities

---

Why does he have 5 degrees from 3 universities?

He's probably selling this book to pay off his student loans. There's no reason to have that many degrees.

 

[harrydog]

I thought that the esters used in some synthetics (Redline for one) had an affinity for metal and actually "stick" extremely well?

 

[Al]

Good points brought up. My understanding is that Esters indeed do cling better to metal. This was in a Product Brchure from Exxon-I'l try to resurect it. All the testing that Mobil has done indicates that Synthetic use is much less in an engine. Also for whatever reason-synthetics seal better around the ring area than dinos.

As was mentioned-why are synthetic UOS's at least as good and sometimes better that dinos.

Hmmm.. the book probably doesn't mention that

 

[crashz]

5 degrees from Harvard?

1)Harvard is not a tech/engineering school.

2)People in the scientific community back up a statement with facts and findings. They just don't make blanket statements based on false facts.

I'm not trying to flame this guy, but honestly his statement is ignorant at best.

[ August 07, 2003, 09:52 AM: Message edited by: crashz ]

 

[bretfraz]

Here is another tome written by good ol' Dr. Leslie R. Sachs:

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?pcount=0&isbn=0451149610

 

[MRC01]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RalphPWood:
"Synthetics flow so well that they do not always stick to the engine parts when the engine is turned off, like regular oil will. SAE 5 w-30 synthetic flows far better than regular SAE 5 w - 30. This means that for a period of time when you start the car there is no lubrication on some parts of the engine because the synthetic oil has flowed away from some engine parts."

---

I think he got that backwards.

My understanding is that synthetics leave a thin film of oil on the engine parts better than dino oils do. Also, since synthetics flow better when cold, they pump up into the engine faster on a cold start. Both of these two factors together mean synthetics reduce cold start wear compared to dino oils.

Correct me if I'm wrong....

 

[Virtuoso]

Well, I'll give my personal observations on this..
I did my valve adjustments on my SHO a couple months ago. I had the engine sit for 36 hours before I tore into it.
When I took the valve covers off, the top of the engine was still coated very liberally in a dosage of Castrol GTX. Puuure dino all over the place. I would be **** surprized to see a synthetic keep any more oil up there than Castrol did.

[ August 07, 2003, 11:21 AM: Message edited by: Virtuoso ]

 

[3 Mad Ponchos]

I checked with my compass, which has 360 degrees, but all it said was "NORTH".

Cheers, 3MP

 

[pscholte]

quote:

---

Originally posted by NutBuster:
It has been my experience that synthetic oils "burn" more between changes in my car. I have read that synths have more of a tendency to "climb" higher into the cylinder bore, exposing it to more of the combustion cycle than conventional oil.

---

Nutbuster,

Your comment is interesting because in all the reading I have done on synthetics (backed up by observation on how they perform in my autos) one of the things touted for synthetics is that they resist consumption. Your comment makes sense; it is just that it runs counter to information regarding synthetics and to my own personal observation. In fact, one of the selling points for synthetics on the increasingly "green" European contintent is that they burn off less and reduce air polution. Political hogwash?...maybe...but the contention agrees with everything I have read from professional sources on the subject.

[ August 07, 2003, 01:06 PM: Message edited by: pscholte ]

 

[Drstressor]

You can find posts where people see increased oil consumption with synthetics and others that indicate decreased consumption. The difference is likely related to the condition of the engine. In a new engine or one with nice tight clearances, the low volatility of a synthetic oil should result in lower oil consumption. In an engine where significant ring and cylinder wear has already taken place, synthetic oils that are engineered to the low end of a viscosity spec (i.e. M1) will sometimes show an increase in consumption relative to a similar grade of conventional oil. This has nothing to do with climbing cylinder walls.

 

[Jimbo]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Drstressor:
You can find posts where people see increased oil consumption with synthetics and others that indicate decreased consumption. The difference is likely related to the condition of the engine. In a new engine or one with nice tight clearances, the low volatility of a synthetic oil should result in lower oil consumption. In an engine where significant ring and cylinder wear has already taken place, synthetic oils that are engineered to the low end of a viscosity spec (i.e. M1) will sometimes show an increase in consumption relative to a similar grade of conventional oil. This has nothing to do with climbing cylinder walls.

---

Thank you. Your explanation makes perfect sense and I'll bet you don't have five degrees.

As for engines that are not started daily, like mine, thicker high-TBN oils make sense to prevent internal corrosion. I get extremely low iron in UOA's of my engines running Delo 15W-40. If startup flow was more important, I would get higher wear metals. It may also be the ZDDP that is preventing startup wear.

If you want to try a simple experiment, try this.
Take two plain steel nails. Dip one in synthetic oil and the other in conventional (not SA/SB ND please). Hang them outside and see which one rusts first.

 

[Scott P]

quote:

---

If you want to try a simple experiment, try this.
Take two plain steel nails. Dip one in synthetic oil and the other in conventional (not SA/SB ND please). Hang them outside and see which one rusts first.

---

I think I remember a similar test either conducted by Castrol or promoted by them...

 

[MolaKule]

""Synthetics flow so well that they do not always stick to the engine parts when the engine is turned off, like regular oil will. SAE 5w-30 synthetic flows far better than regular SAE 5 w - 30. This means that for a period of time when you start the car there is no lubrication on some parts of the engine because the synthetic oil has flowed away from some engine parts. The older the engine the easier it is for the oil to flow away. We don't recommend synthetic oils."

Sounds like a personal opinion and not a statement made from the standpoint of oil chemistry. Most oils, whether dino or synthetic, have a small amount of clinging surfactant to maintain a bulk oil presence after engine shutdown. Now at the thin film or molecular level, an oil with esters will provde more wetting over the surface, since the clinging is done at the molecular level, and not the "bulk" level.


I think the autors are confused about the difference between bulk oil (macroscopic view) verses thin films at the molecular level (microscopic view).