Synthetic is superior...so WHY use conventional???

[Guitarmageddon]

Originally Posted By: gfh77665
You are going to get replies from many who have stocked up and are hoarding conventionals, so, inevitably, what they have bought already is "better", to convince themselves and validate their choice.


Haha I believe this is quite true. I never really understood the oil hoarding thing. M1 0W40 has been 20 something dollars for a while so Im not really worried. When you have to purchase 10 qts at a time for an oil change like me, a few pennies or maybe a buck or two dont really matter anymore. And I even change every 4,000

 

[Cujet]

All of my vehicles can benefit from synthetic.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d

Incorrect.

Some of them do lubricate better. They also tend to pump better when cold, retain viscosity better when hot, and evaporate off less quickly. Sometimes they also leave fewer deposits.

The question is whether your engine will realize those benefits. Most won't. But that doesn't change the facts.

Not arguing but I really wonder. In the "Old Days" when men were men and synthetics were really synthetics, in the industrial world you could generally go one level thinner in ISO grade when switching to an Ester or PAO. For instance if you were using an ISO 68 you could drop to an ISO 46.

Now with the myriad of new Group III's and the vast improvement of Add Packs and better pour point depressants I'm not so sure. Someone would have to prove to me that plain old YB Pennzoil doesn't lubricate as well as say 0W-30 GC.

Maybe that info is available at BITOG and just haven't been here long enough to locate it it yet.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: Ed_Flecko
As it relates to the protection of the motor, can you give me an example of something (i.e., characteristic) that a conventional oil would do or offer that a synthetic wouldn't do better?


Here again, you have to consider applicability. In general, the properties of synthetic oil are technically superior to those of conventional oil. Synthetic oil generally will be more suitable for higher temperature applications. Synthetic oil generally will leave behind fewer deposits/coking, etc. Synthetic oil generally will offer protection for longer drain intervals.

But as many have repeated, including myself, the applicability of these characteristics to the operating environment is a key factor for a lot of people. Although synthetic oil generally offers greater capability or greater performance at those further extremes, it's a moot point to many simply because they don't operate at those further extremes.

This is why houses built in California aren't built to the same hurricane codes as those in Florida. And this is why houses built in Florida aren't built to the same earthquake codes as those in California. In most facets of life, including engine oil, you'll find that most will tailor the product choice to the operating environment to achieve the best value. Sure, you can spend more. You can always spend more, whether it's your engine oil, your tires, your shoes, your house, etc. If you believe you get the value out of spending more, then go for it. If you don't, then don't.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Al
In the "Old Days" when men were men and synthetics were really synthetics, in the industrial world you could generally go one level thinner in ISO grade when switching to an Ester or PAO. For instance if you were using an ISO 68 you could drop to an ISO 46.

Now with the myriad of new Group III's and the vast improvement of Add Packs and better pour point depressants I'm not so sure. Someone would have to prove to me that plain old YB Pennzoil doesn't lubricate as well as say 0W-30 GC.

If I had to guess, your "Old Days" example wasn't about "lubrication" per se in some vague sense, but just about viscosity retention and shear stability: synthetics have naturally higher viscosity indices without as much need for VIIs, so a "lower" grade synthetic could still have the same viscosity as a "higher" grade conventional in the higher-temp/higher-shear areas of a machine.

That is just as true today. The only difference is that there is a bigger variety of base stocks and techniques to make them.

 

[KrisZ]

Using a synthetic in a conventional oil regime and in a car that specifies a conventional oil is very similar to driving a Ferrari Modena in rush our instead of a Chevy Cruze. There is no denying that the Modena is superior to Cruze, but given the commute, will not get you any faster to your destination.

How can synthetic oil provide better protection or lubricate the engine better when the engine never exceeds the capabilities of the conventional oil in the first place?

 

[Solarent]

I'm a little late to the party, but I just gave a seminar on this topic, and so I'm going to share what was said:

There are 3 good reasons to choose conventional over synthetic:

Price
For some consumers, price is a big deal. In Canada for example there is an estimated $14 Billion/year in unperformed maintenance. One of the primary reasons for this is because we are cheap, and we don't like to pay for things we don't need.
The price issue is also a big factor when fleets are factored in. If you have 1 car an extra couple of bucks per oil change is no big deal, but if you are maintaining 100 cars, then it can make a big difference.

Availability
Some of the best performing synthetics are also some of the most difficult to get you hands on. Just ask anyone who has tried to buy Pennzoil Ultra Platinum. Retail shelf space is limited, and unfortunately products which sell (higher inventory turns) get priority. When you change your oil more often, the store turns their inventory more often. This is what they want, so often conventional oils are more readily available then the high performing synthetics. This is also very true of countries outside the USA and Canada. Some countries have a real hard time getting what we consider here to be top shelf synthetics.

Peformance
As has been stated many times on this thread, the GF-5 standard works well as a performance guide and this is met easily by most conventional motor oils. There is a good balance between performance and price on most API certified synthetics, so if the performance is there, why do you need to overkill - if its just to say you use only synthetic in your car then all the power to you.

There are some real good reasons to choose synthetics too. In the seminar I stressed the importance of first understanding your OEM recommendation, driving patterns and desired maintenance routine, after you know that, then you can pick an oil. Using this method you end up with a choice that is right for you - not just using synthetic oil for synthetic's sake.

 

[BillyTheKid]

I think with the oil argument, people are also forgetting over time it seems that most vehicles are getting bigger sump sizes which will improve the length of the OCI should someone choose to push things both with conventional or synthetics.

To each their own, but I do not believe personally one lubricates better than the other. I do think there are some characteristics that are better in synthetics, however, I do not have a reason to need those. This is coming from a guy who primarily uses synthetics in the cars and conventional in the race motorcycles due to the short changes. I can tell you none net more HP than the other on a motorcycle dyno with all the testing we have done, which makes me believe there are no advantages to better lubrication or deduced friction from one to the other or brand to brand (testing within reasonable weight differences).

 

[440Magnum]

Originally Posted By: jayg

Define quality. Your definition is how many miles you can get out of them. I'm sure they are the hardest compound available and handle pretty poorly compared to a 40k mile warranty decent speed rated tire. The perfomance quality of tire doesn't increase with how many miles it can go, in fact it is usually the opposite.


Owning the SRT-8 has radically raised my awareness of the tradeoffs of tires. :-/ Yeah, its *glued* to the road with no-treadlife-warranty tractionAA, temperature A, Y-speed rated tires.... that last 14,000 miles.

A truly GOOD tire, at least for a street-driven car, has excellent traction (wet and dry, warm and cold- a big problem with tires for the SRT is poor cold-weather performance) and reasonable tread life- 30k miles at a minimum. Those TEND to cost more, but often aren't the very most expensive option. A "90,000 mile" tire on that car would be outright dangerous, because it would have to be such a hard compound, and probably a poorer speed/temperature rating as well. Nitto makes a nominally "60,000" mile tire for it and people have reported that it actually works pretty well.... but only for about 30-40k miles at most and then it turns to rock even though it has tread left.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d

If I had to guess, your "Old Days" example wasn't about "lubrication" per se in some vague sense, but just about viscosity retention and shear stability: synthetics have naturally higher viscosity indices without as much need for VIIs, so a "lower" grade synthetic could still have the same viscosity as a "higher" grade conventional in the higher-temp/higher-shear areas of a machine.

That is just as true today. The only difference is that there is a bigger variety of base stocks and techniques to make them.

No it was about viscosity. We had a large operation and I regularly spoke with Mobil's lube engineers. There is very little danger of viscosity retention or VI stability with "Turbine Oils".

 

[wemay]

Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Using a synthetic in a conventional oil regime and in a car that specifies a conventional oil is very similar to driving a Ferrari Modena in rush our instead of a Chevy Cruze. There is no denying that the Modena is superior to Cruze, but given the commute, will not get you any faster to your destination.

How can synthetic oil provide better protection or lubricate the engine better when the engine never exceeds the capabilities of the conventional oil in the first place?


Excellent analogy!

 

[Y_K]

Film vs digital, UNIX vs Linux, Stahlwille vs HF..

It all depends. How about Lubrication Engineers? I heard theirs is state of the art even though it is not advertised as syn.

 

[Smokescreen]

Originally Posted By: wemay
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Using a synthetic in a conventional oil regime and in a car that specifies a conventional oil is very similar to driving a Ferrari Modena in rush our instead of a Chevy Cruze. There is no denying that the Modena is superior to Cruze, but given the commute, will not get you any faster to your destination.

How can synthetic oil provide better protection or lubricate the engine better when the engine never exceeds the capabilities of the conventional oil in the first place?


Excellent analogy!

+1

 

[Cujet]

Some engines are prone to this. Synthetics universally prevent these problems and the high oil consumption that results.

You may be right, your engine/driving style/fuel choice/karma may also prevent carboned up, and fully stuck piston rings. For the rest of us, the better choice is a full synthetic oil, capable of withstanding the additional heat and load produced by downsized modern engines, powering our bloated cars.

Upon disassembly, it's easy to tell engines that were run on quality synthetics, with reasonable oil change intervals.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Ed_Flecko
Is it me?...or do some of you ruminate on this topic also?

I've had vehicles run hundreds of thousands of miles on conventional without concern, so I have complete confidence in the current crop of conventionals out there. 4wheeldog points out diminishing returns. You can always find "better" and define that concept as one wishes, and can always spend more and more money. When is it enough?

Of course, there are vehicles that call for certain specifications, and as you indicated, that's a totally different issue.

 

[dlundblad]

Originally Posted By: Cujet

Some engines are prone to this. Synthetics universally prevent these problems and the high oil consumption that results.

You may be right, your engine/driving style/fuel choice/karma may also prevent carboned up, and fully stuck piston rings. For the rest of us, the better choice is a full synthetic oil, capable of withstanding the additional heat and load produced by downsized modern engines, powering our bloated cars.

Upon disassembly, it's easy to tell engines that were run on quality synthetics, with reasonable oil change intervals.

Do we have any history of these photos? There was a pretty crumby filter posted in the filter section a while back that was ran with Amsoil. The under valve cover pics even looked bad. I am willing to bet a quality conventional with normal intervals would have made that engine spotless.

While I am not a fan of boutique oils, it is hard to blame Amsoil in that situation. It wasn't used properly.

 

[Alamogunr]

I haven't read this entire thread but I can state why I use synthetic. I have an '06 Avalon. I intend to keep it at least 2-3 more years. It only has 120K on it now. I change the oil myself at 10K+. I like the warm fuzzy feeling I get that I'm not driving on worn out(my technical term) oil.

I use Schaeffer 5W30. It isn't hard to get once you find a distributor.

My 2013 Tundra will get dealer changes w/TGMO after I use up the freebies. Then I will take it in every 10K, which will be at about 15-18 months. I expect to drive the Tundra until they take away my license.

 

[Merkava_4]

Conventional has square molecules; I don't know how you guys can stand to have that stuff in your car.

 

[wemay]

Originally Posted By: Garak

I've had vehicles run hundreds of thousands of miles on conventional without concern, so I have complete confidence in the current crop of conventionals out there.


+1

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Synthetic oils last longer in service. They don't lubricate better,they aren't more slippery,they last longer.
That is all.

Incorrect.

Some of them do lubricate better. They also tend to pump better when cold, retain viscosity better when hot, and evaporate off less quickly. Sometimes they also leave fewer deposits.

The question is whether your engine will realize those benefits. Most won't. But that doesn't change the facts.


+1 There are several advantages to synthetic oil. Longer safe OCIs is just one.