Synthetic oil snafus
- Thread starter spock1
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: JOD
Originally Posted By: Vikas
Let us start a new topic listing all of the oil related failures your engines have suffered in your lifetime.
-'84 VW GTI, oil leaking from oil pan and head gasket
-'93 VW Eurovan, oil leaking from oil pan and main seal
-'88 Camry Wagon. consumption throug
h valve stem stems, main seal leak
-'92 740T wagon, leak from valve cover, cam seals (twice), turbo oil seal
-'96 850 Wagon, leak from cam seals.
-'98 V70R, leak from cam seals (twice), turbo seal leak (3 times)
These are all failures of the lubricating system in my book. After all, the oil's supposed to stay in the car, right?
Hmmm... all of non American construction. Watson, do I see a pattern here?
Originally Posted By: Vikas
Let us start a new topic listing all of the oil related failures your engines have suffered in your lifetime.
-'84 VW GTI, oil leaking from oil pan and head gasket
-'93 VW Eurovan, oil leaking from oil pan and main seal
-'88 Camry Wagon. consumption throug
h valve stem stems, main seal leak
-'92 740T wagon, leak from valve cover, cam seals (twice), turbo oil seal
-'96 850 Wagon, leak from cam seals.
-'98 V70R, leak from cam seals (twice), turbo seal leak (3 times)
These are all failures of the lubricating system in my book. After all, the oil's supposed to stay in the car, right?
Hmmm... all of non American construction. Watson, do I see a pattern here?
Originally Posted By: johnachak
Originally Posted By: JOD
Originally Posted By: Vikas
Let us start a new topic listing all of the oil related failures your engines have suffered in your lifetime.
-'84 VW GTI, oil leaking from oil pan and head gasket
-'93 VW Eurovan, oil leaking from oil pan and main seal
-'88 Camry Wagon. consumption throug
h valve stem stems, main seal leak
-'92 740T wagon, leak from valve cover, cam seals (twice), turbo oil seal
-'96 850 Wagon, leak from cam seals.
-'98 V70R, leak from cam seals (twice), turbo seal leak (3 times)
These are all failures of the lubricating system in my book. After all, the oil's supposed to stay in the car, right?
Hmmm... all of non American construction. Watson, do I see a pattern here?
No, the domestic vehicles have their fair share of similar leaks...
Originally Posted By: JOD
Originally Posted By: Vikas
Let us start a new topic listing all of the oil related failures your engines have suffered in your lifetime.
-'84 VW GTI, oil leaking from oil pan and head gasket
-'93 VW Eurovan, oil leaking from oil pan and main seal
-'88 Camry Wagon. consumption throug
h valve stem stems, main seal leak
-'92 740T wagon, leak from valve cover, cam seals (twice), turbo oil seal
-'96 850 Wagon, leak from cam seals.
-'98 V70R, leak from cam seals (twice), turbo seal leak (3 times)
These are all failures of the lubricating system in my book. After all, the oil's supposed to stay in the car, right?
Hmmm... all of non American construction. Watson, do I see a pattern here?
No, the domestic vehicles have their fair share of similar leaks...
[/quote]
I am getting there myself. My FX4 has had PU in it since the first OC, but next OC it will see some of the Mobil Super that I have been collecting from OR and AZ. I will continue with the UOAs to increase the knowledge base of information about oil. I can always go back to PU if I am not satisfied with the results, but an $11.50 OC beats a $40.00 OC all day provided the results are similar. [/quote]
After running M1 5-20 in my 04 F150 I read a lot here and made the change to MotorCraft 5-20. I feel good about it and saved a good chunk of change. [/quote]
I too run MC 5w 20 syn blend in my ford except in the winter. I noticed a difference in noise, warmup time and cold driveability with syn in the winter. For the rest of the year, the syn blend is quiet, doesn't burn and stays pretty clean. In the warmer months I don't see any mileage difference either.
I am getting there myself. My FX4 has had PU in it since the first OC, but next OC it will see some of the Mobil Super that I have been collecting from OR and AZ. I will continue with the UOAs to increase the knowledge base of information about oil. I can always go back to PU if I am not satisfied with the results, but an $11.50 OC beats a $40.00 OC all day provided the results are similar. [/quote]
After running M1 5-20 in my 04 F150 I read a lot here and made the change to MotorCraft 5-20. I feel good about it and saved a good chunk of change. [/quote]
I too run MC 5w 20 syn blend in my ford except in the winter. I noticed a difference in noise, warmup time and cold driveability with syn in the winter. For the rest of the year, the syn blend is quiet, doesn't burn and stays pretty clean. In the warmer months I don't see any mileage difference either.
Not in that list they don't... just trying to be funny... apparently failed.
I just don't get why someone would buy a vehicle with a small engine, then turbocharge it to get over 100BHP /l then complain it runs hot and beats up oil ( for instance, the Subarus with the blown turbos) Why not just buy the bigger naturally aspirated engine with like 80 BHP/l which will run forever and is easy on oil? I guess too fast too furious fever... I like engines to produce horsepower the old fashioned way... Big pistons...
Originally Posted By: gfh77665
Originally Posted By: 2K2AcuraTL
Originally Posted By: gfh77665
Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
Longer OCI? Wrong.
Cleaner engine? Wrong.
Bill
So, just asking, you are saying Mobil 5000 is perfectly equivalent to Mobil 1 EP, which Mobil says: " delivers guaranteed protection of critical engine parts for 15,000 miles.".
And, Pennzoil YB is perfectly equivalent to Pennzoil Ultra, which SOPUS says is THE ultimate cleaner?
I was thinking of the same question/angle....
Hmmm.. no one has rebutted to this one yet....
I dont subscribe to the point of view that a synth does not offer greater advantages over dino.. plain and simple.!! Although I agree where synth can be a waste of money in some application/engines.
Agreed. I haven't read a clear rebuttal either. There were comments about "marketing" and "clean valve covers" and such, but both are side issues that do not answer the question:
"Are dinos perfectly equivalent to synthetics?" As it pertains to Longer OCI? and Cleaner engines?
You need to READ what people are posting. There has been comments concerning it.
Originally Posted By: 2K2AcuraTL
Originally Posted By: gfh77665
Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
Longer OCI? Wrong.
Cleaner engine? Wrong.
Bill
So, just asking, you are saying Mobil 5000 is perfectly equivalent to Mobil 1 EP, which Mobil says: " delivers guaranteed protection of critical engine parts for 15,000 miles.".
And, Pennzoil YB is perfectly equivalent to Pennzoil Ultra, which SOPUS says is THE ultimate cleaner?
I was thinking of the same question/angle....
Hmmm.. no one has rebutted to this one yet....
I dont subscribe to the point of view that a synth does not offer greater advantages over dino.. plain and simple.!! Although I agree where synth can be a waste of money in some application/engines.
Agreed. I haven't read a clear rebuttal either. There were comments about "marketing" and "clean valve covers" and such, but both are side issues that do not answer the question:
"Are dinos perfectly equivalent to synthetics?" As it pertains to Longer OCI? and Cleaner engines?
You need to READ what people are posting. There has been comments concerning it.
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: Indydriver
Well, for starters, you drive a Mazdaspeed3 like I do. This DI, turbo putting out 116.5hp/L is notoriously hard on oil.
Not to derail, but you bring up a very good point. How hard is it on oil, aside from the fuel dilution issue? That brings me to my next point. Is a synthetic the "best" answer for fuel dilution? Or, is more frequent changes on conventional more appropriate? Putting aside shear from dilution, is a higher TBN helpful in this case?
When my old F-150 had the feedback carb on it, it would dilute the oil so bad I could have probably tossed the used oil into the gas tank at OC time.
I wouldn't have dreamed of using synthetic for such short OCIs.
This is the point I was attempting to make (as crude as it was).
All cars are different and must be acted upon as such. I don't get too much dilution (as much as most)1-3% is what BlackStone has reported. Of course the 3K OCI's were better than the 4K OCI's. I would use PU Euro if I could find it for a decent price but eff that. I'll just stick to PU and 3K OCI's (peace of mind). I mean really, $35-$37 for an oil change? Most that aren't on this board spend $60-$80 when they take it somewhere.
Originally Posted By: Indydriver
Well, for starters, you drive a Mazdaspeed3 like I do. This DI, turbo putting out 116.5hp/L is notoriously hard on oil.
Not to derail, but you bring up a very good point. How hard is it on oil, aside from the fuel dilution issue? That brings me to my next point. Is a synthetic the "best" answer for fuel dilution? Or, is more frequent changes on conventional more appropriate? Putting aside shear from dilution, is a higher TBN helpful in this case?
When my old F-150 had the feedback carb on it, it would dilute the oil so bad I could have probably tossed the used oil into the gas tank at OC time.
This is the point I was attempting to make (as crude as it was).
All cars are different and must be acted upon as such. I don't get too much dilution (as much as most)1-3% is what BlackStone has reported. Of course the 3K OCI's were better than the 4K OCI's. I would use PU Euro if I could find it for a decent price but eff that. I'll just stick to PU and 3K OCI's (peace of mind). I mean really, $35-$37 for an oil change? Most that aren't on this board spend $60-$80 when they take it somewhere.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: johnachak
I just don't get why someone would buy a vehicle with a small engine, then turbocharge it to get over 100BHP /l then complain it runs hot and beats up oil ( for instance, the Subarus with the blown turbos) Why not just buy the bigger naturally aspirated engine with like 80 BHP/l which will run forever and is easy on oil? I guess too fast too furious fever... I like engines to produce horsepower the old fashioned way... Big pistons...
Then why didn't you go with the CTS-V?
This is so ignorant I can't even comment about it.
I just don't get why someone would buy a vehicle with a small engine, then turbocharge it to get over 100BHP /l then complain it runs hot and beats up oil ( for instance, the Subarus with the blown turbos) Why not just buy the bigger naturally aspirated engine with like 80 BHP/l which will run forever and is easy on oil? I guess too fast too furious fever... I like engines to produce horsepower the old fashioned way... Big pistons...
Then why didn't you go with the CTS-V?
This is so ignorant I can't even comment about it.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: johnachak
I just don't get why someone would buy a vehicle with a small engine, then turbocharge it to get over 100BHP /l then complain it runs hot and beats up oil ( for instance, the Subarus with the blown turbos) Why not just buy the bigger naturally aspirated engine with like 80 BHP/l which will run forever and is easy on oil? I guess too fast too furious fever... I like engines to produce horsepower the old fashioned way... Big pistons...
IIRC the subarus had factory turbos. A smaller engine is usually lighter, sometimes more fuel efficient, and can perform better than a larger engine.
I just don't get why someone would buy a vehicle with a small engine, then turbocharge it to get over 100BHP /l then complain it runs hot and beats up oil ( for instance, the Subarus with the blown turbos) Why not just buy the bigger naturally aspirated engine with like 80 BHP/l which will run forever and is easy on oil? I guess too fast too furious fever... I like engines to produce horsepower the old fashioned way... Big pistons...
IIRC the subarus had factory turbos. A smaller engine is usually lighter, sometimes more fuel efficient, and can perform better than a larger engine.
Originally Posted By: Indydriver
Originally Posted By: PZR2874
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: PZR2874
Tell you guys what. I run PU 5-30 in my Speed, I change it every 3K. You pay for shipping and I will send the used stuff to you. How's that ?
Many years ago I gave PYB or Mobil 1 with 3K miles on it to my neighbor to use in his oil burner, leaky Chevy van. He'd go through a qt in 200 miles or less. I'd give it to him by the gallon. LOL
I do the same thing, but use it in my lawnmowers... lol
All I'm saying is that most of you guys that say Syn can go 8-10K between changes is absurd (I do look at UOA's). Maybe i'm not getting the whole picture and since I live in the friggin desert and that I drive my car hard I have no choice.
Simply saying that changing your oil every 3K is a waste of money is a bit far fetched.
Well, for starters, you drive a Mazdaspeed3 like I do. This DI, turbo putting out 116.5hp/L is notoriously hard on oil. I've got a little over 3000 miles on my current fill of PP and I'm anxious to get it out, as it is jet black, thin and smelling of gasoline. This car needs 3-4,000 mi OCIs regardless of the oil used. OTOH, your Forester and my Mopar V-6's can extend a ways. Not all engines are the same on oil.
I'm with you Indy especially in a DI engine. A shorter OCI isn't going to hurt an engine that is known to be hard on oil. Why push it? In the case of a DI engine, or a worked engine synthetic gives an added measure of protection, nothing wrong with that either. Is synthetic needed for every application? No. Is dino oil bad? No. I prefer synthetic as an added measure of insurance, and I know for a fact it flows better in cold weather. That makes for easier starts, it holds up to heat better too.
BTW the highest mile vehicle I've ever owned ran on dino oil its entire life. LOL
Originally Posted By: PZR2874
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: PZR2874
Tell you guys what. I run PU 5-30 in my Speed, I change it every 3K. You pay for shipping and I will send the used stuff to you. How's that ?
Many years ago I gave PYB or Mobil 1 with 3K miles on it to my neighbor to use in his oil burner, leaky Chevy van. He'd go through a qt in 200 miles or less. I'd give it to him by the gallon. LOL
I do the same thing, but use it in my lawnmowers... lol
All I'm saying is that most of you guys that say Syn can go 8-10K between changes is absurd (I do look at UOA's). Maybe i'm not getting the whole picture and since I live in the friggin desert and that I drive my car hard I have no choice.
Simply saying that changing your oil every 3K is a waste of money is a bit far fetched.
Well, for starters, you drive a Mazdaspeed3 like I do. This DI, turbo putting out 116.5hp/L is notoriously hard on oil. I've got a little over 3000 miles on my current fill of PP and I'm anxious to get it out, as it is jet black, thin and smelling of gasoline. This car needs 3-4,000 mi OCIs regardless of the oil used. OTOH, your Forester and my Mopar V-6's can extend a ways. Not all engines are the same on oil.
I'm with you Indy especially in a DI engine. A shorter OCI isn't going to hurt an engine that is known to be hard on oil. Why push it? In the case of a DI engine, or a worked engine synthetic gives an added measure of protection, nothing wrong with that either. Is synthetic needed for every application? No. Is dino oil bad? No. I prefer synthetic as an added measure of insurance, and I know for a fact it flows better in cold weather. That makes for easier starts, it holds up to heat better too.
BTW the highest mile vehicle I've ever owned ran on dino oil its entire life. LOL
Subarus have never had issues with blown turbos.
In 09 they had issues with bearings. 07 had issues with blown pistons.
In 09 they had issues with bearings. 07 had issues with blown pistons.
Originally Posted By: PZR2874
Subarus have never had issues with blown turbos.
In 09 they had issues with bearings. 07 had issues with blown pistons.
No doubt oil related...
Face it guys, the manufactures whoever they may be, have have given consumers more than a few P.O.S. designs over the years...
Subarus have never had issues with blown turbos.
In 09 they had issues with bearings. 07 had issues with blown pistons.
No doubt oil related...
Face it guys, the manufactures whoever they may be, have have given consumers more than a few P.O.S. designs over the years...
Originally Posted By: TFB1
Originally Posted By: PZR2874
Subarus have never had issues with blown turbos.
In 09 they had issues with bearings. 07 had issues with blown pistons.
No doubt oil related...
Face it guys, the manufactures whoever they may be, have have given consumers more than a few P.O.S. designs over the years...
Maybe the engineers are flat rate and dont have time to think it out.
Originally Posted By: PZR2874
Subarus have never had issues with blown turbos.
In 09 they had issues with bearings. 07 had issues with blown pistons.
No doubt oil related...
Face it guys, the manufactures whoever they may be, have have given consumers more than a few P.O.S. designs over the years...
Maybe the engineers are flat rate and dont have time to think it out.
The pistons are just weak.... The bearing issue had nothing to do w/oil. But they replaced at no charge anyways.
Couldn't afford the insurance and mainly I don't like the sports / Graphite interior. It is a Cadillac and I like it to have luxury inside.
What is ignorant about choosing the Non turbo engine over the Turbo one for longevity, durability, etc.?
In my experience, turbo'ed engines are pretty finicky when it comes to maintenance etc. The only person that had a Turbo'ed engine last, had a Buick Grand National and that was garaged and fawned over. He sold it over 10 years old with ~6,000 miles on the ODO.
I guess this doesn't really belong here. Sorry. If anyone wants to go with this we'll start another thread or PM me. Sorry guys.
What is ignorant about choosing the Non turbo engine over the Turbo one for longevity, durability, etc.?
In my experience, turbo'ed engines are pretty finicky when it comes to maintenance etc. The only person that had a Turbo'ed engine last, had a Buick Grand National and that was garaged and fawned over. He sold it over 10 years old with ~6,000 miles on the ODO.
I guess this doesn't really belong here. Sorry. If anyone wants to go with this we'll start another thread or PM me. Sorry guys.
Last edited:
There is a thread on here, I lost it, but those who know how to get the most of the "Search" facility will find it. It has links to many 2003-2006 Subarus with blown Turbos do to a plugged screen that feeds oil to / from (I don't remember which) the turbo. I found it here in BITOG. The last entries were in 2011 I believe.
I guess this doesn't really belong here either... Sorry.
I guess this doesn't really belong here either... Sorry.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: gfh77665
"Are dinos perfectly equivalent to synthetics?" As it pertains to Longer OCI? and Cleaner engines?
There are two ways an oil can contribute to a "cleaner engine": the oil may prevent deposits, or the oil may actively dissolve and disperse existing deposits. In both cases, the additives, including detergents, dispersants, and anti-oxidants, play a much larger role than the base oil.
A synthetic base oil may contribute to preventing deposits by nature of its better oxidative stability, assuming it also has a solid additive system. A weak additive system can override the effects of the synthetic base oil in this regard, so the fact that the oil is "synthetic" is not a guarantee it will be better at preventing deposits. In fact, under some conditions, such as thin oil films at very high temperatures, non-polar synthetics like PAO and Group III are actually more prone to forming deposits because of their inability to dissolve deposit precursors. While these conditions are rare in automotive engines, they do preclude the use of PAO and Group III in certain applications such as jet engines, reciprocating air compressors, and oven chain lubricants.
With respect to the base oil's abiliy to clean existing deposits, polarity is the key factor. Conventional Group I base oils are much more polar than synthetic PAOs and Group IIIs and may clean better provided they are robustly inhibited for oxidation. Most are not, however, since anti-oxidants are expensive, so the lower oxidative stability of Group I base oils often overrides their better dissolving power. Non-polar synthetic base oils like PAO and Group III contribute nothing in and of themselves to cleaning existing deposits. That said, such synthetic oils often contain a more robust additive system since they usually represent an oil company's flagship product or "best foot forward."
The only synthetic base oils that both prevents deposits and cleans existing deposits are esters (and to a lesser degree alkylated naphthalenes), but these are so expensive that they are rarely used in engine oils in a meaningful dosage.
Regarding extended OCIs, synthetic oils have the capacity to contribute significantly to longer OCIs through their better oxidative stability, provided once again that they have a robust additive system. A weak or mediocre additive system can neutralize the benefits of the synthetic base oil and the finished oil may offer no OCI extension at all, even though it is "synthetic".
It is important to understand that many if not most marketers of synthetic oils do employ a more robust additive system since this oil is their top shelf offering and often utilizes their best technology. Since they have to put more money into the base oils and can sell it at synthetic prices, why not invest more in the additive package as well. This is especially true with very expensive base oils such as PAO and Group III+. It's not a sure thing, but the probability is higher that synthetic oils have both better base oils and better additive systems, and therefore may be both cleaner and extend OCIs.
So, the definitive answer to your question "Are dinos perfectly equivalent to synthetics as it pertains to Longer OCI and Cleaner engines?" is absolutely YES....and NO. Or to be more concise, it depends!
Tom NJ
"Are dinos perfectly equivalent to synthetics?" As it pertains to Longer OCI? and Cleaner engines?
There are two ways an oil can contribute to a "cleaner engine": the oil may prevent deposits, or the oil may actively dissolve and disperse existing deposits. In both cases, the additives, including detergents, dispersants, and anti-oxidants, play a much larger role than the base oil.
A synthetic base oil may contribute to preventing deposits by nature of its better oxidative stability, assuming it also has a solid additive system. A weak additive system can override the effects of the synthetic base oil in this regard, so the fact that the oil is "synthetic" is not a guarantee it will be better at preventing deposits. In fact, under some conditions, such as thin oil films at very high temperatures, non-polar synthetics like PAO and Group III are actually more prone to forming deposits because of their inability to dissolve deposit precursors. While these conditions are rare in automotive engines, they do preclude the use of PAO and Group III in certain applications such as jet engines, reciprocating air compressors, and oven chain lubricants.
With respect to the base oil's abiliy to clean existing deposits, polarity is the key factor. Conventional Group I base oils are much more polar than synthetic PAOs and Group IIIs and may clean better provided they are robustly inhibited for oxidation. Most are not, however, since anti-oxidants are expensive, so the lower oxidative stability of Group I base oils often overrides their better dissolving power. Non-polar synthetic base oils like PAO and Group III contribute nothing in and of themselves to cleaning existing deposits. That said, such synthetic oils often contain a more robust additive system since they usually represent an oil company's flagship product or "best foot forward."
The only synthetic base oils that both prevents deposits and cleans existing deposits are esters (and to a lesser degree alkylated naphthalenes), but these are so expensive that they are rarely used in engine oils in a meaningful dosage.
Regarding extended OCIs, synthetic oils have the capacity to contribute significantly to longer OCIs through their better oxidative stability, provided once again that they have a robust additive system. A weak or mediocre additive system can neutralize the benefits of the synthetic base oil and the finished oil may offer no OCI extension at all, even though it is "synthetic".
It is important to understand that many if not most marketers of synthetic oils do employ a more robust additive system since this oil is their top shelf offering and often utilizes their best technology. Since they have to put more money into the base oils and can sell it at synthetic prices, why not invest more in the additive package as well. This is especially true with very expensive base oils such as PAO and Group III+. It's not a sure thing, but the probability is higher that synthetic oils have both better base oils and better additive systems, and therefore may be both cleaner and extend OCIs.
So, the definitive answer to your question "Are dinos perfectly equivalent to synthetics as it pertains to Longer OCI and Cleaner engines?" is absolutely YES....and NO. Or to be more concise, it depends!
Tom NJ
Thank you Tom for lending your voice to help control the madness!
Is it therefore fair to say (IMO) that a Conventional Oil with a additive package designed to prevent and clean existing deposits (I am thinking of Pennzoil here) COULD give performance in this regard equal to or better than a random off the shelf Synthetic Oil IF in that specific oil a less robust additive package overrides the nature of the synthetic base as you indicated? (Only in the area of deposit formation and cleaning - all other factors being equal)
And would it be fair to say that the natural characteristics of Synthetic Oils allow formulators more flexibility in terms of Multi-grade viscosities, enhanced thermal stability etc? Providing they use the right additive enhancements?
I say this because I, (and I think you might agree), would contest that having the right additive package to work with the base stock is much more important than whether you are using Synthetic or Conventional stocks. And I agree 100% that as a general rule most oil companies are using their best additive combinations in their synthetic oils because they are the Flagship products.
As we mentioned way back in the posts - the conscientious oil user needs to first look at their operating conditions and maintenance requirements and then select an oil that meets those needs. Not the other way around.
Is it therefore fair to say (IMO) that a Conventional Oil with a additive package designed to prevent and clean existing deposits (I am thinking of Pennzoil here) COULD give performance in this regard equal to or better than a random off the shelf Synthetic Oil IF in that specific oil a less robust additive package overrides the nature of the synthetic base as you indicated? (Only in the area of deposit formation and cleaning - all other factors being equal)
And would it be fair to say that the natural characteristics of Synthetic Oils allow formulators more flexibility in terms of Multi-grade viscosities, enhanced thermal stability etc? Providing they use the right additive enhancements?
I say this because I, (and I think you might agree), would contest that having the right additive package to work with the base stock is much more important than whether you are using Synthetic or Conventional stocks. And I agree 100% that as a general rule most oil companies are using their best additive combinations in their synthetic oils because they are the Flagship products.
As we mentioned way back in the posts - the conscientious oil user needs to first look at their operating conditions and maintenance requirements and then select an oil that meets those needs. Not the other way around.
Oh yeah, the oil screens. forgot about that...
My apologies. Oil starvation isn't the oils' fault.
My apologies. Oil starvation isn't the oils' fault.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
