synthetic vs reg oil
- Thread starter dslofti
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Kuato
As usual in this discussion:
OP lives in TN. If it were me I would use conventional 5w30 year round. Unless the majority of my trips were short, in which case synthetic might serve better - and UOAs would tell the story.
You say"UOAs would tell the story". How so?
As usual in this discussion:
OP lives in TN. If it were me I would use conventional 5w30 year round. Unless the majority of my trips were short, in which case synthetic might serve better - and UOAs would tell the story.
You say"UOAs would tell the story". How so?
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: FoxS
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: FoxS
An increasing number of manufacturers write oil specs that can only be met with synthetic oils. So clearly synthetic is superior.
No, that doesn't mean that clearly at all. When a manufacturer specifies synthetic, or comes up with a specification that can only be met by synthetic, they're looking at more than a word like "superior." They tend to look at dramatically extended OCIs or a grade that can only be met by synthetics. Look at dexos1. Look at any of the European grades (extremely long OCIs along with grades like 0w-40). The Europeans, for instance, would have a great difficulty finding a conventional oil that has an HTHS of 3.5 or greater all the while still being great in arctic conditions, along with OCIs of well over 10,000 miles. In years past, they did fine with 15w-40 in summer and 5w-20, 5w-30, or 10w-30 in winter. Seasonal oil changes are pretty much out of date, though.
So what part of what you said does not demonstrate that syn is superior to dino?
Think of it as two cars, a Corolla and a Porsche 911. There is no question that the 911 is superior to Corolla, but if you use both cars for morning commute in traffic both of them will be at a level playing field because 911 performance advantages cannot be fully utilized.
That's essentially the same as using synthetic oil in a car that doesn't call for it and at 5k OCIs. You simply cannot take full advantage of what synthetic oil can provide and you end up wasting money just like you would if you used 911 for every day commute in heavy traffic.
You would feel better driving the 911 than Corolla and you may not care about paying extra for it, just like plenty of people that are using synthetic where dino would do just fine and those are very legitimate reasons, but don’t tell us that synthetic is superior and that's good enough reason to use it.
I own a 1999 Porsche 996 and I can tell you it is a piece of do do compared to a Corolla; my motor had a rear main seal die at 15,000 miles. A water pump and intermediate shaft fail at 65,000 miles. On Mobil 1 every 5,000 miles. I still have the car, it's on its second motor (so far so good), and the only reason I cannot sell it is because I cannot recover what I've put in it. Market value now for this car is $12,000, at best. Maybe newer Porsche's are better. But in my mind, Porsche and what it stood for died in 1996, the year they decided to go water cooled.
Originally Posted By: FoxS
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: FoxS
An increasing number of manufacturers write oil specs that can only be met with synthetic oils. So clearly synthetic is superior.
No, that doesn't mean that clearly at all. When a manufacturer specifies synthetic, or comes up with a specification that can only be met by synthetic, they're looking at more than a word like "superior." They tend to look at dramatically extended OCIs or a grade that can only be met by synthetics. Look at dexos1. Look at any of the European grades (extremely long OCIs along with grades like 0w-40). The Europeans, for instance, would have a great difficulty finding a conventional oil that has an HTHS of 3.5 or greater all the while still being great in arctic conditions, along with OCIs of well over 10,000 miles. In years past, they did fine with 15w-40 in summer and 5w-20, 5w-30, or 10w-30 in winter. Seasonal oil changes are pretty much out of date, though.
So what part of what you said does not demonstrate that syn is superior to dino?
Think of it as two cars, a Corolla and a Porsche 911. There is no question that the 911 is superior to Corolla, but if you use both cars for morning commute in traffic both of them will be at a level playing field because 911 performance advantages cannot be fully utilized.
That's essentially the same as using synthetic oil in a car that doesn't call for it and at 5k OCIs. You simply cannot take full advantage of what synthetic oil can provide and you end up wasting money just like you would if you used 911 for every day commute in heavy traffic.
You would feel better driving the 911 than Corolla and you may not care about paying extra for it, just like plenty of people that are using synthetic where dino would do just fine and those are very legitimate reasons, but don’t tell us that synthetic is superior and that's good enough reason to use it.
I own a 1999 Porsche 996 and I can tell you it is a piece of do do compared to a Corolla; my motor had a rear main seal die at 15,000 miles. A water pump and intermediate shaft fail at 65,000 miles. On Mobil 1 every 5,000 miles. I still have the car, it's on its second motor (so far so good), and the only reason I cannot sell it is because I cannot recover what I've put in it. Market value now for this car is $12,000, at best. Maybe newer Porsche's are better. But in my mind, Porsche and what it stood for died in 1996, the year they decided to go water cooled.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: whizbyu
I own a 1999 Porsche 996 and I can tell you it is a piece of do do compared to a Corolla; my motor had a rear main seal die at 15,000 miles. A water pump and intermediate shaft fail at 65,000 miles. On Mobil 1 every 5,000 miles. I still have the car, it's on its second motor (so far so good), and the only reason I cannot sell it is because I cannot recover what I've put in it. Market value now for this car is $12,000, at best. Maybe newer Porsche's are better. But in my mind, Porsche and what it stood for died in 1996, the year they decided to go water cooled.
It was just an illustration of performance since oil doesn't have reliability, fuel economy or other factors that cars have. But you are right that the scenario can easily be turned around and Corolla is superior to 911 if you look at it from reliability, fuel economy and cost of ownership perspective.
I own a 1999 Porsche 996 and I can tell you it is a piece of do do compared to a Corolla; my motor had a rear main seal die at 15,000 miles. A water pump and intermediate shaft fail at 65,000 miles. On Mobil 1 every 5,000 miles. I still have the car, it's on its second motor (so far so good), and the only reason I cannot sell it is because I cannot recover what I've put in it. Market value now for this car is $12,000, at best. Maybe newer Porsche's are better. But in my mind, Porsche and what it stood for died in 1996, the year they decided to go water cooled.
It was just an illustration of performance since oil doesn't have reliability, fuel economy or other factors that cars have. But you are right that the scenario can easily be turned around and Corolla is superior to 911 if you look at it from reliability, fuel economy and cost of ownership perspective.
Originally Posted By: FoxS
This is silly semantics.
A Lexus is superior to a Toyota.
A Toyota may be more appropriate than a Lexus.
Yes in that way it is arguably superior, but only on BITOG do folks take anything someone says and turn it into something they never meant.
A Lexus is a Toyota, hehe
This is silly semantics.
A Lexus is superior to a Toyota.
A Toyota may be more appropriate than a Lexus.
Yes in that way it is arguably superior, but only on BITOG do folks take anything someone says and turn it into something they never meant.
A Lexus is a Toyota, hehe
Originally Posted By: jmac
Originally Posted By: FoxS
This is silly semantics.
A Lexus is superior to a Toyota.
A Toyota may be more appropriate than a Lexus.
Yes in that way it is arguably superior, but only on BITOG do folks take anything someone says and turn it into something they never meant.
A Lexus is a Toyota, hehe
Yes Toyota is the parent company. just as;
Nissan is to Infiniti
Honda is to Acura
Originally Posted By: FoxS
This is silly semantics.
A Lexus is superior to a Toyota.
A Toyota may be more appropriate than a Lexus.
Yes in that way it is arguably superior, but only on BITOG do folks take anything someone says and turn it into something they never meant.
A Lexus is a Toyota, hehe
Yes Toyota is the parent company. just as;
Nissan is to Infiniti
Honda is to Acura
Last edited:
This is a very dated article look at the prices alone. However I still think there is alot of truth still. They tore down the engines this is not how it feels or good oil because i can sleep at night, it is tore down and measure. Again not your every day condition but I remember thinking wow syn. and dino same results re. wear. http://www.xs11.com/xs11-info/tech-tips/...motor-oils.html
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: FoxS
So what part of what you said does not demonstrate that syn is superior to dino?
Plenty. The ability to go for long drains does demonstrate "superiority" but only if it's combined with decent economics. If it's double the price (or more), it had better go at least double the interval.
The ability to use one grade year round is another issue of "superiority" but that's grade dependent. If a vehicle calls for a 40 grade of some sort, one would need a 5w-40 or 0w-40 if it's to be used in a cold winter. In that case, the synthetic would be "superior" and especially so if they don't wish to switch grades by season. If it's only used in the summer and has no fancy specifications, there's little advantage over a 15w-40, particularly if the OCIs are conservative. In the old Audi, I used synthetics in 5w-40 or 0w-40 if I expected the OCI duration to extend into winter. If it was an early spring oil change, 15w-40 worked just as well.
If it's a 5w-30, the same applies. How is a 5w-30 synthetic superior to a 5w-30 conventional in my G over 3750 mile OCIs?
The Corolla vs. 911 example is a great one. You're not going to deliver pizza in a 911. You certainly could, but the wisdom, and likely the sanity, of anyone purchasing a new Porsche to deliver pizza would be questioned. Its superiority in such an application would be questionable at best. In taxi service, it would be less than useless. It would be vastly inferior to a Crown Vic or a Town Car, even an old and beaten one.
So what you are saying is that although I specifically used the word "superior", you chose to tell me I was wrong because you interpreted the word "superior" as meaning "appropriate".
I chose the word "superior" because I meant "superior".
I already understand the concept of "appropriate". If I had meant "appropriate", I would have used the word "appropriate" instead of "superior".
Too much inaccurate pedanticism on this site sometimes.
Originally Posted By: FoxS
So what part of what you said does not demonstrate that syn is superior to dino?
Plenty. The ability to go for long drains does demonstrate "superiority" but only if it's combined with decent economics. If it's double the price (or more), it had better go at least double the interval.
The ability to use one grade year round is another issue of "superiority" but that's grade dependent. If a vehicle calls for a 40 grade of some sort, one would need a 5w-40 or 0w-40 if it's to be used in a cold winter. In that case, the synthetic would be "superior" and especially so if they don't wish to switch grades by season. If it's only used in the summer and has no fancy specifications, there's little advantage over a 15w-40, particularly if the OCIs are conservative. In the old Audi, I used synthetics in 5w-40 or 0w-40 if I expected the OCI duration to extend into winter. If it was an early spring oil change, 15w-40 worked just as well.
If it's a 5w-30, the same applies. How is a 5w-30 synthetic superior to a 5w-30 conventional in my G over 3750 mile OCIs?
The Corolla vs. 911 example is a great one. You're not going to deliver pizza in a 911. You certainly could, but the wisdom, and likely the sanity, of anyone purchasing a new Porsche to deliver pizza would be questioned. Its superiority in such an application would be questionable at best. In taxi service, it would be less than useless. It would be vastly inferior to a Crown Vic or a Town Car, even an old and beaten one.
So what you are saying is that although I specifically used the word "superior", you chose to tell me I was wrong because you interpreted the word "superior" as meaning "appropriate".
I chose the word "superior" because I meant "superior".
I already understand the concept of "appropriate". If I had meant "appropriate", I would have used the word "appropriate" instead of "superior".
Too much inaccurate pedanticism on this site sometimes.
Synthetic is the best when engine working condition to the extreme: Extreme hot, cold, shear. For typical use, SM/SN dino oil is already proved to be good enough up to manufacturer recommended OCI. For some engine, the design flaw cause to much heat in some spot and not enough cooling. Use of synthetic oil is not recommended but a must. That why you have to google to see if you engine is kind of engine which has oil related problems or not. If not, use dino with 5k/7.5k OCI. Synthetic oil also has its limit, also can be turn into tar like substance if it's over heated.
Originally Posted By: ottotheclown
This is a very dated article look at the prices alone. However I still think there is alot of truth still. They tore down the engines this is not how it feels or good oil because i can sleep at night, it is tore down and measure. Again not your every day condition but I remember thinking wow syn. and dino same results re. wear. http://www.xs11.com/xs11-info/tech-tips/...motor-oils.html
What's interesting about the CR article is that the wear was the same whether they went 3,000 or 6,000 on dino or whether they went 12,000 on Mobil synthetic. I use synthetics for yearly OCI's and feel that it is my best choice not only economically (vs 2 yearly OCI's with dino) but for light
Y better cold starts and MPG.
This is a very dated article look at the prices alone. However I still think there is alot of truth still. They tore down the engines this is not how it feels or good oil because i can sleep at night, it is tore down and measure. Again not your every day condition but I remember thinking wow syn. and dino same results re. wear. http://www.xs11.com/xs11-info/tech-tips/...motor-oils.html
What's interesting about the CR article is that the wear was the same whether they went 3,000 or 6,000 on dino or whether they went 12,000 on Mobil synthetic. I use synthetics for yearly OCI's and feel that it is my best choice not only economically (vs 2 yearly OCI's with dino) but for light
Y better cold starts and MPG.
I think the 12,000 engines broke down not oil"s fault they said . It did not matter wear wise between 3 and 6k oci. The only item I always think about is the oil turning into acid on long runs I would have to do a uoa.
Originally Posted By: Capa
Originally Posted By: ottotheclown
This is a very dated article look at the prices alone. However I still think there is alot of truth still. They tore down the engines this is not how it feels or good oil because i can sleep at night, it is tore down and measure. Again not your every day condition but I remember thinking wow syn. and dino same results re. wear. http://www.xs11.com/xs11-info/tech-tips/...motor-oils.html
What's interesting about the CR article is that the wear was the same whether they went 3,000 or 6,000 on dino or whether they went 12,000 on Mobil synthetic. I use synthetics for yearly OCI's and feel that it is my best choice not only economically (vs 2 yearly OCI's with dino) but for light
Y better cold starts and MPG.
Originally Posted By: Capa
Originally Posted By: ottotheclown
This is a very dated article look at the prices alone. However I still think there is alot of truth still. They tore down the engines this is not how it feels or good oil because i can sleep at night, it is tore down and measure. Again not your every day condition but I remember thinking wow syn. and dino same results re. wear. http://www.xs11.com/xs11-info/tech-tips/...motor-oils.html
What's interesting about the CR article is that the wear was the same whether they went 3,000 or 6,000 on dino or whether they went 12,000 on Mobil synthetic. I use synthetics for yearly OCI's and feel that it is my best choice not only economically (vs 2 yearly OCI's with dino) but for light
Y better cold starts and MPG.
Originally Posted By: FoxS
I chose the word "superior" because I meant "superior".
I already understand the concept of "appropriate". If I had meant "appropriate", I would have used the word "appropriate" instead of "superior".
Superiority requires some kind of metric for comparison's sake. "Superior" how? Without a metric for comparison, the term "superior" is useless. You can call that pedantic all you like, but that's using language precisely.
And appropriateness is essential in comparing oils. Let's each go buy a brand new Dodge Cummins. I'll use 15w-40 conventional for the specified OCI, and you use superior synthetic 0w-20 for the specified interval, and let's see how it works out.
If a lubricant isn't appropriate, it's hardly going to be superior. A conventional generally isn't appropriate for 15,000 mile OCIs, and a synthetic generally isn't appropriate for 3,000 mile OCIs.
I chose the word "superior" because I meant "superior".
I already understand the concept of "appropriate". If I had meant "appropriate", I would have used the word "appropriate" instead of "superior".
Superiority requires some kind of metric for comparison's sake. "Superior" how? Without a metric for comparison, the term "superior" is useless. You can call that pedantic all you like, but that's using language precisely.
And appropriateness is essential in comparing oils. Let's each go buy a brand new Dodge Cummins. I'll use 15w-40 conventional for the specified OCI, and you use superior synthetic 0w-20 for the specified interval, and let's see how it works out.
If a lubricant isn't appropriate, it's hardly going to be superior. A conventional generally isn't appropriate for 15,000 mile OCIs, and a synthetic generally isn't appropriate for 3,000 mile OCIs.
CR had several taxis that broke and couldn't continue in the study but none were oil related. It is true that this also happened to a couple of the syn taxis but at least one (if not two) went the full 12,000 miles and showed no wear difference from the dino taxis that were going either 3000 or 6000 miles. They also tested different weights and there was no wear difference. They also tested different brands (though they stayed with the big boys) and there was no wear difference.
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: FoxS
I chose the word "superior" because I meant "superior".
I already understand the concept of "appropriate". If I had meant "appropriate", I would have used the word "appropriate" instead of "superior".
Superiority requires some kind of metric for comparison's sake. "Superior" how? Without a metric for comparison, the term "superior" is useless. You can call that pedantic all you like, but that's using language precisely.
And appropriateness is essential in comparing oils. Let's each go buy a brand new Dodge Cummins. I'll use 15w-40 conventional for the specified OCI, and you use superior synthetic 0w-20 for the specified interval, and let's see how it works out.
If a lubricant isn't appropriate, it's hardly going to be superior. A conventional generally isn't appropriate for 15,000 mile OCIs, and a synthetic generally isn't appropriate for 3,000 mile OCIs.
Now you're just being silly.
I outlined some examples of superior in my original post. So don't now take me out of context.
And my point about appropriate is precisely the point you are now making.
You tried to call me on my use of the word superior when you actually misinterpreted superior to mean the same thing as appropriate.
You can be pedantic all you want but you need to not misinterpret people in order to be pedantic, otherwise it just appears that that is your reason for posting.
Thank you and let's close this side discussion.
Originally Posted By: FoxS
I chose the word "superior" because I meant "superior".
I already understand the concept of "appropriate". If I had meant "appropriate", I would have used the word "appropriate" instead of "superior".
Superiority requires some kind of metric for comparison's sake. "Superior" how? Without a metric for comparison, the term "superior" is useless. You can call that pedantic all you like, but that's using language precisely.
And appropriateness is essential in comparing oils. Let's each go buy a brand new Dodge Cummins. I'll use 15w-40 conventional for the specified OCI, and you use superior synthetic 0w-20 for the specified interval, and let's see how it works out.
If a lubricant isn't appropriate, it's hardly going to be superior. A conventional generally isn't appropriate for 15,000 mile OCIs, and a synthetic generally isn't appropriate for 3,000 mile OCIs.
Now you're just being silly.
I outlined some examples of superior in my original post. So don't now take me out of context.
And my point about appropriate is precisely the point you are now making.
You tried to call me on my use of the word superior when you actually misinterpreted superior to mean the same thing as appropriate.
You can be pedantic all you want but you need to not misinterpret people in order to be pedantic, otherwise it just appears that that is your reason for posting.
Thank you and let's close this side discussion.
As I said, superiority depends upon metrics. Many items in the spec sheet might be superior in a synthetic versus a conventional, but that's not without exception. Synthetic may be superior in ROI, or it may not be, depending upon one's usage. But, just saying it's superior is rather meaningless.
You can call it a side discussion all you like, but considering the topic of this thread is "synthetic vs reg oil" I'd hardly consider it such. The fact remains that one will generally not see any benefits from using a specified synthetic over normal OCIs versus a specified conventional.
You can call it a side discussion all you like, but considering the topic of this thread is "synthetic vs reg oil" I'd hardly consider it such. The fact remains that one will generally not see any benefits from using a specified synthetic over normal OCIs versus a specified conventional.
this is an oil forum and this is what we talk about on here if we stopped talking about everything that has been beaten to death like some say over the many years of this forum there would be nothing to say. I personally like talking about this kind of thing because oil formulations change every couple of years and there is lots of new things to add. This is a great place to learn or at least hear other peoples opinions on oil and other related subjects. I have learned a lot here and really enjoy reading ideas of others. You can never learn too much.
Originally Posted By: Garak
As I said, superiority depends upon metrics. Many items in the spec sheet might be superior in a synthetic versus a conventional, but that's not without exception. Synthetic may be superior in ROI, or it may not be, depending upon one's usage. But, just saying it's superior is rather meaningless.
You can call it a side discussion all you like, but considering the topic of this thread is "synthetic vs reg oil" I'd hardly consider it such. The fact remains that one will generally not see any benefits from using a specified synthetic over normal OCIs versus a specified conventional.
Side discussion in respect of it being mainly semantics.
Re normal oci, if you recall I opened my post saying that an increasing number of manufacturers had requirements that only synthetic could meet. For most German cars, a normal oci requires synthetic. Thus it is superior - no conventional can last a normal oci. Toyota say you can go double mileage on synthetic. That sounds superior to me. Honda specify 0w20 which can only be synthetic. And in Europe, synthetic is the norm as it allows longer oci's. Again, synthetic seems superior. I've covered most manufacturers and looking at the dexos licensed list it looks like even for GM, a syn blend at the very least is required.
In all these cases, synthetic is superior. Now for manufacturers who specify requirements that conventional can meet, these synthetics also meet those requirements but may not present any significant benefit. Thus we would say that synthetic may not be appropriate, but it would be hard to claim that in and of itself the synthetic is not superior.
I think you know by now this is what I meant. Too many people on this board seek to tell others they are wrong rather than display a little understanding.
As I said, superiority depends upon metrics. Many items in the spec sheet might be superior in a synthetic versus a conventional, but that's not without exception. Synthetic may be superior in ROI, or it may not be, depending upon one's usage. But, just saying it's superior is rather meaningless.
You can call it a side discussion all you like, but considering the topic of this thread is "synthetic vs reg oil" I'd hardly consider it such. The fact remains that one will generally not see any benefits from using a specified synthetic over normal OCIs versus a specified conventional.
Side discussion in respect of it being mainly semantics.
Re normal oci, if you recall I opened my post saying that an increasing number of manufacturers had requirements that only synthetic could meet. For most German cars, a normal oci requires synthetic. Thus it is superior - no conventional can last a normal oci. Toyota say you can go double mileage on synthetic. That sounds superior to me. Honda specify 0w20 which can only be synthetic. And in Europe, synthetic is the norm as it allows longer oci's. Again, synthetic seems superior. I've covered most manufacturers and looking at the dexos licensed list it looks like even for GM, a syn blend at the very least is required.
In all these cases, synthetic is superior. Now for manufacturers who specify requirements that conventional can meet, these synthetics also meet those requirements but may not present any significant benefit. Thus we would say that synthetic may not be appropriate, but it would be hard to claim that in and of itself the synthetic is not superior.
I think you know by now this is what I meant. Too many people on this board seek to tell others they are wrong rather than display a little understanding.
It is a matter of personal preference. But the cost of oil here synthetic is around 25 dollars for 5 qts at Wal Mart versus 15 dollars for 5 qts conventional. Synthetic to me would be more pratical with the longer drain interval and protection level. Conventional doesnt protect as well and have to change out more often actually costing more than using synthetic. Cant believe people pay so much for a vehicle and want to be cheap on the life blood of the vehicle doesnt make much sense to me actually very stupid in my opinion!
Originally Posted By: 3forever
IConventional doesnt protect as well and have to change out more often actually costing more than using synthetic. Cant believe people pay so much for a vehicle and want to be cheap on the life blood of the vehicle doesnt make much sense to me actually very stupid in my opinion!
Why people keep repeating this nonsense?
IConventional doesnt protect as well and have to change out more often actually costing more than using synthetic. Cant believe people pay so much for a vehicle and want to be cheap on the life blood of the vehicle doesnt make much sense to me actually very stupid in my opinion!
Why people keep repeating this nonsense?
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: 3forever
IConventional doesnt protect as well and have to change out more often actually costing more than using synthetic. Cant believe people pay so much for a vehicle and want to be cheap on the life blood of the vehicle doesnt make much sense to me actually very stupid in my opinion!
Why people keep repeating this nonsense?
Toyota allow you to go double your oci on synthetic.
So somewhere between mile 5001 and 10000, synthetic is protecting more.
I would guess that the point where syn protects more is not binary so somewhere before 5000, synthetic is likely protecting more as well. How much may be negligible, but after 5000 it is sufficient to cause a requirement for synthetic.
Originally Posted By: 3forever
IConventional doesnt protect as well and have to change out more often actually costing more than using synthetic. Cant believe people pay so much for a vehicle and want to be cheap on the life blood of the vehicle doesnt make much sense to me actually very stupid in my opinion!
Why people keep repeating this nonsense?
Toyota allow you to go double your oci on synthetic.
So somewhere between mile 5001 and 10000, synthetic is protecting more.
I would guess that the point where syn protects more is not binary so somewhere before 5000, synthetic is likely protecting more as well. How much may be negligible, but after 5000 it is sufficient to cause a requirement for synthetic.
- Status
