The long term cost of using conventional motor oil?

[Alan]

It's cheaper to run dino with 3K intervals(this can often be smartly stretched too) then M1 with 7.5K intervals in my application.

I have a Corolla that has a 4qt capacity that I plan to keep until around 200K miles.I use 2 dollar SuperTech oil filters with M1.This comes out to roughly $22 an oil change.Using 7500 OCI's the total cost is around $572 dollars.

Using Supertech Dino with 3K intervals it totals to $353 bucks.$214 dollars using 5K intervals.

This engine will easily(I hope)make it to 200K with the cheapest SL dino with 5K OCI's.

I am seriously contemplating switching my 2 main rides to dino.It's really much cheaper.

 

[andyfish]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jelly:

quote:

---

Originally posted by andyfish:
I'm a 4k+ dino changer and have 210k problem free miles on a Honda and its clean under valve cover according to last mechanic who checked valve clearance recently.

---

Compared to what? All the other vehicles he services that have spent their lives on mineral-based PCMO's?

I say this because I've seen a lot of high-mileage gas engines in my short time, and not a single one of them (no matter how good they were taken care of) has been anywhere nearly as clean as a gas engine that was ran on an HDEO or synthetic PCMO.

Would be interesting to see what your ring-pack looked like...

---

If my engine ever gets to the point of looking at the ring pack it will be in a junkyard. The most major thing done to the engine is a timing belt change. I have too many friends who run cars well into the 250k-300k range (mostly Maxima's & Accords) on pure dino diets. Maybe they have "dirty" engines but the cars still run/perform quite well.

 

[nanney]

What kind of use did the truck get? Short trips? Lots of towing and hauling? Hard drivers? The 302 is sort of a small engine for a 250. If he, or the previous owner, worked it hard, then maybe 185,000 and a shot motor is justified.

Of course, I thought all of the older Ford, Chevy, and Dodge V8's lost some compression and power as they exceeded 100,000 miles. I know that's a generalization though.

Any insight on how the truck was used?

 

[G-MAN]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jelly:
Well, on regular change intervals, they can keep metal wear rates very low, but they CAN NOT keep an engine clean, with a great deal of varnish/deposit buildup in the top-end/valvetrain, but most noteably, a high amount of buildup in the piston ring area that causes the rings ...

---

This is just nonsense. If you don't push an oil beyond what its add pack/base oil combination can handle, you won't get deposit buildup. Modern Group II base oil have increased the limit over Group I, but even a PAO based oil will yield deposits if it is pushed too far.

You make it sound as though any SL rated PCMO changed at 3000 mile intervals is still going to lead to deposit formation, which is baloney.

 

[Schmoe]

Say what ya'll want, but I am living proof that regular 3K oil changes with Pennz. 5/10W-30 WILL leave varnish on the inside of the engine.

 

[FL-400S]

Shoot, would anyone besides me be happy if a truck lasted 185,000? Im happy if a vehicle goes 100K before engine or transmission crap out. Keep in mind I dont drive a lot of miles, and really in 25 years my family has only had 1 car crap out-a 1985 dodge lancer-with 80K miles. Detroit's old disappointment...

 

[Bror Jace]

Just for you, rainman49, I'm gonna post and prevent this thread from dying ... at least a little while.

I don’t think you can make broad generalizations about synthetics and mineral oils over the past 30+ years. Both cars and oil formulations have changed radically in that time and all the anecdotal evidence may reflect pretty unique (or at least rare) circumstances.

I think some of the better Group II or II+ base oil dinos with the proper additive package can keep and engine just as clean as a Group IV/V synthetic ... provided the drain interval is kept modest.

I got a question for you old-school, old time oil gurus. Did early formulations of Mobil 1 without the added esters and alkylated aromatics have the reputation for excessive cleanliness? I don't see why. As was pointed out above, PAOs will leave a nasty deposit if pushed hard enough. It's the esters and better additives which help keep the engines clean the most ... along with the more stable PAO base oil which resists oxidation.

Oh, and the less VII.

Schmoeber, you have pics of an engine recently sludged by Pennzoil? I’d like to see those.

About a year ago a dude posted pics of a Soobie motor with 75,000 miles on it ... all Chevron Supreme. Motor looked spotless.

--- Bror Jace

 

[Schmoe]

I didn't say it sludged, I'm just saying that there will be varnish on the insides. The nature of dino oil.

 

[Cutehumor]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan:
It's cheaper to run dino with 3K intervals(this can often be smartly stretched too) then M1 with 7.5K intervals in my application.

I have a Corolla that has a 4qt capacity that I plan to keep until around 200K miles.I use 2 dollar SuperTech oil filters with M1.This comes out to roughly $22 an oil change.Using 7500 OCI's the total cost is around $572 dollars.

Using Supertech Dino with 3K intervals it totals to $353 bucks.$214 dollars using 5K intervals.

This engine will easily(I hope)make it to 200K with the cheapest SL dino with 5K OCI's.

I am seriously contemplating switching my 2 main rides to dino.It's really much cheaper.

---

don't forget that oils such as havoline are often on sale .59 cents a quart at places like Rite aid at various times throughout the years. That might make your operating cost to be lower

With the oil savings, u can run a yearly UOA to check how things are going.

 

[wulimaster]

quote:

---

Originally posted by like a rock:
Well now the motor seems to be about shot. High oil consumption, low compression, and excess smoking.

---

I ran into a syn vs petro long term comparison on another board more than a year ago by someone who had eight new 4x4 Ford vehicles that he bought for his business in Texas. He put synthetic in 4 front to back and dino in 4 front to back and tracked all costs. Oil, repairs, fuel.

He ran 3k miles on the dino and 5k miles on synthetic. He also put synthetic in the tranny and diffs on the syn vehicles.

After about 225k to 240k miles all the dino engines had to be replaced with rebuilt engines because oil consumption was preventing them from passing emmisions. All the dino trannys failed by 240k miles and had to be replaced.

After 435k miles he sold the trucks along with the business. This was after about 6-7 years of use. All the syns were still passing emmisions and the only failure was a torque converter in 400k+ miles.

The dino vehicles ended up costing over 5k more each to operate during those 6 years.

Fuel cost savings alone paid for the syn. Also, Oil consumption made the dino cost more as makeup oil was significant.


Sure, you can run a vehicle out to 200-400k miles on dino but what you think you are saving in oil cost is more than lost on fuel economy and maintenance.

Lets turn the question around and ask the dino users how they know they are getting the best return on their investment in dino versus using a quality synthetic.

I have seen many examples of auto-Rx users reporting better fuel economy after a cleaning. These gains come from lost performance due to dino use being reclaimed after a cleaning. That is an added loss on top of the already lower fuel economy of dino's.

 

[therion]

quote:

---

Originally posted by rainman49:
Well, it's time for me to stop another thread. It seems every time I mention my '88 F150 with a 302 the thread comes to a screeching halt. Anyway, as I've said before, my F150 has 427,000 miles on the original engine and has never had the valve covers off. It's gotten a steady diet of 4-5 quarts of GTX 20W-50/ 1-2 quarts of M1 15-50 because I live in the Deep South and don't have to worry about the winters. A double dose of ARX recently certainly made it run better, probably the piston-ring cleaning. Everyone seems astonished I have that many miles on the vehicle, but I think everybody should get 250,000 miles out of an engine with proper maintenance.
That's my opinion and I agree with it.
Rainman

---

Is that with or without a bypass filter?? I have a 1995 Ford w/ at 351W and i was wondering if i could get that high of mileage out of it. Currently i have a Motor guard on the engine and a Magnafine on the tranny, Amsoil HDD 5W-30 in engine and Amsoil Syn Lube in the Tranny & differential & wheel bearings.. All this and my fuel economy went up 2-3MPG MAX. I'm pretty impressed.

 

[like a rock]

Whew- Some really good debating going on. I talked to the fellow againg today that owns this f-150 and he said that he bought the used motor. No towing on this motor just lot's of short trips year round mixed with some longer trips.

This synthetic vs. dino debate will continue for a long time to come. I may go to bed thinking about possible deposits in the piston ring area if I continue to use dino.

But on the other side of the pond is the thought of a engine that will remaing clean over the next 10 years. Really hard decisions. Thanks for your thoughts

 

[Jelly]

quote:

---

Originally posted by G-Man II:
This is just nonsense. If you don't push an oil beyond what its add pack/base oil combination can handle, you won't get deposit buildup. Modern Group II base oil have increased the limit over Group I, but even a PAO based oil will yield deposits if it is pushed too far.

You make it sound as though any SL rated PCMO changed at 3000 mile intervals is still going to lead to deposit formation, which is baloney.

---

This is exactly what I'm saying!

Like I've said, I have never seen a high-mileage gas engine, that had spent it's life on a mineral PCMO, be anything nearly as clean as a gas engine that was ran on a synthetic or HDEO.

Even the best ones I've seen, no matter the mineral PCMO used or drain interval, have been covered in varnish with a ring-pack that had a high level of deposit formation.

In regards to what you said, I do agree...don't push an oil beyond its limits.

What if 3k drain intervals were pushing mineral PCMO's beyond their limits though? API SL mineral PCMO's CAN NOT, over the LONG RUN (IMHO), handle even 3,000 mile drain intervals without having significant deposit formation.

Yes, a PAO or Ester based engine lube can still result in deposit formation if pushed too hard, but that threshold is MUCH, MUCH higher.

If you want to believe what I'm saying is nonsense...then fine. I know what I've seen with my own two eyes though and will continue to use only synthetic PCMO's and HDEO's in gas engines.

[ May 17, 2004, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: Jelly ]

 

[rainman49]

Well, it's time for me to stop another thread. It seems every time I mention my '88 F150 with a 302 the thread comes to a screeching halt. Anyway, as I've said before, my F150 has 427,000 miles on the original engine and has never had the valve covers off. It's gotten a steady diet of 4-5 quarts of GTX 20W-50/ 1-2 quarts of M1 15-50 because I live in the Deep South and don't have to worry about the winters. A double dose of ARX recently certainly made it run better, probably the piston-ring cleaning. Everyone seems astonished I have that many miles on the vehicle, but I think everybody should get 250,000 miles out of an engine with proper maintenance.
That's my opinion and I agree with it.
Rainman

 

[Cutehumor]

quote:

---

Originally posted by wulimaster:

quote:

---

Originally posted by like a rock:
Well now the motor seems to be about shot. High oil consumption, low compression, and excess smoking.

---

I ran into a syn vs petro long term comparison on another board more than a year ago by someone who had eight new 4x4 Ford vehicles that he bought for his business in Texas. He put synthetic in 4 front to back and dino in 4 front to back and tracked all costs. Oil, repairs, fuel.

He ran 3k miles on the dino and 5k miles on synthetic. He also put synthetic in the tranny and diffs on the syn vehicles.

After about 225k to 240k miles all the dino engines had to be replaced with rebuilt engines because oil consumption was preventing them from passing emmisions. All the dino trannys failed by 240k miles and had to be replaced.

After 435k miles he sold the trucks along with the business. This was after about 6-7 years of use. All the syns were still passing emmisions and the only failure was a torque converter in 400k+ miles.

The dino vehicles ended up costing over 5k more each to operate during those 6 years.

Fuel cost savings alone paid for the syn. Also, Oil consumption made the dino cost more as makeup oil was significant.


Sure, you can run a vehicle out to 200-400k miles on dino but what you think you are saving in oil cost is more than lost on fuel economy and maintenance.

Lets turn the question around and ask the dino users how they know they are getting the best return on their investment in dino versus using a quality synthetic.

I have seen many examples of auto-Rx users reporting better fuel economy after a cleaning. These gains come from lost performance due to dino use being reclaimed after a cleaning. That is an added loss on top of the already lower fuel economy of dino's.

---

there's no doubt that synthetics are superior in every way than dinos and this example proves it But..240k miles out of the tranny and engine is no slouch either. I only drive 12-15k yr at most, I can't imagine keeping a vehicle 30 years to get to 450k miles using syn. It's pretty rare for anyone to keep a vehicle that long for private use.

 

[wulimaster]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cutehumor:

---

there's no doubt that synthetics are superior in every way than dinos and this example proves it But..240k miles out of the tranny and engine is no slouch either. I only drive 12-15k yr at most, I can't imagine keeping a vehicle 30 years to get to 450k miles using syn. It's pretty rare for anyone to keep a vehicle that long for private use. [/QUOTE]

These vehicles were putting 60-70k miles on each year. The engines barely had a chance to cool down. Had they been in more stop and go traffic the trannys probably wouldn't have made it half as far.

Also, depending on whether the owner was using 2 year vehicle license tags or one, the engines may have been unable to pass emissions somewhere between 70k and 210k if the second set of tags were 2 years and emissions weren't required until they had 210k+ miles on them. He did say oil consumption was considerable and this would only have been a factor in the price if a large majority of the miles were with it consuming.

BTW I believe emissions testing isn't required here in AZ on new vehicles until they reach 3 years old.

[ May 18, 2004, 02:35 AM: Message edited by: wulimaster ]

 

[2K2AcuraTL]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swift:

quote:

---

Originally posted by liquidballbearing:
The ninth word in that first post says it all---FORD.

---

LOL!

---

LOL ... Ditto ...LOL
J

 

[DavoNF]

quote:

---

It seems every time I mention my '88 F150 with a 302 the thread comes to a screeching halt. Anyway, as I've said before, my F150 has 427,000 miles on the original engine and has never had the valve covers off. It's gotten a steady diet of 4-5 quarts of GTX 20W-50/ 1-2 quarts of M1 15-50 because I live in the Deep South and don't have to worry about the winters.

---

Go Ford.

The secret to longevity is (a) warm climate and (b) a decent thicker oil as the engine ages.


Rainman,

At what stage did you start using the syn 15W-50? Any leakage problems?

Dave.

 

[1sttruck]

Why wouldn't blends be a happy medium between higher synthetic short term cost / lower dino cost, and better long term performance ? If you're always glad to see your car die so that you can get a new one then it's a moot point, and if nothing is too good for your car it's also a moot point. If you don't like the idea of $20 to $75 for oil for each change but want to see the car last longer, then maybe a blend makes sense. We donated a Honda Civic to charity as it had low compression on one cylinder, smoked a lot, needed a carb rebuild, etc., with only 120k miles on it. We ran it hard, typically fully loaded, up and down a hill that we live on, lots of short trips, and it just didn't last too long. We have a Taurus with 170k miles that runs fine but is using a fair amount of oil, and want it to last as long as possible. Hindsight is that I wish that I'd least used a synthetic blend all these years.

 

[SteveS]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jelly:
Well, on regular change intervals, they can keep metal wear rates very low, but they CAN NOT keep an engine clean, with a great deal of varnish/deposit buildup in the top-end/valvetrain, but most noteably, a high amount of buildup in the piston ring area that causes the rings to no longer function properly and causes the problems you just mentioned...high oil consumption, low compression, and excess smoking!

---

What a load of B.S. Jelly.

The performance of an engine oil, PCMO or HDEO, comes mainly from its additive package. Of course a mineral oil "might" oxidise more than a synthetic, "might" produce incrementally more sludges or varnishes, but if the additive package is strong enough, especially in dispersant, then those effects will be controlled and the engine will stay clean. I've done a hundred thousand kilometres (60,000 miles) using Caltex (Texaco) Havoline Formula in a Holden (Australian GM) and my engine was always spotlessly clean, and that was at 10,000 km (6,000 mile) oil changes.

I have a feeling that when Mobil 1 was first introduced, the designers must've thought they could cut back the detergent/dispersant level in the additive package because they expected the synthetic base oil to produce fewer deposit precursors. I think they stuffed up, the first Mobil 1 was a dog which left engines sludgy and it was relatively quickly reformulated.

Ask yourself, of the two extremes, would you use a straight non-additised synthetic PCMO or a fully additised mineral oil PCMO.

Don't get me wrong, synthetics can make a great PCMO. But you can also make a lousy engine oil using a synthetic basestock too. And I consider that true sythetics (PAO, polyol esters) are ahead of group III mineral based "synthetics" in terms of oxidation resistance, VI, thermal stability.