"The surprising truth about motor oils"
- Thread starter Nickdfresh
- Start date
- Status
But look at those oil prices. Ah the good old days of inexpensive oil.
...And everybody thought that when I said about running Maxima again, that my one year old VOA was outdated...
Might be an old article but provides some great info.
I wish CR would test gasoline and gas pumps across the country...might provide some interesting info.
I wish CR would test gasoline and gas pumps across the country...might provide some interesting info.
Thanks for providing the link to the Consumer Reports article.
Very interesting read.
The 11-year-old article concluded that there wasn't much
difference between synthetic and conventional oils when it comes
to protecting your engine.
I'm not an oil expert at all, but I really have to wonder how reliable
that conclusion is. The article seemed to have lots of problems:
The engines were disassembled for inspection after
only 60,000 miles of engine use. Why not 100,000 miles?
60k isn't very much. synthetic and conventional differnces might show in the engine after 90 or 100k.
The article was written in 1996, about 11 years ago.
The engines used were large (4.3 liters) and they were all V6. Smaller
2.4 liter, 4-cyliner engines may experience more wear than the
6-cylinder variety, which spreads the work out over more pistons.
I would suppose synthetic formulations today are better than 11
years ago.
As the article mentions, New York taxis experience very few
cold starts as the same cabs are in use day and night in New
York City. I think lots of engine wear can
result from cold starts? So contemporary, *2006* synthetic oils
might provide a big advantage over their conventional counterparts?
Different cabbies may drive very differently--some with a heavy
foot and others with a light foot.
I'm not sure a sample of 75 cabs is large enough to provide
scientifically meaningful results.
The hundreds of individual quart-size bottles were purchased
in different parts of the country, then "representative"
quarts for each brand were combined together in big 55-gallon
drums, thereby mixing together their addiditives, even though the article
mentions that the same brand of oil sometimes differed depending
on the geographic area of the country it was purchased in. So here
you have a big mish-mosh of identically branded (but slightly differing)
oils placed in 55-gallon drums. Would the additives interact in
unexpected ways?
Perhaps some of these questions were addressed in side-boxes and side
articles not shown in the link.
I still like to think that PP and M1 synths protect engines more than conventional oils.
The article mentioned that the magazine's last test of oils before
1996 was in 1987. About a 10-year interval. Consumer Reports seems due for a new test.
-- Toyotas are Built_Well.
Very interesting read.
The 11-year-old article concluded that there wasn't much
difference between synthetic and conventional oils when it comes
to protecting your engine.
I'm not an oil expert at all, but I really have to wonder how reliable
that conclusion is. The article seemed to have lots of problems:
The engines were disassembled for inspection after
only 60,000 miles of engine use. Why not 100,000 miles?
60k isn't very much. synthetic and conventional differnces might show in the engine after 90 or 100k.
The article was written in 1996, about 11 years ago.
The engines used were large (4.3 liters) and they were all V6. Smaller
2.4 liter, 4-cyliner engines may experience more wear than the
6-cylinder variety, which spreads the work out over more pistons.
I would suppose synthetic formulations today are better than 11
years ago.
As the article mentions, New York taxis experience very few
cold starts as the same cabs are in use day and night in New
York City. I think lots of engine wear can
result from cold starts? So contemporary, *2006* synthetic oils
might provide a big advantage over their conventional counterparts?
Different cabbies may drive very differently--some with a heavy
foot and others with a light foot.
I'm not sure a sample of 75 cabs is large enough to provide
scientifically meaningful results.
The hundreds of individual quart-size bottles were purchased
in different parts of the country, then "representative"
quarts for each brand were combined together in big 55-gallon
drums, thereby mixing together their addiditives, even though the article
mentions that the same brand of oil sometimes differed depending
on the geographic area of the country it was purchased in. So here
you have a big mish-mosh of identically branded (but slightly differing)
oils placed in 55-gallon drums. Would the additives interact in
unexpected ways?
Perhaps some of these questions were addressed in side-boxes and side
articles not shown in the link.
I still like to think that PP and M1 synths protect engines more than conventional oils.
The article mentioned that the magazine's last test of oils before
1996 was in 1987. About a 10-year interval. Consumer Reports seems due for a new test.
-- Toyotas are Built_Well.
Yes, but conventional formulations are light-years ahead of where they were 11 years ago. I think the gap has narrowed quite a bit.
I remember reading this article...One thing that stood out was the fact that oils were forumlated differently from region to region...I wonder if this is still true?...
Exactly.
As I mentioned, smaller 2.4 liter, 4-cyliner engines may experience more wear than the 6-cylinder engines used in the test. The bigger 6-cylinder engines can spread the work out over more pistons, so less wear.
The best-selling car in America, the Toyota Camry (almost half-a-million units sold last year) is just a 2.4-liter 4-cylinder (almost half the size of the taxi engines).
If Consumer Reports does another test this decade, I hope they're able to include some 4-cylinders. V8s were common in the '70's, not today.
Last winter, I had conventional oil--I think Valvoline--in my '06 Camry LE, and I remember the engine had a very hard time getting itself lubricated in extremely cold temperatures. The engine sounded totally differently at start-up and during the warm-up drive. I don't think I'll ever use conventional oil again.
Have been using M1 but will switch to PP after reading about M1's wear control issue.
Also why did Consumer Reports break down and examine the taxi engines after only 60,000 miles of use? That's kind of odd, since 80k, 90k, or 100,000 miles would have shown more wear, and differences between conventional and synthetic might have shown up at these higher mileages.
I'm guessing Consumer Reports, a magazine I love by the way, had no choice but to break down and examine the engines at only 60k miles, because that might be the policy of the taxi cab companies.
The very experienced cab companies might know that engine wear might really become serious after 60k miles, and the companies prefer rebuilding their engines every 60k. The damage may be too extensive after 80 or 100k for the machine shops to repair inexpensively. So it may be a business decision on the part of the cab companies to stop the tests at only 60k miles. It may not have been Consumer Reports' decision.
I'm guessing Consumer Reports, a magazine I love by the way, had no choice but to break down and examine the engines at only 60k miles, because that might be the policy of the taxi cab companies.
The very experienced cab companies might know that engine wear might really become serious after 60k miles, and the companies prefer rebuilding their engines every 60k. The damage may be too extensive after 80 or 100k for the machine shops to repair inexpensively. So it may be a business decision on the part of the cab companies to stop the tests at only 60k miles. It may not have been Consumer Reports' decision.
The test had many flaws...
The flaws, however, probably weren't Consumer Reports fault. They may have requested to use a longer distance of 80,000 or 100k miles and to use some smaller, more common engines, but the cab companies probably refused them.
The taxi companies probably said something like sorry, we're running a business, not a research institute.
And Consumer Reports obviously doesn't have the money to buy 75 of its own cabs. Now this would be a good research project that the federal government should grant money to Consumer Reports for. But the Feds are busy waisting all our taxes fighting ExxonMobil's war in Iraq
Come to think of it, I'm glad I'm switching from war-mongering Mobil 1 to Pennzoil Platinum.
The taxi companies probably said something like sorry, we're running a business, not a research institute.
And Consumer Reports obviously doesn't have the money to buy 75 of its own cabs. Now this would be a good research project that the federal government should grant money to Consumer Reports for. But the Feds are busy waisting all our taxes fighting ExxonMobil's war in Iraq
Come to think of it, I'm glad I'm switching from war-mongering Mobil 1 to Pennzoil Platinum.
Back when the article was printed, a local TV evening news station would have a weekly report on a Consumer Reports article; basically reiterating the article but with video.
On an automotive related report (non-oil) I noticed only cases of Pennzoil were in the CR garage; none of the other brands were in view. Based on that, I felt maybe CR found that Pennzoil was a little better than the other dinos from their test. I used Pennzoil up until a couple years ago without a problem. I am thinking of returning to Pennzoil when stock of Chevron/Havoline runs out. I am undecided to go with Pennzoil or a distributor purchase of one of the Conoco brands (if I cannot get my local Walmart to special order Trop Artic).
On an automotive related report (non-oil) I noticed only cases of Pennzoil were in the CR garage; none of the other brands were in view. Based on that, I felt maybe CR found that Pennzoil was a little better than the other dinos from their test. I used Pennzoil up until a couple years ago without a problem. I am thinking of returning to Pennzoil when stock of Chevron/Havoline runs out. I am undecided to go with Pennzoil or a distributor purchase of one of the Conoco brands (if I cannot get my local Walmart to special order Trop Artic).
The "real" test of Taxi cabs is the one that Mobil 1 did.
See their Las Vegas test where they went over 100k miles with Mobil 1 oils being changed every 15k vs conventional oils being changed every 15k.
You can see the varnish on the Mobil 1 engine @ tear down!
Ok, back to being serious. The 1996 test did prove that their is little difference in that test bed for oils.
And todays Conventional oils are alot better than 1996.
I know I've always been able to take a engine well past 200k with yesterdays oils.
With todays specs, its a cake walk as long as you follow the manual and change the oil.
Keep the PCV system working and all is well.
Take care, Bill
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked