Which Synthetic oil to use in my new Acura RDX?

[wgtoys]

" Mobil 1 has indeed released their industry-standard test results (in 2005 from an independent lab so they say)"

Can you provide a link to this report? I couldn't find it with google. Also, publishing the one test your product did well on doesn't tell the whole story. I would like to see the complete results from the battery of tests which are required for GF-4 certification. Obviously every motor oil seller has that data, so why no share it with your customers?

 

[Bill in Utah]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Mobil 1: 5.3
Castrol Syntec: 26.4 (~5 times more deposits than M1)
Mobil Clean 7500: 14.6 (yes, almost half vs Syntec)
Syntec Blend: 39.8 (273% more than Clean 7500)

---

Wow. These are the things that $20 UOA's don't pick up on. Never was a Castrol fan and now I have a good reason not to be.

---

NEVER had any sludge in over 30 plus years. In many engines that were NOT Honda or Toyotas (I've only owned 2 Toyota / 1 Honda myself and total in the family is 2 Toyotas (mine) and 3 Hondas)

Thats using oils with less standards than SM over the years.

But what do I know. Some spec put out by the MFG that is trying to sell expensive oil knows what is the only oils to use. (and pay to prove that)

Forget actual people with actual engines over many years with no problems.

A spec is more important.

Love this thread.

Buster. Do not read or reply to ANY UOA in the UOA section. Since its a $20 UOA that data is useless.

Do not even WASTE your $$ running a UOA on the 12k of Amsoil your using.

You can reply to only $100 UOAs. (with $5 plus a quart oils that were used).

IF I was going to pay $$ for oil, I'd run Amsoil due to them not caving in for the spec of the month club. They atleast would rather put the $$ into product then meeting every $@%^Y spec some car MFG comes up with (with "help"

from oil companies like Mobil).

These specs are only to make car owners run to the nearest place to buy oil and get the "recommended" (best

) oil for their "baby".

Its working. Look at some of the posters here. And you'd hope that a BITOG member would "think" a little more than the average consumer.

Oh well.

Take care, bill

 

[ThirdeYe]

Bill, I love your posts.

 

[Auto-Union]

http://theoildrop.server101.com/forums/s...=true#Post64152

 

[Bill in Utah]

Quote:

---

http://theoildrop.server101.com/forums/s...=true#Post64152

---

Bad link!

It means nothing.

Castrol did poorly on Mobils sludge spec.

Impossible. What happened was the poster ran Castrol all the life of the engine in your link.

Then ran one OCI of mobil 1 (prob HM) and it cleaned it all up and made the engine feel like new. Just like the previous 75k miles never happened (I saw that ad in my last Car and Driver, so it must be true

)

Bill

 

[Bill in Utah]

Quote:

---

Bill, I love your posts.

---

Bill

PS: I'm not bitter...

 

[Pablo]

Thanks for posting that AU. Mori may be a lot of things, but he certainly is a great photographer.

Now this gives me the PERFECT opportunity to explain something that I have had difficulty explaining. Some people are constantly beating the drum for Amsoil to publish every test they ever run, in triplicate, from three certified independent labs, double blind. When Amsoil says, "No" - people claim all sorts of chicanery, and hoakem. However, the explanation is contained in this thread.....someone, some company will take a singular value and say, or even tailor a formula to excel in this value, to claim greatness over Amsoil. We all know oil in the real world is the sum of all it's parts, not one lab test value - but in the world of marketing there is no end. I hate to say it, but these singular values just dropped into a thread are not that much better than used toilet paper.

This is NOT a bash on M1. I think it has been proven that M1 is an extremely clean motor oil. And regardless of a TEOST or TFOUT or any singular test Castrol is a good oil as well.

 

[buster]

Bill, I like your posts too, and think you bring some great reasoning to the board, but you never seem to read what others have said and you continue to post the same old thing. In some ways it's great, others it's not.

You will NOT, repeat NOT, see much of an advantage with most modern API SM oils in normal operating conditions under normal OEM drain intervals. Especially in a Toyota/Honda engine.

YES, $20 UOA's don't tell the whole story. Do you really think it would be that simple?

Do you think Mobil just runs a spectrographic analysis report and says "yeah looks good, I think we met the spec. Wear metals are low."? You have to be kidding me?

UOA's are only "worth" it, or should I say even more valuable, if someone like Terry is doing the analysis IMHO and to check the oil for coolant/TBN etc.

In a Turbo engine, or engine that is very tough on oil, such as the Audi RS4, you will see differences among brands as we've have seen. Look at how great RLI 5w-40 has been in that car. I NEVER said M1 was the best oil at all, but for deposit control, long drains and cold/hot temps it's always known to have been a good oil. For wear control, it's below average IMO.

You can't just use a Toyota Corolla as the benchmark engine in your comparisons. That is just plain ridiculous.

If you were to own a turbo or high performance car, your opinions might change. Or would you be the guy that drops $65,000 on a car but complains that synthetics are too expensive?

That makes a lot of sense!

Right now, there are TWO oils that meet that spec according to Honda. Unless you know more than Honda engineers, I'd rather use a spe'd oil. That testing was done by Honda, not XOM.

Bill you also forget that conventional oils have become much better and are actually synthetic blends to some extent using better base oils and additives.

I agree with what you are saying overall, but the Honda R&D data along with what was posted by OilGuy says something IMHO. You can chose to ignore it.

 

[VeeDubb]

Buster, good points.

Bill, UOAs from individuals are great for getting a snapshot of the condition of their engine at a particular time, but horrible for decision analysis for a general population. To claim that your UOAs provide support against fancy oils is like me saying that nobody should buy car insurance because neither my wife nor I have ever been involved in an accident. Yes, it is that ludicrous.

What you need is a large sample of UOAs that have been collected through random sampling. Then you construct a probability distribution which will allow you to generate some probabilities for when engines fail might fail. Only then can you claim that people *should* use one type of oil versus another.

 

[Bill in Utah]

Well, I've done enough UOAs to see what works and does not. (and have had Terry read my UOAs more than once and use HIS info to lower my UOAs.)

I've also put on many miles on many engines without having to fold to some marketing or whats "best" for an engine.

Having engines go well past 200k time and time again is what matters. How many engines have you driven over 200k? (oh, this is my first Toyota Corolla, the other engines are not. So my benchmarks are not a Corolla)

If the cheap oil is semi-syn and I'm paying 99 cents a quart for it, great. But for many here to think that their Grand Am, civic, corolla, truck, etc is going to last so much longer because they are putting in the best oil, they are throwing the $$ down the drain IMO.

But that great, I'll do what I do and they do what they do.

Buster, I've said that when I get my Corvette,(someday) I will run syn since that is what the mfg STATES IT NEEDS. But I can promise you the brand will not match the oil cap!

Also, Mobil 1 did leave deposits on normal cars like we all drive in 15k OCIs. Their las vegas "test" video showed it. Just think if they ran it 3 times longer (to 45k ocis) like they ran the conventional oil they used... You think that test was a good one?

So only PP and Mobil 1 will meet the Honda(Mobil) spec?

Once there is some marketing/study that other oil companies think that there is a need to PAY for the test, they will be getting their HTO-06 spec on their product. (then Mobil (oh sorry, Honda

) will come out with the HTO-09 spec.

And IF I had a Honda that required the spec (which it does) I'd be using PP or Mobil 1. Don't need the hassle from Honda. (but it would be a reason why I would not buy that model for me).

Same as why I have passed on some models in the past due to climbing under the car and seeing how the oil filter and drain plus are set up. Salesman hate that!

I love your post too. This is not personal. I came to BITOG to discuss the subject matter. I want others (because lets face it, more people read than post or even sign up here) to get some facts or at least real life data over the run this because its the best oil reply.

Over in the UOA there was a post when the OP did not post the UOA correctly. So no data.

The first few posts were recommending oils to fix/help his engine WITHOUT even seeing the UOA...

Wow. Thats useful!

Take care, Bill

 

[teaelle]

I would do Amsoil for regular driving, if u want superior power go for Motul 8100

both of these oil they really last longer

 

[Seth]

I bet that when OP started this thread, he didnt expect 6 pages worth of posts..

Defending M1 is like defending Mercedes Benz.. doesnt work.. why?
A) they are costly than say Toyota or Honda which will do just as well
B) they suck at reliability

Whats a guy to do when he has a soft corner for MB? Nothing.. unless MB steps up and fixes their problems, they have nothing to defend..

I understand this dilemma... M1 shows high iron and costs more. So, no way one can defend it. However, since some had the gall to defend it against the likes of no other than Bill and GMan.. before cowering to them...

I'd like to add something to this thread.

A) Bill is from Utah and even though he sees freezing temps, I am sure Utah being south and all doesnt reflect other places like say Ontario (YMMV)
B) Bill's corolla consumes Oil which he has in the past written off as a peculiarity to that make and model.. well there might be something to that. For example, I owned a saturn in the past and they are known to drink oil. Mine didnt even after 115k miles of exclusively on M1. (I wont do it again as I have switched off of M1 after their high Fe readings...)
C) $$$ may not be a big deal for some.. My monthly transportation costs are 100 times that of my oil after you include car payment, insurance, fuel and toll charges (all of which are ridiculously high where I live). BTW, Bill has multiple cars and I am sure $$$ dont count as much either for him or else he wouldnt be having an outback together with corolla.

That being said, I'd still not defend M1... but I understand the grief of some who has a soft spot for it. Its like having a soft spot for MB and it is painful to watch it being trashed while others like say Jaguar are left alone. Where I live, Syntec costs same as M1... I'd say you can substitute Syntec in this thread for M1 and it might still be valid. However, to some it seems unfair that M1 is targeted while the rest get a free pass. With Syntec.. its like "You've started it with the whole synthetic not equal to PAO thing.."

That being said, I'd say everyone here has a valid point. For example, big bad arrogant corporations are something I am very familiar with... and I have no love lost for XOM. But XOM might say that oil revenue is trivial compared their fuel revenue.. well.. too bad. Fix the iron readings and until then I wont touch M1.

BTW, I dont mean to offend anyone especially bill or gman ... they are more respected because they took a stance and stood by it. Unlike others... internet is like real life.. you gain friends or respect the same way. Unfortunately for M1 defenders, XOM wont do anything to give them some ammo... I'd say.. move on! 'nuff said.

 

[VeeDubb]

Quote:

---

Well, I've done enough UOAs to see what works and does not. (and have had Terry read my UOAs more than once and use HIS info to lower my UOAs.)

---

Really? So you've had enough UOAs done to claim that most people are suckers for marketing and that fancy oils are a complete waste of money and will not add any extra protection regardless of the engine?

BTW, just because things have worked out for you does not qualify you to make recommendations for others or call them suckers. I've never been in a car accident but I don't tell others they don't need car insurance. This is a simple concept....not really rocket science.

 

[moribundman]

Quote:

---

Mori may be a lot of things

---

What?

 

[Pablo]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Mori may be a lot of things

---

What?

---

I left the word "great" out.........

 

[Bill in Utah]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Well, I've done enough UOAs to see what works and does not. (and have had Terry read my UOAs more than once and use HIS info to lower my UOAs.)

---

Really? So you've had enough UOAs done to claim that most people are suckers for marketing and that fancy oils are a complete waste of money and will not add any extra protection regardless of the engine?

BTW, just because things have worked out for you does not qualify you to make recommendations for others or call them suckers. I've never been in a car accident but I don't tell others they don't need car insurance. This is a simple concept....not really rocket science.

---

But sadly, if you stand back and think, how do so many cars on the road make it to 200k and beyond without running Mobil 1 or PP or whatever "best" oil there is out there?

So lets see, on the TV we have 2 cars burning out and one of them has syn and the other one has conventional and the conventional one busts a hose and the engine stops.

Great marketing.

Oh, another brand runs a 15k oci with syn and shows the engine torn down after 100k (which is nothing) and you can see varnish and such. Then they take conventional oil and run it 15k (which NO mfg out there recommends) and you really don't see that engine. Lets run syn out 3 times the 15k and see that engine.

Really fair.

But wait, if you run this oil you'll have no sludge. And its conventional oil!

Huh, same brand as the conventional vs syn ad where if you run conventional your coolant hose will break and your engine is toast.

Ok, got it now, no sludge use GTX. Want engines to last on burnouts use Syntec.

The oil companies marketing is silly. Please, PLEASE tell me that you don't believe any of it.

And saying that your running Mobil 1 is the same as car insurance, sorry.

Car Insurance is required (I've driven over million miles easy and never had a wreak that was my fault. I've only had a few windshields replaced. I spend $1000 a year for insurance for 30 plus years. I've had less than $1000 that my insurance company had to pay out. Great investment. Just like social security. I may cash out but sadly, just keep spending $$)

If you think that since your running Mobil 1 you can have no worries if you bust a coolant hose and overheat and no damage will happen, your wrong. Overheat an alum engine and no oil is going to protect it.

No problems, you spend the extra $$ and take care. I'll save the $$ and in the end, we both will have engines that make the high miles.

I have done this many times. And never HAD to run syn. (and in my family only have ever had one car that REQUIRED syn. And it gets it.

)

If you go back over the years I've been here and see that I've ALWAYS stated the following;

IF you NEED to run syn (the mfg STATES you have too) then run it. Follow the OCI too.

If you WANT to run it go ahead. The oil companies thank you. But don't think your going to get more mileage out of the engine since you did.

For people who want to extend their OCIs in engines that don't require syn, fine. But your going to spend more to be able to do that. And thats great!

Take care, bill

 

[Drew99GT]

Bill, you're the man.

After worrying about oil so much and having OTHER things need eons more attention on every car I've ever serviced (with cheapo dino of course (hey, 210K don't lie!), oil is an afterthought for me. (except for price - it's a commodity - cheaper = bettah

)

If you plan on keeping a vehicle to 200K, you're gonna run into brake issues, CV joints/ujoints, tranny issues, leaking heater cores, bad thermostats, dead alternators, dead batteries, leaky radiators, craaped out MAF sensors, busted remote oil filter lines (5 buck oil gonna help there? Marketing guys could probably find a way...) etc. etc. etc., LONG before an oil related issue comes your way; PROVIDED you use common sense and keep oil change intervals in line with driving conditions etc.

 

[VeeDubb]

Bill:

I'm not talking about busting coolant hoses.

Exhibit A: VW 1.8T engines. Pre-2004, the owners manual did not require synthetic. Dealers did not use synthetic. At that time the engine was still relatively new with no history of problems. If the average VW owner cruising BITOG follows good old Bill from Utah's wisdom, they are SOL within 3 years. But the pro-active ones who wanted "insurance" and went with the good stuff still have engines running hard and strong.

Exhibit B: Toyota V6 engines 96-2001. If you bought one of these in the late 90s, who would have guessed that Toyota, of all manufacturers would create a sludge machine? The owners' that went with the minimalist approach were ruined.

My basic point is if you are purchasing a vehicle with a relatively new design and don't have access to a long history of data, then it might be smart to go with the good stuff until you know there are no design flaws. For me personally, I do two oil changes a year. If I pay an extra $4 a quart for the better stuff, I'm spending less than $50 a year more for oil. Not exactly breaking the bank for a little insurance.

Check out the new DI engines designs that have lots of wear and fuel dilution problems. Some of the Mazda one's do not spec synthetic, but there is no way I would run anything but synthetic in one of these.

 

[RI_RS4]

VeeDubb, I'm with you. Given a car that is driven 12K miles per year, and has an average fuel mileage of 30 mpg, that's 400 gallons of fuel used. If we assume an average cost of fuel to be $2.75, then the total cost of fuel per year is $825.

Now, if it takes say 6 quarts of oil for an oil change in an average engine, and with synthetic or dino, you change at a 6K OCI, then the incremental difference in cost for synthetic that is $4/Qt more expensive is $48 for 12 Quarts across 2 oil changes. Or about the cost of one movie night out for two.

So, assuming equal OCI lengths, the cost of synthetic oil plus fuel is 5.8% higher than the cost of dino oil plus fuel. But, if the engine type is such that longer OCI's can be had with synthetic, even that gap can be reduced.

 

[Bill in Utah]

All I will say is $48 here (for 12k miles) is $800 more for 200k worth of oil changes.

And in the end, there is no difference for 99% of the engines out there.

As far as the Toyota V6 engines, ALOT of them are not having a single problem. Some are.

Most that I've heard when talking to shops are ones that drove 7500 PLUS miles on conventional oil and sorta forgot to come in right at 7500 miles or/and never checked their oil level and it was low.

Your telling me EVERY v6 Toyota of that vintage is sludged up?

As far as the VW, another reason why I don't /won't do VWs anymore. I love my 1986, but they have gone downhill since the Mexico plant is building most of them.

We will agree to disagree. You guys spend the $$ and I will not.

Take care, bill