Does conventional oil protect better?

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
In the HDEO section, there's an article where Chevron Delo steps on pretty much all of the synthetic HDEO's out there. VERY eye-opening report. I was shocked.


Thanks for the response, maybe I'm just missing it but any more details on what thread or article?

 

[wemay]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Based upon what I've observed personally, I don't think that we can draw any conclusions as to the overall superiority of synthetic or conventional oils for most engines as most of us use them.
Years ago, I used strictly dino oil and my engines lasted well and remained clean. I also did 3K drains.
Today, I use mainly syn oils on longer drains and my engines last well and remain clean.
I also have to agree with BrocLuno that conventional HDEOs represent an excellent performance and value proposition in some applications, one of which I happen to own. It's seen everything from syns to blends to HDEOs. I'll do two more runs of the Delvac in the old BMW and then have a UOA run, just for grins.
Having read through this thread, it's obvious that we don't have enough data to draw any valid conclusions as to which oil provides lower wear just as it's obvious that a conventional oil on shorter drains is as good a choice for most uses of most engines as a syn would be.
How many cars live to high mileage on nothing more than bulk oil changed whenever the owner felt like one was needed? The average owner cares not at all about what goes in the engine, but only what it'll cost.
There are some questions to which there is no right answer.

+1

 

[DoubleWasp]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
In the HDEO section, there's an article where Chevron Delo steps on pretty much all of the synthetic HDEO's out there. VERY eye-opening report. I was shocked.


Thanks for the response, maybe I'm just missing it but any more details on what thread or article?


http://www.parmanenergy.com/sites/defaul...0-%20102912.pdf

 

[kschachn]

So ISOSYN is a processing method for conventional oil that removes a higher percentage of impurities than other processes? If so, no wonder it is superior. It's not hydrocracked but it is highly processed to remove harmful contaminates in the oil.

Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
http://www.parmanenergy.com/sites/defaul...0-%20102912.pdf

 

[SR5]

I heard that ISOSYN was extra HydroCracked a Group 2+ oil. More HC than group 2 mineral, but less HC than group 3 synthetic. The other HDEO synthetics tested like Delvac and Rotella contain PAO group 4.

You can see the ISOSYN Delo performs well, and I very much like Delo, but notice the Delo is 15W-40 while all the rest are 5W-40. This makes sense to me, as one of the things group 4 PAO bring to the party is low temperature performance.

 

[wemay]

http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/30613/engine-oil-analysis

Why Passenger Vehicle Oil Analysis Should Be Performed


Oil analysis not only is effective in offering indicators of oil condition, but it can also identify various forms of contamination and wear debris as an engine condition monitoring indicator. This should be of even greater importance, since the longevity of the engine and the vehicle is the goal of any analysis performed, not just the quality and longevity of the oil.


 

[Ducked]

Originally Posted By: carock
Originally Posted By: Doublehaul
I think much of what the oil companies and auto makers say is based on marketing and the ever increasing pressure for extended drains to reduce ownership costs etc.


Absolutely no doubt you are 100% right. The problem for a lot of people seems to be that there is no independent source of information free from sort of financial incentive to get the consumer to behave a certain way. There actually are some military and government studies for diesel engines which seem to have no financial incentive to force a conclusion for or against synthetics.

In general, new science/engineering research is being pushed away from the traditional university style independent peer reviewed publishing and being pushed into more commercially based and results oriented funding. I think it is important for BITOG readers to understand that there will never be double blind,large statistical study with correct isolation of duty cycles and controlled variables to prove that Amsoil or Red Line will be cost effective over 200,000 miles for their Toyota Corolla. But because many people on this site are college educated technical types they are combing through everything to get this sort of absolutely conclusive undeniable peer reviewed result from a completely neutral independent source. It just doesn't exist. Instead you have to look at a lot of imperfect commercial data and make a decision.

This whole thing with the statistical analysis of Blackstone Labs UOA results had me thrown off balance for years until I finally figured out the UOA wear metal data was being misused. It is a very compelling argument that lots of UOA wear metal data should be able to tell you what oils are performing better, but it doesn't seem to correlate well to to other observations.


I think you're right, but your rightness is rather odd.

Although it seems reasonable to assume (and is stated as a fact above) that the oil companies have loads of data conclusively proving, for example, the absolute superiority of synthetic oil, somehow we never seem to see it.

There doesn't seem to be any inherent reason why an oil company couldn't set up a large scale field trial, say by sponsoring the DHL delivery fleet, but if its happened, I havn't heard of it.

A while ago I looked for comparative data on Castrol synthetic oil (implausibly alleged to have caused terminal sludging in a Nissan March) and the best I could find were some very limited and inconsistently reported Amsoil bench tests. (You get oil discussions on other forums, just not quite so repetitively)

http://www.forumosa.com/taiwan/viewtopic...art=20#p1398311

Maybe science and marketing just don't mix.