We can certainly say syns are better than conventional oils in general (evaporative losses, better wear resistance, better fuel economy, better resistance to oxidation and therefore a longer life, resistance to breakdown when bad things happen-yada-yada) But once you get into the syns and the differences (polyol esters/diesters, PAO's, and hydrocracked/near syns, Mobi1 1 vs Amsoil vs -Red Line et.all)--- It gets back to armtdm's statement: "Protection is the great unknown in all of this." Please correct me if someone can prove quantatatively if I am in error.
#1851 I think this is where it gets a bit fuzzy. If Mobil One is an example of mass produced and mass available synthetic oil and say Redline is an example of "boutique" or limited edition synthetic, I can think of any number of things that would price the Redline higher than the Mobil One. But on that note Mobil One could actually price its product higher than Redline, although in my humble opinion, that would not be smart.
Amsoil is a PAO. And while I am planning on trying Red Line-it's really a leap of faith. No one can prove to me that Red Line oil will take vehicles to 200,000 miles with 15 K oil changes and all engine wear parts within specifications for **new** parts (as Mobil 1 has done)
Sorry, but I have yet to see any oil tested under my driving conditions. I want 200,000 miles over a "minimum" 10 years of car use as this represents day to day communting driving under all conditions. I don't care if an engine went 200,000, if it was done by highway use not the typical driver. Almost any oil can go 200,000 on mostly highway use.
I have never seen one performed (not a one company, ever) over 10 years with commuting traffic, short starts, trips under 10 miles etc.. Why, well, obviously it would take ten years and a company cannot market the product until the testintg is done. In fact, I am hoping that mine will be a test case and when I get to 200,000 I will ask Amsoil to tear mine down at their cost and take measurements. I currently have 135,000 miles on a 92 with oil and filters at 7,500 mile intervals not 15,000.
My recollection of the Amsoil claim to fame was that they brought aviation diester synthetics to automobiles. Now, if in more recent history they have thrown in the towel and gone to polyalpha olephin it is news to me. If you get into the physical chemistry of the topic, there is little doubt that polyol ester is the champ, diester is just behind it, and Polyalpha olephins-- well, they also ran, and gave a good performance.
wtd44, I remember reading about a year ago that Amsoil had used a formula of oil (it might have been the aviation diester) that proved to be something of a disaster. Evidently some engines were ruined and Amsoil initially blamed the owners for not properly flushing their motors, etc ...
But, some time ago they supposedly switched to a PAO - based blend.
OK, for all you chemists out there, let me get something straight. Are you saying the the resulting oils from liquefying ethylene gas (making PAO) and heavily hydrocracking mineral oils is the same thing?
I read the charts on Redline's site and they show PAO and mineral stocks behaving very differently ... especially at very high temps. The mineral oil boils off while the PAO formed a hard deposit. If they are so closely related, this doesn't make sense.
Why wouldn't the PAO merely boil off as well?
Are you saying there's no difference in the coefficient of friction between PAO synthetics and conventional oils? This is something else that doesn't seem right to me judging from my experiences.
Keeping all engine wear parts within manufacturers specs for new engines over 200K would be a tough proposition! Tolerances are very minute these days for recent engine designs. I don't think you would profit much by having a fast-talker convince you that Red Line absolutely will take any engine that far out. And in fact, if you are more comfortable with Mobil 1, perhaps it is a better choice for you. My understanding is that the ester bonds in the chain of molecular building blocks is a big part of the magic in diesters and polyol esters. Polyol esters in particular are apparently capable of displaying tremendous film strengths that keep bearings off journals and rings off cylinder walls. We talk about the characteristics of the base stocks thusly, but remember that the additive package can make or break the product. Is it like a 70-30 split between the two? For what it is worth, let me relate this. In 1986 I bought a brand new Harley Davidson Softail Custom. I put the recommended 2K of break in on it with Dino in the sump. I had become aware of Red Line and their product, and decided to use it in the Harley. I put 10K on the bike over 8 years and sold it. I used some of the Red Line in my automobiles, but never kept close track that would act as "evidence" for others to hear in testimonial. I think it is fair to say that Red Line never hurt an engine I put it in, and I enjoyed the feeling that I was virtually stopping the "wear clock" in any engine in which I used that expensive juice. AND! I am assuming that Red Line continues to be a polyol ester based product. Is it? If esters are going down, and PAO's are the biggie, then I am way out of date and need to shut up. I recall that a big part of my initial attraction to ester based lubricants was the fact that the raw materials came from farm crops-- a totally renewable resource.
I'm not sure really which is the best either. I lean to Mobil 1 right now because I can't prove anything is better. That doesn't mean I am correct. And I certainly am not married to this oil-I'll switch in a heartbeat if I can find better. I certainly consider someone elses experiences (like yourself) if its objective, in the absense of more formal documented proof. It sounds that you have tried to utilize the best product available-in spite of the cost. I'm like that also; even though it is probably overkill. Hopefully we'll find that mythical one best product. And if we can't, we can still argue over which is best.
Never happen for a group decision due to individual biases, past experiences etc... I like Amosil due to use over past 9 years. Yea, I believe they did have a bad formula back in the early eighties?? but not sure. If not available I would use Mobil 1 or RedLine but RedLine's price is scary. Also, Amosil does perform reaseach etc. and is relatively large (nothing like Mobil of course), not sure that RedLine is of size enough to make an impact on the market, kind of a specialty racing oil.
Back in the mid 1980's, Red Line was shipped in long necked plastic bottles. I used to cut the top off the empties and use them as "disposable" funnels for all sorts of liquid transfers around the garage. Yeah, I know! EL CHEAPO The oil was so expensive, I needed the psychological boost of the funnel use!
OK, I'll admit that I'm just now catching up on reading because I've been away for several weeks. I think the idea of retiring this board is absurd. This board has more posts that just about any out there and that should say something for its success. While I will agree that some things get repeated over and over, it never fails that in the midst of that there are a few new points made here and there and that new people are reading the posts and learning something. I think the time to retire this would be when everyone STOPS writing on the board, not when they continue to write. If anyone is ignorant enough to retire this, then I will be the first one to start a new one. That's just my two cents...
Because we don't know all the insider info into catalysation methods and additive packages, there is no clear evidence as to how much better PAO's are to dino, but we do know from VI, flashpoint, pourpoint, etc. numbers that a PAO will protect better than dino. We also know that PAO is much closer to the ester than to dino.
Heat is the number one killer of oil, and this is where synths have a great advantage whether they are PAO or ester. A synthetic lubricant has approximately a 10% better heat transfer ability than petroleum-based lubricants. Together with faster flow, as well as the faster heat transfer seen in a sludge-free engine, it enables the lubricant to remove significantly more heat from hot engine surfaces. This will lower the demands on the cooling system as well.
I once read somewhere an opinion that if you put enough additives into a dino, you may effectively reach PAO-level protection. The irony pointed out though, is that by adding this level of additives, the price of the dino would be greater than PAO.
I am the kind of guy who looks at the dip stick from time to time ... at least annually ... and feel that if there is any fluid, of any color or texture (I like texture.) on the stick, all is well. Over the years I have very good luck with my power trains. I keep my cars and trucks for an average of 12 to 15 years.
A good example: A Dodge Van, slant six, automatic. I used it for 12 years of heavy towing in a combination of freeway and country roads. It was a heavy user of oil from the start so I never had reason to change the oil. I installed a new filter from time to time, when the texture became unacceptable, even to me. I used which ever oil was closest to the gas pump as long as it did not cost over $1.50. If a safeway store happened to be near by, I would get a gallon in the big red can. It was rated RP ... Re-Processed, for those of you not well informed. I usually had to add oil with each fill up since the thing had one of those damned 36 gallon tanks. Very hard on a guys kidneys.
In the interest of keeping things short here, I drove that truck for 145,000 miles, never had to spend a dime on the power train, my usual experience, and sold it to a guy who worked for me. He drove it for another three years before selling it to another chap, further down the drive train. I saw it around town for another year or so before it finally vanished.
Why do I have such good luck, flying in the face of logic? I keep my speed down below 60 mph on level ground and climb hills at a snails pace. More important than the oil is operating the machine within its design parameters.
Most of us drive under demanding conditions, and don't really care to climb hills at a "snails pace". Also in life-bad things happen-cooling system goes ka-put (don't want reprocessed oil in there then). Also don't like changing oil all of the time. You are happy with your situation-works for you. I'm happy with mine.
BTW Mobil 1 has improved their site. There is decent information there especially for those who are interested in the basics of syn.
also found this statement-its always good for a spirited debate.:
There's not a shred of evidence to suggest that synthetic motor oils delay or prevent piston ring break-in. Maxwell speculates that the rumor got started when synthetics first came to market, and attributes it to the psyche of consumers using the new product for the first time. Remember, back in the mid-'70s conventional oil sold for about 69 cents a can. Synthetics, on the other hand, came in at a hefty 4 bucks a pop. To justify spending so much more, consumers frequently checked the oil level of their new vehicles as if expecting to see some sort of miraculous benefit. What they found instead was a crankcase down a quart of oil, which they attributed to the synthetic. In reality, losing a quart of oil during break-in was standard fare on engines of this era, regardless of the type of oil used. Unfortunately, synthetics got the blame. And they're still trying to live it down.
Today, Mobil 1 is the factory fill for many carmakers
Maxwell is the Project manager for Mobil 1 Synthetics division.
Our "post industrial age" engines have such tight tolerances and precision, that I doubt one needs to seat the rings at all. Now, old style engines were thought to need to have the rings seated in the cylinders, and that would just happen with miles. You "knew" it happened when the bit of excessive oil-using terminated itself. The accepted line was that the rings would never cut those seating grooves in the cylinder walls in the presence of ester-based synthetics. NOw that slant 6 that belonged to Julus probably could never seat its rings due to the texture in the oil backing the rings off the walls...
I purchased this article at this link - $10- not really sure it was worth it -16 pages.
The testing involves mostly Mobil 1 oils
It deals with extended drain intervals.
Some highlights:
1. Ran two 25K cycles without filter or oil change. After 50K, wear was mostly within specs for new parts, cleanliness was excellent. In short all was well.
2. Ran 5 year "Aunt Millie Test" with no oil change or filter change. There was replacement of oil due to sampling. Oil samples came out good.
3. They gave some clarification of previous test where oil was changed every 15K for both syn and conventional oil. They said there was "significantly" more wear with conventional oil.
4. They have an oil (used only in Europe bc they like 40 wt. there). This is the first oil in the world (in 1998) to meet "all" performance and economy tests for diesel and gasoline engines. ILSAC, ACEA, and API. Damn- we can’t get it here.
5. Oil thickening is the major bug-a-bo with extended oil drain intervals. The bench mark for lubricating oils in the API Sequence IIIE test which runs 64 hours. Oils must pass this with a viscosity increase of no more than 375% increase. Conventional oils drope dead a few hours after the test. They had two "premium" competitors synthetics (PAO) in this test and one failed open at 100 hrs and the other at 128 hours. Both Mobil oils showed very little increase and one went to 256 hrs. For some reason they stopped the test. The other was stopped at 128 because it was at the limit of piston cleanliness.
I would Like to see Red Line run the Sequence IIIE test. at double, triple and quadruple lengths. I doubt they will. Come to think of it- I’ll ask ‘em.
"The Sequence IIIE test uses a GM 3.8-liter engine that is run for 64 hours with an oil sump temperature of 300° F. The test is used to measure cam and lifter wear, deposits and oil stability. The Sequence VE test uses a 2.3-liter Ford engine and is run at fairly low oil temperatures to measure sludging and cam wear performance. This test is run for 288 hours.
Mobil 1 was evaluated at four times the normal test length (256 hours) in a Sequence IIIE test and two times the normal length (576 hours) in a Sequence VE test. Even after this brutal trial, Mobil 1 still met all wear, viscosity and deposit limit levels for the standard test duration!"
Interesting that the engine choice for IIIE was 3.8L GM which is known to be a solid engine. I wonder what would happen with a "weaker" engine?
Here is a professional statement found on FAQ for Mobile1.com
Mobil 1 will leak out of the seals of older cars. Mobil 1 is fully compatible with the elastomeric seals and gasket materials used in most modern engines. In engines that are in good condition, seal compatibility will not be a problem. Some older engines produced before the mid-1970s were manufactured with looser tolerances than today's engines. Low-viscosity grades of oil can leak from these engines. The solution is to use a higher-viscosity grade like Mobil 1 15W-50 to reduce this leakage.
And another quotes from Motor magazine. (Mobile1 site -- what experts say -- news)
The claims that synthetic oils leak past main seals and delay or prevent ring break-in have been around ever since the stuff came to market in the mid-'70s. With regard to seal leakage, there was some merit to the accusation. Engines of the era weren't exactly built to the strictest tolerances. So engineers designed main oil seals that would swell when they came into contact with conventional oils. This swelling would, in effect, seal off large gaps and prevent leakage. The problem with pure polyalphaolefin is that it causes seal shrinkage – hence the leaks. Mobil chemists recognized this very early on in Mobil 1's life and, as a result, added an ester in with the polyalphaolefin. The ester behaved like conventional oil, causing seal swelling, without affecting the polyal-phaolefin's superior lubricating properties.
I think they may have mistated the case a little, not that I am anywhere near an expert on petrochemistry. I understand that the "super" characteristics of all synthetic engine oils resides with the additive package. That is to say, the reason Mobil 1 is a good syn is due to the (approx) 30% of each quart being made up of diesters and/or polyol esters and a sprinkling of other items. THe PAO part is just plain old motor oil-- manufactured by humans rather than nature. Now, lubes like Red Line are in effect almost totally "additive package" under this definition. The ester molecules are so good, even dumping PAO into the pot can't stop the magic. I don't believe that the original Mobil 1 was anything to write home about until they added the esters. They apparently don't see it that way!
But I believe the PAO is the overwhelming percentage of the oil. I'd guess 90%. When describing their oil Mobil would generally only list the characteristics of the PAO- no mention of the ester. The ester's purpose is to aid in the solubility of the addidive package which is a petroleum base and swell the seals. Since 1999 they added the third syn ingredient which is an anti wear inhibitor. Also I haven't been to Red Line's site lately. But there was some slipperyness there and it wasn't all lubricant ..he-he.
I would consider purchasing a copy of that article. Would that be a good one to show someone that is a "non-believer" in synthetics, or is it simply too technical (or not technical enough for that matter)? All of these good points are being brought out on this thread and they even mentioned retiring it!! Can you believe it?
It's technical enough - maybe too technical. It deals with a number of tests which measure wear, sludge, oil thickening, volitility, etc. The over the road test itself (50k) is about two pages. There are lots of graphs. You probably realize by now that its a waste of time trying to convince skeptics. They are so happy justifying the cost of conventional oil that they are really not interested in going any further.
On the other hand an individual that had some reasonable amount of intelligence (I'm not saying folks who don't use syn are not intelligent) and an open mind would need to spend an hour with the article (possibly less) and probably would consider switching. I could be wrong since I am so pro-syn.
email me -
adc100@yahoo.com
I think all of who post here in addition to helping new people with facts need to start digging deeper for more facts/information there is some staleness here-including me.
Get your bunsen burner out, it's time for Chemistry class. Today's subject: Tribology.
Polyalphaolefins (PAOs) are produced via free radical, Ziegler catalysed, Friedel-Crafts catalysed, and other polymerization methods. Free radical methods are used less than the others and require a high activation energy while only yielding low amounts with typically poor quality. The Zeigler catalysation method is based on triethylaluminium/titanium tetrachloride and has a tendency to give a broad MW distribution. Friedel-Crafts catalyzed methods with aluminum trichloride provide wide MW distributions. They can however, be controlled using Lewis bases. The use of BF3 allows better control of degree of polymerization, however this advantage must be weighed against the inability to recycle the catalyst. Other methods involve use of chromium on silica gel catalyst and shape selective metallosilicates.
Synthetic esters which are basically organic compounds that are formed by combining an acid with an alcohol and eliminating water, are a diverse group of compounds with many properties that can be precisely engineered to meet specific needs. Aliphatic diesters and polyol esters are two main catergories of synthetic ester lubricants. Lower volatility and increased flash points are results of the increased bonding forces from strong dipole moments or London forces. The presence of the ester group also affects biodegradability, lubricity, solvency, hydrolytic and thermal stability. An in depth discussion of control of these properties is given by Mortier and Orszulik (Chemistry and Technology of Lubricants, 11, pp. 41-50).
Solvency of ester base lubricants is an advantage as they are compatible with most mineral oil additives. Compatibility with other lubricants gives esters another major advantage. Improved performance at lower cost is thus possible using blends of the esters and mineral oils to form semi-synthetic oils. Ford's Polimotor has a virtually all-plastic engine that offers a 60% savings in weight over conventional components and uses polyamide-imide for moving parts with fuel savings advantages (14). Here, elastomeric compatibility of ester base stocks must be considered. Swelling is controlled by using larger molecules with more branching . Closeness in solubility, the 'like-dissolves-like' rule, governs swelling as does the ester's polarity index. These features are particularly important for elastomers which are sensitive to polar ester lubricants. Elastomers tend to harden and shrink when exposed to non-polar base stocks such as PAOs and thus a balance may be achieved by mixing with the ester stock to obtain elastomerically neutral lubricants. Finally, optimum ester base stock design must consider ecotoxicity and biodegradability.
Mineral oils are being gradually replaced by esters due to better high temperature operation. Polyols have higher temperature capability than diesters and are thus preferable for more thermally severe conditions that warrant the increased cost. The chemistry of the esters can be modified to suit requirements such as low toxicity, high biodegradability, and clean engine emissions (11, p50).
-----------------------------------
Since PAO's are catalysed to create uniform molecular polymers, free of all metals, sulfur, phosphorus, and wax, their advantages as a base substance alone include better shear resistance, higher lubricity and thermal stability, better viscosity range, and a more stable base for additives.
Your homework: Explain why you think PAO's are no better than petroleum-based oils.
I admit ... I do not think I can handle the homework load. But, I would like your opinion ... how do you feel about Big Chief Oil? It comes in a big, red, one gallon can and is sold in Safeway stores for about $3.95. What does reprocessed mean? Will it work okay in my new Lincoln? (Yes, I have a sick sense of humor.)
Can't say I've ever heard of that brand, but any oil that is graded with API approval at an SJ level is ok. If it doesn't have an API grade, I would be extremely wary.
Reprocessed probably means its been recycled and re-refined. A lot of used motor oil is burned by ships and industrial boilers, but some does make its way back to the refineries where it lives a second life. Apparently, this is a really good thing because it takes 67 gallons of raw, crude oil to produce 1 gallon of motor oil, but only takes 2 gallons of used motor oil to produce that same gallon.
What I mean is most synthetics are mainly PAO with some esters (seal softener) and conventional added (it carries the additives). Then Redline comes along on it's web site and says that it's oil is mostly esters and it is much better. Mobile says too many esters cause excessive swelling of the seals. Esters are used in Jet oils because of the extra high temps, and are clearly not recommended for cars. But Redline says all esters is OK. What gives?
That's the question - what gives? They won't tell you the formulas, so we're not real sure what's in there, and at what levels. Castrol claims that even though they removed a percentage of esters from Syntec, and replaced with hydro-isomerized base, their formula is still better than Mobil 1's PAO (if you buy that).
For me, it comes down to VI, flashpoint, pourpoint, TBN, and the recommended drain interval. Only Amsoil is saying, "Go ahead and use it for 35,000 miles", so that's who I use. Is it the best? It is for me.
I thoroughly enjoyed the material you presented to the class, and as I read it, I noted that nothing there conflicts in any way with my position. That leaves only one avenue of conflict, so I shall hopefully better state what I think is the truth of the lubrication matter. Petroleum distillation is a means of separation of various ranges of MW's and collecting the resulting distillates from the "mother liquors." Many impurities are carried along and spilled over as contaminants in this process. It is reminiscent of the azeotropic phenomenon of distilling ethanol, where you discover that 95% pure alcohol is as good as it gets. You want pure alcohol, you start with sulfuric acid, not yeast and sugar. You want a pure MW range in your aliphatic hydrocarbons? Synthesize them from something other than nasty old dinosaur juice. PAO's are the result, and these are the same aliphatic hydrocarbons, just cleaner. Yeah, they work better than nasty contaminated dino stuff, but they are the same thing except for the sanitation. Salty water boils at a higher temperature than pure water, but both are WATER. Really pure water, by the way, is damned hard to get to boil, due the absence of foreign nuclei as catalysts. That's another story. Just reread the material, and you'll see that you have supported my hypothesis that ester-bonded chains of carbons (diesters and polyol esters) have far superior qualities for lubrication than do PAO's. Can I get an amen here, brothers? So what is my point? It is that ESTER preponderate synthetic lubricants are better than those that are preponderantly PAO. Now, neither is any good as a motor oil with out the additive packages that mitigate the evils that wreck seals, etc., ad.inf. As your material above points out, the ester bond is the magic! I'll stop here, presuming no one could possibly stand another paragraph of this diatribe! lol
I went to AutoZone to get a little ATF to bring my transmission ATF back up to the indicated level on my new (6000 mi) Aurora. I saw a quart of Mobil 1 ATF and decided to try it. Does anyone have any knowledge or guesses about whether or not to expect any benefits from synthetic ATF? I understand that just topping off the transmission with a pint might not do much, but what about total replacement of the fluid?
and one I gave to my daughter. It has to be better than regular ATF. I cant quantatively prove it though.
One other thought about which syn is best. As has been said, no one here knows the exact formula on any syns. and if you did so what- its results and testing that count. So it really boils down to who has given the documented best results. Thats hairy also. I've decided who that is for me. It also boils down to your confidence level in the stuff you see and read. If you have decided that Syntec's draining oil in a bunch of running engines and everyone gathering around the last running Syntec engine-go for it.
If ester-based oils are "far superior" than PAO's, the resulting wear indicators, VI, flashpoints, pourpoints, and longevity tests do not support that theory. They do however support the theory that PAO's are far superior to dino oils.
Yes, you can make the case that it is the "mix", but even before Mobil 1 added ester for the seal protection, they proved the superiority of their PAO oil to dinos.
A good measurement then for comparison is price vs. protection. If I get the same protection from a blend of mostly PAO for half the cost of a full ester, why buy the ester? If they were the same price, I might be convinced otherwise.
There is also the question of whether a full ester is completely compatible in current automobile engines. Some have speculated that the polyol-esters may be detrimental to seal longevity as well. I have no convincing evidence one way or another here, so I will not believe that until further proof is uncovered.
Your diatribe is what keeps this topic interesting! Keep up the good work. Oh, and you get a C+ on your homework.
Since heat is notorious for killing a tranny, a synthetic is the way to go if you are putting the tranny under stress (towing, stop-and-go, racing, etc.). There may also be a case for horsepower gains as synthetics create less drag. I run Redline ATF with a shift kit in my Dodge tranny, and Redline in the axles. My Buick is getting changed soon as well. I thought I might try Amsoil in there.
While we're talking about trannies, I'll pose this question to the class: I have an S-10 truck with a 5-speed manual in it. It calls for GM transmission fluid which is ATF fluid with "special additives" to help with the synro-mesh. Could I get by using synthetic ATF fluid in it? I would guess so, but I would like to hear y'all's opinions.
Your pre-test lecture (#1878) concerned the catalytic choices favored for synthesizing your own PAO's. The rest of the lecture seemed aimed at lauding ester-linked molecules for their many superior qualities. And now we hear that Mobil 1 had to put an anti-wear additive in their "wonder" product in 1999? Molybdenum disulfide I presume? Me thinks you be defending the indefefensible; but bravely.
An alkylated aromatic is a synthetic hydrocarbon designed by Mobil with a different chemical structure than polyalphaolefins (PAOs). It is fully compatible with both the other synthetic components of Mobil 1 and with conventional motor oils. We have begun using this fluid in conjunction with PAO and synthetic esters based on their combined excellent performance in protecting your engine against wear, sludge formation and piston deposits. This makes Mobil 1 Tri-Synthetic Formula fully compatible with conventional motor oils.
I have used synthetic ATF (Amsoils Universal) since 92 in toyotas, Isuzus, Chevy, Mercury and Nissan with no ill effects. I use the drain and fill as opposed to flush knowing I only get 50% out at a time. I also use the synthetic gear oils as well. Now in my twin turbo with a hard shifting problem when cold I went to RedlIne MT-90 GL-4 and it has worked wonders, some sugget a 50-50 mixture of their MT-90 and Mtl but maybe next time. The Amsoil gear oil did not work as well in this tranny but works fine in the Isuzu. Synthetic ATF also works in all power steering units requiring ATF except the ole Ford ones that want Type F fluid.
I didn't think I was trying to defend Mobil 1 as I don't even use the product. The issue at hand was whether PAO's alone as a base stock are better than petroleum as a base stock. I used Mobil 1 as an example because we know that originally they were a PAO-only base stock, and they showed that they provided superior lubricity, increased TBN, VI, flashpoint, and pourpoint. What they have done since then is no consequence to the original issue.
Since you are touting the almighty superiority of ester (specifically polyol-ester?), could you provide a comparison of indicators showing how much better it is? I actually do not know the current protection levels of any full-ester product, and the only full-ester product that anyone can present is Redline. Can you enlighten us?
Now, benzene rings enter the arena of synlube. I would be most interested to learn what that addition brings with it in characteristics. That is indeed interesting. I can see why you might think I am a "crypto" agent of Red Line, but I did not really intend to be such, just as you did not intend to solely advocate Mobil 1. You two respondents have added tremendously to the real education going on here, and have updated the knowledge base for all of us. Some years ago, a friend who was involved in private aviation told me there was evidence that mixing ester synthetics with petro stocks actually gave better characteristics than using ester synthetics alone. I think you two are the "new generation" exponents of that notion come to fruition in the automotive area, the major modification being the mixing of PAO's with ester stock.
How about we try to gather stats on all brands before and after changes. I know it might be difficult to get say, Castrol when it was a full ester, but it might be out there somewhere. Also, try to present only 10w-30 or less mixtures.
Here's what I've found so far in the current market:
(All weights are 10w-30 unless stated otherwise) (Degrees in F) (NK = Noack)
Any information from any site is appreciated. As I've said before. I intend to try Redline. I do have some reservations over its long term use though, especially in the area of seals. So I will use it in my '94 Toyota Truck. It already uses some oil (not through seals) Since it is a Toyota, in may "sludge" up with the Red Line-he-he!! Anyway I have a table in front of me which states that out of the three "ester" based oils two have "good" compatability with mineral oils and one is "fair"-this compares to "PAO" which is "excellent" Now before you say anything-yes- this is Mobil information and the report was written in SAE in '95 so it could be dated with the types of esters they analyzed then. Also they don't list the PAO as "excellent" in all catagories- so they are not 100% biased.
You can easily find the Amsoil 10W30 for comparison, similar to the 0W30 in the numbers shown but the )0-W is their newer version (series 2000) of oil so in order to compare suggest the 10W30.and or use the Mobil 1 0W30 as well.
Comments
I think this is where it gets a bit fuzzy. If Mobil One is an example of mass produced and mass available synthetic oil and say Redline is an example of "boutique" or limited edition synthetic, I can think of any number of things that would price the Redline higher than the Mobil One. But on that note Mobil One could actually price its product higher than Redline, although in my humble opinion, that would not be smart.
Amsoil and Red Line are in a different quantum level. Diester and polyol ester-- Accept no substitute.
I have never seen one performed (not a one company, ever) over 10 years with commuting traffic, short starts, trips under 10 miles etc.. Why, well, obviously it would take ten years and a company cannot market the product until the testintg is done. In fact, I am hoping that mine will be a test case and when I get to 200,000 I will ask Amsoil to tear mine down at their cost and take measurements. I currently have 135,000 miles on a 92 with oil and filters at 7,500 mile intervals not 15,000.
So even the Mobil 1 test is not real life
But, some time ago they supposedly switched to a PAO - based blend.
OK, for all you chemists out there, let me get something straight. Are you saying the the resulting oils from liquefying ethylene gas (making PAO) and heavily hydrocracking mineral oils is the same thing?
I read the charts on Redline's site and they show PAO and mineral stocks behaving very differently ... especially at very high temps. The mineral oil boils off while the PAO formed a hard deposit. If they are so closely related, this doesn't make sense.
Why wouldn't the PAO merely boil off as well?
Are you saying there's no difference in the coefficient of friction between PAO synthetics and conventional oils? This is something else that doesn't seem right to me judging from my experiences.
--- Bror Jace
If esters are going down, and PAO's are the biggie, then I am way out of date and need to shut up. I recall that a big part of my initial attraction to ester based lubricants was the fact that the raw materials came from farm crops-- a totally renewable resource.
Later,
Al
The oil was so expensive, I needed the psychological boost of the funnel use!
I still have a couple and I'll give that a try!!
--- Bror Jace
Heat is the number one killer of oil, and this is where synths have a great advantage whether they are PAO or ester. A synthetic lubricant has approximately a 10% better heat transfer ability than petroleum-based lubricants. Together with faster flow, as well as the faster heat transfer seen in a sludge-free engine, it enables the lubricant to remove significantly more heat from hot engine surfaces. This will lower the demands on the cooling system as well.
I once read somewhere an opinion that if you put enough additives into a dino, you may effectively reach PAO-level protection. The irony pointed out though, is that by adding this level of additives, the price of the dino would be greater than PAO.
A good example: A Dodge Van, slant six, automatic. I used it for 12 years of heavy towing in a combination of freeway and country roads. It was a heavy user of oil from the start so I never had reason to change the oil. I installed a new filter from time to time, when the texture became unacceptable, even to me. I used which ever oil was closest to the gas pump as long as it did not cost over $1.50. If a safeway store happened to be near by, I would get a gallon in the big red can. It was rated RP ... Re-Processed, for those of you not well informed. I usually had to add oil with each fill up since the thing had one of those damned 36 gallon tanks. Very hard on a guys kidneys.
In the interest of keeping things short here, I drove that truck for 145,000 miles, never had to spend a dime on the power train, my usual experience, and sold it to a guy who worked for me. He drove it for another three years before selling it to another chap, further down the drive train. I saw it around town for another year or so before it finally vanished.
Why do I have such good luck, flying in the face of logic? I keep my speed down below 60 mph on level ground and climb hills at a snails pace. More important than the oil is operating the machine within its design parameters.
This is a true story. I was that soldier.
BTW Mobil 1 has improved their site. There is decent information there especially for those who are interested in the basics of syn.
http://mobil1.com/
also found this statement-its always good for a spirited debate.:
There's not a shred of evidence to suggest that synthetic motor oils delay or prevent piston ring break-in. Maxwell speculates that the rumor got started when synthetics first came to market, and attributes it to the psyche of consumers using the new product for the first time. Remember, back in the mid-'70s conventional oil sold for about 69 cents a can. Synthetics, on the other hand, came in at a hefty 4 bucks a pop. To justify spending so much more, consumers frequently checked the oil level of their new vehicles as if expecting to see some sort of miraculous benefit. What they found instead was a crankcase down a quart of oil, which they attributed to the synthetic. In reality, losing a quart of oil during break-in was standard fare on engines of this era, regardless of the type of oil used. Unfortunately, synthetics got the blame. And they're still trying to live it down.
Today, Mobil 1 is the factory fill for many carmakers
Maxwell is the Project manager for Mobil 1 Synthetics division.
NOw that slant 6 that belonged to Julus probably could never seat its rings due to the texture in the oil backing the rings off the walls...
I purchased this article at this link - $10- not really sure it was worth it -16 pages.
The testing involves mostly Mobil 1 oils
It deals with extended drain intervals.
Some highlights:
1. Ran two 25K cycles without filter or oil change. After 50K, wear was mostly within specs for new parts, cleanliness was excellent. In short all was well.
2. Ran 5 year "Aunt Millie Test" with no oil change or filter change. There was replacement of oil due to sampling. Oil samples came out good.
3. They gave some clarification of previous test where oil was changed every 15K for both syn and conventional oil. They said there was "significantly" more wear with conventional oil.
4. They have an oil (used only in Europe bc they like 40 wt. there). This is the first oil in the world (in 1998) to meet "all" performance and economy tests for diesel and gasoline engines. ILSAC, ACEA, and API. Damn- we can’t get it here.
5. Oil thickening is the major bug-a-bo with extended oil drain intervals. The bench mark for lubricating oils in the API Sequence IIIE test which runs 64 hours. Oils must pass this with a viscosity increase of no more than 375% increase. Conventional oils drope dead a few hours after the test. They had two "premium" competitors synthetics (PAO) in this test and one failed open at 100 hrs and the other at 128 hours. Both Mobil oils showed very little increase and one went to 256 hrs. For some reason they stopped the test. The other was stopped at 128 because it was at the limit of piston cleanliness.
I would Like to see Red Line run the Sequence IIIE test. at double, triple and quadruple lengths. I doubt they will. Come to think of it- I’ll ask ‘em.
Overall a good article.
I found a similar blurb on the Mobil 1 website:
"The Sequence IIIE test uses a GM 3.8-liter engine that is run for 64 hours with an oil sump temperature of 300° F. The test is used to measure cam and lifter wear, deposits and oil stability. The Sequence VE test uses a 2.3-liter Ford engine and is run at fairly low oil temperatures to measure sludging and cam wear performance. This test is run for 288 hours.
Mobil 1 was evaluated at four times the normal test length (256 hours) in a Sequence IIIE test and two times the normal length (576 hours) in a Sequence VE test. Even after this brutal trial, Mobil 1 still met all wear, viscosity and deposit limit levels for the standard test duration!"
Interesting that the engine choice for IIIE was 3.8L GM which is known to be a solid engine. I wonder what would happen with a "weaker" engine?
Mobil 1 will leak out of the seals of older cars.
Mobil 1 is fully compatible with the elastomeric seals and gasket materials used in most modern engines. In engines that are in good condition, seal compatibility will not be a problem. Some older engines produced before the mid-1970s were manufactured with looser tolerances than today's engines. Low-viscosity grades of oil can leak from these engines. The solution is to use a higher-viscosity grade like Mobil 1 15W-50 to reduce this leakage.
And another quotes from Motor magazine. (Mobile1 site -- what experts say -- news)
The claims that synthetic oils leak past main seals and delay or prevent ring break-in have been around ever since the stuff came to market in the mid-'70s. With regard to seal leakage, there was some merit to the accusation. Engines of the era weren't exactly built to the strictest tolerances. So engineers designed main oil seals that would swell when they came into contact with conventional oils. This swelling would, in effect, seal off large gaps and prevent leakage. The problem with pure polyalphaolefin is that it causes seal shrinkage – hence the leaks. Mobil chemists recognized this very early on in Mobil 1's life and, as a result, added an ester in with the polyalphaolefin. The ester behaved like conventional oil, causing seal swelling, without affecting the polyal-phaolefin's superior lubricating properties.
The ester molecules are so good, even dumping PAO into the pot can't stop the magic. I don't believe that the original Mobil 1 was anything to write home about until they added the esters. They apparently don't see it that way!
On the other hand an individual that had some reasonable amount of intelligence (I'm not saying folks who don't use syn are not intelligent) and an open mind would need to spend an hour with the article (possibly less) and probably would consider switching. I could be wrong since I am so pro-syn.
email me -
adc100@yahoo.com
I think all of who post here in addition to helping new people with facts need to start digging deeper for more facts/information there is some staleness here-including me.
Polyalphaolefins (PAOs) are produced via free radical, Ziegler catalysed, Friedel-Crafts catalysed, and other polymerization methods. Free radical methods are used less than the others and require a high activation energy while only yielding low amounts with typically poor quality. The Zeigler catalysation method is based on triethylaluminium/titanium tetrachloride and has a tendency to give a broad MW distribution. Friedel-Crafts catalyzed methods with aluminum trichloride provide wide MW distributions. They can however, be controlled using Lewis bases. The use of BF3 allows better control of degree of polymerization, however this advantage must be weighed against the inability to recycle the catalyst. Other methods involve use of chromium on silica gel catalyst and shape selective metallosilicates.
Synthetic esters which are basically organic compounds that are formed by combining an acid with an alcohol and eliminating water, are a diverse group of compounds with many properties that can be precisely engineered to meet specific needs. Aliphatic diesters and polyol esters are two main catergories of synthetic ester lubricants. Lower volatility and increased flash points are results of the increased bonding forces from strong dipole moments or London forces. The presence of the ester group also affects biodegradability, lubricity, solvency, hydrolytic and thermal stability. An in depth discussion of control of these properties is given by Mortier and Orszulik (Chemistry and Technology of Lubricants,
11, pp. 41-50).
Solvency of ester base lubricants is an advantage as they are compatible with most mineral oil additives. Compatibility with other lubricants gives esters another major advantage. Improved performance at lower cost is thus possible using blends of the esters and mineral oils to form semi-synthetic oils. Ford's Polimotor has a virtually all-plastic engine that offers a 60% savings in weight over conventional components and uses polyamide-imide for moving parts with fuel savings advantages (14). Here, elastomeric compatibility of ester base stocks must be considered. Swelling is controlled by using larger molecules with more branching . Closeness in solubility, the 'like-dissolves-like' rule, governs swelling as does the ester's polarity index. These features are particularly important for elastomers which are sensitive to polar ester lubricants. Elastomers tend to harden and shrink when exposed to non-polar base stocks such as PAOs and thus a balance may be achieved by mixing with the ester stock to obtain elastomerically neutral lubricants. Finally, optimum ester base stock design must consider ecotoxicity and biodegradability.
Mineral oils are being gradually replaced by esters due to better high temperature operation. Polyols have higher temperature capability than diesters and are thus preferable for more thermally severe conditions that warrant the increased cost. The chemistry of the esters can be modified to suit requirements such as low toxicity, high biodegradability, and clean engine emissions (11, p50).
-----------------------------------
Since PAO's are catalysed to create uniform molecular polymers, free of all metals, sulfur, phosphorus, and wax, their advantages as a base substance alone include better shear resistance, higher lubricity and thermal stability, better viscosity range, and a more stable base for additives.
Your homework: Explain why you think PAO's are no better than petroleum-based oils.
Oh, and your term project will be to find out which catalysation method(s) are used by the more popular synthetic oils including:
Mobil 1
Amsoil
Redline
Royal Purple
Castrol Syntec
Reprocessed probably means its been recycled and re-refined. A lot of used motor oil is burned by ships and industrial boilers, but some does make its way back to the refineries where it lives a second life. Apparently, this is a really good thing because it takes 67 gallons of raw, crude oil to produce 1 gallon of motor oil, but only takes 2 gallons of used motor oil to produce that same gallon.
What I mean is most synthetics are mainly PAO with some esters (seal softener) and conventional added (it carries the additives). Then Redline comes along on it's web site and says that it's oil is mostly esters and it is much better. Mobile says too many esters cause excessive swelling of the seals. Esters are used in Jet oils because of the extra high temps, and are clearly not recommended for cars. But Redline says all esters is OK. What gives?
For me, it comes down to VI, flashpoint, pourpoint, TBN, and the recommended drain interval. Only Amsoil is saying, "Go ahead and use it for 35,000 miles", so that's who I use. Is it the best? It is for me.
So what is my point? It is that ESTER preponderate synthetic lubricants are better than those that are preponderantly PAO. Now, neither is any good as a motor oil with out the additive packages that mitigate the evils that wreck seals, etc., ad.inf. As your material above points out, the ester bond is the magic!
I'll stop here, presuming no one could possibly stand another paragraph of this diatribe! lol
One other thought about which syn is best. As has been said, no one here knows the exact formula on any syns. and if you did so what- its results and testing that count. So it really boils down to who has given the documented best results. Thats hairy also. I've decided who that is for me. It also boils down to your confidence level in the stuff you see and read. If you have decided that Syntec's draining oil in a bunch of running engines and everyone gathering around the last running Syntec engine-go for it.
Yes, you can make the case that it is the "mix", but even before Mobil 1 added ester for the seal protection, they proved the superiority of their PAO oil to dinos.
A good measurement then for comparison is price vs. protection. If I get the same protection from a blend of mostly PAO for half the cost of a full ester, why buy the ester? If they were the same price, I might be convinced otherwise.
There is also the question of whether a full ester is completely compatible in current automobile engines. Some have speculated that the polyol-esters may be detrimental to seal longevity as well. I have no convincing evidence one way or another here, so I will not believe that until further proof is uncovered.
Your diatribe is what keeps this topic interesting! Keep up the good work. Oh, and you get a C+ on your homework.
An alkylated aromatic is a synthetic hydrocarbon designed by Mobil with a different chemical structure than polyalphaolefins (PAOs). It is fully compatible with both the other synthetic components of Mobil 1 and with conventional motor oils. We have begun using this fluid in conjunction with PAO and synthetic esters based on their combined excellent performance in protecting your engine against wear, sludge formation and piston deposits. This makes Mobil 1 Tri-Synthetic Formula fully compatible with conventional motor oils.
Since you are touting the almighty superiority of ester (specifically polyol-ester?), could you provide a comparison of indicators showing how much better it is? I actually do not know the current protection levels of any full-ester product, and the only full-ester product that anyone can present is Redline. Can you enlighten us?
Here's what I've found so far in the current market:
(All weights are 10w-30 unless stated otherwise)
(Degrees in F)
(NK = Noack)
Redline
VI: 137
PP: -45
FP: 475
NK: 5
TBN: ???
Mobil 1
VI: 147
PP: -65
FP: 470
NK: ???
TBN: ???
Amsoil (0w-30)
VI: 196
PP: -60
FP: 464
NK: 9.2
TBN: > 11.0