Due to increasing concerns about the superiority of Mobil 1 and the other PAO-based synthetics versus conventional oils, I recently bought a case of conventional oil to be used in our 2002 Kia Sedona.
I just have this suspicion that I am flushing extra money down the toilet by ponying up the big cash for Mobil 1. I have been employing a 6,000 mile change interval, usually with an extra filter change halfway. Before I switched to Mobil 1, my change interval with conventional oil was 3,000 miles. With those change intervals, the synthetic setup costs significantly more.
I actually enjoy changing the oil every 3,000 miles, which ends up being every 2-3 months on our cars.
Based primarily on brorjace's recommendation, I went with the Chevron Supreme oil.
If you enjoy changing oil (as I used to 20-30 years ago) than your choice makes sense.
The only wild card here (to my way of thinking) is the extra protection afforded by the synthetic when bad things happen to the cooling system. I have personally driven several miles in a snowstorm with the temp gage pegged to get home. (stuck closed thermostat).
Also I continuously hear the implications that Mobil 1 is no longer up to the standards of yester-year. Really no objective proof of that.
arkainzeyeSounds like your info of gloom and doom came from a high school dropout sales person who was angling for a more lucrative sale.
...by just owning a small fleet of vehicles. So I can pretty much guarantee I'll be changing oil every other month in something.
The MPV and SVT are on a 6 month or 5K interval on Mobil 1. The Buick was just recently switched to MaxLife since it's using/leaking 1qt every 1.5-2K. The Buick accumulates 5K in 8 to 10 weeks. (In fact, I'll probably be at 2500+ miles since the last change before 4 weeks is out Saturday morning.)
So I get plenty of chances to tinker with the cars.
But buying a case of oil and changing every 3k is probably cheaper than buying a bunch of cars 8^)
As bob continues to point out in addition to the synthetic base what you really need to know is the additive package. Thus, does a cheap synthetic have a poor additive package, well, unless you do oil analysis you jsut don't know. Which is why most people steer towards the higher priced Mobil 1, Amsoil etc. because the package is relatively known. Bob's semi apparently has a great additive package which makes the oil comparable to good synthetics. Bob doesn't list the additive package though.
I guess the issue is to find a good dino or semi with a great additive package that will perform as well as a synthetic with a good additive package. But just looking at containers does not tell the story.
I've been taking old oil filters apart lately and a friend gave me the filter from his classic muscle car. He changes the oil twice a year and said this filter only had 100 miles on it. It had the blackest oil I had ever seen. Said he ran the car a little rich. Fuel injection has done a lot to extend the life of oil.
Rando: "Bror, didn't you ask a while back if anyone ever used Lucas Oil Stabilizer, did you ever try it, anyone else ever try it?"
Yes, in another thread and I got no response. I looked into it and it says on their website a 100% petroleum oil ... and from shaking the bottle, it's VERY thick, at least 50 weight or more. I also assume there are plenty of extreme pressure additives in it like ZDDP and possibly copper (I know the various STP formulas have additional amounts of these).
At $6-8 per quart, I won't bother trying Lucas Oil Stabilizer. Thinner oils, made from high-quality base stocks (synthetic and mineral), and having the proper additive package, should be fine as long as you don't leave them in your engine too long. No need for super thickeners.
"I also noticed an old post about the thicker oils still using ZDDP? I think they all have to meet the 'SL' API grade, which would mean they all would have to be eliminating the zinc, right?"
Well, I had heard on another forum that anything thicker than 10W30 (the heavier weights which are no longer recommended for the average new passenger car) did not have to reduce their zinc & phosphorous levels from the previous 1.5-2.0% to 1.0% or less. The person who told me this said it was 'conventional wisdom' on that forum (rec.autos.tech). The text on a bottle of Mobil 1 15W50 I recently bought (gasp!!) does not conflict with this. Mobil 1 5W30, by comparison, has 0.75% ZDDP and even brags about this on the back of their bottle. There's nothing like treating diminished protection as an 'added feature', eh? Gotta love Orwellian marketing-speak. >;^)
Heavier weights having more ZDDP may also be the reason some owner's manuals say not to use 10W40 or 20W50 oil in the vehicle. The higher level of zinc may cause the 'cat to fail before 100,000 miles necessitating a warranty claim for it's replacement.
"What else can they add to a 10wt oil to make it act like a 30wt at high temp? ... they must be using something different now that they are pulling the zinc in favor of the cats?"
I don't think ZDDP thickens the oil much, if at all. What makes an oil thicker when warm is polymer (plastic) goop, not the 1-2% metal additives which are floating around in suspension.
Thanks, Shipo, for reminding us of other things I hadn't bothered to think of and/or repeat in my previous post. I remember you or someone else talking about lead scavenging before. But when you say 'synthetics' from years ago, aren't you speaking primarily (solely?) about PAO? I thought dibasic esters (part of Mobil 1 and other current PAO synthetic formulas) are powerful scrubbers? I'm just looking for clarification.
I also loved that Mobil service station story. And people think I'm funny the way I won't let most shops touch my car. :rolleyes:
Rando: "So now they want us to give up metal protection AND use less oil (longer change intervals) all at the same time..."
That's what it seems like. And, if 10 years later, they realize it was a mistake and these hotter running engines don't put up with that kind of treatment and fail early (on average) ... that's just tough. Well, I'm not playing that game either.
Mdecamps, I'm not convinced that a 0/5W40 will protect any better than a 0/5/10W30 in a newer, tight motor. As I understand it, the higher summer rating is gained through the addition of polymer thickeners which don't really have any lubricating ability of their own. Plus, they are subject to shearing down, thinning, boiling off and forming sludge. As I stated above, I'll take the thinner oils as long as they are high quality ... especially (real) synthetics.
Bluedevils, Yes, there is a PERCEIVED higher quality with a higher priced product and I'm sure that occurs in the automotive industry as frequently as anywhere else. I try to be immune to this as much as possible ... because I feel like a total sucker on the rare occasions when I fall for it. This is why I waited 10 years before using Red Line oil in my crankcase. All that time I figured it was like any other off-the-shelf synthetic ... but at a higher price. It wasn't until I understood that it really IS different chemically that I gave it a chance.
adc100: "Also I continuously hear the implications that Mobil 1 is no longer up to the standards of yester-year. Really no objective proof of that."
You mean other than the fact that they use less zinc and phosphorous in their formulas than they used to? I remember you talking to them about this ... and their answer was less than satisfying to me, especially their explanation for the greatly reduced amounts of additives in lab test results of Mobil 1 oil samples.
Truth is, I don't have any proof of Mobil 'cheapening' their synthetic formula and I don't tell anyone that I do. I merely suspect ALL off-the-shelf synthetics these days as they are all in competition with each other and the pressure to play follow-the-leader and grab extra profits at the expense of their product's quality is a strong one. All mass-market synthetics are suspect in my book. Again, many are still good oil ... just not 3 times better than the SL "conventional" oils out there now.
The reason I bring up Mobil 1 often are the small reasons I have stated before (like why doesn't it already meet the SL standard??) and the fact it is #1 in sales and is the brand I run into more than any other. For the record, I never thought them to be 'snake oil' like Royal Purple and some others.
I'm going to give the Mobil 0W40 a shot in my '96 Ford F-150 4.9 L I6 w/130,000 miles. The 40wt should provide adequate protection in the summer as well as hindering a small amount of oil consumption and the 0wt should provide superior start-up in the winter. I will drain the 10W30 in about another month and send it off for analysis. At my next drain (I'll probably go 5K, but haven't decided yet), I'll post the results of the 0W40 and we'll see how wear compares.
Thanks for all the answers, thought you fell off the earth or something I looked back at my comment about the zinc being the Viscosity Improver, I mistakenly mixed up 2 thoughts, What I meant was 1)"what is an alternative to the ZDDP to use as the metal protection componant if they don't want zinc in the mix?" and 2)I use the generic version of the STP goop in my older truck, it contains "olefin co-polymer" for the VI, do you know if the synthetics use the same stuff? I saw a display of that Lucas oil stabilizer the other day, looks like it changes the surface tension on the oil, the way it "webs out" between the gears that are meshing together.. Anybody else ever used it? see y'all Rando Oh yeah, Advance has PureOne filters for $4.96 on sale...
Mark, sounds good. A comparison between the two, even if it isn't 100% scientific, will be good to see.
Rando, Some times I'm not in the mood to post or I don't have time, etc ... Other times I really get on a roll ... >:^D
As for your questions/points:
1) They have reduced the amount of zinc in newer oils but the specific amounts seem brand-dependent. Some seem to have stayed about the same ... like Valvoline Synpower and Chevron Supreme conventional oil. Each of these still has about 1.5% ZDDP.
My feeling is that Mobil thinks their tri-synthetic base oil blend is strong enough to allow the lowest percentages I've ever seen without wear being increased ... and I've seen some tests (such as wtd's sample) that suggest they're wrong. To directly answer your question, they're not replacing ZDDP with anything that I know of.
Maybe RobisTheLubeDude has something about this as it goes back to the base oil vs. additive 'discussion' he and adc100 were having a few days ago.
2) My chemical background isn't strong enough to properly answer this question but I've seen the same display that you have. It was fun to play with for about 1 minute but I'm not sure it really says anything about how this stuff will work in an engine.
I remember when Dyson Racing used to make synthetic racing oils (are they still in business?) and they had their sales reps use an old-fashioned hand crank blender to show the same (or a similar effect). I think Moroso used to sell a gear oil they called "Climbing Gear Lube" which did the same thing. Neat to look at and it probably worked very well ... as long as semi-stable polymers weren't involved. They sheer down quickly and cease being effective.
I don't know if that Lucas stuff is 100% petroleum as they say or whether it has a polymer/plasticizer in it to give it the 'webbing effect'.
Cool, for the time being, I think that STP goo (cheap version) is working for me under given current conditions to keep using it for now. see ya Being as I am a member of the "been laid off" bunch" maybe I will try to get a job with Lucas and find out what they are making over there!!! see ya Rando
Some have stated that oil needs to be changed every 3- 6 months regardless of mileage. I can now say I disagree with that based upon my evidence. My Toy, a Mitsubishi 3000GT VR-4 twin turbo has 19,400 miles on it. Due to low usage I decided to change the oil every 5000 miles (Amsoil 10W30 with Amsoil SDF 36 filter, larger capacity then OEM) The 5000 miles, well 5022 to be exact, took one year to accomplish, about 360 days. Same oil same filter. I did attempt to drive at least 10 miles every time I started the car and usually did. Oil analysis results "all wear metals" were less then or equal to previous 3 analysis ( I mean really low compared to my other cars) on this car where oil was previously changed at 3900, 4900 and 4-9 months. Just great results. (when I purchased this car the previous owner had not changed it in a year and a half using Mobil 1). First oil analysis was on this sample and it was fine, fuel % was 4.9 on that one. The only number I was not crazy about was the % of fuel dilution, about 3.9%. I have had it higher ( the 4.9%) but also less then 1 so I may not in fact be driving it enough when I start it. However, it did not have any detrimental effect on the wear metals and lab stated oil good for continued use.
On my Camry I go 7,500 between changes regardless of time. (143,000 miles) Again results are fine. Part of it may be living in a moderate cimate, central Virginia. So, I will continue with the 5000 mile changes on this one due to the turbos but hopefully occur in less then a year. It can obviously go further though
First, let me say how I see you guys are now thinking more on the lines of wear.. good for you.. that has been my biggest point the whole time.
YES, there is an alternative for an antiwear/ep additive to offset the zddp reduction. There is several companies that use this in thier oils and has been used for many years. A soluble MOLYBDENUM DISULFIDE or mos2 or short for MOLY.
You will even see on most all oil analysis reports a place for the numbers on this additive.
To know more about this I spent some time explaining more on moly in oils.
AS for Lucas, yes and no. It is nothing more than a 100% petroleum oil called a BRIGHT STOCK oil. And no they do not have a barrier lubricant additive in addition to the bright stock. If they do, it is not apparent to me. Thier big thing is to make the oil climb and stick. That is all thier little demo shows.
Bright Stock...is a refined, high viscosity base oil usually made from residual stocks by suitable treatment, such as a combination of solvent extraction, propane asphating or catalytic dewaxing.
This type of base stock is very tenasious and will cause oil to climb straight up a vertical egg beater. The gear lubes I use also provide the same type of creep additive to allow the gear lube to climb when you first start moving since the hypoid gear system is heavily reliant on the splash system to lubricate and doesn't really lubricate until you start to move at a high enough rate of speed. Until this happens, you actually are riding on what little zddp is available which does allow wear even when you have proper lubrication.
You are correct, the Blend that I use does carry a portion of this soluble moly as well as a combination of a propritary thing called penetro. (don't as me what it is I don't even know) This is used in just about all of the lubricants we have and this company being the oldest lubricant company in the U.S. over 162yrs now (older than mobil), have had many years using this type of additive combination with proven results. It is just in the recent years that several of the other majors are now just adding this in thier oils. Mobil is one. (not all of thier's has the mos2).
anyway, hope that helps answer some of your questions.
That the Mos2 has a much better barrier protection against metal to metal wear than zddp offers. zddp can handle approx 10-15,000 lb psi vs 500,000 lb psi with moly. This equates to less wear when the base oil is sheared.
is it true that MOLYBDENUM is bad to use in engines with Hydraulic valve lashers? i remember reading years back that on motorcycles with these valve lashers, that MOLYBDENUM can actually leave a Residue behind, and over time can clog up the little holes where the oil goes into to "self-adjust" the valves. i think i read this in that mag called Cycle world.. but like i said this was years ago. can anyone shed any light on this? i remember back then they were saying something along the lines of it compared almost to a graphite residue. of course this would be with a prolonged use. i think that mag was talking about the honda oil called HP2..
but now with the suspended soluble moly, that isn't a concern. Here is the theroy on that,
Moly is activated by heat.. When activated, moly will plate to the heated area (friction) up to 39 plates. By the time the 39th plate is on both surfaces, the heat (friction) is so minimal that it doesn't activate any more. When the moly is sheared off (which will happen), it is replaced by the suspended moly. One of the things I noticed playing around with this is that you can submerge a metal object in the oil and then put it on a timken machine and it won't be protected. It isn't until heat starts to form does it starts to activate and only seems to form only on that area where heat is attracting it. So no, there is no way it will clog up or build up on any surface.
btw, i have been using this oil for over 7yrs now and have it in my harley 1200 sportster evo in my oil and in my crank with my clutches, which is another point, moly only attracts to metal not fiber surfaces.
get a chance read that site about moly. I think you'll find it very informative.
Interesting article from the LA Times on sludge and oil change intervals. Check out the quotes from the retired Valvoline researcher and noted oil expert on oil life.
Valvoline oil researcher and among the best-known lubrication experts in the nation
I believe the next generation Of Mobil 1 will meet boththe 2002 ACEA A1/B1&A3/B3 (Economy+High Performance). That would be the only oil that I am aware of that has accomplished this. We'll see.
"I believe the next generation Of Mobil 1 will meet boththe 2002 ACEA A1/B1&A3/B3 (Economy+High Performance). That would be the only oil that I am aware of that has accomplished this. We'll see"
well, schaeffers hasn't updated thier techdata sheets to reflect the new SL updates and I put in a question as to when they will, but this is thier supreme 7000 10w30 #703 specs.. from what i see, they have been meeting A1,A2,&A3 for quite some time but I'm not sure how that would compare to the 2002.
MIL-46152E, CID A-A-52039B, API Service Classification SJ, Energy Conserving, ILSAC GF-1 & GF-2, Ford M2C153-G, General Motors 6094M and 4718M, ACEA A1-98, A2-96 Issue 2, A3-96; Daimler Chrysler 229.1, 229.3, MS6395F; JASO M328-95, M331-84, M336-93, Volkswagen 500.00, 501.01, 502.00
Bob, thanks. As a user of Red Line, I know of moly ... but its use is awfully rare. Red Line, Schaeffers, an oil I heard of called ULX-110 (or something similar) use moly, but I know of no mass-market oils (real synthetic or some form of mineral) that uses the stuff.
Mostly, I see moly used only in anti-seize products. They use moly and/or some form of copper.
So, my point is that most passenger car oils are not replacing the reduced levels of ZDDP with anything ... and I think this is a bad idea.
And thanks for the clarification on Lucas Oil Stabilizer. So, what do you think of paying $6-8 for a quart of 'bright stock' with little or no additives? I still see that stuff as a rip-off ... even if it isn't exactly 'snake oil'.
Mobil uses moly in one of thier diesel oils but to my knowledge I don't believe it is in any of thier PCMO's, if so, I suspect it is minimal.
Yes, Redline uses TONS of the moly in thier oil. One thing I noticed in some of the oil analysis for redline that i have seen is if you try extended drains, that the oxidation levels seem to be higher than say amsoils of schaeffers. Which means it won't last as long for extended drains. I believe this to be normal since they tend to load heavy amounts of ep in thier oil which I have seen where people put in additives that overload the antiwear/ep additive and causes the oil to oxidize faster. One big reason that you don't want to use such stuff (aftermarket additives) in a pass car just because it works in a race car, oil is changed frequent and doesn't have time to breakdown unlike in a passg car.
Bror, if you have any extended oil drain analysis with redline i'd be interested in seeing the results if you have the oxidation level readings available as well.
I agree, most oils are not offsetting the lack of antiwear with much of anything and are telling everyone that thier "film strength" is better which protects better when in fact they are reducing that as well by going with a thinner visc oil so to meet better CAFE requirements.
I honestly believe you will see that engines life expectancy to drop in the future if people are to continue using standard brands of api certified oils. This is one of the big advantages for amsoil (series 2and 3000), redline, MAX LIFE and now Penzoil which now has a non api certified oil for older engines which i don't have any idea what they are using yet but suspect it's along the same lines as maxlife.
You can add maybe 1/2 bottle of STP goo to your normal oil and get some ZDDP back into the mix (I'm not talking about during warranty..) I think all of us on here are thinking of engine longevity rather than just that extra .523 mpg we can get by using thinner oils...it is more clear as time goes by that the mfgrs are heading more towards the higher CAFE and cat friendly side and further away from engine protection side of the lube thing as time is going by ...
My older vehicles have done about that good too, with the one exception.. But we are talking about current lower mileage vehicles now using the SL grade oil that will determine how long they last down the road,,,by the time these vehicles start getting higher mileage on them we will be seeing the results of what we are doing now... like eating healthy when you're young to help last longer when you're old, I equate it to the older oil having more vitamin ZDDP than the newer stuff does. I think in a few years we will start seeing the results of thinner, less engine protection oils. I hope the thinner oils help the engines go the longer distance, but it will be awhile before we ever prove it out. see ya Rando
Bob, I posted some Red Line oil analysis results in the old "Oil Analyst Sites" topic a couple months ago. It was 5 month old Red Line 10W30 (street formula) with 7,200 miles on it (from my hard-driven 1995 Civic DX). TBN was still 4.5. Lead levels were a little high for Blackstone's liking ... but I've heard from other sources to expect that in Hondas & Acuras. Sodium was a little high as well but no antifreeze detected and I'm not losing any coolant (???). All other metals were average for a 4-cylinder gas engine with oil having 3,100 miles on it except the iron which was about half Blackstone's average and my engine has a iron cylinder liners. >:^)
Sorry Rando, I'm a no-go on the polymer goo. <:^( I like as little viscosity improver in my oils as possible (all things being equal).
I do agree with you on the what-we-do-today-we'll-only-see-several-years-from-now thinking. We won't know what these too-cute-by-half-low-additive formulations are doing to our engines and we won't see the effects until at least a handful more years go by. The torture test Mobil did on their synthetic was years and a couple formulations ago. I just can't extrapolate the results to cover their current formulation ... and the improved formula they are working on to try and meet the SL standard. Maybe if they do more testing, Lord knows they've got the money ...
I have a number of antique and old marine engines and I like to use a little STP, not to thicken the oil, but for wear properties because these engines sit for long periods between operation. STP is what the engine rebuilders always used to use. The new stuff feels the same with added color. I've hung metal strips coated with oil and STP and the oil W/STP is slipery after days of hanging. I also had an outboard as a kid that would seize after running for 15-20 minutes. Adding STP to the oil would almost double that time. I'm not a big fan of adding things to the oil but it seems when a car reaches 100K the oil requirements might be a little different. I use about 1/4 the suggested STP in my otder vehicles. Though, I admit I haven't bought STP retail in 20 years. I pick up cans now and then at garage sales from people who have had second thoughts. Is there any other wear additive that can be recommended to beef up SL oils?
I cannot fully comment on how some of the newer Synthetic cocktails would be able to deal with leaded fuel, however, AeroShell has an interesting blurb on their FAQ regarding Synthetic oil. In deference to the “Terms of Use”, you can read said blurb at: http://www.aeroshell.com/faqs-answers1.html#Anchor-Wil-35935
What I can add to the discussion is that given that I normally fly behind a Continental O-300D (air-cooled Boxer 6), which (in its initial incarnation debuted in the mid to late 1940s as the Continental C-145), most of the “Old Salts” who have lots of history with this mill have found that “AeroShell Oil W 100 Single Grade Oil” works the best. Admittedly, a lot of what I hear regarding Oil, Lubrication, Lead, Air/Fuel Mixtures, Altitudes, Cold Starts, and a whole host of other factors, is nothing but anecdotal, however, there seems to be some evidence that some engines (like the O-300/C-145) have problems with compression when run on the “AeroShell Oil W 15W-50 Multigrade” (50% Synthetic Blend). Said problems usually turn out to be fouled piston rings and/or stuck valves, that said, both problems can be attributed to poor engine management, such as leaving the mixture too rich/full rich after climb-out (incomplete combustion/extra lead to be scavenged), or excessive leaning when at altitude (causing excessive Cylinder Head Temperature (CHT)). The problem is, these troubles seem to be a lot more common when the Synthetic Blend is being used in the engine.
As if all of this is not complicated enough, the old Continental (and MANY other vintage engines still flying) are relatively low compression motors designed for 80 octane leaded fuel. The only leaded fuel available at virtually every GA airport here in North America is 100LL (100 octane, Low Lead – sort of), so, as you can see, setting the mixture EXACTLY right on such an engine, so as to completely compensate for the low compression, high lead, current density altitude, and all of the other factors is something of a challenge by itself, not the mention Rule #1 in flying, “Fly the Plane”.
This was just a long-winded way of saying that I don’t think Synthetic oil is up to the task of efficiently scavenging lead from cylinder walls, and I don’t think it ever will be. I said that last bit because 100LL will cease production sometime within the next decade, and will be on the decline for the duration, as such, I see no need/incentive for the Aero-Lubrication industry to invest a single dime in perfecting Synthetic oil for such an environment.
Not sure my vehicles will do that good either. My Toy Truck has 75K on it now and was switched to Mobil at 15K. Sentra has only 15K and I'm not sure I will live long enough to see 200K.
bror The 200K was done in '98 and was the TriSyn. If their new oils meet the ACEA A3 spec it should be O.K.
You mentioned that Mobil puts moly in one of their diesel oils. Are you referring to Delvac 1? I run that oil in my VW TDI. Is there any reason why that oil wouldn't be a good choice in a gas engine as well? It actually advertises that it is designed for extended drains.
Ship, that was interesting as I'm interested in aviation as well as autos ... but we don't know what type of synthetic compound Shell was using in their blended formula ... right? My guess is PAO ... but it's just a guess.
adc100, thanks for the correction.
opera_house_wk, ZDDP in a pure form is probably very toxic stuff so a concentrated form of it is not likely to be available at auto parts retailers anytime soon.
Has anyone checked STP's MSDS and found out exactly how much ZDDP they have in their goo? 3%? 5%? More? I doubt it's anything greater than single digits but the exact number would be interesting to know.
The way to tell if a product contains a PAO on the MSDS sheet is not only by the component name but also by its Chemical Abstract Number (CAS #). On a material safety data sheet PAO's will be identied as either Polyalphaolefins or 1-Decene, Homopolymer, Hydrogenated. Their CAS Number is 68037-01-4 Every chemical as soon as it is developed, has a CAS # assigned to it. Each resgistry number designates only one chemical substance.
The hydrocracked bases stocks like all other petroleum base stocks would have CAS numbers that start with 64742-
To take this one step further, it seems that Shell at least, subscribes to the rule where Synthetic does not equate to a “HydroCracked” cocktail. I say this because I am looking at the MSDSs for Shell’s “AeroShell Oil W 100 Single Grade Oil” and “AeroShell Oil W 100 Plus” oils, which Shell refers to essentially as Dino-Juice. Based upon my understanding of what I have read from you and others here, many manufacturers are claiming “HydroCracked” oils are Synthetic, however, the only oil that Shell says contains any Synthetic oil at all is the “AeroShell Oil W 15W-50 Multigrade”, which we have been discussing.
Here are the MSDSs for two of the Non-Synthetic Aero Oils from Shell:
Composition for: AeroShell Oil W 100 Single Grade Oil: 64742-54-7 Hydrotreated Heavy Paraffinic Distillate 50-70% 64742-57-0 Hydrotreated Residual Oil 30-50% Mixture Additives 3-5%
Composition for AeroShell Oil W 100 Plus: 64742-57-0 Hydrotreated Residual Oil 55-65% 64742-54-7 Hydrotreated Heavy Paraffinic Distillate 35-45% Mixture Additives <5% 56803-37-3 Butylated Triphenyl Phosphate <1% 115-86-6 Triphenyl Phosphate <1%
Would these oils be considered “Synthetic” if they were sold by Castrol?
So my guess was right. Of course, I wasn't going out on much of a limb ... PAO was the most common type of synthetic just a few years ago.
Shipo: " ... it seems that Shell at least, subscribes to the rule where Synthetic does not equate to a 'HydroCracked' cocktail."
Yes, it would appear so ... but the irony is that it was Shell that supplied Castrol with the initial batches of heavily hydrocracked mineral base stocks that Castrol then called "synthetic" starting the whole definition-of-synthetic controversy. How odd.
Um, Bob, is that "hydrotreated residual oil" mentioned on Shell's MSDS sheet the same as "Bright Stock" (Lucas Oil Stabilizer)??
Oh, and before I forget, I was in a Walmart in the greater Albany, NY area yesterday after work and found 5W30 and 10W30 SL Mobil 1.
I thought this stuff wasn't going to be available for a couple more months?
Mobil said it would be available by April. It's only 2 weeks early for you. Still don't have it here in the mountain west as of last week. Good to know that it will be out soon however.
My 97 buick Park Ave Ultra runs a 'supercharger' that has some kind of "GM" factory lube in it. It's been said in this town hall, that this item is good for about 100,000 miles, then God Knows what happens next! I would like to know if anyone has changed out the Factory Lube to a synthetic of some sort, to try and stretch the life expectancy of this $2000.00 item?
Despite my searches for more information, can someone explain what benefits the new oils with the SL classifications have? I'm currently using Mobil 1 in my 2001 Honda Civic and am about due for a change. I understand that Mobil is introducing a reformulated Mobil 1 soon. Do we know if the new SL classified Mobil 1 is superior to what I'm using now? Maybe I should consider switching to Amsoil...by the way I'm using 5W30 in this car despite Honda's recommended 5W20 weight and the car runs great...no difference in fuel economy either from what I can tell. Any info. or insights is appreciated.
My Buick says to check the level at 30,000 miles. However, it can probably be either drained or syphoned out as well. I believe that the oil is a 5W30 synthetic oil from what I have been told.
First of all, why do you think that supercharger is good for 100k miles only?
Concerning the supercharger oil. If I remember it right, it is filled by a special oil. It is never changed. Must be checked every 30,000 miles, and added if necessary.
The oil is an extremely low volume item. Very few cars have supercharger: I know only 4 low-volume GM models, and few MB. "Add if necessary" probably means, that most of these rare cars would need something like one or two quart during the whole life.
I doubt that any company would develop an aftermarket oil for the tiny market. Would not be surprised, however, if the original supercharged oil is synthetic already.
After analyzing the article, I have come to the conclusion that SL has many improvements, and shouldn't adversely affect wear.
I also spoke with an oil expert recently and he said that it costs over 2 million dollars to get the famous donut on your oil, because of all the extensive testing. And, it has to be done separately for every single weight range sold.
Those who have had bearings go noisy on the Eaton Supercharger have been told that this is a 'wear item' and the Eaton company do a brisk business with 'rebuilds'. They don't mention anything about servicing the unit in the manual except a fluid check every 30K. If the synthetics are already in there, as has been suggested, then I guess it's a dead issue. However, if the bearings are making cuttings then a total oil change should be a great help to prolong the supercharger life There is an oil check hole on the side of the unit, and if I knew what was in there, I would gladly drain it out and do a change. It would be messy, but so is the thought of metal bearing debris whizzing around in 5 year old, unfiltered oil at 10,000 rpm! I have an e-mailquestion regarding this, to Eaton supercharger Company in Michigan, but so far, no info back from them. The Buick owners manual has no info on the unit in the Specification' section regarding amount of lube in it, or what it might be.
You have to paste the 2 pieces of the URL together
"The Mobil 1 motor oils are manufactured from 100% synthetic base stocks. These include polyalphaolefins (PAO) and other Mobil synthetic fluids which make up the Mobil 1 formula"
Anyone seen the MSDS sheet or other info to verify that mobil hasn't given up on the true meaning of "synthetic"?? I bought some 10w30 SL rated Mobil1 today at Wal-Mart and it's still branded as Tri-Synthetic.
(first published in Nov., 2000 issue of Car and Driver by Patrick Bedard)
Now that the meaning if "is" has gotten so slippery you need to grab it with both hands, we'd better keep an eye on longer words, too.
One's already got so squirmy on us- "synthetic," as in synthetic motor oil.
Most guys know two things about synthetic oils. First, the price is three to four times that of conventional oils. Second, they're not real oil, not made from crude.
News flash: Scratch that second part. Now motor oils derived from crude may be labeled "synthetic." But they still cost over four bucks a quart.
Bait and switch? That's the obvious conclusion. Except in this case the advertising ethics people have given their approval.
Here's what happened, according to a detailed account published in the trade magazine Lubricants World. Late in 1997, Castrol changed the formula of its Syntec "full synthetic motor oil", eliminating the polyalphaolefin (PAO) base stock (that's the "synthetic" part, which makes up about 70% by volume of what's in the bottle) and replacing it with a "hydroisomerized" petroleum base stock.
Mobil Oil Corporation, maker of Mobil 1, "Worlds Leading Synthetic Motor Oil," said no fair and took its complaint to the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Council of Better Business Bureaus. NAD often arbitrates between feuding advertisers on their conflicting claims.
The notion behind synthetic motor oils as we've known them is an elegant one. Instead of relying on the cocktail of hydrocarbons contained in crude oil, why not go into the laboratory and build the perfect base stock from scratch, molecule by molecule, and builds it till it gets 10-carbon molecules, then combines three of those to form PAO. The result is a fluid more stable than the usual base oils derived from crude. It keeps flowing at low temperatures. It's more resistant to boiling off, and more resistant to oxidation, which causes thickening with prolonged exposure to high temperatures.
Still, there's more than one road to the point B of improved stability. Petroleum refiners in recent years have learned how to break apart certain undesirable molecules - wax, for example, which causes thickening of oil at low temperatures- and transform them by chemical reaction into helpful molecules. These new hydroisomerized base oils, in the view of some industry participants provided properties similar to PAO's but only cost half as much," Lubricants World reported.
The argument before NAD tiptoed around the obvious- does the consumer get four bucks' worth of value from each quart of synthetic oil?- and plunged straight into deep semantics. Mobil's experts said "synthetic" traditionally meant big molecules built up from small ones. Castrol's side held out for a looser description, defining "synthetic" as "the product of an intended chemical reaction."
What do unbiased sources say? It turns out that the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) and the American Petroleum Institute (API) both have technical standards covering motor oils, and both of these organizations in the '90's backed away from their old definitions of "synthetic," leaving lots of room for new interpretations.
In the end, NAD decided that the evidence constitutes a reasonable basis for the claim that Castrol Syntec, as currently formulated, is a synthetic motor oil, said Lubricants World.
The obvious question now: Has the term "synthetic motor oil" been opened up to the point that it no longer means anything? Maybe. But here's a better question: Did synthetic ever mean what we thought it meant?
"Great oil" is what most guys think it means. "At that price, it's gotta be great stuff!"
Okay, but how great? Your cars manual tells what motor oil you should use, and with few exceptions, that description will consist of only two specifications. One is for viscosity, such as 10W-30; and the other is for the API service grade, SJ being the current one for gasoline passenger cars.
The buck-a-quart multi-grades meet these standards, as do the synthetics.
The synthetics, on the back label, claim compliance with more standards, but even if you know what they mean, they seem beside the point for U.S. passenger cars. For example, should you care about diesels if you drive a gasoline burner? API service CF is the oldest of the current specs for light-duty diesels; some synthetics list that one. Synthetics may also list ACEA A1 and B1, which are European specs roughly equivelant to API gasoline and diesel specs. The Europeans grad their oils by level of performance, so that A2 and A3 are tougher specs than A1. Same for diesels. Usually the date of the spec is omitted, but A1-98 is newer than A1-96.
Completely absent is the one performance claim that would have some real meaning for all of us- some indication of longer oil life. (except for AMSOIL which clearly states 25,000 miles/1-year or 35,000 miles/1-year for their Severe Service 0W-30 synthetic). Automakers hold synthetics to the same oil change intervals as conventional oils. And the oil companies, promise even less. "To give added protection and life to your engine, change your oil every 3000 miles." This same language appears on the back of both Penzoil Synthetic and conventional oils. Valvoline synthetic makes a similar recommendation. (commentary: Since 1972 AMSOIL is the ONLY synthetic oil manufacturer in the world to guarantee 25,000 miles or 35,000 mile oil change intervals and utilizing full PAO synthetic technology exclusively).
Synthetics do get one unambiguous endorsement: Corvettes, Porsches, Vipers, and all AMG models from Mercedes-Benz come with Mobil 1 as the factory fill.
Most synthetics mention GM 4718M in their list of claims; that's the unique spec created by General Motors for Corvette oil. It's a high-temperature requirement that tolerates less oxidation (thickening) and volatility (boil-off) on a standard engine test called Sequence 111E according to engineer Bob Olree of GM Powertrain. (note: AMSOIL 0W-30 far surpasses GM's 4718M spec).
But don't expect to learn such details on any label (again, except for AMSOIL which clearly states test results on the back of every bottle of Series 2000 0W-30 and 20W-50 synthetic). Mobil 1 at least uses straight forward declarative sentences. Most of the others read as though they were written by a lawyer looking for an escape clause. Why else would the following claim be so rubbery? "Penzoil Synthetic motor oil is recommended for use in all engines requiring ILSACGF-1, GF-2, API SJ, SH, or SG, and in engines requiring oils meeting GM 4718M." Okay, but does it actually pass those standards?
"Yes" says James Newsom, Penzoil's motor-oil product manager.
Castrol Syntec, on its label, "exceeds" every standard it mentions. Hmm. Now that the meaning of "is" is in play, I have to wonder, does Syntec meet those
Saw the new Mobile 1 SL oil today at Wal-Mart and I was shocked.
Apparently Mobile decided to cheapen the formulation even further by using less and less PAO base stock in the SL formulation than the SJ formulation. Remember the original Mobile 1 was all PAO then to Tri-Synthetic, and now to another Tri-Synthetic. How do I know?
The new SL 5W-30 and 10W-30 oil's pour point increased more than 15 degrees. It was -65 deg (SJ) and now it is -49 deg (SL).
People all agree that the true synthetic base stocks like PAO has a very lower pour point. This increase in pour point indicated that the PAO content is lower in the new formulation.
BTW, the 0W-40 oil still has the same old -65 degree pour point and actually its kinematic viscosity at 100 degree Celsius has increased a bit for better high temperature protection. Also the Energy Saving rating has disappeared in the 0W-40 (according to the Mobile 1 Website as I cannot find a bottle for this). See it your self at
Comments
I just have this suspicion that I am flushing extra money down the toilet by ponying up the big cash for Mobil 1. I have been employing a 6,000 mile change interval, usually with an extra filter change halfway. Before I switched to Mobil 1, my change interval with conventional oil was 3,000 miles. With those change intervals, the synthetic setup costs significantly more.
I actually enjoy changing the oil every 3,000 miles, which ends up being every 2-3 months on our cars.
Based primarily on brorjace's recommendation, I went with the Chevron Supreme oil.
The only wild card here (to my way of thinking) is the extra protection afforded by the synthetic when bad things happen to the cooling system. I have personally driven several miles in a snowstorm with the temp gage pegged to get home. (stuck closed thermostat).
Also I continuously hear the implications that Mobil 1 is no longer up to the standards of yester-year. Really no objective proof of that.
arkainzeyeSounds like your info of gloom and doom came from a high school dropout sales person who was angling for a more lucrative sale.
The MPV and SVT are on a 6 month or 5K interval on Mobil 1. The Buick was just recently switched to MaxLife since it's using/leaking 1qt every 1.5-2K. The Buick accumulates 5K in 8 to 10 weeks. (In fact, I'll probably be at 2500+ miles since the last change before 4 weeks is out Saturday morning.)
So I get plenty of chances to tinker with the cars.
But buying a case of oil and changing every 3k is probably cheaper than buying a bunch of cars 8^)
TB
Was this uncommon?
I guess the issue is to find a good dino or semi with a great additive package that will perform as well as a synthetic with a good additive package. But just looking at containers does not tell the story.
Yes, in another thread and I got no response. I looked into it and it says on their website a 100% petroleum oil ... and from shaking the bottle, it's VERY thick, at least 50 weight or more. I also assume there are plenty of extreme pressure additives in it like ZDDP and possibly copper (I know the various STP formulas have additional amounts of these).
At $6-8 per quart, I won't bother trying Lucas Oil Stabilizer. Thinner oils, made from high-quality base stocks (synthetic and mineral), and having the proper additive package, should be fine as long as you don't leave them in your engine too long. No need for super thickeners.
"I also noticed an old post about the thicker oils still using ZDDP? I think they all have to meet the 'SL' API grade, which would mean they all would have to be eliminating the zinc, right?"
Well, I had heard on another forum that anything thicker than 10W30 (the heavier weights which are no longer recommended for the average new passenger car) did not have to reduce their zinc & phosphorous levels from the previous 1.5-2.0% to 1.0% or less. The person who told me this said it was 'conventional wisdom' on that forum (rec.autos.tech). The text on a bottle of Mobil 1 15W50 I recently bought (gasp!!) does not conflict with this. Mobil 1 5W30, by comparison, has 0.75% ZDDP and even brags about this on the back of their bottle. There's nothing like treating diminished protection as an 'added feature', eh? Gotta love Orwellian marketing-speak. >;^)
Heavier weights having more ZDDP may also be the reason some owner's manuals say not to use 10W40 or 20W50 oil in the vehicle. The higher level of zinc may cause the 'cat to fail before 100,000 miles necessitating a warranty claim for it's replacement.
"What else can they add to a 10wt oil to make it act like a 30wt at high temp? ... they must be using something different now that they are pulling the zinc in favor of the cats?"
I don't think ZDDP thickens the oil much, if at all. What makes an oil thicker when warm is polymer (plastic) goop, not the 1-2% metal additives which are floating around in suspension.
Thanks, Shipo, for reminding us of other things I hadn't bothered to think of and/or repeat in my previous post. I remember you or someone else talking about lead scavenging before. But when you say 'synthetics' from years ago, aren't you speaking primarily (solely?) about PAO? I thought dibasic esters (part of Mobil 1 and other current PAO synthetic formulas) are powerful scrubbers? I'm just looking for clarification.
I also loved that Mobil service station story. And people think I'm funny the way I won't let most shops touch my car. :rolleyes:
Rando: "So now they want us to give up metal protection AND use less oil (longer change intervals) all at the same time..."
That's what it seems like. And, if 10 years later, they realize it was a mistake and these hotter running engines don't put up with that kind of treatment and fail early (on average) ... that's just tough. Well, I'm not playing that game either.
Mdecamps, I'm not convinced that a 0/5W40 will protect any better than a 0/5/10W30 in a newer, tight motor. As I understand it, the higher summer rating is gained through the addition of polymer thickeners which don't really have any lubricating ability of their own. Plus, they are subject to shearing down, thinning, boiling off and forming sludge. As I stated above, I'll take the thinner oils as long as they are high quality ... especially (real) synthetics.
Bluedevils, Yes, there is a PERCEIVED higher quality with a higher priced product and I'm sure that occurs in the automotive industry as frequently as anywhere else. I try to be immune to this as much as possible ... because I feel like a total sucker on the rare occasions when I fall for it. This is why I waited 10 years before using Red Line oil in my crankcase. All that time I figured it was like any other off-the-shelf synthetic ... but at a higher price. It wasn't until I understood that it really IS different chemically that I gave it a chance.
adc100: "Also I continuously hear the implications that Mobil 1 is no longer up to the standards of yester-year. Really no objective proof of that."
You mean other than the fact that they use less zinc and phosphorous in their formulas than they used to? I remember you talking to them about this ... and their answer was less than satisfying to me, especially their explanation for the greatly reduced amounts of additives in lab test results of Mobil 1 oil samples.
Truth is, I don't have any proof of Mobil 'cheapening' their synthetic formula and I don't tell anyone that I do. I merely suspect ALL off-the-shelf synthetics these days as they are all in competition with each other and the pressure to play follow-the-leader and grab extra profits at the expense of their product's quality is a strong one. All mass-market synthetics are suspect in my book. Again, many are still good oil ... just not 3 times better than the SL "conventional" oils out there now.
The reason I bring up Mobil 1 often are the small reasons I have stated before (like why doesn't it already meet the SL standard??) and the fact it is #1 in sales and is the brand I run into more than any other. For the record, I never thought them to be 'snake oil' like Royal Purple and some others.
--- Bror Jace
Mark
I looked back at my comment about the zinc being the Viscosity Improver, I mistakenly mixed up 2 thoughts, What I meant was
1)"what is an alternative to the ZDDP to use as the metal protection componant if they don't want zinc in the mix?"
and 2)I use the generic version of the STP goop in my older truck, it contains "olefin co-polymer" for the VI, do you know if the synthetics use the same stuff?
I saw a display of that Lucas oil stabilizer the other day, looks like it changes the surface tension on the oil, the way it "webs out" between the gears that are meshing together..
Anybody else ever used it?
see y'all
Rando
Oh yeah, Advance has PureOne filters for $4.96 on sale...
Rando, Some times I'm not in the mood to post or I don't have time, etc ... Other times I really get on a roll ... >:^D
As for your questions/points:
1) They have reduced the amount of zinc in newer oils but the specific amounts seem brand-dependent. Some seem to have stayed about the same ... like Valvoline Synpower and Chevron Supreme conventional oil. Each of these still has about 1.5% ZDDP.
My feeling is that Mobil thinks their tri-synthetic base oil blend is strong enough to allow the lowest percentages I've ever seen without wear being increased ... and I've seen some tests (such as wtd's sample) that suggest they're wrong. To directly answer your question, they're not replacing ZDDP with anything that I know of.
Maybe RobisTheLubeDude has something about this as it goes back to the base oil vs. additive 'discussion' he and adc100 were having a few days ago.
2) My chemical background isn't strong enough to properly answer this question but I've seen the same display that you have. It was fun to play with for about 1 minute but I'm not sure it really says anything about how this stuff will work in an engine.
I remember when Dyson Racing used to make synthetic racing oils (are they still in business?) and they had their sales reps use an old-fashioned hand crank blender to show the same (or a similar effect). I think Moroso used to sell a gear oil they called "Climbing Gear Lube" which did the same thing. Neat to look at and it probably worked very well ... as long as semi-stable polymers weren't involved. They sheer down quickly and cease being effective.
I don't know if that Lucas stuff is 100% petroleum as they say or whether it has a polymer/plasticizer in it to give it the 'webbing effect'.
--- Bror Jace
see ya
Being as I am a member of the "been laid off" bunch" maybe I will try to get a job with Lucas and find out what they are making over there!!!
see ya
Rando
On my Camry I go 7,500 between changes regardless of time. (143,000 miles) Again results are fine. Part of it may be living in a moderate cimate, central Virginia. So, I will continue with the 5000 mile changes on this one due to the turbos but hopefully occur in less then a year. It can obviously go further though
YES, there is an alternative for an antiwear/ep additive to offset the zddp reduction. There is several companies that use this in thier oils and has been used for many years. A soluble MOLYBDENUM DISULFIDE or mos2 or short for MOLY.
You will even see on most all oil analysis reports a place for the numbers on this additive.
To know more about this I spent some time explaining more on moly in oils.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/moly.html
AS for Lucas, yes and no. It is nothing more than a 100% petroleum oil called a BRIGHT STOCK oil. And no they do not have a barrier lubricant additive in addition to the bright stock. If they do, it is not apparent to me. Thier big thing is to make the oil climb and stick. That is all thier little demo shows.
Bright Stock...is a refined, high viscosity base oil usually made from residual stocks by suitable treatment, such as a combination of solvent extraction, propane asphating or catalytic dewaxing.
This type of base stock is very tenasious and will cause oil to climb straight up a vertical egg beater. The gear lubes I use also provide the same type of creep additive to allow the gear lube to climb when you first start moving since the hypoid gear system is heavily reliant on the splash system to lubricate and doesn't really lubricate until you start to move at a high enough rate of speed. Until this happens, you actually are riding on what little zddp is available which does allow wear even when you have proper lubrication.
You are correct, the Blend that I use does carry a portion of this soluble moly as well as a combination of a propritary thing called penetro. (don't as me what it is I don't even know) This is used in just about all of the lubricants we have and this company being the oldest lubricant company in the U.S. over 162yrs now (older than mobil), have had many years using this type of additive combination with proven results. It is just in the recent years that several of the other majors are now just adding this in thier oils. Mobil is one. (not all of thier's has the mos2).
anyway, hope that helps answer some of your questions.
bob in jville
bob
Moly is activated by heat.. When activated, moly will plate to the heated area (friction) up to 39 plates. By the time the 39th plate is on both surfaces, the heat (friction) is so minimal that it doesn't activate any more. When the moly is sheared off (which will happen), it is replaced by the suspended moly. One of the things I noticed playing around with this is that you can submerge a metal object in the oil and then put it on a timken machine and it won't be protected. It isn't until heat starts to form does it starts to activate and only seems to form only on that area where heat is attracting it. So no, there is no way it will clog up or build up on any surface.
btw, i have been using this oil for over 7yrs now and have it in my harley 1200 sportster evo in my oil and in my crank with my clutches, which is another point, moly only attracts to metal not fiber surfaces.
get a chance read that site about moly. I think you'll find it very informative.
regards,
bob in jville.
Valvoline oil researcher and among the best-known lubrication experts in the nation
well, schaeffers hasn't updated thier techdata sheets to reflect the new SL updates and I put in a question as to when they will, but this is thier supreme 7000 10w30 #703 specs.. from what i see, they have been meeting A1,A2,&A3 for quite some time but I'm not sure how that would compare to the 2002.
MIL-46152E, CID A-A-52039B, API Service Classification SJ, Energy Conserving, ILSAC GF-1 & GF-2, Ford M2C153-G, General Motors 6094M and 4718M, ACEA A1-98, A2-96 Issue 2, A3-96; Daimler Chrysler 229.1, 229.3, MS6395F; JASO M328-95, M331-84, M336-93, Volkswagen 500.00, 501.01, 502.00
To your knowledge, does Mobil 1 employ this Moblybendum Disulfide in their oils?
Mostly, I see moly used only in anti-seize products. They use moly and/or some form of copper.
So, my point is that most passenger car oils are not replacing the reduced levels of ZDDP with anything ... and I think this is a bad idea.
And thanks for the clarification on Lucas Oil Stabilizer. So, what do you think of paying $6-8 for a quart of 'bright stock' with little or no additives? I still see that stuff as a rip-off ... even if it isn't exactly 'snake oil'.
--- Bror Jace
Yes, Redline uses TONS of the moly in thier oil. One thing I noticed in some of the oil analysis for redline that i have seen is if you try extended drains, that the oxidation levels seem to be higher than say amsoils of schaeffers. Which means it won't last as long for extended drains. I believe this to be normal since they tend to load heavy amounts of ep in thier oil which I have seen where people put in additives that overload the antiwear/ep additive and causes the oil to oxidize faster. One big reason that you don't want to use such stuff (aftermarket additives) in a pass car just because it works in a race car, oil is changed frequent and doesn't have time to breakdown unlike in a passg car.
Bror, if you have any extended oil drain analysis with redline i'd be interested in seeing the results if you have the oxidation level readings available as well.
I agree, most oils are not offsetting the lack of antiwear with much of anything and are telling everyone that thier "film strength" is better which protects better when in fact they are reducing that as well by going with a thinner visc oil so to meet better CAFE requirements.
I honestly believe you will see that engines life expectancy to drop in the future if people are to continue using standard brands of api certified oils. This is one of the big advantages for amsoil (series 2and 3000), redline, MAX LIFE and now Penzoil which now has a non api certified oil for older engines which i don't have any idea what they are using yet but suspect it's along the same lines as maxlife.
bob
(I'm not talking about during warranty..)
I think all of us on here are thinking of engine longevity rather than just that extra .523 mpg we can get by using thinner oils...it is more clear as time goes by that the mfgrs are heading more towards the higher CAFE and cat friendly side and further away from engine protection side of the lube thing as time is going by ...
But we are talking about current lower mileage vehicles now using the SL grade oil that will determine how long they last down the road,,,by the time these vehicles start getting higher mileage on them we will be seeing the results of what we are doing now...
like eating healthy when you're young to help last longer when you're old, I equate it to the older oil having more vitamin ZDDP than the newer stuff does.
I think in a few years we will start seeing the results of thinner, less engine protection oils.
I hope the thinner oils help the engines go the longer distance, but it will be awhile before we ever prove it out.
see ya
Rando
Best Regards,
Shipo
Sorry Rando, I'm a no-go on the polymer goo. <:^( I like as little viscosity improver in my oils as possible (all things being equal).
I do agree with you on the what-we-do-today-we'll-only-see-several-years-from-now thinking. We won't know what these too-cute-by-half-low-additive formulations are doing to our engines and we won't see the effects until at least a handful more years go by. The torture test Mobil did on their synthetic was years and a couple formulations ago. I just can't extrapolate the results to cover their current formulation ... and the improved formula they are working on to try and meet the SL standard. Maybe if they do more testing, Lord knows they've got the money ...
--- <b>Bror Jace
What I can add to the discussion is that given that I normally fly behind a Continental O-300D (air-cooled Boxer 6), which (in its initial incarnation debuted in the mid to late 1940s as the Continental C-145), most of the “Old Salts” who have lots of history with this mill have found that “AeroShell Oil W 100 Single Grade Oil” works the best. Admittedly, a lot of what I hear regarding Oil, Lubrication, Lead, Air/Fuel Mixtures, Altitudes, Cold Starts, and a whole host of other factors, is nothing but anecdotal, however, there seems to be some evidence that some engines (like the O-300/C-145) have problems with compression when run on the “AeroShell Oil W 15W-50 Multigrade” (50% Synthetic Blend). Said problems usually turn out to be fouled piston rings and/or stuck valves, that said, both problems can be attributed to poor engine management, such as leaving the mixture too rich/full rich after climb-out (incomplete combustion/extra lead to be scavenged), or excessive leaning when at altitude (causing excessive Cylinder Head Temperature (CHT)). The problem is, these troubles seem to be a lot more common when the Synthetic Blend is being used in the engine.
As if all of this is not complicated enough, the old Continental (and MANY other vintage engines still flying) are relatively low compression motors designed for 80 octane leaded fuel. The only leaded fuel available at virtually every GA airport here in North America is 100LL (100 octane, Low Lead – sort of), so, as you can see, setting the mixture EXACTLY right on such an engine, so as to completely compensate for the low compression, high lead, current density altitude, and all of the other factors is something of a challenge by itself, not the mention Rule #1 in flying, “Fly the Plane”.
This was just a long-winded way of saying that I don’t think Synthetic oil is up to the task of efficiently scavenging lead from cylinder walls, and I don’t think it ever will be. I said that last bit because 100LL will cease production sometime within the next decade, and will be on the decline for the duration, as such, I see no need/incentive for the Aero-Lubrication industry to invest a single dime in perfecting Synthetic oil for such an environment.
Best Regards,
Shipo
bror The 200K was done in '98 and was the TriSyn. If their new oils meet the ACEA A3 spec it should be O.K.
http://cgi.latimes.com/class/highway1/yourwheels/20020313/t000018575.html
Thanks,
Mark
adc100, thanks for the correction.
opera_house_wk, ZDDP in a pure form is probably very toxic stuff so a concentrated form of it is not likely to be available at auto parts retailers anytime soon.
Has anyone checked STP's MSDS and found out exactly how much ZDDP they have in their goo? 3%? 5%? More? I doubt it's anything greater than single digits but the exact number would be interesting to know.
--- Bror Jace
AEROSHELL OIL W MULTIGRADE 15W-50 - Composition:
Synthetic Hydrocarbon 50-60%
Hydrotreated Heavy Paraffinic Distillate 20-30%
Polymeric Additives in Oil 10-15%
Butylated Triphenyl Phosphate <1%
Flash Point: 455 degrees
Anything else I should look for?
Best Regards,
Shipo
Every chemical as soon as it is developed, has a CAS # assigned to it. Each resgistry number designates only one chemical substance.
The hydrocracked bases stocks like all other petroleum base stocks would have CAS numbers that start with 64742-
AEROSHELL OIL W MULTIGRADE 15W-50 - Composition:
68037-01-4 Synthetic Hydrocarbon 50-60%
64742-54-7 Hydrotreated Heavy Paraffinic Distillate 20-30%
MIXTURE Polymeric Additives in Oil 10-15%
56803-37-3 Butylated Triphenyl Phosphate <1%
Flash Point: 455 degrees
So, I guess that based upon your description of the CAS numbers, PAO is in fact at least 50% of the AeroShell blend.
Best Regards,
Shipo
Here are the MSDSs for two of the Non-Synthetic Aero Oils from Shell:
Composition for: AeroShell Oil W 100 Single Grade Oil:
64742-54-7 Hydrotreated Heavy Paraffinic Distillate 50-70%
64742-57-0 Hydrotreated Residual Oil 30-50%
Mixture Additives 3-5%
Composition for AeroShell Oil W 100 Plus:
64742-57-0 Hydrotreated Residual Oil 55-65%
64742-54-7 Hydrotreated Heavy Paraffinic Distillate 35-45%
Mixture Additives <5%
56803-37-3 Butylated Triphenyl Phosphate <1%
115-86-6 Triphenyl Phosphate <1%
Would these oils be considered “Synthetic” if they were sold by Castrol?
Best Regards,
Shipo
Shipo: " ... it seems that Shell at least, subscribes to the rule where Synthetic does not equate to a 'HydroCracked' cocktail."
Yes, it would appear so ... but the irony is that it was Shell that supplied Castrol with the initial batches of heavily hydrocracked mineral base stocks that Castrol then called "synthetic" starting the whole definition-of-synthetic controversy. How odd.
Um, Bob, is that "hydrotreated residual oil" mentioned on Shell's MSDS sheet the same as "Bright Stock" (Lucas Oil Stabilizer)??
Oh, and before I forget, I was in a Walmart in the greater Albany, NY area yesterday after work and found 5W30 and 10W30 SL Mobil 1.
I thought this stuff wasn't going to be available for a couple more months?
--- Bror Jace
It's been said in this town hall, that this item is good for about 100,000 miles, then God Knows what happens next! I would like to know if anyone has changed out the Factory Lube to a synthetic of some sort, to try and stretch the life expectancy of this $2000.00 item?
Concerning the supercharger oil. If I remember it right, it is filled by a special oil. It is never changed. Must be checked every 30,000 miles, and added if necessary.
The oil is an extremely low volume item. Very few cars have supercharger: I know only 4 low-volume GM models, and few MB. "Add if necessary" probably means, that most of these rare cars would need something like one or two quart during the whole life.
I doubt that any company would develop an aftermarket oil for the tiny market. Would not be surprised, however, if the original supercharged oil is synthetic already.
http://www.tosco.com/internet_pub/repository/lubes/44_tn3_4.pdf
After analyzing the article, I have come to the conclusion that SL has many improvements, and shouldn't adversely affect wear.
I also spoke with an oil expert recently and he said that it costs over 2 million dollars to get the famous donut on your oil, because of all the extensive testing. And, it has to be done separately for every single weight range sold.
told that this is a 'wear item' and the Eaton company do a brisk business with 'rebuilds'. They
don't mention anything about servicing the unit in the manual except a fluid check every 30K.
If the synthetics are already in there, as has been suggested, then I guess it's a dead issue.
However, if the bearings are making cuttings then a total oil change should be a great help to prolong the supercharger life There is an oil check hole on the side of the unit, and if I knew what was in there, I would gladly drain it out and do a change. It would be messy, but so is the thought of metal bearing debris whizzing around in 5 year old, unfiltered oil at 10,000 rpm!
I have an e-mailquestion regarding this, to Eaton supercharger Company in Michigan, but so far, no info back from them.
The Buick owners manual has no info on the unit in the Specification' section regarding amount of lube in it, or what it might be.
https://dallnd6.dal.mobil.com/GIS/MobilPDS.nsf/26b7c4b33367a4a086256665004 e4266/9337c5cedcf5e32e852567b60056db77?OpenDocument
You have to paste the 2 pieces of the URL together
"The Mobil 1 motor oils are manufactured from 100% synthetic base stocks. These include polyalphaolefins (PAO) and other Mobil synthetic fluids which make up the Mobil 1 formula"
Anyone seen the MSDS sheet or other info to verify that mobil hasn't given up on the true meaning of "synthetic"?? I bought some 10w30 SL rated Mobil1 today at Wal-Mart and it's still branded as Tri-Synthetic.
(first published in Nov., 2000 issue of Car and Driver by Patrick Bedard)
Now that the meaning if "is" has gotten so slippery you need to grab it with both hands, we'd better keep an eye on longer words, too.
One's already got so squirmy on us- "synthetic," as in synthetic motor oil.
Most guys know two things about synthetic oils. First, the price is three to four times that of conventional oils. Second, they're not real oil, not made from crude.
News flash: Scratch that second part. Now motor oils derived from crude may be labeled "synthetic." But they still cost over four bucks a quart.
Bait and switch? That's the obvious conclusion. Except in this case the advertising ethics people have given their approval.
Here's what happened, according to a detailed account published in the trade magazine Lubricants World. Late in 1997, Castrol changed the formula of its Syntec "full synthetic motor oil", eliminating the polyalphaolefin (PAO) base stock (that's the "synthetic" part, which makes up about 70% by volume of what's in the bottle) and replacing it with a "hydroisomerized" petroleum base stock.
Mobil Oil Corporation, maker of Mobil 1, "Worlds Leading Synthetic Motor Oil," said no fair and took its complaint to the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Council of Better Business Bureaus. NAD often arbitrates between feuding advertisers on their conflicting claims.
The notion behind synthetic motor oils as we've known them is an elegant one. Instead of relying on the cocktail of hydrocarbons contained in crude oil, why not go into the laboratory and build the perfect base stock from scratch, molecule by molecule, and builds it till it gets 10-carbon molecules, then combines three of those to form PAO. The result is a fluid more stable than the usual base oils derived from crude. It keeps flowing at low temperatures. It's more resistant to boiling off, and more resistant to oxidation, which causes thickening with prolonged exposure to high temperatures.
Still, there's more than one road to the point B of improved stability. Petroleum refiners in recent years have learned how to break apart certain undesirable molecules - wax, for example, which causes thickening of oil at low temperatures- and transform them by chemical reaction into helpful molecules. These new hydroisomerized base oils, in the view of some industry participants provided properties similar to PAO's but only cost half as much," Lubricants World reported.
The argument before NAD tiptoed around the obvious- does the consumer get four bucks' worth of value from each quart of synthetic oil?- and plunged straight into deep semantics. Mobil's experts said "synthetic" traditionally meant big molecules built up from small ones. Castrol's side held out for a looser description, defining "synthetic" as "the product of an intended chemical reaction."
What do unbiased sources say? It turns out that the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) and the American Petroleum Institute (API) both have technical standards covering motor oils, and both of these organizations in the '90's backed away from their old definitions of "synthetic," leaving lots of room for new interpretations.
In the end, NAD decided that the evidence constitutes a reasonable basis for the claim that Castrol Syntec, as currently formulated, is a synthetic motor oil, said Lubricants World.
The obvious question now: Has the term "synthetic motor oil" been opened up to the point that it no longer means anything? Maybe. But here's a better question: Did synthetic ever mean what we thought it meant?
"Great oil" is what most guys think it means. "At that price, it's gotta be great stuff!"
Okay, but how great? Your cars manual tells what motor oil you should use, and with few exceptions, that description will consist of only two specifications. One is for viscosity, such as 10W-30; and the other is for the API service grade, SJ being the current one for gasoline passenger cars.
The buck-a-quart multi-grades meet these standards, as do the synthetics.
The synthetics, on the back label, claim compliance with more standards, but even if you know what they mean, they seem beside the point for U.S. passenger cars. For example, should you care about diesels if you drive a gasoline burner? API service CF is the oldest of the current specs for light-duty diesels; some synthetics list that one. Synthetics may also list ACEA A1 and B1, which are European specs roughly equivelant to API gasoline and diesel specs. The Europeans grad their oils by level of performance, so that A2 and A3 are tougher specs than A1. Same for diesels. Usually the date of the spec is omitted, but A1-98 is newer than A1-96.
Completely absent is the one performance claim that would have some real meaning for all of us- some indication of longer oil life. (except for AMSOIL which clearly states 25,000 miles/1-year or 35,000 miles/1-year for their Severe Service 0W-30 synthetic). Automakers hold synthetics to the same oil change intervals as conventional oils. And the oil companies, promise even less. "To give added protection and life to your engine, change your oil every 3000 miles." This same language appears on the back of both Penzoil Synthetic and conventional oils. Valvoline synthetic makes a similar recommendation. (commentary: Since 1972 AMSOIL is the ONLY synthetic oil manufacturer in the world to guarantee 25,000 miles or 35,000 mile oil change intervals and utilizing full PAO synthetic technology exclusively).
Synthetics do get one unambiguous endorsement: Corvettes, Porsches, Vipers, and all AMG models from Mercedes-Benz come with Mobil 1 as the factory fill.
Most synthetics mention GM 4718M in their list of claims; that's the unique spec created by General Motors for Corvette oil. It's a high-temperature requirement that tolerates less oxidation (thickening) and volatility (boil-off) on a standard engine test called Sequence 111E according to engineer Bob Olree of GM Powertrain. (note: AMSOIL 0W-30 far surpasses GM's 4718M spec).
But don't expect to learn such details on any label (again, except for AMSOIL which clearly states test results on the back of every bottle of Series 2000 0W-30 and 20W-50 synthetic). Mobil 1 at least uses straight forward declarative sentences. Most of the others read as though they were written by a lawyer looking for an escape clause. Why else would the following claim be so rubbery? "Penzoil Synthetic motor oil is recommended for use in all engines requiring ILSACGF-1, GF-2, API SJ, SH, or SG, and in engines requiring oils meeting GM 4718M." Okay, but does it actually pass those standards?
"Yes" says James Newsom, Penzoil's motor-oil product manager.
Castrol Syntec, on its label, "exceeds" every standard it mentions. Hmm. Now that the meaning of "is" is in play, I have to wonder, does Syntec meet those
Best Regards,
Shipo
Apparently Mobile decided to cheapen the formulation even further by using less and less PAO base stock in the SL formulation than the SJ formulation. Remember the original Mobile 1 was all PAO then to Tri-Synthetic, and now to another Tri-Synthetic. How do I know?
The new SL 5W-30 and 10W-30 oil's pour point increased more than 15 degrees. It was -65 deg (SJ) and now it is -49 deg (SL).
People all agree that the true synthetic base stocks like PAO has a very lower pour point. This increase in pour point indicated that the PAO content is lower in the new formulation.
BTW, the 0W-40 oil still has the same old -65 degree pour point and actually its kinematic viscosity at 100 degree Celsius has increased a bit for better high temperature protection. Also the Energy Saving rating has disappeared in the 0W-40 (according to the Mobile 1 Website as I cannot find a bottle for this). See it your self at
https://dallnd6.dal.mobil.com/GIS/M...77?OpenDocument
There are some errors in the viscosity section (more numbers than the column heading indicates).