Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Comments
As for Bob's comment about possibly having too much moly in redline, if moly is the primary reason you're using it, what about considering cutting it 50/50 with a high quality dino like chevron? Just a thought...
Dave
Still, I can't imagine going much longer than 7,000 miles on an oil & filter and given my test results, I am comfortable with that interval (TBN was still 4.5) and see no problems with Red Line's elevated moly levels. If I were to stretch my interval to 10,000 miles and possibly beyond, I'd more carefully watch my TBN and see how it decreased over time.
Speaking of TBN, which hurts it more: time or heat & stress? It would seem to me that TBN, the ability of an oil to protect against corrosion, would take a beating just sitting in your crankcase day after day after day. I don't know how much of an effect heat and stress have on anti-corrosive compounds.
And hey, do you know anything about the different types of moly? Do you know what "Red Moly" is? I remember hearing a reference to it but I can't remember where or any details.
n8wvi, I switched to Red Line almost a year ago because I wanted to use the best synthetic oil available. I was still under the impression that the best base oil (in this case polyol) would provide the best protection against the wear that had already occurred using other oils (mostly Mobil 1). The moly in their formula was merely serendipitous, as was its eliminating the annoying piston slap sound in my engine on cold mornings.
As for blending, plenty of blends are available commercially involving PAO and mineral oils but I would not want to purposefully blend polyol and something else. Besides, with my small sump (4 quarts) and drain interval of 7,000-7,500 miles, I am not concerned with the cost. I think I spend an additional $10-15 per year on oil changes.
Bummer on the STP Oil Extender. I remember the golden (copper?) colored bottle and the price which was not terribly attractive ... especially if people didn't know they were getting something significantly different from regular STP. I guess moly as an engine additive will remain an elusive ingredient for the foreseeable future. <:^(
--- <b>Bror Jace
I was told by technician (oil analysis) that TBN measurement is one area where errors are routinely made. I personally had a situation where a lab was reapeatedly reporting low TBN for an engine oil in an extended drain application. (under 5) I then sent another sample to a more expensive (ISO 9002-94) lab and they reported the TBN to be 8.9! This lab also had insisted that I provide a new sample of the motor oil at the time of testing. I do not know all the hows and whys, but I do know the result.
On anitioxidants - in the latest issue of Lubes-n-Greases there is an article on phosphorous in motor oils. Something I found very interesting was this quote: "ZDDP is an excellent wear and oxidation inhibitor". (Jim McGeehan of Chevron-Texaco) A point was also made that all ZDDP additives are not created equal, and that they are not all as evil as some make them out to be.
It is a ill-founded generalization ( IMO ) to say that motor oils which rely on higher levels of ZDDP for anti-wear will suffer rapid TBN loss as a result.
I have seen more than just his report using redlie that indicates higher levels of mo and more rapid tbn loss. Is that bad?, well if he was wanting to go 10,12,15 or 20,000 mile drains, it would be but for what he is doing it's fine.
Totally agree with chevron, not all barrier lubes are bad nor created equal. In most cases, it's not the qualitiy of the barrier lube but the amount that is used that has a detrimental effect on the base oil's ability to sustain.
As you'll note on my tbn page, http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/basic_lubrication_design.htm
that Metallo-organic compounds of sodium, calcium and magnesium phenolates, phosphonates and sulfonates are commonly used as detergents that apply to tbn levels
and that Zinc dithiophosphates, organic phosphates, acid phosphates, organic sulfur and chlorine compounds, sulfurized fats, sulfides and disulfides are along the lines for barrier lube properties such as zddp (some of which may cross over as double duty).
as for ill founded, OK, you got me, it is my opinion based on all the analysis reports i have seen where when higher levels of antiwear additives were present that the tbn's seem to drop at a higher level of rate than one that was not that high. Another one I found this commonly in was amsoil. Its 12 tbn would drop fairly fast as well, again, higher levels of barrier lube.
of course this isn't scientific but it does show me that every one seems to have less and less antiwear barrier lube property the newer it was.
STP 6000 mile oil extender.. first observation showed to be dark and thin fluid like, not thick as the older standard stp additive. The older stp additive plated up in a reasonable time as expected. In comparision, the newer 6k stp didn't fair as well. After the new stp plated, I then proceeded to put some extreme pressure to see if it could be sheared and without too much force i was able to lock it up. The point of this is, that if moly is present it is near impossible to shear it once plated up. so if moly was in this product i'd think it was just barely tainted and that's all. The other indicator of zddp is the caution on the bottle states don't get into eyes also is commonly used in high does of zinc. This statement is not normally indicated in moly additives.
There is a seq III test that supposedly has a cam wear test which I assume is api certified for wear but as of yet I have not seen any thing on any oil (except al who paid and then kindly posted this info from mobils web site, which i appreciate) . This also was on the pervious tri synth and not the current new supersyn oil.
Point is, To my knowledge, I have not seen any kind of data available to provide information on barrier lube wear properties on each oil. The only tests available is base oil qualitiy information only but since now minerals are now riding on synths butt with higher flashpoints and such, this now is not of any real concern as far as i'm concerned.
just a brainstorm....no scientific thought in it...
I remember a mechanic friend of mine years ago said the wax was good because it left a layer on the metal when it cooled so it would protect it next time it was started up, we always joked about making candles with Quaker State! (this was in the 70's though!)
These days oil is refined so drastically with steam/catalysts/hydrogen it ends up nothing like it starts out....you don't want any waxy buildup in a motor..
The barrier lube is a VERY thin film of almost a liquid metal type substance, not a buildup that you could really see,,,think of scraping an iron skillet with a spatula, you scrape off the grease, but the skillet is still black (the black would be the barrier lube), scrape hard enough and you see shiny metal,,,whoops now you went through the barrier lube..
Is that a good example, anybody else?
Does anyone have any experience with this additive? Any pros/cons to using this stuff? It doesn't look like there have been any FTC claims against this product, and it has been relatively old (>20 years).
so, if Lubegard is using wax as a protectant, and nobody is complaining.....
Gotta start looking back in the chemistry books soon,,,,esters are modified compounds of the basic starting componants...The Lubeguard products are very highly rated by the various transmission builders...not sure about engine builders though...liquid wax esters is NOT the same as WAX like we normally think of...
Lubeguard, from what I have read is a good product.
see ya
anybody got anything to add here?
Rando
As to moly, Schaefers makes a moly additive for oil
As to Lubeguard, well, IMHO like all additives, if your engine, tranny etc. is running well you are wasting your money as it is very probable that nothing will change. that is what happened to me with Lubeguard, no difference that I could detect.
--- Bror Jace
It have been established that the vegetable oils have a higher lubricity
>>>Vegetable oils offer a number of performance advantages as well. They have a naturally high viscosity index and thus don’t thin as readily as petroleum oils in warm temperatures, allowing some lubricants a longer life. Vegetable oils possess superior natural lubricity—the ability to reduce friction—which results in less equipment wear. <<<< ....check out
http://www.carbohydrateeconomy.org/library/admin/uploadedfiles/Harvesting_Lubricants.htm
and that is true. I see that after using AMSOIL synthetic ATF, the gears did not shift cleanly due to higher friction. After I added lubegard to the AMSOIL ATF, the shift are as clean as they can get.
anyway, since Lubegard is a wax after all, does it freeze up at 0F?
I will be trying it in a few other cars later this summer, will see. Again, no problem in the other cars but will try anyway
I took 2 clear vials and filled one with Shell SJ(5W30),the other with Chevron SL(10W30)-new,unused oil in both cases.The Chevron is VERY pale in color compared to the deep amber Shell.There is a distinct "petroleum" smell to the Shell that is totally absent in the Chevron.
I've not used a dino-blend before,so I have no comparison there.But the Chevron,to the naked eye and to the nose,appears to be very different.Admittedly,this is a most unscientific comparison,but,IMO,tells me that the new SLs are indeed something very unlike the older SJ oils.
http://analystsinc.com/about/locations/analysts_atlanta.htm
I set up another page with more videos
on more oils, ep additives, and fuel additives. http://bobistheoilguy.com/videos.html
Shell Rotell T synthetic = 100% Group III hydrotreated mineral oil
Castrol Syntec = 100% Group III hydrotreated mineral oil
Petro Canada Duron = 100% Group III hydrotreated mineral oil
Pennzoil synthetic = ~75% PAO 25% mineral oil [carrier for additives]
Valvoline Synpower = ~75% PAO 25% mineral oil [carrier for additives]
Mobil 1 SuperSyn = 100% Group IV Group V, [PAO, Ester, Alkylated Napthalene [ and,SuperSyn anti-wear additive/system, perhaps this has something to do with SuperSyn PAO ]
Delvac 1 = 100% Group IV, Group V High additve treat levels - > 50% than Mobil 1 , no SuperSyn
Redline = 100% Group IV, Group V [PAO, Polyol Ester] API SG treat levels of Zinc ,and Phosphorous, and 950 ppm Moly
Amsoil = 100% Group IV, Group V High additve treat levels
Quaker State synthetic = ~75% synthetic? [ listed as 1-decene, homoploymer, hydrogenated ] 25% mineral oil [carrier for additives]
Quaker State synthetic blends = depending on product <10% Group IV up to <30% Group IV and Group I or Group II/III
hope that helps.
bob
I hope that someone can get the definitive answer on SuperSyn.
According to Mobil:
-it is still 100% full synthetic, that is Group IV,Group V. It does NOT contain any Group III or mineral oil.
-Mobil 1 SuperSyn contains a new anti-wear additive: SuperSyn.
-ExxonMobil make a proprietary high viscosity PAO called SuperSyn which can used at low treat levels to raise PAO, Ester, or mineral oil basestock VI by 35-40 points. (1)
-an article on PAO from last year has a mention of SuperSyn PAO, which can be used as a basestock or as an additive, and can be called an additive. ((2)
"Goebel offers an intriguing idea: "It is interesting
to observe how the new PAO chemistries are being incorporated into lubricants.
Some formulations may use PAO more as an additive than as a base fluid, which
is a different approach, because of the new characteristics of our PAOs such as
SuperSyn.""
---------------
So, my guess is that SuperSyn PAO is used in Mobil 1 Supersyn as an additive to increase VI, fluid behavior, and shear rate.
Will SuperSyn turn out to be marketing hype? Or is it an improved basestock/additve?
============================
1] ExxonMobil Chemical is the world’s only manufacturer of both low and high viscosity PAOs (see summary table below) which enables you to work with a single source manufacturer to handle all of your worldwide distribution needs. With commercial viscosity grades ranging from 2 cSt to 100 cSt and exciting new products like SuperSyn™ which exceed 1000 cSt, we provide our customers the flexibility to formulate and meet the most extreme requirements.
Our PAOs provide superior lubrication for such applications as passenger car engine oils, drive line lubricants, industrial machinery and heavy-duty truck engines. Used in conjunction with our ester basestocks, PAOs are the major component of worldwide synthetic engine oils.
Synthetic lubricants formulated with PAOs provide the following benefits:
Extended drain intervals
Improved fuel economy
Enhanced wear protection
Wide ranges of temperature operation
Since PAO-based products significantly outperform mineral oil and enhanced mineral oil (Group III) based products, we can provide you with a superior PAO that will solve your specific lubricant needs.
SuperSyn
SuperSyn, a proprietary patented technology of ExxonMobil, is a high-viscosity PAO typically used at low treat rates to balance the viscometrics, shear stability and low temperature properties of a lubricant. Its viscosity ranges between 150 to 3,000 cSt at 100° C, and it mixes completely with conventional PAOs, esters and mineral oils. Used in engine oils, automatic transmission fluids, gear oil greases, hydraulic oils and other specialized applications, SuperSyn has the following features:
A viscosity index that is 35-40 units higher compared to conventional PAOs of the same viscosity grade.
A pour point that is 10-20° C lower than conventional PAOs of the same viscosity grade.
An increase of Synergistic VI when blended with mineral and synthetic base stocks.
A high viscosity with good ambient fluidity.
For more information on SuperSyn, please see our PAO product data sheet below. If you would like further information on our PAOs, please contact our Sales Offices.
PAOs (Polyalphaolefins) - Typical Properties
(PAOs) S.G. @ 15.6/15.6°C KV @ 100°C cSt KV @ 40°C cSt KV @ -40°C cSt VI Pour Pt. °C Flash Pt. °C Color ASTM
ExxonMobil SHF-20 0.798 1.68 5.20 230 - -63 155 <0.5
ExxonMobil SHF-21 0.800 1.70 5.40 245 - -57 155 <0.5
ExxonMobil SHF-23 0.802 1.80 5.80 270 - -54 150 <0.5
ExxonMobil SHF-41 0.818 4.00 18.0 2,800 123 -57 218 <0.5
ExxonMobil SHF-61/63 0.826 5.80 30.0 7,800 133 -57 240 <0.5
ExxonMobil SHF-82/83 0.833 7.90 47.0 20,300 135 -54 250 <0.5
ExxonMobil SHF-101 0.835 10.0 68.0 38,000 136 -54 265 <0.5
ExxonMobil SHF-403 0.850 40.0 400 - 152 -39 288 <0.5
ExxonMobil SHF-1003 0.855 107 1,340 - 179 -33 290 <0.5
SuperSyn™ 2150 0.850 150 1,500 - 214 -42 220 <0.5
SuperSyn™ 2300 0.852 300 3,200 - 235 -30 235 <0.5
SuperSyn™ 21000 0.856 1,000 12,000 - 305 -18 235 <0.5
SuperSyn™ 23000 0.857 3,000 35,700 - 388 -9 235 <0.5
2] PAO's
Window of Opportunity?
BY DAVID MCFALL
The auto industry is a few months away from issuing draft specifications for
the next generation of motor oils. But there have been enough talk and hints to
reasonably infer that these improved "GF-3" oils will require a substantial
tightening of volatility. "Volatility" as measured by the principal, European
test called NOACK, is the amount of oil lost (the light molecules) over time at
a given temperature and pressure. It has a direct impact on high temperature
engine oil effectiveness-especially on viscosity, emissions and oil
consumption. Today's oils have a NOACK volatility limit of 22 percent.
Volatility losses for the coming GF-3 oils-due on store shelves just after the
turn of the century could quite possibly be limited to 15 percent for all
grades.
To meet this stricter requirement, there's a good chance that motor oils made
with conventional, solvent refined base oils will have to be supplemented with
a performance "boost" of hydroprocessed base oil or a synthetic base oil-that
is, polyalphaolefin (PAO).
This was clearly on Don Johnson's mind when he pointed to the new, half-billion
dollar, hydrocracking refinery brought on line earlier this year by Pennzoil
and Conoco at Lake Charles, La. "We now produce a leading technology base
stock," noted the Pennzoil vice president for product support, "... [and]
strongly believe that this kind of base stock will be needed to formulate for
GF-3."
But Dave Goebel, Mobil Chemical Co's. worldwide synthetic fluids business
manager, upon reading this might well jump to his feet and proclaim, "Hold on.
Not so fast." Mobil Chemical has been producing a leading base stock for
decades and strongly believes it may be an important part of GF-3 formulation.
It's called polyalphaolefin, a fully synthetic base stock.
Johnson and Goebel may both be right. The question is how much of each for
GF-3? And, of course, at what price?
Making PAO
In a late August interview, Jim Willis, manager of Mobil Chemical's Beaumont,
Texas, facility, described the PAO manufacturing process in his plant. Willis's
family has deep roots in both the Beaumont area and with Mobil: in 1929 his
father began work at the Mobil refinery and Willis has now completed his own
37th Mobil year-with a few more to go.
"Conceptually, it's really pretty simple," described Willis. "Mineral
paraffinic lubricant base oils are obtained by separating out, that is
removing, certain non-beneficial parts of the feedstock. Synthetic base oils,
PAOs, on the other hand, start with a specified petrochemical feedstock which
is
I did what you do not feel is proper, I did drain and fills inlieu of a flush.. First one was at 25,000 with a filter change and synthetic, granted, only about 50% was changed. then did drain and fills every 30,000 with synthetic. At 143,000 I had the pan droppes, cleaned tha magnets and new filter. So beeen doing the drain and fill on this 92 Camry since 25,000, tranny still appears fine. I personally don't trust the flush machines and their technicians. More interested in a quick job and a buck IMHO.
We use to do this with out a machine, broke the line loose, started engine and kept pouring in new oil till dark oil was new looking. No difference now adays except with a machine and doesn't require running your engine.
How about Lubricity? viz. the able to let sliding parts slide with greater ease?
Why do we take that for granted?
see ya
Rando
When cold it was about the same, around 80 PSI. When warm the conventional is about 45 PSI where the synthetic is closer to 60. I may be wrong, but the gage is higher when the oil runs thinner. Is this proof that synthetic really does flow better at operating temperatures? Any enlightenment would be appreciated.
My former oil was Quaker State Synthetic.
I agree about "a quick job and buck." All they have to do is kink a cooler line and all of a sudden, $$$$$$$! One of the local quickie lube places does the machine thing for ATF. I was standing in line at Walmart one day. Some guy was telling his friend he'd had the auto fluid done there. Sent chills up my spine and it wasn't even my truck.
Nothing against the employees but I question their competence to be messing with my $2000 or so transaxle. If I go the machine route I figured I'd have it done at the dealer I bought it from last summer. (2001 Protege) Hate to mix new fluid with old. Do you guys use the synthetic ATF??
My Subaru has an oil gage. I noticed that when warm the oil pressure on the conventional is about 45 PSI, where the PSI on the synthetic was normally at 55 when freeway cruising. Higher pressures also occur when the engine is cold.
Does this mean that synthetic actually flows faster at normal operating temperatures?
so it probably is showing higher actual pressure because it loses less through out the engine...
I thought there was a pressure regulator before the filter though , which would mean only so much pressure allowed at that point anyway,,,,but really slick oil may be keeping better overall pressure through the remainder of the engine,,,good for you!
I have never used synthetic so I have never been able to compare it myself.
bobistheoilguy "Engine Sludge/Oil Gelling--Toyota's Customer Response" May 3, 2002 5:42am
is a complete 180 degree turn from what you have been previously trying to educate us...I Wonder why?
So please help me out and show me what I have said different,as I can't put my hands on anything different.
thanks.
bob
Took an oil sample today and I was disappointed that the tube they gave with the squeeze bottle did not get to the oil sump. Apparently there is a crimp or something at the bottom of the dipstick tube. Had to do a sample with the drain process.
Anyway it will be interesting to see the comparison between the TriSyn and the Supersyn. Hopefully I have enough cars to work with. 6 if I decide to splurge. That's $360 for 12 samples. I may limit it to 4 vehicles. Don't really care about the '94 Toy Truck anymore or the son-in-law's '98 Quest. I'll be consistent and go with the same filters and same milage. By the time I get the results they will be out with super-super-tri-syn.
Now u are blaming the oil industry and praising toyota for making a high quality engine that is not worthy of regular oils available in the market.
The Toyota engine design vs. oil "design" discussion may hopefully be a defining moment in lube history. Is this not where decreasing the specs of oil certification (ie wear additives) has caught up to the increasing demands of engine performance?