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
http://bobistheoilguy.com/videos.html
I bought into synthetic oil for a while, but I have never been convinced that the extra money was worth it for my vehicles. In short, synthetic oil companies never demonstrated that their products were superior to petrol-based products for my fairly 'average' usage.
also:. A dino oil with molybdenum could be much better at preventing wear than a synthetic like Mobil 1 with reduced levels of zinc phosphate. sorry..still no proof that any products are superior to Mobil 1 in wear via certified API sequence tests and documented 200K over the road tests. Also Mobil does not use the conventional ZDDP. BTW, although I am too lazy to post all the numbers now-but after 6165 miles my oil analysis showed .0965% zinc which may or may not be relavent.Later,
Al
As for "a dino oil with molybdenum could be much better at preventing wear than a synthetic like Mobil 1 with reduced levels of zinc phosphate" I agree with you.Unfortunatly there is some that believe that just because it's a synth, it protects better but there is no proof to that either. What Al keeps talking about with the 200,000 mile test is on their old trisynth and I don't dispute this but there is no evidence that it will do the same with the new supersyn as they haven't had time to run this same test.
i'm afraid that after anyone runs the supersyn mobil oil for a period of time will show higher levels of wear.
This will be proven out in time but the first or maybe even the second oil changes will not demonstrate this until the residual levels of barrier additives wear down from the previous oil.
When you write:
"i'm afraid that after anyone runs the supersyn mobil oil for a period of time will show higher levels of wear."
I just don't buy your opinion.
Because, when I read Mobil:
"The most significant improvement in the Mobil 1 formula is the SuperSyn™ anti-wear system. This proprietary additive system has astounding protective properties. Instead of breaking down during extreme high-stress, high-temperature conditions, the SuperSyn™ anti-wear system actually excels under these conditions."
I note that they are selling the super syn as an improved antiwear formulation -- they say that it is the best Mobil1 ever. Sure, there is a lot of BS and exageration in marketing materials, but if their product were actually worse than previous formulations, as you opine, then they would have to be total fools to sell it as an improved version.
What I think may be true is that Mobil is on to a way to increase anti-wear protection that doesn't involve the barrier lube agents you "test" for. If super syn is indeed "proprietary", that means, in and of itself, that it is different from the standard barrier lube agents.
Until I have data otherwise, I'll tend to believe their claims over someone who tests oils as a hobby and is a competitor of Mobil.
John
Al
Myself though, I believe in plain basic pure mechanics. Although this is not a valid test procedure as everyone knows, it does use plain mechanics. one force against another, heat, friction and lubrication. I have used this to compare many oils and you nor anyone else can tell me that their secret ingrediant is so good that it can't be seen by a simple mechanical device like this. The way I see it, the basic law of "for every action there is an equal and oposite reaction" is in effect here. When oil is squeezed in between two surfaces and it has a place to flow, you will see a reaction of the oil moving away from those two surfaces. I still maintain that if it is a 10w30 it will flow like a 10w30 mineral or synth , trisynth or supersyn, all the same and then you're left with what? ADDITIVES. And if this new technological additive they have cannot withstand this little test which btw is less than -extreme high-stress, high-temperature - but yet their older trisynth oil could resist this little machine. What is an engine... a basic machine that hasn't change in basic mechanics in many years. Just as this timken machine, it hasn't changed and the only thing that has is their new and improved formula that shows no promise in comparisions to their previous oils compared to barrier additives. I personally feel they are just getting a jump on the market when all the other oil companies have to reduce their antiwear additives come next years new api upgrade and this is just one way to get a head start by campaining new antiwear protection.
Time will tell as we all know.
Now this is just my personal opinion and nothing more.
Schaeffer is probably one of the best examples of this. If the additive package was the only thing that mattered, would they incur the extra expense of a paraffinic base oil with a healthy dose of PAO? Could they not achieve the same level of performance by using the same moly-fortified additive package in a cheap base stock that contained no PAO? How about using just the paraffinic base stock with little or no synthetic? It is ironic that some consider synthetic base stocks to be unnecessary and too expensive but then go on to say that their blend contains more PAO (28%) than their competitors and that it is a good thing.
Synthetic oils have shown their superiority in gear lubrication as well - in this area it is clear that additive packages alone do not cut it. I recently spoke with an engineer from one of the world's largest gearbox manufacturers to ask for some specs. on a gearbox that we were using in a machine design - his first question to me was "are you using conventional or synthetic lubricating oil?" Yes, they had a complete different set of specs. for the same gearbox when synthetic was used. (higher allowable torque, greater efficiency)
In our area in Canada, there is a large logging industry. In logging trucks that spend most of their time off-road in extremely mountainous terrain, there is only one general type of gear lube used in their differentials, synthetic. (factory fill)
Why would all these truck manufacturers bother to spend all this extra money on synthetic gear lube if a beefed-up conventional would do just as well - hell, Schaffers might even have a gear lube that blows away any synthetic in a Timken test!
In my comments above(about mobil), it is just that a good base oil is very important but you can have a good base oil that is weak in wear protection due to a week additive package as that is like kicking the horse and pulling back on the riens at the same time. Of course the opposite could exist with a higher level of barrier lube but a poor base oil stock.
My point is an oil needs to have a good balance of both and not just one thing.
As for having to have a dose of pao base stock to be good, I had demonstrated with acid in the base oil
( http://bobistheoilguy.com/videos.html ) that even the standard schaeffers mineral oil withstood very comparably with the one having the pao mix, therefore even a good mineral base oil can hold up as well.
The main difference between a mineral and a synth oil to the consumer is that a synth can withstand heat and stress longer and have a better than avg low temp pumpability than a mineral base. Does that mean it wont shear as easily? No, Does that mean it lubricates better? I don't think so, they pump the same, they flow
the same,they squeeze out the same. It is an oil, it does what any oil does, just lasts a little longer for extended oil drains. Of course I'm comparing good quality severly hydrofinished mineral based oil against a synth because we all know that there is so many different types of mineral oils and a lot don't stand up comparably as there is some that will.
I just think the lame thinking of it's a synth or if it's a major brand name it can't be bad is just as wrong as all oils are the same.
The way I see it, the basic law of "for every action there is an equal and oposite reaction" is in effect here. When oil is squeezed in between two surfaces and it has a place to flow, you will see a reaction of the oil moving away from those two surfaces. I still maintain that if it is a 10w30 it will flow like a 10w30 mineral or synth , trisynth or supersyn
Flow properties of both equal viscosities of mineral and syn oil are the same. But there is a difference in lubricating properties between the two when boundary conditions are present. Syn lubricates better than conventional oil under these conditions. I have seen friction coefficients between the two. I am looking to resurect them. Syn has a lower coefficient of friction during zero hydronamic conditions. This is due to the polar nature of the syn molecule. I recall that Esters are a little better than PAO's in this catagory. Synestic is an Ester. Check out the referenced document and scroll down to the areas where they give some bar graphs of a "4 Ball Test" and a "Bearing Ring Test" They compared ISO 32 and 68 oils of equal additive packages. One is the syn (Synesstic 32) and the other is a conventional oil (68). You will note that in both these tests, the 32 Synesstic gave the same wear results as the 68 (thicker) conventional oil. Just for info the 32 and 68 oils get their designation from being a 32 and 64 cSt viscosity at 40C. These tests were run at about 160F so basically the 32 is a 10cST oil and the 68 is a 15 cST oil at the test temp of the tests (160F)
http://www.exxon.com/exxon_lubes/tigerbytes/documents/brochures/bro0026.htm
This reinforces what brennele stated above. It also agrees with practice in industrial lubrication applications: In many (not all) cases a synthetic oil of one lower ISO classification than the mineral oil can be used. Again, this is common practice.
When you think of it- how many people have this level of interest? One in a hundred-one in a thousand??
I guess sometimes we (me included) get defensive of our opinions. Just human nature. People don't want to hear that their ideas or methods may be "wrong."
Al
When Bob does his test, and from that infers that the new Mobil 1 formulation is not as good as the previous; and when he says "i'm afraid that after anyone runs the supersyn mobil oil for a period of time will show higher levels of wear" he is making an implicit recommendation with regard to the use of that product.
Bottom line -- it's fair for people to probe the credibility of his pronouncements.
John
I see Bob's testimony as the "fly in the ointment" that the true believers in synthetic don't like. Bob suggests that today's ill-defined category of lubricants, debatably synthetic, are not the end-all of engine salvation that the zealots proclaim. I vaguely remember from many years back that the so-called Timpken bearing machine was used on TV to demonstrate the high desirability of some product. I don't believe that "barrier protection" was a term used back then. But long before any of that, Shakespeare popularized the phrase, "Much Ado About Nothing." >;^]
Much Ado About Nothing,
and almost theological at times, these oily questions.
Now, as the bard said in As You Like It
O Sir, we quarrel in print, by the book, as you have books for good manners. I will name you the degrees. The first, the Retort Courteous; the second, the Quip Modest; the third, the Reply Churlish; the fourth, the Reproof Valiant; the fifth, the Countercheck Quarrelsome; the sixth, the Lie with Circumstance; the seventh, the Lie Direct.
John
"As for having to have a dose of pao base stock to be good, I had demonstrated with acid in the base oil (http://bobistheoilguy.com/videos.html ) that even the standard schaeffers mineral oil withstood very comparably with the one having the pao mix, therefore even a good mineral base oil can hold up as well.
I guess it's time to submit your test data (especially from the Bobacid test) to Schaeffers to let them know that they don't really need the PAO in their mix - the formulators are going to really be pissed when you make them look so bad! But hey, just think of the nice fat bonus cheque that you will be entitled to!
Sir Francis Bacon, no doubt...
In a slightly different case, I drive a base Acura RSX, which Acura states should use 5w-20, with 5w-30 being ok only in an pinch, and then you should go back to 5w-20 at the next oil change. Yet both of the Acura dealers in the part of NC that I live offer only 5w-30.
So much for that recommendation.
And over on the Honda newsgroup, it was pointed out that the Honda Japan online owner's manual recommends either 0w-20, 5w-30, 10w-30, or 5w-40 for the Japanese version of the RSX (same engine), still called the Integra over there.
It's all politics, and I just can't believe that any warranty would be voided if any "reasonable" viscosity range was used.
John
My car generates the better part of torque at higher RPM (>2000).
What this translated to me was:
Car groaning when starting from a dead stop and a cold engine.
usually my car loves to rev, not so after using AMSOIL ATF.
I am changing back to regular DexronIII.
So in my case, synthetic did not work.
Although I used AMSOIL motor oil 5w-30 and liked it. Changed at 10,000 miles.
Also, is there a way to buy the old trisynth oil? I checked a few stores and all seem to carry the new oil only.
Thanks.
I have used the Amsoil ATF in about 5 cars so far all different makes with no issues like you described as yet. Perhasp a 8 oz additive would solve your problem in lieu of a complete change. Lubeguard, Motorcraft makes one etc. friction modifiers
The thing is I am not 100% sure about the extended oil drain intervals. I am just about 99% sure that my method will work and 20 minutes is not very long to change my own oil and I sleep very well knowing I am good to go. I do believe that using the synthetic every 3-4K would be superior and the cost on an annual basis is certainly not cost prohibitive, but what would I gain? I think part depends on what you're driving and how you drive. My Accord 4 banger rarely gets over 4500 RPM, is garage kept in a temperate climate, and I don't believe the synthetic offers anything to ME that the dino can't handle.
If I had the Acura RSX 6 speed that I would like to drive and was driving the piss out of it getting all 200 horses cranking, then I would be looking at synthetic - but I still think I would be changing my oil and filter every 5K at most.
At some point, maybe grade "SP" or something, synthetic may be standard grade by that point anyway, from what I understand, upcoming vehicles will be requiring even thinner oils (like 5w-10 instead of 5w-20...) than current ones do anyhow, probably require some new technology synthetics by then anyway--super-duper-syn????
sorry bout that, just got started and couldn't quit...
anyway
May all of our vehicles last long enough for us to actually want them to kick over huh?
see y'all
Rando
you could call Mobil 1's technical service
#1-800-662-4525.