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
In reality, oils are all sorts of colors when new and the darkening has very little to do with anything.
Isn't this the real argument:what I prefer?Does anyone really KNOW that syn is better?I don't.So I'll use my Chevron SL happily,and change at reasonable intervals,with a decent filter until I think something more than marginally better comes along.JMO
If the detergents in the oil are working then the oil will pick up the crud and suspend it in the oil, the oil will carry it through the engine and the filter will filter it out. The oil will turn dark because of that, the filter is not designed to be able to take out small particles that can still discolor the oil, if it was efficient enough to do that it would NOT last long enough for any reasonable service life and would cost a fortune (and would NOT be a high flow rate filter either).
If the oil is not getting dark fairly quickly then I would be wondering just where the carbon is going...or where it is staying...
example:
try taking some dirty chassis grease and rubbing it on your hands, try cleaning it with clear mineral oil (baby oil),,,doesn't clean it just makes it oily...add some dish liquid and now the suds are dirty,,,,,carbon is suspended now.
Is that a good example?
see ya
Rando
bottgers:So by saying synth is superior because it "suspends this crud as well as or better than dino",how can you say "while remaining cleaner longer"?The same amount of "crud" is in both.They ar equally dirty (unless synth causes superior filtering).
Or people who are bothering about synthetic oil are also bothering about better filters?
If a filter was good enough to get that small size of particulate, it would be a very high $$$ and a very LOW flowrate filter...one of the bypass auxiliary filters for example could do that, but NOT the Wix/Pure-one/Champion..etc spin on filters that most of us on here use.
Even the good ones like Pure-one for example only get the stuff that can reasonably be assumed to cause any identifiable oil-grit-related wear or damage...the smaller stuff can make the oil dark but is just not worth the extra $$$$$ to get out of the oil.
Anybody who tries to use synthetic oils for extended drain purposes is WELL advised to change filters..(any filter)..midway through.
It's just basic filtration mechanics...dirt happens...filters clog up...filters get changed...life goes on
Just because oil is expensive does not automatically guarantee that it does EVERYTHING better than what it can replace. Marketing (and possibly misleading lab tests...I once had an algebra teacher prove 2=3) sometimes leads us pretty far away from well worn paths...
Which incidently brings me to my next question... If the price were the same would you get conventional or synthetic?
2. Although I use dino, I think that syn. is probably better-- just not that much better.
3. I don't side with the heavy oil folks, or the thin oil folks. Use 10W30 most of the year-- viscosity improvers can be a bad thing in excess.
4. I start using STP (or Wal-Mart equiv.) as cars age at about 75,000 miles. When the new converter friendly oils replace SL, I'll probably consider adding it to all my cars. Car manufacturers are more concerned with converter warranty work than making sure your engine lasts 200K.
5. We all need to get a life. Many people get good results with their cars taking them to Jiffy Lube when they think about it. Most oils probably do a pretty good job of lasting at least 5K.
19157 miles on vehicle
Oil drain interval- 6165 miles
Mobil 1 10W-30
Car is a work buggy- Distance to work22 miles (one way) It does get a lot ov short trip shopping trips at less than 3 miles.
Iron 41 chromium 3 nickel 1 aluminum 9 lead 9 copper 97 tin 3 silver <.1 titanium < 1 silicon 59 boron 40 sodium 11 potassium 63 moly 7 phos 781 zinc 974 calcium 863 barium<10 magnesium 1890 antimony<30 vanadium <1
Fuel% 1 % Soot < .01 H2o < .1
vis 100C (cSt) 10.8
SAE Grade 30
TBN 6.06
As you can see the oil held up very well. Wear products very good except for copper which is probably anti-sieze. Silicon is non-abrasive form from gaskets. Looks like 6K is very conservative. This oil was changed because my son is conservative. I should have the results of my 01 Sentra shortly which also had about the same miles on drain interval and the Vehicle is slightly lower milage (17K).
I of course elected to put on a new K&N oil filter and "blindly" trust that the oil is still good!!
Have been on vac for a while so I have lots of posts to read. As far as the dark oil issue. My experience in many years and many cars is that dark oil is usually (not always) caused by rings which allow more oil usage and higher levels of soot. In every case of at least 20 vehicles over the years: Vehicles where oil stayed clean there was considerable less oil usage. In all cases where oil stayed clean- the car remained in perfect working order into the 100K range. I personally am not happy withy dirty oil because it translates to loose or worn or broken rings (again in my experience).
The Pontiac above is an example-very clean oil-no detectable oil usage-ver low soot level. My Sentra is exactly the same. Soot will be very low.
When will Chevron(or anyone) wise up and make and PROMOTE an additive made just for their oil???That would be a work-around for the vaunted API symbo.In the meantime,I'll happily use an oil which is MUCH BETTER than older dinos(which did pretty darn well with reasonable intervals).And I'll feel "smug" in knowing that I not only save $3.50 a quart,but I dump out all the "dirt" every 3,500 miles that floats around in long-interval synths(along with the acid,water,etc.).And I get a more frequent look at the undercarriage for potential problems.And I don't feel the need to use $10 filters,or do $20 a throw analyses that seem nebulous in scope from posts that we've seen.
Maybe it's time to concentrate on the parts that "kill" more cars than oil-related engine failure;like transmissions going bad!
I really think the lube game is changed forever with the advent of the now undeniable merging of synthetics and the petroleum oils. Current thinking in the petroleum theory area seems to be turning to the idea that the dinosaurs had little to do with petroleum formation. It is coming into prominence to consider that primordial methane may be the building block, not dead dinos.
Do you really mean to say that when one has an engine that darkens its oil, you would diagnose this as having "loose or worn or broken rings"?
So why is this simple question SOOOOO hard to answer??
As far as the black oil and rings, I'm not about to debate it from a scientific standpoint. But statistically there must be something to it based on my experiences. It also falls into the realm of common sense.- Rings being loose or broken or not seated lets more oil out and more carbon in. The theory with the syn oil not turning black as soon is probably less oxidation plus for some reason (really sort of unknown) syn oil seals better around the ring area. The reason is probably due to the nature of the syn having a better affinity for metal. This information is 5 to 10 years old. Perhaps there is a better reason for it today.
So I'm supposed to believe that any SL rated dino is just as good as syns? Or is it just the Chevron SL? If so, what's difference with the Chevron SL? Why is SL rated dino (or Chevron) just as good as syns?
That's EASY! It is because the definition of synthetic has shifted and has been repeatedly degraded/altered from what it was say, 20 years ago. At this point, as this thread demonstrates, none of us knows what synthetic means-- as it currently applies. Some outfit has published a standard, and everyone including some court of law has decided to capitulate. Perhaps by the time I post this, the definition will be changed again.
what should be of most concern to tried and true synthetic users is "What am I getting now for the extra bucks I'm spending?"
Thanks for your input, this is quite an interesting discussion. Caveat emptor!
I'm banging the drum of Chevron Supreme and the other SL regular oils that offer these hydrocracked or base II or base III stocks or whatever they are. But...if everything on the shelf was the same price, I would buy one that truly had synthetic roots. Something like Redline, Amsoil, or Mobil 1, I guess. Why? Because their specs are a little better than the non-synthetics. At least I think so.
I'm not convinced that synthetic engine oil makes a difference for most people in how well their engine runs or how long the engine lasts, though. And since the prices AREN'T the same, I am not spending 4 times more for synthetic.
Does the darkness of an oil, relative to its brand-new color, an indicator of the oil's cleanliness? If not, then how in the world can someone make a determination on how clean the oil is? Is that one of the main things that an oil analysis tells you? Which aspects of the oil analysis are indicators of cleanliness-- levels of silicon, etc.? I didn't think the color of the oil had anything to do with cleanliness, but maybe it does.
At least one person here has recently equated "dirty oil" with "dark-colored oil." I had been thinking that was a bogus theory, but I suppose it could be correct.
The other theory I am struggling with is the "dirty oil is bad" theory. It seems that the oil darkening with age is an indicator of good things, not bad things. I guess I have been assuming that the darkness of the oil had no bearing at all on how suitable it was to remain in service-- in other words, how badly it needed to be changed.
Your silicon is elevated, as armtdm pointed out but, I would not be concerned that it is from dirt as aluminum is where it should be.
BTW-- Let me give a plug for Bobistheoilguy's new forum. Great stuff in there. Because of the narrowness of the scope, topics can be hammered which would be closed down on Edmunds. I feel safe giving a plug, because there was some positive references to going to Edmunds on their new site. Anyway the new format is a big improvement, Bob. Congratulations.
http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi
Until Chevron says that is is a Isosyn base you can only fairly assume that it uses Conventional Dino as a base with some synthetic to improve its quality.
Even with the new SL classification at least 5 bottles of synthetic and syn blend indicate that the synthetics are more durable. They've been making this statement for at least 15 years to my knowledge. Oil analysis has shown more durability also.
malachy: It appears that Mobil has taken a "If I didn't beat 'em, I'll join 'em" approach. I guess What leads you to this conclusion? They only "evidence" available is that the pour point is higher and that is probably because the SuperSyn ingredient (Which is a PAO) is a higher viscosity with a very high viscosity indes. I suspect they now use less polimer to get the proper viscosity at 100 degrees C. Thats just a guess. But any information you could share is appreciated. As I have said previously, I am not a Mobil 1 fanatic- But the information about their oil is much more abundant than other oils.
1. If that is so why is Mobile selling a 0w-30 stating that it will be the best in miles per gallon results?
2. How much of a difference is there between a 0w-30 and a 5-w20?
3. And finally, am I sacrificing anything if I run the 0w-30 in my Tribute this next oil change, or, should I just stick with the 5w-30?
Thanks in advance for any and all advice on the above, please remember when you answer that you are talking to a guy who’s only knowledge on the subject is where to drain it, where to pour it, and to make sure I change the filter each time.
ps. If I am going to pay for synthetic, I want a true synthetic not a hydrocracked (although I have already made the mistake once and bought Castrol) what are the true synthetics, like amsoil, that are on the market.
While I don't know if they used this exact procedure, but a spectrum analyzer can pinpoint with ease whatever was in the oil sample.
Also the synthetic oil ALSO had to meet the new SL test designation, so to say it went the Castrol court ruling way, would take a bit more technical research and familiarity than most folks are willing to sit through. Suffice to say that if INDEED you could demonstrate or prove that Mobil is lying when it tells you their synthetic oil is synthetic, you'd be rolling in a lot more money than you are now. The lawyers that usually get 1/3 of the take will also thank you!
malachy: It appears that Mobil has taken a "If I didn't beat 'em, I'll join 'em" approach. I guess What leads you to this conclusion? They only "evidence" available is that the pour point is higher and that is probably because the SuperSyn ingredient (Which is a PAO) is a higher viscosity with a very high viscosity indes.
>>
The flash point is lowed as well. Now try to explain that with your theory.
It is a double squeeze here. Pour increased and flash decreased (by quite a bit, especially in the 10W-30 viscosity). It has to be the base stock, IMHO.
The issue centered around whether you could call hydro cracked stock synthetic or whether or not the PAO or manufactured stock synthetic. While I have not seen the transcripts of the trial, I would hazard a guess that the lines were blurred based on the effects of the hydro cracked oil blended with patent law.
malachy: It appears that Mobil has taken a "If I didn't beat 'em, I'll join 'em" approach. I guess What leads you to this conclusion? They only "evidence" available is that the pour point is higher and that is probably because the SuperSyn ingredient (Which is a PAO) is a higher viscosity with a very high viscosity indes.
>>
The flash point is lowed as well. Now try to explain that with your theory.
It is a double squeeze here. Pour increased and flash decreased (by quite a bit, especially in the 10W-30 viscosity). It has to be the base stock, IMHO.
I noticed something a little strange when I was looking at oil labels the other day. Every brand and type of oil I looked at was SL rated except for the SuperTech full syn. It still has the SJ rating. Would any of you happen to know why this is? I thought ALL oils HAD to be SL rated now.
Probably yes, but this seems to be a period of transition. I have actually gotten some good buys on SJ rated oil(Mobil One synthetic
OK... I'll extend my theory to the fact that the Flash point is lower, the pour point is higher, and the VI is higher (for this new PAO called "SuperSyn). There is really no reason to suspect otherwise. BTW I have adressed the question to Mobil via email about the higher pour point of the new blend. I did not ask about the lower flash point. Theorectcally the "SuperSyn" ingredient has been used in Mobil's Racing Generation oils for several years on the basis of it's superior lubricating qualities. It stands to reason they would not use a hydroprocessed oil to (which is known to be an inferior lubricant to PAO) for their racing technology. I really do agree that all big companies will screw the customer every time if it serves their interests and their bocketbook. Mobil is probably not different here (IMHO).
currey The 0W or 10W is the viscosity at about 100F and the 30 or 20 is the viscosity at 210F. So for all operating conditions below 210 (which is like always the oil in your crankcase will be slightly thinner with the 0W. That is starting with a thinner base stock 0W vs 10W - the polymer works over the temperature range so both oils are 30 wt by 210F. Does that make sense? I would really recommend the the 10W vs the 0W- you just don't need the 0W in Florida. As I attempted to explain above, that will give you a little more viscosity (spelled protection) throughout the range (IMHO) Also the polymer needed to create this spread will be less. Less polymer-less oil sheardown or breakdown-according to some. I don't really know.
As far as using the 0W-20 or xx-30. I personally wouldn't have purchased either of these vehicles (Ford/Handa), bc the 20 wt. thing is a bs ploy for a higher CAFE. I hate to play games with the warranty issue. Having said that I would use the 10W-30(syn only) and worry about the consequences later. Even common sense dictates that vehicles for which 30wt. is specified can safely use 40 and even 50 wt. As far as the difference in viscosity between the 20 and 30 wt. The vis of 20 wt is about 250 SSU and the 30 is 400 SSU. Basically that means that at 210F the 20 wt takes 250 seconds to flow through a standard orifice and the 30 wt takes 400 seconds. Sorry for the rambling-I warned you.