Synthetic motor oil

bigorange30

I didn't say I was planning on using it. I just saw it at the dealer and wanted to hear about some real world experience before I considered it further. There has not been a ruling yet on whether or not the claims really are unsubstantiated. If the company can or has presented proof, they will be allowed to continue. I don't get all emotional over what someone says if there isn't sufficient proof to back it up. I want to see some real proof before I consider it.

mrdetailer

because their own lab tests that they used to sell the product indicate twice the bearing wear over conventional oil.

Also sued because all it contains is mineral oil.

The only oil additive the holds up to its claims is lubegard, and that for transmissions, not engines. (I received all of Lubegard's data and manufacturers recommendations enough to convince me that the transmission stuff is real. Also developed in conjunction with government.)

malachy72

is in bed with a ZMAX rep!

bottgers

I haven't read one bit of factual info that states oil additives, or engine treatments actually offer ANY benefits. Every one so far has been just snake oil.

adc100

As mrdetailer indicated, this is the one product that really is ligit and delivers. I believe Volvo either recommends it or puts it in their vehicles. Many trans shops put it in to help avoid reworks. I put it in all of my auto's. Its salty $10, but so are auto trans.

fleetwoodsimca

You might include one or more STP products in the proven category. Think anti-wear/barrier.

adc100

There is still the element of the unknown. Lubrication manufacturer spends lots of time tweeking his additive package for optimal performance. Who knows what and how it will react with latest generation additives.I guess oil analysis would be in order here. It would be interesting if anyone using STP could compare oil samples with/without. Is STP just thick as it used to be and if so I wonder why???

BTW-speaking of oil analysis- I should get the results of my oil analysis in my 2001 Sentra. First oil change at 30 with Mobil 1, second at 4K, third at 13K and the one I took ath oil analysis at-18+K. I did not change at this sampling-just put on a new filter. Hope its OK bc I put on a $10 K&N filter. I'll post results.

armtdm

You have an engine or tranny that you are looking at a major overhaul. Then you have nothing to lose. If engine or tranny is running fine you will, 99% of the time, have no results that you can measure. I have tried many of them, even Lubeguard (no diff in operation but again, tranny was fine to begin with) . Don't follow my example and waste your money, these products do nothing if your engine or tranny is operating fine and has been serviced reasonably well using good products. You use Mobil 1, don't screw up the works.

mrdetailer

I credit Lubegard with saving transmissions in 3 of my cars and 5 in my immediate family. I buy older cars and the transmissions are not in the best shape. Lubegard always quiets and smooths them.

My son has a 1997 Mazda with the notorious CD4E transmission so famous for failure. He naively assumed that when he purchased the vehicle at 30K that the used car dealer had changed the transmission fluid. At 60K it would rev up to about 5000 RPM before it would shift. Then it was very hard. I took it to my Mazda Specialist (20 years with the dealership) They said that one of parts (solenoid?)was worn. The fluid was almost completely black and smelled really burnt. The mechanic completely flushed the tranny fluid and added Lubegard. It immediately worked correctly, and has been smooth for the last year. Total Cost $87.00 vs $2300 for a new tranny. For transmissions, this additive is real.

Increased cost $7-10 from Napa. A no brainer.

fleetwoodsimca

Your imperical evidence sounds very real, favoring Lubeguard. I'll keep it in mind for future use.

STP oil treating products contain olefin copolymer and zinc dialkyldithiophosphate, as does the Walmart Super Tech Oil Treatment. STP 6000 Mile Oil Extender additionally contains Molybdenum, according to the letter they sent me in response to my inquiry. I have used STP products off and on (as needed or desired) for many years, and with success. The gain is in barrier protection and anti-wear characteristics, as well as some of the products boosting viscosity at the same time.

armtdm

You had sick trannies which is what I basically said. Try it in a well running transmission and let me know if you see a diff. I sure did not.

mrdetailer

and the only difference I could see was slightly smoother shifting. But since it fights acids and reduces heat, for the low cost it will always be in a transmission that I own.

armtdm

You assume that it does as noted, there actually is no proof of it., Also, look at the marketing hype, very slick brochure, really, really looks good, scientific, etc except they fail to tell you the name of the independent lab that did the tests. this is the same language as snake oil.

adc100

2001 Sentra 2L-Aluminum Engine
Vehicle miles 18199
Oil drain 5419
Mobil 1 10W-30

Oil Analists, Inc

Iron 22
Chromium 2
Nickel < 1
Aluminum 8
Lead 14
Copper 6
Tin < 1
Silver <.1
Titanium < 1
Silicon 29
Boron 50
Sodium 6
Potasium < 10
Moly < 5
Phos 762
Zinc 813
Calcium 758
Barium < 10
Magnesium 1507
antimony < 30
vanadium < 1

Fuel < 1%
Total Solids < .02%
H2O < .1%
Vis 100C cSt 9.8
Sae Grade30
TBN 7.06

Note the Viscosity. Mobil Spec sheet is 9.8
All in all pretty OK. I'm extending this interval. Don't think I will go more than another 3K though.

Any thoughts??

bluedevils

No offense, but couldn't the same exact things you mentioned in #4014 be said of Amsoil or any other engine oil?

You've had good results with Amsoil in your vehicles, but can you really attribute it to the oil? mrdetailer has had good results with Lubeguard. Maybe Lubeguard is partially or wholly responsible for that success; maybe not.

armtdm

Totally agree. Amsoil does not provide the lab either. Marketing hype as well.

armtdm

Basically good. Slightly high iron which may be normal for this engine and silicon as well but at 19,000 miles could still be silicon seals and gaskets.Iron and silicon can be a bad combination but at this point one analysis does not a problem make.

I have had many samples at the same miles on the oil much worse then yours and engine still strong at 145,000

vcheng

... are two different things.

Silicon is an element, symbol Si, found as oxides and silicates in sand. Hence silicon in oil is dust contamination. This silicon is NOT used for seals.

Silicone is a group of long chained compound with an Si backbone with hydrogen and other groups attached, similar to hydrocarbons, with Si replacing the carbon. This is a large group of compounds, also found in seals and rubberized products.

Thus Silicon and Silicone are NOT synonymous as far as oil analysis is concerned.

bottgers

.....snake oil. Something's got to work, or everyone's engines and trannies would be siezed up! I guess it's just a matter of finding out which one's the best of those products that do work.

malachy72

show silicon and silicone?

And Bottgers, the question for many additives is,"if they do no good, do they do no harm?"

loyola

I agree with armtdm, put Lubegard on my 92 Camry (145K, original tranny ) with no improvement. Car been using Redline D4 for 5 years. I think all I gained was a hole in my pocket.

adc100

Why is it then that a previous report where the silicon was high stated "Silicon level is attributed to non-abrasive gasket/seal material."?

vcheng

I wouldn't know why a report would attribute silicon to gasket/seal material. They are simply two different things. Ignorance perhaps?

adc100

I really don't think its ignorance. This company (Oil Analysts is well respected in industry). Anyway I talked to an analyst there and he indicated that "silicon" is present in dirt (as silicon-dioxide), in "silicon" and gasket material. They only test for the element (silicon). They base their catagorization on whether there is a higher level of iron present or not. A low level of iron "generally" implies that the silicon is the nonabrasive type as in "silicone". A higher level implies that the silicon is of the abrasive nature (silicon-dioxide or "dirt") Now that they indicated-I recall armtdm said that some time back.

vcheng

I think I can accept what you write as being eminently sensible.

bottgers

I'm not talking about additives now, I'm talking about motor oils. Someone was saying that motor oils might even be snake oil. I'm saying they can't all be snake oil. I think we've pretty much established that additives are a total waste of money.

bottgers

....on a well deserved championship!

fleetwoodsimca

I would make an exception for additives that increase the levels of anti-wear ingredients such as ZINC DIALKYLDITHIOPHOSPHATE and MOLYBDENUM.

armtdm

Oil analysis cannot detemine the cause of the silicon, it does not know (given the simple analysis performed) where the element came from; dirt seals etc. I believe this is what my lab informed me so check it out.

malachy72

on one of "Bob's" boards that AMSOIL is now going the Castrol route for one of their oils to remain competitive. The domino theory in action.

fleetwoodsimca

My take on this is that a court of law ruled in Castrol's favor (and I think rightly so) that if process X produces product Z, and process Y produces product Z, and given that process X is referred to as "synthetic oil production," then it is legitimate to refer to process Y as "synthetic oil production" as well.
In both cases, product Z is "manufactured" oil that mimics very tight fractions of molecules historically produced in cracking towers in the classic petroleum refining process. I don't see a problem here.

In fact, I see the market place demanding other than outrageous prices for "synthetic" motor oil, and Chevron (I think!) found the way to produce the base oils in a less costly fashion (if we presume the old way was costly rather than just grossly over-priced for huge profit).

adc100

.

yurakm

And not every artificail manufacuring is synthesis, at least is strong sense of the word.

As I remember from high school, synthesis is combining something simplier into more complicated. Would it be in chemistry, nuclear physics (fusion = synthesis), or in gnoseology (philosophy of knowledge), where synthesis is oposed to analysis.

On the other hand, words are used less precisely outside of science.

malachy72

hopefully now indicates a "win" for consumers! Looks like there will be better lubricants at more reasonable prices (Chevron?). Again, I am not emotionally attached to any type of oil, but as any economic theorist will tell you, competition will improve the marketplace.

fleetwoodsimca

True, synthesis is a combining, and not a fracturing process. And please note that I made no such claim to the contrary. I was very precise and careful to point out that: I am led to believe that a court of law made the decision, be it right or wrong of the court in your opinion, that manufacturing extremely similar products via two different processes entitles both kinds of producers the right to sell the final product under a common identifying term-- in this case using the word synthetic to differentiate the product from the "natural" product. Try a peek at an UNABRIDGED Webster's and you'll possibly be able to see the pathway to the decision of the court.
malachy72 Agree! My interest is in getting an engine lubricant that appeals to my own sense of the OPTIMUM, where quality of product and price are the major variables.

malachy72

What is the value, i.e., a combination of price and quality.

bottgers

Value was the driving factor for me to switch to the Chevron. If the Chevron @ $1.25 per quart, will provide at least the same level of protection at 5K change intervals, compared to 10K intervals for the SuperTech syn @ $2.97 per quart, or 15K intervals for the Mobil 1 at $4.75 per quart, the Chevron is the better value. Legally speaking, the Chevron is as much of a syn as the SuperTech is since they're both hydrocracked. Is the Mobil worth the extra $$$ because it's a PAO?

arkainzeye

i use amsoil 2000 series 0w30 oil. it's around $8 a QT. and i only change it at 7.5k miles to 8k miles. i know i could go longer with the intervals. But i look at it like this. It's your engine, and the oil is the blood of your engine. If you were to go to the hospital and need a blood transfusion, and they told you well we have the "good stuff" or some blood we got on sale from another hospital. Which would you want for yourself? I use amsoil fully syn fluid in everything. transmission, transfer case, front and rear axle blah blah blah. To me it is silly to only worry about your engine oil, when there is more to your car/suv than just your engine. yeah that's great if you have a engine that lasts 6 billion miles, but are you saving money if your trany goes? so that is why i use ALL syn fluids in my suv. but about using cheaper priced oil. If you have to worry about pinching pennies on oil, then maybe you bought a car/suv that is out of your price range.? I will never buy welfare oil or anything like that for my suv. but yet at the same time i bought a car that i can own without owning me...

malachy72

if you pay more, it's better.

bottgers

I used to think that too, but some in this topic have brought forth enough info to question that statement.

fleetwoodsimca

What is that?

adc100

I agree, but you are kicking a dead horse. Oil is oil-it all comes in a plastic bottle(to most people) $1.25's just to easy to pass on. I think if I were a young struggling person with a mortage and kids to raise with an 88 neon in the driveway, I would use the $1.25 stuff. Also if I liked crawling under the car. I just have better things to do-and at 56 maybe not enough time to do them and vehicles are to expensive for a second thought-oil is chump change. Fortunately, I'm past the stage of penny pinching. I'm still careful with money, But I have no problem paying for quality.

I also have full syn in all my transmissions, differentials and transfer case in both vehicles. Switched all fluids in my '94 4WD Toy shortly after purchase with Amsoil products when I sold the stuff. I still think Amsoil makes good products.

My 01 Sentrta(converted to syn as soon as I got it home) oil analysis turned out real well at 5.5K so I spun on a new filter and good to go.

I did though today stick a piece of tygon tubing in the dipstick tube to drain a quart and add a quart of 15W50 SuperSyn. It does have moly and a higher level of zinc than their other oils. I'm curious to see if it will drop milage.

I'm real interested in the full synthetic straight weight full syn made by Shaffer's. It has moly and oil analysis seem to do better than Amsoil and Mobil 1. Pout point is I think -40F-more than good enough. Delvac 1 is also a possibility. We'll see.

Later

csandste

I think the excellent specs. with the Chevron oil proves that oil doesn't have to cost an arm and a leg to provide great protection.

I also believe almost any SL oil is quite good and that branding of oil is often a way to get people to lay out extra $$$ for advertising.

For example, within the QS/PZ family, Pennzoil specs. very good indeed, almost up with Chevron. Quaker State specs. a bit worse than the Wal-Mart house brand Super Tech, and Wolf's Head does look like an inferior product. They can sell SuperTech for 79 cents a quart because a good portion of any oil's cost is marketing, plain and simple.

Does anyone remember Kliban, an earlier version of Gary Larson of Far Side fame? An old Kliban cartoon showed a rabbit, [non-permissible content removed] over a conveyer belt dropping pellets. The conveyor belt empties into a box labeled raisins. The caption read "Marketing". If you believe there's "welfare oil", you're buying those raisins.

malachy72

always did better in less privileged areas. Why? They did the shame/guilt sales pitch. "Don't you want to give your child the every advantage?" It is a very popular technique, especially when the product's marginal value is questioned.

malachy72

In the big scheme of things motor oil is chump change. That being said , I would rather lose money at the track, a casino, or over tip by 2X for good service at a restaurant (unless I thought the server would spend it on synthetic oil! LOL) than be manipulated by "marketeers". It just my nature to be competitive in that way. Again, this is a fun discussion, everyone is entitled to make their purchases as they see prudent. Hopefully, at the end of the day we all know a little bit more than we did before.

adc100

Very true.

bigorange30

You said in post #4043:

"I'm past the stage of penny pinching."

when talking about buying synthetic. Do you not believe that you are actually saving money using synthetic? I know some here don't believe that but I have proved it to myself. The real penny pincher with any kind of intelligence and a calculator uses synthetic oil. I will save $300/year in gas and go to get my oil changed 4 less times/yr after switching to Mobil1 full synthetic. These cheaper synthetics have not proven themselves worthy to me yet but I do believe your throwing money away needlessly if you use dino.

bottgers

The only way to truely find out which oil is the most economical is to find out how long each can SAFELY go between changes, and to accurately assess how each affects your fuel economy.

ruking1

#4049

That to me is the issue in a nutshell. When the conventional oil ie Chevron SL can go 12-15k with no problem at all, it will be time for me to switch on some cars but not all because of the GM 4178 standard. Even the most ardent admirers of the stuff won't do a 10-12k interval! Seems to me they are putting their money where their mouths are! Who am I to leap where even they fear to go!

arkainzeye

i wanted to see what reactions i would get from my welfare comment. and to my surprise it was like 50/50 .. 8) we use the term welfare at work. "tech company" can't mention name. when someone cuts corners or is cheap about something. also we use it on any of our work trucks/vans that break down alot.