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 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
RedLine cannot be purchased at most auto parts stores. Go online to find the dealers and expect to pay $7/quart plus shipping. Very very expensive
Wix is one of my favorite brands of filters. NAPA Gold is the same thing (both made by the Guard Corporation in Gastonia, SC. The canister is built like a vault and all the other components (springs, etc ...) are high quality. I'm not crazy about the amount of filtration area in the #1334 that fits most Hondas so for that partiular application, I use OEM filters only.
Hondaperf, Try www.manhonda.com. They carry some of the generally more useful Redline products and you can buy OEM Honda (Filtech) filters from them
for as little as $4 each. You should try to use OEM filters in your Honda:
http://www.tech2tech.net/library/oilfiltr.htm
--- Bror Jace
http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/minimopar/oilfilterstudy.html
RedLine oil:
http://www.redlineoil.com/whyredline.htm
and its dealers (Eurasian were the cheapest):
http://www.redlineoil.com/dealers.htm
I also used this one:
http://www.myoilshop.com/AutoPrds.html
I live in Manitoba, Canada where winter temps get cold(-54 F. is my area all time record low).
I noticed with my new GM car that even with the engine at near normal operating temps the tach will indicate 2500 rpm for a few miles before it finally drops to 2000 rpm at 65 mph.
This tranny is filled with GM's long life extended drain tranny fluid.
Would syn tranny oil mix properly if I don't flush the tranny and only change what drops out of the pan and would I see a big difference in operating characteristics, especially in cold weather.
Most of the posters here have mentioned fuel savings with syn motor oil, but would not there be more money to be saved with less friction in tranny parts and only requiring a few quarts of oil every 25,ooo-50000 miles.
By the way I have 5w-30 Mobil 1 in the engine so I don't think it is because of stiff engine oil that I run at a 500 rpm excess for the first few miles.
Maybe my thinking is wrong but I believe your engine will be reasonably warm before the thermostat allows warm coolant flow to the rad which will in turn warm cold tranny oil.
According to the Mobil site, you can mix their synthetic fluid with regular fluid. I, personally, would do a complete refill.
Al
alcan-- thermostat is working properly as engine warms up reasonably fast and stays there according to guage. You mention torque converter warming up rad by the process of friction.
In the scenario of car warming up a few minutes after a -25F. startup and then driving away, there would be very little friction until you started to drive away. After the first mile engine is normal but I would think torque converter is not and actually rad is just stealing heat away from the tranny as engine coolant will just start flowing after first mile and then with this real cold blast never probably warms rad to a normal level. I would suspect that the fans pulling air through rad never come on while driving at highway speeds.
armtdm-- you mention two kinds of syn tranny oil, but have never seen them available locally, but have seen Mobil 1 at walmart etc. Don't want to start oil war but how does it stack up to others and have you or others ever seen any testing as to the benefits of syn compared to dino oil in trannys cold weather or otherwise. Have heard of a lot of tests done on engines but not trannies.
adc100-- I guess the thing people have to wrap their minds around when it comes to tranny fluid is the idea that the torque converter uses the friction of the oil to drive the car, but syn oil reduces friction so therefore it won't drive the car properly--but probably this is where fluid strength etc. comes into play and also with converter lockup which most of the newer vehicles incorporate fluid drive is cut out?
New Buick under severe conditions the tranny fluid recommendation is 50,000, 100,000 if normal conditions. Could even be a synthetic from the factory?????
I'm sure the synthetic tranny fluids have the right properties for the transmission to operate the same as it does with conventional oils. The differences are that the synthetics will operate, and not degrade, over a larger operating temperature range. They are supposedly also better at carrying heat away from the internal components.
I remember seeing an oil pan that had a series of air tubes/passages running through it. It was supposed to allow air passing beneath the car to cool the auto tranny fluid. I wonder if it worked enough to justify buying it?
--- Bror Jace
PS - I have virtually no experience at all with auto-trannies. <:^(
My question is should I change to synthetic now? I know I should probably change the oil again at about 3000 miles after it is most or all of the way broke in. Should I just not worry about synthetic now and start it at the 3000 mile change or should I go ahead and put synthetic now in and only do a filter change at 3000 miles?
I realize that it is OK to do the breakin with synthetic oil, but don't want to throw money away if at 3000 miles I should do a full chnage rather than just the filter.
Any Ideas?
Thanks
Dan
"The remarkable ability of synthetic oils to reduce internal operating
temperatures is far too important to ignore, since high operating
temperatures contribute directly to premature failure of mechanical
components and gaskets and seals. Coolant (i.e. water/antifreeze) cools
only the upper regions of an engine. The task of cooling the crankshaft,
main and connecting rod bearings, the timing gear and chain, the
camshaft and its bearings, and numerous other components must borne
entirely by the oil. There are three identifiable reasons why
synthetics do a better job of cooling an engine: (1) Because of both the
oil's lubricity (slipperiness) and it's stable viscosity, less
friction-- and thus less heat-- is generated in the first place; (2) The
molecular structure of the oil itself is designed to more efficiently
transfer heat, even compared against the thermal conductivity properties
(ability to absorb and dissipate heat) of an identical-viscosity
petroleum oil; and (3) As mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the more
rapid oil flow of these lower-viscosity synthetics contributes
significantly to the efficient transfer and dissipation of heat.
*Because of all these factors, oil-temperature decreases of from 20F to
50F are quite common with the use of synthetic oil*. One might even say
that the heat-reduction properties of synthetics are synergistic...by
helping to reduce its own temperature, the synthetic oil is
simultaneously enhancing the lubricant's overall performance
characteristics."
If I write a technical-sounding article and put it out on a web site somewhere, will you believe everything I've written?
No matter what anyone here says, there is still no irrefutable evidence that using a synthetic oil vs. a conventional oil will have any effect whatsoever on engine longetivity, efficiency, cleanliness, etc. etc. etc.
What you have here is a bunch of folks who believe in a product trying to turn there perceived experiences into hard proof that product A is better than product B.
One of my favorite claims is the one about fuel efficiency. There have been posts that swear that by simply changing to a synthetic oil, the subject vehicle's fuel economy jumped by 1-2 miles per gallon. Now, if this were true, don't you think auto manufacturers would have jumped at the chance to improve their CAFE numbers at a very minimal cost? Don't you think large trucking companies, who do everything they can to maximize efficiency, would be using synthetic oils in their fleets?
The fact is, neither manufacturers nor fleet operators have made a change because there is no payoff!!!
By the way,. my Amsoil jobber sells to many fleets who, with big diesel rigs, also use the bypass filters for unlimited oil life. And, although I cannot prove this (although the Mobil 1 experience {when they came out with a 25,000 mile claim and then just stopped advertising it} leads me to believe I am correct) that big oil and auto manufacturers are in cahoots. To put synthetics in all engines would be counter productive to manufacturers and big oil! Sell fewer cars in the long run and sell less oil. Yea. paranoid perhaps and not worth arguing about either. Of course, Europe has twice the oil change intervals as the US on the same engines, wonder why?
I have, in fact, been using Mobil 1 in my car for the past 46,000 miles. Purely an experiment, and as I've said here before, I'm pretty sure I'm wasting my money!!!
And brucer2, to whom is your post directed?
Well duh! That is where the combustion process is taking place.
I don't doubt that synthetics hold up at least as well as dino under higher temperatures, but that's a far cry from saying it "cools" the engine.
"Cooling" means a continuous removal of heat. Now, maybe the airflow across the oil pan underneath does remove some heat, but if oil were meant to cool an engine, engineers would have built fins into it (the pan).
Water does a better job of cooling an engine than air, because it can hold more heat. But a water cooled engine without a radiator overheats, while an aircooled one with a fan blowing doesn't.
The heat has to be vented to the environment somehow for it be considered "cooling". Nothing about a vehicle's design suggest the oil contributes much towards engine cooling. Therefore, any difference you might see between synthetic and dino oil will be tiny.
The 20 to 50 degree temperature difference is interesting. I currently have synthetic in my vehicle. I'll change it to dino this weekend and measure its temperature while I do so. I'll change the dino back to synth in another few weeks and see how much of a difference there is.
I'm still a little skeptical, frankly, but skeptical as opposed to disbelieving. Can you find any other sources to support this? I'd think that synthetic makers might make this claim in their advertising....
Additionally, I think it's a bit of a leap of faith to say that a decrease of 20 degrees would lead to increased engine or component life.
Still.... If you can find some more support for it
(I've never heard of Curt Scott, and therefore don't know his credentials to make these claims)
You might be able to sell me the idea.
agt_cooper, you said:
"there is still no irrefutable evidence that using a synthetic oil vs. a conventional oil will have any effect whatsoever on engine longetivity, efficiency, cleanliness, etc ..."
Ah, you are asking for a SERIOUS standard. Few things are 100% irrefutable. For most of us, SAE tests and plenty of anectdotal evidence is enough to justify the paltry amount of additional money the use of synthetic oil costs.
If you think you're wasting an additional $20-30 per year on your vehicle, that's your opinion. Even so, it's a small amount of money when compared to the annual cost of owning and operating a vehicle, which can easily top $2-3,000 per year.
--- Bror Jace
The only reduction in oil temperature would come from a reduction in the heat produced by friction, and I too doubt that the extra slipperiness of synthetics will significantly reduce the temperature of oil circulating in an engine.
It is also important to remember that oil can be cooled too much. Remember, oil reaches its rated viscosity at greater than ambient temperature!!
Many so called "air cooled" 4 cylinder motorcycle engines are actually liquid cooled by their oil: by design.
Of course oil transfers SOME heat but no oil can take over the job of circulating water. Like I said, disconnect the water pump on your car and see how long your oil AND water last on the freeway. (don't really do this---just a hypothetical suggestion!)
Does anyone have numbers for conductivity, specific heat and density for both a synthetic and dino oil?
However, with engine oil it has to be changed, whether it be dino or synthetic, in most cases at least once a eyar. So, the manufacturers may be fearful that since most people do no maintenance if they went with synthetic and recommeded 7,500-15,000 mile changes the oil would never get changed and the engines would be ruined in 30,000 miles and warranty issues would abound. Part of the reason some cars now have oil change interval lights.
My theory! Also,having purchased a new car this month it amazes me that the salespeople spend no time on maintenance. This may be selfish reasons, come back sooner, but they really should go over in detail the maintenance requirements if each car they sell and assure that the owner understands why. Perhaps as a manufacturer I would get every new owner to sign a release that states they have been advised and understand the maintenance requirements of the car
The oil is expensive but well worth it. I have never been able to understand why people continue to believe that it is still necessary to change oil at 3,000 mile intervals with a good synthetic oil. I've heard about contaminates in the oil and all the other standard arguments, but my experiences over all these years has proven that these arguments aren't accurate. I have been told by more than one dealer what great condition my cars are in considering the mileage I've put on them when I do go in for a service check, which I won't do before 100,000 miles these days. If there are problems, they have never been engine problems.
I realize I won't change the minds of those that simply can't accept this concept, but I thought I'd relate my experience anyway for anyone that has an open mind on the subject.
I have a boss who just leased a Nissan Maxima. He gets the oil and filter changed at the dealership for "free" as part of the 3-year lease agreement. He asked me if it was worth switching to synthetic oil and I asked him if he was going to buy the car after the lease was up. When he said no way, so I told him not to spend the extra money on synthetic. But he's the exceptiob to the rule.
armtdm, I still think the car companies are afraid to recommend synthetics for two possible reasons:
1) They want the repeat service business for the dealerships. If you get people in the habit of going to the dealership on a regular basis for simple things such as oil changes and inspectons, they will be more likely to go to them for pricier services, replacements and rebuilds.
2) They are afraid people will think of their cars as hard/expensive to maintain ... but on the other hand, manufacturers are putting out more cars these days that require premium fuel and people are still buying them, so that makes this 2nd theory less likely to be the reason.
--- Bror Jace
BTW, I've had catastrophic coolant failures, and have empirically determined that you can limp pretty far, without damaging the engine, without coolant.
Are there any objective studies showing synthetics superior to standard oil?
Someone reported premature hydrolic valve failure on the Montero site "due to" the use of synthetic oil. Is this a known problem seen with this type of valve that depends on oil pumping them up and why would this occur with synthetics only?
Thanks
http://www.triumphspitfire.com/Oiltest.html
As for tearing down engines, unless you measured the wear, and b) measured the wear of an equivalent engine run in an equivalent way with regular oil, nothing is proved at all, is it?
My buddy and I just tore down an MGB engine that never saw a drop of synthetic for over 100,000 miles and it looks fantastic--original hatching, etc......but when using the micrometer and feeler gauges we found some wear in cam bearings, valve guides...about what you'd expectd for a well-cared for engine.
If you say an engine has "no wear" at 100K, you are talking about a perpetual motion machine, sounds like.
This is not to say that synthetic doesn't perform very well, and it certainly seems to extend the "lubrication range".
The point is----your engine doesn't seem to care.
consumer reports? What do those jerks know?
brillmtb:
The reason water cools faster is because it takes a significantly greater amount of heat to raise its temperature (it holds more heat - the volumetric heat capacity of water is like 3000 times higher than air). Heat transfer is driven by thermal gradients, so because it takes more energy to heat water, the water stays cooler and heat transfers "faster".
Water does not cool FASTER because it holds more heat energy, it cools FASTER because the solid/fluid interface is better able to transfer the thermal energy.
I think I am distinguishing between efficiency and speed of cooling. We both know water cools better overall.
LOL!!!
It seems the people who designed that test had no understanding whatsoever about the real life conditions most cars operate in.