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
Take a look at schaeffers blend #703 10w30.. the flash point is 425 deg. now i know that the pao mix is only 28% and the rest is mineral but yet has 425 deg flashpoint, amsoils is 446 and mobils is only 470 and they are "true full" synth's?
does this mean amsoil,mobil,schaeffers synth is bad? no. There is so many people that dwell on just the base oil and don't really know why. They think just because it's a synth it has to protect better. that is so untrue. there is advantages to a synth but protection isn't the one.
my point to those of you mixing your own "blend", how do you know you're getting the pure synth when you blend it with a non synth? and what properties are you affecting or doing to the oil by adding a synth base to it? what does the synth do for the mineral oil and how does that end result help you and your engine other than a feel good feeling that you are doing more than just changing the oil?
bobistheoilguy
Lubricant Specialist
With all due respect I don't believe that to be accurate. It is true that the additive package does significant contribution to the wear of a lubricant. This is expecially true for specific applications such as automotive oils and worm gear applications.
However from my experiences in industry, I know that in general, a syn lube will give the same protection as a lube one grade "heavier". ie. an ISO 32 will protect as well as an ISO 68. Any industrial Tech. Rep. knows that.
Since I'm no longer working, I don't have the resources I once had. I do have an Exxon Publication (DG-28) which shows a "Bearing Ring Test" with 3 oils : 32 syn, 32 mineral, 68 mineral. All had the same additive packages. After 250 hrs the 32 syn and 68 conventional showed trace wear on the ball bearing ring (race). The 32 conventional showed moderate to heavy wear. The syn was a diester base.
The reason for this added protection is the polar nature of the uniform synthetic molecules. They line themselves up uniformly like the nap of a carpet. This provides a strong lubricant film, that helps to prevent metal to metal wear in boundary lubricating conditions.
With regards to the flash point I seem to recall that the lower flash point of the Mobil 1. is due to the alkylated aromatic (wear inhibitor). That could be true of Amsoil as well. Perhaps one of our Amsoil friends could check on that. I'll check with Mobil on Monday.
Al
V = Ct - (E/t2)
Where:
V = viscosity in cSt (mm2/sec)
C = the tube factor
t = the flow time in seconds
E = the flow time correction factor
so if oil is measured at the 100deg C, a 10w30 mineral oil timed a flow at 12.4 cst, and a synth 10w30 is measured at 100 deg C and produces also a 12.4 cst, would you agree that they both have the same flow and the measurements are the same, time and viscosity(reffering to operating viscoisty only not cP lower visc).. So in a sense, both are equal in flow, Correct?
Now lets take two surfaces that squeeze together where hydro dynamic lubrication is present(base oil), would you agree that the oil will take the least path of resisitance and that when the two surfaces produce enought force to squeeze the hydro dynamic film or "shear" out both will flow at the same rate in this example.. given this, that means that synth and a quality mineral would both shear or squeeze out leaving behind the barrier lubricant additive (which is not the base oil).
now the flip side to this argument is, if synth was to flow easier, then that would mean it will squeeze out faster thus not protecting as long, being that hydrodynamic lubrication properties is the best protection available and since it would shear easier that would not happen to help.
more explaination on hydrodynamic/barrier lubrication..
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/states of lubrication.html
are you starting to see my point, here you have a synth oil and a mineral oil, both flow exactly the same. both base oils provide you with the same hydrodynamic protection but when squeezed between the two surfaces, both will exit out due to the fact they both have the same flow rate. neither has a better clinging ability otherwise it would not measure the same in viscosity. thats why a thicker oil will take longer to shear out between two surfaces than a thinner one. the only way to increase wear protection is to enhance the antiwear properties in a lesser viscosity oil.
to think that the base oil is what provides the protection, then why do you think they have to blend in all these additives? detergents, antiwear, antifoaming, antioxidants,to name a few.
Personally, i didn't see those reports you are reffereing to but in industrial applications you're not talking about engines and i'm sure there maybe more to that as well. There's no way i'd go to a thinner wt oil in my car engine without haveing a better additive package to offset that.
Take the same brand car oil and do that and see if in a lot of cases you'd see an increase of milage but also higher levels of wear being produced in oil analysis along with possible increase engine noise and oil consumption.
"With regards to the flash point I seem to recall that the lower flash point of the Mobil 1. is due to the alkylated aromatic (wear inhibitor). That could be true of Amsoil as well."... interesting that synlube doesn't seem to have that problem.
So are you saying there's no mineral base to any of thier oil? Most all true synth's have some mineral in them. I'm sure most will not tell you that. Thats the reason for looking at the flashpoints. if they were, i'd imagine price would be a wee bit higher like synlubes is 25.00 a gal.
"a blend with a great additive package is better or as good as a synthetic with an average additive package"
couldn't agree with you more on that part of your statement.I have seen many oil analysis, where a good blend performs exceedingly well in comparison to some of these full synths.
No I wasn't reffering to the additives as a mineral.
As someone else had said earlier..
"I think the guys who drive cars in normal service are kidding themselves, especially in light of the SL/GF-3 high quality solvent refined severely hydro-finished high viscosity index 100% paraffin base stocks now available. I think it's some kind of a machismo thing, like the guy who goes to Home Depot and buy a $200 Milwaukee circular saw when the $50 Black and Decker is already overkill for what he is really going to cut. It gives them something else to argue about at the bar with other guys of similarly limited knowledge. "
bobistheoilguy
Lubricant Specialist
The real question is, how much of this non-synth stuff do the synthetic oils contain? We are not likely to find or establish definitive numbers, so I am eager to hear conjecture from the more experienced members, hell, anybody, on this board.
Am I saying that I'm heading out to the garage right now to throw out the Mobil 1 on my shelf? No. But I am very interested in hearing a discussion of this particular subject on this board. I've followed most of the posts on the oil-related boards for the past year or two, but I cannot remember this particular subject being addressed.
synlube doesn't seem to have that problem. I'm not sure that flash point is a "problem". I believe based on the information in Mobil's web site that they use a carrier mineral oil for the additive package. That certainly is not due to cost as it would be a very small percentage. I'd guess Mobil could sell a pure PAO without the additive package, Ester, and alkylated aromatic wear package for a couple bucks. The cost is more in the research and associated costs thereof than the cost of the material. Remember Mobil1 is the largest maker of PAO's and I would guess many companies buy their's from Mobil.
Later,
Al
I believe you are mixing up the term boundary lubrication with film lubrication or hydrodynamic full fluid film. The synth is a base oil with flow properties. It does not have any affinity to any metals, it works as nothing more than a cusion between two sufaces and when pushed or squeezed it will flow out just like any other oil with the same Cst's. This is typically called shearing, and it will happen more than you imagine. take for example the little lady that drives her car very carefully, lasts forever. now, same car and engine, put teenager in, jackrabits each light and always hard on the gas. that one doesn't last. WHY? cause he's SHEARING the base oil, synth or otherwise.
Additives on the other hand has affinity to metal and attracts to the metal sufaces. that is what lays down and is the last line of defense when you shear the base oil (synth or mineral).
I totally disagree that you won't see any better economy in fuel savings by using a synth. if it's viscosity is the same as the mineral, it will present it's self with the same amount of resistance to the engine as the mineral there for no increase. If there is a frictional property additives added, or if the viscosity is lighter, then yes you would see this. case in point, why do you think manufactures are decreasing the viscosity of the oils.5w20 and such. CAFE.. by reducing the wt, they can effectly reduce the resistance the oil poses and increase the fuel gain.
"I believe based on the information in Mobil's web site that they use a carrier mineral oil for the additive package" ... I think you'd be surprised as to just how much is a carrier oil. Why would a base mineral oil be needed to carry additives when you already have a synth base oil that can do the same thing? I would think maybe they are trying to keep the cost more in line with what the market will bear by substituting full synth with some mineral.
I'm not sure just what the %'s are but obviously you can "blend" some mineral in with a certain percent of synth and call it a full synth. case in point, Castrol.
Again, this is why looking at the flashpoints can give you a good idea.
bob
You can extend your oil drains with synths..
now why would you want to extend your drains on a small 5 or 6 qt system? As you pointed out the savings isn't all that much. Now in heavy equipment, when changine gallons of oil, then you're talking about some savings per change. I will say I do get lazy at times, and depending on my driving, i will extend mine. last one was 11,780 miles. as a norm i only run mine between 5-8000 miles. I use a blend.
Synthetics have inherently good low temperature properties. Minerals use Pour Point Depressants (PPD) which are wax crystal modifiers. They make the wax molecules form small crystal even when they want to form big ones. With the right Visc oil though, pour point shouldn't be a real concern with the new GF-3 base oils. Alot of them go as low as -45deg below zero. Personally, it gets that cold, I aint going no where anyway!
Synths have a more natural Hi VI.
Synths' usually use less VI improvers.
Synth's have thier place and do work, but for most, a full synth isn't needed.
Thanks for your helpful posts. Most of it is way over my head, but your thoughts are still interesting and helpful.
The only way to prove if a lube is working for you is to do an oil analysis, comparing oils under similar conditons, using the same engine...
As Pj pointed out.. by using oil analysis, you can see for yourself what works best for you and your situation if you really like to see. Of course looking at the tech data sheets also gives you a starting point as to what is important to you.
You also can order non biased oil reports from an independant lab for about 10.00 each and see how the actual ASTM numbers are in comparision against others if you want to persue it farther than just tech data sheets. Alot of tech data sheets tend not to give you a full spectrum of information but general so this is another avenue.
And lastly I maintain that Syns give added economy and wear protection in this Thin Film, Boundary, Imperfect Lubrication area by Polar alignment and attraction to the metallic surface.
Have a good weekend-what's left of it!!!
Al
THIN FILM WITH BOUNDARY IS called MIXED FILM LUBRICATION...This is where lubrication is marginal. Under load conditions oil is squeezed under pressure. For example, during accelleration of an engine, you step on the gas and the engine dumps fuel, in turn the force is increased against the rod bearings, pushing (or squeezing) on the hydrodynamic oil creating a marginal lubrication condition of thin film(from the hydrodynamic oil) and boundary lubrication(antiwear additive). This is under normal use.
"by Polar alignment and attraction to the metallic surface."
If your base oil has a Polar alignment and attracts to metal sufaces as you suggest, then you are saying the oil sticks to the surface better than mineral and that would mean it doesn't flow as easily since it is attracted to the suface making the flow across the surface more resisitive. That goes against what everyone says about synths.
The Polar alignment you're refering to has nothing to do with metal affinaty. It has effect on the laminar flow or internal (friction) or resistance of the molecular structure of each atom. The theroy is the turbulance isn't as great thus better flow, and according to that theroy, would in effect mean the flow across the metal surface would be less drag and that would mean it would squeeze out even faster than a mineral oil, thus relying on the antiwear additive to provide protection. since the first atom has the highest resistance draging next to the surface and each atom inward to the center has less friction the center of the stream of flow is the fastest with less resistance. Like water in a pipe, the highest speed of flow would be in the center of the pipe and the closer the water is to the pipe the slower or more drag is induced.
conclusion: if you have measured synth and mineral oils and both have the same time of measurement, both will produce the same flow or resistance and since you bring up the polar arangment of the molecular structure, I'll concede, yes, you would or should in theroy get a small and most likely undetectable increase in milage between the synth and mineral.
Again, I stand by my statement, to increase fuel economy, you must reduce the internal resistance of oil flow of some measure,thus reduce the viscosity of the oil..ie 5w20 on the newer engines, and or, add a friction modifier additive to enhance performance by reduceing the friction of the internal components of the engine due to were oil is shearing.
I have a 2002 Chevy with the 5.3l.Used dino for 3,000 then switched to Mobil-1.I drive about 12,000 a year & ALL driving ends with an uninterrupted 12 mile,moderately hilly drive home(avg speed is 35 mph with only 4 stops at stop-signs).MOST of my driving is this route.
I had planned on changing the Mobil-1 at 7,500 and the filter at 3,750.The change oil sensor came on at 4,200 miles(I thought it would go longer with as little city driving as I do-maybe 10% city or less).
So,would I be better off with dino or a blend & change as the sensor says?Or do as I had planned with Mobil-1?The frequency of getting under the truck would be the same.Any suggestions? Thanks!!!
So if the manual says don't use synthetic oil, or use a very specific grade of oil, do so.
You are correct in your concern about the clutch.
Yes, use an oil made for the bike. It may cost more, but you don't use much and it's still cheaper than a rebuild.
TB
I'm not a motorcycle guy, but I have seen a Mobil 1 Motorcycle oil in the stores. I'm not promoting it's use/non-use; merely letting you know it is out there.
Some friends of mine were on the Texas A&M SAE project car team. They used a Yamaha 600cc bike engine and a wet-clutch transmission setup. After experimenting with Mobil 1 (automotive, not MC) it was found that it caused undesirable clutch operation (slipping, I presume). They switched to Castrol GTX and things ran great. At the time I don't think the M1 MC oil was available.
I have a 94 BMW 325 which the dealer had been put in dino 10-40 in the past. When I had service done this week, I asked for synthetic which is Castro in the BMW container. The weight of the synthetic is 5-30. They seemed to only have this weight of synthetic for all models.
I checked with my manual which only gives the range of temperature covered by different weight. For 5-30, it covers to about 60 degree only. If this is the case, should I have the oil changed before summer? Or the 5-30 synthetic will be fine at the higher temperature for summer? When I called the service advisor, he told me I should come in to have it changed to 10-40 before June. This will defeat the purpose of using synthetic for longer oil change intervals.
Your advice and suggestion is much appreciated.
Enjoy!
You could check with the Mobil help line and if the guy doesn/t know the answer or gives the standard "follow the recommendations in your manual" ask for the technical department. Since syns protect better than a conventional oil of the same weight you should be able to safely use the 30 wt. Of course if it it uses oil in the Summer you might be screwed. Also I would consider using the 10W-30 vs the 5W-30. There is less VI improver in the 10W.
Al
Amsoil specifically revised their product line and now offer a cycle oil specifically for cycles that they claim exceeds the Harley oil and is synthetic, although Bob may argue with that.
I would not suggest the Mobil ! normal auto engine oil for cycles without checking it out.
The explanation adc100 gave for heavier weight in Europe really makes a lot of sense because cars there are driven at much higher speeds and thus getting hotter. Thanks a lot for the reassuring words. I'll just check the oil level closely with 5000 miles changes, which have been the schedule in the past.
There is a mobil synth motorcycle oil available.. here it's in autozones.
A lot of people claim synths cause problems for bikes, one story is it's so slippery that it flat spots the pin bearings in the engine and so forth.. this is not unusal because where bearings are concerned (and gear teeth for gearboxes), you need to have a higher level of antiwear additive since these 2 areas(among other areas) cause the base oil to shear like in a rearend or wheel bearing.
I read an article somewhere that you could run normal car oil in an mc without a problem, WRONG!, why? because car engines don't have roller bearings and gear teeth in thier engines where mc's in alot of cases have both. This is where antiwear additives are really critical and normal car oils don't provide enough for this for a mc.
On the other hand, alot of people think just because it is a synth oil it will protect better.. again, wrong. That's why so many bikes bite it because of the lack of antiwear properties and then people blame it on being too slippery as an excuse.
As for the clutches, I can say without a doubt that the synth base oil and antiwear additives do not cause problems with the clutches. I have many customers including myself that use the synthblend that also has a soluble moly antiwear/friction modifier in the oil in many bikes from my harley,bmw,ducati's,honda's,as well as all sorts of two stoke bikes like gas gas and such. non of these bikes have experienced clutch slippage. If anything was going to make a clutch slip, you'd think a friction modifier like moly would since that is slicker than a synthbase oil.
Whoops!, did some one (adc) say that synth protects better than a mineral? hmmm, this mc oil issue is a prime example as to my argument, if the synth's protect better, then why can't u run an api rated sj full synth motor oil like mobil in a mc? as you noticed in armtdm's statement which is on the money, you can run an api sh rated oil... why? oh yeah, higher levels of antiwear additives are in an sh rated oil. it was the next api step that they reduced those levels to the point where mc's couldn't use that.
adc,please explain your statement "Since syns protect better than a conventional oil of the same weight ".
I suspect you know something I missed in lube class.
Please understand, I'm not dogging synth's. they are good and there is times you would need a good synth but not always the case.
I'd just like to understand what makes you say it protects better.
bob
Question #1- Anyone heard of oil/fuel additive Z MAX and effects of using?
Question #2- Do magnetic drain plugs/ magnets on oil filters help collect metal shavings?
Thanks in advance...
Magnetic drain plugs: Yes. Many automatic tranmission pans have magnets on them to collect metal shavings. It may not hurt to try it on the filter.
PAO stock is more thermally stable than conventional oil. Conventional oil burns around 700 degrees Fahrenheit, PAO stocks is around 2000 degrees or more. (Someone here should correct me on that). Then you look at shear strength, etc.
http://www.stant.com/index.cfm?location_id=409
I have used most of a couple cases of Lubrimatic motorcycle oil in my Honda Valkyrie. I wanted to be careful about keeping my warranty in effect, and this product seems to meet the standards. MY results have been very satisfactory in all aspects. I ordered the product from Stant and had it shipped to my address.
I tried to post the actual address but it was too long, so goto
http:www.bobistheoilguy.com
and select FAQ's about oil. There is a section on oil additives and zmax is covered.
You are incorrect about the heat ranges on the base oils. 2798 talks a little about flash points and oil.
if you read my prev posts 2804, and 2807, the shear thing you are reffering to is already covered.
and as far as the protection of syns compared to dino..we have been all through that in posts above. My explanation again is post #2836. I'm not beating any more dead horses.
Al
I tried to post the actual address but it was too long, so goto
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com
and select FAQ's about oil. There is a section on oil additives and zmax is covered.
You are incorrect about the heat ranges on the base oils. 2798 talks a little about flash points and oil.
if you read my prev posts 2804, and 2807, the shear thing you are reffering to is already covered.
i totally agree, we both disagree to a point and thats where it will lye.
as you said before..
Peace.
bob
are you stating a 5w30 or a 10w30 mineral or synth cannot pass the A3-96 sequence tests? if so, why?
now there maybe a reason for that and i suspect you may have hit it on the head about the higher visc reducing wear limits.
this goes back to my point on shearing of base oils, that the higher the visc the slower to squeeze out. that even the full 30wt synths didn't prove to pass from what i'm understanding.
where the 30wt oils i am reffering to, had a soluble mos2 which increases barrier properties beyond your standard zddp which i believe is somewhere around 10 to 15k psi, mos2 has measured up to 500k. this in turn has reduced wear properties.
myself, even with the mos2, i use a 15w40 for the better hydrodynamic properties of the thicker oil as suggested by your statement for the a3 sequence tests.
sorry, i don't mean to throw that down on you, just that my point of wear protection is not dependent so much on the type of base oil(synth/mineral), but the viscosity and shearing of the base oil in conjunction with antiwear additives.
bob
http://www.valvoline.com/pages/products/index.asp?id=002
The problem is that if you click on the link for "MSDS" (Material Safety Data Sheets) you get an error. This has been the case for a while. <:^(
A little over a year ago I asked the Valvoline guys at 800-Team Val and they said Synpower was "100% PAO" which means to me that it is a PAO base plus additives.
A couple months ago a guy I had talked to about oil on UseNet had shown me a fragment of an MSDS sheet for Valvoline Synpower and it said right on their something like "63% hydrocracked mineral oil" Like I said, I haven't been able to see their MSDS sheets online and verify this for myself. I like Valvoline's excellent overall reputation but won't feel totally comfortable recommending the oil until I know what is in it.
As has been stated in this thread, I think there are two things that are really hard on oil: heat and the shear stress caused by high-RPMs and gear clash. I have a '95 Civic DX with the smaller (1.5L) 4-cylinder engine which does not have a lot of power (102 stock). So, I find myself winding it out a bit more than I probably should. Few days go by when the car doesn't see 5,000 rpms ... and for trips up and down I-87, the engine can be at 4,000-4,500 RPMs for an hour or more at a time. So, I consider synthetic oil to be almost essential for this car. I also get annoyed with having to return used oil, to be honest, so I like something that I can leave in for at least 6-7,000 miles. >;^)
I also agree with what's been said about motorcycles and oil. Since the SJ classification came out, most passenger car oils (10W30 and thinner, I think) have reduced amounts of the extreme pressure additive ZDDP. This stuff is essential for long gear life and the bearings in roller-cranks. I have seen Mobil 1 motorcycle oil (10W40 for rice rockets, 20W50 for Hawgs) in Walmart around here (Upstate NY). Normal Mobil 1 in 15W50 might work OK because unlike the lighter weights, it does not claim to be formulated with low levels of zinc phosphate ... but you are taking a chance. Red Line claims their synthetic oils (which contain a good dose of zinc phosphate and moly as well) are ideal for bikes with wet clutches but I'm not a cycle guy so I can't really substantiate this.
As for the BMW and oil weight, I think 5W30 or 10W30 synthetic would work fine. But, 10W30 is the safer bet, especially for sustained high-speed operation during the summer as it has less (usually none) semi-stable, polymer viscosity improvers. The worst that is going to happen with using an oil that is only 1 step heavier than recommended is that you'll lose a teensy-weensy bit of fuel economy ... which is usually a secondary issue when talking of Bimmers. >;^)
If it was my car and I was changing the synthetic oil twice each year, I'd use 5W30 in the winter and 10W30 in the summer.
--- Bror Jace
our 10w30 blend goes to -42deg below and amsoils i think goes somewhere in the -60deg below. why would you need a thinner oil? are any of you getting near the -30 and -40 deg weather up there?
If so, I'd stay inside and to heck with going anywhere. and .. BETTER YOU THAN ME!
As for Redline, yes they are used quite often in alot of bikes. Another point is api CH only rated oils for deisels are loaded with higher levels of zddp some of these CH rated oils have sj or sl also and to meet that would mean less of the required zddp.
http://library.cbest.chevron.com/lubes/compprd9.nsf/ChevronTexaco+Products?openview&Start=229&Count=47
As for pour point, yes, it's difficult (although not impossible) to find places that get colder than -40F but I think that misses the point. Even at a balmy -20F or even +10F someone trying to start his or her car first thing in the morning is going to notice the difference between 5W30 and 10W30 even if both are synthetic. A synthetic 10W30, though, might be comparable to a 5W30 dino. With a comparison this close, brand, type of synthetic and additives might make a difference.
So, Bob, are you saying that diesel-only oils have a stronger additive package than the 15W40 fleet oils that not only meet CH-4 standards but also carry the SJ or SL rating as well? Can you compare & contrast two so we can see how big a difference?
Last time I changed the oil in our ancient 200cc Honda 3-wheeler, I used a 50/50 mix of Chevron Delo 400 15W40 and Mobil 1 15W50. The synth will keep the vehicle easy to pull start on cool and even cold days while the diesel oil's additive package will allow the vehicle to sit for extended periods of time without suffering from internal corrosion. Low amounts of zinc shouldn’t be an issue with either oil.
pjksr, I would expect the Chevron and Havoline products to become one (just like Mobil and Exxon, Pennzoil and Quaker State, etc ...) but I'd expect this to be a gradual process taking place over a long time, maybe even several years. The marketing can change overnight but the refinery and distribution infrastructure can take decades to homogenize.
I had asked someone a while ago (mwikle?) and was told that Chevron synthetic was a PAO-based synthetic but when I looked at their on-line MSDS sheets, I saw a term in their description that I had never seen before: "DECENE, HOMOPOLYMER, HYDROGENATED" and seeing that Chevron is a leader in hydrocking and hydroisomerization technology, you'd think they'd be high on the list of producers switching from PAO to those highly-refined mineral stocks in their "synthetic" line of products. Well, they also list "isosyn" as a base oil component which I had not seen before leading me to believe that they are making that transition.
I guess for those that are interested, they have a customer service number: (800) Lube-Tek. For the time being, I'm sticking with Red Line Oil. >;^)
fleetwoodsimca: "Keep in mind that gears cutting polymers up is not a Harley thing!"
Correct. I didn't mean to imply that it was. Do Harleys even have roller cranks? I thought these were more common among "superbikes". Also, since the smaller rice-rocket-type bikes tend to make their power at higher RPMs, I'd say they would be even harder on lubricants.
--- Bror Jace