The motor hasn't changed at all internally, so 5-30 will still work. In some ways thinner oil is better due to tight clearances on modern new engines, especially Hondas etc.
5-30 dino isn't as good as 5-20 dino, however, because the Ford spec to satisfy 5-20 makes it defacto semi-synthetic, and the oil boards indicate the Pennzoil variant has a high percentage of Group III and not just Group II base stock even though the Pennzoil is sold as a conventional motor oil (in fact, Ford sells its 5-20 as a semisynthetic while the exact same formula sold by Conoco is sold as a conventional oil).
On the other hand, you can't go wrong with Mobil 1 in 5-30 or 0-20. 5-30 certainly isn't too thick for your van, and in Mobil 1 it will have excellent flow characteristics whether you are in Florida or Minnesota.
Used oil analyses on 5-20 conventional have been very impressive, according to the oil board junkies. There have been reports from pickup owners who did a lot of towing, and no excessive wear metals showed up.
Keep in mind that Ford's maintenance book calls for 5,000 mile oil changes AT THE MOST using their superior spec 5-20 oil (wear tests are twice the length for 5-20 vs. current conventional SL oil). 3,000 miles is the oil change interval for severe (or cautious owner, choose your option) use. So using a 5-30 DINO oil at 5,000 mile change intervals might be underprotecting your van. Current popular thinking is that at 3,000 mile intervals almost any oil will do, but I am coming around to liking synthetic for superior camshaft and other high pressure, shear areas of the engine, since I drive manual transmission cars and run high rpms...I have finally figured out that most Americans are driving larger engines, with automatics, and I am exactly the type of driver who can benefit the most from full synthetic (i.e., Mobil 1).
Using Mobil 1 for 3,000-5,000 mile changes is definitely protecting your car.
When I had my first Focus, Ford's customer line told me that 5-20 was required, but that if the DEALER used 5-30 that wouldn't void the warranty. That begs the question of using 5-30 on your own.
You'll have to deal with the threshold of pain on the warranty issue yourself. Personally, I have been using 0-20 and 5-20 in two Toyotas and a Chevy which each still spec 5-30. These engines are all built about the same, and my feeling is that in a few years all the makers will switch to 5-20. The only think holding them back is us, the consumer, worried about engine death. Of course, in Europe they run much heavier weight oils than we do, more along 40w at the thick end. Are their engine tolerances different? Do they know something we don't? Come on, they aren't dealing with aircooled VW's anymore...
The 5-20 conventional oil is a bargain for what it is, which is why I use it in lieu of conventional 5-30. Now that I am moving to Mobil 1 (again), I may use the recommended grade (0-20 or 5-30) until I am out of warranty.
Yeah, I know technically the Mobil 1 0-20 doesn't satisfy the Ford 5-20 spec, but only because it has a lower pour rate - an advantage - than 5-20 at cold temps.
The 0W20 Mobil 1 has been racking up some great numbers as to low engien wear on other sites. Actually, as noted above most of the 5W20 have done very well also, especially the Motorcraft and Havoline
I agree that Vortecs seem to put out less copper with age. I really don't think they're a bad engine. I just bought a new Suburban.
I agree that the wear metal held in suspension are not the real problem. IMO, well OK, IMHO, I think the high wear metals early in the Vortecs life shows a propensity to wear and that wiping out the acid fighting capability (having a low TBN) by accident (going a few more miles than you had planned) leaves you particulary vulnerable. I chose the safer approach.
I think 5k with conventional or 8-12k with synthetic makes sense. I do believe the 8-12k range is safe w/ UOA that includes a TBN.
I may do UOA to see where I want to go with the Vortec. I just put in Schaeffer's #703, a 10W30 blend at 1610 on the odo.
BTW, I'm not picking on you or at odds with you. I enjoy your posts. Just trying to clarify my position and show we're probable more in step than we realized.
May hydrodynamic and boundary protection be with you,
Yea, after a few years of toying with the idea of using Schaeffers I may do it soon. Their blends, with the great additive packages seem to hold up as well as synthetics and the TBN depletion rate is great as well. Plus, $2/quart or so less then my synthetic, I am looking to use their 15W40 in a high mileage engine. I have been using their Neutra gas additive for a while, good stuff and now it appears I have a local rep to sell it to me. Actually, I have also used their #132 EP additive and in three oil analysis on three different engines last year it produced the lowest wear I had seen on the analysis. It did raise the viscosity of my oil from a 30W to a low 40 though but that was okay with me.
#216 of 218 I saw my first Chinese made oil filter today.... by chispas Feb 17, 2004 (7:56 pm) It was on my Cavalier...
Last month I was sick with a cold, so I took the car to a quick change place when it needed the filter changed, not the oil also.
I realized right away that there was an oil leak because of a slight drippage and an odor of burning oil. The filter sits directly above the exhaust system on this model, and a slight odor of burning oil was unmistakable.
It was a warm day today, I was feeling better, so I got busy.
The filter was tight. What could it be I wondered?
So, I pulled the filter.
The "culprit" was a cheap filter marked "Made in China".
I'm just posting this as a "warning" to others.
------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- #217 of 218 re:chinese filter by vidtech Feb 17, 2004 (8:45 pm) was the filter a name brand?
------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- #218 of 218 No, the filter was not a name brand.... by chispas Feb 17, 2004 (9:33 pm) But, the name "almost" spelled Purolator...
Welp, I chose to go with Mobil 1 5W-30 Synthetic in my 2002 Alero 3.4 V6 with 28,000 miles. I also picked up a GM filter, which I hear has great flow rates compared to Fram, which I used to use in previous vehicles. I decided to go with synthetic in my new (*newer) ride since the Alero's have the oil life monitor, which tells you when to change the oil by calculating engine temps and speeds. I already felt weird not sticking to the 3K thing of the past, so I figured going with the Mobil 1 would ease my worries.
The oil life monitor is aggressive in permitting long oil changes if you do a lot of freeway driving, so I think using Mobil 1 will make you (protect engine) and GM (less waste oil) happy.
While two of the subjects are Mobil One and Redline, the important point is oil analysis is used to determine what is really happening! For my two cents it wouold be interesting to do a head to head comparison using conventional oil also!
"Synthetic motor oil has long been acknowledged as having superior characteristics to conventional motor oil, writes National Oil & Lube News (NOLN) in the July 2000 issue. But until recently, synthetic motor oils have only claimed 5 percent of the market.
“Synthetic motor oil generally has better low volatility characteristics than conventional motor oil, making it more resistant to oil consumption and burn-off,” reports NOLN. “Furthermore, synthetic motor oil is generally more resistant to thermal breakdown than conventional motor oil, meaning synthetic oil is less likely to thicken and form sludge than conventional oil. Synthetic oil also offers better low-temperature pumpability performance, meaning the oil gets to critical engine parts faster than conventional oil. Synthetic oil is more resistant to viscosity breakdown, leading some oil companies to recommend its use for longer than 3,000 miles. Finally, synthetic oil is generally considered to lead to better fuel mileage than conventional motor oil.”
While many consumers realized the benefits of synthetics all along, price has always been the main reason why synthetic motor oils have never occupied a larger part of the market. Today, several factors are working to change the consumer attitude about synthetics.
Auto manufacturers lead the way when it comes to affecting public opinion regarding their vehicles. Now that several auto manufacturers recommend synthetic motor oils, consumers are more likely to choose them over conventional oil.
“According to our 1999 Fast Lube Operators Survey,” reports NOLN, “about 6 percent of fast lube customers opted for synthetic lubricants, including motor oil. That was a slight increase from the 5 percent of customers that did so in previous years. This year, according to preliminary results from out 2000 Operators Survey, about 8 percent of fast lube customers opt for synthetic lubricants.”
According to Kendall Motor Oil, synthetic motor oil is the fastest growing segment of the motor oil market, with sales up 16 percent from last year. During the last five years, synthetic sales have grown at an average of 11 percent annually. This accurately reflects changes in the rest of the market as well.
Another reason more people have been opting for synthetic motor oil is the rise in prices of conventional motor oils. Crude oil prices have risen steadily since last fall and show no real signs of going back down. This, as well as decreased oil production by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), has led to decreased supplies of motor oil base stocks. Less petroleum base stocks mean higher motor oil prices....."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This is a good discussion thread. Let's keep it "on subject".
"Mobil 1 synthetic motor oil outperforms conventional motor oil. Historically, conventional oils lack the performance of synthetic oils in the areas of low-temperature oxidation stability. Mobil 1 also provides superior high-temperature stability and protection against deposits. These attributes translate directly into less engine wear and longer engine life. Count on Mobil 1 to protect your customers' engines against temperature extremes and to help keep engines clean better than any conventional motor oil."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Any help to provide information about Mobil 1, Redline, Amsoil or others is what I think this forum should pursue.
I think that is precisely why it has not been done on a wide scale. If an above poster is correct and only 5/6 percent total actually use synthetic oils, for sure it will be an uphill battle to say move the % points up.
For sure! Also it is reputed that Mobil has 60% of the synthetic (group IV) market. (so 5/6 % converts to 3/3.6%) This leaves the Redline's, Amsoil's, Neo's to fight over 2-2.4% of the market share! With the loss of the synthetic= group IV lawsuit, it will be interesting to see how the hydro cracked crowd (group III) (Castrol etc) does.
I had 50,000 miles on the 1999 Sub, then changed to synthetic...and one day there was a coolant leak....internal...and my wife still drove it..and I added 1 gallon of coolant....by the time we got it to the mechanic....I already busted the bearings.....
so got a new engine.....therefore the low 16,000 mileage.... :-(
I will change with regular CPB oil next 2 times, then perhaps use syn.....
First, there was no lawsuit in the G III vs/ G IV thing. It was all about advertising.
I think that the syn sales may level off or even decline. Why?
1. The new SL rating causes the use of more G II+ and/or G III in their formulations. So, conv. oil has improved dramatically. Maybe 3k was a good interval several years ago, but 5k is very reasonable with SL oil. Many users of sny, and ruking, you are the exception, don't feel comfortable going more than 5 or 6k anyway, esp. w/o a UOA. So, why so to a syn just to get 1 or 2k extra on the change interval?
2. Some UOA of syn blends on Bob's site seem to look real good. Even Castrol Syntec blend does a great job. Not to mention Schaeffer's blend that seems to hold its own with the best full syns.
3. There is still fear of leak development upon using syn. So, why take a chance if the potential benefits are small or seldom realized because of early changes?
BTW, I'm not anti syn. I use sny in one car and a syn blend in my truck.
For sure, there will always be a market for syn oil: a) when OEM speced like BMW, MB, Vette, etc.; b) "fanatical", no offense intended, owners; and c) heavy duty applications like towing.
Well Mobil was arguing that a synthetic definition did not include hydro cracked but was as they have been doing it on the synthetic side for years. The other side was arguing that hydro cracked group III or conventional based oil was indeed synthetic! The court decided that the group three hydocracked is synthetic and therefore could be advertized as such.
Also the fact that conventional or hydro cracked synthetic folks are hesistant to run the 10-15k intervals might be a testament to what they really think!
So far as I know the ones still in the group IV camp are Mobil One, Redline and Amsoil, although Amsoil sells a group three product after the Mobil decision.
a courtroom decision against Castrol. The National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Council of Better Business Bureaus ruled in April 1999 that Castrol Syntec motor oil can be marketed as a synthetic. The decision followed a complaint filed by Mobil that as of December 1997, Castrol no longer used polyalphaolefins (PAOS) but hydroprocessed base oils to formulate the product. Ruking, why do you want to continue to sow misconception?
I think we all agree that many oils, both conv and syn can go longer than they are normally used. I think this is a testament to the fact that people are cautious on risking an expensive car/engine when a $10 oil change can reduce the risk. Also, many resist a UOA needed to confidently extend their drain interval, the hassle, the confusion and the trip to the PO.
1. UOA - I am dubious of UOA since they don't test film strength. I am not sure how valid current viscosity tests are, since oil is thinning based on shearing, but thickening based on evaporation. So maintaining a semblance of spec viscosity may have nothing to do with actual performance; the oil may have sheared so it no longer has film strength, but sludge up so that it still has tolerable viscosity. That's why I prefer oils like Mobil 1 5-30 which reportedly use little or no viscosity index enhancers.
2. Synthetic benefits go way beyond long life. I drive a stick shift with mostly small displacement engines like the Dodge Neon. Most people drive automatics and seldom run to redline. Think I'm going to trust these higher stresses to conventional oil?
3. The Consumer Report test showed that if you never shut off the engine (never goes to true cold state) and mostly drive on the street, oil lasts a long time. True NYC has tough winters - sometimes - but cab engines are never dealing with that. While sometimes we see cabs accelerating hard, or stuck in traffic, in a 24 hour day covering Manhattan and the boroughs there is also just a lot of moderate driving. In other words, the cab test was closer to average city driving in a lot of ways, and easier on the oil in certain ways (no cold starts, no short trips) so it isn't much of a test.
"Ruking, why do you want to continue to sow misconception?"
From what I have read it was a court case!? Since I have not reviewed the actual court case, then I will go along with what you have said. But on the other hand, if it was an advertising tiff, Mobil really can't lose with this. All they have to do is to use a competitors or their own hydrocracked processes's and call all the oils they use it in "synthetic"
You are also correct in saying the SL rating calls for a "higher floor" on change intervals. Schaeffers also offers a "full synthetic", but there is not too much response to this product. While some blended "synthetics" such as Schaeffer's can and do go the extra distance, in my mind for the negligible price differences, I would rather use the Mobil One and for the last 25k miles I have also incorporated Mobil Delvac One (for a diesel engine). Mobil Delvac One has also been repackaged as Mobil One Truck and SUV (again since I have not seen it on the shelfs I am taking someones word for it). Currently Mobil One is 4 per and Mobil Delvac One is 5 per.
Since there are multiple prices for Schaeffers, perhaps you could delineate how much it costs per qt. From the research I have done in the Schaeffers synthetic and synthetic blends, there are too many issues that drive up its cost unnecessarily.
Yes indeed, it's a small world. In that article they referenced Conrad Greer, the CTO. He just happens to be my Father-In-Law, and the brains behind all of the patents for this stuff. Unfortunately, Conrad suffered a stroke 5 months after this article was written, and as such is not able to continue his research. At this point it is unknown how much further "Techrobond" will be developed.
Sorry to hear that! Strokes can be so devastating to its victims!
This also may be a tad off topic of synthetic oil but might be part and probably parcel of the "holy grail" quest that we seek, but synthetic oil DOES not protect against dry or cold starts which according to various sites is responsible for over half of engine wear. The case for pre oilers and bypass filters is really overwhelming, but any analysis under 500k miles comes up short!
I think in truth, not many folks in whatever camps want their engines to last 500-1M (and beyond)
This is precisely why that is my goal in my TDI engine! And I use Mobil Delvac One 5w40.
"Conrad Greer, PRO's vice-chairman and chief technical officer, said that the tests-which are the latest in a series of product development tests that began at Carnegie Mellon University in 1997-are a major step forward in validating the Techrobond technology..."
This article was also very interesting to me.
Since you're a relative of Mr. Greer, was there anything more that he might have told you that you can share?
I might also add about DuPont's PTFE, something off-topic that occurred about a dozen years ago.
At the local trap and skeet club, some of the members discovered that PTFE if swabbed in the bore of a shotgun before shooting, GREATLY reduced build-up of powder and lead residue. In other words, made the gun much easier to clean after shooting many rounds of ammo.
One "brand" of PTFE they were using was called DSX. It supposedly contained PTFE that was so small in micro that it could theoretically go through the pores in the human skin.
This kinda' scared me, so I never used it.
But, I always wondered if it might be used in lubricants.
Since fuel injection became common about 20 years ago, I've NEVER needed to use any kind of injector cleaner.
I know some may laugh at what I do. Ok, go ahead.
What I'm doing is adding about 4 oz. of Marvel Mystery Oil per each 10 gal. of gasoline. The penetrants and other additives in MMO do a marvelous job keeping injectors clean and lubricated.
I've always been hesitant of adding this to the crankcase lube because I've been using synthetic motor oils during this time. I don't know if it's compatable to synthethics. Its instructions say to add to petroleum motor oil. Nothing is covered about synthetic.
Available info on the Web seems to be that nobody has tried it, at least that I've been able to find.
I've just been asked by a friend if I knew the answer. I said no.
To me it's a mystry as to why folks actually buy that stuff. ;-) Good marketing I suppose.
"Since fuel injection became common about 20 years ago, I've NEVER needed to use any kind of injector cleaner."
Me too, and I've never bought any kind of a fuel additive, ever. For the record, I've been driving fuel injected cars since 1979, and the first one even used leaded fuel.
Before you "condem" Marvel Mystery Oil (and, I assume that you've never tried it), please do a Web search.
There are NO MARKETING ADVERTISEMENTS, at least none that I can find. Not even a home page.
Also, there are NO NEGATIVES (that I can find), and MANY POSITIVES. Many of the users report the petrating qualities will free stuck piston rings, valves sticking in guides, freeing noisy valve lifters and fuel injectors in both gasoline and diesel engines.
I think you have dismissed this product as "probably a 'snake oil'".
It's been popular since 1923. Selling seems to be by word of mouth.
Have you ever heard of a "snake oil" that has been around that long ??
Sorry, but I must dismiss it as exactly what you called it, "Snake Oil". True, it may not hurt, however, I seriously doubt that it can help a properly maintained engine.
Could it help an engine that has been driven 100K miles on non-detergent oil that has never been changed? Yup. Would it help the same engine more than simply changing the oil with a high quality detergent oil? I suppose it's possible, but I doubt it.
Regarding fuel injectors for both gasoline and diesel engines, I seriously doubt that MMO has any beneficial properties. Why? If it did, then I submit that the manufacturers of said engines would recommend such a treatment. Last time I checked, not one single manufacturer recommended MMO for anything, crankcase or fuel system.
I'm not saying that you are going hurt your engine by using that stuff, I am however suggesting that you're not helping it either.
I decided to check the Owner’ Manuals of our three cars and here is what I found.
From BMW:
"BMW engines are designed to operate without oil additives; the use of additives could lead to damage in some cases. This is also true for the manual transmission, the automatic transmission, the differential, and the power steering system."
There is no reference to any fuel system additives.
From DiamlerChrysler:
"Materials Added to Engine Oil The manufacturer strongly recommends against the addition of any additives (other than leak detection dyes) to the engine oil. Engine oil is an engineered product and it’s [sic] performance may be impaired by supplemental additives."
"Materials Added to Fuel All gasoline sold in the United States is required to contain effective detergent additives. Use of additional detergents or other additives are not needed under normal conditions and would result in additional cost. Therefore you should not have to add anything to the fuel."
From Dodge:
"Material Added to Engine Oil Chrysler Corporation does not recommend the addition of any additive to the specified engine oil."
"Materials Added to Fuel All gasoline sold in the United States is required to contain effective detergent additives. Use of additional detergents or other additives are not needed under normal conditions."
Furthermore, both our DaimlerChrysler and Dodge manuals contain a statement regarding the World Wide Fuel Charter (WWFC), a press release about which can be viewed at the following link:
To my way of thinking, the WWFC implies that no fuel additives are needed, required or recommended, and in fact, may provide the opposite of the desired results.
Regarding your comment, "Look and you'll FIND them..."
I looked, and I didn't find them, would you care to share a link or two where a major manufacturer recommends MMO?
Hmmm, I rather thought intelligent discourse where various parties were debating the relative merits of a specific item or subject was anything but a waste of time.
I for one am highly suspicious of MMO or any other engine oil/fuel additive, and until I see scientific evidence that it is beneficial, I will continue to be skeptical. Do you blame me?
FWIW, I have been hearing anecdotal evidence regarding MMO and other products if its ilk for years, and so far, the ONLY argument that I have ever heard that was even a little intriguing was one regarding old aircraft engines. Said engines were developed around the time of WWII, and as such were designed for an entirely different fuel specification than is currently available. Back then the common fuel for General Aviation (GA) was 80 octane leaded, and now the only certified fuel commonly available is 100LL (100 octane Low Lead, a misnomer in and of itself). When you run 100LL in an engine that was designed for 80 octane leaded, you will absolutely generate lead and other fuel related deposits inside the combustion chamber and on the valve stems due to the low compression nature of the old engine, regardless of how aggressively you “Lean”. Many old salts recommend using MMO as a solvent to help keep said deposits at bay, that said, putting MMO in the fuel tank of your GA aircraft is not approved by the FAA, and if you suffer an engine related failure and they find MMO in the fuel, you may find yourself in a spot of trouble.
to keep injectors clean. Since Chevron gasoline has Techron, I try to use Chevron every 3rd or 4th tank. I'd do it more often, but their station is not very convenient.
Does it work? Don't know. But, in my experience, I've not knowingly had a clogged injector. Good, consistent fuel mileage seems be be a good indicator that your injectors are working as intended. Our 528e, sold at 198k, never had an injector problem, and still returned 26 - 27 MPG running errands around town. Every 2nd to 3rd tank was Chevron.
Despite posts here that just beg for a response, I do agree that this is not the proper topic for this discussion. As such, I have just added a post over in the "Fuel and Oil Additives" discussion that essentially states that additives, such as MMO and even Techron from a bottle (as opposed to the gas pump) are equivalent to Snake Oil.
That ought to raise the hackles of the staunch additive supporters. See y'all there. ;-)
#86 of 86 Stepping into this topic... by shipo Feb 24, 2004 (9:25 am) Hey gang, we've been having a healthy row over in the Synthetic Oil topic regarding "Fuel and Oil Additives", and while it was a good discussion while it lasted, it seems that this is a better forum.
I have been following the additive argument for over thirty years now, and IMHO, due to all of the evidence supporting additives, which are anecdotal at best, the complete lack of readily available scientific evidence supporting additives, and my own personal research, additives like MMO and even Techron from a bottle for that matter are the same thing as Snake Oil.
Does anyone have any scientific information to suggest otherwise?
"I'm curious if it's GM's guidance, or your own feelings to stay at 90? My read, with Mopar, was "if you go to synthetic quality, you might as well go heavy", and fom a heat standpoint it makes sense."
It is first GM's recommendation for a 75W90 gear oil. The Z06 Corvette does come oem with synthetic and friction modifier. However it is situational for some specific cars need more than the 6% friction modifier recommendation to quell figure 8 differential chatter.
In doing some other reading, Redline advocates (under certain applications) an even lower weight synthetic gear oil. And to complicate it a tad more, some redline products have a lower % of friction modifier in some of their off the shelf products, others do not, but you can buy redline friction modifier seperately also.
I've followed the synthetic oil debate off and on for nearly thirty years, and while I can still understand the Conventional vs. Synthetic argument, especially after the complete and utter failure of Synthetics in small aircraft engines, I guess I have no tolerance for juice of snake. ;-)
Engines would last, maybe, 60,000 miles between "ring jobs" and "overhauls"....
(I don't know if many people are around today that remember this. I do.)
Anyway, I just posted a message on the "Additives" thread that I thought might benefit all of us who appreciate the lubrication engineering that's available today. Here is what I said....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
#101 of 101 One of the most "interesting" people I've ever known... by chispas Feb 25, 2004 (10:25 am) Was a retired mechanic in Dallas....
He was a very brilliant person and held patents for several automobile specialty tools....
His name was Clarence Allen, we called him "Bugs"....
He was helping me one day with repairs to a restored 1940 Indian Four motorcycle....
He began to recall and relate some of the good and bad things that he remembered when he used to ride this type of machine when he was a young man...
One thing that he mentioned was all the older motorcycles suffered because of the poor quality of motor oil that was available in the "early days"....
To help correct this problem he described how he had added Oxydol powdered soap to motor oil....
He said it worked great....
This has got to be the most unusual motor oil "additive" that I've ever heard of !!
I hope to hit between 550,000-1,000,000 and beyond, in a 2003 VW TDI Jetta. I am using Mobil Delvac 1 5w40, a group IV synthetic oil. (gear oil is also synthetic)
Comments
5-30 dino isn't as good as 5-20 dino, however, because the Ford spec to satisfy 5-20 makes it defacto semi-synthetic, and the oil boards indicate the Pennzoil variant has a high percentage of Group III and not just Group II base stock even though the Pennzoil is sold as a conventional motor oil (in fact, Ford sells its 5-20 as a semisynthetic while the exact same formula sold by Conoco is sold as a conventional oil).
On the other hand, you can't go wrong with Mobil 1 in 5-30 or 0-20. 5-30 certainly isn't too thick for your van, and in Mobil 1 it will have excellent flow characteristics whether you are in Florida or Minnesota.
Used oil analyses on 5-20 conventional have been very impressive, according to the oil board junkies. There have been reports from pickup owners who did a lot of towing, and no excessive wear metals showed up.
Keep in mind that Ford's maintenance book calls for 5,000 mile oil changes AT THE MOST using their superior spec 5-20 oil (wear tests are twice the length for 5-20 vs. current conventional SL oil). 3,000 miles is the oil change interval for severe (or cautious owner, choose your option) use. So using a 5-30 DINO oil at 5,000 mile change intervals might be underprotecting your van. Current popular thinking is that at 3,000 mile intervals almost any oil will do, but I am coming around to liking synthetic for superior camshaft and other high pressure, shear areas of the engine, since I drive manual transmission cars and run high rpms...I have finally figured out that most Americans are driving larger engines, with automatics, and I am exactly the type of driver who can benefit the most from full synthetic (i.e., Mobil 1).
Using Mobil 1 for 3,000-5,000 mile changes is definitely protecting your car.
When I had my first Focus, Ford's customer line told me that 5-20 was required, but that if the DEALER used 5-30 that wouldn't void the warranty. That begs the question of using 5-30 on your own.
You'll have to deal with the threshold of pain on the warranty issue yourself. Personally, I have been using 0-20 and 5-20 in two Toyotas and a Chevy which each still spec 5-30. These engines are all built about the same, and my feeling is that in a few years all the makers will switch to 5-20. The only think holding them back is us, the consumer, worried about engine death. Of course, in Europe they run much heavier weight oils than we do, more along 40w at the thick end. Are their engine tolerances different? Do they know something we don't? Come on, they aren't dealing with aircooled VW's anymore...
The 5-20 conventional oil is a bargain for what it is, which is why I use it in lieu of conventional 5-30. Now that I am moving to Mobil 1 (again), I may use the recommended grade (0-20 or 5-30) until I am out of warranty.
Yeah, I know technically the Mobil 1 0-20 doesn't satisfy the Ford 5-20 spec, but only because it has a lower pour rate - an advantage - than 5-20 at cold temps.
I agree that the wear metal held in suspension are not the real problem. IMO, well OK, IMHO, I think the high wear metals early in the Vortecs life shows a propensity to wear and that wiping out the acid fighting capability (having a low TBN) by accident (going a few more miles than you had planned) leaves you particulary vulnerable. I chose the safer approach.
I think 5k with conventional or 8-12k with synthetic makes sense. I do believe the 8-12k range is safe w/ UOA that includes a TBN.
I may do UOA to see where I want to go with the Vortec. I just put in Schaeffer's #703, a 10W30 blend at 1610 on the odo.
BTW, I'm not picking on you or at odds with you. I enjoy your posts. Just trying to clarify my position and show we're probable more in step than we realized.
May hydrodynamic and boundary protection be with you,
Jack
It was on my Cavalier...
Last month I was sick with a cold, so I took the
car to a quick change place when it needed the
filter changed, not the oil also.
I realized right away that there was an oil leak
because of a slight drippage and an odor of burning oil. The filter sits directly above the
exhaust system on this model, and a slight odor
of burning oil was unmistakable.
It was a warm day today, I was feeling better, so
I got busy.
The filter was tight. What could it be I wondered?
So, I pulled the filter.
The "culprit" was a cheap filter marked "Made in
China".
I'm just posting this as a "warning" to others.
------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------
#217 of 218 re:chinese filter by vidtech Feb 17, 2004 (8:45 pm)
was the filter a name brand?
------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------
#218 of 218 No, the filter was not a name brand.... by chispas Feb 17, 2004 (9:33 pm)
But, the name "almost" spelled Purolator...
That's what I thought it was at first...
Tricky !!!
Jeremy
"Amsoil" for search words....
There was no comparison....
Here's the Mobil 1 site...note you have to sign up to read....
http://www.mobil1.com/index.jsp
No registration at Amsoil's site....
http://www.amsoil.com/performancetests/amsoil_vs_mobil1.htm
Needless to say, I didn't sign up at the Mobil 1
site...
While two of the subjects are Mobil One and Redline, the important point is oil analysis is used to determine what is really happening! For my two cents it wouold be interesting to do a head to head comparison using conventional oil also!
“Synthetic motor oil generally has better low volatility characteristics than conventional motor oil, making it more resistant to oil consumption and burn-off,” reports NOLN. “Furthermore, synthetic motor oil is generally more resistant to thermal breakdown than conventional motor oil, meaning synthetic oil is less likely to thicken and form sludge than conventional oil. Synthetic oil also offers better low-temperature pumpability performance, meaning the oil gets to critical engine parts faster than conventional oil. Synthetic oil is more resistant to viscosity breakdown, leading some oil companies to recommend its use for longer than 3,000 miles. Finally, synthetic oil is generally considered to lead to better fuel mileage than conventional motor oil.”
While many consumers realized the benefits of synthetics all along, price has always been the main reason why synthetic motor oils have never occupied a larger part of the market. Today, several factors are working to change the consumer attitude about synthetics.
Auto manufacturers lead the way when it comes to affecting public opinion regarding their vehicles. Now that several auto manufacturers recommend synthetic motor oils, consumers are more likely to choose them over conventional oil.
“According to our 1999 Fast Lube Operators Survey,” reports NOLN, “about 6 percent of fast lube customers opted for synthetic lubricants, including motor oil. That was a slight increase from the 5 percent of customers that did so in previous years. This year, according to preliminary results from out 2000 Operators Survey, about 8 percent of fast lube customers opt for synthetic lubricants.”
According to Kendall Motor Oil, synthetic motor oil is the fastest growing segment of the motor oil market, with sales up 16 percent from last year. During the last five years, synthetic sales have grown at an average of 11 percent annually. This accurately reflects changes in the rest of the market as well.
Another reason more people have been opting for synthetic motor oil is the rise in prices of conventional motor oils. Crude oil prices have risen steadily since last fall and show no real signs of going back down. This, as well as decreased oil production by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), has led to decreased supplies of motor oil base stocks. Less petroleum base stocks mean higher motor oil prices....."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is a good discussion thread. Let's keep it "on subject".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Any help to provide information about Mobil 1,
Redline, Amsoil or others is what I think this
forum should pursue.
More information = best choice.
I had 50,000 miles on the 1999 Sub, then changed to synthetic...and one day there was a coolant leak....internal...and my wife still drove it..and I added 1 gallon of coolant....by the time we got it to the mechanic....I already busted the bearings.....
so got a new engine.....therefore the low 16,000 mileage.... :-(
I will change with regular CPB oil next 2 times, then perhaps use syn.....
see you on IDLSUVWDY...ruking... :-)
Conventional Petroleum Based ....
I LIKE your abbreviation ! ....
I think that the syn sales may level off or even decline. Why?
1. The new SL rating causes the use of more G II+ and/or G III in their formulations. So, conv. oil has improved dramatically. Maybe 3k was a good interval several years ago, but 5k is very reasonable with SL oil. Many users of sny, and ruking, you are the exception, don't feel comfortable going more than 5 or 6k anyway, esp. w/o a UOA. So, why so to a syn just to get 1 or 2k extra on the change interval?
2. Some UOA of syn blends on Bob's site seem to look real good. Even Castrol Syntec blend does a great job. Not to mention Schaeffer's blend that seems to hold its own with the best full syns.
3. There is still fear of leak development upon using syn. So, why take a chance if the potential benefits are small or seldom realized because of early changes?
BTW, I'm not anti syn. I use sny in one car and a syn blend in my truck.
For sure, there will always be a market for syn oil: a) when OEM speced like BMW, MB, Vette, etc.; b) "fanatical", no offense intended, owners; and c) heavy duty applications like towing.
May all your parts be well lubricated,
Jack
Also the fact that conventional or hydro cracked synthetic folks are hesistant to run the 10-15k intervals might be a testament to what they really think!
So far as I know the ones still in the group IV camp are Mobil One, Redline and Amsoil, although Amsoil sells a group three product after the Mobil decision.
I think we all agree that many oils, both conv and syn can go longer than they are normally used. I think this is a testament to the fact that people are cautious on risking an expensive car/engine when a $10 oil change can reduce the risk. Also, many resist a UOA needed to confidently extend their drain interval, the hassle, the confusion and the trip to the PO.
Hey,people are people.
2. Synthetic benefits go way beyond long life. I drive a stick shift with mostly small displacement engines like the Dodge Neon. Most people drive automatics and seldom run to redline. Think I'm going to trust these higher stresses to conventional oil?
3. The Consumer Report test showed that if you never shut off the engine (never goes to true cold state) and mostly drive on the street, oil lasts a long time. True NYC has tough winters - sometimes - but cab engines are never dealing with that. While sometimes we see cabs accelerating hard, or stuck in traffic, in a 24 hour day covering Manhattan and the boroughs there is also just a lot of moderate driving. In other words, the cab test was closer to average city driving in a lot of ways, and easier on the oil in certain ways (no cold starts, no short trips) so it isn't much of a test.
which COULD greatly improve ANY motor oil...
Just passing along :
http://www.platinumresearch.com/press_release_10.htm
From what I have read it was a court case!? Since I have not reviewed the actual court case, then I will go along with what you have said. But on the other hand, if it was an advertising tiff, Mobil really can't lose with this. All they have to do is to use a competitors or their own hydrocracked processes's and call all the oils they use it in "synthetic"
You are also correct in saying the SL rating calls for a "higher floor" on change intervals. Schaeffers also offers a "full synthetic", but there is not too much response to this product. While some blended "synthetics" such as Schaeffer's can and do go the extra distance, in my mind for the negligible price differences, I would rather use the Mobil One and for the last 25k miles I have also incorporated Mobil Delvac One (for a diesel engine). Mobil Delvac One has also been repackaged as Mobil One Truck and SUV (again since I have not seen it on the shelfs I am taking someones word for it). Currently Mobil One is 4 per and Mobil Delvac One is 5 per.
Since there are multiple prices for Schaeffers, perhaps you could delineate how much it costs per qt. From the research I have done in the Schaeffers synthetic and synthetic blends, there are too many issues that drive up its cost unnecessarily.
Best Regards,
Shipo
This also may be a tad off topic of synthetic oil but might be part and probably parcel of the "holy grail" quest that we seek, but synthetic oil DOES not protect against dry or cold starts which according to various sites is responsible for over half of engine wear. The case for pre oilers and bypass filters is really overwhelming, but any analysis under 500k miles comes up short!
I think in truth, not many folks in whatever camps want their engines to last 500-1M (and beyond)
This is precisely why that is my goal in my TDI engine! And I use Mobil Delvac One 5w40.
This article was also very interesting to me.
Since you're a relative of Mr. Greer, was there
anything more that he might have told you that
you can share?
Thanks !
off-topic that occurred about a dozen years ago.
At the local trap and skeet club, some of the
members discovered that PTFE if swabbed in the
bore of a shotgun before shooting, GREATLY reduced
build-up of powder and lead residue. In other
words, made the gun much easier to clean after
shooting many rounds of ammo.
One "brand" of PTFE they were using was called
DSX. It supposedly contained PTFE that was so
small in micro that it could theoretically go
through the pores in the human skin.
This kinda' scared me, so I never used it.
But, I always wondered if it might be used in
lubricants.
Just some thoughts.
ago, I've NEVER needed to use any kind of injector
cleaner.
I know some may laugh at what I do. Ok, go ahead.
What I'm doing is adding about 4 oz. of Marvel
Mystery Oil per each 10 gal. of gasoline. The
penetrants and other additives in MMO do a
marvelous job keeping injectors clean and lubricated.
I've always been hesitant of adding this to the
crankcase lube because I've been using synthetic
motor oils during this time. I don't know if
it's compatable to synthethics. Its instructions
say to add to petroleum motor oil. Nothing
is covered about synthetic.
Available info on the Web seems to be that nobody
has tried it, at least that I've been able to find.
I've just been asked by a friend if I knew the
answer. I said no.
Would appreciate any input.
"Since fuel injection became common about 20 years ago, I've NEVER needed to use any kind of injector cleaner."
Me too, and I've never bought any kind of a fuel additive, ever. For the record, I've been driving fuel injected cars since 1979, and the first one even used leaded fuel.
Best Regards,
Shipo
assume that you've never tried it), please do
a Web search.
There are NO MARKETING ADVERTISEMENTS, at least
none that I can find. Not even a home page.
Also, there are NO NEGATIVES (that I can find),
and MANY POSITIVES. Many of the users report
the petrating qualities will free stuck piston
rings, valves sticking in guides, freeing noisy
valve lifters and fuel injectors in both gasoline
and diesel engines.
I think you have dismissed this product as "probably a 'snake oil'".
It's been popular since 1923. Selling seems
to be by word of mouth.
Have you ever heard of a "snake oil" that has
been around that long ??
Yes there are....
Many automotice parts / accessory suppliers list it in their on-line
catalogs....
If I remember correctly, the lowest price was around $3.00 per pint.
There appears to be no intent to "rip-off" anyone....
Word-wrap is harder to read...
I disagree for that reason...
Could it help an engine that has been driven 100K miles on non-detergent oil that has never been changed? Yup. Would it help the same engine more than simply changing the oil with a high quality detergent oil? I suppose it's possible, but I doubt it.
Regarding fuel injectors for both gasoline and diesel engines, I seriously doubt that MMO has any beneficial properties. Why? If it did, then I submit that the manufacturers of said engines would recommend such a treatment. Last time I checked, not one single manufacturer recommended MMO for anything, crankcase or fuel system.
I'm not saying that you are going hurt your engine by using that stuff, I am however suggesting that you're not helping it either.
Best Regards,
Shipo
suggested....
There ARE manufacturers' recommendations....
Look and you'll FIND them....
I'd appreciate it if you'd stop your ankle biting.
cruiser.
One of the Yamaha service bulletins recommends
MMO to remove piston and upper cylinder deposits.
If I wanted to waste time, I could find this one.
Ahhha...
I'm not going to waste any more time on this
subject.
If someone can honestly say that they've successfully mixed MMO with synthetic motor oil, that's all I wanted to know.
Thanks to anyone that will answer.
From BMW:
"BMW engines are designed to operate without oil additives; the use of additives could lead to damage in some cases. This is also true for the manual transmission, the automatic transmission, the differential, and the power steering system."
There is no reference to any fuel system additives.
From DiamlerChrysler:
"Materials Added to Engine Oil
The manufacturer strongly recommends against the addition of any additives (other than leak detection dyes) to the engine oil. Engine oil is an engineered product and it’s [sic] performance may be impaired by supplemental additives."
"Materials Added to Fuel
All gasoline sold in the United States is required to contain effective detergent additives. Use of additional detergents or other additives are not needed under normal conditions and would result in additional cost. Therefore you should not have to add anything to the fuel."
From Dodge:
"Material Added to Engine Oil
Chrysler Corporation does not recommend the addition of any additive to the specified engine oil."
"Materials Added to Fuel
All gasoline sold in the United States is required to contain effective detergent additives. Use of additional detergents or other additives are not needed under normal conditions."
Furthermore, both our DaimlerChrysler and Dodge manuals contain a statement regarding the World Wide Fuel Charter (WWFC), a press release about which can be viewed at the following link:
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/press/date/19981222/press00181- - 1.html
To my way of thinking, the WWFC implies that no fuel additives are needed, required or recommended, and in fact, may provide the opposite of the desired results.
Regarding your comment, "Look and you'll FIND them..."
I looked, and I didn't find them, would you care to share a link or two where a major manufacturer recommends MMO?
Best Regards,
Shipo
Please don't waste my time....
I for one am highly suspicious of MMO or any other engine oil/fuel additive, and until I see scientific evidence that it is beneficial, I will continue to be skeptical. Do you blame me?
FWIW, I have been hearing anecdotal evidence regarding MMO and other products if its ilk for years, and so far, the ONLY argument that I have ever heard that was even a little intriguing was one regarding old aircraft engines. Said engines were developed around the time of WWII, and as such were designed for an entirely different fuel specification than is currently available. Back then the common fuel for General Aviation (GA) was 80 octane leaded, and now the only certified fuel commonly available is 100LL (100 octane Low Lead, a misnomer in and of itself). When you run 100LL in an engine that was designed for 80 octane leaded, you will absolutely generate lead and other fuel related deposits inside the combustion chamber and on the valve stems due to the low compression nature of the old engine, regardless of how aggressively you “Lean”. Many old salts recommend using MMO as a solvent to help keep said deposits at bay, that said, putting MMO in the fuel tank of your GA aircraft is not approved by the FAA, and if you suffer an engine related failure and they find MMO in the fuel, you may find yourself in a spot of trouble.
Best Regards,
Shipo
Frankly, it looks like you DID DO some web searching.
Then you extrapolated old aircraft engine comments
and their problems with the GA fuels available today.
STOP !!! PLEASE STOP !!!!
I just checked on Google...
Here's what it said :
"Searched the web for marvel-mystery-oil. Results 1 - 10 of about 8,510. Search took 0.20 seconds."
If there are 8,5l0 url's, it's quite possible there is an answer to my question.
Don't have the time to spend several days looking.
Certainly this is NOT the PLACE !!!
Does it work? Don't know. But, in my experience, I've not knowingly had a clogged injector. Good, consistent fuel mileage seems be be a good indicator that your injectors are working as intended. Our 528e, sold at 198k, never had an injector problem, and still returned 26 - 27 MPG running errands around town. Every 2nd to 3rd tank was Chevron.
Happy Motoring,
Jack
That ought to raise the hackles of the staunch additive supporters. See y'all there. ;-)
Best Regards,
Shipo
#86 of 86 Stepping into this topic... by shipo Feb 24, 2004 (9:25 am)
Hey gang, we've been having a healthy row over in the Synthetic Oil topic regarding "Fuel and Oil Additives", and while it was a good discussion while it lasted, it seems that this is a better forum.
I have been following the additive argument for over thirty years now, and IMHO, due to all of the evidence supporting additives, which are anecdotal at best, the complete lack of readily available scientific evidence supporting additives, and my own personal research, additives like MMO and even Techron from a bottle for that matter are the same thing as Snake Oil.
Does anyone have any scientific information to suggest otherwise?
Best Regards,
Shipo
Having said that, I do just that
But I can bypass the situation entirely for Redline sells a product that has almost all of the required friction modifier in the synthetic gear lube.
Best Regards,
Shipo
Any opinions?
It is first GM's recommendation for a 75W90 gear oil. The Z06 Corvette does come oem with synthetic and friction modifier. However it is situational for some specific cars need more than the 6% friction modifier recommendation to quell figure 8 differential chatter.
In doing some other reading, Redline advocates (under certain applications) an even lower weight synthetic gear oil. And to complicate it a tad more, some redline products have a lower % of friction modifier in some of their off the shelf products, others do not, but you can buy redline friction modifier seperately also.
I've followed the synthetic oil debate off and on for nearly thirty years, and while I can still understand the Conventional vs. Synthetic argument, especially after the complete and utter failure of Synthetics in small aircraft engines, I guess I have no tolerance for juice of snake. ;-)
Best Regards,
Shipo
"ring jobs" and "overhauls"....
(I don't know if many people are around today
that remember this. I do.)
Anyway, I just posted a message on the "Additives"
thread that I thought might benefit all of us
who appreciate the lubrication engineering that's
available today. Here is what I said....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
#101 of 101 One of the most "interesting" people I've ever known... by chispas Feb 25, 2004 (10:25 am)
Was a retired mechanic in Dallas....
He was a very brilliant person and held patents
for several automobile specialty tools....
His name was Clarence Allen, we called him "Bugs"....
He was helping me one day with repairs to a
restored 1940 Indian Four motorcycle....
He began to recall and relate some of the good
and bad things that he remembered when he used
to ride this type of machine when he was a young man...
One thing that he mentioned was all the older
motorcycles suffered because of the poor quality
of motor oil that was available in the "early
days"....
To help correct this problem he described how he
had added Oxydol powdered soap to motor oil....
He said it worked great....
This has got to be the most unusual motor oil
"additive" that I've ever heard of !!
------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------
to market.
I suspected that it was copied from some of the
captured German WWII scientific documents at the
end of the war.
For "tests", product was given to owners of fleet vehicles, like truck lines, to run tests.
IF the engines were COMPLETELY torn-down and
reassembled with the Prestone, it was excellent.
Of course this was unsatisfactory.
There have been a lot of "stumbles", but I agree,
million miles on cars of today are possible.