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
Yes, the crank case and the cooling fin jackets are usually aluminum, however, the cylinder bores, cams, cranks, rods, lifters, rockers, valves, and valve faces are all typically make of a ferrous metal, and as you know, ferrous metals rust very well.
"Also, it is my understanding that 1> Synthetic oil is not particularly hygroscopic; so it won't pull water out of the atmosphere; like brake fluid does. "
The issue isn't that the oil pulls water out of the atmosphere; it's that water will condense on interior engine surfaces and cause rust (especially in engines where the cam is positioned high and dry, the Lycoming O-360 is a good example of this).
"2> Since the crankcases on aviation engines do not have openings where rain can fall in; the only way that moisture could get into the crankcase would be through humid air which diffuses in through the breathers. And there ain't gonna be a great quantity of water which comes in by that route. "
While it is true that rain typically won't get into the engine, and while it is also true that there won't be a great quantity of water coming in through the breathers, it is just as true that the daily heating and cooling of the engine due to the normal fluctuation in ambient temperatures causes airflow in and out of the engine, and ever greater amounts of water will collect and condense each day. The cumulative effect of all this water is rust.
"3> During WWII, airplanes which were based in the Arctic had to have their oil diluted before starting with kerosene or a similar substance; in order to reduce the oil viscosity to a consistency where the starter motor could crank the engine over. It was found that the kerosene or whatever was used to dilute the oil would quickly boil off when the oil temperature came up to normal levels; which then allowed the oil to then function at its designed viscosity. "
What does this have to do with water condensing inside an infrequently used engine?
"Aotomobile engines will also boil off water which accumulates through condensation as well as boiling off the water which comes as a normal byproduct of combustion. (In addition to the moisture which accumulates from storage, a car engine will put a gallon of water out the exhaust for every ten gallons of fuel it burns.) That's why cars exhausts will steam in cold weather. "
The same holds true for an intermittent combustion aviation engine.
"American car engines use far more cast iron in their innards than aircraft engines; but cars have been using synthetic oil for years, and I never heard of a rusting problem that resulted from doing so. "
Not relevant to the discussion as most automobile engines are used on at least a weekly basis, many aviation engines are used only once a month (or less), and this takes me back to my original premise (i.e. to only use synthetic oil in engines that are frequently used).
”So where is this data that documents the rusting problem from use of synthetic oil?"
Given that the multitude of problems Mobil ran into with the Mobil AV-1 product caused them to withdraw it from the market fifteen years ago this month, the information is getting a bit harder to come by, however, here are a couple of links (unfortunately these two links primarily focus on the issues Mobil AV-1 had with TEL suspension):
http://www.avweb.com/news/news/182891-1.html
http://www.avweb.com/news/news/182893-1.html
Back in the day I remember reading a very lengthy thirty or forty page technical write-up that included post-mortems of a number of engines that had failed or were in the process of doing so (I believe this dissertation was used in the class-action law suit against Mobil), I might even still have a copy laying around (if I do, and I can actually put my hands on it, I'll post a few relevant abstracts).
Best regards,
Shipo
As for your Toro, I'm not saying that every infrequently used engine will rust when synthetic oil is used, however, there is lots of evidence that many will. Case in point, before I learned about the Mobil AV-1 fiasco I ran Mobil 1 5W-30 in my garden tractor (which has a Kohler engine). About the time the news broke about AV-1, I was trying to figure out why that engine was getting so hard to start and keep running. When I pulled the engine down there was clear evidence of rust on both the cam and the cylinder bore and significant cylinder bore scoring. That was when the engine was only four years old. I rebuilt it and have used conventional oil in it ever since, and now, sixteen years later, it still runs like a top.
So, what's the difference between your Toro and my Kohler? Probably environment. Here in New Hampshire it isn't at all unusual for temperatures to fluctuate thirty and forty degrees in a single day, our grass growing season isn't all that long, and rarely do I need to start the engine more than twice a month between May and October. For the rest of the year the tractor sits under our deck (i.e. it is semi exposed to the elements) without being started even a single time.
Best regards,
Shipo
Best regards,
Shipo
1. I would first go with it.
2. research why they actually went with it.
3. find out if there are significant groups of folks with issues.
4. pick one or two (0w30,5w30) vs (5w20,0w20)
The issues in my mind are at once simple, but complicated.
IF the engine was built with the 5w20 specifications (by default 0w20 also) firmly in mind: that is one of the strongest reasons to go with it. The 5w20 specification is indeed a very very robust one. Indeed UOA's run in their respective recommended engines show 5w20 to be BETTER than 5w30. This is clearly NOT to say 5w30 is BAD, but 5w20 is better in its respectively designed engine.
Unless they say it is an after thought because 5w20 gives better fuel mileage, this would be a CLEAR indicator to run the OEM recommendation, in your case: 5w20, 0w20 (by default also ) .
The next is really longitudinal and can be complex in nature. Do UOA's (bobistheoilguy.com) show a significant lessening of wear metals due solely to the 5w20 formula vs the 5w30 formula? (5w30 run in engines designed for 5w20 and vice versa) IF so, one easy decision to make is: is the loss of 1-3 mpg worth a significant reduction in wear metals, (FE) for example. (One can research which wear metals represent what is wearing).
It is pretty much a gimme the 5w20, 0w20 will get a min of 1-3 mpg better. To further complicate the issue, how does it compare with the new Mobil One 0w30?
If you want a parallel illustration, I am going through similar issues in a VW 504/507 specification 5w30 vs DPF 5w40. UOA's show 40% less wear metals for the 5w40. The complication is the brand new designed DPF specifies VW 504/507 5w30, since both are formulated with DPF's in mind. Engine warranty would be voided using anything other than VW 504/507 5w30 specification oils. I might add in the very very remote cases of needing engine warranty work during the meager 3 year 36,000 miles warranty.
The xB has one of the best reliability records of any car EVER, so why compromise that for the sake of...well, I'm not sure why you'd even want to use 5W-30.
Your Host WILL be checking attendance! :P
Vigilantly Yours,
Shifty
So for example since the Toyota oem xB engine is specified for BOTH, the interesting test would be an A/B Same brand, i.e., Mobil One 5w20 vs 5w30. Do UOA's and compare and contrast... THEN.. decide.
Now the practical aspect/s might over ride any technical considerations, i.e., Some folks don't keep their cars that long.
So for example, (04 Civic) I have been using it( M1 5w20, 0w20 or mix) for app 86,000 miles and with 20,000 miles OCI's (after the meager 3 year/36,000 mile warranty). A spin off benefit, per mile lubricated is VERY low. Say I save 1 mpg (over high vis). Over 400,000k miles that is 285 gals( @$2.85 per gal) $ 800 or (@38 mpg=) 10,830 miles)
Now some folks might say: post or text us when your car blows up, and we will have a good laugh: to more like geez, I would never run that mileage....
So given that most folks will keep their cars 9.3 years and most likely LESS, most folks do 3,000 to 5,000 MAX OCI's. WHY BOTHER... would be my take!?? Honda OEM OCI recommendation is 10,000 miles on conventional oil and 20,000 mile oil FILTER changes.
On the other hand my goal is to keep it going past 400,000 miles...and I do 20,000 miles OCI's. Go figure.
Even a publication by CA.gov expresses this:
..."One of the few true PAO motor oils is Mobil 1.
Most manufacturers now use a petroleum oil
base stock and market the product as synthetic
motor oil. Consumers now cannot easily
distinguish a full PAO synthetic from a synthetic
blend."...
Labeling Requirements Allow Broad
Definition for Synthetic Oil Labels
The U.S. labeling rights to use the term “synthetic
oil” were given exclusively to lubricants
formulated with polyalphaolefin. The term
“synthetic” was expanded to include extensively
treated petroleum-based oil.2 Currently, the oil
industry has developed three methods to develop a
synthetic oil product that meets the “synthetic”
definition: 1) full PAO synthetics, 2) extensively
processed petroleum oil base stock, and 3)
blending traditional petroleum-based oil with
extensively processed petroleum oil base stock or
PAO.
Zero Waste—You Make It Happen!"...
link title
The PAO IV's I am familiar with, from a specific consumer's point of view: are Mobil One, Redline, Amsoil, Royal Purple. Of late, Total Quartz INEO hit the radar for the VW specifications 504/507. This is probably too specialized an application for most folks.
While I am convinced Mobil One is not THE best (PAO IV), (it is one of the BETTER ones) I seem to buy it because of some of the following reasons.
1. more widely available
2. cheaper
3. don't normally have to pay shipping twice
4. they periodically go on sale
5. they actually go through the independent testing and franchise rig ga ma roll to wear the appropriate and applicable "MEETS or EXCEEDS" specifications
6.. tests in your specific application of interest can be run VOA/UOA to see if you are getting the level of protection you are paying for.
7. across the product line, all things being equal (they are not of course) have a consistency.
8. the anomalies actually turn out to be even better than oils that indeed meet oem specifications. Mobil One TDT 5w40, aka's Mobil One Truck & SUV Delvac One).
It can be run in MOST applications (if 5w40 is not a deterent). . For one specific application (which it does not carry the all inportant VW specification) it is THE BEST oil for the job. I also can and do run it as back fill for 3/4 applications. Most folks, not surprisingly have never even heard of it.
As I understand it, Redline and Royal Purple are not PAO based oils, they are instead Ester based Group V oils. Do you know of some late breaking information that would contradict that?
Best regards,
Shipo
As per the CA.gov reference.... manufacturers indeed do not make it easy to discern. Some will even say the blend's contents are proprietary.
Here is a excerpt from Royal Purples own web site:
..."So what makes Royal Purple’s synthetic lubricants so good? Royal Purple is ‘manufactured’ in chemical plants. Poly-Alpha-Olefin (PAO) bases are most commonly used in synthetic lubricants. PAOs are similar in chemical properties to extremely expensive pure parafinic mineral oil but contain no sulfur, no phosphorus, and no metals."...
..."Royal Purple’s performance advantages come from a blend of synthetic oils plus Royal Purple’s proprietary Synerlec technology."... link title
Redline also does not leap out and say 100% NON PAO... or even 100% Polyol (Group V).
So if you tell me Redline and Royal Purple are 100% Group V, Polyol , truthfully I have no reason to doubt your update. My take is it is probably a propriatary blend of group IV and V.
So for example the Mobil One 5w40 I spoke of is ( 26 per 5 qt. vs $40 per gal Redline ) per qt 5.20 vs 10. aka 100% PAO IV base stock. Since I run 25,000 mile OCI's, would the 2 x expense of Redline allow:
1. either 50% less the wear
2. and/or 2x the OCI or 50,000 miles
3. or both?
However I would agree with your post.
On first glance it would appear the current web site does a great job of product marketing. I noticed an almost systematic total lack of the normal "oil specifications." In line with the threads' current discussion, I was a bit amused, perplexed, etc.
Years ago their web site said "words to the effect "that the Redline product's were indeed BETTER than the oil specifications in a specific product application. They were NOT technically certified to meet or exceed the oil specifications but their their R and D indicated they were far superior to almost any competing product (like Mobil One) They if I remember correctly, concluded they would rather invest their monies in R & D rather than for the right to wear (those stinking) badges.... :P
..."Red Line's motor oils and gear oils use superior ester base stocks that provide extreme stability at high temperatures and superior film strength at lower viscosities where more power can be produced."...
So in some sense the current web site appears to be preaching to the choir so to speak. However when it comes to real world results there is a decided lack of VOA's and UOA's on the after market. So for example on a niche market specfication VW 504/507, I know of almost no one who uses it (Redline 5w40, 15w40 (diesel), for that application, let alone has a UOA.
..."Calculated by dividing total wear metals by miles in thousands. The national average is 6.538 ppm total wear metals, less Mn and Ni. This is based on 51 ppm total / 7800 miles by Blackstone.
TDI Club Ave : 6.614 ppm. ~~~~~~ Club Ave. OCI : 9808 mi. 5/19/09"...
link title
So for example 50% better would be AVG: 3.307 ppm total wear metals...
I have no doubt that because of limited production of PAO V's (aka Polyol Ester), the cost is probably factorially higher than PAO IV, and certainly (hydrocracked) group III the stuff Castrol calls "synthetic".
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
If I had decided to stay with conventional oil 5w20, 10,000 miles OCI for the Honda Civic, my pick would be the Exxon Mobil Super Flo (5w20). It is a very high quality product. The price per quart (special store sale AND after rebate, if I remember correctly was .66 cents per quart). This made it hard to decide to switch to Mobil One 5w20,0w20. $22. per 5qt container.
What is the price for QS? I am guessing it is a hydrocracked group III product.
back in '80 my friend bought a '68 Firebird from a co-worker. The co-worker had bought a new Firebird for himself and a new GTO for his wife back in '68. He didn't believe in air filters or oil changes for either one. All the S. Fl. sugar sand ingestion by the 400 in the Firebird worked in unison with the no oil changes well. He had to add lots of oil and that kept it changed. My friend bought it with under 50k miles on it, all original, rebuilt the engine slightly over and with the granny tires, a 4 on the floor, and posi, he could break it loose for about a second at 50 mph with a 4th to 3rd downshift with 4 of us in it.
Now I am not saying that QS is not good. I do however have close to 1 M miles on Mobil One and with a min of 15,000 to 25,000 miles OCI's.
In the context of things, I would call this a past (personal) bias about QS, Pennzoil and Castrol. I have scraped more than a few engines of the sludge that had steady diets of the above products and with 3,000 miles or less OCI's !!!
Here we are taking about a Group III synthetic that, although not quite equivalent to M1 is still a synthetic oil.
Still a synthetic oil? In name only, in fact, in name only here in the States; Group III oils are not allowed to be called "Synthetic" in Europe.
Best regards,
Shipo
I read in passing that when Castrol in marketing the Edge product refers to it as "FULL" synthetic. (I would presume closer to 100% PAO IV) By deduction does that mean LESS THAN full for the other than Castrol "synthetic" products?
Bearing that in mind I would not hesitate to use it up to 6k miles without an OCI.
On my own cars and motorcycle I use Amsoil because of it's easy availability to me (my neighbour is an Amsoil dealer and sells at dealer cost to me).
Best regards,
Shipo
A couple of things that I have noticed in the oil change. When I switched to M1 10w30 I didn't really notice a difference in MPG or power. I actually didn't really notice any real difference at all. Several factors could have played into this. I wasn't doing a whole lot of driving with this vehicle and the driving I did do was short stints. They were usually less than 5 miles each. My gas mileage was pretty bad at around 16 MPG. I also installed a ladder rack and that also seemed to affect my mileage. When I was using the Valvoline I had been getting 17-18 city and around 23 hwy. However, this was when I was driving 3-4K miles a month and mostly highway miles. I also want to note that I was already getting the horrid mileage before I switched to M1. When I switched to M1 my driving habits had already changed for this vehicle. What I was looking for when I switched to the M1 was increased time between oil changes and better protection because of all the short trips. It was also cost effective as I could do an M1 oil change every 10K for around $30 versus a dino Valvoline change every 3K for around $15 (by doing it myself).
Just recently I started driving the truck more. I now average about 1500 miles a month. A lot of highway miles are accumulated. The truck now goes instead of an average of 5 miles per trip, around 80 miles per trip. My mileage increased to about 17-18 MPG. Which I still thought was pretty bad seeing as how I used to get 22-23 MPG on the dino oil, but that was before the truck hit 100K and I put the ladder rack on it so I attributed it to that. Plus the driving I was doing wasn't all straight roads and downhills. It was up hills and down and around corners and such. So there was more accelerating and descelerating involved than I think would be typical. If I was really nice to the truck, I could squeak a 19 mpg, but that was being nice. I don't like being "nice", I just want to drive.
However, I started driving more when the M1 10w30 had been in the truck for about a year. I was contemplateing changing it, but I still had about 4K to go before my 10K oci. Well I hit that 10K oci just a few days ago and finally changed the oil. I think I used about 1 1/2 qts of oil through out the interval and I was a qt low when I changed it. The usage seems high to me, but then again for a lot of that I was doing cold starts and driving a few miles and the truck didn't get a chance to really warm up before being shut off again. The truck would normally go through about 1 qt of dino oil per 3K oil change so the rate of usage per miles driven stayed about the same and even went down some with the M1.
Now on to what I have noticed. I am running the 0w30 M1. The past 2 tanks of gas have been a little over 20 MPG. The last time I filled up I didn't have a calculator but I did a rough estimate in my head and came up with around 20 mpg. I thought it might be a fluke or maybe the attendant didn't fill it all the way or maybe I drove a little more nice. Today I filled up and went 310 miles on 15.3 gallons of gas. Again, right at 20 mpg. I used the same station and probably the same pump. It is also likely it was the same attendant that filled the truck last time. Remember, I used to struggle to get 19 and normal mileage was around the high 17's. I wasn't any more different in my driving. So it appears that the M1 0w30 has indeed increased mileage by about 1-2 mpg. I'll track it and see how it goes. I should also note that I have been running the A/C more frequently as well, whereas before the oil change, I hadn't been running the A/C as much. It just so happened that about a week before I changed the oil, I started using the A/C more.
Also my temp seems marginally lower. The temp of the truck had normally been running right at 210 (mid-point exact), but over the past several days of driving I have noticed it running at about 1 notch lower. Maybe it's running cooler, maybe it's just I pay more attention to the gauge now I don't know. Someone before mentioned faster starts, but I haven't noticed this. My truck has always started with 1 crank of the starter will even fire up with just a half a crank frequently. It has always started almost instantly.
I haven't done any UOA's, but I should as I would be curious to see what it happening. However, I may get a chance to peek at the insides of the motor as I suspect I have both a valve cover gasket leaking and now possibly a coolant leak at the back of the motor. So some parts are going to have to come apart to replace the leaky seals and so maybe that will give me a chance to see what is happening inside the motor. I suspect it might be in pretty good shape given it's had a dino Valvoline oil change every 3-5K since I purchased the vehicle at 26K 6 years ago and then just recently the M1....
Thanks for the WalMart $22.00 heads up.
My swag would be BARELY noticable @ .5 mpg. 3.3% to 2.8%