Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
Within the normal range of engine and environmental operation these advantages are totally irrelevant.
Regards,
Dusty
Ok, what's the problem with this test?
http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/79838/
I got to say they seemed a bit more on top of oil chemistry than the average mechanic/person but does anyone see what is wrong with this?
......... ok, might as well tell you what I see as it is so easy to pull this one over anyone. It's kinda like some of those tv infomercials.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
Take a look at the beginning mineral oil. What was it? It was not RP's mineral oil, do they even have one? anyway, here's the problem. If you want to see if the synth base oil is doing anything for reducing friction and allowing more hp to the wheels, you need to start out the test fair. Problem 1, they do not disclose the beginning oil, this can be anything from an SA base naph oil with limited base oils. The mineral base oil used is in question as it doesn't give a good reference of the chemistry. Ok, what am I saying.
I can take and have done this, a basic mineral cheap grade oil, ran it under set conditions and reported. Now, pull the fluids out and I can replace that oil with say in my case, Schaeffers mineral based oil with NO synth's but with one of the best balanced additive packages with all the basic additives but with additional FM's such as soluble moly and antimony, which decreases the friction more than any base oil can, run that test again and the same results will appear as in this case of RP. So what have I done? I didn't compare base oils, but in that case I compared the additives and the base oils. Same in the above demonstration, again I ask, WAS IT THE SYNTH BASE OIL THAT MADE THE DIFFERENCE OR THE ADDITIVE PACKAGE? I have my money on the additives as the additives for both oils were completely different so no idea which in this case.
BUT in this case, we can establish the base oil did in deed not cause any difference in reducing wear numbers, but in fact we found out a more important factor when looking at the 2nd and 3,4 and 5 analysis. In looking at these analysis, we are using schaeffers blend with 25-28 PAO synth blended in with the parf mineral oil and then replacing the blend with the counter part mineral oil that has the same basic additives but without the pao synth base oil added. The results, well, look and see for yourself how that when we switched from the blend the mineral actually produced lower wear numbers. Any idea as to why this happen'd?
http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;- - f=3;t=000211;p=3#000091
Oh, look at the last one and see what happened when I lowered my viscosity from 15w40 to 5w30 mineral.
The main reason I have trouble believing the results are real and would stand up on average across different vehicles and driving styles is that a reasonable mechanism has not been postulated. In order for me to believe in something, 2 things are required. First, in this type of issue, there should be a chemical explanation for why something should have lower friction. Second, there should be test results that demonstrate the theory. You have a small portion of the last part but none of the first. What are the additive(s) that you believe create the lowest friction you can get and why are all oils not using that additive(s)? Can you give us a reasonable chemical theory for why this additive(s) creates lower friction.
Ok, so why did the mineral SAME VISCOSITY 15w40 on BOTH TESTS, come back in lower? As you keyed in on, the FILTER. After checking into it a bit further, I've learned that flow will do more for lowering wear numbers than filtration. The m1 filter has a better filtration rate, but to accomplish this, it would me more restriction. So, based on that premise, I then changed over to a 5w30 for lower viscosity and see what would happen, and again, it lowered again even more. I am waiting on my last test to return as after the mineral 5w30 was run with a fram, I then ran the 5w30 blend counter part with a fram so to again compare wear numbers one mineral against pao blend. I do not expect it to differ much imo. again supporting that the pao base stock will not impact the wear numbers as many expect it does.
OK, the chemistry side, what is it that lowers friction? Well, after full hydrodynamic flow, it would be friction modifiers and antiwear agents.
Most all oils contain the standard zddp which is being lowered each time oil is reformulated as we all know. So, the big difference? one is MOLY(soluble moly), this particular component has the ability to resist pressure in extreme levels. What you see if you look at oil analysis that moly is being used in more and more oils. Not only is moly being used as a friction modifier it also has some natural antioxidant abilities that help resist acid formation along with antioxidant additives which helps tbn retention.
When mobil went from the tri synth to the new supersyn, they made claims to new antiwear technology. Interesting thing was it wouldn't plate on my timken machine(not that it's scientific but it does show barrier additives and how they hold) and according to analysis, it had no barrier additives such as moly at that time. Shortly after my review, (within a month) new analysis showed up with moly. Now if I ended up with a bad batch or what I dint' know but once they put moly in, it began to plate up as expected. So that alone showed where the base oil by itself couldn't provide any protection when hydrodynamic levels were breached.
Now today there are just a couple of oils that take it one step farther and ad in antimony, again, another great fm. In schaeffers case, they also have a patent product they call a trade secret called Penetro. I have no idea as to what it is other than a barrier additive as well. Now, how well does that work? well, Schaeffers puts out a spray lubricant based on this additive and it's called penetro and when sprayed on the timken it won't lock down even with big bubba on the end of the lever.
So, what is it that Schaeffers does that brings it to another level?, Well,you having some basic chemistry as I believe you know, Schaeffers takes and adds a surfactant of sorts so to break the ionic tension on all of these additives so to provide an even full surface coverage. Alot of oils rely on the molecular level to have this affinity to metal, which I've yet to see just how that helps. Certain barrier additives are activated by heat which tends to attract and bond to the metal surface. Moly turns into a glass like surface at 400* at friction points. Zddp bonds with a lot less heat so it helps carry the basic load at first then as the temp of a friction area gets higher then the other additives start to kick in. This in itself provides less heat, resistance to friction and so on, which in turn puts less stress on the base oil therefore the base oil has less oxidation and doesn't need the higher molecular chains to maintain as the hydrocarbons are not attacked as hard. Notice many and the majority of full synth's are using higher levels of barrier additives. Amsoil- excessive zddp's, redline over 600ppm moly and excessive levels of zddp, and now m1-90ppms of moly. Do you see the picture here, it's not the base oil doing the friction reduction and giving more hp it's the friction modifiers. The only thing that a base oil provides is hydrodynamic film which under normal operation, keeps the parts lubricated, but when put under any heavy load and has momentary shearing of the hydrodynamic film then the friction mod's kick in and makes the difference and will provide especially in gear area's the barrier film which takes a sliding gear and reduces the drag on that sliding surface thus improved HP/gas mileage.
Anyway, I gotta go, have a lot more to say but better give you all a break.
Bob
I was going to also mention to everyone that I am not trying to promote schaeffers in the above posts but only used then as I have a strong knowledge of that specific lubricant and therefore use them as the example I speak from.
Armdm, was it not you that bought a 5gal pail of schaeffers full synth 5w30, did a run and found it to give about the same amount of wear protection as our blend? Again, another example of full synth base oil vers a good well blended parf base oil and if understanding correctly, a very close related if not near the same additive package particularly when you're talking about barrier additive chemistries. If memory serves, I even discouraged you from buying the schaeffers full synth because of not being able to see much if any difference based on our labs reports they have with all of them.
You could also argue that using expensive Michelin tires is overkill and that the cheapest Walmart tires will do the job properly.
It's a matter of personal choice and nobody is trying to convince you that synthetic is "better".
Do what makes you happy but understand that there are lots of people who prefer synthetic and not polluting the environment as much is one of many reasons for it.
The reason I prefer synthetic is that I don't have to crawl under my car every 5 weeks. I drive 30k miles per year and using Amsoil and oil analysis I only have to perform 2 oil changes per year.
True friction modifiers help reduce friction at start-up until around 180-185 deg.F when the ZDDP (zinc dialkyldithiophosphate kicks in as an Anti-Wear agent. Different chemistries altogether. ZDDP prevents wear by sacrificing phosphorous and sulfur at metal-to-metal contact points (boundary lubrication/ mild EP) where the oil layer (hydrodynamic lubication) has been penetrated. All oils that carry the API certification starburst and donut use this same chemistry. And, by the way, all these additive systems have a similar complement of antioxidants, corrosion inhibitors, dispersants, detergents (calcium sulfonates, usually), AND surfactants. The requirements are so rigid and engine stand testing so costly that there are limited numbers of additive systems available.
Certain tweaks exist that carry API cerification and some cost you the donut/starburst. One oil brand referenced to a concerning degree above relied on molybdenum disulfide (solid moly plates) in the 70's and 80's until diesel OEMs frowned on it (filtration and copper corrosion reasons) and MoS2 was relegated for the most part to chain and oven drier bearing applications and aerosols, although one can still find it around in engine and gear oils. The more modern examples came from turbine oil technology in the late 80's early 90's from a specialty additive company called RT Vanderbilt (I have no stake other than incorporating their additives in formulations for major oil co.s in a former life) which then introduced oil-soluble moly and antimony compounds but they were used primarily as antioxidants (molybdenum and antimony dithiocarbamates) with some ashless (non-zinc) antiwear characteristics to counteract the reduced phos/ZDDP contents mandated with API SJ on (to reduce phosphorous poisoning of exhaust catalyst for emission requirements).
Looking at the oil analysis linked in post 2434 it's obvious different additives are being used and/or supplements added. The 15W-40 readings (far left) are a diesel engine oil package zinc/phos over 1200 ppm, Ca over 3500 ppm. No brainer. That much calcium is used to counteract sulfuric acid caused by burning diesel fuel with sulfur in it. There's no place for this is a gasoline oil add-pack and it'd never meet emissions. The 5W-30 far right is a contemporary gasoline engine oil package (PCMO) (under 1000 ppm Zn/P per API SJ on) and ~2000 ppm Ca. You're comparing apples and grapes.
Finally, I'll end my diatribe by saying the "Timken" tester is a specialty oil salesmen's demo device only. It could not possibly have any less relevence to the performance of an engine oil. If you want to spin that thing off it's chart, put a few drops of chlorinated paraffin (cutting oil additive - present in Tap Free or Tap Magic on the shelf). It won't seize but it's really corrosive in an engine - makes HCl with heat & moisture). I've also ruined some perfectly good sales demos by providing from a desk drawer a "special sauce" to grind down on and finding amusement in the efforts discreetly but arduously applied to seize it or scar the pin -only to reveal after being complemented on the additive that the "sauce" was glycerine (aka Preparation H).
Ok, the weak point of your post is that you missed the point. First, Although this oil is designed as a diesel oil, it also is qualified and approved API SL oil(spark or gas engine)as well as API CI-4(compression or diesel engine) oil. No, it's not a fuel economy oil with the star. Does that have a bearing on this apples and grapes comparison as you mention. NO. Why? The point of this test was to demonstrate how does a synth based oil compare to a non synth. So by taking a blend that uses the same basic chemistry as the mineral they carry, difference is the blend has pao, and using the first 5 tests, we could see that the "internal molecular" friction had no real bearing on wear protection. It also showed that the PAO in all it's glory did in fact again not help improved wear protection.
I know that from a cubical engineer standpoint that a pao supposedly will lower wear numbers but as of yet, the point I've been showing is no, the base oil itself will not except in hydrodynamic regimes prevent less wear and this hydrodynamic isn't dependant on anything but flow/pressure.
To accomplish lower wear numbers the base oil must provide the wedge between the two surfaces. The evidence I'm showing between the two "apples to apples" comparison is where I switched over to the mineral oil that is designed with the near same basic levels of additives with no pao blended in. This is the biggest problem most seem to miss, when switching to a synth, the jump from a less than adequate mineral of sorts, and completely goto a different type of oil which btw, do have different additive levels and different blending. Upon looking at many analysis(virgin analysis that is), you can see that there are much higher levels of barrier additives in the full synth's than many basic mineral oils. What I find amusing is how many think that those molecular base stocks is reducing all this friction when in fact, they change from a 10w30 to a 0-30 synth loaded with more barrier additives. They just then changed flow rate with the thinner oil and with a new oil that has higher levels of friction mod's most times. So how can anyone say oh, synth's provide better wear protection. I've yet to see any one, cls, cubical engineer, or any company show how a synth base oil that can produce lower wear numbers. The reason for my point, way too many people base their choice of oil on if it's a group whatever and fail miserably at seeing there's more to oil than base oil alone.
The problem where m1 reduced it's levels to meet api specs and sent out the first batch without moly, provided some interesting results and once moly and what ever else they used, the oil took on a totally different result.
Ok, let's address this salesmen timken machine. I, like you have seen many salesmen using it for just that. To demonstrate not the hydrodynamic film strength, but the barrier additive and many can and do manipulate the results. No question as to how many of those "additives" do/can cause corrosion as a chlorinated type of parrf. You can even take some types of paper towels/tissue which may have some type of phos embedded in it and cause it to accomplish what you did with prep h. I'm sure it's cute to do things like that to a salesmen and mess him up. I do think however that when a guy is properly using the machine and of course you know all the tricks, that if you see how most will not allow the barrier additives time to activate with heat with your oil, and goes directly into lockup mode, and then he gives his time to plate with the needed heat, then blow em out of the water but having him do it exactly the same. will it give the same results, well, if the oil is blended with the same basic additives, you bet. I myself have seen where you can plate up the machine with the standard zddp additives but with a bit more pressure it will shear those additives, but with the soluble moly, it is near impossible(not completely though), to shear out the barrier film, as you and I know that the strength of the two are different as is both have different levels of heat activation. Moly takes more heat than zddp before chemically reacting to the heat, and yes it, like zddp is sacrificial. But none the less, moly and zddp have different functions, zddp is the basic and reacts quicker at lower heat ranges and is why commonly used in all oils unlike moly is used in many oils now that wasn't before, and still even today many do not use moly and only rely on the zddp, some of which lose their ability to meet the api specs due to the over ppms of that. So, does this make the timken worthless? Of course not. Just like a test, you get out of it what you put into it. Believe it or not, many good people can use it to demonstrate a basic point without being deceptive. Is it scientific, of course not. Myself, I do not touch the lever when showing something to a person, I let them hold that handle, so in no way am I trying to control what is being done. You can't argue with yourself if you handle the control unless you've been in a cube to long and of course you want to try and run your own test as you'd be in charge of it. I've had people try and "ruin" my demo, but as I pointed out how that the basic oil you use has less barrier additive than in your own prep H, imagine that, you must have less friction up your axx than in your motor. Hey, I have fun with people and don't let people upset me as I know better and all you'd prove it that there are all sorts of chemicals that can plate up this test, so why is the oil not doing as well as the other one since the additives exist? got to make you wonder why not have them in there? Not all barrier additives cause corrosion, as mentioned before, cummins did find the mo in older oils causing this problem but with soluble mo not the case and cummins did test it and cleared it for use in their engines now.
I had setup several videos on the basics about timkens and a couple of demos using it quite some time ago.
Basics of the timken... http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/timken.asf
This helps explain what the timken is showing and how it applies to a real engine and the parts associated with the engine.
Also, I even took the time to demo a couple of oils and how you can see the difference of barrier additives affects. The one on there at this time was m1's first version of super-syn where it had reduced barrier additives and really helps demo the base oil only and how it wouldn't provide wear protection when oil is sheared. Why? cause the oil's hydrodynamic properties were sheared and only relies on the barrier additives. This is all it demonstrates. Again, supporting my point of synth base oil doesn't' provide wear protection unless in full hydrodynamic regime.
This is the page I setup a long while back,
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/oilshear.htm
that talks about how shearing occurs in simple basic
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/oilshear.htm
that talks about how shearing occurs in simple basic mechanics. I know the engineers hate my explanation but lets face it, there is a lot more mechanical evidence in engines all over that has shown where mineral oils do/did provide more than adequate wear protection over the years. Why some and not others, as in many cases, all sorts of other variables come into play and more recently more than before, flow has now shown to be a big factor. Now, manufactures are trying to get people to lower their viscosity oil(5w20 comes to mind).
Let me clarify that we are talking about standard oil drains in standard weather. Synth's do have a place and do offer big advantages, which is evident of longer extended drains as the molecular structure of the synth oil is obviously more resistant to heat/oxidation and a better VI index. With refinement procedures now adays, a good group III can hold it's own in comparison to a full synth too. This is why so many are switching over to some group III blended in pao and claiming full.
Ok, back to my little test, The point of the test went from testing with and without pao, to testing flow issues due to the mineral 15w40 resulted in lower wear numbers as it should have been near the same but since I made the error of using a less expensive filter, my numbers dropped due to better flow. Now that test moved over to flow vers wear and when we went from 15w40 mineral and a fram filter, we moved over to a 5w30(more appropriate oil for 1.9L) it provided even better flow and even lower wear numbers. Now, that flow is establish as lowering wear numbers, I then used same filter but brought back in the blend counter part of the 5w30 mineral and according to the lab, the blend shows to have about the same basic wear numbers as the mineral did with the same filter. Again, supporting the claim, base oil doesn't provide wear protection(synth vers mineral)as some seem to claim. Is this scientific, nope, not at all but.. It sure brings out some interesting points on how mechanics affect flow which affects wear and I bet that the scientific community didn't account for that when looking at the basic chemistry as the standard tests reported on the tech-data sheets do not incorporate mechanical shear of the hydrodynamic films nor account for the different filters and the flow rates which they do not provide either.
This is one big reason why tech data sheets have a fine starting point about an oils limits but doesn't have enough info to demonstrate how it really will do in a real application. There's no question that you can use the td to pick an oil for that application, but is there more? Can you pick out the best one based on that alone? out of 50 or so to choose from like in motor oils?
Again, I submit, to pick an oil based on if it's synth or not is imho, the way, but only a factor in which does it need to play a role in your application? It's not going to hurt you to run a full synth, and I'm not saying that you should run a mineral, but if you're doing 3-4k drains, why spend the extra money on a base oil designed for extended drains.
Each person has different needs, desires and different driving styles, and no, without analysis, all oils will seem to do the same.
I won't argue the "Timken" tester ad nauseum. I've had them in the labs in the lab to try out various furmulating tweaks at the request of salepeople and consulting clients. Some wanted to use it "correctly" and let the additive bake in and some wanted to use it to hustle aftermarket additives and overpriced, "high-end", uncertified oils. (For the record, Schaeffer fits neither of these categories.) The clients paid my rates, I gave them the products they wanted, and in the process I learned the nuances of the machine and the demonstration. When I changed roles from research to purchasing to follow the bucks, I had a sound basis for cynicism of the demo. I'll take a Shell 4-Ball test or a Falex FZG test anyday for antiwear/EP charactersitics. On the personal comments, I had a good LOL at the "cube" derision. I'm a Chem.E, sure, but a Grateful Deadhead that looks like one. The PrepH thing was taught to me by a senior chemist with a sense of humor at Lubrizol (world's largest additive manuf.), who used it to take down a disreputable snake oil salesman at a county fair who was hustling farmers in the mid-west.
I didn't miss the point of your post. I just ran out of breath. I also agree with you that additives have more to do with antiwear than the base oil. I personally use synthetics in my vehicles for reasons other than antiwear, even though there are some valid arguments in that direction. The superior viscometrics circulate the cold oil better at start up (when a high-percentage of wear occurs) and the diester component has better frictional properties in the hydrodynamic phase. A number of standard Friction Modifying additives are, in fact, glycerol or polyol esters and their related amides. I also like the diester's metal wetting characteristics for their effect at start-up. The argument is also offered by sythetic proponents that the PAO portion of a synthetic base has a consistent molecular weight rather than the mix of high- and low-ends found in a mineral base oil refinery cut. This isn't going to reveal itself in a 10K mi analysis trend unless the test test is run like an API test and the motor's locked at 6K RPM for 10K hrs and disassembled and examined under an electron microscope.
The reason I personally use the synthetics is oxidative stability and volatility to extend drain intervals a bit. There can be no argument that a properly formulated synthetic with the 85:15 PAO diester ratio (for seals) compared to an identically additized conventional oil will excel in these areas. Oxidatively, you can observe this by looking at the thickening/sludging tendencies of a conventional oil over time, some of which is demonstrated by the oil rising up out-of-grade by vis@100C but even better by looking at vis@40C, which isn't in the report referenced. All multi-grades will show a temorary drop when the polymers start shearing down and then an increase when it starts to oxidize. Other methods are to view Total Acid Number (TAN) increase and pentane isolubles, which also aren't in the report. Formulation with added antioxidants can help this a lot, so identical additization is required of test subjects. On volatility, one can check Noack Volatility which measures % cooked off at temperature. Side-by-side samples in a well-vented (lab) oven can measure this quickly. Noack performance is a requirement for certification at API and even more rigid in European specs.
Synthetics are a lively and fruitful debate. In older vehicles with significant existing wear, the metal wetting of the diesters can cause creep around the ring and actually cause burning of oil to increase. Straight PAOs not blended with diesters or at least acetate-type seal compatibility additives shrink and harden seals worse than even Group II mineral oils. The 85:15 blends have better seal compatibility than the Group IIs and the low-sulfur GroupIs but a good lube manuf. will correct the mineral oil with a seal-swell agent. In newer vehicles with Buna-N or Viton seals the argument loses traction.
From a wear standpoint, in general and excepting the improved flow at start-up, additive chemistry will have more of an effect than base "oil" selection -especially in reasonable drain intervals. I agree completely on that point.
I do believe that there is a mis conception about most wear during startup. That theory is interesting at best because first, your engine starts with NO LOAD with cold oil in the bearings sitting there, so shearing is at best minimal, unlike when you are sitting at a light at say 18-28lbs of hot oil pressure, with a weak wedge of oil sitting in the bearings and cam's. So at the light when accelerating, you are putting a heavy load on the bearings trying to pull the weight of the vehicle with min oil pressure momentarily until you can build up that 40-60lbs back up and create that hydraulic effect/hydrodyanamic film. This is where a big portion of wear gets created. (this is all based on normal weather not sub). This is why oil is drastic changed at shorter intervals for in town traffic, and that hwy used oil is prone to run farther and longer between drains.
Starting an engine at the beginning of the day isn't as bad as one things as there is oil sitting in the bearings and with some of the newer additives, it helps to reduce boundary shear a bit until full pressure is built up.
THe oil analysis iswhat started to show where the filter had/has a dramatic affect on wear numbers due to the restriction or lack of flow.
Currently again, to show even more proof of how much does a full flow filter offer, I'm currently running another 4k test on the same 5w30 blend only with out a filter at all. That is on the end of the same thread. Once this is done, I'm really interested in seeing what the results turn out as I really don't know but only suspect. I'm just one of those kind of people that has to prove it to myself and so far, if cold starts was the biggest wear culprit, then my wear numbers wouldn't be phased with these other items I've done IMO.
One other point, I too use a high quality base oil with a really good blend of additives. The base oil and how it is refine is the nearest thing to a full synth when it comes to vi index's, flow rates, heat ranges and so on with a fraction of the cost. One of my opinionated thoughts on why many use a full synth(manufactures that is) is where they load up on barrier additives that overload the balance and antioxidants are not used as much there fore it needs a good highly resistant full synth base oil, unlike the other that has higher levels of antioxidants and uses a lower cost base oil. One just allows the base oil to get beat up by acids and relies on the tbn additives to clean the acids where the other uses the antioxidants to keep acids from forming and degrading the base oil to start with. This evidence does show up in tbn drop's comparisions. Oil analysis show'd in several instances where tbn drops in the full synth's were faster than the high quality mineral/blend base oil. Again, showing how a well blended additive package can help offset the need for a full synth base oil.
This is where the major difference is between oils is the blending/balance process.
As I designed my site, my real intention have been nothing more that trying to put some simple mechanical relationship in with how the oil performs. Again, not cubical engineering science but sure does bring some very interesting things to light.
Can't agree with you more on extended drain intervals and how oxidation resistance is relative to drop of visc first and then increase. This is one of the first indicators to me that shows tbn depletion where I see climb in visc and climb in oxidation as one of the keys.
Enjoyed mike, have a good weekend what's left.
bob
Of course, how much VI is worth the price of a full synthetic? To the guy that puts on 3-4000 miles a month of highway driving, a good conventional oil would probably be just as good at less the price.
You know how a lot of people are, if something is more expensive it HAS TO BE better! Or, if so much is good, more is better.
There is one area that I would guess makes a significant difference, and that is margin. I suspect that packaged oil manufacturers make a higher profit margin on synthetic versions, or am I being to cynical.
Best regards,
Dusty
I won't argue the "Timken" tester ad nauseum. I've had them in the labs in the lab to try out various furmulating tweaks at the request of salepeople and consulting clients. Some wanted to use it "correctly" and let the additive bake in and some wanted to use it to hustle aftermarket additives and overpriced, "high-end", uncertified oils. (For the record, Schaeffer fits neither of these categories.) The clients paid my rates, I gave them the products they wanted, and in the process I learned the nuances of the machine and the demonstration. When I changed roles from research to purchasing to follow the bucks, I had a sound basis for cynicism of the demo. I'll take a Shell 4-Ball test or a Falex FZG test anyday for antiwear/EP charactersitics. On the personal comments, I had a good LOL at the "cube" derision. I'm a Chem.E, sure, but a Grateful Deadhead that looks like one. The PrepH thing was taught to me by a senior chemist with a sense of humor at Lubrizol (world's largest additive manuf.), who used it to take down a disreputable snake oil salesman at a county fair who was hustling farmers in the mid-west.
I didn't miss the point of your post. I just ran out of breath. I also agree with you that additives have more to do with antiwear than the base oil. I personally use synthetics in my vehicles for reasons other than antiwear, even though there are some valid arguments in that direction. The superior viscometrics circulate the cold oil better at start up (when a high-percentage of wear occurs) and the diester component has better frictional properties in the hydrodynamic phase. A number of standard Friction Modifying additives are, in fact, glycerol or polyol esters and their related amides. I also like the diester's metal wetting characteristics for their effect at start-up. The argument is also offered by sythetic proponents that the PAO portion of a synthetic base has a consistent molecular weight rather than the mix of high- and low-ends found in a mineral base oil refinery cut. This isn't going to reveal itself in a 10K mi analysis trend unless the test test is run like an API test and the motor's locked at 6K RPM for 10K hrs and disassembled and examined under an electron microscope.
The reason I personally use the synthetics is oxidative stability and volatility to extend drain intervals a bit. There can be no argument that a properly formulated synthetic with the 85:15 PAO diester ratio (for seals) compared to an identically additized conventional oil will excel in these areas. Oxidatively, you can observe this by looking at the thickening/sludging tendencies of a conventional oil over time, some of which is demonstrated by the oil rising up out-of-grade by vis@100C but even better by looking at vis@40C, which isn't in the report referenced. All multi-grades will show a temorary drop when the polymers start shearing down and then an increase when it starts to oxidize. Other methods are to view Total Acid Number (TAN) increase and pentane isolubles, which also aren't in the report. Formulation with added antioxidants can help this a lot, so identical additization is required of test subjects. On volatility, one can check Noack Volatility which measures % cooked off at temperature. Side-by-side samples in a well-vented (lab) oven can measure this quickly. Noack performance is a requirement for certification at API and even more rigid in European specs.
Synthetics are a lively and fruitful debate. In older vehicles with significant existing wear, the metal wetting of the diesters can cause creep around the ring and actually cause burning of oil to increase. Straight PAOs not blended with diesters or at least acetate-type seal compatibility additives shrink and harden seals worse than even Group II mineral oils. The 85:15 blends have better seal compatibility than the Group IIs and the low-sulfur GroupIs but a good lube manuf. will correct the mineral oil with a seal-swell agent. In newer vehicles with Buna-N or Viton seals the argument loses traction.
From a wear standpoint, in general and excepting the improved flow at start-up, additive chemistry will have more of an effect than base "oil" selection -especially in reasonable drain intervals. I agree completely on that point.
Both of you, know a hundred times more about oil than I do, and I for one appreciate the questioning dialogue that is developing on this site (and hopefully on Bob's in the future). Thumbs up from this amateur.
:>)
When I worked for a living-I got our Generating Station to switch a couple of pumps over to Synestic (the synthetic Exxon equivalent to their non-synthetic Terrestic oils) At the time Exxon claimed that the Synestic ISO 32 performed as well as the non-syn Terrestic 64 due to the Estor protecting metal better. There has been some arguments here. Any thoughts??
Thanks
The Schaeffer's Pure moly is a great product. I shortly will be evaluating the Pure Syn against 10W-30 Blend.
Like someone else suggested, if you experienced an oil leak you could go back to conventional motor oil.
Regards,
Dusty
It's going to depend on the application in the station. In a turbine, especially a gas turbine, the Synesstic 32 will leave the Teresstic 68 in the dust. The esters definitely provide lubricant properties that the ISO 68 relies upon it's higher molecular weight to provide. Those high-speed babbit bearings won't tolerate ZDDP because of their metallurgy. Plus, the Synesstic is going to last a lot longer even at a lower ISO VG and as costly as a sump clean/recharge is during an outage, that's a good thing.
My only issue with the full diester-based Synesstic is that in environments where a lot of moisture exists -older steam turbines, certain air compressors- demulsibility is not as strong as a PAO or mineral oil. The same properties (polarity of the molecule) that provide great metal wetting also make diesters retain water. A good coalescing filter or centrifuge is then necessary to shed entrained water. As an alternative, in wet environments, I like the Teresstic SHP, which is PAO based and has great demulsibility and nearly equivalent longevity although the wear protection isn't quite the same without additization.
Actually if using the correct oil, it would be better to extend the oil change and accumulate more miles, than to keep oil in the engine with few miles on it. Malachy is correct, short trip driving is harder on the oil than reasonable or average use.
Regards,
Dusty
So, sort of relative to many factors, climate and length of trips are key though.
The product claims that the patented micro-metallubricant fills in imperfect, worn surface areas of cylinder walls, rings, camshafts, bearings, and other critical parts, providing a smooth and well-lubricated surface.
Does it make sense?
I tried with my 88 Corola (160,000 mile) and 98 Altima (90,000 mile), both worked well.
Comments
I am inclined to stick with 5-30 until the warranty expires, then switch to 5-20. By then Toyota might make the switch, too.
Thanks!
It has yet to be substansiated.
Is there anything that can be done additive-wise to reduce the leak? Would the "high mileage" oils help?
Thanks in advance.
My VW 2001 Golf regularly consumes 1 quart of oil every 1000 miles and has, since new. This is "normal" for my car. I doubt a quart of oil going through the combustion chambers will hurt anything. Marvel used to sell "top cylinder lube" that you added to the gas just for that purpose.