Synthetic in a new engine, bad idea?

[Setright]

Okay, sure, Bob has some interesting things to say. I am a big fan of the question everything "they" tell you theory. I practice this myself, and it's funny how most people get annoyed with me for never taking things at face value

 

ANYWAY: Bob's site full of questionable theories and tests. At least he doesn't claim that they are all scientific, but even so people reading on his site will tend to take them as such.

 

Example? The "timken" machine or whatever it's called. This thing is USELESS. The force is applied BY HAND, making it impossible to be certain of the actual pressure on the test elements. It also makes it easy to produce the results you want.

Staying with this machine, the test is irrelevant. Where in our engines does a point of contact exist that represents only a fine point? The cam lobes haves lines, and most every oil lubed bearing has a plane contact patch. Okay, if there is enough pressure on the plain bearings the force is exerted though a line.

 

You might argue that if the oil can protect in the timken it must be able to protect better in an engine, since there is less stress on the film. I would say that this overdimensioned design feature, will compromise the oil's performance elsewhere.

 

If you look at M1's competitors, they always make a big issue of doing far better in the ball-bearing test/timken test. Ask yourself why?

[blitz]

Setright, I agree 100%. We both know that the trick to using the net is to be able to glean the gems from the rocks. Bob's comparison tests typically change more than one variable, making it impossible to draw any conclusion from the "inevitable" different result. I'm annoyed by the over-hype of Auto-Rx. I'm annoyed by an certain analysis guru who constantly feels the need to remind the group about how painful it is to give out free info, yet continues to do so anyway. None the less, as a long-time lurker, I've learned a lot about base-stocks, additives, etc.

 

The timken and four-ball wear test, would be a good indicator of heavily-loaded gear-oil performance, but like you, I see no benefit for using them to test motor oil. They've become a bit of a "huckster" tool IMO.

[1 Lucky Texan]

Although I'm generally satisfied with the OEM-style paper air filters, I do think the BITOG site's somewhat generasl condemnation of K&N-type 'oiled' filters borders on baseless. Increased siilcon in UOA needs to be quantified with particle size. For all I know, those same folks may be using siliconE hoses with an aftermarket intake - or siliconE oil for 'recharging' the filter.

Still, I learned a lot from a few hours reading there.

[cookie]

piston slap so many of us have the most?

In my BMW I run the factory syn changed at thier intervals.

In my near 100,000 mile Forester I am running the dealer dino.

Since so many high mileage BMWs get more cam chain tensioner rattle when switched over to syn I have been staying with dino in the Forester.

In a high mileage late model 2.5 has anybody switched to syn, and waht happened with the piston slap?

[99obw]

99 Phase I 2.5, ~150k miles

 

I switched to Mobil 1 5w-30 at about 70k miles. The piston slap was about the same as with pennzoil 5w-30 conventional. Oil consumption went up quite a bit. I switched to Amsoil 5w-30 at about 120k miles. Piston slap is MUCH quieter at startup and consumption is down to 1 quart in 7500 miles, from 1 quart in 3000 miles with M1. I am considering stopping use of 5w-30 and using Amsoil 10w-30 year round at 6 month (15k mile) drain intervals.

 

I think some people have a bad experience with M1 and blame synthetics. M1 is like water compared to Amsoil IMO.

 

Mobil 1 SS 10w-30 cSt @ 100º C = 10.0

Amsoil ASL 5w-30 cSt @ 100º C = 11.7

Amsoil ATM 10w-30 cSt @ 100º C = 11.9

 

That may not sound like much of a difference but the difference in the sound of the engine is remarcable.

 

Don't get me wrong. Mobil 1 is a good oil. I have never seen an engine cleaner than our 2.5 when I had it apart after 50k miles of M1. Unfortunately the stuff is way too thin for me. The only M1 oil I would use is the 15w-50, which is great stuff BTW.

 

I hate sounding like an Amsoil chearleader, but my experience with it has been nothing short of excellent.

 

FWIW I may try AutoRX in a car soon, LOL.

 

YMMV

[cookie]

If I get my couage up I may give Amsoil a try.

[blitz]

Originally posted by 1 Lucky Texan

Although I'm generally satisfied with the OEM-style paper air filters, I do think the BITOG site's somewhat generasl condemnation of K&N-type 'oiled' filters borders on baseless. Increased siilcon in UOA needs to be quantified with particle size. For all I know, those same folks may be using siliconE hoses with an aftermarket intake - or siliconE oil for 'recharging' the filter.

Still, I learned a lot from a few hours reading there.

 

Yeah, I'm up in the air about K&N filters. From what I've seen, the filtration efficiency is variable depending on application. e.g. There was a WRX UOA within the last month showing low silicon & iron with a K&N drop-in panel filter.

 

Yet in other UOA's of various vehicles, a switch from K&N back to stock paper has occasionally shown a marked decrease in silicon and iron. Maybe it's a fitment issue.

 

Lastly, I have my doubts as to whether or not a switch in filter type is gonna add any power to a stock engine for any amount of money.

[sprintman]

I have access to a Timken and it has proved very useful in looking at anti-wear properties of oils. Also we have purchased some 5 cases of Auto-Rx at approx A$600 per case and multiple testing in cars, trucks, and a lot of forklifts in particular shows what it can do. Nearly every UOA I've seen with a K & N air filter has high Silicon and users usually revert to OEM paper. There is a huge amount of info on BITOG but more importantly the industry people who participate particularly those such as Blackstone Analysis, GeorgeCLS (certified lubricants specialist), Molakule an chemist of high repute etc. Like any web site you need to read between the lines and make up your own mind.

[Myxalplyx]

Originally posted by JonOfScio

I've used Castrol High Mileage 20w50 with half a quart of Marvel Mystery Oil (good additive) in my hatchback, and this was probably the best running point of the engine so long as I've had it.

 

I'm using the same combo that you use in your hatchback in my XT6 'cept I'm using 10w40 (factory recommended). I am wondering why more people haven't mentioned something about the Castrol High Mileage oil. Is there something really different about it or is it all marketing hype?

[blitz]

Originally posted by sprintman

I have access to a Timken and it has proved very useful in looking at anti-wear properties of oils. Also we have purchased some 5 cases of Auto-Rx at approx A$600 per case and multiple testing in cars, trucks, and a lot of forklifts in particular shows what it can do. Nearly every UOA I've seen with a K & N air filter has high Silicon and users usually revert to OEM paper. There is a huge amount of info on BITOG but more importantly the industry people who participate particularly those such as Blackstone Analysis, GeorgeCLS (certified lubricants specialist), Molakule an chemist of high repute etc. Like any web site you need to read between the lines and make up your own mind.

 

I'm not knocking the Auto-Rx product, I ran a cycle through my vehicle last summer with Delvac 1300, and on the phone I found Frank to be genuinely caring about answering questions. Next summer I'll probably be using the product again. It's just that as an individualist, I hate the whiffs of cult mentality that creep up from time to time on BITOG.

 

'Kule is one of the UNselfish individuals that gives freely of his knowledge without the side-order of cheeze & WHINE.

 

FWIW, I enjoy your posts on BITOG.

[sprintman]

Tks blitz. BITOG is a sickness but I have learned so much there.

[DinoBite]

i have read that household bleach does better than most motor oils in some of those unscientific tests you guys were talking about. I'd elaborate but that's all I can recall at the moment.

 

Just pointing out how one can be decieved.

[howards11]

Any comments on Valvoline syth 5W30 ?

 

~Howard

[99obw]

I managed to find the specs after a little digging at the Valvoline site.

 

5w-30 Synpower

 

cSt @ 100º C = 10.84

TBN = 9

NOACK volatility = 11%

 

A little thicker than Mobil 1(10), a little thinner than Amsoil(11.7).

 

The TBN of 9 is a little low, with Mobil 1 and Amsoil in the 11-12 range. Amsoil's study of 10w-30 shows synpower at 11.38 and amsoil at 12.34. This oil may be a candidate for extended drains, but only analysis would show for certain.

 

With Amsoil at 6.9%, 11% seems high for NOACK volatility. I would expect increased oil consumption over Amsoil with the synpower.

 

I have read that the synpower is a group III, with Amsoil ASL and Mobil 1 SS being group IV.

 

It looks like a decent oil, but I am not running out to drain my cars and put it in.

 

I am no oil expert, if you really want to know go over to http://www.bobistheoilguy.com and ask the people who know.

[Setright]

I am no oil expert, if you really want to know go over to http://www.bobistheoilguy.com and ask the people who know.

 

 

I am sorry, know what?

 

How to form their own opinions based on some random, unscientific tests. I can do this on my own

[99obw]

Fora by nature are a mixture of opinion, experience, fact, and fiction. They should all be taken FWIW, always.

 

BITOG has a lot of scientific information(generally considered facts), but one needs to wade through the muck(opinion and fiction), and hopefully learn a little from the experience of others. That is my MO on all fora.

[DerFahrer]

I will post my unbiased observations about synthetic oil:

 

1) I had been running Valvoline partial synthetic 10W40 in my Legacy for a year or more. If I drove it hard, I would sometimes see a quart of oil gone in a week I knew I wasn't leaking that much, my undercarriage is pretty dry. So I had a friend drive the car away from me and sure enough, a puff of blue smoke on the 1-2 shift. That is the only time I have ever seen blue smoke out a Subaru tailpipe. So I decided to switch over to Valvoline full dino 10W40 about 500 miles ago. The only reason I did not keep every last drop of that oil is because I have a cam seal leak. In other words, it has not burned a drop since!

 

2) I was using the same partial synth oil in my XT and I realized that if my 91 Legacy was doing as described above, my 88 would only do it worse. So I put the same dino oil in the XT as I did in the Legacy. Not only did it leak more slowly, but the XT's oil pressure gauge indicated an increase of about 3-5 psi!!

 

3) The Guinness Book of World Records shows a 1966 Volvo P1800 coupe as having over 2 million miles on the original engine. Not ONCE has that engine ever used synthetic oil

 

I think that makes a statement, don't you?

[blitz]

Subyluvr2212,

 

There's no doubt that conventional oils have gotten a lot better over the last ten years. There seems to be a fair amount of anecdotal evidence (basically opinion) suggesting that conventional oils have a greater lubricity and better cushioning effect than PAO-based synths, which under normal operation could allow a group II or II+ oil to show lower wear numbers and give quieter operation.

 

Synths do have some clearly-defined advantages. They have a low-temp flow advantage, they have an extreme high-temp stability advantage (such as a total coolant-loss situation), and they hold up better over extended drain intervals.

 

Also keep in mind is that there isn't as clear a distinction between oil types as a finished product anymore. It's becoming blurred due to the formulation of hydrocracked group III base stocks, "synth blends", and newer/better VII additives that oil blenders tend to want to call "synthetic components".

 

The important thing is to find the oil that works for your situation, which may not be the best oil for someone else's situation. Specific engines, different driving styles/distances, seasonal ambient temperature, and engine condition all play a role.

[sprintman]

99obw Valvoline tend to have lower anti-wear additive treats compared to most oils and don't do well across the board in UOA analysis with a few exceptions. There are better oils for same or lower price IMO eg. Mobil 1 Supersyn good UOA's in nearly all engines and is readily available but 30W's are on the thin side. Mobil have new M1 SUV 5W40 in the US now and should be good for an outback. I run BP Visco 5000 5W40 in my 00 Outback FWIW.

[Ranger83]

I'm using the same combo that you use in your hatchback in my XT6 'cept I'm using 10w40 (factory recommended). I am wondering why more people haven't mentioned something about the Castrol High Mileage oil. Is there something really different about it or is it all marketing hype?

 

I just put it into my '97 OB wagon with 128,000 miles. And a Purolator Pure One filter. It's quieter on startup but it'll be a while before I have any other information. I will probably change it at 135,000 and then do an oil analysis at 140,000. If the head gaskets don't leap from the engine in the meantime:-p

[Setright]

subyluvr, that Volvo has had a rebuild! True, it was at 1 million miles...

 

 

(oil changes every 3k miles, as I recall.)