Remember how I have posted about the fact that Group III hydrowax (isodewaxed) mineral oils are chomping at the heels of the "true" synthetics?

Here is an excellent article that highlights how close the gap has become:
http://www.machinerylubrication.com/articl...p?articleid=533

BTW, Table 1 is obviously not complete. Pennzoil has been hydoisotreating for many years.

I still think synoils have an advantage at the highest demands of performance, and if you are going to invest, do it with a premium product like Amsoil or Red Line or Motol.

It appears that the mid-tier syns like Mobil1 are not delivering 3x the performance.

 

Moving to Under The Hood.

 

 

Interesting article, RR. Thanks for posting. I find this type of info fascinating.

BTW: You mention a "Table 1", which is not in the linked article. Am I missing something?

 

Interesting article.

I had an opportunity to talk with the person who selects the oil for an american engine manufacturor. I asked about syn vs dino oils, oil change intervals, breakin oil etc.etc. His testing showed that for oil change intervals in the 3000-4000 mile range, their was no difference in engine wear between dino and synthetic oils. He also didn't think that the cold weather performance of synthetics was all that important (even in MN), but that the high temperature performance might be. When asked 'what would you do?' for break-in, viscosity & change intervals he says 'whatever honda says'.

It almost seems that for ordinary cars & trucks, a Group III such as Valvoline Durablend is a good compromise between price and protection.

Not sure what I'll do with my new '04. It is 0deg F here now so I got plenty of time to think about it.

--Mike

 

Why do u use synthetic oils in your s2k if u change oil every 3k miles?

 

2 answers in one post:

1) Table 1 was in the linked article - it professed to list GIII oils of the type described, but it was a very short list.

2) Why use synoil for short change intervals. Well, I first would have to disagree somewhat with jankemi's expert - while the GIII oils do have the latest pour point depressants, they still do not flow as well as the synoils do, owing to the remaining waxes and impurities that even a GIII has. That is one reason jet aircraft use synoil - the other is that esters have tremendous heat stability and film strength, so an engine that gets a lot of rough work, even in 3K miles, can benefit from a top tier synoil. That is why a lot of racers use Red Line.

Jet aircraft also use synoil greases in wheel hubs, since they need to stand up to extreme cold, and then go from 0-200 mph (?) when the wheels touch the runway.

Finally, the ring lands of the piston often see temperatures close to 700degF - lmineral oils go all tarry at that temp, and even Mobil1 will glop up a bit - esters can emerge with fewer deposits under those conditions.

But 2157 is on to it - if you do not regularly beat the engine or race, a GIII quality multigrade like Pennzoil or Valvoline makes a lot of sense, certainly from a dollar perspective.

My one point would be that Syntec is not all that far $-wise from a "true" synoil. So if you are going that far, go the rest of the way.

BTW, I make my own synblend. I take 4qts of Pennzoil, and add one of Amsoil or RedLine.

 

There is some good info from a Ford engineer in this thread - over there I am known as Cobra'03.

http://www.svtperformance.com/forums/showt...ighlight=amsoil

 

Is the difference great enough to induce a measureable amount of wear in 150K miles of normal driving? On my S2K I'm not likely to ever start the car at -0degF so I suspect that cold weather performance is not a reason to use syn's. Even with my daily drivers I've used mineral oil, start my vehicles at -35F and have still driven them for 150K miles. No doubt there is a difference in low temp flow, but does it matter? The 85W-90 in my FWD's transmission is so stiff at -35F that I can't left the clutch out without killing the engine for at least 10 minutes after starting the truck, but the tranny still lasts longer than the floorboards & rocker panels. On daily drivers up here the rust will almost always kill you before the mechanicals do. Winter car washes are far more important than syn oil.

That would be at about -60F, not -30F or 0F, so perhaps syn's make sense. At -60F (up in northern MN in '96) the TV stations were pounding nails into boards with frozen bananas.

This is more interesting. If it tared up rings are a problem, would I see it in 150K miles? The last rebuild I did was on an Alfa with 95K miles. The cylinders had .001" wear & the skirts were less than that. Nothing was gunked up like engines were after 50K miles 30 years ago. The thing was real, real clean. I did not need a putty knife to clean up the botom of the oil pan. No sludge. Very little burnt oil on the pistons.

For an individual with a few cars, that may be a rational point of view. $4/qt * 5 instead of * $2qt * 5. Thats only 3 beers per oil change. I can handle that. . My source would not disagree that syn's are better in a variety of ways, only that if testing shows no significant difference in wear, then the cost is not justified. But he calculates cost per 100K units, not per one unit like we do. He was far more concerned about the quality of the oil filters. They did filter tests & decided that quality filters did make a difference in engine life, so that the factory filter for those motors is a fairly high quality one.

As you've indicated here & in other posts, modern oils are much better than 30 years ago. Maybe so good that it doesn't matter too much what you use for normal driving?

Anyway - thanks for all the good info. I look forward to reading your posts & hope your 04 shows up on time

--Mike

 

Your points are valid and I appreciate the tone of your questions. Let me tell you why I use synoils:

1) My car sits for extended periods - using an ester keeps oil on the metal surfaces to reduce boundary lube effects at startup. This is a unique property of esters and is because of electrical affinity. Will it reduce wear in the long run - who knows? It makes me feel better though.

2) I think a car with a very high rev limit which neds to be wrung out a lot to keep up with torque monsters can benefit from the lubricity and cleanliness of synoils. A clear advantage over today's GIII's? Again, perhaps.

3) If you race, you will see ring land deposits - in fact they will be there on nearly any car after 100k miles. So using synoil can reduce them, as well as a quality injector cleaner like red Line SI-2 or Pennzoil Regane or Techron.

4) There is no doubt that you can go with longer drain intervals with a top-notch synoil if that is your preference. They have higher TBN than other oils.

5) 0degF is the lower limit for a 10w30 mineral oil in my opinion. The pour point depressants are effective, assuming they are there in the quanities intended. I have seen variance in samples, which is a QC problem. So the fact that the base oils in syns are inherently free flowing COULD be advantage.

6) Then there is the matter of formulation. RedLine and Amsoil have kept their zinc and especially phosphorous levels higher than the GF-3 spec the mfr's demanded to protect the emissions system (the cats). This forced the additive companies to introduce new anti-wear (AW) chemistry. The jury is still out on whether they are as effective as zinc di-thiophosphates. The tribologist at Red Line is not so sure. This is why some high quality synoils do not carry the API badge - it may be a +++, not a risk. I am conservative by nature and like to see what field experience indicates (same reason i have not had my eye's lasered). You pal at Ford should be very clear on the GF-3 phosphorous issue. Personally, I would rather have to replace a cat than experience premature wear of the high pressure zones int he engine (cam lobes and bearings).

7) Shear stability. Mineral oils require viscosity Improvers to maintain a viscosity spread - a 10w30 is basically a 10w or so with VI's and pour point depressants used to extend its temp range capabilites. The latest VI's are more shear stable, but over time will degrade, and the higher the revs, the faster this occurs. Once they degrade, the oil begins to revert back to its "base" state - pretty thin. Synoils generally require little or no VI improvers.

BTW to all: The GF-4 spec will make oils better still, but there is talk that it will raise the price significantly. The cost vs benefit, performance vs post equation may shift again.

Point is, the gap continues to close between syns and newly engineered mineral oils. So my opinion and personal use may change - I am flexible intellectually.