Best no BS motor oil/filter comparison?

"SMS" > wrote in message news:vzVWk.8007
> Only in the U.S. can oils with non-synthetic base stocks be legally called
> synthetics. This was a result of Mobil suing Castrol for Castrol claiming
> that their Syntec oil was a full synthetic even though it didn't use
> synthetic base stock. Isn't our legal system wonderful!

The problem is the definition of synthetic.. It can be as vague as the
definition
of pornography.
By any stretch of the imagination PAO's would qualify as synthetics.
Highly modified cracked and purified feedstock could also fall into the
technical grey area as being a synthesized raw material, not just an oil
distillate.

HLS wrote:
>
> "SMS" > wrote in message news:vzVWk.8007
>> Only in the U.S. can oils with non-synthetic base stocks be legally
>> called synthetics. This was a result of Mobil suing Castrol for
>> Castrol claiming that their Syntec oil was a full synthetic even
>> though it didn't use synthetic base stock. Isn't our legal system
>> wonderful!
>
> The problem is the definition of synthetic.. It can be as vague as the
> definition
> of pornography.
> By any stretch of the imagination PAO's would qualify as synthetics.

Not in Europe.

By the same token, conventional motor oils aren't dino oil poured into 1
quart bottles, it's highly manufactured with viscosity modifiers,
detergents, friction modifiers, anti-oxidants, etc..

Remember, there has never been any study that has shown an increase in
fuel economy based on the use of synthetic oil, whether it's pure
synthetic or hydro cracked synthetic, or a synthetic blend. The sole
benefits are better flow at extremely cold temperatures, and the ability
to withstand higher engine temperatures without breaking down.

"SMS" > wrote in message
...
> The Mobil 1 sold in the U.S. is no longer a full synthetic. Redline is
> still full synthetic, as is Amsoil. Castrol is not.

How about Mobil 1 Extended Performance oil? Does that meet your approval as
a full synthetic?

I would not take any advice from someone about synthetic oil who thinks it
is a waste of money for most people.

Mark A wrote:
> "SMS" > wrote in message
> ...
>> The Mobil 1 sold in the U.S. is no longer a full synthetic. Redline is
>> still full synthetic, as is Amsoil. Castrol is not.
>
> How about Mobil 1 Extended Performance oil? Does that meet your approval as
> a full synthetic?

It's not my approval that matters.

> I would not take any advice from someone about synthetic oil who thinks it
> is a waste of money for most people.

Whatever. Don't let the facts get in your way. You certainly haven't
ever let them affect your beliefs in the past.

Wait, why don't you show a _single_ independent study that shows a
benefit to most people. Oh, wait, they're aren't any!

After all these years you'd think that there would be at least one
published study that showed a provable benefit in terms of wear, MPG, or
extended change intervals for synthetics uses in non-high performance
engines, operated in moderate climates. But there aren't _any_. There's
anecdotes by users of synthetics, there's claims by companies like
Amsoil which have never been validated, and of course various claims by
MLM people selling Amsoil. Just choose your benefit from one of the
hundreds of MLM web sites!

Of course there probably have been plenty of studies that were done but
not published because they didn't have the results that the company
paying for the study wanted.

It's amusing that not even Mobil, who would have the most to gain by
some evidence of increased fuel economy for synthetics, can make that
claim. All we see is a heavily qualified statement that logically makes
no sense:

"Actual savings are dependent upon vehicle/engine type, outside
temperature, driving conditions, adjusting tire pressure, and your
current engine oil viscosity."

Huh? So adjusting tire pressure affects how well synthetic oil works (as
opposed to how well dino oil performs, LOL).

On 2008-11-25, SMS > wrote:

> Wait, why don't you show a _single_ independent study that shows a
> benefit to most people. Oh, wait, they're aren't any!

Most people treat their vehicles like everything else, something to be
consumed and used up and thrown away, so why would syn. oil have any
benefit to them? Trade in value doesn't change based on the oil they
used so long as the engine isn't obviously broken.

The benefits are for those vehicle owners with special applications or
don't want to wait for turbos to cool down or care about
deposits/sludge or don't want to change oil every 3000 miles
or a number of other reasons that someone else might laugh at.

Brent wrote:
> On 2008-11-25, SMS > wrote:
>
>> Wait, why don't you show a _single_ independent study that shows a
>> benefit to most people. Oh, wait, they're aren't any!
>
> Most people treat their vehicles like everything else, something to be
> consumed and used up and thrown away, so why would syn. oil have any
> benefit to them? Trade in value doesn't change based on the oil they
> used so long as the engine isn't obviously broken.
>
> The benefits are for those vehicle owners with special applications or
> don't want to wait for turbos to cool down or care about
> deposits/sludge or don't want to change oil every 3000 miles
> or a number of other reasons that someone else might laugh at.

That's true, at least the part about turbos and 3000 miles (though no
one is foolish enough to do 3000 mile changes anymore, even with
petroleum base stock).

No difference in engine longevity or carbon deposits, or sludge, have
ever been shown on non-high performance engines operated in moderate
climates. Certainly that's been my experience as well, and I keep my
vehicles for a very long time. Alas, I can't prove there was no sludge
on my engines with 200K+ miles because I never had to open them up to
make any repairs. Nor did they ever have a Bilstein wallet flush
performed on them.

Synthetic oil was originally developed for high performance racing
engines. Mobil tried to popularize synthetic oil for passenger vehicles
back in the early 1970's. At the time, Mobil was promoting 20K or 25K
oil changes with synthetic, but they soon backed down from this.

Synthetic oil is a good choice if you have a vehicle with a high
performance engine (in fact synthetic is required for many of these
engines). It is also a good choice if your vehicle is operated in
extremely cold climates. It has higher resistance to breakdown caused by
heat and it flows better in extreme cold.

Unfortunately for the synthetic oil industry there is virtually no
advantage to using synthetic oil in a non-high performance engine that
is operated in moderate climates. You probably could go a bit longer
between oil changes with a synthetic, i.e. following the normal service
schedule even if you fall into the severe service category, but I
wouldn't advise this.

In short, synthetic may give you the peace of mind of knowing that you
are using an oil that is far better than necessary for your vehicle, but
it won't reduce wear or extend the life of the engine. The mistake some
people make it to wrongly extrapolate these benefits onto normal engines
operated in mild climates, with the ultimate lack of any knowledge being
manifested with statements such as "synthetics provide 'Peace of Mind,'
or 'Cheap Insurance,'" or other such nonsense.

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 11:30:51 -0800, SMS >
wrote:


>
>It's amusing that not even Mobil, who would have the most to gain by
>some evidence of increased fuel economy for synthetics, can make that
>claim. All we see is a heavily qualified statement that logically makes
>no sense:
>
>"Actual savings are dependent upon vehicle/engine type, outside
>temperature, driving conditions, adjusting tire pressure, and your
>current engine oil viscosity."
>
>Huh? So adjusting tire pressure affects how well synthetic oil works (as
>opposed to how well dino oil performs, LOL).

I'm not sure using Mobil 1 is worth the price premium.
Don't use it myself. One son does though.
If I lived in a colder place than Chicago, I might consider it.
Could be worth it just for those sub-zero starts.
But I'm speculating.

--Vic

"SMS" > wrote in message
...
> It's not my approval that matters.

If you look closely at Mobil 1 Extended Performance synthetic oil, it is
different than normal Mobil 1, and my understanding is that is more like old
Mobil 1 and is fully synthetic according to your definition. So before you
contineue to say that Mobil 1 is not a full synthetic, you should
investigate this.

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 12:41:53 -0800, SMS >
wrote:

>Brent wrote:
>> On 2008-11-25, SMS > wrote:
>>
>>> Wait, why don't you show a _single_ independent study that shows a
>>> benefit to most people. Oh, wait, they're aren't any!
>>
>> Most people treat their vehicles like everything else, something to be
>> consumed and used up and thrown away, so why would syn. oil have any
>> benefit to them? Trade in value doesn't change based on the oil they
>> used so long as the engine isn't obviously broken.
>>
>> The benefits are for those vehicle owners with special applications or
>> don't want to wait for turbos to cool down or care about
>> deposits/sludge or don't want to change oil every 3000 miles
>> or a number of other reasons that someone else might laugh at.
>
>That's true, at least the part about turbos and 3000 miles (though no
>one is foolish enough to do 3000 mile changes anymore, even with
>petroleum base stock).
>
I sure do. Or close to it. I enjoy a beer while doing it.
But the cost is nothing for me since I don't waste thousands of
dollars buying new Toyotas.

--Vic

"Brent" > wrote in message
...
> On 2008-11-25, SMS > wrote:
>
>> Wait, why don't you show a _single_ independent study that shows a
>> benefit to most people. Oh, wait, they're aren't any!
>
> Most people treat their vehicles like everything else, something to be
> consumed and used up and thrown away, so why would syn. oil have any
> benefit to them? Trade in value doesn't change based on the oil they
> used so long as the engine isn't obviously broken.
>
> The benefits are for those vehicle owners with special applications or
> don't want to wait for turbos to cool down or care about
> deposits/sludge or don't want to change oil every 3000 miles
> or a number of other reasons that someone else might laugh at.

The condition of the drive train on my 1998 Camry V6, that has used
synthetic oil since the first oil change, tells me otherwise. I never
dreamed of keeping a car this long, and never did before (even other Camrys
and Accords).

If I were to sell the car myself, I bet my oil change receipts (all Mobil 1)
would fetch me more than the extra amount I spent to use Mobil 1. If I
traded it in (not sure any dealer would even take a car that old) I would
get more money because the engine is in perfect condition, and would be
noted as so in a test drive, which is worth some amount of money.

I will agree, that if you are going trade a car in every 3 years, then
synthetic oil may not pay off financially.