Honda V6 engines and synthetic oil

>2. "synthetics" are no longer really synthetics - these days, they're
>just a more refined version of the same base oil used in standard lubes.
>http://msds.ogden.disa.mil/msds/owa/...imsdsnr=194095
>10w-30 mobil1 is only 5% "synthetic".

Synthetics are synthetics and semi- synthetics these days....

A semi- synthetic oil contains less than 30% synthetic oil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_oil


Mobil1 motor oils are still 100% synthetic motor oils and do not
use conventional basestocks in the formulation.
*******************************************
Thank you for choosing ExxonMobil products.
If you need further assistance, please contact ExxonMobil at
1-800-ASK-MOBIL
http://theoildrop.server101.com/foru...97&Main=800351

wrote:
>> 2. "synthetics" are no longer really synthetics - these days, they're
>> just a more refined version of the same base oil used in standard lubes.
>> http://msds.ogden.disa.mil/msds/owa/...imsdsnr=194095
>> 10w-30 mobil1 is only 5% "synthetic".
>
> Synthetics are synthetics and semi- synthetics these days....
>
> A semi- synthetic oil contains less than 30% synthetic oil.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_oil
>
>
> Mobil1 motor oils are still 100% synthetic motor oils and do not
> use conventional basestocks in the formulation.
> *******************************************
> Thank you for choosing ExxonMobil products.
> If you need further assistance, please contact ExxonMobil at
> 1-800-ASK-MOBIL
> http://theoildrop.server101.com/foru...97&Main=800351

are you the industry shill that keeps deleting msds info off wikipedia?

On Sun, 06 May 2007 09:38:57 -0700, jim beam
> wrote:

wrote:
>>> 2. "synthetics" are no longer really synthetics - these days, they're
>>> just a more refined version of the same base oil used in standard lubes.
>>> http://msds.ogden.disa.mil/msds/owa/...imsdsnr=194095
>>> 10w-30 mobil1 is only 5% "synthetic".
>>
>> Synthetics are synthetics and semi- synthetics these days....
>>
>> A semi- synthetic oil contains less than 30% synthetic oil.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_oil
>>
>>
>> Mobil1 motor oils are still 100% synthetic motor oils and do not
>> use conventional basestocks in the formulation.
>> *******************************************
>> Thank you for choosing ExxonMobil products.
>> If you need further assistance, please contact ExxonMobil at
>> 1-800-ASK-MOBIL
>> http://theoildrop.server101.com/foru...97&Main=800351
>
>are you the industry shill that keeps deleting msds info off wikipedia?

No. Just wanted to point out that even if you went out of your way
to interpret the data in a negative way against Mobil 1, then you
would still get between 80%-90% synthetic oil. The reason you
don't get 100% in all interpretations is because Mobil 1 as most
other manufacturers reformulate over time to make their oil better.
Sometimes the better reformulation includes introducing non-
synthetics.

wrote:
> On Sun, 06 May 2007 09:38:57 -0700, jim beam
> > wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>>> 2. "synthetics" are no longer really synthetics - these days, they're
>>>> just a more refined version of the same base oil used in standard lubes.
>>>> http://msds.ogden.disa.mil/msds/owa/...imsdsnr=194095
>>>> 10w-30 mobil1 is only 5% "synthetic".
>>> Synthetics are synthetics and semi- synthetics these days....
>>>
>>> A semi- synthetic oil contains less than 30% synthetic oil.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_oil
>>>
>>>
>>> Mobil1 motor oils are still 100% synthetic motor oils and do not
>>> use conventional basestocks in the formulation.
>>> *******************************************
>>> Thank you for choosing ExxonMobil products.
>>> If you need further assistance, please contact ExxonMobil at
>>> 1-800-ASK-MOBIL
>>> http://theoildrop.server101.com/foru...97&Main=800351
>> are you the industry shill that keeps deleting msds info off wikipedia?
>
> No. Just wanted to point out that even if you went out of your way
> to interpret the data in a negative way against Mobil 1, then you
> would still get between 80%-90% synthetic oil. The reason you
> don't get 100% in all interpretations is because Mobil 1 as most
> other manufacturers reformulate over time to make their oil better.
> Sometimes the better reformulation includes introducing non-
> synthetics.
>
but it's not 80-90% pao!!! that's what everyone /thinks/ it is and it's
not!!! pao is [was] "true synthetic". now, "synthetic" is just more
highly refined dino.

>> No. Just wanted to point out that even if you went out of your way
>> to interpret the data in a negative way against Mobil 1, then you
>> would still get between 80%-90% synthetic oil. The reason you
>> don't get 100% in all interpretations is because Mobil 1 as most
>> other manufacturers reformulate over time to make their oil better.
>> Sometimes the better reformulation includes introducing non-
>> synthetics.
>>
>but it's not 80-90% pao!!! that's what everyone /thinks/ it is and it's
>not!!! pao is [was] "true synthetic". now, "synthetic" is just more
>highly refined dino.

Who's everyone? Mobil 1 is Synthetic oil. Synthetic oil can
have any combination of Group 5,4 or 3 synthetic oil base
stock. Mobil 1's base stock is POA (group 4). Mobil 1's base
stock (POA) is a least 80%.

http://www.mobil.com/Australia-Engli..._V_Mineral.asp

wrote:
>>> No. Just wanted to point out that even if you went out of your way
>>> to interpret the data in a negative way against Mobil 1, then you
>>> would still get between 80%-90% synthetic oil. The reason you
>>> don't get 100% in all interpretations is because Mobil 1 as most
>>> other manufacturers reformulate over time to make their oil better.
>>> Sometimes the better reformulation includes introducing non-
>>> synthetics.
>>>
>> but it's not 80-90% pao!!! that's what everyone /thinks/ it is and it's
>> not!!! pao is [was] "true synthetic". now, "synthetic" is just more
>> highly refined dino.
>
> Who's everyone? Mobil 1 is Synthetic oil. Synthetic oil can
> have any combination of Group 5,4 or 3 synthetic oil base
> stock. Mobil 1's base stock is POA (group 4). Mobil 1's base
> stock (POA) is a least 80%.

indeed, "any combination". hence modern formulations which are
primarily group III with a little IV or V to make it look good. and
where do you get 80% from? that contradicts the manufacturer's own msds
filing.

>
> http://www.mobil.com/Australia-Engli..._V_Mineral.asp

let's read very carefully:

"Synthetic motor oils contain a high proportion of base stocks created
from pure chemicals. Since synthetic base stocks such as PAO are
essentially pure chemicals themselves they avoid the performance
limitations imposed by the impurities present in conventional and
hydroprocessed base oils. PAO synthetic base oils are therefore pure
compounds containing none of the impurities found in conventional base
oils derived from crude oil, as mentioned earlier."

ok, let's analyze:
> "Synthetic motor oils contain a high proportion of base stocks created
> from pure chemicals."

what exactly is a "high proportion"? high relative to what? like 6% is
high relative to 5%? and what is "from pure chemicals"? if it's pao,
why don't they say so? "pure" usually means one chemical. my left foot
is "pure chemicals" if you want to be literal about this.

> "Since synthetic base stocks such as PAO are essentially pure
> chemicals themselves they avoid the performance limitations imposed by
> the impurities present in conventional and hydroprocessed base oils."

note the language "such as". note "base stocks" - plural. it doesn't
say they /actually/ use pao as their base stock - they say "base stocks"
plural and their msds filings prove pao is not their base. impurities
are a totally different subject - muddying the water in fact.

> "PAO synthetic base oils are therefore pure compounds containing none
> of the impurities found in conventional base oils derived from crude
> oil, as mentioned earlier."

that's a logical disconnect. you have a pure compound or a mixture of
compounds. conventional base oils may not be as highly refined as group
III's, but group III's are refined from conventional oils, not
synthesized like pao's or synthetic esters.

Ashton Crusher wrote:
> On Sun, 06 May 2007 07:52:05 -0700, jim beam
> > wrote:
>
>> Ashton Crusher wrote:
>>> On Sat, 05 May 2007 22:39:46 -0700, jim beam
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ashton Crusher wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 05 May 2007 17:29:17 -0700, jim beam
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> John S. wrote:
>>>>>>> On May 4, 11:42 pm, " >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I plan on buying a new 2008 Accord coupe V6 to replace my aging 97
>>>>>>>> VTEC-4 Accord coupe. I am considering for this new car to maintain it
>>>>>>>> using synthetic oil and strictly use Honda stock oil filters. My 97
>>>>>>>> Accord with the 2.2l VTEC four is doing fine at 210K with Jiffy lube
>>>>>>>> quality oil and filters every 3-5K with no engine related repairs. The
>>>>>>>> engine is only lightly sweating oil at the gasket, and burning about
>>>>>>>> 1/4qt every 3K or so. My engine is not as smooth as was new, but is
>>>>>>>> still impressive in performance. I am wondering if any of you who use
>>>>>>>> synthetic oil (such as Mobil-1) see any real world benefits (in
>>>>>>>> addition to extended oil life) to Honda's modern engines especially V6
>>>>>>>> engines.
>>>>>>> I'm not completely sure I know which question you are asking, but I'll
>>>>>>> guess.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since switching to synthetic in all my new cars I've seen no trace of
>>>>>>> carbon in engines with over 200k miles. I would not switch to
>>>>>>> synthetic on your older car with 210k miles as there is a good chance
>>>>>>> it will start to leak oil after using synthetic for a while.
>>>>>> not true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. my car's 18 years old and switched to synthetic for the first time
>>>>>> last year. doesn't leak a drop more than it did before [which wasn't
>>>>>> much]. if anything, it now leaks less.
>>>>> It varies from vehicle to vehicle. I switched some vehicles and not
>>>>> had any leaks, others have leaked a lot.
>>>> you sure it's the oil and not some other problem that caused your
>>>> leakage? how did you determine cause? my clunker is still on its
>>>> original seals - and they don't leak running M1.
>>>>
>>> Well, it didn't leak and then the syn went in and within a couple days
>>> it was leaking badly from the valve covers. It cleaned out the crap
>>> around the cork. Ford 5.0 with 125K
>>>
>>> In the power steering system there was a very small leak but enough to
>>> make it low on fluid. Topped it up with synthetic and the leak got
>>> much worse. Suctioned the syn back out and put non-syn back in and
>>> the leak slowed down again.
>>>
>>> On another vehicle with zero leaks and 140K it didn't change things at
>>> all when I switched. Ditto on one with 120K.
>>>
>>>>>> 2. "synthetics" are no longer really synthetics - these days, they're
>>>>>> just a more refined version of the same base oil used in standard lubes.
>>>>>> http://msds.ogden.disa.mil/msds/owa/...imsdsnr=194095
>>>>>> 10w-30 mobil1 is only 5% "synthetic".
>>>>>>
>>>>> Not sure what you are looking at or talking about.
>>>> the oil industry invests a lot of money in ensuring that not many people
>>>> are sure what they're talking about. oilco's have labs. they all know
>>>> their competition's formulations. the only people that don't know are
>>>> consumers since there's no constituent labeling requirements like other
>>>> consumer products.
>>>>
>>>>> It's full
>>>>> synthetic.
>>>> wtf is "full synthetic"? have you a legal definition? search an oilco
>>>> website for their weasel wording on the subject, then report back with
>>>> your conclusions.
>>>>
>>> I looked in the past but I'm not your research gopher. There was a
>>> big dustup when some of the other companies started using pretend syn
>>> instead of the real stuff like Mobile.
>>>
>>>>> That MSDS only seems to be referring to some of the
>>>>> additives from what I see.
>>>> correct - the 5% additive is the poly alpha olefin, the stuff that "full
>>>> synthetics" are "supposed" to based on according to popular myth. good
>>>> at percentages are you?
>>>>
>>> Yeah, like I said, it seems to be listing an additive. You'll note
>>> that the MSDS info does NOT total to 100% so clearly it's not the
>>> complete picture. Quite possibly "oil" is something that's not
>>> necessary to list on an MSDS whether is dino or syn.
>> that's the point dude, the "syn" is the poly alpha olefin - and it's a
>> minority component, not the majority base. mobil is still good stuff -
>> i use it, but as this legal msds filing shows, it's no longer "the real
>> stuff" it was once supposed to be. [maybe that's why there's no oil
>> leak issues any more?]
>>
>> seriously, check the web sites for the oilcos and read their
>> descriptions of their "synthetic" oil products. they use brilliantly
>> worded language that describes what synthetics /could/ be, but stop just
>> short of saying that they actually use it. the reason i picked up on
>> this is that you were propagating common myth about "synthetics", not
>> reality. from what i can tell from msds info for various manufacturers,
>> the only "true" [majority base] synthetics left on the market are the
>> ester-based ones from motul and red line.
>>
>
> Believe what you want. You are wrong.

if i'm wrong, mobil's msds filings are wrong. i'm happy for you to show
me otherwise, but you need to cite credible evidence.

>
>
>>>>>>> With the
>>>>>>> new car, no problem. Just use the type of oil and weight recommended
>>>>>>> by the manufacturer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I still plan on using quick-lube change places, although with
>>>>>>>> synthetic I will bring them my own oil and honda stock filters. I
>>>>>>>> considered doing my own oil changes, however I don't want to deal with
>>>>>>>> ramps in my apartment.

>note the language "such as". note "base stocks" - plural. it doesn't
>say they /actually/ use pao as their base stock - they say "base stocks"
>plural and their msds filings prove pao is not their base. impurities
>are a totally different subject - muddying the water in fact.

I can see you believe in conspiracies. Exxon will not divulge exact
numbers for reasons other than what you want us to believe. The
below is what YOU want us to believe.

"10w-30 mobil1 is only 5% "synthetic"

wrote:
>> note the language "such as". note "base stocks" - plural. it doesn't
>> say they /actually/ use pao as their base stock - they say "base stocks"
>> plural and their msds filings prove pao is not their base. impurities
>> are a totally different subject - muddying the water in fact.
>
> I can see you believe in conspiracies. Exxon will not divulge exact
> numbers for reasons other than what you want us to believe. The
> below is what YOU want us to believe.
>
> "10w-30 mobil1 is only 5% "synthetic"

dude, read the msds. it's a legal filing. it says 5% pao. don't you
want to "believe" that?

On Sun, 06 May 2007 14:57:51 -0700, jim beam
> wrote:

wrote:
>>> note the language "such as". note "base stocks" - plural. it doesn't
>>> say they /actually/ use pao as their base stock - they say "base stocks"
>>> plural and their msds filings prove pao is not their base. impurities
>>> are a totally different subject - muddying the water in fact.
>>
>> I can see you believe in conspiracies. Exxon will not divulge exact
>> numbers for reasons other than what you want us to believe. The
>> below is what YOU want us to believe.
>>
>> "10w-30 mobil1 is only 5% "synthetic"
>
>dude, read the msds. it's a legal filing. it says 5% pao. don't you
>want to "believe" that?

It does not say PAO's or poly alpha olefins are 5%.
It says the POLYOFEFIN POLYAMINE SUCCINIMIDE, POLYOL is 5%

The below, about Exxon product number 481176-00 MOBIL 1 10W-30
and its MSDS being #194095 is quoted from this link:
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/show...1537471&page=2

Begin quote:
On any MSDS, the section about the composition is to disclose those
components with known harmful effects to people. The polyalphaolefins
are NOT hazardous to people, so are not listed.

The POLYOFEFIN POLYAMINE SUCCINIMIDE is a cyclic organic compound
with nitrogen and oxygen added. Think ammonia blended in with the oil,
not the stuff you want to drink with cigars.