Best no BS motor oil/filter comparison?

"Mark A" > wrote in message
...
> "SMS" > wrote in message
> news
>> No matter what the test results, there will be people with vested
>> interests that will complain that the test was flawed in some way.
>> Some people complained about the taxi test because they though that
>> there weren't enough cold starts (even though there were about as
>> many as the typical driver would do per day). Others complained
>> because it was all stop and go city driving. Others complained
>> because the engines in the taxis were not high performance,
>> tight-tolerance engines.
>>
>> Suffice it to say that those who sell synthetic oil, or that have
>> almost religious beliefs in it, were not pleased with the results
>> of the taxi test.
>
> Not pleased with the CR taxi test? I don't really care. I don't
> drive a Chevy Caprice or Ford Crown Vic, I drive a Camry. Besides,
> CR said that there was no significant difference in engine wear.
> They did not say there was no difference. Other tests conducted by
> BMW (and others) have claimed different results, which is probably
> why they specify synthetic as factory fill.
>
> Since the auto industry is in deep trouble right now, I sincerely
> hope that people would keep using conventional oil (and switch from
> synthetic to conventional oil) and purchase new cars more often, so
> we can keep those people employed.

Reality check - what percentage of cars do you think are retired from
service because of an engine "worn out" due to oil related wear (as
opposed to failures related to the fuel, ignition, sensors, or other
non-lubricated component)? I am guessing it is a very low percentage.
I think rust, accidents, and transmission problems are all a lot more
likely to be the reason that a car is junked than a worn out engine
(well unless you are driving a Toyota with one of the sludge prone
engines). No one I know has ever gotten rid of a car because the
engine was worn out. I know it happens, but just not very often. My
older sister is the queen of ignoring maintenance, and even she has
never worn out an engine. The engine in the 12 year old Honda she just
sold ran just fine. The rest of the car was crap, but the engine was
fine and it never had oil changes more often than 7500 miles and often
a lot less often. Nothing better than conventional Havoline was every
used in the crank case (but she did get decent Wix filters).

Ed

HLS wrote:
>

> This was not a case of gunk, although the oil became black very quickly.
> The engine started using oil very badly soon after the Mobil I was used.
> That was the reason for the problem, not oil color.

YOU, I believe. I don't know about the other clown who claimed "black"
oil in a "new" Briggs engine. But even in your case I strongly suspect a
coincidence and not the oil, since a) there's nothing unique about a
Briggs engine that would rule out synthetic oil, and b) I've run
synthetic oil in a number of Briggs engines over the years with no
problem. Other than being air-cooled, its hard to think of an engine
LESS demanding of its oil than a Briggs. The things are so simple and
over-built for the power loading that you can just about run them on
anything halfway slippery. But you do have to change it regularly since
there's no filtration system.

HLS wrote:
>

> I can talk engineering with you all day long, but this is not a case
> where I
> am very open to "shoulda, coulda, and woulda".

Come on, YOU know better than to infer a trend from one data point. How
many other things could have happened to ruin that engine?

And last time I looked, Briggs has withdrawn any anti-synthetic
recommendations they had. Probably more a case of CYA than engineering.

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Steve > wrote:
>>> I also had an edger with a Briggs and Stratton engine and the oil turned
>>> black after one use. I knew immediately that the Briggs and Stratton engine
>>> I had then (don't know about newer ones) was not suitably built for
>>> synthetic oil (in the same way those Chevy Caprice and Crown Vic engines
>>> used in NYC taxis are not suitable for synthetic oil).
>> If you believe that particular engines are "not suitable for synthetic
>> oil," then there's no use trying to have an intelligent,
>> engineering-based discussion.
>
> In the case of small engines with splash-plate lubrication rather than
> an oil pump, the synthetic oils are NOT generally suitable for them. The
> better flow characteristics of the synthetics mean the splash plate cannot
> pick up enough oil.

If that were really true, then how do they meet the API specs for flow?
WAAAAY back in the dawn of synthetics, there were claims- possibly quite
true- about their lack of proper lubrication for the vertical surfaces
of some automotive engine thrust bearings, but that was addressed by the
oil makers 20+ years ago. If there were really that sort of difference
persisting to this day, it would show up lots of other places, not JUST
in air-cooled small engines. I just don't see it.

jim wrote:
>
> Steve wrote:
>> jim wrote:
>>
>>> As far as I know the type of dirt that gets into oil due to combustion
>>> byproducts is not going to be any different for synthetic oil.
>> That's true, and is a key part of this discussion. Too bad its being
>> discussed in terms of "synthetic" versus "conventional," because that
>> really doesn't matter. What DOES matter is the rest of the oil additive
>> package, in particular the compoenents that maintain the total base
>> number (TBN) and keep the oil from becoming acidic. You can have
>> synthetics with poor TBN control additive, and you can have
>> conventionals with good packages. Now *most* synthetics also happen to
>> be higher-end oils and have decent additive packages... but its not
>> BECAUSE they're synthetic.
>
> Yes, and "becoming acidic" is just one of the things that happens to oil as the
> miles go by. So what is the advantage of getting a good additive package that
> counteracts or slows down that inevitable deterioration versus just changing the
> oil more frequently to avoid the deterioration?
>
>
> -jim

Like everything, its a trade-off. If every car owner went to a 6000-mile
versus the ridiculously short 3000 mile change interval, the savings in
crude oil or natural gas (the raw material for synthetic oils), the
reduction in energy required to produce the oil, and the reduced load on
the recycling infrastructure would be non-negligible. And since acid
increase starts the first time you turn the key, its better to use a
better additive package even if you KEEP your short drain interval, too.
On the other hand, buying an oil that CAN keep a reasonable TBN until
20,000 miles or some silly high number is counter-productive too, since
viscosity shift and solid (soot) contamination in automotive engines
with their rather poor filtration systems comes into play long before
then. From everything I've been able to gather, a change interval in
the 6000 to 9000 mile zone with good oil is a pretty reasonable trade
for the vast majority of car drivers out there.

C. E. White wrote:
>

>
> Reality check - what percentage of cars do you think are retired from
> service because of an engine "worn out" due to oil related wear (as
> opposed to failures related to the fuel, ignition, sensors, or other
> non-lubricated component)? I am guessing it is a very low percentage.

And I suspect the ones retired from service for all non-engine problems
combined is far smaller than those retired from service because the
owners just wanted something newer and flashier.

Steve wrote:

> From where I sit, spending extra for slightly more frequent oil changes
> costs about the same as regular UOAs.

Once you determine, via analysis, the interval on each vehicle at which
there is no additional benefit from more frequent oil changes, you don't
need to do any more analyzing.

I was really only suggesting that analysis might be a good idea for
those people that don't understand how needless it is to do a 3000 mile
oil change on a modern engine. They've been brainwashed by companies
like Jiffy Lube and/or they remember what their father or grandfather
told them back in the 1960's, and haven't updated this knowledge to
account for higher quality multi-weight detergent motor oils, versus
cans of SAE 30, even though every independent test has shown how
needless 3000 mile changes actually are.

They're wasting an enormous amount of money, time, and resources on
something that will provide absolutely no benefit in terms of the
longevity of their vehicle. Ask them why they don't do 1000 mile oil
changes rather than 3000?

Ditto for people that live in moderate climates, and are driving
non-high performance vehicles, and spending $45 changing their own oil
with synthetic versus spending $20 using conventional oil. Synthetic oil
won't hurt anything (as long as it's an API certified synthetic and not
one of the ones with high levels of ZDDP) but it won't give them greater
MPG, longer engine life, more power, or in Amsoil's words "more gusto."
It's basically just throwing away money for no reason. Well there is
something to the fact that it makes them feel good, so maybe it's $25
well spent after all!

Steve wrote:

> If that were really true, then how do they meet the API specs for flow?
> WAAAAY back in the dawn of synthetics, there were claims- possibly quite
> true- about their lack of proper lubrication for the vertical surfaces
> of some automotive engine thrust bearings, but that was addressed by the
> oil makers 20+ years ago. If there were really that sort of difference
> persisting to this day, it would show up lots of other places, not JUST
> in air-cooled small engines. I just don't see it.

I suspect that the engine called for 10W30 oil, and a synthetic of a
different weight was used instead.

Steve wrote:
> C. E. White wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> Reality check - what percentage of cars do you think are retired from
>> service because of an engine "worn out" due to oil related wear (as
>> opposed to failures related to the fuel, ignition, sensors, or other
>> non-lubricated component)? I am guessing it is a very low percentage.
>
> And I suspect the ones retired from service for all non-engine problems
> combined is far smaller than those retired from service because the
> owners just wanted something newer and flashier.

A lot more engines are destroyed by a loss of coolant than "worn out"
oil. My nephew destroyed a three year old BMW X5 by not knowing or not
noticing the temperature gauge, after the water pump started leaking.
Alway a pet peeve that the manufacturers don't put in some sort of an
audible warning of when to pull over and stop the vehicle. Click and
Clack used to say that the temperature idiot light shouldn't say TEMP,
it should say $3000 (this was a long time ago), since that's what
repairs will cost if you don't stop immediately.

Steve wrote:
>
> jim wrote:
> >
> > Steve wrote:
> >> jim wrote:
> >>
> >>> As far as I know the type of dirt that gets into oil due to combustion
> >>> byproducts is not going to be any different for synthetic oil.
> >> That's true, and is a key part of this discussion. Too bad its being
> >> discussed in terms of "synthetic" versus "conventional," because that
> >> really doesn't matter. What DOES matter is the rest of the oil additive
> >> package, in particular the compoenents that maintain the total base
> >> number (TBN) and keep the oil from becoming acidic. You can have
> >> synthetics with poor TBN control additive, and you can have
> >> conventionals with good packages. Now *most* synthetics also happen to
> >> be higher-end oils and have decent additive packages... but its not
> >> BECAUSE they're synthetic.
> >
> > Yes, and "becoming acidic" is just one of the things that happens to oil as the
> > miles go by. So what is the advantage of getting a good additive package that
> > counteracts or slows down that inevitable deterioration versus just changing the
> > oil more frequently to avoid the deterioration?
> >
> >
> > -jim
>
> Like everything, its a trade-off. If every car owner went to a 6000-mile
> versus the ridiculously short 3000 mile change interval, the savings in
> crude oil or natural gas (the raw material for synthetic oils), the
> reduction in energy required to produce the oil, and the reduced load on
> the recycling infrastructure would be non-negligible.

Just simply conserving by doing any number of things would have a far far
greater impact. But nothing gets the people who are pretty much careless in
conserving in almost every other respect so riled up as finding out someone is
changing oil at 3000 miles.

-jim


----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---