Mobil 1 5W-20
#61
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
Brian Nystrom wrote:
> CBX2@webtv.net wrote:
>> Mobil Delvac is also excellent but I can't get it around here.
>
>
> I don't think I've ever seen it.
Mobil Delvac 1 is basically the fleet version of Mobil 1. I used it
years ago mainly because it came in 1 gallon jugs and was much easier
than messing with the loose quarts. It was designed for owners of
fleets of diesel engine vehicles, but it also met the API auto standard
of the time (this was in the late 70s).
I think Delvac 1 stopped following the gasoline engine specs sometime in
the early 80s and I haven't seen it for years so I'm not sure if they
even sell it still. They probably do, but I don't get to the Mobil
distributor very often and they only sold it throught a distributor back
in the 70s.
Matt
> CBX2@webtv.net wrote:
>> Mobil Delvac is also excellent but I can't get it around here.
>
>
> I don't think I've ever seen it.
Mobil Delvac 1 is basically the fleet version of Mobil 1. I used it
years ago mainly because it came in 1 gallon jugs and was much easier
than messing with the loose quarts. It was designed for owners of
fleets of diesel engine vehicles, but it also met the API auto standard
of the time (this was in the late 70s).
I think Delvac 1 stopped following the gasoline engine specs sometime in
the early 80s and I haven't seen it for years so I'm not sure if they
even sell it still. They probably do, but I don't get to the Mobil
distributor very often and they only sold it throught a distributor back
in the 70s.
Matt
#65
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
Matt Whiting wrote:
> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>
>> When you get right down to it, nowadays, oil is oil. The differences
>> that companies tout in order to attract consumers are so small as to
>> be irrelevent. Modern oils are incredibly good. Just look for the API
>> seal and if an oil has it, it's more than good enough to put in your
>> engine. I would avoid oils that are not API certified, unless you're
>> willing to spend the money for Amsoil. I'm not.
>
>
> I agree that most oils are good enough most of the time, but I disagree
> that oil is oil. About the only independent and fairly comprehensive
> test of oils that I've seen was done by MCN (Motorcycle Consumer News)
> magazine. They have tested oils twice in the last decade or so and the
> difference between the top and bottom oils is very dramatic, often 2X or
> more in tests such as the ability to maintain viscosity, etc.
Please define "2X". It's extremely important to put the differences into
context. What are the tested parameters? What are the differences in
terms of actual durability in the engine?
There is also a substantial difference between the operating parameters
of motorcycle engines and automobile engines. In particular, motorcycle
engines routinely operate at rpms that are double that of car engines.
That creates very different stresses on oils. An oil that is "superior"
to another when used in a motorcycle engine may be no better in a car
engine, in practical terms.
> Cheap oils really are much worse than top rated oils.
In what regard? Specifics really matter here. Blanket statements like
that aren't helpful.
> It may not make a
> difference if you drive your car only 100,000 in easy conditions and
> then trade it in, but if you drive 200,000 plus as I intend to (except
> my last two vehicles got totaled at 143K and 182K), in a variety of
> conditions from -20 to over 100, in the mountains, etc., then I'd rather
> have the good stuff.
I see your point, but I'm not convinced that it makes any difference.
The length of time you intend to drive your car doesn't matter. What
does matter is how long you leave the oil in the engine. If you want to
push the envelope on oil change intervals (10K miles+), it makes sense
to use the most durable oil you can find. If you change your oil at
suggested intervals, any oil will last that long. That's been shown in
numerous studies.
It's well know and accepted that that ~90% of engine wear occurs on
startup. Oils that flow better, such as synthetics, will help reduce
wear, as they get to all parts of the engine faster. However, if you
really want to extend the life of your engine, install a pre-oiler. That
ensures that the engine is fully lubricated BEFORE you start it. That
should make much more difference in wear and long-term durability than
one's choice of oil.
> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>
>> When you get right down to it, nowadays, oil is oil. The differences
>> that companies tout in order to attract consumers are so small as to
>> be irrelevent. Modern oils are incredibly good. Just look for the API
>> seal and if an oil has it, it's more than good enough to put in your
>> engine. I would avoid oils that are not API certified, unless you're
>> willing to spend the money for Amsoil. I'm not.
>
>
> I agree that most oils are good enough most of the time, but I disagree
> that oil is oil. About the only independent and fairly comprehensive
> test of oils that I've seen was done by MCN (Motorcycle Consumer News)
> magazine. They have tested oils twice in the last decade or so and the
> difference between the top and bottom oils is very dramatic, often 2X or
> more in tests such as the ability to maintain viscosity, etc.
Please define "2X". It's extremely important to put the differences into
context. What are the tested parameters? What are the differences in
terms of actual durability in the engine?
There is also a substantial difference between the operating parameters
of motorcycle engines and automobile engines. In particular, motorcycle
engines routinely operate at rpms that are double that of car engines.
That creates very different stresses on oils. An oil that is "superior"
to another when used in a motorcycle engine may be no better in a car
engine, in practical terms.
> Cheap oils really are much worse than top rated oils.
In what regard? Specifics really matter here. Blanket statements like
that aren't helpful.
> It may not make a
> difference if you drive your car only 100,000 in easy conditions and
> then trade it in, but if you drive 200,000 plus as I intend to (except
> my last two vehicles got totaled at 143K and 182K), in a variety of
> conditions from -20 to over 100, in the mountains, etc., then I'd rather
> have the good stuff.
I see your point, but I'm not convinced that it makes any difference.
The length of time you intend to drive your car doesn't matter. What
does matter is how long you leave the oil in the engine. If you want to
push the envelope on oil change intervals (10K miles+), it makes sense
to use the most durable oil you can find. If you change your oil at
suggested intervals, any oil will last that long. That's been shown in
numerous studies.
It's well know and accepted that that ~90% of engine wear occurs on
startup. Oils that flow better, such as synthetics, will help reduce
wear, as they get to all parts of the engine faster. However, if you
really want to extend the life of your engine, install a pre-oiler. That
ensures that the engine is fully lubricated BEFORE you start it. That
should make much more difference in wear and long-term durability than
one's choice of oil.
#66
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
Matt Whiting wrote:
> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>
>> When you get right down to it, nowadays, oil is oil. The differences
>> that companies tout in order to attract consumers are so small as to
>> be irrelevent. Modern oils are incredibly good. Just look for the API
>> seal and if an oil has it, it's more than good enough to put in your
>> engine. I would avoid oils that are not API certified, unless you're
>> willing to spend the money for Amsoil. I'm not.
>
>
> I agree that most oils are good enough most of the time, but I disagree
> that oil is oil. About the only independent and fairly comprehensive
> test of oils that I've seen was done by MCN (Motorcycle Consumer News)
> magazine. They have tested oils twice in the last decade or so and the
> difference between the top and bottom oils is very dramatic, often 2X or
> more in tests such as the ability to maintain viscosity, etc.
Please define "2X". It's extremely important to put the differences into
context. What are the tested parameters? What are the differences in
terms of actual durability in the engine?
There is also a substantial difference between the operating parameters
of motorcycle engines and automobile engines. In particular, motorcycle
engines routinely operate at rpms that are double that of car engines.
That creates very different stresses on oils. An oil that is "superior"
to another when used in a motorcycle engine may be no better in a car
engine, in practical terms.
> Cheap oils really are much worse than top rated oils.
In what regard? Specifics really matter here. Blanket statements like
that aren't helpful.
> It may not make a
> difference if you drive your car only 100,000 in easy conditions and
> then trade it in, but if you drive 200,000 plus as I intend to (except
> my last two vehicles got totaled at 143K and 182K), in a variety of
> conditions from -20 to over 100, in the mountains, etc., then I'd rather
> have the good stuff.
I see your point, but I'm not convinced that it makes any difference.
The length of time you intend to drive your car doesn't matter. What
does matter is how long you leave the oil in the engine. If you want to
push the envelope on oil change intervals (10K miles+), it makes sense
to use the most durable oil you can find. If you change your oil at
suggested intervals, any oil will last that long. That's been shown in
numerous studies.
It's well know and accepted that that ~90% of engine wear occurs on
startup. Oils that flow better, such as synthetics, will help reduce
wear, as they get to all parts of the engine faster. However, if you
really want to extend the life of your engine, install a pre-oiler. That
ensures that the engine is fully lubricated BEFORE you start it. That
should make much more difference in wear and long-term durability than
one's choice of oil.
> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>
>> When you get right down to it, nowadays, oil is oil. The differences
>> that companies tout in order to attract consumers are so small as to
>> be irrelevent. Modern oils are incredibly good. Just look for the API
>> seal and if an oil has it, it's more than good enough to put in your
>> engine. I would avoid oils that are not API certified, unless you're
>> willing to spend the money for Amsoil. I'm not.
>
>
> I agree that most oils are good enough most of the time, but I disagree
> that oil is oil. About the only independent and fairly comprehensive
> test of oils that I've seen was done by MCN (Motorcycle Consumer News)
> magazine. They have tested oils twice in the last decade or so and the
> difference between the top and bottom oils is very dramatic, often 2X or
> more in tests such as the ability to maintain viscosity, etc.
Please define "2X". It's extremely important to put the differences into
context. What are the tested parameters? What are the differences in
terms of actual durability in the engine?
There is also a substantial difference between the operating parameters
of motorcycle engines and automobile engines. In particular, motorcycle
engines routinely operate at rpms that are double that of car engines.
That creates very different stresses on oils. An oil that is "superior"
to another when used in a motorcycle engine may be no better in a car
engine, in practical terms.
> Cheap oils really are much worse than top rated oils.
In what regard? Specifics really matter here. Blanket statements like
that aren't helpful.
> It may not make a
> difference if you drive your car only 100,000 in easy conditions and
> then trade it in, but if you drive 200,000 plus as I intend to (except
> my last two vehicles got totaled at 143K and 182K), in a variety of
> conditions from -20 to over 100, in the mountains, etc., then I'd rather
> have the good stuff.
I see your point, but I'm not convinced that it makes any difference.
The length of time you intend to drive your car doesn't matter. What
does matter is how long you leave the oil in the engine. If you want to
push the envelope on oil change intervals (10K miles+), it makes sense
to use the most durable oil you can find. If you change your oil at
suggested intervals, any oil will last that long. That's been shown in
numerous studies.
It's well know and accepted that that ~90% of engine wear occurs on
startup. Oils that flow better, such as synthetics, will help reduce
wear, as they get to all parts of the engine faster. However, if you
really want to extend the life of your engine, install a pre-oiler. That
ensures that the engine is fully lubricated BEFORE you start it. That
should make much more difference in wear and long-term durability than
one's choice of oil.
#67
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
Matt Whiting wrote:
> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>
>> When you get right down to it, nowadays, oil is oil. The differences
>> that companies tout in order to attract consumers are so small as to
>> be irrelevent. Modern oils are incredibly good. Just look for the API
>> seal and if an oil has it, it's more than good enough to put in your
>> engine. I would avoid oils that are not API certified, unless you're
>> willing to spend the money for Amsoil. I'm not.
>
>
> I agree that most oils are good enough most of the time, but I disagree
> that oil is oil. About the only independent and fairly comprehensive
> test of oils that I've seen was done by MCN (Motorcycle Consumer News)
> magazine. They have tested oils twice in the last decade or so and the
> difference between the top and bottom oils is very dramatic, often 2X or
> more in tests such as the ability to maintain viscosity, etc.
Please define "2X". It's extremely important to put the differences into
context. What are the tested parameters? What are the differences in
terms of actual durability in the engine?
There is also a substantial difference between the operating parameters
of motorcycle engines and automobile engines. In particular, motorcycle
engines routinely operate at rpms that are double that of car engines.
That creates very different stresses on oils. An oil that is "superior"
to another when used in a motorcycle engine may be no better in a car
engine, in practical terms.
> Cheap oils really are much worse than top rated oils.
In what regard? Specifics really matter here. Blanket statements like
that aren't helpful.
> It may not make a
> difference if you drive your car only 100,000 in easy conditions and
> then trade it in, but if you drive 200,000 plus as I intend to (except
> my last two vehicles got totaled at 143K and 182K), in a variety of
> conditions from -20 to over 100, in the mountains, etc., then I'd rather
> have the good stuff.
I see your point, but I'm not convinced that it makes any difference.
The length of time you intend to drive your car doesn't matter. What
does matter is how long you leave the oil in the engine. If you want to
push the envelope on oil change intervals (10K miles+), it makes sense
to use the most durable oil you can find. If you change your oil at
suggested intervals, any oil will last that long. That's been shown in
numerous studies.
It's well know and accepted that that ~90% of engine wear occurs on
startup. Oils that flow better, such as synthetics, will help reduce
wear, as they get to all parts of the engine faster. However, if you
really want to extend the life of your engine, install a pre-oiler. That
ensures that the engine is fully lubricated BEFORE you start it. That
should make much more difference in wear and long-term durability than
one's choice of oil.
> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>
>> When you get right down to it, nowadays, oil is oil. The differences
>> that companies tout in order to attract consumers are so small as to
>> be irrelevent. Modern oils are incredibly good. Just look for the API
>> seal and if an oil has it, it's more than good enough to put in your
>> engine. I would avoid oils that are not API certified, unless you're
>> willing to spend the money for Amsoil. I'm not.
>
>
> I agree that most oils are good enough most of the time, but I disagree
> that oil is oil. About the only independent and fairly comprehensive
> test of oils that I've seen was done by MCN (Motorcycle Consumer News)
> magazine. They have tested oils twice in the last decade or so and the
> difference between the top and bottom oils is very dramatic, often 2X or
> more in tests such as the ability to maintain viscosity, etc.
Please define "2X". It's extremely important to put the differences into
context. What are the tested parameters? What are the differences in
terms of actual durability in the engine?
There is also a substantial difference between the operating parameters
of motorcycle engines and automobile engines. In particular, motorcycle
engines routinely operate at rpms that are double that of car engines.
That creates very different stresses on oils. An oil that is "superior"
to another when used in a motorcycle engine may be no better in a car
engine, in practical terms.
> Cheap oils really are much worse than top rated oils.
In what regard? Specifics really matter here. Blanket statements like
that aren't helpful.
> It may not make a
> difference if you drive your car only 100,000 in easy conditions and
> then trade it in, but if you drive 200,000 plus as I intend to (except
> my last two vehicles got totaled at 143K and 182K), in a variety of
> conditions from -20 to over 100, in the mountains, etc., then I'd rather
> have the good stuff.
I see your point, but I'm not convinced that it makes any difference.
The length of time you intend to drive your car doesn't matter. What
does matter is how long you leave the oil in the engine. If you want to
push the envelope on oil change intervals (10K miles+), it makes sense
to use the most durable oil you can find. If you change your oil at
suggested intervals, any oil will last that long. That's been shown in
numerous studies.
It's well know and accepted that that ~90% of engine wear occurs on
startup. Oils that flow better, such as synthetics, will help reduce
wear, as they get to all parts of the engine faster. However, if you
really want to extend the life of your engine, install a pre-oiler. That
ensures that the engine is fully lubricated BEFORE you start it. That
should make much more difference in wear and long-term durability than
one's choice of oil.
#68
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
Brian Nystrom wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>>
>>> When you get right down to it, nowadays, oil is oil. The differences
>>> that companies tout in order to attract consumers are so small as to
>>> be irrelevent. Modern oils are incredibly good. Just look for the API
>>> seal and if an oil has it, it's more than good enough to put in your
>>> engine. I would avoid oils that are not API certified, unless you're
>>> willing to spend the money for Amsoil. I'm not.
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree that most oils are good enough most of the time, but I
>> disagree that oil is oil. About the only independent and fairly
>> comprehensive test of oils that I've seen was done by MCN (Motorcycle
>> Consumer News) magazine. They have tested oils twice in the last
>> decade or so and the difference between the top and bottom oils is
>> very dramatic, often 2X or more in tests such as the ability to
>> maintain viscosity, etc.
>
>
> Please define "2X". It's extremely important to put the differences into
> context. What are the tested parameters? What are the differences in
> terms of actual durability in the engine?
I don't have the magazine handy and I don't recall all of the parameters
tested, but it was things like TBN, levels of certain friction reducers,
oxidation reducers, etc. They provided bar graphs for all of the
relevant tests and the height of the best oils was twice that of the
cheap oils and sometimes even greater disparities.
There is no easy way to measure differences in engine durability in a
controlled way and it would cost millions to even attempt that. So, you
have to use surrogate measures.
> There is also a substantial difference between the operating parameters
> of motorcycle engines and automobile engines. In particular, motorcycle
> engines routinely operate at rpms that are double that of car engines.
> That creates very different stresses on oils. An oil that is "superior"
> to another when used in a motorcycle engine may be no better in a car
> engine, in practical terms.
They tested both car and motorcycle oils. There conclusion was that
most motorcycle oils weren't different enough from car oils to justify
the price premium. But it did appear that good oils were much better
than cheap oils. And synthetics were much better than most dino oils.
>> Cheap oils really are much worse than top rated oils.
>
>
> In what regard? Specifics really matter here. Blanket statements like
> that aren't helpful.
Call up the folks at MCN and buy a back issue of the magazine that
contained the oil test. I'm sure they will know which issue and can
sell you a copy. I can't remember the specifics from 5-6 years ago.
And you wouldn't believe me anyway so do some research for yourself.
http://www.mcnews.com/mcn/
>> It may not make a difference if you drive your car only 100,000 in
>> easy conditions and then trade it in, but if you drive 200,000 plus as
>> I intend to (except my last two vehicles got totaled at 143K and
>> 182K), in a variety of conditions from -20 to over 100, in the
>> mountains, etc., then I'd rather have the good stuff.
>
>
> I see your point, but I'm not convinced that it makes any difference.
> The length of time you intend to drive your car doesn't matter. What
> does matter is how long you leave the oil in the engine. If you want to
> push the envelope on oil change intervals (10K miles+), it makes sense
> to use the most durable oil you can find. If you change your oil at
> suggested intervals, any oil will last that long. That's been shown in
> numerous studies.
Sure it matters how many miles you drive your car. If the engine wears
twice as fast using a cheap oil as a premium oil, then it will run half
as many miles. If the premium oil wear rate will let the engine last
250,000 miles, then the same engine with the cheap oil can be expected
to last only 125,000 miles. This isn't rocket science.
You say numerous studies, can you point me to one?
> It's well know and accepted that that ~90% of engine wear occurs on
> startup. Oils that flow better, such as synthetics, will help reduce
> wear, as they get to all parts of the engine faster. However, if you
> really want to extend the life of your engine, install a pre-oiler. That
> ensures that the engine is fully lubricated BEFORE you start it. That
> should make much more difference in wear and long-term durability than
> one's choice of oil.
Again, any proof for your statement? I've heard this as well,
especially in the aviation industry, but I've also seen many counter
examples that suggest otherwise. For example, the airplanes that are
started most often and flown the least hours at a time are single-engine
trainers, yet their engines often last much longer than large singles
that are flown 2-3 hours at a time.
I've seen many suggestions that frequency of operation of the enigne is
more important than the number of starts and shutdowns. However, I've
seen NO data that supports either hypothesis, just anecdotal information
and observations.
Matt
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>>
>>> When you get right down to it, nowadays, oil is oil. The differences
>>> that companies tout in order to attract consumers are so small as to
>>> be irrelevent. Modern oils are incredibly good. Just look for the API
>>> seal and if an oil has it, it's more than good enough to put in your
>>> engine. I would avoid oils that are not API certified, unless you're
>>> willing to spend the money for Amsoil. I'm not.
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree that most oils are good enough most of the time, but I
>> disagree that oil is oil. About the only independent and fairly
>> comprehensive test of oils that I've seen was done by MCN (Motorcycle
>> Consumer News) magazine. They have tested oils twice in the last
>> decade or so and the difference between the top and bottom oils is
>> very dramatic, often 2X or more in tests such as the ability to
>> maintain viscosity, etc.
>
>
> Please define "2X". It's extremely important to put the differences into
> context. What are the tested parameters? What are the differences in
> terms of actual durability in the engine?
I don't have the magazine handy and I don't recall all of the parameters
tested, but it was things like TBN, levels of certain friction reducers,
oxidation reducers, etc. They provided bar graphs for all of the
relevant tests and the height of the best oils was twice that of the
cheap oils and sometimes even greater disparities.
There is no easy way to measure differences in engine durability in a
controlled way and it would cost millions to even attempt that. So, you
have to use surrogate measures.
> There is also a substantial difference between the operating parameters
> of motorcycle engines and automobile engines. In particular, motorcycle
> engines routinely operate at rpms that are double that of car engines.
> That creates very different stresses on oils. An oil that is "superior"
> to another when used in a motorcycle engine may be no better in a car
> engine, in practical terms.
They tested both car and motorcycle oils. There conclusion was that
most motorcycle oils weren't different enough from car oils to justify
the price premium. But it did appear that good oils were much better
than cheap oils. And synthetics were much better than most dino oils.
>> Cheap oils really are much worse than top rated oils.
>
>
> In what regard? Specifics really matter here. Blanket statements like
> that aren't helpful.
Call up the folks at MCN and buy a back issue of the magazine that
contained the oil test. I'm sure they will know which issue and can
sell you a copy. I can't remember the specifics from 5-6 years ago.
And you wouldn't believe me anyway so do some research for yourself.
http://www.mcnews.com/mcn/
>> It may not make a difference if you drive your car only 100,000 in
>> easy conditions and then trade it in, but if you drive 200,000 plus as
>> I intend to (except my last two vehicles got totaled at 143K and
>> 182K), in a variety of conditions from -20 to over 100, in the
>> mountains, etc., then I'd rather have the good stuff.
>
>
> I see your point, but I'm not convinced that it makes any difference.
> The length of time you intend to drive your car doesn't matter. What
> does matter is how long you leave the oil in the engine. If you want to
> push the envelope on oil change intervals (10K miles+), it makes sense
> to use the most durable oil you can find. If you change your oil at
> suggested intervals, any oil will last that long. That's been shown in
> numerous studies.
Sure it matters how many miles you drive your car. If the engine wears
twice as fast using a cheap oil as a premium oil, then it will run half
as many miles. If the premium oil wear rate will let the engine last
250,000 miles, then the same engine with the cheap oil can be expected
to last only 125,000 miles. This isn't rocket science.
You say numerous studies, can you point me to one?
> It's well know and accepted that that ~90% of engine wear occurs on
> startup. Oils that flow better, such as synthetics, will help reduce
> wear, as they get to all parts of the engine faster. However, if you
> really want to extend the life of your engine, install a pre-oiler. That
> ensures that the engine is fully lubricated BEFORE you start it. That
> should make much more difference in wear and long-term durability than
> one's choice of oil.
Again, any proof for your statement? I've heard this as well,
especially in the aviation industry, but I've also seen many counter
examples that suggest otherwise. For example, the airplanes that are
started most often and flown the least hours at a time are single-engine
trainers, yet their engines often last much longer than large singles
that are flown 2-3 hours at a time.
I've seen many suggestions that frequency of operation of the enigne is
more important than the number of starts and shutdowns. However, I've
seen NO data that supports either hypothesis, just anecdotal information
and observations.
Matt
#69
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
Brian Nystrom wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>>
>>> When you get right down to it, nowadays, oil is oil. The differences
>>> that companies tout in order to attract consumers are so small as to
>>> be irrelevent. Modern oils are incredibly good. Just look for the API
>>> seal and if an oil has it, it's more than good enough to put in your
>>> engine. I would avoid oils that are not API certified, unless you're
>>> willing to spend the money for Amsoil. I'm not.
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree that most oils are good enough most of the time, but I
>> disagree that oil is oil. About the only independent and fairly
>> comprehensive test of oils that I've seen was done by MCN (Motorcycle
>> Consumer News) magazine. They have tested oils twice in the last
>> decade or so and the difference between the top and bottom oils is
>> very dramatic, often 2X or more in tests such as the ability to
>> maintain viscosity, etc.
>
>
> Please define "2X". It's extremely important to put the differences into
> context. What are the tested parameters? What are the differences in
> terms of actual durability in the engine?
I don't have the magazine handy and I don't recall all of the parameters
tested, but it was things like TBN, levels of certain friction reducers,
oxidation reducers, etc. They provided bar graphs for all of the
relevant tests and the height of the best oils was twice that of the
cheap oils and sometimes even greater disparities.
There is no easy way to measure differences in engine durability in a
controlled way and it would cost millions to even attempt that. So, you
have to use surrogate measures.
> There is also a substantial difference between the operating parameters
> of motorcycle engines and automobile engines. In particular, motorcycle
> engines routinely operate at rpms that are double that of car engines.
> That creates very different stresses on oils. An oil that is "superior"
> to another when used in a motorcycle engine may be no better in a car
> engine, in practical terms.
They tested both car and motorcycle oils. There conclusion was that
most motorcycle oils weren't different enough from car oils to justify
the price premium. But it did appear that good oils were much better
than cheap oils. And synthetics were much better than most dino oils.
>> Cheap oils really are much worse than top rated oils.
>
>
> In what regard? Specifics really matter here. Blanket statements like
> that aren't helpful.
Call up the folks at MCN and buy a back issue of the magazine that
contained the oil test. I'm sure they will know which issue and can
sell you a copy. I can't remember the specifics from 5-6 years ago.
And you wouldn't believe me anyway so do some research for yourself.
http://www.mcnews.com/mcn/
>> It may not make a difference if you drive your car only 100,000 in
>> easy conditions and then trade it in, but if you drive 200,000 plus as
>> I intend to (except my last two vehicles got totaled at 143K and
>> 182K), in a variety of conditions from -20 to over 100, in the
>> mountains, etc., then I'd rather have the good stuff.
>
>
> I see your point, but I'm not convinced that it makes any difference.
> The length of time you intend to drive your car doesn't matter. What
> does matter is how long you leave the oil in the engine. If you want to
> push the envelope on oil change intervals (10K miles+), it makes sense
> to use the most durable oil you can find. If you change your oil at
> suggested intervals, any oil will last that long. That's been shown in
> numerous studies.
Sure it matters how many miles you drive your car. If the engine wears
twice as fast using a cheap oil as a premium oil, then it will run half
as many miles. If the premium oil wear rate will let the engine last
250,000 miles, then the same engine with the cheap oil can be expected
to last only 125,000 miles. This isn't rocket science.
You say numerous studies, can you point me to one?
> It's well know and accepted that that ~90% of engine wear occurs on
> startup. Oils that flow better, such as synthetics, will help reduce
> wear, as they get to all parts of the engine faster. However, if you
> really want to extend the life of your engine, install a pre-oiler. That
> ensures that the engine is fully lubricated BEFORE you start it. That
> should make much more difference in wear and long-term durability than
> one's choice of oil.
Again, any proof for your statement? I've heard this as well,
especially in the aviation industry, but I've also seen many counter
examples that suggest otherwise. For example, the airplanes that are
started most often and flown the least hours at a time are single-engine
trainers, yet their engines often last much longer than large singles
that are flown 2-3 hours at a time.
I've seen many suggestions that frequency of operation of the enigne is
more important than the number of starts and shutdowns. However, I've
seen NO data that supports either hypothesis, just anecdotal information
and observations.
Matt
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>>
>>> When you get right down to it, nowadays, oil is oil. The differences
>>> that companies tout in order to attract consumers are so small as to
>>> be irrelevent. Modern oils are incredibly good. Just look for the API
>>> seal and if an oil has it, it's more than good enough to put in your
>>> engine. I would avoid oils that are not API certified, unless you're
>>> willing to spend the money for Amsoil. I'm not.
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree that most oils are good enough most of the time, but I
>> disagree that oil is oil. About the only independent and fairly
>> comprehensive test of oils that I've seen was done by MCN (Motorcycle
>> Consumer News) magazine. They have tested oils twice in the last
>> decade or so and the difference between the top and bottom oils is
>> very dramatic, often 2X or more in tests such as the ability to
>> maintain viscosity, etc.
>
>
> Please define "2X". It's extremely important to put the differences into
> context. What are the tested parameters? What are the differences in
> terms of actual durability in the engine?
I don't have the magazine handy and I don't recall all of the parameters
tested, but it was things like TBN, levels of certain friction reducers,
oxidation reducers, etc. They provided bar graphs for all of the
relevant tests and the height of the best oils was twice that of the
cheap oils and sometimes even greater disparities.
There is no easy way to measure differences in engine durability in a
controlled way and it would cost millions to even attempt that. So, you
have to use surrogate measures.
> There is also a substantial difference between the operating parameters
> of motorcycle engines and automobile engines. In particular, motorcycle
> engines routinely operate at rpms that are double that of car engines.
> That creates very different stresses on oils. An oil that is "superior"
> to another when used in a motorcycle engine may be no better in a car
> engine, in practical terms.
They tested both car and motorcycle oils. There conclusion was that
most motorcycle oils weren't different enough from car oils to justify
the price premium. But it did appear that good oils were much better
than cheap oils. And synthetics were much better than most dino oils.
>> Cheap oils really are much worse than top rated oils.
>
>
> In what regard? Specifics really matter here. Blanket statements like
> that aren't helpful.
Call up the folks at MCN and buy a back issue of the magazine that
contained the oil test. I'm sure they will know which issue and can
sell you a copy. I can't remember the specifics from 5-6 years ago.
And you wouldn't believe me anyway so do some research for yourself.
http://www.mcnews.com/mcn/
>> It may not make a difference if you drive your car only 100,000 in
>> easy conditions and then trade it in, but if you drive 200,000 plus as
>> I intend to (except my last two vehicles got totaled at 143K and
>> 182K), in a variety of conditions from -20 to over 100, in the
>> mountains, etc., then I'd rather have the good stuff.
>
>
> I see your point, but I'm not convinced that it makes any difference.
> The length of time you intend to drive your car doesn't matter. What
> does matter is how long you leave the oil in the engine. If you want to
> push the envelope on oil change intervals (10K miles+), it makes sense
> to use the most durable oil you can find. If you change your oil at
> suggested intervals, any oil will last that long. That's been shown in
> numerous studies.
Sure it matters how many miles you drive your car. If the engine wears
twice as fast using a cheap oil as a premium oil, then it will run half
as many miles. If the premium oil wear rate will let the engine last
250,000 miles, then the same engine with the cheap oil can be expected
to last only 125,000 miles. This isn't rocket science.
You say numerous studies, can you point me to one?
> It's well know and accepted that that ~90% of engine wear occurs on
> startup. Oils that flow better, such as synthetics, will help reduce
> wear, as they get to all parts of the engine faster. However, if you
> really want to extend the life of your engine, install a pre-oiler. That
> ensures that the engine is fully lubricated BEFORE you start it. That
> should make much more difference in wear and long-term durability than
> one's choice of oil.
Again, any proof for your statement? I've heard this as well,
especially in the aviation industry, but I've also seen many counter
examples that suggest otherwise. For example, the airplanes that are
started most often and flown the least hours at a time are single-engine
trainers, yet their engines often last much longer than large singles
that are flown 2-3 hours at a time.
I've seen many suggestions that frequency of operation of the enigne is
more important than the number of starts and shutdowns. However, I've
seen NO data that supports either hypothesis, just anecdotal information
and observations.
Matt
#70
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
Brian Nystrom wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>>
>>> When you get right down to it, nowadays, oil is oil. The differences
>>> that companies tout in order to attract consumers are so small as to
>>> be irrelevent. Modern oils are incredibly good. Just look for the API
>>> seal and if an oil has it, it's more than good enough to put in your
>>> engine. I would avoid oils that are not API certified, unless you're
>>> willing to spend the money for Amsoil. I'm not.
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree that most oils are good enough most of the time, but I
>> disagree that oil is oil. About the only independent and fairly
>> comprehensive test of oils that I've seen was done by MCN (Motorcycle
>> Consumer News) magazine. They have tested oils twice in the last
>> decade or so and the difference between the top and bottom oils is
>> very dramatic, often 2X or more in tests such as the ability to
>> maintain viscosity, etc.
>
>
> Please define "2X". It's extremely important to put the differences into
> context. What are the tested parameters? What are the differences in
> terms of actual durability in the engine?
I don't have the magazine handy and I don't recall all of the parameters
tested, but it was things like TBN, levels of certain friction reducers,
oxidation reducers, etc. They provided bar graphs for all of the
relevant tests and the height of the best oils was twice that of the
cheap oils and sometimes even greater disparities.
There is no easy way to measure differences in engine durability in a
controlled way and it would cost millions to even attempt that. So, you
have to use surrogate measures.
> There is also a substantial difference between the operating parameters
> of motorcycle engines and automobile engines. In particular, motorcycle
> engines routinely operate at rpms that are double that of car engines.
> That creates very different stresses on oils. An oil that is "superior"
> to another when used in a motorcycle engine may be no better in a car
> engine, in practical terms.
They tested both car and motorcycle oils. There conclusion was that
most motorcycle oils weren't different enough from car oils to justify
the price premium. But it did appear that good oils were much better
than cheap oils. And synthetics were much better than most dino oils.
>> Cheap oils really are much worse than top rated oils.
>
>
> In what regard? Specifics really matter here. Blanket statements like
> that aren't helpful.
Call up the folks at MCN and buy a back issue of the magazine that
contained the oil test. I'm sure they will know which issue and can
sell you a copy. I can't remember the specifics from 5-6 years ago.
And you wouldn't believe me anyway so do some research for yourself.
http://www.mcnews.com/mcn/
>> It may not make a difference if you drive your car only 100,000 in
>> easy conditions and then trade it in, but if you drive 200,000 plus as
>> I intend to (except my last two vehicles got totaled at 143K and
>> 182K), in a variety of conditions from -20 to over 100, in the
>> mountains, etc., then I'd rather have the good stuff.
>
>
> I see your point, but I'm not convinced that it makes any difference.
> The length of time you intend to drive your car doesn't matter. What
> does matter is how long you leave the oil in the engine. If you want to
> push the envelope on oil change intervals (10K miles+), it makes sense
> to use the most durable oil you can find. If you change your oil at
> suggested intervals, any oil will last that long. That's been shown in
> numerous studies.
Sure it matters how many miles you drive your car. If the engine wears
twice as fast using a cheap oil as a premium oil, then it will run half
as many miles. If the premium oil wear rate will let the engine last
250,000 miles, then the same engine with the cheap oil can be expected
to last only 125,000 miles. This isn't rocket science.
You say numerous studies, can you point me to one?
> It's well know and accepted that that ~90% of engine wear occurs on
> startup. Oils that flow better, such as synthetics, will help reduce
> wear, as they get to all parts of the engine faster. However, if you
> really want to extend the life of your engine, install a pre-oiler. That
> ensures that the engine is fully lubricated BEFORE you start it. That
> should make much more difference in wear and long-term durability than
> one's choice of oil.
Again, any proof for your statement? I've heard this as well,
especially in the aviation industry, but I've also seen many counter
examples that suggest otherwise. For example, the airplanes that are
started most often and flown the least hours at a time are single-engine
trainers, yet their engines often last much longer than large singles
that are flown 2-3 hours at a time.
I've seen many suggestions that frequency of operation of the enigne is
more important than the number of starts and shutdowns. However, I've
seen NO data that supports either hypothesis, just anecdotal information
and observations.
Matt
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>>
>>> When you get right down to it, nowadays, oil is oil. The differences
>>> that companies tout in order to attract consumers are so small as to
>>> be irrelevent. Modern oils are incredibly good. Just look for the API
>>> seal and if an oil has it, it's more than good enough to put in your
>>> engine. I would avoid oils that are not API certified, unless you're
>>> willing to spend the money for Amsoil. I'm not.
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree that most oils are good enough most of the time, but I
>> disagree that oil is oil. About the only independent and fairly
>> comprehensive test of oils that I've seen was done by MCN (Motorcycle
>> Consumer News) magazine. They have tested oils twice in the last
>> decade or so and the difference between the top and bottom oils is
>> very dramatic, often 2X or more in tests such as the ability to
>> maintain viscosity, etc.
>
>
> Please define "2X". It's extremely important to put the differences into
> context. What are the tested parameters? What are the differences in
> terms of actual durability in the engine?
I don't have the magazine handy and I don't recall all of the parameters
tested, but it was things like TBN, levels of certain friction reducers,
oxidation reducers, etc. They provided bar graphs for all of the
relevant tests and the height of the best oils was twice that of the
cheap oils and sometimes even greater disparities.
There is no easy way to measure differences in engine durability in a
controlled way and it would cost millions to even attempt that. So, you
have to use surrogate measures.
> There is also a substantial difference between the operating parameters
> of motorcycle engines and automobile engines. In particular, motorcycle
> engines routinely operate at rpms that are double that of car engines.
> That creates very different stresses on oils. An oil that is "superior"
> to another when used in a motorcycle engine may be no better in a car
> engine, in practical terms.
They tested both car and motorcycle oils. There conclusion was that
most motorcycle oils weren't different enough from car oils to justify
the price premium. But it did appear that good oils were much better
than cheap oils. And synthetics were much better than most dino oils.
>> Cheap oils really are much worse than top rated oils.
>
>
> In what regard? Specifics really matter here. Blanket statements like
> that aren't helpful.
Call up the folks at MCN and buy a back issue of the magazine that
contained the oil test. I'm sure they will know which issue and can
sell you a copy. I can't remember the specifics from 5-6 years ago.
And you wouldn't believe me anyway so do some research for yourself.
http://www.mcnews.com/mcn/
>> It may not make a difference if you drive your car only 100,000 in
>> easy conditions and then trade it in, but if you drive 200,000 plus as
>> I intend to (except my last two vehicles got totaled at 143K and
>> 182K), in a variety of conditions from -20 to over 100, in the
>> mountains, etc., then I'd rather have the good stuff.
>
>
> I see your point, but I'm not convinced that it makes any difference.
> The length of time you intend to drive your car doesn't matter. What
> does matter is how long you leave the oil in the engine. If you want to
> push the envelope on oil change intervals (10K miles+), it makes sense
> to use the most durable oil you can find. If you change your oil at
> suggested intervals, any oil will last that long. That's been shown in
> numerous studies.
Sure it matters how many miles you drive your car. If the engine wears
twice as fast using a cheap oil as a premium oil, then it will run half
as many miles. If the premium oil wear rate will let the engine last
250,000 miles, then the same engine with the cheap oil can be expected
to last only 125,000 miles. This isn't rocket science.
You say numerous studies, can you point me to one?
> It's well know and accepted that that ~90% of engine wear occurs on
> startup. Oils that flow better, such as synthetics, will help reduce
> wear, as they get to all parts of the engine faster. However, if you
> really want to extend the life of your engine, install a pre-oiler. That
> ensures that the engine is fully lubricated BEFORE you start it. That
> should make much more difference in wear and long-term durability than
> one's choice of oil.
Again, any proof for your statement? I've heard this as well,
especially in the aviation industry, but I've also seen many counter
examples that suggest otherwise. For example, the airplanes that are
started most often and flown the least hours at a time are single-engine
trainers, yet their engines often last much longer than large singles
that are flown 2-3 hours at a time.
I've seen many suggestions that frequency of operation of the enigne is
more important than the number of starts and shutdowns. However, I've
seen NO data that supports either hypothesis, just anecdotal information
and observations.
Matt
#71
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
news:OCkQf.7119$lb.619554@news1.epix.net...
>
> Sure it matters how many miles you drive your car. If the engine wears
> twice as fast using a cheap oil as a premium oil, then it will run half
> as many miles. If the premium oil wear rate will let the engine last
> 250,000 miles, then the same engine with the cheap oil can be expected
> to last only 125,000 miles. This isn't rocket science.
>
Hey Matt - can I jump in for a bit? Thanks.
While taking no exception to your point, I'd ask if that mysterious point of
diminishing returns plays in here. Conventional dino oil will do a fine job
of protecting a car and providing a 250,000 mile life expectancy with ease.
Folks like myself adhere to a 3,000 or 4,000 change interval and the concept
of dino oil giving this kind of performance is well established. Synthetics
are supposed to provide the same level of protection with half the oil
changes.
So my question is - is there really a useable difference between the premium
oils and a standard oil? Heck, what is a premium oil? Does that term imply
synthetic, or does it include dino oils with certain additives? I find it
easy not to argue with the notion that a super grade of oil will offer
longer protection, but my question really centers around whether that is
ever even noticeable in the life of a car. For the sake of conversation, I
assume the life expectancy of a car to be 250,000 miles. I have enough
experience getting this kind of life out of my motors with conventional dino
oil that it's no longer anecdotal to me.
Did I just stumble over a point that's already been covered in this thread,
and that I missed?
--
-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net
#72
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
news:OCkQf.7119$lb.619554@news1.epix.net...
>
> Sure it matters how many miles you drive your car. If the engine wears
> twice as fast using a cheap oil as a premium oil, then it will run half
> as many miles. If the premium oil wear rate will let the engine last
> 250,000 miles, then the same engine with the cheap oil can be expected
> to last only 125,000 miles. This isn't rocket science.
>
Hey Matt - can I jump in for a bit? Thanks.
While taking no exception to your point, I'd ask if that mysterious point of
diminishing returns plays in here. Conventional dino oil will do a fine job
of protecting a car and providing a 250,000 mile life expectancy with ease.
Folks like myself adhere to a 3,000 or 4,000 change interval and the concept
of dino oil giving this kind of performance is well established. Synthetics
are supposed to provide the same level of protection with half the oil
changes.
So my question is - is there really a useable difference between the premium
oils and a standard oil? Heck, what is a premium oil? Does that term imply
synthetic, or does it include dino oils with certain additives? I find it
easy not to argue with the notion that a super grade of oil will offer
longer protection, but my question really centers around whether that is
ever even noticeable in the life of a car. For the sake of conversation, I
assume the life expectancy of a car to be 250,000 miles. I have enough
experience getting this kind of life out of my motors with conventional dino
oil that it's no longer anecdotal to me.
Did I just stumble over a point that's already been covered in this thread,
and that I missed?
--
-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net
#73
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
news:OCkQf.7119$lb.619554@news1.epix.net...
>
> Sure it matters how many miles you drive your car. If the engine wears
> twice as fast using a cheap oil as a premium oil, then it will run half
> as many miles. If the premium oil wear rate will let the engine last
> 250,000 miles, then the same engine with the cheap oil can be expected
> to last only 125,000 miles. This isn't rocket science.
>
Hey Matt - can I jump in for a bit? Thanks.
While taking no exception to your point, I'd ask if that mysterious point of
diminishing returns plays in here. Conventional dino oil will do a fine job
of protecting a car and providing a 250,000 mile life expectancy with ease.
Folks like myself adhere to a 3,000 or 4,000 change interval and the concept
of dino oil giving this kind of performance is well established. Synthetics
are supposed to provide the same level of protection with half the oil
changes.
So my question is - is there really a useable difference between the premium
oils and a standard oil? Heck, what is a premium oil? Does that term imply
synthetic, or does it include dino oils with certain additives? I find it
easy not to argue with the notion that a super grade of oil will offer
longer protection, but my question really centers around whether that is
ever even noticeable in the life of a car. For the sake of conversation, I
assume the life expectancy of a car to be 250,000 miles. I have enough
experience getting this kind of life out of my motors with conventional dino
oil that it's no longer anecdotal to me.
Did I just stumble over a point that's already been covered in this thread,
and that I missed?
--
-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net
#74
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
Mike Marlow wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
> news:OCkQf.7119$lb.619554@news1.epix.net...
>
>
>>Sure it matters how many miles you drive your car. If the engine wears
>>twice as fast using a cheap oil as a premium oil, then it will run half
>>as many miles. If the premium oil wear rate will let the engine last
>>250,000 miles, then the same engine with the cheap oil can be expected
>>to last only 125,000 miles. This isn't rocket science.
>>
>
>
> Hey Matt - can I jump in for a bit? Thanks.
>
> While taking no exception to your point, I'd ask if that mysterious point of
> diminishing returns plays in here. Conventional dino oil will do a fine job
> of protecting a car and providing a 250,000 mile life expectancy with ease.
> Folks like myself adhere to a 3,000 or 4,000 change interval and the concept
> of dino oil giving this kind of performance is well established. Synthetics
> are supposed to provide the same level of protection with half the oil
> changes.
It well may. I use synthetic mainly for cold weather starts as I find
that my vehicles start much better and my batteries last much longer
using synthetics. I've gotten 8-9 years out of several batteries in
cars with synthetic oil and used to get 3-5 using dino oil.
> So my question is - is there really a useable difference between the premium
> oils and a standard oil? Heck, what is a premium oil? Does that term imply
> synthetic, or does it include dino oils with certain additives? I find it
> easy not to argue with the notion that a super grade of oil will offer
> longer protection, but my question really centers around whether that is
> ever even noticeable in the life of a car. For the sake of conversation, I
> assume the life expectancy of a car to be 250,000 miles. I have enough
> experience getting this kind of life out of my motors with conventional dino
> oil that it's no longer anecdotal to me.
From a wear standpoint, I believe there is a difference, but I agree
that it may not matter in the typical lifespan of a car. However, I
don't know that any data exists on this point one way or the other. I
have seen engines taken apart with well over 100K on them, and the
engines with synthetic oil are vastly cleaner than those using dino oil.
This may or may not matter, but if a chunk of sludge breaks loose and
clogs an oil passage, then I suspect that the synthetic oil will have
been much better. :-)
Matt
> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
> news:OCkQf.7119$lb.619554@news1.epix.net...
>
>
>>Sure it matters how many miles you drive your car. If the engine wears
>>twice as fast using a cheap oil as a premium oil, then it will run half
>>as many miles. If the premium oil wear rate will let the engine last
>>250,000 miles, then the same engine with the cheap oil can be expected
>>to last only 125,000 miles. This isn't rocket science.
>>
>
>
> Hey Matt - can I jump in for a bit? Thanks.
>
> While taking no exception to your point, I'd ask if that mysterious point of
> diminishing returns plays in here. Conventional dino oil will do a fine job
> of protecting a car and providing a 250,000 mile life expectancy with ease.
> Folks like myself adhere to a 3,000 or 4,000 change interval and the concept
> of dino oil giving this kind of performance is well established. Synthetics
> are supposed to provide the same level of protection with half the oil
> changes.
It well may. I use synthetic mainly for cold weather starts as I find
that my vehicles start much better and my batteries last much longer
using synthetics. I've gotten 8-9 years out of several batteries in
cars with synthetic oil and used to get 3-5 using dino oil.
> So my question is - is there really a useable difference between the premium
> oils and a standard oil? Heck, what is a premium oil? Does that term imply
> synthetic, or does it include dino oils with certain additives? I find it
> easy not to argue with the notion that a super grade of oil will offer
> longer protection, but my question really centers around whether that is
> ever even noticeable in the life of a car. For the sake of conversation, I
> assume the life expectancy of a car to be 250,000 miles. I have enough
> experience getting this kind of life out of my motors with conventional dino
> oil that it's no longer anecdotal to me.
From a wear standpoint, I believe there is a difference, but I agree
that it may not matter in the typical lifespan of a car. However, I
don't know that any data exists on this point one way or the other. I
have seen engines taken apart with well over 100K on them, and the
engines with synthetic oil are vastly cleaner than those using dino oil.
This may or may not matter, but if a chunk of sludge breaks loose and
clogs an oil passage, then I suspect that the synthetic oil will have
been much better. :-)
Matt
#75
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
Mike Marlow wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
> news:OCkQf.7119$lb.619554@news1.epix.net...
>
>
>>Sure it matters how many miles you drive your car. If the engine wears
>>twice as fast using a cheap oil as a premium oil, then it will run half
>>as many miles. If the premium oil wear rate will let the engine last
>>250,000 miles, then the same engine with the cheap oil can be expected
>>to last only 125,000 miles. This isn't rocket science.
>>
>
>
> Hey Matt - can I jump in for a bit? Thanks.
>
> While taking no exception to your point, I'd ask if that mysterious point of
> diminishing returns plays in here. Conventional dino oil will do a fine job
> of protecting a car and providing a 250,000 mile life expectancy with ease.
> Folks like myself adhere to a 3,000 or 4,000 change interval and the concept
> of dino oil giving this kind of performance is well established. Synthetics
> are supposed to provide the same level of protection with half the oil
> changes.
It well may. I use synthetic mainly for cold weather starts as I find
that my vehicles start much better and my batteries last much longer
using synthetics. I've gotten 8-9 years out of several batteries in
cars with synthetic oil and used to get 3-5 using dino oil.
> So my question is - is there really a useable difference between the premium
> oils and a standard oil? Heck, what is a premium oil? Does that term imply
> synthetic, or does it include dino oils with certain additives? I find it
> easy not to argue with the notion that a super grade of oil will offer
> longer protection, but my question really centers around whether that is
> ever even noticeable in the life of a car. For the sake of conversation, I
> assume the life expectancy of a car to be 250,000 miles. I have enough
> experience getting this kind of life out of my motors with conventional dino
> oil that it's no longer anecdotal to me.
From a wear standpoint, I believe there is a difference, but I agree
that it may not matter in the typical lifespan of a car. However, I
don't know that any data exists on this point one way or the other. I
have seen engines taken apart with well over 100K on them, and the
engines with synthetic oil are vastly cleaner than those using dino oil.
This may or may not matter, but if a chunk of sludge breaks loose and
clogs an oil passage, then I suspect that the synthetic oil will have
been much better. :-)
Matt
> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
> news:OCkQf.7119$lb.619554@news1.epix.net...
>
>
>>Sure it matters how many miles you drive your car. If the engine wears
>>twice as fast using a cheap oil as a premium oil, then it will run half
>>as many miles. If the premium oil wear rate will let the engine last
>>250,000 miles, then the same engine with the cheap oil can be expected
>>to last only 125,000 miles. This isn't rocket science.
>>
>
>
> Hey Matt - can I jump in for a bit? Thanks.
>
> While taking no exception to your point, I'd ask if that mysterious point of
> diminishing returns plays in here. Conventional dino oil will do a fine job
> of protecting a car and providing a 250,000 mile life expectancy with ease.
> Folks like myself adhere to a 3,000 or 4,000 change interval and the concept
> of dino oil giving this kind of performance is well established. Synthetics
> are supposed to provide the same level of protection with half the oil
> changes.
It well may. I use synthetic mainly for cold weather starts as I find
that my vehicles start much better and my batteries last much longer
using synthetics. I've gotten 8-9 years out of several batteries in
cars with synthetic oil and used to get 3-5 using dino oil.
> So my question is - is there really a useable difference between the premium
> oils and a standard oil? Heck, what is a premium oil? Does that term imply
> synthetic, or does it include dino oils with certain additives? I find it
> easy not to argue with the notion that a super grade of oil will offer
> longer protection, but my question really centers around whether that is
> ever even noticeable in the life of a car. For the sake of conversation, I
> assume the life expectancy of a car to be 250,000 miles. I have enough
> experience getting this kind of life out of my motors with conventional dino
> oil that it's no longer anecdotal to me.
From a wear standpoint, I believe there is a difference, but I agree
that it may not matter in the typical lifespan of a car. However, I
don't know that any data exists on this point one way or the other. I
have seen engines taken apart with well over 100K on them, and the
engines with synthetic oil are vastly cleaner than those using dino oil.
This may or may not matter, but if a chunk of sludge breaks loose and
clogs an oil passage, then I suspect that the synthetic oil will have
been much better. :-)
Matt