 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Honda Cars / May 2007Honda V6 engines and synthetic oil
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 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. >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 [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >considered doing my own oil changes, however I don't want to deal with >ramps in my apartment. What do you expect to gain by using Synthetic? This is a serious question as I hear this all the time but I just don't understand... You have a ten year old car with 200k on it that still runs fine and uses less oil than would be considered "normal" on a new engine. If you buy another quality product and maintain it the same way it would be realistic to expect that in 2018 you will have another 10 year old car with 200k miles. Unless you are planning to keep the car and drive it until it won't move another inch I just don't see the logic in using more expensive oil and filters. For my use I know I will never see the benefit, if any, of using Synthetic. After five years or so I am going to be bored with the car and want another one.. I don't really care if the next owner gets another 100k out of it or if he gets another 200k. Steve B. > Jiffy lube quality There's an oxymoron. >>Jiffy lube quality > > There's an oxymoron. Very true. But what I don't understand is why anyone would get rid of a perfectly running vehicle? Consider that it's a known quantity and quality, it's paid for, etc. I just don't understand the logic... JT >>>Jiffy lube quality >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >JT I was going to ask the same question. In fact, compared to most of my vehicles, his 97 is nearly new. On May 4, 11:42 pm, "techman41...@yahoo.com" <techman41...@yahoo.com> 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 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 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. 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. > On May 4, 11:42 pm, "techman41...@yahoo.com" <techman41...@yahoo.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > 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. 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/web_msds.display?imsdsnr=194095 10w-30 mobil1 is only 5% "synthetic". > With the > new car, no problem. Just use the type of oil and weight recommended [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> considered doing my own oil changes, however I don't want to deal with >> ramps in my apartment. >> On May 4, 11:42 pm, "techman41...@yahoo.com" <techman41...@yahoo.com> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >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. >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/web_msds.display?imsdsnr=194095 >10w-30 mobil1 is only 5% "synthetic". Not sure what you are looking at or talking about. It's full synthetic. That MSDS only seems to be referring to some of the additives from what I see. >> With the >> new car, no problem. Just use the type of oil and weight recommended [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>> considered doing my own oil changes, however I don't want to deal with >>> ramps in my apartment. >>> On May 4, 11:42 pm, "techman41...@yahoo.com" <techman41...@yahoo.com> >>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > 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. >> 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/web_msds.display?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. > 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? >>> With the >>> new car, no problem. Just use the type of oil and weight recommended [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>>> considered doing my own oil changes, however I don't want to deal with >>>> ramps in my apartment. >>>> On May 4, 11:42 pm, "techman41...@yahoo.com" <techman41...@yahoo.com> >>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >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. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >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. >>>> With the >>>> new car, no problem. Just use the type of oil and weight recommended [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>>>> considered doing my own oil changes, however I don't want to deal with >>>>> ramps in my apartment. > >> That MSDS only seems to be referring to some of the > >> additives from what I see. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > complete picture. Quite possibly "oil" is something that's not > necessary to list on an MSDS whether is dino or syn. MSDs dont have to show the total composition of any formulation. You have to list the hazardous components. >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 LOL. At least the leather main seal was impervious. >>>>> On May 4, 11:42 pm, "techman41...@yahoo.com" <techman41...@yahoo.com> >>>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > 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. >>>>> With the >>>>> new car, no problem. Just use the type of oil and weight recommended [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>>>>> considered doing my own oil changes, however I don't want to deal with >>>>>> ramps in my apartment. >>>>>> On May 4, 11:42 pm, "techman41...@yahoo.com" <techman41...@yahoo.com> >>>>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] >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. >>>>>> With the >>>>>> new car, no problem. Just use the type of oil and weight recommended [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>>>>>> considered doing my own oil changes, however I don't want to deal with >>>>>>> ramps in my apartment. >>>>>>> On May 4, 11:42 pm, "techman41...@yahoo.com" <techman41...@yahoo.com> >>>>>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>>>>>>> considered doing my own oil changes, however I don't want to deal with >>>>>>>> ramps in my apartment. > >>>>>> On May 4, 11:42 pm, "techman41...@yahoo.com" <techman41...@yahoo.com> > >>>>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 97 lines] > >>>>>>> considered doing my own oil changes, however I don't want to deal with > >>>>>>> ramps in my apartment. As are one line responses sans trimming. >>>>> On May 4, 11:42 pm, "techman41...@yahoo.com" <techman41...@yahoo.com> >>>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > it was leaking badly from the valve covers. It cleaned out the crap > around the cork. Ford 5.0 with 125K one more thing - which "syn" did you use? i used motorcraft semi-syn on my civic when i first got it [it was on sale], and oil literally dripped out of it so bad, the smoke from the main seal [the hard to get at expensive one] running onto the hot exhaust had you shrouded in smoke at traffic lights. i bought a full set of seals to fix the problem, but before i used them, for some other reason i forget, i changed the oil to castrol for a couple of weeks before i had the time to do the strip-down. and amazingly, all the leakage stopped. since then, i've been using either castrol or mobil, and she hasn't leaked a drop. > 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 [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] >>>>>> considered doing my own oil changes, however I don't want to deal with >>>>>> ramps in my apartment. >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/web_msds.display?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/forums/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=801097&Main=800351 >> 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. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > 1-800-ASK-MOBIL > http://theoildrop.server101.com/forums/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=801097&Main=800351 are you the industry shill that keeps deleting msds info off wikipedia? >>> 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. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >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. >>>> 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. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >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-English/LCW/Audiences/Synthetic_V_Mineral.asp >>> 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 [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > 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-English/LCW/Audiences/Synthetic_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. >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" >> 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" [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > "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? >>> 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" [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >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/showthread.php?t=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. >>>> 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" [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > with nitrogen and oxygen added. Think ammonia blended in with the oil, > not the stuff you want to drink with cigars. eh? "ofefin" is a typo. look it up. http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/htmlgen?CHEM they mean olefin. as in polyolefin. and where the hell does ammonia come into it??? an amine is not ammonia. just like table salt is not chlorine. >> It does not say PAO's or poly alpha olefins are 5%. >> It says the POLYOFEFIN POLYAMINE SUCCINIMIDE, POLYOL is 5% [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >eh? "ofefin" is a typo. look it up. Does it matter? >http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/htmlgen?CHEM > >they mean olefin. as in polyolefin. and where the hell does ammonia >come into it??? an amine is not ammonia. just like table salt is not >chlorine. It's a quote. Would you like me to modify the quote? The real substance of this thread is you are reading the msds wrong. POLYOFEFIN POLYAMINE SUCCINIMIDE is not poly alpha olefin >>> It does not say PAO's or poly alpha olefins are 5%. >>> It says the POLYOFEFIN POLYAMINE SUCCINIMIDE, POLYOL is 5% [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Does it matter? it matters in that you didn't understand that it was a typo! >> http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/htmlgen?CHEM >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > It's a quote. Would you like me to modify the quote? no, i want you to find a quote that is authoritative, not from some knuckle-head on a car forum that thinks an amine is the same as ammonia! > The real substance of this thread is you are reading the msds wrong. > POLYOFEFIN POLYAMINE SUCCINIMIDE is not poly alpha olefin no, it's a succinimide amine of polyolefin. the polyolefin is the backbone of the chemical. the other stuff is just fluff that affects molecular weight and perhaps surface adsorption properties. the "alpha" is just morphology. in the absence of iupac nomenclature, you can't say for sure /what/ it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IUPAC_nomenclature_of_organic_chemistry > > The real substance of this thread is you are reading the msds wrong. > > POLYOFEFIN POLYAMINE SUCCINIMIDE is not poly alpha olefin [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > say for sure /what/ it is. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IUPAC_nomenclature_of_organic_chemistry Indeed, anyone 'skilled in the art' would recognize this as a misprint of 'polyolefin'. Compounds of this sort are usually employed as dispersants or emulsifiers. >>>> It does not say PAO's or poly alpha olefins are 5%. >>>> It says the POLYOFEFIN POLYAMINE SUCCINIMIDE, POLYOL is 5% >>> they mean olefin. as in polyolefin. and where the hell does ammonia >>> come into it??? an amine is not ammonia. just like table salt is not >>> chlorine. They mean POLYOFEFIN POLYOFEFIN exists. See links below http://www.suitesupply.com/Replacement-Caster-w-Polyofefin-Wheel-5.WIN-744.01.htm http://terrauniversal.com/products/carts/gallery_carts/wafercarts08.shtml http://www.sgpweb.com/products/products.asp >>>>> It does not say PAO's or poly alpha olefins are 5%. >>>>> It says the POLYOFEFIN POLYAMINE SUCCINIMIDE, POLYOL is 5% [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > http://www.sgpweb.com/products/products.asp let me get this straight:- you want to /ignore/ federal govt chemical compound database info in favor of typos from cheap chinese manufactured goods? ok, time to move along... >>>>>> It does not say PAO's or poly alpha olefins are 5%. >>>>>> It says the POLYOFEFIN POLYAMINE SUCCINIMIDE, POLYOL is 5% [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >compound database info in favor of typos from cheap chinese manufactured >goods? ok, time to move along... Let's get this starlight. You won't admit that Mobil 1 is primarily a PAO based oil. Instead all you want to do is argue about a supposed typo in order to deflect the exposure of your mistaken interpretation of a msds. >>>>>>> It does not say PAO's or poly alpha olefins are 5%. >>>>>>> It says the POLYOFEFIN POLYAMINE SUCCINIMIDE, POLYOL is 5% [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > supposed typo in order to deflect the exposure of your mistaken > interpretation of a msds. jim may be right here about the typos. Take a look closer to the bottom of the first link you gave, where it says "Caster Specifications". There I find the notation: "Wheel Type: Polyolefin". When I Google for "polyofefin" or "ofefin", I find very, very little, mostly automated "on-the-fly" pages that result from Google's deals with advertisers.  SignatureTegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ >>>>>>>> It does not say PAO's or poly alpha olefins are 5%. >>>>>>>> It says the POLYOFEFIN POLYAMINE SUCCINIMIDE, POLYOL is 5% snip >>>> POLYOFEFIN exists. See links below snip >jim may be right here about the typos. Take a look closer to the bottom of >the first link you gave, where it says "Caster Specifications". There I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >mostly automated "on-the-fly" pages that result from Google's deals with >advertisers. POLYOFEFIN is a PROPENE POLYMER. See the msds below http://www.hazard.com/msds/f2/bzr/bzrzm.html POLYOFEFIN in cellular form is the dielectric in some coax cables. http://www.berktek.com/berktekweb/products/pdf/03%20-%20Nexans%20Coaxial%20and%2 0Multicoaxial%20cables.pdf POLYOFEFIN is not POLY ALPHA OLEFIN (PAO) **************************************** Per Mobil: Mobil 1's base stock is full synthetic. Mobil considers a full synthetic oil as a group 4 PAO base stock. Base stocks per Mobil are typically 75%-85% of total. http://www.mobil.com/Australia-English/LCW/Audiences/Synthetic_V_Mineral.asp >>>>>>>>> It does not say PAO's or poly alpha olefins are 5%. >>>>>>>>> It says the POLYOFEFIN POLYAMINE SUCCINIMIDE, POLYOL is 5% [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > POLYOFEFIN is a PROPENE POLYMER. With the introduction of "propene" to this discussion, I am now prepared to believe you that ofefin is an actual substance, not just a typographical error. I found this -- rather abstruse and dense -- document: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4443638.html I think it unlikely that of all the obscure technical terms present in this document, that "ofefin" should be one one that is misspelt. Especially considering that I cannot find any other significant spelling errors therein. It appears that olefins and ofefins are closely related, but are different, sort of like you and your sister. SignatureTegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ >>>>>>>>>> It does not say PAO's or poly alpha olefins are 5%. >>>>>>>>>> It says the POLYOFEFIN POLYAMINE SUCCINIMIDE, POLYOL is 5% [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > It appears that olefins and ofefins are closely related, but are different, > sort of like you and your sister. ignoring the fact that "ofefin" does not appear to be cited in any chemical compound databases, that article cites "internal ofefin" once and "internal olefin" 20 times. all in the same context. i therefore stick with typo. but i asked on sci.materials. > ignoring the fact that "ofefin" does not appear to be cited in any > chemical compound databases, that article cites "internal ofefin" > once and "internal olefin" 20 times. all in the same context. i > therefore stick with typo. but i asked on sci.materials. 'K. I just checked your post in sci.materials. One reply, and that one saying "ofefin" is a typo. SignatureTegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ >> ignoring the fact that "ofefin" does not appear to be cited in any >> chemical compound databases, that article cites "internal ofefin" [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > One reply, and that one saying "ofefin" is a typo. and that reply is from uncle al. it's a typo. >>> ignoring the fact that "ofefin" does not appear to be cited in any >>> chemical compound databases, that article cites "internal ofefin" [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> > and that reply is from uncle al. it's a typo. I'll go with that. It's a typo. I just had a read of Uncle Al's stuff. I like it. Good writer. SignatureTegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ >>>> ignoring the fact that "ofefin" does not appear to be cited in any >>>> chemical compound databases, that article cites "internal ofefin" [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I just had a read of Uncle Al's stuff. I like it. Good writer. he's a rude, obnoxious, opinionated mfsob, but organic chemistry? he knows a thing or two! > With the introduction of "propene" to this discussion, I am now prepared to > believe you that ofefin is an actual substance, not just a typographical > error. Ofefin is a mistake, purely and simply. Olefins are hydrocarbons which have an unsaturated bond arrangement, or -at least -one double bond. Propene or propylene (both being similar although two common isomers exist) are just one part of a series of compounds which can be classified as olefins. Poly(alphaolefins) (my son gives me hell for this terminology..In the newer chemistry language, we might call these poly(1-alkenes) , are compounds which may be composed of a multitude of chemical building blocks, not just propenes or propylenes. PAO's are good lubricating agents, as are some other organic materials. OFEFIN is NOT a substance.. It is an error. >Ofefin is a mistake, purely and simply. Olefins are hydrocarbons which have >an unsaturated [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >OFEFIN is NOT a substance.. It is an error. Ok. Next question. Is POLYOLEFIN POLYAMINE SUCCINIMIDE, POLYOL the same as Poly(alphaolefins)? >> Ofefin is a mistake, purely and simply. Olefins are hydrocarbons which have >> an unsaturated [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Is POLYOLEFIN POLYAMINE SUCCINIMIDE, POLYOL the same as > Poly(alphaolefins)? yes. the olefin is the backbone of the molecule. =/\/\/\/\ we have no idea of the length of the chain. the amines and succinimide are just radicals that substitute for hydrogens at whatever position on the chain. again, without iupac nomenclature, we have no idea where. likewise the "ols". "alpha" just means the c=c bond is at the front end of the chain. >>> OFEFIN is NOT a substance.. It is an error. >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >"alpha" just means the c=c bond is at the front end of the chain. POLYOLEFIN POLYAMINE SUCCINIMIDE, POLYOL is only a part of the PAO content. PAO's are the base stock of Mobil 1 10w-30. This base stock is well over 50%. Mobil 1 will not divulge the exact formulation of their oils. All you have to do to confirm this is call Product and Technical Information: Lubricants and Specialties: 800-662-4525 800-443-9966 >>>> OFEFIN is NOT a substance.. It is an error. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > POLYOLEFIN POLYAMINE SUCCINIMIDE, POLYOL is only a part > of the PAO content. hang on a minute. on 5/7/07, 1:37am, you wrote: "POLYOFEFIN POLYAMINE SUCCINIMIDE is not poly alpha olefin" what's changed? > PAO's are the base stock of Mobil 1 10w-30. cite a credible reference that confirms that. all i see in writing is a minority [5%] component, not majority base. > This base stock is well over 50%. hang on again. on 5/6/07, 9:11am, you wrote: "Mobil1 motor oils are still 100% synthetic motor oils and do not use conventional basestocks in the formulation." on 5/6/07, 9:54am, you wrote: "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." on 5/6/07, 1:00pm, you wrote: "Mobil 1's base stock (POA) is a least 80%." now it's only 50%??? where do you get this "information"? > Mobil 1 will not divulge the exact > formulation of their oils. why could that /possibly/ be??? it's not to somehow fool the chemists in their competitor's labs - because they couldn't /possibly/ figure out the composition. no siree bob. so who else could they /possibly/ be seeking to withhold that information from??? the /paying/ customer? that's paying a premium for something they know nothing about??? no - say it could never be so! > All you have to do to confirm this is call > > Product and Technical Information: > Lubricants and Specialties: 800-662-4525 800-443-9966 tell you what, /you/ call them and get them to put that in writing - something that *unequivocally* states that pao's *are* the base content, not that they /could/ be or /might/ be. then post it here. or better yet, get them to send you some literature that unequivocally confirms it and email the pdf's or scans to tegger. all you've brought to this debate so far is naivety, ignorance, and a changing story. >> POLYOLEFIN POLYAMINE SUCCINIMIDE, POLYOL is only a part >> of the PAO content. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >"POLYOFEFIN POLYAMINE SUCCINIMIDE is not poly alpha olefin" >what's changed? And you were right in your assumption that "POLYOFEFIN POLYAMINE SUCCINIMIDE is the total content of PAO? Remember the base argument. It wasn't about a typo. It was about your assertion that PAO in Mobil is only 5%. You derived that from misinterpreting a MSDS. I said the PAO was much higher. As far a nothing changing. You are correct. You are still ignoring the truth. >> PAO's are the base stock of Mobil 1 10w-30. > >cite a credible reference that confirms that. all i see in writing is a >minority [5%] component, not majority base. Even one of Mobil 1's competitors rates Mobil's TOTAL content of PAO lower than theirs because they guesstimate Mobil's total PAO content to only be 80%-90% If you look hard enough you can find this information yourself. >> This base stock is well over 50%. > >hang on again. >on 5/6/07, 9:11am, you wrote: >"Mobil1 motor oils are still 100% synthetic motor oils and do not >use conventional basestocks in the formulation." You are referencing a quote. The above is true if speaking of basestocks >on 5/6/07, 9:54am, you wrote: >"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." One of Mobil's competitors did the above. Look it up. >on 5/6/07, 1:00pm, you wrote: >"Mobil 1's base stock (POA) is a least 80%." Since Mobil rightfully will not divulge their recipe. The above was taken from Mobil's competitor. Look it up. >now it's only 50%??? where do you get this "information"? Your credibility is nil with this statement. You are giving yourself away. I didn't say 50%. I said well over 50% because Mobil will not divulge the exact number. > > Mobil 1 will not divulge the exact >> formulation of their oils. > >why could that /possibly/ be??? it's not to somehow fool the chemists >in their competitor's labs - because they couldn't /possibly/ figure out >the composition. no siree bob. Its' a conspiracy. >so who else could they /possibly/ be seeking to withhold that >information from??? the /paying/ customer? that's paying a premium for >something they know nothing about??? no - say it could never be so! The astronauts did not land on the moon either. Hush...It was all done on a sound stage. >> All you have to do to confirm this is call >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >and email the pdf's or scans to tegger. all you've brought to this >debate so far is naivety, ignorance, and a changing story. Call them. Let us know what you learn. Ask them if you read that specific msds correct. Ask them if PAO is only 5% based on your reading of that msds. Hint: They won't tell you the exact content. It's not because it's only 5% It's because they are protective of their formula. What about Mobil suing Castrol over the term "Full Synthetic"? They lost the suit but Mobil has always contended that full synthetic meant using PAO as the basestock. They still believe that, but you would rather bash them >>> POLYOLEFIN POLYAMINE SUCCINIMIDE, POLYOL is only a part >>> of the PAO content. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > is only 5%. You derived that from misinterpreting a MSDS. I said the > PAO was much higher. based on what??? cite your source!!! > As far a nothing changing. You are correct. You are still > ignoring the truth. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > away. I didn't say 50%. I said well over 50% because Mobil will not > divulge the exact number. dude, /you/ wrote on 5/10/07, 10:33: "PAO's are the base stock of Mobil 1 10w-30. This base stock is well over 50%." where did you get that number? i've searched the web extensively, and see nothing authoritative or unequivocal other than the msds filings. all i see /you/ doing is steadily dropping your numbers. >>> Mobil 1 will not divulge the exact >>> formulation of their oils. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > specific msds correct. Ask them if PAO is only 5% based on your > reading of that msds. again, /you/ call them and get them to put that in writing - something that *unequivocally* states that pao's *are* the base content. all their web content says it /could/ be, not that it unequivocally /is/. you're the one that wants to believe whatever you want to believe. cite something authoritative. > Hint: They won't tell you the exact content. It's not because it's > only 5% It's because they are protective of their formula. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > meant using PAO as the basestock. They still believe that, but you > would rather bash them i'm not bashing them - i've been using m1 myself!!! all i want to know is exactly what i'm paying for. and they won't state that. the only written evidence i have is the legal msds filings showing 5% pao. all we know for sure is that they say it's "full synthetic", and that "full synthetic" doesn't have to mean pao. it /could/, but mobil stop short of unequivocal language that states that it is. hen when mobils own web site references "supersyn" and how there's 50% /more/ of this stuff in m1 extended performance compared to conventional m1, basic math determines that unless they somehow have pao and "super-pao", then by definition, their "supersyn" pao is a minority component. so far, all your content here has shown is an ability to self-delude and change your story as you go along. one more chance, then we're done. hard evidence required. snip > i'm not bashing them - i've been using m1 myself!!! snip So this is the marketing crux of the issue. Why should Exxon/Mobil use more than 5% PAO when guys like Jim are willing to pay their price? In a previous discussion with Jim, he convinced me I was wasting my money on Mobil 1 and I've been buying whichever "synthetic" is on sale when I need oil. Now if Mobil 1 were to return to their previous practice of using PAO as the base and publishing the data then I'd be happy to resume my former brand loyalty. > snip >> i'm not bashing them - i've been using m1 myself!!! [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > of using PAO as the base and publishing the data then I'd be happy to > resume my former brand loyalty. i'd be a little more cautious than that - the additive package is real important. that's why i still stick to brands i've found to be good in that respect - castrol and mobil. > > snip > >> i'm not bashing them - i've been using m1 myself!!! [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > important. that's why i still stick to brands i've found to be good in > that respect - castrol and mobil. Jim, if you were a member of my negotiating team I'd have to fire you for not being able to read between the lines. snip > Remember the base argument. >> It wasn't about a typo. It was about your assertion that PAO in Mobil >> is only 5%. You derived that from misinterpreting a MSDS. I said the >> PAO was much higher. > >based on what??? cite your source!!! I explained already. Site your source! Don't tell me it's that msds that you can't read correctly. snip >dude, /you/ wrote on 5/10/07, 10:33: >"PAO's are the base stock of Mobil 1 10w-30. This base stock is well [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >see nothing authoritative or unequivocal other than the msds filings. >all i see /you/ doing is steadily dropping your numbers. I'm not dropping the numbers. well over 50% is not 50% and can easily be 80%-90% How many times do I have to tell you. Mobil will NOT divulge the exact numbers. It is however safe to say that the term "well over 50% " is accurate in that Mobil 1 uses PAO as it's basestock, and the basestock is the major component of oil. snip >> What about Mobil suing Castrol over the term "Full Synthetic"? >> They lost the suit but Mobil has always contended that full synthetic [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >is exactly what i'm paying for. and they won't state that. the only >written evidence i have is the legal msds filings showing 5% pao. The msds does not show PAO at 5%. Before you start using your interpretation of that msds don't you think it would be better to call them and ask them one simple question. Ask them if you are interpretation that specific msds correctly. Ask them if POLYOLEFIN POLYAMINE SUCCINIMIDE, POLYOL is the total content of PAO. They will tell you no. At that point you can not say that Mobil 1 is 5% pao. You can only say that you wish they would divulge what the actual percentage is. They won't. You'll just have to stay confused for the rest of your life. snip >so far, all your content here has shown is an ability to self-delude and >change your story as you go along. one more chance, then we're done. >hard evidence required The story about PAO being 5% is the only story here. > snip >> Remember the base argument. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > that you can't read correctly. > <snip> eh? game over. b-bye! >>>>>>>>> It does not say PAO's or poly alpha olefins are 5%. >>>>>>>>> It says the POLYOFEFIN POLYAMINE SUCCINIMIDE, POLYOL is 5% [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > http://www.mobil.com/Australia-English/LCW/Audiences/Synthetic_V_Mineral.asp i discussed that article in detail. why do i have to repeat myself? >>>>>>> It does not say PAO's or poly alpha olefins are 5%. >>>>>>> It says the POLYOFEFIN POLYAMINE SUCCINIMIDE, POLYOL is 5% [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Let's get this starlight. You won't admit that Mobil 1 is primarily > a PAO based oil. with respect, there's /nothing/ on the mobil web site that tells you that. they tell you it /could/ be, but not that it is. thats the legal fine line. and the msds confirms it - if you know a little chemistry and can spell. > Instead all you want to do is argue about a > supposed typo in order to deflect the exposure of your mistaken > interpretation of a msds. if you can cite any authoritative analysis on this subject, i'd love to see it - appeals to "belief" don't work. >>>>>>>> It does not say PAO's or poly alpha olefins are 5%. >>>>>>>> It says the POLYOFEFIN POLYAMINE SUCCINIMIDE, POLYOL is 5% [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > fine line. and the msds confirms it - if you know a little chemistry > and can spell. Sure there is, try this : http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Oils/Oils_FAQs.aspx#Mobil_1_Extende d_Performance_FAQs2 Is Mobil 1 with SuperSyn Technology a fully synthetic motor oil? Yes, it is. To meet the demanding requirements of today's specifications (and our customers' expectations), Mobil 1 with SuperSyn uses high-performance fluids, including polyalphaolefins (PAOs), along with a proprietary system of additives. Each Mobil 1 with SuperSyn viscosity grade uses a unique combination of synthetic fluids and selected additives in order to tailor the viscosity grade to its specific application. >> Instead all you want to do is argue about a >> supposed typo in order to deflect the exposure of your mistaken >> interpretation of a msds. > > if you can cite any authoritative analysis on this subject, i'd love to > see it - appeals to "belief" don't work. >>>>>>>>> It does not say PAO's or poly alpha olefins are 5%. >>>>>>>>> It says the POLYOFEFIN POLYAMINE SUCCINIMIDE, POLYOL is 5% [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > uses a unique combination of synthetic fluids and selected additives in > order to tailor the viscosity grade to its specific application. discussed this before. "uses" is not "made of". when reading "uses high-performance fluids, including polyalphaolefins" note "fluids" plural, and "including". canned tuna "includes" fats, proteins, ddt and mercury, but what are the proportions? legally speaking, that's at best imprecise and more typically, "open to interpretation". i'm not an attorney, but i spend a lot of time reading and working with contracts. language like that in a contract would be laughed out of any court if subject to dispute. if you think the contents of mobil's web site has /not/ been thoroughly reviewed by their legal counsel, think again. >>> Instead all you want to do is argue about a >>> supposed typo in order to deflect the exposure of your mistaken >>> interpretation of a msds. >> if you can cite any authoritative analysis on this subject, i'd love to >> see it - appeals to "belief" don't work. snip > i'm not an attorney, but i spend a lot of time reading >and working with contracts. language like that in a contract would be >laughed out of any court if subject to dispute. If this is so how can you confuse.......... POLYOFEFIN POLYAMINE SUCCINIMIDE, POLYOL with poly alpha olefins ? If this is so how can you confuse............ That only thee chemicals are listed and their percentages only add to 7% ? If this is so how can you confuse........... The fact that msds will only list the hazardous chemicals, therefore 93% of Mobil 1 is not referenced. If this is so how can you confuse........... The obvious that poly alpha olefin is part of that 93% ? > snip >> i'm not an attorney, but i spend a lot of time reading [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > POLYOFEFIN POLYAMINE SUCCINIMIDE, POLYOL with > poly alpha olefins ? because: 1. it's a typo. 2. poly alpha olefin is generic 3. polyolefin polyamine succinimide [pps] is merely a [more] specific subset of possible olefin compounds 4. pps is /still/ generic in that it's not iupac nomenclature! > If this is so how can you confuse............ > That only thee chemicals are listed and their percentages > only add to 7% ? er, see above. the whole point is that "pao" is a minor constituent, not base as you have been suckered into believing. > If this is so how can you confuse........... > The fact that msds will only list the hazardous chemicals, therefore > 93% of Mobil 1 is not referenced. that's not true - you're not required to list "proprietary" or trade secret compounds, simply provide emergency contact details so emergency services can call in the event of accident. the intent of the msds system is to provide the information, but the loophole exists for "commercial reasons". > If this is so how can you confuse........... > The obvious that poly alpha olefin is part of that 93% ? i must be nuts arguing with someone that doesn't know their chemistry. or legal language. polyolefin is just a generic term for a class of chemicals like polystyrene or polyethylene. and "ofefin" is a typo. > 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 [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > considered doing my own oil changes, however I don't want to deal with > ramps in my apartment. The best thing you can do for the longevity of your engine is QUIT using quick-lube places. Its only a matter of time until they do something stupid- like forget to drain the old oil and add 5 quarts new on top of it, leave off a drain plug, not change the filter for 10 oil changes in a row, or worst of all- suck the oil out the dipstick instead of properly drain it. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.