 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Honda Cars / December 2007Synthetic Oil question
Hello, My 2008 Accord now has 1000 miles on it. Its a month old. I am at 80% right now, which I guess is good. I know that when I need the oil changed I should wait until about 15% and my dealer which I will have the change done at uses Synthetic. I think they use mobile 1 but I am not 100% sure on that. So is there a difference on using Synthetic vs regular oil? Will the car perform better in terms of more easily reving and picking up speed? I noticed that right now the car is a little sluggish at lower rpms especially in slow travel. Once you get the rpms up to 3000 or you are going 40 mph and then step on the gas its another story and the car really goes! So I am wondering if thats because of the oil from the factory or just because its the way the car is? Thanks, Al > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the car perform better in terms of more easily reving and picking up > speed? I believe it does. But I only like Mobil 1, and can't speak for other brands. > I noticed that right now the car is a little sluggish at lower rpms > especially in slow travel. Once you get the rpms up to 3000 or you are [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Thanks, > Al Could be the way the car's computer is set for rpms that you are experiencing. But it could help with some good oil in there, as I always experienced a change in the way my motors ran with Mobil 1. Peace, Polfus [snipped] > But it could help with some good oil in there, as I always experienced a > change in the way my motors ran with Mobil 1. [snipped] An automobile engine is not a motor. >[snipped] >> >> But it could help with some good oil in there, as I always experienced a >> change in the way my motors ran with Mobil 1. >> >[snipped] >An automobile engine is not a motor. Actually, it is. mo·tor (m.'t.r) pronunciation n. 1. Something, such as a machine or an engine, that produces or imparts motion. 2. A device that converts any form of energy into mechanical energy, especially an internal-combustion engine or an arrangement of coils and magnets that converts electric current into mechanical power. 3. A motor vehicle, especially an automobile: .It was a night of lovers. All along the highway . motors were parked and dim figures were clasped in revery. (Sinclair Lewis). > >[snipped] > >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > All along the highway . motors were parked and dim figures were clasped in > revery. (Sinclair Lewis). Thanks for the information. >> >An automobile engine is not a motor. >> >> Actually, it is. >> mo·tor (m.'t.r) pronunciation >> n. >> >> 1. Something, such as a machine or an engine, that produces or imparts >> motion. > Thanks for the information. Now that we have that out of the way we can continue with this tread about benefits of Synthetic Oil. I'm just wondering if there is a performance benefit in terms of letting the car rev more freely? Al > Now that we have that out of the way we can continue with this tread about > benefits of Synthetic Oil. Tread? Now you want to talk about tires, not oil! OH, wait -- tires are made with oil.... never mind. ;-) >> Now that we have that out of the way we can continue with this tread >> about benefits of Synthetic Oil. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > ;-) Heh :) >>>> An automobile engine is not a motor. >>> Actually, it is. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I'm just wondering if there is a performance benefit in terms of letting the > car rev more freely? doesn't benefit revs, but there are benefits to synthetic. these include better chemical stability, lower ash, slightly better lubricity [with consequent slightly better fuel economy], better thermal stability, etc. wikipedia has an article on it that contains some useful information, but it tends to be vandalized quite often, so refer to the page over several weeks to get an idea of average consensus. > doesn't benefit revs, but there are benefits to synthetic. these > include better chemical stability, lower ash, slightly better lubricity > [with consequent slightly better fuel economy], better thermal > stability, etc. wikipedia has an article on it that contains some > useful information, but it tends to be vandalized quite often, so refer > to the page over several weeks to get an idea of average consensus. When I first started using Mobil 1 synthetic, nearly 20 years ago, I was able to measure a gain in mpg over conventional oil in my 1.6 I4 Honda engine. A few years ago I switched over an Accord at 15,000 miles and did not notice a significant mpg gain. There may have been a gain but it could have been masked by season changes in fuel blend and/ or cold weather fuel consumption change. The point being that current conventional oil is pretty darn good compared with current synthetic offerings. I continue to use synthetic for its superior thermal and chemical stability that allows me to extend my oil change interval. >> doesn't benefit revs, but there are benefits to synthetic. these >> include better chemical stability, lower ash, slightly better lubricity [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > conventional oil is pretty darn good compared with current synthetic > offerings. it may also be that "synthetic" isn't what it once was. today, most brands seem to be just highly refined conventional base oils - the oilcos are highly reluctant to reveal content to consumers [somewhat odd considering that their formulations are analyzable by other oilcos, so it's not like they can protect a trade secret by being so coy]. afaict, the only synthetic that boasts about what its base oil actually is, is motul - they use an ester-based formulation like genuine jet lubes. others claim to be based on 1-decene, but give no idea of proportions. mobil 1 claims a 50% difference in "supersyn" content between standard and high mileage formulations - something clearly impossible if "supersyn" is the real synthetic and standard formulation truly is supposed to be this synthetic base. bottom line, this whole subject is a murky pool of slime. suspicion and distrust will always be a buying decision factor if the vendor won't say what their product contains. > I continue to use synthetic for its superior thermal and chemical > stability that allows me to extend my oil change interval. > bottom line, this whole subject is a murky pool of slime. In other words, "marketing to stupid people". >> bottom line, this whole subject is a murky pool of slime. > > In other words, "marketing to stupid people". not so much stupid, ignorant. and if the manufacturers won't spill their beans, then /everyone/ is ignorant. > When I first started using Mobil 1 synthetic, nearly 20 years ago, I > was able to measure a gain in mpg over conventional oil in my 1.6 I4 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I continue to use synthetic for its superior thermal and chemical > stability that allows me to extend my oil change interval. Good points. Peace, Polfus > I continue to use synthetic for its superior thermal and chemical > stability that allows me to extend my oil change interval. On my Acura, owner's manual recommend the same oil change interval regardless of synthetic oil or not. > > I continue to use synthetic for its superior thermal and chemical > > stability that allows me to extend my oil change interval. > > On my Acura, owner's manual recommend the same oil change interval > regardless of synthetic oil or not. If following the owner's manual to the letter makes you happy, then do so. May I remind you that until recently Honda did not recommend periodic brake fluid replacement and many owners who followed the manual to the letter found themselves with seized calipers. Actually, there's quite a list of PM items omitted from owner's manuals in the interest of showing low maintenance costs for those silly on-line total cost of ownership comparisons. Not all the "extra" items dealers do are frivolous. >>>I continue to use synthetic for its superior thermal and chemical >>>stability that allows me to extend my oil change interval. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > silly on-line total cost of ownership comparisons. Not all the "extra" > items dealers do are frivolous. I would imagine, (Since I don't own a vehicle with it), that today's ABS systems require brake fluid that is in good condition and considering that conventional fluids are hydroscopic in nature, that would require frequent changes. OTOH, my old cars probably can have fluid changes deferred to four or five years. And again, I'll compare ABS to aircraft braking systems that are continuously maintained whereas automobiles are not. And, part of the omission of maintenance items on original vehicle documentation may well be intentional to generate more profit for dealers after the sale. Just label me as a skeptical cynic... <G> JT >>>> I continue to use synthetic for its superior thermal and chemical >>>> stability that allows me to extend my oil change interval. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > systems require brake fluid that is in good condition and considering > that conventional fluids are hydroscopic in nature Minor nit, it's hygroscopic, i.e., pulling moisture from the air, not hydroscopic. >> I would imagine, (Since I don't own a vehicle with it), that today's ABS >> systems require brake fluid that is in good condition and considering >> that conventional fluids are hydroscopic in nature > > Minor nit, it's hygroscopic, i.e., pulling moisture from the air, not > hydroscopic. That's a very important nit, IMHO. Peace, Polfus In article <47894354-9769-4e9a-876a-61e56e7a749c@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > May I remind you that until recently Honda did not recommend periodic > brake fluid replacement and many owners who followed the manual to the > letter found themselves with seized calipers. Define "recently". I know my 02 Odyssey specifies brake fluid replacement every 3 years, and so did my 92 Civic. Not sure what you're smoking there, pal. > In article > <47894354-9769-4e9a-876a-61e56e7a749c@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I know my 02 Odyssey specifies brake fluid replacement every 3 years, > and so did my 92 Civic. 89 civic is 2 yrs or 30k miles, which ever comes first. > Not sure what you're smoking there, pal. >>An automobile engine is not a motor. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > All along the highway . motors were parked and dim figures were clasped in > revery. (Sinclair Lewis). Thank you, AZ. Peace, Polfus "DodgeDriver" <wingnut@invalid.net> wrote > An automobile engine is not a motor. That may be one of the weirdest things I have ever read. Peace, Polfus Yours is a 4 cyl with AT transmission, no? My 1989 Accord (242K miles and still running strong) does the same. Slugglish acceleration through the gears, but after the torque converter has locked up, i have to hold on to my seat cause it seems the car is possessed by demons!!! Honda Accord is a unique character while other mades are all the same. i've driven Honda, Buick, Ford, VW, Mazda, Toyota and i do think Accords are somewhat unsuitale for city driving, But if i have to take one to interstate travel, i'll take a Honda everytime oh by the way, Castrol Syntec 5W-20 works best for mine > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Thanks, > Al > Yours is a 4 cyl with AT transmission, no? > > My 1989 Accord (242K miles and still running strong) does the same. > Slugglish acceleration through the gears, but after the torque > converter has locked up, i have to hold on to my seat cause it seems > the car is possessed by demons!!! let me guess, you're not using honda z1 atf, just ordinary dexron atf, right? typical symptom. believe it or not, if you change back to the honda fluid, your transmission will become smooth again. > Honda Accord is a unique character while other mades are all the > same. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >> Thanks, >> Al "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote > let me guess, you're not using honda z1 atf, just ordinary dexron atf, > right? typical symptom. believe it or not, if you change back to the > honda fluid, your transmission will become smooth again. Hey...thats wild. Im gonna remember that...thanks. Peace, Polfus > bi...@scn.org wrote: > > Yours is a 4 cyl with AT transmission, no? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > right? typical symptom. believe it or not, if you change back to the > honda fluid, your transmission will become smooth again. I think Honda Accord are designed to have a perfect balance of work load between the engine and transmission. Hence the slow acceleration. If Honda isnt the one that can make the most out of a 1955cc engine that will run forever, then i don't know who is Your guess is right, but Honda Z1 does nothing to improve accelleration. Z1 works in a way to reduce the noticable shift shocks in Honda transmissions at the expense of extended slippage between gears, and as a result slower acceleration and higher transmission temperature. Early Honda automatic transmission had a unique design while adhering to the then popular GM Dexron II ATF specs. That's a sound combination, nothing wrong with that!! Automatic Hondas, unlike their counterparts, would make you feel as if there were a genie that manually shifts the gears for you. But drivers with no experience in driving a manual transmission find it extremely odd. So Honda introduced Z1 to soothe their hearts and ensure future sales to those who wants to give up sound engineering for a little driving convenience. When i bough my car, the trans had Z1 on it. At my first oil change, i switched to B&M Trick Shift, which is strictly Dexron II formulated for older GM transmissions. Drained and refilled, 3 times. I've since got better accelleration and the feel of power shifting. Plus the temp gauge needle never went pass the half mark again. I like that a lot. >> bi...@scn.org wrote: >>> Yours is a 4 cyl with AT transmission, no? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I think Honda Accord are designed to have a perfect balance of work > load between the engine and transmission. Hence the slow acceleration. eh??? > If Honda isnt the one that can make the most out of a 1955cc engine > that will run forever, then i don't know who is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > gears, and as a result slower acceleration and higher transmission > temperature. dude, it's not NOTHING to do with acceleration. period. > Early Honda automatic transmission had a unique design while adhering > to the then popular GM Dexron II ATF specs. That's a sound [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > to those who wants to give up sound engineering for a little driving > convenience. what??? > When i bough my car, the trans had Z1 on it. At my first oil change, i > switched to B&M Trick Shift, which is strictly Dexron II formulated > for older GM transmissions. Drained and refilled, 3 times. I've since > got better accelleration and the feel of power shifting. no, you've got a rough-shifting transmission that will prematurely fatigue engine mounts, drive shafts, transmission shafts, wear transmission clutches, etc. the transmission fluid has absolutely zero connection with the power generated by the motor [or the shift ratio], and thus zero ability to create "better accelleration". > Plus the temp > gauge needle never went pass the half mark again. I like that a lot. that is not a function of the transmission fluid. bottom line, you're welcome to wreck your own vehicle by not using correct fluids, but please don't bullshit about transmission fluid somehow causing better acceleration - it's flat-out incorrect. > > I think Honda Accord are designed to have a perfect balance of work > > load between the engine and transmission. Hence the slow acceleration. > > eh??? the most retarded response i've ever seen > > Your guess is right, but Honda Z1 does nothing to improve > > accelleration. Z1 works in a way to reduce the noticable shift shocks [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > dude, it's not NOTHING to do with acceleration. period. good Lord, now you know! so next time don't come here peddling about Z1 when acceleration being the subject, and most importantly don't repeat that after me, wiseass! > > So Honda introduced Z1 to soothe their hearts and ensure future sales > > to those who wants to give up sound engineering for a little driving > > convenience. > > what??? "what???" isn't an answer, bitch! > bottom line, you're welcome to wreck your own vehicle by not using > correct fluids, but please don't bullshit about transmission fluid > somehow causing better acceleration - it's flat-out incorrect. now repeat after me, Z1 causes transmissions to slip. <snip crap> >> bottom line, you're welcome to wreck your own vehicle by not using >> correct fluids, but please don't bullshit about transmission fluid >> somehow causing better acceleration - it's flat-out incorrect. > > now repeat after me, Z1 causes transmissions to slip. no it doesn't - you don't understand what's going on. simplistically, slip is where you put your foot down and the motor spins with no increase in vehicle speed. smooth engagement means the pressure regulator of a honda transmission is calibrated for honda z1 fluid - it's got nothing to do with slipping or power. if you use the wrong fluid, the calibration is incorrect, hence the lurch which you are experiencing. if you keep driving with your transmission wrongly filled like you are at present, that lurch will wreck your motor mounts and transmission. > simplistically, slip is where you put your foot down and the motor spins > with no increase in vehicle speed. smooth engagement means the pressure [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > like you are at present, that lurch will wreck your motor mounts and > transmission. Listen, fool, until the torque converter locks up, automatic transmisssions operates in limited-slipping modes between engagement. Z1 eases the engagement of gears by extending the slipping mode! Your mother may like it smooth, but it's bad for your Honda transmissions >> simplistically, slip is where you put your foot down and the motor spins >> with no increase in vehicle speed. smooth engagement means the pressure [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Z1 eases the engagement of gears by extending the slipping mode! Your > mother may like it smooth, but it's bad for your Honda transmissions even f1 race cars, pretty much the ultimate in engineering design, strive to achieve smooth transmission shifting in their semi-automatics. not because they're driven by wussies, but because, as i've stated repeatedly before, it mitigates fatigue in the transmission and drive line. you need to study the effect of stress amplitude vs. fatigue life. a bit of tribology wouldn't hurt you either. > even f1 race cars, pretty much the ultimate in engineering design, > strive to achieve smooth transmission shifting in their semi-automatics. > not because they're driven by wussies, but because, as i've stated > repeatedly before, it mitigates fatigue in the transmission and drive > line. you need to study the effect of stress amplitude vs. fatigue > life. a bit of tribology wouldn't hurt you either. You're confused, wise one. In race cars, as long as you don't get your neck broken by the shift shocks, it's smooth, but to the average consumer, barely noticeable shift shocks is smooth. As an analogy, a hotdog goes with mustard is smooth.. Face it, you've got to have the coordination of a world-class gymnast to shift gears precisely and smoothly. Now you have it, automated manual transmission do the shifting with smoothness and a robotic precision. Honda automatics are just that.. But Honda could never launch a marketing campaign for its automatic transmission technologies that as it did for its VTEC engines. Automatic transmissions, like hotdogs, are uniquely American. Declaring a war against the norm is commit suicide. Honda's automatic transmission design is superior, if you ask me. But selling cars equiped with Honda's automatic transmission in North American market is like is selling hotdogs garnished with plum sauce. Bad for your health? NO!! And yet the taste is strange. What Honda does is tell Joe Shmoe the consumer that adding cat piss to plum sauce will make the damn thing taste just like mustard. Now that is BAD!!! >> even f1 race cars, pretty much the ultimate in engineering design, >> strive to achieve smooth transmission shifting in their semi-automatics. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You're confused, wise one. In race cars, as long as you don't get your > neck broken by the shift shocks, it's smooth, in f1, it's not about the driver, it's about the peak loads on the transmission. the more it jerks, the higher the peak load. the higher the peak load, the lower the fatigue life. and, in racing, the lower the peak load, the lighter the componentry can be to achieve a fatigue life that will get it across the finish line in first place. a street honda is not built for racing, but it's not built for an infinite fatigue life either - that would make it too heavy. given that there is no speed or power advantage to jerky shifting, and that there is a substantial fatigue advantage [which happens also to benefit driver comfort] to making it smooth, there is no logic in disregard. > but to the average > consumer, barely noticeable shift shocks is smooth. As an analogy, a [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Now that is BAD!!! <bi241@scn.org> wrote > Yours is a 4 cyl with AT transmission, no? > > My 1989 Accord (242K miles and still running strong) Holy crap! Thats amazing! Peace, Polfus >> Yours is a 4 cyl with AT transmission, no? >> >> My 1989 Accord (242K miles and still running strong) > > Holy crap! Thats amazing! You are easily amused... this milleage is not unusuall. I drive toyota camry 4-cyl 1995 with 238k miles on the odometer. "Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote > "Polfus" <nostringscouldsecureyou@thestation> wrote >>> Yours is a 4 cyl with AT transmission, no? >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You are easily amused... this milleage is not unusuall. > I drive toyota camry 4-cyl 1995 with 238k miles on the odometer. Holy crap! Thats amazing! Peace, Polfus >> "Polfus" <nostringscouldsecureyou@thestation> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Holy crap! Thats amazing! how old are you? "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote >>> "Polfus" <nostringscouldsecureyou@thestation> wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > how old are you? Old enough to tell you to kiss my a.s. Polfus >> "Polfus" <nostringscouldsecureyou@thestation> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Holy crap! Thats amazing! Why are you so amazed that a well engineered vehicle does what it is supposed to do? >>> "Polfus" <nostringscouldsecureyou@thestation> wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Why are you so amazed that a well engineered vehicle does what it is > supposed to do? easy: just be an inexperienced kid from ford country. >> Why are you so amazed that a well engineered vehicle does what it is >> supposed to do? > > easy: just be an inexperienced kid from ford country. That's twice in a row you've attempted to insult me. So BITE ME, loser....and make teeth marks when you do, 'cause I am not a kid, nor have I ever owned a Ford in my life. Polfus > >> Why are you so amazed that a well engineered vehicle does what it is > >> supposed to do? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > So BITE ME, loser.... Spoken like someone who sees that jim spoke the truth. Hurts, doesn't it? >>> Why are you so amazed that a well engineered vehicle does what it is >>> supposed to do? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > So BITE ME, loser....and make teeth marks when you do, 'cause I am not a > kid, nor have I ever owned a Ford in my life. so how old are you? > Why are you so amazed that a well engineered vehicle does what it is > supposed to do? Forget it Seth...if you think that Hondas *routinely* go over 200,000 miles, and that 10/10 people have Accords that lasted over 200,000 miles..then go ahead. Peace, Polfus >> Why are you so amazed that a well engineered vehicle does what it is >> supposed to do? > > Forget it Seth...if you think that Hondas *routinely* go over 200,000 miles, > and that 10/10 people have Accords that lasted over 200,000 miles..then > go ahead. You do not think this is a rule? Check the used cars listings in your area... All these cars are still drivable. >>> Why are you so amazed that a well engineered vehicle does what it is >>> supposed to do? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Check the used cars listings in your area... > All these cars are still drivable. I went to eBay and checked there, which has a lot more listings. For example, of all the completed listings for Honda Accords, all years, there are 962 listings. Of those, 61 have stated over 200,000, and some listings were rebuilt engines and others sold "as parts" or not running. That comes out to about 6% of the total. Of the current listings, there are 332 listings, of which 17 state over 200k miles...with same thing as above. That comes to 5% of the total. Or another way to look at it is 1294 total listings ( completed and current ) with 78 total over 200k = 6% of the total. If you can point me to some other info that would help explain your amazement at my amazement, then please give a link. Your turn.... Peace, Polfus >>>> Why are you so amazed that a well engineered vehicle does what it is >>>> supposed to do? [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > If you can point me to some other info that would help explain your > amazement at my amazement, then please give a link. er, you're merely looking at cars for sale, not cars that are owned and driven every day. better look in junk yards - those vehicles are at the end of their life and hondas routinely have 200k, 300k, or more. > oh by the way, Castrol Syntec 5W-20 works best for mine How do you know? Why is your car any different from others? > So is > there a difference on using Synthetic vs regular oil? Will the car perform > better in terms of more easily reving and picking up speed? For the record Honda motor does not specify synthetic oil for the '08 Accord engine. See pg. 317 of your owner's manual. Which says you can use it, providing it meets the current API specifications and is changed at intervals shown on the information display So for normal driving there is no advantage using synthetic oil in your Honda engine. There are thousands of Honda vehicles with well over 100k miles, that have never used synthetic lubricants of any kind in the engine. Also know that using synthetic oil does not void your warranty. Save the difference in price between Petroleum oil and synthetic oil and buy some good wax/polish for the exterior painted surfaces. Or, better (in my book) pay a professional to maintain the outside of the car. -- Tp, -------- __o ----- -\<. -------- __o --- ( )/ ( ) ---- -\<. -------------------- ( )/ ( ) ----------------------------------------- No Lawsuit Ever Fixed A Moron... > See pg. 317 of your owner's manual. Which says you can use it, providing > it > meets the current API specifications and is changed at intervals shown on the > information display You could use Plutonian ice water if it met the API specifications for lubrication and was changed at the intervals required. Nothing magic about that. The API specs tell all. >> See pg. 317 of your owner's manual. Which says you can use it, providing >> it [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Nothing magic about that. The API specs tell all. Izzat when Pluto has been left out all night and he's squirting ice cubes? <brrrr> JT > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Thanks, > Al Castrol Synthetic is your better Oil. |
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.