 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Hyundai Cars / March 2006Mobil 1 5W-20
Does anyone know if Mobil 1 is yet available in the large 5 quart jugs in 5W-20 weight? My local Wally World only has 5W-20 in quart bottles. They have 5W-30 and 10W-30 in the large jugs, but not the lighter weight. I don't know if this is a Mobil issue or a Wally World just not yet stocking it issue. Matt Matt, I don't know, but I will check at other retailers. I have a brand new Super Wal-Mart only about 1 mile from my house - I will check it too. Don > Matt, > > I don't know, but I will check at other retailers. I have a brand new > Super Wal-Mart only about 1 mile from my house - I will check it too. My local Wal-Mart is a super store also and I checked a local Auto Zone as well. The AutoZone didn't have ANY 5 quart jugs of Mobil 1, just dino oil. Could be that Mobil isn't yet shipping the large jugs of 5W-20 until they are selling more of it, but the shelf was nearly empty of the quart bottles of 5W-20 so I'd say sales are picking up. Matt Matt, You're right . . . I checked my local Super Wal-Mart, and they don't stock the 5 quart jug of 5W-20 Mobil 1. I did find a "short case" (6 quarts) of 5W-20 at our local Blain's Farm & Fleet, but this store chain is only in Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin. I guess everyone will just to have to buy single quarts for the time being. BTW . . . I checked with the Service Advisor and Service Manager at the local Hyundai dealer, and they exclusively use 5W-30 weight oil. This, of course, is an OK alternative and listed as such in the manual - at least it is in my 2006 Elantra. One item of note: The wider the range of a motor oil, the larger amount of V.I. (Viscosity Indexers) required. I was told by a petroleum engineer here at the University of Illinois a number of years ago that the greater amounts of V.I.'s used in motor oil, the greater the propensity for varnish build-up and eventual sludging. I don't know if this is a proven fact or not, but he's personally a great believer in 10W-30 weight oil. It's generally good down to 0 degrees F, and even my new Elantra Owner's Manual recommends this weight if ambient temp is above 0 degrees F. In this case, 10W-30 Mobil 1 may be just fine for most applications, especially due to its good pourability, etc. at low temps, except where severe winters are the norm. Just a thought . . . > Matt, > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > pourability, etc. at low temps, except where severe winters are the > norm. Just a thought . . . I currently use 5W-30 in the winter (we often get well below zero here in northern PA) and 10W-30 in the summer in my other vehicles and likely will do the same with the Sonata, at least until 5W-20 is available in the larger jugs. Thanks for checking. Matt >> In this case, 10W-30 Mobil 1 may be >> just fine for most applications, especially due to its good [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > will do the same with the Sonata, at least until 5W-20 is available in > the larger jugs. If the recommended oil is 5W-20, 5W-30 would work OK, but 10W oils would not be recommended. The key is the weight of the base stock. 5W-20 and 5W-30 are made from the same 5W base stock. 10W oils are thicker and won't flow as well. If the reason that 5W-20 is recommended is due to tight clearances and small oil ports in the engine, a thicker oil could cause oil starvation, leading to excessive wear and bearing damage, especially if you live in a cold climate. >>> In this case, 10W-30 Mobil 1 may be >>> just fine for most applications, especially due to its good [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > cause oil starvation, leading to excessive wear and bearing damage, > especially if you live in a cold climate. I'd have to re-check the manual, but I believe that all three weights are OK to use given the right temperature range. 5W-20 is the preferred oil, but I believe both 5W-30 and 10W-30 are acceptable. Yes, all else being equal, 10W oils won't flow as well as 5W oils, but all else isn't always equal. Viscosity numbers are given for a given temperature (I forget the specifics now) and don't cover the behavior of the oil at other temperatures. For example, a 10W dino oil will flow the same as a 10W synthetic at only ONE temperature. At lower temperatures, the more stable viscosity of a synthetic means that the same weight synthetic will flow much more freely than the dino oil. My 10W-30 equipped minivan and truck crank much better at -10 than does my Sonata with 5W dino oil. Matt >>>> In this case, 10W-30 Mobil 1 may be >>>> just fine for most applications, especially due to its good [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > are OK to use given the right temperature range. 5W-20 is the preferred > oil, but I believe both 5W-30 and 10W-30 are acceptable. You'll probably find that 10W oils are recommended for warmer climates and summer use. I've never found any good reason to switch to thicker oils in summer. As long as the upper end of the viscosity range is adequate (the 30 in 5W-30) the heavier base stock isn't going to make any difference and I'd rather have the better flow characteristics. Out of curiosity, have you ever heard of anyone having an engine failure due to oil that was insufficiently protective at higher temps (viscosity breakdown)? It seems to be the thing most people worry about, but I've never heard of such a failure. Using oils that are too heavy and cause starvation seems to be a much bigger issue, at least in modern engines. > Yes, all else being equal, 10W oils won't flow as well as 5W oils, but > all else isn't always equal. Viscosity numbers are given for a given [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 10W-30 equipped minivan and truck crank much better at -10 than does my > Sonata with 5W dino oil. True. That's one of the reasons I use synthetic oils in my Elantra, both in the engine and transmission. The transmission oil in particular makes a big difference when temps are 0F or below. I only run Castrol SYNTEC* in my cars. Oil change every three months >>>>> In this case, 10W-30 Mobil 1 may be >>>>> just fine for most applications, especially due to its good [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > in the engine and transmission. The transmission oil in particular makes a > big difference when temps are 0F or below. > I only run Castrol SYNTEC* in my cars. > Oil change every three months Man, that is wasting a lot of good oil and filters. Matt >> I only run Castrol SYNTEC* in my cars. >> Oil change every three months > > Man, that is wasting a lot of good oil and filters. Perhaps, but it depends on how much he drives. If he's doing 2500 miles/month, he's right on schedule. >>> I only run Castrol SYNTEC* in my cars. >>> Oil change every three months [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Perhaps, but it depends on how much he drives. If he's doing 2500 > miles/month, he's right on schedule. True, but few people drive exactly 7500 miles each quarter. Matt > I only run Castrol SYNTEC* in my cars. > Oil change every three months Brand of oil is largely meaningless, since any oil that meets API specs is going to last longer than Hyundai's recommended 7500 mile change interval. That's doubly true of synthetics. Tests I've seen on synthetic oils indicate that there's little practical difference between them. Even Walmart's low-priced, house-brand "SuperTech" synthetic seems to be as good as the big name oils. I've used it with no problems, though lately, Pep Boys has been running specials on Pennzoil synthetic at ~$2/quart, so I've bought some of that. >> I only run Castrol SYNTEC* in my cars. >> Oil change every three months [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > lately, Pep Boys has been running specials on Pennzoil synthetic at > ~$2/quart, so I've bought some of that. Can you point me to these tests. I've never seen the off-brand SuperTech tested anywhere. Matt >>> I only run Castrol SYNTEC* in my cars. >>> Oil change every three months [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Can you point me to these tests. I've never seen the off-brand > SuperTech tested anywhere. I don't it bookmarked, but IIRC, I just did a search on "Supertech synthetic oil test" or something similar and waded through the results. I found the results from a testing lab that analysed it and gave some conclusions based on what they found. Essentially, they said the base stock is the same as many other brands (not surprising since the blender makes oils for several other companies, including big name brands) and the additive package is comparable to what other oils use. 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. > 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. Cheap oils really are much worse than top rated oils. 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. Matt >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 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. >>> 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 [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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 > 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?  Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.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 [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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 >>>> 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 [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > relevant tests and the height of the best oils was twice that of the > cheap oils and sometimes even greater disparities. Unfortunately, without knowing the scale of the bar grapha, a 2X difference is meaningless. To make an analogy, an amplifier with .002% total harmonic distortion has 2X as much as one with .001%, but neither is audible. In practical terms, it makes no difference. Perhaps the oil study is different, but we have no way of knowing that. > 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. True. >> There is also a substantial difference between the operating >> parameters of motorcycle engines and automobile engines. In [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 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. Again, better in what regard and to what extent? It's all meaningless without context. >>> Cheap oils really are much worse than top rated oils. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > http://www.mcnews.com/mcn/ I don't expect you to remember, but if you had the information handy, I would believe you. >>> 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 [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Sure it matters how many miles you drive your car. Agreed. "How" matters. How long you intend to keep it doesn't. > 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're making some ENORMOUS assumptions! I'll bet there was NOTHING in the study you refer to that pointed to such a conclusion. The differences in wear - if there are any at all - are more likely on the order of a percentage point or less. To think that any oil is going to reduce engine wear by half is laughable. If such a product existed, it would be a revolutionary breakthrough and everybody would be clammoring for it. > You say numerous studies, can you point me to one? As you suggested, do a Google search. The data is out there. >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Again, any proof for your statement? Look it up. The data is out there. > 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. Are they using identical engines? If not, you can't make a direct comparison. What other variables are there? To draw any conclusion, you have to control the test parameters and only change one variable at a time. That's the basis of the scientific method. If you use impirical examples instead of controlled test data, it's possible to come up with all kinds of conclusions. > 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. It's out there, if you look. > Unfortunately, without knowing the scale of the bar grapha, a 2X > difference is meaningless. To make an analogy, an amplifier with .002% > total harmonic distortion has 2X as much as one with .001%, but neither > is audible. In practical terms, it makes no difference. Perhaps the oil > study is different, but we have no way of knowing that. I do as I read the study. And I gave you a direct reference as to where to obtain a copy if you are really interested in further educating yourself. However, you seem happy using cheap oils and if you are happy then that is all that matters, right? > Again, better in what regard and to what extent? It's all meaningless > without context. Again, I showed you where to get the full article with the context and assumptions they made, who made the tests, etc. >> Sure it matters how many miles you drive your car. > > Agreed. "How" matters. How long you intend to keep it doesn't. How long in time doesn't matter much, but I meant how long as in how many miles driven. >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > would be a revolutionary breakthrough and everybody would be clammoring > for it. Yes, I was making a hypothetical argument to show how the number of miles driven is directly related to whether different wear rates matter. You had suggested that the amount of miles driven didn't matter, I was showing that it matters greatly if the wear rates are different. I have no data to show if the wear rates are different. And often engines don't fail from wear per se, they fail from the rings getting stuck due to varnish and carbon build-up, oil passages getting blocked with crud, etc. I have seen enough engines torn down to know that synthetic oil keeps an engine a LOT cleaner than dino oil. >> You say numerous studies, can you point me to one? > > As you suggested, do a Google search. The data is out there. I have and I've not found anything other than AMSOIL sales pitches and other questionable "data." I gave you a direct reference to my source. If you have a source, which I doubt at this point, I'd appreciate you returning the favor. >>> 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 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Look it up. The data is out there. I've never seen any data. Lots of conjecture, but nothing even approaching data. And I've personal experience that suggests this isn't necessarily the case. >> I've heard this as well, especially in the aviation industry, but I've >> also seen many counter examples that suggest otherwise. For example, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > have to control the test parameters and only change one variable at a > time. That's the basis of the scientific method. Not identical, as the trainer engines are smaller, typically 200 cubic inches whereas most other singles are 360 cubes or larger. However, the engine designs are virtually identical within a family (Lycoming or Continental). > If you use impirical examples instead of controlled test data, it's > possible to come up with all kinds of conclusions. Test data is an empirical result. You may wish to refresh your memory on the meaning of empirical. I've never heard of impirical and don't believe that to even be a word. >> 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. > > It's out there, if you look. I have. If you had data, it wouldn't be hard to cut and paste a link. I'm guessing you don't. Matt >> Unfortunately, without knowing the scale of the bar grapha, a 2X >> difference is meaningless. To make an analogy, an amplifier with .002% [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > yourself. However, you seem happy using cheap oils and if you are happy > then that is all that matters, right? >> Again, better in what regard and to what extent? It's all meaningless >> without context. > > Again, I showed you where to get the full article with the context and > assumptions they made, who made the tests, etc. I checked the MCN archives and the test appears to have been done in 2000, which is before the latests API specs came out and before Supertech Synthetic was available. While it might be worthwhile as a comparative study, it doesn't tell us much about current products. >>> Sure it matters how many miles you drive your car. >> Agreed. "How" matters. How long you intend to keep it doesn't. > How long in time doesn't matter much, but I meant how long as in how > many miles driven. I know that and that's what I meant when I said it doesn't matter. ANY oil will protect your car long term if it's changed at recommended intervals and you use a decent filter. I don't care how much or how little you spend on oil, as long as you use an API certified oil, it will do the job. API specs are very exacting and effectively limit the amount of variation that's possible in oils. That's the whole point of the certification. >>> 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're making some ENORMOUS assumptions! I'll bet there was NOTHING in >> the study you refer to that pointed to such a conclusion. The [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Yes, I was making a hypothetical argument to show how the number of > miles driven is directly related to whether different wear rates matter. If the argument was completely bogus, what's the point? Exaggeration like that is deliberately misleading. I can make up all kinds of "what if" scenarios too. For example, what if the actual difference in wear rate was 0.1%, which is probably closer to the truth? > You had suggested that the amount of miles driven didn't matter, I was > showing that it matters greatly if the wear rates are different. Only in your world of exaggerated wear rates. > I have no data to show if the wear rates are different. No kidding. > And often engines > don't fail from wear per se, they fail from the rings getting stuck due > to varnish and carbon build-up, oil passages getting blocked with crud, > etc. I have seen enough engines torn down to know that synthetic oil > keeps an engine a LOT cleaner than dino oil. That I can agree with. >>> I've heard this as well, especially in the aviation industry, but >>> I've also seen many counter examples that suggest otherwise. For [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > engine designs are virtually identical within a family (Lycoming or > Continental). Then it's an apples to oranges comparison and it's largely pointless. >> If you use impirical examples instead of controlled test data, it's >> possible to come up with all kinds of conclusions. > > Test data is an empirical result. Sorry, I meant anecdotal. > You may wish to refresh your memory > on the meaning of empirical. I've never heard of impirical and don't > believe that to even be a word. OK, it was a typo. So shoot me. >>> 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. Fine, but we all know how unreliable anecdotal data can be. > I checked the MCN archives and the test appears to have been done in > 2000, which is before the latests API specs came out and before > Supertech Synthetic was available. While it might be worthwhile as a > comparative study, it doesn't tell us much about current products. 2000 sounds about right. I knew it was a few years ago. I'd be happy to have more current data, but I've been unable to find any. > I know that and that's what I meant when I said it doesn't matter. ANY > oil will protect your car long term if it's changed at recommended [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > amount of variation that's possible in oils. That's the whole point of > the certification. No, the point of most certifications, and I believe API falls into this category, is to provide MINIMUM standards. It doesn't prevent a manufacturer from going ABOVE the standards and many manufacturers do this. Sure, many will skirt just above the minimums, but the MCN test showed that many of the reputable names, Mobil being one, have products that are well above the minimum requirements. So, certification doesn't limit variability, it just places a lower limit on the variability range. The upper end is generally not limited by specification. > If the argument was completely bogus, what's the point? Exaggeration > like that is deliberately misleading. I can make up all kinds of "what [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Only in your world of exaggerated wear rates. No, in any difference of wear rate. If the rate of wear is different AT ALL, then the amount of wear between two oils will be completely dependent on the mileage driven. >> I have no data to show if the wear rates are different. > > No kidding. Yes, my data is just as good as yours claiming that Supertech is a good oil. :-) >> And often engines don't fail from wear per se, they fail from the >> rings getting stuck due to varnish and carbon build-up, oil passages >> getting blocked with crud, etc. I have seen enough engines torn down >> to know that synthetic oil keeps an engine a LOT cleaner than dino oil. > > That I can agree with. So now you agree that better oils are better for your engine? I thought you were saying that all oils were essentially equal and thus buying a better oil was a waste of money. Matt >reduce engine wear by half is laughable. If such a product existed, it >would be a revolutionary breakthrough and everybody would be clammoring >for it. That's the best point yet. I'm sure that many oil manufacturers have set up wear tests on actual engines over the years. Why haven't we seen the actual data from such tests? Probably because the difference in wear is so miniscule that it's not statistically significant. If it were significant, we would never hear the end of it in TV commercials. Synthetic oil can truly be useful at temperature extremes that are rarely encountered by the average driver. I guess it is mostly bought by obsessive types that feel compelled to use the "best" at any cost. I do not mean this in a derogatory way. We all have our little obsessions at times. SignatureBob >>reduce engine wear by half is laughable. If such a product existed, it >>would be a revolutionary breakthrough and everybody would be clammoring [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > statistically significant. If it were significant, we would never hear the > end of it in TV commercials. I actually don't think this has been done as the cost of doing so is enormous. Most makers use surrogate tests such as the much vaunted (by AMSOIL anyway) 4 ball wear test that ASTM developed. There are a few others, but I don't think there is any good evidence of strong correlation with real world results in real engines. It is simply too expensive to do this. > Synthetic oil can truly be useful at temperature extremes that are rarely > encountered by the average driver. I guess it is mostly bought by obsessive > types that feel compelled to use the "best" at any cost. I do not mean this > in a derogatory way. We all have our little obsessions at times. I find it useful be low about 20F and I encounter this for 12-16 weeks a year on average. Matt >I actually don't think this has been done as the cost of doing so is >enormous. Awww come on! The oil companies spend millions in ad's every year. Setting up and testing 2 engines would cost less than 1 prime time TV ad. You could arrange tests on a fleet of rental cars for chump change. Believe me, there have been many tests. If the results were impressive and unambiguous, they would post them on the Goodyear Blimp! >I find it useful be low about 20F and I encounter this for 12-16 weeks a > year on average. Gah! You can have that cold weather man! :) SignatureBob >>I actually don't think this has been done as the cost of doing so is >>enormous. > > Awww come on! The oil companies spend millions in ad's every year. Setting > up and testing 2 engines would cost less than 1 prime time TV ad. Testing two engines doesn't mean squat statistically. I don't know what sample size you would need to ensure statistical significance, but I know it is a lot more than one for each condition being tested. > You could arrange tests on a fleet of rental cars for chump change. Believe > me, there have been many tests. If the results were impressive and > unambiguous, they would post them on the Goodyear Blimp! But you then have no idea what driving conditions each car is seeing, unless you heavily instrument each car. Again, this wouldn't be cheap. And you'd have to ensure that none of the rental customers ever added a quart of oil as that would contaminate your test. The closest I've seen to this was a test that Consumer Reports ran with a fleet of taxis many years ago. However, as I recall, they weren't testing one oil against another, they were simply testing length of oil change intervals. I believe that changed the oil in some engines every 3,000 and some every 6,000. They then tore down the engines at something like 60,000 miles. I honestly don't remember the results now in detail, but I seem to recall their conclusion was that 6,000 mile change intervals were not a problem. However, they admitted that this test had basically no correlation to the driving that virtually all of their subscribers engage in. These taxis ran 10 or more hours a day and rarely were shut down during the day. Also, 60,000 miles is, in my opinion, not enough mileage to even begin to gauge differences in engine wear unless something is very dramatically wrong. So even this test, which they said was very expensive, was virtually useless in the end. >>I find it useful be low about 20F and I encounter this for 12-16 weeks a >> year on average. > > Gah! You can have that cold weather man! :) I don't mind it for the most part, but as I approach 50 it is getting a little less fun each year. Then again, there is nothing like sitting in front of a wood fire with a cup of hot chocolate or coffee in hand, reading a good book, and watching the big snow flakes come down. It doesn't get much better than that! Matt >> You could arrange tests on a fleet of rental cars for chump change. Believe >> me, there have been many tests. If the results were impressive and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >The closest I've seen to this was a test that Consumer Reports ran with >a fleet of taxis many years ago. With a sample size of 200, all conditions average out. >> Gah! You can have that cold weather man! :) > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >reading a good book, and watching the big snow flakes come down. It >doesn't get much better than that! Ya, I miss that part. Here in Louisiana, I have no excuse for not being out working. :( SignatureBob >>>You could arrange tests on a fleet of rental cars for chump change. Believe >>>me, there have been many tests. If the results were impressive and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > With a sample size of 200, all conditions average out. Not necessarily. And it would be hard to cover the full range of driving conditions encountered in the USA with only 100 cars with each type of oil. However, let me know when you plan to start the test and I'll drive one of the cars for you ... no charge! :-) Matt >>>I actually don't think this has been done as the cost of doing so is >>>enormous. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > what sample size you would need to ensure statistical significance, > but I know it is a lot more than one for each condition being tested. If the engines are otherwise identical, you would not need a lot more than, say, 15 tested with each kind of oil to detect a difference that is practically as well as statistically significant. On the other hand, if we are setting up a test of engine lifetimes on different oils, the experiment may have to be run for a long time. Sinan SignatureA. Sinan Unur <1usa@llenroc.ude.invalid> (remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address) > Are they using identical engines? If not, you can't make a direct > comparison. What other variables are there? To draw any conclusion, you > have to control the test parameters and only change one variable at a > time. That's the basis of the scientific method. Actually, that isn't the basis of the scientific method, at least not for sophisticated scientists. In many "real world" situations, this simply isn't possible, yet much science is still accomplished. Look up Taguchi for more information. Matt >> Are they using identical engines? If not, you can't make a direct >> comparison. What other variables are there? To draw any conclusion, you [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >simply isn't possible, yet much science is still accomplished. Look up >Taguchi for more information. You can do controlled, high-precision tests on few parts, or take the empirical route with many samples. If it were me, I would test it on a fleet of 200 identical cars. 100 with, 100 without synthetic oil. After 100K miles, tear them all down and measure all ID's and OD's. Average them up, and there you have a valid test. Even with that many samples, you may not get a statistically significant variation between oil types. SignatureBob >>>Are they using identical engines? If not, you can't make a direct >>>comparison. What other variables are there? To draw any conclusion, you [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > You can do controlled, high-precision tests on few parts, or take the > empirical route with many samples. Testing/experimentation IS the empirical route! Look up the meaning of empirical... > If it were me, I would test it on a fleet of 200 identical cars. 100 with, > 100 without synthetic oil. After 100K miles, tear them all down and measure > all ID's and OD's. Average them up, and there you have a valid test. Even > with that many samples, you may not get a statistically significant > variation between oil types. I'd do something similar, but I'd run at least 200K miles and preferably longer. Almost anything will last 100K these days and I'm not even intested in engines that won't go at least 200K! You'd also have to put extensive data recorders on each car to find out the driving conditions each experienced so you could try to normalize the data. This would be a great experiment. When do you plan to start it? :-) Matt >You'd also have to put extensive data recorders on each car to find out >the driving conditions each experienced so you could try to normalize >the data. > >This would be a great experiment. When do you plan to start it? :-) No, I'm afraid my quality assurance days are over. And I'm glad of it! :-) SignatureBob >> Are they using identical engines? If not, you can't make a direct >> comparison. What other variables are there? To draw any conclusion, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > simply isn't possible, yet much science is still accomplished. Look up > Taguchi for more information. Fair enough, but there are limits to how far you can stretch this before the results are meaningless. Comparing different engines under different loads, then trying to draw correlations between continuous running and frequent stops/starts seems pretty far-fetched. Results from such a test could might indicate that a more definitive test may be worthwhile, but in and of themselves they'd be largely meaningless. >>> Are they using identical engines? If not, you can't make a direct >>> comparison. What other variables are there? To draw any conclusion, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > could might indicate that a more definitive test may be worthwhile, but > in and of themselves they'd be largely meaningless. Yes, I agree that it is very difficult and that is the reason that I believe it has never been done. A test worth doing would cost literally multiple millions of dollars and just isn't worth it to anyone. Matt > Unfortunately, without knowing the scale of the bar grapha, a 2X > difference is meaningless. To make an analogy, an amplifier with .002% > total harmonic distortion has 2X as much as one with .001%, but > neither is audible. In practical terms, it makes no difference. > Perhaps the oil study is different, but we have no way of knowing > that. The height of bars can also be deceiving due to the choice of origin: If the vertical axis of the graph starts at 10 and goes to 15, the bar for 11 will be half the size of the bar for 12. Not that I know anything about oil, but I do teach how to lie with statistics. Sinan SignatureA. Sinan Unur <1usa@llenroc.ude.invalid> (remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address) >>Unfortunately, without knowing the scale of the bar grapha, a 2X >>difference is meaningless. To make an analogy, an amplifier with .002% [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Sinan Thanks for the clear example. That's what I was trying to get across. >>> Unfortunately, without knowing the scale of the bar grapha, a 2X >>> difference is meaningless. To make an analogy, an amplifier with .002% [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Thanks for the clear example. That's what I was trying to get across. He's not saying at all what you were saying. I'm surprised you can't tell the difference. You are talking about a difference in the data and whether that difference is of significance. He's talking simply about the presentation of that data. I now understand why you have such a hard time following my arguments. If you can't tell this difference, then the concepts I'm explaining won't be understandable either, so I'll stop wasting my time now. :-) Matt >>>> Unfortunately, without knowing the scale of the bar grapha, a 2X >>>> difference is meaningless. To make an analogy, an amplifier with .002% [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > If you can't tell this difference, then the concepts I'm explaining > won't be understandable either, so I'll stop wasting my time now. :-) Nice try, but Sinan points out exactly what I was saying before. A difference of "2X" is meaningless without context. Depending on the context it can be a big difference, or completely insignificant. Do you know what the context of the data in the study you referred to is? For that matter, do you even know what parameters were measured? Was it frictional resistance? Viscocity vs. temperature? Levels of chemicals as in the above analysis? Something else. Your claim of "twice as good" is meaningless unless we also know "compared to what?" >>Unfortunately, without knowing the scale of the bar grapha, a 2X >>difference is meaningless. To make an analogy, an amplifier with .002% [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Not that I know anything about oil, but I do teach how to lie with > statistics. I saw the data. I own the "How to Lie with Statistics" book that was required reading in my statistics class at Penn State a couple of decades ago. The MCN data was extremely well done. It is funny how some of you like to throw stones at data that you are too cheap to spend a few bucks to get a copy of and actually see for yourself. You must be a statistician... Matt ... >> The height of bars can also be deceiving due to the choice of origin: >> If the vertical axis of the graph starts at 10 and goes to 15, the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > too cheap to spend a few bucks to get a copy of and actually see for > yourself. On the other hand, my comment was not specifically about the data, but only about the fact that without knowing the scale of the vertical axis, the heights of the bars in bar graph do not convey meaningful information. > You must be a statistician... Frankly, I do not know anything about oil, and I don't much care. As such, I am unwilling to invest any time or money in researching the article. That should make it obvious that I am an economist who occasionally teaches statistics. Sinan SignatureA. Sinan Unur <1usa@llenroc.ude.invalid> (remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address) >Can you point me to these tests. I've never seen the off-brand >SuperTech tested anywhere. Matt, I'm coming in late here, but last I heard, SuperTech is re-labeled Penzoil/Quaker State, in turn made by Shell. I suppose that would quickly change if Wal-Mart would get a better contract from Texaco, BP, Exxon-Mobil, etc. SignatureBob >>Can you point me to these tests. I've never seen the off-brand >>SuperTech tested anywhere. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > change if Wal-Mart would get a better contract from Texaco, BP, Exxon-Mobil, > etc. Actually, SuperTech comes from Warren Oil, a large blending company that produces oils for many labels. I didn't realize how the industry worked until I checked into SuperTech oils. Many of the oils on the market are not blended by the companies that sell them. Companies like Warren buy base stocks from refiners (like Shell), blend in an additive package and resell them to companies that put their label on them. SuperTech is effectively "generic" oil, in that it comes from the same source and is likely identical to some name brands, but it's sold cheaper since it's not advertized and doesn't pass through as many hands in the supply chain. It may well be indentical to Pennzoil and/or Quaker State. >>> Can you point me to these tests. I've never seen the off-brand >>> SuperTech tested anywhere. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > not advertized and doesn't pass through as many hands in the supply > chain. It may well be indentical to Pennzoil and/or Quaker State. The oil MAY be identical, but it may not be. Even worse is that it may vary widely from lot to lot as often the oil is whatever is available at the lowest price at a given time. All crude oils aren't created equal. Also, another cost that is often less for generic oils in addition to advertising costs is QA test costs. They very likely don't test to nearly the level that a brand does who has a name to protect. Remember the hit that Quaker State took back in the 70s (if memory serves) when a bad lot of oil got out and ruined a number of people's engines. It took decades for their sales to recover, and I don't think they ever did fully recover. I used Quaker State at that time and haven't used it since. Matt >Even worse is that it may vary widely from lot to lot as often the oil is >whatever is available at the lowest price at a given time. Well, you are correct that it may be not be consistent. But if they promise Wal-Mart 1 quality level of product then try to switch up on them, they'll be in breech of contract. Wal-Mart is probably in the top 3-4 outlets for oil. They have an audit system to ensure they get consistent quality, and their suppliers only double cross them once! No, I don't think anyone would want to antagonize the golden goose. :) SignatureBob >>>> Can you point me to these tests. I've never seen the off-brand >>>> SuperTech tested anywhere. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > vary widely from lot to lot as often the oil is whatever is available at > the lowest price at a given time. All crude oils aren't created equal. It comes from ONE source and it's blended to a standard specification. The lab test I saw indicated that it was comparable to other synthetic oils on the market. Your comments are just idle speculation with no basis in fact. Fear mongering doesn't help anyone. >>>>> Can you point me to these tests. I've never seen the off-brand >>>>> SuperTech tested anywhere. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > oils on the market. Your comments are just idle speculation with no > basis in fact. Fear mongering doesn't help anyone. Again, I ask to see the mysterious data you keep referring to, but can't seem to produce a reference to. I provided a clear reference to the source of the data that I saw that is in direct conflict with your claims that all oils are created equal. Matt >>>>>> Can you point me to these tests. I've never seen the off-brand >>>>>> SuperTech tested anywhere. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > source of the data that I saw that is in direct conflict with your > claims that all oils are created equal. It's in my other post. >>>>>>> Can you point me to these tests. I've never seen the off-brand >>>>>>> SuperTech tested anywhere. [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > It's in my other post. I never saw a post with a reference in it ... other than a "you can find it in Google" which is hardly a reference. Matt >>>>>>>> Can you point me to these tests. I've never seen the off-brand >>>>>>>> SuperTech tested anywhere. [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > I never saw a post with a reference in it ... other than a "you can find > it in Google" which is hardly a reference. Apparently, posts with attached binary files are blocked by the news server, as I've tried twice to post the .jpg of the oil analysis. I'll email it to you if you want it and it won't even cost you anything. > Apparently, posts with attached binary files are blocked by the news > server, as I've tried twice to post the .jpg of the oil analysis. I'll > email it to you if you want it and it won't even cost you anything. Please do. Matt >Actually, SuperTech comes from Warren Oil, a large blending company that There, you see? I told you it could change quickly! :) Thanks for the heads up Brian. SignatureBob > On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 13:02:23 GMT, Brian Nystrom > <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Thanks for the heads up Brian. Super Tech oil is packaged by Warren Oil. They do not add or delete anything from the oil that they repackage. I've been using Super Tech synthetic in my vehicle for several years with no problems, and I called them to find out what kind it was. They said it's made by specialty oil which is Pennzoil, or Quaker State - they are the same, just different bottles. http://www.wd-wpp.com/index.html Just type super tech in the product name box http://msds.walmartstores.com/ >Super Tech oil is packaged by Warren Oil. They do not add or delete anything >from the oil that they repackage. I've been using Super Tech synthetic in my [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Just type super tech in the product name box http://msds.walmartstores.com/ Ah! So I WAS right! SignatureBob >>Super Tech oil is packaged by Warren Oil. They do not add or delete anything > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Ah! So I WAS right! If you search on "synthetic", you'll see that both Specialty and Warren are listed for SuperTech synthetic oils. I'm not sure if one is the manufacturer and the other is the distributor or what, but the dates on the MSDS's overlap. > If you search on "synthetic", you'll see that both Specialty and Warren > are listed for SuperTech synthetic oils. I'm not sure if one is the > manufacturer and the other is the distributor or what, but the dates on > the MSDS's overlap. And you accuse me of fear mongering for not wanting to use an oil where the source can't even be determined? :-) Matt >> If you search on "synthetic", you'll see that both Specialty and >> Warren are listed for SuperTech synthetic oils. I'm not sure if one is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > And you accuse me of fear mongering for not wanting to use an oil where > the source can't even be determined? :-) The source is known (Warren Oil). It's the MSDSs that are confusing. The data on the product is in my other post. Now it's your turn to put up or shut up. So far, you've given us nothing but a link to an article that we would have to purchase. I'm not going to do that. >>> If you search on "synthetic", you'll see that both Specialty and >>> Warren are listed for SuperTech synthetic oils. I'm not sure if one [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > shut up. So far, you've given us nothing but a link to an article that > we would have to purchase. I'm not going to do that. I understand you not wanting to see the data as that would put to rest all of your complaints about it. The report isn't available for free, nothing I can do about that. Most legitimate data isn't free. Matt >>>> If you search on "synthetic", you'll see that both Specialty and >>>> Warren are listed for SuperTech synthetic oils. I'm not sure if one [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > all of your complaints about it. The report isn't available for free, > nothing I can do about that. Most legitimate data isn't free. Again, nice try, but the issue is that I'm not going to spend money on an outdated article that will probably prove nothing. Don't know where you're getting your info but it ain't right.There IS a difference between synthetics,Castrol syntec being the worst in every SAE and independent tests I've read.I've been a proponent of Synthetics since 1975 and have used Mobil 1 or Shell Rotella in every vehicle I own.Amsoil is good but WAY to EXPENSIVE.Mobil Delvac is also excellent but I can't get it around here. RIPPER FREEDOM WILL NEVER BE FREE! BOYCOTT CALIFORNIA SPORT TOURING! > Don't know where you're getting your info but it ain't right.There IS a > difference between synthetics,Castrol syntec being the worst in every > SAE and independent tests I've read. If you say so, but relative to what? How much of a difference is there? Test results are great and they're certainly important, but if they're splitting hairs, they don't mean much in the real world. Have you ever seen a test that rated a synthetic below a natural oil? If the latter is good enough to do the job according to the manufacturer of the engine, isn't it fair to assume that ANY synthetic will greatly exceed the needs of the engine? Is there any API certified oil that won't protect an engine adequately for the 7500 miles that Hyundai specifies between changes, assuming one uses the proper viscocity? I have yet to see any data that indicates that there is. If you know of any, please post links here. It seems to me that the quality of the oil filter one uses is probably more important than the brand of oil, but that's another debate. > I've been a proponent of Synthetics > since 1975 and have used Mobil 1 or Shell Rotella in every vehicle I > own. OK, but what's your point? > Amsoil is good but WAY to EXPENSIVE. No argument here. > Mobil Delvac is also excellent but I can't get it around here. I don't think I've ever seen it. This is all good information to know, but I don't see how it's relevent. It's much like arguing about how many angels will fit on the head of a pin; it really doesn't matter in the real world. >> 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 Delvac is synthetic for diesels. RIPPER FREEDOM WILL NEVER BE FREE! BOYCOTT CALIFORNIA SPORT TOURING! > Out of curiosity, have you ever heard of anyone having an engine failure > due to oil that was insufficiently protective at higher temps (viscosity > breakdown)? It seems to be the thing most people worry about, but I've > never heard of such a failure. Using oils that are too heavy and cause > starvation seems to be a much bigger issue, at least in modern engines. I can't say that I've ever seen a failure that I could attribute to the oil, other than the lack of it. I run synthetics simply for the better cold starts in the winters I live in. Otherwise, I believe it is overkill for the type of driving I do the rest of the year. Matt >> Out of curiosity, have you ever heard of anyone having an engine >> failure due to oil that was insufficiently protective at higher temps [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > cold starts in the winters I live in. Otherwise, I believe it is > overkill for the type of driving I do the rest of the year. I would say the same thing. |
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
|
©2008 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.