 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Toyota / Camry / April 2008Synthetic oil in hybrid
My local service manager who has been at this for almost 30 years and is good (IMO) told me today he wouldn't use synthetic oil in my (2007 Camry) hybrid. Something about the viscosity, IIRC, and the fact that the engine runs a while then stops and starts often. He said Mobil hasn't developed the new formula yet, whatever that means. I didn't quite get the picture from the brief conversation, as I was having my car taken in to remove the original oil filter that was put on with vacuum pressure so that I couldn't remove it with any filter wrench (I hate that they do that at the factory). I read other threads in her about synthetic oils, but do not understand why current synthetics (e.g., Mobil 1 or Castrol) would not be advisable in a hybrid, assuming oil and filter changes every 5,000 miles. Any information or pointers would be appreciated. Thanks. .............................. Someone who thinks logically provides a nice contrast to the real world. > My local service manager who has been at this for almost 30 years and is > good (IMO) told me today he wouldn't use synthetic oil in my (2007 Camry) [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > .............................. > Someone who thinks logically provides a nice contrast to the real world. Just another example of a Toyota dealer/employee blowing smoke out of their a.s. > "Route 101?" <as...@for.it> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > - Show quoted text - What an idiot the service guy is, Mobil1 is the best you can get and is the most updated in formulas. There are different classes of synthetics. Synthetic esters (Group V) and Polyalphaolefin (Group IV) are better than Hydrocracked (Group III). But any of these are better than the dino oil or cheap synthetic blends your local dealer tries to sell you at a premium. The Camry uses a gasoline engine, so there is an API certified motor oil for it in the US. No exceptions. If you need to find a guide to good synthetics or how to find good synthetics, I would recommend studying these specs: BMW Longlife 01 GM-LL-A-025 Mercedes MB229.5 Porsche Approval List 02 VW 502.00, 505.00, 503.01 No, Toyota doesn't have any advanced specification like the above. On Aug 8, 9:27 am, "Route 101?" <as...@for.it> wrote: > My local service manager who has been at this for almost 30 years and is > good (IMO) told me today he wouldn't use synthetic oil in my (2007 Camry) [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > .............................. > Someone who thinks logically provides a nice contrast to the real world. Thanks for the reply. How can I tell which group a given synthetic is in? Tried google and got only some dated word of mouth suggestions and a plethora of Amsoil ad sites. There are different classes of synthetics. Synthetic esters (Group V) and Polyalphaolefin (Group IV) are better than Hydrocracked (Group III). But any of these are better than the dino oil or cheap synthetic blends your local dealer tries to sell you at a premium. The Camry uses a gasoline engine, so there is an API certified motor oil for it in the US. No exceptions. If you need to find a guide to good synthetics or how to find good synthetics, I would recommend studying these specs: BMW Longlife 01 GM-LL-A-025 Mercedes MB229.5 Porsche Approval List 02 VW 502.00, 505.00, 503.01 No, Toyota doesn't have any advanced specification like the above. On Aug 8, 9:27 am, "Route 101©" <as...@for.it> wrote: > My local service manager who has been at this for almost 30 years and is > good (IMO) told me today he wouldn't use synthetic oil in my (2007 Camry) [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > .............................. > Someone who thinks logically provides a nice contrast to the real world. I personally use dino oil and Purolator PureOne or Bosch Filtech, but would go with the advanced specifications listed. BMW's LL98 specs Group III. The LL01 may be Group IV or V, I don't know. The BMW LL04 oils need to work with the new BMW filter to prevent long term blocking of the filter element, as in Castrol's new "Clean Performance Technology" oils. But don't try any of these "extended service" game in a Toyota. You'll get the synthetic benefit (Group III to V) during the 3000-5000 miles* service, but as I mentioned in another post, the crankcase sizes and filters of Toyotas are NOT designed for extended drain intervals. (* Note: Toyota in 2004 reduced the 7500-mile service interval down to 5000 miles because of engine sludge problems). I looked at the Mobiloil.com MSDS sheets, but they made no differentiation there. So contacting the motor oil company is the most reliable way. In the Mobil MSDS: "Mobil 1 5W-30 is made with a proprietary blend of high performance synthetic basestocks fortified with an advanced additive system." Mobil 1 0W-40 is made with a proprietary blend of ultra high performance synthetic basestocks fortified with Supersyn Technology. On Aug 10, 10:06 am, "Route 101?" <as...@for.it> wrote: > Thanks for the reply. How can I tell which group a given synthetic is in? > Tried google and got only some dated word of mouth suggestions and a [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > .............................. > > Someone who thinks logically provides a nice contrast to the real world. Have you compared the optimal operating temperature(s) of synthetic's to non synthetic's? The Camry Hybrid gas engine doe not run the same as a non-Hybrid. The Hybrid starts and stops frequently during normal driving, whereas a non-Hybrid runs continuously. This means the Hybrid engine will run cooler during the same driving run compared to a non-Hybrid engine. On short drives, with the Hybrid engines, this cooler temperature, has the potential of being very damaging if the oil is too heavy and doesn't flow to right spots quickly or quick enough. So, an oils viscosity would be very important if the engine it's in doesn't get up to the oil's optimal operating temperature quick enough. I personally use dino oil and Purolator PureOne or Bosch Filtech, but would go with the advanced specifications listed. BMW's LL98 specs Group III. The LL01 may be Group IV or V, I don't know. The BMW LL04 oils need to work with the new BMW filter to prevent long term blocking of the filter element, as in Castrol's new "Clean Performance Technology" oils. But don't try any of these "extended service" game in a Toyota. You'll get the synthetic benefit (Group III to V) during the 3000-5000 miles* service, but as I mentioned in another post, the crankcase sizes and filters of Toyotas are NOT designed for extended drain intervals. (* Note: Toyota in 2004 reduced the 7500-mile service interval down to 5000 miles because of engine sludge problems). I looked at the Mobiloil.com MSDS sheets, but they made no differentiation there. So contacting the motor oil company is the most reliable way. In the Mobil MSDS: "Mobil 1 5W-30 is made with a proprietary blend of high performance synthetic basestocks fortified with an advanced additive system." Mobil 1 0W-40 is made with a proprietary blend of ultra high performance synthetic basestocks fortified with Supersyn Technology. On Aug 10, 10:06 am, "Route 101©" <as...@for.it> wrote: > Thanks for the reply. How can I tell which group a given synthetic is in? > Tried google and got only some dated word of mouth suggestions and a [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > .............................. > > Someone who thinks logically provides a nice contrast to the real world. I think the comparison is made in viscosity index, such as ASTM D 445 KV or centistokes (cSt) at 40 and 100 deg C. If dino and synthetics both meet the requirements, why not? > Have you compared the optimal operating temperature(s) of synthetic's to non > synthetic's? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > important if the engine it's in doesn't get up to the oil's optimal > operating temperature quick enough. The worst moment for an internal combustion engine is when it's first started. The Camry Hybrid engine runs at a much cooler temperature than a non-Hybrid engine due to it's continuous starting and stopping. Why not? You don't know whether they meet the requirements, you're comparing apples to oranges! The Spec's on the synthetic oil label's are for non-Hybrid engine's. Route 101's service tech isn't limiting the choice of non-Synthetic oil's, just cautioning against using a synthetic oil in the Hybrid, at least at this time. A smart person would yield to the side of caution, especially when it comes to new technologies, such as the Camry Hybrid engine. >I think the comparison is made in viscosity index, such as ASTM D 445 > KV or centistokes (cSt) at 40 and 100 deg C. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> important if the engine it's in doesn't get up to the oil's optimal >> operating temperature quick enough. > The worst moment for an internal combustion engine is when it's first > started. The Camry Hybrid engine runs at a much cooler temperature than a [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > - Show quoted text - The hybrid would therefore benefit from synthetics ability to flow more at lower temps, which is why in real cold climates regular oil can ruin a motor from being to thick to flow when real cold out. Also isnt synthetic less prone to sludge from cold running. Id say use synthetic and he will get maybe 1-2 better mpg with mobil 1 On Apr 15, 8:10 am, "Steve Hiner" <shi...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > The worst moment for an internal combustion engine is when it's first > started. The Camry Hybrid engine runs at a much cooler temperature than a [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > - Show quoted text - The hybrid would therefore benefit from synthetics ability to flow more at lower temps, which is why in real cold climates regular oil can ruin a motor from being to thick to flow when real cold out. Also isnt synthetic less prone to sludge from cold running. Id say use synthetic and he will get maybe 1-2 better mpg with mobil 1 If, in fact, synthetic's do flow better at lower temp's than conventional oil, then yes it would be a benefit. But, I've not seen proof that that's the case with any of the synthetic's. Sludge isn't produced by cold(er) running. It's produced by high(er) temperature breakdown within the oil molecules, then when the engine cools down the oil isn't as viscous as it once was. Colder temperatures do effect viscosity, but, the sludge condition has all ready occurred. Yes, synthetic's are less prone to sludging. > On Apr 15, 8:10 am, "Steve Hiner" <shi...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Synthetic pours when regular oil wont at maybe -40f is so well known Im suprised you havnt heard about it, Sludge is made when motors dont get warm , from 1-2 mile a day trips to the store at cold temps when the water and gas byproducts cant boil out. My parents ruined their oil in 2000 miles one winter, from just doing the 2 mile trip, the same car I just put on 4500 and the oil was cleaner then the day I saw it at 2000. I know Mobil 1 site discusses cold weather affecting oil. Highway driving or high temp is when oils last longest. On Apr 15, 2:18 pm, "Steve Hiner" <shi...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > "ransley" <Mark_Rans...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Synthetic pours when regular oil wont at maybe -40f is so well known Im suprised you havnt heard about it, Sludge is made when motors dont get warm , from 1-2 mile a day trips to the store at cold temps when the water and gas byproducts cant boil out. My parents ruined their oil in 2000 miles one winter, from just doing the 2 mile trip, the same car I just put on 4500 and the oil was cleaner then the day I saw it at 2000. I know Mobil 1 site discusses cold weather affecting oil. Highway driving or high temp is when oils last longest. You are, somewhat, correct when talking about sludge production at extremely low temperatures. I was talking about uses in area's that are normally above freezing, on average. Most of the complaints to Toyota, at this web site, are above freezing, on average. http://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/toyota_engine.html Try this site: Oil sludge is the breakdown product of over-stressed oil in your engine. Oil that is stressed by contaminants and oxidation-or has to work thousands of miles longer than it was designed to-will break down into a gel that sticks to your engine parts. As the sludge sticks, there is less good oil to circulate and do its protective job. This coating of gel also stores heat instead of releasing it which stresses the radiator and cooling system. Although at first the motor oil level may appear OK, a sludgy engine is being damaged with EVERY stroke. Your engine may lose oil pressure, get terrible gas mileage, and other components might mysteriously fail such as timing belts, idle speed controls, and gaskets. Sludge begins to appear in the oil pan and valve covers. Oil filler cap inspection as an indicator of sludge build-up is not conclusive, as normal engines can have a small amount of sludge and condensation present at this 'high point' of the crankcase. http://www.schleeter.com/oil-sludge.htm > On Apr 15, 2:18 pm, "Steve Hiner" <shi...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 103 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I think the over long 7500 mile change requirements are what is to blame for sludge since the avg driver drives what is considered Harsh conditions. At 5000 my oil always looks real bad, at 7000 its has a real bad odor. I try to change at 4000. > I think the over long 7500 mile change requirements are what is to > blame for sludge since the avg driver drives what is considered Harsh > conditions. At 5000 my oil always looks real bad, at 7000 its has a >real bad odor. I try to change at 4000. People who experience sludge typically DO NOT adhere to 7500 change intervals. In fact, most of these people simply forgot or didn't know that the oil needed to be changed. Toyota sells roughly 10 million vehicles Each Year world-wide. If only one percent of customers don't change their oil on a regular basis, that amounts to 100,000 vehicles. Assuming that there are at least 50 million Toyota vehicles still on the road world-wide, that would mean that there are 500,000 vehicles being driven without regular oil changes (I think the number is much higher). This is how sludge occurs. It does not occur because of people changing their oil at 7500 mile intervals. Conventional oil will definitely show its age after about 3000 to 4000 miles. Full synthetic oil can usually go twice that long before the same deterioration occurs. Your interval is out of date. Toyota in 2004 reduced the 7500 mile interval down to 5000 miles because of sludge concerns. So you think customers of European cars, many with 15,000 mile intervals, don't forget? Maybe Toyota is simply saying that its customers aren't so smart? I think you pointed out correctly that a smart person should read between the lines of what Toyota says. Otherwise you can buy an ocean front property in Arizona. And the seller will throw the Golden Gate in free. (-G. Strait). > People who experience sludge typically DO NOT adhere to 7500 change > intervals. In fact, most of these people simply forgot or didn't know that [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > miles. Full synthetic oil can usually go twice that long before the same > deterioration occurs. > Your interval is out of date. Toyota in 2004 reduced the 7500 mile > interval down to 5000 miles because of sludge concerns. So you think [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > front property in Arizona. And the seller will throw the Golden Gate > in free. (-G. Strait). My interval is not out of date. I said that people with sludge do not change their oil at least every 7500 miles. It doesn't matter what Toyota says, I was talking about reality of how often people with sludge change their oil (or never change it). It is true that recent V6 Toyotas are more susceptible to sludge than most other cars, but it is still a fact that there it is very rare for sludge to appear in a Toyota V6 where the oil is changed at least every 7500 miles (yes I know Toyota says 5000 miles). Given that a large number of people either forget to change their oil, or don't know they need to change their oil, then sludge will show up more often in the Toyota V6 compared to other engines. But that does not obviate the fact that it is very rare for sludge to appear in a engine where the oil is changed at least every 7500 miles (yes I know says 5000). > <johngd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > to appear in a engine where the oil is changed at least every 7500 miles > (yes I know says 5000). Ok sorry, for my type of city driving I cant go 7500 , I cant go 5000. >"ransley" <Mark_Ransley@yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:f6a27d71-ef97-4af3-b9e1- >Ok sorry, for my type of city driving I cant go 7500 , I cant go 5000. I am not recommending a 7500 oil change interval. All I said is that people who get sludge do not change their oil at least every 7500 miles or less. If your 7500 interval is true, then Hondas, GMs, VWs and many others will be sludging up with 10,000-15,000 mile oil intervals. So have you heard any dealer-maintained Hondas sludge up? NO! But dealer maintained Toyotas had sludged up. > My interval is not out of date. I said that people with sludge do not change > their oil at least every 7500 miles. It doesn't matter what Toyota says, I > was talking about reality of how often people with sludge change their oil > (or never change it). On Apr 17, 8:14 pm, johngd...@hotmail.com wrote: > If your 7500 interval is true, then Hondas, GMs, VWs and many others > will be sludging up with 10,000-15,000 mile oil intervals. So have you [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > - Show quoted text - What I cant figure is how can change intervals have increased over the years for some cars when my oil, Mobil one looks pretty bad at 5000, 15000 , it just sounds wrong, I mean they dont hold 5 gallons of oil or have giant truck filters, and they are gasolene motors. I would never feel safe waiting that long. If some state 15000 thats a car I would never buy used as you know the seller went at least 15000. I skipped one filter change once, when I changed it with maybe 8000 on it it was realy sludged up, to me, 3-5000 is still the way to go no matter what oil is used, for all cars. After all it still is a gasolene motor. I agree with you on the oil intervals on cars for the masses, like Toyotas. Oil looks bad to my taste at 4000 miles already most highway. You know the Mobil-1 5W-30 doesn't make the BMW LL01 cut, but it's 0W-40 does! Today, better gasoline (Top Tier, toptiergas.com) and oils (such as BMW high specification LL01/04), tight engineering tolerances (bearing, ring oil clearances etc), better metallurgy (a piston doesn't expand much heating up, like the famed Mahle), fuel atomization and whole bunch of other factors you can google all day will help in reducing soot loading the oil and other oil stresses like blowby fuel dilution etc.. Extended drain intervals cars like VWs, Audis, BMW, Mercedes etc typically have larger crankcases and the oils need to be designed to work with the oil filters to reduce filter loading during the long service interval. Castrol's website describes how they work with BMW on this issue. That's why I say don't play the extended drain game with Toyotas. Toyotas are NOT designed for extended oil drain intervals. People WILL benefit from using synthetics especially the Group IV/V, but only up to the recommended interval (quite often less than that in lesser cars). Note that in many countries Group III hydrocracked "synthetics" CANNOT be called synthetics. US EPA has an aritcle on oil life extension, you can look at some of the factors that reduce oil life and deduce factors that will hurt oil life on the oil and engine sides. http://www.epa.gov/region09/waste/p2/autofleet/oil.pdf > What I cant figure is how can change intervals have increased over the > years for some cars when my oil, Mobil one looks pretty bad at 5000, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > matter what oil is used, for all cars. After all it still is a > gasolene motor. Here is the article: It's an MB 229.51 and BMW LL04 oil for both diesel and petro engines I guess in Europe for now. Castrol Introduces a New Revolutionary Oil for the BMW Group Press Release 'Clean Performance TechnologyTM' Castrol, strategic partner of BMW, have developed a new lubricant with `Clean Performance TechnologyTM` in close cooperation with BMW, which sets new standards in the industry. Castrol SLX LL04 0W-30 is specially engineered to keep the engine and exhaust system clean, reducing harmful emissions to the environment. SLX LL04 is developed for the new generation of BMW's with particulate filters and meets the latest specifications BMW Longlife-04. Due to its `Clean Performance TechnologyTM`, SLX LL04 reduces long term blocking of the particle filters and can be used in all BMW diesel and petrol engines (excluding M series). Castrol is the first lubricant manufacturer to bring a `Clean Performance TechnologyTM` oil onto the market. BMW have started fitting diesel particulate filters (DPF's) to their cars. Initially the BMW 5 series will be offered with a DPF, other models such as the new 3 series will follow. These new diesel engines fitted with a DPF need an engine oil based on new lubricant technology. Together with the engine management system the DPF ensures long-term reduction of particle emissions. In order to prolong the durability of the DPF the so called 'Low SAPS' oils are required. Castrol's `Clean Performance TechnologyTM` is a totally new 'Low SAPS' formulation containing lower levels of Sulphated Ash, Phosphorous and Sulphur compared with conventional oils. Castrol's 'Clean Performance TechnologyTM' is specially engineered to keep the engine and exhaust system clean, reducing harmful emissions to the environment. High levels of metal-based additives in engine oil can contribute to long term blocking of exhaust filters and increased harmful emissions. 'Clean Performance TechnologyTM', from Castrol, uses low levels of these metal-based additives to prolong the life of the exhaust system. By keeping exhaust systems clear, Castrol's 'Clean Performance TechnologyTM' provides superior power flow through the engine, maintaining vehicle performance and fuel economy. With Castrol's revolutionary `Clean Performance TechnologyTM`, new Castrol SLX LL04 meets the requirements of the future generation of both diesel and petrol engines of the BMW Group. Key features and benefits of Castrol SLX LL04 0W-30: Features: * New 'Clean Performance TechnologyTM' * Special Fully Synthetic 0W-30 Low SAPS formulation * Compatible with Diesel Particulate Filters * Long drain capability * Approved to BMW Longlife-04 (including Longlife-01) Benefits: * Cleaner environment (reduced emissions of harmful particulates from the exhaust) * Helps keep exhaust system clean * Maintains engine performance and fuel economy * Prolongs durability of the exhaust system * Fast cold start properties through 0W viscosity Castrol SLX LL04 is the first engine oil, which fulfills the new BMW Longlife-04 specification. With the `Clean Performance TechnologyTM` it has a wide range of applications from the latest diesels fitted with DPF filters to new and existing petrol engine technology. The new product offers profitable opportunities for the BMW network. Castrol will support the dealers with tailor made marketing and communication concepts to exploit this new opportunity. Source: Text courtesy BP Lubricants On Apr 18, 8:19 pm, johngd...@hotmail.com wrote: > Extended drain intervals cars like VWs, Audis, BMW, Mercedes etc > typically have larger crankcases and the oils need to be designed to > work with the oil filters to reduce filter loading during the long > service interval. Castrol's website describes how they work with BMW > on this issue. > Extended drain intervals cars like VWs, Audis, BMW, Mercedes etc > typically have larger crankcases and the oils need to be designed to > work with the oil filters to reduce filter loading during the long > service interval. Castrol's website describes how they work with BMW > on this issue. All true. > That's why I say don't play the extended drain game with Toyotas. > Toyotas are NOT designed for extended oil drain intervals. People WILL > benefit from using synthetics especially the Group IV/V, but only up > to the recommended interval (quite often less than that in lesser > cars). Note that in many countries Group III hydrocracked "synthetics" > CANNOT be called synthetics. You can extend intervals with any car, but you need to assitance of oil analysis to figure out how far you can go. As long as the viscosity and the TBN are OK, and there is good air filtration so excessive dirt isn't in the oil, you can continue. (the color of the oil doesn't mean anything that is reliable) And there should be a safety margin. But most people are not willing to do the work to find out. Analysis' cost money and you need to learn how to interpret the results or have an expert do that for you. Mercedes, BMW and etc. have done that work for those owners. There is no evidence at all that using synthetics reduces wear vis a vis petrol basestocks if the oil is still servicable. (i.e. TBN and viscosity are OK and no excessive dirt contamination) Synthetics are only better at the extremes of performance, which is why doing extended intervals makes sense with them. Using synthetics simply for "lower wear" is a myth and a waste of resources and money. > johngd...@hotmail.com wrote: > > Extended drain intervals cars like VWs, Audis, BMW, Mercedes etc [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > sense with them. Using synthetics simply for "lower wear" is a myth and a > waste of resources and money. A myth, is better mpg a myth, no, less friction means less wear. BMW did a test years ago and found wear with synthetics was less. Its the additive package that makes a difference in the oils >"ransley" <Mark_Ransley@yahoo.com> wrote in message >A myth, is better mpg >a myth, no, less friction means less wear. BMW >did a test years ago and found wear with synthetics was less. Its the >additive package that makes a difference in the oils Many people are still quoting the Consumer Reports study done using NYC taxi cabs about 20 years ago. The problem with that study is that the cars were large rear wheel drive (obsolete) US designs (Ford Crown Vic or equivalent) which had very loose engine tolerances, and are nothing like engines used today (especially in Japanese cars). On a modern Toyota engine, full synthetic will definitely incur less engine wear and increase mileage slightly. The mileage increase used to be considered negligible (about 1-2%), but these days it is probably enough (or almost enough) to pay for the increased cost of synthetic oil (especially if you also increase the oil change interval from 3000 miles to 5000 miles). > >"ransley" <Mark_Rans...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >A myth, is better mpg > >a myth, no, less friction means less wear. BMW [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > almost enough) to pay for the increased cost of synthetic oil (especially if > you also increase the oil change interval from 3000 miles to 5000 miles). I get 1 mpg better with mobil1, it also means less wear, since there is less friction. > I get 1 mpg better with mobil1, it also means less wear, since there > is less friction. That is about 4% improvement. I don't doubt it, but I usually quote the 2% figure to be more conservative in my claims. BTW, a 4% improvement in gas mileage is about $28 in savings over 5000 miles, easily enough to pay for the difference between synthetic and conventional oil. > > I get 1 mpg better with mobil1, it also means less wear, since there > > is less friction. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > miles, easily enough to pay for the difference between synthetic and > conventional oil. I also notice an improvement with Mobil synthetic in the trans and transfer case *** Sure Mobil 1 Advanced Fuel Economy FAQ: http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Oils/Mobil_1_FAQs.aspx#FAQs4 How much can I save with Mobil 1 Advanced Fuel Economy? Mobil 1 Advanced Fuel Economy oils deliver up to 2 percent fuel economy improvement and can save drivers over $400 on gasoline over the life of their vehicles. That’s a savings of about six cents per gallon of fuel. A *** Look at the first of Castrol Syntech's claims: http://www.castrol.com/castrol/productdetail.do?categoryId=82915470&contentId=6030793 Key Benefits * No leading motor oil provide more horsepower (10W-30 as tested vs. leading competitive 10W-30S) * SYNTEC provides superior protection against deposits. Corrosive particles such as acid, soot and oxidized fuel fragments can cause costly damage to critical engine parts. * SYNTEC contains a Powerful Additive Package that neutralizes corrosive particles, preventing them from grouping together and forming sludge. * Neutralizes acids in your engine that can cause rust and corrosion on vital engine parts such as cylinders, bearings and hydraulic valve lifters. * SYNTEC meets the world's toughest gasoline engine protection requirements. * SYNTEC provides Stability & Endurance under extreme conditions (heat, load, speed) that can cause conventional oils to break down. * SYNTEC delivers the ultimate performance under high-temperature conditions: unsurpassed protection against volatility burn-off and viscosity increase. * SYNTEC can be used with confidence in every gasoline engine passenger car, new or old, regardless of oil previously used. * SYNTEC is fully compatible with all conventional and synthetic oils. * SYNTEC offers a level of protection that Outperforms All Leading Conventional Oils, passing severe industry torture tests. > I get 1 mpg better with mobil1, it also means less wear, since there > is less friction. >> "ransley" <Mark_Ransley@yahoo.com> wrote in message >A myth, is better mpg >> a myth, no, less friction means less wear. BMW [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > almost enough) to pay for the increased cost of synthetic oil (especially if > you also increase the oil change interval from 3000 miles to 5000 miles). After all these years you'd think that there would be at least one published study that showed a provable benefit in terms of wear, MPG, or extended change intervals for synthetics uses in non-high performance engines, operated in moderate climates. But there isn't one. There's anecdotes by users of synthetics, there's claims by companies like Amsoil which have never been validated, etc. Of course there probably have been plenty of studies that were done but not published because they didn't have the results that the company paying for the study wanted. > >> "ransley" <Mark_Rans...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >A myth, is better mpg > >> a myth, no, less friction means less wear. BMW [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > - Show quoted text - What about BMWs test showing almost no wear, what about 2 stroke oils where several manufacturers allow a leaner mix with synthetic. I know one lawn maintenance co here that runs about 300 machines and states they have cut maintenance on machines by 30-50%. I think results are out there. True the biggest benefit is racing, but here it goes to -20f. Motors are made so well today compared to the 60s-70s before CAD and computer machining that tolerances are tighter, today 200000+ on a motor is not unusal and the car is often junk at 100000, true most wont benefit. But motors cost to much to replace and I see a mpg increase. > What about BMWs test showing almost no wear, what about 2 stroke oils > where several manufacturers allow a leaner mix with synthetic. I know [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > wont benefit. But motors cost to much to replace and I see a mpg > increase. The problem with these anecdotes about 200K miles on synthetic is that there are also anecdotes about 200K miles on conventional oil, and tests that also show very little wear. I think what many people don't realize is that conventional oil isn't pumped out of the ground and then bottled for sale. The base stock is different, but both are highly engineered products. The synthetic base stock is a benefit for high-performance engines, engines operated in extremely cold climates, and for vehicles where the manufacturer specifies extended change intervals. But you've got a lot of people throwing money away using high-priced synthetics in regular engines, in temperate climates, with the same 5000 mile oil change interval used for conventional oil. You've got a bunch of Amsoil sales people trying to promote this ridiculous waste of money, which is bad enough, but what's worse is those that are using non-API approved synthetics with excessive levels of ZDDP which harms the catalytic converter. > The problem with these anecdotes about 200K miles on synthetic is that > there are also anecdotes about 200K miles on conventional oil, and tests [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > synthetics with excessive levels of ZDDP which harms the catalytic > converter. If you can get a 2% increase in fuel mileage, then the cost difference is neglibable. Calling Mobil 1 a ridiculous waste of money is a ridiculous statement to make (and mathematically incorrect). > If you can get a 2% increase in fuel mileage, then the cost difference is > neglibable. Calling Mobil 1 a ridiculous waste of money is a ridiculous > statement to make (and mathematically incorrect). LOL, is 2% the current claim for Mobil 1? I've seen claims on Amsoil web sites ranging from 5% to 15%, all with nothing to back up the claims of course. At least for Mobil 1 the claims are more modest. Some people report 1-2 MPG less with Mobil 1, some claim 2-2.3% more MPG. The reality is that none of these anecdotes are valid. You'd have to test the MPG in a lab on a test track with remote control that keeps the acceleration et al the same on all runs. You'd also need to precisely measure the fuel volumes (more than just where the gas pump shuts off automatically). You'd have to run the engine in identical environmental conditions as well. Also remember that actual mileage is dependent on far more than just internal friction of the engine components during the short time when the synthetic is at a lower viscosity at start-up. The aerodynamics don't change. > At least for Mobil 1 the claims are more modest. Some people report 1-2 > MPG less with Mobil 1, some claim 2-2.3% more MPG. The reality is that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > friction of the engine components during the short time when the synthetic > is at a lower viscosity at start-up. The aerodynamics don't change. The extra cost of synthetic oil is typically about $20 more than conventional oil (assuming 5 quarts of oil) at a discount store. Your claims that this is a ridiculous waste of money are absurd. Based on my experience and the experience of others (what you call anecdotal), a 2% improvement in gas mileage is commonly achieved. I don't have to test it in a lab to know it is correct. Testing it in a lab is a ridiculous waster of money. > The extra cost of synthetic oil is typically about $20 more than > conventional oil (assuming 5 quarts of oil) at a discount store. Your claims > that this is a ridiculous waste of money are absurd. Why do you think that? There is absolutely no evidence that synthetic oil provides better fuel economy or longer engine life (other than in high performance engines or in very cold climates). > Based on my experience and the experience of others (what you call > anecdotal), a 2% improvement in gas mileage is commonly achieved. And others have had worse mileage or no change. After all these years of synthetics, surely some manufacturer would have some real data--but they don't. Just vague claims of "up to 2%." Could be 0% could be negative. It would cost Mobil or Amsoil very little to run a real test on a track that would end any speculation about MPG differences, and would greatly increase sales of synthetic oil if a real difference in MPG were shown. But of course this would shatter the myth if they ever publicized the results of such a study. > I don't have to test it in a lab to know it is correct. Testing it in a lab is a > ridiculous waster of money. LOL, enough said! Unfortunately for the synthetic oil industry there is virtually no advantage to using synthetic oil in a non-high performance engine that is operated in moderate climates, nor has any mileage benefit ever been proven. It's one of the biggest scams around, selling people a more expensive product, that was designed for a specific purpose, that they receive no benefit from. Synthetic may give you the peace of mind of knowing that you are using an oil that is better than necessary for your vehicle, but it won't reduce wear, increase gas mileage, or extend the life of the engine. At least no oil manufacturer, and no independent testing agency has ever proven any of these claims. At least Mobil stopped promoting extended change intervals with Mobil 1, like they did when it first came on the market. > Why do you think that? There is absolutely no evidence that synthetic oil > provides better fuel economy or longer engine life (other than in high > performance engines or in very cold climates). Because I have been using synthetic oil for the past 10 years. I noticed an immediate difference as soon as I switched. Admittedly, if you have an older American car built with engine tolerances that are very loose, synthetic oil will not make much of a difference. But even newer American cars these days have decent engines and they benefit from synthetics, although I can only speak from experience using Japanese cars. You seem intent on saving the world from spending $20, and expect everyone to spend millions to so tests to prove that it worthwhile. > > Why do you think that? There is absolutely no evidence that synthetic oil > > provides better fuel economy or longer engine life (other than in high [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > You seem intent on saving the world from spending $20, and expect everyone > to spend millions to so tests to prove that it worthwhile. I think its more like an extra 15$ for me to get better mpg, and BMWs test showed little wear with the synthetic. > > What about BMWs test showing almost no wear, what about 2 stroke oils > > where several manufacturers allow a leaner mix with synthetic. I know [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > synthetics with excessive levels of ZDDP which harms the catalytic > converter. Tests were against non synthetic, extendended change is everyday here or listed as Severe Duty is what 80% of the US drives. Amsoil is a scamerrs paradise > Tests were against non synthetic, extendended change is everyday here > or listed as Severe Duty is what 80% of the US drives. Amsoil is a > scamerrs paradise These claims are always anecdotal evidence, never controlled tests. The claims for Amsoil are the most amusing. 2.3%, 4.5%, 5%, 5.7%, 8.2%, 15%, 24%, just choose any one, from any Amsoil dealer's web site, because they're all fictional. Geez, after all these years you'd think that there would be at least _one_ controlled test that compared equal viscosity synthetic to mineral base stock. Obviously there must have been some tests, but since the results weren't favorable to the company paying for them they were never released. Even Mobil 1 uses some great weasel words in their promotional material: "Fuel economy improvement is based on a comparison _versus those viscosity grades most commonly used_ and a _potential_ 2 percent fuel economy improvement. Actual savings are dependent upon vehicle/engine type, outside temperature, driving conditions and _your current engine oil viscosity_. If synthetics really did provide a measurable MPG increase then every car manufacturer would be using them at the factory and requiring their use. Remember, both synthetic and "dino" oil consist of about 65% base stock and 35% additives. Only a limited number of engines in a limited number of climates receive any benefit at all from the synthetic base stock. These synthetic oil manufacturers market their products to those that receive no benefit from them with the attitude that it's morally wrong to allow a sucker to keep his money. What's even worse is that those that are taken in won't admit it even when it's proven to them! > Geez, after all these years you'd think that there would be at least _one_ > controlled test that compared equal viscosity synthetic to mineral base > stock. Obviously there must have been some tests, but since the results > weren't favorable to the company paying for them they were never released. Since you are a person who demands proof of everything, I challenge you to back up your statement and provide one shred of evidence to prove that for every test that was conducted on the subject, the results were hidden because the results were not favorable in showing increased gas mileage for synthetic oil. As I already mentioned, there is no test that will hold true for all engines, because some engines already have so much wear, or the design tolerances are so loose, that synthetic oil does not provide much of a benefit (of course these engines are so crappy to begin with that fuel mileage is the least of their problems). If someone is not willing to spend $20 dollars extra to try synthetic oil for themselves and observe the results (what you call anecdotal evidence) then there is not much I can say in response (however I do think the best time to switch is when a car has about 5,000 to 10,000 miles on it. > Since you are a person who demands proof of everything, I challenge you to > back up your statement and provide one shred of evidence to prove that for > every test that was conducted on the subject, the results were hidden > because the results were not favorable in showing increased gas mileage for > synthetic oil. Cute. Turn the argument around to demand proof that something doesn't work, rather than providing proof that it does work. Well just provide some documentation from an independent test lab that proves that gas mileage increased at all with synthetic oil. There are none. It's one unsupported anecdote after another. It's really amusing to see someone buy a new car, calculate the MPG up until the first oil change, at 5000 miles or so, then calculate it again for the next 5000 miles and proclaim a huge advantage. MPG almost always increases by a significant amount as the engine gets broken in, and the oil has nothing to do with it. Maybe that's where those Amsoil dealers got their 25% figure! > As I already mentioned, there is no test that will hold true for all > engines, because some engines already have so much wear, or the design > tolerances are so loose, that synthetic oil does not provide much of a > benefit (of course these engines are so crappy to begin with that fuel > mileage is the least of their problems). So just take a new car with a tight tolerance engine, and run it alternately on the same viscosity oil with non-synthetic base stock and then with synthetic base stock. Surely Amsoil or Mobil could have afforded to do this. > If someone is not willing to spend $20 dollars extra to try synthetic oil > for themselves and observe the results (what you call anecdotal evidence) > then there is not much I can say in response (however I do think the best > time to switch is when a car has about 5,000 to 10,000 miles on it. Of course you do. > So just take a new car with a tight tolerance engine, and run it > alternately on the same viscosity oil with non-synthetic base stock and > then with synthetic base stock. Surely Amsoil or Mobil could have afforded > to do this. I am sure someone has done this, but not all engines are the same so to avoid law suits, the synthetic oil manufacturers don't make those claims anymore (even if it does increase fuel efficiency for 95% of vehicles). > Cute. Turn the argument around to demand proof that something doesn't > work, rather than providing proof that it does work. You are the one who made a claim (that companies are doing the tests and hiding the results). I just asked you for proof of YOUR CLAIMS. But you can't, because you are nothing but a 2-bit troll. BTW, here is the exact text of your unsupported claim: "Obviously there must have been some tests, but since the results weren't favorable to the company paying for them they were never released." > > Cute. Turn the argument around to demand proof that something doesn't > > work, rather than providing proof that it does work. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > "Obviously there must have been some tests, but since the results weren't > favorable to the company paying for them they were never released." He is a f.ck head, selling non syn oil, I get a benefit, so does anyone else using syn oil. This guy is a sh.t head who posts crap, tests are done and in but he wont want anyone to believe it, a true fucktard. > He is a f.ck head, selling non syn oil, I get a benefit, so does > anyone else using syn oil. This guy is a sh.t head who posts crap, > tests are done and in but he wont want anyone to believe it, a true > fucktard. Very eloquent. Obviously you have some links to independent tests that show some benefit in terms of MPG, _any_ benefit. We all must have missed them, so please post a link or a reference to them. Surely in the 34 years since Mobil 1 has been on the market, some independent entity must have done a test in a controlled environment that shows a measurable improvement in MPG. If it makes you feel better, the anecdotal evidence showing a decrease in MPG with synthetics is just as unsupported as the anecdotal evidence showing an increase. Do what you want with your money. The important thing is that it makes you feel better to spend it foolishly. > Obviously you have some links to independent tests that show some benefit > in terms of MPG, _any_ benefit. Let's see. You claimed the following: "Obviously there must have been some tests, but since the results weren't favorable to the company paying for them they were never released." We will show the independent links that show the benefit of synthetic oil in terms of MPG as soon as you show us the independent links that prove that companies who manufacture synthetic oil are conducting mileage tests and hiding the results because the results were not favorable. >> Obviously you have some links to independent tests that show some benefit >> in terms of MPG, _any_ benefit. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > companies who manufacture synthetic oil are conducting mileage tests and > hiding the results because the results were not favorable. Right... I guess it's pretty clear to everyone that you have absolutely no corroboration of your claims of increased mpg. Again, 34 years after Mobil introduced synthetic oil, there's still no studies that show increased mpg. No one argues that synthetics provide a benefit in cold climates where they flow more readily when cold, and in high performance engines, where the base stock doesn't break down as easily. But no one has been able to show any increased MPG from synthetics. > >> Obviously you have some links to independent tests that show some benefit > >> in terms of MPG, _any_ benefit. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > the base stock doesn't break down as easily. But no one has been able to > show any increased MPG from synthetics. I have !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > >> Obviously you have some links to independent tests that show some benefit > >> in terms of MPG, _any_ benefit. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > the base stock doesn't break down as easily. But no one has been able to > show any increased MPG from synthetics. Funny, Mobil1 has one , online, for you to use, today, butt wipe , tests are there, how about a 100000 bet you are wrong or 1,000,000,000 , I bet you decline you cheap sh.t derelict. Alzheimers, the modern truth is here at last. "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message > <snip> > But no one has been able to show any increased MPG from synthetics. Quite a few people in this forum have experienced at least a 2% improvement in fuel economy, which is almost enough these days to offset the higher price of the synthetic oil. Since we are just individuals, we don't feel like spending several million dollars to prove our claims with an independent test just to satisfy your perverse curiosity. > >> Obviously you have some links to independent tests that show some benefit > >> in terms of MPG, _any_ benefit. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > companies who manufacture synthetic oil are conducting mileage tests and > > hiding the results because the results were not favorable. > Right... I guess it's pretty clear to everyone that you have absolutely > no corroboration of your claims of increased mpg. > Again, 34 years after Mobil introduced synthetic oil, there's still no > studies that show increased mpg. > No one argues that synthetics provide a benefit in cold climates where > they flow more readily when cold, and in high performance engines, where > the base stock doesn't break down as easily. But no one has been able to > show any increased MPG from synthetics. Actually, because synthetics generally have a higher HTHS rating vis-a-vis the static viscosity, (compared to conventional oils) they are more viscous under high stress condtions and that can reduce fuel economy, although the difference is slight. For most street vehicles under average conditions, synthetics only make sense for extending drain intervals. It's amusing how many people are wasting their money draining synthetics at 3-5K service intervals. This seems to be an American cultural idiosyncrasy, because there is no technical basis for such a practice. > Actually, because synthetics generally have a higher HTHS rating vis-a-vis > the static viscosity, (compared to conventional oils) they are more viscous > under high stress condtions and that can reduce fuel economy, although the > difference is slight. Some engine manufacturers of high performance engines specify that the oil not have a decreasing HTHS under stress, so in this sense it's an advantage of the synthetic in terms of engine protection, even though it may very slightly (probably not even measurable outside a lab) decrease MPG. But for non-high performance engines the HTHS isn't going to change much more with a conventional base stock versus a synthetic base stock, because it's mainly the viscosity improvers (added to both kinds of base stock) that keep the HTHS rating within spec. > For most street vehicles under average conditions, synthetics only make sense > for extending drain intervals. It's amusing how many people are wasting > their money draining synthetics at 3-5K service intervals. The term "recreational oil changer" was coined to define people that change their oil far more than necessary because they actually enjoy doing it. It's easy to understand the psychology behind the recreational oil changing. It's the visceral feel of the tools, the victory when that old oil filter breaks free, the hot dirty oil pouring out into the container (extra satisfaction if none splashes onto the driveway), the joy of oiling of the gasket on the new filter, that new copper or fiber gasket on the drain plug, torquing the drain plug to the right torque, the clean clear oil going in, and the sense of accomplishment when you start the car, the oil light comes on for a moment, then goes out. For $8-10 in oil and parts, it's pretty cheap entertainment, but if people would be content to do it only when it provides some benefit to the vehicle it would be better. For $50 in synthetic oil and parts, it's expensive entertainment. > This seems to be > an American cultural idiosyncrasy, because there is no technical basis for > such a practice. This is true. Part of the reason is the oil change industry (like Jiffy Lube) is beating it into people's heads and in the absence of anyone telling them the truth they'll believe them. 3K is too often even for non-synthetics. Toyota switched to 5K normal interval (from 7.5K) because a few of the people that truly were operating in the "severe" category followed the "normal" interval" and experienced sludge problems. They decided it was too confusing to have two different intervals, even though relatively few owners fell into the severe category as defined by the owners manual. Changing synthetic at a 5K interval makes sense only during the warranty period of vehicles that specify a 5K change interval. On the other hand, neither base stock has an effect on the acidity of the oil, or the moisture accumulation. Synthetics become acidic, and eventually become saturated with suspended soot particles, just like regular oil. It's the additives to the base stock that determine how well they work. It's especially amusing to see people thinking that it's time for an oil change simply because their oil has become darker in color. > jjnu...@sonic.net wrote: > > Actually, because synthetics generally have a higher HTHS rating vis-a-vis [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > It's especially amusing to see people thinking that it's time for an oil > change simply because their oil has become darker in color. I see so much BULL sh.t in your peeny assed statements, that I cant respond just once, to your most complete bull sh.t refrence in your statements. Lets start with BMW did a full written test, of 200,000 miles and found "almost no wear" with syn Mobil 1 oil. And regular oils dont pour in Canadas or Chicagos -28 -45 f low temps like syns, OK AH start it . And tell me why I get more mpg with mobil 1 !!! Or tell us all why we are dreaming, and as is proof, the only way to get more MPG is through LESS FRICTION, and that means LESS ENGINE WEAR,,, YOU are a fucktard boy, time to camp you out, time to put you out to pasture. a.s hole On Apr 24, 12:05 am, jjnu...@sonic.net wrote: > > >> Obviously you have some links to independent tests that show some benefit > > >> in terms of MPG, _any_ benefit. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > - Show quoted text - So what do you sell bud >> For most street vehicles under average conditions, synthetics only make sense >> for extending drain intervals. It's amusing how many people are wasting [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > So what do you sell bud LOL, actually what the real question should be is "what doesn't he sell?" Obviously he's not selling Amsoil. What he said is a fact. For most vehicles, operated in non-severe weather environments synthetics make no sense unless you're extending the drain interval (which is something you still shouldn't do at least until the engine warranty is no longer in effect since in the event of a problem they'll demand evidence of adherence to the required oil change schedule). There's no evidence of reduced wear or increased MPG for synthetics used in non-high performance engines in non-severe climates. Zero, zilch, nada. Even Mobil doesn't claim an increase in MPG, making only a heavily qualified statement that logically makes no sense. "Actual savings are dependent upon vehicle/engine type, outside temperature, driving conditions, adjusting tire pressure, and your current engine oil viscosity." So why should the savings versus regular oil depend on adjusting tire pressure or driving conditions? Both of those impact MPG, but neither have anything to do with which kind of oil is used. > >> For most street vehicles under average conditions, synthetics only make sense > >> for extending drain intervals. It's amusing how many people are wasting [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > pressure or driving conditions? Both of those impact MPG, but neither > have anything to do with which kind of oil is used. go look at Mobil1 site and see the taxi test video, non severe driving is what highway driving is, most of us in the US live where driving is considered severe. > go look at Mobil1 site and see the taxi test video, non severe driving > is what highway driving is, most of us in the US live where driving is > considered severe. This is untrue if you follow Toyota's definition of "severe." It's not surprising so many people are confused, when you have companies like Jiffy Lube spending a fortune in ad dollars trying to convince people that virtually everyone falls into the severe service category. If you do exclusively short trips with a lot of stop and go driving, without any longer, higher speed trips interspersed, that's severe. The vast majority of Toyota drivers do not fall into the severe category. > > go look at Mobil1 site and see the taxi test video, non severe driving > > is what highway driving is, most of us in the US live where driving is [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > without any longer, higher speed trips interspersed, that's severe. The > vast majority of Toyota drivers do not fall into the severe category. I do, my family does, most I know drive in sever conditions this is a big city , a city where you might do 20mph all day, what you say toyota drivers are better, Haa what bs. > I do, my family does, most I know drive in sever conditions this is a > big city , a city where you might do 20mph all day, what you say > toyota drivers are better, Haa what bs. I tend to believe the manufacturer. Each manufacturer specifies what constitutes normal and severe service. Read your manual. Generally, severe service consists of operating the vehicle in a very muddy or dusty areas (because dust particles get through the air filter and contaminate the oil more quickly), operating the vehicle in a very hot areas (heat breaks down oil more quickly), using the vehicle exclusively for short trips in cold weather (the moisture in the oil never gets vaporized), or using the vehicle for towing or when carrying a car-top carrier. You'll often see claims such as "everyone falls into the severe service category," but these claims are untrue and come either from oil change companies or from clueless individuals that have no knowledge of engine and oil technology. If you primarily do freeway driving in moderate weather you do not fall into the severe service category. If you're in doubt, the best way to see if you fall into the severe service category is to have an oil analysis done at the mileage of the severe service interval. Many people just like to play it safe and follow the severe service schedule, which is fine, but there is no benefit in changing the oil sooner than the severe service schedule states. Synthetic oil provides no benefit to non-high performance engines operated in temperate climates, so don't waste money on synthetic oil for cars like Accords, Camrys, Corollas, or Civics. You won't get longer engine life and you won't get better fuel economy. The exception is if you want to extend your oil changes beyond the manufacturer's recommendations (don't do this during the warranty period!). What you should do is pay for an oil analysis every 2500 miles over 7500 miles until you figure out how long the oil lasts for your style of driving. Of course most non-synthetics will also go far longer than 7500 miles before an oil analysis shows that they need to be replaced. > > johngd...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > Extended drain intervals cars like VWs, Audis, BMW, Mercedes etc [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > sense with them. ?Using synthetics simply for "lower wear" is a myth and a > > waste of resources and money. > A myth, is better mpg a myth, no, less friction means less wear. BMW > did a test years ago and found wear with synthetics was less. Its the > additive package that makes a difference in the oils If wear metals on an analysis mean anything, it doesn't really show up on those posted on www.bobistheoilguy.com. If BMW used before and after measurements from teardowns, then that would certainly have some validity. Synthetics provide greater protection under the extremes of performance, such as racing or some failure conditions, such as coolant leaks into the oil. > > > johngd...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > > Extended drain intervals cars like VWs, Audis, BMW, Mercedes etc [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > - Show quoted text - It was a longterm test that found almost no wear after something like 100000 miles. Motor was measured before and after. It might be on Mobil1 site it was maybe 5 years ago > If wear metals on an analysis mean anything, it doesn't really show up on > those posted on www.bobistheoilguy.com. If BMW used before and after > measurements from teardowns, then that would certainly have some validity. > Synthetics provide greater protection under the extremes of performance, > such as racing or some failure conditions, such as coolant leaks into the > oil. Not quite that simple. The vast majority of engine wear occurs when the engine is first started, before it warms up. This constitutes "extreme" conditions and therefore almost every engine is subject to it (although perhaps a NYC taxi is less subject to it). And yes, BMW tore down the engines after the test. BMW has also tested gasoline, although I have not seen any recent results (the results from about 15 years ago that I saw showed a definite difference in deposits between name brands and generic brands of gasoline). > If your 7500 interval is true, then Hondas, GMs, VWs and many others > will be sludging up with 10,000-15,000 mile oil intervals. So have you > heard any dealer-maintained Hondas sludge up? NO! But dealer > maintained Toyotas had sludged up. What is a dealer maintained Toyota? Is the oil replaced at least every 5000 miles? Actually, I have been using Mobil 1 Full Synthetic in my 98 V6 since first oil change and have had no problems (obviously). Engine still runs perfectly. I don't really understand why in the 21st century people are not using full synthetic oils. Probably most Toyota employees are using full synthetics despite what they recommend to customers (just like Ray O.). Not intending to change the thread slightly, but just wondering if any of you here have heard about the intercharger gadget. It is fitted in the crankcase vent air intake/exhaust area, not sure just exactly where. Theoretically it's suppose to cool down this air so more unburnt fuel is consumed and cleans up the oil and emissions. Incidently, I'm not selling this and no intentions of trying, just need a rebuttal for my coffee buddies. > Not intending to change the thread slightly, but just wondering if any > of you here have heard about the intercharger gadget. It is fitted in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Incidently, I'm not selling this and no intentions of trying, just > need a rebuttal for my coffee buddies. Cars already pull air through the crankcase to burn blowby gasses, which increases mpg, oil life and reduces pollution, a cold motor cant cook polutants out of oil very fast. The warmer the oil the quicker pollutants are removed from it, an important one is water, which trashes oil quickly. Drive a mile a day at -20 to -0f and oil will be junk in 2000 miles. One you drop off at the dealer, pay an arm and a leg. And they mostly "inspect" kinda maintenance is what I meant. People actually pay for coolant changes every year, but I doubt people actually got them. I agree that synthetics are great, especially if people intend to keep their cars longer. However, today's dino oils are quite decent and most engines really aren't very advanced. More frequent oil changes also help remove contaminants. So dino every 3000 miles should be fine for these. > What is a dealer maintained Toyota? Is the oil replaced at least every 5000 > miles? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Probably most Toyota employees are using full synthetics despite what they > recommend to customers (just like Ray O.). > One you drop off at the dealer, pay an arm and a leg. And they mostly > "inspect" kinda maintenance is what I meant. People actually pay for [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > also help remove contaminants. So dino every 3000 miles should be fine > for these. I was skeptical of synthetics until I tried them (Mobil 1). The oil stays cleaner longer, and the engine revs easier (noticeably less friction). With today's gas prices, the 1-2% improvement in gas mileage, and going from 3000 to 5000 mile oil change intervals, is enough savings to pay for the increased cost of full synthetic oil. I will absolutely guarantee that a full synthetic like Mobil 1 will provide better engine protection at 5000 miles than any conventional oil after 3000 miles of use. > It is true that recent V6 Toyotas are more susceptible to sludge than most > other cars, but it is still a fact that there it is very rare for sludge to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > to appear in a engine where the oil is changed at least every 7500 miles > (yes I know says 5000). Remember, the change to 5000 miles was because Toyota said that it was too confusing to owners to have a severe service interval and a normal service interval. 5000 miles is playing it _extremely_ safe. 3000 miles is considered "recreational oil changing" as there is no benefit to 3000 miles versus 5000 miles. Just avoid non-API oils (i.e. some Amsoil products are unable to achieve API certification). No real need for synthetic in a Toyota engine with 5000 mile oil changes, as there will be no benefit in terms of engine longevity. > No real need for synthetic in a Toyota engine with 5000 mile oil changes, > as there will be no benefit in terms of engine longevity. That is your opinion. I disagree. >> No real need for synthetic in a Toyota engine with 5000 mile oil changes, >> as there will be no benefit in terms of engine longevity. > > That is your opinion. I disagree. Nope, not my opinion. All independent testing on synthetics versus non-synthetics in non-high performance engines, operated in moderate climates has shown the same thing. If you have a high-performance engine, or operate the vehicle in extremely cold temperatures, then synthetic is advisable. Advantages of Synthetic ----------------------- Synthetic oil was originally developed for high performance racing engines. Mobil tried to popularize synthetic oil for passenger vehicles back in the early 1970's. At the time, Mobil was promoting 20K or 25K oil changes with synthetic, but they soon backed down from this. Synthetic oil is a good choice if you have a vehicle with a high performance engine (in fact synthetic is required for many of these engines). It is also a good choice if your vehicle is operated in extremely cold climates. It has higher resistance to breakdown caused by heat and it flows better in extreme cold. Unfortunately for the synthetic oil industry there is virtually no advantage to using synthetic oil in a non-high performance engine that is operated in moderate climates. Synthetic may give you the peace of mind of knowing that you are using an oil that is better (in theory) than necessary for your vehicle, but it won't reduce wear or extend the life of the engine. The mistake some people make it to wrongly extrapolate the benefits of synthetic oil from high performance engines (or engines operated in very cold climates) onto normal engines operated in mild climates, with the ultimate lack of any knowledge being manifested with statements such as "synthetics provide 'Peace of Mind,' or 'Cheap Insurance,'" or other such nonsense. Extended Change Intervals ------------------------- Most manufacturers of synthetic oil advise users to not exceed the manufacturer's recommended oil change interval. Part of this is self interest (they don't want to be liable for any damage) but the real reason is that synthetic oil, while it does have certain advantages, still becomes contaminated. Be extremely wary of synthetic oil companies that offer to pay for your repairs if it is determined that their oil and their extended change interval recommendation caused the problem. Think for a moment of the incredible hassle you would have to go through to prove responsibility for an engine problem. Who would pay your legal bills? Who would pay for replacement transportation during the battle? The more bizarre the warranty the poorer the product is a good rule of thumb. API Certification, Phosphorus & ZDDP ------------------------------------ Never use a non-API certified synthetic oil (there are many of these on the market). The problem with the non-API certified synthetics is that they contain too much phosphorus (in the form of the additive ZDDP (Zinc Dialkyl Dithiophosphates)). The API has limited the amount of phosphorus because phosphorus shortens the life of the catalytic converter. These oils are fine for snowmobiles, motorcycles, and older cars that don't have a catalytic converter, and the extra ZDDP does provide additional wear protection. Unfortunately, some marketers of some the non-certified oils do not explicitly and honestly state the reason for the lack of API certification. You can check the status of API certification on the API web site. Be certain to go not just by the manufacturer name but by the actual product as well. This is because a manufacturer will sometimes have both certified and non-certified products. Suffice it to say that Mobil 1, Royal Purple, Castrol, & Havoline all make synthetic oils that are API certified and that can be purchased at auto parts stores and other retail outlets. Amsoil has one product line, XL-7500 that is API certified, but it's other lines contain too much ZDDP to be certified and should not be used in vehicles with catalytic converters. Amsoil ------ Amsoil actually makes some good products. The negative image of Amsoil is due to their distribution method (MLM) and their marketing approach. If Amsoil products were competitively priced with Mobil 1 and other synthetics, and if you could buy them in a store, their XL-7500 synthetic would be a legitimate alternative to Mobil 1. Amsoil didn't disclose until recently (and then it was by accident) the real reason that their oils (except for XL-7500) are not API certified. In the past they came up with all sorts of bizarre excuses about the reason for their lack of API certification and this greatly contributed to the distrust that people have of the company. On Apr 16, 10:37 pm, johngd...@hotmail.com wrote: > Your interval is out of date. Toyota in 2004 reduced the 7500 mile > interval down to 5000 miles because of sludge concerns. So you think [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I didnt know 15000 existed, and I dont mean toyota by itself, my Volvo is at 7500 but I have seen the oil look totaly black at 2000 in winter -city driving and ok at 4500 in city hwy driving. It comes down to a person knowing how oil should look and setting their own schedule bas |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message