Mobil 1 5W-20
03-10-2006, 04:40 PM
#76
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
Mike Marlow wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
> news:OCkQf.7119$lb.619554@news1.epix.net...
>
>
>>Sure it matters how many miles you drive your car. If the engine wears
>>twice as fast using a cheap oil as a premium oil, then it will run half
>>as many miles. If the premium oil wear rate will let the engine last
>>250,000 miles, then the same engine with the cheap oil can be expected
>>to last only 125,000 miles. This isn't rocket science.
>>
>
>
> Hey Matt - can I jump in for a bit? Thanks.
>
> While taking no exception to your point, I'd ask if that mysterious point of
> diminishing returns plays in here. Conventional dino oil will do a fine job
> of protecting a car and providing a 250,000 mile life expectancy with ease.
> Folks like myself adhere to a 3,000 or 4,000 change interval and the concept
> of dino oil giving this kind of performance is well established. Synthetics
> are supposed to provide the same level of protection with half the oil
> changes.
It well may. I use synthetic mainly for cold weather starts as I find
that my vehicles start much better and my batteries last much longer
using synthetics. I've gotten 8-9 years out of several batteries in
cars with synthetic oil and used to get 3-5 using dino oil.
> So my question is - is there really a useable difference between the premium
> oils and a standard oil? Heck, what is a premium oil? Does that term imply
> synthetic, or does it include dino oils with certain additives? I find it
> easy not to argue with the notion that a super grade of oil will offer
> longer protection, but my question really centers around whether that is
> ever even noticeable in the life of a car. For the sake of conversation, I
> assume the life expectancy of a car to be 250,000 miles. I have enough
> experience getting this kind of life out of my motors with conventional dino
> oil that it's no longer anecdotal to me.
From a wear standpoint, I believe there is a difference, but I agree
that it may not matter in the typical lifespan of a car. However, I
don't know that any data exists on this point one way or the other. I
have seen engines taken apart with well over 100K on them, and the
engines with synthetic oil are vastly cleaner than those using dino oil.
This may or may not matter, but if a chunk of sludge breaks loose and
clogs an oil passage, then I suspect that the synthetic oil will have
been much better. :-)
Matt
> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
> news:OCkQf.7119$lb.619554@news1.epix.net...
>
>
>>Sure it matters how many miles you drive your car. If the engine wears
>>twice as fast using a cheap oil as a premium oil, then it will run half
>>as many miles. If the premium oil wear rate will let the engine last
>>250,000 miles, then the same engine with the cheap oil can be expected
>>to last only 125,000 miles. This isn't rocket science.
>>
>
>
> Hey Matt - can I jump in for a bit? Thanks.
>
> While taking no exception to your point, I'd ask if that mysterious point of
> diminishing returns plays in here. Conventional dino oil will do a fine job
> of protecting a car and providing a 250,000 mile life expectancy with ease.
> Folks like myself adhere to a 3,000 or 4,000 change interval and the concept
> of dino oil giving this kind of performance is well established. Synthetics
> are supposed to provide the same level of protection with half the oil
> changes.
It well may. I use synthetic mainly for cold weather starts as I find
that my vehicles start much better and my batteries last much longer
using synthetics. I've gotten 8-9 years out of several batteries in
cars with synthetic oil and used to get 3-5 using dino oil.
> So my question is - is there really a useable difference between the premium
> oils and a standard oil? Heck, what is a premium oil? Does that term imply
> synthetic, or does it include dino oils with certain additives? I find it
> easy not to argue with the notion that a super grade of oil will offer
> longer protection, but my question really centers around whether that is
> ever even noticeable in the life of a car. For the sake of conversation, I
> assume the life expectancy of a car to be 250,000 miles. I have enough
> experience getting this kind of life out of my motors with conventional dino
> oil that it's no longer anecdotal to me.
From a wear standpoint, I believe there is a difference, but I agree
that it may not matter in the typical lifespan of a car. However, I
don't know that any data exists on this point one way or the other. I
have seen engines taken apart with well over 100K on them, and the
engines with synthetic oil are vastly cleaner than those using dino oil.
This may or may not matter, but if a chunk of sludge breaks loose and
clogs an oil passage, then I suspect that the synthetic oil will have
been much better. :-)
Matt
03-10-2006, 08:31 PM
#77
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 23:09:52 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>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.
--
Bob
>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.
--
Bob
03-10-2006, 08:31 PM
#78
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 23:09:52 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>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.
--
Bob
>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.
--
Bob
03-10-2006, 08:31 PM
#79
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 23:09:52 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>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.
--
Bob
>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.
--
Bob
03-11-2006, 07:42 AM
#80
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
Matt Whiting wrote:
> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>>>
>>>> When you get right down to it, nowadays, oil is oil. The differences
>>>> that companies tout in order to attract consumers are so small as to
>>>> be irrelevent. Modern oils are incredibly good. Just look for the
>>>> API seal and if an oil has it, it's more than good enough to put in
>>>> your engine. I would avoid oils that are not API certified, unless
>>>> you're willing to spend the money for Amsoil. I'm not.
>>>
>>> I agree that most oils are good enough most of the time, but I
>>> disagree that oil is oil. About the only independent and fairly
>>> comprehensive test of oils that I've seen was done by MCN (Motorcycle
>>> Consumer News) magazine. They have tested oils twice in the last
>>> decade or so and the difference between the top and bottom oils is
>>> very dramatic, often 2X or more in tests such as the ability to
>>> maintain viscosity, etc.
>>
>> Please define "2X". It's extremely important to put the differences
>> into context. What are the tested parameters? What are the differences
>> in terms of actual durability in the engine?
>
> I don't have the magazine handy and I don't recall all of the parameters
> tested, but it was things like TBN, levels of certain friction reducers,
> oxidation reducers, etc. They provided bar graphs for all of the
> relevant tests and the height of the best oils was twice that of the
> cheap oils and sometimes even greater disparities.
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
>> 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.
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.
>>
>> 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/
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
>>> as I intend to (except my last two vehicles got totaled at 143K and
>>> 182K), in a variety of conditions from -20 to over 100, in the
>>> mountains, etc., then I'd rather have the good stuff.
>>
>> I see your point, but I'm not convinced that it makes any difference.
>> The length of time you intend to drive your car doesn't matter. What
>> does matter is how long you leave the oil in the engine. If you want
>> to push the envelope on oil change intervals (10K miles+), it makes
>> sense to use the most durable oil you can find. If you change your oil
>> at suggested intervals, any oil will last that long. That's been shown
>> in numerous studies.
>
> Sure it matters how many miles you drive your car.
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
>> wear, as they get to all parts of the engine faster. However, if you
>> really want to extend the life of your engine, install a pre-oiler.
>> That ensures that the engine is fully lubricated BEFORE you start it.
>> That should make much more difference in wear and long-term durability
>> than one's choice of oil.
>
> Again, any proof for your statement?
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.
> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>>>
>>>> When you get right down to it, nowadays, oil is oil. The differences
>>>> that companies tout in order to attract consumers are so small as to
>>>> be irrelevent. Modern oils are incredibly good. Just look for the
>>>> API seal and if an oil has it, it's more than good enough to put in
>>>> your engine. I would avoid oils that are not API certified, unless
>>>> you're willing to spend the money for Amsoil. I'm not.
>>>
>>> I agree that most oils are good enough most of the time, but I
>>> disagree that oil is oil. About the only independent and fairly
>>> comprehensive test of oils that I've seen was done by MCN (Motorcycle
>>> Consumer News) magazine. They have tested oils twice in the last
>>> decade or so and the difference between the top and bottom oils is
>>> very dramatic, often 2X or more in tests such as the ability to
>>> maintain viscosity, etc.
>>
>> Please define "2X". It's extremely important to put the differences
>> into context. What are the tested parameters? What are the differences
>> in terms of actual durability in the engine?
>
> I don't have the magazine handy and I don't recall all of the parameters
> tested, but it was things like TBN, levels of certain friction reducers,
> oxidation reducers, etc. They provided bar graphs for all of the
> relevant tests and the height of the best oils was twice that of the
> cheap oils and sometimes even greater disparities.
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
>> 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.
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.
>>
>> 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/
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
>>> as I intend to (except my last two vehicles got totaled at 143K and
>>> 182K), in a variety of conditions from -20 to over 100, in the
>>> mountains, etc., then I'd rather have the good stuff.
>>
>> I see your point, but I'm not convinced that it makes any difference.
>> The length of time you intend to drive your car doesn't matter. What
>> does matter is how long you leave the oil in the engine. If you want
>> to push the envelope on oil change intervals (10K miles+), it makes
>> sense to use the most durable oil you can find. If you change your oil
>> at suggested intervals, any oil will last that long. That's been shown
>> in numerous studies.
>
> Sure it matters how many miles you drive your car.
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
>> wear, as they get to all parts of the engine faster. However, if you
>> really want to extend the life of your engine, install a pre-oiler.
>> That ensures that the engine is fully lubricated BEFORE you start it.
>> That should make much more difference in wear and long-term durability
>> than one's choice of oil.
>
> Again, any proof for your statement?
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.
03-11-2006, 07:42 AM
#81
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
Matt Whiting wrote:
> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>>>
>>>> When you get right down to it, nowadays, oil is oil. The differences
>>>> that companies tout in order to attract consumers are so small as to
>>>> be irrelevent. Modern oils are incredibly good. Just look for the
>>>> API seal and if an oil has it, it's more than good enough to put in
>>>> your engine. I would avoid oils that are not API certified, unless
>>>> you're willing to spend the money for Amsoil. I'm not.
>>>
>>> I agree that most oils are good enough most of the time, but I
>>> disagree that oil is oil. About the only independent and fairly
>>> comprehensive test of oils that I've seen was done by MCN (Motorcycle
>>> Consumer News) magazine. They have tested oils twice in the last
>>> decade or so and the difference between the top and bottom oils is
>>> very dramatic, often 2X or more in tests such as the ability to
>>> maintain viscosity, etc.
>>
>> Please define "2X". It's extremely important to put the differences
>> into context. What are the tested parameters? What are the differences
>> in terms of actual durability in the engine?
>
> I don't have the magazine handy and I don't recall all of the parameters
> tested, but it was things like TBN, levels of certain friction reducers,
> oxidation reducers, etc. They provided bar graphs for all of the
> relevant tests and the height of the best oils was twice that of the
> cheap oils and sometimes even greater disparities.
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
>> 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.
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.
>>
>> 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/
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
>>> as I intend to (except my last two vehicles got totaled at 143K and
>>> 182K), in a variety of conditions from -20 to over 100, in the
>>> mountains, etc., then I'd rather have the good stuff.
>>
>> I see your point, but I'm not convinced that it makes any difference.
>> The length of time you intend to drive your car doesn't matter. What
>> does matter is how long you leave the oil in the engine. If you want
>> to push the envelope on oil change intervals (10K miles+), it makes
>> sense to use the most durable oil you can find. If you change your oil
>> at suggested intervals, any oil will last that long. That's been shown
>> in numerous studies.
>
> Sure it matters how many miles you drive your car.
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
>> wear, as they get to all parts of the engine faster. However, if you
>> really want to extend the life of your engine, install a pre-oiler.
>> That ensures that the engine is fully lubricated BEFORE you start it.
>> That should make much more difference in wear and long-term durability
>> than one's choice of oil.
>
> Again, any proof for your statement?
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.
> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>>>
>>>> When you get right down to it, nowadays, oil is oil. The differences
>>>> that companies tout in order to attract consumers are so small as to
>>>> be irrelevent. Modern oils are incredibly good. Just look for the
>>>> API seal and if an oil has it, it's more than good enough to put in
>>>> your engine. I would avoid oils that are not API certified, unless
>>>> you're willing to spend the money for Amsoil. I'm not.
>>>
>>> I agree that most oils are good enough most of the time, but I
>>> disagree that oil is oil. About the only independent and fairly
>>> comprehensive test of oils that I've seen was done by MCN (Motorcycle
>>> Consumer News) magazine. They have tested oils twice in the last
>>> decade or so and the difference between the top and bottom oils is
>>> very dramatic, often 2X or more in tests such as the ability to
>>> maintain viscosity, etc.
>>
>> Please define "2X". It's extremely important to put the differences
>> into context. What are the tested parameters? What are the differences
>> in terms of actual durability in the engine?
>
> I don't have the magazine handy and I don't recall all of the parameters
> tested, but it was things like TBN, levels of certain friction reducers,
> oxidation reducers, etc. They provided bar graphs for all of the
> relevant tests and the height of the best oils was twice that of the
> cheap oils and sometimes even greater disparities.
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
>> 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.
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.
>>
>> 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/
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
>>> as I intend to (except my last two vehicles got totaled at 143K and
>>> 182K), in a variety of conditions from -20 to over 100, in the
>>> mountains, etc., then I'd rather have the good stuff.
>>
>> I see your point, but I'm not convinced that it makes any difference.
>> The length of time you intend to drive your car doesn't matter. What
>> does matter is how long you leave the oil in the engine. If you want
>> to push the envelope on oil change intervals (10K miles+), it makes
>> sense to use the most durable oil you can find. If you change your oil
>> at suggested intervals, any oil will last that long. That's been shown
>> in numerous studies.
>
> Sure it matters how many miles you drive your car.
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
>> wear, as they get to all parts of the engine faster. However, if you
>> really want to extend the life of your engine, install a pre-oiler.
>> That ensures that the engine is fully lubricated BEFORE you start it.
>> That should make much more difference in wear and long-term durability
>> than one's choice of oil.
>
> Again, any proof for your statement?
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.
03-11-2006, 07:42 AM
#82
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
Matt Whiting wrote:
> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>>>
>>>> When you get right down to it, nowadays, oil is oil. The differences
>>>> that companies tout in order to attract consumers are so small as to
>>>> be irrelevent. Modern oils are incredibly good. Just look for the
>>>> API seal and if an oil has it, it's more than good enough to put in
>>>> your engine. I would avoid oils that are not API certified, unless
>>>> you're willing to spend the money for Amsoil. I'm not.
>>>
>>> I agree that most oils are good enough most of the time, but I
>>> disagree that oil is oil. About the only independent and fairly
>>> comprehensive test of oils that I've seen was done by MCN (Motorcycle
>>> Consumer News) magazine. They have tested oils twice in the last
>>> decade or so and the difference between the top and bottom oils is
>>> very dramatic, often 2X or more in tests such as the ability to
>>> maintain viscosity, etc.
>>
>> Please define "2X". It's extremely important to put the differences
>> into context. What are the tested parameters? What are the differences
>> in terms of actual durability in the engine?
>
> I don't have the magazine handy and I don't recall all of the parameters
> tested, but it was things like TBN, levels of certain friction reducers,
> oxidation reducers, etc. They provided bar graphs for all of the
> relevant tests and the height of the best oils was twice that of the
> cheap oils and sometimes even greater disparities.
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
>> 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.
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.
>>
>> 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/
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
>>> as I intend to (except my last two vehicles got totaled at 143K and
>>> 182K), in a variety of conditions from -20 to over 100, in the
>>> mountains, etc., then I'd rather have the good stuff.
>>
>> I see your point, but I'm not convinced that it makes any difference.
>> The length of time you intend to drive your car doesn't matter. What
>> does matter is how long you leave the oil in the engine. If you want
>> to push the envelope on oil change intervals (10K miles+), it makes
>> sense to use the most durable oil you can find. If you change your oil
>> at suggested intervals, any oil will last that long. That's been shown
>> in numerous studies.
>
> Sure it matters how many miles you drive your car.
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
>> wear, as they get to all parts of the engine faster. However, if you
>> really want to extend the life of your engine, install a pre-oiler.
>> That ensures that the engine is fully lubricated BEFORE you start it.
>> That should make much more difference in wear and long-term durability
>> than one's choice of oil.
>
> Again, any proof for your statement?
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.
> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>>>
>>>> When you get right down to it, nowadays, oil is oil. The differences
>>>> that companies tout in order to attract consumers are so small as to
>>>> be irrelevent. Modern oils are incredibly good. Just look for the
>>>> API seal and if an oil has it, it's more than good enough to put in
>>>> your engine. I would avoid oils that are not API certified, unless
>>>> you're willing to spend the money for Amsoil. I'm not.
>>>
>>> I agree that most oils are good enough most of the time, but I
>>> disagree that oil is oil. About the only independent and fairly
>>> comprehensive test of oils that I've seen was done by MCN (Motorcycle
>>> Consumer News) magazine. They have tested oils twice in the last
>>> decade or so and the difference between the top and bottom oils is
>>> very dramatic, often 2X or more in tests such as the ability to
>>> maintain viscosity, etc.
>>
>> Please define "2X". It's extremely important to put the differences
>> into context. What are the tested parameters? What are the differences
>> in terms of actual durability in the engine?
>
> I don't have the magazine handy and I don't recall all of the parameters
> tested, but it was things like TBN, levels of certain friction reducers,
> oxidation reducers, etc. They provided bar graphs for all of the
> relevant tests and the height of the best oils was twice that of the
> cheap oils and sometimes even greater disparities.
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
>> 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.
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.
>>
>> 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/
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
>>> as I intend to (except my last two vehicles got totaled at 143K and
>>> 182K), in a variety of conditions from -20 to over 100, in the
>>> mountains, etc., then I'd rather have the good stuff.
>>
>> I see your point, but I'm not convinced that it makes any difference.
>> The length of time you intend to drive your car doesn't matter. What
>> does matter is how long you leave the oil in the engine. If you want
>> to push the envelope on oil change intervals (10K miles+), it makes
>> sense to use the most durable oil you can find. If you change your oil
>> at suggested intervals, any oil will last that long. That's been shown
>> in numerous studies.
>
> Sure it matters how many miles you drive your car.
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
>> wear, as they get to all parts of the engine faster. However, if you
>> really want to extend the life of your engine, install a pre-oiler.
>> That ensures that the engine is fully lubricated BEFORE you start it.
>> That should make much more difference in wear and long-term durability
>> than one's choice of oil.
>
> Again, any proof for your statement?
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.
03-11-2006, 08:02 AM
#83
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
Bob Adkins wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 23:09:52 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>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.
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.
> On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 23:09:52 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>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.
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.
03-11-2006, 08:02 AM
#84
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
Bob Adkins wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 23:09:52 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>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.
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.
> On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 23:09:52 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>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.
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.
03-11-2006, 08:02 AM
#85
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
Bob Adkins wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 23:09:52 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>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.
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.
> On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 23:09:52 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>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.
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.
03-11-2006, 08:10 AM
#86
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
Brian Nystrom wrote:
> 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
>> 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.
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
>>> wear, as they get to all parts of the engine faster. However, if you
>>> really want to extend the life of your engine, install a pre-oiler.
>>> That ensures that the engine is fully lubricated BEFORE you start it.
>>> That should make much more difference in wear and long-term
>>> durability than one's choice of oil.
>>
>>
>> Again, any proof for your statement?
>
>
> 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,
>> 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.
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%
> 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
>> 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.
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
>>> wear, as they get to all parts of the engine faster. However, if you
>>> really want to extend the life of your engine, install a pre-oiler.
>>> That ensures that the engine is fully lubricated BEFORE you start it.
>>> That should make much more difference in wear and long-term
>>> durability than one's choice of oil.
>>
>>
>> Again, any proof for your statement?
>
>
> 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,
>> 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.
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
03-11-2006, 08:10 AM
#87
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
Brian Nystrom wrote:
> 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
>> 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.
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
>>> wear, as they get to all parts of the engine faster. However, if you
>>> really want to extend the life of your engine, install a pre-oiler.
>>> That ensures that the engine is fully lubricated BEFORE you start it.
>>> That should make much more difference in wear and long-term
>>> durability than one's choice of oil.
>>
>>
>> Again, any proof for your statement?
>
>
> 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,
>> 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.
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%
> 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
>> 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.
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
>>> wear, as they get to all parts of the engine faster. However, if you
>>> really want to extend the life of your engine, install a pre-oiler.
>>> That ensures that the engine is fully lubricated BEFORE you start it.
>>> That should make much more difference in wear and long-term
>>> durability than one's choice of oil.
>>
>>
>> Again, any proof for your statement?
>
>
> 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,
>> 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.
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
03-11-2006, 08:10 AM
#88
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
Brian Nystrom wrote:
> 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
>> 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.
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
>>> wear, as they get to all parts of the engine faster. However, if you
>>> really want to extend the life of your engine, install a pre-oiler.
>>> That ensures that the engine is fully lubricated BEFORE you start it.
>>> That should make much more difference in wear and long-term
>>> durability than one's choice of oil.
>>
>>
>> Again, any proof for your statement?
>
>
> 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,
>> 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.
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%
> 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
>> 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.
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
>>> wear, as they get to all parts of the engine faster. However, if you
>>> really want to extend the life of your engine, install a pre-oiler.
>>> That ensures that the engine is fully lubricated BEFORE you start it.
>>> That should make much more difference in wear and long-term
>>> durability than one's choice of oil.
>>
>>
>> Again, any proof for your statement?
>
>
> 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,
>> 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.
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
03-11-2006, 08:15 AM
#89
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 12:42:27 GMT, Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@verizon.net>
wrote:
>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.
--
Bob
wrote:
>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.
--
Bob
03-11-2006, 08:15 AM
#90
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mobil 1 5W-20
On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 12:42:27 GMT, Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@verizon.net>
wrote:
>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.
--
Bob
wrote:
>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.
--
Bob
