Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
Originally Posted By: Panzerman
I don't understand the big push for everyone to go synthetic. The conventional oil meets SN, the synthetic oil meets SN. I think people just bought into the 70s hype over synthetic. I could see if conventional oil was SL rated and Synthetic SN. They both have excellent ratings to serve well in 3000 to 5000 mile oil changes. It's kinda crazy to pay more for synthetic to get the same rating. I am surprised no one ranted about Valvolines weak additive PAC
You're kidding, right? Valv Synpower not only exceeds SN GF-5, like its cheaper cousin VWB, Valv Synpower also exceeds GM 4718M and dexos1.
That means a lot of extra performance tests the conventional oil doesn't pass.
In addition, a full synthetic flows better cold and leaves less piston deposits, all things we want. Lasts longer too because its basestocks don't oxidize as much with heat.
Performance tests that his engine does not require, might I add. I too fail to understand why the immediate push for synthetic and a lambasting of this guy for picking a conventional that will MORE than adequately do the job. Given that he had a block heater, cold flow startup wear is a moot point. Yes, a synthetic may leave less piston deposits, but a SN conventional leaves equal or less piston deposits that an SJ or SL synthetic ever used to. And we touted their praises over and over 10 years ago when somebody went 200-300k on them. So other than a feel-good statement, you've listed absolutely NO credible evidence as to why a SN conventional won't work perfectly in his situation.