wear numbers

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
The real strength of synthetics aren't in actual wear protection, so much as other characteristics that ENABLE better wear protection across a winder range of operating environment. Higher VI without VI improvers, higher NOACK, lower pour point without pour-point depressants, lower oxidation rates, allowing longer OCI, etc.


What's the correlation between higher NOACK volatility losses and enabling better wear protection?


I suspect he meant lower NOACK, and was trying to imply that less loss will result in less deposits and residue throughout the engine (e.g. on DI valves and other places not necessarily even within the lubrication system) would equate to longer/better performance.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Im pretty sure you want Noack to be lower, not higher.

 

[aquariuscsm]

Synths do not provide better wear protection. In fact,a guy here a few years back who tore down and rebuilt engines on a regular basis told me conventional oils always showed less wear on torn down engines.

 

[gfh77665]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2

I suspect he meant lower NOACK, and was trying to imply that less loss will result in less deposits and residue throughout the engine


THIS ^^^

 

[440Magnum]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Im pretty sure you want Noack to be lower, not higher.

Doh. I even answered a question about it and failed to notice my own dang typo.

LOWER volatility good. LOWER NOACK good. Higher bad.

 

[440Magnum]

Originally Posted By: gfh77665
Originally Posted By: JHZR2

I suspect he meant lower NOACK, and was trying to imply that less loss will result in less deposits and residue throughout the engine


THIS ^^^


Yeah, thanks for correcting it for me. In addition to fewer intake and combustion chamber deposits, lower volatility also means that the oil doesn't thicken and otherwise change character with age as much because the lighter fractions aren't being selectively removed by evaporation.

 

[ShotGun429]

Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Synths do not provide better wear protection. In fact,a guy here a few years back who tore down and rebuilt engines on a regular basis told me conventional oils always showed less wear on torn down engines.
+1 I tear down alot of Engines here,and rebuild them, mostly post war-up to early 90's V8's and I also agree. Its not the Product,Its how often its Changed. Dino is fine.

 

[Nickdfresh]

Originally Posted By: gfh77665
Originally Posted By: Danh
And, with the price differential being pretty modest if you're a DIY guy, using syn is hardly foolish.


Funny thing is that the ones who enthusiastically support "cheaper" conventionals over "expensive" synthetics cannot grasp the fact that syns end up actually cheaper, with longer OCI's and less filters to buy!


And can potentially provide better fuel economy, resulting in savings...

 

[Nickdfresh]

Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Synths do not provide better wear protection. In fact,a guy here a few years back who tore down and rebuilt engines on a regular basis told me conventional oils always showed less wear on torn down engines.


Was he a French Model?

 

[fdcg27]

I think that you're asking the wrong question.
Any swill oil will do a pretty good job of protecting an engine from wear.
The engine on this refinery dreg swill will likely run just as long as one run on M1, Amsoil or the best from SOPUS and probably have just as many parts within service limts.
The real concern involves deposits.
We all love pictures of upper cylinder heads.
We all like to see them clean and free of varnish.
This doesn't matter either, since a little varnish won't have any impact on the functioning of these assemblies.
What really matters is the ability of an oil to avoid leaving deposits around the rings. Stuck or sticky rings will bring high oil consumption as well as a loss of power and an increase in fuel consumption.
Are synthetic labeled oils more effective in controlling deposits around the piston rings?
Probably.
They can also be bought on deals for no more than conventional oils or even less.

 

[Pop_Rivit]

Originally Posted By: Clevy


Originally Posted By: Pop_Rivit
Are you unable to do the research in the appropriate forum? There are thousands of UOA's available-spend some time researching.



Are you unable to just move on instead of making some kind of comment about an error.
Do you have some kind of inferiority complex or something. Your always first to point out such things which I can only assume is your way of feeling better about yourself.
It's very sad,and funny to be honest.
And what is a uoa going to tell him about wear. You should know by now that a uoa can't tell him anything in relation to that.
You must be lonely at the top. I'm surprised you even acknowledge us peasants.


It's really quite simple-I'll assume even you can grasp it. Rather than do a bit of research, the original poster wants others to do the research for him and hand him the answers. He's looking for proof that there is a difference in wear numbers between conventional oil and synthetic oil.

You can huff and puff and pretend to be offended, but the original poster would be well served to dig in and do some research rather than have the answers handed to him. He'll learn a lot more (after all, he claims to be a mechanic) and learning to do a bit of research will teach him to be self-sufficient.

And on a side note-you ended your questions with a period rather than a question mark. Are you asking a question or making a statement? I would suggest you do a bit of research in the proper use of punctuation. It will help you appear much less peasant-like.

And if you really don't like what I post, you're welcome to use the ignore feature. Do the research and you'll be able to figure out how to use it.