Actually, if you really wanted to conduct a test, my work van might be a good test subject-if you don't mind using Valvoline. I use the same fuel every day, and run enough miles (roughly 30K per year) that I could get results pretty quickly. The VIOC that changes my van's oil would allow me to take a sample at every OCI, and I could live with the funky cold starts in winter for the sake of "science"! I also get OCIs religiously at 5K, same filter every time, no real coolant consumption and no excessive oil use.
T6 rorella 5w40 in my 01 7.3 power stroke
- Thread starter silver1
- Start date
- Status
And I also have no real "bias" against dino HDEO-I use it in the 3 older IDI diesels ('82 300D, '93 GMC 6.2, and the '89 F-450) and in the boat (Mercruiser 5.7)-I just don't mind spending a few extra $$$ to make sure the 6.0 and Dodge will start OK cold. Who wants to subsidize the UOAs?
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Yeah - UOAs are worthless to everyone but the individual.
Sir, you are confusing micro and macro statistical modeling. When you see your engineering buddies the next time, why don't you have them explain those to you. And if they cannot, then perhaps they're not the source of info you should be relying on.
This is an important point. While UOAs are obviously not the best tool for determining the various things being debated in this thread, they are, realistically, the best tools that we, collectively, have available to us.
We don't have access to the lab facilities of SOPUS, Lubrizol, the engine manufacturer, or the API/ILSAC. We also don't tend to buy all the SAE papers on the subject.
Admittedly, flawed data is just that - flawed data. As long as we know the limitations, it's certainly better than the "good" data, to which we have zero access.
Yeah - UOAs are worthless to everyone but the individual.
Sir, you are confusing micro and macro statistical modeling. When you see your engineering buddies the next time, why don't you have them explain those to you. And if they cannot, then perhaps they're not the source of info you should be relying on.
This is an important point. While UOAs are obviously not the best tool for determining the various things being debated in this thread, they are, realistically, the best tools that we, collectively, have available to us.
We don't have access to the lab facilities of SOPUS, Lubrizol, the engine manufacturer, or the API/ILSAC. We also don't tend to buy all the SAE papers on the subject.
Admittedly, flawed data is just that - flawed data. As long as we know the limitations, it's certainly better than the "good" data, to which we have zero access.
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
Originally Posted By: hatt
How many decades is it going to take to see any potential benefit with a 7.3 being driven 5K a year?
Who cares? We are talking about 5K oil change interval not 5K per year.
The person driving 5K a year cares. You realize someone driving 5K a year has different wants and needs than the guy driving 50K/yr.
In this situation it does not matter because the manufacturer recommended OCI is 5K. It does not matter if you do it in a week or in a year, it is still 5K.
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
Originally Posted By: hatt
How many decades is it going to take to see any potential benefit with a 7.3 being driven 5K a year?
Who cares? We are talking about 5K oil change interval not 5K per year.
The person driving 5K a year cares. You realize someone driving 5K a year has different wants and needs than the guy driving 50K/yr.
In this situation it does not matter because the manufacturer recommended OCI is 5K. It does not matter if you do it in a week or in a year, it is still 5K.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
A UOA is only good for that specific vehicle, no more no less.
I'm only proposing one truck, one use, one driver, one series of UOAs. How's that not valid for him in this situation? While I completely disagree with your mantra, I'm actually willing to look at this from your unique perspective. The very one you propose; one truck; one series of sequential UOAs. Isn't that exactly what you state is valid?
... A lot of off topic deleted for brevity and to stay on topic...
One truck, one use, one driver, one of anything is just that "one data point". That is my point, you can not make an accurate conclusion of any experiment with just one data point or a number of uncontrolled data points. I posted my UOAs of my own oil experiments for FYI only and no where did I conclude that it is the norm. You on the other hand assumed your statistical analysis of flawed uncontrolled data is legit and must be the norm. Your assumption does not even jive with those from the vehicle manufacturers and they have ten of thousands of testing hours and millions of miles on the road and fleets of testing vehicles.
The realities here are that every vehicle manufacturers have proving grounds and torture test regiments for a reason. Statistics done on flawed data is the wrong statistics, and this is why they don't use UOAs from the internet.
Oil manufacturers and vehicle manufacturers have already stated that synthetic is better than mineral and they even required synthetic for periodic maintenance for some vehicle. For the 7.3L PSD with a factory recommended 3K OCI for severe service, the use of T6 for 5K OCI is a definite YES over any mineral oil.
In my line of work I do fuel burn experiments on a regular basis with turbine engines. We don't just ask the pilot for their fuel burn values, we actually run the jets on the test stand and on actual test aircrafts. We flew the same engines for several million of miles under all environmental conditions to come up with an estimated value. Then we accumulate airlines data for several years to come up with a predicted value to be used in flight planning. The different between the test stand value and the predicted value is 5-7% which is around $500 millions saving per year for the major airlines.
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
A UOA is only good for that specific vehicle, no more no less.
I'm only proposing one truck, one use, one driver, one series of UOAs. How's that not valid for him in this situation? While I completely disagree with your mantra, I'm actually willing to look at this from your unique perspective. The very one you propose; one truck; one series of sequential UOAs. Isn't that exactly what you state is valid?
... A lot of off topic deleted for brevity and to stay on topic...
One truck, one use, one driver, one of anything is just that "one data point". That is my point, you can not make an accurate conclusion of any experiment with just one data point or a number of uncontrolled data points. I posted my UOAs of my own oil experiments for FYI only and no where did I conclude that it is the norm. You on the other hand assumed your statistical analysis of flawed uncontrolled data is legit and must be the norm. Your assumption does not even jive with those from the vehicle manufacturers and they have ten of thousands of testing hours and millions of miles on the road and fleets of testing vehicles.
The realities here are that every vehicle manufacturers have proving grounds and torture test regiments for a reason. Statistics done on flawed data is the wrong statistics, and this is why they don't use UOAs from the internet.
Oil manufacturers and vehicle manufacturers have already stated that synthetic is better than mineral and they even required synthetic for periodic maintenance for some vehicle. For the 7.3L PSD with a factory recommended 3K OCI for severe service, the use of T6 for 5K OCI is a definite YES over any mineral oil.
In my line of work I do fuel burn experiments on a regular basis with turbine engines. We don't just ask the pilot for their fuel burn values, we actually run the jets on the test stand and on actual test aircrafts. We flew the same engines for several million of miles under all environmental conditions to come up with an estimated value. Then we accumulate airlines data for several years to come up with a predicted value to be used in flight planning. The different between the test stand value and the predicted value is 5-7% which is around $500 millions saving per year for the major airlines.
Question to the OP is this:
1. Is he willing to track his daily usage to maintain consistency between tests?
2. How is he going to compensate for differences in weather, fuel, idling time, traffic jam, gross vehicle weights, different driver, etc.
3. What if there is an engine repair?
4. Is he going to drive the same route every time?
1. Is he willing to track his daily usage to maintain consistency between tests?
2. How is he going to compensate for differences in weather, fuel, idling time, traffic jam, gross vehicle weights, different driver, etc.
3. What if there is an engine repair?
4. Is he going to drive the same route every time?
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
Oil manufacturers and vehicle manufacturers have already stated that synthetic is better than mineral and they even required synthetic for periodic maintenance for some vehicle. For the 7.3L PSD with a factory recommended 3K OCI for severe service, the use of T6 for 5K OCI is a definite YES over any mineral oil.
Why?
Few factors to consider with Ford's OCI...
1. International made the T444e, which is the basis for the 7.3 originally recommended an 8k OCI and then four years later extended that OCI recommendation to 10k. The biggest difference between the T444e and the 7.3 PSD is the oil pan (a whopping 2 quarts) and the HP specs are pretty close...the PSD spins a little higher than the T444e but not much. Also T444es are found in medium duty trucks and school buses...engines that are loaded more than your typical PSD.
2. That recommendation was made based on CG spec oil of the day, oil has come a LONG way since then. IMHO 5k is easily doable even in the most extreme conditions with most any diesel rated motor oil.
And yes I know I am not providing a warranty for this guys engine...but at this point unless he has a factory remain engine...neither is FoMoCo.
Of course, oil maunfacturers are going to say synthetics are better...they have just a SLIGHT vested interest in that.
Synthetics very well might be better in lab tests and performance...however will
1. The users vehicle will reach operating conditions where the performance difference between dino and synthetic matter?
2. In the long term will the difference matter....?
By the by I have nothing against synthetics...my wife's mariner has pennzoil plat synthetic waiting for it. But my 7.3 has its winter blend (t5) in it now and 15w40 delo will be going in the next change.
Oil manufacturers and vehicle manufacturers have already stated that synthetic is better than mineral and they even required synthetic for periodic maintenance for some vehicle. For the 7.3L PSD with a factory recommended 3K OCI for severe service, the use of T6 for 5K OCI is a definite YES over any mineral oil.
Why?
Few factors to consider with Ford's OCI...
1. International made the T444e, which is the basis for the 7.3 originally recommended an 8k OCI and then four years later extended that OCI recommendation to 10k. The biggest difference between the T444e and the 7.3 PSD is the oil pan (a whopping 2 quarts) and the HP specs are pretty close...the PSD spins a little higher than the T444e but not much. Also T444es are found in medium duty trucks and school buses...engines that are loaded more than your typical PSD.
2. That recommendation was made based on CG spec oil of the day, oil has come a LONG way since then. IMHO 5k is easily doable even in the most extreme conditions with most any diesel rated motor oil.
And yes I know I am not providing a warranty for this guys engine...but at this point unless he has a factory remain engine...neither is FoMoCo.
Of course, oil maunfacturers are going to say synthetics are better...they have just a SLIGHT vested interest in that.
Synthetics very well might be better in lab tests and performance...however will
1. The users vehicle will reach operating conditions where the performance difference between dino and synthetic matter?
2. In the long term will the difference matter....?
By the by I have nothing against synthetics...my wife's mariner has pennzoil plat synthetic waiting for it. But my 7.3 has its winter blend (t5) in it now and 15w40 delo will be going in the next change.
Last edited:
Also just because some applications spec a synthetic motor oil doesn't mean it has the slightest bit to do with an application that doesn't. Corvette's spec about a 5w-30 synthetic couldn't have anything less to do with oils for a 7.3 PSD. Totally different operating conditions.
dnewton3
Staff member
Yes, some vehicle OEMs spec synthetics, but we have to ask why they do so.
Excellent example (one I learned of from this site a few years ago) is where Chevrolet uses M1 in the Corvette from the factory. In high-perf applications, such as racing and weekend ultra-hard runnings like auto-cross, the 'Vette would signficantly heat the oil. The M1 was able to withstand that abuse a bit better than conventional oils. The lube cooling system was only able to draw down the heat so much, and after that, it was important that the oil be able to tolerate a higher heat load. Hence, to protect the engine in the most exreme circumstances, GM spec's M1 from the factory. Of course, that means NOTHING to the 76 year-old man that drives his 'Vette to the club for a round of golf. He NEVER gets the oil hot enough to warrant a synthetic, but it's spec'd, so that's what he uses. Look around you; there are a LOT of older men and women driving 'Vettes (presumably reliving their youth). Do they NEED synthetics for their short OCIs and puttering around town? NO! For people that use their 'Vette in hard racing apps, then I'd agree that synthetic is a great idea. But that means nothing to the folks that only scoot around town; they don't "need" synthetic, even though GM spec'd it. In fact, some could argue that because GM couldn't appropriately design the lube cooling system, the synthetic was a necessity to overcome an engineering deficiency. Two viewpoints to the same issue. I'll not take sides; just pointing out how there is more than one way to view this topic.
Then consider the opposite effect; I recently learned of the propensity of Saturn SLs to coke the oil rings due to a design flaw. GM spec'd dino oil, and perhaps should have spec'd M1 in this case. But they didn't. And in "normal" applications, even dino is a risk at OEM OCIs. Same goes for the infamous Toyota sludger engines from many years back. Of course, if you shorten up the OCI to some unknown factor, you're likely to avoid the sluge issue. Overall, though, both GM and Toyota ultimately failed in their prediction. Here's the point:
in LAB testing, I susepct these conditions were proven to be true, but in the real world, the oil/OCI combinations failed. AZsynthetic would have us believe that every single OEM spec based upon lab testing is flawless; clearly that isn't the case. I certainly do believe that most OEM specs are valid, but it is also true to say the not all are so; there are failures in the field that cannot be well predicted in the lab.
Further, IIRC, Mercedes Benz actually states that, for some applications, regardless of what oil is used, the OLM is to be followed. It was brought up about a Sprinter, or some other vehicle with a MB engine. The manual specifically stated that regardless of conventional or synthetic oil use, the OLM was the limit; no more. The OEM acknowledged that synthetics would not be offered any more OCI than the dino. This is a direct contradiction to what AZsynthetic would have us believe; that all OEMs know synthetics are superior. I have not personally seen any broad-market based owner's guide (Ford, GM, Dodge, Honda, Toyota, etc) that specifically stated " ... if you use synthetics, you can double your OCI ..." or something to that effect. If it's out there, I have yet to see it. That does not mean that it does not exist; I admit I don't have access to all the data in the vehicular world. But the MASS MARKET EQUATION shows that OEMs simply ignore the dino/syn topic in the owner's guides. If they have such knowledge that syn's are "better" as AZsynthetic would claim, then why are the statements not out there for the masses to read? I don't see such evidence in the owner's guides, the maintenance manuals, the OEM websites, etc. Please, point out the mass market evidence that OEMs support the superiority of synthetics. For example, my Fusion specs Ford WSS-M2C930A oil; the Motorcraft lube meeting that is a semi-syn. And there are many syn's that meet that. But there are also a lot of dino oils that meet that spec too. And my UOAs are proof that any lube meeting that spec is going to do more than well enough for the OEM OCI. Ford does not care if it's dino, semi or full syn; it must meet their spec for the warranty to cover OEM OCI. And they state nothing about OCI extension or "better" wear if you use a syn.
My point:
OEM make recommendations based upon expected conditions they want to warrant, and given their engineering knowledge at the time. No more; no less.
UOAs, OTOH, give direct knowledge to the individual based upon the descrete and distinct personal operation of the equipment. UOAs can also be used by other persons to judge their overall success or failure as compared/contrasted to the programs of others. It is not a complete answer, but it is by far the cheapest alternative we have for predictive behavior.
I'll take a UOA from real world use over the OEM lab-derived spec any day. The OEM spec is a great place to start, but it is NOT the end-all, be-all answer.
The two most grossly misunderstood topics when it comes to statistics is micro versus macro modeling, and correlation versus causation. This is what I do for a living. I'm confident we can use UOAs for comparitive purposes, as long as we understand the limitations of our testing protocol.
Excellent example (one I learned of from this site a few years ago) is where Chevrolet uses M1 in the Corvette from the factory. In high-perf applications, such as racing and weekend ultra-hard runnings like auto-cross, the 'Vette would signficantly heat the oil. The M1 was able to withstand that abuse a bit better than conventional oils. The lube cooling system was only able to draw down the heat so much, and after that, it was important that the oil be able to tolerate a higher heat load. Hence, to protect the engine in the most exreme circumstances, GM spec's M1 from the factory. Of course, that means NOTHING to the 76 year-old man that drives his 'Vette to the club for a round of golf. He NEVER gets the oil hot enough to warrant a synthetic, but it's spec'd, so that's what he uses. Look around you; there are a LOT of older men and women driving 'Vettes (presumably reliving their youth). Do they NEED synthetics for their short OCIs and puttering around town? NO! For people that use their 'Vette in hard racing apps, then I'd agree that synthetic is a great idea. But that means nothing to the folks that only scoot around town; they don't "need" synthetic, even though GM spec'd it. In fact, some could argue that because GM couldn't appropriately design the lube cooling system, the synthetic was a necessity to overcome an engineering deficiency. Two viewpoints to the same issue. I'll not take sides; just pointing out how there is more than one way to view this topic.
Then consider the opposite effect; I recently learned of the propensity of Saturn SLs to coke the oil rings due to a design flaw. GM spec'd dino oil, and perhaps should have spec'd M1 in this case. But they didn't. And in "normal" applications, even dino is a risk at OEM OCIs. Same goes for the infamous Toyota sludger engines from many years back. Of course, if you shorten up the OCI to some unknown factor, you're likely to avoid the sluge issue. Overall, though, both GM and Toyota ultimately failed in their prediction. Here's the point:
in LAB testing, I susepct these conditions were proven to be true, but in the real world, the oil/OCI combinations failed. AZsynthetic would have us believe that every single OEM spec based upon lab testing is flawless; clearly that isn't the case. I certainly do believe that most OEM specs are valid, but it is also true to say the not all are so; there are failures in the field that cannot be well predicted in the lab.
Further, IIRC, Mercedes Benz actually states that, for some applications, regardless of what oil is used, the OLM is to be followed. It was brought up about a Sprinter, or some other vehicle with a MB engine. The manual specifically stated that regardless of conventional or synthetic oil use, the OLM was the limit; no more. The OEM acknowledged that synthetics would not be offered any more OCI than the dino. This is a direct contradiction to what AZsynthetic would have us believe; that all OEMs know synthetics are superior. I have not personally seen any broad-market based owner's guide (Ford, GM, Dodge, Honda, Toyota, etc) that specifically stated " ... if you use synthetics, you can double your OCI ..." or something to that effect. If it's out there, I have yet to see it. That does not mean that it does not exist; I admit I don't have access to all the data in the vehicular world. But the MASS MARKET EQUATION shows that OEMs simply ignore the dino/syn topic in the owner's guides. If they have such knowledge that syn's are "better" as AZsynthetic would claim, then why are the statements not out there for the masses to read? I don't see such evidence in the owner's guides, the maintenance manuals, the OEM websites, etc. Please, point out the mass market evidence that OEMs support the superiority of synthetics. For example, my Fusion specs Ford WSS-M2C930A oil; the Motorcraft lube meeting that is a semi-syn. And there are many syn's that meet that. But there are also a lot of dino oils that meet that spec too. And my UOAs are proof that any lube meeting that spec is going to do more than well enough for the OEM OCI. Ford does not care if it's dino, semi or full syn; it must meet their spec for the warranty to cover OEM OCI. And they state nothing about OCI extension or "better" wear if you use a syn.
My point:
OEM make recommendations based upon expected conditions they want to warrant, and given their engineering knowledge at the time. No more; no less.
UOAs, OTOH, give direct knowledge to the individual based upon the descrete and distinct personal operation of the equipment. UOAs can also be used by other persons to judge their overall success or failure as compared/contrasted to the programs of others. It is not a complete answer, but it is by far the cheapest alternative we have for predictive behavior.
I'll take a UOA from real world use over the OEM lab-derived spec any day. The OEM spec is a great place to start, but it is NOT the end-all, be-all answer.
The two most grossly misunderstood topics when it comes to statistics is micro versus macro modeling, and correlation versus causation. This is what I do for a living. I'm confident we can use UOAs for comparitive purposes, as long as we understand the limitations of our testing protocol.
Last edited:
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: bullwinkle
And I also have no real "bias" against dino HDEO-I use it in the 3 older IDI diesels ('82 300D, '93 GMC 6.2, and the '89 F-450) and in the boat (Mercruiser 5.7)-I just don't mind spending a few extra $$$ to make sure the 6.0 and Dodge will start OK cold. Who wants to subsidize the UOAs?
I would be willing to help out. It would be nice if we'd get several on board here.
And I also have no real "bias" against dino HDEO-I use it in the 3 older IDI diesels ('82 300D, '93 GMC 6.2, and the '89 F-450) and in the boat (Mercruiser 5.7)-I just don't mind spending a few extra $$$ to make sure the 6.0 and Dodge will start OK cold. Who wants to subsidize the UOAs?
I would be willing to help out. It would be nice if we'd get several on board here.
As a new user coming to this site I was impressed with how educated and knowledgeable several members are.
First I would input synthetic is great for turbos for start ups and shut downs. When the engine is shut down the turbo is still spinning. If the temperatures are hot enough with the turbo spinning the oil can coke up, prolong coking can plug up and destroy the turbo. Often times it's recommended to those to let their egt's drop before shutting down, but in reality people are just impatient. Synthetic offers a better protection against that.
However, as a owner of a 7.3L F250. Last year I rebuilt my turbo. Not because it needed it, but I had an exhaust leak to fix and since it was out I might as well rebuild it. Under inspection, a 230,000 mile diesel turbo ran on mostly dino oil had little to no coking. It got me thinking since diesels rejected less heat than petrol engine the demand from the oil from the turbo is naturally less.
The endless back and fourth really has no worth. And only one of the arguers is trying compromise and trying to be constructive while the other isn't.
I can see Azsynthetic point about even if you use one truck one person and switching back to back would represent 1 data point, which has little value to finding the better of the two. But I can see dnewton's point if the trucks/engines are similar enough statistical data can be used to get anything useful from it.
You do have to question why manufacturers put things on their manuals for their owners. Do they put it there to for the owner's benefit or their own? I seen too many owner's manual information, misinformation I would call it, all because the company see's it a liability issue at the customer's own expense.
Classic example would be engine breaking, on the owner's manual it says take it easy for the first 1000 miles then let it lose. From reading around and from basic understanding this is not the case. Drive it like you stole it, was the basic idea, mid to full throttle..varying rpms and downshifting with let off of throttle. All you have to do is research a little and you find out a good sense what is more right and wrong. Why wouldn't the manufacturers recommend their customers to first push their vehicles hard for the first 200 miles? Liability. They don't want to take responsibility of owners new to their cars and crashing them.
The point is the manufacturers recommendation as a resource has it limitations. And as an individual you need to see what your needs are(everyone's needs are different), test and see if the manufacturer's recommendation fits you or find an alternative.
People have to be-able to explore unconventional ideas to figure their worth. If they are not willing and biased from the start they will always be narrow-minded. You can still be open-minded and taking everything as a grain of salt. However, to say you(Azsynthetic)laugh at someone and their idea is demeaning and bought yourself a low-class ticket. Shame on you.
When reading thread, I got my answer for how long oil can last. But ultimately the only question that really popped in my head was when does the filter need to be changed and I would feel this would be a more important matter than whether you used dino or lab oil.
First I would input synthetic is great for turbos for start ups and shut downs. When the engine is shut down the turbo is still spinning. If the temperatures are hot enough with the turbo spinning the oil can coke up, prolong coking can plug up and destroy the turbo. Often times it's recommended to those to let their egt's drop before shutting down, but in reality people are just impatient. Synthetic offers a better protection against that.
However, as a owner of a 7.3L F250. Last year I rebuilt my turbo. Not because it needed it, but I had an exhaust leak to fix and since it was out I might as well rebuild it. Under inspection, a 230,000 mile diesel turbo ran on mostly dino oil had little to no coking. It got me thinking since diesels rejected less heat than petrol engine the demand from the oil from the turbo is naturally less.
The endless back and fourth really has no worth. And only one of the arguers is trying compromise and trying to be constructive while the other isn't.
I can see Azsynthetic point about even if you use one truck one person and switching back to back would represent 1 data point, which has little value to finding the better of the two. But I can see dnewton's point if the trucks/engines are similar enough statistical data can be used to get anything useful from it.
You do have to question why manufacturers put things on their manuals for their owners. Do they put it there to for the owner's benefit or their own? I seen too many owner's manual information, misinformation I would call it, all because the company see's it a liability issue at the customer's own expense.
Classic example would be engine breaking, on the owner's manual it says take it easy for the first 1000 miles then let it lose. From reading around and from basic understanding this is not the case. Drive it like you stole it, was the basic idea, mid to full throttle..varying rpms and downshifting with let off of throttle. All you have to do is research a little and you find out a good sense what is more right and wrong. Why wouldn't the manufacturers recommend their customers to first push their vehicles hard for the first 200 miles? Liability. They don't want to take responsibility of owners new to their cars and crashing them.
The point is the manufacturers recommendation as a resource has it limitations. And as an individual you need to see what your needs are(everyone's needs are different), test and see if the manufacturer's recommendation fits you or find an alternative.
People have to be-able to explore unconventional ideas to figure their worth. If they are not willing and biased from the start they will always be narrow-minded. You can still be open-minded and taking everything as a grain of salt. However, to say you(Azsynthetic)laugh at someone and their idea is demeaning and bought yourself a low-class ticket. Shame on you.
When reading thread, I got my answer for how long oil can last. But ultimately the only question that really popped in my head was when does the filter need to be changed and I would feel this would be a more important matter than whether you used dino or lab oil.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Further, IIRC, Mercedes Benz actually states that, for some applications, regardless of what oil is used, the OLM is to be followed. It was brought up about a Sprinter, or some other vehicle with a MB engine. The manual specifically stated that regardless of conventional or synthetic oil use, the OLM was the limit; no more. The OEM acknowledged that synthetics would not be offered any more OCI than the dino. This is a direct contradiction to what AZsynthetic would have us believe; that all OEMs know synthetics are superior.
I was perusing the on-line owner's/operator's manual for current Unimogs recently. They come with engines that are used throughout MB's truck line. The maintenance reminder system for oil changes demands an input for which sheet number of lube oil is being used (also an input for fuel sulfur content). As is well known, Sheets 228.5/51 consists of Gp. III and IV "synthetics", Sheets 228.3/31 Group II "dino" oils.
The owner's manual specifically states that maximum possible OCIs can be attained only with Sheet 228.5/51 oils (up to 1200 hrs).
I would make a bet that these comments are relevant to ALL heavy duty Mercedes truck engines, i.e. 400, 500 and 900 series.
Charlie
Further, IIRC, Mercedes Benz actually states that, for some applications, regardless of what oil is used, the OLM is to be followed. It was brought up about a Sprinter, or some other vehicle with a MB engine. The manual specifically stated that regardless of conventional or synthetic oil use, the OLM was the limit; no more. The OEM acknowledged that synthetics would not be offered any more OCI than the dino. This is a direct contradiction to what AZsynthetic would have us believe; that all OEMs know synthetics are superior.
I was perusing the on-line owner's/operator's manual for current Unimogs recently. They come with engines that are used throughout MB's truck line. The maintenance reminder system for oil changes demands an input for which sheet number of lube oil is being used (also an input for fuel sulfur content). As is well known, Sheets 228.5/51 consists of Gp. III and IV "synthetics", Sheets 228.3/31 Group II "dino" oils.
The owner's manual specifically states that maximum possible OCIs can be attained only with Sheet 228.5/51 oils (up to 1200 hrs).
I would make a bet that these comments are relevant to ALL heavy duty Mercedes truck engines, i.e. 400, 500 and 900 series.
Charlie
I think from being on here that a dino and syn have to be used at certain instances to get the most bang for your buck. But a syn cant be any worse for your engine only your wallet. so with that being said if you want to put syn in do it. And if you dont then dont.
My t444e pulls around 26,000lbs all the time and i am full throttle from all stops most of the time. I do yearly 10,000km OC's and it runs like a top since bought new in 2001. Im not easy on it but the maintenance is always done.
My t444e pulls around 26,000lbs all the time and i am full throttle from all stops most of the time. I do yearly 10,000km OC's and it runs like a top since bought new in 2001. Im not easy on it but the maintenance is always done.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: bullwinkle
And I also have no real "bias" against dino HDEO-I use it in the 3 older IDI diesels ('82 300D, '93 GMC 6.2, and the '89 F-450) and in the boat (Mercruiser 5.7)-I just don't mind spending a few extra $$$ to make sure the 6.0 and Dodge will start OK cold. Who wants to subsidize the UOAs?
I would be willing to help out. It would be nice if we'd get several on board here.
dnewton3 did you get my pm?
Originally Posted By: bullwinkle
And I also have no real "bias" against dino HDEO-I use it in the 3 older IDI diesels ('82 300D, '93 GMC 6.2, and the '89 F-450) and in the boat (Mercruiser 5.7)-I just don't mind spending a few extra $$$ to make sure the 6.0 and Dodge will start OK cold. Who wants to subsidize the UOAs?
I would be willing to help out. It would be nice if we'd get several on board here.
dnewton3 did you get my pm?
dnewton3
Staff member
Yes - PM sent.
So if I understand you're on dino 10w-30 for the summer, correct?
So if I understand you're on dino 10w-30 for the summer, correct?
- Status
