Benefits of Conventional over Synthetic

[Brian Barnhart]

Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: Brian Barnhart


PQIA has taken on the false practices of some oil marketers. Might they dare take on the task of comparing the product performance of the Majors producing “synthetics”? Perhaps it would be cost prohibitive.


The only way to compare oil performance is to run multiple controlled engine and/or fleet tests. The cost could easily run over a million dollars.

Tom NJ


Quantifying some performance parameters may require high dollar tests. However, the ILSAC standards (for example) require certain levels of performance in 11 areas and testing is performed as part of the compliance process. So the results for those 11 areas of performance are already known. They aren't available to consumers for comparison, but they could be.

I suspect the oil companies (part of whom make up ILSAC) don't want the results published. Someone might chose an oil based on a particular area of actual performance instead of the perceived performance portrayed by clever marketing.

 

[NewYorkBuck]

There is something about the economics of this thread that is a bit puzzling to me.

The first point is few would argue that synthetics are at least equal to dinos in some areas and better to far better in others, specifically cold viscosity and shearing.

The second point is the marginal and nominal cost of this extra benefit in most cases is rather small. Ie, the difference between a good dino and a good synthetic usually is less than $2 per quart, or a whopping $8-$10 per oil change. Rare is the case indeed when the difference between the average and the best is so small.

Oil is the lifeblood of our cars. No other single component is in most cases more responsible for the engines longevity. Given our cars are the second largest purchases most of us will ever make, is it wise to save pennies on its most critical component?

Look, if you're driving a 1994 beater with 300,000 miles on it, sure, I can see running the cheapest [censored] that you can, but if you have a modern car, that you OWN and want to keep for a while, I just don't get even the consideration to go the cheap route on this.

 

[Brian Barnhart]

I suggest it’s the marketing that has you confused, not the economics. You are assuming that the synthetic for $20 a jug offers you a better value for your car than the jug of conventional for $14. Problem is, when it comes to certifications, both may meet the same requirements (SN & GF-5) and nothing more. Your car driven by you in the conditions you drive may gain no benefit from the more expensive oil. Marketing may be responsible for leading you to believe the bottle saying “synthetic” will offer a better value or better protection for your use. Or marketing might be leading you to believe it’s cheap insurance, when in fact it may be money wasted.

That’s the kind of stuff the folks here are constantly trying to sort out. And the oil industry isn’t interested in truly helping beyond what’s required by their own minimum requirements, or the requirements specified by engine manufacturers.

All that being said, I do believe there are some “synthetics” that offer a good value for the engines and conditions that need them (or benefit from them). Those oils are the ones that meet many of the more stringent ACEA and manufacturer requirements. But they meet those requirements because they have been designed to do so, as opposed to just being “synthetic” oil.

Cooling system failure is the most common cause of engine failure. If you want to ensure long engine life, it may be better to spend “extra” dollars on things like coolant changes, hoses, and belts rather than “better” oil.

 

[NewYorkBuck]

Brian - its not confused about marketing, its certainty about a good risk/reward bargain when you see it.

"Certifications, "may meet," "may gain no benefit." That's a lot of risk latitude there. Sure, could you be completely fine with dinos over the life of your car? Sure, and you could smoke three packs a day an never get lung cancer, but again, life is all about risk/reward.

Given the numbers I posted above, say your car will last you 200,000 on dino and you change every 5000k. That's 40 oil changes, at a synthetic premium of $9 per that's a whopping $360 over the LIFE of the car. Given the ave rate of $.61 per mile to own a car, synthetic would need to give you just around 600 miles more life to justify the cost. When you consider the cost of the items that are dependent upon oil, one more time, cheap cheap cheap risk/reward.

As far as cooling problems being the biggest killer of cars, for one I have never seen any data supporting this conjecture, and for two, even if its true its not a good objection to the synthetic argument as one could say there are less oil related failures now BECAUSE of the current prevalence of synthetics.

On a personal note, I have two cars, and both of them are very finicky when it comes to oil. To replace the engine on one of my cars, it would be a $22-40k bill depending upon how you went about it. With that, I spare no cost to get what I believe the best oil is in its crankcase, and not necessarily what is "approved." Considering this practice costs me about $50 extra dollars a year to protect a 40 thousand dollar engine, I think, again, we are in the realm of cheap insurance.

All that said, whoever owns their cars, its their cars and they can do whatever they wish. If you think dino is just as good and not worth the cup of coffee it costs to put in synthetic, then I wish you luck and more power to you.


Originally Posted By: Brian Barnhart
I suggest it’s the marketing that has you confused, not the economics. You are assuming that the synthetic for $20 a jug offers you a better value for your car than the jug of conventional for $14. Problem is, when it comes to certifications, both may meet the same requirements (SN & GF-5) and nothing more. Your car driven by you in the conditions you drive may gain no benefit from the more expensive oil. Marketing may be responsible for leading you to believe the bottle saying “synthetic” will offer a better value or better protection for your use. Or marketing might be leading you to believe it’s cheap insurance, when in fact it may be money wasted.

That’s the kind of stuff the folks here are constantly trying to sort out. And the oil industry isn’t interested in truly helping beyond what’s required by their own minimum requirements, or the requirements specified by engine manufacturers.

All that being said, I do believe there are some “synthetics” that offer a good value for the engines and conditions that need them (or benefit from them). Those oils are the ones that meet many of the more stringent ACEA and manufacturer requirements. But they meet those requirements because they have been designed to do so, as opposed to just being “synthetic” oil.

Cooling system failure is the most common cause of engine failure. If you want to ensure long engine life, it may be better to spend “extra” dollars on things like coolant changes, hoses, and belts rather than “better” oil.

 

[wemay]

Could it be that trusting an oil is 'synthetic' is the same as believing the other 'meets a spec' Both terms are used with extreme latitude depending on your understanding of each.

Now, 'approved certifications' are more concrete.

 

[telecat]

Originally Posted By: gfh77665
Synthetics have a better formulation. Better base stocks, better additive packages. They are just better oils, all around.
You have documentation for this?

 

[telecat]

Originally Posted By: gfh77665

Notice syns are the oils with extended change interval capabilities.
If you believe marketing and advertising.

 

[telecat]

Originally Posted By: deven
Conventional oil is good for break in of new engines to seat the piston rings. Other than that synthetic out performs conventional oils in most every catogery.
You have documention for this?

 

[gfh77665]

Originally Posted By: telecat
Originally Posted By: gfh77665
Synthetics have a better formulation. Better base stocks, better additive packages. They are just better oils, all around.
You have documentation for this?


Tons of it. Peruse the websites of the major manufactures. For example, Pennzoil rates their YB just "2 stars" and PUP "5 stars" with the premium technologies.

Also, PQIA has a plethora of comparative information clearly illustrating SYNS ARE BETTER. Period.

 

[Flareside302]

Originally Posted By: telecat
Originally Posted By: gfh77665

Notice syns are the oils with extended change interval capabilities.
If you believe marketing and advertising.



Show me a conventional that'll do this...

 

[acme]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: acme




Hate to bust your bubble, but Synthetic and non-synthetic oil comes from a barrel of oil just like Kerosene, Diesel, Gasoline, Jet fuel, Grease ....etc.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_fuel

Originally Posted By: Wikipedia
Direct conversion of coal to synthetic fuel was originally developed in Germany.[11] The Bergius process was developed by Friedrich Bergius, yielding a patent in 1913. Karl Goldschmidt invited him to build an industrial plant at his factory the Th. Goldschmidt AG (now known as Evonik Industries) in 1914.[12] The production began only in 1919.[13][citation needed]

Indirect coal conversion (where coal is gasified and then converted to synthetic fuels) was also developed in Germany by Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch in 1923.[11] During World War II, Germany used synthetic oil manufacturing (German: Kohleverflüssigung) to produce substitute (Ersatz) oil products by using the Bergius process (from coal), the Fischer–Tropsch process (water gas), and other methods (Zeitz used the TTH and MTH processes).[14][15] In 1931, the British Department of Scientific and Industrial Research located in Greenwich, England set up a small facility where hydrogen gas was combined with coal at extremely high pressures to make a synthetic fuel.[16]

The Bergius process plants were Nazi Germany's primary source of high-grade aviation gasoline, synthetic oil, synthetic rubber, synthetic methanol, synthetic ammonia, and nitric acid. Nearly one third of the Bergius production was produced by plants in Pölitz (Polish: Police) and Leuna, with 1/3 more in five other plants (Ludwigshafen had a much smaller Bergius plant[17] which improved "gasoline quality by dehydrogenation" using the DHD process).[15]


The Fischer-Tropsch process is currently what is being employed by Shell in producing their GTL base oils, which they use in their synthetic oil products.

There are also POE's (esters) which are used in jet oils (and some high performance race oils) which can be produced from organic sources like algae.




Like I said, Synthetic and non-synthetic oil come from the same barrel of oil. Esters and other additives are "Additives" in oil. You can't pour just 5 quarts of esters or other additives in the crankcase to run an engine. Additives can come from many different sources.
You don't drill for synthetic oil....... (this is an Obama dream).

 

[acme]

Originally Posted By: telecat
Originally Posted By: gfh77665
Synthetics have a better formulation. Better base stocks, better additive packages. They are just better oils, all around.
You have documentation for this?



Many cars come off the assembly line with synthetic oil in their crankcases. Corvettes, Porsche, Ferrari...etc. Only reason why you would use non-synthetic oil for a break-in is because you would drain it out after 500 miles. A bit to expensive if you use synthetic oil for a break-in.. But either oil is ok.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: acme


Like I said, Synthetic and non-synthetic oil come from the same barrel of oil. Esters and other additives are "Additives" in oil. You can't pour just 5 quarts of esters or other additives in the crankcase to run an engine. Additives can come from many different sources.
You don't drill for synthetic oil....... (this is an Obama dream).

GTL and POE are both used as base oils, though the latter is not a common base oil (in a high percentage) in PCMO's. Shell is producing their GTL base oils using Natural Gas. Historically the Germans used coal.

So no, the current crop of synthetic oils from SOPUS at least, using their latest GTL bases, are not coming from crude but rather Natural Gas.

There are a few companies that use POE bases in their PCMO products, but the percentage isn't majority (Motul, Redline...etc).

I think it is likely that we'll see GTL bases become more prevalent in the future due to the success Shell has had.

 

[rikstaker]

Synthetics always have better cold temperature performance than conventional In really cold places like Saskatchewan, that makes a difference in being able to get to work or not.

 

[Nate1979]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: acme


Like I said, Synthetic and non-synthetic oil come from the same barrel of oil. Esters and other additives are "Additives" in oil. You can't pour just 5 quarts of esters or other additives in the crankcase to run an engine. Additives can come from many different sources.
You don't drill for synthetic oil....... (this is an Obama dream).

GTL and POE are both used as base oils, though the latter is not a common base oil (in a high percentage) in PCMO's. Shell is producing their GTL base oils using Natural Gas. Historically the Germans used coal.

So no, the current crop of synthetic oils from SOPUS at least, using their latest GTL bases, are not coming from crude but rather Natural Gas.

There are a few companies that use POE bases in their PCMO products, but the percentage isn't majority (Motul, Redline...etc).

I think it is likely that we'll see GTL bases become more prevalent in the future due to the success Shell has had.



Would the GTL base oil of SOPUS be considered a full synthetic oil in Germany or are the Germans still living in the 20th century and haven't caught up with the real world?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: acme


Like I said, Synthetic and non-synthetic oil come from the same barrel of oil. Esters and other additives are "Additives" in oil. You can't pour just 5 quarts of esters or other additives in the crankcase to run an engine. Additives can come from many different sources.
You don't drill for synthetic oil....... (this is an Obama dream).

GTL and POE are both used as base oils, though the latter is not a common base oil (in a high percentage) in PCMO's. Shell is producing their GTL base oils using Natural Gas. Historically the Germans used coal.

So no, the current crop of synthetic oils from SOPUS at least, using their latest GTL bases, are not coming from crude but rather Natural Gas.

There are a few companies that use POE bases in their PCMO products, but the percentage isn't majority (Motul, Redline...etc).

I think it is likely that we'll see GTL bases become more prevalent in the future due to the success Shell has had.



Would the GTL base oil of SOPUS be considered a full synthetic oil in Germany or are the Germans still living in the 20th century and haven't caught up with the real world?

I think it is considered "group III", though perhaps that is a limitation of the classification system?

 

[virginoil]

After 175 posts has the jury made a verdict ?

Perhaps we should make a global list of all vehicles ever made by OEMs with the OEM recommended oil alongside it.

This may help to shed light the matter.

Go for semi-synthetic until the jury delivers a decision, that's what I am currently using, as that's what my OEM manual considers is more than adequate for my vehicle.

 

[Ducman]

Originally Posted By: virginoil
After 175 posts has the jury made a verdict ?

Perhaps we should make a global list of all vehicles ever made by OEMs with the OEM recommended oil alongside it.

This may help to shed light the matter.



Ok, I'll be happy to kick the list off.
Assuming we are only covering PCMO's.

2006 HSV GTO with LS2 engine. As per the owners manual (Mobil 1 10W-30 grade)

 

[yvon_la]

let me put it simply!dino oil is run for million of miles in big rig,if it was bad ?dino oil would end up at the same dump, diesel v engine in big ended up at!

 

[JGmazda]

Originally Posted By: Brian Barnhart
I suggest it’s the marketing that has you confused, not the economics. You are assuming that the synthetic for $20 a jug offers you a better value for your car than the jug of conventional for $14. Problem is, when it comes to certifications, both may meet the same requirements (SN & GF-5) and nothing more. Your car driven by you in the conditions you drive may gain no benefit from the more expensive oil. Marketing may be responsible for leading you to believe the bottle saying “synthetic” will offer a better value or better protection for your use. Or marketing might be leading you to believe it’s cheap insurance, when in fact it may be money wasted.

That’s the kind of stuff the folks here are constantly trying to sort out. And the oil industry isn’t interested in truly helping beyond what’s required by their own minimum requirements, or the requirements specified by engine manufacturers.

All that being said, I do believe there are some “synthetics” that offer a good value for the engines and conditions that need them (or benefit from them). Those oils are the ones that meet many of the more stringent ACEA and manufacturer requirements. But they meet those requirements because they have been designed to do so, as opposed to just being “synthetic” oil.

Cooling system failure is the most common cause of engine failure. If you want to ensure long engine life, it may be better to spend “extra” dollars on things like coolant changes, hoses, and belts rather than “better” oil.


^^^ Very well said! ^^^