76 Super synthetic blend.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: wemay
Originally Posted By: NormanBuntz
Originally Posted By: dave1251
OK another vote for the label not actual performance.


If you want to measure performance, open up a laboratory. To me, when I see that "the top of my engine is very clean," that's prima facie evidence for me.


Dave's contention is not that 76 isn't a quality oil, it's that MS5K dino will keep your engine just as clean, without the 'blend' marketing term you, and many others, understandably see as a 'plus'.


How does Dave KNOW that MS5K cleans as well? Pure conjecture. The closest he'll get to a laboratory is an AZ meth lab. And exactly why is the term "blend" a marketing ploy, because the law only requires syn blends to contain 1% synthetic and everyone who likes them is a dupe?
 
Originally Posted By: NormanBuntz
Originally Posted By: wemay
Originally Posted By: NormanBuntz
Originally Posted By: dave1251
OK another vote for the label not actual performance.


If you want to measure performance, open up a laboratory. To me, when I see that "the top of my engine is very clean," that's prima facie evidence for me.


Dave's contention is not that 76 isn't a quality oil, it's that MS5K dino will keep your engine just as clean, without the 'blend' marketing term you, and many others, understandably see as a 'plus'.



How does Dave KNOW that MS5K cleans as well? Pure conjecture. The closest he'll get to a laboratory is an AZ meth lab. And exactly why is the term "blend" a marketing ploy, because the law only requires syn blends to contain 1% synthetic and everyone who likes them is a dupe?


NormanBuntz is right. There is value in getting a synth blend over a conventional dino in most cases. Some synthetic means you get a better base oil, less deposits very likely, longer lasting in the sump.

dave1251 just likes to be difficult and argue contrarian style. He needs a life. Seen him do this constantly and it should stop.
 
Originally Posted By: NormanBuntz
Originally Posted By: wemay
Originally Posted By: NormanBuntz
Originally Posted By: dave1251
OK another vote for the label not actual performance.


If you want to measure performance, open up a laboratory. To me, when I see that "the top of my engine is very clean," that's prima facie evidence for me.


Dave's contention is not that 76 isn't a quality oil, it's that MS5K dino will keep your engine just as clean, without the 'blend' marketing term you, and many others, understandably see as a 'plus'.


How does Dave KNOW that MS5K cleans as well? Pure conjecture. The closest he'll get to a laboratory is an AZ meth lab. And exactly why is the term "blend" a marketing ploy, because the law only requires syn blends to contain 1% synthetic and everyone who likes them is a dupe?


Nice tactic. Throwing a drug reference in there. How does it feel? If I could not differentiate a marketing term from actual performance I would feel pretty low. It is obvious you must feel very low.

Cheer up mate there is plenty of prospects for you in this world.
 
Originally Posted By: ElastoHydro
NormanBuntz is right. There is value in getting a synth blend over a conventional dino in most cases. Some synthetic means you get a better base oil, less deposits very likely, longer lasting in the sump.

dave1251 just likes to be difficult and argue contrarian style. He needs a life. Seen him do this constantly and it should stop.


Please explain why two oils meet the identical performance standards one could be better. And throwing the meth lab reference is right? OK tiger.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: ElastoHydro
dave1251 just likes to be difficult and argue contrarian style. He needs a life. Seen him do this constantly and it should stop.


Please explain why two oils meet the identical performance standards one could be better. And throwing the meth lab reference is right? OK tiger.


The part-synthetic formulation provides enhanced oxidation resistance and thermal stability at high temperatures compared with conventional engine oils, for extra protection. Thats why only at least partial synthetics can qualify for the higher dexos1 standard, as just one example.

This argument is too basic for me. dave1251: Suggest you google some literature on the value of synthetic blends or oils in general.
 
It is not that basic. Look at Super76 and Mobil Super 5K. The Super76 has an higher NOAK 14.3 vs 13.2 for Mobil, Higher Viscosity @ -30ºC mPa s of 6220 vs 5806, and slightly better viscosity index of 158 vs 156.

If this is such a superior formulation including basestocks how is Super 76 such a poor performer compared to "conventional" Mobil. This should be easy for you to explain because you stated this is too basic for you.
 
Originally Posted By: dave1251
It is not that basic. Look at Super76 and Mobil Super 5K. The Super76 has an higher NOAK 14.3 vs 13.2 for Mobil, Higher Viscosity @ -30ºC mPa s of 6220 vs 5806, and slightly better viscosity index of 158 vs 156.

If this is such a superior formulation including basestocks how is Super 76 such a poor performer compared to "conventional" Mobil. This should be easy for you to explain because you stated this is too basic for you.


The cold cranking visc is very nearly the same. Mobil's website says 6,080 and 76 Super is 6,150 (Phillips website), virtually the same.

On VI, Mobil's own website says its 158, identical to 76 Super's 158 (Phillips website).

Since these figures are identical, there isn't much to argue about right there.

NOACK: Mobil Super is 13.2 on PQIA, and no figures available for 76 Super. What is your reference for 76 Super NOACK?

Given the close specs, and the use of some synthetic in 76 Super, I'd pick Conoco/Phillips here, the maker of 76 Super
 
Originally Posted By: boundarylayer
Originally Posted By: dave1251
It is not that basic. Look at Super76 and Mobil Super 5K. The Super76 has an higher NOAK 14.3 vs 13.2 for Mobil, Higher Viscosity @ -30ºC mPa s of 6220 vs 5806, and slightly better viscosity index of 158 vs 156.

If this is such a superior formulation including basestocks how is Super 76 such a poor performer compared to "conventional" Mobil. This should be easy for you to explain because you stated this is too basic for you.


The cold cranking visc is very nearly the same. Mobil's website says 6,080 and 76 Super is 6,150 (Phillips website), virtually the same.

On VI, Mobil's own website says its 158, identical to 76 Super's 158 (Phillips website).

Since these figures are identical, there isn't much to argue about right there.

NOACK: Mobil Super is 13.2 on PQIA, and no figures available for 76 Super. What is your reference for 76 Super NOACK?

Given the close specs, and the use of some synthetic in 76 Super, I'd pick Conoco/Phillips here, the maker of 76 Super


VOA's Trop-Artic, 76, Motorcraft, and others not named Kendall from Phillips lubricants are the same product just different packages. Kendall is formulated with a slightly different additive package. So you make your pick because of a label. Despite the product marketed as an conventional has slightly superior performance outlined.

Thus you just like the 76 product better. Nothing wrong with this because I just like PYB better.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top