wear numbers

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Mar 15, 2013
Messages
4,023
I posted a few days ago asking to see Dino engine pics. Saw a few and appreciate all those that contributed. However got me thinking if synthetic is really better not just for longer drains but better in general the wear would be less correct? Is there any kind of proof that says on a regular basis synthetic oils out perform Dino oils in this area?
 
Are you unable to do the research in the appropriate forum? There are thousands of UOA's available-spend some time researching.
 
I'm not one for scrutinizing over the UOA but, I do look at them often and sort'a scan down the list of wear numbers.

I haven't noticed anything in synthetic oils for lets say, 5K miles that shows that syn are better than dino. But, this is just me! Again, I don't scrutinize over the numbers
shocked.gif


What I do notice is that e.g., with synthetic, TBN takes longer to get to a pH of 2(because it often starts out higher) and Calcium/Magnesium mixtures are higher.

But, in extreme cold or heavy towing/useage vehicles or extended OCI's(IDK, 10K miles???) syn is the choice.
 
Last edited:
I'll be honest I don't know a lot about uoa. Been trying to better understand them. I read a little bit but those aren't really a apples.to apples comparison. Since there is a lot of variables different engine different use ect.
I want to know is there any actual testing done to support synthetic shows less wear. Or maybe someone who has done a string of uoa with different oils and can see the results.
 
None.
And to be honest I don't think it is better in relation to wear. If anything it's lesser.
It lasts longer in service but that's about it.
Oil is oil. That nonsense about consistent molecules is a joke. In fact I think inconsistent sized molecules are better because metal isn't smooth,so diffent sized molecules will fit in that inconsistent metal surface which may protect better.
And the only way to measure wear is to actually measure it before installation and after tear down,anything else is a guess.
That being said I use synthetics because of price per mile,it pays in my situation to use it.

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.
 
Last edited:
I haven't seen a study that would compare wear difference between dino and synthetic yet. And we've had quite a number of studies posted here from different oil manufacturers, but comparing wear was never the subject. I also tried digging around myself to no avail. That is why I always question the nonsense about "better protection" that always gets repeated here when it comes to synthetics.

Synthetics do have their advantages, but most people seem to be more interested in repeating what's written on the bottle by the marketing department to feel better about their choice, than look for facts.
 
Last edited:
What sort of question is that?

Quality synthetic oil will perform better in every way. Synthetic oils are more share stable, both temporary and permanent. They leave less deposits on piston rings and other hot spots around engine. This is very important with some engines because it will lead to increased oil consumption. Not to mention how mineral oil can cook up oil passages on turbos and even oil galleries on some car when parked after driving from excessive heat from exhaust manifold.
 
Pathetic at his alleged age.

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. [/quote]
 
Quote:
That nonsense about consistent molecules is a joke. In fact I think inconsistent sized molecules are better because metal isn't smooth,so diffent sized molecules will fit in that inconsistent metal surface which may protect better.


Agreed, but really expensive oil and oil additives has nano-particles.
grin.gif
 
Originally Posted By: ram_man
I posted a few days ago asking to see Dino engine pics. Saw a few and appreciate all those that contributed. However got me thinking if synthetic is really better not just for longer drains but better in general the wear would be less correct? Is there any kind of proof that says on a regular basis synthetic oils out perform Dino oils in this area?


Don't think you'll find any. But, fwiw, the Blackstone folks say they generally use conventional oil as they don't see a significant difference in results between it and synthetics - and they see thousands of UOAs.

But, as others have said, synthetics are the ticket if you go for long drain intervals or drive in extreme conditions (very cold, towing,etc.). And, with the price differential being pretty modest if you're a DIY guy, using syn is hardly foolish.
 
We seem to forget todays [dino] oils are better than ever and syns aren't GPIII ETC.
 
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!
 
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!
Not all extend their syn oil changes.
 
Of course UOAs don't really tell us about actual engine wear. Only engine tear down and and measurements will tell us that. I can say from my own experiance(I have used M1 oils for 36 years and never had a need for tear down)I have seen one engine torn down that ran on M1 5-30 for it's entire life(190K) at 8-10K OCIs. The engine was near new clean and all specs were in new engine range. The reason for the tear down was the car(99Taurus) was ran through a creek that over flowed a country road and water was sucked into the engine breaking a rod. The engine was re-built and ran until the trans finally played out. So this engine had 190K with no noticeable wear anywhere in the engine.
 
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.
 
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?
 
Originally Posted By: ram_man
I posted a few days ago asking to see Dino engine pics. Saw a few and appreciate all those that contributed. However got me thinking if synthetic is really better not just for longer drains but better in general the wear would be less correct? Is there any kind of proof that says on a regular basis synthetic oils out perform Dino oils in this area?


IMO you have to draw a fine line between oil "performance", "wear", and the causes of wear. We know from simple physical tests that synthetics outperform in terms of flow, stability, viscosity retention, etc. With some more complex tests, we can see that they outperform in terms of oxidation, volatility, etc. And that's the case regardless of where the synthesized basestock is derived from, wither the basestock was a wax or was ethylene (also derived from crude).

The real play is in how these manifest themselves in performance. I would recommend you go back to stuy the basis of hydrodynamic lubrication - in other words, for finely finished surfaces with an appropriate film of lubricant (viscosity selection and its retention and behavior under shear and temperature do come into play here), there is no surface to surface contact, and as such, there is no practical wear.

So the benefits come to play in the following:
1) Better flow performance in the cold and from engine start - how fast you can create the hydrodynamic wedge means how short the time where surface lubrication occurs. For many applications, a non-syn can practically pump up at the same time as a syn. But in some circumstances, the syn will flow faster and get to the lowest wear regime soonest.
2) Better oxidation resistance - how fast the lubes degrade and change flow/shear/wear performance in both the hydrodnamic and other regimes. But to add to that, how fast/how much deposits, coatings, and viscosity changes occur.
3) Better viscosity performance - relates in a way to oxidative performance (in the case of oxidative thickening), but also in terms of how well viscosity is retained under high temperature, high shear conditions, where one may fal out of the hydrodynamic regime and into a higher-wear surface lubrication regims
4) Longevity of the lubricant - related to many of the parameters up above, but important in and of itself, since the performance of the lube in every way changes.

It should be noted that for some base stocks, some additive solubility parameters may be worse than other base stocks. Thus there may be other issues with the approach to additization, the ability to disperse and support contaminants, TBN retention characteristics, etc. Ive said it before and Ill continue to say that the add pack makes at least half of the difference in terms of a finished lube performance. Thats a big reason why for all but the most extreme (generally cold) conditions where pumpability is requirement #1 (and since most of us dont live in Alaska or Fargo or on the Hudson Bay, its not that substantial a concern necessarily) conditions, the use of PAO versus a good group III lube or anything similar is such a moot point and only makes the tiniest of a fraction of difference (and precisely why lots of vehicles have racked up tons of miles on older dino lubes and whatnot). The whole basestock wife's tale "value proposition" is silly, and its all about how good the finished lube is.

And given ever more stringent specs in terms of API and other versions, it is driving ever better feedstocks (syn or not), add packs, and other components. Thats not to say that PU wont outperfom PYB for the same API SN certification, or that Edge or M1 wont outperform GTX or clean for the same specs. They will. But the practical reality of if it will be seen is highly engine and use dependent, and is also contingent with how many/much/often the more difficult conditions I mentioned above are to be encountered.
 
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?


Lower volatility -> less change in hydrocarbon fractions over the life of the oil, less viscosity drift due to selective loss of lighter components.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top