Can synthetic and conventional oil of the same brand and weight be mixed?
Synthetic vs regular oil mix
- Thread starter 007
- Start date
- Status
Yes, you could even mix different brands and weights. Most oils are very similar sharing similar additives. I have a mix of diesel oil and Maxlife in my car atm.
Last edited:
Yes. Like regular Havoline and Havoline Pro DS can be mixed.
That would be called a synthetic blend
Yes. What i call a synthetic blend is at least 50/50 of each other. Most synthetic oils out there contain less of the synthetic oil and more conventional.
Huh???
Originally Posted By: LX289
Yes. What i call a synthetic blend is at least 50/50 of each other. Most synthetic oils out there contain less of the synthetic oil and more conventional.
Originally Posted By: LX289
Yes. What i call a synthetic blend is at least 50/50 of each other. Most synthetic oils out there contain less of the synthetic oil and more conventional.
Originally Posted By: BobsArmory
Huh???
Originally Posted By: LX289
Yes. What i call a synthetic blend is at least 50/50 of each other. Most synthetic oils out there contain less of the synthetic oil and more conventional.
Think he's refering to synthetic blend.
Huh???
Originally Posted By: LX289
Yes. What i call a synthetic blend is at least 50/50 of each other. Most synthetic oils out there contain less of the synthetic oil and more conventional.
Think he's refering to synthetic blend.
Originally Posted By: BobsArmory
Huh???
Originally Posted By: LX289
Yes. What i call a synthetic blend is at least 50/50 of each other. Most synthetic oils out there contain less of the synthetic oil and more conventional.
Isnt some Castrol considered a "fake" synthetic? It has something to do with the base stocks. (Something I am not too fluent with.)
Huh???
Originally Posted By: LX289
Yes. What i call a synthetic blend is at least 50/50 of each other. Most synthetic oils out there contain less of the synthetic oil and more conventional.
Isnt some Castrol considered a "fake" synthetic? It has something to do with the base stocks. (Something I am not too fluent with.)
Yes i was referring to a synthetic blend. That was my Ideal synthetic blend of 50/50 each. Others might have a different blend. Sorry for the confusion.
dlundblad, not sure about fake synthetics didn't know they had them. I know for a fact that GC isn't a fake synthetic. Fake synthetics like Grp. III base stocks? I thought the only real synthetics were Grp. V and IV Pao/ Ester or am I wrong.
dlundblad, not sure about fake synthetics didn't know they had them. I know for a fact that GC isn't a fake synthetic. Fake synthetics like Grp. III base stocks? I thought the only real synthetics were Grp. V and IV Pao/ Ester or am I wrong.
Last edited:
Mix to your heart's content...they are all miscible.
Just realise that all you "know" about your blend is the new KV40 and KV100, and even then they can be out due to additive interactions.
If you take for example SN M1 0W40 with an approvals list as long as your arm, and blend it with an "SN GF-5", you can't state with certainty that the blend even meets SN.
Just realise that all you "know" about your blend is the new KV40 and KV100, and even then they can be out due to additive interactions.
If you take for example SN M1 0W40 with an approvals list as long as your arm, and blend it with an "SN GF-5", you can't state with certainty that the blend even meets SN.
The internet chemists we have here have given their internet blessing and have said "fear not mix away no problem."
The learned ones have said " you can mix proceed with caution as the mixed results can be clear as mud. "
The learned ones have said " you can mix proceed with caution as the mixed results can be clear as mud. "
Originally Posted By: 007
Can synthetic and conventional oil of the same brand and weight be mixed?
Yes. Even though you might ruffle a few feathers here by doing so, just mix to your hearts content. I have done it in the past and my engines have never fallen out of the vehicles.
Can synthetic and conventional oil of the same brand and weight be mixed?
Yes. Even though you might ruffle a few feathers here by doing so, just mix to your hearts content. I have done it in the past and my engines have never fallen out of the vehicles.
Originally Posted By: SilverC6
There is no rationale for mixing.
If you want a synthetic blend, buy one.
Its not uncommon for someone to have 2-3 qts. of conventional and 2-3 qts. of synthetic left over from previous changes.
Perfectly reasonable to mix your own blend.
There is no rationale for mixing.
If you want a synthetic blend, buy one.
Its not uncommon for someone to have 2-3 qts. of conventional and 2-3 qts. of synthetic left over from previous changes.
Perfectly reasonable to mix your own blend.
A "Synthetic Blend" may only contain 20% syn..its totally unkown and unregulated. If you mix it your self you will know exactly what you have. You are over paying for blends...probably.
wemay
Site Donor 2023
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Mix to your heart's content...they are all miscible.
Just realise that all you "know" about your blend is the new KV40 and KV100, and even then they can be out due to additive interactions.
If you take for example SN M1 0W40 with an approvals list as long as your arm, and blend it with an "SN GF-5", you can't state with certainty that the blend even meets SN.
I've always thought that if both oils being mixed were SN, the finished product would still be SN. The base stocks portion being either diluted (from the syn point of view) or enhanced (from the conventional side). If the additives pkg is similar, who knows how much change the mix may cause. Or, how significant.
I would also agree that mixing is just fine.
Mix to your heart's content...they are all miscible.
Just realise that all you "know" about your blend is the new KV40 and KV100, and even then they can be out due to additive interactions.
If you take for example SN M1 0W40 with an approvals list as long as your arm, and blend it with an "SN GF-5", you can't state with certainty that the blend even meets SN.
I've always thought that if both oils being mixed were SN, the finished product would still be SN. The base stocks portion being either diluted (from the syn point of view) or enhanced (from the conventional side). If the additives pkg is similar, who knows how much change the mix may cause. Or, how significant.
I would also agree that mixing is just fine.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Mix to your heart's content...they are all miscible.
Just realise that all you "know" about your blend is the new KV40 and KV100, and even then they can be out due to additive interactions.
If you take for example SN M1 0W40 with an approvals list as long as your arm, and blend it with an "SN GF-5", you can't state with certainty that the blend even meets SN.
It doesn't matter to my cars except the 2014 Accord.
The newest are 2004 S2000 and 2006 Volvo V70 and both cars require SL.
I don't think I will mix any thing for 2014 Accord, it just need SN 0W20. After free oil changes at dealer I probably will use any over the shelf 0W20, if nothing on sale I probably use M1 AFE 0W20.
Mix to your heart's content...they are all miscible.
Just realise that all you "know" about your blend is the new KV40 and KV100, and even then they can be out due to additive interactions.
If you take for example SN M1 0W40 with an approvals list as long as your arm, and blend it with an "SN GF-5", you can't state with certainty that the blend even meets SN.
It doesn't matter to my cars except the 2014 Accord.
The newest are 2004 S2000 and 2006 Volvo V70 and both cars require SL.
I don't think I will mix any thing for 2014 Accord, it just need SN 0W20. After free oil changes at dealer I probably will use any over the shelf 0W20, if nothing on sale I probably use M1 AFE 0W20.
Originally Posted By: wemay
I've always thought that if both oils being mixed were SN, the finished product would still be SN. The base stocks portion being either diluted (from the syn point of view) or enhanced (from the conventional side). If the additives pkg is similar, who knows how much change the mix may cause. Or, how significant.
I would also agree that mixing is just fine.
wemay, even 'though the API base oil interchange rules have been used here to erroneously justify blending in general, and a fabled mix in particular, it's not that simple.
If you were to create "wemay blend", a 50:50 mix of dino and synthetic, you could not claim that it met SN, without further testing.
API base oil interchange rules
Bear in mind that these guidelines and requirements are for changing basestocks with a single additive package, not mixing two additive packages together as well...consensus on this thread is that the additive packages are so similar it's moot (I disagree, but will hold the ruse for the rest of the discussion and limit it to basestock changes, 50:50 blend).
Consider the blend either a GrII with half replaced with GrIII, or a GrIII with half replaced with a GrII...semantics, but it's applicable even when changing basestocks within GrIII and GrIV themselves...GrV, needs testing nearly every time.
wemay blend would have to undergo the following testing before wemay could claim even SN.
* Sequence III
* Sequence IVA (not required if blend is same or higher viscosity, required if one of the oils is GrIV)
* Sequence VE/VG (required if one of the oils is GrIV)
* Sequence VIA/VIB
* Sequence VID (Not required if HTHS is less than either original, required otherwise) - LOL, See IVA above.
* Sequence VIII required only if the synthetic is GrIV
The sheet has some worked examples for comparison.
So the blending proponents who state that "of course" "the blend" is an SN, can't claim that with certainty, as the API doesn't even recognise it as such.
I've always thought that if both oils being mixed were SN, the finished product would still be SN. The base stocks portion being either diluted (from the syn point of view) or enhanced (from the conventional side). If the additives pkg is similar, who knows how much change the mix may cause. Or, how significant.
I would also agree that mixing is just fine.
wemay, even 'though the API base oil interchange rules have been used here to erroneously justify blending in general, and a fabled mix in particular, it's not that simple.
If you were to create "wemay blend", a 50:50 mix of dino and synthetic, you could not claim that it met SN, without further testing.
API base oil interchange rules
Bear in mind that these guidelines and requirements are for changing basestocks with a single additive package, not mixing two additive packages together as well...consensus on this thread is that the additive packages are so similar it's moot (I disagree, but will hold the ruse for the rest of the discussion and limit it to basestock changes, 50:50 blend).
Consider the blend either a GrII with half replaced with GrIII, or a GrIII with half replaced with a GrII...semantics, but it's applicable even when changing basestocks within GrIII and GrIV themselves...GrV, needs testing nearly every time.
wemay blend would have to undergo the following testing before wemay could claim even SN.
* Sequence III
* Sequence IVA (not required if blend is same or higher viscosity, required if one of the oils is GrIV)
* Sequence VE/VG (required if one of the oils is GrIV)
* Sequence VIA/VIB
* Sequence VID (Not required if HTHS is less than either original, required otherwise) - LOL, See IVA above.
* Sequence VIII required only if the synthetic is GrIV
The sheet has some worked examples for comparison.
So the blending proponents who state that "of course" "the blend" is an SN, can't claim that with certainty, as the API doesn't even recognise it as such.
wemay
Site Donor 2023
Thanks Shannow, very interesting read and I like the sound of that..'wemay blend' Lol.
In following your train of thought, we also cannot say 'it isn't' an SN (for arguments sake). So without the benefits of the various tests, and again, if starting off with two of the same API classification, would it not be logical to presume the mixed oil remains within said API classification? Or more likely at least? Understanding, of course, that the mixer would be mistaken if making proclimations of achieving a superior product within a staunch classification.
In following your train of thought, we also cannot say 'it isn't' an SN (for arguments sake). So without the benefits of the various tests, and again, if starting off with two of the same API classification, would it not be logical to presume the mixed oil remains within said API classification? Or more likely at least? Understanding, of course, that the mixer would be mistaken if making proclimations of achieving a superior product within a staunch classification.
Last edited:
- Status
