Does synth's base oil make engines run cooler

Status
Not open for further replies.
VaderSS,

The study is probably accurate. It was the average of three gas and three diesel engines instrumented engines in three different labatory settings and done by three different sets of engineers/researchers.

How can you say oil temp percentages are 0% when after driving you can prove for yourself that oil temps rise by touching the dipstick. The oil is removing heat from the engine.

Sure different engines in varying vehicles will differ slightly, but I would say not too far off
from what was reported.

In the same text, on the lubrication section, it says, "A large part of the friction losses appear as heat in the coolant AND OIL which must be removed in the radiator and oil cooler system. Thus, friction losses influence the size of the coolant systems." So engineers have to know the friction losses + the conducted heat in order to determine the size of the cooling system.
 
I have no doubt that oil transfers heat from the engine. My point is that it is a transfer medium, just like the metal in the block and heads. Unless there is a dedicated oil cooler, then the heat transfer is from hot parts in engine to oil to cooler parts in engine to coolant/radiation/convection.

In the case I reference, the oil temperature rises because it has a less effecient means of disposing of the heat. Without the dedicated oil cooler, the oil resides in a closed system, and has no place to transfer the heat to the atmosphere except the cooler parts inside the engine.

I feel that oil coolers have their place, but if an engine is lightly stressed enough, then money spent on an oil cooler could be spent better in other ways. If you are towing, roadracing, have a highly stressed engine, or an aircooled engine, then an oil cooler is a very good investment.
 
I'll just add that in my recent switch from Castrol Syntec ATF to Mobil 1, I noticed a definate decrease in heat coming out of and thru the gear shift knob. The change in temps. in the engine are probably minimal and I'm guessing here, relate to the improvement in flow characteristics and lubrication properties of PAO's...
 
Okay this is an easy test that will prove synthetic do reduce heat!!!

If anyone really cares to know, call Amsoil and get the Video of the 2 cycle oil test.

I have seen this, it shows them switching between Amsoil's synthetic 2 cycle and a conventional 2 cycle. Amsoil's is mixed at 50:1, the conventional is I beleive 32:1.

They have 2 seperate gas tanks with a switch to diverte the flow between the 2, they have 1 engine, with max rpm (WOT) and when they switch you can see the temps very dramitically, whatelse besides the lubricant would cause such a decrease in temps??
 
MSSPARKS, All that proves there is a difference in these oils, but question is...

Is it the synth base oil or the difference in the additives that is reducing the friction thus the lower temps?

Your are not using the same additive package between the two. Alot of demos are done againts a standard oil vs a specialized oil so to show the difference. I have seen where dynos were done against different oils but the main oil used the same basic base oil but different additives. Have any of you seen where the ONLY key ingrediant that was changed is the base oil and the additives where the same? My point is, I don't believe that synth's carry off or protect any better against wear but do have the ability to last longer as the only thing it is doing is protecting itself(the base oil) from becomming oxidized as fast due to the molecular design. We are talking about heat and cold effecting the base oil's condition for longivity, and there is no proof that the synth base oil itself drops heat or protects against wear any better than its mineral counter part. The proof that is being provided is that the synth with that certain additive package may work better against the standard mineral for longer durations.

Its got a lot to do with the additives, If you can just run one base oil against the other without the additives then see how the temps and wear protection where to be affected, then that would be proof or if you could ensure that both oils additive packages where identical, and the only difference is the base oil, then that would be a good test but currently all I have seen to date is where all tests are done with one oil against the other and in each case, most think it's the synth base oil that is making the difference and fail to reconize that it might be that the difference in additives also may be the real factor for difference in temp/wear.
 
Here is a swipe from one of the Amsoil FAQS:

Federal Mogul Corporation, a manufacturer of engine bearings, pistons, connecting rods and other engine parts, studied
over 7,000 case histories of bearing distress and engine failure and never found engine oil to be the cause of a failure.
Dirt, the number one cause of engine failure, was found to be responsible for 43.4% of failures, and insufficient
lubrication, the second most common cause of failure, was responsible for 16.6% of failures. Insufficient lubrication is
the general term used when not enough oil gets through to the engine to lubricate it (lack of oil volume).
 
quote:

Originally posted by BOBISTHEOILGUY:
MSSPARKS, All that proves there is a difference in these oils, but question is...

Is it the synth base oil or the difference in the additives that is reducing the friction thus the lower temps?

My point is, I don't believe that synth's carry off or protect any better against wear but do have the ability to last longer as the only thing it is doing is protecting itself(the base oil) from becomming oxidized as fast due to the molecular design.


See the Film Strength thread, let me know your opinion?

How many conventional 2 cycle oils have a mix ratio of 100:1? If the base oils are apples to apples, then why not have a conventional with these wonderful additives(whatever they are as I have no idea) mixing at 100:1 or 300:1 for that matter.

Why I say 300:1 becuase I know of some that were test at that!!
 
Totally agree, You'll never have a failure due to lubrication but due to lack of lubrication.

MS, Find where they tested the same way with a standard oil using the same additives, then we will have something to talk about, but I suspect that did not happen.

Also, Consider this, Amsoils basic reason for non api status is due to the higher levels of antiwear additive.. Go figure, they too rely on this more than the synth oil for wear protection.
 
didn't mean to run everyone off of this subject.
frown.gif
 
Friend with a Harley finally tried M1 V Twin I think its called and took a lot of convincing as Harleys are 'special' engines). Voila even he could tell there was less heat while riding it.
 
OH.... you make my head ache bob! Good points all.

Those of you who are defending your own pet products theories of lubrication open your eyes.

Each have their strengths and weakness. The relatively new highly refined oils have closed the gap between the old synthetic/mineral oil argument that some MLM companies have perpetuated.

One of the key strengths I have designed around in a high performance automotive engine is liquid flow characteristics defined as laminar/mixed/turbulent. Whether my theory is correct or not I have used it to cut oil temps by 50 F in a racing engine and eliminated the use of an oil cooler. I attribute it to this theory because the add package was identical or close enough to be a direct comparison in the same powerplant. Hydrocracked base oils exhibit this tendency more like a synthetic oil.

Yes the additives affect the final product. Schaeffers for instance is such a well thought out oil that even though the base is mostly group I base solvent refined hydrotreated oil they almost perfectly match the base to the adds.
DISCLAIMER: I don't sell Schaeffer. Bob disagrees with me about my flow theories.
 
Hmmmmmm, From what I'm seeing, You're assuming that the film strength of the synth is better than the dino thus relying on it providing better coverage and higher film strength. under that senario it might could, but I Don't agree it works that way.
 
It has nothing to do with film strength (different topic). The film "thickness" and thermal properties, such as "c" and "k" are the only things that affect the outcomes. You will notice that I used the same film thickness for both dino's and synth's for the conduction calculations.

These are heat transfer formulas from thermodynamics and the constants I used for "c" and "k" were from Michael J. Neal's, "The Handbook of Tribiology."
 
BTW,

The "rho" factor in the 12:11 post (oil convection heat transfer) is the oil's density, measured in kg/cubic meters, and since both oils were so close in density, I used 1.065 kg/cubic meter.
 
Here is some comparitive information I derived using the formula:
H = F.rho.c(To-Ti), where H is heat energy in Joules, F is volume flow in cubic meters/s,
c is heat capacity in Joules/kg.C, and temps in C. The c for synthetic oil is 2000 J/kg.C and
c for dino is 1780. I assumed a flow rate was 1/4 liter per second, To is temp out of a journal bearing = 100 C, and Ti was oil temp into bearing = 80C, representing a temp rise of 20C, which is a rule of thumb.

Hs = convective energy transer in Joules for synthetic = 10.65 J
Hd = convective energy transfer in Joules for dino = 9.3 J.

Therefore, synthetic oil is 13% more efficient at convective heat transfer.

I will work a similar example for the "conductive" heat transfer and post it later.
 
Here is some comparitive information I derived using the formula:

H = kA(To-Ti/L), where H is heat Power in W.m, k is heat conduction coefficient in W/meter-squared/C, and temps in C. The k for synthetic oil is 0.16 and k for dino is 0.128, To is temp out of a journal bearing = 100 C, and Ti was oil temp into bearing = 80C, representing a temp rise of 20C, which is a rule of thumb. L is the legnth (thickness) of the oil film which is on the order of 1um at high loads. A is area of film assumed to be a patch of area of 1 mm squared.

Hs = conductive heat transfer in W/m = 3200 W/m,
Hd = conductive heat transfer in W/m = 2560 W/m.

Therefore, synthetic oil is 20% more efficient at conductive heat transfer.
 
A correction to 7/5 post on heat conductivity.
"Here is some comparitive information I derived using the formula:

H = kA(To-Ti/L), where H is heat Power in W.m, k is heat conduction coefficient in W/meter-squared/C, and temps in C. The k for synthetic oil is 0.16 and k for dino is 0.128, To is temp out of a journal bearing = 100 C, and Ti was oil temp into bearing = 80C, representing a temp rise of 20C, which is a rule of thumb. L is the legnth (thickness) of the oil film which is on the order of 1um at high loads. A is area of film assumed to be a patch of area of 1 mm squared."

The final untis should have been in Watts alone:

Hs = conductive heat transfer in W = 3200 W,
Hd = conductive heat transfer in W = 2560 W.

Therefore, synthetic oil is 20% more efficient at conductive heat transfer.

The rho (density factor) was the average of dino and synthetic since they were so close in value.
 
well, i had an earlier post about how my last car seemed to run slightly cooler with synthetic. i put mobil1 w/ supersyn, 5w-30 in the new car. i noticed no change in temperature, and my mileage has actually decreased.

temperatures have been unusually hot here in mi, so there has been lots of a/c on, and i sat for a while at the airport waiting for my wife's flight to arrive, but all my mileage numbers have been down somewhat.

on a somewhat related note, i will try to remember to get an oil analysis performed on the supersyn and post the data.

i have a feeling i will be going back to the valvoline durablend on the next change.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top