Does conventional oil protect better?

Messages
15,033
Location
Upper Midwest
Okay, but you said this:
Quote:
AND, even Blackstone among others will explain long and hard how you do not use synthetics in aviation
That's a lot different than AD vs. straight mineral oils discussed in that article. Even then they only say:
Quote:
Tradition would have you using 100 mineral oil during wear-in of a new or overhauled engine, and then changing to an AD oil after two or three oil changes. We agree with this wear-in process.
That's a bit less than "long and hard" against synthetics.
 
Messages
15,033
Location
Upper Midwest
Originally Posted By: BrocLuno
Off the top of my head: http://www.blackstone-labs.com/about-aircraft-oils.php I have read other articles, but will have to look. But here we have discussion of heat sensitive engines running on straight mineral oils. No synthetics in use ...
Where is "here"? In the article or in this thread? If it is the article, then once again the issue with synthetics in GA has nothing to do with heat sensitivity or break-in.
 
Messages
666
Location
Pindorama
Originally Posted By: BrocLuno
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: BrocLuno
AND, even Blackstone among others will explain long and hard how you do not use synthetics in aviation or marine engines until they are thoroughly broken in. Usually not until after the third oil change. There are drawbacks to using synthetics, even though there are sometimes advantages. It depends on the job at hand. There is no one-size-fits-all here ...
I assume you mean piston engines in general aviation, as turbine engines use only synthetic oils. Not that I'd listen to Blackstone for my airplane though. So what GA piston engine synthetic oils are there?
Yeah, I mean piston engines as there are no turbine cars or trucks in the general market smile There are no synthetic GA oils that I know of. But there are parts of synthetic sequences used in multi-grades and they are still frowned upon too for break-in. There are some OK's for use after well broken in. I know this does not answer the OP's question. But you have to wonder why whole industries shy away from synthetics ...
FULLY Synthetics aren't used aircraft reciprocating engine oils, because of trauma in the industry remmember Mobil 1 Aero EO with high Pao content gave a lot of headaches i the 90's. High PAo based oils don't cope with lead sludge, by lack of branched molecules to maintain dispersion , so semisyn is in use nowadays on base.
 
Last edited:
Messages
15,033
Location
Upper Midwest
Originally Posted By: Ohle_Manezzini
FULLY Synthetics aren't used aircraft reciprocating engine oils, because of trauma in the industry remmember Mobil 1 Aero EO with high Pao content gave a lot of headaches i the 90's. High PAo based oils don't cope with lead sludge, by lack of branched molecules to maintain dispersion , so semisyn is in use nowadays on base.
It was Mobil AV-1 and most of what you say is correct. It is also true that the oil could have been reformulated to be a better scavenger of lead but by then the damage was done, both physically and psychologically. GA is one of the most backwards and back-water industries in existence. Trying to make a point in this thread using GA as the example is probably the hardest argument you could try and make. Just look at that Blackstone article where the word "Tradition" starts off the paragraph about break-in. That is typical.
 
Messages
998
Location
CO
Originally Posted By: kschachn
So "protection" only consists of lower wear? What about other attributes such as oxidation control or shear stability? And what about different brands of synthetic or conventional oils? Surely not all are a monolithic block when it comes to "protection"?
Valid points when one is pushing either the oil or the car to extremes.
 
Messages
6,237
Location
Kalifornia Kollective
What other kind of protection could there be? In the end it is all about wear. Whether that is instantaneous wear like metal bonding under friction welding, or a lifetime of gradual wear. Do you think oil can prevent parts breakage because of some magic self healing property? The whole point of lubrication is to keep parts from touching and wearing... And to the comment about surface tension, or lack thereof; it's one of the fundamental properties of synthetic oil that allows it to be 5W when cold. How do you suppose these oils get "thin" when cold? It is chemistry that acts differently than conventional dino oil at lower temperatures (and higher ones). I don't think anyone is disputing syn's ability to handle heat or cold. It's a given that they do that well. The question is about keeping metal parts apart (protection). And I'm not sure it's ever been proven that they do that better until you get to abnormally high temps that fail conventional oils. In the mid-temp range there does not seem to be any evidence that the syn's do a better job ...
 
Last edited:
Messages
3,865
Location
down in the park
There is in some cases. In the EHL regime for roller bearings, too much viscosity can lead to fatigue. Can also happen in slide bearings. in that case the lower pressure viscosity coefficient of synthetics can be beneficial but you need additive capable to provide protection. Gear teeth also are affected.
 

SR5

Messages
5,476
Location
Down Under
Isn't it the HTHS viscosity that is a measure of the oils ability to form a film and keep the metal components apart. Once the localized pressure-temperature has exceeded the oils ability to separate the metal parts, then the zinc ZDDP anti-wear agents take over and offer the next line of defence. To protect from corrosion and acid build up in the oil, the TBN is a measure of the alkaline reserve. For shear stability, I believe that's mostly dominated by the polymer chemistry and SSI of the VII. HTHS, ZDDP, TBN and SSI-VII are all independent of the base oil used. There are examples of both high and low numbers in both mineral and synthetic oils. To me the big difference is how well synthetics handle the extremes of temperature. In general synthetics should offer better very low temperature cold starting, better high temperature stability, increased oxidation resistance, and lower volatility. None of this makes them "protect" better in the sense of metal on metal wear, but it does make them "better" oils in the sense that they start easier when cold and last longer for extended OCI. I also think, from general observation, that the engine run on synthetics (at reasonable intervals) should be cleaner on the inside. Not that a bit of varnish is likely to cause and big problems. I prefer to chase oil specifications that set a high bar on a multitude of parameters. That's why I prefer the Euro A3/B4 spec over the API SN spec. Having said that, you could make an oil that passes Porsche A40 spec, and then just label it SN, that's not against the rules. But why go to the trouble and expense of making such a good oil and then not telling anybody how good it is. They do make mineral race oils, over here many highly tuned big-bore V8s run Castrol Edge 25W-50 which is a high zinc mineral oil, that is pretty close to a monograde SAE 50. I have a mate who races a few WRX with the boost turned up to about 22psi and he runs Delvac MX 15W-40. No problems. I recon the 15W-40 HDEO mineral offers him better racing protection than say a ILSAC synthetic in 5W-30 grade. If they were my worked WRX's or tuned V8's, I would probably go for something like the PAO based Castrol Edge 10W-60 or M1 15W-50 or Penrite 10-Tenths 10w-40. But all these oils are high HTHS and high ZDDP and all protect well. I would be inclined to change the mineral oils a little more frequently.
 
Last edited:
Messages
17,302
Location
OH
Based upon what I've observed personally, I don't think that we can draw any conclusions as to the overall superiority of synthetic or conventional oils for most engines as most of us use them. Years ago, I used strictly dino oil and my engines lasted well and remained clean. I also did 3K drains. Today, I use mainly syn oils on longer drains and my engines last well and remain clean. I also have to agree with BrocLuno that conventional HDEOs represent an excellent performance and value proposition in some applications, one of which I happen to own. It's seen everything from syns to blends to HDEOs. I'll do two more runs of the Delvac in the old BMW and then have a UOA run, just for grins. Having read through this thread, it's obvious that we don't have enough data to draw any valid conclusions as to which oil provides lower wear just as it's obvious that a conventional oil on shorter drains is as good a choice for most uses of most engines as a syn would be. How many cars live to high mileage on nothing more than bulk oil changed whenever the owner felt like one was needed? The average owner cares not at all about what goes in the engine, but only what it'll cost. There are some questions to which there is no right answer.
 
Messages
3,772
Location
MD
Great post. I have seen testing where some top synthetics did not do better with the heat than dino oils. That was disturbing.
Quote:
To me the big difference is how well synthetics handle the extremes of temperature
 
Last edited:
Messages
537
Location
California
Originally Posted By: BrocLuno
Originally Posted By: carock
Sorry I can't produce conclusive results showing that your 1996 Toyota Camry would have gone 600,000 miles with synthetics versus 350,000 miles with dino oil. That test takes too dang long. I won't live to see the results. For all the people who insist that dino oils are just as good or better than synthetics, you need to produce some actual evidence that shows it. Just because a truck can go 1,000,000 miles on dino oil with a 50 gallon sump and a three gallon bypass filter does not mean that synthetics won't outperform the dino oil. Service that is good enough does not mean its the best available. The UOA wear metal results from Blackstone labs are the wrong tool for the job as far as I can see and that is only evidence that is being presented here in support of dino oils. There is no actual evidence in this thread that dino oils out perform synthetics. There is just some evidence that dino oils are good enough to get the job done. Well I am here to tell you that there are plenty of circumstances where dino oils are not good enough to get the job done and synthetics are clearly superior.
But that ain't what the OP asked ... And you have supplied no hard evidence on wear numbers or any tests, or any professional papers that can prove this one way or the other.
1. The oil companies have published their evidence, but you obviously don't believe it because it must be biased. 2. The car companies recommend synthetic in their severe service cars, but for some reason you will not accept the idea that they tested them and found them superior. 3. The entire race industry switched to synthetics but you say that doesn't apply to street cars 4. My own observations of high wear engines, meaning those engines that wear out fast enough I actually get to see the results, is only anecdotal evidence. I use it to support the first three points. 5. The ONLY actual evidence i ever see to support the idea that dino oils are as good or better than synthetics UOA wear metal numbers.My position is that is the wrong tool for the job. UOA analysis does not work to compare different oils used in different engines. What got my attention with this is that nobody in the industry, other than Blackstone Labs, will accept UOA wear metals as an indicator of actual wear to compare oils. Blackstone has never produced any study to show that their UOA wear metal numbers are directly linked to actual engine wear when comparing different oil types. People in BITOG have bought into the idea that you can compare UOA wear metal numbers from different oils and that data from Blackstone Labs has shown no difference in dino vs synthetic, therefore dino protects just as well, or better than, synthetic oil. My point is that there is no other data to back this up. It just flies in the face of all other observations, therefore UOA wear metal numbers cannot be used to compare the performance of different oils. 6. There are no studies out there in the industry showing how dino oils protect car engines better than synthetics. There are plenty showing synthetics protect better than dino. The entire concept that dino oils could protect engines better than synthetics appears to have originated here on the BITOG site and seems to have its roots in a statistical analysis of Blackstone Labs UOA wear metal numbers. In terms of how do I support the first three points, that oil companies, car manufacturers, and race teams have all proven synthetics, these articles have been published everywhere, and written about in magazines, and "peer reviewed" journals with the articles available to anybody who can use google or the search engine on this website. To say there is no evidence that synthetics provide superior protection is just refusing to believe all the evidence out there. I have posted links to articles in magazines, and SAE papers, and even linked people directly to engineers who specialize in this stuff, and still people persist saying there "is no evidence" synthetics are superior. I give up on trying to convince people with evidence that they can easily find for themselves. It seems like the only thing that would convince some people is that a test was run in their car, over their commute route, for 1,000,000 miles, and published in "American Scientist" after the author was vetted on a lie detector by a review board at MIT.
 
Messages
15,033
Location
Upper Midwest
Originally Posted By: AirgunSavant
I have seen testing where some top synthetics did not do better with the heat than dino oils. That was disturbing.
Can you post some links? I'd like to read that, thanks. Hopefully it is something better than those meaningless YouTube videos, that's the only "testing" I've ever seen.
 

4WD

Messages
13,522
Location
Texas
Proof of Performance is done by the R&D groups of these companies. Sharp people with measurement skills/systems. Some results get published and some is used internally. They pick a flagship product from this, right? So which company that PoP tested considers Dino the flagship? IMO, millions of drivers don't need flagship products ... Just look how many OEM's like synthetic blends for example ... (Motor oil, not gear oil) ... "Better" is bait for debate ... But the top shelf Dino's are also amazing lubes these days ... Plenty 5000+ BHP Diesel engines run on Dino ...
 
Messages
6,156
Location
Buffalo, NY
Originally Posted By: BrocLuno
Originally Posted By: carock
Sorry I can't produce conclusive results showing that your 1996 Toyota Camry would have gone 600,000 miles with synthetics versus 350,000 miles with dino oil. That test takes too dang long. I won't live to see the results. For all the people who insist that dino oils are just as good or better than synthetics, you need to produce some actual evidence that shows it. Just because a truck can go 1,000,000 miles on dino oil with a 50 gallon sump and a three gallon bypass filter does not mean that synthetics won't outperform the dino oil. Service that is good enough does not mean its the best available. The UOA wear metal results from Blackstone labs are the wrong tool for the job as far as I can see and that is only evidence that is being presented here in support of dino oils. There is no actual evidence in this thread that dino oils out perform synthetics. There is just some evidence that dino oils are good enough to get the job done. Well I am here to tell you that there are plenty of circumstances where dino oils are not good enough to get the job done and synthetics are clearly superior.
Which ones over which ones? Gimme a synthetic that is "clearly superior" for general street use in non-modified cars....
This thread is beyond ridiculous. The title isn't "show us that synthetic protects better in my passenger car". Synthetic clearly meets specifications conventional could never hope too... Secondly, there is no 'conventional' anymore, almost all are synthetic blends or highly refined Group II+ (which is actually more expensive to blend than using a Group II + III blend), which might as well be a syn blend. But keep grasping at straws... If you really think that "conventional protects better," then put your money where your mouth is and put some SF-rated, Group I SAE30 in your sump. smile
 
Messages
537
Location
California
Originally Posted By: Doublehaul
I think much of what the oil companies and auto makers say is based on marketing and the ever increasing pressure for extended drains to reduce ownership costs etc.
Absolutely no doubt you are 100% right. The problem for a lot of people seems to be that there is no independent source of information free from sort of financial incentive to get the consumer to behave a certain way. There actually are some military and government studies for diesel engines which seem to have no financial incentive to force a conclusion for or against synthetics. In general, new science/engineering research is being pushed away from the traditional university style independent peer reviewed publishing and being pushed into more commercially based and results oriented funding. I think it is important for BITOG readers to understand that there will never be double blind,large statistical study with correct isolation of duty cycles and controlled variables to prove that Amsoil or Red Line will be cost effective over 200,000 miles for their Toyota Corolla. But because many people on this site are college educated technical types they are combing through everything to get this sort of absolutely conclusive undeniable peer reviewed result from a completely neutral independent source. It just doesn't exist. Instead you have to look at a lot of imperfect commercial data and make a decision. This whole thing with the statistical analysis of Blackstone Labs UOA results had me thrown off balance for years until I finally figured out the UOA wear metal data was being misused. It is a very compelling argument that lots of UOA wear metal data should be able to tell you what oils are performing better, but it doesn't seem to correlate well to to other observations.
 

4WD

Messages
13,522
Location
Texas
UOA on my boring fleet ? Nah, I'll just run M1 or PP for 7k and use the money for my next jug ...
 
Messages
6,773
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: AirgunSavant
I have seen testing where some top synthetics did not do better with the heat than dino oils. That was disturbing.
Can you post some links? I'd like to read that, thanks. Hopefully it is something better than those meaningless YouTube videos, that's the only "testing" I've ever seen.
In the HDEO section, there's an article where Chevron Delo steps on pretty much all of the synthetic HDEO's out there. VERY eye-opening report. I was shocked. Where this topic is concerned, we have gotten stupendous results running Valvoline VR1 mineral oil in high performance marine engines, and in my motorcycles, dirt bikes, and forklifts. All are high rpm, high load, high oil temp applications known for beating the daylights out of engine oil. However, I do use a lot of synthetic oils to incredible effect as well. We have documented lower oil temps using synthetics in place of mineral with all else equal in the exact same engines.
 
Top