Myth or Fact: Synthetic Increases MPG

[lemonade]

Originally Posted By: Maxima97
In my case, just the opposite. I will gas up knowing the synthetic will protect better than dino.

Same here, years ago when I switched to synthetic on my 1st Lexus, I tend to gun it a lot... but then later when people show me a S2000 which only see dealer dino oil with regular OCI according to OLM, the owner almost always change gear at 4-5K rpm every gear all year long, and the measurement is still within specification after 4 years, it made me wonder if synthetic is that big if deal or not...

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: lemonade

it made me wonder if synthetic is that big if deal or not...

The typical 1-2% fuel savings advantage with synthetic oil is not a big deal but considering the sum total of benefits syn' oils offer it usually doesn't make sence not to use them especially when they often cost not that much more than technically inferior mineral oils.

 

[Capa]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
I haven't read the whole thread, so please excuse me if this has already been said.

Oil related fuel economy is derived from the oil's viscosity and frictional properties. Synthetics indirectly affect viscosity in that they allow lower viscosities without exceeding volatility specifications, but only if you choose a low viscosity oil. In addition, synthetics tend to resist thickening better over the OCI, so they hold their lower viscosity longer than less stable mineral oils.

Frictional improvements come primarily from friction modifier additives, however, some synthetics (e.g. esters) have low coefficients of friction and can therefore also contribute.

The effects are small but real, and help pay some of the cost premium that synthetics carry. If you buy the synthetic on sale and double the OCI, you should get back the rest of the premium, plus save some time & hassle from fewer oil changes.

Tom NJ

And you haven't mentioned the other positive attributes of many synthetics such as less wear, improved cold start performance and more power which even the most frugal of us must place some monetary value.

All told, I believe dinos are false economy is most situations.


+2

 

[Zaedock]

Originally Posted By: Maxima97
I will gas up knowing the synthetic will protect better than dino.


Unless you're tracking or it's 30 below, that's simply not true. If dino X and syn Y both meet an engine's spec, which one is better? Come on guys.

Originally Posted By: Maxima97
using one car in my family so car oil is always warm.


In my experience that has more to do with warm engine components than cold oil.

 

[Zaedock]

Originally Posted By: Capa
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
I haven't read the whole thread, so please excuse me if this has already been said.

Oil related fuel economy is derived from the oil's viscosity and frictional properties. Synthetics indirectly affect viscosity in that they allow lower viscosities without exceeding volatility specifications, but only if you choose a low viscosity oil. In addition, synthetics tend to resist thickening better over the OCI, so they hold their lower viscosity longer than less stable mineral oils.

Frictional improvements come primarily from friction modifier additives, however, some synthetics (e.g. esters) have low coefficients of friction and can therefore also contribute.

The effects are small but real, and help pay some of the cost premium that synthetics carry. If you buy the synthetic on sale and double the OCI, you should get back the rest of the premium, plus save some time & hassle from fewer oil changes.

Tom NJ

And you haven't mentioned the other positive attributes of many synthetics such as less wear, improved cold start performance and more power which even the most frugal of us must place some monetary value.

All told, I believe dinos are false economy is most situations.


+2


-1

In most situations, synthetic oil is NOT needed. The world is bigger than BITOG and 99% of it uses dino every day without issues and equal protection in most situations. If you disagree, show me the wear numbers.

 

[Bill in Utah]

Originally Posted By: Zaedock


-1

In most situations, synthetic oil is NOT needed. The world is bigger than BITOG and 99% of it uses dino every day without issues and equal protection in most situations. If you disagree, show me the wear numbers.


Agree. Please show us all the vehicles out there that are failing early using the "inferior" oil that conventional oil is. (it should be real easy since 80-90% USE conventional oils)

All of the car manufactures are recommending something that WILL WITHOUT QUESTION cause their engines to fail?

Really?

Bill

 

[Tom NJ]

Originally Posted By: Zaedock
In most situations, synthetic oil is NOT needed. The world is bigger than BITOG and 99% of it uses dino every day without issues and equal protection in most situations.


I fully agree that in most situations synthetic oil is not needed. In fact very few applications actually require a synthetic, most of which are in aviation, aerospace, and at temperature extremes. But that doesn't mean synthetics are not justified even when not actually needed.

Having sold synthetic base oils to oil companies for 30 years I can assure you that most synthetics are sold based on their efficiencies, not their need. These efficiencies may be derived from energy savings, extended drains, extended temperature range, cleaner equipment, reduced maintenance, reduced downtime, reduced wear, extended equipment life, reduced smoke, reduced oil consumption, reduced disposal costs, improved safety, biodegradability, and increased productivity. So long as the cumulative efficiencies repay the initial cost, the synthetic offers value. Not all synthetics offer all of these benefits, and few apply significantly to automotive engine oils, but the first two alone will usually pay the price difference in engine oils.

In many applications, the question is not "why use synthetic?" - the question is "why not use synthetic?"

Tom NJ

 

[CATERHAM]

You're missing the main point.
No one is claiming that mineral oils don't work. Of course they do especially in low stress applications.

The point is that synthetic oils are symply superior lubricants to their GP I and GP II counterparts. Period.
Are they worth the higher cost? I say yes, especially when bought on sale.

 

[CATERHAM]

Tom as usual very well put and that should be the final word on the subject but I fear it won't be.

 

[Bill in Utah]

Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: Zaedock
In most situations, synthetic oil is NOT needed. The world is bigger than BITOG and 99% of it uses dino every day without issues and equal protection in most situations.


I fully agree that in most situations synthetic oil is not needed. In fact very few applications actually require a synthetic, most of which are in aviation, aerospace, and at temperature extremes. But that doesn't mean synthetics are not justified even when not actually needed.

Having sold synthetic base oils to oil companies for 30 years I can assure you that most synthetics are sold based on their efficiencies, not their need. These efficiencies may be derived from energy savings, extended drains, extended temperature range, cleaner equipment, reduced maintenance, reduced downtime, reduced wear, extended equipment life, reduced smoke, reduced oil consumption, reduced disposal costs, improved safety, biodegradability, and increased productivity. So long as the cumulative efficiencies repay the initial cost, the synthetic offers value. Not all synthetics offer all of these benefits, and few apply significantly to automotive engine oils, but the first two alone will usually pay the price difference in engine oils.

In many applications, the question is not "why use synthetic?" - the question is "why not use synthetic?"

Tom NJ


Not trying to be augmentative but the highlighted comment covers quite a bit. Plus we add in what ACTUAL data of vehicles doing just fine with oils that people are calling "inferior" in my mind I think we are back to want over need.

I'm not a salesman or benefit on selling of any oil. I just benefit using what works over hundreds of thousands of miles which I NEED my vehicles to do each and every time.

Just my 3 cents.

Bill

 

[CATERHAM]

Again you're discounting the benefits of synthetic oils because you've found mineral oils to be adequate in your experience.
i.e., no need to change.
Do you not see any flaw to that line of reasoning?

 

[Tom NJ]

Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Not all synthetics offer all of these benefits, and few apply significantly to automotive engine oils, but the first two alone will usually pay the price difference in engine oils.

In many applications, the question is not "why use synthetic?" - the question is "why not use synthetic?"

Tom NJ


Not trying to be augmentative but the highlighted comment covers quite a bit. Plus we add in what ACTUAL data of vehicles doing just fine with oils that people are calling "inferior" in my mind I think we are back to want over need.


No question that conventional oils work just fine in automotive engines. What you buy depends on your personal wants and needs. For example, I don't like doing oil changes, so saving the time and cost of two oil changes each year on each car makes me a happy camper. Throw in a percent or two of fuel savings, plus the peace of mind knowing that if something goes wrong in my engine that the oil can likely handle it, and I get my money's worth.

Your mileage may vary (literally!

)

Tom NJ

ps - I also do not benefit from selling any oil - I'm retired.

 

[Capa]

needed[/U]. In fact very few applications actually require a synthetic, most of which are in aviation, aerospace, and at temperature extremes. But that doesn't mean synthetics are not justified even when not actually needed.

Having sold synthetic base oils to oil companies for 30 years I can assure you that most synthetics are sold based on their efficiencies, not their need. These efficiencies may be derived from energy savings, extended drains, extended temperature range, cleaner equipment, reduced maintenance, reduced downtime, reduced wear, extended equipment life, reduced smoke, reduced oil consumption, reduced disposal costs, improved safety, biodegradability, and increased productivity. So long as the cumulative efficiencies repay the initial cost, the synthetic offers value. Not all synthetics offer all of these benefits, and few apply significantly to automotive engine oils, but the first two alone will usually pay the price difference in engine oils.

In many applications, the question is not "why use synthetic?" - the question is "why not use synthetic?"

Tom NJ

+2

 

[Maxima97]

A lot "synthetic" oil on the market are highly processed group III dino oil. All dino oil are group II and group II+. The are all stricly speaking dino process oi. The real diference is the level of process, additive agent level and end result. for enxtend OCI , extreme cold env, use group III dino "syn" oil. In mild weather,and 5K-7.5K OCI, use group II "syn" dino oil. For extreme, use real synthetic group IV PAO (GC, M1 0W-40, Amsoil and group V ester oil Readline)

 

[spock1]

I have been using high TBN Esso XD3 0w30 synthetic PAO motor oil
for the past few years, in combination with Synthetic Oil filters, and have saved tons of money.My OCI is 15000,20000Km or every year and a half.
I look at my valve train through the oil filler hole and it is always immaculate-no sludge at all.

I can conclude that synthetic oil really works for me.

My car starts easily at -35C and the engine still runs like new with over 200000Km on it.
Have I saved money on fuel? who knows and who cares ?
I just have to add a few pounds to my tire air pressure to get that 1 or 2 % saving.

 

[aquariuscsm]

I just see any value of a grp III oil over a grp II since they`re both dinos. Grp III "synths" just seem to be a cash cow imo.

 

[KrisZ]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Again you're discounting the benefits of synthetic oils because you've found mineral oils to be adequate in your experience.
i.e., no need to change.
Do you not see any flaw to that line of reasoning?


Ok, so recommending synthetic oil because it supposedly saves fuel and protects engine better on paper, but the end user cannot possibly measure those things, is somehow good in your book? Where are the studies to show less wear, longer lasting engines and better fuel economy in fleets? You don't see any flaws in that line of reasoning?

 

[Zaedock]

Hey folks, I am not discounting the benefits of syn. What I am discounting are the inaccuracies listed in this thread. Indeed many synthetics are "superior" lubricants and work well in temp extremes and racing conditions, but if an engine only requires conventional to see a clean, low wearing, and long life - where are the benefits? Extended drains? - perhaps, but even here on BITOG most do not use syn to it's potential (the same could be said for conventional too!). Efficiency? - possibly, but I would need to see a study comparing a syn to a resource conserving conventional oil of the same viscosity to justify the cost. Wear? - certainly not. There have been a few members here who have had better results with wear using conventional. One such member, BuickGN, had lower wear in a turbo application using conventional 20W50 (thick! How dare he?!?!?) over some top tier syn oils. He pulled the engine apart to verify. I myself have compared cams in all sorts of engines some syn, some conventional, and there was no noticeable difference.

Caterham stated that conventional oils are a false economy. While I do respect that thought, it is still subject to opinion and experience. I believe the millions of OTR vehicles, cabs, civil service, and military vehicles throughout world, some in severe duty, prove that conventional can be economical. Also, please don't assume that I do not use syn, as I do in certain applications, but for my commuters and tow rigs, conventional provides all the protection, cleanliness, and long life my vehicles will ever need. Paying for "Extra", beyond what is needed, is not economical, IMO.

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: Zaedock
Wear? - certainly not. There have been a few members here who have had better results with wear using conventional. One such member, BuickGN, had lower wear in a turbo application using conventional 20W50 (thick! How dare he?!?!?) over some top tier syn oils.


I agree with your second paragraph for the most part--depending on the service life of the vehicle conventional oils may be an economical choice (depends on what syn and conventional you're comparing). But I want to address what you said above, because it comes up often and I'm not sure I agree. I guess in part it depends on how you define "wear".

Every time this comes up, Bill (and some others) continues to define acceptable wear as "not having engine failure". Personally, I don't see it that way. Here's my view of what constitutes wear, and why I think certain synthetics can offer advantages with respect to "wear".

-wear of the engine's hard parts. Both oils lubricate well, so in most instances there's probably not going to be a huge difference over the long run. That said, I don't think the UOA is going to give you any real information in this regard. Also, it's hard to compare "syn" vs. "dino" because base oils are hardly the only variable. All that said, all else equal an oil that's thinner at start-up is going to be pumped more easily through the engine, so the right syn will have an advantage on cold starts (even in warm temps).

-wear of the engine seals. This is probably my biggest concern, since it actually affects the engine's performance and means more maintenance headaches for me. Using a high VI synthetic oil is going result in less wear on the valve stem seals, cam seals et.al by having less frictional torque or less pressure (as the oil is thinner). This is the main reason I use a high-VI oil--a lifetime of chasing down leaks on various cars.

If you want anecdote, I'll give you one: I've never had a single car NOT leak oil past 100K from somewhere or start consuming some oil. My current car has only seen syn blend or syn since new, and at 120K there are no oil leaks and no measurable consumption. I know enough to know that doesn't mean anything, but since it seems everyone gives disproportional weight to anecdote, there's mine...

Also, I find the 20W50 dino in a turbo pretty funny. That's great it worked for him, and it would have worked for me too if I let my high boost turbo warm up for 30 minutes driving like grandma. Otherwise, I'd have been replacing turbo seals even more than I was (which was often!). Add in the fact that deposit control isn't much of an issue when you're tearing down the engine once a week, and I'm of the opinion that BuickGN's anecdotes don't have much real-world relevance to most daily drivers, even high-boost turbos.

So, while I'm not sure I'd automatically assume dino's are a "false economy" since it ultimately depends on a lot of factors, I do thing there are legitimate advantages with respect to "wear". Whether or not those differences matter? Like most things, "it depends".

 

[Maxima97]

Synthetic has better cold start performance than Dino. For same weight of oils, the fuel saving is minimum. The big fuel waste is during the warm up period when engine is running rich and a lot HC from exhaust. So better park your car in garage or use engine heater to save fuel. If your family had multi cars, use one so car temp is always in working leve and you car will last million miles instead going cold-hot-cold cycle. A taxi car can go million miles. Now I told you million mile car secret.