Sunthetic Oils according to Chevron

[Shipo]

Originally Posted By: Wurlitzer
This concerns me. What if a car that calls for 5w20 would actually get better protection and have a longer life running 10w40?


So if the engine in the car which calls for 5W-20 runs for 300,000 miles with no oil consumption and/or leaking issues on 5W-20, and say 350,000 miles when running on 10W-40 (I'd argue highly unlikely), but the rest of the car is toast after 250,000 miles, why the heck would you care?

 

[zeng]

Originally Posted By: Wurlitzer
Originally Posted By: igs
automakers worldwide are moving towards ever thinner viscosity grades to support achieving higher mandated fuel economy requirements.


This concerns me. What if a car that calls for 5w20 would actually get better protection and have a longer life running 10w40?

Who do we believe?

Believe in CAFE , choose 5W20.
Believe in laws of physics, choose 10W40.

 

[tig1]

Shannow, you are wrong.

 

[SilverSnake]

Originally Posted By: tig1
Shannow, you are wrong.


That is not possible. He has over 36,000 posts on this forum.

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: SilverSnake
Originally Posted By: tig1
Shannow, you are wrong.


That is not possible. He has over 36,000 posts on this forum.


Never thought of that. Heck, I mis-spelled synthetic.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: SilverSnake
Originally Posted By: tig1
Shannow, you are wrong.


That is not possible. He has over 36,000 posts on this forum.

If he's wrong, we can provide the chemistry to show that, then, right? First off, what's he wrong about?

 

[555]

The best fuel economy and least wear (on a drivetrain)occurs when a vehicle is not driven and the engine not started. Following this procedure guarantees significant savings in maintenance and fuel costs.

 

[Tony10s]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: SilverSnake
Originally Posted By: tig1
Shannow, you are wrong.


That is not possible. He has over 36,000 posts on this forum.

If he's wrong, we can provide the chemistry to show that, then, right? First off, what's he wrong about?

I glanced briefly through this thread and noticed they were "arguing" about the molecules being the same size or not being the same size. I didn't really care enough to find out exactly what he thinks Shannow is wrong about.

 

[Garak]

As Shannow pointed out, given that base stocks aren't a single compound, I'm not sure how we have people suggesting that all the molecules are the same size. That's some very elementary chemistry.

 

[bigj_16]

Originally Posted By: Garak
As Shannow pointed out, given that base stocks aren't a single compound, I'm not sure how we have people suggesting that all the molecules are the same size. That's some very elementary chemistry.

Because, just as we are all winners, so oil molecules are all the same size. We can't be singling out some molecules just because they are "different". What really matters, anyway, is what size a molecule identifies as.

 

[4WD]

Pennzoil Ultraviolet is one of these ...

 

[Tony10s]

Originally Posted By: Garak
As Shannow pointed out, given that base stocks aren't a single compound, I'm not sure how we have people suggesting that all the molecules are the same size. That's some very elementary chemistry.

Yes, I understand what they were debating about. I was just saying I didn't read closely enough to know exactly why he thinks Shannow is wrong and what information he has to back that up. I don't really care either way because it doesn't really matter to me.

 

[Garak]

Yep, that's pretty how much I read it. I do get the point that the marketers are making. These base stocks are certainly more pure. But, they've exaggerated a little bit.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: tig1
Shannow, you are wrong.


Specifically which part ?

I'll put them out there...pick them off.

PAO, or GrIII molecules aren't spheres, rods, not cubes.

Advertorials referring to them as such target the lowest common denominator.

As such, people form incorrect "understandings" of how the world works, and parrot them incessently as fact.

An engine oil is manufactured from a number of different basestock, which in and of themselves are different molecular sizes.

(new one) The representations of planks rolling across these spheres is NOT how oils work.

tig1, you need to pick which are wrong, and we'll talk through them...a blanket "you are wrong" isn't sufficient to educate me sorry...

 

[Shannow]

I'll lead...the molecule on the left is a diester, the one on the right PAO.

note the lack of similarity to spheres, logs, or cubes...

 

[Shannow]

From a mobil blend guide


note the different base oils that are blended to make an oil, including multiple "sizes" of PAO, esters, Viscosity modifiers...all different shapes and sizes.

The plank on the rollers analogy clearly doesn't apply if they WERE all spheres, logs or cubes either does it ?

 

[Astro_Guy]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
I'll lead...the molecule on the left is a diester, the one on the right PAO.

note the lack of similarity to spheres, logs, or cubes...

I've always enjoyed your posts, but please don't try to make a point using a 2D representation of a 3D molecule.

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: SilverSnake
Originally Posted By: tig1
Shannow, you are wrong.


That is not possible. He has over 36,000 posts on this forum.

If he's wrong, we can provide the chemistry to show that, then, right? First off, what's he wrong about?


See my post on page 2 with the link provided.

 

[bbhero]

Was this what you were thinking of Tig1??

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: bbhero


Was this what you were thinking of Tig1??


Yes. Read my post on page 2 where I provided a link.