Valid Rationales or Epic Fail?

[CarbonSteel]

From an ATV forum that I frequent (where there are the typical arguments about synthetics versus conventional--albeit far less factual).

This particular thread is discussing rob bearing failure due to the use of synthetic oils. These ARE taken out of context, but should be enough to understand the point.

Thoughts?

-- A good question would be, why does synthetics cause the Rod bearings on the crank to go out...

-- From my experiences and motors Ive rebuilt that have used synthetic like mobil1, amsoil, royal purple. the wear in the motor isn't caused by bad oil. I believe the oil runs too thin when hot and can find its way to cavitation, or find it's way past the oil bearing on the left of the crankshaft.

-- I had a guy JUST LAST WEEK!! member from on here. he came up to buy ANOTHER crankshaft. his machine was NOT abused, its stock and in amazing shape. he didn't head the warning about using royal purple and it cost him another crankshaft...

-- Bottom line is... after you break an engine in and switch to whatever oil you are gonna run... it's more harmful for you to switch oils multiple times, than it is to stick with whatever oil you use...

-- Don't go from conventional oil, to sythetic oil... and then expect to go back to conventional without a problem. That's widely known. Maybe that was the issue with those that tried synthetic.. I don't know. I can only say that my ATV has been fine on Royal Purple...

-- Is it the multiple viscosity synthetics causing this? I had castrol sytec in an LT1 years ago, and when i tore the engine down, I found wear and an oil that looked like it was half the weight of the oil I put in. 0w-40W oil is like having Wd-40 at start up to warm up in my opinion. I could believe that would turn a crank bearing....

 

[dave1251]

My gosh. Remember synthetic oil molecules are produced in a lab so each molecule is uniform for better performance.

 

[wirelessF]

lol at comparing the weight of 0W40 to WD40

 

[oggb]

Are the rod bearings failing because they're using synthetics, or because they're using energy-conserving synthetics in an ATV?

 

[gathermewool]

Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
From an ATV forum that I frequent (where there are the typical arguments about synthetics versus conventional--albeit far less factual).

This particular thread is discussing rob bearing failure due to the use of synthetic oils. These ARE taken out of context, but should be enough to understand the point.

Thoughts?

-- A good question would be, why does synthetics cause the Rod bearings on the crank to go out...

-- From my experiences and motors Ive rebuilt that have used synthetic like mobil1, amsoil, royal purple. the wear in the motor isn't caused by bad oil. I believe the oil runs too thin when hot and can find its way to cavitation, or find it's way past the oil bearing on the left of the crankshaft.

-- I had a guy JUST LAST WEEK!! member from on here. he came up to buy ANOTHER crankshaft. his machine was NOT abused, its stock and in amazing shape. he didn't head the warning about using royal purple and it cost him another crankshaft...

-- Bottom line is... after you break an engine in and switch to whatever oil you are gonna run... it's more harmful for you to switch oils multiple times, than it is to stick with whatever oil you use...

-- Don't go from conventional oil, to sythetic oil... and then expect to go back to conventional without a problem. That's widely known. Maybe that was the issue with those that tried synthetic.. I don't know. I can only say that my ATV has been fine on Royal Purple...

-- Is it the multiple viscosity synthetics causing this? I had castrol sytec in an LT1 years ago, and when i tore the engine down, I found wear and an oil that looked like it was half the weight of the oil I put in. 0w-40W oil is like having Wd-40 at start up to warm up in my opinion. I could believe that would turn a crank bearing....


Where's your reply?

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: JRed
Are the rod bearings failing because they're using synthetics, or because they're using energy-conserving synthetics in an ATV?

Could be both, but these ATVs do not have a shared sump with a clutch so it may not be applicable.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: gathermewool
Where's your reply?

I am now on my smartphone; I will post them in a bit.

 

[bepperb]

Well, something is the cause of a spun rod bearing. I think Synthetic is a good scapegoat because how could one possibly prove that wasn't the cause? Personally I find it hard to believe, though. I'd find it more likely in an ATV that water was ingested, or the oil was low, or a poorly designed sump that caused cavitation when at an extreme angle.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: bepperb
Well, something is the cause of a spun rod bearing. I think Synthetic is a good scapegoat because how could one possibly prove that wasn't the cause? Personally I find it hard to believe, though. I'd find it more likely in an ATV that water was ingested, or the oil was low, or a poorly designed sump that caused cavitation when at an extreme angle.

Oh, I agree that something caused the bearings to fail, but I do not agree the use of synthetic oil is the cause--that is beyond ridiculous; especially when conventionals, semi-synthetics, and synthetics are approved for use in them.

The problem is there is no investigation in a systematic way into the cause of the failures--just "Oh, you were running synthetic oil, there is your cause". I believe it is submersion that allows water into the oil and thus the lubricity of the oil is lost (but then again..what do I know?).

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: gathermewool
Where's your reply?


I said this initially:

There has to be much more to the story of failed rod/crank bearings than simply the use of synthetic oils. Point of fact is there is NO conventional oil that can withstand the abuse that synthetic can--it is a proven fact and not my opinion. Heat, cold, shearing, oxidation, viscosity control, longevity are all managed better with synthetics versus conventional. It simply cannot be the use of synthetics causing the failures--even Kawasaki now lists conventional, synthetic blend, and full synthetic as approved oils in the owner's manuals of the BF.

Followed by this (mine in blue; the other poster in red):

What I recommend to all that may be interested in oil and the knowledge of oil is to visit - Bob is the Oil Guy and read the information posted there. The site has engineers, tribologists, and OEMs visiting and posting daily and work to dispel myths and misinformation.

1) I don't believe there is "one oil to run" as much as I believe that once you start with a particular oil (after initial break-in), you should stay with that particular oil.

Why? It has been proven time and time again this has no impact on an engine--the military has done this for decades, using the oil that was the cheapest contract and they have tortured their engines far more than we ever will. Additionally, if the oil is not being tested what is this theory being based upon?

Bottom line is... after you break an engine in and switch to whatever oil you are gonna run... it's more harmful for you to switch oils multiple times, than it is to stick with whatever oil you use.

Don't go from conventional oil, to sythetic oil... and then expect to go back to conventional without a problem. That's widely known. Maybe that was the issue with those that tried synthetic.. I don't know. I can only say that my ATV has been fine on Royal Purple.

I respectfully disagree with this line of reasoning--this seems to be a old wives tale that refuses to die. Widely known by whom and where is the supporting information that substantiates this claim? If the oil is not tested to determine how it is/is not performing in a particular engine/application, then "seat of the pants" assessments are being applied, that more often than not are incorrect and full of misinformation. Switching from conventional to synthetic and back again would do no harm provided the oils being used are acceptable for the engine/application. What is supposed to happen by switching anyway??

Then another poster said:
"Oh such fun, these engine oil feuds..."

To which I replied:

For me it is not about "feuding"--it is all about the facts; not opinion, not supposition, not myths, not seat of the pants assessments, not anecdotal experience, and not he said/she said.

Where are the facts that support synthetic oils cause engine failure or that a conventional oil can outperform a synthetic? No disrespect, but one vendors experience makes this factual? Hardly. Look at all of the high performance engines on the racetrack (car, truck, and motorcycle). What are they running? Synthetic or conventional? What are new high performance cars being filled with from the factory? Conventional or synthetic? Why does Kawasaki now have synthetics approved for use in the 2012 Owners Manual? The facts (from many, many sources and manufacturers) are that synthetic oils outperform conventional oils without exception--in every case.

Where are the facts that support changing from conventional to synthetic to conventional or switching brands will cause engine problems? Case studies or the like? What are the facts?

If one takes these discussions to forums that specialize in these topics, most of the "facts" being stated here would be dismissed almost immediately as incorrect and would have referenced information to back up the claim that it was incorrect.

Just as 3,000 mile oil changes were once the "rule" and is now outdated because 5,000-10,000 mile oil changes are the new "rule", many of the perceptions about the oils we use are also quite dated and need to be changed--just do some research and see for yourself.

At this point, I nearly posted "..." and called it a day. Too much misinformation, outdated information, myths, opinions, and "experiences" with no supporting data to try and have a reasonable debate and many are just set in their ways and refuse to change.

Oh well..to each his or her own (I tried...LOL).

 

[gathermewool]

Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
Originally Posted By: gathermewool
Where's your reply?


I said this initially:

There has to be much more to the story of failed rod/crank bearings than simply the use of synthetic oils. Point of fact is there is NO conventional oil that can withstand the abuse that synthetic can--it is a proven fact and not my opinion. Heat, cold, shearing, oxidation, viscosity control, longevity are all managed better with synthetics versus conventional. It simply cannot be the use of synthetics causing the failures--even Kawasaki now lists conventional, synthetic blend, and full synthetic as approved oils in the owner's manuals of the BF.

Followed by this (mine in blue; the other poster in red):

What I recommend to all that may be interested in oil and the knowledge of oil is to visit - Bob is the Oil Guy and read the information posted there. The site has engineers, tribologists, and OEMs visiting and posting daily and work to dispel myths and misinformation.

1) I don't believe there is "one oil to run" as much as I believe that once you start with a particular oil (after initial break-in), you should stay with that particular oil.

Why? It has been proven time and time again this has no impact on an engine--the military has done this for decades, using the oil that was the cheapest contract and they have tortured their engines far more than we ever will. Additionally, if the oil is not being tested what is this theory being based upon?

Bottom line is... after you break an engine in and switch to whatever oil you are gonna run... it's more harmful for you to switch oils multiple times, than it is to stick with whatever oil you use.

Don't go from conventional oil, to sythetic oil... and then expect to go back to conventional without a problem. That's widely known. Maybe that was the issue with those that tried synthetic.. I don't know. I can only say that my ATV has been fine on Royal Purple.

I respectfully disagree with this line of reasoning--this seems to be a old wives tale that refuses to die. Widely known by whom and where is the supporting information that substantiates this claim? If the oil is not tested to determine how it is/is not performing in a particular engine/application, then "seat of the pants" assessments are being applied, that more often than not are incorrect and full of misinformation. Switching from conventional to synthetic and back again would do no harm provided the oils being used are acceptable for the engine/application. What is supposed to happen by switching anyway??

Then another poster said:
"Oh such fun, these engine oil feuds..."

To which I replied:

For me it is not about "feuding"--it is all about the facts; not opinion, not supposition, not myths, not seat of the pants assessments, not anecdotal experience, and not he said/she said.

Where are the facts that support synthetic oils cause engine failure or that a conventional oil can outperform a synthetic? No disrespect, but one vendors experience makes this factual? Hardly. Look at all of the high performance engines on the racetrack (car, truck, and motorcycle). What are they running? Synthetic or conventional? What are new high performance cars being filled with from the factory? Conventional or synthetic? Why does Kawasaki now have synthetics approved for use in the 2012 Owners Manual? The facts (from many, many sources and manufacturers) are that synthetic oils outperform conventional oils without exception--in every case.

Where are the facts that support changing from conventional to synthetic to conventional or switching brands will cause engine problems? Case studies or the like? What are the facts?

If one takes these discussions to forums that specialize in these topics, most of the "facts" being stated here would be dismissed almost immediately as incorrect and would have referenced information to back up the claim that it was incorrect.

Just as 3,000 mile oil changes were once the "rule" and is now outdated because 5,000-10,000 mile oil changes are the new "rule", many of the perceptions about the oils we use are also quite dated and need to be changed--just do some research and see for yourself.

At this point, I nearly posted "..." and called it a day. Too much misinformation, outdated information, myths, opinions, and "experiences" with no supporting data to try and have a reasonable debate and many are just set in their ways and refuse to change.

Oh well..to each his or her own (I tried...LOL).


Well said, thoooooough, some might argue the whole tribal layer formation after extended operation at temp with oil of same/similar add pack providing additional boundary layer protection. This has nothing to do with switching between mineral and synthetic and more to do with dissociation and reformation of said tribal layers.

I wonder if, as was alluded to, there might be some merit to the argument that cheaper multi-weights are attributable to these failures. I'm not sure how the person you quoted saw the change, but it's possible that a stouter multi or straight weight could prevent some failures, if the failure is attributable to a breakdown of the oil and not user error in the form of oil starvation via level or excessive angles and dangles.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: gathermewool
I wonder if, as was alluded to, there might be some merit to the argument that cheaper multi-weights are attributable to these failures. I'm not sure how the person you quoted saw the change, but it's possible that a stouter multi or straight weight could prevent some failures, if the failure is attributable to a breakdown of the oil and not user error in the form of oil starvation via level or excessive angles and dangles.

The thing is the oils he is talking about is Amsoil, M1, RP, etc. I do not see how it could get much stouter than that. He is just anti-synthetic with no justifiable rationale in my opinion.