Synthetic Oil Article

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Quest
Originally Posted By: gizzsdad
Originally Posted By: bountyh
Now you know where the wive's tales come from.


Exactly, like this one: "Those who can - do, and those who can't - teach."

Not intending to offend anyone, just noting how ridiculous wives' tales can be.


That's why I bailed out of the auto repair industry long time ago and pursue a totally different career instead. Like Rodney Dangerfield said: "ain't gettin no satisfaction"

Q.


I think Rodney complained about getting no respect.

It was Mick Jagger who complained about "Can't get no satisfaction".
 
Originally Posted By: StevieC
Not that M1 oils aren't excellent, but I'm sure they have made major changes since then. Plus with all the corporate greed squeezing going on it has to make you think that compromises have been made with all oils & companies in the name of profit no?

Yesterday I posted a list of the myths about the boutique oils that are frequently mentioned on this forum. One of those is that the boutique motor oil companies care less about profit than the majors. Pablo admitted that everyone cares about profit, but he claims no one this forum says the majors care more about profit than the boutiques (and he should how ridiculous that is since he is a Amsoil dealer).

Well here it is folks, in plain simple English, someone implying that XOM cares more about profit than other companies so they have compromised the quality of their products (if everyone has been compromising their products, he would not have singled out XOM).

Now, as Pablo admitted, everyone cares about profits. And when you are XOM and earn $45 Billion in 2008 net profits (mostly from oil and gas production), I don't think they are hurting so bad they are under pressure to compromise the quality of their products. Now it possible that they did that, just as it is possible the boutique motor oil companies could have done it, but I would need to see evidence of that before I went around saying that XOM was pressured into compromising the quality of their products because of supposed "corporate greed squeezing."
 
I agree with you that even Amsoil cares about profits and is greedy just the same as the next company is, but don't forget that they are a smaller competitor with a lot of non-licensed oils that is trying to gain marketshare and the only way they can do this is by offering a better product than everyone else.

This isn't to say that Amsoil is better than everyone else, but they must be offering a better product than > because they keep gaining market share.

XOM on the other hand is fat on it's current customers and huge compared to other companies and can afford to cut quality if they wanted to because they can a fraction of the costs on fancy marketing to keep 99% of Joe-Consumers thinking it's a superb oil compared to all others meanwhile they are making cutbacks and absorbing the difference in costs into their profit margin.

Note: I'm not bashing M1, I'm just using XOM as an example, and stating that they have more wiggle room to cut back on their product because they are so huge, have such a strong following and can brainwash with fancy marketing due to their enormous budget lead by insane profits because the joe-consumer either doesn't keep the vehicle long enough to see the benefits or it only mean an extra say 50K miles in the long run which most people won't miss as the average car makes it to 200K Miles easy with any oil changed at a reasonable interval.

cheers3.gif
 
ROFL! 1992 Corvettes and up = Synthetic required by GM. Has to meet GM 4718M. As we all know, synthetic (M1) was factory fill in that LT1 push-rod engine.
 
Originally Posted By: Quest
Unless you are talking about really old cars like 50s and older (MGB, Morgan, Austin, etc.) then you may have some seal compatibility issues; otherwise, the writer of this article RE: 95 or older should not run syn (or full syn) is full of poppycocks.



My 72 MGB is doing just fine on various syn oils. Currently have Redline 20w50 and the car has never been smoother and I have the same small seepage that I have had with any oil I use Dino or Syn... It is british after all and an MG, if it isnt leaking then your out of oil :)
 
Originally Posted By: LoneRanger
ROFL! 1992 Corvettes and up = Synthetic required by GM. Has to meet GM 4718M. As we all know, synthetic (M1) was factory fill in that LT1 push-rod engine.



Yeah they can still be FF, but cut back on the product and still meet the requirement.

Besides... I don't put much merit into GM products or specifications, because the company is pretty much history so what does that say about their way of thinking?

Dodo-bird anyone?
grin2.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Mark888
Originally Posted By: StevieC
Not that M1 oils aren't excellent, but I'm sure they have made major changes since then. Plus with all the corporate greed squeezing going on it has to make you think that compromises have been made with all oils & companies in the name of profit no?

Yesterday I posted a list of the myths about the boutique oils that are frequently mentioned on this forum. One of those is that the boutique motor oil companies care less about profit than the majors. Pablo admitted that everyone cares about profit, but he claims no one this forum says the majors care more about profit than the boutiques (and he should how ridiculous that is since he is a Amsoil dealer).

Well here it is folks, in plain simple English, someone implying that XOM cares more about profit than other companies so they have compromised the quality of their products (if everyone has been compromising their products, he would not have singled out XOM).

Now, as Pablo admitted, everyone cares about profits. And when you are XOM and earn $45 Billion in 2008 net profits (mostly from oil and gas production), I don't think they are hurting so bad they are under pressure to compromise the quality of their products. Now it possible that they did that, just as it is possible the boutique motor oil companies could have done it, but I would need to see evidence of that before I went around saying that XOM was pressured into compromising the quality of their products because of supposed "corporate greed squeezing."


SteveC was just rambling - totally different than the site itself promoting something. Wow, no wonder people have big doubts about you.

Originally Posted By: Mark888
There are more myths perpetrated on this forum about motor oil than just about any I have ever seen,
 
Originally Posted By: Pablo
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=perpetuated

I don't think the casual poster from the public posting his opinion is the same as a forum "perpetuating a myth". I'll just leave it at that!



He said perpetrated........

Quote:
perpetrate
Verb
[-trating, -trated] to perform or be responsible for (a deception or crime) [Latin perpetrare]
perpetration n
perpetrator n
USAGE: Perpetrate and perpetuate are sometimes confused: he must answer for the crimes he has perpetrated (not perpetuated); the book helped to perpetuate (not perpetrate) some of the myths surrounding his early life.
 
My bad. Going too fast. Still I can argue that more myths are killed here than perpetrated!

Listen - I know there are some common misconceptions that even make it through the BITOG screen. But I really don't see this site as a major myth inventor. Please tell me if I'm off base here.
 
Originally Posted By: StevieC
I agree with you that even Amsoil cares about profits and is greedy just the same as the next company is, but don't forget that they are a smaller competitor with a lot of non-licensed oils that is trying to gain marketshare and the only way they can do this is by offering a better product than everyone else.

This isn't to say that Amsoil is better than everyone else, but they must be offering a better product than > because they keep gaining market share.

XOM on the other hand is fat on it's current customers and huge compared to other companies and can afford to cut quality if they wanted to because they can a fraction of the costs on fancy marketing to keep 99% of Joe-Consumers thinking it's a superb oil compared to all others meanwhile they are making cutbacks and absorbing the difference in costs into their profit margin.

Note: I'm not bashing M1, I'm just using XOM as an example, and stating that they have more wiggle room to cut back on their product because they are so huge, have such a strong following and can brainwash with fancy marketing due to their enormous budget lead by insane profits because the joe-consumer either doesn't keep the vehicle long enough to see the benefits or it only mean an extra say 50K miles in the long run which most people won't miss as the average car makes it to 200K Miles easy with any oil changed at a reasonable interval.

I really don't care if you bash M1. But it simply makes no sense that XOM is hurting financially and therfore they must compromise their products. They made a profit of $65 billion last year. There are not very many companies that even had that much in sales. Maybe they are lazy, incompetent, ran out of PAO for a few months, I don't know. Or may you are wrong and there is nothing wrong with the M1. But one thing I do know is that XOM is not feeling any financial pressure.

As to the claim that the only way one can compete against M1 is with a better product is very naive. Starting false rumors about your competition is much more effective and a lot cheaper.

Speaking of pressure, the one major motor oil company that does not produce or refine their own oil crude for motor oil, and must buy all the ingredients on the open market, and is rumored to be on the auction block, just coincidently started a smear campaign against M1 with no proof that I have seen.
 
Originally Posted By: Pablo
SteveC was just rambling - totally different than the site itself promoting something. Wow, no wonder people have big doubts about you.

I made my original comments about myths to a newbie who is trying to make decisions based on what people post on this forum. SteveC has posted almost 6000 times, and a newbie might actually think from that he is being fair and impartial (or rational).

I am not blaming this "forum." The forum itself does not do anything but provide a means for people to express their opinions (or whatever). I was just warning a newbie to be careful about what he reads here. You seem to be nitpicking and overly sensitive about this.
 
Originally Posted By: Pablo
My bad. Going too fast. Still I can argue that more myths are killed here than perpetrated!

Listen - I know there are some common misconceptions that even make it through the BITOG screen. But I really don't see this site as a major myth inventor. Please tell me if I'm off base here.

Relax. I was just warning a newbie to be careful about what he reads here, even from frequent posters. Yes, myths are started here and they are killed here also. But some of the most outlandish myths keep resurfacing no matter how times they are killed.
 
Originally Posted By: Pablo
My bad. Going too fast. Still I can argue that more myths are killed here than perpetrated!

Listen - I know there are some common misconceptions that even make it through the BITOG screen. But I really don't see this site as a major myth inventor. Please tell me if I'm off base here.


I wasn't posting on the point one way or the other, just noting that you were quoting the wrong word
wink.gif


The one myth that apparently seems immune to death is the UOA can tell you how your engine is wearing one.....
 
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
The one myth that apparently seems immune to death is the UOA can tell you how your engine is wearing one.....

Yea. That's because a UOA cost about $25.00 and an engine tear down costs about $2,500.00.
 
Originally Posted By: Mark888
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
The one myth that apparently seems immune to death is the UOA can tell you how your engine is wearing one.....

Yea. That's because a UOA cost about $25.00 and an engine tear down costs about $2,500.00.


And lets face it, most people would rather feed their OCD with UOA results, which, if used in the manner many use them on here, are a feedback-reward system as to "how well" they are doing by their engine.

A process far more difficult (though actually effective, unlike the UOA "testing") using tear-down testing
wink.gif
 
Originally Posted By: lenjack
Using M1 since '76, with very extended drains and no problems whatsoever.


lenjack,
You have me beat by two years with M1 oils. I started in 78, and have been on 10,000 mile Ocis ever since.
 
Originally Posted By: StevieC
Originally Posted By: tig1
I started using M1 oils in 1978 and haven't had any problems.
Tig1,

Not that M1 oils aren't excellent, but I'm sure they have made major changes since then. Plus with all the corporate greed squeezing going on it has to make you think that compromises have been made with all oils & companies in the name of profit no?


I gues M1 oils have changed some over the years but they seem to be as good a product as ever. My family and I plus many friends still have long lived engines that stay clean and allow extended OCIs.
 
Group IV (PAO) based synthetics can still on occasion cause problems with the seals in older (12+ years) cars.

We've had numerous stories similar to this on posted here at BITOG …

Quote:
BITOG… 96 Volvo …

I added 1 and a half or so quarts of 15w40 royal purple I had laying around. After the car sat in the garage for a few days i noticed two small puddles of oil on the ground.

Update, the car started leaking from the rear main seal too. The car started leaking more as the days went on, so I changed the oil to Castrol GTX High Mileage because it's been ran on GTX for a long time. I can't believe it. The leak almost stopped on the spot.



PAO's can cause a small amount of seal shrinkage depending on the seal material, which is usually counterbalanced with esters, … but … your mileage may vary. How well this is counterbalanced could vary from oil to oil too. Not really a big problem with today's better balanced oils, but it can still occur.

Most modern off-the-shelf synthetics these days are Group III based (or mostly GIII based), which won't cause any problems with seals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top