Does anyone have any unbiased proof that synthetics are helping them? I mean less wear, better gas mileage etc... I agree they offer better protection and a tiny bit more power for a race eng( engs that see alot of 6000 rpms) but for my old 351 that hardly spends much time over 2300 rpms I havent seen where they are worth the extra cost. My 351 has 160,000 on it and doesnt burn any oil and gets just as good as mileage as when new and it has only had regular oil all its life. I dont buy into the extended drain intervals thing either as justifying the cost of them . Also some oils are called synthetic just because they can legally by the definition of the word when they are really just crude oil based. I know Mobil 1 and Amsoil are true synthetics its some of the cheaper brands that use this trick.

 

The only real world difference that I see is pour points in the winter. The 0w30's would be a big plus when it is -25 degrees. Other than extended drains, which are risky without a UOA. I would stick to regular dino. The dino's today like chevron supreme are very good even up to 5000 miles.

 

Actually, M1 is at least partially Group III dino.

Now that many of the better brands of dino oil are using Group II and II+ base stocks, the performance line between "true" synthetics and dino oils is becoming more blurry than ever.

Unfortunately, I don't think you'll find any truly objective information out there. The testing that is available was done to support one position or another, so you should look at these results with at least some skepticism.

I'm with you as far as syn not being worth the extra cost, but there are many that would take exception.

 

Can you point me to where this has been established? At this point I am skeptical, I can't believe after all the effort they've put into differentiating themselves from hydrocracked synthetics that they would resort to this.

What's next? Amsoil not 100% synthetic?

 

Here is a page studying the difference between Mobil 1 and Amsoil in a Camaro over several thousand miles with oil analysis every 1000 miles. Very informative and non-biased...

http://neptune.spacebears.com/cars/s.../oil-life.html

 

Amsoil does have a cheaper product that is a blend, "Series 2000" or something that sounds like that.

Mobil One's current formula includes PAO, esters and Alkylated Napthalenes. That last one is not Group III, according to ExxonMobil. It sure sounds like a severely refined hydrocarbon to me.

Jim

 

If you look at the Mobil1 website, it does not say "100% Group IV PAO". It says all "synthetic base stocks". Very carefully worded. That definition includes Group IIIs.

Someone at Bobistheoilguy.com did some investigation or analysis and concluded that Mobil1 is maybe 15%-20% Group III, 50%-60% Group IV and the rest, carrier oil and additives.

 

OK. Found the quote from the Mobil1 website:

See how it says "including PAOs" and "a unique combination of synthetic fluids"?

Very crafty wording.

 

Flash has posted essentially the same information here.

 

I would also like to see some proof that Mobil 1 is is Group 3. Jim your quote is from the Tri-syn days of Mobil 1. Js you are reading into something that is not the IMO. And most of the guys over at Bob's think Mobil 1 is Group IV including the heavy hitters overthere. I'm not trying to argue but I like to see accurate statments.

 

My question to ExxonMobil was specifically made in reference to the "SuperSyn" formula. If you look at "trade" publications, Mobil sells a PAO base oil called "SuperSyn", as well as Alkylated Napthalenes to others. That is what they make and it is most likely what they use themselves. Exxon is one of the leaders in ester-based aviation turbine oils, so that part of the company probably supplies the esters.

Jim

 

This guy had a ligitimate question. It seems like every time there's a synthetic question on here it turns into a debate over the makeup of M1. Big deal.

I would say that there is no true unbiased proof that synthetics help, and there never will be. My reasoning is that synthetics DO NOT help. It used to be, up until about 10 years ago (or maybe more, not entirely sure on the timing), that dino, or conventional oil, 99% of the time meant Group 1 solvent refined. The oils made then using this technique would sludge up an engine at the slightest provocation. While not immediately causing its death, it would contribute to its demise (ever heard of the term "black death?"). The Group 4 PAO's of the era, while certainly having different specifications, DID perform better, since they withstood much higher temperatures and did not form sludge. Thus, you could leave it in until the additive package was used up, thus the extended drain intervals thing with synthetic. Fast forward to today. Group 1 solvent refined oil is still being produced, but it is much better than it was before. It will not sludge up your engine like it did before. Also the additive packages are better than they were, so that any potential sludge forming particle is kept in suspension instead of being deposited on a surface. In addition, we have the hydroprocessed Groups 2 and 3, which work as good as Group 4 (sometimes better for holding the additives). The viscosity index, or rate of change of viscosity as it relates to temperature, of Group 1 has gone up a lot since 10 years ago, and Group 2-3 has a high enough VI to rival Group 4. So the cold start advantage has been taken away too. So, there is NO real advantage to synthetic any more, and the oil companies are making money off the old information.

Let the flaming begin!

 

I think you're right. I think synthetics have there place in high rpm 2 strokes, but I'll pass in my trucks.

 

Good point! I'm sorry I brought it up. Now, if I can only get you on the right side of the Fram argument...

 

You can trust me, that will NEVER happen!

I've just had too much good luck with the big Napa #1773 oil filter. Even if the fram was good, which I still personally believe that it isn't, I wouldn't change. Adequate, probably. Good, no.