Synthetic or regular oil?

[NASTY GM]

Mobil 1 or Royal Purple

 

[07warwagon]

Royal Purple

 

[Zed 71]

There is NO truth that oil is the problem, its a defect in the lifter. I have used synthetic oil in my AFM 2008 GMC for over 25,000 miles and no issues. I have over 25 customers with similar engines and no problem.

Also, synthetic oil is a class of oil and within the class of oil just about everyone has an oil of different chemistry. In others words, no 2 brands of synthetic oil are the same.

The thought is that the smaller molecular size of synthetic oil brings this issue to light in cylinder deactivation equipped engines. Yes it is a design issue, but synthetic oil allows more oil loss. All the info I have read with people noticing this issue indicate the noise/startup grinding was eliminated going back to dino. These are just observations... FYI I was using Mobil 1 synthetic. I discontinued its use in the Tahoe but I still use it in my sports car.

 

[Z15]

The thought is that the smaller molecular size of synthetic oil brings this issue to light in cylinder deactivation equipped engines.

That's bs. The engines that have problems never came factory filled with synthetic oil. Chances are those that are saying its synthetic oil had problems before they switched to synthetic oil, but now not wanting to admit the truth look to place the blame somewhere else than were it really belongs, on the defect in the manufacture of the parts. Kind of reminds me of back in the early 1980's. Oils and owner maintainence was being blamed for a rash of camshaft failures in my GM 5.0L engines. Years later, kicking and screaming it was found out that GM has a huge amount of camshafts made with substandard steel and they were secretly warranting them.



Actually its to the contrary, the engines the come with synthetic oils from the factory are not affected by this. Its those that are not factory filled that continue to have problems and why GM is going to a new oil spec in 2011.

"Some formulators who have reviewed the Dexos specification say they can only achieve it through heavy use of API Group III or polyalphaolefin base oils, due to its low Noack volatility limits."

Those are synthetic btw.

polyalphaolefin base oils

The base oil AMSOIL has been using for decades. Guess who AMSOIL buys it from? Can't be true? Exon-Mobil Chemical, not the be confused by Mobil 1.

Toyota is requiring synthetic oils in all new vehicles, 0W-20 btw. Ford is starting to move in that direction. So get used to it, all the synthetic oil naysayers are going to dragged kicking and screaming into using synthetic oil or continue driving their old beaters. It was the same thing back with radial tires came out in the 70's, everything that could possibly go wrong with a car or truck was blamed on radial tires.

Btw-Corvettes, all Cadillacs require synthetic oil to maintain warranty.

 

[Mr. B]

I use regular oil and change it every 3,000 miles. I've run synthetics in the past, and have nothing bad to say about them. But for me, I like changing it every 3,000 miles so I decided to stay with regular oil.

Having the oil changed isn't expensive, and damn cheap insurance on keeping your engine running longer. I've never really understood people that try to stretch the miles between oil changes.

 

[Z15]

Changing oil sooner than required is not environmentally responsible; it’s not ‘cheap insurance.’ It wastes resources. Problem is, once people get this idea in their head, its hard to convince them of the truth. Its a big marketing ploy by the quick lube industry and the oil companies say nothing because they are profiting from it. AMSOIL on the other hand has been calling this what it is since 1972, a myth that is ripping of the consumer.

Btw-Don't ever fly in a jet airplane, all they use is synthetic and they are not changing every 3,000 miles. A buddy has a 2000 Kenworth semi with cat engine and has 1.3 millions miles using synthetic oil. He was just here yesterday on his way out west to pickup a oil test kit as its time test his oil. Once a month at about 10,000 miles. He last changed oil over 50,000 miles ago and last month the oil tested good. A cat engine like he has cost around $25,000. Says he can't afford to run non-synthetic because he looses about 1.5 mpg in fuel consumption and at approx. 150,000 miles a year, that's lot of money to him.

Here is some reading on how you are being duped by 3,000 mile oil changes
Goodwrench Busts Auto Care Myths One Myth at a Time
Effort begins by educating consumers that 3,000-mile oil changes are a thing of the past

GM, California to Bust ‘3,000 Mile Myth’

Debunked: The 3000 Mile Oil Change Is a Myth

When you are ready to make the switch over to a good synthetic like AMSOIL, pm me and I'll set you with a wholesale account.

some more reading

Over the years there has been an overabundance of engine oil myths. Here are some facts you may want to pass along to customers to help debunk the fiction behind these myths.
The Pennsylvania Crude Myth -- This myth is based on a misapplication of truth. In 1859, the first commercially successful oil well was drilled in Titusville, Pennsylvania.

A myth got started before World War II claiming that the only good oils were those made from pure Pennsylvania crude oil. At the time, only minimal refining was used to make engine oil from crude oil. Under these refining conditions, Pennsylvania crude oil made better engine oil than Texas crude or California crude. Today, with modern refining methods, almost any crude can be made into good engine oil.
Other engine oil myths are based on the notion that the new and the unfamiliar are somehow "bad."

The Detergent Oil Myth -- The next myth to appear is that modern detergent engine oils
are bad for older engines. This one got started after World War II, when the government no longer needed all of the available detergent oil for the war effort, and detergent oil hit the market as “heavy-duty” oil.

Many pre-war cars had been driven way past their normal life, their engines were full of sludge and deposits, and the piston rings were completely worn out. Massive piston deposits were the only thing standing between merely high oil consumption and horrendous oil consumption. After a thorough purge by the new detergent oil, increased oil consumption was a possible consequence.

If detergent oils had been available to the public during the war, preventing the massive deposit buildup from occurring in the first place, this myth never would have started. Amazingly, there are still a few people today, 60 years later, who believe that they need to use non-detergent oil in their older cars. Apparently, it takes many years for an oil myth to die.

The Synthetic Oil Myth -- Then there is the myth that new engine break-in will not occur with synthetic oils. This one was apparently started by an aircraft engine manufacturer who put out a bulletin that said so. The fact is that Mobil 1 synthetic oil has been the factory-fill for many thousands of engines. Clearly, they have broken in quite well, and that should put this one to rest.

The Starburst Oil Myth -- The latest myth promoted by the antique and collector car press says that new Starburst/ API SM engine oils (called Starburst for the shape of the symbol on the container) are bad for older engines because the amount of anti-wear additive in them has been reduced. The anti-wear additive being discussed is zinc dithiophosphate (ZDP).

Before debunking this myth, we need to look at the history of ZDP usage. For over 60 years, ZDP has been used as an additive in engine oils to provide wear protection and oxidation stability.

ZDP was first added to engine oil to control copper/lead bearing corrosion. Oils with a phosphorus level in the 0.03% range passed a corrosion test introduced in 1942.

In the mid-1950s, when the use of high-lift camshafts increased the potential for scuffing and wear, the phosphorus level contributed by ZDP was increased to the 0.08% range.

In addition, the industry developed a battery of oil tests (called sequences), two of which were valve-train scuffing and wear tests.

A higher level of ZDP was good for flat-tappet valve-train scuffing and wear, but it turned out that more was not better. Although break-in scuffing was reduced by using more phosphorus, longer-term wear increased when phosphorus rose above 0.14%. And, at about 0.20% phosphorus, the ZDP started attacking the grain boundaries in the iron, resulting in camshaft spalling.

By the 1970s, increased antioxidancy was needed to protect the oil in high-load engines, which otherwise could thicken to a point where the engine could no longer pump it. Because ZDP was an inexpensive and effective antioxidant, it was used to place the phosphorus level in the 0.10% range.

However, phosphorus is a poison for exhaust catalysts. So, ZDP levels have been reduced over the last 10-15 years. It's now down to a maximum of 0.08% for Starburst oils. This was supported by the introduction of modern ashless antioxidants that contain no phosphorus.

Enough history. Let's get back to the myth that Starburst oils are no good for older engines. The argument put forth is that while these oils work perfectly well in modern, gasoline engines equipped with roller camshafts, they will cause catastrophic wear in older engines equipped with flat-tappet camshafts.

The facts say otherwise.

Backward compatability was of great importance when the Starburst oil standards were developed by a group of experts from the OEMs, oil companies, and oil additive companies. In addition, multiple oil and additive companies ran no-harm tests on older engines with the new oils; and no problems were uncovered.

The new Starburst specification contains two valve-train wear tests. All Starburst oil formulations must pass these two tests.

- Sequence IVA tests for camshaft scuffing and wear using a single overhead camshaft engine with slider finger (not roller) followers.

- Sequence IIIG evaluates cam and lifter wear using a V6 engine with a flat-tappet system, similar to those used in the 1980s.
Those who hold onto the myth are ignoring the fact that the new Starburst oils contain about the same percentage of ZDP as the oils that solved the camshaft scuffing and wear issues back in the 1950s. (True, they do contain less ZDP than the oils that solved the oil thickening issues in the 1960s, but that's because they now contain high levels of ashless antioxidants not commercially available in the 1960s.)

Despite the pains taken in developing special flat-tappet camshaft wear tests that these new oils must pass and the fact that the ZDP level of these new oils is comparable to the level found necessary to protect flat-tappet camshafts in the past, there will still be those who want to believe the myth that new oils will wear out older engines.

Like other myths before it, history teaches us that it will probably take 60 or 70 years for this one to die also.
- Thanks to Bob Olree – GM Powertrain Fuels and Lubricants Group

 

[Zed 71]

That's bs. The engines that have problems never came factory filled with synthetic oil. Chances are those that are saying its synthetic oil had problems before they switched to synthetic oil, but now not wanting to admit the truth look to place the blame somewhere else than were it really belongs, on the defect in the manufacture of the parts. Kind of reminds me of back in the early 1980's. Oils and owner maintainence was being blamed for a rash of camshaft failures in my GM 5.0L engines. Years later, kicking and screaming it was found out that GM has a huge amount of camshafts made with substandard steel and they were secretly warranting them.



Actually its to the contrary, the engines the come with synthetic oils from the factory are not affected by this. Its those that are not factory filled that continue to have problems and why GM is going to a new oil spec in 2011. Those are synthetic btw.

Read the post. It never said the engines came with synthetic oil. Issues noted after switch to synthetic, and issues not observed after switch back to dino. Again just observations with thoughts from others...

BTW I prefer to use synthetic and use it my sports car as noted in my reply.

 

[Mr. B]

I gave my opinion on the subject. I went back to dino oil from synthetic and I change mine every 3,000 miles. If you don't want to, fine. Do whatever you wish. And I don't think that I am being environmentally irresponsible for what amounts to maybe one extra oil change (1.5 gallons) of oil per year.

 

[sumo]

bottom line is you do what you feel is right for you. I go 5k on non oil life reminders and 15% on the ones that do or every 3 months on regular oil. I dont like oil to sit in my engine over 3 months even if i havent reached the mileage because oil does break down. Once it leaves the sealed bottle, air, condensation, heat, old oil remains that dont come out with a previous oil change all get absorbed in the oil sitting in the pan. Plus every oil change i rotate tires to get the max life out of tires and prevent uneven wear. It also allows me to keep an eye on break pad life.

 

[Lancer]

I've heard of a couple of my buddies runing BP2380 aircraft synthetic in there engines to reduce the heat transfer. Im a jet engine mech and the BP2380 is about 15/qt and its pricey but i heard its good for uses on your truck if your pushing 450+ HP and are having any type of transverse lifter noise, on the a new truck it wont effect any sensors just dont use it with a Fram filter becuase the suction thru your engine could suck the inner filter togeather causing it to cut off your oil supply...