Automakers Lengthen Oil Change Intervals
in [Drive]
|
From: clifto on 30 Mar 2007 01:18 SMS wrote: > Remember, even Mobil 1 and Amsoil are only semi-synthetic. They use > synthetic base stock but then add petroleum based carrier oil. Everything I can find at www.mobil1.com suggests that Mobil 1 is fully synthetic. -- Pork: It's the other white flag! -- James Lileks
From: Steve Barker on 30 Mar 2007 01:39 Wrong again. Mobil 1 has always been 100% $ynthetic. -- Steve Barker YOU should be the one controlling YOUR car. Check out: www.lightsout.org "SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message news:460c57b4$0$27179$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... > Remember, even Mobil 1 and Amsoil are only semi-synthetic. They use > synthetic base stock but then add petroleum based carrier oil.
From: Eeyore on 30 Mar 2007 05:39 clifto wrote: > SMS wrote: > > Remember, even Mobil 1 and Amsoil are only semi-synthetic. They use > > synthetic base stock but then add petroleum based carrier oil. > > Everything I can find at www.mobil1.com suggests that Mobil 1 is fully > synthetic. That's my understanding too. Semi-synthetic is considerably less expensive and a good option IMHO. Graham
From: SMS on 30 Mar 2007 08:41 clifto wrote: > SMS wrote: >> Remember, even Mobil 1 and Amsoil are only semi-synthetic. They use >> synthetic base stock but then add petroleum based carrier oil. > > Everything I can find at www.mobil1.com suggests that Mobil 1 is fully > synthetic. Right, it's what you would expect to find on the Mobil 1 site! Actually they do allude to it on their site. "Each Mobil 1 and Mobil 1 Extended Performance viscosity grade uses a unique combination of synthetic fluids _and selected additives_ in order to tailor the viscosity grade to its specific application" (underlining mine). It's the "selected additives" that are not synthetic. The base stock is what is synthetic." The additives can be close to 20% of the volume. There are some full synthetics available, but they are very expensive because the alternatives to the non-synthetic additives are so costly. It's a mistake to think that non-synthetics are somehow oil that is pumped straight from the oil well into bottles. Modern multi-weight oil with a petroleum base stock is a highly refined and engineered product, just as synthetic is. The additives that are added to each base stock are very similar. There are still some advantages to the semi-synthetics. As long as you're not in the severe service category, you can go longer between oil changes, and if you have a very high performance engine, or live in a cold climate, they can be beneficial. What's sad is to see people that live in mild climates putting synthetic into that Accord or Camry every 3000-5000 miles. It may provide "peace of mind" (heavily promoted on the Mobil 1 web site), but it doesn't make an iota of difference in the life of the engine. Search for "peace of mind" on the Mobil 1 site, and you come up with 264 results. It's marketing gone wild.
From: clare at on 29 Mar 2007 20:11
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 22:57:06 -0500, tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: >In article <764m031278bg09huogqlp589k27k9n7av9(a)4ax.com>, clare at snyder.on.ca wrote: >> On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 10:56:45 -0500, tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com >> (Brent P) wrote: >> >>>In article <OuydnZShBttLoJTbnZ2dnUVZ_hynnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Steve Barker wrote: >>>> Yeah, and why do they say this? 'Cause the government tells them to. Its >>>> an EPA thing, not the fact that the engine still needs the oil changed every >>>> 3000 miles. >>> >>>3000 miles made sense long ago. but with modern fuel and oil and better >>>internal tolerances it's obsolete. >>> >>> >> Tell that to someone who's had their engine coke up - like the >> infamous Mopar V6 - with "specified" oil changes (normal condition >> schedule). Still no better or cheeper insurance for an engine than top >> quality oil changed just a little sooner than necessary. > >And somewhere there were bad engine designs that just plain broke too... >That's no reason for overall rules of the thumb that are exceedingly >wasteful. > > What's the last "bad engine design" that just plain broke??? That could not be traced to poor maintenance(even if the required maintenance was more often than you approve of?) Even the nasty Mitsubishi 2600 (used by Chrysler, and cursed by thousands) stood up very well with proper lubrication, changed often enough. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |