Automakers Lengthen Oil Change Intervals
in [Drive]
|
From: C. E. White on 2 Apr 2007 20:53 "John Henderson" <jhenRemoveThis(a)talk21.com> wrote in message news:57dg30F2cdbbrU1(a)mid.individual.net... > RCE wrote: > >> http://neptune.spacebears.com/cars/stories/mobil1.html > > Thanks for the link. While the testing is done on synthetic > oil, it goes a long way to demolishing the myth that "you can't > change oil too often". As they say in the above link: > > "Engine wear actually decreases as oil ages. This has also been > substantiated in testing conducted by Ford Motor Co. and > ConocoPhillips, and reported in SAE Technical Paper > 2003-01-3119. What this means is that compulsive oil changers > are actually causing more engine wear than the people who let > their engine's oil get some age on it." > > John This is a gross miss-representation of what SAE Technical Paper 2003-01-3119 determined. The title of the paper is - "Antiwear Performance of Low Phosphorus Engine Oils on Tappet Inserts in Motored Sliding Valvetrain Test" The test was a pure wear test using externally driven valve train components. A complete engine was not involved. There was no dilution of the oil by blow-by, no combustion products added to the oil, and no water added to the oil. The results might matter if you are building a sealed machine driven by an electric motor, but trying to claim this paper is a basis for extending oil change intervals is not reasonable. Ed
From: John Henderson on 2 Apr 2007 21:47 C. E. White wrote: > This is a gross miss-representation of what SAE Technical > Paper 2003-01-3119 determined. The title of the paper is - > "Antiwear Performance of Low Phosphorus Engine Oils on Tappet > Inserts in Motored Sliding Valvetrain Test" The test was a > pure wear test using externally driven valve train components. > A complete engine was not involved. There was no dilution of > the oil by blow-by, no combustion products added to the oil, > and no water added to the oil. The results might matter if you > are building a sealed machine driven by an electric motor, but > trying to claim this paper is a basis for extending oil change > intervals is not reasonable. Thanks for the info. When I went looking for "SAE Technical Paper 2003-01-3119", I could find it to buy, but not to read at no-charge. From other reading, I still get the strong impression that frequent oil changes is not the minimun-wear strategy. I'm more than happy to be proven wrong though. It's the truth of the matter that's important, not reputations. John
From: Hairy on 2 Apr 2007 22:34 "SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message news:46111eb0$0$27167$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... > Andy wrote: >> On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 19:20:39 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Andy wrote: >>> >>>> And where on the Mobil 1 site does it say that? I looked and didn't >>>> see it. They say its a blend of synthetic basestocks. >>> Right, it's the base stocks that are synthetic, but the additives are >>> petroleum based. >>> >>> From the Mobil 1 web 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). >> >> Does it say it uses non synthetic addatives? > > LOL, you have a lot to learn about advertising and implicature. > > Here's what they said in their printed promotional materials: > > Q: Is Mobil 1 a fully synthetic oil? > > Yes, it�s 100% synthetic. The base stocks used in blending Mobil 1 are all > "chemically constructed" instead of being simply segregated out of crude > oil like conventional mineral oils. > > Q: Then why does it say it contains a petroleum carrier for additives? > > All motor oils contain additives that provide extra protection against > wear, corrosion and engine deposits. These additives are usually high > molecular weight materials � sometimes even solids. Conventional carrier > oil is used to make these additives soluble. All motor oils will contain > some of this carrier oil, usually only amounting to a small percentage of > the finished product. Please, give yourself some credibility by scanning and posting a link to this "printed promotional material". You're not related to 'Snoman', are you? Dave
From: SMS on 3 Apr 2007 05:08 Hairy wrote: > Please, give yourself some credibility by scanning and posting a link to > this "printed promotional material". > You're not related to 'Snoman', are you? > > Dave > > You can start by reading "http://www.chevron.com/products/prodserv/baseoils/docs/ebot.pdf" and "http://www.atvoutdoors.net/default.asp?ContentID=23&CategoryID=2" It's all marketing, ever since Castrol won the lawsuit that Mobil filed regarding base stocks and the the use of "synthetic." Amusingly, most of the synthetic oil sold in the U.S., including the current formulation of Mobil 1 (except their new 5W20 Extended Performance), and the only API certified oil from Amsoil (XL-7500), could not even be sold as synthetic oil in Europe, because the base stocks are extracted from petroleum. Mobil 1 at least used to use synthetic base stock, but since they lost the lawsuit they just could not continue using the "true synthetic" base stock, and had to switch to the "legally synthetic" base stock that Castrol uses, and that Amsoil uses in their XL-7500 line. Note that the other Amsoil products, while they cannot be API certified due to the ZDDP level, do use synthetic base stock. Don't use them in vehicles with catalytic converters, despite what your local MLM person may tell you. Mobil 1 EP does use synthetic base stock. However the issue here was the additive package, which is not synthetic on any of these oils. I think there are a couple of 100% synthetics available, but not on the shelf at Pep Boys. Practically speaking, there is nothing wrong with the non-synthetic additives. Again, it's important to understand that "100% synthetic" in the U.S. refers to oils that have 100% legally synthetic base stock. In Europe it refers to oil that have 100% true synthetic base stock.
From: Scott Dorsey on 3 Apr 2007 09:39
C. E. White <cewhite(a)mindspring.com> wrote: >This is a gross miss-representation of what SAE Technical Paper 2003-01-3119 >determined. The title of the paper is - "Antiwear Performance of Low >Phosphorus Engine Oils on Tappet Inserts in Motored Sliding Valvetrain Test" >The test was a pure wear test using externally driven valve train >components. A complete engine was not involved. There was no dilution of the >oil by blow-by, no combustion products added to the oil, and no water added >to the oil. The results might matter if you are building a sealed machine >driven by an electric motor, but trying to claim this paper is a basis for >extending oil change intervals is not reasonable. I agree, BUT, I think that might be a basis for extending oil change intervals on differentials and manual transmissions. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |