Automakers Lengthen Oil Change Intervals
in [Drive]
|
From: Andy on 3 Apr 2007 11:49 On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 02:08:37 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: >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. They have no effect on catalytic converters. I have no idea where you came up with that one.
From: Andy on 3 Apr 2007 11:52 On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 11:08:47 -0400, "C. E. White" <cewhite3(a)removemindspring.com> wrote: > >"Andy" <wisynoil(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >news:n55213tg2up71fstjpqacngge63doqfjhg(a)4ax.com... >> >> On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 22:16:29 -0500, "Steve Barker" >> <ichasetrains(a)some.yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>>$ynthetics are a rip off. Extended change intervals are just plain >>>stupidity. >> >> Testing proves you wrong > >Any web sites that include facts? Plenty. http://neptune.spacebears.com/cars/stories/amsoil.html (its an older test) http://www.amsoil.com/lit/g2244.pdf (a certified test) If you want more, look for yourself. Of course I'm sure you'll come back with its all marketing hype, even though all OTR trucks use extended drains.
From: Andy on 3 Apr 2007 11:54 On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 19:18:20 -0400, "RCE" <rce(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >"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 > >I found this sentence to be particularly interesting also: > >"Indeed, one is forced to wonder whether an engine with a high-quality PAO >synthetic combined with a bypass filtration system and regular filter >changes would ever need its oil changed at all." If you go that way, you should have a lab run a used oil analysis
From: Ray on 3 Apr 2007 12:52 Scott Dorsey wrote: > 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 > Considering most people I know believe that the oil change interval of a differential and a manual transmission = never, I'm not sure how much further you can extend that. Ray
From: SMS on 3 Apr 2007 13:21
Andy wrote: > On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 02:08:37 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> > wrote: > >> 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. > > They have no effect on catalytic converters. I have no idea where you > came up with that one. Never use a non-API certified synthetic oil (there are many of these on the market) in a vehicle with a catalytic converter. The problem with the non-API certified synthetics is that they contain too much phosphorus (in the form of the additive ZDDP (Zinc Dialkyl Dithiophosphates)). The API has limited the amount of phosphorus because phosphorus shortens the life of the catalytic converter. These oils are fine for snowmobiles, motorcycles, and older cars that don't have a catalytic converter, and the extra ZDDP does provide additional wear protection. Unfortunately, the marketers of some the non-certified oils do not explicitly and honestly state the reason for the lack of API certification. You can check the status of API certification on the API web site. Be certain to go not just by the manufacturer name but by the actual product as well. This is because a manufacturer will sometimes have both certified and non-certified products. Suffice it to say that Mobil 1, Royal Purple, Castrol, & Havoline all make synthetic oils that are API certified and that can be purchased at auto parts stores and other retail outlets. Amsoil has one product line, XL-7500 that is API certified, but it's other lines contain too much ZDDP to be certified and should not be used in vehicles with catalytic converters. Of course a company like Amsoil will use the old marketing trick and make a statment like, "we know of no vehicle who's catalytic converter had to be replaced due to the level of phosphorus in our product." Well duh, by the time a catalytic converter has to be replaced, the vehicle will be out of warranty, and how would you attribute how much of the wear was due to the extra phosphorus? In states without emissions testing, you'd never know when the catalytic converter is no longer effective. |