Engine Oil/Additives for high mileage 3.0

As apparently many people on forums I have read. Besides my own experience, I can't tell you how many posts I've seen over the years in which people say something to the effect "I switched over to X (synthetic oil) two weeks ago, and now my engine sounds like it's coming apart".

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

(in a Mr. T voice) This time I'll let ya live!

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

No.

Here:

Heh heh! You got me.

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

Likewise, for the number of people who've written or told me that AMSOIL made their engine run quieter, run 20 degress cooler and get 20% higher fuel mileage.

Matt

Read my original response to Daniel - I think you've proven my point (about either one of us "winning" or not "winning" the argument). Besides - you've just thrown a strawman argument into it - IOW, comparing something that has nothing to do with the question, but your strawman claim is easy to shoot down, and therefore, you conclude, I must be wrong. Your strawman doesn't add or detract from the validity of either one of our claims. I could just as easily have compared your examples to obviously exaggerated claims about AMSOIL...quieter...20 degrees cooler...fuel mileage, etc....and thus your claim about the original question must be just as ridiculous as the AMSOIL claim - yet I know your claim is not ridiculous - it is possible - I just disagree with it. This back and forth could go on forever (as I originally said).

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

Could NOT!

No, because I don't have enough interest to carry it much longer. In addition to my experience, Daniel's and I'm sure many others, there are many other indications that the "don't switch to synthetic in high mileage" engines myth is just that ... a myth. If this really were a problem of any significance, someone, somewhere in this litigious society of ours would have sued Mobil or Amsoil or somewhere to death by now with a class action lawsuit. That fact that this hasn't happened, is pretty strong evidence in and of itself that this myth is simply that. Look at what happened when Quaker State let a bad batch of oil out a couple of decades or so ago. Look at what happened to the Aviation version of Mobil 1 when it was discovered that full synthetics don't suspend lead well at all. It didn't take too many sludged up engines before Mobil was in big trouble.

I simply don't believe that synthetic oil has this super detergent ability that will purge all of the sludge out of a old engine. That fact that an oil doesn't build as much sludge in no way can be extended to say that it will remove pre-existing sludge.

If this problem occurred in more than 0.001% of the older engines that are switched to synthetics, the trial lawyers would be on this like flies on a cowpie.

Matt

I doubt it. So why aren't you posting to the Fram-haters' thread something to the effect of "If Fram filters were as bad as you say they are, the trial lawyers would be on them like flies on a cowpie". Yet somehow I don't see you weighing in with the same nonsense there to defend Fram.

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

Could NOT *NOT*. Could NOT *NOT* **NOT**. Could NOT *NOT* **NOT**

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

Because, although I agree that some Fram filters appear to be may of lower quality than other brands, I've seen no evidence that they are causing engine failures. I used Frams for years in a couple of vehicles that went to very high milages with no problems at all. I now use other brands having learned more about Fram's construction and materials, however, I still think Fram's are probably "good enough" in most situations. Just the same as dino oil is "good enough." I prefer Mobil

If changing to synthetic loosened as much sludge as some claim, then you would almost certainly plug up the oil pickup screen, small oil passages, the oil filter, etc. and cause catastropic damage. If that happens very often, lawsuits almost always follow. Same with Fram filters. If they were causing widespread engine damage, then I think we'd hear about it.

Matt

What a crock.

IIRC, synthetic base oils typically have *less* natural detergency than petroleum base oils, therefore they require *more* detergent in the additive package.

Switch all at once, or do it gradually -- it makes no difference. When you get right down to it, synthetic oils just aren't that different from conventional oils. They're significantly better in extremely hot and extremely cold conditions, and they tend to degrade more slowly. But beyond that they're pretty much the same as conventional oils. Some of the early synthetics had a tendency to harden seals, but they pretty mich fixed that 20 years ago.

That was not my point. My point was: Why didn't you use your "Because if that were the case (i.e., if FRAM filters were so bad), then there would be lawsuits all over the place (and there aren't, so therefore FRAM filters aren't as bad as evryone is saying they are)" argument in the "FRAMs are crap" thread.

A great segway into my additional point and clarification (you might call it a little bit of back-pedaling): I see 3 general categories of risk of occurence *and* of seriousness of symptoms or damage: (1) On a properly maintained engine (regular oil & filter changes, etc.), the risk is admittedly low (Daniels 12 or 13 experiences with that probably fall into this catgory). (2) On one that is barely adequately maintained, the risk is higher - but even then, I would say that the potential for *catastrophic* damage is low. *BUT* the risk of some smaller particals getting loose and lodging in a lifter port, check valve, or plunger and causing valve clatter is pretty good. But not very likely that a galley gets totally occluded from a chunk of crud in this engine. (3) For an abused engine, or one that, for whatever reason, is prone to sludging up (such as the 2.7L), *THEN* I say the risk is very high - certainly for valve clatter due to small amounts of accumulated gunk breaking loose, but also *VERY* susceptable to catastrophic spun-bearing/thrown-rod kind of failures if all hell breaks loose.

It's the third catgory (and to some degree, the second) that I'm talking about - and it is that that I see posted at least one case every couple of weeks on Chrysler forums (i.e. "I changed over to synthetic two weeks ago and now my valves are clattering" or "...and now it is making a metallic knocking sound and my mechanic says the engine needs to be replaced". Definitely - if I had bought a used high-mileage car that I was not absolutely sure of its maintenance history, I would absolutely

Thank you for prying the explanation out of me.

Ahh! You finally got me original point. Just wondering why you invoked that logic on my comments about the alleged risks of suddenly changing over to synthetic oil in high mileage (or should I say: sludged up) engines but held back from same in the filter thread.

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

So which is it? Are they not very different or are they a lot different? Or does it depend on which side of the different/same argument you are on at the moment? Can't have it both ways.

I challenge you (not literally of course, but think about it) to take two severely sludged-up engines - leave one with the conventional oil it has been using all along, suddenly change the other one over to synthetic oil. Then drive them both for a couple of months and see what happens. I wager that in a double-blind study with a ststistically significant batch of cars, there will be a very high number of catastrophic failures in the cars that were switched over to synthetic. In both categories, there will be a similar number of cars that would have failed anyway out of shear coincidence of the timing of the study.

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

Because I don't use Fram filters and have no desire to encourage others to use low quality filters. I do use Mobil 1 oil and believe that synthetic oil is great stuff and I hate to see myths about it propogated.

The two vehicles that I switched over were certainly in your first category above. However, I've seen no evidence that synthetic oils have any more detergent capability than conventional oils so I still think this argument is a red herring. They are less prone to form sludge, but I've never seen any credible technical evidence (actually, I haven't seen ANY technical evidence) that says that synthetics loosen sludge any better than conventional oils.

Which Chrysler forums?

I addressed this above, but to reiterate: I believe Fram filters are inferior to most others and thus don't feel it appropriate to defend Fram, however, I don't think they are likely to cause catastrophic engine failure either. I believe synthetic oils are a superior product and thus worth defending.

Matt

So which manufacturer is going to be stupid enough to provide the public with that smoking gun with which to sue them? Have you ever tried to get *any* meaningful technical information out of any oil company? Fact is, they hold it close to the vest for competitive proprietary and liability reasons. No - they certainly aren't going to hand anyone

OK - so we're back to personal opinion based on personal experience, with neither convincing the other without irrefutable proof which neither one of us is able to provide so we both consider the other's basis for opinion as anecdotal and inferior to what we both know we observed over the years.

DI.net

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

Actually, it depends on whether you're talking relatively normal driving conditions, or extremely severe driving conditions. For 99% of what the typical driver does, regular oils are fine. For the driver in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, or doing the Baja 1000, a synthetic might be the better answer.

Under normal conditions, they're just not that different.

And there will a similar number of catastrophic failures in the cars that kept using the regular oil.

Yep.

If there was a statistically significant chance of ruining your high-mileage engine by switching over to synthetic, rest assured the synthetic oil makers would be warning us about it. There's no way they'd let such a phenomenon sully the reputation of their product.

"Gosh, 150,000 miles on dino oil with no problems. I switch over to Mobil 1 and in three months my engine siezes." Imagine the PR problem they'd have if this was true.

Well, Amsoil publishes a lot of what they claim is data. :-) The reality is that I've seen some data published by others, probably the most complete was published a couple of years ago by MCN (Motorcycle Consumer News). They also did a smaller study several years before this more recent one. I don't remember all of the parameters they studied, but I don't recall any significant difference in the ability of dino vs. synthetic oils to clean an engine. The synthetics simply prevent the formation of sludge better, except in the case of lead as Mobil found out very painfully during their foray into the aviation oil business with a variant of Mobil 1. In the presence of lead, synthetic oil is a sludge making brew!

I don't think it is quite that open, but you are welcome to your opinion. There is little incentive to prove that synthetic oil doesn't cause problems in older engines as that is a very small part of the market for Mobil. There is great incentive to prove that it does cause problems as this would cause significant economic damage to the folks that own older engines and if it is your engine that failed, that is very significant. So, the fact that no such study has been commissioned or no class action lawsuits filed given this greatly one-sided incentive, I stand by my claim that you are wrong on this issue. :-)

I'm not familiar with this. Is this a newgroup, mailing list, etc.?

When I Googled it, I just got this: Trends, Strategies, Research for Design Professionals ... ABOUT DESIGNINTELLIGENCE. DesignIntelligence is a monthly journal published by Greenway Communications for the Design Futures Council. ...

Matt