and there we have it folks - always check this stuff.
oils, especially conventionals, break down and start to lose their
ability to hold contaminants in suspension after a while - mostly as a
function of time and temperature. conventionals more quickly than
synthetics. this is why you /should/ check and change your oil.
but with monitoring and use of quality lubricants, you can safely use
significantly extended service intervals. i eat my own dogfood:
so fix the damned thing! that's not a function of temperature, that's a
function of excess fuel.
that's a bullshit underinformed differentiation. all modern motor oils
are detergent. it's the detergent that's hygroscopic, so you can't
besides, synthetics flow better when cold, thus they are a better
choice, not worse.
Flowing better at low temperatures is better, perhaps, IF you are subject
to low temperatures.. I, at this point, am not.
It is not necessarily the additive that is hygroscopic. Some synthetics
are more hygroscopic than hydrocarbon oils.
These are the glycol ester types of synthetics.
There is just no easy answer.
On 04/04/2010 09:37 AM, email@example.com wrote:
"esther" is a person's name. "ester" is a chemical compound group. but
you're right, it's glycol ethers that are brake fluids, not esters.
ester lubricants otoh are multitudinous. "glycol ester" is a ridiculous
On a carbureted engine with a choke it IS a function of t
emperature. If the engine (I think all 454 Pontiacs were
carbureted, by the way) is never warmed up the choke never comes off
and fuel dilution of the oil is a VERY REAL possibility.
Actually, synthetic oils, in general, DO tend to be more hygroscopic,
and provide less corrosion protection (marginally)
As for the synthetic flowing better when cold - most definitely - but
is that an advantage in Miami or SanDiego?
It is only an advantage if you NEED that cold flow advantage.
In Miami or San Diago the fact that it thins less with heat and is
generally more resistant to oxidation is more important.
On 04/03/2010 05:53 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
so it's still advantageous!
besides, most engine wear occurs during warm-up. if a synthetic can
protect during this phase, and it can, then it's protecting the engine
more than a conventional oil.
Yes, but in the vast areas of North america where much below freezing
and much over 80F are rare, there is VERY little advantage. - and just
using a slightly heavier gerade oil for the warm temperatures does
virtually the same thing.
Except synthetic oils also tend (note, I said TEND - not necessarilly
always do) to drain down leaving less of a "static" oil film, they
NEED to get there quicker.
In real life, under "normal" conditions, there is almost un-measurable
difference in wear between standard dyno and normal synthetic lubs.
I have no horse in this race, but to answer your question about taxes -
yes - you can round to the nearest dollar (in spite of the fact that you
could carry everything to pennies). You picked a poor example to
support your case.
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.