Synthetic oil in hybrid

<johngdole@m> wrote in message
news:03558ea1-e0cc-4874-8a1f-c833dbe5609a@n14g2000pri..com...
> One you drop off at the dealer, pay an arm and a leg. And they mostly
> "inspect" kinda maintenance is what I meant. People actually pay for
> coolant changes every year, but I doubt people actually got them.
>
> I agree that synthetics are great, especially if people intend to keep
> their cars longer. However, today's dino oils are quite decent and
> most engines really aren't very advanced. More frequent oil changes
> also help remove contaminants. So dino every 3000 miles should be fine
> for these.

I was skeptical of synthetics until I tried them (Mobil 1). The oil stays
cleaner longer, and the engine revs easier (noticeably less friction). With
today's gas prices, the 1-2% improvement in gas mileage, and going from 3000
to 5000 mile oil change intervals, is enough savings to pay for the
increased cost of full synthetic oil.

I will absolutely guarantee that a full synthetic like Mobil 1 will provide
better engine protection at 5000 miles than any conventional oil after 3000
miles of use.

On Apr 18, 10:35 pm, johngd...@m wrote:
> I know Asian and European cars have weird shaped gaskets (more semi-
> circular than flat). Flat gaskets have worked fine for me. I never had
> a filter gasket leak and don't know anyone who did, really.
>
> Now more and more cars use only replacement filter media in a reusable
> filter housing (European mostly). These use pretty standard looking o-
> rings for seals. This certainly helps reduce shipping weight and also
> reduced used filter waste, but the boxes need to be handled with more
> care otherwise you crush the filter.
>
> So I always use a synthetic blend media filter, and not the cheaper,
> thinner paper filters that filter down to only 20-25 microns.
>
> On Apr 17, 8:28 pm, "Route 101�" <as...@for.it> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Speaking of filters, several years back (late 80s - 90s) I was advised by a
> > Toyota service person to use only Toyota filters, because they have O-ring
> > gaskets capable of handling the higher oil pressures than the flat gaskets
> > on aftermarket filters. Never did any research to follow up on that.
> > However, it would seem that if the filter is not leaking any oil, the flat
> > gasket is working fine.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
25 microns, what do factory filters do in micron filtering, I think
mobil is 15 or so.

On Apr 20, 5:01 pm, "Mark A" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >"ransley" <Mark_Rans...m> wrote in message >A myth, is better mpg
> >a myth, no, less friction means less wear. BMW
> >did a test years ago and found wear with synthetics was less. Its the
> >additive package that makes a difference in the oils
>
> Many people are still quoting the Consumer Reports study done using NYC taxi
> cabs about 20 years ago. The problem with that study is that the cars were
> large rear wheel drive (obsolete) US designs (Ford Crown Vic or equivalent)
> which had very loose engine tolerances, and are nothing like engines used
> today (especially in Japanese cars).
>
> On a modern Toyota engine,  full synthetic will definitely incur less engine
> wear and increase mileage slightly. The mileage increase used to be
> considered negligible (about 1-2%), but these days it is probably enough (or
> almost enough) to pay for the increased cost of synthetic oil (especially if
> you also increase the oil change interval from 3000 miles to 5000 miles).

I get 1 mpg better with mobil1, it also means less wear, since there
is less friction.

> "ransley" <Mark_Ransleym> wrote in message
> news:63dce18e-e642-4618-a0ec-3f8528ef9766@x41g2000hsb..com...
> I get 1 mpg better with mobil1, it also means less wear, since there
> is less friction.

That is about 4% improvement. I don't doubt it, but I usually quote the 2%
figure to be more conservative in my claims.

BTW, a 4% improvement in gas mileage is about $28 in savings over 5000
miles, easily enough to pay for the difference between synthetic and
conventional oil.

On Apr 20, 6:20 pm, "Mark A" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > "ransley" <Mark_Rans...m> wrote in message
> >news:63dce18e-e642-4618-a0ec-3f8528ef9766@x41g2000hsb..com...
> > I get 1 mpg better with mobil1, it also means less wear, since there
> > is less friction.
>
> That is about 4% improvement. I don't doubt it, but I usually quote the 2%
> figure to be more conservative in my claims.
>
> BTW, a 4% improvement in gas mileage is about $28 in savings over 5000
> miles, easily enough to pay for the difference between synthetic and
> conventional oil.

I also notice an improvement with Mobil synthetic in the trans and
transfer case

On Apr 21, 10:52 am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Mark A wrote:
> >> "ransley" <Mark_Rans...m> wrote in message >A myth, is better mpg
> >> a myth, no, less friction means less wear. BMW
> >> did a test years ago and found wear with synthetics was less. Its the
> >> additive package that makes a difference in the oils
>
> > Many people are still quoting the Consumer Reports study done using NYC taxi
> > cabs about 20 years ago. The problem with that study is that the cars were
> > large rear wheel drive (obsolete) US designs (Ford Crown Vic or equivalent)
> > which had very loose engine tolerances, and are nothing like engines used
> > today (especially in Japanese cars).
>
> > On a modern Toyota engine,  full synthetic will definitely incur less engine
> > wear and increase mileage slightly. The mileage increase used to be
> > considered negligible (about 1-2%), but these days it is probably enough (or
> > almost enough) to pay for the increased cost of synthetic oil (especially if
> > you also increase the oil change interval from 3000 miles to 5000 miles)..
>
> After all these years you'd think that there would be at least one
> published study that showed a provable benefit in terms of wear, MPG, or
> extended change intervals for synthetics uses in non-high performance
> engines, operated in moderate climates. But there isn't one. There's
> anecdotes by users of synthetics, there's claims by companies like
> Amsoil which have never been validated, etc.
>
> Of course there probably have been plenty of studies that were done but
> not published because they didn't have the results that the company
> paying for the study wanted.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

What about BMWs test showing almost no wear, what about 2 stroke oils
where several manufacturers allow a leaner mix with synthetic. I know
one lawn maintenance co here that runs about 300 machines and states
they have cut maintenance on machines by 30-50%. I think results are
out there. True the biggest benefit is racing, but here it goes to
-20f. Motors are made so well today compared to the 60s-70s before CAD
and computer machining that tolerances are tighter, today 200000+ on a
motor is not unusal and the car is often junk at 100000, true most
wont benefit. But motors cost to much to replace and I see a mpg
increase.

On Apr 21, 2:32 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> ransley wrote:
> > What about BMWs test showing almost no wear, what about 2 stroke oils
> > where several manufacturers allow a leaner mix with synthetic. I know
> > one lawn maintenance co here that runs about 300 machines and states
> > they have cut maintenance on machines by 30-50%. I think results are
> > out there. True the biggest benefit is racing, but here it goes to
> > -20f. Motors are made so well today compared to the 60s-70s before CAD
> > and computer machining that tolerances are tighter, today 200000+ on a
> > motor is not unusal and the car is often junk at 100000, true most
> > wont benefit. But motors cost to much to replace and I see a mpg
> > increase.
>
> The problem with these anecdotes about 200K miles on synthetic is that
> there are also anecdotes about 200K miles on conventional oil, and tests
> that also show very little wear. I think what many people don't realize
> is that conventional oil isn't pumped out of the ground and then bottled
> for sale. The base stock is different, but both are highly engineered
> products.
>
> The synthetic base stock is a benefit for high-performance engines,
> engines operated in extremely cold climates, and for vehicles where the
> manufacturer specifies extended change intervals. But you've got a lot
> of people throwing money away using high-priced synthetics in regular
> engines, in temperate climates, with the same 5000 mile oil change
> interval used for conventional oil. You've got a bunch of Amsoil sales
> people trying to promote this ridiculous waste of money, which is bad
> enough, but what's worse is those that are using non-API approved
> synthetics with excessive levels of ZDDP which harms the catalytic
> converter.

Tests were against non synthetic, extendended change is everyday here
or listed as Severe Duty is what 80% of the US drives. Amsoil is a
scamerrs paradise

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:s1kPj.5270$iK6.3088@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Why do you think that? There is absolutely no evidence that synthetic oil
> provides better fuel economy or longer engine life (other than in high
> performance engines or in very cold climates).

Because I have been using synthetic oil for the past 10 years. I noticed an
immediate difference as soon as I switched.

Admittedly, if you have an older American car built with engine tolerances
that are very loose, synthetic oil will not make much of a difference. But
even newer American cars these days have decent engines and they benefit
from synthetics, although I can only speak from experience using Japanese
cars.

You seem intent on saving the world from spending $20, and expect everyone
to spend millions to so tests to prove that it worthwhile.

On Apr 22, 7:15 am, "Mark A" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> "SMS" <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:s1kPj.5270$iK6.3088@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> > Why do you think that? There is absolutely no evidence that synthetic oil
> > provides better fuel economy or longer engine life (other than in high
> > performance engines or in very cold climates).
>
> Because I have been using synthetic oil for the past 10 years. I noticed an
> immediate difference as soon as I switched.
>
> Admittedly, if you have an older American car built with engine tolerances
> that are very loose, synthetic oil will not make much of a difference. But
> even newer American cars these days have decent engines and they benefit
> from synthetics, although I can only speak from experience using Japanese
> cars.
>
> You seem intent on saving the world from spending $20, and expect everyone
> to spend millions to so tests to prove that it worthwhile.

I think its more like an extra 15$ for me to get better mpg, and BMWs
test showed little wear with the synthetic.

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:LuJPj.9698$V14.3872@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Obviously you have some links to independent tests that show some benefit
> in terms of MPG, _any_ benefit.

Let's see. You claimed the following:

"Obviously there must have been some tests, but since the results weren't
favorable to the company paying for them they were never released."

We will show the independent links that show the benefit of synthetic oil in
terms of MPG as soon as you show us the independent links that prove that
companies who manufacture synthetic oil are conducting mileage tests and
hiding the results because the results were not favorable.