Valvoline Premium Blue

[OCDLubeman]

Mike,

Your argument for using something "better than dino" doesn't hold much weight.

I agree that synthetics are supreme if you choose extended intervals (longer than warranty recommendations), you operate in severe cold conditions, or you have a hot running (turbo) engine.

But, consider the facts:

Even the cheaper passenger car dinos such as Chevron, Havoline, Exxon, etc. have superb base stock (II+) , excellent add packs., and they get great UOA's.

Nearly all of the over the road trucking companies choose dino HDEO and run their rigs for hundreds of thousands (million) of miles between rebuilds. Delo 400, Delvac 1300, and Rotela can be had "cheap" for under $7 a GALLON and they have great base oils and excellent add packs. If synthetic was so much better, why wouldn't they use it in their $50,000+ rigs?

Go to any Oil Analysis company site and they will state that they see little, if any, difference between oil brands and/or synthetics, with some exceptions, of course - usually high demand applications.

The one argument I have to give in to regarding synthetics is that they appear to keep some engines cleaner.

And, there is the "feel good" factor - if using $5+/quart synthetic makes you feel like you are giving your vehicle the best, and that makes you feel good, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Today's dino oils are much better than just ten years ago.
If changed according to the owners manual, the engine will last longer than the rest of the vehicle.

 

[gsxr1100]

I am and have been running extended drains since 1997.I do not consider a group 2 or 3 an “excellent add packs”, “superb base stock” or great UOA. Compared to a group 1 maybe, but not a 4 or 5. If they have great UOA they are drained very soon since over time the base stocks get depleted and the adds drop like a rock.

The company I work for (180,000 people) looked into synthetic and it is better but the money ($$$$) came into play. So synthetic was over-looked. It does not matter if it is better since most times the upfront cost is what people see, not down the road. It affects this year’s bottom line. They do not care about 3 or 5 years down the road. You can tell me all the road trucking companies use dino, which some do and some do not. It comes down to cost or purchasing. I have seen this a thousand times. I am not going to comment on it since it has been discussed a thousand times. You can’t even compare a group 2 or 3 to a 4 or 5. Completely different base stock, different ZDDP, wear factors are different and the oil values in general are different.

Me and another guy tested out Lexus’s with the same engine and same year and lets say the less of the group oil performed lower.

Also when I can go 2 to 3 times longer on a group 4/5 and have better wear number etc and oil properties then un-used (virgin) dino, it is BETTER then dino. Any person can figure that out just by looking at the oil tests. Feel go factor???? It has nothing to do with feeling good. I could personally careless but the oil test show it is better. Plus my time is worth more then “$5 per qt oil”. I do not pay that for a synthetic unless you are talking about Amsoil best oil (series 3000) which I am trying in my BX22 to compare to my 15-40 analysis. All the other oils I get less the “5 per qt”.

Again this is why, on this forum, I am trying to stop the oil debates since it is not the norm to use synthetic. Which is ok, but I have looked at the info since 1996 and lets say I am not too impressed with dino when comparing to a higher-quality oil. Again, you get what you pay for. There is ok, good, better and best and I know what I want.

 

[Spiffy]

After Mike's comments, I had to re-read the Interlube website.

A lot of "pretty" claims and no analysis; I'd tend to agree that they're probably better at marketing than making the "perfect oil". But as I got a six pack with my mower purchase and went through the effort of the warranty paperwork, I'm thinking I'll use it anyway. I run a tight enough change schedule that it should be fine even if not "top notch." If their claims are valid....all the better! /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif

Also, it looks like at least one member has had good experiences with the 2 cycle version, which is does ease my doubt some, even if I too have doubts that "single ratio", noted on their 2 cycle web page, is a good thing. The claim that really made me wonder: "using 60% less oil conserves resources." I actually have no idea whether the % used to % available petroleum for lubrication outweights the fuel percentages, but we're still talking about petroleum [not to mention the fact that 2 cycle oil is an incredibly small percentage of the problem they refer to]! I do like the ethanol mention though.

Thanks for the advice everyone!

Chad