for the guys that are into recreational oil changing...

as opposed to pissing and moaning about something you don't understand
you mean?

 

well, i didn't get it from any contribution you've made - that's for sure!

 

no, the clueless and idiots are clueless and idiots.

That jim doesn't agree with the clueless and idiots, is to jim's credit.

It almost sounds as if you, Mr. hls, think that majority rules. And if
the majority are clueless and idiots, it's those who AREN'T clueless and
idots who are clearly crazy and idiotic.

Just because there's a large group of people, doesn't mean they have any
clue what they're doing. But clearly you're more comfortable going
along with the crowd, even if they are full of the clueless and idiots,
up to and including trying to bash anyone who ISN'T one of them.

You're doing nothing but proving that most people are idiots.

"You've probably noticed that opinion pollsters go out of their way to
include as many morons as possible in surveys ... I think it's dangerous
to inform morons about what their fellow morons are thinking. It only
reinforces their opinions. And the one thing worse than a moron with an
opinion is lots of them." -- Scott Adams

In other words: Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large
groups.

 

No - learn to read I said 90% +/- use conventional oil

Again - I was not talking about ENGINE life - I was talking about
OIL LIFE.

There IS a difference.

 

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.

 

Good post. IPCC comes to mind. I will have to remember this post and
maybe invoke it the next time global warming discussions are ensuing.

 

If you were as smart as you THINK you are you would know that
diethylene glycol esther based synthetic oils are one of the major
synthetic types.

 

sorry dude, you weren't clear.

i know there's a difference. engine life and oil life go hand in hand.
and synthetics outperform conventional oils, cold or hot. end of story.

 

He is correct though - synthetic oils at the recommended interval did
not sludge - nor dird regular oils at the severe duty schedule.
That has been proven time and again.

 

Actually, even if blowby was at the root of the problem (which it
wasn't on the Toyotas and 3.7 Mopars) synthetic oils do not oxidize as
easily - meaning the acids etc deposited by the blowby would not break
down the synthetic as fast.

Would it eliminate the problem? Doubtful - but it would definitely
REDUCE the problem -or delay it.

 

but it's still advantageous. you may not regard longer life, better
fuel economy, lower wear as advantageous, but most people do.

sorry, that's incorrect. the adsorbed lubricant layer for a pao is more
tenacious. that's one of the reasons it's a better lubricant.

wear product content of 2ppm vs 4ppm is small and "almost
un-measurable", but it's 100% difference.

 

I don't disagree with you. I had an '86 Subaru turbo wagon that I used
conventional Castrol oil with 8 oz. of Marvel Mystery Oil in the
crankcase for the last half of my ownership of it. I tried synthetic in
it when it had about 150k miles on it, but that didn't work out - had
valve clatter that was due to crankcase residues breaking loose and
interfering with proper lifter operation - at least, after lots of
experimenting and discussions, that's the only conclusion I could come
too that made consistent sense.

That's when I switched back to conventional oil and started adding the
MMO. Sold it running absolutely great on original engine and turbo unit
at 275k miles. The kid who bought it from me had to scrap it 6 mos.
later due to chassis rust (which I had already repaired once), but he
saved the engine and turbo for another body.

 

I think you meant 2.7 Mopars there.

 

Would they oxidize as easily, or not? Prove your point.

 

I have done my homework, and likely know the field better than you.
I am not complaining.

I am simply saying you have not proved your points with evidence.

 

"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
trivialization.

 

Toyota, which does not have a recommendation for synthetics in my book,
claims that the problems were that the owners did not maintain their
vehicles
properly. There is evidence that there was more to it than that (PCV
system modifications).

I have seen no data with regard to synthetics in the problematic runs
of Toyotas. Have you actually SEEN the data, and can you cite your
source?

 

What I doing is showing that a lot of people talk crap, thinking that their
having read it, or heard it, makes it more true when they repeat it.

 

As it approaches the limits of measurability, 100% difference may not be
mathematically significant.

 

hey, mr. piss and moan, if you want to contradict what is otherwise a
known fact, the onus is on YOU to present the contrary evidence. not
simply bitch about your apparent inability to do your own homework.