"High mileage" motor oil

I was offered Valvoline "high mileage" motor oil the other day when
having my oil changed. I have a 90 Accord LX, 136K. Should I be using
this stuff? Is there anything to its claims of being better for my ol'
bucket o' bolts?

 

I assume this Valvoline high mileage oil is some kind of synthetic (or partly
so) oil.

This is much discussed here. Just to get the ball rolling with a focus on older
vehicles, from my 1984-1995 Civic/CRX/del Sol Chilton's manual:
_____
Both brand new engines and older, high mileage engines are the wrong candidates
for synthetic oil. The synthetic oils are so slippery that they can prevent the
proper break-in of new engines; most oil manufacturers recommend that you wait
until the engine is properly broken in (3,000 miles) before using synthetic oil.
Older engines with wear have a different problem with synthetics. The slippery
synthetic oils get past these worn parts easily. If your car is leaking oil past
old seals you'll have a much greater leak problem with synthetics.
_____

You can find this reproduced online at the www.autozone.com , under "Free Repair
Guides," "General Information and Maintenance," "Fluids and Lubricants," "Fuel
and Engine Oil... "

Both these sources have a lot of good things to say about synthetic oil, too.

I also see claims (by a Subaru mechanic I once knew and some one here) that
synthetic oil will reduce the life of seals on some cars.

I will not put synthetic oil into my 1991 Civic LX. I would definitely consider
it for a brand new car, though.

 

||I assume this Valvoline high mileage oil is some kind of synthetic (or partly
||so) oil.

Valvoline Max-Life - It's a premium oil, but not synthetic. It's the additive
package that is reformulated to address the different needs of a motor with some
age and wear. It has seal softeners, more anti-wear and things like that.
Makes sense to me. I use this or the Castrol High Mileage in several of my
vehicles which use some il. I also use it in an old tractor.

||This is much discussed here. Just to get the ball rolling with a focus on
older
||vehicles, from my 1984-1995 Civic/CRX/del Sol Chilton's manual:
||_____
||Both brand new engines and older, high mileage engines are the wrong
candidates
||for synthetic oil. The synthetic oils are so slippery that they can prevent
the
||proper break-in of new engines; most oil manufacturers recommend that you wait
||until the engine is properly broken in (3,000 miles) before using synthetic
oil.

I think that's a little out of date. A number of engines now come with Mobil 1
as factory fill. Lats more come with semi-sythetics as factory fill. The
latter category is getting smewhat blurred as synthetics are mostly coming from
highly refined petro-sources, and the newest oil specs from the manufacturers
will almost mandate the use of high "snthetic" content.
My rule is run the original oil to 3000 miles, then switch to synthetic for
2000, then change synthetic at 5K mile intervals. Use synthetic until oil
consumption makes it uneconomical - which never happens.

||Older engines with wear have a different problem with synthetics. The slippery
||synthetic oils get past these worn parts easily. If your car is leaking oil
past
||old seals you'll have a much greater leak problem with synthetics.

This was more of a problem with early formulations f Mobil 1. It had a lower
surface tension. I understand that has been fixed. Also, seals are much better
now, as is the micro-polished steel the seals now ride against.


Texas Parts Guy

 

It doesn't make any sense that this oil would be any different than the
regular oil. Does it make any sense that an oil company is going to offer a
better dyno oil and a regular dyno oil...nope.

As far as your synthetic oil in new engines is concerned that can be
debunked quite easily. Many new cars, BMW's, Vettes, etc come with
synthetic from the factory and the warranty can be voided by not using
synthetic. So there goes the new engines can't have synthetic oil because
it prevents them from breaking in properly theory.

As far as the oil being more slippery and leaking past previously leaking
parts and not using synthetic in an older engine,,,,that is also garbage.
The fact is that dino oil sludges up much more than any synthetic ever will.
When synthetic is introduced to an older engine with leaks, chances are that
the synthetic does such a good job of cleaning deposits from inside an
engine that it is removing deposits from leaky areas creating more of a
potential for a leak. Synthetic oil does not cause oil leaks.

If you have a piece of shit car that isn't maintained properly then it has
reached a point of homeostasis. Screwing around with anything like doing
tranny flushes, using synthetics etc can upset this balance and cause
problems. It has nothing to do with the service performed or chemicals/oils
used in the car.

I am fortunate in that I have a 96 accord which has had synthetic ran in it
since 1999 with 32k and now has about 117k. It has never leaked a single
drop, and I have never made any repairs to any seals or gaskets.

 

I don't know why these things don't make sense to you. They make sense to me.

If you're saying all commercially available non-synthetic engine oils are the
same, then okay. I don't agree, but I doubt either of us has anything
authoritative to cite on the subject.

I happen to think Pennzoil is a better quality oil than Wal-Mart's Super-Tech,
for example.

Why would the same company offer two qualities of oil? Bottom line, to make
money. Some consumers will go for the cheap stuff. Some will go for the more
expensive stuff. Maybe the expensive stuff is a ripoff; maybe it's worth it.
Probably depends.

Gotta be a reason why some car manufacturers are saying do not use synthetic for
break-in (so I've heard), then.

That should be "leaking worse."

I trust the Subaru mechanic I knew as well as Chilton's on this point. George M.
too, suggested not long ago there are some concerns on this point.

But your opinion is noted. I just don't know on what it is based, so it doesn't
have a lot of value to me. Maybe it will to others.

This is believable.

If you want to look at it this way, fine. But I don't think it's exactly an
honest conclusion to say that the synth oil did not cause the leaks. If it
hadn't been put in, the leaks would not have occurred. So what are you going to
tell someone with an older, high mileage car? Sounds to me you'd give him/her
the same bottom line as Chilton's: Putting synthetic into an older car is a
risk.

Well you just said that using synthetics can upset the balance, so apparently it
has something to do with the oils used in the car.

Or we can write this off as a semantical point.

A car aged 3 years and 32k miles is neither old nor high mileage, IMO.

I'm sure this latest rehash of this topic will be helpful to the newbies, but I
for one feel rigid conclusions on this point are not really supportable at this
time except by mostly guessing.

I choose to err on the side of preserving seal integrity. I'm not putting
synthetic oil into my old car. I'm not trusting claims that there is any other
"high mileage" oil worthy of my car.

 

Wrong assumption. From what I can tell, it's not at all synthetic. Here's
Valvoline's claim:

http://www.valvoline.com/carcare/articleviewer.asp?section=hm&pg=ccr20030901v2&p
rint=1

"High mileage" below and in the subject line refers to Valvoline recommending
this car for older cars that have a lot of miles on them. This particular oil
itself isn't necessarily supposed to increase the time and miles between oil
changes, from what I can tell, in contrast with synthetics.

So to get to the bottom of the original poster's query, the focus should not be
on synthetic oils... My mistake.

 

I wouldn't say they're all the same. However - I'd guess that there's
far less difference now with the API SL standards.

That I don't know about. There were rumors that Wal-Mart purchased
Quaker State oil. Since the Pennzoil/QS/Shell merger(s), there's a
good possibility that they've simply relabelled the same stuff under
different brand names. Shell and Texaco joined operations under the
"Equilon" (since disbanded) name, and sold the same fuel product with
two brand names. Selling essentially the same product under multiple
brand "identities" is a common marketing tool. Face it - a lot of
people a big on brand loyalty.

In many cases it's cheaper just to run one production line and
sell that product using multiple labels/resellers.

 

No - the biggest problem is that PAO-based synthetic base oil has a
tendency to harden seals by causing the seal plasticizers to leach
out. This is counteracted by seal-swell ingredients and an ester
base oil. I believe newer seal materials are made to be compatible
with synthetic oils. Mobil had some pretty nasty leakage problems
when Mobil 1 first came out. The seal materials weren't very
compatible, and they reformulated it to prevent leaking.

Synthetic oil doesn't have any magical cleaning properties. In fact
PAO supposedly has less inherent "detergency" than conventional base
oil. Any PAO-based oil (Mobil 1 is an example) will need to have a
boosted amount of detergent additive. This "false seal" theory is
the one that's been espoused by Amsoil sales droids for years.

As for the Valvoline High Mileage - I'm told it's pretty good stuff.
Uses a Type-III base oil and a boosted additive package. There
are now similar oils, including several semi-synthetics.

 

I agree. My decision to go Pennzoil all the way is based merely on groupthink
(that is, a lot of people swear by it) and some sludge experiences with Quaker
State 20 years ago.

But for all I know all non-synth motor oils available today are the same.

I kinda doubt this. If, for example, Valvoline's "cars with high mileage" oil is
the same as its other oils, Valvoline would risk legal charges of fraud for
claiming they're different.

Now maybe the changes Valvoline makes from one non-synth oil to the next are
miniscule, so it gets around charges of fraud. But I really have no idea.

 

Those that do have engines which are not built from the parts bin though -
closer to a blueprinted engine and often get some extensive bench/dyno runs
before they leave the factory.

Even so, with an engine which has seals conditioned by the basestock and
additives in a petroleum oil, changing to an oil with different chemistry
for seal conditioning *could* lead to disaster. Taking the chance of
blowing a rear seal is not an economic consideration you want for an old
engine.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

 

If you have minor leaking from seals -- check the bottom of the bell
housing and below crankshaft pulley for any sign of oil stain -- or if
you're burning some oil, the high mileage stuff might help.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

 

The marketing departments are just trying to segment the consumer
audience, and extract more money from those willing to pay it. They
probably stole this idea from the vendors of dogfood for 'mature'
dogs.

At least with high mileage oil they probably put something in to swell
old, leaky oil seals, even though it is neither synth nor part-synth
(just priced like it). May actually do some good on some engines.
(But I wouldn't be surprised if it could destroy seal integrity in
others that hadn't been leaking before.) So, yeah, if I had oil
puddles under my car, I might try it. At least the additive package
was designed to be compatible with the oil.

The reason some manufacturers use synth as the initial oil fill is,
the engines were microfinished enough to just about be broken in right
off the line. That is still not true of most engines.

The best thing you can do for an older engine is change the oil
regularly. After the engine wears, there is more blow-by and
contamination. Older engines need the oil changed more often than new
ones. Yet, most people baby their cars when they are new, instead of
when they are old.

I've used Pennzoil exclusively for nearly 30 years with no complaints.
I'll mirror Caroline's comment about Quaker State sludge. They may
make it a lot better now, but I won't use it.

JM

 

No the Equilon fuel product at the pump was not necessarily the same - the
distribution end of Equilon catered for different proprietary additive
packages in the gasoline, which could be blended in at the bulk plant or
even during the road-car loading.

In every other product category, the store brand *is* an inferior product.
Dish-washing liquid, e.g. - everyone knows that store brand is more diluted
and does not work as well nor last as long. You think lube oil is err,
different? They're all the same?... no chance that whoever makes Wal-Mart
oil doesn't make product to a lesser spec, with less safety margin in
additives and basestock quality?

There's no production line. Lube oil blending is a batch process both at
the refinery where basestocks are blended and at the mfr point where
blending agents and additives are mixed in. It's a tricky process to
control and there can be significant differences in quality depending on
how much care is taken and on the skill & expertise of the engineers who
design and control the various processes and manage the tankage.

I'd think that if some buyer from Wal-Mart turns up with a guaranteed
quantity purchase of min spec oil which depletes the lesser basestocks on
hand, it makes life umm, a little easier. If I were Castrol, Shell, BP,
Mobil et.al., would I put my name on it?... the answer is on the container.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

 

Sure. However - I knew some brand-loyal fuel consumers who were
convinced that Shell gas was superior to Texaco gas because the
base oil had to be better. I wouldn't be sure that the additive
packages weren't equivalent in performance, even if they were
"different".

Not necessarily. One category where store brands are identical in
performance is alkaline batteries. I can tell which store brands
are made by Energizer/Duracell based on their casing. I recall a
newsmagazine piece where an Energizer spokesman say flat out that
the store brands were identical in performance/chemistry/packaging,
although they didn't have the fancy battery self-tester. In terms
of batteries, I find that the best bargain is the Ikea house brand,
made by Varta (a respected German company).

The house brand filters (i.e. SuperTech, STP, etc) made by Champion
Labs seem to be identical to the ones they make for GM. There are
differences.

 

The final phase of the Texaco-Chevron-Shell thing came in about a year(?)
ago now so our local (NJ) Texaco station is now a Shell - no more Texaco
here.

In the U.S. I believe Varta == Rayovac. For engine oils, until someone who
actually credibly knows something about the major lubricants' suppliers
operatons tells us they're all just the same, I'm going to continue to
bypass the store brands.

I dunno about the GM ones but according to
http://www.ntpog.org/reviews/filters/filters.shtml the SuperTech, Bosch &
STP are no longer a good filter since they switched to cheap off-shore
assembly.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

 

Pennzoil and Quaker State are now the same company.

 

Did you bother to check whether Pennzoil-Quaker State puts the same oil in its
Pennzoil and Quaker State containers?

They don't.

See http://www.pennzoil-quakerstate.com/techdata/l7_msds_fs.htm

 

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 20:30:38 GMT, (Timothy J. Lee) wrote:

||In article <5LcKc.6271$>,
||>I agree. My decision to go Pennzoil all the way is based merely on groupthink
||>(that is, a lot of people swear by it) and some sludge experiences with
Quaker
||>State 20 years ago.
||
||Pennzoil and Quaker State are now the same company.

In My Opinion:

Oil API specs are so stringent now that brand dfferences are essentially
eliminated. They all have to use the same chemistry to meet the requirements of
the current specs. Even more so when GF4 comes with the 2005 models.
For that same reason, I believe it is also safe to mix different brands. Used
to be a concern that the additives might react. But now, the additives are the
same, with perhaps slight differences in ratios.
Texas Parts Guy

 

hey rex - have a question. this is not personal so please take it with
a spirit of enquiry, not criticism: how come people say there's no
difference between engine oils? you're right about api specs, but these
are /minimum/ performance specs, not uniformity specs.

i ask because i find it fascinating to see people happily recommend
honda-only automatic transmission fluid - because it has an immediate
and tangible effect on shift quality - yet are still prepared to say all
engine oils are the same. a.t.f. has minimum specs to satisfy dexron
III, which is essentially honda spec, yet anyone who's driven a honda
with non-honda fluid will agree that transmission oils are different.
why not engine oils? /they/ are different too, but no one ever seems to
acknowledge it. why is that?

 

so what companies are out there now? the above, BP/arco, and???

i couldnt even tell you whether we still have texaco or shell in so cal.
i think we have shell, and i know we have chevron. and, of course,
arco... and maybe unocal/76. all the mergers give a bit less incentive
to compete on price, doncha think?