Engine Oil/Additives for high mileage 3.0

You can add 3 times for me. '69 440 changed to synth at 140k miles, '66
383 changed to synth at ~160,000 (and back to dino at 220,000, retired
and replacing with a 440 at 240,000), '73 318 changed to synth at

really- I don't think I switched the wife's 93 3.5 over to synth until
it had nearly 80k on it. But that's "just broken in" compared to most of
my cars....

 

<coughPLACEBOEFFECTcough>

 

As apparently many people on forums I have read. Besides my own
experience, I can't tell you how many posts I've seen over the years in
which people say something to the effect "I switched over to X
(synthetic oil) two weeks ago, and now my engine sounds like it's coming
apart".

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

(in a Mr. T voice) This time I'll let ya live!

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

*sigh*

No.

Here:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0045062/quotes

 

Heh heh! You got me.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

Likewise, for the number of people who've written or told me that AMSOIL
made their engine run quieter, run 20 degress cooler and get 20% higher
fuel mileage.

Matt

 

Read my original response to Daniel - I think you've proven my point
(about either one of us "winning" or not "winning" the argument).
Besides - you've just thrown a strawman argument into it - IOW,
comparing something that has nothing to do with the question, but your
strawman claim is easy to shoot down, and therefore, you conclude, I
must be wrong. Your strawman doesn't add or detract from the validity
of either one of our claims. I could just as easily have compared your
examples to obviously exaggerated claims about AMSOIL...quieter...20
degrees cooler...fuel mileage, etc....and thus your claim about the
original question must be just as ridiculous as the AMSOIL claim - yet I
know your claim is not ridiculous - it is possible - I just disagree
with it. This back and forth could go on forever (as I originally said).

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

Could NOT!

 

No, because I don't have enough interest to carry it much longer. In
addition to my experience, Daniel's and I'm sure many others, there are
many other indications that the "don't switch to synthetic in high
mileage" engines myth is just that ... a myth. If this really were a
problem of any significance, someone, somewhere in this litigious
society of ours would have sued Mobil or Amsoil or somewhere to death by
now with a class action lawsuit. That fact that this hasn't happened,
is pretty strong evidence in and of itself that this myth is simply
that. Look at what happened when Quaker State let a bad batch of oil
out a couple of decades or so ago. Look at what happened to the
Aviation version of Mobil 1 when it was discovered that full synthetics
don't suspend lead well at all. It didn't take too many sludged up
engines before Mobil was in big trouble.

I simply don't believe that synthetic oil has this super detergent
ability that will purge all of the sludge out of a old engine. That
fact that an oil doesn't build as much sludge in no way can be extended
to say that it will remove pre-existing sludge.

If this problem occurred in more than 0.001% of the older engines that
are switched to synthetics, the trial lawyers would be on this like
flies on a cowpie.


Matt

 

I doubt it. So why aren't you posting to the Fram-haters' thread
something to the effect of "If Fram filters were as bad as you say they
are, the trial lawyers would be on them like flies on a cowpie". Yet
somehow I don't see you weighing in with the same nonsense there to
defend Fram.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

Could NOT *NOT*. Could NOT *NOT* **NOT**. Could NOT *NOT* **NOT**
***NOT***...

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

Because, although I agree that some Fram filters appear to be may of
lower quality than other brands, I've seen no evidence that they are
causing engine failures. I used Frams for years in a couple of vehicles
that went to very high milages with no problems at all. I now use other
brands having learned more about Fram's construction and materials,
however, I still think Fram's are probably "good enough" in most
situations. Just the same as dino oil is "good enough." I prefer Mobil
1 as I like better than "good enough" and I now don't use Fram filters,
except in my 20 year old Jeep Comanche that I drive 100 miles a year
off-road hauling firewood. The Jeep has used Fram filters since I
bought it new in 1985. The engine still runs great with 150,000+ miles
(don't really know how many it has for sure).

If changing to synthetic loosened as much sludge as some claim, then you
would almost certainly plug up the oil pickup screen, small oil
passages, the oil filter, etc. and cause catastropic damage. If that
happens very often, lawsuits almost always follow. Same with Fram
filters. If they were causing widespread engine damage, then I think
we'd hear about it.


Matt

 

What a crock.

IIRC, synthetic base oils typically have *less* natural detergency
than petroleum base oils, therefore they require *more* detergent in
the additive package.

Switch all at once, or do it gradually -- it makes no difference.
When you get right down to it, synthetic oils just aren't that
different from conventional oils. They're significantly better in
extremely hot and extremely cold conditions, and they tend to degrade
more slowly. But beyond that they're pretty much the same as
conventional oils. Some of the early synthetics had a tendency to
harden seals, but they pretty mich fixed that 20 years ago.

 

That was not my point. My point was: Why didn't you use your "Because if
that were the case (i.e., if FRAM filters were so bad), then there would
be lawsuits all over the place (and there aren't, so therefore FRAM
filters aren't as bad as evryone is saying they are)" argument in the
"FRAMs are crap" thread.

A great segway into my additional point and clarification (you might
call it a little bit of back-pedaling):
I see 3 general categories of risk of occurence *and* of seriousness of
symptoms or damage:
(1) On a properly maintained engine (regular oil & filter changes,
etc.), the risk is admittedly low (Daniels 12 or 13 experiences with
that probably fall into this catgory).
(2) On one that is barely adequately maintained, the risk is higher -
but even then, I would say that the potential for *catastrophic* damage
is low. *BUT* the risk of some smaller particals getting loose and
lodging in a lifter port, check valve, or plunger and causing valve
clatter is pretty good. But not very likely that a galley gets totally
occluded from a chunk of crud in this engine.
(3) For an abused engine, or one that, for whatever reason, is prone to
sludging up (such as the 2.7L), *THEN* I say the risk is very high -
certainly for valve clatter due to small amounts of accumulated gunk
breaking loose, but also *VERY* susceptable to catastrophic
spun-bearing/thrown-rod kind of failures if all hell breaks loose.

It's the third catgory (and to some degree, the second) that I'm talking
about - and it is that that I see posted at least one case every couple
of weeks on Chrysler forums (i.e. "I changed over to synthetic two weeks
ago and now my valves are clattering" or "...and now it is making a
metallic knocking sound and my mechanic says the engine needs to be
replaced". Definitely - if I had bought a used high-mileage car that I
was not absolutely sure of its maintenance history, I would absolutely
*NOT* do a sudden changeover to synthetic. I would first do a
controlled gradual cleanout.

Thank you for prying the explanation out of me.

Ahh! You finally got me original point. Just wondering why you invoked
that logic on my comments about the alleged risks of suddenly changing
over to synthetic oil in high mileage (or should I say: sludged up)
engines but held back from same in the filter thread.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

So which is it? Are they not very different or are they a lot
different? Or does it depend on which side of the different/same
argument you are on at the moment? Can't have it both ways.

I challenge you (not literally of course, but think about it) to take
two severely sludged-up engines - leave one with the conventional oil it
has been using all along, suddenly change the other one over to
synthetic oil. Then drive them both for a couple of months and see what
happens. I wager that in a double-blind study with a ststistically
significant batch of cars, there will be a very high number of
catastrophic failures in the cars that were switched over to synthetic.
In both categories, there will be a similar number of cars that would
have failed anyway out of shear coincidence of the timing of the study.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

Because I don't use Fram filters and have no desire to encourage others
to use low quality filters. I do use Mobil 1 oil and believe that
synthetic oil is great stuff and I hate to see myths about it propogated.

The two vehicles that I switched over were certainly in your first
category above. However, I've seen no evidence that synthetic oils have
any more detergent capability than conventional oils so I still think
this argument is a red herring. They are less prone to form sludge, but
I've never seen any credible technical evidence (actually, I haven't
seen ANY technical evidence) that says that synthetics loosen sludge any
better than conventional oils.

Which Chrysler forums?

I addressed this above, but to reiterate: I believe Fram filters are
inferior to most others and thus don't feel it appropriate to defend
Fram, however, I don't think they are likely to cause catastrophic
engine failure either. I believe synthetic oils are a superior product
and thus worth defending.


Matt

 

So which manufacturer is going to be stupid enough to provide the public
with that smoking gun with which to sue them? Have you ever tried to
get *any* meaningful technical information out of any oil company? Fact
is, they hold it close to the vest for competitive proprietary and
liability reasons. No - they certainly aren't going to hand anyone
*that* loaded gun.

OK - so we're back to personal opinion based on personal experience,
with neither convincing the other without irrefutable proof which
neither one of us is able to provide so we both consider the other's
basis for opinion as anecdotal and inferior to what we both know we
observed over the years.

DI.net

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

Actually, it depends on whether you're talking relatively normal
driving conditions, or extremely severe driving conditions. For 99%
of what the typical driver does, regular oils are fine. For the
driver in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, or doing the Baja 1000, a synthetic
might be the better answer.

Under normal conditions, they're just not that different.

And there will a similar number of catastrophic failures in the cars
that kept using the regular oil.

Yep.

If there was a statistically significant chance of ruining your
high-mileage engine by switching over to synthetic, rest assured the
synthetic oil makers would be warning us about it. There's no way
they'd let such a phenomenon sully the reputation of their product.

"Gosh, 150,000 miles on dino oil with no problems. I switch over to
Mobil 1 and in three months my engine siezes." Imagine the PR problem
they'd have if this was true.

 

Well, Amsoil publishes a lot of what they claim is data. The
reality is that I've seen some data published by others, probably the
most complete was published a couple of years ago by MCN (Motorcycle
Consumer News). They also did a smaller study several years before this
more recent one. I don't remember all of the parameters they studied,
but I don't recall any significant difference in the ability of dino vs.
synthetic oils to clean an engine. The synthetics simply prevent the
formation of sludge better, except in the case of lead as Mobil found
out very painfully during their foray into the aviation oil business
with a variant of Mobil 1. In the presence of lead, synthetic oil is a
sludge making brew!

I don't think it is quite that open, but you are welcome to your
opinion. There is little incentive to prove that synthetic oil doesn't
cause problems in older engines as that is a very small part of the
market for Mobil. There is great incentive to prove that it does cause
problems as this would cause significant economic damage to the folks
that own older engines and if it is your engine that failed, that is
very significant. So, the fact that no such study has been commissioned
or no class action lawsuits filed given this greatly one-sided
incentive, I stand by my claim that you are wrong on this issue.

I'm not familiar with this. Is this a newgroup, mailing list, etc.?

When I Googled it, I just got this:
Trends, Strategies, Research for Design Professionals ...
ABOUT DESIGNINTELLIGENCE. DesignIntelligence is a monthly journal
published by
Greenway Communications for the Design Futures Council. ...
www.di.net/


Matt