I wonder if it costs a petroleum products manufacturer like Mobil or Castrol more money to put a jug of synthetic oil on the shelf over a jug of conventional mineral oil…Or is the synthetic product simply a higher profit item allowed because of the motoring public’s belief that it offers superior engine protection? There are literally hundreds of brands and grades of motor oil all competing for shelf-space and all claiming to offer superior protection over the product sitting next to it on the same shelf…
With monthyly oil changes when mileage averaged 7,000+, using Havoline 10W-40 oil I ran one van 386,000 miles and sold it running and using a quart every 1,500 miles as it had from the first month. An engine that I rebuilt, used in the same business and getting the same maintenance ran well for 240,000 miles. The trucks were Ford E-150s with 300 I6 engines driven on parcel delivery routes. Would those engines have lasted longer using 0-20 synthetic?
Of course, newer automobile engines are built to a somewhat closer tolerances and if I owned a CRV and 0-20 oil was only a few cents higher than 5-20 I would spend the extra money. But if the 0-20 was double the price of 5-20 or not available at my local retailers I wouldn’t feel at all troubled using the 5-20 or even 10-20.
To each his own,
@dagosa The two important cold figures for oil are “Borderline Cranking Temperature” and “Pour Point”
A typical 0W30 or 0W40 has a pour point of -54Celsius (Mobil1 0W40), while a typical non-synthetic 5W30 has a pour point of -47C. Big difference.
With respect to borderline cranking temperatue, a 10W30 mineral oil (dino) has a cold cranking borederline of only -34.9C while a 5W30 synthetic blend will pump at -40.4 and a full synthetic 0Wxx will crank at -50C.
Ford E-150s with 300 I6 engines driven on parcel delivery routes. Would those engines have lasted longer using 0-20 synthetic?
The problem with any of these empirical, historical perspectives is that they are often comparing apples to oranges. For example, did that engine use the oil as a hydraulic actuator for an exhaust cam? Many modern designs use the oil for multiple pruposes and then the viscosity DOES play an important role in the proper operation of the engine over temperature and time…
I’m not convinced that the extended oil change intervals are valid yet. Too new to tell. After 10-15 years of people doing it and there aren’t any increases in engine failures then I’ll start believing it.
Well, that ship has sailed. GM has been using an OLM for decades and that has an extended change profile built right in.
@TwinTurbo: …and, if I recall, GM was forced to recall and adjust its OLM when balance shaft chains were failing inside warranty. (That’s chilling–GM was hunky-dory with a reduced life, just not warrany issues.) Right now, GM requires oil manufacturers meet a stringent and secret DEXOS cert to be capable of withstanding even the adjusted oil change interval.////Remember, these are the same manufacturers advocate lifetime AT fluid–any “the manufacturer is infallible” thoughts are gone, as far as I’m concerned.
@dagosa: thanks for the link to the Sci. American article–it was interesting. I did not know Zn and Cu were of concern to anything-after all, they’re food-grade metals.////As for Pb, I know 10ppm is considered “elevated” for used oil, and 100ll is around 1000ppm. That means burning (even bad) used oil is about 1% as bad as burning Avgas–i can easily live with that.////There isn’t really anything as “ZERO” as far as environmental impact–even a bicycle ride produces excess CO2. Point remains that 49/50 of the US sees WMO as no threat, leading me to believe CA’s environmentalists are blowing waste oil burning way out of proportion, as environmentalists are wont to do.
No Mike, engines are cheaper then body repair. It’s all relative and the average motorist doesn’t get it. As a matter of fact, the body of a car is the single most expensive component and I see more then a share of cars with perfectly running motors, obviously with their share of regular oil changes, with rust holes all through them.
If you are lucky to live in an area where rust is naturally not a problem, 7500 to 10k syn oil changes on motors manufacturers deem capable, gives you maximun bang for the buck. Synthetics are better then non, generally speakin, and if I did not take advantage of that fact while saving money, I deserve a big dope slap. You guys saw my links that support this position, I’m waiting for yours. ;() remember, the debate is non synthetics vs synthetics with longer oil change intervals to both save money and extend the life of your car’s motor.
How many posters on in this forum admit to burning used motor oil as heating fuel? If that doesn’t have an environmental impact, I’m Elmer Fudd. For that reason alone, if these people change their oil less often, they will also reduce pollution. Have you ever been near an oil refinery? For those of us who recycle our oil, recycled oil has to be re-refined, so don’t tell me the oil refining process doesn’t create pollution. If you also factor the refinery pollution that was created when the oil was refined as new oil, well, let’s just say changing your oil frequently creates more pollution than changing it less frequently, no matter which way you slice it.
@Whitey: with the exception of Zinc, all those metals are incorporated in the oil as a result of engine wear. That means they accumulate roughly linearly to time on oil sample. Doubling the OCI just means burning half as much oil that’s twice as dirty. As mentioned, Zn is the exception.////I never claimed there was no impact to WMO; just that it was de minimis. I don’t burn WMO myself; the local scrap yard pays me $1/gal for it as fuel for their Al smelter.
@meanjoe75fan
Thank you for reading it. I agree that some environmentalist are initially over the top. But, I don’t see another planet waiting in the wings if and when we screw things up. You know as well as I that both sides share their extreme attitudes but one side costs us a little more $$$$$ , and I mean comparably little extra money, while the side can easily cost us death and a lot of human suffering. How long did it take some to admit second hand smoke as a pollutant is dangerous ? It was over sold initially by environmental zealots, or really was it ?
Completely aside, but, I get a kick out of the same folks who want to legalize pot but are also enviromentalist( hopefully few) when the toxins in weed are five times (or much greater) depending on what substance you measure, then cigarette smoke and compared to other pollutants! Much more as well. It’s good to know, like my spouse, there are plenty here who disagree with my warped POV.
So the more often you change your oil, the more the scrap yard burns in their smelter? Thank you for admitting defeat. o_O
The scrap yard runs regardless of little old me, off the oil they drain from their cars they buy. If anything, my 4000-mile oil cleans up the gunk they burn a bit. (I live around 3mi ESE of the yard…if I had any concerns, I wouldn’t live here.) Im a bit more concerned about living 6mi upwind of Creighton and Cheswick power plants, FWIW.////
Which brings up another point: the pollutants, in concentration experienced in the environment, can’t possibly be a threat to human health, because of the MUCH higher concentrations folks endure occupationally. I’ve endured metal fume fever with no lasting effects–how much Zn would you have to release to equal the amount a welder scarfs down in an 8-hour shift?
“…the pollutants, in concentration experienced in the environment, can’t possibly be a threat to human health…”
Since this debate has been settled for a long time, I’m going to refrain from ridiculing you for saying something so woefully ignorant. Instead, here is my response:
http://thorax.bmj.com/content/62/11/957.full
http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2010/10/05/asthma/
This is like the old seat belt argument. “I’ve suffered worse, so it can’t be bad for you.” The lack of logic in that argument is stunning.
Who decides when the point of diminishing returns has been reached, @Whitey?
@RodKnox: Nobody. Environmentalism, in its extreme, is a quasi-theology: virtue, vice, a need for personal sacrifice, and a lasting damnation if changes aren’t made: an “unseasonably warm armageddon.” Asking an enviro true-believer about harm reduction or means-testing is like me once asking a Catholic brother “well, if birth control is ‘kinda bad’ and abortion is ‘real bad,’ aren’t I, on net, reducing sin by using contraception?”////Whitey: while I conced asthmatics are uniquely susceptible to air quality, asthma rates are increasing as air quality improves, so it obviously isn’t causal. Being auto-immune-ish in nature, I suscribe to the “hygeine theory” of causality–an underworked immune system running havoc. Let the darn kids get dirty!
@meanjoe75fan
Methinks you use term environmentalism like a political party or a religion. It isn’t like…this environmentalist straps himself to Sequoia and declares himself just a little left of center. Environmentalism include everyone with a mind that embraces science. That disapline that ultimately determines where we are as a human race and whether we even survive.
We don’t survive as a species unless, even the Koch bros. at some point, have a little environmentalism in their blood stream. Thinking and waiting for the free market to save the earth is like waiting for the free market to eliminate cigarettes. To make a decision on It takes everyone from accross the political spectrum to understand what is a stake. They differ only in the means to that end…and even then, not by much.
If Richard Nixon can be declared an environmentalist, there is room for you meanjoe75fan. Welcome aboard !
Agreed but I resist the E-word because I feel it’s been co-opted by a fringe with a particular agenda. I also don’t want to keep women barefoot, pregnant, and chained to the stove…but resist being called a feminist for similar reasons. Perhaps “conservationalist”? That’s more my speed; fighting encroachment of civilization on wilderness vs anal-retentive “parts per billion” counting.
No Mike, engines are cheaper then body repair. It's all relative and the average motorist doesn't get it.
I made no mention at all of Body Repair. I don’t know why you’re taking that direction.
But as for Body Repair (aka Rust). I haven’t had any rust issues that needed attention since my wifes 1980 Datsun 510. Even after 400k miles our cars and trucks had very little rust. My runner with 260k+ miles has ZERO body rust. There’s some surface rust on the frame…but that’s not an issue.
7500 to 10k syn oil changes on motors manufacturers deem capable, gives you maximun bang for the buck.
That’s NOT PROVEN yet. There haven’t been enough vehicles using that interval and have very high miles. Give it a few years and we’ll see. So far there is no long term data supporting your claim.
Mike…It’s the direction that needs more focus then oil changes. The number one maintence requirement, is the daily inspection of fluid levels incl oil level and paying attention to noises and gauge responses that shouldn’t be there. The Next, is keeping car relatively clean then climbing underneath and looking for body and suspension damage or areas of accumulated debris and closed drain holes and doing anything you can do to suspend corrosion and wear on chassis components and body and if it means coating potential rust areas, you do that. If it means painting a bolt with grease, you do it. Things like this are more important then decreasing oil change intervals to maintain value to your car. It’s much more about the chassis and body that the owner should focus then oil changes shorter then recomended.
That’s not proven ? Guess you don’t trust Toyota to make a motor that will last with their recommendations…l.though they have for more then forty years.
Longer intervals have been done for years on fleet vehicles in the military and state govts.
Very little rust ? There can be NO rust. Very little you see is just 10% of what there is. Older Toyotas are suspect to frame rust…even yours, there is no such thing as surface rust on a frame being acceptable on a ten year old car.
4Runner doesn’t need to have “surface rust”, love that phase as if it excuses rust.
I bet in two minutes I can find rust areas on your car underneath all that plastic cladding. It’s rust that will poke through at some point…It’s there.
You do have a situation where the high mileage mitigates the overall worth of a car. But having a car does sudden appear with rust is important too.
Crash tests are only done on cars that have not begun to rust !