Best no BS motor oil/filter comparison?
HiC
of a good site that shows the truth about which brand/type of oil &
filter performs the best? Thinking in the passenger car realm.
Thanks
mech...@telusplanet.net
unbiased study....
"HiC" <brass...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8455880c-4d03-4ce4...@w34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Bruiser
Kruse
HLS
"HiC" <brass...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8455880c-4d03-4ce4...@w34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
I know of no site that gives the meaningful data that a technical person
would like to see.
There have been sites which attempt to separate the sheep from the goats
by cutting the filter open and examining the apparent quality of the
components and the construction. I have little faith in these comparisons.
The data probably does exist to be able to evaluate these products but
I have never seen it tabulated and available to the public.
Tegger
59162d...@w34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> I see opinions of the "I swear by" type all over the map. Anyone know
> of a good site that shows the truth about which brand/type of oil &
> filter performs the best? Thinking in the passenger car realm.
>
>
There isn't any. Not such that I've ever been able to find online, anyway.
Those sites that pull filters apart to see what they look like inside tell
you absolutely nothing useful at all.
The safest things you can do:
1) Use the correct OEM oil filter sold by your automaker's local dealer.
2) Use a major brand-name oil that displays the API starburst.
--
Tegger
C. E. White
"Tegger" <inv...@invalid.inv> wrote in message
news:Xns9B605F2B...@208.90.168.18...
> HiC <brass...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:8455880c-4d03-4ce4-a7eb-
> 59162d...@w34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>
>> I see opinions of the "I swear by" type all over the map. Anyone
>> know
>> of a good site that shows the truth about which brand/type of oil &
>> filter performs the best? Thinking in the passenger car realm.
>>
>>
>
>
> There isn't any. Not such that I've ever been able to find online,
> anyway.
>
> Those sites that pull filters apart to see what they look like
> inside tell
> you absolutely nothing useful at all.
I have cut open of bunch of filters open myself (mostly FL820S
Competitors and a few Toyota and Nissan filters).I did learn useful
information. There are some things you can tell just by looking and
measuring - type of anti-drain back valve, type of relief valve, total
amount of filter material, general type of filter material, general
quality of construction. And some things you cannot tell by just
looking - filtering efficiency (some manufacturers provide this),
actual filter capacity, flow rate, relief valve release point, burst
strength of the filter can. I would contend that if you cut open a
filter and see a hard rubber relief valve, a sparse amount of filter
material, sloppy internal construction, and a crummy looking relief
valve, you might decide that filter was not a good choice.
> The safest things you can do:
> 1) Use the correct OEM oil filter sold by your automaker's local
> dealer.
Maybe, maybe not. Honda has sold Fram filters in the past labeled as
Honda filters. Fram is not my favorite choice even if it says Honda on
the outside. Toyota dealers routinely sell replacement filters that
are radically different that the OE filters originally supplied on
some engines. I like the OE Toyota filters and go out of my way to buy
those (they cost more and dealers often don't stock them). Ford has at
times sold different Motorcraft replacement filters than the OE
filters originally on the engine (similar, but clearly different).
Some aftermarket filters appear to be significantly better made than
some OE filters.
> 2) Use a major brand-name oil that displays the API starburst.
You need to make sure the oil is the correct viscosity, grade, and
meets all the OE manufacturer's specs. For most US and Japanese
vehicles, the API service class (SL, SM, etc) can usually be depended
on to indicate the oil meet the vehicle manufacturer's warranty
requirements. For some European vehicles, this is not necessarily
true. It is always best to make sure the oil you are buying
specifically says it meets the vehicle manufacturer's specifications
for your vehicle. For both the Fords and Toyota's that I service that
specify 5W30, 5W20, or 0W20 oil, I always look to make sure they
explicitly say they meet Ford's oil spec. Ford's specs were actually
more robust than the API service category for 5W20 oils when Ford
first started specifying the 5W20 oils.
Ed
Mark A
news:492ac4a9$1@kcnews01...
> Maybe, maybe not. Honda has sold Fram filters in the past labeled as Honda
> filters. Fram is not my favorite choice even if it says Honda on the
> outside.
Fram makes a wide variety of oil filters, some sold under their own brand,
and some sold under other brands.
Most people agree that the lowest price Fram filter (About $2.50 at discount
stores) is of questionable quality, but the one that sells for about $11.00
is quite good. It is unwise to lump all Fram filters into the same category.
C. E. White
"Mark A" <som...@someone.com> wrote in message
news:XDzWk.91778$XB4....@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
I am mainly interested in filters for the vehicles I own or regularly
service - Fords, Toyotas, a Nissan, and a Mazda. For the Fords, from
what I have seen, the $3.28 Motorcraft FL820S Filter is better than
the best Fram equivalent, the TG2, which cost $6.15 the last time I
bought one. The TG2 is only marginally better than the lower priced,
but used by the same applications, Fram PH2 ($3.77) yet cost 40% more.
Now maybe for some other applications, the Fram filters are not so
obviously inferior. But for the applications I care about, Fram
filters are not my choice.
Ed
Scott Dorsey
>Fram makes a wide variety of oil filters, some sold under their own brand,
>and some sold under other brands.
>
>Most people agree that the lowest price Fram filter (About $2.50 at discount
>stores) is of questionable quality, but the one that sells for about $11.00
>is quite good. It is unwise to lump all Fram filters into the same category.
The problem is that you have to, unless you can tell WHICH one you are
getting. If you don't have proof of what grade you have, you must assume
it is the lowest possible.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
SMS
> Those sites that pull filters apart to see what they look like inside tell
> you absolutely nothing useful at all.
You're wrong. Those cut-apart evaluations tell you a couple of things.
1. They tell you which filters to absolutely avoid due to exceptionally
poor construction.
2. They show the amount of filtering area, which can vary widely.
3. At "http://www.knizefamily.net/minimopar/oilfilters/index.html" he
tests the anti-drainback valves for leakage.
For instance he looks at detail in one filter I use, the one for a lot
of Toyota and Lexus V6 engines, the Toyota 90915 and its after-market
variants. The Toyota brand filter had the largest filtering area, and
the anti-drainback valve, while plastic, did not leak. The Toyota filter
had about 60% more filter area than the Fram, and the Fram
anti-drainback valve leaked.
He doesn't test the jobber filters used by a lot of oil change
franchises, which cost them $1-1.50 each. I know someone that owns a
franchise that does a lot of oil changes, and he keeps Toyota and Honda
OEM filters for his family, and his good customers.
The Toyota filters sell for $4-5 on sale at the dealer. They'res just no
reason to use anything but the Toyota OEM filter, it's not worth the risk.
> 1) Use the correct OEM oil filter sold by your automaker's local dealer.
> 2) Use a major brand-name oil that displays the API starburst.
This is true. Of course there are no major brand oils that don't have
the API Starburst. There are some synthetics that can't meet the API
requirements, such as some of the Amsoil products that have too much
ZDDP, and that could damage your catalytic converter over time, though
of course Amsoil says that this won't happen.
Tegger
@kcnews01:
None of this tells you anything, sorry. "Crummy" /looking/ components
may /function/ just fine.
In any case, there's no readily-available study of these things that
tests for /function/, so all anybody can do is guess and organize beauty
contests.
>
>> The safest things you can do:
>> 1) Use the correct OEM oil filter sold by your automaker's local
>> dealer.
>
> Maybe, maybe not. Honda has sold Fram filters in the past labeled as
> Honda filters.
Honda has used FRAM as an OEM for oil filters for at least 15 years.
I'd think if there was a problem with them, FRAM would have been dropped
as a supplier long ago.
> Fram is not my favorite choice even if it says Honda on
> the outside. Toyota dealers routinely sell replacement filters that
> are radically different that the OE filters originally supplied on
> some engines. I like the OE Toyota filters and go out of my way to buy
> those (they cost more and dealers often don't stock them). Ford has at
> times sold different Motorcraft replacement filters than the OE
> filters originally on the engine (similar, but clearly different).
> Some aftermarket filters appear to be significantly better made than
> some OE filters.
>
>> 2) Use a major brand-name oil that displays the API starburst.
>
> You need to make sure the oil is the correct viscosity, grade, and
> meets all the OE manufacturer's specs. For most US and Japanese
> vehicles, the API service class (SL, SM, etc) can usually be depended
> on to indicate the oil meet the vehicle manufacturer's warranty
> requirements. For some European vehicles, this is not necessarily
> true.
You're absolutely right. Like the old acronym goes, "RTFM". It will tell
you what you need to do.
--
Tegger
Tegger
news:ggek1g$md$1...@panix2.panix.com:
> Mark A <som...@someone.com> wrote:
>>Fram makes a wide variety of oil filters, some sold under their own
>>brand, and some sold under other brands.
>>
>>Most people agree that the lowest price Fram filter (About $2.50 at
>>discount stores) is of questionable quality, but the one that sells
>>for about $11.00 is quite good. It is unwise to lump all Fram filters
>>into the same category.
>
> The problem is that you have to, unless you can tell WHICH one you are
> getting. If you don't have proof of what grade you have, you must
> assume it is the lowest possible.
>
OEM grade, at least for the imports, appears to be far higher than what
those same companies sell in the aftermarket.
A Honda FRAM-built oil filter is quite different from a FRAM filter in a
FRAM box, despite the use of some common parts between the two.
A Honda OEM Walker or Bosal exhaust will not at all resemble parts those
same companies make for the aftermarket.
It's the automakers' specifications that make the difference, not who
actually manufactures the parts.
--
Tegger
Tegger
news:jvAWk.4957$8_3....@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com:
> Tegger wrote:
>
>> Those sites that pull filters apart to see what they look like inside
>> tell you absolutely nothing useful at all.
>
> You're wrong. Those cut-apart evaluations tell you a couple of things.
>
> 1. They tell you which filters to absolutely avoid due to
> exceptionally poor construction.
Exceptionally poor /looking/ consruction you mean, not exceptionally poor
/functioning/ construction.
Until those beauty-contest sites perform some kind of /function/ tests,
they tell you absolutely nothing except the non-news that ugly girls don't
win beauty contests.
>
> 2. They show the amount of filtering area, which can vary widely.
But they can't tell you how /good/ that filter medium is, which is the
critical point.
--
Tegger
![WindsorFox<[SS]>'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjWIdRvTmdoa14UonTeXinpKzG2XEU-bCfjbzOxtC2u3L34zOUw=s40-c)
WindsorFox<[SS]>
> HiC <brass...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:8455880c-4d03-4ce4-a7eb-
> 59162d...@w34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>
>> I see opinions of the "I swear by" type all over the map. Anyone know
>> of a good site that shows the truth about which brand/type of oil &
>> filter performs the best? Thinking in the passenger car realm.
>>
>>
>
>
> There isn't any. Not such that I've ever been able to find online, anyway.
>
> Those sites that pull filters apart to see what they look like inside tell
> you absolutely nothing useful at all.
It told me that the most expensive conventional filter (at the time)
had pieces of cardboard glued to the edges of the filter media as end caps.
>
> The safest things you can do:
> 1) Use the correct OEM oil filter sold by your automaker's local dealer.
> 2) Use a major brand-name oil that displays the API starburst.
>
>
--
"Boy, I've spent my adult life dealing with people like you.
There are few things that intimidate me; and a
post-adolescent, semi-literate cretin ain't one of them." - LSP972
SMS
Thank goodness you snipped the third reason which proved you wrong yet
again!
ransley
There is a site somewhere I visited that tested all filters. Alot
depends on driving style, if normal not racing the car manufacturers
is always safe. On oil Mobil 1 is as good as it gets, for racing maybe
Royal Purple. Most any name brand is fine and much improved over the
last 30 years.
WindsorFox<[SS]>
Since there is no window into the side of the can, I avoid Fram
period. The filters I use are made by Donaldson and AFAIK nothing they
make is of questionable quality.
WindsorFox<[SS]>
Amsoil meets or surpasses API specs, yes, according to them and one
type is API certified. There is a difference between can not and
refusing to provide some proprietary information.
WindsorFox<[SS]>
This is what the OP is trying to avoid. Provide proof saying Mobil 1
is the best oil you can buy, some sort of test showing that. Good luck
with that.
Mark A
> I am mainly interested in filters for the vehicles I own or regularly
> service - Fords, Toyotas, a Nissan, and a Mazda. For the Fords, from what
> I have seen, the $3.28 Motorcraft FL820S Filter is better than the best
> Fram equivalent, the TG2, which cost $6.15 the last time I bought one. The
> TG2 is only marginally better than the lower priced, but used by the same
> applications, Fram PH2 ($3.77) yet cost 40% more. Now maybe for some other
> applications, the Fram filters are not so obviously inferior. But for the
> applications I care about, Fram filters are not my choice.
>
> Ed
I was referring to the $11.00 filter (not sure the name but at one time it
was the X2). The point is that Fram can make anything somebody wants them
make. It is just a question of much it will cost.
Mark A
news:ggemdt$v3c$1...@posting2.glorb.com...
> Amsoil meets or surpasses API specs, yes, according to them and one type
> is API certified. There is a difference between can not and refusing to
> provide some proprietary information.
The big lie.
SMS
> Amsoil meets or surpasses API specs, yes, according to them and one
> type is API certified. There is a difference between can not and
> refusing to provide some proprietary information.
No, Amsoil admitted, a long time ago, the reason why they don't have API
certification on some products. It has nothing to do with proprietary
information. They used do use the "proprietary" excuse because they
didn't want to admit the real reason, then one of their employees leaked
the real reason.
Here is the e-mail on this:
-----------------
From: "Selbrede, Byron" <byr...@amsoil.com>
To: "'no...@pinn.net'" <n...@pinn.net>
Subject: RE: Technical Service Contact Form
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 16:18:15 -0500
"Actually it's the amount of phosphorus that is regulated-- but
that is directly related to the amount of zinc that can be used as they
are combined as zinc dithio phosphate (ZDP). This is only regulated in 2
viscosity grades, 5W30 and 10W30. Other than the Series 7500, AMSOIL
lubes all contain more ZDP than can be used in an API licensed oil. For
examples of our ZDP levels refer to data sheets for AMO, ARO, AMF or AMV."
-----------------
The API limit on the amount of ZDDP was put in place because the
phosphorus in the ZDDP shortens the life of the catalytic converter; the
more ZDDP the shorter the life of the catalytic converter.
The high level of ZDDP in the Amsoil non-API certified oil (and some
other non-certified oils) provides better wear protection than the API
certified oils with the lower level of ZDDP. So it would make sense to
use these non-API certified oils in vehicles without catalytic
converters, in fact this is recommended. Or if you don't mind shorter
replacement intervals on the catalytic converter then it's fine too.
Contamination of the catalytic converter is a slow process. It will fail
earlier if you use oils with higher levels of phosphorus. You're not
going to be able to convince an oil manufacturer that their non-API oil
was responsible for a converter failing at 100K miles when it would
normally go 200K miles.
There's no reason to take the risk of using a non-API certified oil.
C. E. White
I assume you are talking about the incredibly overpriced ExtendedGuard
Fram Filters. The FL820S equivalent is the XG2. Autozone sells these
for $22.99. That's right, almost $23 for a Fram Filter. It is a
suckers deal.
I have to admit I have not actually cut an XG2 open. However, given
what I have seen in the past from Fram I'd wager it is not as good as
the Motorcraft FL820S. The advertising copy for the XG2 says:
* Synthetic blend media backed by a metal screen - This may be a good
feature, Donaldson and Amsoil filters offer this, at a much lower
price.
* Long Life Silicone Anti-Drain Back Valve - the cheap Motorcraft
filter comes standard with this.
* Exterior Gasket with PTFE - Several filters (Amsoil for one) also
offer this feature. I suppose if you change your oil filter once a
decade or install it with a 10 foot pipe wrench, this might matter,
but it is mostly advertising BS. At best it is a marginal advantage
worth a few pennies.
* 70% more capacity vs leading competitors average - totally
meaningless BS. We don't know who are the leading competitors, exactly
which filter p/n(s) this applies to, or the average capacity of the
competitor's filters. In general FL820S size oil filters have far more
capacity that will ever be required (compare an FL820S to almost any
Toyota or Nissan filter for engines of similar size).
* 96% Single pass efficiency - this is mediocre at best
I'd be interested in cutting an XG2 filter open, but at a price of
$23, there is no way I am buying one. If somebody has a used one they
want to ship to me, let me know and I'll pay for the shipping.. I have
a feeling they are sourcing this filter, or at least the media, from
Donaldson (Donaldson also makes the Amsoil EA filters). The Donaldson
filters are much cheaper.
Ed
Tegger
news:GOAWk.8994$YU2....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com:
You must mean this:
> 3. At "http://www.knizefamily.net/minimopar/oilfilters/index.html" he
> tests the anti-drainback valves for leakage.
I did snip that. But the author does NOT test drainback valves. He
simply mentions what he thinks makes a good valve and what does not.
On the Knize page (which is greatly updated and much more humble than
the page I last looked at several years ago, this is found:
"Hydrostatic Burst Pressure - Since I cannot test this myself, I have
removed this data.
SAE J806 Filtration Efficiency - Since I cannot test this myself, I have
removed this data.
SAE J1858 Filtration Efficiency - Since I cannot test this myself, I
have removed this data."
Unfortunately, /these/ are the tests that primarily differentiate a
"good" filter from a "bad" one, and /these/ are the tests the author has
omitted.
It's really too bad the author has left out the SAE test results. In
most scientific and statistical testing, the raw data used in tests are
made available to others along with test methodology. That's how you
determine bias. Bias is not detemined on the say-so of somebody who
refuses to reveal the data and methodologythat he claims are biased.
I stand by my original assertion: There is not yet any reliable and
verifiable evidence to prove that one oil filter is better than another,
and, if some /are/ better, to what degree.
--
Tegger
Tegger
> Tegger wrote:
>> HiC <brass...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:8455880c-4d03-4ce4-a7eb-
>> 59162d...@w34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> I see opinions of the "I swear by" type all over the map. Anyone
>>> know of a good site that shows the truth about which brand/type of
>>> oil & filter performs the best? Thinking in the passenger car realm.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> There isn't any. Not such that I've ever been able to find online,
>> anyway.
>>
>> Those sites that pull filters apart to see what they look like inside
>> tell you absolutely nothing useful at all.
>
> It told me that the most expensive conventional filter (at the
> time) had pieces of cardboard glued to the edges of the filter
> media as end caps.
It's not "cardboard".
--
Tegger
Steve W.
> I see opinions of the "I swear by" type all over the map. Anyone know
> of a good site that shows the truth about which brand/type of oil &
> filter performs the best? Thinking in the passenger car realm.
>
>
Don't know of one that really tests the items in the real world and then
rates them. All the different manufacturers claim that they test against
others and that theirs are the best. The catch is that you never see
them saying who they tested against or what the real results were.
There are few online sites that have cut open filters and such but
unless they rig up a test bench, actually run something through the
filter and prove what it does and doesn't do the results are
meaningless. It doesn't mean a thing if you have more media in the can
if that media isn't filtering well. As for cardboard end caps, So what,
the filter media is paper or fiberglass weave which will blow out first.
The drain back valve MAY make a difference, however as long as it
functions it doesn't matter if it's rubber, silicone or metal.
My personal preference is to use a filter that has proven itself over a
long time and from a company that stands behind their products. Same
with oil.
Use the proper oil in proper grade and don't use the gimmick crap.
Synthetic if the customer asks or it's the proper oil.
On oil filters I tend to use the larger filter if more than one fits the
vehicle, and it will fit. For instance on the GM 4.3 there are two
filters, one is listed for the 4X4s and the other for the 2WD. The
larger filter will fit on 99% of them, the only ones it is tight on is
the early remote mount units with the filter on the inner fender.
--
Steve W.
HLS
"Tegger" <inv...@invalid.inv> wrote in message
> verifiable evidence to prove that one oil filter is better than another,
> and, if some /are/ better, to what degree.
I stand with you on this point. One test is worth a thousand expert
opinions.
Scott Dorsey
HLS <nos...@nospam.nix> wrote:
>
>"Tegger" <inv...@invalid.inv> wrote in message
>> I stand by my original assertion: There is not yet any reliable and
>> verifiable evidence to prove that one oil filter is better than another,
>> and, if some /are/ better, to what degree.
>
>opinions.
Agreed. One statement that we can make, though, is that any new oil
filter is better than an old oil filter. Change your oil and filter
regularly.
C. E. White
"Tegger" <inv...@invalid.inv> wrote in message
The problem is simple, the equipment needed to run the SAE tests is
very expensive. A consumer could 1) purchase the equipment and run the
test for the many filters available for a given application, or 2) pay
a test house to do the testing, or 3) request the information from the
manufacturer.
Options 1 and 2 are very expensive and well beyond the average
consumer's means. I've tried option 3. Responses range from partial
information, to "no way will we give anyone that information." Some
companies (Wix) provide at least minimal information that you could
use to make a comparison. Some companies provide nothing (ACDelco is
the worst of the comanies that will actually respond). And some
companies will send you a lot of meaningless advertising drivel that
at best confuses the facts (Fram and Amsoil).
So unless you are going to spend big bucks, a beauty contest is about
the best you can do. In general OEM filters come off better in beauty
contests than cheap aftermarket filters. And if you aren't willing to
make any judgment calls based on appearance, then going with the OEM
filter is likely the best option. I usually do this, unless the OEM
filters are hard to find, or wildly overpriced.
I think you are wrong to completely dismiss beauty contests,
particularly those that measure the internal filter elements
(particularly the media). All other things being equal, more media has
to be better than less. Thick media is more likely to remove fine
particles than thin. A filter with more filter media surface area is
more likely to have a higher flow rate and higher filter capacity than
filters with less total media area. It is obvious that some anti-drain
back valves are made from stiff material, and likely to fail and that
some relief valves seal poorly. Filter elements with the media well
potted in metal end caps are more likely to be durable that filters
with the media poorly glued to paper end caps. Etc. Etc. If a company
goes to the trouble to include well made ,obviously superior, internal
components (the parts the average person never sees), I feel certain
they are also using top quality filter material. If a company builds
filters with crummy internal components, but spends million on
advertising...well you can guess what I am thinking.
There are a few cases where the beauty contest falls apart. The
Donaldson and Amsoil EA filters have media that is completely
different that the traditional paper (cellulose, or even "synthetic"
paper) types of media. I find it hard to directly compare them. And
the situation with Toyota filters is really strange. The OE filters on
the 2.4L I4 engines in the two RAV4s I service has media unlike
anything else I have ever seen (even in the standard Toyota
replacement filter for these engines). The OE filter is so different,
I just think it has to be better, but can't prove it. The OE filter
has other "better looking" features as well, so it wins the beauty
contest anyhow (compared to the made in Thailand Toyota replacement
filter).
My experience with Honda replacement filters is limited. The one that
I cut open that said Honda on the outside was, as far as I could tell,
identical to a Fram on the inside. Perhaps it had superior media, but
it did not look any different and it still had the crummy looking
paper end caps and poor quality relief valve. I go for a Wix or
Purolator filter for that application every time.
Of course you can also question just how good a filter has to be. All
filters go into bypass mode at times, so there is always the
possibility of contaminants slipping by. The pick-up screens on the
oil pumps block the grosser stuff that would lead to immediate damage,
so the filter is mostly there to trap particles that could lead to
long term wear. My feeling is, if you are concerned about engine wear,
the air filter and PCV systems are more critical than the oil filter.
Most of the "dangerous" contaminates that end up in your oil after the
car is broken in, come in via the air intake. Cut down on the fine
dust getting into the engine and you will go a long ways towards
protecting your engine from wear.
In the past there have been engines that didn't even have external oil
filters (old VW bugs for instance). And I remember when GM only
required you to change the filter with alternate oil changes (maybe
they still do), meaning the filter might be on the car for 15k miles
(or more). And despite this, GM used oil filters the size of a teacup
(like most current Toyotas and Nissans). I've always wondered why Ford
and Chrysler always used comparatively large filters and required them
to be changed with every oil change and GM used small filters and
allowed them to be changed every other oil change. It always made me
wonder just how important the oil filter is. I've cut open quite a few
used oil filter and never found much to be concerned about. However, I
don't have a good way of determining how much the filter has actually
trapped. If anyone has a suggestion on how this might be done CHEAPLY,
I'd love to hear it. My only thought is to fill the new filter with
oil and weigh it before I install it on the car. Then, when I remove
the filter, refill it with oil (after emptying out all the old oil)
and weigh it as a comparison, assuming any difference in weight
represents contamination trapped by the filter.
Ed
C. E. White
"Tegger" <inv...@invalid.inv> wrote in message
>>> Those sites that pull filters apart to see what they look like
>>> inside
>>> tell you absolutely nothing useful at all.
>>
>> It told me that the most expensive conventional filter (at the
>> time) had pieces of cardboard glued to the edges of the filter
>> media as end caps.
>
>
>
> It's not "cardboard".
So what is the proper marketing term for paper-like crap?
Ed
SMS
> There are few online sites that have cut open filters and such but
> unless they rig up a test bench, actually run something through the
> filter and prove what it does and doesn't do the results are
> meaningless.
At least the test I saw, he tested the anti-drain back valves. It's a
good idea to buy filters where the valves don't leak, since that reduces
engine wear at start-up.
Regarding the Toyota 90915 he wrote:
"The filter does use a plastic bypass valve similar to the Fram filter,
however I could not make this one leak. It is also held in place by a
steel clip rather than plastic tabs like the Fram."
I suspect that all of the filters actually filter acceptably. The
difference is in the drainback valves, and how large the filter area is.
A filter with more area will take longer to clog up than one with a
smaller filter area.
Construction does matter, because poorly constructed filters will often
fail internally, without any indication. Unless you cut them open when
you remove them, rather than just tossing them, you'll never know that
they failed and not only were they no longer filtering, but dumped
everything they did filter back into the oil that's circulating.
After what happened with the Fram PH6017, which were failing due to
construction quality, I swore off Fram.
Brent P
Which is why I stick with OEM oil filters. Because at least the
manufacturer tested and approved of them.
Tegger
@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com:
Let's make that "expert" opinions (with quotes).
Without the results of properly designed empirical testing, everybody's an
"expert", the way doctors were "experts" at infectious disease before the
discovery of microbes.
My personal and untested opinion is that most aftermarket oil filters are
about the same quality as most aftermarket car parts, which is to say of
poor and/or questionable quality. that's why I only ever buy OEM for our
(Honda and Toyota) vehicles.
--
Tegger
Tegger
@kcnews01:
It's gasket material, not "cardboard".
--
Tegger
Steve
> SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in
> news:jvAWk.4957$8_3....@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com:
>
>> Tegger wrote:
>>
>>> Those sites that pull filters apart to see what they look like inside
>>> tell you absolutely nothing useful at all.
>> You're wrong. Those cut-apart evaluations tell you a couple of things.
>>
>> 1. They tell you which filters to absolutely avoid due to
>> exceptionally poor construction.
>
>
>
> Exceptionally poor /looking/ consruction you mean, not exceptionally poor
> /functioning/ construction.
Oh please! If you can permanently deform the cheap bypass spring with
two fingers, or if you can see that the anti-drainback valve doesn't
even fully rest against its backing plate, then it most certainly DOES
mean "exceptionally poor functioning construction." This isn't rocket
science, and anyone with *any* background in
building/tinkering/fabricating can make a pretty darn good assessment of
certain design weaknesses. I'll grant you, it doesn't tell you anything
about the capability of the filter media itself because that's a
microscopic characteristic. But for the big things- you DAMN sure can
tell a lot that would make you rule out certain designs.
Steve
At some very primitive, minimal-function level yes. But really buying
OEM means absolutely nothing at all. OEMs get more and more lax about
the replacement parts they "approve" as you get further and further from
the model year in which your car was built. Now if they still use the
same filter on cars currently in their warranty parts stream, you're
better off. But still no guarantees.
Which is why I buy Wix, which just never has any complaints or gripes no
matter where you look.
Steve W.
> Steve W. wrote:
>
>> There are few online sites that have cut open filters and such but
>> unless they rig up a test bench, actually run something through the
>> filter and prove what it does and doesn't do the results are meaningless.
>
> At least the test I saw, he tested the anti-drain back valves. It's a
> good idea to buy filters where the valves don't leak, since that reduces
> engine wear at start-up.
>
> Regarding the Toyota 90915 he wrote:
>
> "The filter does use a plastic bypass valve similar to the Fram filter,
> however I could not make this one leak. It is also held in place by a
> steel clip rather than plastic tabs like the Fram."
>
> I suspect that all of the filters actually filter acceptably. The
> difference is in the drainback valves, and how large the filter area is.
> A filter with more area will take longer to clog up than one with a
> smaller filter area.
Not true the way that oil filter media is made. If you look at the
typical oil filter media under pressure you will find that the higher
number of pleats do a worse job of filtering and passing oil. That is
because the pleats tend to press together and restrict flow through
them. They also open other areas in the pleats so the filters actually
filter less.
>
> Construction does matter, because poorly constructed filters will often
> fail internally, without any indication. Unless you cut them open when
> you remove them, rather than just tossing them, you'll never know that
> they failed and not only were they no longer filtering, but dumped
> everything they did filter back into the oil that's circulating.
>
> After what happened with the Fram PH6017, which were failing due to
> construction quality, I swore off Fram.
You do know that Fram MAKES Toyota's filters? They have for quite a
while. They also have made filters for Ford, GM, and even have been a
source for other filter makers as well...
--
Steve W.
Steve W.
Not really, they just send a producer the specifications and say what
will you charge us for 50K of this filter.
They specify the color and part number. They may test a few samples but
after that they expect the supplier to stand behind the product.
--
Steve W.
Near Cooperstown, New York
HLS
"Brent P" <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> Which is why I stick with OEM oil filters. Because at least the
> manufacturer tested and approved of them.
OEM filters often come from the exact same filtermakers that are being
discussed here. It is still no guarantee of anything except that you have
a paper trail if you have a filter related incident.
Ray O
"Steve" <n...@spam.thanks> wrote in message
news:p_ednU2lhahflbbU...@texas.net...
OEM's do not get more and more lax about the replacement parts they
"approve."
The minimum criteria for acceptance or rejection of a part is established by
the automaker.
--
Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)
C. E. White
"Tegger" <inv...@invalid.inv> wrote in message
>>> It's not "cardboard".
>>
>> So what is the proper marketing term for paper-like crap?
> It's gasket material, not "cardboard".
Gasket material can be paper, rubber, plastic, steel, copper,
cellulose (i.e., paper), etc., etc. Calling the paper end caps Fram
uses, "Gasket Material" is like calling oxygen a gas. While true, you
will soon find out some gases are better than others if you want to
stay alive. Other manufacturers use non-metal end caps, but in my
opinion. no other "reputable" manufacturer does as poor a job of
sealing the end caps as Fram. I have had no trouble at all peeling the
Fram end caps away from the media. Try that with a Donaldson filter
sometime or even the Thailand made Toyota filters.
Ed
HLS
"Tegger" <inv...@invalid.inv> wrote in message
>
>
> Without the results of properly designed empirical testing, everybody's an
> "expert", the way doctors were "experts" at infectious disease before the
> discovery of microbes.
>
> My personal and untested opinion is that most aftermarket oil filters are
> about the same quality as most aftermarket car parts, which is to say of
> poor and/or questionable quality. that's why I only ever buy OEM for our
> (Honda and Toyota) vehicles.
I agree with the "expert", but not with the summary of aftermarket parts.
Some aftermarket parts have been better than the factory or "OEM' versions.
In fact, that is not too uncommon if you buy from a quality distributor and
use
their good quality parts...(They will usually be cheaper than OEM anyway).
For example, on the GM Gen II 3800 engines, you would no replace one of
the burned up plenums with an OEM if you knew what was good for you.
Aftermarket had solved the problem that GM allowed to proliferate for ca
10 years. There are other examples of this.
Tegger
news:UkEWk.7858$c45....@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com:
Must be a domestic thing.
I'm not personally aware of any aftermarket parts for the imports that are
superior to OEM, with the possible exception of radiators.
--
Tegger
C. E. White
"Steve W." <csr6...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ggf1kb$c9r$1...@aioe.org...
>> After what happened with the Fram PH6017, which were failing due to
>> construction quality, I swore off Fram.
>
> You do know that Fram MAKES Toyota's filters? They have for quite a
> while. They also have made filters for Ford, GM, and even have been
> a source for other filter makers as well...
Which Toyota filters? Be specific. I am only familiar with the Toyota
filters for the 2.4L I4 used by RAV4s (90915-10004 or 90915-YZZF1).
Fram may make one of these filters, but they are not like a Fram
aftermarket filter. I think it is much more likely that Denso is
making the Toyota filters I care about. Which Ford filters? I am very
familiar with FL820S and FL1s. Their construction is nothing like the
insides of the Fram aftermarket filter that fits the same
applications. So while Fram may make filters for others, they aren't
necessarily using the same techniques for the filters they sell in the
aftermarket.
Not all companies make all filters for all application. I am sure that
a lot of production swapping goes on. However, for high volume
applications (like the FL820S) I believe most actual filter
manufacturers make their own versions (Fram makes their PH2 / TG2, Wix
makes their 51372, Purolator makes their PL24651, etc). I am also sure
that many "brands" (like Motorcraft, ACDelco, Amsoil, Mobil, etc)
market private label version of filters from other companies. I
suppose some of them may use Fram from time to time, but at least as
far as I know, if you buy a Motorcraft FL820S oil filter today, it is
not coming from Fram and it is made to meet OEM specifications. Ditto
for a Toyota 90915-1004. That may change in the future, but unless all
the filter manufacturers drop down to Fram's aftermarket level of
quality, I'll be able to find something better I can use.
Ed
C. E. White
"Tegger" <inv...@invalid.inv> wrote in message
> I'm not personally aware of any aftermarket parts for the imports
> that are
> superior to OEM, with the possible exception of radiators.
Come on, you can't really believe this...
I am sure you can find legions of people that will swear this part or
that part is better than the OE part (take you pick, brake pads,
exhaust parts, shocks, ball joints, belts, hoses, tires, etc., etc.,
etc.). I have a preference for OE parts myself, but "any" with one
possible exception? Seems way to broad to be credible. I can state for
a fact that a Walker aftermarket muffler for a 1997 Honda Civic lasted
longer than the OE and one Honda factory replacement (car had three
muffles in 10 years the original, one Honda replacement, one Walker).
Ed
Steve
> My personal and untested opinion is that most aftermarket oil filters are
> about the same quality as most aftermarket car parts, which is to say of
> poor and/or questionable quality. that's why I only ever buy OEM for our
> (Honda and Toyota) vehicles.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
THAT explains it. Its a religious thing, not a fact-based thing.
;-)
Steve
> Must be a domestic thing.
Yeah. And gravity is a domestic thing, too.
>
> I'm not personally aware of any aftermarket parts for the imports that are
> superior to OEM, with the possible exception of radiators.
They're out there, in spades. The aftermarket frequently comes up with
"problem solver" replacement parts a long time before the OEM even
fesses up to a defect (particularly Toyota, which never admits anything
until the numbers are overwhelming and the internet is on fire with
complaints).
HLS
"Steve" <n...@spam.thanks> wrote in message
> "problem solver" replacement parts a long time before the OEM even fesses
> up to a defect (particularly Toyota, which never admits anything until the
> numbers are overwhelming and the internet is on fire with complaints).
One of my FLAPS friends told me that they have to do better, or they would
be out of business. You couldnt sell OEM problematic plenums in the
aftermarket
for nearly ten years.....Your customers would take your scalp.
I can remember a time when Chrysler put out a long series of substandard
master
cylinders...The cure was to replace it with EIS or some other aftermarket
unit.
There are many examples of this.
Brent P
>
Of course they often do. However they will be built to the OEM's specs
more often than not. Odds are the OEM filter is the only one that was
tested on a particular engine or engine/vehicle combo. I responding to
the requirement of test data. At least I know that Ford tested with the
motorcraft filter.
Tegger
news:56qdnYPdccwLvbbU...@texas.net:
Naughty boy. Those just happen to be the two cars we own at the moment.
--
Tegger
HLS
> more often than not. Odds are the OEM filter is the only one that was
> tested on a particular engine or engine/vehicle combo. I responding to
> the requirement of test data. At least I know that Ford tested with the
> motorcraft filter.
OEM specs are often not good enough to assure quality.
Ford and GM probably do not make their filters but may issue minimum
specs. MINIMUM.
Buy what you want. But if you are going to argue quality, you need data.
And no one yet has put any data on the board.
SMS
>
> "Brent P" <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> Which is why I stick with OEM oil filters. Because at least the
>> manufacturer tested and approved of them.
>
> OEM filters often come from the exact same filtermakers that are being
> discussed here.
That's irrelevant. The OEMs tell their suppliers what to make, and how
to make it. It's not simply the same product in a different color scheme
or package.
The question isn't just how well it filters. All of them probably filter
acceptably well when new. It's a question of how well thing like the
anti-drainback valves work. As the data shows, some work better than
others. It's also a question of surface area of the filter material,
since the more area the less restrictive the flow, and the more filtered
matter it can hold.
It is still no guarantee of anything except that you
> have a paper trail if you have a filter related incident.
Right, no guarantees of anything. Just a question of how long you want
your engine to last, past problems with the cheaper filters, and the
belief that a company making poorly constructed filters would be more
likely to skimp in areas that are not possible to evaluate easily.
Brent P
Why do I have to keep re-inserting the context? How do you judge if an
aftermarket oil filter is *BETTER*? The ultimate way is *TESTING*.
Generally, the only one that has been tested for any given application
is the OEM filter.
The 'minimum' specs aren't going to be filtering ability they are going
to specifications of dimensions, filering media material, construction,
and so on. They aren't likely to specified as filter performance but the
actual design of the filter itself.
There are very few things that one simply gives performace specs for and
the size of the box and then has the vendor just do whatever they want
for the inside. That's usually very very foolish. The exception would be
commodity parts like resistors or capacitors or something like that, but
a full assembly like an oil filter where the materials and internal
mechanical design are important is highly unlikely.
Involvement with the filter vendor? Sure thing. Maybe even encorporate
the vendor's drawings, but 'black box' that does 'X'. I would be
shocked if that were case. The manufacturers have too much riding
through the warranty period to take that kind of risk.
WindsorFox<[SS]>
> "WindsorFox<[SS]>" <windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ggemdt$v3c$1...@posting2.glorb.com...
>> Amsoil meets or surpasses API specs, yes, according to them and one type
>> is API certified. There is a difference between can not and refusing to
>> provide some proprietary information.
>
> The big lie.
>
>
You have proof of Amsoil lying? If you do I am sure that by all
means a lot of people would be interested in it.
--
"Boy, I've spent my adult life dealing with people like you.
There are few things that intimidate me; and a
post-adolescent, semi-literate cretin ain't one of them." - LSP972
WindsorFox<[SS]>
>
>> Tegger wrote:
>>> HiC <brass...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:8455880c-4d03-4ce4-a7eb-
>>> 59162d...@w34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>> I see opinions of the "I swear by" type all over the map. Anyone
>>>> know of a good site that shows the truth about which brand/type of
>>>> oil & filter performs the best? Thinking in the passenger car realm.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> There isn't any. Not such that I've ever been able to find online,
>>> anyway.
>>> Those sites that pull filters apart to see what they look like inside
>>> tell you absolutely nothing useful at all.
>> time) had pieces of cardboard glued to the edges of the filter
>> media as end caps.
>
>
>
>
>
>
The three that I have cut open certainly were. I may have had some
other fibers in it to make it a bit tougher, but it tore like cardboard.
In fact one of the three I opened the cardboard end cap had partially
separated from the filter media creating a spot where unfiltered oil
could easily leak through. THAT was the last Fram filter I ever bought,
changed to NAPA Gold which at that time had been rated #1 by someone, I
think maybe Consumer Reports.
WindsorFox<[SS]>
> WindsorFox<[SS]> wrote:
>
>> Amsoil meets or surpasses API specs, yes, according to them and one
>> type is API certified. There is a difference between can not and
>> refusing to provide some proprietary information.
>
> certification on some products. It has nothing to do with proprietary
> information. They used do use the "proprietary" excuse because they
> didn't want to admit the real reason, then one of their employees leaked
> the real reason.
>
I don't think Byron Selbrede "leaked" anything since he is Amsoil's
technical services manager. That would also explain complaints from the
motorcycle crowd about Amsoil lowering the phosphorous content in the
regular oil until the separated and made a motor cycle oil. Which has
happened since that email was sent.
WindsorFox<[SS]>
Oh sorry, cardboard gasket material. Which is still AFAIC very
inferior to a steel cap that is crimped and filled with epoxy.
WindsorFox<[SS]>
You're kidding, right?? How many thousands of after market upgrades
are available for a Tundra and a Titan? Just as they are for Mustangs
and Firebirds....
Ed White
"WindsorFox<[SS]>" <windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ggfptt$1jd$1...@posting2.glorb.com...
> The three that I have cut open certainly were. I may have had some other
> fibers in it to make it a bit tougher, but it tore like cardboard. In fact
> one of the three I opened the cardboard end cap had partially separated
> from the filter media creating a spot where unfiltered oil could easily
> leak through. THAT was the last Fram filter I ever bought,
I've never actually seen a Fram end cap detached when I opened a filter, but
I have easily detached them. Calling the end caps gasket material is really
a stretch. It makes the material sound better than it is, even if it is
exactly the same material as used in some gasket somewhere. Gaskets are
supported on both sides by solid materials that compress the gasket material
to create a seal. The Fram end caps are glued to paper on one side and
unsupported on the other. This is a totally different application and the
requirements are completely different than for paper used for actual
gaskets. Calling the end cap material, "gasket material" says nothing about
it suitability for use as an end cap in an oil filter.
> changed to NAPA Gold which at that time had been rated #1 by someone, I
> think maybe Consumer Reports.
NAPA Gold = Wix. The P/Ns are even obviously related. Wix filters are good
quality filter at a price comparable to Fram's cheapest filters ( the PH
line). The quality of the materials used is far superior and WIX even
provides actual performance information (for an example see
http://www.wixfilters.com/filterlookup/PartDetail.asp?Part=51372 ). Fram
just provides advertising copy for their filters that is virtually content
free. Amsoil also sells Wix Filters (as Wix Filters as an additional choice
to the Amsoil private label EO range that I believe comes from Donaldson).
Ed
SMS
> Mark A wrote:
>> "WindsorFox<[SS]>" <windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:ggemdt$v3c$1...@posting2.glorb.com...
>>> Amsoil meets or surpasses API specs, yes, according to them and one
>>> type is API certified. There is a difference between can not and
>>> refusing to provide some proprietary information.
>>
>> The big lie.
>>
>
> You have proof of Amsoil lying? If you do I am sure that by all means
> a lot of people would be interested in it.
>
During the whole API debate they lied repeatedly. They came up with
amazing fabrications about why they didn't certify their oils, including
lying about the cost of certification, and lying about being worried
about API leaking the formulation of their synthetic. As it turned out,
the real reason was that they knew they couldn't get certified because
of the level of ZDDP.
What's incredible is that they felt they had to resort to that sort of
thing. No one would have thought any worse of them if they had simply
said 'hey, our non-API oil is ideal for motorcycles, snowmobiles, or
anything without a catalytic converter, but if for vehicles with CATs
please use our API certified oil.'
When they started making up stories they lost all credibility.
HiC
> I see opinions of the "I swear by" type all over the map. Anyone know
> of a good site that shows the truth about which brand/type of oil &
> filter performs the best? Thinking in the passenger car realm.
>
I see I'm getting a lot of responses about filters which I appreciate,
to clarify, I was asking about oil & filters
HLS
"HiC" <brass...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:869f3a21-6477-463a...@v38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
I see I'm getting a lot of responses about filters which I appreciate,
to clarify, I was asking about oil & filters
***********
I dont think you will the find really objective data on oil either. It
exists, but for the
most part the marketing arms of the formulators create the product
information for
the adverts.
Some of these tests can be obtained for a price, and IIRC it is a
substantial price.
HLS
"Brent P" <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:zPudnb-
. The manufacturers have too much riding
> through the warranty period to take that kind of risk.
>
I would think that not only the vehicle manufacturer has a lot of exposure,
but also the
filter manufacturer which sells to aftermarket (like Walmart, for instance)
would enter
into a chain of responsibility for damage.
If you want a cheapo filter, they are on the market. You have to pay for
quality, although
not necessarily dealer's prices.
I have used Fram filters in the past, and have never had an incident with
them at all.
I use a NAPA filter on our Avalon, and "whatever" on my old van.
Mark A
news:869f3a21-6477-463a...@v38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>to clarify, I was asking about oil & filters
If you want the best oil, get a full synthetic. I don't think anyone will
argue that, but some people will say you are wasting your money (but I think
you are wasting your money in most cases if you don't use synthetic). Some
of the other companies are trying to compete against Mobil 1 more heavily,
and you may be able to find some good deals in a full synthetic.
Next best would be a synthetic blend (or you could blend your own regular
and synthetic oil). Even quart synthetic mixed with 4 quarts conventional
will make a difference.
If you have a brand new car, I would wait until the first regularly
scheduled oil change before switching to synthetic to give time for your
piston rings to seat properly. If you have an older car that has never run
on synthetic previously, I would use a higher viscosity synthetic (10W-30 or
10W-40), or one especially made for higher mileage cars (Mobil 1 has such a
synthetic, not sure about other synthetics).
If you are trying to find the best conventional oil, the major brand names
are about the same if they have the same API rating on the side of the
bottle.
Mark A
> Let's make that "expert" opinions (with quotes).
>
> Without the results of properly designed empirical testing, everybody's an
> "expert", the way doctors were "experts" at infectious disease before the
> discovery of microbes.
>
> My personal and untested opinion is that most aftermarket oil filters are
> about the same quality as most aftermarket car parts, which is to say of
> poor and/or questionable quality. that's why I only ever buy OEM for our
> (Honda and Toyota) vehicles.
Some after-market parts are worse than OEM, and some are better than OEM.
That includes oil filters.
SMS
> "HiC" <brass...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:869f3a21-6477-463a...@v38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>> I see I'm getting a lot of responses about filters which I appreciate,
>> to clarify, I was asking about oil & filters
>
> If you want the best oil, get a full synthetic. I don't think anyone will
> argue that, but some people will say you are wasting your money (but I think
> you are wasting your money in most cases if you don't use synthetic). Some
> of the other companies are trying to compete against Mobil 1 more heavily,
> and you may be able to find some good deals in a full synthetic.
The Mobil 1 sold in the U.S. is no longer a full synthetic. Redline is
still full synthetic, as is Amsoil. Castrol is not.
> Next best would be a synthetic blend (or you could blend your own regular
> and synthetic oil). Even quart synthetic mixed with 4 quarts conventional
> will make a difference.
Actually the next best is an oil like Mobil 1 or Castrol Synthetic.
These can't be sold as "synthetic" oil except in the U.S., where the
court has ruled that oils with non-synthetic base stocks can legally be
called synthetic.
OTOH, unless you're in extremely cold weather, or have high performance
engine that requires synthetic oil, or are trying to extend the oil
change interval far beyond the manufacturer's requirements, all the
experts agree that there is no benefit in using a full synthetic.
HLS
"Mark A" <som...@someone.com> wrote in message
news:gBTWk.6710$Lv6....@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
> "HiC" <brass...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:869f3a21-6477-463a...@v38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>>I see I'm getting a lot of responses about filters which I appreciate,
>>to clarify, I was asking about oil & filters
>
> If you want the best oil, get a full synthetic. I don't think anyone will
> argue that, but some people will say you are wasting your money (but I
> think you are wasting your money in most cases if you don't use
> synthetic).
I wont argue either way, because I have seen no hard data to compare this
generation's synthetics with this generations dino oils.
I continue to use high quality dino oil, because I change at 3000-3500 mile
intervals
and will continue to do so.
I have heard that the high quality dino oils are "about" the same quality as
the synthetics
at this point. Strictly word of mouth, again no credible data either way.
IMO, if it is to your advantage to run very low viscosity oils, synthetics
may be your
best or only choice.
Scott Dorsey
>
>I wont argue either way, because I have seen no hard data to compare this
>generation's synthetics with this generations dino oils.
>
>I continue to use high quality dino oil, because I change at 3000-3500 mile
>intervals
>and will continue to do so.
>
>I have heard that the high quality dino oils are "about" the same quality as
>the synthetics
>at this point. Strictly word of mouth, again no credible data either way.
Depends on the engine. I had a Chrysler Laser that was famous for baking
out residual oil and coking up the turbocharger if not very carefully treated.
Synthetic oil seemed to prevent that problem; I got 480,000 miles on the
original engine and turbocharger with no special cool-down treatment. The
fact that the synthetic had a much higher breakdown temperature was a big
deal.
>IMO, if it is to your advantage to run very low viscosity oils, synthetics
>may be your
>best or only choice.
Or if you need to operate with the same oil over an extremely wide temperature
range, so you need a very wide viscosity range.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
C. E. White
"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:fSTWk.8287$Ei5....@flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com...
> Mark A wrote:
>> "HiC" <brass...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:869f3a21-6477-463a...@v38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>>> I see I'm getting a lot of responses about filters which I
>>> appreciate,
>>> to clarify, I was asking about oil & filters
>>
>> If you want the best oil, get a full synthetic. I don't think
>> anyone will argue that, but some people will say you are wasting
>> your money (but I think you are wasting your money in most cases if
>> you don't use synthetic). Some of the other companies are trying to
>> compete against Mobil 1 more heavily, and you may be able to find
>> some good deals in a full synthetic.
>
> The Mobil 1 sold in the U.S. is no longer a full synthetic. Redline
> is still full synthetic, as is Amsoil. Castrol is not.
Care to elaborate on the claim that Mobil 1 scold in the US is no
longer a full synthetic. The follow claim comes from the Mobil 1 Web
Site:
"Is Mobil 1 with SuperSyn Technology a fully synthetic motor oil?
"Yes, it is. To meet the demanding requirements of today's
specifications (and our customers' expectations), Mobil 1 with
SuperSyn uses high-performance fluids, including polyalphaolefins
(PAOs), along with a proprietary system of additives. Each Mobil 1
with SuperSyn viscosity grade uses a unique combination of synthetic
fluids and selected additives in order to tailor the viscosity grade
to its specific application."
And be careful when you say "Amsoil" is a full synthetic. Some Amsoil
products are, some are not (the XL oils for instance).
Ed
WindsorFox<[SS]>
> During the whole API debate they lied repeatedly. They came up with
> amazing fabrications about why they didn't certify their oils, including
> lying about the cost of certification, and lying about being worried
> about API leaking the formulation of their synthetic. As it turned out,
> the real reason was that they knew they couldn't get certified because
> of the level of ZDDP.
>
BTW, where did this debate you refer to take place? I'd like to go
back and read the archive of it.
WindsorFox<[SS]>
> Mark A wrote:
>> "HiC" <brass...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:869f3a21-6477-463a...@v38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>>> I see I'm getting a lot of responses about filters which I appreciate,
>>> to clarify, I was asking about oil & filters
>>
>> If you want the best oil, get a full synthetic. I don't think anyone
>> will argue that, but some people will say you are wasting your money
>> (but I think you are wasting your money in most cases if you don't use
>> synthetic). Some of the other companies are trying to compete against
>> Mobil 1 more heavily, and you may be able to find some good deals in a
>> full synthetic.
>
> The Mobil 1 sold in the U.S. is no longer a full synthetic. Redline is
> still full synthetic, as is Amsoil. Castrol is not.
>
Royal Purple is full synthetic, but I've heard/experienced sludge
problems when switching in a car that uses conventional for a long time.
There are a couple of other rather unknowns out there as well and note
that Amsoil XL7500 is a semi-synthetic like Syntec which from my
singular experience is crap. I knew Mobil 1 had been reformulated and
had heard it was not as good as it was, but did not know it was now
semi-synthetic. Got any links on that?
WindsorFox<[SS]>
And AFAIK only the XL7500 is not full synthetic. It used to be
referred to as such until Castrol won their claim from some idiot judge.
IMO hydro-cracked mineral oil is extremely pure, but it is not synthetic.
Steve
Like Fel-Pro having MLS head gaskets available for problematic Honda,
Chrysler, and Toyota engines at least 2 years before any one of them
admitted that there was a need for such a change from the traditional
head gaskets.
Scott Dorsey
>
> Royal Purple is full synthetic, but I've heard/experienced sludge
>problems when switching in a car that uses conventional for a long time.
The Royal Purple motor oil is very effective as a solvent, and it will
indeed remove varnish and crap from your engine that it can't keep in
solution. This is a good thing but you have to watch it, as you note.
Interestingly their gear oil does not seem to be as effective a solvent
for old varnish than the Red Line gear oil.
>There are a couple of other rather unknowns out there as well and note
>that Amsoil XL7500 is a semi-synthetic like Syntec which from my
>singular experience is crap. I knew Mobil 1 had been reformulated and
>had heard it was not as good as it was, but did not know it was now
>semi-synthetic. Got any links on that?
I think the problem is that there are a whole bunch of Mobil 1 products
available under different names and the stuff from the industrial and
automotive distributors are different.
I believe that Castrol does still make one real synthetic for the US market,
and I think it's the one they are marketing as 5W-40, but I am not positive
on that one.
Steve
>
> NAPA Gold = Wix. The P/Ns are even obviously related.
Ditto CarQuest "house brand" filters. Even the same relationship to the
part number (first couple of digits indicates the reseller, the rest of
the P/N is the application).
Note however that NAPA "Silver" filters are NOT made by Wix. I don't
know who makes them.
Wix filters are good
> quality filter at a price comparable to Fram's cheapest filters ( the PH
> line). The quality of the materials used is far superior and WIX even
> provides actual performance information (for an example see
> http://www.wixfilters.com/filterlookup/PartDetail.asp?Part=51372 ). Fram
> just provides advertising copy for their filters that is virtually content
> free.
In fairness to Fram, that's only true of their automotive filters. They
have a line of industrial filters that are well-documented and seem to
come from a different planet (or at least a different manufacturing
plant on the same planet) than their consumer grade products. The thing
I like about Wix is that their product line is more seamless- the
consumer-grade products are documented just like the industrial products.
Of course that could all change next year. Federal-Mogul, for example,
used to be a name you could trust on face value in parts. Now they sell
a whole lot of made-in-China junk. You can't trust entirely in past
performance anymore, unfortunately.
SMS
> And be careful when you say "Amsoil" is a full synthetic. Some Amsoil
> products are, some are not (the XL oils for instance).
Yes, my mistake. Amsoil change the XL-7500 in 2002 to a non-synthetic
base stock, stating that to remain competitive in price with Mobil 1
(which also changed to non-synthetic base stock).
Only in the U.S. can oils with non-synthetic base stocks be legally
called synthetics. This was a result of Mobil suing Castrol for Castrol
claiming that their Syntec oil was a full synthetic even though it
didn't use synthetic base stock. Isn't our legal system wonderful!
Of course Amsoil's group III oils are the best! After all here's what
Amsoil said: "AMSOIL has selected the best quality Group III base oils
and spiked them with oxidation inhibitors and TBN. They have more gusto
than other Group III oils and are fully formulated for 7,500-mile drain
intervals."
Got that? The Amsoil oil has more _gusto_.
Mobil is very hush-hush about their formulation, but the Japanese Mobil
1 web site shows that the 0W30, 5W30 and 10W30 use group III (and group
IV), while the 0W20, 0W30, 0W40, and 15W50 are all group IV.
PAO+Catalytically Processed
---------------------------
http://www.mobil1.jp/products/01_ss_0w30.html
http://www.mobil1.jp/products/01_ss_10w30.html
http://www.mobil1.jp/products/01_ss_5w30.html
Steve
Filters are a very gray area and rife with opinion. Bobistheoilguy.com
does a decent job of tracking oils in a more quantitative way. But you
have to read the forums there and see what people are finding in their
used oil analyses, its not very well summarized.
The other thing that becomes obvious is that some oils that seem to
perform flawlessly in some engines don't do so well in others (ie, show
larger amounts of wear metals in used oil analyses). There was a lot of
speculation that this had to do with low ZDDP oils in flat-tappet
engines, but now that's being somewhat called into question too. Its
just a REALLY complicated task to sort out the "best" oil.
Bottom line- any API-certified oil of the proper grade, changed at
regular intervals, and used with a name-brand filter also changed at
regular intervals will certainly not harm your engine. And since today
more than ever, engines usually outlast the plastic and electronics of
the cars they're inside, it really is something of a moot point.
SMS
> C. E. White wrote:
>
>> And be careful when you say "Amsoil" is a full synthetic. Some Amsoil
>> products are, some are not (the XL oils for instance).
Sorry, I hit the send key too soon.
Actually this is how it breaks down for Mobil 1, based on the web site
"http://www.mobil1.jp/products/index.html"
Group III and Group IV blend
---------
5W50
5W40
15W50
OW30
5W30
10W30
Group IV
--------
OW40
I think that they use the blended base stocks as a marketing tool, so
they can legally write that all their oils contain Group IV base stock.
Once Castrol won that lawsuit, it really put the pressure on Mobil and
Amsoil to switch to the less expensive, hydrocracked base stock.
Bottom line is that really there is no advantage to Group IV base stock
versus Group III base stock, verus dino base stock unless it's a high
performance engine, or the vehicle is operated in extremely cold
climates, or the owner is doing extended change intervals (as is very
common in Europe and Asia). With 5000 mile oil changes, there's no
long-term benefit to using a true synthetic or a Group III synthetic
over an API approved oil with non-synthetic base stock.
Steve
> Mark A wrote:
>> "HiC" <brass...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:869f3a21-6477-463a...@v38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>>> I see I'm getting a lot of responses about filters which I appreciate,
>>> to clarify, I was asking about oil & filters
>>
>> If you want the best oil, get a full synthetic. I don't think anyone
>> will argue that, but some people will say you are wasting your money
>> (but I think you are wasting your money in most cases if you don't use
>> synthetic). Some of the other companies are trying to compete against
>> Mobil 1 more heavily, and you may be able to find some good deals in a
>> full synthetic.
>
> The Mobil 1 sold in the U.S. is no longer a full synthetic.
Got a citation for that? AFAIK, Mobil 1 and Mobil 1 Extended Performance
are still full synthetic. The confusion is that the Mobil-1 name is now
also applied to semi-synthetics like "Drive Clean 5000" or whatever they
call it.
HLS
"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message news:vzVWk.8007
> Only in the U.S. can oils with non-synthetic base stocks be legally called
> synthetics. This was a result of Mobil suing Castrol for Castrol claiming
> that their Syntec oil was a full synthetic even though it didn't use
> synthetic base stock. Isn't our legal system wonderful!
The problem is the definition of synthetic.. It can be as vague as the
definition
of pornography.
By any stretch of the imagination PAO's would qualify as synthetics.
Highly modified cracked and purified feedstock could also fall into the
technical grey area as being a synthesized raw material, not just an oil
distillate.
SMS
>
> "SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message news:vzVWk.8007
>> Only in the U.S. can oils with non-synthetic base stocks be legally
>> called synthetics. This was a result of Mobil suing Castrol for
>> Castrol claiming that their Syntec oil was a full synthetic even
>> though it didn't use synthetic base stock. Isn't our legal system
>> wonderful!
>
> The problem is the definition of synthetic.. It can be as vague as the
> definition
> of pornography.
> By any stretch of the imagination PAO's would qualify as synthetics.
Not in Europe.
By the same token, conventional motor oils aren't dino oil poured into 1
quart bottles, it's highly manufactured with viscosity modifiers,
detergents, friction modifiers, anti-oxidants, etc..
Remember, there has never been any study that has shown an increase in
fuel economy based on the use of synthetic oil, whether it's pure
synthetic or hydro cracked synthetic, or a synthetic blend. The sole
benefits are better flow at extremely cold temperatures, and the ability
to withstand higher engine temperatures without breaking down.
Mark A
> The Mobil 1 sold in the U.S. is no longer a full synthetic. Redline is
> still full synthetic, as is Amsoil. Castrol is not.
How about Mobil 1 Extended Performance oil? Does that meet your approval as
a full synthetic?
I would not take any advice from someone about synthetic oil who thinks it
is a waste of money for most people.
SMS
> "SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:fSTWk.8287$Ei5....@flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com...
>> The Mobil 1 sold in the U.S. is no longer a full synthetic. Redline is
>> still full synthetic, as is Amsoil. Castrol is not.
>
> How about Mobil 1 Extended Performance oil? Does that meet your approval as
> a full synthetic?
It's not my approval that matters.
> I would not take any advice from someone about synthetic oil who thinks it
> is a waste of money for most people.
Whatever. Don't let the facts get in your way. You certainly haven't
ever let them affect your beliefs in the past.
Wait, why don't you show a _single_ independent study that shows a
benefit to most people. Oh, wait, they're aren't any!
After all these years you'd think that there would be at least one
published study that showed a provable benefit in terms of wear, MPG, or
extended change intervals for synthetics uses in non-high performance
engines, operated in moderate climates. But there aren't _any_. There's
anecdotes by users of synthetics, there's claims by companies like
Amsoil which have never been validated, and of course various claims by
MLM people selling Amsoil. Just choose your benefit from one of the
hundreds of MLM web sites!
Of course there probably have been plenty of studies that were done but
not published because they didn't have the results that the company
paying for the study wanted.
It's amusing that not even Mobil, who would have the most to gain by
some evidence of increased fuel economy for synthetics, can make that
claim. All we see is a heavily qualified statement that logically makes
no sense:
"Actual savings are dependent upon vehicle/engine type, outside
temperature, driving conditions, adjusting tire pressure, and your
current engine oil viscosity."
Huh? So adjusting tire pressure affects how well synthetic oil works (as
opposed to how well dino oil performs, LOL).
Brent
> Wait, why don't you show a _single_ independent study that shows a
> benefit to most people. Oh, wait, they're aren't any!
Most people treat their vehicles like everything else, something to be
consumed and used up and thrown away, so why would syn. oil have any
benefit to them? Trade in value doesn't change based on the oil they
used so long as the engine isn't obviously broken.
The benefits are for those vehicle owners with special applications or
don't want to wait for turbos to cool down or care about
deposits/sludge or don't want to change oil every 3000 miles
or a number of other reasons that someone else might laugh at.
SMS
That's true, at least the part about turbos and 3000 miles (though no
one is foolish enough to do 3000 mile changes anymore, even with
petroleum base stock).
No difference in engine longevity or carbon deposits, or sludge, have
ever been shown on non-high performance engines operated in moderate
climates. Certainly that's been my experience as well, and I keep my
vehicles for a very long time. Alas, I can't prove there was no sludge
on my engines with 200K+ miles because I never had to open them up to
make any repairs. Nor did they ever have a Bilstein wallet flush
performed on them.
Synthetic oil was originally developed for high performance racing
engines. Mobil tried to popularize synthetic oil for passenger vehicles
back in the early 1970's. At the time, Mobil was promoting 20K or 25K
oil changes with synthetic, but they soon backed down from this.
Synthetic oil is a good choice if you have a vehicle with a high
performance engine (in fact synthetic is required for many of these
engines). It is also a good choice if your vehicle is operated in
extremely cold climates. It has higher resistance to breakdown caused by
heat and it flows better in extreme cold.
Unfortunately for the synthetic oil industry there is virtually no
advantage to using synthetic oil in a non-high performance engine that
is operated in moderate climates. You probably could go a bit longer
between oil changes with a synthetic, i.e. following the normal service
schedule even if you fall into the severe service category, but I
wouldn't advise this.
In short, synthetic may give you the peace of mind of knowing that you
are using an oil that is far better than necessary for your vehicle, but
it won't reduce wear or extend the life of the engine. The mistake some
people make it to wrongly extrapolate these benefits onto normal engines
operated in mild climates, with the ultimate lack of any knowledge being
manifested with statements such as "synthetics provide 'Peace of Mind,'
or 'Cheap Insurance,'" or other such nonsense.
Vic Smith
wrote:
>
>It's amusing that not even Mobil, who would have the most to gain by
>some evidence of increased fuel economy for synthetics, can make that
>claim. All we see is a heavily qualified statement that logically makes
>no sense:
>
>"Actual savings are dependent upon vehicle/engine type, outside
>temperature, driving conditions, adjusting tire pressure, and your
>current engine oil viscosity."
>
>Huh? So adjusting tire pressure affects how well synthetic oil works (as
>opposed to how well dino oil performs, LOL).
I'm not sure using Mobil 1 is worth the price premium.
Don't use it myself. One son does though.
If I lived in a colder place than Chicago, I might consider it.
Could be worth it just for those sub-zero starts.
But I'm speculating.
--Vic
Mark A
> It's not my approval that matters.
If you look closely at Mobil 1 Extended Performance synthetic oil, it is
different than normal Mobil 1, and my understanding is that is more like old
Mobil 1 and is fully synthetic according to your definition. So before you
contineue to say that Mobil 1 is not a full synthetic, you should
investigate this.
Vic Smith
wrote:
>Brent wrote:
>> On 2008-11-25, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Wait, why don't you show a _single_ independent study that shows a
>>> benefit to most people. Oh, wait, they're aren't any!
>>
>> Most people treat their vehicles like everything else, something to be
>> consumed and used up and thrown away, so why would syn. oil have any
>> benefit to them? Trade in value doesn't change based on the oil they
>> used so long as the engine isn't obviously broken.
>>
>> The benefits are for those vehicle owners with special applications or
>> don't want to wait for turbos to cool down or care about
>> deposits/sludge or don't want to change oil every 3000 miles
>> or a number of other reasons that someone else might laugh at.
>
>That's true, at least the part about turbos and 3000 miles (though no
>one is foolish enough to do 3000 mile changes anymore, even with
>petroleum base stock).
>
I sure do. Or close to it. I enjoy a beer while doing it.
But the cost is nothing for me since I don't waste thousands of
dollars buying new Toyotas.
--Vic
Mark A
news:gghmpg$86n$1...@news.motzarella.org...
The condition of the drive train on my 1998 Camry V6, that has used
synthetic oil since the first oil change, tells me otherwise. I never
dreamed of keeping a car this long, and never did before (even other Camrys
and Accords).
If I were to sell the car myself, I bet my oil change receipts (all Mobil 1)
would fetch me more than the extra amount I spent to use Mobil 1. If I
traded it in (not sure any dealer would even take a car that old) I would
get more money because the engine is in perfect condition, and would be
noted as so in a test drive, which is worth some amount of money.
I will agree, that if you are going trade a car in every 3 years, then
synthetic oil may not pay off financially.
Brent
> No difference in engine longevity or carbon deposits, or sludge, have
> ever been shown on non-high performance engines operated in moderate
> climates. Certainly that's been my experience as well, and I keep my
> vehicles for a very long time. Alas, I can't prove there was no sludge
> on my engines with 200K+ miles because I never had to open them up to
> make any repairs.
I've seen the difference just in replacing valve cover gaskets.
> The mistake some
> people make it to wrongly extrapolate these benefits onto normal engines
> operated in mild climates, with the ultimate lack of any knowledge being
> manifested with statements such as "synthetics provide 'Peace of Mind,'
> or 'Cheap Insurance,'" or other such nonsense.
Sometimes I wish I lived in a mild climate instead of being stuck in
bumper to bumper traffic on 90-100deg F days or starting the car in the
sub zero cold. I remember some of the sounds until the dino oil started
flowing and I remember using a paint stripper heat gun to blow hot air
into an engine through the oil filler and dipstick tube to get the oil
warmed enough so the car would start. I'll it's worth the few extra
bucks not to have to deal with those things anymore even if the engine
doesn't last a revolution longer than it would have otherwise.
Brent
>
> I'm not sure using Mobil 1 is worth the price premium.
> Don't use it myself. One son does though.
> If I lived in a colder place than Chicago, I might consider it.
> Could be worth it just for those sub-zero starts.
> But I'm speculating.
I'm in chicago and the start up difference was quite remarkable when I
last switched a car from dino to syn. It's back on dino since for some
reason it consumed the mobil one at a rate I don't start it in sub zero
cold any more. The car I do have to start in sub-zero cold has been on
mobil 1 since it's first oil change.
Brent
> "Brent" <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:gghmpg$86n$1...@news.motzarella.org...
>> On 2008-11-25, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Wait, why don't you show a _single_ independent study that shows a
>>> benefit to most people. Oh, wait, they're aren't any!
>>
>> Most people treat their vehicles like everything else, something to be
>> consumed and used up and thrown away, so why would syn. oil have any
>> benefit to them? Trade in value doesn't change based on the oil they
>> used so long as the engine isn't obviously broken.
>>
>> The benefits are for those vehicle owners with special applications or
>> don't want to wait for turbos to cool down or care about
>> deposits/sludge or don't want to change oil every 3000 miles
>> or a number of other reasons that someone else might laugh at.
>
> The condition of the drive train on my 1998 Camry V6, that has used
> synthetic oil since the first oil change, tells me otherwise. I never
> dreamed of keeping a car this long, and never did before (even other Camrys
> and Accords).
Keeping a car that long falls under 'other reasons that someone else
might laugh at' ( I drive a '97 BTW)
SMS
I'm sure it's a better choice for sub-zero starts. It's just so telling
that there's no there there, when Mobil comes up with gems like the one
I quoted above about the actual savings from synthetic depending on
things like tire pressure. Clearly they have no data at all that
supports the actual oil being responsible for any increase in MPG, but
you can't blame them since every independent study has reached the same
conclusion.
The problem these companies have is that they desperately want to expand
the market for synthetic oil beyond cold climates and high-performance
engines, but to do so they have to invent marketing bull like this.
SMS
> I sure do. Or close to it. I enjoy a beer while doing it.
> But the cost is nothing for me since I don't waste thousands of
> dollars buying new Toyotas.
It's got nothing to do with the cost, it's that there's no advantage to
it. Why not change the oil at 2000 miles or 1000 miles. You'll get the
same engine longevity as 3000 or 5000 miles, plus you'll get to waste
more money and drink more beer.
SMS
> The condition of the drive train on my 1998 Camry V6, that has used
> synthetic oil since the first oil change, tells me otherwise. I never
> dreamed of keeping a car this long, and never did before (even other Camrys
> and Accords).
LOL, and our 12 year old Camry, which has had 5K dino oil changes since
new, also has a drive train (well the engine part of the drive train)
that is in perfect condition.
What you have to understand is that for a Toyota, going 10-20 years
without engine problems, either on dino oil or synthetic oil, is nothing
out of the ordinary. Similarly, synthetic oil wouldn't help many GM or
Ford engines go that long.
It may give you peace of mind to use synthetic oil, but there's no
difference in engine longevity from it.
HLS
"Brent" <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:gghsd0
> Sometimes I wish I lived in a mild climate instead of being stuck in
> bumper to bumper traffic on 90-100deg F days or starting the car in the
> sub zero cold. I remember some of the sounds until the dino oil started
> flowing and I remember using a paint stripper heat gun to blow hot air
> into an engine through the oil filler and dipstick tube to get the oil
> warmed enough so the car would start. I'll it's worth the few extra
> bucks not to have to deal with those things anymore even if the engine
> doesn't last a revolution longer than it would have otherwise.
I used dino oil in my Buick when I lived in Norway. There was never any
sort of problem with the oil, and we certainly had sub zero temperatures.
My Passat, same venue, used whatever VW recommended since it was a company
car and was always dealership serviced. It had a small oil "seep" from day
one,
and I am certain that it was synthetic or partial synthetic.
Basically, with oil and filters, you buy what you believe in, and you
service your
car the way you want. As long as you get away with what you do, you havent
done
anything wrong, IMO
Vic Smith
wrote:
You might be onto something with the beer part.
Otherwise, no sense.
Of course it's an arbitrary number.
But you have to pick one so the job gets done.
3000 or 5000 or 10000.
Take your pick.
--Vic
Frank ess
I don't like miles numbers. I don't use that many miles. I do use
time. I choose three or six or nine months as oil-change intervals. I
forget which. Whatever it is, it works out a lot less than every 3000
or 5000 or 10000.
One time when I went to get my '06 V6 oil change, the dealer put in
the GT-specified 5-20. I objected. The service dude said they use bulk
5-20 on /all/ their oil changes, even "full synthetic". I went back
the next day and asked them to put in the V6-specified 5-30. They
convened a committee including some guys wearing ties, and were on the
phone to Dee Troit before they read the owner's manual and made the
change (or so they said)free gratis.
A few months later I went in for my '09 V8 "free first oil change" at
another dealer, asked for full-synthetic, and when I got it back it
purportedly had that and a dose of some kind of X-men Graphite
warranty-extending additive in it. The owner's guide says in no
uncertain terms,~"Don't put additives in our engines!"
Sometimes I wonder how people get into positions of trust without
basic reading skills.
--
Frank ess
Frank ess
HLS wrote:
> "Brent" <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:gghsd0
>> Sometimes I wish I lived in a mild climate instead of being stuck
>> in bumper to bumper traffic on 90-100deg F days or starting the
>> car in the sub zero cold. I remember some of the sounds until the
>> dino oil started flowing and I remember using a paint stripper
>> heat gun to blow hot air into an engine through the oil filler and
>> dipstick tube to get the oil warmed enough so the car would start.
>> I'll it's worth the few extra bucks not to have to deal with those
>> things anymore even if the engine doesn't last a revolution longer
>> than it would have otherwise.
>
> I used dino oil in my Buick when I lived in Norway. There was
> never any sort of problem with the oil, and we certainly had sub
> zero temperatures.
[ ... ]
I spent an atypical winter in Little Rock AR, 1957-58, when there was
a string of days above zero but below freezing by a dozen or two
degrees. I had to get out the hand crank and turn over the engine in
my MG TD a few times before the starter would budge it. Not certain
that was a function of the oil or the Lucas electrics. We, MG and me,
we did not like the cold.
--
Frank ess