Honda Car Forum

On 5 May 2005 17:15:15 -0700, "y_p_w" <y_p_w@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Gordon McGrew wrote:
>> On Tue, 03 May 2005 19:12:10 -0700, SoCalMike
>> <mikein562athotmail@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >George Macdonald wrote:
>> >>
>> >> It's no big deal - all politics and marketing IMO. If you bought
>> >> one of those long interval cars, would you follow the umm,
>> >>"directions"?:-)
>> >
>> >yeesh. mobil1 now has a 15(?)k mile oil i saw at wallyworld. now
>> >whats so different/better/special that they can say itll last 15k
>> >miles?
>>
>> When the first introduced Mobil 1 in ~1975, they claimed it was good
>> for 25,000 miles.
>
>I was lusting after a Big Wheel then, but wasn't it:
>
>A) A 5W-20 weight oil. Mobil claimed it was acceptable in place
>of typical motor oil weights of the time.
>
>B) Primarily PAO with no esters. The reports I've heard about that
>initial Mobil 1 was that it would leak out of seals at an alarming
>rate.

A) Yes. It was shockingly low at the time.

B) I haven't a clue. There was some rumor that it leaked but I don't
know anyone who used it then. (All my friends were poor college
students at the time.)

I do use it now. But I only change oil twice a year, 6-8K.

John Horner wrote:
> Having looked at a lot of the used oil analysis results on
> www.bobistheoilguy.com, I have personally come to the view that
Mobil-1 is a
> greatly overrated oil. At "normal" oil change intervals it does not
seem
> to showed lower wear metals than do any of the good conventional oils
or any
> of the much-maligned Group III synthetics. In fact, in many cases
Mobil-1
> seems to show high iron numbers in used oil analysis than do other
oils.
>
> Those of you who think you are doing your car some big favor by
changing the
> oil every 3mo/3,000 miles and using Mobil-1 are in most cases just
pouring
> money down the drain. Turbos, sub-artic dwellers, etc. being some
> exceptions.
>
> Just my well studied personal opinion, do with it as you like .
>
> John

That's Consumer Reports' finding as well as I recall. Other than
extreme heat or cold (they weren't dealing with turbo cars) synthetic
makes no sense with short change intervals. If you're hell bent on
using 5W20 with a 7,500 mile interval, I would use synthetic though,
'cause dino test numbers are poor after 3 or 4,000 miles on 0W20.

But you get good results with 10W30 up to 6,000 miles or so, and it is
much cheaper.

Dino is basically a great lube and is made better by simple tinkering.
Synthetics formulations are organic chemistry experiments all the way.
"You, our consumer, are our final quality control expert."

How many times has Mobil messed with their synthetics to fix them? And
now they have so many varieties on the market that I predict their
sales will actually go down. Consumers don't like that many choices.
If you figure out which one you want, don't rely on it being on the
market next year.

jmat...@attglobal.net wrote:

> That's Consumer Reports' finding as well as I recall. Other than
> extreme heat or cold (they weren't dealing with turbo cars) synthetic
> makes no sense with short change intervals. If you're hell bent on
> using 5W20 with a 7,500 mile interval, I would use synthetic though,
> 'cause dino test numbers are poor after 3 or 4,000 miles on 0W20.

I don't trust CR's ratings for anything now. I recall their test
procedures for bicycle ratings were a joke. One thing they
evaluated was a "coast" rating which anyone knowledgeable about
the subject would have laughed off and where the description
of the test indicated that there was way too much human variability
to make the test consistent.

Their taxicab tests were horrible. They intentionally removed
certain engine components in an attempt to increase wear.

> But you get good results with 10W30 up to 6,000 miles or so, and
> it is much cheaper.

I'm not convinced that synthetic oils are that much better than
"conventional" in most applications. However - it's been well
established that a proper PAO or group III oil will resist
oxidation at oil temps of 300 °F.

> Dino is basically a great lube and is made better by simple
> tinkering. Synthetics formulations are organic chemistry
> experiments all the way. "You, our consumer, are our final
> quality control expert."

Additives are what make any oil good enough to protect a modern
engine. I've also noticed the increase in the price of conventional
oils while the price of "synthetics" hasn't increased at the same
rate.

> How many times has Mobil messed with their synthetics to fix them?
> And now they have so many varieties on the market that I predict
their
> sales will actually go down. Consumers don't like that many choices.
> If you figure out which one you want, don't rely on it being on the
> market next year.

They haven't messed with them simply to fix them because they were
broken. Mobil has probably makes fewer changes to Mobil 1 over the
years compared to a similar conventional oils. I think the original
PAO-only formula had problems with leaks.

The tinkering they've done recently to regular 'ol Mobil 1 likely has
to do with meeting newer API requirements and materials costs. Mobil
claims the AN component is cheaper and provides higher performance
than the previous esters used.

What they have now seems to mostly a marketing exercise, which every
manufacturer is doing in a mad dash for shelf space. I count four
basic gasoline engine motor oil varieties from Mobil (5000, 7500,
Mobil 1, Mobil 1 EP). Compare that to Castrol NA (GTX, Start Up, High
Mileage, Syntec, Syntec Blend) or Valvoline (Conventional, DuraBlend,
MaxLife, MaxLife Synthetic, and SynPower).

"y_p_w" <y_p_w@hotmail.com> wrote
jmat...@attglobal.net wrote:

>> That's Consumer Reports' finding as well as I recall. Other than
>> extreme heat or cold (they weren't dealing with turbo cars) synthetic
>> makes no sense with short change intervals. If you're hell bent on
>> using 5W20 with a 7,500 mile interval, I would use synthetic though,
>> 'cause dino test numbers are poor after 3 or 4,000 miles on 0W20.


>Their taxicab tests were horrible.
>They intentionally removed certain engine
> components in an attempt to increase wear.

I have read their report on this a few times. I don't remember their saying
anything about removing engine components. Where'd you hear this?

Elle wrote:

> "y_p_w" <y_p_w@hotmail.com> wrote
> jmat...@attglobal.net wrote:
>
>
>>>That's Consumer Reports' finding as well as I recall. Other than
>>>extreme heat or cold (they weren't dealing with turbo cars) synthetic
>>>makes no sense with short change intervals. If you're hell bent on
>>>using 5W20 with a 7,500 mile interval, I would use synthetic though,
>>>'cause dino test numbers are poor after 3 or 4,000 miles on 0W20.
>
>
>
>>Their taxicab tests were horrible.
>>They intentionally removed certain engine
>>components in an attempt to increase wear.
>
>
> I have read their report on this a few times. I don't remember
> their saying anything about removing engine components. Where'd
> you hear this?

I picked up that issue and took a look at it. On second thought,
it was that they had modified the compenents in the engine in an
attempt to increase wear and stress on the oil.

<http://www.xs11.com/stories/croil96.htm>

"A local shop completely machined each engine block and crankshaft,
rebuilt the cylinder heads, and installed new bearings, pistons,
rings, seals, gaskets, and oil pump. Though the engines originally
had roller lifters and camshafts, a design that reduces friction,
we installed conventional sliding lifters and camshafts to
accelerate wear."

George Macdonald wrote:
> On Tue, 03 May 2005 19:12:10 -0700, SoCalMike
> <mikein562athotmail@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>George Macdonald wrote:
>>
>>>It's no big deal - all politics and marketing IMO. If you bought one of
>>>those long interval cars, would you follow the umm, "directions"?:-)
>>
>>yeesh. mobil1 now has a 15(?)k mile oil i saw at wallyworld. now whats
>>so different/better/special that they can say itll last 15k miles?
>
>
> I believe the German mfrs are copying Porsche with their in-engine "oil
> analyzer" which advises if the oil should be changed before the 15K is
> up... depending, of course, on driving profile. When your oil sump
> capacity is measured in gallons, it makes more sense.:-)

Just as a point of reference, a Porsche Boxster has a sump capacity
of around 12 quarts and change amount of around 8 quarts. An oil
change is supposed to be extremely involved, and I've heard can
cost as much as $150. There are special tools needed. Even if
you do it yourself, the 8 quarts of a Porsche-approved synthetic
oil is going to be at least $40.

"y_p_w" <y_p_w@hotmail.com> wrote
> Elle wrote:
>
> > "y_p_w" <y_p_w@hotmail.com> wrote
> > jmat...@attglobal.net wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>That's Consumer Reports' finding as well as I recall. Other than
> >>>extreme heat or cold (they weren't dealing with turbo cars) synthetic
> >>>makes no sense with short change intervals. If you're hell bent on
> >>>using 5W20 with a 7,500 mile interval, I would use synthetic though,
> >>>'cause dino test numbers are poor after 3 or 4,000 miles on 0W20.
> >
> >
> >
> >>Their taxicab tests were horrible.
> >>They intentionally removed certain engine
> >>components in an attempt to increase wear.
> >
> >
> > I have read their report on this a few times. I don't remember
> > their saying anything about removing engine components. Where'd
> > you hear this?
>
> I picked up that issue and took a look at it. On second thought,
> it was that they had modified the compenents in the engine in an
> attempt to increase wear and stress on the oil.
>
> <http://www.xs11.com/stories/croil96.htm>
>
> "A local shop completely machined each engine block and crankshaft,
> rebuilt the cylinder heads, and installed new bearings, pistons,
> rings, seals, gaskets, and oil pump. Though the engines originally
> had roller lifters and camshafts, a design that reduces friction,
> we installed conventional sliding lifters and camshafts to
> accelerate wear."

All right, but then I don't see why this makes their tests horrible. Can you
explain why you object to this? Or is their something else to which you
object in this test they did?

CR is not infallible, but I happen to think this particular study it did is
worth everyone's reading time. That is, I have yet to see anything better.
There is one study I think George cites from time to time here on oil
filters, but IIRC it was by a pretty thorough and honest DIY-er. It seemed
as good as CR's study.

Elle wrote:

> "y_p_w" <y_p_w@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>>Elle wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"y_p_w" <y_p_w@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>jmat...@attglobal.net wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>That's Consumer Reports' finding as well as I recall. Other than
>>>>>extreme heat or cold (they weren't dealing with turbo cars) synthetic
>>>>>makes no sense with short change intervals. If you're hell bent on
>>>>>using 5W20 with a 7,500 mile interval, I would use synthetic though,
>>>>>'cause dino test numbers are poor after 3 or 4,000 miles on 0W20.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Their taxicab tests were horrible.
>>>>They intentionally removed certain engine
>>>>components in an attempt to increase wear.
>>>
>>>
>>>I have read their report on this a few times. I don't remember
>>>their saying anything about removing engine components. Where'd
>>>you hear this?
>>
>>I picked up that issue and took a look at it. On second thought,
>>it was that they had modified the compenents in the engine in an
>>attempt to increase wear and stress on the oil.
>>
>><http://www.xs11.com/stories/croil96.htm>
>>
>>"A local shop completely machined each engine block and crankshaft,
>>rebuilt the cylinder heads, and installed new bearings, pistons,
>>rings, seals, gaskets, and oil pump. Though the engines originally
>>had roller lifters and camshafts, a design that reduces friction,
>>we installed conventional sliding lifters and camshafts to
>>accelerate wear."
>
>
> All right, but then I don't see why this makes their tests horrible. Can you
> explain why you object to this? Or is their something else to which you
> object in this test they did?

These were not tests that . There are excellent industry standard
tests, but CR always seems to want to throw in their own little
wrinkles.

> CR is not infallible, but I happen to think this particular study it did is
> worth everyone's reading time. That is, I have yet to see anything better.
> There is one study I think George cites from time to time here on oil
> filters, but IIRC it was by a pretty thorough and honest DIY-er. It seemed
> as good as CR's study.

These were taxicabs. While there's the opinion that "stop and go"
driving is tough on an engine, it's probably not quite the same
as typical cold start performance.

Certainly most modern oils are good enough to do a job right. I
have no problem with that assessment. But CR's test procedures
have never impressed me.

"y_p_w" <y_p_w@hotmail.com> wrote
> Elle wrote:
>
> > "y_p_w" <y_p_w@hotmail.com> wrote
> >
> >>Elle wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"y_p_w" <y_p_w@hotmail.com> wrote
> >>>jmat...@attglobal.net wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>That's Consumer Reports' finding as well as I recall. Other than
> >>>>>extreme heat or cold (they weren't dealing with turbo cars) synthetic
> >>>>>makes no sense with short change intervals. If you're hell bent on
> >>>>>using 5W20 with a 7,500 mile interval, I would use synthetic though,
> >>>>>'cause dino test numbers are poor after 3 or 4,000 miles on 0W20.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Their taxicab tests were horrible.
> >>>>They intentionally removed certain engine
> >>>>components in an attempt to increase wear.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I have read their report on this a few times. I don't remember
> >>>their saying anything about removing engine components. Where'd
> >>>you hear this?
> >>
> >>I picked up that issue and took a look at it. On second thought,
> >>it was that they had modified the compenents in the engine in an
> >>attempt to increase wear and stress on the oil.
> >>
> >><http://www.xs11.com/stories/croil96.htm>
> >>
> >>"A local shop completely machined each engine block and crankshaft,
> >>rebuilt the cylinder heads, and installed new bearings, pistons,
> >>rings, seals, gaskets, and oil pump. Though the engines originally
> >>had roller lifters and camshafts, a design that reduces friction,
> >>we installed conventional sliding lifters and camshafts to
> >>accelerate wear."
> >
> >
> > All right, but then I don't see why this makes their tests horrible. Can
you
> > explain why you object to this? Or is their something else to which you
> > object in this test they did?
>
> These were not tests that . There are excellent industry standard
> tests, but CR always seems to want to throw in their own little
> wrinkles.

Well, I have yet to see anything truly authoritative on the subject of how
often to change one's oil, other than a lot of anecdotes about people
changing at much higher intervals, and having no problems, than the typical
dealer-recommended 3k miles etc.

Those anecdotes jive with what CR said: Changing every 3k miles is bunk.

> > CR is not infallible, but I happen to think this particular study it did
is
> > worth everyone's reading time. That is, I have yet to see anything
better.
> > There is one study I think George cites from time to time here on oil
> > filters, but IIRC it was by a pretty thorough and honest DIY-er. It
seemed
> > as good as CR's study.
>
> These were taxicabs. While there's the opinion that "stop and go"
> driving is tough on an engine, it's probably not quite the same
> as typical cold start performance.

I don't think that's a reasonable criticism at all. The typical driver has
maybe two cold starts a day but a lot less stop-and-go driving.

It's hard to collect meaningful data for something like this. Costs a
heckuva lot of money. I think using the taxicabs and measuring wear etc. was
a pretty good start on the problem. As good as any other I've seen. Factor
in that there are a lot of different ways to drive a car--in extreme cold
like North Dakota, in extreme heat, on the highway, suburban, on dusty rural
mountain roads, quick 19-year-old stud starts, little old lady starts,
etc.--and coming up with a study that is meaningful to every type of driver
is one huge task to ask of a laboratory.

> Certainly most modern oils are good enough to do a job right.

Shucks yes that's what the July 1996 CR article said!

> I
> have no problem with that assessment. But CR's test procedures
> have never impressed me.

Some are impressive. Some are not. They said something totally stupid about
radioactivity several years ago that really set me off, so I have some idea
from where you are coming.

OTOH, that database of theirs containing owners' data on over 200,000 cars
(over 2000 samples of each year's model, IIRC) is valuable info, AFAIC.

I didn't mean to quote CR as gospel, only that it was consistent with
other findings. They have shown abysmal testing ideas on occasion, I
agree. The "jerk the wheel, slam on the brakes, and let everything go"
testing procedure on a '78 Horizon/Omni sent the car careening down the
test track with the wheels bouncing from lock to lock by themselves.
They downgraded the car as "too sensitive" for our roads. Funny thing
is, it was later found that most cars have this reaction to such
bizarre treatment which they concocted for this test. I had one of
these for several years, and the handling was the only thing Chrysler
DIDN'T fail on!

The lack of start-ups is the the weakest part of CR's test in '96.
Never the less, they did help show that for stop 'n go driving in
average temperatures, synthetic didn't bring much to the table despite
the added costs. If synthetic brought any dramatic improvement, the
oil manufacturers would stop selling synthetic like snake oil, and
would show us meaningful quantitative data and photos.