Well Oil Be Blowed!!

[spacemonkey]

Just some advice posted on a car forum by a oil chap. Might be of interest to some or a good cure for insomnia to others..


"A WORD OF CAUTION ON ADDITIVES!

This is the transcript of an AA article published in Motor May 10th 1986.

The widely-advertised oil additive Slick 50 has been soundly slammed by the AA’s Technical Services.
The AA claim that their tests show Slick 50 provides no fuel savings when it is added to a cars engine oil – and there is no evidence of any other benefits under normal operating conditions.
The AA have made no press or public announcement of their report, but have produced a leaflet for the benefit of any paid-up members who apply for one. An AA member on Motor’s staff applied for a report in the normal way.
The report states that whilst there is no evidence the product will do harm to the engine, one good point is that most of it will be very rapidly removed by the oil filter. “At about £12 per treatment”, say the AA, “it is a very expensive way of coating your oil filter element”.
The AA performed tests by taking three identical cars and carefully running them in, splitting the driving equally among their test drivers. Oils were changed at 1500 miles, the cars were run a further 500 miles to stabilise the oils’ viscosity, the cars’ tuning was carefully checked and steady speed fuel consumptions and power outputs were measured.
The report says: “The procedure is so sensitive that, for instance, leaving the headlamps of the car switched on will make a nonsense of the results due to the extra drag of the charging system”.
Engineers added Slick 50 to two of the cars in the recommended way at 3000 miles.
After a further 2000 miles, further dynamometer tests were carried out. “One car should show the sort of gradual change expected of a car in good condition” says the report, “whereas two should show a noticeable improvement . Here came the big disappointment. After our several months of careful testwork, we could not distinguish any difference between the three cars.”
The AA claimed that all cars were performing well, but performance was remarkably consistent , within a few percent.
The AA say that a detailed examination of the claims made for the product will explain what happens when Slick 50 is added to an engine. Of one gallon of petrol burnt in an engine, says the report, some 60 percent of the energy will be lost as heat from the exhaust and cooling system. That leaves 40 percent and some 25 percent is used to drive the car and its accessories. The remaining 15 percent goes to losses such as pumping air into the engine (6 percent) and some 9 percent is lost as engine friction. Of that 9 percent, 6 percent is lost in churning the oil and only 3 percent of the total input goes into the sort of “boundary” friction that a solid lubricant could affect. “If tests of Slick 50 did show a 16 percent decrease in this friction, as claimed in current advertisements”, says the report, “it would only affect the car’s overall consumption by a half of one percent”.
The AA also claim that their tests show there is no evidence that Slick 50 produces a surface layer on the engine wearing surfaces, let alone one that could last for 100,000 miles.

[spacemonkey]

continued....

On questioning John Rowland, Silkolene/Fuchs Chief R&D Chemist for 40 years about additives, I received the following reply.

Quote:

The AA report encapsulates my opinion of Slick 50, it is an expensive way of blocking your oil filter, Believe me, it does precisely nothing beneficial. It has been proven time and time again that it just blocks oil filters and oilways.

For all other “magic” additives, most are based on 1930’s technology corrosive chlorinated paraffins. (synthetic anti-seize compounds originally made 70 years ago. They are cheap, toxic and corrosive. We use them in certain types of cutting oil!) Do not touch them with somebody else’s bargepole!

UCL’s on the other hand can be useful. After all, 2-strokes in effect run entirely on UCL. So……the best UCL’s are 2-stroke oils! I always tell people to use a decent 2-stroke at 0.5% or 1%, because they are superior to the UCL’s sold as UCL’s if you get my drift. A litre of Super 2 Injector or Comp-2 will be better than a cupful of cheap mineral oil dyed red (no prizes for guessing the name) any day.

Vee engines (twins, to V8’s) benefit from UCL’s because the upper walls of the RH cylinder bank, looking from the front, always run dry. Think about it!

Unquote:

So, there you have it.

Cheers,
Simon Barnard"

[spacemonkey]

And more...

"A word of caution – You get what you pay for!

Below is an article written by John Rowland, Silkolene/Fuchs Chief R & D Chemist for 40 years.

Quote:

Costs of synthetics vary considerably. The most expensive are the “Ester” types originally only used in jet engines. These cost 6 to 10 times more than high quality mineral oils. The cheapest synthetics are not really synthetic at all, from a chemists point of view. These are in fact specially refined light viscosity mineral oils known as “hydrocracked”. These have some advantages over equivalent mineral oils, particularly in lower viscosity motor oils such as 5w-30 or other oils with a low “W” rating such as 5w-50 etc and they cost about 1.5 times more than good quality mineral fractions. We use several different grades of this base oil, where appropriate. This is the “synthetic” which is always used in cheap oils that are labelled “synthetic”. Yes it’s a cruel world, you get what you pay for!

Now, you may ask, why are these special mineral oils called “synthetic”? Well, it was all sorted in a legal battle that took place in the USA about ten years ago. Sound reasons (including evidence from a Nobel Prize winning chemist) were disregarded and the final ruling was that certain mineral bases that had undergone extra chemical treatments could be called “synthetic”. Needless to say, the marketing executives wet their knickers with pure delight! They realised that this meant, and still does, that the critical buzz-word “synthetic” could be printed on a can of cheap oil provided that the contents included a few percent of “hydrocracked” mineral oil, at a cost of quite literally a few pence.

So, the chemistry of “synthetics” is complex and so is the politics!

The economics are very simple. If you like the look of a smart well-marketed can with “synthetic” printed on it, fair enough, it will not cost you a lot; and now you know why this is the case. But, if you drive a high performance car, and you intend to keep it for several years, and maybe do the odd “track day”, then you need a genuine Ester/PAO (Poly Alpha Olefin) synthetic oil, such as PRO S or PRO R. This oil costs more money to buy, because it costs us a lot of money to make, very simply, you always get what you pay for!

UNQUOTE:

This article is something that all car owners should read and understand before buying oil and I’ve posted this with Johns permission.

Cheers,
Simon ."

[spacemonkey]

And more yawn....
"WHY ARE ESTERS SO GOOD?

They assist the additive pack in a motor oil formulation because they are surface-active (electrostatically attracted to metal surfaces), so they help to reduce wear and friction.

They are fluid at very low temperatures and at high temperatures they are very chemically stable and have low volatility (don’t evaporate away).

They also help to prevent hardening and cracking of oil seals at high temperatures.
If an oil is an "ester" it will say so on the can as it is a very strong marketing tool. Not very many are though as they are expensive to produce and POA's are cheaper.

Mobil and Castrol are excellent and proven oils but not esters, POA's.

Mobil 1 is either a 0w-40 or 15w-50 (motorsport)

Castrol RS is either a 0w-40 or a 10w-60

Just was curious why people are using these when I believe the handbook calls for a 10w-40 semi-synthetic.

So yes Castrol Performance 10w-40 semi-syn would be a correct choice meeting the cars requirements (MX5 that is)

The purpose of my post was to point out in an informative way (which I thought would be helpful to some Members) that all oils are different in their make-up and synthetic on a pretty can does not mean it will necessarily be up to the high quality of the Mobil, Castrol and Silkolene products. Mazda's Dexelia is made by Total. (Total, Elf, Fina now)

How can you tell?

Simply, if it's cheap then you are getting what you are paying for, a lower percentage of good additives which cost money - Therefore a lower level of protection!

It's no coincidence that the likes or Castrol, Mobil and Silkolene's top end oils are expensive, they cost more to blend.

In summary, I'm here to help and explode some of the myths surrounding oils, my answers are frank and honest and as I sell all these oils, I give advice based on suitability and quality as I have the data to compare the oils, side by side. I'm not employed or in favour of any one manufacturer, I just have strong views, based on facts as to what are the best oils out there.

I hope this helps to answer your questions.

Cheers
Simon"

[spacemonkey]

And an explanation to a question about weightings...

"Thanks for your reply and I'll try to answer all your questions the best I can but this is going to be long-winded!

Fully Synthetic 10w-40

You are right here, nearly all 10w-40's are semi, part or synthetic blend and I'm personally only aware of one that is a true fully synthetic.

Fuchs Titan Supersyn Unic Plus Ultra 10w-40 (Fully Synthetic)

Reasons for "stepping out of grade"

Your reasons are sound and you obviously have done your homework as I'll list the reasons and benefits for doing this now.

Using the criteria that 10w-40 semi-synthetic the recommended grade, the reasons for using another grade are generally as follows (excepting ignorance).

0w-40

Always fully synthetic giving the following benefits

1) Best circulation when cold as its very thin.
2) Best protection when hot as a fully syn is more resistant to thinning down with temperature because it is more stable at high temperatures
3) Possible fuel economy gains but in reality too small to notice
4) Some have longer drain periods

Potential drawbacks

1) May be too thin for some engines causing oil leaks and possible long term damage to pumps and other components.
2) Very expensive.

5w-40

Always fully synthetic giving the following benefits

1) Much better circulation when cold as thinner than 10w
2) Best protection when hot as a fully syn is more resistant to thinning down with temperature because it is more stable at high temperatures
3) Will not be too thin
4) Not as expensive

Potential drawbacks none really as it's not that expensive and is not too thin.

10w-50 and 10w-60

Always fully synthetic giving the following benefits

1) Same circulation when cold but being a fully synthetic will give better protection as it is more fluid at lower temperatures.
2) Even higher protection when hot as it has a thicker viscosity and is a fully syn so it is more resistant to thinning down with temperature because it is more stable at high temperatures
3) It is better for hard driving

Potential drawbacks

Other than being expensive, none really.

15w-50

A true "motorsport" oil designed for engines under stressed conditions, not recommended really unless racing or tracking the car!

Synthetics

So, as I normally rave about "esters", why?

Well its simple really, alongside others it's the best and proven so, the pecking order of synthetics is as follows:

Hydrotreated mineral oils (Hydrocracked)

Synthetic Hydrocarbons (Poly Alpha Olefins)

Esters

Apart from the superior wear and friction properties, they are more fluid at low temps and more chemically stable at high temps and, this is the most important thing...........they're "Surface-active" or in laymans terms Electrostatically attracted to metal surfaces.

Servicing

Yes, there is an argument to say that if you change your oil regularly enough, a 10w-40 semi is fine and it is certainly a less expensive option than putting Fully Syn in your car but........we all want to do the best for our cars and therefore seek the expensive option as a way of reassuring ourselves for the long term.

[spacemonkey]

continued....


Synthetic oils and their ratings

I do so many, far too many to list here and they are all different so to compare a 10w-40 with a 0w-60 or 5w-40 ester is unfair but, on every tech sheet there is a number called the VI Index (Viscosity index) which rates the oil in terms of its resistance to thinning down with temperature, staying in grade and durability, the higher number being the better as long as you compare apples with apples i.e. a bunch of 10w-40's for example.

You must bear in mind that a 10w-60 should always be higher than a 10w-50 or a 10w-40 for example to compare like for like.

Here are some to look at. (VI Index in brackets)

10w-40 Semi Synthetic

Castrol Performance (149)
Fuchs Titan XTR (155)
Silkolene XTR (155)
Total Quartz 7000 (150)

5w-40 Fully Synthetic

Fuchs Supersyn SL (162)
Silkolene Pro S Ester (169)
Total Quartz 9000 (166)

Others:

Castrol RS 10w-60 (170)
Silkolene Pro S 10w-50 Ester (174)
Castrol RS Power 0w-40 (177)
Mobil 1 0w-40 (187)
Total Quartz 0w-30 (163)
Mobil 1 Motorsport 15w-50 (153)
Silkolene Pro R 15w-50 Ester (156)

Sorry it's so long, but food for thought?

Cheers
Simon "

[Nigel C]

Food for thought :rolleyes:

my mind went blank after the second paragraph :lol: :lol: :lol: :burnout:

[BoozyBOB]

cured my insomnia.....


but sure it will inform and educate...

[nik_the_brief]

So...

What do ya recommend for my Monster then Space? (Oil change this weekend) :confused:

[CK & AK]

:confused: we use Shell in ours

C

[spacemonkey]

So...

What do ya recommend for my Monster then Space? (Oil change this weekend) :confused:


Facked if I know.... I just thought some might find some of this interesting. Most of it is for cars but I think there is some relevance for us. His basic message was that you get what you pay for, and if you are going for fully synth then make sure it is a genuine one, ie. ester based. TWO mag do a little feature on running in and their expert (bet these guys both have beards...) says not to use fully synth for at least 5000 miles, which I would agree with.

[Nigel C]

surely that should be the first 500 mls not 5000 :confused:

a typo i hope ;)

[spacemonkey]

Nope, 5000. It's so that the running in process has a chance to work properly, the first 500 is initial compliance of parts, that is grinding off the peaks of metal on the 'flat' surfaces. That's why you do a change at 600 miles to get rid of the big swarf. The next 5000 miles you are still carrying on the process to a lesser degree and also also creating the plateaus on the metal surfaces and the valleys (which contain the oil) as well. Fully synth hinders this. The metals also adsorb (not absorb) oil and gases into the surface which strengthens it and again this takes time and tully synth apparently hinders this too. Go and buy the current TWO mag in the shops as we speak and there is a 2-3 page spread (and a nice bird on a bike...) giving info on this. Well worth a read.