Oil Change

[cpurvis]

Synthetic motor oil is superior to conventional oil and there is no debate about that from anyone familiar with them both. Synthetic oil offers superior viscosity, wear protection, and fluidity over a range of temperatures, with reduced contaminants. Royal Purple is a good synthetic oil - superior to conventional - but I believe there are better choices. Consider instead Mobil 1, Pennzoil Platinum, or Quaker State Ultimate Durability. Just make certain it's full synthetic, not a blend.

The price differential can be minimal to non-existent. I recently purchased 5 quarts of Pennzoil Ultra Platinum at Walmart for $25. Pennzoil offered a $10 rebate so I only paid $15 or $3 per quart.

Having said all that, use conventional oil during break-in.

Ok...but just how much better viscosity, wear protection, and fluidity over a range of temperatures, with reduced contaminants will you get with synthetic oil? I have yet to meet the person who was mourning the loss of his engine due to oil-related failure because they didn't use synthetic. I've also never seen any quantification of the benefits, such as, "you can expect your engine to last 2,000 hours if you use conventional oil but you can expect 2,500 hours if you use synthetic" especially in something like a lawnmower engine.

If any independent lab has done comparable test-to-failure testing, synthetic vs conventional, I'd like to see it. The oil manufacturers will tout a "benefit" even if it's only .01% and not be lying...they're just not saying how how much, if any, benefit there will be to the end user in the real world.

It's one thing to say that using a particular product gives "peace of mind" but if you're going to say it's "superior" to another product in this way or that, there has to be some data, somewhere, to back that up. And that data needs to come from independent testing or the field, not the manufacturer's marketing department.

 

[TonyPrin]

Ok...but just how much better viscosity, wear protection, and fluidity over a range of temperatures, with reduced contaminants will you get with synthetic oil? I have yet to meet the person who was mourning the loss of his engine due to oil-related failure because they didn't use synthetic. I've also never seen any quantification of the benefits, such as, "you can expect your engine to last 2,000 hours if you use conventional oil but you can expect 2,500 hours if you use synthetic" especially in something like a lawnmower engine.

If any independent lab has done comparable test-to-failure testing, synthetic vs conventional, I'd like to see it. The oil manufacturers will tout a "benefit" even if it's only .01% and not be lying...they're just not saying how how much, if any, benefit there will be to the end user in the real world.

It's one thing to say that using a particular product gives "peace of mind" but if you're going to say it's "superior" to another product in this way or that, there has to be some data, somewhere, to back that up. And that data needs to come from independent testing or the field, not the manufacturer's marketing department.

To the contrary, tests are done all time - by independent organizations, scientifically and in a laboratory setting. You obviously care about this so I suggest you familiarize yourself with the Petroleum Quality Institute of America. I'm not involved with PQIA but I believe they routinely test motor oils and other petroleum products such as transmission and hydraulic fluids. Over time they'll test just about every motor oil on the market after buying the product at retail - not from samples given to them.

Among the tests they conduct is the D2896 TBN (Total Base Number), which measures a motor oil's ability to neutralize acidic materials and other contaminants. Conventional motor oils generally have a TBN of around 6-8 while synthetics are around 8-11. Another test is the D2270 Viscosity Index (VI). The lower the VI the greater the change in viscosity due to temperature changes. Conventional motor oils generally have a VI average 160 while synthetics are often in the 170s.

Having said that, I recognize that we're talking about lawnmowers, not race cars. But, there is no doubt synthetics are better than conventional motor oils at what they do which is lubricate under varying conditions.

 

[cpurvis]

That's fine, but where are the real world results? Not "synthetic maintains its base number better", which is a measure of the alkalinity of oil. That sounds good, but where are the concrete results of engines failing prematurely because the operator didn't use synthetic oil?

I've been around a lot of engines and I haven't seen an oil related failure for decades whether synthetic or conventional oil was used. The ones I've seen fail have been from things like a ruptured air filter, loss of coolant, and metallurgical failures such as camshafts breaking in two.

Briggs is advertising "no oil change" engines now. I don't know what they're basing this on, but I suspect they've found out that engines that require constant replenishment of oil maintain their viscosity, TBN, and lubricity well enough that changing oil is a waste of time and oil. Caterpillar knew this 25 years ago and provided OCI's for their truck engines (3406 series) that were dependent upon how much 'make-up' oil was needed per 1000 miles. The filter change interval wasn't affected.

In Briggs case, it could be that they expect the engine to fly apart before the initial oil change is reached. (That's a joke, son, I say, a joke.)

 

[TonyPrin]

That's fine, but where are the real world results? Not "synthetic maintains its base number better", which is a measure of the alkalinity of oil. That sounds good, but where are the concrete results of engines failing prematurely because the operator didn't use synthetic oil?

Sorry, but not exactly correct. TBN represents the ability of a motor oil to withstand acidity over time. Once a motor oil is unable to overcome acidity, the engine can begin to corrode. That's not just theoretical. Synthetics are better able to sustain their composition which reduces the risk of harm from corrosion.

You won't readily see an engine fail because of using conventional versus synthetic oil, just like you'll never see an engine fail for using 5w-30 instead of 10w-30 or for using cheap oil instead of a quality brand, or for using 97 octane instead of 99.

Here's what I can say, though. If you ran an engine with conventional oil and an identical engine with synthetic oil continually until one died, the conventional would go first. Almost every time.

So, the point is which would you use in a machine that costs thousands? Given that the cost of conventional and synthetic oil is close to comparable, I believe most people would select synthetic. After all, it is SUPERIOR.

 

[bertsmobile1]

Ok...but just how much better viscosity, wear protection, and fluidity over a range of temperatures, with reduced contaminants will you get with synthetic oil? I have yet to meet the person who was mourning the loss of his engine due to oil-related failure because they didn't use synthetic. I've also never seen any quantification of the benefits, such as, "you can expect your engine to last 2,000 hours if you use conventional oil but you can expect 2,500 hours if you use synthetic" especially in something like a lawnmower engine.

If any independent lab has done comparable test-to-failure testing, synthetic vs conventional, I'd like to see it. The oil manufacturers will tout a "benefit" even if it's only .01% and not be lying...they're just not saying how how much, if any, benefit there will be to the end user in the real world.

It's one thing to say that using a particular product gives "peace of mind" but if you're going to say it's "superior" to another product in this way or that, there has to be some data, somewhere, to back that up. And that data needs to come from independent testing or the field, not the manufacturer's marketing department.

Lab testing of anything from condoms to rocket ships is not PERFORMANCE testing.
They are a set of fake conditions that never occur in normal use for the purpose of evaluating changes made to a product and for a very limited number of cases evaluating one product to another.
Nowhere in your engine dose a 1/2 diameter ball bearing get jambed into a rotating plate till the pressure on the plate causes it to stop.
Nowhere in your engine does a pool of oil dribble through a funnel under nothing more than the force of gravity at 25 Deg C and 100 Deg C
No where in your engine does 2 steel disks with a spiral cut into them rotating in opposite direction come together tiil one applies a pre determined drag on the other.

Now when it come to lawnmowers,
No oil company one sticks an engine in a very dry & dusty enviroment and run them to destruction or for a set number of hours and then pull them down and measure every part for wear.
In fact because air cooled engines is such a small section of the market very little work gets done on them apart from what the actual manufacturers do.

Substituting one type of oil for another can be a benefit and it can also be a disaster if the viscosity is so low and the fluidity is so high that they can not maintain an oil film between the conrod & crankshaft because the original clearences is too big.
This is in particular a problem for old side bangers where the oil flow is all splash the the lube to the top bush is from a well but the thinner lower viscosity oil drains too fast so any more the 2 minutes driving across a slope siezes the top bush.

There is nothing magic about synthetic oils and they are not synthetic .
All that has happened is technology has now allowed the oil refineries to do what the four companies have been doing for the past 50 years.
The oil is broken down into its component parts then reassembled ( blended ) back together without all the bits that are bad for the intended purpose and the good bits in relative ratios to again optimising the performance FOR THE SPECIFIC application it is blended for.
doing this is actually cheaper than the old methods of just taking out what you don't want the tossing in a package of extra stuff.
However it gets hyped up and sold at a premium to al of the turkeys stupid enough to believe the bull dust they are fed on.

 

[cpurvis]

Sorry, but not exactly correct. TBN represents the ability of a motor oil to withstand acidity over time. Once a motor oil is unable to overcome acidity, the engine can begin to corrode. That's not just theoretical. Synthetics are better able to sustain their composition which reduces the risk of harm from corrosion.

You won't readily see an engine fail because of using conventional versus synthetic oil, just like you'll never see an engine fail for using 5w-30 instead of 10w-30 or for using cheap oil instead of a quality brand, or for using 97 octane instead of 99.

Here's what I can say, though. If you ran an engine with conventional oil and an identical engine with synthetic oil continually until one died, the conventional would go first. Almost every time.

Did you arrived at this conclusion through either your own experience or data provided by others? Can you share that with us? Please don't recite the unsubstantiated benefits touted by the synthetic oil marketers

So, the point is which would you use in a machine that costs thousands? Given that the cost of conventional and synthetic oil is close to comparable, I believe most people would select synthetic. After all, it is SUPERIOR.

I have operated engines (Cummins and Caterpillar) costing FAR more than the 'thousands' that a lawn mower costs, using conventional oil and none of them--not a single one--had an oil related failure. What would I have gained by paying the extra money for synthetic oil?

 

[bertsmobile1]

For a long time the owners of vintage & veteran motorcycles have all had the same idea about oil
Good oil is the stuff you just took out
Bad oil is the stuff you haven't changed.

Oil is the cheapest part you can put in your engine and the more often you put this cheap part in the less often you expensive parts in.
Thousands of examples of engines going 2, 3 4 or more times the manufacturers recommended bottom end rebuild purely and simply because the owners replaced the oil very often.

A cheap oil replaced too soon is substantially better than an expensive oil left in for too long.

Mower oils need to be replaced at the end of each season before the mower is mothballed for winter.
So extending the oil change intervals is of little benefit to mower owners.

 

[TonyPrin]

Did you arrived at this conclusion through either your own experience or data provided by others? Can you share that with us? Please don't recite the unsubstantiated benefits touted by the synthetic oil marketers

I have operated engines (Cummins and Caterpillar) costing FAR more than the 'thousands' that a lawn mower costs, using conventional oil and none of them--not a single one--had an oil related failure. What would I have gained by paying the extra money for synthetic oil?

cpurvis, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. Independent testing over decades has consistently shown that synthetic oil is superior to conventional oil in both lubricating and protecting engines. Conversely, no analysis I've seen has ever shown conventional oil to be equal to synthetic and I never will.

 

[TonyPrin]

There is nothing magic about synthetic oils and they are not synthetic .
All that has happened is technology has now allowed the oil refineries to do what the four companies have been doing for the past 50 years.
The oil is broken down into its component parts then reassembled ( blended ) back together without all the bits that are bad for the intended purpose and the good bits in relative ratios to again optimising the performance FOR THE SPECIFIC application it is blended for.
doing this is actually cheaper than the old methods of just taking out what you don't want the tossing in a package of extra stuff.
However it gets hyped up and sold at a premium to al of the turkeys stupid enough to believe the bull dust they are fed on.

I agree with much of what you're saying, but not completely. Absolutely many of the motor oils touted today as synthetic are not truly synthetic largely in part because the term "synthetic" has become more of a marketing tool than a technical term. However, there are synthetics on the market. For example, Pennzoil Ultra Platinum is made from natural gas so it's not produced in the way you describe at all.

And the balance of your comment shows not all dinosaurs have been converted into oil yet.

 

[bertsmobile1]

I agree with much of what you're saying, but not completely. Absolutely many of the motor oils touted today as synthetic are not truly synthetic largely in part because the term "synthetic" has become more of a marketing tool than a technical term. However, there are synthetics on the market. For example, Pennzoil Ultra Platinum is made from natural gas so it's not produced in the way you describe at all.

And the balance of your comment shows not all dinosaurs have been converted into oil yet.

made from natural gas or made from what is filtered out of natural gas or made from reacting natural gas with other polly phenols ?
Last time I did physics it was tad difficult to make a liquid that was stable at room temperature from a compound that was also a gas at room temperature