quote:I am not mixing things up, it's just that you have some very hard preconceptions about what an oil can do and how it should be done. Consequently, any other approach seems fallacious to you. Just because you throw around a big word or two doesn't mean your basic proposition is true.
. . .you are mixing up so many things which just can't be true. The mineral oil industry e.g. uses much better products than PTFE as friction modifier, e.g. Molybdenumdithiocarbamates."
While SynLube does use PTFE as part of the effort to reduce friction, it is only part of the solution. The strength of the Synlube formula is that it uses a combination of chemicals to do this job. Thus to say that SynLube uses PTFE while other makers use Molybdenumdithiocarbamates, for example, is inaccurate to say the least.
quote:I never said this, I said that PTFE is embossed into the pores of the metal surface, not that it reduces clearances per se. No metal surface is completely smooth. It is in the irregularities of the surface that SynLube's PTFE and synthetic moly colloids are found and it is in this way that SynLube improves the seal at the piston rings.
It is simply impossible to reduce the bearing clearances with Teflon. By the way, by doing this you would raise the oil temperature significantly.
quote:Presumptious and condescending! You have your opinion and I have mine.
I tried to explain to you other obvious mistakes during this thread.
In addition it does not make sense to claim that a 10 year old used oil is better than a new unused synthetic oil.
quote:I stand by my statement. SynLube has properties that other makers who make liquid-only lubricants don't can't even try to duplicate. It is the solids in SynLube that provide a quality and longevity of lubrication that liquids don't have. I stand by my statement.
You are right by claiming that I never even saw a bottle of Synlube oil. But I saw many other oils and many engine oil test results to do such statements.