Skip to main content

Read our primer articles on High Mileage Oil, Synthetic Oil and Kinematic Viscosity

A good buddy of mine emailed this to me this morning, he read it over at BITOG.

Wow, glad I own a Ford. My dad told me about blanket statements dealers use. Here is one such statement.

Enjoy it guys. Talk about covering themselves! I'd be willing to guess other automakers use similar excuses/blanket statements.

AD


Here is some excerpts from the GM bulletin on oil consumption:
Quote:

Subject: Information on Engine Oil Consumption Guidelines


Models: 2009 and Prior GM Passenger Cars and Gasoline-Powered Light Duty Trucks Under 8500 LB GVW (Including Saturn)

2009 and Prior HUMMER H2, H3

2009 and Prior Saab 9-7X



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This bulletin is being revised to update the warranty information on vehicles and add model years. Please discard Corporate Bulletin Number 01-06-01-011E (Section 06 -- Engine/Propulsion System).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All engines require oil to lubricate and protect the load bearing and internal moving parts from wear including cylinder walls, pistons and piston rings. When a piston moves down its cylinder, a thin film of oil is left on the cylinder wall. During the power stroke, part of this oil layer is consumed in the combustion process. As a result, varying rates of oil consumption are accepted as normal in all engines.

Oil Consumption
The accepted rate of oil consumption for engines used in the vehicles referenced is 0.946 liter (1 qt) in 3200 km (2000 mi).

Important: This rate only applies to personal use vehicles, under warranty, that are driven in a non-aggressive manner and maintained in accordance with the appropriate maintenance schedule, with less than 58,000 km (36,000 mi), or driven at legal speeds in an unloaded (for trucks) condition.


Important: This rate does not apply to vehicles that are driven in an aggressive manner, at high RPM, high speeds, or in a loaded condition (for trucks). Oil consumption for vehicles driven under these conditions will be more.

Many factors can affect a customer's concern with oil consumption. Driving habits and vehicle maintenance vary from owner to owner. Thoroughly evaluate each case before deciding whether the vehicle in question has abnormal engine oil consumption.


Aggressive Driving, High Speed or High RPM Driving
Aggressive driving and/or continuous driving at high speeds/high RPMs will increase oil consumption. Because this may not always be an everyday occurrence, it is hard to determine exactly how much the oil economy will be affected.

A higher rate of oil consumption is normal for vehicles equipped with manual transmissions that are driven aggressively. By "aggressive," we mean operation at high RPM (3,000 RPM to redline), with frequent use of engine braking (using the engine to slow the vehicle). Vehicles that are driven aggressively may consume engine oil at a rate of up to 0.946 L (1 quart) every 805 km (500 mi). This is normal for a vehicle that is driven aggressively. No repair is necessary. This characteristic does, however, require the owner to check the engine oil level at sufficiently frequent intervals, especially when driving aggressively, to assure the oil level remains within the recommended operating range. As the Owner’s Manual recommends, you should check the oil level every time you get fuel.
quote:
Originally posted by ADFD1:

Oil Consumption
The accepted rate of oil consumption for engines used in the vehicles referenced is 0.946 liter (1 qt) in 3200 km (2000 mi).


"Accepted rate" my arse.

Acceptable to GM when some poor sap who paid tens-of-thousands of dollar for a Good Money car tell his woes to a Service Salesperson who tells the poor sap, "That's normal oil consumption. Enjoy paying for a quart/liter of oil every 2000 miles, or sooner, for the rest of this car's life. Next!"

Behind the poor sap is a Good Money company executive to tells the same Good Money Service Salesperson the same story and gets, "Sure, we'll fix it under warranty."
quote:
Originally posted by inHaliburton:
quote:
Originally posted by ADFD1:

Oil Consumption
The accepted rate of oil consumption for engines used in the vehicles referenced is 0.946 liter (1 qt) in 3200 km (2000 mi).


"Accepted rate" my arse.

Acceptable to GM when some poor sap who paid tens-of-thousands of dollar for a Good Money car tell his woes to a Service Salesperson who tells the poor sap, "That's normal oil consumption. Enjoy paying for a quart/liter of oil every 2000 miles, or sooner, for the rest of this car's life. Next!"

Behind the poor sap is a Good Money company executive to tells the same Good Money Service Salesperson the same story and gets, "Sure, we'll fix it under warranty."



Hello,inHaliburton. I totally agree with you. I was once one of those 'saps' at the dealer many years ago. Those mechanics/reps talk down to the customers all the time thinking the customers are clueless.

This could be a factor in the downfall of many of the dealerships today!
Last edited by annieoakley
quote:
Originally posted by ADFD1:
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Kirk:


In case your wondering---Synlube does have anti-foam agents,unlike some other motor oils that do not,and yet needs it in the worst way!


Name some oils that don't contain anti-foam agents. Facts please, not your speculation.

I think the major oil companies know how to blend oil. They don't go the Wal-Mart buy a qt of oil, rebottle it, tweak it, and call it their own, like some companies w/o addresses and business licenses do. Then plant shills on message boards trying to push product.

AD



I wouldn't be so sure about that AD.

Let's focus on engine oil foam issues for a while...

Some proof of oil foam in the link below....just for starters!!! In this case it looks like Redline is better at foaming than the other oils in this one example,just to make the case that foaming is an issue with many brands of lube.

http://www.kawasakimotorcycle....bout-engine-oil.html

If the oil is already prone to sludging---the foaming only agravates that issue further causing increased oxidation...besides all the other foam related issues!!!
I'm new on this forum so, Hello everybody.

On the subject of "MFG approved" oil.

On of my brother is in charge of the "replacement parts department" in a quite big OPEL dealer (I live in europe).
A few years back (5 or 6 he remember) they began to have customers having trouble with some of their engines loosing power after a few thousand Km. Everything was running fine except that the power was gradualy disappearing more and more every day.

Guess what it was ? The camshaft was almost totally worn out due to friction with the tappets!!!!
Yes, an almost round camsaft!!

He reported the failures to OPEL as did the other OPEL dealers he knows of, who had the same problem (my guess is that it must have been in other country too).

OPEL investigated the problem and solved it by sending to the dealers.....a different oil!!!! The original "MFG approved" oil that my brother bought for the servicing in their garage was apparently not so appropriate.

My point is that manufacturers don't necessarily knows what's best for their cars. They don't test everything, in every way possible because it would cost them too much.
Of course, this is an extreme example but I think it illustrates well the point.

When discussing "MFG approved" oil and "OEM original parts", lets not forget that the main goal of nearly every industry is to MAKE MONEY RIGHT KNOW !
Of course, long-term reputation is still (hopefully) a small part of the equation but, thanks to the very pressing stock exchange market we live in, this is becoming less of a concern for them. And if you think that "big oil" isn't contaminated, well, welcome in wonderland.

We are responsible too for this state of affair (not all of us hopefully): people don't want to keep their car, TV, computer,phone, camera, etc...forever. They want the newest.
So, the industry responded kindly with products that last just long enough for their "expected live-span".

I'm not saying that there isn't any "good" products out there, but they are vanishing more and more every day.

Caillou
quote:
Originally posted by inHaliburton:
The oil came out of an unmarked steel drum fitted with a hand pump. This was around 1964. It was either SAE 40 or SAE 30. No W !

Nope, not yet. Truck still under warranty. Would have to change oil every 5000 km.



That is some vinatge oil.

According to Kirk/Miro there are no worries using Synlube in a new car under warranty. The dealer would have to prove the oil caused a problem. Honestly I wouldn't touch the stuff with a 10 foot pole so don't go by me. But according to them you'll have no problems.

I wonder if they'll back you up if you did use it and have a problem? Smart move on your part sir waiting it out!


AD
inHaliburton
Level 4 - 251 to 500 posts
Posted Jun 20, 6:22 PM Hide Post
Beats me how those who have no experience with a product can argue with those who have.

kirk/miro say synlube is the best oil there is. By not using a product he has defended over and over he is doing the opposite of the above statement. Hypocrit much?

But then again, those two have yet to provide any data. Verifiable, trustworty data.

And yet.............
What I find odd about some people and new cars under warranty is this. Because of fear and doubt, they stick with mfg approved oil, follow the book, then when the warranty is up they switch to "The Best Oil". Many times it is a non-approved oil not meeting mfg specs and certifications. I laugh because if I had a new car I'd want the so called "The Best Oil" in that engine first chance I got. Only in my case the best oil IMO meets the mfg specs, so no worries here.

The whole argument makes no sense, if someone is so confident in a product GO FOR IT in the beginning. Besides the oil mfg has your back, maybe that is. Or is that possible fear of having an oil related problem and possible a fight what holds them back because it is not approved oil? I think so, for those people maybe "The Best Oil" isn't really the best after all? LOL

No names mentioned here just general observations. I was talking to some Shipmates about this and a few that are car guys mentioned this, and I see the same logic on message boards. Confusing to me!

AD
bmwtechguy said it best I think.

"API license and starburst means the oil meets the minimum requirements for the spec, such as chemical limits to protect emissions systems, lower viscosity for energy conserving, Noack volitility limits, cold cranking, HTHS, wear protection, shear stability etc. Also, oil companies pay dearly to have their oils licensed, tested, etc. and pay some type of royalty per gallon or quart over a certain amount sold. Non-licensed oils may be better than the spec in some or every way or worse. You have to decide if you trust the company blending/selling the non-licensed oil."

Can also be said of mfg approved oil.

I sure as hell don't trust synlube. They've gone out of their way to make sure I don't.
quote:
Originally posted by ADFD1:


The whole argument makes no sense, if someone is so confident in a product GO FOR IT in the beginning. Besides the oil mfg has your back, maybe that is. Or is that possible fear of having an oil related problem and possible a fight what holds them back because it is not approved oil? I think so, for those people maybe "The Best Oil" isn't really the best after all? LOL

AD


That's a good point. If you have an oil related problem using a non spec oil under warranty, you're going to pay for it.

If you have the same problem after the warranty, you're still going to pay for it.

So why would it matter since you pay for it either way?
To quote one SargeGTO on this synlube.

"Here are my thoughts....take em or leave em....
You betcha...the very idea of a better lube for our cars is something we all want, desire. The problem is there have been so many snake oils that credibility becomes an issue almost immediately. Then you throw in all the marketing hype posted here void of any real analytical data and you get skeptics. Of course a manufacturer is going to tell us their product is great. The web site looks like my grandson did it. No I take that back....he could do a better job.
Bottom line is this for me. They have been pimping SynLube in the United States since 1969.....and this how far they have gotten with it after almost 40 years? If it was even a fraction of what it is hyped to be any rational thinking person ( educated or uneducated) would conclude after 40 years and a company or technology is still in the "start up" mode....something is wrong.....with either the product or the folks running the business."
LOL. Remember it costs next to nothing to host a website. Then like Sarge said, even his grandson could have done a better job building the site, so no real cost there either. Go to your local Walmart pick an oil that's on sale, tweak it, rebottle it, there you have it. Magioil, Swiloil, ADoil, Trajoil, you name it.

AD
How to make an informercial for a bogus product.

Step 1: "Educate" the consumer.
Step 2: Introduce product

disclaimer: step 1 must not involve factual information and must not be on a subject that the average individual is well versed in. Step 2 must introduce a product that solves a problem that only exists in the fictional educational "step 1."
Last edited by trajan
quote:
Originally posted by Trajan:
How to make an informercial for a bogus product.

Step 1: "Educate" the consumer.
Step 2: Introduce product

disclaimer: step 1 must not involve factual information and must not be on a subject that the average individual is well versed in. Step 2 must introduce a product that solves a problem that only exists in the fictional educational "step 1."



So, should I drain the now(according to you) 'fictional' lubricant out of my $40,000 Jeep G.Cherokee,Trajan!

Trajan,what subject matter are you well versed in?----just curious! Still waiting for that one!

Hey,what ever happened to your BMW? Is it still in the shop?
Last edited by captainkirk
quote:
Originally posted by ADFD1:
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Kirk:


In case your wondering---Synlube does have anti-foam agents,unlike some other motor oils that do not,and yet needs it in the worst way!


Name some oils that don't contain anti-foam agents. Facts please, not your speculation.

I think the major oil companies know how to blend oil. They don't go the Wal-Mart buy a qt of oil, rebottle it, tweak it, and call it their own, like some companies w/o addresses and business licenses do. Then plant shills on message boards trying to push product.

AD


This is more of a generalized issue,with plenty of evidence to back the foaming issues! Just for starters!

http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/255/oil-foam
quote:
AD-They don't go the Wal-Mart buy a qt of oil, rebottle it, tweak it, and call it their own,


Ever try cooking walmart oil Ad, I have----this is what it looks like(the black test tube is a hint). Don't believe me........try it yourself. Synlube when cooked--------HAS ZERO SLUDGE/VARNISH,BECAUSE I DID THE EXPERIMENT!!

http://www.enhancedsyntheticoi...%20results.10.05.jpg


The above link is from Amsoil,but it gets the point across!!
Synlube shills/defenders make a number of claims that one would think many, if not most experts in the field would just laugh at.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to back them, and they have yet to produce them.

We get no hard data. All we get is claims and worthless testimonials. More than their word is necessary. Especially when it goes against established theory/facts in motor oil. We need more than diatribes about flat earth and other such nonsense.

A constant theme with synlube is "We're smart, everyone else is stupid." Trying to paint your skeptics as narrow minded and stupid is the marketing technique of the fraudulent in order to stop one from thinking and just accept their claims. And on some, it works.

The warranty is a sham. There are many reasons to offer a warranty. And the reason is not always because the stuff is good, but to make people think it is. To me, the way it is written, it excludes just about anyone from making a claim.

Not that they could afford to pay anything anyway.
Last edited by trajan
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Kirk:
RC-
quote:
I was gonna remind kirk that anecdotes STILL don't constitute data!



Have you read any of the links I pasted that were based on F-A-C-T ??????



Let's start from the top------------A-G-A-I-N!!!!!!! You guy's are slow learners,so we can now call this SUMMER SCHOOL!!!

FACTUAL LINK: AGAIN!!

http://www.schleeter.com/oil-sludge.htm

http://www.carbibles.com/engineoil_bible.html

http://webcache.googleusercont...=us&client=firefox-a

http://www.machinerylubricatio...udge-varnish-turbine


SYNTHETIC VS CONVENTIONAL......

http://www.autotropolis.com/wi...tic_vs._Mineral_Oils

http://www.carcraft.com/techar...ional_oil/index.html



THAT'S JUST FOR STARTERS,ROBERT C !!!! The only anecdotes I see are coming from you,Rob!!


Be specific. Where are the FACTS about Synlube?

Those are all general knowledge.

you are providing anecdotes about the wonders of synlube.

Facts are what count, and none have been forthcoming from any reliable source.
quote:

AD--
Dino doesn't sludge engines, poor maint and poor design sludge engines.



DINO OIL ABSOLUTELY CAN SLUDGE UP AN ENGINES!--POOR MAINTENANCE SIMPLY EXACERBATES THE PROCESS!


Have you been reading all the proof I gave?


I have done this E-X-A-C-T experiment BELOW----------Have you,AD. I know how to make sludge/varnish........USE DINO OIL!!

http://www.outboardmotoroilblo...conventional_oil.jpg



The above sludged up beaker on the right cannot be replicated using Synlube...........I tried,and could not even make slight Varnish,and I cooked the synlube to well over 500-F-----I ignited it at one point from the intense heat I put to it!!

I challenge any of the so-called Tribologist experts on this thread to Try it!


Just a reminder of this link too!

http://www.enhancedsyntheticoi...%20results.10.05.jpg


Notice that even the Amsoil test tube has at least some sludge/varnish,the synlube heat/cook test I performed yielded no sludge/varnish!

If you changed your 'DINO' oil 'every day',you would still have some sludge/varnish in the rings and ring lands.!! The oil is cooked and baked in that region and the carbonized deposits are abrasive and will cause increased wear---you won't see with Synlube!
Last edited by captainkirk
Kirk, because you say it's so, means it's so? LOL

No one here is going to waste $32 to buy a qt of your oil to test it. Is this some new sales technique?

Imagine someone cooking your oil? You'll tell them they used the wrong stove or heat source. I can get any good synthetic oil that will protect as well, or better than yours and have a company with an address to back it up. Oh yea, and not be using a 50 wt oil in the process. My ride calls for a 30 grade the GF's ride a 20 grade. 50 grade no thanks, especially come winter time.

BTW Mobil cooked their oil in a frying pan to demo a point, nothing new there.

Dino oil hasn't let me or any of my family down. My father and uncle are at this close to 40 years now. If there was a problem they'd have found it. Proper care is the key, and use what the mfg says to use. What could be easier?

AD
And, furthermore. If dino oil was so bad, the oil companies would not make it as no one would buy it. And auto makers would not spec it.

This back door attempt to sell synlube is inane. None of the more knowledgable/respected posters here are buying into it. Even one of its staunch defenders isn't using it.

This swill didn't fly at BITOG. No idea why it's still trying here.

Maybe because they're hoping that if they repeat the same undocumented dribble long enough, we'll all buy it just to shut them up?

And it isn't up to me or anyone else to test this swill. That onus is on the ones who push it.

The repeated failure to come up with any extraordinary evidence to back the extraordinay claims can only mean that they know it's junk oil. But can't admit it.

We want data. Not anecdotes or testimonials. The proof that NASA uses it. The proof that the Oakland PD used it. The proof the US military uses it. The proof that it doesn't sludge even known sludger engines.

All those claims have been made. And no evidence to back them.
Last edited by trajan
quote:
And, furthermore. If dino oil was so bad, the oil companies would not make it as no one would buy it. And auto makers would not spec it.



Sure Trajan---That's why you ran (dino)oil in your BMW?? Remember,you only ran the factory approved lube(G-III syn) in your BMW,and look how that turned out! Your car is now toast because of it!

KEEP DRINKING THE KOOL-AID!


A little education for Ya! The oil companies cannot 'stop' making dino oil as long as we have a need for fuel. Dino oil is a by-product of the refining process of crude into various fuels and all the other fractionated by-products that result from the distillation process!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_refinery

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cracking_%28chemistry%29


Bottom line. All the end products get sold and used up in the market place---PERIOD!
quote:
Trajan--Shoddy maintainenence leads to sludge. (Includig not changing oil. Overlong oci's.)


We already are aware that nelect is never good, Trajan. Abuse/neglect is not the only thing that causes sludge.

http://www.myvwlemon.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000532.html


I suppose you could say I am neglecting my car more than anyone out there who had sludge and perhaps didn't change their oil often enough,unlike myself-------WHO NEVER CHANGES THE OIL!....and yet I have no sludge/issues!

According to you Trajan,I should have nothing but sludge due to all the neglect.....so why don't I have at least some sludge??

Well......


What's up with your BMW?

Well........
Your own links kid indicate you have sludge by not using the correct viscosity.

Where are the facts about synlube?

Where is the evidence supporting the claims made?

All you have produced, all any of you have produced, is either anecdotes or general knowledge.

The former is worthless. All the latter does is show that buying a $32 bottle of synlube is no better than buying a $6 bottle of M1 0w-40.

Piss poor salesmanship to say the least.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to back them up.

Like RobertC says "Anecdotes still do not constitute data. Never have, never will. No amount of shilling will make it so."

Marketing hype is no subsitute for analytical data.

Misdirection and smokescreens are no subsitute for analytical data.

Testimonials are no subsitute for analytical data.

Such data is sorely lacking when it comes to synlube.
Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×