Skip to main content

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

OK. How can this lubricant handle engine contamination by-products over such a long period of time? Every mile driven is going to contribute some contamination products, mainly unburned fuel and moisture. If the lubricant is inert it will not combine with these contaminates, but they will remain and accumulate in the crankcase.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

SYNSKEPTIC wrote OK. How can this lubricant handle engine contamination by-products over such a long period of time? Every mile driven is going to contribute some contamination products, mainly unburned fuel and moisture. If the lubricant is inert it will not combine with these contaminates, but they will remain and accumulate in the crankcase.

SynLube's ability to last for so long is based on it's superior ability to seal at the rings much better than conventional lubricants. This is because the solid lubricants are embossed into the walls of the cylinder so the seal is almost perfect. Unburned fuel is not a problem in any engine that is in repair. What unburned fuel is left after combustion is exhausted rather than being allowed to seep past the rings. Remember that even in the most mundane engine, the air-fuel mixture is traveling at hundreds of miles per hour. In a high-revving engine, the air- fuel mixture reaches close to supersonic speed. Unless the rings are broken, almost nothing gets past them. Also, keep in mind that gasoline evaporates and is eliminated from the system by the crankcase ventilation system even if the engine isn't running.

SynLube's ability to handle moisture is unsurpassed because it doesn't respond to it. Besides, a single drive of 10-15 miles will purge any water from the crankcase system. As with gasoline, water trapped in the crankcase will also evaporate through the crankcase vent system.

It is beyond the scope of this forum to go into a full discussion of the merits of this lubricant. I suggest going to the website and reading the information. If you do, leave behind all the indoctrination conventional lubricant companies have spent millions training you to believe. SynLube lubricants are a different ballgame.

I have been using their products for close to four years now and they work day in and day out.
An unfortunate comment Callista.

Just because the lubricant is unfamiliar is no reason to disregard it out of hand

I doubt that the claims you wrote above are true. Reason being: It is unfamiliar to me, I have no data, you stated that correctly!

I read many SAE papers about oil, in fact I think I am quite up to date about modern oil technology. I have never found in any SAE paper a single hint what would support your claims above.

In addition I must say, some statements you made are simply wrong.

If everything you wrote was true, you would never have to change the oil again. You would have no TBN depletion at all, no TAN rise at all, no viscosity increase.

If you do, leave behind all the indoctrination conventional lubricant companies have spent millions training you to believe.

Wow, this Company knows it all, all other Institutes and Companies are conventional and have no idea of what they are doing. Roll Eyes

According to my experience in the past, no one can fool on the laws of physics and chemistry.

My conclusion from your statements and my experience from the past: I stay skeptic.
SynLube is an extremely small company that does not have any advertising except for its webpage. Even to many who have been in the automotive industry for a long time, their existance is still a surprise and they obviously cannot compete with the more powerful competitors here and don't even try.

Despite Callisa's blanket refusal to consider SynLube's advantages, I believe the information that I provided you is essentially correct. I am not an oil expert as Callista claims to be (and may well be) but I have seen "experts" deny the quality of this product many times before. The two most frequently given excuses for writing SynLube off are: 1) If it is as good as is it is supposed to be why aren't car manufacturers using it? 2) If it seems too good to be true, then it probably is. When I hear those responses, it's as sure as the sun rises, they have made up their minds to ignore it whatever the cost.

The BobIsTheOilGuy site was particularly resistant to new information treating SynLube from the start as a snake oil. Many of them claim to be experts but true experts learn about something before making a judgment and I didn't get that sense from many of their responses.

One of my theories about this kind of behavior is that oil guys love to talk about how clean their oil is after 5K miles and how the oil analysis they just got back shows that there's no problems. Switch to SynLube and all that enjoyment's gone because you can put it in a properly operating engine and just about forget it except to check for proper fluid levels once in a while. Life gets very dull.

I've seen this happen with bicycles. When I got started with them back in the 70s, the parts were very poor. Shifting was terrible and failures were frequent. There was a sense of excitement with every ride and if I got home without a problem, it was great. With better components came better performance and reliability and cycling became less exciting.

As I've pointed out, I have almost 4 years of experience with this lubricant. I have never had a problem with it. Oil consumption runs about 40-60K miles per quart. My fuel consumption is generally better than others who have comparable vehicles (Focus and Ranger), even those who claim to drive as conservatively as I do.

Being a skeptic is a good starting point for investigation if it doesn't mean rejecting information without justification. Why don't you read through the pages of the website and see if you don't see some one who is writing in good faith. I admit, the style of writing isn't great but Miro Kefurt is a member of SAE and has a thorough background in chemistry that shows in this oil formula. Finally, e-mail him with a couple of questions about things that concern you and get his response. More than anything else, his common sense responses to my questions were what convinced me to try SynLube.

One final point: The latest version of the SynLube formula, introduced in 1996, exceeded the new API SM and the ILSAC GF-4 (?) specs without modification.
Last edited by houckster
To pass an API test is not that hard... it isn't one of the higher standards of the world industry.
I wonder if this Synlube can cope with the harder tests from VAG and DaimlerChrysler. (I really don't know...)

If your findings are true I wonder why there isn't a european company who's trying it overhere. Synlube may be small, but if their idea is a revolution in oiltechnique, I'm sure there would be spin-offs comming overhere...

But I'm not here to criticize all the texts your putting in. Can you paste some links here with additional information on this product? Maybe this turns over my scepticism ;-)
One of the reasons there are not more lubricants on the market with SynLube's properties is that it is always more profitable to sell an adequate product lots of times than one just once.

BTW, meeting the API standards was not that easy. I'm told that the implementation for the SM spec was held up nearly a year because so many dino oils were experiencing difficulties.

With regard to European makes, the competition is just overwhelming for a company like SynLube. It can't stand up to the competition from companies like Castrol, Shell, Motul, etc.

In Russia however, there has been more acceptance and Miro Kefurt spends some time over there. In that country with maintenance facility being much less abundant, SynLube meets more acceptance. GAS Volga

Speaking of a lack of maintenance facilities here's where SynLube reallyshines: Sojourner

Here are the specifications, that SynLube meets.
Last edited by houckster
I'll do some quotes from their homepage, I hope that this is O.K. with the webmaster. I just want to explain, what simple things are really wrong with this Company.

SynLube™ Lube-4-Life ® ...for Engines is intended for use in all Automotive, Industrial, Marine, Aviation and Agricultural applications where the use of Petroleum or Synthetic Motor Oil is recommended by the OEM

ACEA ES-99 European Specifications for Heavy Duty Diesel Engine Oil
ACEA B4-98 European Specifications for Light Duty High Speed Diesel Engine Oil

So, I may use that oil in every engine. I guess they mean ACEA E5, not ES, there is no ACEA ES specification.

- Not for use in Diesel fueled engines ! -
Huh? They have passed two important European Diesel Specs, ACEA E5, B5 and they warn me to use their product in a Diesel engine????

Besides, this is the first product worldwide to pass GF-4 and E5. Amazing if you know, that testing for the GF-4 spec has started for candidate oils maybe one or two months ago.

It would lead to far to explain why, but it is impossible to pass all the mentioned specs with one oil. It's like being world champion in Marathon and 100m at the same time at the olympic games.

Reading this page makes me even more confident that I am correct in being skeptic. After reading this, I wouldn't even want try their products.

And these are just the worst mistakes I saw in just 2 minutes.
Callisa: Calm down! You are so intent on condemning this product that you don't stop to specifically state what is inconsistant or wrong. I read your post twice and you are obviously referring to something you've seen but have not included in your post.

Now, I will be the first to tell you that I don't pay much attention to diesels because I don't have one. If there is a mistake in the specs about them or anything else, I am sure that it is unintentional and I would be glad to forward this to SynLube if you would provide a clear statement as to what problem(s) you find.

With regard to the GF-4 standard, I was told that the specs that would comprise this standard were about a year late coming out and that the reason for this was that dino oil providers were having trouble meeting the original requirements. My take is that now we are seeing the formal adoption process after adopting specifications that the dino oil guys could meet. I could be wrong on this as I don't have access to all the information you seem to have. I take Miro Kefurt's word because he is a member of the SAE and should be aware of what's going on.
Callisa: Calm down!
You are right.

I read your post twice and you are obviously referring to something you've seen but have not included in your post.

I am not really against the product itself. The product might be good, but I don't think it can fulfill all promises made here.

I quoted from the homepage that the product passed several important ACEA Diesel Specs.

Why am I warned afterwards to use this product in a Diesel engine? A Diesel engine is very common in Europe, and I may use this product for every car for every OEM. (Stated on the Homepage)

But let's have some fun. You know the guy, and I wrote that it is impossible to fulfill all Specs with one oil, right?

You get the Oilcode under which the product has passed all claimed specs. Each oil gets such a code to make the formulation unique besides its brand name. I write an Email (or give you the adress) and ask for this miracle product at API, ILSAC and ACEA and find out, if this product is licensed under the claimed specs.

Do we have a deal? Cool
Thank you. Smile The specifications they claim are funny anyway. With all ACEA test results they have, they could easily get some DC and VW Spec releases without any additional cost. All they would have to do is present these ACEA results to VW (Dr. Koßmehl) and DC (J. Schenk).

@ Houckster
I quoted this from your link Product description. The purple letters " Not for use in Diesel fueled engines ! -"

What do they mean? Roll Eyes
Originally posted by Callisa:
Thank you. Smile The specifications they claim are funny anyway. With all ACEA test results they have, they could easily get some old but still valid DC and VW Spec releases without any additional cost. All they would have to do is present these ACEA results to VW and DC.

@ Houckster
I quoted this from your link The purple letters " Not for use in Diesel fueled engines ! -"

What do they mean?

[QUOTE] I don't know if he will let me have that information or not.

Hey, come on. What's so secret about that? All I want to see is the proof for these claims. You may make your own thoughts of what I think about this Company, if he is not in a postion to tell this oil code.

Do we have a deal? Wink
Slick 50 contains PTFE same as Synlube

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.

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


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!
MGBV8: This information is dated and worthless. Dupont now sells a version of PTFE specifically designed for inclusion in automotive lubricants. So does Shamrock Technologies.

The PTFE that Slick 50 contains is NOT the same as that in SynLube. SynLube uses a form of PTFE called nanoFlon made by Shamrock Technologies. The particles in Slick 50 are up to 2300 times the size of the colloids in SynLube which are approximately 1 micron in size. The SynLube formula is what's called a lyophilic sol because the solids in SynLube are permanently attracted to the liquid lubricants so they won't coagulate or settle out.
I am aware of their comments. I was the one who introduced the subject in another post that spawned this series of posts.

As I stated above, I was not very impressed with their logic. Basically, they did not evaluate the product for the properties it has but on the negative things they've come to believe based on feedback about other products. No one could state with any justification that the product could not meet the claims made for it.

Basically, their efforts were directed to finding some reason to deny the validity of SynLube so they could use what they are comfortable with and feel that it is the best.

Now a question. What is the cost of getting an oil certified by API, ILSAC, or any of the other certification bodies? I have not had a chance to e-mail Miro Kefurt about certification but with a customer base of 13,000 nonrepeating customers, it is my guess that certification is simply financially impossible. This in no way SynLube could afford all those fees but this in no way means that the product cannot meet the spec.

Also, some comment was made that there was some problems with the specs, specifically I heard some comment about the ACEA specs. Can anyone clarify what the problem is so I can include this information in my e-mail?
Wow. That's a good one.

SynLube™ Lube-4-Life ® ...for Engines exceeds all of the following performance requirements:

Oh man, stupid me. It does not fullfill these Specs, it exceeds the specs.... Eek
I should have read first, before I start to discuss with you such a product. They do not even claim to have the ACEA or ILSAC releases.

We can discuss now a long time if the product would pass this test or that test. We will never get an appropriate answer, because we don't have the data.

But let's do it the other way round: Let's try to find another oil with Google who fulfills ILSAC GF-4, ACEA A3/B3/B4 and E5. I am quite sure that you will not find such an oil.

By the way, the claimed Caterpillar 10 TBN requirements means automatically that the chemical limits from ILSAC GF-4 cannot be fulfilled.

I posted this link from Oronite so you can see that each Spec has it's own demands concerning the oil. I still believe that you cannot pass with one oil all these specs.
Callisa: Why be sarcastic? I don't think you know enough about this product yet to reject it. You may think you do but I have seen too many people write this product off just because it's different.

I have asked for a clear statement about what you find questionable about the product. Before I can respond to you, I need this information.

I suggest you read through the website more thoroughly. Your questions may not be answered directly but the information you want may still be there.
Why be sarcastic?
I don't want to be sarcastic, even if sounds like that.
I don't think you know enough about this product yet to reject it
I wrote before that the product itself may not be bad.
But it seems to me as this Company tries to sell a product by misleading the customer.
This is in my point of view questionable.

As I wrote before, I do not believe that one single product can fulfill or exceed all these claimed Specifications. Why should I trust or use a product from questionable Company? Why should I discuss with them non existing ACEA test results?
The ACEA specification may be included for those who have vehicles that were manufactured during the time this spec was in use. Many people do not keep up with oil issues as you do and simply get used to looking for this because it's all they've ever needed.

As far as the company being questionable, I must disagree. I don't have all the information about oils that you do but I have never been mislead by SynLube. I have always received good information from them when I asked for it and believe they operate in good faith.

I still think you should read more of what they discuss on their website and then ask for information from Miro Kefurt. He is a trained chemist and a member of SAE. I believe he can answer your questions.
One does not need to live in the USA to have some skeptisism based on some knowledge of the facts .

Count me as a skeptic but before I leave ,

Houckster , I must ask are you involved in any way with this Company ? If you are not , how long has it been since you have used another very good synthetic oil brand and put the pencil to price vs performance in daily use of a passenger car engine operated in the United States .
Originally posted by Houckster:

Also, some comment was made that there was some problems with the specs, specifically I heard some comment about the ACEA specs. Can anyone clarify what the problem is so I can include this information in my e-mail?

If you are asking why one oil cannot meet all ACEA specs it's obvious . ACEA A1 , A5 and A3 are each unto themselves and separated .

No one oil can meet these specs .
TIMER: I am not an employee or a dealer for SynLube. I am a customer only. If you wanted to buy SynLube from me, I would refer you to the company.

As far as having used another good synthetic, why? SynLube is better than any other lubricant in my opinion. SynLube lasts 150K miles/3K engine hours/10 years, WCF. At that time, I'll send it back to SynLube who will microfilter the lube and rebalance the additive package. It will then be in brand new condition. I even get a credit from the company if I exchange it for new SynLube. During this time, I will not be producing hundreds of quarts of waste oil which is a growning disposal problem in this country and is considered a toxic waste.

As far as economy goes, you pay up front for SynLube. I am anticipating that I'll only have to spend $195 for the 150K mile period. Plug in your figures for what you use now. Even if you change your own oil, you should still come out ahead but the savings are not my main motiviation. It is the performance of the lube and the knowledge that it maintains its like-new capabilities over its entire service life. The service life for the lubricant given by the company is actually quite conservative according to their website.
Last edited by houckster
TIMER: With regard to the ACEA A1 , A5 and A3 specs, I believe SynLube will meet them. I don't know what these specs mean but if the company put those specs there, it must mean that they stand behind their oil for use in engines for which these specs are relevant. I suggest that since you doubt this, you should e-mail SynLube requesting a clarification. When I was considering the use of SynLube, I had questions and he patiently answered them. More than anything else, it was his answers that prompted me to try the product.
I am not a lube guy, but have been reading posts and learning from this site. I have noticed several entries on this board concerning shear and the breakdown of lubricants at the molecular level caused by it. (Long molecular chains sheared into short chains?) How does SynLube handle this? From what I have read on this board, I get the impression that there is just no lubricant (mineral or synthetic) that, when used in an auto engine over time, will not degrade because of shear. Is my crude understanding of this correct?
Synskeptic: SynLube has this to say in their discussion of viscosity (very useful for a basic understanding of the subject):
Even more important is the High-Shear High-Temperature MINIMUM specification in SAE J300. In [the] tables below you will notice that there are "two" SAE 40 specifications, one with [a] minimum HSHT value of 2.9 cP for automotive Oils (SAE 0W-40; 5W-40; 10W-40) and the other for Heavy Duty Oils (HDO) (SAE 15W-40; 20W-40; 25W-40; 40).

This double specification is at insistence of heavy duty engine manufacturers who have required HSHT viscosity limits consistent with good engine durability in high-load, severe service operation. [They require an] HSHT value of 3.7 cP or [a] 27% more viscous oil at 150ºC (300ºF).

Yes, a 27% increase in viscosity makes a difference between Automotive engine that lasts 100,000 miles and a truck engine that lasts 1,000,000 miles!

When you consider that most automotive motor oils are ONLY 3 cP, while our
SAE 5W-50 SynLube™ Lube-4-Life™ Motor Oil has a rating of 5 cP, you can readily appreciate why we can claim [a] 300% to 500% increase in typical automotive engine durability, and that is with a substantial "safety" reserve!

See the entire section on SynLube Viscosity

Redline HTHS compared to M1

5W-30 3.8 (M1 3.08)
10W-30 3.8 (M1 3.17
5w-40 4.6 (Silkolene 4.07 & 10W-50 5.11)
10W-40 4.7
15W-50 5.8 (5.11) (Silkolene 5.23)
20W-50 6.1

Redline is approx 65% ester Silkolene approx 20% and M1 10%?

So any better than a good synth PAO?

As you are using synlube do you have VOA or UOA as they do not make available (why? they can post on web site)

I'm intrigued by the fact that you can recycle base stock and just replenish additives - what is this base stock and if so good why is in not used in aviation instead of ester.

The filters sound interesting do you have a link?

The discussion re Synth oil life study was interesting but got nowhere.

Any info use in Rally as Motorsport would be a testing ground.
MGBV8 wrote: As you are using synlube do you have VOA or UOA as they do not make available (why? they can post on web site)The company does do analysis of their lube but the process is very expensive. SynLube provides a service to evaluate their oil SynLube Lube Analysis and I will take advantage of this when the oil reaches the 5 year mark. Per their comments, a valid analysis is expensive and I have only about 7K on the current oil and that's too soon to reveal anything meaningful about how the oil is faring. As to their publishing results of testing customer's oil, Miro Kefurt would probably assert that not even general conclusions could be reliably inferred from other poeple's results because reliable information about the conditions under which the oil was used is very difficult to get. Of course, I agree that publishing some of the results he's found would be very interesting.

As far as the basestock goes, the composition is proprietary so I have no clue. It is composed of 5 liquid lubricants and 3 solids (in the form of colloids). Some use of esters and PAO is made but that's the extent of my knowledge.

I use filters by CM. I really like them. I use two SynLube neodymium magnets inside the steel filter media cage to take any ferric-based debris out of oil circulation though there shouldn't be any. The filter uses Viton seals and is very well made. I plan to use mine 5 years before rebuilding it.

Any info use in Rally as Motorsport would be a testing ground. As you can imagine, SynLube is far too small to sponsor any racing efforts but some use of their lubricants is made in Europe. SynLube Racing
Link copied to your clipboard.