Aristotelian pure though experimenters
WOW I have already gotten 2 e-mail as a result of this post from people who are not even "registered" on the noria board.
So to those who have missed some basic history / physics education here is the BIT on this as it relates to "SynLube" !
First of all Aristotle (also sometimes Aristotel) that live in 384-322 BD in Greese (not Grease) simply conclude by "pure thought experiments" - i.e. just thinking about it while feasting on grapes (sometimes apparently well fermented) - that heavy objects fall to earth which is their "natural" place much faster than light objects - AND THAT was accepted by "scientists" (in Latin that means :to know) for 2,000 years as no one ever bothered to "test: this absolutely obvious conclusion that was based on "pure thought experiment".
And then there ws Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) that the all knowing Church almost burned at the stake in the center of Vatican, just for suggesting that Earth is NOT the center of all universe, and also figuring out that body in freefal (irrespective of its mass or weight) accelerates at 32 ft/sec2 = that was just too radical.
One of the Ancient Egyptian definitions of "god" (which Vatican secretly embraced) was that the purpose of man is to be better than "god", and the way to do it is to predict a "future and what will happen as "cause-effect" relationship with exact certainity"
Knowing how fast a rock will fall, what its terminal speed will be, where it will fall, BEFORE you drop it, is knowing the FUTURE BEFORE it HAPPENS, and by the Egyptian definition that makes you "better" than "god".
He (god) only creates, but "you" can DESIGN the future and understand it BEFORE it happens TOO !
That has ALWAYS been a very dangerous knowledgge.
So it took 22 years to perfect SynLube (1944 to 1966) it has been in use and available in USA since 1969.
SO do NOT waste any more time, or post space for another YEAR in proving that based on your though all heavy objects MUST FALL FASTER as that is OBVIOUS !
USE SynLube in your own car - as we can already predict what will happen !!!
You will just "love" that stuff, you had a serious phobia about for over a year NOW !!!
Well that is all the time and effort I will spend on this post, if you have any real questions send them direct to
synlube@aol.com
Miro Kefurt
Read our primer articles on High Mileage Oil, Synthetic Oil and Kinematic Viscosity
Mr. Kefurt!
Your three posts were (pretty) educative, but unfortunately, not so much about Synlube. Aristotle (Aristotel), Galileo,… are too far of synthetic lubricants what actually is our present topic. Let me just to mention that I, personally, am not afraid of getting knowledge about these (early) scientists. Not knowing too much about North American school programs I would just mention that (even primary and obviously secondary) school in former Yugoslavia taught me much wider and more about tens of (here not mentioned) scientists or “important persons through history of the world”. It was too boring than (for most part of us) to learn years, happenings and works of some “prehistoric” Greeks, Italians, Brits,… Today, for most part of these “old school guys”, it is our advantage to know it. As “general knowledge” if nothing else.
It is not necessary to be so smart and figure out that all “disputants” here are greatly interested in getting more dubious knowledge about synthetic lubricants. Some of us are doing it for just pleasure reasons, some - because of living and part of us (lucky ones!) made a “combo” of it. As you know it, most dominant method here is rather through conversation than being taught like in school. Having a conversation means having a less or more aggressive opponent, a less or more knowledgeable, a less or more skeptic. Without it conversation would be more like applauding and result of it is – loosing a sense of having a discussion.
Regarding just mentioned you really do not need to be poignant about more skeptic disputants. They are just a little bit more interested about topic and want to know a little bit deeply about things what do not know at present time. For instance, when I had to make more complicated designs I liked to discuss it with most opponent person. It just gave me opportunity to be the most bold and defendable person about that project at same time. You are going to agree with me that there wasn’t effect of having discussion with someone who has been thinking similarly as me or worked as my draftsman.
I would not agree with your standpoint that all of us have to try (your) product first and than post opinions. Forums are ideal place to get someone’s other experience, discuss a little bit about it and not to make (or repeat) a mistake (if it was like this). Would you suggest us to purchase a new car (for instance) without even reading a tests and other’s opinions? As technically educated person, would you purchase and use product like Synlube, Amsoil, plasma TV, computer, … without getting preliminary info about it? Answer for sure is: no. So, along with mentioning (well known for me) Bertone and other facts please explain us a little bit more about “Synlube magic”. As one of creators you, for sure, know how much to tell and not to reveal “the most important thing”. Do not let us, who are not so deep in your product, to guess and suppose. Give us more technically explainable facts than years (1944 – 1966), wet water and “falling objects”
It is so nice that you are bold about your product. It is understandable either. You spent a lot of time improving it and implementing newer things. There is no guessing if I say that you definitely can help us to better understand and accept your product as reality.
Your three posts were (pretty) educative, but unfortunately, not so much about Synlube. Aristotle (Aristotel), Galileo,… are too far of synthetic lubricants what actually is our present topic. Let me just to mention that I, personally, am not afraid of getting knowledge about these (early) scientists. Not knowing too much about North American school programs I would just mention that (even primary and obviously secondary) school in former Yugoslavia taught me much wider and more about tens of (here not mentioned) scientists or “important persons through history of the world”. It was too boring than (for most part of us) to learn years, happenings and works of some “prehistoric” Greeks, Italians, Brits,… Today, for most part of these “old school guys”, it is our advantage to know it. As “general knowledge” if nothing else.
It is not necessary to be so smart and figure out that all “disputants” here are greatly interested in getting more dubious knowledge about synthetic lubricants. Some of us are doing it for just pleasure reasons, some - because of living and part of us (lucky ones!) made a “combo” of it. As you know it, most dominant method here is rather through conversation than being taught like in school. Having a conversation means having a less or more aggressive opponent, a less or more knowledgeable, a less or more skeptic. Without it conversation would be more like applauding and result of it is – loosing a sense of having a discussion.
Regarding just mentioned you really do not need to be poignant about more skeptic disputants. They are just a little bit more interested about topic and want to know a little bit deeply about things what do not know at present time. For instance, when I had to make more complicated designs I liked to discuss it with most opponent person. It just gave me opportunity to be the most bold and defendable person about that project at same time. You are going to agree with me that there wasn’t effect of having discussion with someone who has been thinking similarly as me or worked as my draftsman.
I would not agree with your standpoint that all of us have to try (your) product first and than post opinions. Forums are ideal place to get someone’s other experience, discuss a little bit about it and not to make (or repeat) a mistake (if it was like this). Would you suggest us to purchase a new car (for instance) without even reading a tests and other’s opinions? As technically educated person, would you purchase and use product like Synlube, Amsoil, plasma TV, computer, … without getting preliminary info about it? Answer for sure is: no. So, along with mentioning (well known for me) Bertone and other facts please explain us a little bit more about “Synlube magic”. As one of creators you, for sure, know how much to tell and not to reveal “the most important thing”. Do not let us, who are not so deep in your product, to guess and suppose. Give us more technically explainable facts than years (1944 – 1966), wet water and “falling objects”
It is so nice that you are bold about your product. It is understandable either. You spent a lot of time improving it and implementing newer things. There is no guessing if I say that you definitely can help us to better understand and accept your product as reality.
Houckster writes:
"Now, just what is the point of sending a sample to Dyson if SynLube reports that the oil is NOT holding up? It is only if SynLube sends back a positive UOA that it makes any sense to submit a sample to Dyson.
Doesn't this make sense?"
No, it doesn't! To any intelligent, rational, and objective person, the above hypothetical comments make no sense at all because SynLube has never supplied any test data, either positive or negative. Neither do most of Houckster's previously and presently unsubstantiated "beliefs" regarding SynLube.
First of all, if you want an objective opinion about SynLube, the best thing to do is have an independent lab test the oil and publish their unedited test results. Having SynLube test it themselves or letting them edit their own or others test results is like letting a student grade their own final exam. Most of us <graduates> are smarter than that!
Second, if anyone disagrees with the results from the first test, then get another independent opinion by having a second independent lab test the oil, without any knowledge of the previous results, and then publish their unedited results. If both of the test results are in agreement, then we are surely closer to reality. If not, get a third opinion and see which of the two previous tests are mostly in agreement with the third. Then we're even closer to reality.
Please, lets not cloud reality by claiming that any good test lab is incapable of properly testing Synlube. That is just not true. Anybody who is willing to pay (or expecting others to pay) $32 a liter for synthetic motor oil surely wouldn't scoff at paying $40 each for a few ICP + TBN used oil analysis (UOA) tests now would they? Or is "belief" preferable to fact?
Chumley
"Now, just what is the point of sending a sample to Dyson if SynLube reports that the oil is NOT holding up? It is only if SynLube sends back a positive UOA that it makes any sense to submit a sample to Dyson.
Doesn't this make sense?"
No, it doesn't! To any intelligent, rational, and objective person, the above hypothetical comments make no sense at all because SynLube has never supplied any test data, either positive or negative. Neither do most of Houckster's previously and presently unsubstantiated "beliefs" regarding SynLube.
First of all, if you want an objective opinion about SynLube, the best thing to do is have an independent lab test the oil and publish their unedited test results. Having SynLube test it themselves or letting them edit their own or others test results is like letting a student grade their own final exam. Most of us <graduates> are smarter than that!
Second, if anyone disagrees with the results from the first test, then get another independent opinion by having a second independent lab test the oil, without any knowledge of the previous results, and then publish their unedited results. If both of the test results are in agreement, then we are surely closer to reality. If not, get a third opinion and see which of the two previous tests are mostly in agreement with the third. Then we're even closer to reality.
Please, lets not cloud reality by claiming that any good test lab is incapable of properly testing Synlube. That is just not true. Anybody who is willing to pay (or expecting others to pay) $32 a liter for synthetic motor oil surely wouldn't scoff at paying $40 each for a few ICP + TBN used oil analysis (UOA) tests now would they? Or is "belief" preferable to fact?
Chumley
Chumley, I think that you've just about summed it up for everyone following this topic.
I've been dying to see some results from someone who has used this product, to no avail. $32 per liter for ANY type of oil is hard to swallow unless the proof says that this stuff is liquid gold for your engine. (I personally draw the line at $10 per or so, which is whay I posted my other questions about the other oils)
I've been dying to see some results from someone who has used this product, to no avail. $32 per liter for ANY type of oil is hard to swallow unless the proof says that this stuff is liquid gold for your engine. (I personally draw the line at $10 per or so, which is whay I posted my other questions about the other oils)
I think Synlube's market is not geeks that lurk around these web sites. I think they have matched their production (small) to a market that is willing to pay (small) for such a product. The unit cost is high and that's part of the pitch. Wouldn't you pay more for a product that does what Synlube claims? Evidently there is enough response to support a business. The oil may be very good, but they are sure keeping us (geeks) from finding out. The minimum to get started would be one voa and two or three uoa's each, on different vehicles. If we are not hearing anything it's just because we are not the focus of any of Synlube's marketing. If our small slice of the market is missed it will be no great loss to Synlube. The geek market is probably too much work or Synlube is not up to it, after all.
There is a solution. Start a fund, pick someone with a near new car that coummutes a lot and go after it. But that would take some work and maybe the question of hype or not just isn't worrth the effort.
To do it right would take a couple of hundred dollars for oil and a couple of hundred dollars for analysis. Start with the oil, a voa and a uoa every 5k miles and publish the results. And we need someone that drives a lot with that near new car. This thread is at 11 pages, maybe that's an indicator of the interest and a possibility to generate a test fund. I'm in for $20.00US, how 'bout you?
There is a solution. Start a fund, pick someone with a near new car that coummutes a lot and go after it. But that would take some work and maybe the question of hype or not just isn't worrth the effort.
To do it right would take a couple of hundred dollars for oil and a couple of hundred dollars for analysis. Start with the oil, a voa and a uoa every 5k miles and publish the results. And we need someone that drives a lot with that near new car. This thread is at 11 pages, maybe that's an indicator of the interest and a possibility to generate a test fund. I'm in for $20.00US, how 'bout you?
Very true and great point Barkerman, but let me ask this: After purchasing a new car, who's got that kind of disposable cash just waiting around to be poured into a crankcase at the start?
I mean you do have time while the engine is finishing breaking in, but by then the first payment's due, the tanks required about $200 or more worth's of fuel, and the wife is complaining that she doesn't have any money to buy new clothes?!?
Seriously though, I WOULD be willing to try this stuff, but I am just so hung up on the cost end of it. Let's see $32 x 5 (average crankcase of a 4 cylinder) = $160 + roughly $24 for their filter = $184 + liter of add oil @ $22 = $206 plus the magnets for their filter @ $12 = $218 That's roughly 1 2/3 cases of the most expensive racing motor oil out there, which @ 21 liters, gives 4 changes (using extended drains) plus 1 liter of oil to top off with the filter changes, which wouldn't require much due to the smaller size of the filters on 4 cylinder engines these days (granted, Mobil 1 oil filters are $10 to $12 a piece and higher in some states, so that might add a little to the filter cost.)
Then you've got the analysis as you said @ $40 a pop for the good ones (such as the Dyson Analysis). This just seems to be a lot for MAYBE having the benefit of not having to do oil changes for quite a while, but to get the sample an most vehicles these days, you have to get under the car and get it from the drain plug hole. I know that Fram makes a device that you can screw in and just turn it to drain, but what about the contaminants that build up inside the tube while driving. Not taking the first bit will help in the flushing of this tube, but you won't get all of the excess contaminants out. And while I'm under said car, why not just change all of it, since I still have to get under my particular car to change the oil filter too.
So, in the long run, I'm I really saving money AND time, or am I just hoping that this product is still doing it's job? I guess you're right, we need to find someone willing to do this and follow a strict schedule and get UOA's done to post results and find out for sure if this is the greatest lubricant since synthetics started...
I mean you do have time while the engine is finishing breaking in, but by then the first payment's due, the tanks required about $200 or more worth's of fuel, and the wife is complaining that she doesn't have any money to buy new clothes?!?
Seriously though, I WOULD be willing to try this stuff, but I am just so hung up on the cost end of it. Let's see $32 x 5 (average crankcase of a 4 cylinder) = $160 + roughly $24 for their filter = $184 + liter of add oil @ $22 = $206 plus the magnets for their filter @ $12 = $218 That's roughly 1 2/3 cases of the most expensive racing motor oil out there, which @ 21 liters, gives 4 changes (using extended drains) plus 1 liter of oil to top off with the filter changes, which wouldn't require much due to the smaller size of the filters on 4 cylinder engines these days (granted, Mobil 1 oil filters are $10 to $12 a piece and higher in some states, so that might add a little to the filter cost.)
Then you've got the analysis as you said @ $40 a pop for the good ones (such as the Dyson Analysis). This just seems to be a lot for MAYBE having the benefit of not having to do oil changes for quite a while, but to get the sample an most vehicles these days, you have to get under the car and get it from the drain plug hole. I know that Fram makes a device that you can screw in and just turn it to drain, but what about the contaminants that build up inside the tube while driving. Not taking the first bit will help in the flushing of this tube, but you won't get all of the excess contaminants out. And while I'm under said car, why not just change all of it, since I still have to get under my particular car to change the oil filter too.
So, in the long run, I'm I really saving money AND time, or am I just hoping that this product is still doing it's job? I guess you're right, we need to find someone willing to do this and follow a strict schedule and get UOA's done to post results and find out for sure if this is the greatest lubricant since synthetics started...
Barkerman writes:
Thanks but, I'm out, and I'll pass. This thread has been going on now for over a year. If anyone representing SynLube had anything of value to say/add or were planning on posting any more relevant data, chances are it would have happened by now! Jeeze, 83 mind numbing posts in 11 pages at present? I'd be more optimistic about the polar ice caps melting.
Hummmmm. Could someone please explain to me why I should have to pay to test an unknown fledgling companies outrageously priced unproved product, (clearly they don't want to) or why I should take a chance on using it on my equipment, when acceptable, cost effective, and well proven industry accepted products all ready exist which I have no issue with? What's in this exercise for me? Not much unless SynLube wants to "give me" say, 5 quarts of their claimed "golden elixir" for my own testing. As Richard Gere implied in the movie Pretty Woman, "We're going to need some major sucking up here if you want my business." If it does all they say it does, I could be one of SynLubes best proponents. But as this thread initially began, skepticism was mentioned, which I am full of. Now here we are a year later. Nothing's changed, except my increased level of skepticism.
Barkerman writes:
"I think Synlube's market is not geeks that lurk around these web sites. I think they have matched their production (small) to a market that is willing pay (small) for such a product. The unit cost is high and that's part of the pitch. Wouldn't you pay more for a product that does what Synlube claims?"
So, do you have any idea about what SynLubes current market actually IS, (and what their yearly sales are) or are you going to just guess about what it isn't? So far that links you with Houckster's thinking. (which makes no sense)
SynLube has made a lot of claims. To date, they have not offered one shred of evidence to support them. Bablink! A double bond that further closely links Barkerman with Houckster's thinking!
The posts offered as evidence in this thread by the President of SynLube Company need no reply. Clearly, that should tell the reader something.
Chumley
quote:I'm in for $20.00US, how 'bout you?
Thanks but, I'm out, and I'll pass. This thread has been going on now for over a year. If anyone representing SynLube had anything of value to say/add or were planning on posting any more relevant data, chances are it would have happened by now! Jeeze, 83 mind numbing posts in 11 pages at present? I'd be more optimistic about the polar ice caps melting.
Hummmmm. Could someone please explain to me why I should have to pay to test an unknown fledgling companies outrageously priced unproved product, (clearly they don't want to) or why I should take a chance on using it on my equipment, when acceptable, cost effective, and well proven industry accepted products all ready exist which I have no issue with? What's in this exercise for me? Not much unless SynLube wants to "give me" say, 5 quarts of their claimed "golden elixir" for my own testing. As Richard Gere implied in the movie Pretty Woman, "We're going to need some major sucking up here if you want my business." If it does all they say it does, I could be one of SynLubes best proponents. But as this thread initially began, skepticism was mentioned, which I am full of. Now here we are a year later. Nothing's changed, except my increased level of skepticism.
Barkerman writes:
"I think Synlube's market is not geeks that lurk around these web sites. I think they have matched their production (small) to a market that is willing pay (small) for such a product. The unit cost is high and that's part of the pitch. Wouldn't you pay more for a product that does what Synlube claims?"
So, do you have any idea about what SynLubes current market actually IS, (and what their yearly sales are) or are you going to just guess about what it isn't? So far that links you with Houckster's thinking. (which makes no sense)
SynLube has made a lot of claims. To date, they have not offered one shred of evidence to support them. Bablink! A double bond that further closely links Barkerman with Houckster's thinking!
The posts offered as evidence in this thread by the President of SynLube Company need no reply. Clearly, that should tell the reader something.
Chumley
That just might happen Chumley if we keep up the good work of running our internal combustion engines at loads and speeds that require us to talk about products like Synlube.
As for me, after my last post, I'll take my $20 to the beer distributor and buy some cold ones to go with my racing oil package and not be thirsty while changing my oil and filter!
As for me, after my last post, I'll take my $20 to the beer distributor and buy some cold ones to go with my racing oil package and not be thirsty while changing my oil and filter!
Honestly, I've never seen a group of people who are more intent on missing the point of a bit of common sense.
Chumley, you really do need to read my posts over again. You've completely misinterpreted my comments. The only person, INHALIBURTON, that did understood what's going on. Please, please read the posts!
For the last time: I have sent a sample of oil into SynLube. That was about a week ago. When I get the results I will post them. IF THE RESULTS ARE GOOD, then I will send a sample to Dyson for their analysis and post them.
Again, if I can't get a good report out of SynLube, the company that makes the stuff and would be expected by people here to give a good report (and therefore would not be trusted), what chance do I have of getting a good report out of an independent source? I am not going to waste $40 if SynLube itself won't tell me the oil is holding up. If SynLube itself tells me that the oil is NOT working, everyone will believe it, it's only if SynLube gives me a great report that I'm going to have to send the oil to Dyson so people will give the oil the credit it deserves.
Finally, the point that was made about not having the money to buy SynLube after purchasing a new vehicle is unpersuasive as well. That's exactly what I did. I changed the oil in the engine, the transmission, differential, transfer case, front axle and power steering. No, it's not cheap but when it comes to ROI, that's when the return is highest when you can eliminate the dino oil before it has deteriorated and leaves deposits behind for SynLube to deal with. As of 16.5K miles w/SynLube, my truck has consumed 4 oz. of oil. By any system of measurement, that's an impressive stat.
Chumley, you really do need to read my posts over again. You've completely misinterpreted my comments. The only person, INHALIBURTON, that did understood what's going on. Please, please read the posts!
For the last time: I have sent a sample of oil into SynLube. That was about a week ago. When I get the results I will post them. IF THE RESULTS ARE GOOD, then I will send a sample to Dyson for their analysis and post them.
Again, if I can't get a good report out of SynLube, the company that makes the stuff and would be expected by people here to give a good report (and therefore would not be trusted), what chance do I have of getting a good report out of an independent source? I am not going to waste $40 if SynLube itself won't tell me the oil is holding up. If SynLube itself tells me that the oil is NOT working, everyone will believe it, it's only if SynLube gives me a great report that I'm going to have to send the oil to Dyson so people will give the oil the credit it deserves.
Finally, the point that was made about not having the money to buy SynLube after purchasing a new vehicle is unpersuasive as well. That's exactly what I did. I changed the oil in the engine, the transmission, differential, transfer case, front axle and power steering. No, it's not cheap but when it comes to ROI, that's when the return is highest when you can eliminate the dino oil before it has deteriorated and leaves deposits behind for SynLube to deal with. As of 16.5K miles w/SynLube, my truck has consumed 4 oz. of oil. By any system of measurement, that's an impressive stat.
Houckster writes:
"Honestly, I've never seen a group of people who are more intent on missing the point of a bit of common sense."
Naaahhh. Not true at all. Just the opposite is true. Most of us are patiently waiting for you to MAKE A POINT which is based on common sense! Our intentions are in FINDING THAT POINT, and then discussing it, if you would just make one! We're waiting . . . .
Then Houckster writes:
"Chumley, you really do need to read my posts over again."
I would make the same comment to you except that you should read my posts twice, three times, or however many times it takes to bring your hibernating brain back to life!
Most of us don't care about what grade SynLube gives themselves. (every idiot will give themselves an "A" if they have the opportunity to decide their own grade) We're interested in reality and documented performance here. When you have some independent objective test data, feel free to post it, there's lots of people here who would love to read it.
If you have more mindless psychobabble like you've previously posted in this thread, rather than post more of it in a public forum and further embarrass yourself, I suggest you put it in MSWord documents and store it on you own PC. Then after your meds take effect, go back and read it!
Chumley
"Honestly, I've never seen a group of people who are more intent on missing the point of a bit of common sense."
Naaahhh. Not true at all. Just the opposite is true. Most of us are patiently waiting for you to MAKE A POINT which is based on common sense! Our intentions are in FINDING THAT POINT, and then discussing it, if you would just make one! We're waiting . . . .
Then Houckster writes:
"Chumley, you really do need to read my posts over again."
I would make the same comment to you except that you should read my posts twice, three times, or however many times it takes to bring your hibernating brain back to life!
Most of us don't care about what grade SynLube gives themselves. (every idiot will give themselves an "A" if they have the opportunity to decide their own grade) We're interested in reality and documented performance here. When you have some independent objective test data, feel free to post it, there's lots of people here who would love to read it.
If you have more mindless psychobabble like you've previously posted in this thread, rather than post more of it in a public forum and further embarrass yourself, I suggest you put it in MSWord documents and store it on you own PC. Then after your meds take effect, go back and read it!
Chumley
Chumley, you're simply hopeless.
Yeah, I agree with you completely. I am totally hopeless as a potential customer if your thinking that I might buy SynLube's $32 a liter synthetic oil. Find another sucker!
And when you do, I've got a whole tanker full of $30 a gallon premium synthetic extra special ultra high octane low emission deodecyl methylcyclopental orthdimethylbenzyl methadexil racing gasoline I'd love to sell them too. And by the way, for every gallon of gasoline you sell for me at $30, I'll give you $5 bucks as a commission. Sounds good?
Chumley
And when you do, I've got a whole tanker full of $30 a gallon premium synthetic extra special ultra high octane low emission deodecyl methylcyclopental orthdimethylbenzyl methadexil racing gasoline I'd love to sell them too. And by the way, for every gallon of gasoline you sell for me at $30, I'll give you $5 bucks as a commission. Sounds good?
Chumley
Page 12 must be getting very close.
Relaxing inHaliburton...
Relaxing inHaliburton...
Chumley, you seem to be under the impression that I am going to be disappointed that you're not going to use SynLube. I really couldn't care less.
INHALLIBURTON: We wouldn't be at page 11 and close to 12 if a few people here had read and tried to understand a few clear sentences about my intentions.
INHALLIBURTON: We wouldn't be at page 11 and close to 12 if a few people here had read and tried to understand a few clear sentences about my intentions.
Any chance of a brief overview of base oil and reason for high Fe while waiting for results.
SynLube's formula is proprietary so other than what's on the website, I have no clue.
Where did you get the information about the Fe? SynLube does have a section on their website to answer the most frequent questions that arise from the results of independent testing. Fe, for example will usually flag and SynLube advises that they use a sacrificial iron additive as part of the formula so the reading has to be reduced by about 100.
So for anyone interested in the results that I'll get back, hopefully within a couple of weeks, that section would be very important for a proper perspective. The link was posted in a previous post.
As I've mentioned several times, if the results of the test are good, then a sample will be sent to Dyson to see if he can confirm the good result. I will also send him a sample of new oil for comparison purposes.
Where did you get the information about the Fe? SynLube does have a section on their website to answer the most frequent questions that arise from the results of independent testing. Fe, for example will usually flag and SynLube advises that they use a sacrificial iron additive as part of the formula so the reading has to be reduced by about 100.
So for anyone interested in the results that I'll get back, hopefully within a couple of weeks, that section would be very important for a proper perspective. The link was posted in a previous post.
As I've mentioned several times, if the results of the test are good, then a sample will be sent to Dyson to see if he can confirm the good result. I will also send him a sample of new oil for comparison purposes.
quote:INHALLIBURTON: We wouldn't be at page 11 and close to 12 if a few people here had read and tried to understand a few clear sentences about my intentions.
Right on. Btw, I'm not associated with those hucksters at Halliburton. I live in Haliburton, Ontario with one (1) "L."
Regards, inHaliburton.
quote:Fe, for example will usually flag and SynLube advises that they use a sacrificial iron additive as part of the formula so the reading has to be reduced by about 100.
Wow what a great way to explain away lousy wear rates by saying they use FE in the formula.
But how do you know with out a baseline of new unused oil?
bruce
Houckster, have you ever kept a car long enough to prove the claims of Synlube?
Bruce381 wrote regarding the sacrificial iron wear additives in the SynLube formula:
BRUCE381: Congratulations on having such an open mind. With absolutely no evidence to validate such a judgment, you have already written the product off.
Regarding the baseline unused oil, see my previous post.
BARKERMAN wrote: Houckster, have you ever kept a car long enough to prove the claims of Synlube?
No, I haven't, if you're referring to the 10 year, 150K mile, or 3K engine hour service life of the lubricant. My current ride, a Ford Ranger has 16K miles on the oil. The sample I've sent into SynLube has 15.3K miles on it. The oil has been in use for a little over a 1.6 years.
quote:Wow what a great way to explain away lousy wear rates by saying they use FE in the formula. But how do you know with out a baseline of new unused oil?
BRUCE381: Congratulations on having such an open mind. With absolutely no evidence to validate such a judgment, you have already written the product off.
Regarding the baseline unused oil, see my previous post.
BARKERMAN wrote: Houckster, have you ever kept a car long enough to prove the claims of Synlube?
No, I haven't, if you're referring to the 10 year, 150K mile, or 3K engine hour service life of the lubricant. My current ride, a Ford Ranger has 16K miles on the oil. The sample I've sent into SynLube has 15.3K miles on it. The oil has been in use for a little over a 1.6 years.
