Synlube

Everyone knows that castles don't have telephones!

Has anyone seen any real numbers yet??

I check on this thread every few weeks and seriously am growing doubtfull of the value of an analysis that is so "mysterious"

It looks like they are not comming.....

To place the lab's delay into perspective (though not to defend the delay), it did change hands and probably personnel as well.

Synskeptic: I will post the results when I get them.

quote:

Because of the graphite the TBN comes about 6 to 7 points LESS than it is by chemical titration so again nothing to worry about and the real TBN is still way over 10.

They use electronic probe which conducts current through the sample and unless the result is at least 5 TAN the Syn is still OK to be used.

This is BS to infer the TBN test is low because of graphite interference with conductance is WRONG.

Folks Graphite has NO effect on a TBN or TAN test using either method, I know since I have run them on my own products which contain a lot of graphite and moly, BUT I'm sure the answer to that is they use secret graphite in a secret sauce and us normal lab guys can not figure it out

Here go the excuses already and NO report seen yet.

1 Lab tech is new = results may not be accurate
2 Lab ownership is new = Incompetence
3 Graphite throws off TBN test buy 7-8 numbers

First if you suspected this lab would have trouble with a simple basic test like a TBN and would make your product look bad maybe you should have asked them of there test procedures and discussed this with them now you look like you are making excuses.

And with out a "accurate" test how do you know the oil TBN is still 10??

Lastly as I remember this oil only has 7K or so on it big deal I thought this is never drain
oil? Is there more than 1 person who has used this and if so have any sent in a sample at any higher mileage? If this is so great there should be at least 1 or 2 100K samples NO?

bruce



With a high solid oil I would not expect any wear numbers out of wack but its conveient
That the lab did not run a VOA's what did they do lose the sample well send it again DUH.

If this lab is that incompetent then all the data is suspect.

I have received the results of the testing by Staveley Fluids Analysis performed for SynLube.

In general, everything tested normal except for copper and silicon which had readings of 44 and 40 respectively. The report indicates that this is probably associated with normal engine break-in. As of this time, my engine seems to run just fine and my current 4-tank MPG average is 20.4 which is high for a 4.0L V-6 Ranger that's primarily driven in city/suburban light traffic conditions.

The oil has 15.3K on it. During this time only 4 oz. of oil was consumed and it was replaced by 4 oz. of Service Fill.

Here are the other readings:

iron: 79
chromium: 3
lead: 1
tin: 0
aluminum: 3
nickel: 5
silver: 0
boron: 18
sodium: 5
magnesium: 285
calcium: 2838
barium: 0
phosphorus: 712
zinc: 836
molybdenum: 539
titanium: 0
vanadium: 0
potassium: 0
fuel: <1 %/vol
viscosity @ 40 C: 117.5
viscosity @ 100 C: 15.77
water: 0%/vol
soot/solids: 0.3
glycol: negative
TBN: 3.7
VI: 142

That stuff is big time thick @ 40c . Looks like Pennzoil 15w-40 diesel oil does at 40c . If the engine is saying ouch , give me something thinner in October , I assume it will be screamingas morning ambient drops during cold starts Or do you live on the Equator ?

I firmly beleive the Fe will continue to elevate but at an accelerated rate because of it .

Is it oxidative thickening or is it a just a straight weight formula ? Who knows , a baseline sample really needed to be sent in to see what the starting VI was and there's no doubt in my view that fuel mileage could be bettered .

I just went to the Synlube website .

Is this oil the 5w-50 , 0w-40 or the 5w-30 break-in oil ?

Site info says this

Allows engine cranking at -50°F (-45°C)

The Iron is a bit high but is probably ok, and the TBN is a bit low. Is that ok? I thought Synlube kept the TBN way up there.

Motorbike:

quote:

there's no doubt in my view that fuel mileage could be bettered .

The EPA estimate for my truck is 15 MPG for the type of mileage that I drive about 85% of the time. I find it hard to believe that I could improve much more than the 20.4 MPG I'm getting now.
Motorbike:

quote:

I firmly beleive the Fe will continue to elevate but at an accelerated rate because of it.

It would be beneficial to read the SynLube Services pages, you will see that high FE readings are due to the sacrificial FE additives. It is a mistake to judge the readings obtained from a sample of SynLube based on those obtained by conventional lubricants. I will not have any problems this winter with SynLube, nor have I had any during the previous four winters that I have used it. The engine starts right up and idles smoothly. While winters in Georgia are not akin to those of the northern states, we do have our cold snaps and I've had no problems during these periods.

Finally, the oil tested was SynLube 5W50 that was installed at 782 miles replacing the factory fill 5W30. BTW, the 5W30 is not a break-in oil. It was the oil that Ford recommends for the life of the vehicle. Most cars don't come with break-in oils any more.

With regard to TBN, SynLube states that the TBN is not important for engines using unleaded gasoline. SynLube can supply an additive to increase the TBN for those who wish it.

Not wanting to play devil'e advocate here, but is it just my, or are those numbers not all that impressive for a lubricant that is supposed to last 150K miles?

I've seen better numbers on other oils, but I also realize that numbers aren't everything. The big concern here are those viscosity numbers: man, that is some THICK oil. I agree with Motorbike, that is equivalent to a 15w40 oil, and only after 15K miles.

By the way, where is the gold? At $32 per liter, I WANT gold in the mix, to make my engine sparkle!!! (Please don't attack my sarcasm, I just still can't find justification for the price, even after the UOA!!)

Anybody else feel this way?

quote:

By the way, where is the gold? At $32 per liter, I WANT gold in the mix, to make my engine sparkle!!! (Please don't attack my sarcasm, I just still can't find justification for the price, even after the UOA!!)

Anybody else feel this way?

I use a decongestant Nasal Spray which costs about $7.00 for a 30 ml bottle, but I continue to use it in spite of the ridiculous price of this stuff, because it does the job.

I'm keeping an open mind on Synlube. If it turns out it's superior to some of the other expensive lubricants available up here, I will give it a try.

Glad to see the posts are remaining civil.

Regards from Haliburton,

Paul.

As per my previous post I would believe some interference with graphite on the TBN test even tho there is non if a VOA,s had been done since not I'd say TBN is very low.

Fe is very high and as such will not most likley stay under MY cap of 100PPM before it needs a change out which maybe in the 20K range FAR from what do they say 300K or some nonsense.

They say FE is sacrifical wear who cares wear is wear and comes off rotating parts DUH.

Again if a VOA's was done which would show FE as a makeup of this product I might bye it also.

But the sloppy lab work, dis ingenuious product info and exscuses all add up to a very unproffesional approach which makes me very suspect and the oil test to date IS NOT very IMPRESSIVE there is a 12K havoline on BITOG page (in a new low mileage car) and it is MUCH better across the board and I think that this oil will still look worse at 12k compared to the havoline.

Very sloppy in every way.

ALSO what???

"With regard to TBN, SynLube states that the TBN is not important for engines using unleaded gasoline. SynLube can supply an additive to increase the TBN for those who wish it."

First they say 300k now if you want you can add a TBN additive I though this stuff did not need anything added and was a NEVER change oil so now a TBN additive is needed??? Just more Cover your behind marketing blather.

And TBN control IS very important and is a limiting factor on engine life IT is needed anyone that thinks YBN not neeeded or improtant is Un informed or stupid.

bruce

quote:

Originally posted by Houckster:

It would be beneficial to read the SynLube Services pages, you will see that high FE readings are due to the sacrificial FE additives.

It would be more beneficial for you to learn about the metalurgy used in the 4.0 Ford , then you could better understand your analysis .

The OHC engine needs the oil pumped pronto when started and flowing well when pumped . Thinner equals better here and thats why your cam lobes which are made of sintered bronze are throwing off these high wear numbers . Even the Ford 4.6 engine shows elevated copper when using a certain brand of 5w-30 PAO synthetic thats known to thicken well into the 40wt range or other more viscous lubes . Also , Fe elevates as well but not only in the Ford modular engine series .

There something else of some concern I see with the analysis and how you think your fuel mileage to be but it seems defensiveness will stand in the way if I were to try and aid you any further .

Motorbike:

quote:

The OHC engine needs the oil pumped pronto when started and flowing well when pumped . Thinner equals better here and thats why your cam lobes which are made of sintered bronze are throwing off these high wear numbers.

Sintered bronze produces high copper readings? I don't understand. I don't have a chemistry or scientific background so I can't argue these kinds of points. All I can say is that the solid lubricants are embossed into the wear areas and provide protection until the liquid lubricant starts circulating. Also, if the engine was not properly lubricated, I would hear some noise on cold startups and I never hear such noises. I never did on the other cars in which SynLube was used either so I am not ready to concede to your point of view.

With regard to my gas mileage, what's your point? The phrasing of that paragraph was confusing.

In any case, I do not think you are justified in claiming me to be defensive simply because I don't immediately accede to your point of view. I tried to answer logically and calmly. Like you, I refuse to led by lease.

In contrast, when faced with a customer like Bruce381, I simply remain silent as I gave up any hope of productive exchange with him almost from the beginning.

Houckster, bronze is an alloy of copper and tin, hence the copper readings.

Bruce381 is a blender and chemist in is own right, so unfortunately, I would have a tendency to put more validity on his facts/figures/comments.

I said it in my last post, I'm not impressed with this lubricant so far. That's it, no bad mouthing, no more critiquing, just not impressed. Maybe I expected too much...

Not maybe - you're expected much more, like most of us for $32 per liter.
On the opposite side of (our) expectations is that oil didn’t fail what should be considered as good achievement for future and next UOA(s).

Maybe I missed it but what TBN number does this stuff start with? For fleet use a decline from say a 10, would be cause for an oil change pretty soon. And if the TBN continues to fall it might not make it to 300k miles. What is this additive package Synlube 'can' supply that will support the TBN. Is it something like Lube Control. I wonder how much it costs?

This says a lot. Two weeks now since the last post in this topic and nothing but my post stating this fact.

This really does just go to show that a lot more of this lubricant was expected...