Synlube

quote:

Actually, the additive package is there to protect the base oil and when that package has deteriorated, the base oil will indeed deteriorate by forming byproducts with the combustion blow-by and water that forms during cold starts.

Indeed.

quote:

In contrast SynLube is composed of inert ingredients that don't interact with these contaminants.

I ask again: What is this magical base oil that does not oxidize or nitrate when exposed to combustion chamber temps and ring blow by...and who makes it? Should be an easy question since the Synlube components are "readily available". And how does the AO package last forever when continually ?

quote:

And will there be a wear metal build-up? Not necessarily.

Yes, it will. Even the Synlube sight says it does. Particle counts and a simple UOA will confirm. A "cheap $20 UOA" will easily see the amounts of wear in 35K mile OCI. And magnets only catch ferrous debris, and UOAs still show Fe on cars equipped with magnets.

quote:

a really reliable test requires the expenditure of a couple hundred dollars

What test do you speak of?

quote:

Why should anyone using Synlube pay for UOAs if they don't feel the need to do so?

Why do engineers pay for testing if they "feel" their designs are OK? That would simply everthing wouldn't it. I feel it is OK, therefore it must be, no need to test. Do you want the engineer that designed the oil in your car to operate that way?

quote:

You are hungry for knowledge. Pay for it.

As I said, Houkster is making the assersion that this will do what no other oil will do and breaks all the rules. The burden of proof is on him to show what he is saying is true, not the other way around.

Can you supply a link to the exact filter package that you use?

Also, where and roughly how was it installed?

Is the type of filter that you are using key to successful Synlube usage?

Any estimate on when you will drain and install fresh Synlube?

Like yourself, I'm driving a Focus = 2005 with 120k km.

I got 43 mpg on my last tank of gasoline. All highway driving.

I use a CM Filters It is not a bypass filter but a conventional spin-on. The principle difference with the filter is that it has no bypass valve, a large filter media area, and is made of machined aluminum parts using Viton gaskets. Because the filter can be disassembled, all the parts can be replaced. The website provides the details necessary. Installation was exactly like that of any conventional filter.

The filter is not essential to the successful functioning of SynLube. SynLube provides their own filters which are at least as good as any conventional filter out there.

I am scheduled to replace the SynLube I'm using now in 2014.

TEMPEST: The answers to your questions are on the SynLube site. I simply don't feel the need to repeat what is readily available there or in previous pages here. But that would be pointless for your purposes. I don't think you're acting in good faith and have no intention of ever giving the product fair consideration. I've been through this many times before with others making the same empty arguments.

Thanks Houckster, I'll take a look at that filter.

Wow! 20 pages. By 2014 this thread will be ready for Guiness. Think of the possibilities...

Regards, Paul.
in Haliburton.

Tempest, I don't understand why you think that Houckster need to give you any proof from his experience?
Synlube have some 13000 customers out there and it should be very easy for you to just do a Google, to find several customers that are not satisfied, wouldn't it? Another advice you should try to follow, is the one to actually read something from Synlubes homepage. You may find some answers there.
Are you fineshed Googling, yet?
Did you find something,Tempest?

quote:

Tempest, I don't understand why you think that Houckster need to give you any proof from his experience? Synlube have some 13000 customers out there and it should be very easy for you to just do a Google, to find several customers that are not satisfied, wouldn't it? Another advice you should try to follow, is the one to actually read something from Synlubes homepage. You may find some answers there. Are you fineshed Googling, yet?Did you find something,Tempest?

Nervy, huh? He expects Houckster to pay for a bunch of twenty-dollar tell-you-nothing lab tests. Even if the numbers turned out to be good, he still wouldn't believe in the stuff. Go figure...

I'm going to go the Synlube and CM filter route, too, on my next oil change. It'll save me money, and more importantly--time. Up here in Canada, a synthetic oil change and cheap filter at a fast lube place cost me $75.00. At WalMart in the USA cost me $32.00, less now that out dollar is about $1.10 US these days. I can get the Synlube sent to my daughter's place near Ellicottville, NY.

Regards, Paul.
in Haliburton.

Yaayyyyyyy....... we can now finally dump crappy Mobil-I, Delo 400 et al for Synlube now for good.

Yes, you can!

And the sooner the better. New cars benefit most from SynLube because the extreme film strength of the oil prevents the loss of the crucial machine tolerances you pay for. This reduces the environmental impact of your ride in two ways: 1) less lubricant is burned reducing emissions; and 2) no used motor oil (considered a toxic waste) is created. With SynLube, the used lubricant can be returned for reprocessing and a credit towards new SynLube.

Those critical tolerances mean better sealing at the piston rings and better engine efficiency. Even after 37K miles, there is nothing but a light dust lining the exhaust pipe compared to a hard coating on my mother's 2004 Toyota Camry. There's a very striking difference here.*

The extremely low volitility of the oil helps protect emissions system components. This would have been an area where I could have shown some excellent figures except for Georgia's sad practice of depending on the car's computer to determine satisfactory emissions levels. I was hoping that I'd get some actual readings to publish. Now all I know is that my ride passed.

With all of 6 oz consumed during the 37K miles, including 0 oz. during two trips this year totalling over 4500 miles, oil consumption is projected to be less than a quart for 175,000 miles.

* Even when the engine is warming up during a cold start, the exhaust is almost clean enough to breathe. But I don't want to go further here because that'll get me talking about my fabulous 'fuel helper' formula that the oil companies pay me millions not to sell. Just forget I said anything.

Finally, let me remind all who read my posts that I receive absolutely no compensation in any form from SynLube. My relationship with the company is strictly that of a customer.

Here's my deal. I've been reading this thread for a couple of months now. I now have 35,000k on synlube (77,000 on the truck) and my truck runs like the day I bought it. I use about 1 qt. per 30,000k, much more than houckster, but still an unbelievable small amount to me. I guess cause I didn't install it until 42,000k. We've had it drilled into our heads for as long as I can remember to change your oil often. I suppose this is true with dino and most syns. out there. But what is wrong with thinking outside the box? Oil companies want you to change your oil early and often, and it's worked. As someone stated earlier, google it and try to find a dissatified synlube customer. Increased gas mileage, low emissions, and a smooth running truck does it for me.

tfoltz7, I'm glad to hear that you don't need a $20 lab test to realize that Synlube is good stuff.

inhaliburton, try it you'll like it.

I found this article that I think is very good. It discusses the new thin oils and the OEM's thinking about using them plus the problems associated with their use. For me, it seems to offer supporting evidence for the design of SynLube.

Oil Dilemma

Yes, it really is a support for Synlube. Since I had read a lot(and done some testing)with mos2 and PTFE before, it wasn't that frightening to make the decition to start using Synlube. Graphite was the thing that made me hesitate a bit, but after reading about it, it seemed to be a good thing and I was willing to give it a try(in my oldest car). Now, after 32000 and 18000 kilometers in two different cars, I am just sorry that I didn't know about Synlube 10 years ago.
I understand how difficult it can be for the average person to try something that "everybody" say is not possible. Because of the limited marketing resources, Synlube will probably be a well kept secret for a long time.
I just hope that more people, would give it a chance.
I have found that it gives some advantages:
- The engines are more quiet(important since we drive diesels)
- Slightly better performance and slightly less fuelconsumption
- Less oilconsumption
- I don't have to change oil(and plan when and where to do the nest oilchange)
- The ADD-oil is CHEAPER than Mobil1(here in Norway)
- Reduced smoke, and because of that, easier to pass smog-test
- Happy wife, since I don't have to spend any of my time to change oil

quote:

Originally posted by Houckster:
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

Ok here is my problem: from the synlube site your oil was not within their own specs. link http://www.synlube.com/serv02.htm and below

you compare.

About Oil Tests
We at SynLube, Inc. receive many e-mails with questions about oil tests performed by various laboratories, and how to interpret them. This section should answer most of frequently asked questions, and help to understand the differences between conventional oils (both petroleum and synthetic) and our unique colloidal lubricants.

Specifics:
Iron = Fe
Conventional Petroleum or Synthetic oils will NOT show ANY Iron in FRESH OIL

SynLube™ however due to unique chemical formulation has typically 50 PPM in the INITIAL FILL OIL and about 75 PPM in the ADD OIL of Iron, because some of the ""sacrificial"" antioxidants contain Fe atoms in their chemical molecular make up.

Normally laboratories "Flag" Fe if PPM is greater than 100, although levels below 1,000 rarely translate into any mechanical problems or abnormal wear even in a Conventional Oil.

For practical purposes about 100 should be subtracted from the Lab report to project any "wear" and that is only simple rule.

Labs also usually test oils that are Frequently Changed, therefore oil that remain in the engine for over 10,000 miles will have much higher reading than oil that is changed every 3,000 miles.

The ONLY reliable indication of Relative wear is installation of TriMagnets onto the motor oil filter and replacing the oil filter at regular intervals (2 years or 25,000 miles). Cutting the filter apart with appropriate tool and inspecting visually the quantity and quality of the iron deposits that were trapped by the TriMagnet is much more reliable indication of wear since 80 to 90% engine wear is Ferro-magnetic.

Other less reliable method is taking the Fe reading from lab report, subtracting 100 PPM and dividing that by the miles on the oil.

Example: 114-100 = 14/12,000 = 0.00116

If the Fe value is LESS than 0.01 there is NO NEED for concern about the Iron reading.





Chromium = Cr
This is the ONLY wear element that is of concern in oil analysis of SynLube™, as NO Chromium is present in FRESH SynLube™ Lubricants.

Again Cr level in relation to miles on the oil is of importance and NOT the actual level, frequently

Some Chromium will be in the oil from the initial break in, and the level will remain constant over many thousands of miles or actually DROP with time and miles.

The Cr reading must be compensated for accumulated mileage.

Example: 11/12,000 = 0.0009

If the value is LESS than 0.005 there is NO NEED for concern about the Chromium reading.



Silicon = Si
Many OEM’s use Silicone Lubricant spray on engine components to prevent rust and to serve as initial break-in lube during engine assembly.

Readings of OVER 1,000 PPM are NOT uncommon on NEW engines, and as always some Silicone will remain even after several oil changes.

Silicone is usually interpreted by labs as Dirt, Dust or Sand if it is associated with "solids" in the oil test, however since SynLube™ has up to 33% by volume of colloidal solids, this rule can not be applied to SynLube™.

However SynLube™ uses silicone based anti-foam agents in most of the Lube-4-Life™ fluids, therefore silicone levels in 200 to 250 PPM are NORMAL for the formulations and can be as high as 500 PPM for ATF or PSF.



Tin = Sn
Chemicals that contain Tin Sn are component part of the INITIAL FILL OIL and readings of 55 to 67 PPM are NORMAL, the Tin level will actually decrease with the use of ADD OIL, and when it drops BELOW 25 PPM it indicates that either INITIAL FILL OIL or SERVICE FILL OIL should be used during NEXT OIL FILTER CHANGE, instead of the ADD OIL.



Molybdenum
SynLube™ oils contain Moly and therefore the Molybdenum levels will be in 3,000 PPM and above range, when level drops to below 1,000 PPM, INITIAL FILL OIL should be added instead of the ADD OIL, next time oil addition is needed.

Differing test equipment yields different Molybdenum levels from identical test sample, therefore data obtained from different laboratories can not be reliably compared.

These people have to be kidding right???? Iron levels anywhere under 1,000 PPM are normal and don't translate into any mechanical problems. They obviously don't know anything about the proper implementation or interpretation of a UOA.

As additional perspective, for that test, the shop where the sample was sent had just changed hands and the person who was doing the test was new. I would have sent the oil somewhere else if I'd known this. This is just one of the weird factors that can bring into doubt the results of these tests.

Also, in a discussion with Miro Kefurt, the repeatability of tests at this price range is low. He tells of the local police department installing SynLube in their new cars and getting UOA results all over the place, none of which ever successfully predicted engine trouble and all the cars run fine to this day.

The question for those who dote on these tests is this: Are you going to make decisions based on a UOA the dependability of which is subject to the calibration of the equipment used, the skill of the person doing the test, and their willingness to do the test procedures correctly, none of which can be ascertained, as opposed to the testimony of the engine that is delivering excellent performance, fuel economy several miles per gallon above the old EPA estimate, and is burning a vanishingly small amount of lubricant?

For me the choice is clear.

Your response is typical on this thread. Instead of shooting off your mouth and saying nothing, why not enlighten us with your knowledge?

You know, we could always take up a collection, send a quart of this stuff to Terry Dyson, and let him dissect the living crap out of it, then we would finally have a concrete answer about composition, TBN, AW, PP, VII's if any, detergents, and whether or not there is anything in this stuff to warrant all of the hype that has been procured.

I know that you are tired of hearing answers like that Houckster, but most have been burned by claims in the past, so tread lightly onto absolute claims such as Synlube makes.

If you like it, by all means use it, keep the forum abreast of the mileage, but unless you do even a standard UOA to show if the TBN at the very least is holding up to the task, many will still be even more vocal and skeptical than I am.

INHALIBURTON: I think MICBIAL's comments are a response to TATERANDNOODLES' comment which is to say that TATERANDNOODLES has not raised a significant objection.