Actually I'm a retired manufacturing manager. Much of it in the auto industry.
You are too easily led astray by false statistics and bogus numbers.
Thank you for responding, please stop by again,
And have a very pleasant Sunday.
Read our primer articles on High Mileage Oil, Synthetic Oil and Kinematic Viscosity
I guess you never heard that in Quebec we talk french, a la prochainne stie de cave,tu nous manquera pas. (goodbye nice to have come by we wont miss you)
Thanks for the recap on your vehicles, Capt. Kirk.
quote:Originally posted by Miro Kefurt:
And Finally this:
Search: YUGO (all years)
Search results: No results for YUGO
Results from NHTSA FARS Data base = No result = ZERO
FARS = Fatality Analysis Reporting System
SO the quoted claim:
“3.6 occupant deaths per ten thousand cars.”
Is yet another lie propagated by the parrot of fake and false statements
PS: There is not such term as "deaths per ten thousand cars".
The term used by Government agencies (local or federal) is:
Fatalities per 100,000 Registered Vehicles
And that again is used since 1966 - the Vehicle Safety Act.
So fabricators of false claims can not even get the TERMS correct, much less the data to support them !!!
If the stated claim was TRUE the FARS returned result would have been = 59
Hmm, I looked in the FARS database.
Yugo (Vehicle Listing 57) 22 Fatalities in 1994
There were 12 Fatalities involving a Yugo in 1995.
Dave
In my experience over the years, I have learned to spot scams, especially the automotive ones, IE gas mileage devices, miracle oil, additives etc.
I will point these out. It is up to the others to research and form their own opinions.
I don't argue with idiots, morons or flim flam men on the internet for the simple fact that they will drag you down to their level and then kill you with experience.
I will say, this scammer is as brazen as they come. He has no problem misrepesenting facts and stating out-right lies. Most of the people who have walking around sence will see through him. The ones that don't are destined to be seperated from their hard earned money. Some will then learn, others will never learn. His business is built on these last few. (sad)
But the chickens always come home to roost sooner or later.
Have a good one
I will point these out. It is up to the others to research and form their own opinions.
I don't argue with idiots, morons or flim flam men on the internet for the simple fact that they will drag you down to their level and then kill you with experience.
I will say, this scammer is as brazen as they come. He has no problem misrepesenting facts and stating out-right lies. Most of the people who have walking around sence will see through him. The ones that don't are destined to be seperated from their hard earned money. Some will then learn, others will never learn. His business is built on these last few. (sad)
But the chickens always come home to roost sooner or later.
Have a good one
quote:Originally posted by Captain Kirk:quote:Originally posted by Trajan:
Why does the AAA test not exsist out side of a suspect website?
Why is there no link to the FTP-75 test that does not exsist outside of a suspect website?
I see the background noise is back!!!
Does anyone know where I can purchase that new tinnitus and/or TRAJEN remedy called QUIETUS?
Here we have a question, and the usual answer.
quote:Originally posted by Trajan:quote:Originally posted by Captain Kirk:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Trajan:
Why does the AAA test not exsist out side of a suspect website?
Why is there no link to the FTP-75 test that does not exsist outside of a suspect website?
I see the background noise is back!!!
Does anyone know where I can purchase that new tinnitus and/or TRAJEN remedy called QUIETUS?
quote:Here we have a question, and the usual answer.
Trojan, your question (singular because it's aways the same) does not deserve an answer. Why? Because you are a LIAR, remember? LIARs cannot be trusted. No telling how you would distort the information.
Stupid is as stupid does.
quote:Yugo (Vehicle Listing 57) 22 Fatalities in 1994
There were 12 Fatalities involving a Yugo in 1995.
Thank you, please send me the link where you found this data (mirox@aol.com)
or post the link.
You are correct in the YUGO ID 57 (that is assigned to the Maker since the digital data base does not have the actual name to save data space, so if you got that right, I can assume the other information may be also correct)
However there is big difference in being involved in fatal acident and actually being in the car and die.
If you run over pedestrian, that counts as "involement" even if it is the pedestrian that dies.
That is one reason the "blown-off the bridge" incident got so much publicity as 1.) it was YUGO and 2.) the car did not hit anything 3.) the driver died. 4.) It was the first "fatality" in YUGO they could report on.
Since YUGO America closed down in 1992, I do have to admit that it is entirely possible that people started to crash and die in cars out of remorse.
I do however know that during the time YUGO was sold there were no reported fatalities. (Except the bridge incident)
So I would really like to see the link to where that data came from.
And I will be happy to adjust my information to reflect it.
My search was by vehicle MY (all years) and not by the Year or the incident, so it is entirely possible there is some data disconnect, and I would like to see the info you found.
Thanks
So the SCAMLUBERS are up to it again...Since the atrocious product they peddle, has been laughed at in discussions, in ALL forums, where it has been pushed.
Now The SCAMLUBERS wish to change the subject, and talk about the worst POS car, ever thrust upon the American public.
Nobody cares about the Yugo you BOOBS. This is the 21st century.
Since this is a discussion on SCAMLUBE we wish to discuss how crappy that product is. If you cannot discuss it, then this discussion needs to be closed.
SCAMLUBERS continue to LIE about any and all facts. But you MORONS are amusing. To watch this bogus/overpriced product fall on it's face in all discussions....PRICELESS.
Now The SCAMLUBERS wish to change the subject, and talk about the worst POS car, ever thrust upon the American public.
Nobody cares about the Yugo you BOOBS. This is the 21st century.
Since this is a discussion on SCAMLUBE we wish to discuss how crappy that product is. If you cannot discuss it, then this discussion needs to be closed.
SCAMLUBERS continue to LIE about any and all facts. But you MORONS are amusing. To watch this bogus/overpriced product fall on it's face in all discussions....PRICELESS.
Because I do not have a life, I spend all of my time on the Internet researching Synlube. Having said that, I do have to run now to our weekend Mensa meeting.
If interested in a concise version of what Sylube is and what it does (not for the faint-of-heart, though), scroll down to where you will find a post by long-time user, and former poster, Houckster, who decided not to post any longer for the same reason as Annie_Oakley, namely, some of you ran her off of the Board with ignorant and rude replies to her posts.
http://tinyurl.com/ycz42jv
Enjoy...
If interested in a concise version of what Sylube is and what it does (not for the faint-of-heart, though), scroll down to where you will find a post by long-time user, and former poster, Houckster, who decided not to post any longer for the same reason as Annie_Oakley, namely, some of you ran her off of the Board with ignorant and rude replies to her posts.
http://tinyurl.com/ycz42jv
Enjoy...
Yeah, at one time houckster had himself listed on bitog as the owner of synlube???
Post. by Necleardawg
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/...umber=1805490&page=1
Houckster genuine?...Well yes he was member #939. And in his profile, he states he is the "owner of Synlube"...But in the (1) thread he ever commented in...His last post states that, Synlube sounds like a very interesting company, and he wishes he had an substantial amount of money to invest in it.
I just don't understand the contradiction there.
But yes the threads are good for a laugh, I will agree.
Post. by Necleardawg
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/...umber=1805490&page=1
Houckster genuine?...Well yes he was member #939. And in his profile, he states he is the "owner of Synlube"...But in the (1) thread he ever commented in...His last post states that, Synlube sounds like a very interesting company, and he wishes he had an substantial amount of money to invest in it.
I just don't understand the contradiction there.
But yes the threads are good for a laugh, I will agree.
Houckster/Miro: Whatever...You guys are whining because nobody falls for your LIES...Scamlube is a JOKE, because of the way its posters made FOOLS of themselves on each and every forum.
Take your beatings like men. "Ya bunch of cry babies"
@ Inhaliburton: Mensa? Sure...Thats the thing about the internet any MORON can claim this or that...Looking at the way you fight your battles...I'm confident...Your a Moron.
Take your beatings like men. "Ya bunch of cry babies"
@ Inhaliburton: Mensa? Sure...Thats the thing about the internet any MORON can claim this or that...Looking at the way you fight your battles...I'm confident...Your a Moron.
quote:Originally posted by Miro Kefurt:quote:Funny my dad bought nothing but used cars all the years I was living home. Typically 2-3 year old vehicles, he said let someone else take the money hit up front. Most of the cars he bought he kept 10-15 years, and was still able to sell them. Imagine that.
"Past performance of any Brand or Make or Model of any vehicle has virtually NO predictive ability for future long term performance of any similar vehicle"
Right out of Consumer Reports.
So are you following your fathers tire tracks ?
Let me know in 2025 if you are still driving your just bought 2007.
If you do and have over 150,000 original miles on it, contact me and I will give you $2,500 for it - 10 times its future, rather predictable value (Based of R L Polk, depreciation data)
The only thing you can predict with 100% certainty is that 10 year old vehicle has virtually no value - it has been so for 36 years in USA.
It is also documented that once the car is more than 15 years old, the annual maintenance costs exceed its value.
So again if MONEY is no object and you want to drive OLD car at per mile premium cost, you can probably do so.
690,000 people have proven that they rather have a NEW car if someone (US Congress) offers them $3,500 to $4,500 to get NEW vehicle whose average purchase price was $26,873.
Getting "off the subject" NO NOT Really -
Just offering experience that "Lube-4-Life" is really what we trademark (unlike AMSOIL's "First in Synthetics" a trademarked lie)
Longest EPA or CARB test for vehicle longevity is 150,000 miles or 15 year (equivalent) since such mileage accumulation is done in 9 months, even EPA admits the reliability of such "accelerated test" is only 45%.
That is there is 55% statistical change that 2010 NEW vehicle certified to the longest CARB PZEV will NOT last in service for that long !
Again all that information is available from NHTSA, EPA, CARB.
What we do is offer FREEDOM FROM OIL CHANGES for the duration of the "useful life" of any NEW vehicle - following the Government established guidelines and definitions of "useful life" that is except IRS as they since 1970 still hold the "useful life" of any vehicle used in Business 100% of the time as 5 years or 50,000 miles.
Any UOA are irrelevant if we absolutely Warranty any Lubricated part for the 15 years or 150,000 miles - either with 5 year or 50,000 miles or change, or provision of 4 oz of used SynLube at those intervals, which is what most customers choose, since at 5 years they have to change to Oil Filter anyway, and draining 4 oz from USED Oil filter is not such a big deal for most, even if it is done by a mechanic for them.
However NOT Changing oil is a BIG DEAL for ALL Our customers - They let us know that daily in e-mails and phone messages.
So should we listen to 68,000 customers that over the years have proven SynLube in now over 250,000 vehicles and do what we were doing since 1985 in USA, or close down the business because a dozen nay sayers that never saw a drop of our products decided it is not possible for such product to exist?
On personal level like challenges!
In 1982 when Honda Civic sold for $7,000 and people were waiting in line for one, I have proven and delivered a car that coasted $1,625 to manufacturer and 168,000 Americans Bought one - and many who did would buy another if it was available today - the YUGO.
In those days I was driving Rolls Royce Silver Shadow 1969 MY – and once I brought the first 3 YUGO to use I got dozen License frames made that said “My other car is Rolls Royce” and three more that said my other car is YUGO, that of course I put on the RR.
No one have ever seen any such plate before 1982, but since then just one company that made them sold 1.2 million of them ! Most of them I guess did not end up on a YUGO as there were not 1.2 million of them in USA, but few did, I saw some of them myself.
What Bricklin did to and with YUGO, when I sold him the distribution rights was His business, and not mine, I started the “Yugomania” – a Brand awareness that Advertising Age, listed as the most successful advertising campaign of all times, making the BRAND YUGO awareness of 98% in just 9 months, with total investment of $7,500 = equivalent to advertising campaign of $400 million dollars!
Even ALL of you have heard and know the YUGO Brand – not one person I met in last 26 years did not know YUGO, such was the impact of three little cars exhibited in 1984 – still famous after all these years…
The book ironically titled as Worst Car - already sold over 10,000 copies and the second printing is now in progress.
So quite often the "perception" does not match with reality!
62% of people in USA still think that "heavier objects fall faster" - quite logical - especially since for about 10,000 years of documented history no one ever bothered to check, it was so "obvious"!
What is sad is that in 2010 that many people are still totally ignorant of "reality"...
Just ask and do you own research!
Well lets see, Dad's 88 F-250 is going strong, my 93 Ranger seems to be doing well. If I were you I wouldn't gamble, but then again you'll never be found to pay out.
Here's a bet. How about you take your Yugo, I'll take dads 88 F-250, we'll crash them head on at 25 mph. You still want the Yugo? You make me laugh. My guess is the twin I-Beam suspension will more than likely rip the roof off the Yugo, and they'll be picking the Yugo out from under the F-250.
Yea I'll follow in dad's tire tracks any day, he's not a scam artist, he earns his money.
Once again your statistics aren't helping sell your $32 a bottle oil.
AD
quote:88 F-250 is going strong, my 93 Ranger
Again not paying attention to actually reading and understanding my posts.
1.) I am talking about the expected durability of 2010 MY vehicle, the component parts, etc.
2.) In all statements and post I have said that as far as I am concerned the mid-1980 the vehicles reached their peak of being overdesigned for durability and thus since then all MFG were asking suppliers to REDUCE COST.
#1 reason for COST REDUCTION in powertrain costs is to pay for the mandated safety equipment that customers do nto value but Government REQUIRES - Someone has to come up with the now $4,500 per vehicle in safety equipment - not present on 1988 HD truck !
We have lot of customers with vehicles from 1982 to 1989 that have 100,000+ and no problems
3.) Check the laws, regulations and associated fines since the 1996 when OBD II went into effect = CHECK ENGINE LIGHT
neither of your cars has it, so you would not even have a clue if you were poluting the air !!!
So again ignorance is a bliss.
#2 reason for COST REDUCTION in powertrain costs (hard parts) is to pay for the mandated emission technology as again the customer doe nto want to pay another $5,000 or $16,000 (in diesel) for that either. So plastics replace aluminium, material thickness is reduced to minimum, etc.
In USA there are no laws agains keeping old cars on the road, just agains ANY car or truck polluting the air, and older cars are proven to be as much as 25 times more polluting than 2010 MY for example. Manufacturers get fined if vehicles pollute.
Fleets in California get fined daily for not inspecting their vehicles for emissions - average fine is $35,000 and at least two companies get fined DAILY !!! And what starts in CA spreads across USA, eventually - just wait !!!
As now "voluntary" vehicle retirement programs (now in effect in CA) becomes "mandatory" and the legislation is now in works, you will not be able to keep 25 years old vehicle, unless you have a NEW ONE, and declare it "collector car" and do not drive it more than 2,500 miles annually - so the dreams of driving even restored "classic" may be soon over - WHY - because those cars creat 50 times the current legal emission limits per mile. And they create 250 time the pollution when they are "parked" as they feature NO evaporative emissions from gas tank !!!
Now you may think that you have the right to generate 10 times more CO2 than YUGO, 25 times more NOx, and 15 times more CH, but for much longer that may not be the case.
"I need to drive a sherman tank mentality" is what makes USA to slip daily into trade debt since it is necessary to fuel all those GAS burners.
I can easily make a bet with you that on $20 of fuel I will be still driving YUGO at 60 MPH, while you will be walking.
Why did you make a choice to transport your 200 lbs body in a 6,000 lb truck ? Wile getting 10 MPG on a good day with back wind ?
You could have gotten a 7 MPG rig that will run over your truck with no roof crush resistance and it could have been 14,000 lbs heavier - are you not sorry now ?
I have seen plenty of truck and SUV roll-overs on I-15 over the years, just flip over either of the vehicles in your fleet at even 25 MPH and compare it to any "car" that has 3 times more stringent safety regulations to adhere to than trucks did in 1980's or even 1993 !
Not too many people used to die when car had flat tire, but hundreds did just in FORD SUV's when that happened, as a result of that now you have Tire Pressure Monitor in every 2010 Car, truck & SUV - but you have NONE in either of your vehicles ! Are you not scared to drive on a highway ? You should be the statistics to prove that it is deadly are there !
But I see you like to live dangerously, no Driver Air Bag, no ABS, no......
You complain about $32 per liter of "refundable" investment and justify spending 5 times more for fuel than necessary and create "hazardous" waster every 3,000 miles, as that did nto cost anything ?
May be going back to high school and taking elementary math may help, then you would not have to work that hard to earn money that you indirectly send to "other" mostly unfriendly nations as a result of your OIL ADDICTIONS.
NYS my home town has emissions inspections. These old cars either pass, fail and get fixed, or get off the road, if they fail state inspections. Millions of cars with the OBD II computer systems have logged 250,000 + miles and more with no issues, and no Synlube. You keep talking about Yugo's how many of them are still running with 200,000+ miles? Not many. They didn't have the OBD II system either. You mentioned crash safety, I brought up a point, the Yugo is a death trap. The F-250 has a purpose for my dad, a Yugo wouldn't be up to the task. You're also a bit off in the mpg stats for the F-250 as well.
Dad test drove a Yugo and knew a few people that made the mistake of buying one. MPG's sucked for such a tiny death trap, and the car had absolutely no power. I was laughing when he told me the story. Maybe you're talking about some other Yugo, but I think most people here will agree the car was absolute JUNK!
BTW how many of them actually were sold in the US? Not many. You're right just about everyone who lived in the day of the Yugo knew of them, but I would say their reputation was one of garbage, and nothing to be proud of. YMMV
AD
Dad test drove a Yugo and knew a few people that made the mistake of buying one. MPG's sucked for such a tiny death trap, and the car had absolutely no power. I was laughing when he told me the story. Maybe you're talking about some other Yugo, but I think most people here will agree the car was absolute JUNK!
BTW how many of them actually were sold in the US? Not many. You're right just about everyone who lived in the day of the Yugo knew of them, but I would say their reputation was one of garbage, and nothing to be proud of. YMMV
AD
quote:Originally posted by Miro Kefurt:quote:Yugo (Vehicle Listing 57) 22 Fatalities in 1994
There were 12 Fatalities involving a Yugo in 1995.
Thank you, please send me the link where you found this data (mirox@aol.com)
or post the link.
You are correct in the YUGO ID 57 (that is assigned to the Maker since the digital data base does not have the actual name to save data space, so if you got that right, I can assume the other information may be also correct)
However there is big difference in being involved in fatal acident and actually being in the car and die.
If you run over pedestrian, that counts as "involement" even if it is the pedestrian that dies.
That is one reason the "blown-off the bridge" incident got so much publicity as 1.) it was YUGO and 2.) the car did not hit anything 3.) the driver died. 4.) It was the first "fatality" in YUGO they could report on.
Since YUGO America closed down in 1992, I do have to admit that it is entirely possible that people started to crash and die in cars out of remorse.
I do however know that during the time YUGO was sold there were no reported fatalities. (Except the bridge incident)
So I would really like to see the link to where that data came from.
And I will be happy to adjust my information to reflect it.
My search was by vehicle MY (all years) and not by the Year or the incident, so it is entirely possible there is some data disconnect, and I would like to see the info you found.
Thanks
Go here:
FARS Database
Select the Query Tab ---> Select Year from the drop down (ie: 1994) click submit.
Next form Select Injury Severity, Number of Fatalities in Vehicle, and Vehicle Make. Click on Submit.
Next form, select all, and in the vehicle make section, select vehicle 57, Yugo.
Click on Univariate Tabulation.
next page, click on Submit.
The States listing will come up. Click on View Cases.... ->
From there: Vehicle number one is generally the "at fault or contributing vehicle.
Click on the vehicle number to get the vehicle data.
Click on the person number and look at the following" Person Type, Seating Position, and Injury Serverity.
Dave
Since I used to be a Traffic Homicide Investigator, I am familiar with this database and the coding that they use. If you have any questions, I may be able to help, although, I have not been active for 10 years in THI.
Dave
@ MIRO...Again nobody cares about the POS Yugo...We wish to discuss your crappy oil.
Why did SCAMLUBE have it's business license PERMANENTLY REVOKED in Nevada?
We wish to discuss the titled topic of this discussion, crappy SCAMLUBE oil.
Now that SCAMLUBE, is known all over the worldwide web as a SCAM, because of YOUR stupidty, you don't wish to discuss.....Quit being a WHIMPERING SIMP.
Why did SCAMLUBE have it's business license PERMANENTLY REVOKED in Nevada?
We wish to discuss the titled topic of this discussion, crappy SCAMLUBE oil.
Now that SCAMLUBE, is known all over the worldwide web as a SCAM, because of YOUR stupidty, you don't wish to discuss.....Quit being a WHIMPERING SIMP.
Deltona_Dave
THANK YOU VERY VERY MUCH !!!
You should be writing the instructions for FARS !!!
Much easier to follow your info than the "official" version !!!
Too bad that the 1984 to 1992 data is not as easily accessible - but I will also check the other years, as I definitely want to know !
AGIAN THANK YOU
Very help full !!!
THANK YOU VERY VERY MUCH !!!
You should be writing the instructions for FARS !!!
Much easier to follow your info than the "official" version !!!
Too bad that the 1984 to 1992 data is not as easily accessible - but I will also check the other years, as I definitely want to know !
AGIAN THANK YOU
Very help full !!!
quote:Deltona_Dave
Just to thank you again, and indeed I can now find things I did not know I could before !!!
But again DATA is not 100% accurate,
like for 2003 YUGO in the initial search comes up with 1 and TX
ANd when actually looking at the report the VIN is for HONDA !!!
So someone entered the wrong "57" and it counts a YUGO !!!
Hey if I ever get nothing to do moment I am going to look up the 1994/1995 data case by case and see if it really are all YUGO or not.
THANKS I did learn someting new, so now I can trully say alt this posting was not all waste of time !
Even if it was not related to SynLube, but my other car !!!!.........
And really, really I do thank you for the INSTRUCTIONS !!!
Earlier today out for the Sunday drive I saw something I haven't seem in years. A 1970 Superbird going the opposite direction.
OK....Now can we discuss SCAMLUBE?
Lets start off with your out and out LIES, that you pass off as fact.
Miro, you or your minions, are invited to discuss the LIES perpitrated, and the manufactured "evidence".
SCAMLUBER's: "Posers posing as players".
Lets start off with your out and out LIES, that you pass off as fact.
Miro, you or your minions, are invited to discuss the LIES perpitrated, and the manufactured "evidence".
SCAMLUBER's: "Posers posing as players".
quote:Originally posted by snakedoctor:
Yeah, at one time houckster had himself listed on bitog as the owner of synlube???
Post.
Houckster genuine?...Well yes he was member #939. And in his profile, he states he is the "owner of Synlube"...But in the (1) thread he ever commented in...His last post states that, Synlube sounds like a very interesting company, and he wishes he had an substantial amount of money to invest in it.
I just don't understand the contradiction there.
But yes the threads are good for a laugh, I will agree.
Don't just clap your gums together, if such links exist, where are they?
quote:Originally posted by Nucleardawg:
So the SCAMLUBERS are up to it again...Since the atrocious product they peddle, has been laughed at in discussions, in ALL forums, where it has been pushed.
Now The SCAMLUBERS wish to change the subject, and talk about the worst POS car, ever thrust upon the American public.
Nobody cares about the Yugo you BOOBS. This is the 21st century.
Since this is a discussion on SCAMLUBE we wish to discuss how crappy that product is. If you cannot discuss it, then this discussion needs to be closed.
SCAMLUBERS continue to LIE about any and all facts. But you MORONS are amusing. To watch this bogus/overpriced product fall on it's face in all discussions....PRICELESS.
Note to all: Please ignore this ignorant idiot.
quote:Originally posted by Miro Kefurt:
Again not paying attention to actually reading and understanding my posts.
Like the one that said no deaths in a Yugo?
Project Description: SynLube Lubricants Long Term Test
AAA Project Identification Number: 81
Project Number: 2002-0317-1
Where is it? Post a direct link or the doc itself so we can all read it.
quote:Originally posted by Nucleardope:
OK....Now can we discuss SCAMLUBE?
Lets start off with your out and out LIES, that you pass off as fact.
Miro, you or your minions, are invited to discuss the LIES perpitrated, and the manufactured "evidence".
SCAMLUBER's: "Posers posing as players".
Nuclearhalfwit: How old are you?
You know what I like about you, Your pleasant personally.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/...umber=1805490&page=1
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/...umber=1805490&page=1
quote:Originally posted by Trajan:
Earlier today out for the Sunday drive I saw something I haven't seem in years. A 1970 Superbird going the opposite direction.
One of MOPAR's finest probably running Mobil 1 or Redline in that beast too! Too bad they don't make them like that anymore today's Hemi is nothing compared to the original 426.
Dave
quote:Originally posted by Miro Kefurt:quote:Deltona_Dave
Just to thank you again, and indeed I can now find things I did not know I could before !!!
But again DATA is not 100% accurate,
like for 2003 YUGO in the initial search comes up with 1 and TX
ANd when actually looking at the report the VIN is for HONDA !!!
So someone entered the wrong "57" and it counts a YUGO !!!
Hey if I ever get nothing to do moment I am going to look up the 1994/1995 data case by case and see if it really are all YUGO or not.
THANKS I did learn someting new, so now I can trully say alt this posting was not all waste of time !
Even if it was not related to SynLube, but my other car !!!!.........
And really, really I do thank you for the INSTRUCTIONS !!!
Well, with roughly 56,000 fatalities a year on the highways, there is probably a 5% margin of error, especially on a Federal Database. Each Agency and State has different recording requirements. Take a look at the FBI's UCR database, there is probably a 15% margin of error on Part I crimes. The reporting officer or the Agency records division is required to enter the UCR code on each report. Errors galore.
Dave
quote:Originally posted by Deltona_Dave:quote:Originally posted by Trajan:
Earlier today out for the Sunday drive I saw something I haven't seem in years. A 1970 Superbird going the opposite direction.
One of MOPAR's finest of the day! That and the 'Cuda. Too bad they don't make them like that anymore today's Hemi is nothing compared to the original 426.
Dave
There are a couple of Superbirds about 15 miles from me.
In 1964 a buddy of mine bought a new 64 Fury with the 426 hemi and 4 speed. It was red. I'm sure he wishes he had it today.
quote:Originally posted by snakedoctor:quote:Originally posted by Deltona_Dave:quote:Originally posted by Trajan:
Earlier today out for the Sunday drive I saw something I haven't seem in years. A 1970 Superbird going the opposite direction.
One of MOPAR's finest of the day! That and the 'Cuda. Too bad they don't make them like that anymore today's Hemi is nothing compared to the original 426.
Dave
There are a couple of Superbirds about 15 miles from me.
In 1964 a buddy of mine bought a new 64 Fury with the 426 hemi and 4 speed. It was red. I'm sure he wishes he had it today.
The only SuperBirds in Florida are the Ricer Honda's with the Big Spoilers. Although there is a guy a few blocks from me with a 70 Challenger with the 426. Plum Crazy with a white top.
Dave
@ Inhaliburton: You can look on BITOG, afterall your a Mensa member. You can find the info that HOUCKSTER/MIRO registered under, and you can still see the posts...But you knew that already.
And I am old enough, to know a liar and a tool...I can see YOU coming from a mile away yah BOOB.
QUIT YOUR WHINING LITTLE MAN
.
And I am old enough, to know a liar and a tool...I can see YOU coming from a mile away yah BOOB.
QUIT YOUR WHINING LITTLE MAN
.
quote:Originally posted by Trajan:
And Halli, the so called accusation that houckster owns synlube comes from the fact that he claimed in in his profile.
And it stood that way for years.
So, tough question for you, was he lying then? For all those years? Or now?
He hasn't answered yet.
@ INHALIBURTON: Why did you take my name off the post you copy and pasted that said "HOUCKSTER GENUINE".
This post was from the "SYNLUBE 4 LIFE RESULTS ARE IN HERE" thread from BITOG a total of 17 pages. So your a member of BITOG and obviously you can look up HOUCKSTERS profile which states he is the "OWNER OF SYNLUBE"
Why do you so obviusly try to slant things?
You claim to be a member of MENSA. And you know of a bottom feeder company like SYNLUBE.
But let me understand this....You don't know what Chevron Techron is?
Your so obvious as to be comical...As in a joke.
This post was from the "SYNLUBE 4 LIFE RESULTS ARE IN HERE" thread from BITOG a total of 17 pages. So your a member of BITOG and obviously you can look up HOUCKSTERS profile which states he is the "OWNER OF SYNLUBE"
Why do you so obviusly try to slant things?
You claim to be a member of MENSA. And you know of a bottom feeder company like SYNLUBE.
But let me understand this....You don't know what Chevron Techron is?
Your so obvious as to be comical...As in a joke.
Nuc, Houckster changed it after he was exposed.
quote:Originally posted by Nucleardawg:
@ Inhaliburton: You can look on BITOG, afterall your a Mensa member. You can find the info that HOUCKSTER/MIRO registered under, and you can still see the posts...But you knew that already.
And I am old enough, to know a liar and a tool...I can see YOU coming from a mile away yah BOOB.
QUIT YOUR WHINING LITTLE MAN
.
I've seen your posts over on BOB on this thread: http://tinyurl.com/yazl3py
You are polite and make some sense.
Your demeanor on here is the opposite. You are vulgar, use profanity and make little sense. This post is typical of you.
Why is that?
Regarding the HOUCKSTER/MIRO thing: I see that you, and others, insist that they are the same person. If you can't see that they are two different people, live over 1 000 miles apart, and that Houckster is simply a customer, who has provided this thread with nothing more than his personal experience with Synlube (though, granted, no test data) for several years until he was hounded to the point that he now refuses to participate in this thread (our loss, by the way), than there is little hope that anyone/anything will ever change your mind.
Here my subjection click on InHaliburton and click Add Inhaliburton to my ignore list.
Start to get tired to see the henchman and the multiple personalities of that synlube sect.
Start to get tired to see the henchman and the multiple personalities of that synlube sect.
Inhaliburton in real life I am very polite...But when confronted with people who make a living off of lies and then attack others who believe different.
Well I like anyone else don't play your silly childish games. The questions asked were very straight forward only to be met with indignation by members of the cult.
You in particular are most humerous to me. Don't take it personally little man, AND GROW A PAIR, if you wish to post on a public forum while attacking others.
Trajan thanks for the info I hadn't checked back...It doesn't suprise me that he changed it after he was discovered and called out on it....Take care
Well I like anyone else don't play your silly childish games. The questions asked were very straight forward only to be met with indignation by members of the cult.
You in particular are most humerous to me. Don't take it personally little man, AND GROW A PAIR, if you wish to post on a public forum while attacking others.
Trajan thanks for the info I hadn't checked back...It doesn't suprise me that he changed it after he was discovered and called out on it....Take care
quote:Originally posted by Nucleardawg:
@ INHALIBURTON: Why did you take my name off the post you copy and pasted that said "HOUCKSTER GENUINE".
Huh? Don't know what you are talking about. I'm not aware of copy/past anything about you.
quote:This post was from the "SYNLUBE 4 LIFE RESULTS ARE IN HERE" thread from BITOG a total of 17 pages. So your a member of BITOG and obviously you can look up HOUCKSTERS profile which states he is the "OWNER OF SYNLUBE"
Why do you so obviusly try to slant things?
I went over there and can find nothing in Houckster's profile that indicates your allegation.
quote:You claim to be a member of MENSA. And you know of a bottom feeder company like SYNLUBE.
Did I say that I am a Mensa member? Nope.
quote:But let me understand this....You don't know what Chevron Techron is?
Nope. What's your point?
quote:Your so obvious as to be comical...As in a joke.
Yes, I am fond of bathroom humour.
You didn't copy/paste? I guess it's just coincidence, that you quoted me word for word in the post, but conveniently left off my name.
You claim to be late for a mensa meeting in earlier posts.
Have never heard of Techron but frequent oil forums?
Like I say because of your stupidty in getting caught in lies, and hiding the truth, and then denying it when caught. I find you very comical...A grown man who is a joke, myself that's not way I choose to live, but perhaps you have a low self opinion/esteem of yourself
You claim to be late for a mensa meeting in earlier posts.
Have never heard of Techron but frequent oil forums?
Like I say because of your stupidty in getting caught in lies, and hiding the truth, and then denying it when caught. I find you very comical...A grown man who is a joke, myself that's not way I choose to live, but perhaps you have a low self opinion/esteem of yourself
I posted the quote from bitog about huckster stating he owned syncrap. I did post the link to it.
Sorry
Sorry
quote:Originally posted by vitual_mage:
Here my subjection click on InHaliburton and click Add Inhaliburton to my ignore list.
I did that earlier. He never posts anything relevant to synlube, and has shown he doesn't like it being questioned.
And yet, doesn't use it.
quote:Originally posted by Nucleardawg:
You didn't copy/paste? I guess it's just coincidence, that you quoted me word for word in the post, but conveniently left off my name.
Sorry, still don't understand. What I normally do is "reply with quote," then delete anything I'm not going to respond to in order to keep the reply as short as possible. In other words, so as not to be "repetitive." It's possible I delete your name or something like that...
quote:You claim to be late for a mensa meeting in earlier posts.
Not late, but had to go to a Mensa meeting in one post. I'm not a member but a prospect. Frankly, I'm less than impressed with this bunch. They kept interrupting one another, trying to outdo each other. A boring bunch.
quote:Have never heard of Techron but frequent oil forums?
Yes, I frequent oil forum, and no, I've never heard of Techron. Should I know? What is it, gasoline, lighter fluid?
quote:Like I say because of your stupidty in getting caught in lies, and hiding the truth, and then denying it when caught. I find you very comical...A grown man who is a joke, myself that's not way I choose to live, but perhaps you have a low self opinion/esteem of yourself
Well, back to calling names again. Stupidty(sic), I'm a joke, etc. I have to go now.
Funny how the Synluber's no longer wish to talk about it anymore...Just droning posts about the biggest POS car 'Yugo' ever sold in the USA.
Synluber's are sensitive people.
Perhaps it's time that this thread is closed, or maybe we should wait for the VOA, that is coming...I'm sure they'll be squealing loud then.
Synluber's are sensitive people.
Perhaps it's time that this thread is closed, or maybe we should wait for the VOA, that is coming...I'm sure they'll be squealing loud then.
quote:Originally posted by Nucleardawg:
Funny how the Synluber's no longer wish to talk about it anymore...Just droning posts about the biggest POS car 'Yugo' ever sold in the USA.
Synluber's are sensitive people.
What's to talk about? Anyone who does gets profanity thrown at them. Read what you wrote.
quote:Perhaps it's time that this thread is closed, or maybe we should wait for the VOA, that is coming...I'm sure they'll be squealing loud then.
Yes, yes. Close the thread. Again! If this thread is closed, you would have to go elsewhere to swear at posters who do not agree with you. Is that what you want?
Does BOB tolerate your vulgarity and profanity? Just curious...
And the VOA. What's the status? We are all interested in the results. Does the sample have to be sent offshore for accurate results?
You poor baby, I feel for you...After the trash you have hurled at people, on this thread for asking questions, or wanting proof of absurd claims. You want others to feel sorry for you?
Inhaliburton, I can come here daily, and read your attacks on others...So don't cry when another hurls it right back.
Why don't we talk about Synlube having a 'permanently revoked' business license in Nevada. Or why the BBB gives Synlube a 'F' rating.
Or how they claim to have the mixing done in 'Mercury, NV...top secret....
Inhaliburton, I can come here daily, and read your attacks on others...So don't cry when another hurls it right back.
Why don't we talk about Synlube having a 'permanently revoked' business license in Nevada. Or why the BBB gives Synlube a 'F' rating.
Or how they claim to have the mixing done in 'Mercury, NV...top secret....
Their point of view about the Yugo is important for a simple reason, it prove what kind of business it is, a scam back them and still one today. He went from a car seller, to an electric car seller then became tribiologist .He claim any vehicle over 100k are junk but then turn around and praise 30 year old vehicle. Claim is oil is good for 150 000 miles but then write in fine character otherwise, saying the vehicle are so badly built they will be good for the scrap yard after 5 year…..
Let me ask why should we use an unknown product with no data, no proof, only the word of the owner…..is multiple personality and some so call user ,most of them driving old car from 30 year ago.
Let me ask why should we use an unknown product with no data, no proof, only the word of the owner…..is multiple personality and some so call user ,most of them driving old car from 30 year ago.
Oh I also didn't 'swear' at you...another lie...
I believe I hsve called you a bladder of hot air, cry baby, moron, and probably a few other things describing my genersal opinion of you/synluber's
Nobody 'swore at you...like i said another lie
I believe I hsve called you a bladder of hot air, cry baby, moron, and probably a few other things describing my genersal opinion of you/synluber's
Nobody 'swore at you...like i said another lie
quote:Originally posted by Nucleardawg:
You poor baby, I feel for you...After the trash you have hurled at people, on this thread for asking questions, or wanting proof of absurd claims. You want others to feel sorry for you?
Inhaliburton, I can come here daily, and read your attacks on others...So don't cry when another hurls it right back.
Why don't we talk about Synlube having a 'permanently revoked' business license in Nevada. Or why the BBB gives Synlube a 'F' rating.
Or how they claim to have the mixing done in 'Mercury, NV...top secret....
Nucleardawg, perhaps I have been too tough on you. Noting your moniker, reading between the lines in your posts and having thought about it ever so briefly, and assuming that you are employed, could it be that you work in a nuclear facility?
Just a thought...
All over the world Inhaliburton
quote:Originally posted by Deltona_Dave:quote:Originally posted by Trajan:
Earlier today out for the Sunday drive I saw something I haven't seem in years. A 1970 Superbird going the opposite direction.
One of MOPAR's finest probably running Mobil 1 or Redline in that beast too! Too bad they don't make them like that anymore today's Hemi is nothing compared to the original 426.
Dave
Yeah. They might have the name, but not quite the same magic.
Got another treat too. A 63 Stingray with the split windows. Don't see many of them. At least I haven't.
There's a Dairy Queen near me that has impromtu car shows. Not many cars, but nice ones.
Project Description: SynLube Lubricants Long Term Test
AAA Project Identification Number: 81
Project Number: 2002-0317-1
Where is it? Post a direct link or the doc itself so we can all read it.
AAA Project Identification Number: 81
Project Number: 2002-0317-1
Where is it? Post a direct link or the doc itself so we can all read it.
Synthetic Performance Solutions Group
A wholly owned subsidiary of Paribagon Corporation
A Murrieta, California Company - Serving the United States, Latin America, and Canada
Home PageSynpsgCustomer ServiceDiesel Power Info
Why Amsoil SyntheticsOur ServicesSynpsg EspanolOnline Application Guide
Amsoil Online OrderingOur Research - Q&A'sServicio a ClientesMessage from Synpsg EVP
Oil Change Cost AnalysisThe Oil Sludge ProblemDocument LibraryCommerical Account
Request Free CatalogBecome a DealerPreferred CustomerRetail On-the-Shelf Info
Oil Sludge Problem
Oil Sludge Problems can be a huge issue, inconvenience, and expense. In order to avoid sludge related catastrophic problems, alway use the best synthetic. When you change your oil, please recycle. If you don't know where to
recycle, ask us, we'll let you know the nearest
location.
Oil Sludge Problem: Oil sludge is a real problem today. A vehicle cannot be adequately protected with a $19.99 oil change. Let's be realistic. Maybe better stated, you get what you pay for...and quality oil changes are the most important maintenance you can do for your vehicle. If an oil sludge problem develops in your vehicle, it will be an extremely expensive repair. More and more people experience issues with poor oil flow due to sludge (where the oil turns to gel). What is the cause of this problem and is it avoidable? The cause is the properties and characteristics of conventional oil becomes stressed. Once a conventional oil reaches the engineering specifications for which it was designed, it will then breakdown into a gel that sticks to your engine and all moving parts in lieu of circulating and keeping your engine cool. As the gel settles in the engine, it actually stores heat instead of providing the cooling necessary for your engine. Sludge is the thickening and breakdown of the oil as it deteriorates, and as moisture and contaminants build up. This is what causes the oil to gel, resulting in excess wear as friction increases or, in extreme cases, a catastrophic failure of the engine due to lack of lubrication between moving parts. There are currently many legal issues and manufacturer litigation around sludge build up. Many companies, such as Volkswagen, have sent out technical service advisories to immediately switch to a fully synthetic oil.
Oil sludge usually starts in the top end of an engine (valve cover area) and the oil pan. The immediate damage begins to occur when the sludge or gel begins to block the oil screen siphon. Once this blockage occurs, catastrophic failure of the engine is eminent. The oil level of the engine may actually look fine...but your engine is truly being damaged by every stroke of your crank and camshaft as your engine loses oil pressure and no longer lubricates correctly. This is a huge issue for cars built in 1996 and newer.
Why did this start occurring in 1996 and newer vehicles? There are several issues...
· Quick Lube shops that are competing for market share are trying to differentiate themselves as being the low cost leader and thus competing for consumers that think they are getting a bargain. How do they give oil changes for $9.99 or $14.99? Very low performing single grade oil that is purchased in bulk along with very cheap oil filters. Combine the very cheapest products along with very low skilled or inexperienced technicians and you have a $9.99 oil change that will only add to sludge and other damage, as well as low performance to your engine and shorten the life of your vehicle.
· Federal Emissions Specifications have really got tough from the mid 1990’s. In 1996 the tighter federal emissions standards were enacted. Combined with leaner fuel mixtures and higher combustion temperatures, sludge starts to appear as a real industry problem.
· Fuel economy pressures have led the manufacturers to engineer their vehicles for lower viscosity engine oils. When conventional oil is used, these oils break down very fast in day-to-day driving.
Great additional resource information:
http://www.schleeter.com/oil-sludge.htm
Amsoil Technical Bulletin on Sludge
The following engines were reported by the Center for Auto Safety and/or their manufacturers to have a problem with sludge accumulation:
* 1998-2002 Chrysler2.7 L LHV6
o 2001-2002 Dodge Stratus/Chrysler Sebring
o 1998-2002 Dodge Intrepid/Chrysler Concorde
* 1998-2003 SaabH engine B205/B235I4
o 1998-2003 Saab 9-5B235 2.3 L
o 1999 Saab ViggenB235 2.3 L
o 2000-2002 Saab 9-3B205 2.0 L
o 2000-2003 Saab 9-3 convertibleB205 2.0 L
* 1996-2001 Toyota3.0 L 1MZV6
o August 1996-July 2001 Toyota Camry
o June 1998-May 2001 Toyota Camry Solara
o July 1997-May 2001 Toyota Sienna
o July 1996-May 2001 Toyota Avalon
o November 2000-July 2001 Toyota Highlander
o August 1998-July 2001 Lexus ES300
o January 1998-July 2001 Lexus RX300
* 1996-2001 Toyota5SFEI4
o August 1996-July 2001 Toyota Camry
o June 1998-May 2001 Toyota Camry Solara
o August 1996-April 1999 Toyota Celica
* 1997-2004 VolkswagenVW 1.8tI4
o 1997-2004 Audi A4 1.8t
o 1998-2004 Volkswagen Passat 1.8t
This problem can be avoided or mitigated if the sludge formation has begun to occur (something you may not be aware of until it is too late). The only action that can be taken is to change your engine oil to a top quality synthetic oil. Amsoil is recommended to replace the conventional oil being used that causes the damage in the first place. Anyone that chooses to use conventional oil is simply asking for severe engine problems. That is not an opinion; it is a proven fact. That is exactly why conventional oil must be changed at 3,000 miles to maintain the minimum protection properties, and Amsoil at 25,000 miles - pretty significant difference.
When changing from a conventional oil to a synthetic, such as Amsoil, it is best to first flush the engine and try to clean out the sludge build up.
Don't put clean synthetic oil in a dirty engine!
When an engine gets dirty, even regular oil changes can't help restore its operating efficiency. The detergen/dispersant's in most conventional engine oils can't handle the abnormal amounts of contamination found in a "dirty" engine. The new oil becomes dirty long before it should, losing much of its ability to lubricate and protect your engine and actually accelerating the formation of more sludge and varnish.
In this age of longer recommended drain intervals, it is especially important to have a clean engine before changing oil. Using AMSOIL Fast Acting Engine Flush when you change oil is an excellent way to guarantee your engine stays clean. It has special solvents and cleaning agents that act fast but gently to remove harmful deposits that can cost you money in excessive fuel consumption and mechanical repairs.
AMSOIL Engine Flush is especially recommended for use before changing to AMSOIL Synthetic Motor Oils, assuring that these super premium long life oils provide the maximum protection and service life they are designed to deliver.
The AMSOIL Formula
for Better Engine Performance
1) FLUSH: To quickly clean residual sludge and engine deposits, AMSOIL Engine Flush is recommended: Change the oil filter and add the flush (about 10% of the oil capacity). Do not overfill the crankcase. Idle the engine 15 to 20 minutes, then immediately drain the old oil and flush.
*Note: Engine Flush is not recommended for use in transmissions, differentials, air-cooled engines, engines that share a common oil sump with the transmission (motorcycles & ATV's) or engine not equipped with an oil filter.
2) INSTALL: Remove the old oil filter and replace it with an AMSOIL Ea Oil Filter. Ea Oil Filters feature advanced full synthetic nanofiber technology, making them the highest efficiency filters that are available for the auto/light truck market.
3) POUR: Fill the engine's crankcase with the AMSOIL Synthetic Motor Oil of the viscosity grade recommended by your vehicle's manufacturer. AMSOIL Synthetic Motor Oils are highly resistant to oxidation and provide exceptional detergent/dispersant properties, helping keep your engine free of further sludge and varnish build-up.
A wholly owned subsidiary of Paribagon Corporation
A Murrieta, California Company - Serving the United States, Latin America, and Canada
Home PageSynpsgCustomer ServiceDiesel Power Info
Why Amsoil SyntheticsOur ServicesSynpsg EspanolOnline Application Guide
Amsoil Online OrderingOur Research - Q&A'sServicio a ClientesMessage from Synpsg EVP
Oil Change Cost AnalysisThe Oil Sludge ProblemDocument LibraryCommerical Account
Request Free CatalogBecome a DealerPreferred CustomerRetail On-the-Shelf Info
Oil Sludge Problem
Oil Sludge Problems can be a huge issue, inconvenience, and expense. In order to avoid sludge related catastrophic problems, alway use the best synthetic. When you change your oil, please recycle. If you don't know where to
recycle, ask us, we'll let you know the nearest
location.
Oil Sludge Problem: Oil sludge is a real problem today. A vehicle cannot be adequately protected with a $19.99 oil change. Let's be realistic. Maybe better stated, you get what you pay for...and quality oil changes are the most important maintenance you can do for your vehicle. If an oil sludge problem develops in your vehicle, it will be an extremely expensive repair. More and more people experience issues with poor oil flow due to sludge (where the oil turns to gel). What is the cause of this problem and is it avoidable? The cause is the properties and characteristics of conventional oil becomes stressed. Once a conventional oil reaches the engineering specifications for which it was designed, it will then breakdown into a gel that sticks to your engine and all moving parts in lieu of circulating and keeping your engine cool. As the gel settles in the engine, it actually stores heat instead of providing the cooling necessary for your engine. Sludge is the thickening and breakdown of the oil as it deteriorates, and as moisture and contaminants build up. This is what causes the oil to gel, resulting in excess wear as friction increases or, in extreme cases, a catastrophic failure of the engine due to lack of lubrication between moving parts. There are currently many legal issues and manufacturer litigation around sludge build up. Many companies, such as Volkswagen, have sent out technical service advisories to immediately switch to a fully synthetic oil.
Oil sludge usually starts in the top end of an engine (valve cover area) and the oil pan. The immediate damage begins to occur when the sludge or gel begins to block the oil screen siphon. Once this blockage occurs, catastrophic failure of the engine is eminent. The oil level of the engine may actually look fine...but your engine is truly being damaged by every stroke of your crank and camshaft as your engine loses oil pressure and no longer lubricates correctly. This is a huge issue for cars built in 1996 and newer.
Why did this start occurring in 1996 and newer vehicles? There are several issues...
· Quick Lube shops that are competing for market share are trying to differentiate themselves as being the low cost leader and thus competing for consumers that think they are getting a bargain. How do they give oil changes for $9.99 or $14.99? Very low performing single grade oil that is purchased in bulk along with very cheap oil filters. Combine the very cheapest products along with very low skilled or inexperienced technicians and you have a $9.99 oil change that will only add to sludge and other damage, as well as low performance to your engine and shorten the life of your vehicle.
· Federal Emissions Specifications have really got tough from the mid 1990’s. In 1996 the tighter federal emissions standards were enacted. Combined with leaner fuel mixtures and higher combustion temperatures, sludge starts to appear as a real industry problem.
· Fuel economy pressures have led the manufacturers to engineer their vehicles for lower viscosity engine oils. When conventional oil is used, these oils break down very fast in day-to-day driving.
Great additional resource information:
http://www.schleeter.com/oil-sludge.htm
Amsoil Technical Bulletin on Sludge
The following engines were reported by the Center for Auto Safety and/or their manufacturers to have a problem with sludge accumulation:
* 1998-2002 Chrysler2.7 L LHV6
o 2001-2002 Dodge Stratus/Chrysler Sebring
o 1998-2002 Dodge Intrepid/Chrysler Concorde
* 1998-2003 SaabH engine B205/B235I4
o 1998-2003 Saab 9-5B235 2.3 L
o 1999 Saab ViggenB235 2.3 L
o 2000-2002 Saab 9-3B205 2.0 L
o 2000-2003 Saab 9-3 convertibleB205 2.0 L
* 1996-2001 Toyota3.0 L 1MZV6
o August 1996-July 2001 Toyota Camry
o June 1998-May 2001 Toyota Camry Solara
o July 1997-May 2001 Toyota Sienna
o July 1996-May 2001 Toyota Avalon
o November 2000-July 2001 Toyota Highlander
o August 1998-July 2001 Lexus ES300
o January 1998-July 2001 Lexus RX300
* 1996-2001 Toyota5SFEI4
o August 1996-July 2001 Toyota Camry
o June 1998-May 2001 Toyota Camry Solara
o August 1996-April 1999 Toyota Celica
* 1997-2004 VolkswagenVW 1.8tI4
o 1997-2004 Audi A4 1.8t
o 1998-2004 Volkswagen Passat 1.8t
This problem can be avoided or mitigated if the sludge formation has begun to occur (something you may not be aware of until it is too late). The only action that can be taken is to change your engine oil to a top quality synthetic oil. Amsoil is recommended to replace the conventional oil being used that causes the damage in the first place. Anyone that chooses to use conventional oil is simply asking for severe engine problems. That is not an opinion; it is a proven fact. That is exactly why conventional oil must be changed at 3,000 miles to maintain the minimum protection properties, and Amsoil at 25,000 miles - pretty significant difference.
When changing from a conventional oil to a synthetic, such as Amsoil, it is best to first flush the engine and try to clean out the sludge build up.
Don't put clean synthetic oil in a dirty engine!
When an engine gets dirty, even regular oil changes can't help restore its operating efficiency. The detergen/dispersant's in most conventional engine oils can't handle the abnormal amounts of contamination found in a "dirty" engine. The new oil becomes dirty long before it should, losing much of its ability to lubricate and protect your engine and actually accelerating the formation of more sludge and varnish.
In this age of longer recommended drain intervals, it is especially important to have a clean engine before changing oil. Using AMSOIL Fast Acting Engine Flush when you change oil is an excellent way to guarantee your engine stays clean. It has special solvents and cleaning agents that act fast but gently to remove harmful deposits that can cost you money in excessive fuel consumption and mechanical repairs.
AMSOIL Engine Flush is especially recommended for use before changing to AMSOIL Synthetic Motor Oils, assuring that these super premium long life oils provide the maximum protection and service life they are designed to deliver.
The AMSOIL Formula
for Better Engine Performance
1) FLUSH: To quickly clean residual sludge and engine deposits, AMSOIL Engine Flush is recommended: Change the oil filter and add the flush (about 10% of the oil capacity). Do not overfill the crankcase. Idle the engine 15 to 20 minutes, then immediately drain the old oil and flush.
*Note: Engine Flush is not recommended for use in transmissions, differentials, air-cooled engines, engines that share a common oil sump with the transmission (motorcycles & ATV's) or engine not equipped with an oil filter.
2) INSTALL: Remove the old oil filter and replace it with an AMSOIL Ea Oil Filter. Ea Oil Filters feature advanced full synthetic nanofiber technology, making them the highest efficiency filters that are available for the auto/light truck market.
3) POUR: Fill the engine's crankcase with the AMSOIL Synthetic Motor Oil of the viscosity grade recommended by your vehicle's manufacturer. AMSOIL Synthetic Motor Oils are highly resistant to oxidation and provide exceptional detergent/dispersant properties, helping keep your engine free of further sludge and varnish build-up.
Automotive Q&A
Oil to fight sludge? You be the judge
Q: A lot of manufacturers are promoting "high-mileage" oil. Is it just marketing, or is there something to this? A: As an engine ages and...
By Brad Bergholdt
San Jose Mercury News
Related
* Motoring RSS feed
Q: A lot of manufacturers are promoting "high-mileage" oil. Is it just marketing, or is there something to this?
A: As an engine ages and its rubber seals harden, oil can leak and sludge can form, reducing engine life.
High-mileage oils feature reduced volatility and/or slightly increased viscosity, which decreases oil consumption; a seal-softening additive to keep seals plump; extra anti-oxidation additives to reduce sludge buildup; and friction-reducing and detergent additives.
If you're one of the few folks with a motor-oil-friendly daily commute — a half-hour or more each way without excessive stop-and-go traffic — then frequent oil changes and high-mileage oil may not be necessary. But if you have short commutes, lots of stop-and-go, temperature extremes, tow a trailer, or drive one of several vehicles with particular sludge issues, then high-mileage oil every 3,000 to 4,000 miles makes good sense.
For a list of cars that are particularly sludge-sensitive, and lots more about sludge, take a look at www.synlube.com/sludge.htm.
E-mail Brad Bergholdt at under-the-hood@earthlink.net.
Sorry, no personal replies.
Copyright © 2007 The Seattle Times Company
Oil to fight sludge? You be the judge
Q: A lot of manufacturers are promoting "high-mileage" oil. Is it just marketing, or is there something to this? A: As an engine ages and...
By Brad Bergholdt
San Jose Mercury News
Related
* Motoring RSS feed
Q: A lot of manufacturers are promoting "high-mileage" oil. Is it just marketing, or is there something to this?
A: As an engine ages and its rubber seals harden, oil can leak and sludge can form, reducing engine life.
High-mileage oils feature reduced volatility and/or slightly increased viscosity, which decreases oil consumption; a seal-softening additive to keep seals plump; extra anti-oxidation additives to reduce sludge buildup; and friction-reducing and detergent additives.
If you're one of the few folks with a motor-oil-friendly daily commute — a half-hour or more each way without excessive stop-and-go traffic — then frequent oil changes and high-mileage oil may not be necessary. But if you have short commutes, lots of stop-and-go, temperature extremes, tow a trailer, or drive one of several vehicles with particular sludge issues, then high-mileage oil every 3,000 to 4,000 miles makes good sense.
For a list of cars that are particularly sludge-sensitive, and lots more about sludge, take a look at www.synlube.com/sludge.htm.
E-mail Brad Bergholdt at under-the-hood@earthlink.net.
Sorry, no personal replies.
Copyright © 2007 The Seattle Times Company
Choosing engine oil: bad habits can hurt.
Visiting many Porsche specialists in the past few weeks, I have been able to witness the devastating consequences that a wrong choice of oil could have on the cams of Porsche engines. I have also been made once again aware of the quasi-spiritual nature of “oil choice”. As the representative of a large oil and lubricant company, I found myself justifying the reasonable choices of the lubricant industry and realizing that most oil companies have given up on explaining their products, including to their distributors. The result is much mis-information, that I will try and address in this article.
Table comparing what I heard versus what I know:
Statements I heard or read:
Fact:
The “government” is taking away the ZDTP from our engine oils, and the new oils do not protect old engines enough against cam wear.
The government is demanding longer warranties on catalytic converters of new cars. ILSAC, the oil standardization board for Domestic and Japanese cars, has set limits on the content in catalyst-polluting Sulfur and Phosphorus in their GF-3 and GF-4 standards. No European manufacturer recommend ILSAC GF-4 for any vehicle. European carmakers have their own oil standards (more below). In the field, many oil wholesalers ignore that information and focus their offering on the “high volume” market of Japanese and Domestic cars, still assuming that the needs of European cars will be “close enough”. That can be a problem not only for Porsche, but for any European car.
Since “they” took away the ZDTP, let us put it back in the form of after-market additives, or call Brand X who has sworn to not follow any third-party spec and make “the best lubricants possible”.
Protecting the cams against premature wear is only one of many more functions of a good engine lubricant. The oil must also cool the engine, prevent sludge, clean it, fight corrosion to mention only the main functions. Sludge has been a big problem in recent years.
Organizations like API, ILSAC, ACEA, as well as car manufacturers test as many of these properties that they can to serve a specific category of cars, while following a budget for testing and a maximum cost of finished product. For Porsche and European cars, this testing is longer and more expensive. Look for the “Porsche”, VW 502.00 or ACEA A3/B4 approvals, proof that the oil passed not only an appropriate cam wear test, but also a sludge and corrosion test, among others.
Aftermarket additives are an extra load to carry for the detergent chemistry of engine oils. Saturating those detergents is what creates sludge.
Diesel oils “are not API formulated”, have plenty of ZDTP and can safely be used in older Porsche.
Diesel oils are formulated for diesel heavy-duty trucks. These engines are designed for low RPM (1000 to 1500) and contain 5 to 10 gallons of oil that stays much cooler than most gasoline engine oils. Diesel oils usually follow one of the latest API
specifications: API CH-4, API CI-4 or now API CJ-4. This latest category CJ-4 is “backward compatible” but has, like the ILSAC spec, some limits on Sulfur and Phosphorus. These limits are higher than for the ILSAC spec, but expect newer diesel oils to have diminished amounts of ZDTP as well.
I am not trying to knock down the crutches that the Porsche community has been using to solve the very real problem of cam wear. Rather, I would want to make the case that if the way oil was chosen has failed, now may be a good time to re-examine the way we choose oil. In short, brands are just brands. Trying to second guess the chemists is more and more futile. Only improving our knowledge of the engine oil testing procedures, and checking what oil passed what test is the professional and safe way to choose engine oil.
Oil technology is complex and every sales guy has a good story, so let us sidestep technology for now.
Let us rather concentrate on the universe in which we, sales guys, operate: realities of the business world.
To make and distribute oil at a competitive price, a company must be able to manufacture or buy the components at a competitive price, and have enough of a market to pay for the development and manufacturing cost. That company has to be able to “be a player”. Once that company decides to “be a player”, say, in the Porsche market, then the sound and professional way to operate is to present the finished product to Porsche so they put it through the Porsche 996FL Engine test. This test will last 203 hours. The engine, and the oil, will go through:
- 4 times the simulation of 35 hours of summer driving,
- 4 times the simulation of 13.5 hours of winter driving,
- 40 cold starts,
- 5 times the simulation of 1-hour sessions on the “Nürburgring” racetrack,
- 3.5 hours of “running-in” program
Measurements on the engine and on the oil will be done at regular intervals, and the following parameter will be taken into account to grant the approval or not:
- torque curve (internal friction),
- oxidation of the oil,
- Piston cleanliness and ring sticking,
- Valve train wear protection. Cam & tappet wear must be less than 10 μm.
- Engine cleanliness and sludge: after 203 hours, no deposits must be visible.
- Bearing wear protection: visual rating according to Porsche in-house method.
Several mechanics told me that they were relying on “their own testing” to choose an oil. None of these mechanics showed me that their method came close to matching what Porsche does: running dozens of oils through the same 203-hour test, and comparing the results.
This test has been designed by Porsche to guarantee the availability of test-proven oils for all Porsche since model year 1973: the letter (attached) given to oil manufacturers specifies that date.
This oil testing procedure exists specifically to avoid the wear cam problems created by the fiasco of ILSAC GF-4 being recommended in Porsche by some distributors. Why not use the Porsche testing to choose your oil?
All the large oil companies, including Mobil 1 of course, and many smaller companies, have one or several formulas that successfully passed this test. The “Porsche recommends Mobil 1” advertising is confusing: the most available Mobil 1 products found at Wal-mart or Jiffy Lube meet the ILSAC GF-4 spec and are NOT approved by Porsche. A clearer advertising statement would say “Mobil 1 0W40 passed the Porsche engine test”.
The problem for oil companies is to make their Porsche-approved formulas easily available and affordable to the Porsche community when many of their wholesalers care about volume (gallons) more than about oil technology. We have chosen to distribute our ELF Excellium NF 5W40 through German auto specialists who make that oil available to consumers at a price competitive with any fully synthetic oil.
Now, some oil companies claim they need no approval from Porsche because they found a better solution, at a cheaper cost, and they ask you to take their word for it. They are “opportunity players”: they claim that they saw a problem and decided to fix it. You may have tried their product, and found that they have a point. Now, if their story was true without any “side effect” to be expected later, if they found a real and durable solution, then they would do what the “players” do: they would get their products tested by the factory and gain access to the larger market. If, say, an industrial oil company can make the right product and venture into the Porsche market, good for them. They should let Porsche know! Why do they not do it? You may want a clear answer to that question.
If they say they’re “too small”, then they probably do not have a cheap access to the raw material in the first place, so how can they be competitive? If the company is large enough and still does not get the approval, you are probably listening to a particularly gifted regional salesman.
Porsche-approved oils are usually fully synthetic, not to claim “synthetic” on the label, but because the raw material that can withstand the Porsche testing happens to be synthetic. These oils may cost a few dollars more that the usual “shop oil”. I hope I explained why.
What’s next? I have been through similar explanations of factory oil specs in the past, like with Volkswagen in 2003-2004, and what followed was a flurry of claims saying “meets or exceeds the VW spec” on engine oil labels. The next step was for Volkswagen to release complete lists of the oils that actually met the spec, which of course did not please the oil company having a marketing deal with Volkswagen… This may happen with Porsche too, but here are the facts. Porsche of America has a list of approved oils, and each approved company should be able to display to you a letter similar to the one in attachment. This may not be a perfect solution, but to me, it sure beats thinking of Porsche engines like “Diesel engines” or believing the sales rep who tells me that his “proprietary” XXTZP999 additive prevents wear cam like no other…
Hervé Blanquart is a sales engineer for Total Lubricants USA, Inc. and supports the distribution of ELF engine oils in the Western United States. He can be reached at herve.blanquart@total-us.com .
Visiting many Porsche specialists in the past few weeks, I have been able to witness the devastating consequences that a wrong choice of oil could have on the cams of Porsche engines. I have also been made once again aware of the quasi-spiritual nature of “oil choice”. As the representative of a large oil and lubricant company, I found myself justifying the reasonable choices of the lubricant industry and realizing that most oil companies have given up on explaining their products, including to their distributors. The result is much mis-information, that I will try and address in this article.
Table comparing what I heard versus what I know:
Statements I heard or read:
Fact:
The “government” is taking away the ZDTP from our engine oils, and the new oils do not protect old engines enough against cam wear.
The government is demanding longer warranties on catalytic converters of new cars. ILSAC, the oil standardization board for Domestic and Japanese cars, has set limits on the content in catalyst-polluting Sulfur and Phosphorus in their GF-3 and GF-4 standards. No European manufacturer recommend ILSAC GF-4 for any vehicle. European carmakers have their own oil standards (more below). In the field, many oil wholesalers ignore that information and focus their offering on the “high volume” market of Japanese and Domestic cars, still assuming that the needs of European cars will be “close enough”. That can be a problem not only for Porsche, but for any European car.
Since “they” took away the ZDTP, let us put it back in the form of after-market additives, or call Brand X who has sworn to not follow any third-party spec and make “the best lubricants possible”.
Protecting the cams against premature wear is only one of many more functions of a good engine lubricant. The oil must also cool the engine, prevent sludge, clean it, fight corrosion to mention only the main functions. Sludge has been a big problem in recent years.
Organizations like API, ILSAC, ACEA, as well as car manufacturers test as many of these properties that they can to serve a specific category of cars, while following a budget for testing and a maximum cost of finished product. For Porsche and European cars, this testing is longer and more expensive. Look for the “Porsche”, VW 502.00 or ACEA A3/B4 approvals, proof that the oil passed not only an appropriate cam wear test, but also a sludge and corrosion test, among others.
Aftermarket additives are an extra load to carry for the detergent chemistry of engine oils. Saturating those detergents is what creates sludge.
Diesel oils “are not API formulated”, have plenty of ZDTP and can safely be used in older Porsche.
Diesel oils are formulated for diesel heavy-duty trucks. These engines are designed for low RPM (1000 to 1500) and contain 5 to 10 gallons of oil that stays much cooler than most gasoline engine oils. Diesel oils usually follow one of the latest API
specifications: API CH-4, API CI-4 or now API CJ-4. This latest category CJ-4 is “backward compatible” but has, like the ILSAC spec, some limits on Sulfur and Phosphorus. These limits are higher than for the ILSAC spec, but expect newer diesel oils to have diminished amounts of ZDTP as well.
I am not trying to knock down the crutches that the Porsche community has been using to solve the very real problem of cam wear. Rather, I would want to make the case that if the way oil was chosen has failed, now may be a good time to re-examine the way we choose oil. In short, brands are just brands. Trying to second guess the chemists is more and more futile. Only improving our knowledge of the engine oil testing procedures, and checking what oil passed what test is the professional and safe way to choose engine oil.
Oil technology is complex and every sales guy has a good story, so let us sidestep technology for now.
Let us rather concentrate on the universe in which we, sales guys, operate: realities of the business world.
To make and distribute oil at a competitive price, a company must be able to manufacture or buy the components at a competitive price, and have enough of a market to pay for the development and manufacturing cost. That company has to be able to “be a player”. Once that company decides to “be a player”, say, in the Porsche market, then the sound and professional way to operate is to present the finished product to Porsche so they put it through the Porsche 996FL Engine test. This test will last 203 hours. The engine, and the oil, will go through:
- 4 times the simulation of 35 hours of summer driving,
- 4 times the simulation of 13.5 hours of winter driving,
- 40 cold starts,
- 5 times the simulation of 1-hour sessions on the “Nürburgring” racetrack,
- 3.5 hours of “running-in” program
Measurements on the engine and on the oil will be done at regular intervals, and the following parameter will be taken into account to grant the approval or not:
- torque curve (internal friction),
- oxidation of the oil,
- Piston cleanliness and ring sticking,
- Valve train wear protection. Cam & tappet wear must be less than 10 μm.
- Engine cleanliness and sludge: after 203 hours, no deposits must be visible.
- Bearing wear protection: visual rating according to Porsche in-house method.
Several mechanics told me that they were relying on “their own testing” to choose an oil. None of these mechanics showed me that their method came close to matching what Porsche does: running dozens of oils through the same 203-hour test, and comparing the results.
This test has been designed by Porsche to guarantee the availability of test-proven oils for all Porsche since model year 1973: the letter (attached) given to oil manufacturers specifies that date.
This oil testing procedure exists specifically to avoid the wear cam problems created by the fiasco of ILSAC GF-4 being recommended in Porsche by some distributors. Why not use the Porsche testing to choose your oil?
All the large oil companies, including Mobil 1 of course, and many smaller companies, have one or several formulas that successfully passed this test. The “Porsche recommends Mobil 1” advertising is confusing: the most available Mobil 1 products found at Wal-mart or Jiffy Lube meet the ILSAC GF-4 spec and are NOT approved by Porsche. A clearer advertising statement would say “Mobil 1 0W40 passed the Porsche engine test”.
The problem for oil companies is to make their Porsche-approved formulas easily available and affordable to the Porsche community when many of their wholesalers care about volume (gallons) more than about oil technology. We have chosen to distribute our ELF Excellium NF 5W40 through German auto specialists who make that oil available to consumers at a price competitive with any fully synthetic oil.
Now, some oil companies claim they need no approval from Porsche because they found a better solution, at a cheaper cost, and they ask you to take their word for it. They are “opportunity players”: they claim that they saw a problem and decided to fix it. You may have tried their product, and found that they have a point. Now, if their story was true without any “side effect” to be expected later, if they found a real and durable solution, then they would do what the “players” do: they would get their products tested by the factory and gain access to the larger market. If, say, an industrial oil company can make the right product and venture into the Porsche market, good for them. They should let Porsche know! Why do they not do it? You may want a clear answer to that question.
If they say they’re “too small”, then they probably do not have a cheap access to the raw material in the first place, so how can they be competitive? If the company is large enough and still does not get the approval, you are probably listening to a particularly gifted regional salesman.
Porsche-approved oils are usually fully synthetic, not to claim “synthetic” on the label, but because the raw material that can withstand the Porsche testing happens to be synthetic. These oils may cost a few dollars more that the usual “shop oil”. I hope I explained why.
What’s next? I have been through similar explanations of factory oil specs in the past, like with Volkswagen in 2003-2004, and what followed was a flurry of claims saying “meets or exceeds the VW spec” on engine oil labels. The next step was for Volkswagen to release complete lists of the oils that actually met the spec, which of course did not please the oil company having a marketing deal with Volkswagen… This may happen with Porsche too, but here are the facts. Porsche of America has a list of approved oils, and each approved company should be able to display to you a letter similar to the one in attachment. This may not be a perfect solution, but to me, it sure beats thinking of Porsche engines like “Diesel engines” or believing the sales rep who tells me that his “proprietary” XXTZP999 additive prevents wear cam like no other…
Hervé Blanquart is a sales engineer for Total Lubricants USA, Inc. and supports the distribution of ELF engine oils in the Western United States. He can be reached at herve.blanquart@total-us.com .
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
My VW Lemon Bulletin Board
Passat
the 1.8L Turbo Engine, and it's sludge
Post New Topic Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic: the 1.8L Turbo Engine, and it's sludge
treinz031
Junior Member posted 01-26-2007 06:24 PM Click Here to See the Profile for treinz031 Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote So I'm in the midst of a dispute with the local dealership in regards to oil sludge destroying my engine. I've read through several of the other threads in this regard, and Up-the-river, you have alot of good advice.
My point & subsequent question to the forum is this: VW wants you to believe that the cause of the oil sludge problem in your 1.8t engine is a result of improper maintenance/neglect. My car is a 2003 VW Passat 1.8 turbo, delivered to me in November 2002. That car was delivered with petroleum based 5w40 oil. In August of 2004, in addition to VW extending their warranties in regards to oil sludge damage, they also changed their engine oil specifications to 502.00. Without saying it in black & white, they changed the oil specs to require ONLY synthetic oil, no petroleum based oil is to be used in the 1.8t passat. Well, that means that my car was filled once upon arrival to me, plus 3 more times prior to August 2004 for a total of 4 times with petroleum based oil. Yet at 50,000 miles, VW would have me believe that the reason for my problems wasn't because of improper oil courtesy of the manufacturer, but instead was due to my obvious neglect of the car for not changing the oil every 5,000 miles on the dot.
But there's a flaw in that argument. The obvious one is this: If the cause of the engine oil sludge problem is a result of negligence and improper maintenance, then anyone that CAN produce documentation of an oil change every 5,000 miles should NOT even have an oil sludge problem. The fact that there are hundreds of people that can, and did have documented oil changes every 5,000 miles and STILL needed their engines replaced as a result of oil sludge proves that the flaw was in design/oil type being originally used and not in maintenance. Right?
The other flaw in their argument is that I have photographs of my valve cover, engine, etc. covered in black burnt oil, and according to every single mechanic I've shown those to, the only cause of that type of damage is petroleum based oil. From what I've learned, a synthetic based oil, even if run 10, 15, 20k miles beyond it's scheduled maintenance will never, ever, result in the type of extensively damaging oil sludge that you see as a result of the petroleum based oil that VW shipped your car with, and that the VW dealership was using to replace your oil every oil change up to August of 2004.
Has anyone that has already had a run in with VW brought this to their attention? I mean, the proof is in the pudding. If the problem is improper maintenance, why have they changed out ANY engines? I mean, lack of documentation voids all us losers, and the others that do have documentation... well... your engine should be good as gold and in no need to be replaced!
IP: Logged
Up-The-River
Member posted 01-26-2007 07:04 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Up-The-River Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Do you have proof of all required oil changes as stated in the 2003 Owner's manual? If you do, DON'T BACK DOWN! You have done all that is required by law to up-hold your responsibilites. You may need to hire a lawyer...or at least threaten to. A $150 legal letter might get you some results?
BTW, all motor oil is petroleum, even synthetic! The difference is how it it made and/or refined. The 'synthetic' Castrol (a "Group III" oil) the dealer uses is just hydro-cracked conventional motor oil. Group IV oils like Red Line & Mobil 1 (which I hear is switching to the cheaper Group III product) are just processed and/or re-processed hydrocarbons, usually natural gas!
Sidebar-
"Synthetic" motor oils are not some mysterious fluid of unknown origin. They were developed by Germany in the early 1900's as a way to supply their army with chemicals needed to fight a war (e.g. fuels & lubricants), by processing and/or chemically altering the limited natural resourses avialable (natural gas via the Fischer-Tropsch process). Just think...Mobil 1 can come from coal, too!
------------------
This information does not constitute legal, medical, engineering, or other professional advice. If such expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought. Neither the author of this post nor page host guarantees the accuracy, completeness, usefulness, or effectiveness of the material provided, and neither shall be liable for any damages, or in any event for incidental or consequential damages caused or alleged to be caused, directly or indirectly, by the use of any information disclosed.
IP: Logged
YupOldBull
Member posted 01-26-2007 08:46 PM Click Here to See the Profile for YupOldBull Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Lots of comments out there on this topic.
Here is just one.
http://www.grumblemutterspit.o...read.php?i=4682#5024
Here is another way to say what your saying.......
Sounds normal to me.
Normal people, with normal oil change intervals, going to normal oil change shops, getting normal oil put in by normal technicians, filling to normal levels, driving under normal conditions, are getting catastrophic engine failure.
This recall wasn’t for those that abused the system. The recall was for all those that had absolute documentation and still have engine failure. What right do they have to duck all of those in the gray area?
We should all try to be more positive.
Learn to think more positive.....
I would rather think of it this way.....
If you schedule your maintenance properly, keep your reciepts, then your engine will be fine, and VW won't have to pay for anything.
If you don't schedule your maintenance properly, don't keep your reciepts, then your engine won't be fine, and VW won't have to pay for anything.
Let's not discuss which oil was in the vehicle when it was delivered new.
Let's not discuss larger oil pans in the newer models.
Let's not discuss a running change to a higher grade oil.
Let's not discuss larger oil filters.
http://forums.audiworld.com/a4gen2/msgs/622904.phtml
Try to be more positive.
IP: Logged
Joe///M
Junior Member posted 01-26-2007 08:55 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Joe///M Click Here to Email Joe///M Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote I had this oil pressure problem some time ago. After I was told I needed to get the car to the dealer (at my expense even though it was under warranty) submit the receipts (which i really didn't have since I do my own changes), and then maybe after they diagnose it was a good chance it may not be covered...yada yada we have all heard the deal by now. After I did a motor flush and new oil & filter I haven’t had a problem knock on wood. I did observe what looked like small chunks of carbon coming out of the oil pan (I used a screen to catch what was coming out) and even used a piece of wire to scrape the bottom of the pan but it seemed like just particles not consistent with sludge. Several months later there was a burning oil smell coming from under the hood. It turned out to be the hose on the back of the valve cover, part of the evap/pcv system. Ok no big deal to change but still unacceptable for a car in this day and age with about 50,000 miles on it. incidentally it is the 4th hose I had to replace. Upon changing the hose it just collapsed when grabbed. The hose was disintegrating from the inside out and guess where the particles were going...yup down the return line into the engine! At that point I realized these particles look familiar. I believe this is the “sludge” problem and to further strengthen my argument I received a letter from VW concerning the replacement of this hose. Check out the photos of the hose. On another note at 45,000 miles the outer cv boot on the passenger side had split which was covered under warranty but shouldn’t have happened that early. While down there I saw the other side going but VW couldn’t do anything until it actually broke. I thought I had time as the power train warranty was extended to 60,000. Little did I know it only covers the oiling systems and major internal engine & transmission components axle shafts but not the boots (how insane is that?) as it was later explained to me. So now guess what, the other boot is split before 60,000 and tonight it looks like a coil went on me, the coldest night of the year here in NY. My wife is fed up since she is the primary driver and I had to go “save” her on her way home from work dragging out our 10 month old. She suggested we burn it.
http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/...oo.com/ph//my_photos
IP: Logged
treinz031
Junior Member posted 01-26-2007 09:01 PM Click Here to See the Profile for treinz031 Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
quote:
BTW, all motor oil is petroleum, even synthetic! The difference is how it it made and/or refined. The 'synthetic' Castrol (a "Group III" oil) the dealer uses is just hydro-cracked conventional motor oil. Group IV oils like Red Line & Mobil 1 (which I hear is switching to the cheaper Group III product) are just processed and/or re-processed hydrocarbons, usually natural gas!
Sidebar-
"Synthetic" motor oils are not some mysterious fluid of unknown origin. They were developed by Germany in the early 1900's as a way to supply their army with chemicals needed to fight a war (e.g. fuels & lubricants), by processing and/or chemically altering the limited natural resourses avialable (natural gas via the Fischer-Tropsch process). Just think...Mobil 1 can come from coal, too!
[/B]
Hmm, all I know is that the two garages I've shown the photos to both say that the burnt carbon deposits seen on the valve cover and all over the engine are created by "petroleum based oil."
Is that true? Does synthetic oil and what is referred to as petroleum-based oils in the Volkswagen engine oil specification section of the manual differ in how it reacts under the 1.8L turbo's heat? I mean, it obviously must or else they wouldn't have mailed me this spiffy new engine oil spec supplement insert for my manual =D
IP: Logged
treinz031
Junior Member posted 01-26-2007 09:13 PM Click Here to See the Profile for treinz031 Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote nice pictures of the hoses. here's my valve cover. Is it caused by "petroleum-based oils" that is referenced in my VW manual?
IP: Logged
treinz031
Junior Member posted 01-26-2007 09:15 PM Click Here to See the Profile for treinz031 Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote btw, i've also had both boots replaced. as well as the rack and pinion, whatever the hell that is. oh, and the fuel pump... that was fun when it went out on the freeway.
IP: Logged
YupOldBull
Member posted 01-26-2007 09:28 PM Click Here to See the Profile for YupOldBull Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Terrible.
In contrast.......
My 2002 Toyota Camry has 68k.
It has been perfect. (Zero problems)
IP: Logged
Joe///M
Junior Member posted 01-28-2007 12:29 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Joe///M Click Here to Email Joe///M Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote I have been running synthetics since after the break in period so that pretty much shoots down thier theory. It looks like the oil change intervals may need to be done between 3-4,000 instead of the fctory recommended 5,000 if all that contamination is floating around in there.
IP: Logged
John_E
Member posted 01-30-2007 11:34 PM Click Here to See the Profile for John_E Click Here to Email John_E Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote 1) Some manufacturers ship their cars with dinosaur break-in oil, which should be replaced at the first oil change with synthetic.
2) "Synthetic" oil, whether super-refined Group III or true synthetic Group IV, has fewer impurities than dino and IS less prone to cook into coke in your turbo.
3) VW specifies an oil change interval of 5k mi / 8k km, but also stipulates that cars driven under severe conditions, such as typical urban short trips or stop-and-go driving, require "more frequent" service. One size does not fit all where oil change intervals are concerned.
4) The (transverse) 2.0T's oil sump is only 10% bigger than the longitudinal 1.8T's, and the oil change interval has been stretched to 10k mi / 16k km after the first two changes.
IP: Logged
John_E
Member posted 01-30-2007 11:38 PM Click Here to See the Profile for John_E Click Here to Email John_E Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
quote:Originally posted by Joe///M:
I have been running synthetics since after the break in period so that pretty much shoots down thier theory. It looks like the oil change intervals may need to be done between 3-4,000 instead of the fctory recommended 5,000 if all that contamination is floating around in there.
I think your PCV problem caused, or at least exacerbated, your coking problem.
IP: Logged
Up-The-River
Member posted 01-31-2007 08:21 AM Click Here to See the Profile for Up-The-River Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
quote:Originally posted by John_E:
I think your PCV problem caused, or at least exacerbated, your coking problem.
…In addition to the ridiculously SMALL sump capacity of the Passat 1.8t & high operating temperatures and factory-recommended extended oil change interval. Even in 2004 m.y., Audi had the 1.8T on 10k oil changes!
BTW, even Group IV oils come from dinosaurs. They just start life as natural gas.
This still doesn’t explain why some people can do 3k changes on M1 and STILL get sludging. I think it is due to visitors from another planet.
Does the 1.8T have a PCV valve?
IP: Logged
pm26
Member posted 01-31-2007 08:23 PM Click Here to See the Profile for pm26 Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
quote:Originally posted by Up-The-River:
…
Does the 1.8T have a PCV valve?
I believe that every passenger car and pickup truck made since the mid sixties has a PCV valve.
IP: Logged
Up-The-River
Member posted 01-31-2007 09:44 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Up-The-River Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
quote:Originally posted by pm26:
I believe that every passenger car and pickup truck made since the mid sixties has a PCV valve.
CIS, CIS-E engines do not have PCV valves!
Never a worry of sludging-up the Scirocco!!!
I guess todays more complex engines are supposed to be less complicated.
IP: Logged
toms480
Member posted 02-01-2007 07:07 PM Click Here to See the Profile for toms480 Click Here to Email toms480 Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Yes they have pcv valves and they also fill up with sludge. Another point, even after all this talk of 5,000 mile oil change intervals, the "free" 4yr 50,000 mile services done by audi, are done at 10,000 mile intervals, including the 1.8t engines. They use the same oil, filters, and breater system parts.
IP: Logged
All times are ET (US)
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic Post A Reply
Hop to:
Contact Us | MyVwLemon.com
Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.44b
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.
My VW Lemon Bulletin Board
Passat
the 1.8L Turbo Engine, and it's sludge
Post New Topic Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic: the 1.8L Turbo Engine, and it's sludge
treinz031
Junior Member posted 01-26-2007 06:24 PM Click Here to See the Profile for treinz031 Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote So I'm in the midst of a dispute with the local dealership in regards to oil sludge destroying my engine. I've read through several of the other threads in this regard, and Up-the-river, you have alot of good advice.
My point & subsequent question to the forum is this: VW wants you to believe that the cause of the oil sludge problem in your 1.8t engine is a result of improper maintenance/neglect. My car is a 2003 VW Passat 1.8 turbo, delivered to me in November 2002. That car was delivered with petroleum based 5w40 oil. In August of 2004, in addition to VW extending their warranties in regards to oil sludge damage, they also changed their engine oil specifications to 502.00. Without saying it in black & white, they changed the oil specs to require ONLY synthetic oil, no petroleum based oil is to be used in the 1.8t passat. Well, that means that my car was filled once upon arrival to me, plus 3 more times prior to August 2004 for a total of 4 times with petroleum based oil. Yet at 50,000 miles, VW would have me believe that the reason for my problems wasn't because of improper oil courtesy of the manufacturer, but instead was due to my obvious neglect of the car for not changing the oil every 5,000 miles on the dot.
But there's a flaw in that argument. The obvious one is this: If the cause of the engine oil sludge problem is a result of negligence and improper maintenance, then anyone that CAN produce documentation of an oil change every 5,000 miles should NOT even have an oil sludge problem. The fact that there are hundreds of people that can, and did have documented oil changes every 5,000 miles and STILL needed their engines replaced as a result of oil sludge proves that the flaw was in design/oil type being originally used and not in maintenance. Right?
The other flaw in their argument is that I have photographs of my valve cover, engine, etc. covered in black burnt oil, and according to every single mechanic I've shown those to, the only cause of that type of damage is petroleum based oil. From what I've learned, a synthetic based oil, even if run 10, 15, 20k miles beyond it's scheduled maintenance will never, ever, result in the type of extensively damaging oil sludge that you see as a result of the petroleum based oil that VW shipped your car with, and that the VW dealership was using to replace your oil every oil change up to August of 2004.
Has anyone that has already had a run in with VW brought this to their attention? I mean, the proof is in the pudding. If the problem is improper maintenance, why have they changed out ANY engines? I mean, lack of documentation voids all us losers, and the others that do have documentation... well... your engine should be good as gold and in no need to be replaced!
IP: Logged
Up-The-River
Member posted 01-26-2007 07:04 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Up-The-River Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Do you have proof of all required oil changes as stated in the 2003 Owner's manual? If you do, DON'T BACK DOWN! You have done all that is required by law to up-hold your responsibilites. You may need to hire a lawyer...or at least threaten to. A $150 legal letter might get you some results?
BTW, all motor oil is petroleum, even synthetic! The difference is how it it made and/or refined. The 'synthetic' Castrol (a "Group III" oil) the dealer uses is just hydro-cracked conventional motor oil. Group IV oils like Red Line & Mobil 1 (which I hear is switching to the cheaper Group III product) are just processed and/or re-processed hydrocarbons, usually natural gas!
Sidebar-
"Synthetic" motor oils are not some mysterious fluid of unknown origin. They were developed by Germany in the early 1900's as a way to supply their army with chemicals needed to fight a war (e.g. fuels & lubricants), by processing and/or chemically altering the limited natural resourses avialable (natural gas via the Fischer-Tropsch process). Just think...Mobil 1 can come from coal, too!
------------------
This information does not constitute legal, medical, engineering, or other professional advice. If such expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought. Neither the author of this post nor page host guarantees the accuracy, completeness, usefulness, or effectiveness of the material provided, and neither shall be liable for any damages, or in any event for incidental or consequential damages caused or alleged to be caused, directly or indirectly, by the use of any information disclosed.
IP: Logged
YupOldBull
Member posted 01-26-2007 08:46 PM Click Here to See the Profile for YupOldBull Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Lots of comments out there on this topic.
Here is just one.
http://www.grumblemutterspit.o...read.php?i=4682#5024
Here is another way to say what your saying.......
Sounds normal to me.
Normal people, with normal oil change intervals, going to normal oil change shops, getting normal oil put in by normal technicians, filling to normal levels, driving under normal conditions, are getting catastrophic engine failure.
This recall wasn’t for those that abused the system. The recall was for all those that had absolute documentation and still have engine failure. What right do they have to duck all of those in the gray area?
We should all try to be more positive.
Learn to think more positive.....
I would rather think of it this way.....
If you schedule your maintenance properly, keep your reciepts, then your engine will be fine, and VW won't have to pay for anything.
If you don't schedule your maintenance properly, don't keep your reciepts, then your engine won't be fine, and VW won't have to pay for anything.
Let's not discuss which oil was in the vehicle when it was delivered new.
Let's not discuss larger oil pans in the newer models.
Let's not discuss a running change to a higher grade oil.
Let's not discuss larger oil filters.
http://forums.audiworld.com/a4gen2/msgs/622904.phtml
Try to be more positive.
IP: Logged
Joe///M
Junior Member posted 01-26-2007 08:55 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Joe///M Click Here to Email Joe///M Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote I had this oil pressure problem some time ago. After I was told I needed to get the car to the dealer (at my expense even though it was under warranty) submit the receipts (which i really didn't have since I do my own changes), and then maybe after they diagnose it was a good chance it may not be covered...yada yada we have all heard the deal by now. After I did a motor flush and new oil & filter I haven’t had a problem knock on wood. I did observe what looked like small chunks of carbon coming out of the oil pan (I used a screen to catch what was coming out) and even used a piece of wire to scrape the bottom of the pan but it seemed like just particles not consistent with sludge. Several months later there was a burning oil smell coming from under the hood. It turned out to be the hose on the back of the valve cover, part of the evap/pcv system. Ok no big deal to change but still unacceptable for a car in this day and age with about 50,000 miles on it. incidentally it is the 4th hose I had to replace. Upon changing the hose it just collapsed when grabbed. The hose was disintegrating from the inside out and guess where the particles were going...yup down the return line into the engine! At that point I realized these particles look familiar. I believe this is the “sludge” problem and to further strengthen my argument I received a letter from VW concerning the replacement of this hose. Check out the photos of the hose. On another note at 45,000 miles the outer cv boot on the passenger side had split which was covered under warranty but shouldn’t have happened that early. While down there I saw the other side going but VW couldn’t do anything until it actually broke. I thought I had time as the power train warranty was extended to 60,000. Little did I know it only covers the oiling systems and major internal engine & transmission components axle shafts but not the boots (how insane is that?) as it was later explained to me. So now guess what, the other boot is split before 60,000 and tonight it looks like a coil went on me, the coldest night of the year here in NY. My wife is fed up since she is the primary driver and I had to go “save” her on her way home from work dragging out our 10 month old. She suggested we burn it.
http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/...oo.com/ph//my_photos
IP: Logged
treinz031
Junior Member posted 01-26-2007 09:01 PM Click Here to See the Profile for treinz031 Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
quote:
BTW, all motor oil is petroleum, even synthetic! The difference is how it it made and/or refined. The 'synthetic' Castrol (a "Group III" oil) the dealer uses is just hydro-cracked conventional motor oil. Group IV oils like Red Line & Mobil 1 (which I hear is switching to the cheaper Group III product) are just processed and/or re-processed hydrocarbons, usually natural gas!
Sidebar-
"Synthetic" motor oils are not some mysterious fluid of unknown origin. They were developed by Germany in the early 1900's as a way to supply their army with chemicals needed to fight a war (e.g. fuels & lubricants), by processing and/or chemically altering the limited natural resourses avialable (natural gas via the Fischer-Tropsch process). Just think...Mobil 1 can come from coal, too!
[/B]
Hmm, all I know is that the two garages I've shown the photos to both say that the burnt carbon deposits seen on the valve cover and all over the engine are created by "petroleum based oil."
Is that true? Does synthetic oil and what is referred to as petroleum-based oils in the Volkswagen engine oil specification section of the manual differ in how it reacts under the 1.8L turbo's heat? I mean, it obviously must or else they wouldn't have mailed me this spiffy new engine oil spec supplement insert for my manual =D
IP: Logged
treinz031
Junior Member posted 01-26-2007 09:13 PM Click Here to See the Profile for treinz031 Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote nice pictures of the hoses. here's my valve cover. Is it caused by "petroleum-based oils" that is referenced in my VW manual?
IP: Logged
treinz031
Junior Member posted 01-26-2007 09:15 PM Click Here to See the Profile for treinz031 Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote btw, i've also had both boots replaced. as well as the rack and pinion, whatever the hell that is. oh, and the fuel pump... that was fun when it went out on the freeway.
IP: Logged
YupOldBull
Member posted 01-26-2007 09:28 PM Click Here to See the Profile for YupOldBull Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Terrible.
In contrast.......
My 2002 Toyota Camry has 68k.
It has been perfect. (Zero problems)
IP: Logged
Joe///M
Junior Member posted 01-28-2007 12:29 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Joe///M Click Here to Email Joe///M Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote I have been running synthetics since after the break in period so that pretty much shoots down thier theory. It looks like the oil change intervals may need to be done between 3-4,000 instead of the fctory recommended 5,000 if all that contamination is floating around in there.
IP: Logged
John_E
Member posted 01-30-2007 11:34 PM Click Here to See the Profile for John_E Click Here to Email John_E Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote 1) Some manufacturers ship their cars with dinosaur break-in oil, which should be replaced at the first oil change with synthetic.
2) "Synthetic" oil, whether super-refined Group III or true synthetic Group IV, has fewer impurities than dino and IS less prone to cook into coke in your turbo.
3) VW specifies an oil change interval of 5k mi / 8k km, but also stipulates that cars driven under severe conditions, such as typical urban short trips or stop-and-go driving, require "more frequent" service. One size does not fit all where oil change intervals are concerned.
4) The (transverse) 2.0T's oil sump is only 10% bigger than the longitudinal 1.8T's, and the oil change interval has been stretched to 10k mi / 16k km after the first two changes.
IP: Logged
John_E
Member posted 01-30-2007 11:38 PM Click Here to See the Profile for John_E Click Here to Email John_E Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
quote:Originally posted by Joe///M:
I have been running synthetics since after the break in period so that pretty much shoots down thier theory. It looks like the oil change intervals may need to be done between 3-4,000 instead of the fctory recommended 5,000 if all that contamination is floating around in there.
I think your PCV problem caused, or at least exacerbated, your coking problem.
IP: Logged
Up-The-River
Member posted 01-31-2007 08:21 AM Click Here to See the Profile for Up-The-River Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
quote:Originally posted by John_E:
I think your PCV problem caused, or at least exacerbated, your coking problem.
…In addition to the ridiculously SMALL sump capacity of the Passat 1.8t & high operating temperatures and factory-recommended extended oil change interval. Even in 2004 m.y., Audi had the 1.8T on 10k oil changes!
BTW, even Group IV oils come from dinosaurs. They just start life as natural gas.
This still doesn’t explain why some people can do 3k changes on M1 and STILL get sludging. I think it is due to visitors from another planet.
Does the 1.8T have a PCV valve?
IP: Logged
pm26
Member posted 01-31-2007 08:23 PM Click Here to See the Profile for pm26 Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
quote:Originally posted by Up-The-River:
…
Does the 1.8T have a PCV valve?
I believe that every passenger car and pickup truck made since the mid sixties has a PCV valve.
IP: Logged
Up-The-River
Member posted 01-31-2007 09:44 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Up-The-River Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
quote:Originally posted by pm26:
I believe that every passenger car and pickup truck made since the mid sixties has a PCV valve.
CIS, CIS-E engines do not have PCV valves!
Never a worry of sludging-up the Scirocco!!!
I guess todays more complex engines are supposed to be less complicated.
IP: Logged
toms480
Member posted 02-01-2007 07:07 PM Click Here to See the Profile for toms480 Click Here to Email toms480 Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Yes they have pcv valves and they also fill up with sludge. Another point, even after all this talk of 5,000 mile oil change intervals, the "free" 4yr 50,000 mile services done by audi, are done at 10,000 mile intervals, including the 1.8t engines. They use the same oil, filters, and breater system parts.
IP: Logged
All times are ET (US)
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic Post A Reply
Hop to:
Contact Us | MyVwLemon.com
Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.44b
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.
quote:It’s a jeep thing you wouldn’t understand.
Jeep Wrangler
Segment: SUV
CR Predicted Reliability Score: Poor
CR Value Score: Rated among the worst in overall value (Jeep Wrangler Unlimited Sahara)
CR Safety Score: Not rated among the worst in overall safety performance
CR Overall Score: 17 out of 100
J.D. Power Dependability Score: 2 out of 5 Power Circles
MSRP: $21,915
I certainly don't !!!!
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/...er=873562#Post873562
This should remind everyone with selective memory loss on these threads what happens when cheap oil is used which was addressed in the above rather long winded several posts!!
This should remind everyone with selective memory loss on these threads what happens when cheap oil is used which was addressed in the above rather long winded several posts!!
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/...wflat&Number=1830233
Here is another satisfied motorist known as budman using synlube. I will try to find his valve train pics which look perfectly clean.
Here is another satisfied motorist known as budman using synlube. I will try to find his valve train pics which look perfectly clean.
Page 1 of 8
SynLube Lube-4-Life INITIAL FILL SAE 5W-50
1. PRODUCT AND COMPANY IDENTIFICATION
APPROVAL DATE: 3/19/10
PRODUCT NAME: SynLube Lube-4-Life® INITIAL FILL
SUPPLIER: SynLube, Inc. MARKETER: MIROX Corporation
2961 Industrial Road #300 PO Box 19294
Las Vegas, NV 89109 JEAN, NV 89019-9294
24 - Hour Emergency (toll free): 1-800-SYN-LUBE
Product and MSDS Information: www.synlunbe.com
2. COMPOSITION/INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS
CHEMICAL NAMES AND SYNONYMS: SYNTHETIC HYDROCARBONS AND ADDITIVES
INGREDIENTS CONSIDERED HAZARDOUS TO HEALTH:
This product is not formulated to contain ingredients, which have exposure limits established by U.S. agencies. It is not hazardous to health as defined by the European Union Dangerous Substances/Preparations Directives.
See Section 15 for a regulatory analysis of the ingredients.
See Section 15 for European Label Information.
See Section 8 for exposure limits (if applicable).
3. HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION
US OSHA HAZARD COMMUNICATION STANDARD:
Product assessed in accordance with OSHA 29 CFR 1910.1200 and determined not to be hazardous.
EFFECTS OF OVEREXPOSURE: No significant effects expected.
EMERGENCY RESPONSE DATA: Black Opaque Liquid. DOT ERG No. – N/A & N/R
4. FIRST AID MEASURES
EYE CONTACT:
Flush thoroughly with water. If irritation occurs, call a physician.
SKIN CONTACT: Wash contact areas with soap and water.
INHALATION: Not expected to be a problem.
INGESTION: Not expected to be a problem.
However, if greater than ½ liter (pint) ingested, immediately give 1 to 2 glasses of water and call a physician, hospital emergency room or poison control center for assistance.
Do not induce vomiting or give anything by mouth to an unconscious person.
Page 2 of 8
5. FIRE-FIGHTING MEASURES
EXTINGUISHING MEDIA: Carbon dioxide, foam, dry chemical and water fog.
SPECIAL FIRE FIGHTING PROCEDURES: Water or foam may cause frothing.
Use water to keep fire-exposed containers cool. Water spray may be used to flush spills away from exposure. Prevent runoff from fire control or dilution from entering streams, sewers, or drinking water supply.
SPECIAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT: For fires in enclosed areas, fire fighters must use self-contained breathing apparatus.
UNUSUAL FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARDS: None. Flash Point C(F):
216(420) (ASTM D-92). Flammable limits - LEL: NA, UEL: NA.
NFPA HAZARD ID:
Health: 0
Flammability: 1
Reactivity: 0
HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS:
1. Metal oxides.
2. Carbon monoxide.
3. Elemental oxides.
6. ACCIDENTAL RELEASE MEASURES
NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES:
Report spills as required to appropriate authorities.
U. S. Coast Guard regulations require immediate reporting of spills that could reach any waterway including intermittent dry creeks. Report spill to Coast Guard toll free number (800) 424-8802.
In case of accident or road spill notify
CHEMTREC (800) 424-9300.
PROCEDURES IF MATERIAL IS RELEASED OR SPILLED:
Adsorb on fire retardant treated sawdust, diatomaceous earth, etc. Shovel up and dispose of at an appropriate waste disposal facility in accordance with current applicable laws and regulations, and product characteristics at time of disposal.
ENVIRONMENTAL PRECAUTIONS:
Prevent spills from entering storm sewers or drains and contact with soil.
PERSONAL PRECAUTIONS: See Section 8
Page 3 of 8
7. HANDLING AND STORAGE
HANDLING:
No special precautions are necessary beyond normal good hygiene practices. See Section 8 for additional personal protection advice when handling this product.
STORAGE:
Do not store in open or unlabelled containers.
Store away from strong oxidizing agents or combustible material.
8. EXPOSURE CONTROLS/PERSONAL PROTECTION
VENTILATION:
No special requirements under ordinary conditions of use and with adequate ventilation.
RESPIRATORY PROTECTION:
No special requirements under ordinary conditions of use and with adequate ventilation.
EYE PROTECTION:
Normal industrial eye protection practices should be employed.
SKIN PROTECTION:
No special equipment required. However, good personal hygiene practices should always be followed.
EXPOSURE LIMITS:
This product does not contain any components, which have recognized exposure limits. However, a threshold limit value of 5.00 mg/m3 is suggested for oil mist.
Page 4 of 8
9. PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES
Typical physical properties are given below.
Consult Product Data Sheet for specific details.
APPEARANCE: Liquid
COLOR: Opaque Black
ODOR: Mild, Characteristic
ODOR THRESHOLD-ppm: NE
pH: NA
BOILING POINT °C(°F): 316(600)
MELTING POINT °C(°F): NA
FLASH POINT °C(°F): > 276(529) (ASTM D-92)
FLAMMABILITY: NE
AUTO FLAMMABILITY: NE
EXPLOSIVE PROPERTIES: NE
OXIDIZING PROPERTIES: NE
VAPOR PRESSURE-mmHg 20 °C: < 0.1
VAPOR DENSITY: > 2.0
EVAPORATION RATE: NE
RELATIVE DENSITY, 15/4 °C: 0.926
SOLUBILITY IN WATER: Negligible
PARTITION COEFFICIENT: > 3.5
VISCOSITY AT 40 °C, cSt: > 100.0
VISCOSITY AT 100 °C, cSt: > 17.5
POUR POINT °C(°F): -45(-50)
FREEZING POINT °C(°F): NE
VOC: < 5.00 (Wt. %); 0.358 lbs/gal
Code Key: NA=NOT APPLICABLE NE=NOT ESTABLISHED D=DECOMPOSES
FOR FURTHER TECHNICAL INFORMATION, CONTACT YOUR MARKETING REPRESENTATIVE.
10. STABILITY AND REACTIVITY
STABILITY (THERMAL, LIGHT, ETC.): Stable.
CONDITIONS TO AVOID: Extreme heat. Contact with Ignition or Flame Source.
INCOMPATIBILITY (MATERIALS TO AVOID): Strong oxidizers.
HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS:
1. Metal oxides.
2. Carbon monoxide.
3. Elemental oxides.
HAZARDOUS POLYMERIZATION: Will not occur.
Page 5 of 8
11. TOXICOLOGICAL DATA
---ACUTE TOXICOLOGY---
ORAL TOXICITY (RATS):
Practically non-toxic (LD50: greater than 2000 mg/kg).
---Based on testing of similar products and/or the components.
DERMAL TOXICITY (RABBITS):
Practically non-toxic (LD50: greater than 2000 mg/kg).
---Based on testing of similar products and/or the components.
INHALATION TOXICITY (RATS):
Not applicable ---Harmful concentrations of mists and/or vapors are unlikely to be encountered through any customary or reasonably foreseeable handling, use, or misuse of this product.
EYE IRRITATION (RABBITS):
Practically non-irritating.
(Draize score: greater than 6 but 15 or less).
---Based on testing of similar products and/or the components.
SKIN IRRITATION (RABBITS):
Practically non-irritating.
(Primary Irritation Index: greater than 0.5 but less than 3).
---Based on testing of similar products and/or the components.
OTHER ACUTE TOXICITY DATA:
The acute toxicological results summarized above are based on testing of representative SynLube products.
Representative SynLube formulations have shown no acute effects, administered via the inhalation route, when tested at maximum attainable oil mist or vapor concentrations.
---SUBCHRONIC TOXICOLOGY (SUMMARY)---
Representative SynLube formulations have been tested by dermal applications to rats 5 days/week for 90 days at doses significantly higher than those expected during normal industrial exposure. Extensive evaluations, including microscopic examination of internal organs and clinical chemistry of body fluids, showed no adverse effects.
---REPRODUCTIVE TOXICOLOGY (SUMMARY)---
Dermal exposure of pregnant rats to representative formulations did not cause adverse effects in either the mothers or their offspring.
---SENSITIZATION (SUMMARY)---
Representative formulations have not caused skin sensitization in guinea pigs.
Page 6 of 8
---OTHER TOXICOLOGY DATA---
This product is formulated with a synthetic hydrocarbon as the base stock. The Mobil Environmental and Health Sciences Laboratory has tested representative synthetic base stocks to assess their potential adverse effects on human health. Assessment of human health effects was based on acute oral, dermal, and inhalation toxicity; eye and skin irritation; subchronic dermal toxicity and reproductive studies; guinea pig sensitization; and mutagenicity and chromosomal damage assays. None of these base stocks appears to pose a health hazard to humans under conditions of expected use.
Used gasoline engine oils have shown evidence of skin carcinogenic activity in laboratory tests when no effort was made to wash the oil off between applications.
Used oil from diesel engines did not produce this effect.
12. ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION
ENVIRONMENTAL FATE AND EFFECTS:
Acute LC/EC50 Fish: Juvenile Rainbow Trout:
Practically non-toxic
---Based on testing of similar products.
13. DISPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS
WASTE DISPOSAL:
Product is suitable for burning in an enclosed, controlled burner for fuel value or disposal by supervised incineration. Such burning may be limited pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. In addition, the product is suitable for processing by an approved recycling facility or can be disposed of at an appropriate government waste disposal facility. Use of these methods is subject to user compliance with applicable laws and regulations and consideration of product characteristics at time of disposal.
RCRA INFORMATION:
The unused product, in our opinion, is not specifically listed by the EPA as a hazardous waste (40 CFR, Part 261D), nor is it formulated to contain materials which are listed hazardous wastes. It does not exhibit the hazardous characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, or reactivity and is not formulated with contaminants as determined by the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP).
However, used product may be regulated.
14. TRANSPORT INFORMATION
USA DOT: NOT REGULATED BY USA DOT.
RID/ADR: NOT REGULATED BY RID/ADR.
IMO: NOT REGULATED BY IMO.
IATA: NOT REGULATED BY IATA.
Page 7 of 8
15. REGULATORY INFORMATION
Governmental Inventory Status:
All components comply with TSCA, AICS and DSL.
EU Labeling: EU labeling not required.
U.S. Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) Title III:
This product contains no "EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES".
SARA (311/312) REPORTABLE HAZARD CATEGORIES: None.
This product contains the following SARA (313) Toxic Release
Chemicals:
CHEMICAL NAME CAS NUMBER CONC.
--------------------------- -------------- -------
PHOSPHORODITHOIC ACID, O,O-DI 68649-42-3 0.81%
C1-14-ALKYL ESTERS, ZINC SALTS
(2:1) (ZDDP)
THIS PRODUCT HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED BY USDA FOR USE UNDER THE FOLLOWING CATEGORY: H2 - Lubricants with No Food Contact
The following product ingredients are cited on the lists below:
CHEMICAL NAME CAS NUMBER LIST CITATIONS
------------- ---------- --------------
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE (0.48%) 85-68-7 22, 24
ZINC (ELEMENTAL ANALYSIS) (0.12%) 7440-66-6 22
PHOSPHORODITHOIC ACID, O,O-DI 68649-42-3 18, 20, 21, 22, 24,
C1-14-ALKYL ESTERS, ZINC SALTS 25
(2:1) (ZDDP) (0.81%)
--- REGULATORY LISTS ---
1 = ACGIH ALL 6 = IARC 1 11 = TSCA 4 17 = CA P65 22 = MI 293
2 = ACGIH A1 7 = IARC 2A 12 = TSCA 5a2 18 = CA RTK 23 = MN RTK
3 = ACGIH A2 8 = IARC 2B 13 = TSCA 5e 19 = FL RTK 24 = NJ RTK
4 = NTP CARC 9 = OSHA CARC 14 = TSCA 6 20 = IL RTK 25 = PA RTK
5 = NTP SUS 10 = OSHA Z 15 = TSCA 12b 21 = LA RTK 26 = RI RTK
Code key: CARC = Carcinogen; SUS = Suspected Carcinogen
16. OTHER INFORMATION
INTENDED USE: ENGINE OIL
NOTE: SynLube PRODUCTS ARE NOT FORMULATED TO CONTAIN PCBS.
Page 8 of 8
Information given herein is offered in good faith as accurate, but without guarantee. Conditions of use and suitability of the product for particular uses are beyond our control; the user therefore assumes all risks of use of the product and WE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIM ALL
WARRANTIES OF EVERY KIND AND NATURE, INCLUDING WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE IN RESPECT TO THE USE OR SUITABILITY OF THE PRODUCT.
Nothing is intended as a recommendation for uses, which infringe valid patents, or as extending license under valid patents. Appropriate warnings and safe-handling procedures should be provided to handlers and users. Alteration of this document is strictly prohibited.
Except to the extent required by law, republication or retransmission of this document, in whole or in part, is not permitted.
SynLube assumes no responsibility for accuracy of information unless the document is the most current available from an official Synthashield distribution system.
SynLube, Inc. neither represents nor warrants that the format, content or product formulas contained in this document comply with the laws of any other country except the United States of America.
Copyright © 1997-2010 SynLube, Inc., All rights reserved
This would be the MSDS of the lubricant in question.
SynLube Lube-4-Life INITIAL FILL SAE 5W-50
1. PRODUCT AND COMPANY IDENTIFICATION
APPROVAL DATE: 3/19/10
PRODUCT NAME: SynLube Lube-4-Life® INITIAL FILL
SUPPLIER: SynLube, Inc. MARKETER: MIROX Corporation
2961 Industrial Road #300 PO Box 19294
Las Vegas, NV 89109 JEAN, NV 89019-9294
24 - Hour Emergency (toll free): 1-800-SYN-LUBE
Product and MSDS Information: www.synlunbe.com
2. COMPOSITION/INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS
CHEMICAL NAMES AND SYNONYMS: SYNTHETIC HYDROCARBONS AND ADDITIVES
INGREDIENTS CONSIDERED HAZARDOUS TO HEALTH:
This product is not formulated to contain ingredients, which have exposure limits established by U.S. agencies. It is not hazardous to health as defined by the European Union Dangerous Substances/Preparations Directives.
See Section 15 for a regulatory analysis of the ingredients.
See Section 15 for European Label Information.
See Section 8 for exposure limits (if applicable).
3. HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION
US OSHA HAZARD COMMUNICATION STANDARD:
Product assessed in accordance with OSHA 29 CFR 1910.1200 and determined not to be hazardous.
EFFECTS OF OVEREXPOSURE: No significant effects expected.
EMERGENCY RESPONSE DATA: Black Opaque Liquid. DOT ERG No. – N/A & N/R
4. FIRST AID MEASURES
EYE CONTACT:
Flush thoroughly with water. If irritation occurs, call a physician.
SKIN CONTACT: Wash contact areas with soap and water.
INHALATION: Not expected to be a problem.
INGESTION: Not expected to be a problem.
However, if greater than ½ liter (pint) ingested, immediately give 1 to 2 glasses of water and call a physician, hospital emergency room or poison control center for assistance.
Do not induce vomiting or give anything by mouth to an unconscious person.
Page 2 of 8
5. FIRE-FIGHTING MEASURES
EXTINGUISHING MEDIA: Carbon dioxide, foam, dry chemical and water fog.
SPECIAL FIRE FIGHTING PROCEDURES: Water or foam may cause frothing.
Use water to keep fire-exposed containers cool. Water spray may be used to flush spills away from exposure. Prevent runoff from fire control or dilution from entering streams, sewers, or drinking water supply.
SPECIAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT: For fires in enclosed areas, fire fighters must use self-contained breathing apparatus.
UNUSUAL FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARDS: None. Flash Point C(F):
216(420) (ASTM D-92). Flammable limits - LEL: NA, UEL: NA.
NFPA HAZARD ID:
Health: 0
Flammability: 1
Reactivity: 0
HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS:
1. Metal oxides.
2. Carbon monoxide.
3. Elemental oxides.
6. ACCIDENTAL RELEASE MEASURES
NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES:
Report spills as required to appropriate authorities.
U. S. Coast Guard regulations require immediate reporting of spills that could reach any waterway including intermittent dry creeks. Report spill to Coast Guard toll free number (800) 424-8802.
In case of accident or road spill notify
CHEMTREC (800) 424-9300.
PROCEDURES IF MATERIAL IS RELEASED OR SPILLED:
Adsorb on fire retardant treated sawdust, diatomaceous earth, etc. Shovel up and dispose of at an appropriate waste disposal facility in accordance with current applicable laws and regulations, and product characteristics at time of disposal.
ENVIRONMENTAL PRECAUTIONS:
Prevent spills from entering storm sewers or drains and contact with soil.
PERSONAL PRECAUTIONS: See Section 8
Page 3 of 8
7. HANDLING AND STORAGE
HANDLING:
No special precautions are necessary beyond normal good hygiene practices. See Section 8 for additional personal protection advice when handling this product.
STORAGE:
Do not store in open or unlabelled containers.
Store away from strong oxidizing agents or combustible material.
8. EXPOSURE CONTROLS/PERSONAL PROTECTION
VENTILATION:
No special requirements under ordinary conditions of use and with adequate ventilation.
RESPIRATORY PROTECTION:
No special requirements under ordinary conditions of use and with adequate ventilation.
EYE PROTECTION:
Normal industrial eye protection practices should be employed.
SKIN PROTECTION:
No special equipment required. However, good personal hygiene practices should always be followed.
EXPOSURE LIMITS:
This product does not contain any components, which have recognized exposure limits. However, a threshold limit value of 5.00 mg/m3 is suggested for oil mist.
Page 4 of 8
9. PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES
Typical physical properties are given below.
Consult Product Data Sheet for specific details.
APPEARANCE: Liquid
COLOR: Opaque Black
ODOR: Mild, Characteristic
ODOR THRESHOLD-ppm: NE
pH: NA
BOILING POINT °C(°F): 316(600)
MELTING POINT °C(°F): NA
FLASH POINT °C(°F): > 276(529) (ASTM D-92)
FLAMMABILITY: NE
AUTO FLAMMABILITY: NE
EXPLOSIVE PROPERTIES: NE
OXIDIZING PROPERTIES: NE
VAPOR PRESSURE-mmHg 20 °C: < 0.1
VAPOR DENSITY: > 2.0
EVAPORATION RATE: NE
RELATIVE DENSITY, 15/4 °C: 0.926
SOLUBILITY IN WATER: Negligible
PARTITION COEFFICIENT: > 3.5
VISCOSITY AT 40 °C, cSt: > 100.0
VISCOSITY AT 100 °C, cSt: > 17.5
POUR POINT °C(°F): -45(-50)
FREEZING POINT °C(°F): NE
VOC: < 5.00 (Wt. %); 0.358 lbs/gal
Code Key: NA=NOT APPLICABLE NE=NOT ESTABLISHED D=DECOMPOSES
FOR FURTHER TECHNICAL INFORMATION, CONTACT YOUR MARKETING REPRESENTATIVE.
10. STABILITY AND REACTIVITY
STABILITY (THERMAL, LIGHT, ETC.): Stable.
CONDITIONS TO AVOID: Extreme heat. Contact with Ignition or Flame Source.
INCOMPATIBILITY (MATERIALS TO AVOID): Strong oxidizers.
HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS:
1. Metal oxides.
2. Carbon monoxide.
3. Elemental oxides.
HAZARDOUS POLYMERIZATION: Will not occur.
Page 5 of 8
11. TOXICOLOGICAL DATA
---ACUTE TOXICOLOGY---
ORAL TOXICITY (RATS):
Practically non-toxic (LD50: greater than 2000 mg/kg).
---Based on testing of similar products and/or the components.
DERMAL TOXICITY (RABBITS):
Practically non-toxic (LD50: greater than 2000 mg/kg).
---Based on testing of similar products and/or the components.
INHALATION TOXICITY (RATS):
Not applicable ---Harmful concentrations of mists and/or vapors are unlikely to be encountered through any customary or reasonably foreseeable handling, use, or misuse of this product.
EYE IRRITATION (RABBITS):
Practically non-irritating.
(Draize score: greater than 6 but 15 or less).
---Based on testing of similar products and/or the components.
SKIN IRRITATION (RABBITS):
Practically non-irritating.
(Primary Irritation Index: greater than 0.5 but less than 3).
---Based on testing of similar products and/or the components.
OTHER ACUTE TOXICITY DATA:
The acute toxicological results summarized above are based on testing of representative SynLube products.
Representative SynLube formulations have shown no acute effects, administered via the inhalation route, when tested at maximum attainable oil mist or vapor concentrations.
---SUBCHRONIC TOXICOLOGY (SUMMARY)---
Representative SynLube formulations have been tested by dermal applications to rats 5 days/week for 90 days at doses significantly higher than those expected during normal industrial exposure. Extensive evaluations, including microscopic examination of internal organs and clinical chemistry of body fluids, showed no adverse effects.
---REPRODUCTIVE TOXICOLOGY (SUMMARY)---
Dermal exposure of pregnant rats to representative formulations did not cause adverse effects in either the mothers or their offspring.
---SENSITIZATION (SUMMARY)---
Representative formulations have not caused skin sensitization in guinea pigs.
Page 6 of 8
---OTHER TOXICOLOGY DATA---
This product is formulated with a synthetic hydrocarbon as the base stock. The Mobil Environmental and Health Sciences Laboratory has tested representative synthetic base stocks to assess their potential adverse effects on human health. Assessment of human health effects was based on acute oral, dermal, and inhalation toxicity; eye and skin irritation; subchronic dermal toxicity and reproductive studies; guinea pig sensitization; and mutagenicity and chromosomal damage assays. None of these base stocks appears to pose a health hazard to humans under conditions of expected use.
Used gasoline engine oils have shown evidence of skin carcinogenic activity in laboratory tests when no effort was made to wash the oil off between applications.
Used oil from diesel engines did not produce this effect.
12. ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION
ENVIRONMENTAL FATE AND EFFECTS:
Acute LC/EC50 Fish: Juvenile Rainbow Trout:
Practically non-toxic
---Based on testing of similar products.
13. DISPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS
WASTE DISPOSAL:
Product is suitable for burning in an enclosed, controlled burner for fuel value or disposal by supervised incineration. Such burning may be limited pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. In addition, the product is suitable for processing by an approved recycling facility or can be disposed of at an appropriate government waste disposal facility. Use of these methods is subject to user compliance with applicable laws and regulations and consideration of product characteristics at time of disposal.
RCRA INFORMATION:
The unused product, in our opinion, is not specifically listed by the EPA as a hazardous waste (40 CFR, Part 261D), nor is it formulated to contain materials which are listed hazardous wastes. It does not exhibit the hazardous characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, or reactivity and is not formulated with contaminants as determined by the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP).
However, used product may be regulated.
14. TRANSPORT INFORMATION
USA DOT: NOT REGULATED BY USA DOT.
RID/ADR: NOT REGULATED BY RID/ADR.
IMO: NOT REGULATED BY IMO.
IATA: NOT REGULATED BY IATA.
Page 7 of 8
15. REGULATORY INFORMATION
Governmental Inventory Status:
All components comply with TSCA, AICS and DSL.
EU Labeling: EU labeling not required.
U.S. Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) Title III:
This product contains no "EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES".
SARA (311/312) REPORTABLE HAZARD CATEGORIES: None.
This product contains the following SARA (313) Toxic Release
Chemicals:
CHEMICAL NAME CAS NUMBER CONC.
--------------------------- -------------- -------
PHOSPHORODITHOIC ACID, O,O-DI 68649-42-3 0.81%
C1-14-ALKYL ESTERS, ZINC SALTS
(2:1) (ZDDP)
THIS PRODUCT HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED BY USDA FOR USE UNDER THE FOLLOWING CATEGORY: H2 - Lubricants with No Food Contact
The following product ingredients are cited on the lists below:
CHEMICAL NAME CAS NUMBER LIST CITATIONS
------------- ---------- --------------
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE (0.48%) 85-68-7 22, 24
ZINC (ELEMENTAL ANALYSIS) (0.12%) 7440-66-6 22
PHOSPHORODITHOIC ACID, O,O-DI 68649-42-3 18, 20, 21, 22, 24,
C1-14-ALKYL ESTERS, ZINC SALTS 25
(2:1) (ZDDP) (0.81%)
--- REGULATORY LISTS ---
1 = ACGIH ALL 6 = IARC 1 11 = TSCA 4 17 = CA P65 22 = MI 293
2 = ACGIH A1 7 = IARC 2A 12 = TSCA 5a2 18 = CA RTK 23 = MN RTK
3 = ACGIH A2 8 = IARC 2B 13 = TSCA 5e 19 = FL RTK 24 = NJ RTK
4 = NTP CARC 9 = OSHA CARC 14 = TSCA 6 20 = IL RTK 25 = PA RTK
5 = NTP SUS 10 = OSHA Z 15 = TSCA 12b 21 = LA RTK 26 = RI RTK
Code key: CARC = Carcinogen; SUS = Suspected Carcinogen
16. OTHER INFORMATION
INTENDED USE: ENGINE OIL
NOTE: SynLube PRODUCTS ARE NOT FORMULATED TO CONTAIN PCBS.
Page 8 of 8
Information given herein is offered in good faith as accurate, but without guarantee. Conditions of use and suitability of the product for particular uses are beyond our control; the user therefore assumes all risks of use of the product and WE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIM ALL
WARRANTIES OF EVERY KIND AND NATURE, INCLUDING WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE IN RESPECT TO THE USE OR SUITABILITY OF THE PRODUCT.
Nothing is intended as a recommendation for uses, which infringe valid patents, or as extending license under valid patents. Appropriate warnings and safe-handling procedures should be provided to handlers and users. Alteration of this document is strictly prohibited.
Except to the extent required by law, republication or retransmission of this document, in whole or in part, is not permitted.
SynLube assumes no responsibility for accuracy of information unless the document is the most current available from an official Synthashield distribution system.
SynLube, Inc. neither represents nor warrants that the format, content or product formulas contained in this document comply with the laws of any other country except the United States of America.
Copyright © 1997-2010 SynLube, Inc., All rights reserved
This would be the MSDS of the lubricant in question.
quote:Originally posted by Miro Kefurt:quote:It’s a jeep thing you wouldn’t understand.
Jeep Wrangler
Segment: SUV
CR Predicted Reliability Score: Poor
CR Value Score: Rated among the worst in overall value (Jeep Wrangler Unlimited Sahara)
CR Safety Score: Not rated among the worst in overall safety performance
CR Overall Score: 17 out of 100
J.D. Power Dependability Score: 2 out of 5 Power Circles
MSRP: $21,915
I certainly don't !!!!
I wont play your little retarded data game, I can post tons of data saying otherwise to ,even if I was to drive over a yugo in front of you, your crazy mind would not acknowledge it. Live in your post soviet era; ill live in my post American one. I would still like to see a tatra run over a yugo .
People complaining about the jeep are soccer moms thinking buying a suv. The jk is an open body vehicle body on frame with solid axle; made for off road and quite good at it.
Do a little research, you might realize the jeep and off road community is fantastic, unlike most of people they use the full potential of their rig, posses probably the best fab worker around.
http://www.riverraider.com/[/url]
quote:I wont play your little retarded data game,
The last time I checked the real world.........DATA is what it's all about.
The last time I was in College......same thing.... DATA=INFO
DATA=FACTS PERIOD
You guys keep asking for info/data,the facts.etc., and then when you get the info you have been asking for in all forms....it's as you say ......"retarded" ??????
Unless you admiting you are Miro stay quiet , i wasnt talking with you.
Now all that posting was a complete waste of bandwidth. Nothing of any importance in there. Just the same old tired gobbledygook. Kirk you are wasting your time. There will be no victims of this scam found here. Go peddle syncrap some where else. At first this was intertaining. Its not even that anymore. its insulting to anyone who has a functioninng brain.
I enjoyed his rant about ODB II and how the engines and vehicles won't last, especially late model cars. It was painful to read so I might not be spot on with details, a quick glance was all his writing got.
I would love to hear Miro and his alter egos explain the Ford Crown Vics used by Taxi companies with all the miles on them, or the Police Cars still in service. Everything this guy says is meaningless, and a waste. But like a bad accident you have to look.
AD
I would love to hear Miro and his alter egos explain the Ford Crown Vics used by Taxi companies with all the miles on them, or the Police Cars still in service. Everything this guy says is meaningless, and a waste. But like a bad accident you have to look.
AD
Here's some data for ya:
Jeeps: First civilian model in 1945. Still in production.
Yugos: Not even a blip on the radar.
Shell, Mobil, Pennzoil, QuakerState have API certs.
Synlube does not.
Synlube is not on any car makers approved use list.
Jeeps: First civilian model in 1945. Still in production.
Yugos: Not even a blip on the radar.
Shell, Mobil, Pennzoil, QuakerState have API certs.
Synlube does not.
Synlube is not on any car makers approved use list.
These are reasons not to use syncrap as posted on another forum.
1.No office or offices and avoiding anyone who wants to see their office even going so far as to say it is located on a secret government base
2.Selling oil to customers out of the trunk in a parking lot
3.Selling oil in used bottles
4.Selling Delvac 1 with original seals removed and new seals added
5.Belligerant to potential customers on forums
6.Unwilling to provide any data, such as VOA
7.MSDS sheet with different companies names on it
8.Pictures of models with exotic cars on their website with false names and long stories about how they use it in their car
9.Buys back used oil for reuse
10.Permanently revoked business license in Nevada
11.Wildly variable data from VOAs not supplied by the company
12.Posting the real names on forums of customers who are critical of the company
13.Saying that oil pressure is not important and that it is the solids that do the lubricating
1.No office or offices and avoiding anyone who wants to see their office even going so far as to say it is located on a secret government base
2.Selling oil to customers out of the trunk in a parking lot
3.Selling oil in used bottles
4.Selling Delvac 1 with original seals removed and new seals added
5.Belligerant to potential customers on forums
6.Unwilling to provide any data, such as VOA
7.MSDS sheet with different companies names on it
8.Pictures of models with exotic cars on their website with false names and long stories about how they use it in their car
9.Buys back used oil for reuse
10.Permanently revoked business license in Nevada
11.Wildly variable data from VOAs not supplied by the company
12.Posting the real names on forums of customers who are critical of the company
13.Saying that oil pressure is not important and that it is the solids that do the lubricating
Code:
Tater-n Budman
-Noodles
19k miles
VOA UOA UOA-VOA
FE 5 166 161
CR <1 3 >2
NI <1 2 >1
AL 2 39 37
PB <1 2 >1
ZN 588 588 0
CU <1 44 >44
SN <1 1 >0
AG <1 <1 >0
TI <1 <1 >0
SI 10 44 34
B 37 15 -22
NA 9 62 53
Miro, can you explain how your oil has an IRON reading of 5 from the VOA on Synlube, and then at 19,000 miles from a sample taken by Budman who got a UOA done it had an IRON reading of 166
If Budman runs this oil out to 50,000 miles or more then is it safe to say that he could have an iron reading of well over 200
Are you going to tell us that all of this iron floating around in his oil will not damage anything inside of the engine.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt in saying that the iron reading of 166 would mean more if Budman got a Particle Count Test because we really do not know the micron size of all of the iron particles from Budman's UOA.
Maybe the particles of iron are in the 5 micron range or less, how efficient is your oil filter that you sell, is it like 50% at 5 microns.
Miro, I am trying to be open minded with this UOA since I do not see a Particle Count Test, what is your take on this Iron Reading.
Tater-n Budman
-Noodles
19k miles
VOA UOA UOA-VOA
FE 5 166 161
CR <1 3 >2
NI <1 2 >1
AL 2 39 37
PB <1 2 >1
ZN 588 588 0
CU <1 44 >44
SN <1 1 >0
AG <1 <1 >0
TI <1 <1 >0
SI 10 44 34
B 37 15 -22
NA 9 62 53
Miro, can you explain how your oil has an IRON reading of 5 from the VOA on Synlube, and then at 19,000 miles from a sample taken by Budman who got a UOA done it had an IRON reading of 166
If Budman runs this oil out to 50,000 miles or more then is it safe to say that he could have an iron reading of well over 200
Are you going to tell us that all of this iron floating around in his oil will not damage anything inside of the engine.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt in saying that the iron reading of 166 would mean more if Budman got a Particle Count Test because we really do not know the micron size of all of the iron particles from Budman's UOA.
Maybe the particles of iron are in the 5 micron range or less, how efficient is your oil filter that you sell, is it like 50% at 5 microns.
Miro, I am trying to be open minded with this UOA since I do not see a Particle Count Test, what is your take on this Iron Reading.
Give him time to come up with a good one. Remember Synlube is such an advanced high tech oil that no company can run a proper analysis on it. Oh the engine must have had that iron, from prior oil used, Synlube removed it. Wait, wait, those iron particles are sub-atomic and are meaningless. That isn't iron its FEee2.
Lets see what he comes up with.
AD
Lets see what he comes up with.
AD
Ealier, 69 ppm iron was sacrificial.
So Budmans "lube" had none of the critical sacrificial component?
---===---
Particle count may surprice, an ICP is good, reliably, for 7-8 microns max. After that, partial combustion and thus false low readings.
RDE is better, and more expensive tha ICP at finding all particle sizes.
Aslso, most ICPs have an absolute limit around 10 PPM. Any bigger and it won't even go into the machine. I have sent samples with visible debris and gotten sat ICPs
Gott to do other work to see it all.
So Budmans "lube" had none of the critical sacrificial component?
---===---
Particle count may surprice, an ICP is good, reliably, for 7-8 microns max. After that, partial combustion and thus false low readings.
RDE is better, and more expensive tha ICP at finding all particle sizes.
Aslso, most ICPs have an absolute limit around 10 PPM. Any bigger and it won't even go into the machine. I have sent samples with visible debris and gotten sat ICPs
Gott to do other work to see it all.
quote:Originally posted by ADFD1:
Give him time to come up with a good one. Remember Synlube is such an advanced high tech oil that no company can run a proper analysis on it. Oh the engine must have had that iron, from prior oil used, Synlube removed it. Wait, wait, those iron particles are sub-atomic and are meaningless. That isn't iron its FEee2.
Lets see what he comes up with.
AD
AD, I believe Budman dumped the Factory Fill Oil on this engine when it had less than 1000 miles on it, at that time he started using Synlube, I believe his vehicle is only about 2 years old, so this is not a case where someone used some other brand of oil for thousands of miles.
I am sure Miro will be able to explain the so called high Iron readings for us here, I hope he is not going to blame it on a bad engine design.
Well if I was Miro/Kirk/jonny-b here's what I would say. The engine is still breaking in, shedding metals!
AD
AD
no, No, No.
The "lube" is so smart that it realizes that miro left out it's sacrificial iron and it is dosing itself so it can do its job.
sacrificial iron.....makes my sides hurt.
The "lube" is so smart that it realizes that miro left out it's sacrificial iron and it is dosing itself so it can do its job.
sacrificial iron.....makes my sides hurt.
quote:Miro, can you explain how your oil has an IRON reading of 5 from the VOA on Synlube, and then at 19,000 miles from a sample taken by Budman who got a UOA done it had an IRON reading of 166
You would have to tell me who Budman is and what vehicle it is from - If I think who it is then he has 3 cars, 2 new and one used when converted.
No one sent me a direct e-mail with any oil analysis - so I have not seen who, where and when did this.
And ADD OIL if it has been used has lot more Fe in it than INITIAL FILL.
quote:Originally posted by Trajan:
Project Description: SynLube Lubricants Long Term Test
AAA Project Identification Number: 81
Project Number: 2002-0317-1
Where is it? Post a direct link or the doc itself so we can all read it.
Well?
quote:Maybe the particles of iron are in the 5 micron range or less, how efficient is your oil filter that you sell, is it like 50% at 5 microns.
We have 57 different oil filters made for us by 5 different manufacturers as we do NOT make any filters. They have microglass or stratapore media and normally they are filtering down to 5 microns - it is in 95% to 98% range and 99% for over 10 micron particles.
However without knowing who it is and what vehicle, I have no idea which filter is used and also if the FILTERMAG has been installed.
even 200 PPM Fe is nothing to worry about if you do not see any particles in the sample for that 400X microscope has to be useed and in variable magnetic field to see if there are any.
Normal "lab" does not even look at the Oil Sample.
Only 3 more future samples will determine trend as also from the data there has not been any Oil Sample takes at about few hours after the Installation to see what the FRESH OIL mixed with, nor the Sample of the USED OIL Drained prior conversion.
It is totally silly to assume that "all the old oil was "perfect"" and that everything drains out !
Some OEM have both DRY and WET oil change specs, for both Engines and ATF and in some cases like few TOYOTA 1.5 quart of the "old" oil stays behind.
Again people do NOT do all the proper steps for Analysis to be of a statistically significiant.
VOA
Drained OIL
Fresh oil after short time of installation
Sample 1
Sample 2
This is the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM before you can analyze any data with any confidence that is more than a coin toss (50%) accurate.
quote:Originally posted by Trajan:quote:Originally posted by Trajan:
Project Description: SynLube Lubricants Long Term Test
AAA Project Identification Number: 81
Project Number: 2002-0317-1
Where is it? Post a direct link or the doc itself so we can all read it.
Well?
Still dodging I see.
This may be of interest too:
http://www.machinerylubricatio...1384/ferrous-density
And finally DO NOT forget to send the SAME SAMPLE to the SAME LAB about week or two latter, that will indicate repeatability and accuracy, without that, no matter what the numbers are they are noise.
And I do not care if they are "bad" or "good" it is still scientifically insignificiant.
I think I have posted here more than once what needs to be done so you can "trust" VOA/UOA Data.
SO no need to repeat it, just go back in the thread to it.
But both the Repeatability and Accuracy are big issues - and unless you know what they are, you can not conclude much be it "good" or "bad", but if done properly you will spend even when SynLube is used MORE than the value of the lubricant.
NO OEM be it Light Duty or Heavy Duty engine will do anything under Warranty based on UOA results, that is because they are that "unreliable". People tried that with VW, SATURN, now HONDA (mostly due to high oil consumption) and all were told to get lost, and just pour in more oil !!!
PS: The Fe in INITIAL FILL should be about 50 PPM and not 7
http://www.machinerylubricatio...1384/ferrous-density
And finally DO NOT forget to send the SAME SAMPLE to the SAME LAB about week or two latter, that will indicate repeatability and accuracy, without that, no matter what the numbers are they are noise.
And I do not care if they are "bad" or "good" it is still scientifically insignificiant.
I think I have posted here more than once what needs to be done so you can "trust" VOA/UOA Data.
SO no need to repeat it, just go back in the thread to it.
But both the Repeatability and Accuracy are big issues - and unless you know what they are, you can not conclude much be it "good" or "bad", but if done properly you will spend even when SynLube is used MORE than the value of the lubricant.
NO OEM be it Light Duty or Heavy Duty engine will do anything under Warranty based on UOA results, that is because they are that "unreliable". People tried that with VW, SATURN, now HONDA (mostly due to high oil consumption) and all were told to get lost, and just pour in more oil !!!
PS: The Fe in INITIAL FILL should be about 50 PPM and not 7
quote:vitual_mage
The point was that no matter how much you think about your ride or how many other fanatics are there, there always are "experts" and "authorities" that will with confidence in magazine like FORBES declare it as "junk" and have data from RL Polk, JD Power and IIHS to prove it.
Not any different than opinions people have about YUGO, SMART, MINI, SATURN, and so on.
There always are people who never owned the vehicle they comment on since it is such a dog that they would not be caught dead driving it !!!
But of course they are full of comments and second or third hand knowledge about how unsafe, poor quality, poor value, unreliable they are.
Not trying to prove anything about JEEP just copy and paste "opinion" from a reliable and trusted source - that's ALL....
But then it is a JEEP thing, and I would think you'd understand, but apparently not........
Opinions about YUGO, JEEP and SynLube are just that, and ALL of them are propagated by those who have NO EXPERIENCE - that was the purpose of the "example" (JEEP WRANGLER)
quote:People complaining about the jeep are soccer moms thinking buying a suv.
The lagrest NEW VEHICLE Consumer Group - they influence 72% of vehicle purchases !!!
Is USA not a country where the majority WINS ?
And the majority does not or never bought JEEPS, the closest they get is a PICK-UP Truck !!!
Check the sales numbers...
But again it does not mean that there are fanatics that like rain, wind noise, danger, on and on - so JEEP is perfect for them and if that is not insane enough to drive in city then a Harley for sure will fill the ticket !!!
So you admit you are member of a "fringe" do not think the "majority" is right ?
Why then do you not display tollerance and understanding toward other members of other "fringe" groups or clans ?
PS: A garbage collection truck can run over your Jeep any day, does that make it a superior choice for city transport ?
TOTAL 2,180,100
Total Jeep trk. 51,100
2.34%
Only 2% of all new vehicles sitting in Dealer Inventory are JEEP
U.S. CAR AND LIGHT-TRUCK SALES, MARCH 2010/2009
2010 2009 Car 2010 2009 Truck 2010 2009 Total
Car Car Car Car percent Truck Truck Truck Truck percent Total Total Total Total Point Percent
Make 2010 2009 Share Share change 2010 2009 Share Share change 2010 2009 Share Share change change
Jeep - - - - - 24,393 23,771 4.9% 6.0% 3% 24,393 23,771 2.3% 2.8% -0.5% 3%
Sales of all Brands are up on average 27% = JEEP ONLY 3%
So as you can see there are data to support any TRUTH you wish to prove, but by no stretch of imagination you can proclaim a JEEP to be a success in anything other than off-road operation, and even there Wolrd Wide JEEP has lost to Toyota and Land Rover and even HUMMER.
And what is more something that is now based on 1940's design is great, but only if it is a JEEP and not SynLube (developed from 1944 to 1966).
So again I propose "tollerance" and recognition of FACTS and not "ignorance" and "TOTAL ANGER" when someone does not have the same affection for your JEEP.
And I thought you'd understand !!!
Total Jeep trk. 51,100
2.34%
Only 2% of all new vehicles sitting in Dealer Inventory are JEEP
U.S. CAR AND LIGHT-TRUCK SALES, MARCH 2010/2009
2010 2009 Car 2010 2009 Truck 2010 2009 Total
Car Car Car Car percent Truck Truck Truck Truck percent Total Total Total Total Point Percent
Make 2010 2009 Share Share change 2010 2009 Share Share change 2010 2009 Share Share change change
Jeep - - - - - 24,393 23,771 4.9% 6.0% 3% 24,393 23,771 2.3% 2.8% -0.5% 3%
Sales of all Brands are up on average 27% = JEEP ONLY 3%
So as you can see there are data to support any TRUTH you wish to prove, but by no stretch of imagination you can proclaim a JEEP to be a success in anything other than off-road operation, and even there Wolrd Wide JEEP has lost to Toyota and Land Rover and even HUMMER.
And what is more something that is now based on 1940's design is great, but only if it is a JEEP and not SynLube (developed from 1944 to 1966).
So again I propose "tollerance" and recognition of FACTS and not "ignorance" and "TOTAL ANGER" when someone does not have the same affection for your JEEP.
And I thought you'd understand !!!
Miro, I have to say that I see why you are against VOA's and UOA's on your beloved Synlube, you still have not explained how the VOA on your Synlube showed a FE reading of 5 and then Budman's UOA with 19,000 miles on Synlube showed a reading of 166
That is an awfully high FE reading in anyones book, I remember seeing a UOA on Amsoil that had 18,000 miles on the oil and the Iron reading was no way near a reading of 166
I really think that members here are getting tired of your lame statistics and talk of your ancient Yugo.
If you cannot explain the high Iron reading then why should anyone consider buying your product.
That is an awfully high FE reading in anyones book, I remember seeing a UOA on Amsoil that had 18,000 miles on the oil and the Iron reading was no way near a reading of 166
I really think that members here are getting tired of your lame statistics and talk of your ancient Yugo.
If you cannot explain the high Iron reading then why should anyone consider buying your product.
This might help explain the question regarding Iron levesl(FE),and other particulates and various tests. Kirk
Microscopic Optical Analysis
Sample Fluid is examined under 100X to 400X optical microscope. Identifies contaminants, Sol condition, Wear particles.
Spectrochemical Analysis
Determines PPM (parts per million) levels of various chemical elements.
Identifies wear metals, contaminants, additives and additive depletion.
Viscometric Analysis
Determines Fluid Viscosity at 40°C and 100°C from which VI (Viscosity Index) is calculated. Helps to determine Fluid condition and service life.
Chemical Titration Analysis
Determines Fluid TBN (Total Base Number), TAN (Total Acid Number) and/or pH level. Helps to determine Fluid condition and service life.
Proprietary Sludge Formation and Oxidation Test
Determines Fluid tendency to form insoluble deposits such as "sludge" and "varnish" as well as "volatility" and "self-Ignition" in a single Proprietary test, that is capable in same Test Equipment to simultaneously test up to four (4) individual samples, for performance comparison. Helps to determine Fluid condition and remaining service life.
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.
Non-Newtonian fluids like SynLube™ will result in differing readings in different equipment design even if the calibration is the same, this sometimes can vary by as much as 200% at low temperatures and about 20 % at 100ºC to 150ºC range.
Therefore viscosity CHANGE between different oil tests is MORE important than any single viscosity reading, which is both temperature and equipment specific.
TBN of SynLube™ also varies greatly with different tests, quick Electro chemical testers often yield false results because colloidal Graphite contained in SynLube™ is electric conductor and that affects the reading.
The ONLY reliable TBN determination is by laboratory titration and this test is time consuming and expensive, therefore unless specifically requested it is NOT performed during typical low cost oil test.
Solids
Unless inspection is done under 100X to 400X microscope, there are NO reliable automatic tests that will correctly indicate presence of Dust, Sand, Dirt, Soot and wear particles in the SynLube™ lubricants. SynLube™ contains as much as 33% by volume of colloidal solids (Graphite, PTFE – Teflon, Moly). Therefore these sub-micronic solids that are present in SynLube™ will not yield correct values for "contamination" tests, since they usually compare wear or impurities to conventional lubricants which contain NO SOLIDS when FRESH and solids only accumulate during their use.
Summary
Low cost oil analysis can be ONLY used for plotting of wear trend or oil viscosity change trend, any single test can not be used to indicate or predict equipment or oil quality.
Since SynLube, Inc. has extensive experience with colloidal lubricants and of course with all SynLube™ products, we can either perform any requested or required oil analysis for our customers, or properly interpret results that are obtained from independent oil test laboratories.
Microscopic Optical Analysis
Sample Fluid is examined under 100X to 400X optical microscope. Identifies contaminants, Sol condition, Wear particles.
Spectrochemical Analysis
Determines PPM (parts per million) levels of various chemical elements.
Identifies wear metals, contaminants, additives and additive depletion.
Viscometric Analysis
Determines Fluid Viscosity at 40°C and 100°C from which VI (Viscosity Index) is calculated. Helps to determine Fluid condition and service life.
Chemical Titration Analysis
Determines Fluid TBN (Total Base Number), TAN (Total Acid Number) and/or pH level. Helps to determine Fluid condition and service life.
Proprietary Sludge Formation and Oxidation Test
Determines Fluid tendency to form insoluble deposits such as "sludge" and "varnish" as well as "volatility" and "self-Ignition" in a single Proprietary test, that is capable in same Test Equipment to simultaneously test up to four (4) individual samples, for performance comparison. Helps to determine Fluid condition and remaining service life.
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.
Non-Newtonian fluids like SynLube™ will result in differing readings in different equipment design even if the calibration is the same, this sometimes can vary by as much as 200% at low temperatures and about 20 % at 100ºC to 150ºC range.
Therefore viscosity CHANGE between different oil tests is MORE important than any single viscosity reading, which is both temperature and equipment specific.
TBN of SynLube™ also varies greatly with different tests, quick Electro chemical testers often yield false results because colloidal Graphite contained in SynLube™ is electric conductor and that affects the reading.
The ONLY reliable TBN determination is by laboratory titration and this test is time consuming and expensive, therefore unless specifically requested it is NOT performed during typical low cost oil test.
Solids
Unless inspection is done under 100X to 400X microscope, there are NO reliable automatic tests that will correctly indicate presence of Dust, Sand, Dirt, Soot and wear particles in the SynLube™ lubricants. SynLube™ contains as much as 33% by volume of colloidal solids (Graphite, PTFE – Teflon, Moly). Therefore these sub-micronic solids that are present in SynLube™ will not yield correct values for "contamination" tests, since they usually compare wear or impurities to conventional lubricants which contain NO SOLIDS when FRESH and solids only accumulate during their use.
Summary
Low cost oil analysis can be ONLY used for plotting of wear trend or oil viscosity change trend, any single test can not be used to indicate or predict equipment or oil quality.
Since SynLube, Inc. has extensive experience with colloidal lubricants and of course with all SynLube™ products, we can either perform any requested or required oil analysis for our customers, or properly interpret results that are obtained from independent oil test laboratories.
How convenient….no labs can analyze it, I love the part when you say: we can either perform any requested or required oil analysis for our customers …..
Sorry I forgot, you are not Miro for a moment.
Sorry I forgot, you are not Miro for a moment.
This is budman......another synlube user like me getting scammed(sarcasm). We are so dumb!!(LOL).
Look how clean his engine is just like my engines, including my vw 1.8t. My engines also are just as clueless as me and don't know they have been scammed for almost ten years now(joke).
My engines just keep ignoring all the naysayers and keep on running and running and running and running,using no oil,sludge free and clean,and always passing all the emission inspection tests here in NJ. I guess I will never learn why store oil is so much better!(lol).
Maybe this scam will finally blow up my engines in about 30 years or so when cars fly because they don't know any better!!!! (more sarcasm!) I really miss using MMO now days to flush my engine thanks to Synlube! Life is so boring when you're being scammed like me for almost a decade now using the same product when everyone else knows better(lol).
Meanwhile take a look at this sweet looking/running engine!!! This engine is being scammed too,just doesn't know it!(lol).
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/...1842031&#Post1842031
Look how clean his engine is just like my engines, including my vw 1.8t. My engines also are just as clueless as me and don't know they have been scammed for almost ten years now(joke).
My engines just keep ignoring all the naysayers and keep on running and running and running and running,using no oil,sludge free and clean,and always passing all the emission inspection tests here in NJ. I guess I will never learn why store oil is so much better!(lol).
Maybe this scam will finally blow up my engines in about 30 years or so when cars fly because they don't know any better!!!! (more sarcasm!) I really miss using MMO now days to flush my engine thanks to Synlube! Life is so boring when you're being scammed like me for almost a decade now using the same product when everyone else knows better(lol).
Meanwhile take a look at this sweet looking/running engine!!! This engine is being scammed too,just doesn't know it!(lol).
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/...1842031&#Post1842031
Captain Kirk, sorry to say this, but nobody is buying what you are saying here, UOA's do not lie, they just tell it like it is.
quote:Originally posted by Big Bear:
Captain Kirk, sorry to say this, but nobody is buying what you are saying here, UOA's do not lie, they just tell it like it is.
NO.....my engines tell it like it is... like in the above post. My engines keep on running and running,and passing all emission tests,and use NO OIL.
That is the ultimate bottom line. What the engine does and for how long.
Also,just what do you mean regarding UOA's don't lie. How much was the test as in cost and how extensive was the study. How accurate is the lab.
I started the other thread UOA/VOA vs the real world just to make a point showing the real world is very different from what some lab may indicate.
Did you not read this above post as well???? Here it is again below!
http://www.machinerylubricatio...1384/ferrous-density
Bottom line.........the engines are the best oil analysis/proving labs that never lie!!!!
http://webcache.googleusercont...&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Looks like another article on the perils of engine sludge using so called.....approved oil....also an issue in the aviation industry,now that's deadly serious!!!
Looks like another article on the perils of engine sludge using so called.....approved oil....also an issue in the aviation industry,now that's deadly serious!!!
http://www.vclassmotorsport.co...mplate.asp?menuid=59
The Asian countries typically have much better oils available to the public as do the Europeans vs. the USA. They have done a nice job protecting their engines with superior motor oils compared to the U.S.
They offer 100% group IV PAO synthetic oils to match their high tech engines to avoid engine issues......no MMO or Auto-Rx is ever needed. Sludge and excess wear is prevented in the first place using these very good lubricants!
As usual.....the Americans are behind the curve....including motor oil technology along with automotive technology!! I thought it was just math and science where we lag behind........wait a minute.......now it all makes sense.......education is the key that they apparently seem to have to appreciate this concept!!
The Asian countries typically have much better oils available to the public as do the Europeans vs. the USA. They have done a nice job protecting their engines with superior motor oils compared to the U.S.
They offer 100% group IV PAO synthetic oils to match their high tech engines to avoid engine issues......no MMO or Auto-Rx is ever needed. Sludge and excess wear is prevented in the first place using these very good lubricants!
As usual.....the Americans are behind the curve....including motor oil technology along with automotive technology!! I thought it was just math and science where we lag behind........wait a minute.......now it all makes sense.......education is the key that they apparently seem to have to appreciate this concept!!
quote:Originally posted by Captain Kirk:
This is budman......another synlube user like me getting scammed(sarcasm). We are so dumb!!(LOL).
Look how clean his engine is just like my engines, including my vw 1.8t. My engines also are just as clueless as me and don't know they have been scammed for almost ten years now(joke).
My engines just keep ignoring all the naysayers and keep on running and running and running and running,using no oil,sludge free and clean,and always passing all the emission inspection tests here in NJ. I guess I will never learn why store oil is so much better!(lol).
Maybe this scam will finally blow up my engines in about 30 years or so when cars fly because they don't know any better!!!! (more sarcasm!) I really miss using MMO now days to flush my engine thanks to Synlube! Life is so boring when you're being scammed like me for almost a decade now using the same product when everyone else knows better(lol).
Meanwhile take a look at this sweet looking/running engine!!! This engine is being scammed too,just doesn't know it!(lol).
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/...1842031&#Post1842031
You mean, look at all the clean engines that use name brand oil at a fraction of the cost.
quote:Originally posted by Trajan:quote:Originally posted by Captain Kirk:
This is budman......another synlube user like me getting scammed(sarcasm). We are so dumb!!(LOL).
Look how clean his engine is just like my engines, including my vw 1.8t. My engines also are just as clueless as me and don't know they have been scammed for almost ten years now(joke).
My engines just keep ignoring all the naysayers and keep on running and running and running and running,using no oil,sludge free and clean,and always passing all the emission inspection tests here in NJ. I guess I will never learn why store oil is so much better!(lol).
Maybe this scam will finally blow up my engines in about 30 years or so when cars fly because they don't know any better!!!! (more sarcasm!) I really miss using MMO now days to flush my engine thanks to Synlube! Life is so boring when you're being scammed like me for almost a decade now using the same product when everyone else knows better(lol).
Meanwhile take a look at this sweet looking/running engine!!! This engine is being scammed too,just doesn't know it!(lol).
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/...1842031&#Post1842031
You mean, look at all the clean engines that use name brand oil at a fraction of the cost.
No......I said look at budmans engine. We all know,myself included that clean engine is possible with cheap oil because I have used the cheap stuff and kept my engine clean.
I have seen you and everyone on these threads talk about and admit too frequent oil/filter changes(every 3,000 miles at least?) ..using various flushes all year long,MMO,Auto-Rx etc. We all know about that process.
The alternative to all that work and expensive is do what budman is doing in the above post. It works!!! It's cheaper in the long run and way less work!!
https://forums.noria.com/eve/fo...=603106024#603106024
This should explain what I am talking about regarding keeping an engine clean the old fashioned way!!
The expensive, high maintenance,loads of effort way that some of you still can't break from,you included trajan!!
REMEMBER THIS MESS BELOW! YOU GUYS ARE ALL IN PANIC MODE TRYING TO AVOID THIS!!
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/...er=873562#Post873562
This should explain what I am talking about regarding keeping an engine clean the old fashioned way!!
The expensive, high maintenance,loads of effort way that some of you still can't break from,you included trajan!!
REMEMBER THIS MESS BELOW! YOU GUYS ARE ALL IN PANIC MODE TRYING TO AVOID THIS!!
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/...er=873562#Post873562
quote:Originally posted by Captain Kirk:quote:Originally posted by Trajan:quote:Originally posted by Captain Kirk:
This is budman......another synlube user like me getting scammed(sarcasm). We are so dumb!!(LOL).
Look how clean his engine is just like my engines, including my vw 1.8t. My engines also are just as clueless as me and don't know they have been scammed for almost ten years now(joke).
My engines just keep ignoring all the naysayers and keep on running and running and running and running,using no oil,sludge free and clean,and always passing all the emission inspection tests here in NJ. I guess I will never learn why store oil is so much better!(lol).
Maybe this scam will finally blow up my engines in about 30 years or so when cars fly because they don't know any better!!!! (more sarcasm!) I really miss using MMO now days to flush my engine thanks to Synlube! Life is so boring when you're being scammed like me for almost a decade now using the same product when everyone else knows better(lol).
Meanwhile take a look at this sweet looking/running engine!!! This engine is being scammed too,just doesn't know it!(lol).
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/...1842031&#Post1842031
You mean, look at all the clean engines that use name brand oil at a fraction of the cost.
No......I said look at budmans engine. We all know,myself included that clean engine is possible with cheap oil because I have used the cheap stuff and kept my engine clean.
I have seen you and everyone on these threads talk about and admit too frequent oil/filter changes(every 3,000 miles at least?) ..using various flushes all year long,MMO,Auto-Rx etc. We all know about that process.
The alternative to all that work and expensive is do what budman is doing in the above post. It works!!! It's cheaper in the long run and way less work!!
You mean all those engines that are clean using approved name brand oil.
And you will of course show where I said I do 3K oil changes.
I know you can't, so you'll just fabricate something.
quote:sorry to say this, but nobody is buying what you are saying here, UOA's do not lie, they just tell it like it is.
They indedeed do NOT lie, but they are not so accurate (accuracy) and not so replicable (Reproducibility) and you need at least 5 samples to determine trand.
And a second test of the same sample few weeks later form the same lab to determine how accurate and reproduceable the first test was.
If you want to be scientific about UOA then you have to employ statistical and scientific means, or else you are just an amateur taking bunch of random numbers as a gospel.
I have been telling people for years to send a second sample of the same used oil to the same lab few weeks later, and those who did all lost faith in Oil Analysis - the results are that "different"
Also tests that are set up for FLUID with basically nothing much in it, when used on Colloidal Sol with electro conductive graphite that is opaque are even less accurate or repeatable.
It is amazing that you would spend $25.00 to get bunch of numbers from somebody else somewhere else and give it total FAITH, rather than invest $40 into a microscope and look at the Oil (any oil) you see in 15 seconds what the condition is - wear or no wear, and you do not even have to drain anything, ONE drop form a dipstick will do !!!
100% accurate and 100% repeatable, that is if you know how to focus a microscope !!!
If you add to it the sense of "smell" then you can duplicate $6,000 hydrocarbon oxidation test, with rather good result - but that required "experience".
Now I get Miro: So the colloidial solids have electro conductive graphite. That explains everything.
So will having the magnets on the filter somehow change the polarity of the oil, this i imagine occurs during weather patterns with high electro-conductivity...AAAHHH yes it's all so much clearer now.
So will having the magnets on the filter somehow change the polarity of the oil, this i imagine occurs during weather patterns with high electro-conductivity...AAAHHH yes it's all so much clearer now.
Maybe you do not know it but graphite has been used in ARC lamps and "brushes" in electric motors, so it is electro conductive - current flows through it.
Some low cost quick "analysis" machines use probes and electric charge or current to "guess" at the present chemicals, and those are affected by graphite colloids.
Magents on the filter remove and Feromagnetic materials - mostly Iron - from the Oil Flow and since 80 to 90% of the wear materials have Iron in them Strong Magnets will be more effective than any mechanical filter for ANY size of Iron particle removal, except when it becomes dis-solved (molecular level Iron is not that easily attracted by magnetic filed.
Fe+ Containing Chemical acts as anti-oxidant and also has some other properties that are beneficial - but is "expensive" to use in low cost petroleum. (The technology was verified by ESSO in UK)
You have to understand colloidal chemistry, Van der Waals force and magnetism, di-pole structure, if you do not it will not be "clear".
Explain how Water which is lot heavier than air can freely float in the air ? (fog) and may be you will start catching on with colloidal physics.
Lot of "natural" phenomena are not that easily comprehended by populus that lacks scientific education.
Some low cost quick "analysis" machines use probes and electric charge or current to "guess" at the present chemicals, and those are affected by graphite colloids.
Magents on the filter remove and Feromagnetic materials - mostly Iron - from the Oil Flow and since 80 to 90% of the wear materials have Iron in them Strong Magnets will be more effective than any mechanical filter for ANY size of Iron particle removal, except when it becomes dis-solved (molecular level Iron is not that easily attracted by magnetic filed.
Fe+ Containing Chemical acts as anti-oxidant and also has some other properties that are beneficial - but is "expensive" to use in low cost petroleum. (The technology was verified by ESSO in UK)
You have to understand colloidal chemistry, Van der Waals force and magnetism, di-pole structure, if you do not it will not be "clear".
Explain how Water which is lot heavier than air can freely float in the air ? (fog) and may be you will start catching on with colloidal physics.
Lot of "natural" phenomena are not that easily comprehended by populus that lacks scientific education.
quote:Tater-n Budman
-Noodles
19k miles
VOA UOA UOA-VOA
FE 5 166 161
CR <1 3 >2
NI <1 2 >1
AL 2 39 37
PB <1 2 >1
ZN 588 588 0
CU <1 44 >44
SN <1 1 >0
AG <1 <1 >0
TI <1 <1 >0
SI 10 44 34
B 37 15 -22
NA 9 62 53
Can YOU explain why 3 other chemicals that are part of any decent UOA are not listed ? Those that would actually identify this really is a SynLube ? Can you also explain how can Boron just disappear ? (-22)
Somehow conveniently they were omitted !
So expalain that one FIRST
I also just got e-mail form a person I though to be "budman" and he tells me it is NOT HIM and he gave up on BITOG
So WHO is the person
Which is The car
Until you do supply such information I just have to take this as jet another attempt to discredit SynLube with unverifiable data that someone just made up.
if you do not wish the WHO info to be public then you can send it by e-mail to synlube@aol.com
and also do not forget to scan and attach the Lab Report (WHO when and where did the test and on what equipment).
Till that happens I can not take this seriously.
You are so predictable. LOL Lets cast some doubt........Right on schedule >>>> LOL
AD
AD
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/...umber=1855937&page=1
I guess he'll say this isn't from budman either.
Still waiting for the verifiable proof that synlube passed the tests it claims.
We already know it isnt' API or ACEA certified.
I guess he'll say this isn't from budman either.
Still waiting for the verifiable proof that synlube passed the tests it claims.
We already know it isnt' API or ACEA certified.
Would you have expected anything else from him?
AD
AD
I forwarded Miro my Polaris VOA results that I just received today.
quote:Originally posted by ADFD1:
Would you have expected anything else from him?
AD
I shouldn't. 66 pages of the Synlube Shuffle, and we're no closer to finding out the truth.
I suspect that those tests he claims to pass is a sham. The same guy who declared that Shell and its other brands are not API certified, then whines about Japan when it is pointed out that they are.
The same guy who says that OBD-II cars are built to fail. Who thinks the Yugo was the best car ever. Who thinks cars can't last 100K miles unless they use Swindlelube.
The same guy who claimed I doctored the MSDS he sent to Tater....
quote:Taterandnoodles
I can verify I got report from him and that he is a real person, so far no one e-mailed me and claimed to be budman.
To 3 people I thought may be him, one replied it is not him and the other 2 have not yet responded.
And unlike Taterandnoodles no one else has sent me a verifiable Lab Report on SynLube.
That is where that stands, so if any of you have contact to budman, ask him to e-mail any such report to me.
quote:Originally posted by Miro Kefurt:quote:Tater-n Budman
-Noodles
19k miles
VOA UOA UOA-VOA
FE 5 166 161
CR <1 3 >2
NI <1 2 >1
AL 2 39 37
PB <1 2 >1
ZN 588 588 0
CU <1 44 >44
SN <1 1 >0
AG <1 <1 >0
TI <1 <1 >0
SI 10 44 34
B 37 15 -22
NA 9 62 53
Can YOU explain why 3 other chemicals that are part of any decent UOA are not listed ? Those that would actually identify this really is a SynLube ? Can you also explain how can Boron just disappear ? (-22)
Somehow conveniently they were omitted !
So expalain that one FIRST
I also just got e-mail form a person I though to be "budman" and he tells me it is NOT HIM and he gave up on BITOG
So WHO is the person
Which is The car
Until you do supply such information I just have to take this as jet another attempt to discredit SynLube with unverifiable data that someone just made up.
if you do not wish the WHO info to be public then you can send it by e-mail to synlube@aol.com
and also do not forget to scan and attach the Lab Report (WHO when and where did the test and on what equipment).
Till that happens I can not take this seriously.
Miro, this is your oil, you obviously mix the stuff up in your garage so you should know what is in it, unless you have no clue about the base oil since it is either used motor oil or whatever you go and buy at Wal-Mart.
You are not doing very well in this thread and I doubt anyone reading your comments is calling you up to buy your Synlube.
Are you going to explain the high iron numbers, can you explain it without going into some scientific MUMBO JUMBO.
If I was selling this worthless Synlube I would probably demand that anyone buying it not do a VOA or get a UOA done from what I have seen here recently.
Back in the day Terry Dyson wanted to visit your facilities and you turned him down, now I can see why, maybe this is all a game to you Miro, but members here want to use a good oil and so far Synlube does not seem to be a very good oil, it actually looks TERRIBLE.
quote:Originally posted by Taterandnoodles:
I forwarded Miro my Polaris VOA results that I just received today.
Can we see?
quote:Originally posted by RobertC:quote:Originally posted by Taterandnoodles:
I forwarded Miro my Polaris VOA results that I just received today.
Can we see?
Here it is.
Synlube VOA Attempt - Set-Up Thread [Re: bruce381]
TaterandNoodles Offline
Registered: 01/16/06
Posts: 1202
Loc: NENC
I received the results from Polaris. Both samples are from the same liter drawn at the same time and sent out the same day.
Bruce----Polaris
FE-5-----6
CR-<1---0
NI-<1----0
AL-2-----0
PB-<1----0
CU-<1----2
SN-<1----0
AG-<1----0
TI-<1----0
SI-10----18
B-37-----32
NA-9-----7
K-<10----0
MO-1246-1035
P-1085--954
ZN-588--599
CA-596--557
BA-<10--3
MG-366--396
SB-<30--0
V-<1----0
Vis@100C-10.5---23.5 confused
TBN-------6.27----4.10 confused
Ox-----------------12
Nit-----------------7
fuel---------------.3%
Soot---------------.8%
This only proves what I have known for years that LAB results are sometimes inaccurate, inconsistent and highly variable:
****
Reported by Taterandnoodles, I know who he is and indeed he purchased only ONE SynLube INITIAL FILL, so the "samples" indeed are from the SAME BOTTLE !!!
****
I received the results from Polaris. Both samples are from the same liter drawn at the same time and sent out the same day.
Bruce----Polaris
FE-5-----6
CR-<1---0
NI-<1----0
AL-2-----0
PB-<1----0
CU-<1----2
SN-<1----0
AG-<1----0
TI-<1----0
SI-10----18
B-37-----32
NA-9-----7
K-<10----0
MO-1246-1035
P-1085--954
ZN-588--599
CA-596--557
BA-<10--3
MG-366--396
SB-<30--0
V-<1----0
Vis@100C-10.5---23.5
TBN-------6.27----4.10
Ox-----------------12
Nit-----------------7
fuel---------------.3%
Soot---------------.8%
****
Reported by Taterandnoodles, I know who he is and indeed he purchased only ONE SynLube INITIAL FILL, so the "samples" indeed are from the SAME BOTTLE !!!
****
I received the results from Polaris. Both samples are from the same liter drawn at the same time and sent out the same day.
Bruce----Polaris
FE-5-----6
CR-<1---0
NI-<1----0
AL-2-----0
PB-<1----0
CU-<1----2
SN-<1----0
AG-<1----0
TI-<1----0
SI-10----18
B-37-----32
NA-9-----7
K-<10----0
MO-1246-1035
P-1085--954
ZN-588--599
CA-596--557
BA-<10--3
MG-366--396
SB-<30--0
V-<1----0
Vis@100C-10.5---23.5
TBN-------6.27----4.10
Ox-----------------12
Nit-----------------7
fuel---------------.3%
Soot---------------.8%
As predicted by so many, the synlube hive mind would attack any result that was not in keeping with their delusions.
Nice to see you're true to form.
Nice to see you're true to form.
Using our equipment (CANNON CAPILARY) this is the results I get on the same batch SynLube INITIAL FILL SAE 5W-50 sample.
Viscosity cSt at 100 C cSt 17.7
Viscosity cSt at 40 C cSt 97.5
Result: Viscosity Index 199.6
***
Now explain the results reported in above post !
Viscosity cSt at 100 C cSt 17.7
Viscosity cSt at 40 C cSt 97.5
Result: Viscosity Index 199.6
***
Now explain the results reported in above post !
quote:Trajan
So now that it is SynLube you do not trust to the trusted reports form trusted Lab send to them by a trused BITOG member ?
WHY NOT - after all it is the ABSOLUTE PROOF - you have been seeking for so long !!!
HAVE FAITH - and do not waiver - Numbers CAN NOT LIE (like you do).
quote:Originally posted by Miro Kefurt:quote:Trajan
So now that it is SynLube you do not trust to the trusted reports form trusted Lab send to them by a trused BITOG member ?
WHY NOT - after all it is the ABSOLUTE PROOF - you have been seeking for so long !!!
HAVE FAITH - and do not waiver - Numbers CAN NOT LIE (like you do).
No, numbers do not lie. Rather it's the one who makes them up. Like you.
Third party tests are much more beleivable than what you use. You want to sell this swill, so any test that *you* do is instantly suspect at best. An outright fabrication or worse.
I do have faith lad. I have faith that you peddle swill. I have faith that you made up those test results. That you made up passing those tests you crow about.
I have faith that giving somebody synlube si banned by the US Constitution as cruel and unusual punishment.
quote:Terry Dyson wanted to visit your facilities
No one by such name ever contacted me, so another story that is not true.
The only person who eve wanted to visit was
Hydie Neyman who ever he is, and when I asked him for the information we need to file with the DoE (and leave copy of with the entry guard)
He sent me back this polite mesage:
You do know that this is the internet, and I'm useing my real name on here right. Trust me I can get into Mercury. So I ask you whats your location in Mercury? If this is really a fraud company, which it's starting to sound like. Then I will have to report your company to the proper officials. Since I know know private company has access to any government files.
You can contact him directly:
hydie69@live.com
Ah Miro.................Dream on!
AD
AD
quote:Originally posted by RobertC:quote:Originally posted by Taterandnoodles:
I forwarded Miro my Polaris VOA results that I just received today.
Can we see?
I see they have cut and past my VOA data from BITOG. If you would like to see the report as sent to me from Polaris I can email you a copy.
I am having the 100C viscosity rerun and the 40C tested since Miro stated it was to far out of line. I will contact Bruce in reference to his sample. The oil I have is not a 30wt that is certain.
quote:Originally posted by Miro Kefurt:quote:Terry Dyson wanted to visit your facilities
No one by such name ever contacted me, so another story that is not true.
The only person who eve wanted to visit was
Hydie Neyman who ever he is, and when I asked him for the information we need to file with the DoE (and leave copy of with the entry guard)
He sent me back this polite mesage:
You do know that this is the internet, and I'm useing my real name on here right. Trust me I can get into Mercury. So I ask you whats your location in Mercury? If this is really a fraud company, which it's starting to sound like. Then I will have to report your company to the proper officials. Since I know know private company has access to any government files.
You can contact him directly:
hydie69@live.com
I'd love to visit. If there is a conference in the Vegas area in the future I may have to attend. Shouldn't be any problems with access. I don't know about the DOE portion but DOD I'm covered.
quote:Originally posted by Miro Kefurt:quote:Terry Dyson wanted to visit your facilities
No one by such name ever contacted me, so another story that is not true.
The only person who eve wanted to visit was
Hydie Neyman who ever he is, and when I asked him for the information we need to file with the DoE (and leave copy of with the entry guard)
He sent me back this polite mesage:
You do know that this is the internet, and I'm useing my real name on here right. Trust me I can get into Mercury. So I ask you whats your location in Mercury? If this is really a fraud company, which it's starting to sound like. Then I will have to report your company to the proper officials. Since I know know private company has access to any government files.
You can contact him directly:
hydie69@live.com
: SynLube Lube-4-Life
Terry
Registered: 05/27/02
Posts: 3845
Loc: Greenville , Texas I have done some research on this product and evaluated tests provided by Miro.
I asked to visit their blending plant and was told no for security reasons.
I think they are for real but undercapitalized like many products I've seen that have merit but can't get past the big guys.
I am amazed at the small companies who fear my seeing and testing their products lest I smoke them publicly. Little do they know that if the product is for real what a benefit the light of analysis reports can do for them when interpreted properly.
Top
Miro, it seems Terry Dyson did contact you.
Count me in Miro: As I have access to DOE sites. Savannah River/South Carolina, WIPP/New Mexico, Oak Ridge/Tennessee. Along with those I have clearances through the FBI, and NRC.
"Security reasons."
Yeah, sure.
Yeah, sure.
quote:Originally posted by Nucleardawg:
Count me in Miro: As I have access to DOE sites. Savannah River/South Carolina, WIPP/New Mexico, Oak Ridge/Tennessee. Along with those I have clearances through the FBI, and NRC.
Doubt you'll get a response, but if you do there will be some excuse or new ultra TS site that even the President couldn't visit.
AD
Probably get one like this:
"Once the approval is granted, no problem:
Just ask at the guard at the gate, and the guard will call us, you will have to leave your car in front of the security entrance.
Bring your clearance card and your proof of Citizenship.
When do you want to make the appointment ?
Date/Time
Also please e-mail
your full name, address (residence), vehicle plate and VIN (The one you will be driving to Mercury)
Address and Employer Identification Number of your employer
Your current position
Contact information for yo Supervisor
Your Clearance ID card number and your Passport number
Date of Birth
SS#
Once we get the approval I will let you know.
Normally it takes about 90 days."
Then they when to say that they've check my email name with DoD, DoE or FBI Clearance Files and my name doesn't show up.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/...mber=1843517&page=46
"Once the approval is granted, no problem:
Just ask at the guard at the gate, and the guard will call us, you will have to leave your car in front of the security entrance.
Bring your clearance card and your proof of Citizenship.
When do you want to make the appointment ?
Date/Time
Also please e-mail
your full name, address (residence), vehicle plate and VIN (The one you will be driving to Mercury)
Address and Employer Identification Number of your employer
Your current position
Contact information for yo Supervisor
Your Clearance ID card number and your Passport number
Date of Birth
SS#
Once we get the approval I will let you know.
Normally it takes about 90 days."
Then they when to say that they've check my email name with DoD, DoE or FBI Clearance Files and my name doesn't show up.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/...mber=1843517&page=46
It doesn't take 90 days as I am in the PADS database. But yeh I know...Said it as a joke.
That TBN that was verified has me thinking this is worse then we thought. Could SYNLUBE really be nothing but filtered used oil with some additives thrown in?? That VOA shows that oil as already depleted!!
Couldn't they have at least bought new, they would still make a tidy profit at $32 bucks a quart
That TBN that was verified has me thinking this is worse then we thought. Could SYNLUBE really be nothing but filtered used oil with some additives thrown in?? That VOA shows that oil as already depleted!!
Couldn't they have at least bought new, they would still make a tidy profit at $32 bucks a quart
quote:
Couldn't they have at least bought new, they would still make a tidy profit at $32 bucks a quart
Why do that? Then the oil would be worth more than the bottle it's in.
AD
quote:Originally posted by Nucleardawg:
It doesn't take 90 days as I am in the PADS database. But yeh I know...Said it as a joke.
That TBN that was verified has me thinking this is worse then we thought. Could SYNLUBE really be nothing but filtered used oil with some additives thrown in?? That VOA shows that oil as already depleted!!
Couldn't they have at least bought new, they would still make a tidy profit at $32 bucks a quart
Yeah, you would think they would at least buy Mobil 1 and add their secret elixer to it.
I guess when you are a con artist you want every last nickel you can swindle from the uninformed public.
quote:Originally posted by Nucleardawg:
Count me in Miro: As I have access to DOE sites. Savannah River/South Carolina, WIPP/New Mexico, Oak Ridge/Tennessee. Along with those I have clearances through the FBI, and NRC.
Miro would have to be out of his mind to let this delusional fruitcake into his facility.
quote:Miro, it seems Terry Dyson did contact you.
If he did than he for sure did not reveal his name or purpose.
When we get a generic e-mail like "can I come and see you" or "can I stop by and "pick-up this or that"
We send out a generic answer that it is not possible, and I do not count those, but over the years there were few, but no Terry Dyson is on the list.
Further anyone even remotedly related to lubrication would be not allowed anyway as both the process and ingredients are part of the "proprietary knowledge" that by US Federal Judge was ruled to be "trade-secret", thus anyone "knowledgeable in the art" should not be granted access - again not my decision but decision of District court in San Francisco in 1996.
Since 1996 only 3 people asked me by phone and 2 by e-mail, so it is easy to keep track of, who wants to come for a visit.
And none had legitimate enough reason for DoE to grant access. (The 2 that did not send back a nasty message as a reply for the data needed to file a request).
We do not make the rules we just have to follow them, and somehow people do not seem to understand that.
Even the Silicon Valley investors that OWN SynLube are not allowed in. And they OWN the business - since they DO NOT OPERATE IT - they also are deemed as not having a valid reason to enter the facility.
Things were much less strict before 9/11 but since then every day is big reason to panic.
Even I was not allowed in at times, with no reason given to me why, or when I will be able to get back in.
But FREE use of building (big enough to park a cargo plane in) and Electric power (and we do use lot of it) at 3.38 cents per kW, makes it tollerable to put up with all the regulations.
In return we have 100% safety and 100% security and 0% to worry about - to me that is a good deal - especially since before we moved in we paid over $50,000 annually for "rent".
Not needing to make $50,000 NET before you are breaking even, makes a big difference in a "small" business.
And the daily transport from Las Vegas is included - really a great deal that is 3,000 miles of monthly driving I do not have to do !
If you do not have the proper paperwork you can not even get on the bus in Las Vegas, that is if you can even find out where and when to board it.
But mostly OUR Business is really NONE of your Business !!!
Facility? You mean his garage. Truth is if I were Miro I wouldn't want anyone knowing where I lived. That could be why a member posted about his dealing with Miro/Synlube was out of the trunk of a car. It might have been budman? I think that was mentioned on Bitog somewhere.
AD
AD
quote:Originally posted by ADFD1:
Facility? You mean his garage. Truth is if I were Miro I wouldn't want anyone knowing where I lived. That could be why a member posted about his dealing with Miro/Synlube was out of the trunk of a car. It might have been budman? I think that was mentioned on Bitog somewhere.
AD
That was budman.
quote:Originally posted by Miro Kefurt:
Even the Silicon Valley investors that OWN SynLube are not allowed in. And they OWN the business - since they DO NOT OPERATE IT - they also are deemed as not having a valid reason to enter the facility.
Things were much less strict before 9/11 but since then every day is big reason to panic.
Hey, there's some new info, for me at least.
quote:But FREE use of building (big enough to park a cargo plane in) and Electric power (and we do use lot of it) at 3.38 cents per kW, makes it tollerable to put up with all the regulations.
In return we have 100% safety and 100% security and 0% to worry about - to me that is a good deal - especially since before we moved in we paid over $50,000 annually for "rent".
Not needing to make $50,000 NET before you are breaking even, makes a big difference in a "small" business.
Call me crazy, but the above is a good business decision. Security is number 1. Low overhead is as important as number 1.
quote:And the daily transport from Las Vegas is included - really a great deal that is 3,000 miles of monthly driving I do not have to do !
If you do not have the proper paperwork you can not even get on the bus in Las Vegas, that is if you can even find out where and when to board it.
The above is security oriented, so number 1 again.
quote:But mostly OUR Business is really NONE of your Business !!!
I couldn't agree more.
quote:That was budman.
Again NOT TRUE - I have never met the man !!!
Everything he bought from SynLube was shipped to him by FedEx Ground.
But on the other hand we have 3 dealers in Las Vegas that sell SynLube.
I think for his MURANO he bought it from one of them.
quote:Originally posted by ADFD1:
Facility? You mean his garage. Truth is if I were Miro I wouldn't want anyone knowing where I lived. That could be why a member posted about his dealing with Miro/Synlube was out of the trunk of a car. It might have been budman? I think that was mentioned on Bitog somewhere.
AD
The explanation above regarding his contract with DOE explains the "out of the trunk" business transaction. I've been in that position dozens of times over the past 45 years. I'd be much poorer had I not.
Heck, I've even delivered product to my customers. Colour me bush league.
So why are we back to nonsense ?
Why can not any of you explain why results from TWO different labs on the same oil sample do not MATCH ?
After all it was done by Noria/BITOG member at his OWN expense !!!
Should that not be of a MAJOR concern ?
You wanted VOA - you got it, but now total silence about that ?
WHY ?
Because it proves what I have been claiming for years ?
Why can not any of you explain why results from TWO different labs on the same oil sample do not MATCH ?
After all it was done by Noria/BITOG member at his OWN expense !!!
Should that not be of a MAJOR concern ?
You wanted VOA - you got it, but now total silence about that ?
WHY ?
Because it proves what I have been claiming for years ?
quote:Originally posted by Trajan:quote:Originally posted by Captain Kirk:
I have noticed that budman on the other site under synlube UOA is doing a very nice job with pictures of his engine and inside valve cover proving that the synlube works in his saturn and other car..mazda?
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/...umber=1842865&page=7
I do wish that some of these tests he mentions could be verified with actual scanned proof or internet links or something. Also verified documents of NASA/JPL using Synlube would also go a long way compared to hearsay. Or being able to show conclusively he is manufacturing his own product. But as his business, that is his problem.
And this gem: But I ended up having to meet someone in a parking lot who then sold it to me from his trunk. I remember at the time thinking, "ok, that was weird". I just spent $150 bucks and place didn't have a location I could go to.
5th post down kiddies.
quote:inHaliburton
Actually I am not even allowed to drive in a car, it has to be our "commercial van" to take the finished product out.
Shipping to customers is done elsewhere and FedEx picks up 2 times daily.
So definitely the "trunk" was not my trunk as all cars I drive are hatchbacks, or 2 seater sports cars with NO TRUNK ! (The engine is back there) or in case of X1/9 the electric motor driven A/C and SuperCharger is in the "back" trunk and batteries in the "front" trunk - it is sort of "hybrid" - the A/C works for 15 minutes when the car is parked and the SuperCharger gives it 5 to 15 PIS boost on demand - so realy I do not have a single vehicle with a "trunk".....or a boot !!!
So you couldn't have taken the stuff home with you and then delivered it? This story gets better by the minute.
AD
AD
In Reality the NISSAN Test Facility in Arizona has even tougher security than we do, they even take your cell phone and ID (Driver License) away from you when you enter.
Only that way they seem to be sure you have left, when you do !!!
At least I can still use my cell and keep my walet....
Only that way they seem to be sure you have left, when you do !!!
At least I can still use my cell and keep my walet....
quote:So you couldn't have taken the stuff home with you and then delivered it? This story gets better by the minute.
AD
NO I definitely DO NOT DO THAT !
Neither have the time nor desire to do so !!!
So "budman" should clarify - but that is up to him because IF I do so myself on his behalf it of course will not be trusted !
quote:So why are we back to nonsense ?
Why can not any of you explain why results from TWO different labs on the same oil sample do not MATCH ?
After all it was done by Noria/BITOG member at his OWN expense !!!
Should that not be of a MAJOR concern ?
You wanted VOA - you got it, but now total silence about that ?
WHY ?
Because it proves what I have been claiming for years ?
ONE MORE TIME !!!
I'd like to get someone to explain that !!!
I thought you guys wanted to know about lubricants ? Should that not get more traction rather if SynLube was at one time in someone's (not mine) trunk ???
Budman
Registered: 08/04/02
Posts: 30
Loc: NV No, I have never seen an actual location. The first time I bought Synlube (for the Murano, probably around 2005) I blindly went in thinking I would come to their place and pick some up since they were local. But I ended up having to meet someone in a parking lot who then sold it to me from his trunk. I remember at the time thinking, "ok, that was weird". I just spent $150 bucks and place didn't have a location I could go to.
This second and third time I purchased they both were fedex'd to me as well as the ADD oil I ordered past Dec. One time I did ask for a UOA for my Murano and Miro said I could drop it off to the place that receives their mail, which is the 2961 Industrial Road address.
I just don't know what to think. Part of me says forget the red flags and keep it in engines on schedule. Cars run fine. Other part of me now wants to go dump it out this weekend in both cars.
Registered: 08/04/02
Posts: 30
Loc: NV No, I have never seen an actual location. The first time I bought Synlube (for the Murano, probably around 2005) I blindly went in thinking I would come to their place and pick some up since they were local. But I ended up having to meet someone in a parking lot who then sold it to me from his trunk. I remember at the time thinking, "ok, that was weird". I just spent $150 bucks and place didn't have a location I could go to.
This second and third time I purchased they both were fedex'd to me as well as the ADD oil I ordered past Dec. One time I did ask for a UOA for my Murano and Miro said I could drop it off to the place that receives their mail, which is the 2961 Industrial Road address.
I just don't know what to think. Part of me says forget the red flags and keep it in engines on schedule. Cars run fine. Other part of me now wants to go dump it out this weekend in both cars.
Ok then Miro.
Verifiable, direct to the reports links for the ftp/aaa tests you claim to pass.
You claim it, you back it up. No synlube shuffle or Texas two step.
We want to click on the link and read it. No searching for it. no kirk like cries of google it.
Failing that, maybe we'll take the scanned in reports that you should have in your records.
Maybe, given your track record.
Verifiable, direct to the reports links for the ftp/aaa tests you claim to pass.
You claim it, you back it up. No synlube shuffle or Texas two step.
We want to click on the link and read it. No searching for it. no kirk like cries of google it.
Failing that, maybe we'll take the scanned in reports that you should have in your records.
Maybe, given your track record.
How about, do you send customers oil that has seen service in a vehicle before.
Just a simple yes or no will sufice.
Just a simple yes or no will sufice.
This is used oil folks...That's whay there is no rhyme or reason to the results...Different vehicles are going to deplete the oil differently.
The TBN on this oil is almost depleated. So these con artists collect some oil from a place, of course different vehicles using somewhat the same viscosity oil will have different wear numbers. They thrown in some crappy additive....And like magic...WE have synlube.
The con is even worse then I thought...I guess now the question is....HOW LOW WILL SYNLUBE STOOP?... I feel that is a good title for a thread folks, We are getting the information in from folks on the VOA's.
We now need to alert the public as to the scam being perpetrated by this low budget outfit called synlube!!!!!
The TBN on this oil is almost depleated. So these con artists collect some oil from a place, of course different vehicles using somewhat the same viscosity oil will have different wear numbers. They thrown in some crappy additive....And like magic...WE have synlube.
The con is even worse then I thought...I guess now the question is....HOW LOW WILL SYNLUBE STOOP?... I feel that is a good title for a thread folks, We are getting the information in from folks on the VOA's.
We now need to alert the public as to the scam being perpetrated by this low budget outfit called synlube!!!!!
Folks: I cannot recall a company, I am aware of, that has a lower, or more shady reputation then Synlube.
The one good thing that is coming out of the threads, is that Synlube has been completely exposed. They are so cheap, as to filter used oil, and dump some crap in it, and then make these out and out lies, as to it's durability.
The hoax HAS BEEN exposed. The worst of the damage, is being done by Miro and his minions, though they are more then likely, one and the same person.
Miro, if someone makes a product and market's it...No problem this is America, a capitalistic society. But when the product is a fraud 'USED OIL' and the perpatrator of the fraud, in turn attacks the folks, who question claims that don't add up.
Well folks Synlube is reaching a new low...I for one will not let this fraud go, without making the truth available for all...SYNLUBE IS USED OIL!!!!!SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!!!!
The one good thing that is coming out of the threads, is that Synlube has been completely exposed. They are so cheap, as to filter used oil, and dump some crap in it, and then make these out and out lies, as to it's durability.
The hoax HAS BEEN exposed. The worst of the damage, is being done by Miro and his minions, though they are more then likely, one and the same person.
Miro, if someone makes a product and market's it...No problem this is America, a capitalistic society. But when the product is a fraud 'USED OIL' and the perpatrator of the fraud, in turn attacks the folks, who question claims that don't add up.
Well folks Synlube is reaching a new low...I for one will not let this fraud go, without making the truth available for all...SYNLUBE IS USED OIL!!!!!SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!!!!
The only business I know, who sell stuff out a trunk make quite lots of money and put you in jail for a long long time.
Do you realize what you are saying? Let me summarize some of your claim.
-All the labs in the USA are bad and yours is better,
- Your oil is so good we can drink it safely,
-You know better then all the engineer, mechanics, oil industry, metal worker, of all America.
-You are immune to credit card fraud, the only shop in the world immune to it actually!
-You make your product in a facility that needs a high security clearance to just access it; still you talk about it openly all over internet. Did your split personality with kirk came from area 51 as well?
-You meet your customer in a parking lot to sell your product, and use anonym PO box to ship your product.
-You are friend with Bill Gate and he use synlube in is Lamborghini , but all the magazine say he own only porches and a stretched limo corvette , you beat even then the paparazzi!
-It’s impossible to find part for a vehicle after 5 year and most of them won’t be able to last that long anyway since any vehicle with 100k or more is a junk .
-Doctor who is stock in 1952 since he used synlube in the Tardis.
-Marty is stock in 1955 since he fried is flux capacitor causes he could not reach 88 miles, the engine seize ,Doc later said I should never have trust that sylube guy in the parking lot.
Do you realize what you are saying? Let me summarize some of your claim.
-All the labs in the USA are bad and yours is better,
- Your oil is so good we can drink it safely,
-You know better then all the engineer, mechanics, oil industry, metal worker, of all America.
-You are immune to credit card fraud, the only shop in the world immune to it actually!
-You make your product in a facility that needs a high security clearance to just access it; still you talk about it openly all over internet. Did your split personality with kirk came from area 51 as well?
-You meet your customer in a parking lot to sell your product, and use anonym PO box to ship your product.
-You are friend with Bill Gate and he use synlube in is Lamborghini , but all the magazine say he own only porches and a stretched limo corvette , you beat even then the paparazzi!
-It’s impossible to find part for a vehicle after 5 year and most of them won’t be able to last that long anyway since any vehicle with 100k or more is a junk .
-Doctor who is stock in 1952 since he used synlube in the Tardis.
-Marty is stock in 1955 since he fried is flux capacitor causes he could not reach 88 miles, the engine seize ,Doc later said I should never have trust that sylube guy in the parking lot.
Hes just a commom flim flam man and thats all he will ever be. You have to give him credit, he is as brazen as they come. Hes like the Grinch, when any doubt should arise he will think up a lie and think it up quick. He is commited to this scam. I believe he has told these stories for so long, he actually believes them now. (sad)
Some of these other syncrap groupies could actually be his accomplicies. I guess you don't need very many people to man a small scale scam operation such as this one.
Some of these other syncrap groupies could actually be his accomplicies. I guess you don't need very many people to man a small scale scam operation such as this one.
Enough Rif Raf
Explain why SAME sample from SAME bottle gets two different results from two different labs ?
If you are into OIL - explain !
All the noise from same person anonymous but under different screen names, just won't cut it with posts minutes apart !
Just got e-mail from budman, yes he submitted the Used SynLube Sample, but NO Virgin Oil.
He also did not publish any "comparison"
Both his cars have SynLube in them, no problems no complaints - ask him DIRECT !!!
Explain why SAME sample from SAME bottle gets two different results from two different labs ?
If you are into OIL - explain !
All the noise from same person anonymous but under different screen names, just won't cut it with posts minutes apart !
Just got e-mail from budman, yes he submitted the Used SynLube Sample, but NO Virgin Oil.
He also did not publish any "comparison"
Both his cars have SynLube in them, no problems no complaints - ask him DIRECT !!!
quote:Originally posted by Trajan:
Ok then Miro.
Verifiable, direct to the reports links for the ftp/aaa tests you claim to pass.
You claim it, you back it up. No synlube shuffle or Texas two step.
We want to click on the link and read it. No searching for it. no kirk like cries of google it.
Failing that, maybe we'll take the scanned in reports that you should have in your records.
Maybe, given your track record.
well?
And of course you can prove your paranoid allegation of one user with multi screen names.
You do know what proof is, right?
I know, I know, you can't accept the fact that people don't like this juice you push.
So tell us about the three people you actually conned into buying this swill and putting it in their cars.
Has anyone used Synlube oil in their car?
Terry
Registered: 05/27/02
Posts: 3845
Loc: Greenville , Texas zoomzoom, I have proprietary data for Synlube motor oils,provided by synlube that can be used for comparison and correlation for you when you begin using it.
I am not allowed to share that publicly but it enables me to get a good baseline for your UOA's interpretations.
If you guys think Redline is hard to "read" you ought to see this stuff in a UOA, like RL on steroids !
The PTFE and Graphite are adds that I question in the formulations.
I do like the POE bases used.
Miro, it sure seems like you have some kind of affiliation with Terry Dyson
Terry
Registered: 05/27/02
Posts: 3845
Loc: Greenville , Texas zoomzoom, I have proprietary data for Synlube motor oils,provided by synlube that can be used for comparison and correlation for you when you begin using it.
I am not allowed to share that publicly but it enables me to get a good baseline for your UOA's interpretations.
If you guys think Redline is hard to "read" you ought to see this stuff in a UOA, like RL on steroids !
The PTFE and Graphite are adds that I question in the formulations.
I do like the POE bases used.
Miro, it sure seems like you have some kind of affiliation with Terry Dyson
quote:Miro, it sure seems like you have some kind of affiliation with Terry Dyson
Not in our customer base - and for sure we do not release any "proprietary" data to anyone, especially if he is not using our products in anything.
Again anyone can calim anything on Internet or on post boards.
And any post from anyone taht is affraid to reveal their name, location e-mail, are sure questionable.
Send me e-mail for Terry Dyson and I will e-mail him !
Or better yet have him e-mail me since he apparently know how to do it!
quote:Originally posted by Miro Kefurt:quote:Miro, it sure seems like you have some kind of affiliation with Terry Dyson
Not in our customer base - and for sure we do not release any "proprietary" data to anyone, especially if he is not using our products in anything.
Again anyone can calim anything on Internet or on post boards.
And any post from anyone taht is affraid to reveal their name, location e-mail, are sure questionable.
Send me e-mail for Terry Dyson and I will e-mail him !
Or better yet have him e-mail me since he apparently know how to do it!
To Contact Dyson Analysis:
Petroleum Standards
Dyson Analysis
Attention: Terry
6279 CR 1140
Celeste, TX 75423
Phone: 903.413.2071
Email: terry@dysonanalysis.com
Here's the info Miro, so are you going to contact him.
quote:terry@dysonanalysis.com
I just did
Caught pedaling uSed oil. Now please explain how fuel is in your oil...The oil is used oil folks....USED OIL!!!
The TBN show's the oil is depleted!!
A flim flam man caught red handed...That is a title for a thread!!!!
SYNLUBE IS USED OIL...What a cheapskate!!
The word is out from sea to shining sea.
Do not buy Synlube...'USED OIL'
The TBN show's the oil is depleted!!
A flim flam man caught red handed...That is a title for a thread!!!!
SYNLUBE IS USED OIL...What a cheapskate!!
The word is out from sea to shining sea.
Do not buy Synlube...'USED OIL'
Scam Alert, Scam Alert, Run away, Run away
SYNLUBE IS USED OIL!!
quote:Originally posted by Miro Kefurt:
you just screwed up the third post should have been under you Trajan ID.
Can you keep your posts straight ?
Or will that take 3 more minutes:
Trajan =Date Registered: Sun March 14 2010
Nucleardawg=Date Registered: Sat March 13 2010
snakedoctor=Date Registered: Fri April 02 2010
When I screw up I let the old lady get on top.
Oh yeah, you are still a snake oil peddler.
Taterandnoodles
Anything looked or smelled like "used" oil to you ?
Trajan =Date Registered: Sun March 14 2010
Nucleardawg=Date Registered: Sat March 13 2010
snakedoctor=Date Registered: Fri April 02 2010
(same person really)
Want to know but fear to ask, but can not expain the difference between the LAB results...
(like Viscosity or TBN)
Anything looked or smelled like "used" oil to you ?
Trajan =Date Registered: Sun March 14 2010
Nucleardawg=Date Registered: Sat March 13 2010
snakedoctor=Date Registered: Fri April 02 2010
(same person really)
Want to know but fear to ask, but can not expain the difference between the LAB results...
(like Viscosity or TBN)
Miro Kefurt peddles used oil that he tries to pass off as 'syblube'
How does fuel get into your NEW oil!!!!EXPLAIN
The TBN shows it DEPLEATED!!
Synlube is used oil!!!
How does fuel get into your NEW oil!!!!EXPLAIN
The TBN shows it DEPLEATED!!
Synlube is used oil!!!
HOW does fuel get into your NEW OIL?????
THE TBN SHOWS IT DEPLEATED!!!!!!
SYNLUBE IS USED OIL...THE TRUTH HAS ARRIVED!!!!
THE TBN SHOWS IT DEPLEATED!!!!!!
SYNLUBE IS USED OIL...THE TRUTH HAS ARRIVED!!!!
You can run but you can't hide. Today you are a common flim flam man. Tomorrow when you get up you will still be a common flim flam man trying to con people out of their hard earned money. In your heart of hearts you know its true.
This oil will RUIN a engine if left in as recommended.
This molasses will never see the inside of my pristine engine
THE TRUTH IS FINALLY HERE...SYNLUBE IS USED OIL!!!
This molasses will never see the inside of my pristine engine
THE TRUTH IS FINALLY HERE...SYNLUBE IS USED OIL!!!
Again you forgot to sign in as Trajan - get your act together !!!
you have been exposed as seller of used oil!!
How does fuel get into NEW oil???EXPLAIN
WHY does the TBN show it as depleated???EXPLAIN
SYNLUBE IS USED OIL!!!THE TRUTH IS HERE FOR THE WORLD TO SEE!!
How does fuel get into NEW oil???EXPLAIN
WHY does the TBN show it as depleated???EXPLAIN
SYNLUBE IS USED OIL!!!THE TRUTH IS HERE FOR THE WORLD TO SEE!!
Now that Miro has been exposed as a common thief for selling a USED PRODUCT. People want to know the answers to the following question:
1) Why is synlubes business license permanently revoked in Nevada?
2) How does fuel end up in your new oil?
3) Why is the TBN showing the oil is depleated?
4) Why do you sell used oil as new oil?
5) Why do you continually lie?
You have been exposed!!! SYNLUBE IS USED OIL!!
1) Why is synlubes business license permanently revoked in Nevada?
2) How does fuel end up in your new oil?
3) Why is the TBN showing the oil is depleated?
4) Why do you sell used oil as new oil?
5) Why do you continually lie?
You have been exposed!!! SYNLUBE IS USED OIL!!
keep on it will be 70 pages before midnight tonight, our time not yours !
Common filtered used oil, re-packaged with some additives and put into used bottles, and then sold as a miracle cure.
You sold cars in a prior existence...Your ethics give car salesmen a bad name.
SYNLUBE IS COMMON USED OIL...THE WORLD KNOWS THE TRUTH!!
You sold cars in a prior existence...Your ethics give car salesmen a bad name.
SYNLUBE IS COMMON USED OIL...THE WORLD KNOWS THE TRUTH!!
No its a victory for truth as you were exposed selling used oil.
Synlube is used oil!!
This thread is done...The truth was brought out and it will soon be closed..
Noria wouldn't want to be associated with this SCAM any further. SYNLUBE IS USED OIL!!
Synlube is used oil!!
This thread is done...The truth was brought out and it will soon be closed..
Noria wouldn't want to be associated with this SCAM any further. SYNLUBE IS USED OIL!!
quote:Originally posted by Miro Kefurt:quote:So you couldn't have taken the stuff home with you and then delivered it? This story gets better by the minute.
AD
NO I definitely DO NOT DO THAT !
Neither have the time nor desire to do so !!!
So "budman" should clarify - but that is up to him because IF I do so myself on his behalf it of course will not be trusted !
It doesn't matter who clarifies, no one trusts you. If I were a mod here I would shut this thread down and send you packing, back to Mercury NV. From the lack of you posting at Bitog is seems they shut you down there, they should do the same here.
Seems the cat is out of the bag on you selling used oil with some garbage dumped into it. I'd say clear the launching pad and lets launch Miro from this board too.
AD
quote:Originally posted by Nucleardawg:
No its a victory for truth as you were exposed selling used oil.
Synlube is used oil!!
This thread is done...The truth was brought out and it will soon be closed..
Nucleardawg/aka/trajen/snakedocoter
Noria wouldn't want to be associated with this SCAM any further. SYNLUBE IS USED OIL!!
I think you've been drinking a little too much of that heavy cooling water at the plant you say you work at...wink..wink..nudge..nudge!
You do work in the Nuclear industry. So tell us.......what does heavy water taste like???
Do you even know what heavy water is.........let alone anything at all about Synlube???
Indeed ADFD1 the cat is out of the bag...SYNLUBE has been shown to be nothing more then filtered used oil with some additives thrown in..
Now that the truth has arrived I 2nd the motion that the thread be closed.
I also agree that Miro and his alter ego who just beamed in, Captain Kirk be banned for the continual lies that were exposed.
Synlube is used oil!!!
Miro is Captain Kirk.
Close the thread and kick the bums out!
Now that the truth has arrived I 2nd the motion that the thread be closed.
I also agree that Miro and his alter ego who just beamed in, Captain Kirk be banned for the continual lies that were exposed.
Synlube is used oil!!!
Miro is Captain Kirk.
Close the thread and kick the bums out!
They don't use heavy water...We are not building atomic bombs in world war 2.
It' called demineralized water
It' called demineralized water
I will continue to call as will many others for the closing of the thread as the TRUTH WAS BROUGHT OUT...SYNLUBE IS USED OIL...
The poster's Miro, and his alter ego Captain Kirk should be banned FOR THEIR LIES.
Noria this thread has served it's useful life the truth was brought out. Synlube is filtered used oil withadditives thrown in.
Not filtered enough to remove the fuel in it though.
Selling depleated used oil as new, and they have been caught.
Close it now.
The poster's Miro, and his alter ego Captain Kirk should be banned FOR THEIR LIES.
Noria this thread has served it's useful life the truth was brought out. Synlube is filtered used oil withadditives thrown in.
Not filtered enough to remove the fuel in it though.
Selling depleated used oil as new, and they have been caught.
Close it now.
quote:Originally posted by Nucleardawg:
This oil will RUIN a engine if left in as recommended.
This molasses will never see the inside of my pristine engine
THE TRUTH IS FINALLY HERE...SYNLUBE IS USED OIL!!!
My ruined engines(lol)don't know they are ruined even after 60+ thousand miles... they keep on running,passing inspection,using no oil,
running perfect,period!!
I use the product so I would know first hand that it does what it says!!
You don't use the oil,so you would not know about it's performance, nor can you intelligently comment on any of the facts in this now very informative thread,not withstanding your derisive and divisive uninformed comments of course!
You say you Work in the Nuclear industry........let me guess......as a nuclear physicist???
Ban Miro and Captain Kirk...If it is necessary to ban though's that refued to 'believe' I will also accept a ban.
Just lock the thread but leave it available for all to see.
The public needs to be made aware that Synlube is used oil for all time.
Just lock the thread but leave it available for all to see.
The public needs to be made aware that Synlube is used oil for all time.
A victory for truth and justice...as Synlube was exposed as USED OIL.
Noria the time has come to ban Miro and Captain Kirk, and close the thread.
But leave open to view as the public needs to be made aware of the scam that has tainted an industry... A company selling used oil and telling the public it is new.
Noria the time has come to ban Miro and Captain Kirk, and close the thread.
But leave open to view as the public needs to be made aware of the scam that has tainted an industry... A company selling used oil and telling the public it is new.
quote:Originally posted by ADFD1:
Facility? You mean his garage. Truth is if I were Miro I wouldn't want anyone knowing where I lived. That could be why a member posted about his dealing with Miro/Synlube was out of the trunk of a car. It might have been budman? I think that was mentioned on Bitog somewhere.
AD
Dealing from Trunk of a car like..........AMSOIL..AMWAY..AVON..TUPPERWARE...ROYAL PURPLE,ETC.ETC.
I actually have purchased royal purple products from the trunk of a car.....no big deal to me!!
Would those above companies be a scam based on your definition of scam because they deal out of the trunk of a car at times??? I expect to get no asnwer as usual. My Questions are too difficult!!
I can buy Amsoil from canadian tire,red line and royal purple napa and several other shop....
quote:Originally posted by Nucleardawg:
They don't use heavy water...We are not building atomic bombs in world war 2.
It' called demineralized water
http://www.global-greenhouse-w...y-water-reactor.html
Just like I figured..............you're clueless about your own Job... Unless of course you sweep the floors over the reactor where you say you work..........that would explain a great deal!! If you don't know what you are talking about............shut up.........or risk making a fool of yourself........too late!!!!!
http://webcache.googleusercont...&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
My definition of a scam is a company selling USED OIL AND MARKETING IT AS NEW OIL...
SYNLUBE IS USED OIL THAT IS THE FACTS...
MIRO IS CAPTAIN KIRK
Noria the time has come to ban this person.
Noria the time has come to lock the thread, no more publicity for thieves.
Leave it for others to read as a warning of Synlubes business practices, and unethical behaviour.
SYNLUBE IS USED OIL THAT IS THE FACTS...
MIRO IS CAPTAIN KIRK
Noria the time has come to ban this person.
Noria the time has come to lock the thread, no more publicity for thieves.
Leave it for others to read as a warning of Synlubes business practices, and unethical behaviour.
Yep like I said we produce electricty not bombs...If you google it at least read it...The DOE sites at Savannah River are not commercial reactor's.
BWR's or PWR's are not using heavy water...They produce ELECTRICTY Miro
BWR's or PWR's are not using heavy water...They produce ELECTRICTY Miro
Westinghouse, Areva, are not using Heavy Water in their commercial reactors...Now their were some experimental reactors operated at Hanford, Savannah River and some Bechtel operated sites for the Navy that may have..Again these were for making some crowd pleasing light and smoke shows.
If you cannot comprihend the material just ask and I will be happy to explain
If you cannot comprihend the material just ask and I will be happy to explain
quote:Originally posted by Nucleardawg:
Yep like I said we produce electricty not bombs...If you google it at least read it...The DOE sites at Savannah River are not commercial reactor's.
BWR's or PWR's are not using heavy water...They produce ELECTRICTY Miro
Your busted.........and now you're backpeddling!! You shoot your mouth off like a loose cannon without thinking, and also you are making false accusations about everything including my identity!
You're mouth is disconnected from your brain!!
ok...Whatever you say Miro...You don't understand I realize that.
Noria the time has come after exposing synlube as a fraud for selling used motor oil as new to close this thread and ban Miro and his other name Captain Kirk.
Please leave the thread open to read though as a warning for all to stay away from this unethical company
Please leave the thread open to read though as a warning for all to stay away from this unethical company
If I read right most of reactor use light water, I do believe he work in a nuclear reator why? Simple he have nothing to gain in the process, nothing to prove, nothing to sell all he said is I have full time job….and here go Miro attacking him because he said I have a job wtf .
You are the dishonest one, you become an expert on every domain when it’s needed, someone discredits your computer skill suddenly one of your personalities becomes an engineer. When question about your data, a tribiologyst . If we ask a location suddenly you need credential and security clearance.
You where a wanabee race driver, then a salesman, learns your place! Your scam is been exposed, here like it has been on the other forum you went, face the reality!
You are the dishonest one, you become an expert on every domain when it’s needed, someone discredits your computer skill suddenly one of your personalities becomes an engineer. When question about your data, a tribiologyst . If we ask a location suddenly you need credential and security clearance.
You where a wanabee race driver, then a salesman, learns your place! Your scam is been exposed, here like it has been on the other forum you went, face the reality!
quote:It’s a jeep thing you wouldn’t understand.
quote:If I read right most of reactor use light water
Got ya thinking.........didn't I...
It was't until I smoked out dawg about the heavy water that he changed from the mention of demineralized water and then moved to damage control mode, because as usual,he spoke without thinking first.......like some other guys here on this board! Heavy water is used very much so in the industry if you would ever read the links that are pasted on this thread like the above link would you know that.
Another loose cannon on the thread I see!! Look at all your remarks so far if you doubt that!!
Most of the time I can never figure out what the heck your posts even say in the first place... and the last one is no exception!!
By the way.......we are now off topic......again!!!
Did you forget that I have this lube in the engines in all of my cars and more.
Explain to me how the engines keep on running perfect over the very long term if the lube is as you say.........not worthy??
By the way...Miro is on the west coast and I am on the East coast. My engines are waiting for any of you characters to see the living proof running flawlessly. Care to take a look at over 91,000 dollars in inventory running with synlube at present when bought new!! Running as good or better than new!!!! Lawn mower included.....make that $91,450. AT least I put my money where my mouth is!!!
Don't knock it until you try it!!!! Otherwise why are you still here????? I have close to a hundred grand at stake and I am not worried the least bit...just the opposite......I am satisfied totally 100%..........what's your exuse and what are you worried about or all excited about anyway??????? Your not using the lube and you only look for every excuse in the book not to. If your not happy here..........leave!!!!
Yes Miro you welcome thank you!
quote:Originally posted by Miro Kefurt:
And any post from anyone taht is affraid to reveal their name, location e-mail, are sure questionable.
Nice to know you feel that way about kirk/inhaliburton.
Ok then Miro.
Verifiable, direct to the reports links for the ftp/aaa tests you claim to pass.
You claim it, you back it up. No synlube shuffle or Texas two step.
We want to click on the link and read it. No searching for it. no kirk like cries of google it.
Failing that, maybe we'll take the scanned in reports that you should have in your records.
Maybe, given your track record.
In case you forgot, Amsoil is API certified. Something aynlube can't claim. They also have regional warehouses and a HQ we can actually find on a map.
No mail drops or shady claims of operating in a place closed to the general public.
And, just so you know, I do not use Amsoil.
quote:Originally posted by Captain Kirk:quote:Originally posted by Nucleardawg:
They don't use heavy water...We are not building atomic bombs in world war 2.
It' called demineralized water
http://www.global-greenhouse-w...y-water-reactor.html
Just like I figured..............you're clueless about your own Job... Unless of course you sweep the floors over the reactor where you say you work..........that would explain a great deal!! If you don't know what you are talking about............shut up.........or risk making a fool of yourself........too late!!!!!
http://webcache.googleusercont...&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Guess you missed this part: "The first of the five heavy water reactors came online in 1953, and the last was placed in cold shutdown in 1996"
And you didn't pay any attention to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_water_reactor
And this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_water_reactor
Look down the page. What do you see? "The BWR uses demineralized water (light water)"
quote:Originally posted by Trajan:quote:Originally posted by Captain Kirk:quote:Originally posted by Nucleardawg:
They don't use heavy water...We are not building atomic bombs in world war 2.
It' called demineralized water
Just wanted to see if You actually sleep trajen.!!!!
Well it's official........you don't sleep ...you just spend every waking hour and every sleeping hour attacking synlube. That's 24/7 !!!!
WOW,YOU REALLY DO HAVE ISSUES MAN!!!
You must be off your meds again. You see......unlike you I take weekends off from this forum and only post on weekdays at night at that! What are you after exactly anyway!!
http://www.global-greenhouse-w...y-water-reactor.html
Just like I figured..............you're clueless about your own Job... Unless of course you sweep the floors over the reactor where you say you work..........that would explain a great deal!! If you don't know what you are talking about............shut up.........or risk making a fool of yourself........too late!!!!!
http://webcache.googleusercont...&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Guess you missed this part: "The first of the five heavy water reactors came online in 1953, and the last was placed in cold shutdown in 1996"
And you didn't pay any attention to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_water_reactor
And this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_water_reactor
Look down the page. What do you see? "The BWR uses demineralized water (light water)"
quote:Originally posted by Trajan:quote:Originally posted by Captain Kirk:quote:Originally posted by Nucleardawg:
They don't use heavy water...We are not building atomic bombs in world war 2.
It' called demineralized water
Wow......now you're defending Nuke..........shouldn't a guy who goes by the name of "nuke" be discussing nuclear info and defending himself!
How many hours of reading did you spend chasing me once again! You must be a shell shill..or some other big oil shill.....no doubt.
http://www.global-greenhouse-w...y-water-reactor.html
Just like I figured..............you're clueless about your own Job... Unless of course you sweep the floors over the reactor where you say you work..........that would explain a great deal!! If you don't know what you are talking about............shut up.........or risk making a fool of yourself........too late!!!!!
http://webcache.googleusercont...&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Guess you missed this part: "The first of the five heavy water reactors came online in 1953, and the last was placed in cold shutdown in 1996"
And you didn't pay any attention to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_water_reactor
And this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_water_reactor
Look down the page. What do you see? "The BWR uses demineralized water (light water)"
quote:Originally posted by Trajan:quote:Originally posted by Captain Kirk:quote:Originally posted by Nucleardawg:
They don't use heavy water...We are not building atomic bombs in world war 2.
It' called demineralized water
http://www.global-greenhouse-w...y-water-reactor.html
Just like I figured..............you're clueless about your own Job... Unless of course you sweep the floors over the reactor where you say you work..........that would explain a great deal!! If you don't know what you are talking about............shut up.........or risk making a fool of yourself........too late!!!!!
http://webcache.googleusercont...&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Guess you missed this part: "The first of the five heavy water reactors came online in 1953, and the last was placed in cold shutdown in 1996"
And you didn't pay any attention to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_water_reactor
And this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_water_reactor
Look down the page. What do you see? "The BWR uses demineralized water (light water)"
Is nuke/trajen/snakedoctor Canadian or US? Makes a difference!!
Or will you trajen.....answer for nuke once again.......because you are.......nucleardawg!!! It's like shootin fish in a barrel!!!! The only thing being exposed is all of your identities trajen!!!
Now back on topic if you don't mind!!
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.g...e/nucene/ligwat.html
If anyone thinks VOA/UOA is so reliable..........read this confirmation.
This just confirms what has already been stated about lab results vs the real world engine results.
Labs have many errors and issues with oil sample test results
http://neptune.spacebears.com/...stories/labtest.html
Here is virgin oil from a famous brand engine oil with some water in it according to the lab results. Those lab results will drive ya cazy!!! It's driving these guys bonkers!!
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/...wflat&Number=1606542
Margins of error below....yes errors!!!
http://neptune.spacebears.com/...stories/margins.html
Another one with an erroneous fuel reading nuke was sqawking about with synlube....it happens because of sloppy lab work!
http://webcache.googleusercont...&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
This just confirms what has already been stated about lab results vs the real world engine results.
Labs have many errors and issues with oil sample test results
http://neptune.spacebears.com/...stories/labtest.html
Here is virgin oil from a famous brand engine oil with some water in it according to the lab results. Those lab results will drive ya cazy!!! It's driving these guys bonkers!!
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/...wflat&Number=1606542
Margins of error below....yes errors!!!
http://neptune.spacebears.com/...stories/margins.html
Another one with an erroneous fuel reading nuke was sqawking about with synlube....it happens because of sloppy lab work!
http://webcache.googleusercont...&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
The plot thickens yet again with those pesky oil anlaysis results.
<a href="http://www.machinerylubricatio...297/oil-analysis-bus%5B/url%5D" target="_blank">http://www.machinerylubricatio...l-analysis-bus</a>
and yet again....
http://www.machinerylubricatio...l-analysis-standards
Even bob had his take on uoa...
ast-articles-of-the-month%26Itemid%3D78+used+oil+analysis+is+unreliable&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" target="_blank">http://webcache.googleusercont...&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
<a href="http://www.machinerylubricatio...297/oil-analysis-bus%5B/url%5D" target="_blank">http://www.machinerylubricatio...l-analysis-bus</a>
and yet again....
http://www.machinerylubricatio...l-analysis-standards
Even bob had his take on uoa...
ast-articles-of-the-month%26Itemid%3D78+used+oil+analysis+is+unreliable&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" target="_blank">http://webcache.googleusercont...&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
This takes it a little further and mentions in the article about getting very different results with the same sample of oil and playing with math. I wonder what this test would cost?
http://www.wearcheckusa.com/li...e/techdoc/WZA002.htm
MORE PROOF OF FLAWED LAB WORK.
http://www.hazardouswaste.utah...Adobe/fall08drip.pdf
THIS READ WILL GIVE YOU A MIGRAIN...........BUT MORE PROOF OF VARYING READINGS!!!
http://www.gastopsusa.com/know...thod_Application.pdf
http://www.wearcheckusa.com/li...e/techdoc/WZA002.htm
MORE PROOF OF FLAWED LAB WORK.
http://www.hazardouswaste.utah...Adobe/fall08drip.pdf
THIS READ WILL GIVE YOU A MIGRAIN...........BUT MORE PROOF OF VARYING READINGS!!!
http://www.gastopsusa.com/know...thod_Application.pdf
These are from Noria regarding oil sampling. Very good reads!!
http://www.machinerylubricatio...0/oil-sampling-lists
http://www.machinerylubricatio...oil-analysis-program
http://www.machinerylubricatio...l-analysis-standards
http://media.noria.com/pdf/poa/poa200507.pdf
This one talks lubes in aviation...same basic concept though. Errors once again an issue!
http://www.gaalert.com/Problem___Opportunity.html
This last oil analysis article really sums it up very accurate in it's title!
http://www.mt-online.com/compo...ng.html?directory=90
http://www.machinerylubricatio...0/oil-sampling-lists
http://www.machinerylubricatio...oil-analysis-program
http://www.machinerylubricatio...l-analysis-standards
http://media.noria.com/pdf/poa/poa200507.pdf
This one talks lubes in aviation...same basic concept though. Errors once again an issue!
http://www.gaalert.com/Problem___Opportunity.html
This last oil analysis article really sums it up very accurate in it's title!
http://www.mt-online.com/compo...ng.html?directory=90
Gentleman......assuming you have read all those links above regarding the accuracy and reliability of the various oil analysis services and techniques.............it's like I have been saying all along..........it's all about real world in the field results.
In my case........my engines never have any issues whatsoever using the lube-4-life.
In my case........my engines never have any issues whatsoever using the lube-4-life.
Kirk/Miro you flunked a UOA VOA, the smoke and mirror retaliation, classic! It isn't working though. Sorry the Mods find this thread entertaining and want to keep it open. More people will view it, be linked to it, and see you for the fraud con artist you are. Keep digging, you'll never get out of this hole. Shutting this thread gave you a chance to stop digging, which BTW is the only way out of a hole. Maybe the Mods are right in keeping it open, it will further trash the product, and keep the public from getting scammed.
AD
AD
quote:Originally posted by ADFD1:
Kirk/Miro you flunked a UOA VOA, the smoke and mirror retaliation, classic! It isn't working though. Sorry the Mods find this thread entertaining and want to keep it open. More people will view it, be linked to it, and see you for the fraud con artist you are. Keep digging, you'll never get out of this hole. Shutting this thread gave you a chance to stop digging, which BTW is the only way out of a hole. Maybe the Mods are right in keeping it open, it will further trash the product, and keep the public from getting scammed.
AD
Bottom line......why are all my engines running flawless. You have yet to answer that. I have even offered to show anyone my cars,and other equipment. No one accepts the offer.
I have a almost a ten year track record using the lube,with over 60,000 and six years on one car........and perfect engine. All you guys focus on is VOA/UOA. I just proved with above links they are flawed.
My engines are not flawed.......they run perfect and you refuse to accept that.
By the way,I live in New Jersey, not NV where Miro lives. So stop by any time if you care to and see for yourself.
quote:Originally posted by Houckster:
Just an update:
Ford Ranger FX4, 4.0L V-6 w/5-spd manual
Synlube installed: 27-Jan-2004
Miles: 45,449.7
Avg MPG: 19.774, mostly light city/suburban driving (EPA 15/19)
Other SynLube products: gear oil, power steering fluid, brake fluid, coolant
I have had excellent service from these products. No problems at all.
I use a CM filter and about 2 years ago, I removed it to check for any sign of oil deterioration. There was none. I reinstalled the filter but I replaced the media so that I could show anyone interested.
The engine feels consistantly strong, spark plugs look clean, no deposits on the tailpipe, cold starts, even after extended down time, are effortless. Oil consumption during this time is about 4-6 ounces.
I will take my six years of actual experience over any other standard.
For all the naysayers.......what about Houckster and his very positive experience just like my very positive results. Six years/45,000 miles and running for Houckster.
My engines have run flawless too, and are clean as well. One has over 190,000 miles and according to Miro engines don't last that long. The family has driven a Ford to over 300,000 miles and I have a buddy with a SB Chevy with over 375,000 miles on it, he posts on Bitog. Go figure, American Iron, not even a Yugo!
BTW I live in WA, Jersey is out of the question, sorry. Maybe I can visit Miro in his hidden bunker. I'm in the Military so I'm sure getting onto the site won't be a problem.
I knew as soon as a VOA UOA report came out you'd attack it. I wonder how you would have responded if the report was good, guess we'll never know.
AD
BTW I live in WA, Jersey is out of the question, sorry. Maybe I can visit Miro in his hidden bunker. I'm in the Military so I'm sure getting onto the site won't be a problem.
I knew as soon as a VOA UOA report came out you'd attack it. I wonder how you would have responded if the report was good, guess we'll never know.
AD
