Skip to main content

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

Closed1,525 replies

Synlube

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

Replies sorted oldest to newest

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ Houckster
I quoted this from your link http://www.synlube.com/prod01.htm. The purple letters " Not for use in Diesel fueled engines ! -"

What do they mean?

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


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

Do we have a deal? Wink
M mgbv8Member
Slick 50 contains PTFE same as Synlube

This is the transcript of an AA article published in Motor May 10th 1986.

The widely-advertised oil additive Slick 50 has been soundly slammed by the AA’s Technical Services.
The AA claim that their tests show Slick 50 provides no fuel savings when it is added to a cars engine oil – and there is no evidence of any other benefits under normal operating conditions.
The AA have made no press or public announcement of their report, but have produced a leaflet for the benefit of any paid-up members who apply for one. An AA member on Motor’s staff applied for a report in the normal way.
The report states that whilst there is no evidence the product will do harm to the engine, one good point is that most of it will be very rapidly removed by the oil filter. “At about £12 per treatment”, say the AA, “it is a very expensive way of coating your oil filter element”.
The AA performed tests by taking three identical cars and carefully running them in, splitting the driving equally among their test drivers. Oils were changed at 1500 miles, the cars were run a further 500 miles to stabilise the oils’ viscosity, the cars’ tuning was carefully checked and steady speed fuel consumptions and power outputs were measured.
The report says: “The procedure is so sensitive that, for instance, leaving the headlamps of the car switched on will make a nonsense of the results due to the extra drag of the charging system”.
Engineers added Slick 50 to two of the cars in the recommended way at 3000 miles.
After a further 2000 miles, further dynamometer tests were carried out. “One car should show the sort of gradual change expected of a car in good condition” says the report, “whereas two should show a noticeable improvement . Here came the big disappointment. After our several months of careful testwork, we could not distinguish any difference between the three cars.”
The AA claimed that all cars were performing well, but performance was remarkably consistent , within a few percent.
The AA say that a detailed examination of the claims made for the product will explain what happens when Slick 50 is added to an engine. Of one gallon of petrol burnt in an engine, says the report, some 60 percent of the energy will be lost as heat from the exhaust and cooling system. That leaves 40 percent and some 25 percent is used to drive the car and its accessories. The remaining 15 percent goes to losses such as pumping air into the engine (6 percent) and some 9 percent is lost as engine friction. Of that 9 percent, 6 percent is lost in churning the oil and only 3 percent of the total input goes into the sort of “boundary” friction that a solid lubricant could affect. “If tests of Slick 50 did show a 16 percent decrease in this friction, as claimed in current advertisements”, says the report, “it would only affect the car’s overall consumption by a half of one percent”.
The AA also claim that their tests show there is no evidence that Slick 50 produces a surface layer on the engine wearing surfaces, let alone one that could last for 100,000 miles.

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

Quote:

The AA report encapsulates my opinion of Slick 50, it is an expensive way of blocking your oil filter, Believe me, it does precisely nothing beneficial. It has been proven time and time again that it just blocks oil filters and oilways.

For all other “magic” additives, most are based on 1930’s technology corrosive chlorinated paraffins. (synthetic anti-seize compounds originally made 70 years ago. They are cheap, toxic and corrosive. We use them in certain types of cutting oil!) Do not touch them with somebody else’s bargepole!
H houcksterMember
MGBV8: This information is dated and worthless. Dupont now sells a version of PTFE specifically designed for inclusion in automotive lubricants. So does Shamrock Technologies.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Count me as a skeptic but before I leave ,

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



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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


See the entire section on SynLube Viscosity
M mgbv8Member
Houckster

Redline HTHS compared to M1

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

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

So any better than a good synth PAO?

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

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

The filters sound interesting do you have a link?

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

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

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

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

Any info use in Rally as Motorsport would be a testing ground. As you can imagine, SynLube is far too small to sponsor any racing efforts but some use of their lubricants is made in Europe. SynLube Racing
T timerMember
quote:
Originally posted by synskeptic:
I
From what I have read on this board, I get the impression that there is just no lubricant (mineral or synthetic) that, when used in an auto engine over time, will not degrade because of shear. Is my crude understanding of this correct?


No , the better oils will eventualy thicken but never shear below what they started as .

Oils degrade from combustion particulates and other reasons . The USA is far behind the Europeans in that they have been running longer drains for a period of time and actually sells concentrated top off oils for such drain up to 50k kilometers .

Typically across the pond these engines see no more than 3-4 oil changes in their lifecycle currently when maintained in this way .

Not a bad way to do it in a throw away world .

Now some cars are meant to be keepers from the start , maintenance should be adjusted accordingly for those types
H houcksterMember
SynLube does not normally change viscosity very much during its lifetime. In normal dino oils, thickening occurs when the shorter carbon chains are burned off in engine operation while the molecules in SynLube's components are uniform. BTW, the API still considers an oil fit for service even if the viscosity has increased over 300% from its unused condition.

The source of dino lube basestock is the residue from refinery operations which is about two quarts per barrel of crude (API SA). It contains long carbon chains all the way from those that go into asphalt to very short ones that make baby oil. The shorter chains are more volatile and burn off making the oil thicker. Just what specific reaction to heat an oil has is dependent upon the type of crude from which it was derived.

TIMER wrote: No , the better oils will eventualy thicken but never shear below what they started as.
Actually they do according to SynLube: The long chain polymer molecules that are present in most multi-viscosity oils to give them a high viscosity index can however, shear under stress and become shorter or smaller molecules. This loss of multi-viscosity property is sometimes referred to as "Viscosity Break-Down" a term that was introduced by CASTROL in their GTX Motor Oil commercials.
M mgbv8Member
Houckster,

Synlube base appears to be only PAO or esters etc so compared to a true synth, this should be compared to a synth and not dino.

Leaving aside Teflon, the only major difference appears to be synth additive package to make a 100% synth oil.

If RL is 65% ester then I would not expect Synlube to cost more than twice price.

What are these possible Synth additives that allow the extended drain and recyling of base stock.
M mgbv8Member
As far as I can tell Synlube is an ester based syth with Moly Graphite and Teflon as colloids, and overbased with additives and very expensive.

The extended life is only in ideal circumstances and can easily be reduced to 60k and does not deal with fuel dilution any better than other synth.

OEM oil filters are now very good to allow 2year change.
H houcksterMember
The SynLube formula is understandably proprietary. All I know comes from the website. It is composed of 5 liquid and 3 solid lubricants (graphite, PTFE [nanoFlon] and a synthetic form of moly). I am not aware of another lubricant with its properties. In fact, I am not aware of any lubricant on the American market that employs colloids at all. Only one marketer employs PTFE, Slick 50, and their use of PTFE is primitive with the particles of PTFE being up to 2300 times larger than the colloids used in SynLube.

With regard to fuel dilution, this should not be a problem in a properly functioning engine. The sealing of SynLube with its use of colloids is better than with any liquid-only lubricant on the market because the colloids are embossed into the cylinder walls to improve the seal. Moreover, what fuel does reach the oils, and this is an infintesimal amount, will evaporate during normal engine operation. Moreover, because SynLube is composed of inert ingredients, it will tolerate foreign substances like fuel and water better than any other lubricant.

Don't look for a pricing structure that reflects lubricants that are frequent replacement items like Mobil 1. Also, with a customer base of 13,000, SynLube does not enjoy the economies of scale larger companies do.

If you compute the price per mile of SynLube as I have done, the cost per mile compares vary favorably with any lubricant on the market. Then there is the time savings of only having to change the lubricant at 3K hours, 150K miles or 10 years WCF.

In my own case, I projected that the cost of SynLube would be about $195 which includes the oil, filter, magnets and a quart of replacement oil. In comparison, over the same 150,000 mile period, Mobil 1, replaced at 7,500 mile intervals and using their filter would cost $626 plus tax and that does not include installation so you'd have to install the oil yourself and then there would be the trips to dispose of the used oil etc. and the general cleanup.

I changed my oil for years and now that I don't have to, I don't miss it a bit.

SynLube sells custom tailored kits for any vehicle on the market and includes a 15% discount.
M mgbv8Member
Q&A
However, we recommend for the best possible protection and maximum vehicle life, that you change your motor oil every 50,000 miles or 5 years. If an oil change is delayed, SynLube™ Lube-4-Life ® provides an added level of assurance and protection that is not available in any conventional oils.



If your vehicle is mostly driven in slow city stop & go traffic and you average only about 20 MPH,
then at 3,000 hours of engine operation your vehicle will have ONLY 60,000 miles.

If your vehicle is used mostly for high-speed highway driving at 70 MPH,
your vehicle will have 150,000 miles on long before you reach 3,000 engine hours

Also at site
Start up boundary lubrication is provided by esters, most synths have these and often used as additive carrier rather than Mineral.
H houcksterMember
MGBV8: This is correct. That is why I have stated 2-3 times that the service life of SynLube is 150K miles, 3K engine hours, or 10 years, WCF.

In my own case, I project that I will get about 105K miles before changing becomes necessary as I average less than 30 miles a day.

You are also correct that for the ultimate result that SynLube should be replaced every 50,000 miles. To put this in proper perspective, this is for someone who anticipates keeping a vehicle for much longer than most people would ever contemplate. For the vast majority of people, the replacement interval described in the first paragraph is the proper choice. I believe Miro would agree with me since other parts of the car would surely be failing so as to make keeping the car unprofitable.
H houcksterMember
The oil analysis section deals with the problems of submitting SynLube samples to labs that are not equipped to evaluate SynLube properly. Other lubricants, for example, do not have solids and therefore the lab will flag these solids as contaminants. The main point of the section, as you have probably noted, is to provide those interested in how SynLube is doing in their engines with information that will place results from places like Blackstone in proper perspective.

With regard to cost, SynLube is less expensive. As you may remember, I projected that my total lube costs over the course of SynLube's service life (in my case) would be about $195. I am not generally a heavy driver and keep my vehicle parked to save fuel whenever possible. Consequently, I am projecting that over the 10 year period I will only accumulate 105K miles. Therefore I'll use the 10 year cycle.

Over that 10 year period, Amsoil would have to be installed 10 times and they require a filter change at 6 months (unnecessary in my opinion) to keep the warranty they provide intact. My Ranger uses 5 quarts of oil and the list price is $8.35 for the Series 2000 0W30 which is the oil I'd use if SynLube were not available. Now if you're like me, I'd press for a discount and let's say I can get the price down to $7 a quart. Then there's the filters and their top line filters range from about $9.75 to $28. Let's settle on $10 per filter. That's $55 for each year and that's only if you install it yourself. At the end of 10 years, your costs will be $550 (plus shipping and/or applicable taxes) vs. $195 for SynLube. That's a decent monetary savings of $355 plus the savings in time and the almost complete elimination of waste oil which should not be overlooked. Finally, you can return the oil to SynLube at the end of the oil's service life for a credit towards the purchase of new SynLube.
Last edited by houckster
T timerMember
While I can see your enthusiasm for this product both here and through the use of the Google search engine I cannot buy into it .

I can lube one Ford for year and 15k miles with two oil changes using factory filters and synthetic blend oil for 26.00

The other for 1 year , 1 oil change at 22.00 total .

Another Ford for 9.00 + filter for one year .

All the while dumping unwanted contaminates from the combustion process and fuel from winter driving then my Pennzoil , a Co. that employees many gets recycled .

Down time does not factor in for me as the vehicles need other service such as greasing the chassis , repacking the wheel bearings along with rotating the tires and servicing the transmissions. At these times draining the oil does not take meaningfull additional time for me nor do I have to take oil samples , send them in which is taking meaningfull time out of my day .

As they say , to each his own . Smile
M mgbv8Member
Has Synlube any special qualities?

http://www.performancemotoroil.com/409000

Apart from the other solids Moly is a solid, specifically banned by Cummins, due to excessive valve train wear.

Particles of the Moly can come out of suspension and agglomerate. This can actually clog oil filters or oil lines and the rest normally settles in the bottom of the oil pan. This seems to be more likely when using extended drain intervals
H houcksterMember
SynLube is a "lyophilic sol". The colloid ions in SynLube are permanently attracted to the ions in the liquid lubricants. They will never settle. They will never clog the oil filter or passages. The SynLube website goes into this question extensively under Q&A.

SynLube meets the Cummins performance specification 20076 (also called CH-4 plus or CH-4+).
C callisaMember
@Houckster
I am back from my vacation and read this thread again and some bits and peaces at the Synlube Homepage.

To make a long story short, I stay sceptic...
I still think that the claims from Synlube to exceed ACEA, ILSAC, API etc Specs with one oil without having passed those tests is at least questionable.
In some countries of this world this way of doing marketing could be even a fraud.

quote:
Being a skeptic is a good starting point for investigation if it doesn't mean rejecting information without justification.

I quoted this statement of yours, because I am still waiting for valuable information. It is common practice in the industry to use industry wide accepted tests to compare oils and evaluate them. But obviously these results do not exist for Synlube products.

quote:
SynLube is a "lyophilic sol". The colloid ions in SynLube are permanently attracted to the ions in the liquid
lubricants. They will never settle. They will never clog the oil filter or passages.

To verify such a statement, you should have at least results from a cold sludge test from Sequence VE/VG test, a M111 ACEA sludge test and a Peugeot TU3M hot oxidation test. So tell me, as Synlube does not have these results, how can they make such a claim?

If I understood this right, you want to use this oil with "refreshing" for 10 years and 105k miles.
At Synlube I found this statement:
quote:
But likewise these permissible extended oil change intervals are based on the expected service life of ONLY 5 years or 50,000 miles for vehicles operated under ideal conditions. If vehicle is operated under severe service operating conditions (as most vehicles are), or if longer service life is required, this extended service interval needs be likewise reduced to one half or one third.

This means that engine oil should still be changed every 12,000 to 7,500 miles in most automotive and light truck applications.

As Synlube states that most vehicles need an oil change after 7,500 - 12,000 miles - what makes you so sure that you are using the right driving pattern?
A analysisguyMember
Houckster, I frequent BITOG and am one of those that posted about synlube from your prompting.

I shared investigative testing on synlube here years ago. I have also shared what little I know about the products at BITOG.

I am not totally "down" on the products as I have seen proprietary oil analysis data of the products after use.

No one attempted to poo poo you, you had a chemist and physicist, Molakule, give you sound reasons for why he was skeptical, not dismissive.

The basic theory of formulation that is used is a old nazi/ eastern block turbine lube designed before many of the adds and baseoils where available to protect the pitiful metallurgy used in those years and countries.

From reading Callisa, he/she is automotive only and may not be old enough to remember the reasons for the formula.

You are obviously convinced on the attributes of the synlube products and are currently using them. Get some oil analysis work performed by a lab and analyst that can properly interpret the results on your car and truck. If it tests well then enjoy, if it tests poorly be willing to change course.

Quit arguing and see the results for yourself.

Post those results at BITOG and prove the worth of the products.

analysisguy
H houcksterMember
AnalysisGuy: Just who would be competent to do analysis of SynLube? Certainly not Blackstone. Also, I only have just over 8K miles on the SynLube in my Ranger so it's not old enough to show the kind of durability that would impress anyone.

As far as I understand it, SynLube does have it origins in research done by the Nazis in WWII but the current formulation completed in 1996 brings the formula up to date and it has recently met the new API/SM and ILSAC GF-4 (??) standards without problem.

As for arguing, this is one of the problems that I had at BITOG. They were apparently unable to perceive the difference between an exposition and discussion of the products properties and an argument. They wrote the product off without much consideration, Molakule's comments not withstanding.

As to when I will do an oil analysis, I guess that will be at 20K miles and not before. That's about a year away. I will post the results here.
C callisaMember
Thank you, Analysisguy. You are right with your statement, that my points are related to automotive.
In addition to this thread I'd like to add, that my focus is on long oil dtrain intervals. I try to understand what's happening during long oil drain intervals within the oil. I have data showing that it's possible to use quality oils under best case conditions up to a 100.000 Miles without an oil change. No wear, no high oil consumption - everything fine. These oils are readily available in the market for years - Yet I would not recommend anyone to do such long oil drain intervals in his private car.
Why not? Doing such long oil drains may lead to funny effects within the oil, which may harm your engine. Especially the infulence of fuel for oil deteoriation is tremendous. Using proper fuel is the most important thing in a long oil drain interval.
E.g. if you have traces of dienes or improper balanced PIBA / PIBSA Detergents / dispersants in your fuel - and you get problems. These molecules are added to your oil via blowby.
One last remark to Synlube - The ILSAC GF-4 spec limits the allowed TBN to below ca. 8. It's hidden in the phosphour / sulfur limits of the spec. How can the very same product fulfill a Cummins Limit of having a TBN of at least 10 and fulfill GF-4 at the same time? It's a miracle to me....
M mgbv8Member
VW Castrol SLX Longlife Overview for OCI
9k or 12mths or Longlife 30k 24mths about 5 times shorter than synlube and 3+times shorter than 100k best case (Callisa anymore details?)

LongLife Regime.
To obtain the most benefit from the LongLife service regime, the car should to be generally driven in a style/condition of use listed below
• Mainly longer distance journeys.
• Limited number of cold starts, engine is kept at operating temperature over a longer period of time.
• Daily mileage above approx. 25 miles.
• Constant speed.
• Vehicle used regularly.

Time/Distance Regime.
It your is driven in a style of use listed below, it may make sense to opt for the Time/Distance regime.

• Extremely uneconomical driving style ie continual maximum acceleration ie "foot to floor"
• Vehicle fully loaded
• Mainly short journeys.
• Frequent cold starts.
• Frequent hill climbs.
• Frequent towing.
• City Centre driving
C callisaMember
@MGBV8
I was talking about a 100.000 miles = 160.000 Km.

Your list describes very well the best case behaviour of a gasoline engine driver.

Diesel engines is something different for Europe. I know Diesel engines which are allowed to drive a 50.000 km ODI. But looking at the oil results and test results I have, I still see no reason why they should not be capable of driving 100.000 Km / 2 years with a good group III based 5W-40 ACEA A3/B4 oil, which is not that expensive after all.
H houcksterMember
In a search of the SynLube website, I am unable to find any qualification to the SynLube guarantee that the oil must be babied by restricting the use of a vehicle to ideal types of mileage. Thus I am of the opinion that SynLube is just as applicable to the little old lady who just drives to Church on Sunday as it is to the high mileage driver. This is a key part of SynLube's value.

Also, if TBN is a question in a person's mind, SynLube will sell anyone who wants it, several ounces of the necessary chemical to raise the TBN to the required level.
M mgbv8Member
Houckster,

The Q&A suggested OCI for styles of driving but recommended 50k or 5 years.

With other posts about the potential longer life of regular oil, oil suppliers do not have control over filters apart from on new cars, and oil fiters have been a weak link in the extended OCI.

There is also public demand for cheap oil that can be changed every 3k miles and so oil companies build to spec required, and only when a car mft requests a longer OCI do the oil companies fulfill the need, the exception being Amsoil.

Leaving aside the solids issue, what is different about Synlube compared to other synths, or could these be run for an equally long period if there was a Public demand.

Interesting thread on BITOG re Racing oil and Auto rx being the ultimate and expensive oil.
H houcksterMember
The Q&A recommended that an oil change inverval of 50,000 miles for the absolute longest wear from an engine but this is usually unnecessary in most cases. The 150,000 mile/3K engine hour mile interval is usually fine for most people since other parts of the car will start failing well before the engine does. Remember that the company offers a 300K mile warranty for engines equipped with SynLube since new. This warranty holds for the 150K mile intervals.

SynLube supplies oil filters that are of sufficient quality to last for the term of service they advise. This will vary with the car. I believe that currently, they are offering the upper level Fleetguard filters plus upper level GM filters that are designed with far better components than are usually available from auto parts stores.

I am using a CM filter that is rebuildable and filters down to 8 microns. It's flow capacity is so high that it doesn't even have a bypass valve. I believe I have discussed them and provided a link.

Beyond the solids, the advantage of SynLube is the inert qualities of the formula components. With this oil, problems like acidity are avoided in the first place. Dino oils that will form acids due to the interaction with contaminants introduced to the oil through poor sealing at the rings. Consequently, they need a high reserve TBN. This is the reason for the Cummins spec. When the reactivity of the oil is avoided, Cummins engines, I'm told, work fine with SynLube.

Another standout feature of SynLube is the additive package. At the price SynLube sells for, the additives (some of which are actually not necessary but are there for standards purposes) are of the best quality. The higher quality additives often tend to take up less of the total volume of the product. This is important as some of the additives have no lubricating properties in themselves and are there only to protect the oil from its environment. Dino oils often have up to 20% of their volume dedicated to additives.

In contrast, oils like Mobil 1 don't have the best additive package. Since the base oil is so much more expensive than virgin dino, the only way the Mobil 1 folks can compete is to cut back on the additive package.
M mgbv8Member
In contrast, oils like Mobil 1 don't have the best additive package. Since the base oil is so much more expensive than virgin dino, the only way the Mobil 1 folks can compete is to cut back on the additive package.

Any evidence that this is the case?

300K mile warranty for engines equipped with SynLube since new.

Which engines are these?

Synlube constantly compare product to a dino.

recommended that an oil change inverval of 50,000 miles for the absolute longest wear from an engine but this is usually unnecessary in most cases

Are not all Uaual recommended OCI based on absolute longest wear?

On assumption that Redline etc use the best possible esters - why can Synlube obtain a product 5x10 times better
H houcksterMember
quote:
In contrast, oils like Mobil 1 don't have the best additive package. Since the base oil is so much more expensive than virgin dino, the only way the Mobil 1 folks can compete is to cut back on the additive package.
Any evidence that this is the case?
ANSWER: I have seen some tests by Amsoil which indicate that their lubricant is better on the wear tests, especially when talking about Mobil 1 0W30. Also, Mobil 1 recommends adhering to the OEM OCI recommendations so in their view, since Mobil 1 is not promoted as a long interval change oil, they would rather sell at a lower price to be at least marginally competitive with the dino oils.

quote:
300K mile warranty for engines equipped with SynLube since new.


Which engines are these?
ANSWER: SynLube makes no qualification on this. Any engine should qualify.

Synlube constantly compare product to a dino. ANSWER: Yes. Dino oil is 95% of the market so that's the most relevant comparison. The website is primarily directed at average people investigating this product.

quote:
Recommended that an oil change inverval of 50,000 miles for the absolute longest wear from an engine but this is usually unnecessary in most cases.
Are not all Uaual (???)recommended OCI based on absolute longest wear?

ANSWER: No, car manufacturers have no interest in us driving OUR cars for 300K miles. They specify an oil that will give reliable service for a suitable amount of time which I believe to be somewhere in the area of 100,000 miles. After that they'd like to see you in the showroom real soon. The lighter weight oils (0W20, 5W20), in my opinion are examples of another attempt to shorten engine life. Most engines were never designed for these oils. Ford, for example has only 2 engines designed for thinner oils. The rest of their engines had 5W30 recommended for them just a few years ago.

On assumption that Redline etc use the best possible esters - why can Synlube obtain a product 5x10 times better.
ANSWER: Since both formulas are proprietary it is hard to draw comparisons but look at the marketing of the oils. SynLube emphasizes long use intervals while Redline emphasizes racing where long change intervals are not a consideration.
M mgbv8Member
I agree with light weight oil comments although HTHS is importent re wear, but the following re MB indicates this but 0W40 M1 is top product for say 25-30k mile 2yr OCI, which indicates additive package is up to scratch for top class machinery including SLR-McLaren

http://www.whnet.com/4x4/oil.html

recommended OCI based are still based on absolute longest wear, although the oil choice may be influenced by fuel economy?


Although most oil companies do not directly advertise their base those promoting top quality oils emphasise the base oil usually esters. The benefits of using esters are at the extremes as as expensive not used in any quantity for road oils. However they can be used instead of mineral oil as additive carriers. The claims by Synlube ignore this aspect and hide behind "formula are proprietary " with regard to base oils since they do not need to disclose exact mix, this is somewhat perplexing compared to Redline who are open about this matter to develope niche market.

A warranty based on very few cars having Synlube as first fill can easily be made.
H houcksterMember
Re: The link for Mobil 1 0W40 you mention is for a "European formula" which is very likely different that what we can get here since Europe's standards are higher than ours. The Amsoil comparison was for the 0W30 oil we can buy.

As far as OCI intervals, I remain convinced that OEM recommendations do not envisage the longest possible engine life.

quote:
Although most oil companies do not directly advertise their base those promoting top quality oils emphasise the base oil usually esters. The benefits of using esters are at the extremes as as expensive not used in any quantity for road oils. However they can be used instead of mineral oil as additive carriers. The claims by Synlube ignore this aspect and hide behind "formula are proprietary " with regard to base oils since they do not need to disclose exact mix, this is somewhat perplexing compared to Redline who are open about this matter to develope niche market.


Would you please redo this paragraph? I am not sure what it means. Thank you.
M mgbv8Member
Houckster

First time I've noticed solids used in convential oil other than Synlube.


----
Elf Molygraphite 10W30 Engine Oil (3 litres)
270638
Exclusive lubrication technology from Elf... incorporating solid lubricants of graphite and molybdenum disulphite. Available in 3 litre pack.

Key Features
Viscosity rating of 10W30.
Provide excellent thermal and oxidation stability.
Reinforced with dispersing and detergent properties.
Superior anti-wear properties.
High shear stability ... providing optimum lubrication at low and high temperature.
Suitable for all gasoline/petrol engine from 600 cc.
Benefits
Noticeable decrease in wear and tear due to cold start, especially in the morning.
Better lubrication at all times increases engine efficiency, better fuel consumption.
Maintain engine in silent operating condition.
Added protection from graphite and molybdenum provide better protection and increase reliability of moving parts.
Keeps engine in clean under all operating conditions.API: SJ
C callisaMember
61 K miles for 1 quart of oil. That is an extreme low oil consumption. It may sound strange, but to have a little oil consumption between 0,05-0,08 L/1000 km) is according to my experience best for your piston rings. Having lower oil consumption then that leads to a build up of hard, shiny coal in the piston ring groove. This shiny coal is the nightmare of a piston designer. It leads to cold stuck and later to hot stuck piston rings and to so called ring riding. The hard coal grows behind the piston ring, leading to increased piston ring wear. This coal is so hard, that you can't remove it even with a screwdriver.
It consists of Calcium / Magnesium salts coming from the additive package.
H houcksterMember
Per Callisa:
quote:
. . . hard coal grows behind the piston ring, leading to increased piston ring wear. This coal is so hard, that you can't remove it even with a screwdriver. It consists of Calcium/Magnesium salts coming from the additive package.
Because the SynLube formula is proprietary, we don't know if calcium and magnesium are in the formula in the first place. Since SynLube is designed for ultralong usage intervals, additives that have these problems are probably not in it. I think it is a mistake to assume the characteristics of an additive package for a motor oil costing $1-2 with the characteristics of SynLube costing $32. Such a problem as you describe would certainly have run the company out of business since they have a guarantee on the engine for any oil-related failures lasting up to 300K miles.
Last edited by houckster
H houcksterMember
During the last year or two, a study has been conducted on the Neptune website that tests the wear trends in Mobil 1 over it's lifetime. There are numerous difficulties with their methodology though I applaud their honesty. Many of the problems are simply due to lack of funds but also a reticence to be willing to "risk" a $5K engine. Also, as we all know, valid testing of lubricants is extremely expensive and time-consuming.

When I read of their intentions, I suggested that rather than test Mobil 1 whose properties were indeed pretty well known, that SynLube be used for the test. This proposition was rejected because of the oils inclusion of PTFE (nanoFlon) and because it is a 5W50 oil as opposed to the 5W30 viscosity speced by GM.

All this took place while a debate on MYFORDFOCUS.com (in which yours truly was one of the instigators) raged as to the merits or demerits of SynLube. This debate was in stark contrast to the restrained comments made here. Anyway, even Miro Kefurt, who owns SynLube got involved in the Neptune study. The following link traces the communications that occurred and they may of some interest to participants here.

http://neptune.spacebears.com/cave/syn-tolo.html
H houcksterMember
The Neptune site was primarily concerned with the inclusion of PTFE (nanoFlon by Shamrock Technologies) in the formula due to the problems seen when a crude form of PTFE was used in Slick 50. The PTFE in nanoFlon is in the form of colloids 0.3-1.0 microns in size. They are permanently suspended in the oil due to the attraction these colloids have to the molecules in the liquid lubricants. The person who conducted the Neptune study did not completely deny that PTFE might work in the oil but was still uncomfortable "risking" his engine by using the SynLube.

When a proper form of PTFE is properly blended with the oil, there will be no problem with its use.

In regard to the viscosity of SynLube, 5W50, the problem here is that such a wide range of viscosity arouses suspicion since cheap polymers added to increase the viscosity range of an oil can fail under hard use and then the oil experiences "viscosity breakdown", a term coined by Castrol and which might very well apply to their 5W50 Syntec oil as some indications on the Redline Oil site seemed to suggest. SynLube, in contrast, stays "in grade" for the duration of its service life.

To date, I am unaware of any standards organization that has specifically warned or implemented standards contrary to the SynLube formulation. The 1996 formula met the new ILSAC and API standards without modification.

No one on the site except myself has even seen a bottle of SynLube, I have been using it for 4 years and have nothing but praise for its performance.
M mgbv8Member
Why use a 50w oil rather than as recommeded by manual, unless used in applications where oil temperature will be higher?

Why add PTFE if only for noise reduction?

Is Synlube any better than any other longlife oil?

With top quality synthetics the reason for changes appears now more to do with additives being used up not viscosity breakdown, mineral oil not even being used as a carrier. Soot/fuel dilution also change viscosity.
H houcksterMember
quote:
Why use a 50w oil rather than as recommeded by manual, unless used in applications where oil temperature will be higher?
Many OEMs recommend oils that are too thin to be compatible with the quality of life for our engines. As you may well know, the OEMs key their maintenance requirements to the expected life of the car which will vary from 70 to 150K. Now, no one believes that the car will fall apart @ 70K but that is the point where one can expect to begin anticipating repairs. 0W20 and 5W20 oils just don't work when one is going to keep a vehicle for 10-15 years. There's no secret about this. A 20W oil is a 20W oil and by definition provides less protection than a 30W oil given that both oils are in functional condition. When SynLube provides a 1-2% advantage in gas mileage over the thin oils in addition to providing superior engine performance, give me a reason (Hint: There isn't one.) why anyone would use anything else, especially since it doesn't have to be changed but once every 150K miles.

quote:
Why add PTFE if only for noise reduction?
Why not? PTFE does its part for the engine protection and is particularly effective protecting sleeve bearings. As I've pointed out exhaustively, properly implemented, PTFE helps an engine.

quote:
Is Synlube any better than any other longlife oil?
Yes!! It is better than any oil in any climate for any engine (except a rotary) on weekdays, holidays, Sundays, Boxing Days, and National Cement Pavers Day. No exceptions!!!!

quote:
With top quality synthetics the reason for changes appears now more to do with additives being used up not viscosity breakdown, mineral oil not even being used as a carrier. Soot/fuel dilution also change viscosity.
Since SynLube has been designed from the start to effectively fight soot, and other forms of contamination, one isn't taking any chance at all using SynLube for the full duration of its service life. Its ability to prevent deterioration in the first place is due to its unsurpassed ring-sealing ability. Many of the problems experienced with oils are a direct result of their reaction to the presence of heat, which causes oil molecules to bind to contaminants thus undermining the oil's ability to protect. Because SynLube's components are inert, deterioration of the lubricant occurs at an extremely slow rate. At the end of the service life of SynLube, it is still more effective than any other oil when new! Additionally, when it's time to replenish oil that's been consumed, SERVICE FILL or ADD OIL are designed to supplement the original additive package, not just replace lost volume. This is a fundamental difference from any other oil on the market I'm aware of.

There is no reason not to use SynLube in a properly functioning engine. None!!!

It still amazes me to see people on board like this that are always looking for the best oil immediately scramble to find some excuse not to use SynLube.

I eagerly await the cries of denial that will follow this post. I love the ones about PTFE. I just have to laugh sometimes.
Last edited by houckster
H houcksterMember
The function of PTFE (nanoFlon) in SynLube is presented as follows:
quote:
The PTFE colloids that are contained in SynLube Lube-4-Life® reduce the Bearing Clearances, which in turn lower the lubricant side leakage rate. This brings onset of the favorable Hydrodynamic Lubrication regime at lower rotational speeds and results in better fuel efficiency and less Wear. Reduced clearances also reduce vibration and noise generation, SynLube Lube-4-Life® lubricated mechanisms therefore run noticeably quieter sometimes [by] up to several decibels.


The primary means by which PTFE forms a "coating" occurs as a function of normal engine operation when an extremely heavy load is placed on an engine component. The PTFE becomes plasticized and is pushed into the fine "valleys" in machined surfaces. Secondarily, they are also found on metal parts as a result of being attracted to the esters in the formula that are negatively charged and therefore attracted to positively charged engine surfaces.

All of this occurs well before the 450 degrees Centigrade mention. This temperature should never be encountered in a anything approaching normal engine operation.
C callisaMember
@Houckster
We all know that you are convinced of Synlubes products. Yet I stay sceptic as you are mixing up so many things which just can't be true. The mineral oil industry e.g. uses much better products than PTFE as friction modifier, e.g. Molybdenumdithiocarbamates.

It is simply impossible to reduce the bearing clearances with Teflon. By the way, by doing this you would raise the oil temperature significantly.

I tried to explain to you other obvious mistakes during this thread.
In addition it does not make sense to claim that a 10 year old used oil is better than a new unused synthetic oil.

You are right by claiming that I never even saw a bottle of Synlube oil. But I saw many other oils and many engine oil test results to do such statements.
H houcksterMember
quote:
. . .you are mixing up so many things which just can't be true. The mineral oil industry e.g. uses much better products than PTFE as friction modifier, e.g. Molybdenumdithiocarbamates."
I am not mixing things up, it's just that you have some very hard preconceptions about what an oil can do and how it should be done. Consequently, any other approach seems fallacious to you. Just because you throw around a big word or two doesn't mean your basic proposition is true.

While SynLube does use PTFE as part of the effort to reduce friction, it is only part of the solution. The strength of the Synlube formula is that it uses a combination of chemicals to do this job. Thus to say that SynLube uses PTFE while other makers use Molybdenumdithiocarbamates, for example, is inaccurate to say the least.

quote:
It is simply impossible to reduce the bearing clearances with Teflon. By the way, by doing this you would raise the oil temperature significantly.
I never said this, I said that PTFE is embossed into the pores of the metal surface, not that it reduces clearances per se. No metal surface is completely smooth. It is in the irregularities of the surface that SynLube's PTFE and synthetic moly colloids are found and it is in this way that SynLube improves the seal at the piston rings.

quote:
I tried to explain to you other obvious mistakes during this thread.
In addition it does not make sense to claim that a 10 year old used oil is better than a new unused synthetic oil.
Presumptious and condescending! You have your opinion and I have mine.

quote:
You are right by claiming that I never even saw a bottle of Synlube oil. But I saw many other oils and many engine oil test results to do such statements.
I stand by my statement. SynLube has properties that other makers who make liquid-only lubricants don't can't even try to duplicate. It is the solids in SynLube that provide a quality and longevity of lubrication that liquids don't have. I stand by my statement.
M mgbv8Member
Noise reduction is not essential for protection but can mask perhaps problems. PTFE is not that good on the friction angle probably causing heat so why include this solid.

The only other oil using solids appears to be the cheaper end of market.

Amsoil has been run for long OCIs without problems.

Most mainstay oil companies probably take a conservative view on oil changes until pushed by the maufacturer due to increasing service intervals. At best Synlude uses a good basestock but, too much ester may not be good so must be a fairly standard PAO plus some esters, but not worth anymore than other synthetics. An oil can only take a certain amount of additives which is the reason for usually changing a synth.
An additive top up is being worked on I believe with oil filters, so the top up appears to be only difference but how this mixes with the old oil is a questionable.
H houcksterMember
It seems clear that no matter what the properties of SynLube, there is an overwhelming proclivity to believe the worst no matter how far-fetched. How it can be believed that PTFE "is not that good on the friction angle probably causing heat so why include this solid." is hard for me to understand, especially since in 4 years of USING this product I have never had a problem with heat or any other problem. This apparently counts for nothing.

The rest of the post, I'm not sure I understand. There are fragments of logic presented end to end but not enough for me to respond to.

It does seem to me however, that I'm wasting my breath. Hopefully, without seeming mean-spirited, it is hard to avoid concluding that you are perfectly satisfied with what you're using and are not interested in SynLube's advantages. Consequently, there will always be another objection to trying it.

I think I am going to ride off into the sunset.

May all fair well!
N n2oilMember
This product seems odd. I emailed Miro and my Suburban is already worn out it seems. 122,000 miles on the odometer. The car that sets next to it also a GM product reflects 225,000 miles on the odometer. Miro sent an email that basically wondered why I would think of putting his oil in such a piece of junk. And one more thing... who in the heck refilters their oil?? Micro, nano, sub-micronic, redistilling all these are nice for smoke and mirrors but nobody else does it.
Next
Post

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×