Skip to main content

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

quote:
Originally posted by N2OIL:
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.


Do I understand your posting correct that you used Synlube in a prescribed manner and you know have problems with your engine?
Can you describe your problems?
I was going to try this product. I emailed the website about questions concerning the oil. My question was using a 5/50 seems out there for a 5/30 application. The email I recieved expressed that anything over 100,000 miles is worn out for a vortec V-8 engine.
The main guy's name is Miro. He actually asked why I would waste the money on his oil. I read all the posts about how great this oil is and I thought I would share some insight to who you might be dealing with as a consumer of this oil.
I am not remotely convinced that synlube is all that its proponents claim. Junk Science comes to mind but I won't go there.
Synlube seems dubious and defensive on the challenges to it's scientific merit. Besides the belief that so many motors are "worn out" at 70-100k miles is laughable. And seriously puts a dent in the credibility of the claims.
From reading this discussion and other things on the Web, it seems to me possible that:

Houckster = liar = Miro

That is, possibly, Houckster and Miro are the same liar.

The other possibility is that Miro is a liar, and Houckster is an easily mislead fool.

In either case, the falsehood emanating from them has its origins in the Evil One. Perhaps Miro is one of his children. Perhaps Houckster is easily taken by his seductive lies.

Houckster, Miro, get behind me--you who are infested by Satan!
I know this topic is a month old yet after reading this discussion I strongly feel that everyone is entitled to their thoughts and can explain them in a civilized manner, however to castigate someone after reading a topic of discussion and to call into question there character without personally knowing them is a bit judgemental and can only instigate strife which is unecessary in a forum that is designed to contribute to some form of enlightment on the subject at hand albiet not a life crisis.

Nonetheless respect and appreciation for others views allows for open communication such sharing allows for even the smallest insight on a matter even if the subject matter is oil "Synlube"

Unfortunately this exactly how such comments facilitate hostility and animosity unecessarily. Mature adults do not have to resort to name calling in order to prove ones point.

Houckster youre internal strengh is to be commended given you had not dignified the last response with answer. I applaud your efforts in trying to establish your point, a goodly amount of which you described opens the door for due consideration and some reasonableness on this brand of oil.
Last edited by gsleve
Thank you for your very kind comments. I really appreciate it.

I continue to have excellent performance from the SynLube products I've installed. Oil consumption remains incredibly low, on the order of 4 oz over 14.3K miles and with mileage well above average for my Ranger. I couldn't ask for more. I am going to submit a sample to Miro at 15K miles for some feedback, thereafter, I'll wait until 50K for another test.

Thanks again.
There is one simple reason that Houkster is so keen on Synlube.... he owns it! Anyone who wants to go to http://www.synlube.com will readily find out that 'Miro Kefurt' is the head honcho there! He is not a user only! As he sits in his abode in Las Vegas and promotes, mainly at his computer terminal, At $32.00 per quart [liter] - he does not have to sell too may knot heads his PTFE Cocktail in order to buy his own 'Throw Away Car' - no matter what he puts in the engine! AMSOIL is just AMSOIL - it's 32 year history of growth [will top $100,000,000.00 in sales for 2005] speaks for itself! Miro has threatened to sue me several time for owning the name synlube.net, and has accused me of buying that domian in order to get his customers. I didn't even know his stuff existed when I bought that domain name! I just saw it being used in all the trade literature, with a small 's', as a generic for SYNthetic LUBricants and though it would be a catchy name - for pete's sake! Who could have know that Miro wants to kraft the ownership of a 'Kleenex' type name? For the record - I do not want Miro's customers! Anyone dumb enough to pay $32.00 per quart [liter] for anything that does not have the name 'Dom Pirignon'; 'Chateau Lafite' or Pennicillin on it is off his skids - PERIOD! I read all of "Hucksters" [sic] posts and saw not a serious word about all the dirt [carbon, acid etc.] that accumulates in Lube4Life 'miracle water'. And waht about TBN..... even AMSOIL's TBN falls off eventually! Surely AMSOIL gets dirty as all git out if the filter is not changed! And even if the filter IS changed at say 12,500 miles - the oil is black as tar, until a good 5 micron filter change helps to brighten it up a bit DIRT is DIRT!!!! For $6 bucks a quart - AMSOIL's 25K oil is a good trade-off for EXMO's new 15,000 mile oil at the same price! There are 4,920 references in Google for synlube [sic] and 1/2 of them are Miro's.... the others prove it is a generic term! Type in AMSOIL once and you will see 298,000 references to it! There sure are a lot of dumb people out there! I am one of them! tlk
Infomercial? You gotta be kidding! The difference between me and 'Houkster' is that I come right out and tell you I sell AMSOIL. Personally I do not care if anyone here ever buys AMSOIL..... my sales and my overall success do not depend on me masquerading as an AMSOIL consumer like he does! NO WHERE does Miro Kefurt [Lube4Life huckster] candidly tell anyone that he owns the company! Who is doing the infomercials? Everyone on this board who carries on an ongoing dialog with him is being infomercialized up the gazoo! tlk

p.s. Please, if you are a friend his or a user of the wigit juice that Houkster is selling - DO NOT CALL ME AND ASK TO BUY AMSOIL.... I DO NOT WANT HIS BUSINESS OR YOURS! Neither AMSOIL Corporate nor 'any - any - any' manufacturer - or myself would ever tell someone to put gun lube [PTFE - petrotetroflourethelene (sic)] or frying pan coating in his engine, motor, diesel, turbine, or jet. P_E_R_I_O_D !!!

Read the following article.....


USING TEFLON(R) ADDITIVES
_________________________

Not Very Smart
By James R. Davis


I will admit at the outset that I have no experience whatever in using Slick 50 (nor will I ever). Further, though much will be said of Slick 50 in what follows, it is all generally true of any other synthetic additive containing Teflon®.

Slick 50 is a PTFE related product (i.e., a Teflon® powder suspended in standard oil). Powder, you will note, is a SOLID. Your oil filter is designed to remove solids and tests have shown that oil filters clog substantially sooner when Slick 50 is used than if using standard oils without it - naturally. Manufacturers claim that the particle size of this powder is smaller than the pore size of oil filters, implying that they will pass right through them, but they do not also say that these particles expand rapidly when exposed to heat - so that they may well pass thru when cold, but not after they reach normal engine temperatures. Tests also demonstrate that other oil passageways also tend to clog when PTFE is used.

Tests? By whom? Are they credible? Answer: by organizations like NASA Lewis Research, the University of Utah Engineering Experiment Station, and even DuPont Chemical Corporation, the corporation that invented PTFE (Teflon®) and that provides PTFE to the manufacturers of these 'magic' oils.

Wait! They sell the PTFE to companies like those that make Slick 50 yet they argue that it clogs oil filters and other oil passageways? Not exactly. In a statement issued about ten years ago, DuPont's Fluoropolymers Division Product Specialist, J.F. Imbalzano said,

"Teflon is not useful as an ingredient in oil additives or oils used for internal combustion engines."

They went on and REFUSED to sell PTFE to anyone that intended to do so!
Naturally, they were sued by, guess who, on grounds of 'restraint of trade'. DuPont lost and have changed their position as follows: DuPont now states that though they sell PTFE to oil additive producers, they have "no proof of the validity of the additive makers' claims." They further state that they have "no knowledge of any advantage gained through the use of PTFE in engine oil."

NASA Lewis Research also ran tests on PTFE additives and they concluded that:

"In the types of bearing surface contact we have looked at, we have seen no benefit. In some cases we have seen detrimental effect. The solids in the oil tend to accumulate at inlets and act as a dam, which simply blocks the oil from entering. Instead of helping, it is actually depriving parts of lubricant."

As to my earlier assertion that Teflon® cannot be made to bond to engine parts, despite what Slick 50 says, the Chief Chemist of Redline Synthetic Oil Company, Roy Howell, says:

"... to plate Teflon on a metal needs an absolutely clean, high temperature surface, in a vacuum. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the Teflon in Slick 50 actually plates the metal surface. In addition the Cf (Coefficient of friction) of Teflon is actually greater than the Cf of an Oil Film on Steel. Also, if the Teflon did fill in 'craters' in the steel, than it would fill in the honing of the cylinder, and the oil would not seal the piston rings."

Well, you get the picture. PTFE products like Slick 50 tend to clog oil filters and passageways, resulting in faster ENGINE WEAR. Further, Teflon® is NOT as slippery as an Oil Film on Steel.

Nobody is arguing that you won't get higher engine performance (power) or better gas mileage if you use it. On the other hand, if your engine wears out faster I wonder if that's worth it along with the very much higher price.

If you find that you have to change your oil more often, and use this pricey stuff in it each time, the effective cost is even higher. If you decide that clogged oil filters and oil passageways are something you'd rather do without, how do you get rid of it once you put it into your system? Well, in the case of your clutch, by taking it apart and cleaning it! That's an expensive additive 'cost'.

It is no wonder as far as I'm concerned that Slick 50 is often called 'snake oil'. You might not be stupid if you put it into your motorcycle, but I would be.
-------
Following is a press release from the Federal Trade Commission that you will find interesting if anything I said above fails to be persuasive - JRD

FOR RELEASE: JULY 23, 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUAKER STATE SUBSIDIARIES SETTLE FTC CHARGES AGAINST SLICK 50
Agreement Safeguards $10 Million in Redress to Consumers

Three subsidiaries of Quaker State Corp. have agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that ads for Quaker State's Slick 50 Engine Treatment were false and unsubstantiated. Under the terms of the settlement, the companies will be barred from making certain claims and required to have substantiation for claims about the performance, benefits, efficacy or attributes of their engine lubricant products. In addition, the settlement will preserve the Commission's option to seek consumer redress if class action suits currently being litigated against Quaker State and its subsidiaries result in less than $10 million in consumer redress.

The three Quaker State subsidiaries named in the settlement are Blue Coral, Inc., Blue Coral-Slick 50, Inc., and Blue Coral-Slick 50, Ltd. Blue Coral, Inc., is based in Cleveland, Ohio. Since its 1978 introduction, Slick 50 has about 30 million users world-wide and retails for about $18 a quart. The company claims to have about 60% of the engine treatment market.

In July, 1996, the FTC issued a complaint against four now-defunct Quaker State subsidiaries, which have been succeeded in interest by the three subsidiaries named in the settlement. The FTC's 1996 complaint charged that ads for Slick 50 claiming improved engine performance and reduced engine wear were deceptive. According to the 1996 complaint, Quaker State's subsidiaries aired television and radio commercials and published brochures carrying claims such as:

--"Every time you cold start your car without Slick 50 protection, metal grinds against metal in your engine";

--"With each turn of the ignition you do unseen damage, because at cold start-up most of the oil is down in the pan. But Slick 50's unique chemistry bonds to engine parts. It reduces wear up to 50% for 50,000 miles";

--"What makes Slick 50 Automotive Engine Formula different is an advanced chemical support package designed to bond a specially activated PTFE to the metal in your engine."

According to the FTC complaint, these claims and similar ones falsely represented that without Slick 50, auto engines generally have little or no protection from wear at start-up and commonly experience premature failure caused by wear. In fact, the complaint alleged, most automobile engines are adequately protected from wear at start-up when they use motor oil as recommended in the owner's manual. Moreover, it is uncommon for engines to experience premature failure caused by wear, whether they have been treated with Slick 50 or not, according to the FTC. Finally, the FTC alleged that Slick 50 neither coats engine parts with a layer of PTFE nor meets military specifications for motor oil additives, as falsely claimed.

The FTC complaint also charged that Slick 50 lacked substantiation for advertising claims that, compared to motor oil alone, the product:

--reduces engine wear;

--reduces engine wear by more than 50%;

--reduces engine wear by up to 50%;

--reduces engine wear at start-up;

--extends the duration of engine life;

--lowers engine temperatures;

--reduces toxic emissions;

--increases gas mileage; and

--increases horsepower.

In addition, the complaint alleged that the company did not have adequate substantiation for its advertising claims that one treatment of Slick 50 continues to reduce wear for 50,000 miles and that it has been used in a significant number of U.S. Government vehicles.

Finally, the complaint challenged ads stating that "tests prove" the engine wear reduction claims make by Slick 50. In fact, according to the FTC complaint, tests do not prove that Slick 50 reduces engine wear at start up, or by 50%, or that one treatment reduces engine wear for 50,000 miles.

The agreement to settle the FTC charges bars any claims that:

--engines lack protection from wear at start-up unless they have been treated with Slick 50 or a similar PTFE product;

--engines commonly experience premature failure caused by wear unless they are treated with Slick 50 or a similar PTFE product; or,

--Slick 50 or a similar PTFE product coats engine parts with a layer of PTFE.

In addition, the agreement will prohibit misrepresentations that Slick 50 or any engine lubricant meets the standards of any organization and misrepresentations about tests or studies.

The settlement also prohibits any claims about the performance, benefits, efficacy, attributes or use of engine lubricants unless Quaker State's subsidiaries possess and rely on competent and reliable evidence to substantiate the claims. In addition, it prohibits the Quaker State subsidiaries from claiming that any other Slick 50 motor vehicle lubricant reduces wear on a part, extends the part's life, lowers engine temperature, reduces toxic emissions, increases gas mileage or increases horsepower unless they can substantiate the claim. The subsidiaries also will be required to notify resellers of the product about the settlement with the FTC and the restrictions on advertising claims.

Finally, the agreement holds open the option that the FTC may seek consumer redress. If the private class action suits against Slick 50 currently under litigation do not result in at least $10 million in redress to consumers, the agency reserves its right to file its own federal district court action for consumer redress. In addition, the FTC has reserved its right to seek to intervene in any class action suit to oppose a settlement it believes is not in the public interest.

The Commission vote to approve the proposed consent agreement was 5-0. A summary of the agreement will be published in the Federal Register shortly and will be subject to public comment for 60 days, after which the Commission will decide whether to make it final. Comments should be addressed to the FTC, Office of the Secretary, 6th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580.

NOTE: A consent agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission of a law violation. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of $11,000.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copies of the complaint, consent agreement, an analysis to aid public comment and an FTC brochure, "Penny Wise or Pump Fuelish" are available on the Internet at the FTC's World Wide Web site at: http://www.ftc.gov and also from the FTC's Public Reference Branch, Room 130, 6th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580; 202-326-2222; TTY for the hearing impaired 202-326-2502. To find out the latest news as it is announced, call the FTC NewsPhone recording at 202-326-2710.

Teflon® is a registered trademark of DuPont.



Copyright © 1992-2003 by The Master Strategy Group, all rights reserved
I'm late to the party. Let me see if I have this straight. They, synlube, want me to use a 50 weight oil with ptfe's and no other oil company or manufacturer is smart enough to figure this out for themselves or copy it. I'm sure glad I found this out. I guess this shows that Honda knows nothing about making cars, dosen't it. Honda is so stupid, they are going the other way, to 20 weight oils. Honda's never going to make it in the auto industry if they don't get this stuff straight. Who'd ever buy a car with the wrong oil in it. I guess we're going to see this miracle synlube oil everywhere any time now. If it almost never has to be changed, just think of the gift to the environment this company is. I guess no one is selling a similar product because they just don't have the vision. And to think, they only want $32 a liter, what a bargin. How stupid I've been.....
A hugh percentage of cars out there are under a warranty of some kind. I'll bet that not one of those warranties specifies 50 weight oil and oil changes beyond 5 to 7.5k miles. And this synlube oil is only for engines in good condition which would eliminate a lot of cars out of warranty. So, basically, if you are under warranty or have a worn engine they don't want you. Sounds like a great marketing plan. Sell to people that are willing to void their warranty. That's a good crowd to hook up with. If that's their marketing plan, I can't wait to see what the actually put in the oil. They must have the best secret stuff in the world. I'll bet we have lots of users out there, I just wish we could get some response and uoa' and all that kind of stuff.
quote:
Originally posted by Houckster:
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.


Regarding your theoretical use of Amsoil oil I can prove you that calculated costs could be lowered. Series 2000 oils are recomended for 35.000 miles use (or one year, whichever comes first) and for reaching mileage "limit" you should use oil anlysis - Amsoil or someone's other. Result is: (at least) just 5 oil changes + 4 oil analysis what means costs almost same as for SynLube. So, SynLube advantages are in handling - oil changes, taking oil samples, sending them, ...
Very interesting and somewhat confusing thread to me. It's convinced me to use either Amsoil or Redline for my next oil change, and to investigate further on oil filers, for my 2000 Ford Focus with 205k km (about 120k miles). Both are available here in Canada at Canadian Tire stores. Up here in Canada, Redline is about $14.00, and Amsoil 2000 is about $12.00 per litre/quart.I'm using Amsoil 2000 in my new John Deere GX335, and I think the engine now runs quieter than the dino oil that was changed out.

Paul.
quote:
Originally posted by inHaliburton:
... It's convinced me to use either Amsoil or Redline for my next oil change...
Paul.

It's up to you to make a choice (regarding your own preferences, technical data and manufacturers recomendations) but think first about availability of all related "parts". In Canadian Tire stores you can not find Amsoil oil filters and Engine flush which use is recomended if you switch from petroleum oil (but not at must).
If you consider Red line (18.000 miles recomendation change) as one of options more economic solution might be Amsoil 5W-30 Synthetic motor oil (25.000 miles, about $10 per bottle) instead of Series 2000 oil (35.000 miles).
Regarding fact that this thread is named Synlybe and that your and mine posts are non-related to it please send anything of your concern to: gordan_d@yahoo.com
Last edited by djordan
So, have we figured out if anyone is using synlube? This stuff takes quite a leap. They claim that they have a formula that is beyond the abilities of any other chemist in the world to duplicate. It's just hard to believe something I can't see or understand and is not proven to any degree that I can accept. I wish that somebody would step up and accept free oil and run a real test with a lot of mileage, uoa's and peer review.
I think that we already figured out - only one user of Synlube is (still) Houckster.
Wanting not to be suspicious person in advance I would really need more technical documentation to accept Synlube claims and to use product. I usually do not believe in wonders but sometimes I just accept them. The (kind of) last one was (a few years ago) Russian oil additive which use allowed driving a car 100 kms without oil. That wasn't purpose of additive but it just demonstrates its abilities.

Free oil,… test,… am I missing something? I do not run a lot of mileage – so I would (unfortunately?) disqualify myself in advance.
If synlube is lurking I have a request. Would you submit a sample to Dyson Analysis and let Terry Dyson publish the results here. The analysis would cost you about $500 and I'm sure that would be no problem. Will the number of responses here, it would be the best $500 investment you ever made.

If this request is ignored then we have an answer and we can stick a fork in this thread, it's done.

Any comments?
Good idea. Let professionals to say a 'final word'. At least all of us (including Houckster) can agree about fact that oil analysis (not only Dyson) reveals what is happening with oil and engine.
So, can we even ease requests? Any of available oil analysis (Amsoil, PdMA, Wear Check, Oil Analysis Lab Inc., Bently,...) results could be acceptable.
Intriguing post from Bob

I use these oils as my father is a dealer in France.
There is no dealer outside Europe.

All their oils are ACEA A3 rated at least, except the 15W60 non graphited dino (not listed on their website).
I've used the Carat-S which is currently ACEA A3/B3/C3 and complies with many EU car makers specs, from 45K to 50,35K miles with an OCI at 50K. I crashed my car then, changed the body and need to spend several hundred € to buy dead electronic parts.

My current mix is the same model of car is a group 3 A3 rated 5W40 -their lowest oil quality- with a graphite/MoS2 additive.
Engine is 136hp 1.4L 8V turbocharged, with 81.4K miles.

I'll swith back to the carat S for my next OCI (every 4661 miles or 7 500 kms).

If I tune my engine (injectors, turbo, intercoler, cams...), I'll use the ester based "Bio Carat", very robust in competition use.

Marly is a solid lubricant specialist since 1919 and uses graphite in automotive products since 1930.
They use graphite and moly (SX oil additive which is a gaphite + MoS2 combinaison in synthectic fluids) for decades, and are also a special lubricants maker.

Graphite particles are <1µ and never caused damages from what I know with the Black Gold oil range.
These oils apparead in 1977 and have always been formulated with a colloidal suspension of graphite particles.


Graphite oils failed to be largely used because of the dark colour, people think dark oil is used oil
I thought I'd comment on an aspect of this ongoing issue because after reading these post and appreciating the info being conveyed there was some decent points being brought to the fore, especially regarding the makeup of synlube being that it uses some of these anti friction components ie: graphite, moly disulfide and teflon.

Before one castigate me on this subject I'd like to point out that last night while viewing the history channel and the subject being discussed had peaked my curiosity, the segment was MODERN MARVELS subject LUBRICANTS it heavily dealt with lubricating properties and there continuous evolution. Yet of particular interest a goodly amount of time was spent on three components that have some inherent lubricating properites as well as superior anti friction properites they were Graphite, Moly, teflon. And how that a few of these are being used in the lubricating industry as well as automotive.

The same three components used in this so called synlube. Very interesting to me thought I'd pass this along.
I have loosely followed the comments in this thread and I made some of the earliest posts. I stopped participating for the most part because some of the posters were more interested in batting down any possibility that SynLube was a good product rather than being willing to exchange ideas.

I have 15K+ on the SynLube I'm using and will be sending in a sample to SynLube for analysis. During that time, I've consumed only about 4 oz. of oil.
I know of a mechanic who is using this product in his chrysler sebring and has already taken two analysis and they have all come back extemely well, given he is a skeptic and his profession is an auto technician, hes accumulated I believe about 40k on the oil itself during this time he's had two analysis, his comments were that no performance issues. Vehicle is running fine.
As soon as I get a moment I'll ask him by email we'll see if he wouldn't mind first I have to inform him of the great controversy over this subject matter so he'll be more inclined to do so given the overwhelming propensity of scepticism here on this board.

I'll also inform him that it'll be under stringent scrutiny by others in a quest to disprove it's effectiveness and inherent flaws.

Additionally that it seems atmosphere of open mindedness doesn necessarily permeate the board that it will be posted to.
Man - Here we go again... didn't anyone raed my posts on page 6? Here, I'll cut and paste for you!

"There is one simple reason that Houkster is so keen on Synlube.... he owns it! Anyone who wants to go to http://www.synlube.com will readily find out that 'Miro Kefurt' is the head honcho there! He is not a user only! As he sits in his abode in Las Vegas and promotes, mainly at his computer terminal, At $32.00 per quart [liter] - he does not have to sell too may knot heads his PTFE Cocktail in order to buy his own 'Throw Away Car' - no matter what he puts in the engine! AMSOIL is just AMSOIL - it's 32 year history of growth [will top $100,000,000.00 in sales for 2005] speaks for itself! Miro has threatened to sue me several time for owning the name synlube.net, and has accused me of buying that domian in order to get his customers.........."

Now 'gsleve' mentions the History Channel's Modern Marvels one hour program last Wednesday night at 9:00 pm entitled "Lube Job" - 'The History of Modern Lubrication'. Yes, it did mention graphite, moly, and teflon.... but did you notice that they were NOT touted as being eccepted as gfood for internal combustion engines. Did you also note that 'Synlube' or 'Lube4life' which Miro Kefury [known on this board as 'Houksster' wasw not even mentioned when he will tell you on his website at http://www.synlube.com that his company pioneered the use of P-A-O base stock oil. NOW THE MODERN MARVEL PROGRAM PLAINLY STATED THAT THE PIONEER THAT STARTED SYNTHETIC OIL FOR OVER THE ROAD USE WAS NONE OTHEER THAN ALBERT J AMATUZIO, PRESIDENT AND FOUNDER OF AMSOIL..... THEN THE PROGRAM WENT ON TO SHOW SEVERAL SHOTS OF AMSOIL'S MANUFACTURING FACILITY AND THE LABELING LINE WITH BOTTLES COMING OFF THE LINE WITH AN AMSOIL INSPECTOR TENDING THAT LINE. IT WAS QUITE A NICE ENDORCEMENT FOR AMSOIL..... as the first and the largest in the P-A-O based oils. I copied the whole program to DVD and then edited out all the commercials. If you want a copy it is FREE plus postage - if you will just send me and an email on the contact page at http://www.synlube.NET It does not take a rocket scientist so see that Kefurt's rhetoric on this board is as self serving as mine admitedly is! tlk :-)
My question is simply this... With all of the pertinent and relevant information that I have read about, be it on this forum, this topic, or other websites, The Motor Oil Bible written by Michael Kaufman, or various other seeds of knowledge in this vast medium called the internet, how can this lubricant possibly deliver all that is stated on the website when granted, oil doesn't break down, but the additives do get depleted and need replenished, more so than just adding a quart here and a quart there of top off lubricant. I've started a topic a while back asking for users of this stuff, and Houckster was the only one to respond, basically with the same responsed and information that has been posted in this one.

To make a long story short...I WANT REAL PROOF IN NUMBERS, TECHNICAL DATA (other than the synlube website itself) AND DATA FROM A USER FROM YEARS OF NO OIL CHANGES!!! not just one year, or 6 months.

If that can be had, and this stuff is worth its pricetag, then I'd be willing to try it, but in all of my research and posing questions in this forum and to others that I know that have had experience in the lubrication field, I am told to stay FAR away from synlube and its products.

Now, somebody please prove my view wrong....
No one is going to be able to prove your view "wrong". I have long known that such efforts are doomed to failure.

I have stated the reasons, verified in my own experience, that I believe recommend the product. From here on, your decision is whether you're going to take a reasonable risk as I did and try something new. I cannot imagine you will be disappointed but that's something you'll have to decide for yourself.

Ask yourself something. Did you require the same amount of "proof" for the oil that you're using now? Why do you think the oil guys have marketing departments? The principle reason is to handhold a customer through the decision process that leads to them making a sale. SynLube doesn't have that and probably never will. They are willing to let the oil's performance speak for itself.

If you have a specific question, maybe I can answer it. I will be glad to try though I'll tell you that I'm no expert. I just learned enough to give me sufficient confidence to proceed with my purchase.

Of course if you e-mail SynLube with some questions, Miro Kefurt will give you a no-BS answer. Be aware that he gets quite a few "cross-examination/flame" letters so he's ready to respond in kind but for sincere questions he's always been very good.

BTW, I am familiar with Dan Kaufman. He and I participated on the MyFordFocus board and he was always very knowledgeable about oil, much more so than I. To my knowledge though, and this may be dated information, he did not investigate SynLube.
I would also like to contribute perhaps some small suggestion as well, one might want to do their research pertaining to the elements that synlube contains IE: colloidal lubrication itself, afterwhich an investigation on synthetic graphite, moly, ptfe and see how these various elments are used in varying industries there usage may be diverse/

Nonetheless I believe if one takes the time to inform themselves and dig into some research further insight may be gained as to whether or not such elements can be used as a lubricant for personal cars
I believe that Mr.Dyson has some information about this oil at one time I think he commented on the fact that the oil had met one of the GF4 standard whereas others were not in compliant yet, this was quite some time ago.

He has commented that he would like to see its chemical makeup or toure the facility can't remeber which I believe the post was on bobistheoilguy forum, but I believe something regarding proprietary issues, at that time Synlube was still recieveing some serious castigation.

A considerable amount of disbelief ensued
With all the oils around with many using the oil and posting uoa's an personal information, we have maybe two people using Synlube, some info from a web site. That qualifies Synlube as basically an unknown quantity, eight pages of it. There is no documentation by way of lab results and no answers from the company. Can we now put Synlube in the same group with products like Slick 50, Prolong, MotorUP and Z-Max, that is mystry stuff in an expensive bottle?
quote:
Why don't you check the FTC site for references to SynLube? You will find none. Disappointed?


What are you talking about? Is the fact that a prodcut has not had a published legal problem an indication of quality? You are making my point, there is no solid information about Synlube, good or bad. We figured out that there is nothing good in the way of lab results or other concrete evidense and you have pointed that the FTC knows nothing about them, either. All their users have reported in and neither one wants to post a uoa. The product remains a mystry. I don't think anyone has anything bad to say at all. Like the little ole' ladys sez, "Where's the beef?'.
The current formulation of SynLube has been on the market since 1996, that's sufficient time for a bogus product to have been reported.

If you've read over the posts I made at the beginning of this thread and you've read a fair portion of the information on the SynLube website, there isn't much else to say.

Your willingness to group SynLube with products that have been condemned by the FTC because they could not substantiate their claims like Slick 50 and Prolong indicates strongly that you've already decided that SynLube doesn't work. As I've said before, I have no intention of beating my head against the wall trying to convince people who have no desire to really consider the product that SynLube does what it claims.

In time (I am waiting for a special drain plug so I can draw samples more easily.), I will submit a sample of the oil I have for analysis and submit the findings here but with only a little over 15K on it, I see no reason why the result could not be easily passed off. On one other board, another SynLube user who had been using the oil for several years, presented his findings and he was called a fool and other things. As GSLEVE said: "A considerable amount of disbelief ensued." So it will be here.

Mazda1: The four years of experience I have with SynLube is distributed over three vehicles. My current vehicle is just over a 1.5 years old. The oil has 15K+ miles on it.
Last edited by houckster
Bakerman I have a suggestion why don't you contact these folks, let them know there is an ongoing debate to the viablility of synlube, and then you can demand that they produce a UOA to prove it's viability, and send it to you or this forum. No, make that two UOA from different sources or perhaps three.

Additionally tell them to make sure the these companies should have some expertise in colloidal technology so as to ascertain from the analysis which particle count is a solid and which is colloidal, I forgot tell them they need to send in a VOA first so as to make comparison, with the used.

Bear in mind some of these people have accumulated over 100k on this oil and their vehicles seemed to be running fine with no issues then again you have no way of knowing because it appears you've made no inquiry of them.

Now some even have well over 130k on the oil and performance is not inhibited. Again you have no way of knowing because it appears you've made no inquiry of them. Seeing that you demand know. Do you think this is a good idea that would lend to some good research on your part and positive contribution in terms of knowledge sharing ?
Last edited by gsleve
Mazda1 if you are desirous of information gathering would it not behoove you as well to perhaps contact some of these customers directly, who are listed on the synlube website that way you can bring to the table some concrete info for this site.

Given there seems to be some disbelief as to this oil basic funtionality related to lubricaton, these folks may enlighten you as to their experience, then you can get detailed in your line of questioning as to the oil worthiness to them.
Man - Here we go a THIRD TIME... didn't anyone read my posts on page 6 and 7? Here, I'll cut and paste for you again!

"There is one simple reason that Houkster is so keen on Synlube.... he owns it! Anyone who wants to go to http://www.synlube.com will readily find out that 'Miro Kefurt' is the head honcho there! He is not a user only! As he sits in his abode in Las Vegas and promotes, mainly at his computer terminal, At $32.00 per quart [liter] - he does not have to sell too may knot heads his PTFE Cocktail in order to buy his own 'Throw Away Car' - no matter what he puts in the engine! AMSOIL is just AMSOIL - it's 32 year history of growth [will top $100,000,000.00 in sales for 2005] speaks for itself! Miro has threatened to sue me several time for owning the name synlube.net, and has accused me of buying that domian in order to get his customers.........."

Now 'gsleve' mentions the History Channel's Modern Marvels one hour program last Wednesday night at 9:00 pm entitled "Lube Job" - 'The History of Modern Lubrication'. Yes, it did mention graphite, moly, and teflon.... but did you notice that they were NOT touted as being eccepted as gfood for internal combustion engines. Did you also note that 'Synlube' or 'Lube4life' which Miro Kefury [known on this board as 'Houksster' wasw not even mentioned when he will tell you on his website at http://www.synlube.com that his company pioneered the use of P-A-O base stock oil. NOW THE MODERN MARVEL PROGRAM PLAINLY STATED THAT THE PIONEER THAT STARTED SYNTHETIC OIL FOR OVER THE ROAD USE WAS NONE OTHEER THAN ALBERT J AMATUZIO, PRESIDENT AND FOUNDER OF AMSOIL..... THEN THE PROGRAM WENT ON TO SHOW SEVERAL SHOTS OF AMSOIL'S MANUFACTURING FACILITY AND THE LABELING LINE WITH BOTTLES COMING OFF THE LINE WITH AN AMSOIL INSPECTOR TENDING THAT LINE. IT WAS QUITE A NICE ENDORCEMENT FOR AMSOIL..... as the first and the largest in the P-A-O based oils. I copied the whole program to DVD and then edited out all the commercials. If you want a copy it is FREE plus postage - if you will just send me and an email on the contact page at http://www.synlube.NET

I will now begin to masqarade as a mere user like Houkster does! This seems to carry more weight with people her! I use AMSOIL and it is just great! I think it is the best oil! I buy it from a guy on my street! AMSOIL has never been sued by the FTC either! Did you see this month's issue of LUBES 'N' GREASES in which AMSOIL is featured in a five page article? NO! You should go on the internet and get you free subsscription! You will never see "Synlube" in this or any other main stream lubrication media - because it is not taken serious by the professional tribological engineers! I was told, about synlube, that compared to AMSOIL's $100,000,000 volume this year that Synlube is a proverbial ant running up and elephants leg screaming "RAPE" !!! :-) Use Synlube at your4 own peril.
See this month's LUBES 'N' GREASES editorial article [5 pages] on AMSOIL's company, Founder and history - QUITE IMPRESSIVE - just like the History Channel's "Modern Marvels - JUBE JOB" which also features AMSOIL's Founder Albert J. Amatuzio as the man who single handedly started the first company to manufacture and market 100% synthetic oils for over the road use in America in 1972 [33 years ago]. AMSOIL is still the largest in it's feild as an exclusive supplier of TRUE P-A-O based lubricants for Cars, Trucks, Motorcycles, Racing, Industrial, Farm, Marine, RV's, RC's, etc.. !!!
As a Mechanical Engineer with 39 years experience in the Industrial Power Transmission field... I have been associates with lubrication and lubrication failures in industrial gear reducers, gearing, roller chain and internal combustion engines. I was a Power Up Lubricants Representative for 14 years! I am now associated with AMSOIL as a Direct Dealer. I am NOT asking you to buy AMSOIL here on this board. I do recommend that you NOT take my word or Houkster's word for what is considered viable technology in lubrication..... there is plenty of Scientific information on the internet.... much of it on the many websites available! If you go to my website, use it for information purposes..... it is linked to the corporate site that has 3,500 pages of information - much of it technical! READ and THINK..... don't listen to anecdotal hog wash touted by people with mere opinions based upon their limited experiences. Your vehicle probably cost a lot of money - you owe it to yourself to research the subject of lubrication very carefully! Sift through the maze of non-scientific stuff and arrive at the lowest common denominator and you will see why AMSOIL is a highly respected company with an impecable record of satisfaction amongts it's customers!
I will not resort to ad hominem arguments any more - but the debate over your company's product 'Lube4Life' is based upon the misconception that you are on this board as a mere user of the products which you are hawking. I will not engage in a debate with someone who is here for the express purpose of getting attention for his personally owned company - remember, I still have copies of all of our correspondance. I know what you are and who you are. I dare you to refute my comments here! Are you not one Miro Kifurt, owner of the company - Lube4Life A.K.A. "Synlube"? ANSWER?
A.J. Amatuzio made use of used P-A-O Synthetic Jet oil from his Air Force F-86 to conduct his first 'cold start' experiments in his personal vehilce in the frigid starting conditions in Minnesota, my home state in 1968-69. From there he went on to start the AMZOIL company. Pennzoil got twisted about his use of the 'Z' in the name so he changes it to an 'S'. His pioneering work, in the field of synthetic engine oils, led recently to Wal-Mart coming to him [Read the artilce in the months LUBES'N'GREASES article] .... with a check for $40,000,000 to put his products in their stores. He turned them down for obvious reasons. "An now you know the rest of the story."
Synlube no one is questioning amsoils capabilities I know it intimately, I've been using it longer than you've been" Power Up Lubricants Representative for 14 years! "

However lets step back a little bit and rethink, when amsoil was touting it's 1yr 25k drain how many individuals embraced such a concept way too radical, how many were in disbelief of it's capabilities. Even mobil1 jump on the bandwagon and couldn't substantiate their claims and withdrew it's statement. Yet Amsoil persevered.

Nonetheless it took a long while for people to get use to the concept of not draining the oil past 3k or even 2k. Many naysayers and critics hurled a number or attacks against amsoil for propagating such a radical idea. For that matter much of the disbelief regarding synthetic oil was predicated on opinionated bias, without substantiation and so people were convinced because the local mechanic and Johns great grand dad said no way, what's wrong with you, we've been doing this for years and you can't convince me, and now you couple that with the car manufacturer discouraging such a proposterous notion of extended oil drains, despite oil analysis proving otherwise.

Point is people have been conditioned and indoctrinated to believe without questioning, don't fix it if it isn't broke, despite the increase in technology yes even within the oil industry. Addtionally those who tried amsoil did so without oil analysis sort of a leap of faith, and many have become to this day strong proponents of synthetics, again despite the fact that most did not even seek testing data to prove to themselves Amsoil was viable, maybe they were ignorant, not aware such data existed or how to obtain it, yet they based there decision on the marketing put before them or because a certain friend uses it, and so reasoned he had no problems it must be good.
A goodly portion being ancedotal.

I believe we've again encounter a much similar situation that Amsoil faced, and look how it stood against the giants within the oil industry, it had some very humble beginings.

So we need bear in mind that it's quite possible or probable that a lubrication company such as SYNLUBE may be in it's humble stages as well trying to go against the tide promoting a radical concept as no oil changes for 150k or 15yrs, just as amsoil did with it's 1yr 25k drain regiment.

And the question arise could it be that such technology does exist could it be that SYNLUBE might have something here that others may have missed or chosen not to explore, the possiblity is worth exploring rather than tear down, open mindednes is key to knowledge.
Last edited by gsleve
Well I must concede, gsleve has finally posted a wonderful counterpoint to the nay sayers of Synlube, myself included. I have only been using synthetics for 15 years, and only started extended drain intervals (mind you only 10-15,000 miles as well) in the last 10 of those years.

I've used just about everything out there, always looking for bigger and better. Hell, I even started the vegetable oil topic for some input, and that met with resistance and nay sayers, because not so long ago, mention the term vegetable oil and most people think of castor oil, which would most definitely NOT work in most of today's automobiles very well. But alas, I did some homework, read the web pages of information on the product, called up the company, talked for a while, and decided to give their product a go. I currently use it in three vehicles, and it seems to doing just fine.
Sorry, hit the wrong button...

To continue, I guess that we might be going about condemning Synlube's product this way based on cost, or that we have been programmed to believe that a product that could possibly last that long, without changing, couldn't possibly be true or work.

I have learned the very hard way to listen to the more experienced than I in most lubrication matters, so that is why I kind of stay skeptical toward Synlube. Everything points to that it won't work, but if it didn't cost a mortgage payment to outfit a vehicle with all of their fluids, I would give it a try for myself. That's why I wanted cold, hard facts and figures first.

I guess that I'm just old fashioned that way.
DAD2LEIA: OK, you make a good point but let's also consider that there aren't very many "experts" on SynLube. Using solid lubricants is relatively new to most people, even those who have been using and studying lubricants for years have little experience with colloids. Consequently, you really can't depend too heavily on others in order to make a determination.

In the end, you simply have to be willing to take a chance just as you did with the product you're using now. Do the homework, read their website and ask yourself the question: Why WOULDN'T it work?
glseve, I guess there are just not enough people out there to generate enough interst in getting a uoa. I though this forum was a place you could trade info and ideas without going to a web site. That way you could get info based on analysis and experience vs a sales promotion. I have never said that I though Synlube was anything good or bad, just that it was a mystry. And since there is not much info maybe it's just a product that will just go away, somewhere. Look at these 9 pages of interest, and still no rabbit.
Bakerman I don't believe that those who are using it are aware that such a debate exist about the product. My point was to net out the sales promotion and enlist those on the website to obtain a UOA and see if there vehicles are running optimally.

However I believe that some of these people will not get that granular regarding information about there vehicles, we on this forum are for a lack of a better word "oil fanatics" looking for the best so we can extend the life of our vehicles and lower the total cost of ownership. Getting the most bang for the buck.

What I find of interest that some users of synlube have allowed for there email contacts to be posted which lends itself for nicely for exhanging information and insight if we continue to be the skeptics that we are about this product, then by all means lets leverage this resource to our advantage in the light of information gathering and make inquires of them.

Isn't this the process we use in everyday life we inquire research inquire more seek knowledge and then test whether such claims are true.
If this thread goes on long enough, will we see a uoa or voa on this stuff. Testimonals are hard to figure out. Analysis and numbers are more useful, expecially if this oil is different than everything else in the world. It's like the caveman that says that with his secret weapon that no one else has, he can rule the world, and holds up a rock.
quote:

Sift through the maze of non-scientific stuff and arrive at the lowest common denominator and you will see why AMSOIL is a highly respected company with an impecable record of satisfaction amongts it's customers!


Impeccable record of satisfaction huh ? Razz

Well myself and some other people might just disagree with you on that . Smile

Carry on though , never mind me . Smile
quote:
Originally posted by Houckster:
About 15.3K.

Re Terry, I know that his word would have more value here but as I pointed out, I want to have Synlube's results first and then if that's good then I send another sample to Terry.


Why don't you send one to each, Synlube and Terry at the same time. Let us know the results of both.
quote:
Asking a manufacturer if they think their product is good is not of much use. Since Terry does not own any stock in Synlube his evalutation would carry more weight. He should do his work without any knowledge of what the Synlube lab says.


You may not realize it, but one of the things that attracted me to Miro is his willingness to be truthful. He is a no-nonsense guy who would tell me if something is wrong and advise what would be needed to fix it. He also genuinely loves getting feedback from the field. My belief is that the results I get back will come very close to what Mr. Dyson reports who, as I understand it, already has some experience with SynLube. BTW, it is important to know about SynLube before analyzing it as it because it has components in its additive package that would lead to misinterpretation otherwise.

SynLube Oil Analysis

Mazda1 wrote:
quote:
Why don't you send one to each, Synlube and Terry at the same time. Let us know the results of both.
As I wrote above, there is no point sending a sample to Dyson UNLESS SynLube gives the oil a thumbs up. Though most here won't accept a good report from SynLube I think most would accept a bad one and in such a case spending $40 or so to get a second bad report would be pointless.
BRUCE381: Thank you for an entirely worthless post. Go take your meds.

From Barkerman:
quote:
That's too bad. I thought we were going to see a uoa. If there's a chance that this stuff in nothing special you sure don't want to expose it to a uoa. It's better to just do some more advertising.
Why don't you read my posts? You will see a UOA!
On basis Amsoil boast a 100k OCI and Synlube reduce OCI depending on use, perhaps not barmy.

Synlube may also take same view as Ford does with thin oils!

Synlube may have as interseting basestock as GC.

Solids are being used by Elf.

Synlube now have added 0W40 to range.

Intrigued to see UOA.

Perhaps non Synlube users are being conned into short OCIs as wear may be highest after oil change!
quote:
From Barkerman:

quote:
That's too bad. I thought we were going to see a uoa. If there's a chance that this stuff in nothing special you sure don't want to expose it to a uoa. It's better to just do some more advertising.

Why don't you read my posts? You will see a UOA!

quote:


You have not commited to sending a sample to a third party, you said maybe. This thread has been running since July and there has not been anything of substance. There is an interest in this Synlube stuff. People would like to believe that somthing like Synlube could exist, but I guess it's not to be.
I honestly think you haven't read the my posts closely enough. You're missing my point.

The point of the UOAs is to see if the product gives a good result. Isn't that right? Sending the first sample to SynLube gives them a chance to establish their validity. If they supply a UOA with a good result, then a sample will be sent to Dyson for further comfirmation. I drew two samples of the oil for testing at the same time. Much has been made that SynLube will hype their product rather than report accurately. This gives us a chance to see if that claim is true.

Now, just what is the point of sending a sample to Dyson if SynLube reports that the oil is NOT holding up? It is only if SynLube sends back a positive UOA that it makes any sense to submit a sample to Dyson.

Doesn't this make sense?
It makes perfect sense to me. I wouldn't waste a second $40. US sending another sample to some guru unless the first sample comes back with good results. We should start a pool on how many pages this thread will go, or how many years it will go. I'm going to start things off with a guess of 68 pages and the year 2007.
Regards,
Paul in Haliburton.
quote:
The point of the UOAs is to see if the product gives a good result. Isn't that right?

Sending the first sample to SynLube gives them a chance to establish their validity.


Establish Validity??? What are you smoking An ICP spectro of wear metals will be Established by using certifed standards to callibrate the test equipment. There is NO validity to establish DUH. 10 ppm lead is 10 ppm lead.
If ICP machine is correctly calibrated any lab will give within a few percent same answer.

So basicly if your oil sample sucks then you will not want to advertise that so you will not send out to an INDEPENDENT lab that we all can trust right?
Bruce
BRUCE381: If you will take the time to go back over the posts, you will see that your comments simply miss the point. The question that has been raised is whether SynLube would report accurate results, not whether the a proper test method would. Thus my comments. You can't expect to read the last two or three posts and know what's going on here.

INHALIBURTON: Yes, this is a long-winded thread and I fully expect the controversy to continue even if BOTH SynLube AND Dyson give good reports.
I think Houckster is missing something. A lot of us would like to know what's up because the idea of a better oil is very seductive. The problem is that there have been too many snake oil products in the past, enough to say that almost all past wonder products have been rip-offs. Every now and then a better product shows up. Some of these products are the better deal, but suffer because they promised more than they delivered, even though what they delivered was enough to justify the label new and better. This thread has 10 pages, now, and that's proof that people whant to know. This company, Synlube, may be the real deal, but it's really difficult to seperate the facts from the hype. There is an additonal problem with Synlube. The jump to this stuff is expensive. So we have a group of geeks with a few that would make the jump if they could just get a handle on what's really going on.
Barkerman, that's the point that I've been trying to make as well. I certainly wouldn't mind the cost of this product, if the claims were backed up by some real user data. I guess now we just have to be patient and wait for Houckster to post his results of the UOA and go from there.

Other than that I guess this stuff is all academic, right?
Miro Kefurt is my name and I am the President of SynLube, Inc. our e-mail is synlube@aol.com, our web is http://www.synlube.com and our phone is 800-SYN-LUBE.

I am not Houckster although I know who he is as he is one of our ling time customers.

I any one had any direct questions please send them direct to me at the synlube@aol.com e-mail address.

Sorry I do not have time to live on message boards as we have a real business to take care of and already get 100 to 150 e-mail a day.

What is more "disturbing" that on this "noria" board the names like synlube, mirox and so on are ALREADY TAKEN, but we have never registered to this web before, so if anoyne ever posted anything as "synlube" it was not our compnay nor me personally, no MATTER WHAT THEY HAVE CLAIMED !!!

This is the FIRST time I have registered, and since our trade names are already "taken" I have used my name Miro Kefurt for sign-in lon in.

My basic question to all of you who are not even familiar or have ever used SynLube, what gives you any authotiry to even discuss it !?

Use if FIRST and then talk about it !

http://www.synlube.com
1-800-SYN-LUBE
synlube@aol.com

Colloidal super lubricants since 1969 !
WOW ten pages of arguments but not a single person but one that has ever used our product !

Real people in the real world, and not Aristotelian pure though experimenters, are our real live customers, and there are e-mail links to them on our web http://www.synlube.com

1.) SynLube eliminates oil changes for the "useful life" of motor vehicles - see EPA and CARB on what "useful life" is.

2.) Real people do not really care about TBN, particle counts, or any such results, they care it their car RUNS, and if it RUNS BETTER, and if it gets MORE POWER and uses LESS FUEL.

All those results are real as well as engine life in 300,000 to 500,000 mile range on now 20 years vehicles whose "useful life" and "certified useful life" for example was ONLY 5 years or 50,000 miles !! (Are you old enough to remember 1984 and cars like BERTONE who used SynLube as OEM fill ?)

No person on this planet ever comes to a mechanic and says I am worried about TBN, can you give me a $20 oil analysis, so I can figure out if I need your $19.95 oil change that is today only on $9.95 special !!!

Get out to real world - and if you posses a decent car - that is not a past it's "useful life" then just may be SynLube is what you need !!!

Miro Kefurt
SynLube, Inc.
Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×