Skip to main content

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

Well, it seemed to me that the overwhelming reaction was disappointment but that doesn't mean that SynLube fell short. The lab report didn't indicate anything really wrong. They didn't seem to feel that the high copper level, for example, was anything to worry about. Miro Kefurt also stated his reservations about oil testing unless it is a very high quality testing costing hundreds of dollars noting that sometimes something would show up in one sample and not in the next. This was in regard to continuing testing of six police cars that were converted to SynLube.

If you're interested, I'll post the comments he made.

Since no one seemed much interested in further investigation, I have put further time on this project on hold. If there's more interest, I'll submit a sample (taken at the same time as the first) to Terry Dyson. It's gonna cost $80 for a baseline sample from new oil plus the test for the used oil. For me there's not much point in the expenditure if no one's interested though. I'm already sold on the product and I continue to use it without worry.

BTW, would any of the other oils look this good without replenishment after 15.3K miles?

Also, I have yet to hear an effective contradiction to my claim that my engine must like what it's using considering the mileage I'm getting which is 3.5 miles consistantly above EPA estimates. Also the plugs were absolutely pristine after about 14K miles and there is only the barest trace of dust along the tailpipe since installing the exhaust nearly 14K miles ago. If SynLube wasn't doing the job, I just don't believe these things would be possible.
Last edited by houckster
15k miles is not what Synlube is about. It's about a lot more miles than that, and I wonder if there are that many miles left in you oil. There are Mobil 1 and Amsoil and other oils that are going 15-25k and one year before being changed. I don't have a uoa because I'm not one of those people. I thank you for posting info on Synlube and look forward to Terry's response. A lot of people are interested in Synlube, if for nothing more than the outrageous claims made on the web site. And I say outrageous becuase they are different from anyone else in the oil business. And this oil is not very popular and it's hard to figure out what it's about. Thank you, again.
Barkerman: You're right, 15K is not what SynLube's about but that's all I've got on the oil. But I'm very confident that the oil will be just fine at 30K and at 60K etc. Unfortunately, it's going to take some time for me to run up those miles. Because I'm hacked off at the oil companies for what I believe are policies that have lead to higher gas prices than the declining supply of crude would dictate, I drive as little as possible to keep the price of gas down.
I just checked and there have been over 15k views of this thread, which much be some kind of record and indicates there is considerable interest in the subject. There a a lot of people who feel that the oil companies have been taking advantage of us. Unfortunately, they have us by the short ones.

Houkster, for you good efforts, if you ever get up here in the "great white north," there's a free night for you in our Loft Suite.

Regards, Paul.
http://www.chalet-by-the-lake-b-and-b.com
I have never believed that SynLube was just another oil. "Another oil" would never have generated the amount of comment that SynLube has. Nor do I believe that the results I received provide enough information to allow a true perspective on the oil. One test, especially one that was inexpensive, does not really tell us what this oil can do. Frankly only time and miles (in the absence of substantial capitalization of the company) will tell and I don't have enough of either to really know how it's doing yet. According to Miro, the high copper reading for example, might have been a fluke and could disappear in the next test.

Unfortunately, I'm generating as few miles as I can in order to conserve and keep gas prices down. That's something all of us should be doing. Unfortunately it seems as if most people are not paying attention to the energy crisis that poses a huge threat to our way of life and gas consumption is not declining at all. The negative side is that the additional miles that would separate SynLube's abilities from those of the pretenders is very slow in coming.

And there is the question of who will be listening by the time I've got 30K on the oil. By now, however, most of the people interested here have formed their opinion and moved on. That's regretable but not unexpected.

Really, the only solution for SynLube is for someone with lots of money to step in and provide the certification money to show that the SynLube formula will meet any API and ACEA standard. Anecdotal information can only take us so far.
Houckster, I'm still here, still reading your posts, and waiting for more results. My statement about the oil was based on the information presented so far. That could change at the next interval, it could improved, get worse, or help you pocketbook, be completely used up.

I am a user of the botique style oils, hence my continued interest in Synlube, however, at three times the cost of my usual botiques, I expect it to be at least twice the product that they are.
I had hoped that another Synlube user would show up before the end of the year. I guess this oil is too specialized for most of us. Dropping 8 to 10 bucks a quart on botique oils is common enough, but Synlube is just too far out there. I still wonder if it works. Maybe their other customer will show up next year. I guess this thread is just about used up. No answer, at least not this year... Happy New Year everyone.
I've just passed the 21K mark on the engine oil. Oil consumption is about 4 oz. since the SynLube was installed and none since my last post. I'm still extremely happy with the oil and my MPG is excellent at 19.3 overall since installing it. That's pretty good for a 4WD Ranger.

What are your questions JohnnyPipe? I will attempt to answer as best I can about the SynLube. Check their site: SynLube Just turn down the music and there's a lot of good information though the website needs a webmaster's expert hand desperately.

I am not aware of any way to communicate directly at this point and because of security reasons, I don't think I'd like to publish my e-mail address.
quote:
inHaliburton: Just checked out your website. Very nice place. Maybe I can bring my wife up next year for our 25th.

Hi Gang...
Thanks for the kudos, Johnnypipe. We have a full house this Victoria Day long weekend up here in the Great White North. These are the coordinates if any of you jokers are into GPSing. I plan to add a page dedicated to geocaching, et al on both site in due course. Where you located, anyway?
N45 05.803 W78 40.987
I recently acquired a Garmin MAP60 Csx.
Regards, Paul.
www.chaletbb.ca
www.paul-hicks.ca
inHaliburton: I'm in Wisconsin.

Houckster: Well not sure where to begin. I spent the better part of 2 hours reading the 16 pages of post on this and after sifting through the sincere versus the slamming I don't want to read it all again, so I will start over.

1. What year is your Ranger?
2. Why did you choose the 5W50 over the 0W40?
3. Why did you decide to use the CM filter instead of the one that Miro sells?
4. How many miles were on your Ranger when you switched to Synlube?
5. Speaking of the CM filter, how often do you change out the element?

I have a 2004 Honda Element that will be out of warranty in about 500 miles. For the sake of experimentation I might consider trying the 0W40 to see how it performs.

I have checked the website and agree it could use a professional webmaster to clean things up a bit. Showing all of the old Fiat cars is a bit dated in my opinion.

According to Noria you can communicate with another through the buddy system. I have you listed but nothing happened, so I will have to read more about it. I don't mind communicating here but I will not tolorate any snide comments from anyone who does not want to be part of a civil conversation.

So, let's see what happens.
1) OK, I have a 2004 Ranger, it has 4WD, a 4.0L V-6 and 5-spd manual. All components now have SynLube lubricants. The coolant system uses SynLube coolant with distilled water.

2) The 5W50 oil is designed as a universal oil and will work in all engines so that's what I use. SynLube did develop the 0W40 for the new breed of engines that are designed for the ultra thin oils (5W20 and 0W20). Frankly, though, I wouldn't hesitate to use the 5W50 oil in those engines as well. Actually, the 5W50 oil is actually very close to a 0W50. According to SynLube, the formula was adjusted to make it a 5W50 oil because 0W oils put some customers off. I don't think that's a problem now but SynLube hasn't changed the formula yet.

I talked with Miro Kefurt at SynLube and as I recall, there is really no advantage to the 0W40 oil for most engines. In fact, it must NOT be used in a diesel engine. With regard to your Honda Element, were I its owner, I would use the 5W50 but that's just me. If you decide to try SynLube, you'll order directly from Miro and he'll advise you as to what to use and he will suggest a maintenance program for you.

3) The CM filter is a gorgeous unit that can be rebuilt. For my money, it's the Cadillac (or BMW or Rolls Royce) of oil filters. One of the big advantages is that you can easily inspect the filtration media when changing the filter to see what's inside. Rebuilding the filter costs about $15 dollars and I plan on doing it every 5 years. I put two neodymium magnets inside to catch any loose ferric material as well. The filters that SynLube sells are excellent and before the CM filter was known to me, I used them with complete confidence.

4) I had 783 miles on the Ranger when I switched. As a matter of practice, I convert to SynLube at the first opportunity. Here's my reasoning: When an engine comes off the line, it has the finest tolerances it will ever have and these they are necessary for the greatest engine efficiency (best MPG and emissions). There is almost NO break-in period with the new engines. On the other hand, the 0W20 and 5W20 oils are the same viscosity as the oil of yesteryear that came in new engines and they were installed to facilitate high levels of wear so things like rings would seat quickly since these parts were rather crudely made and had lots of asperities. All that loose metal that was created is why a lot of people learned to change their oil within a few hundred miles and that carries over to today though I don't think it's very important any more except possibly when the thin oils are used. Of course a couple of powerful magnets such as SynLube sells would do the same thing as changing the oil.

Much is made that the new thin oils improve gas mileage but while engines will show a minute improvement in MPG in the lab, on the road, there's no practical improvement and in fact, SynLube (5W50) claims that their lubricant provides better mileage by 2-3%. What one gains through reduced pumping loses with the new oils is more than lost with increased friction because the thin oils don't keep engine parts separated as well. These oils are also much more volatile whereas SynLube can easily operate at much higher temperatures than petroleum oils can with much reduced volatility.

5) I'll change the filter element every 5 years or so. It's a far more robust filter element than the paper elements in throwaways.

BTW, the Fiat information isn't really dated and is actually very valuable. The point is to show how much benefit a proper oil can make even in the worst engines and those Fiat engines were awful yet with SynLube their service life was almost tripled if I remember correctly.

With regard to snide comments, I understand. When something is new in concept as SynLube is there will be plenty of naysayers. Some are honest in their disapproval which is fine, others just like to be a pain in the butt. When you talk about oil, you have to have a very durable epidermis.

One last thing, I checked my Profile and I do have the option to send and receive private messages checked but the administrators have not granted me that permission. If they do, a icon will show up on my posts that should permit private messages.
Last edited by houckster
Very interesting and informative recap of the thread, Houckster. I'm driving a much newer Ford Focus now. I replaced the 2000 with a newer used 2005 ZXW which has the newer Duratec engine. I'm still running under warranty, but at this rate I'll be out of warranty next year. I've been using 5W20 synthetic oil for changes, whatever happens to be on sale at the time. I was going to change to a 5W30 oil, but was talked out of it at the Jiffy Lube cuz they say that Ford won't honour claims if you don't use the 5W20 oil. I'm pulling a trailor with lawn equipment and I don't feel comfortable using these thinner oils.
It's ironic and unfortunate that the auto companies try to use the warranty meant to protect the customer against them. Frankly, though, if you use a 5W30 oil, I think there's about a 1% chance you will have a problem. If you can't see your way to using SynLube, you should use Amsoil 2000 until you leave the warranty period. The difference between 5W20 and 5W30 is a very large one.

I had a 2001 Ford Focus that I converted to SynLube @ 1200 miles, (engine and transmission) and Ford never tried to deny any of several repairs the car required (electronic components)because of the oil I used.

The new Duratec engine is one of the first engines designed with thinner oils in mind though I'm not sure just what changes such a thinner oil would dictate. SynLube has developed a narrower purpose 0W40 oil for these engines. I say narrower because such an oil cannot be used in diesel engines.

In any case, Ford would have to prove that the oil caused the problem if they are going to deny warrenty service. My guess is that they would probably use the fact that you are towing equipment with the Focus as an excuse before they looked at the oil.

I guess the choice we all have is whether to use an oil that will actually eliminate the need for oil-related repairs versus the reassuring feeling that if the engine needs warranty repairs they will be performed without question.

I come down on the side of using the proper oil because if a major repair becomes necessary because the 5W20 oil was insufficient to the engine's needs, the engine will never be the same. The sophisticated construction techniques employed in the Duratec 20 engine cannot be duplicated at a dealership and the engine depends upon the method of construction for its reliability.
Hi Houckster,
Thanks for the rational reply. Personally, I like Amsoil products. I think that is what I'll change to in the near future. I have a receipt showing I installed 5W20. I do not expect any engine-related problems. However, I do want to maximize engine protection as I expect I'll be keeping this one for several years. When I bought the car (2005 Focus zxw, 2.0, std. xmission) in January, it had 21 000 km. It now has 46 000 km and am averaging 42 mpg. When I first got the car I was getting about 35 to 37 mpg. It's a good running, high reving engine. I changed the exhaust system to cat-back style.
Regards,Paul.
That's phenomenal mileage out of the Duratec 20 engine. The EPA ratings are not nearly so high as the mileage you are experiencing.

Could you tell me if this mileage represents primarily highway driving and long trips or is there some city driving in those miles as well.

My 2001 Zetec could only get low to mid 30's on trips and upper 20's around town.

What about acceleration? Is it sufficient?

Also, has the car been reasonably quiet? I'm talking about squeaks, rattles, ticks and other irritating stuff. My last Focus SVT never did quiet down no matter how much work I did trying to find those noises.

I've been looking at the possibility of another Focus but the new Civics are rated at 30/38 and the Focus is rated at 26/34 so I was leaning towards the Civic. Are the gallons you're talking about Imperial gallons or US gallons?
quote:
That's phenomenal mileage out of the Duratec 20 engine. The EPA ratings are not nearly so high as the mileage you are experiencing.


I was experiencing between 41 amd 44 mpg in my 2000 Focus Wagon, std. xmission, which was a 1.8L, I believe. That's Imperial, and under ideal wx and highway driving. Under city driving condx, the milage dove into the low 30s. I noticed some nice improvements in the 2005. Much better handling in corners, very little sway, less road noise, but still needs more sound deadening material underneath, and a lot of noise seems to be coming through the door seals/ weatherstripping.

quote:
Could you tell me if this mileage represents primarily highway driving and long trips or is there some city driving in those miles as well.


I live about 2.5 hour NE of Toronto in the boonies, so I do mostly hwy driving at approximately 90 to 110 kmh most of the time.

quote:
My 2001 Zetec could only get low to mid 30's on trips and upper 20's around town.

What about acceleration? Is it sufficient?


Acceleration is good, slightly better than the Zetec. It's good highway machine. At 100 kph (about 60 mph) the engine is only turning at about 2 200 rpm. It pulls my trailor and equipment very easily at highway speeds. I do have to gear down on steep hills, though. Hell, it's only a 4 cylinder engine.

quote:
Also, has the car been reasonably quiet? I'm talking about squeaks, rattles, ticks and other irritating stuff. My last Focus SVT never did quiet down no matter how much work I did trying to find those noises.


Compared to 2000 Focus, the 2005 is MUCH tighter. In my vehicle, there are NO squeaks or rattles. I had many problems with the 2K, nothing to complain about yet with the 2005 except for an occasional engine "pause" (for lack of a better word). It's as though the ignition turns off for about a quarter of a second. This happen 3 or for times a week. I experienced this in the 2K, which eventually proved to be the fuel pump.

quote:
I've been looking at the possibility of another Focus but the new Civics are rated at 30/38 and the Focus is rated at 26/34 so I was leaning towards the Civic. Are the gallons you're talking about Imperial gallons or US gallons?


I was seriously considering the Mazda 3 all tricked out with std. xmission, but chickened out because of the trailer issue, because I knew the Focus would pull my stuff from past experience. I think all of the rice boxes are great cars, though. One thing about the Focus wagon the others can't compete is in cargo space. It also sounds great with the Magnaflow exhaust system, and has noticably more acceleration above 3 500 rpm when ringing it out through the gears. Take out a broken-in demo and see what you think.

Regards, Paul.
inHaliburton
www.chaletbb.ca
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 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


SAE 5W-50 rating allows for All-Season & All-Climate universal use in all engines regardless of fuel that is used. (Gasoline, Diesel, LPG, CNG, Propane or Hydrogen)

SAE 0W-40 rating allows for All-Season & All-Climate use in PZEV "low-sulfur" unleaded Gasoline fueled engines, originally designed to use either SAE 5W-20 or SAE 0W-20 motor oils. (some FORD and HONDA engines and TOYOTA Prius)
- Not for use in Diesel fueled engines ! -

There is not a single engine in the World that uses Diesel fuel that is designed to use 0W-20 or 5W-20 motor oil, they ALL need at least XW-40 motor oil, and since this oil is "40 Weight" some people may use it in Diesel application, so that is WHY this statement is here, it relates ONLY to the 0W-40 or 5W-40 motor oils.

The 5W-50 has been the same since 1985 and that is also why it confirms to "obsolete" ACEA and API specifications, yet with no modification it still exceeds all the tests.

The absolutely longest engine tests are in 300 hours range - SynLube lasts at minimum 5,000 to 6,000 hours in any engine and as long as 12,000 hours of use in ULTRA-LOW sulfur fueled NON_EGR engines - that is 40 times LONGER than some of the "sponsored" tests that costs up to $163,000 !!!

Will any prejucidal skeptic be convinced by laboratory engine test that costed $6.5 million to use it in his $30,000 engine ?

NO


And for the same money we can give people FREE 217 engines if they would fail !

Since 1969 not a single engine has failed because of use of SynLube and not spending $6.5 million to demonstrate that ONE engine can last in a LABORATORY for 40 times longer than the same engine running for 300 hours on another oil, is simply waste of money and would make one liter of SynLube cost $140.00 instead of $32.00

After all the Customer ultimater pay for all R&D and testing costs, or else the compnay goes out of business, jut like Mobil did becasuse of Mobil 1 advertising for 26 AT LOSS.

Exxon got Mobil, FREE they just assumed their Debt !

Miro Kefurt
www.synlube.com
i know i am beating a dead horse but, all purveyors of "full" synthetic motor oil are so focused on the synthetic portion of their products that they either intentionally, or negligently lose sight of what really gives any motor oil it's ability to protect an engine.it seems that every sales person of mobil 1, amsoil,synlube,syn-oil,synlife,etc,wants the potentional customer to believe their product was compounded in some mysterious isolated facility in the high himalayas. the little known components which ACTUALLY prevent the engine from eating itself up, are NOT SYNTHETIC. no internal combustion motor oil would be worth spit without these ingrediants.however all that is ever "touted" is the synthetic /plastic, portion of these products?????it would seem that this logic is simply, "SYN-101. what is so bad about stateing " this product contains x-% synthetic motor oil blended with non- synthetic anti wear and anti frictiion agents;? there has to be a researched , monetary reason for omitting this information! i am aware that this "old fashioned, JOHN WAYNE,type of logic,but if these products are so superior in every way then what can be the harm in just saying it like it REALLY IS?
This isn't true with regard to SynLube. They specifically state none of the components in their oil is proprietary and that the components that are used in SynLube are available to anyone who wants to use them. The difference between SynLube and other manufacturers is that SynLube is willing to make an oil that is as good as technology allows while other oils are made to derive a constant income.
The Truth About Toyota Engine Oil Sludge

Toyota engine oil sludge affects more than the few models and model years covered in Toyota's "Customer Support Program for Engine Oil Gelation." Toyota indicates that 1997-2002 Sienna, Camry, Avalon, Solara, Highlander, Celica, Lexus RX300, and Lexus ES300 are the ones that are sludge-prone. At the same time, it says that these vehicle owners are to blame for the sludge condition. Toyota doesn't include the earlier models or the later models, though. It also doesn't include the Corolla, RAV4, and 4Runner despite the fact that some of these owners are reporting sludge buildup and engine demise.

The class action lawsuit covers all the models and model years included in the CSP. My feeling is that Toyota will use any loopholes it can to limit the relief for its valued customers. Owner complaints verify this sentiment. How many of these denied cases will Toyota admit to? Some late model Toyota sludge victims are being treated rudely and forced to remove their sludgemobiles from Toyota dealership lots. Deja vu? Has anything really changed?

Many Toyota owners are reporting that Toyota has required far more engine oil change receipts than what it publicly has stated it would. According to owner accounts, owners continue to be treated poorly in Toyota's alleged effort to limit the number of vehicle owners who qualify under the CSP. In many cases engines are being cleaned when they need to be replaced.

Unfortunately, the class action lawsuit doesn't help those with models not covered under the CSP. It doesn't help those who long ago traded their vehicles when sludge clogged their engines. It doesn't help those Toyota owners whose engines mysteriously threw rods through the engine block. It doesn't do anything for the Toyota owners whose engines spontaneously erupted in fire on the road for no apparent reason. No, there are many Toyota owners left out.

Is Toyota really "listening" to online discussions/reports by its vehicle owners? If so, why isn't the Toyota owner engine oil sludge petition being addressed? Why aren't these owners getting a fair resolution in their sludge or engine failure cases? We know that Toyota is tracking the owner postings. We know that Toyota executives are bragging about being proactive in addressing owner complaints online.

Back in late 2000, when hundreds of Toyota owners first began talking about engine oil sludge prematurely destroying their low mileage engines, Toyota was in complete denial. When Toyota owners continued to discuss this online and Automotive News covered some of the owner cases, then Toyota finally came out with the SPA and the CSP.

I've been involved in this issue for six years now. While Toyota paints a rosy picture of its own efforts in the matter, Toyota owners are posting quite the contrary behind the scenes. Far too many Toyota owners have had to go "deep sea diving" to find out about either engine oil sludge program. According to Toyota owners, dealerships aren't being forthright with the sludge information either.

Despite the SPA and CSP, thousands of posts were made on the now defunct sites "The Complaint Station for Toyota" and Cartrackers.com "Toyota Forum," and the Toyota sludge controversy has continued for years! Toyota owners continue telling their stories of corporate deception and mistreatment, but Toyota continues to blame them and chastise them for vehicle neglect. Toyota brags that it is helping its customers resolve these matters. Is it really? OR, is it just putting up this public facade to appease those who are closely scrutinizing its actions? I think the Toyota owners know the truth. Who is willing to tell their story?

Not surprisingly, someone has been trying desperately to sabotage the Toyota owner engine oil sludge petition. Who would care to go to this length to prevent Toyota owner organization? Who would want to end this petition and why? Hmmmm....(':roll:')


Charlene Blake
cblake@erols.com
Toyota Owners Unite for Resolution
http://www.petitiononline.com/TMC2003/petition.html
My '99 2.2 Camry is one of those alledged sludge monsters. I picked it up used with a box full of maintenance records. OCI's were in the 5k-7.5k range at 1/2 dozen quick lube, independent shops, and muffler/brake shops.

To me, this seems like neglect.
I pulled the VC for inspection. No sludge!

I have seen some sludged Toyotas. They were simply neglected. Sorry, but I don't want or care for Toyotas TSB, recalls, campaign, class-action or whatever.
If you consistently run low on oil, and don't adjust your maintenance interval for your driving style, you deserve what you get. Its possible to sludge destroy any engine. But, as certain vehicles have high sales volume, its more likely to see bad apple owners running to lawyers in droves.

And, some of the newspaper articles, TV station reports, magazine writeups.... on so-called sludge monsters always seem to defend the owner even when no history of OCI or oil topoffs were prevented. Nope, no data given on failed engines history, OCI history, oil brand/spec history....

Oh, this is a Synlube thread. Great to see a boutique company blending a superior product. Thats the problem with most oil specs and auto manufacturers. Their performance goals aren't high enough. An oil that lasts forever, or a vehicle that lasts forever, wouldn't do much for the sales volume.
I continue to have excellent performance from SynLube lubricants. I've got about 32K miles and more than three years of service on the lubricant. Oil consumption during that time is about 4 oz. During normal commute type driving, it just doesn't burn much oil. I'm well over 100K per quart of oil at least.

I just recently rebuilt the CM oil filter. It looked completely new inside. There was no sludge or anything else. The filter media (8 micron efficiency) looked almost like it did when I installed it. It could have gone on for years but I was curious as to what was inside since quite a few people thought by now that it would have to have been clogged with deteriorated oil.

Of course gas mileage on the Ranger is pretty good and part of this must be due to the SynLube. My current 4-tank average is 20.3 MPG which is pretty good for a 4.0L V-6 Ranger w/4WD. The EPA weighted average for my mix of driving under the old, more optimistic EPA system is 16.1.

I've had the plugs out and they look great. I found, incidentally, that performance with NGK's V-Power plugs is much better than with their more expensive iridium plugs. They have a much lower level of resistance and don't misfire as much during cold damp weather. They've become my standard.

My commuting miles are way down because I came in one day and found I'd been transferred to first shift (Did they ask me? Of course not!) so now I'm taking public transportation three days a week. Consequently, I only drove 350 miles last month.

While my commute miles have gone down, my vacation miles will go up. I'm going up to Bar Harbor, ME and Bennington, VT so I will put about 3K miles on the Ranger for those trips. I would expect oil consumption to go up a bit with this type of driving but still to remain very low. I'll also get some experience with fuel consumption on a trip. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that we won't get hit by a Cat 5 hurricane that will cause gas prices to shoot up.

This year is the first year I've got to get an emissions inspection. I looking forward to the numbers I get there. I'm expecting to see some good results. I'll post them when I get them. This should be another indication of my engine's health.

I'm toying with the idea of adding a PCV filter to my engine. I just had a discussion with someone on AtlantaGasPrices.com who told me that he'd been surprised at the amount of crankcase emissions he was seeing. Normally this stuff is fed right back into the engine to reduce emissions but it is better to trap this stuff and dispose of it in other ways. My attraction to it is that it will be enother indication of how effectively the SynLube is holding up and how effectively the ring seal is. Since I'm a bit lazy and not especially mechanically inclined, I've been looking for one of these on the market but the only one I've found costs $179. The person I discussed this with fabricated his own for $30.

After 32K miles and over three years of operation, the evidence is mounting that SynLube works.
Sounds like so far so good in the comfort and normal running sounds department. Have you done a recent UOA, or have you one planned before your trip? I am just curious on how the detergent package part is holding up with the miles. I wouled think that if your wear metals were up, you would "hear" something different (call me wierd, but I can hear audible differences in engines with different lubricants in the crankcase).

So far, your case for this being a wonder lube is small, but can grow by leaps and bounds by more hard data figures. That is not necessarily my personal opinion, but you know as well as I that many many more will put so much validity on those figures.

Thanks for the update, though. Smile
DAD2LEIA: You may consider the case for SynLube being a "wonder lube" to be small. With respect, I think I've made a better case than you realize. Can you tell me of another oil that could do what SynLube has done so far? Can you tell me if the company making that oil would stand behind such usage? Amsoil 2000, I think, is guaranteed for 35K miles or 1 year but since time is also an enemy of oil, SynLube surpasses Amsoil as well.

As far as engine noise being any different, I really can't say for sure that I could tell. I do listen to the engine and it doesn't seem to have any problems. I should think that I could feel any problems with a lack of power being a primary indication. Certainly gas mileage and oil consumption would be other indicators. And if you compare my tailpipe to my mother's car which has had conventional maintenance, my tailpipe looks like it did the day it was installed while her's has a hard coating of carbon. The engine runs just as good as it ever has. It has good torque and accelerates to highway speeds and maintains them without problem.

I just cannot see the overall level of performance and fuel economy I'm getting being possible if the SynLube wasn't performing as it should.

I think the problem in your assumptions is that I'm posing SynLube as a "wonder lube". I'm not. SynLube simply represents what's possible in lubrication if one decides to formulate a lubricant that takes advantage of currently available technology. In fact, the advantages of SynLube have been possible since 1985 when the lubricant was first offered. The formula continues to surpass API requirements and no changes to the formula have been made since it was first offered. The only thing different is that the oil is much cheaper now because the components have declined in price.

The reality for me is that Pennzoil, Amsoil, Chevron, or anyone else could make a formula equal to the SynLube formula and they could guarantee it for just as long but they just don't want to. Profit-making companies generally prefer a constant stream of income that oils that require regular replacement provide.

And would the case for SynLube be increased with further UOAs? Frankly I don't think so for two reasons. First, a really reliable test is going to be much more expensive than $20. And the interpretation of those results needs to be done with a thorough understanding of the oil's properties so finding out the truth is extremely problematic. Frankly I'm not willing to spend the money when I think the indicators I go by are just as good if not better.

Secondly, my experience in talking about SynLube is that if someone wants "definitive proof" about SynLube, it is almost always a way of denying that it works so they can go on using what they've been using and consider it to be the best. And there's this: On other boards, I asked the question I posed to you here about what other oil could do what SynLube has done so far. No one has been able provide an oil that will but what they have done is to tell me that what it has done so far really isn't that great. And when I've got 65K on the oil after eight years, they'll tell me I'm lying. It's all about denial.

The bottom line is that if one doesn't want to try SynLube or wants to believe it is snake oil, nothing can stop them. UOAs and testimonials do not help much or in most cases, at all. Consequently, I am happy to supply my own experience and to point out I don't get any compensation from anyone for what I write in any form. And if anyone considers me to be a fool or a con artist or whatever, that's OK with me. The freedom from maintenance, the savings, and the performance SynLube provides is more than enough compensation.
Last edited by houckster
Well Houckster, I have to agree with you in the UOA department. I too realize that unfortunately even though that is the ideal at last word way to get definitive proof of on particular lubricants abilities after time in the environment, I am not willing to spend what it takes to get a thorough enough analysis doen to tell me exactly what I want to know about the oil, and like most "normal" oil loving members, just change the oil after a certain time frame and or service period.

You are really making a case for practically never having to fully drain and change out one's crankcase again, but that too could be engine dependant. There are several engines out there that have proven themselves to be downright "dirty" running, and can destroy even the "best of the best" oils, whether it be petroleum, synthetic, or colloid heavy based. Then there are engines like mine, where it is very "easy" on oil, so I cold get away with standard petroleum with the rum dumb additive package, but I choose to run an ester based synthetic, or maybe even a full PAO based. I've even considered using HOBS oil for my next change.

Do I think that Synlube would work in my application? Most certainly, in fact, I probablyl would qualify as never having to drain again, but alas, I like the smell and feeling of fresh oil every now and then. I have considered Synlube in the past, and congratulate you for taking the step, purchasing the kit and installing it in your vehicle.

Basically, it comes down to peace of mind for the owner, and protection for the vehicle. I would havce to say that in both our cases, we've achieved that. Wink
Wow! The thread is active again. My last oil change on the 2005 Focus was Mobil 15000 mile stuff (can't remember the right name) while visting my daughter in NY state back at the end of June. The oil change at Wally Mart cost about $36. Up here in Canada a sythetic oil change costs about $75 so I figure I got a bargoonie. I brough back some of their house synthetic oil for about $14 per gallon. I've heard that it's Mobil 1 oil (don't know what blend).

I've got to use up this oil over the winter, after which I'm seriously considering getting some SynLube installed. I could have the stuff shipped to my daughter's place next Spring.

Houckster, I read where you are using one of those high-end oil filtering systems.

Without me reading all the SynLube stuff again, can you tell me how often I would have to change out a regular oil filter?

Would using a "regular" oil filter instead of a high-end system, change how long SynLube would be good for?

I'm still getting 41 mpg Imperial on the highway up here.
With regard to a high end filtering system, I'm using a CM filter which I really love. It has several major advantages:
  • 1) Backpressure is minimal because of the large filtering area. This is important because if backpressure is too high because of sludge buildup, high flow rate or whatever, the engine routes the oil directly to the engine bypassing the oil filter. I have been told this by someone who has a lot of experience. Formerly, I thought the bypass was in the filter. It may be in both places. I'm trying to find out more about this.
  • 2) The filter media is extremely stable being housed in a steel cage to which I attach a couple of neodymium magnets;
  • 3) It has the highest quality viton seals;
  • It captures contamination particles down to 8 microns.
As I mentioned above, after 3+ years of service, the filter's seals and media looked like the day they had been installed. I probably won't rebuild the filter until I change the oil in another seven years or so.

Since you have been using high quality oils, sludge build-up should not be a problem. If that were an issue, I would use Mobil 1 for one OCI to be sure there were no problems.

If you aren't burning any oil and the engine seals are OK, you should be able to use SynLube without problem. When one converts to SynLube, you buy the kit that includes a high quality filter. The exact change interval depends upon the filter size. Smaller filters need to be replaced more often because even if there's nothing for the filter to trap, the passage of oil through the media over time causes it to wear out. This is a problem because the extreme life of the oil requires a filter that is of much higher quality than ones intended for conventional lubricants. If you used a conventional filter, I would replace it yearly but it would have no impact on SynLube's service life that I can see. Any savings you would realize would be negated by the amount of SynLube trapped in the filter you are replacing which would probably be 2-4 oz. in a larger filter. I think the Focus filters are smaller though.

I would always recommend using SynLube's filter because the price differential is small.

It is important to remember that there is a substantial difference between filters at the auto parts store and the ones available from SynLube or from CM. Cheaper filters have a cellulose media that doesn't pass oil as quickly as the synthetic fibers in SynLube and CM filters. This makes a bigger and bigger difference as the temperature drops. And it makes a difference in gas mileage too since the harder the engine has to work to circulate oil, the higher the fuel requirement.

If you decide to proceed with your inquiries further, contact Miro Kefurt and see what he has to add. He's very nice but also a very cost-conscious guy who will be concerned about how much longer you'll keep the car. He tends to recommend against installation if trading the car in in the next couple of years is contemplated. I could be wrong though. Of course, I'll be glad to answer any additional question you have too.
Last edited by houckster
Houckster, what made you decide to go with the CM filter system as opposed to the Synlube filters?

I can vouge that just being able to clean the media, reinstall it, and drive some more is a wonderful concept, but it is really going to be cost effective in the long run? Most of them are $100+ for the system by the time you add tax and/or shipping costs, and given that I know Synlubes' filters are not cheap, they are designed, just like Amsoil's EaO filters, to last for a great deal of mileage. Second, what about efficiency and good filtration rates? to be able to be used for that long, plus be cleaned, the micron rating goes way down, not filtering out what some might consider to be too large of particulates flowing around your oil passages.

The last reason that I thought of for not using them, is that by the time the filter has paid for itself, you either don't have the vehicle any more, or the engine is shot. I know that there are exceptions to every rule, my experiences with engines included: I was able to get 400,000+ out of a 3.0L V-6 Mitusbishi engine in my folks minivan.
I can tell you that not everything I do is "cost-effective". I just liked the ability to see what was inside the filter after going a bunch of miles and I wasn't really into cutting a conventional filter open figuring that I'd probably slice a couple of fingers off in the process.

I was also attracted to the amount of filtering area which means very low backpressure and faster oil circulation to the bearings though that's a bit esoteric since SynLube's solid lubricants do more of the work than the liquid does after about 100 miles.

It's also a beautiful filter.
Yeah, I know that it's a very nice looking filter. In fact, I probably would be using it right now if I would've known that we would have another Honda, since most of them use the same filter. I could've just had a rum dum one to put on the one we traded in, then installed the pretty one on our new one.

Oh well, anyway, keep us up to date with your stuff, and I'll bump this up from time to time if no one else responds, or has any comments.
i put synlube in my 03 ford f-150 in july 06 at about 42,000 mi. i now have 73,000 mi. on the truck, approx. 31,000 0n the oil. my gas milage increased by an average of 1-2 mpg. oil consumption is about 1 qt. per 30,000 mi. so far. whereas before my switch to synlube it was about 1/4 to 1/2 qt. per 3,000 mi. oil change. i changed the filter (synlube microglass) at 10,000 mi. on the synlube, and will change it again at 40-50,000. miro is very helpful with any questions i've had. i was a little scared to make the change at first, but i'm now convinced it's the best thing i've done to my truck. just my 2 cents.
These are my results from my emission test last jan. with about 15k on the synlube. This is a state of co. test called i/m 240. The tests are done at state ran facilities and last 4 min. They are done on a dyno and do varying speeds from idle to highway speed. The limits are set by vehicle type and engine size, measured in gpm (grams per mile). I have no prior data to go by because you get a couple of years exemption when you buy your vehicle new. My truck is a 03 f-150 4.6L V-8. Anyway tell me what you think.

RESULTS -- LIMITS

HC- .0035 -- 4.0
CO- .2928 -- 20.0
NOx-.0065 -- 9.0
CO2- 707.9026 no limit shown
Last edited by tfoltz7
Have you also noticed that AAA has TESTED the SynLube for several years, Without Oil Change ?

See their press release on the home page

www.synlube.com

I have been using it in all my vehicles for over 12 years, mostly FORD'd - absolutely NO PROBLEMS and NO OIL CHANGES.

i'S ONLY WISH THAT THINGS THAT SUPPOSE LAST LIFE OF THE CAR (FORD) like Clutch, steering locks, and RADIO/CD players lasted as long - but they do not !!!
I came up on this board accidentally by searching the web about SynLube, was just curious what people have to say about it if anything. I was relly surprised by the techno geeks on this site, of which but few have ever used SynLube (the ones who did apparently like it), and all those who have never even seen a drop of it, have all this negative comments. I have no idea what your UOA, or what ever is, nor do I care.

My cars run BETTER - noticeably - AFTER switch to SynLube, the engines are quieter, teh MPG as much as 3 MPG better, and the cars that do not have "electronic" speed limiter, go about 15 to 20 MPH faster !!!

That is all I care about

My FORD FOCUS now has 56,000 miles, ZERO problems with SynLube, but 17 other non lube related problems of which only 12 were covered by warranty - I am happy with SynLube, but really will never buy another FORD again, that is after owning about dozen of them ( mostly 3 year leases).
I have just completed a trip to New England. I traveled up to Bar Harbor, ME and then back to N Bennington, VT and then back home. This was a total of almost 3100 miles. I used Sunoco Plus fuel exclusively.

My current 4-tank average for trip mileage is 22.6 which is very good for a Ranger that has an old EPA highway rating of 19. The new estimate, I think, is 18. The highest mpg I got was just over 23 MPG.

I just checked the oil level and apparently, I burned almost no oil for the trip.

I didn't baby the truck. It would be pretty hard to do that given the conditions out there on the expressways. When you're out there with the semis and in hilly terrain, you go however fast the conditions dictate. Most of the time, I was in the 65-70 mph range.

I got my truck's emissions inspected before leaving for my trip. I was very interested to see what the level of emissions would be. Unfortunately, the only thing that they do in GA is to check to see that the OBDII is working and if it is and there's no Engine Check light, you pass. I was very disappointed.
quote:
If we are to go by whats written here in some of the posts, how come no F-1 team has taken up this product, considering the benefits, this would be like an elixir to them.

Ya mean to say that just because an F-1 team hasn't got Synlube stickers plastered all over the vehicle's body, that people won't believe the stuff's any good?

Or, you mean to say that because all those NASCAR good old boys should be beieved because they have stickers plastered all over their jump suits?
quote:
Originally posted by Houckster:
Well I don't keep up with F1 I went back to the SynLube letter and I found tht it was Agip.

In 1992, Ferrari did use a SynLube product because they were losing lots of gearboxes due to design problems. The next year, Ferrari had a redesigned gear box and a fistful of money from Aqip so SynLube was history.


Correct it use to be Agip. It's been Shell for the past 8 years or so.
How about small race teams? Like SCCA or sports touring category? Those are low budget, any feedbacks from them, they need to make their engines last the longest and would benefit hugely from them.

About my F1 question, I believe high budget aside, its the best testing and proving ground for your product, for that matter, any racing is. Has Synlube been used in any motorcycles so far? As for Synlube being good, I will believe so when I see common people putting it in their daily drivers as they are the prime candidate for an oil with this kind of life. I also question a 20K schedule in a diesel, the older diesel engines like the Mercedes OM616/617 would soot it up in matter of few thousand miles, how do they intend to keep all that soot and not coagulate?
Racing is not in the SynLube picture. They are simply too small a company to do such a thing. Now if their advertising strategy (they have no advertising apart from the website) were to get the SynLube brand in front of a lot of people, and they had the money to do it, then racing might be a valid approach.

But the question is whether racing is the best proving ground for an oil as GURKA contends. That's been a common assumption for years but I don't think it holds water. The way normal people use their cars simply doesn't equate with how race cars are used. And the higher the level of racing, the greater the difference in usage. No one is going to take a Formula 1 racing car five miles through stop'n'go traffic to a convenience store for a cup of coffee. Even at the lower levels of racing, the race vehicle is often trailored to and from the race.

Let's keep SynLube in its proper context. It is an oil that will keep the daily driver on the road year after year. It will last as long as SynLube claims because the service intervals quoted are actually extremely conservative.
So in your words, the great Sochihiro Honda was wrong to say that the best proving grounds for any kind of technology is the race track, quite a ridiculous statement considering any product will have to give its best to survive the conditions, that would lead to enhanced performance during non race daily driving situation. Wonder why automobile companies race? Waste so much money and work hours when all they can be doing is slick marketing Wink

Houckster, you maybe interested in clarifying Synlube over here as well http://www.mercedesshop.com/shopforum/showthread.php?t=...10&highlight=Synlube
I want the time back that I spent reading a few pages of this thread. What total pap. No UOAs to substatiate anything, and the rest a bunch of marketing filler. "The formula hasen't changed since 1985" well then it is not as good as it could be because there have been SIGNIFICANT improvements in lubrication since that time. Do you really believe 20 year old tech is that good, and that the lubes of that time are better than they are now?

No explanation of how the oil does not oxidize or nitirate. No explanation of how the additives in the oil do not get used up or break down. No explanation of how the wear metals floating around for such a long period of time will not be abrasive. Even their own web site says that the wear metals will be higher in a UOA this length, yet on the same site they claim that oil does not get dirty! Roll Eyes

What is the base oil used and who makes it? 20 year old PAO? This is one thing I have never seen anyone post. And getting 2-3mpg improvement by going from 5W30 to a 50wt? The car manufactures would KILL for an improvement like that, and add to the fact that it would be a serious marketing gain to say that you never have to change your oil. They would be all over it. The fact that they are not speaks volumes.
Tempest, hopefully your were on your laptop, so that you could do something else while you were reading Big Grin

I followed this thread since almost the beginning, and no data to substantiate. Only words. I've come to this conclusion about it: it you want to use it, go ahead, and if you're happy with it and the results you are getting, great, if not move on.

I moved on to Maxima Oils, and am happy. Wink
I think anybody can be happy with any synthetic oil. The differences between synthetich brands is likely miniscule, except the hype and price. The manufacturers would have us believe differently.

Don't forget that "all that metal floating around" would go through their proprietary oil filter and remove it, would it not?

That's the trouble with a high-end education. You guys suck up all that stuff they feed you as gospel and you can't think outside the box. You've lost your perspective.

If you guys want OBAs, UTSs, ABCs, XYSs and all that other high-priced nonsense, fork out the money yourselves. He's merely reporting his experience with Synlube and you guys can't handle it. If that info was supplied to you Doubting Thomas', none of you blender/rocket scientists could handle it. It would blow apart all the hype you've been feeding the public for decades. Some of you guys on here can't see the forest for the trees!

To me the proof is in the pudding. He's getting 2 or 3 mpg better gas milage, the truck's running like a top, and he's got serious milage on that oil,
quote:
I think anybody can be happy with any synthetic oil. The differences between synthetich brands is likely miniscule, except the hype and price. The manufacturers would have us believe differently.

Ahhhh...that's where the VOAs and UOAs show the difference. They are not all the same and it is pretty obvious.
quote:
Don't forget that "all that metal floating around" would go through their proprietary oil filter and remove it, would it not?

No. Filters only catch debris to a certain size, and that size is considerably larger than the particles that show up on a UOA. In other words, typical filters (even very good ones) don't affect UOA readings.
quote:
That's the trouble with a high-end education.

So it's good to be naive and ignorant! Confused
quote:
If you guys want OBAs, UTSs, ABCs, XYSs and all that other high-priced nonsense, fork out the money yourselves.

It's Houckster that is making the assertions.
quote:
To me the proof is in the pudding.

What proof? He's typing a bunch of mumbo jumbo on an internet board with nothing to back it up?
Marketing departments love people like this.
Tempest: Here's a test for you. Take two samples of your oil and send them to two different labs. See just how repeatable the results will be. You might be disagreeably surprised. If you think a $20 oil test is going to be able to really give you something substantial, you're mistaken. A really thorough oil analysis will cost at least a couple hundred dollars. Have you done one of those?

The fallacy of your little diatribe is that you fail to explain why the mileage and performance I'm getting is not of consequence.

I don't think you're not being honest with yourself and you're hiding behind a $20 oil test.

Your post is typical of a person in denial. And it's you, not me that's really the kind of guy the marketing guys love because you'll come back time and again because you need the assurances that marketing departments provide with their flashy packaging and advertising. SynLube doesn't have a marketing department. I came upon SynLube on the web. Their website is their only advertising. I asked questions and I got answers I thought were substantial and consequently I bought the oil. I don't need a marketing department to reassure me, I have results to rely on.

And it seems to have escaped you that even though the formula dates from 1985, there is still no oil that can surpass SynLube. What does that tell you? It tells me that the other oil companies don't care to make a better oil, they're into profit. And as I've pointed out before, it's more lucrative to sell an adequate product many times than a extraordinary product once. SynLube is not a magical substance, it simply takes advantage of currently available technology far more than anyone else cares to.

Of course you can take any oil you choose and see if you get the results I have. That would be very interesting. Care to try? You can post on this thread to keep us up to date.
quote:
No. Filters only catch debris to a certain size, and that size is considerably larger than the particles that show up on a UOA. In other words, typical filters (even very good ones) don't affect UOA readings.


Synlube's filters are not "typical."

quote:
So it's good to be naive and ignorant!


I would never call you naïve or ignorant. Being well-educated is no guarantee against being "naive (sic) and ignorant."

quote:
It's Houckster that is making the assertions.


It seems to me that Houckster is sincerely providing us with his personal experience with Synlube products.

quote:
What proof? He's typing a bunch of mumbo jumbo on an internet board with nothing to back it up? Marketing departments love people like this.


Munbo jumbo? It's obvious that you have not taken the time to read the entire thread. In fact, you've admitted to that.


Quote:
"I want the time back that I spent reading a few pages of this thread."
Yes, UOAs will vary, especially from lab to lab. That is why it is important to use the same lab, and even then the results are not perfect. What UOAs do show is trending. One UOA is not proof of anything. Several UOAs are much more valuable. And why did you not address any of my points, all of which are valid? I want answers, not double speak from someone pushing a product with no evidence to back what he is saying.

I did not learn what I know from marketing, I learned it from Lubrication Engineers and research. I don't listen to TV commercials because it is a bunch of pap. The "technical" information on the Synlube site is of the same caliber, and reading just a couple $20 UOAs will show that. I even pointed out where they conflict themselves.
quote:
And it seems to have escaped you that even though the formula dates from 1985, there is still no oil that can surpass SynLube. What does that tell you?

That they are feeding you a load of bull since there is no evidence to support their or your claim.
quote:
Synlube's filters are not "typical."

The filters they have are not even close to being really good filters like hydraulic filters can be. They will not filter out all the metals and will not affect UOA readings.
quote:
It seems to me that Houckster is sincerely providing us with his personal experience with Synlube products.

Maybe. No proof. I fully believe that you can run an engine on a top quality oil for tens of thousands of miles, but what is it doing to the engine? Just because the engine still runs is no proof that it is in good or optimum condition, or that the oil is not turning into syrup from oxidation. This is why I want to see UOAs.
I have now driven 31000 kilometers with the Synlube installed. I have experienced many of the same advantages as Houckster. The first 6000 kilometers the car used 1 liter of Synlube. The next 20000 kilometers it used 0.4 liters! As Hoouckster mentioned, it would be interesting if you Tempest, try to do the same as Houckster do, with an oil of your choice, since you seem to know that Synlube is crap(without testing it). Also, I believe that Synlube came up with a new, improved formula in 1996.
Recently, they have also come up with different oils for gas and diesel engines.
quote:
Yes, UOAs will vary, especially from lab to lab. That is why it is important to use the same lab, and even then the results are not perfect. What UOAs do show is trending. One UOA is not proof of anything. Several UOAs are much more valuable.


Tempest, what you say above makes perfect sense to me. A $20 lab test very likely provides very minimal information, and perhaps inaccurate results, too. Hence the need for several UOAs to get a trend on a particular motor/engine oil combination. Rather than send Houkster twenty-bucks, send him $100 so he can have 5 lab tests, and another $50 to get another replacement quart of Synlube.

quote:
And why did you not address any of my points, all of which are valid? I want answers, not double speak from someone pushing a product with no evidence to back what he is saying.


You are hungry for knowledge. Pay for it. Check with Houkster. See how much he'll want to quench your thirst for knowledge.

quote:
I did not learn what I know from marketing, I learned it from Lubrication Engineers and research. I don't listen to TV commercials because it is a bunch of pap. The "technical" information on the Synlube site is of the same caliber, and reading just a couple $20 UOAs will show that. I even pointed out where they conflict themselves.quote: And it seems to have escaped you that even though the formula dates from 1985, there is still no oil that can surpass SynLube. What does that tell you? That they are feeding you a load of bull since there is no evidence to support their or your claim.


You still don't get it. Houkster has said many times throughout this thread that he's happy as a clam with Synlube products. He refuses to spend a pile of money on lab tests for you guys.

Nor would I. I'm using a brand-name synthetic oil that I don't pay to get UOAs, either. Why should I? What's the point?

Same analogy. Why should anyone using Synlube pay for UOAs if they don't feel the need to do so? Send Houkster some money.

quote:
Synlube's filters are not "typical." The filters they have are not even close to being really good filters like hydraulic filters can be. They will not filter out all the metals and will not affect UOA readings.

[quote]It seems to me that Houckster is sincerely providing us with his personal experience with Synlube products.

Maybe. No proof. I fully believe that you can run an engine on a top quality oil for tens of thousands of miles, but what is it doing to the engine? Just because the engine still runs is no proof that it is in good or optimum condition, or that the oil is not turning into syrup from oxidation. This is why I want to see UOAs.


Right on! Once again, send Houkster some money and share the knowledge with the rest of us!
Houckster, even after all that I've read from both you and jonny-b about this product, I still am leary to try it.

First, and usually the hardest pill to swallow is the fact that it is supposed to be a lifetime lubricant. Given all that most that are oil obsessed and frequently check on specifications of different lubricants, updated formulations, and knowing that from what we've read and been taught, the oil base itself is not what goes bad, it is the additive package depletion and wear metal build up that warrants oil changes. Now oil changes can be greatly extended through analysis, bypass filtration to supplement the full flow filter, and synthetic basestocks with a hefty additive package built in.

Second, is cost, which in Synlube's case, would be the initial start up of use. I spend more money on oils than most are willing, but at $32 per liter, it is tough to swallow, particularly if you have a bigger sump capacity.

In all honesty, I would love to be able to put a lubricant in and forget about it so to speak, but just common physics and the operation of the internal combustion engine suggest that even with today's technological advances in lubricants and lubrication design, it is not possible to have a lifetime lubricant that doesn't require a complete drain and refill with fresh.

Also, if you read the fine print on the website, even they recommend an hour/mileage change of their lubricant. So in it's basic form, it isn't a lifetime one time fill. Yes, some vehicles will consume oil, hence the add fill and service fill for the filter changes, but that is still replacing some of the fluid with fresh, but not with enough, in my opinion, to fully recharge the lubricant. And last, without bypass filtration, wear metals WILL BUILD UP in the crankcase. No matter hoe good the lubricant, engines DO and WILL wear, if not from design and operation, from abnormal use or improper use.

I'm glad that you have found success with Synlube, it is just that without data, UOA's, detailed information of specific patterns of the engine, it will still be a very hard sale to most in the lubrication field.
DAD2LEIA: Here are some points to remember concerning the things that make you uncomfortable with SynLube.

1) You state that "the oil base itself is not what goes bad, it is the additive package depletion and wear metal build up that warrants oil changes."

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

In contrast SynLube is composed of inert ingredients that don't interact with these contaminants. Consequently, the oil doesn't have the same deficiencies as regular oil. Also when you're selling an oil for $32 a quart, the additive package can be a lot better than one for an oil that costs $2 on an autoparts shelf. Also remember, that $32 does not include a cut for a middle man. More of your money goes for the oil and less for distribution costs.

2) With regard to cost, SynLube is almost always cheaper in the long run. Compare your costs over a 150K miles compared to SynLube. As I pointed out, compared to the standard 3K OCI at a Jiffy Lube, the SynLube had paid for itself after 24K miles or so. That includes the quart of Service Fill I would need.

3) You contend that "it is not possible to have a lifetime lubricant that doesn't require a complete drain and refill with fresh." I agree, the interval for SynLube is just much, much longer than for other oils. I would also point out that the stated service intervals are about half of what the lubricant can really last for. The oil will hardly be "tired" after 10 years, 150K miles or 3K engine hours.

4) The "lifetime" part of the SynLube claim is based on the life of the vehicle as submitted to the government, not the actual amount of time that the vehicle will provide service. Many vehicles are have a 70K service life based on the anticipated ability of the vehicle to maintain clean emissions.

5) And will there be a wear metal build-up? Not necessarily. The SynLube system includes strong neodymium magnets that will put the particles out of circulation should they occur. However my personal experience has been that this isn't a problem. As I pointed out, I pulled the CM oil filter I use out and disassembled it. Those two strong magnets had nothing on them at all. That was after about 28-30K miles. There was no evidence of sludge and the filter looked almost brand new. It filters down to 8 microns. I would also point out that wear is almost nonexistant because SynLube adds a second dimension to the oil in the solid lubricants that are embossed into the surface of the metals during use. Consequently during a cold start, there is no "dry" lubrication where the majority of metal wear particles are created.

Finally, we keep getting back to the tests and I have to say, a really reliable test requires the expenditure of a couple hundred dollars and it requires someone who is familiar with the oil to adjudge it properly.

But what value do these tests have, really? No very much, practically. I took the risk and I sweated out the first few thousand miles after I would normally have changed the oil on a 2001 Ford Focus. Like many, I liked to change the oil at 3-5K miles. I can't imagine how many times, I had the dipstick out to check consumption and to see if the oil still looked normal. The reality is that confidence comes with time.

When people express doubts about SynLube, it all boils down to asking how I could be getting the results I'm getting if the SynLube wasn't doing everything that's claimed for it. Look at the mileage and oil consumption? You're not going to get those results with an oil that isn't really working properly.
quote:
Actually, the additive package is there to protect the base oil and when that package has deteriorated, the base oil will indeed deteriorate by forming byproducts with the combustion blow-by and water that forms during cold starts.

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

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

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

What test do you speak of?
quote:
Why should anyone using Synlube pay for UOAs if they don't feel the need to do so?

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

As I said, Houkster is making the assersion that this will do what no other oil will do and breaks all the rules. The burden of proof is on him to show what he is saying is true, not the other way around.
Can you supply a link to the exact filter package that you use?

Also, where and roughly how was it installed?

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

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

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

I got 43 mpg on my last tank of gasoline. All highway driving.
I use a CM Filters It is not a bypass filter but a conventional spin-on. The principle difference with the filter is that it has no bypass valve, a large filter media area, and is made of machined aluminum parts using Viton gaskets. Because the filter can be disassembled, all the parts can be replaced. The website provides the details necessary. Installation was exactly like that of any conventional filter.

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

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

TEMPEST: The answers to your questions are on the SynLube site. I simply don't feel the need to repeat what is readily available there or in previous pages here. But that would be pointless for your purposes. I don't think you're acting in good faith and have no intention of ever giving the product fair consideration. I've been through this many times before with others making the same empty arguments.
Last edited by houckster
Tempest, I don't understand why you think that Houckster need to give you any proof from his experience?
Synlube have some 13000 customers out there and it should be very easy for you to just do a Google, to find several customers that are not satisfied, wouldn't it? Another advice you should try to follow, is the one to actually read something from Synlubes homepage. You may find some answers there.
Are you fineshed Googling, yet?
Did you find something,Tempest?
quote:
Tempest, I don't understand why you think that Houckster need to give you any proof from his experience? Synlube have some 13000 customers out there and it should be very easy for you to just do a Google, to find several customers that are not satisfied, wouldn't it? Another advice you should try to follow, is the one to actually read something from Synlubes homepage. You may find some answers there. Are you fineshed Googling, yet?Did you find something,Tempest?


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

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

Regards, Paul.
in Haliburton.
Yes, you can! Cool

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

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

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

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

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

Finally, let me remind all who read my posts that I receive absolutely no compensation in any form from SynLube. My relationship with the company is strictly that of a customer.
Last edited by houckster
Here's my deal. I've been reading this thread for a couple of months now. I now have 35,000k on synlube (77,000 on the truck) and my truck runs like the day I bought it. I use about 1 qt. per 30,000k, much more than houckster, but still an unbelievable small amount to me. I guess cause I didn't install it until 42,000k. We've had it drilled into our heads for as long as I can remember to change your oil often. I suppose this is true with dino and most syns. out there. But what is wrong with thinking outside the box? Oil companies want you to change your oil early and often, and it's worked. As someone stated earlier, google it and try to find a dissatified synlube customer. Increased gas mileage, low emissions, and a smooth running truck does it for me.
Yes, it really is a support for Synlube. Since I had read a lot(and done some testing)with mos2 and PTFE before, it wasn't that frightening to make the decition to start using Synlube. Graphite was the thing that made me hesitate a bit, but after reading about it, it seemed to be a good thing and I was willing to give it a try(in my oldest car). Now, after 32000 and 18000 kilometers in two different cars, I am just sorry that I didn't know about Synlube 10 years ago.
I understand how difficult it can be for the average person to try something that "everybody" say is not possible. Because of the limited marketing resources, Synlube will probably be a well kept secret for a long time.
I just hope that more people, would give it a chance.
I have found that it gives some advantages:
- The engines are more quiet(important since we drive diesels)
- Slightly better performance and slightly less fuelconsumption
- Less oilconsumption
- I don't have to change oil(and plan when and where to do the nest oilchange)
- The ADD-oil is CHEAPER than Mobil1(here in Norway)
- Reduced smoke, and because of that, easier to pass smog-test
- Happy wife, since I don't have to spend any of my time to change oil Wink
quote:
Originally posted by Houckster:
I have received the results of the testing by Staveley Fluids Analysis performed for SynLube.

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

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

Here are the other readings:

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


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

you compare.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





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

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

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

The Cr reading must be compensated for accumulated mileage.

Example: 11/12,000 = 0.0009

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



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

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

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

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



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



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

Differing test equipment yields different Molybdenum levels from identical test sample, therefore data obtained from different laboratories can not be reliably compared.
As additional perspective, for that test, the shop where the sample was sent had just changed hands and the person who was doing the test was new. I would have sent the oil somewhere else if I'd known this. This is just one of the weird factors that can bring into doubt the results of these tests.

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

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

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

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

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