Synlube

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

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

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

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

I have been using their products for close to four years now and they work day in and day out.

@SYNSKEPTIC
Stay skeptic. You're on the right track.

An unfortunate comment Callista. I would have hoped for better from you judging by your other comments.

Just because the lubricant is unfamiliar is no reason to disregard it out of hand. It is entirely superior to other lubricants on the market.

quote:

---

An unfortunate comment Callista.

---

Yes.

quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

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

My conclusion from your statements and my experience from the past: I stay skeptic.

If SynLube is that remarkable it makes me wonder why one of the premier auto builders (especially one with low volumn production) are not using it in their cars. The people who buy that type of auto wouldn't care about the price per quart but would probably love the convenience and not having to have their oil changed.

SynLube is an extremely small company that does not have any advertising except for its webpage. Even to many who have been in the automotive industry for a long time, their existance is still a surprise and they obviously cannot compete with the more powerful competitors here and don't even try.

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

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

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

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

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

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

One final point: The latest version of the SynLube formula, introduced in 1996, exceeded the new API SM and the ILSAC GF-4 (?) specs without modification.

To pass an API test is not that hard... it isn't one of the higher standards of the world industry.
I wonder if this Synlube can cope with the harder tests from VAG and DaimlerChrysler. (I really don't know...)

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

But I'm not here to criticize all the texts your putting in. Can you paste some links here with additional information on this product? Maybe this turns over my scepticism ;-)

One of the reasons there are not more lubricants on the market with SynLube's properties is that it is always more profitable to sell an adequate product lots of times than one just once.

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

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

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

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

Here are the specifications, that SynLube meets.

Interesting! Do you know who edits the content of the specification website? There are a few mistakes in there (ACEA's...).

Please note that there are some small companies in Europe who would love to talk on this subject. And they can keep their head up against the 'big guys'.
If you wish I can send you a list. Some of them have their own blending capabilities. e-mail me on theonlymatthias@hotmail.com

@Houckster
I'll do some quotes from their homepage, I hope that this is O.K. with the webmaster. I just want to explain, what simple things are really wrong with this Company.

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

- Not for use in Diesel fueled engines ! -

---

Huh? They have passed two important European Diesel Specs, ACEA E5, B5 and they warn me to use their product in a Diesel engine????

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

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

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

And these are just the worst mistakes I saw in just 2 minutes.

eAzY E:
I have no knowledge whatever of their blending capabilities. Sorry.

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

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

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

quote:

---

Callisa: Calm down!

---

You are right.

quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Do we have a deal?

I don't know what you mean when you say: Why am I warned afterwards to use this product in a Diesel engine?

SynLube is equally applicable to diesels or gasoline engines. My engine is a gasoline engine. (Ford 4.0L V-6).

All I can do is try. I don't know if he will let me have that information or not.

Can anybody tell me where I can find this multi-purpose oil in the directory for API-licensed products? http://eolcs.api.org/

Furthermore some of the ACEA specifications used are outdated

e.g: ACEA E5-99 (E5-02), B4-98 (B4-02)

Hey PJD:
Your link is interesting. Mobil 1, Amsoil and Royal Purple will all return a listing. Redline or SynLube doesn't.

@PJD
Thank you. 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?

quote:

---

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

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

What do they mean?

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

---

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

Do we have a deal?

Slick 50 contains PTFE same as Synlube

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

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

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

Quote:

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

For all other “magic” additives, most are based on 1930’s technology corrosive chlorinated paraffins. (synthetic anti-seize compounds originally made 70 years ago. They are cheap, toxic and corrosive. We use them in certain types of cutting oil!) Do not touch them with somebody else’s bargepole!