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?
Read our primer articles on High Mileage Oil, Synthetic Oil and Kinematic Viscosity
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.
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 
Houckster, you maybe interested in clarifying Synlube over here as well http://www.mercedesshop.com/shopforum/showthread.php?t=...10&highlight=Synlube
Houckster, you maybe interested in clarifying Synlube over here as well http://www.mercedesshop.com/shopforum/showthread.php?t=...10&highlight=Synlube
Yes, I think "the great Sochihiro Honda" was mistaken and I'd tell him so to his face.
Sorry, but we're just going to have to agree that we disagree here. That is unless Mr. Honda is willing to take me to the 7-11 for a slurpy in his F1 racer.
Sorry, but we're just going to have to agree that we disagree here. That is unless Mr. Honda is willing to take me to the 7-11 for a slurpy in his F1 racer.
Nah, Mr. Honda would let you take out the trash for sure 
I just finished a 1600 mile trip to Hanover, PA. Again, no oil was burned during the trip and the SynLube now has over 37K miles on it. Oil consumption is well over 100K miles per quart with 6 oz. of total consumption during the 3.75 years the oil has been in service. Gas mileage for the trip was about 22.7 for a truck rated at 19 MPG
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!
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.
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!
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
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.
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.
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,
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,
And now for my second act...
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!
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.
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.
That they are feeding you a load of bull since there is no evidence to support their or your claim.
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.
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 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.
Tempest: I posted what I did to share my personal experience with others. It is for each person to decide if the information is worthwhile or not. You have obviously decided that the information is not worthwhile. I see no reason to waste further time in response since your mind is made up.
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.
Recently, they have also come up with different oils for gas and diesel engines.
Jonny-b: Good luck with Tempest but but I don't hold out much hope for reasoning with him. He's in 'condemn' mode.
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.
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.
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.