Skip to main content

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

Aristotelian pure though experimenters

WOW I have already gotten 2 e-mail as a result of this post from people who are not even "registered" on the noria board.

So to those who have missed some basic history / physics education here is the BIT on this as it relates to "SynLube" !

First of all Aristotle (also sometimes Aristotel) that live in 384-322 BD in Greese (not Grease) simply conclude by "pure thought experiments" - i.e. just thinking about it while feasting on grapes (sometimes apparently well fermented) - that heavy objects fall to earth which is their "natural" place much faster than light objects - AND THAT was accepted by "scientists" (in Latin that means :to know) for 2,000 years as no one ever bothered to "test: this absolutely obvious conclusion that was based on "pure thought experiment".

And then there ws Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) that the all knowing Church almost burned at the stake in the center of Vatican, just for suggesting that Earth is NOT the center of all universe, and also figuring out that body in freefal (irrespective of its mass or weight) accelerates at 32 ft/sec2 = that was just too radical.

One of the Ancient Egyptian definitions of "god" (which Vatican secretly embraced) was that the purpose of man is to be better than "god", and the way to do it is to predict a "future and what will happen as "cause-effect" relationship with exact certainity"

Knowing how fast a rock will fall, what its terminal speed will be, where it will fall, BEFORE you drop it, is knowing the FUTURE BEFORE it HAPPENS, and by the Egyptian definition that makes you "better" than "god".

He (god) only creates, but "you" can DESIGN the future and understand it BEFORE it happens TOO !

That has ALWAYS been a very dangerous knowledgge.

So it took 22 years to perfect SynLube (1944 to 1966) it has been in use and available in USA since 1969.

SO do NOT waste any more time, or post space for another YEAR in proving that based on your though all heavy objects MUST FALL FASTER as that is OBVIOUS !

USE SynLube in your own car - as we can already predict what will happen !!!

You will just "love" that stuff, you had a serious phobia about for over a year NOW !!!

Well that is all the time and effort I will spend on this post, if you have any real questions send them direct to

Miro Kefurt
Mr. Kefurt!
Your three posts were (pretty) educative, but unfortunately, not so much about Synlube. Aristotle (Aristotel), Galileo,… are too far of synthetic lubricants what actually is our present topic. Let me just to mention that I, personally, am not afraid of getting knowledge about these (early) scientists. Not knowing too much about North American school programs I would just mention that (even primary and obviously secondary) school in former Yugoslavia taught me much wider and more about tens of (here not mentioned) scientists or “important persons through history of the world”. It was too boring than (for most part of us) to learn years, happenings and works of some “prehistoric” Greeks, Italians, Brits,… Today, for most part of these “old school guys”, it is our advantage to know it. As “general knowledge” if nothing else.

It is not necessary to be so smart and figure out that all “disputants” here are greatly interested in getting more dubious knowledge about synthetic lubricants. Some of us are doing it for just pleasure reasons, some - because of living and part of us (lucky ones!) made a “combo” of it. As you know it, most dominant method here is rather through conversation than being taught like in school. Having a conversation means having a less or more aggressive opponent, a less or more knowledgeable, a less or more skeptic. Without it conversation would be more like applauding and result of it is – loosing a sense of having a discussion.

Regarding just mentioned you really do not need to be poignant about more skeptic disputants. They are just a little bit more interested about topic and want to know a little bit deeply about things what do not know at present time. For instance, when I had to make more complicated designs I liked to discuss it with most opponent person. It just gave me opportunity to be the most bold and defendable person about that project at same time. You are going to agree with me that there wasn’t effect of having discussion with someone who has been thinking similarly as me or worked as my draftsman.

I would not agree with your standpoint that all of us have to try (your) product first and than post opinions. Forums are ideal place to get someone’s other experience, discuss a little bit about it and not to make (or repeat) a mistake (if it was like this). Would you suggest us to purchase a new car (for instance) without even reading a tests and other’s opinions? As technically educated person, would you purchase and use product like Synlube, Amsoil, plasma TV, computer, … without getting preliminary info about it? Answer for sure is: no. So, along with mentioning (well known for me) Bertone and other facts please explain us a little bit more about “Synlube magic”. As one of creators you, for sure, know how much to tell and not to reveal “the most important thing”. Do not let us, who are not so deep in your product, to guess and suppose. Give us more technically explainable facts than years (1944 – 1966), wet water and “falling objects”

It is so nice that you are bold about your product. It is understandable either. You spent a lot of time improving it and implementing newer things. There is no guessing if I say that you definitely can help us to better understand and accept your product as reality.
Houckster writes:

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

Doesn't this make sense?"

No, it doesn't! To any intelligent, rational, and objective person, the above hypothetical comments make no sense at all because SynLube has never supplied any test data, either positive or negative. Neither do most of Houckster's previously and presently unsubstantiated "beliefs" regarding SynLube.

First of all, if you want an objective opinion about SynLube, the best thing to do is have an independent lab test the oil and publish their unedited test results. Having SynLube test it themselves or letting them edit their own or others test results is like letting a student grade their own final exam. Most of us <graduates> are smarter than that!

Second, if anyone disagrees with the results from the first test, then get another independent opinion by having a second independent lab test the oil, without any knowledge of the previous results, and then publish their unedited results. If both of the test results are in agreement, then we are surely closer to reality. If not, get a third opinion and see which of the two previous tests are mostly in agreement with the third. Then we're even closer to reality.

Please, lets not cloud reality by claiming that any good test lab is incapable of properly testing Synlube. That is just not true. Anybody who is willing to pay (or expecting others to pay) $32 a liter for synthetic motor oil surely wouldn't scoff at paying $40 each for a few ICP + TBN used oil analysis (UOA) tests now would they? Or is "belief" preferable to fact?

Last edited by chumley
Chumley, I think that you've just about summed it up for everyone following this topic.

I've been dying to see some results from someone who has used this product, to no avail. $32 per liter for ANY type of oil is hard to swallow unless the proof says that this stuff is liquid gold for your engine. (I personally draw the line at $10 per or so, which is whay I posted my other questions about the other oils)
I think Synlube's market is not geeks that lurk around these web sites. I think they have matched their production (small) to a market that is willing to pay (small) for such a product. The unit cost is high and that's part of the pitch. Wouldn't you pay more for a product that does what Synlube claims? Evidently there is enough response to support a business. The oil may be very good, but they are sure keeping us (geeks) from finding out. The minimum to get started would be one voa and two or three uoa's each, on different vehicles. If we are not hearing anything it's just because we are not the focus of any of Synlube's marketing. If our small slice of the market is missed it will be no great loss to Synlube. The geek market is probably too much work or Synlube is not up to it, after all.

There is a solution. Start a fund, pick someone with a near new car that coummutes a lot and go after it. But that would take some work and maybe the question of hype or not just isn't worrth the effort.

To do it right would take a couple of hundred dollars for oil and a couple of hundred dollars for analysis. Start with the oil, a voa and a uoa every 5k miles and publish the results. And we need someone that drives a lot with that near new car. This thread is at 11 pages, maybe that's an indicator of the interest and a possibility to generate a test fund. I'm in for $20.00US, how 'bout you?
Very true and great point Barkerman, but let me ask this: After purchasing a new car, who's got that kind of disposable cash just waiting around to be poured into a crankcase at the start?

I mean you do have time while the engine is finishing breaking in, but by then the first payment's due, the tanks required about $200 or more worth's of fuel, and the wife is complaining that she doesn't have any money to buy new clothes?!?

Seriously though, I WOULD be willing to try this stuff, but I am just so hung up on the cost end of it. Let's see $32 x 5 (average crankcase of a 4 cylinder) = $160 + roughly $24 for their filter = $184 + liter of add oil @ $22 = $206 plus the magnets for their filter @ $12 = $218 That's roughly 1 2/3 cases of the most expensive racing motor oil out there, which @ 21 liters, gives 4 changes (using extended drains) plus 1 liter of oil to top off with the filter changes, which wouldn't require much due to the smaller size of the filters on 4 cylinder engines these days (granted, Mobil 1 oil filters are $10 to $12 a piece and higher in some states, so that might add a little to the filter cost.)

Then you've got the analysis as you said @ $40 a pop for the good ones (such as the Dyson Analysis). This just seems to be a lot for MAYBE having the benefit of not having to do oil changes for quite a while, but to get the sample an most vehicles these days, you have to get under the car and get it from the drain plug hole. I know that Fram makes a device that you can screw in and just turn it to drain, but what about the contaminants that build up inside the tube while driving. Not taking the first bit will help in the flushing of this tube, but you won't get all of the excess contaminants out. And while I'm under said car, why not just change all of it, since I still have to get under my particular car to change the oil filter too.

So, in the long run, I'm I really saving money AND time, or am I just hoping that this product is still doing it's job? I guess you're right, we need to find someone willing to do this and follow a strict schedule and get UOA's done to post results and find out for sure if this is the greatest lubricant since synthetics started...
Barkerman writes:

I'm in for $20.00US, how 'bout you?

Thanks but, I'm out, and I'll pass. This thread has been going on now for over a year. If anyone representing SynLube had anything of value to say/add or were planning on posting any more relevant data, chances are it would have happened by now! Jeeze, 83 mind numbing posts in 11 pages at present? I'd be more optimistic about the polar ice caps melting.

Hummmmm. Could someone please explain to me why I should have to pay to test an unknown fledgling companies outrageously priced unproved product, (clearly they don't want to) or why I should take a chance on using it on my equipment, when acceptable, cost effective, and well proven industry accepted products all ready exist which I have no issue with? What's in this exercise for me? Not much unless SynLube wants to "give me" say, 5 quarts of their claimed "golden elixir" for my own testing. As Richard Gere implied in the movie Pretty Woman, "We're going to need some major sucking up here if you want my business." If it does all they say it does, I could be one of SynLubes best proponents. But as this thread initially began, skepticism was mentioned, which I am full of. Now here we are a year later. Nothing's changed, except my increased level of skepticism.

Barkerman writes:

"I think Synlube's market is not geeks that lurk around these web sites. I think they have matched their production (small) to a market that is willing pay (small) for such a product. The unit cost is high and that's part of the pitch. Wouldn't you pay more for a product that does what Synlube claims?"

So, do you have any idea about what SynLubes current market actually IS, (and what their yearly sales are) or are you going to just guess about what it isn't? So far that links you with Houckster's thinking. (which makes no sense)

SynLube has made a lot of claims. To date, they have not offered one shred of evidence to support them. Bablink! A double bond that further closely links Barkerman with Houckster's thinking!

The posts offered as evidence in this thread by the President of SynLube Company need no reply. Clearly, that should tell the reader something.

Last edited by chumley
That just might happen Chumley if we keep up the good work of running our internal combustion engines at loads and speeds that require us to talk about products like Synlube.

As for me, after my last post, I'll take my $20 to the beer distributor and buy some cold ones to go with my racing oil package and not be thirsty while changing my oil and filter!
Honestly, I've never seen a group of people who are more intent on missing the point of a bit of common sense.

Chumley, you really do need to read my posts over again. You've completely misinterpreted my comments. The only person, INHALIBURTON, that did understood what's going on. Please, please read the posts!

For the last time: I have sent a sample of oil into SynLube. That was about a week ago. When I get the results I will post them. IF THE RESULTS ARE GOOD, then I will send a sample to Dyson for their analysis and post them.

Again, if I can't get a good report out of SynLube, the company that makes the stuff and would be expected by people here to give a good report (and therefore would not be trusted), what chance do I have of getting a good report out of an independent source? I am not going to waste $40 if SynLube itself won't tell me the oil is holding up. If SynLube itself tells me that the oil is NOT working, everyone will believe it, it's only if SynLube gives me a great report that I'm going to have to send the oil to Dyson so people will give the oil the credit it deserves.

Finally, the point that was made about not having the money to buy SynLube after purchasing a new vehicle is unpersuasive as well. That's exactly what I did. I changed the oil in the engine, the transmission, differential, transfer case, front axle and power steering. No, it's not cheap but when it comes to ROI, that's when the return is highest when you can eliminate the dino oil before it has deteriorated and leaves deposits behind for SynLube to deal with. As of 16.5K miles w/SynLube, my truck has consumed 4 oz. of oil. By any system of measurement, that's an impressive stat.
Last edited by houckster
Houckster writes:

"Honestly, I've never seen a group of people who are more intent on missing the point of a bit of common sense."

Naaahhh. Not true at all. Just the opposite is true. Most of us are patiently waiting for you to MAKE A POINT which is based on common sense! Our intentions are in FINDING THAT POINT, and then discussing it, if you would just make one! We're waiting . . . .

Then Houckster writes:

"Chumley, you really do need to read my posts over again."

I would make the same comment to you except that you should read my posts twice, three times, or however many times it takes to bring your hibernating brain back to life!

Most of us don't care about what grade SynLube gives themselves. (every idiot will give themselves an "A" if they have the opportunity to decide their own grade) We're interested in reality and documented performance here. When you have some independent objective test data, feel free to post it, there's lots of people here who would love to read it.

If you have more mindless psychobabble like you've previously posted in this thread, rather than post more of it in a public forum and further embarrass yourself, I suggest you put it in MSWord documents and store it on you own PC. Then after your meds take effect, go back and read it!

Last edited by chumley
Yeah, I agree with you completely. I am totally hopeless as a potential customer if your thinking that I might buy SynLube's $32 a liter synthetic oil. Find another sucker!

And when you do, I've got a whole tanker full of $30 a gallon premium synthetic extra special ultra high octane low emission deodecyl methylcyclopental orthdimethylbenzyl methadexil racing gasoline I'd love to sell them too. And by the way, for every gallon of gasoline you sell for me at $30, I'll give you $5 bucks as a commission. Sounds good?

Last edited by chumley
SynLube's formula is proprietary so other than what's on the website, I have no clue.

Where did you get the information about the Fe? SynLube does have a section on their website to answer the most frequent questions that arise from the results of independent testing. Fe, for example will usually flag and SynLube advises that they use a sacrificial iron additive as part of the formula so the reading has to be reduced by about 100.

So for anyone interested in the results that I'll get back, hopefully within a couple of weeks, that section would be very important for a proper perspective. The link was posted in a previous post.

As I've mentioned several times, if the results of the test are good, then a sample will be sent to Dyson to see if he can confirm the good result. I will also send him a sample of new oil for comparison purposes.
Last edited by houckster
Bruce381 wrote regarding the sacrificial iron wear additives in the SynLube formula:
Wow what a great way to explain away lousy wear rates by saying they use FE in the formula. But how do you know with out a baseline of new unused oil?

BRUCE381: Congratulations on having such an open mind. With absolutely no evidence to validate such a judgment, you have already written the product off.

Regarding the baseline unused oil, see my previous post.

BARKERMAN wrote: Houckster, have you ever kept a car long enough to prove the claims of Synlube?

No, I haven't, if you're referring to the 10 year, 150K mile, or 3K engine hour service life of the lubricant. My current ride, a Ford Ranger has 16K miles on the oil. The sample I've sent into SynLube has 15.3K miles on it. The oil has been in use for a little over a 1.6 years.
Last edited by houckster
Houckster, I don't think that bruce381 is writing off the product, just saying that maybe you should've done a VOA, just for the baseline information that it would have provided. No I'm not one to talk too loud at that subject, since I've never done a VOA myself, but some "oilers" really like to read about exactly what they're pouring into their engines.

I've stated before that my biggest drawback on this product is the layout cost. I have enough trouble convincing my family that I need to do preventative maintenance, let alone fork out $300 or so for a fluid/filters change at one pop. I also NOT saying that this product can't do what it claims, it's just hard to fathom, given what everything else's limitations seem to be after viewing their respective UOA's from others' uses and mileage limits.

I'm eagerly waiting for your data as well.
People, we need to gain some perspective in all this civility and respect is utmost here even though dissenting opinions fly, please one can disagree yet is hurling caustic comments necessary. I think the worthiness of this topic is merited, yet we seem to forget our comments negating the value of this product is not fully substantiated and yes the cost can be prohibitive this does not in an of itself invalidated it's use or considerations.

Again I go back to the humble beginnings of amsoil such attack on its validity were unsubstantiated and how many of you at that time when you first heard of it dismissed it's usefulness, again without data just on the merits of somebody saying that's ludicrous can't happen of last, let's give the benefit of the doubt here.

It's interesting to see the tenor of the majority here, might it be said if such a spirit were reflected by those in the past that took a chance on concepts and product development I'd venture to say we would've become a non progressive society with a atrophying creativity and innovation.
Houkster writes:

"Chumley you seem to be under the impression that I am going to be disappointed that you're not going use SynLube. I really couldn't care less."

Naaahhh, I really don't care if you are disappointed or not. But for what it's worth, lets give your current level of persuasive effort the "evidence test," OK? I count 85 posts from you in this thread. Clearly you do care and have a big interest (financial or otherwise) in this topic and how others feel/react to it. Smile My opinion is based on evidence. (85 posts worth, . . . from you)

BRUCE381 writes:

"Wow what a great way to explain away lousy wear rates by saying they use FE in the formula. But how do you know with out a baseline of new unused oil?"

Houkster replies:

"BRUCE381: Congratulations on having such an open mind. With absolutely no evidence to validate such a judgment, you have already written the product off."

Houkster: Your ability to read between the lines and read others minds has no equal. I don't get that at all from Bruce381's comment. In fact, I see nothing in the above comment to indicate that Bruce381 has made the judgement call of writing the product off, although his comment makes perfect sense and it is an excellent observation to which I have yet to see your data rich objective reply. Remember, most of us know that, given the opportunity, chances are that SynLube will give itself an "A" on any tests that they grade/edit themselves.

Thanks for your comments DAD2LEIA. It seems hard, however, to conclude that he isn't writing SynLube off with the comment ". . . to explain away lousy wear rates by saying they use FE in the formula." seems pretty negative to me.

Also, unless the vehicle you are thinking of uses considerably more than 5 quarts of oil, you really won't be spending $300 to get started. My startup cost was less than $200 and that included a quart of Service Fill ($40) instead of Add Oil because I knew my oil consumption would be very low. To date, I've only used about 8 ounces of the Service Fill (4 oz. to replace oil consumption loss and another 4 oz. to replace oil used for samples). The thing to consider is the per mile cost. Dino oil, assuming a 3K OCI and a $25 charge at a quick lube place costs about .8 cents per mile. In contrast, with an initial outlay of $195.50 for SynLube (5 quarts Initial Fill + 1 quart Service Fill + 1 oil filter and magnets), my per mile costs will be equal to that of dino oil by about 23.5K miles. After that, the next 75K miles except for occasional filter changes is free. In addition there is the better condition of the engine, all the time not lost waiting to have an oil change done and the significantly reduced pollution caused by all the waste oil normally generated during a vehicle's life.

With regard to Chumley's comments . . .

First I simply don't believe he has read all the posts I've made about SynLube and he misinterprets my purpose. If he had read my posts he would have seen that I have specifically stated that I derive no income whatsoever from SynLube sales. If everyone one this board suddenly bought SynLube, I wouldn't get one cent. My sole purpose has been to discuss a product that is significantly different from any other competing product on the market and to have people here properly understand what it does. After that, it's for everyone to decide whether SynLube fits into their plans or not.

Secondly, Chumley states that I have not made a persuasive argument in SynLube's favor. If Chumley or anyone else finds the comments I've made to be unconvincing or unclear, then it is up to them to state clearly and without sarcasm why they find fault with what I've written. I can respond to that though perusing the comments on the SynLube website would go far in clearing up a lot of the skepticism and misunderstanding. Frankly, some of my comments have specifically been calculated to discourage negative participation.

Finally, as this post was being composed, BRUCE381 weighed in with some clarifying comments which allowed me to see more clearly what he was trying to say. Frankly, I don't have any idea whether sending an unused sample of SynLube into Dyson would provide the information he would like to have but as I pointed out above, if the results from SynLube indicate a positive result, a sample of unused oil as well as the used oil will be sent in to Dyson.

My final point to BRUCE381 is that because SynLube is so unconventional, his personal experience may make it more difficult, not less, to understand the merits of the product. Since he states he is a CLS, then I think the SynLube website along with a note to Miro Kefurt for clarifying comments would be especially valuable.
Last edited by houckster
I'm not writing off this product but I have seen NOTHING that makes any sense and I know I have blended PCMO and other lubes for 33 years.
All I said is if I had a oil that I knew had bad wear numbers and I said Oh we use a FE additve so that your test results will be skewed that is a great way to protect yourself when bad wear numbers are reported if you can not understand this concept then we are at an impass. Love to see ANY oil data at all othe than BS from website which uses terms I have never heard in this industry.
bruce CLS
bruce381 writes:

"All I said is if I had an oil that I knew had bad wear numbers and I said Oh we use a Fe additve so that your test results will be skewed that is a great way to protect yourself when bad wear numbers are reported . . . .snip."

It will be interesting to see if SynLube later claims to use additive packages that also contain moderate levels of Aluminum, Chromium, Lead, Silicon, Copper, Tin, Soot, and Carboxylic acids too! We all ready know that they add lots of micro fine solids, (friction modifiers) so they have that covered in advance.

In regard to Houcksters comment: <I hope I'm reading it correctly>

"My sole purpose has been to discuss a product that is significantly different from any other competing product on the market and to have people here properly understand what it does."

If that is your sole purpose, then to this date, in my opinion based on what you've written so far, I'd say that you've failed completely.

Last edited by chumley
bruce381, maybe you could explain to Houckster then, in general terms of course, why the particular methodology and the colliodial components that Synlube is using simply WON'T work for the alloted purpose of its design. I, by no means, am qualified to make a scientific and tribologic assessment of this product, but I can simply state from what I've been reading, extra particulate matter, no matter how microscopic, simply cannot stay permanently in suspension in oil basestock.

Feel free to correct me if my logic is wrong.
SynLube is, technically, a lyophilic sol. That is to say "This is a colloidal state where the suspended particles have a strong affinity for the suspending medium (liquid or gas) and therefore do not separate or settle out." If the colloids were not attracted to the surrounding medium and tended to settle out of suspension, the mixture would be called lyophobic.

Colloids are extremely small particles that are invisible to the naked eye. To be seen clearly, a 400x microscope is required. The PTFE particles are about 1 micron in size. By way of comparison, red blood cells are 7.5 microns. The graphite and synthetic moly colloids are equally small.

Colloids account for about 1/3 the volume of the oil and do most of the actual lubrication work because they have a polar attraction to the engine parts or they are embossed into the surface of the metal under great pressure. Either way, they are the first layer of lubricant protection and do not drain to the oil pan. Consequently, no dry lubrication condition ever exists in a SynLube-protected engine.

I have had a sample of SynLube in a clear bottle sitting on a shelf at home for weeks and there has been no settling whatsoever.
Originally posted by Houckster:
SynLube is, technically, a lyophilic sol. That is to say "This is a colloidal state where the suspended particles have a strong affinity for the suspending medium (liquid or gas) and therefore do not separate or settle out." If the colloids were not attracted to the surrounding medium and tended to settle out of suspension, the mixture would be called lyophobic.

Colloids are extremely small particles that are invisible to the naked eye. To be seen clearly, a 400x microscope is required. The PTFE particles are about 1 micron in size. By way of comparison, red blood cells are 7.5 microns. The graphite and synthetic moly colloids are equally small.

Colloids account for about 1/3 the volume of the oil and do most of the actual lubrication work because they have a polar attraction to the engine parts or they are embossed into the surface of the metal under great pressure. Either way, they are the first layer of lubricant protection and do not drain to the oil pan. Consequently, no dry lubrication condition ever exists in a SynLube-protected engine.

I have had a sample of SynLube in a clear bottle sitting on a shelf at home for weeks and there has been no settling whatsoever.

If I undersdtand you this product has PTFE, MOLY, Graphite? if so that is more info than has been shown on there web site and in this long thread.

I'm a fan of graphite and moly but not PTFE it will Not wet oily metal but in a small amount would not be a negitive.

Also I though some pages ago there was mention of steartes or soap if this product if it has a sterate it my in situ product a soap with metal wear particle but I think that may be wishful thinking, but it would be be a good FM and dry lube.

I would have trouble perhaps with sludge and acid control ovet time and think that is where the problem would be. Even if the base lube is made of a flor carbon or other exotic there will be some acid build up which would lead to wear and corrosion.

As I said before show me a VOA and UOA at 10k,20k,30k,40k etc. Then I will coment further.

Last edited by bruce381
Originally posted by Chumley:
bruce381 writes:

"All I said is if I had an oil that I knew had bad wear numbers and I said Oh we use a Fe additve so that your test results will be skewed that is a great way to protect yourself when bad wear numbers are reported . . . .snip."

I will be interesting to see if SynLube later claims to use additive packages that also contain moderate levels of Aluminum, Chromium, Lead, Silicon, Copper, Tin, Soot, and Carbolic acids too! We all ready know that they add lots of micro fine solids, (friction modifiers) so they have that covered in advance.


LOL Razz
Just a slight comment on here on this colloidal technology, do not know this technology intimately however I was able to grasp some fundementals and did some research outside of what synlube presented and found this technology to very interesting and enlightening, information I've not known before didn't realize how much colloidal technology exist.

Due to my ignorance I made it a matter of research so as to be more informed and have a better grasp or understanding and indeed it is quite amazing. This is aside from synlube
gsleve writes:

"Just a slight comment on here on this colloidal technology . . . . "

Well just because this is all new technology to you that requires more "research" on your part, to think that thousands of others who have all ready spent their lives doing what you now decide "needs further research" surely qualifies you as an internet automotive expert!

It is hard for me to believe that Chumley has any sincere or objective interest in SynLube. He's getting attention and that's what's important to im.

My personal policy with regard to Chumley will be to ignore him unless he makes a responsible statement and then I will try to respond as positively as possible. Troublemakers usually go away if no one responds to them.

On a positive note, I have sent SynLube a request for information about when the results of the tests of the oil sample I sent will be available. I will post them when I get them. If they're good, another sample will be sent to Dyson.
Chumley I sense some irritation here allow me to point out that during all your discussions I have not responded in a negative tone whatsoever and have reserved the right for your on dignity and respect to flow thru this discussion, how unfortunate it is to see that during such discussions you have the proclivity to be either condecending, sarcastic and even confrontational.

This forum is nothing more than information gathering and I think a number of us have mantained a modest view of our knowledge on these matters so as to ascertain what can be contributed here, many of us have accorded you the respect just as a person regardless of your knowledgebase on oil, I believe this in of itself is fundemental and just, primarily when dealing with people, again unfortunately it appears this basic element and others seemed to be missing, and it's quite indicative why.

Nonetheless such condecension is unecessary ones facade of superiority does not give you the tamerity to deal with others in the manner that you have obviously chosen.
You guys are so funny. You actually think my ideas are mine? Sorry to disappoint you, but I did my homework 20 years ago (even then before the internet was popular there were those looking for others to do their homework for them too) When I was learning about chemistry, I chose guys with PhD's to teach me. I had to pay dearly for that. <you expect it for free> Trust me, you'll get, and you are currently getting what you pay for! Sorry but, No free lunch today! Good luck!

Keep your dignity, and hide your arrogance right underneath your ignorance. Your choice. Ya see, pointing out my political incorrectness won't make you smarter. Even still today, you will have to do your own homework to have any level of understanding! Nice try but Sorry!

Ignore all the guys with PhD's in Chemistry and listen to Houkster. Step right up and buy your $32 a liter synthetic oil.

Good luck!

Chumley, true ignorance does prevail in these areas of chemistry yet arrogance, I believe you top all here for that, this undesirable quality has been interwoven throught all your post, and I applaud you for doing your homework with the PHD's excellent, additionally it seems you picked up a few more things from them as well in terms of undesirable qualities that generally run rampant among such individuals.

It's a shame to see such evidence of this in you as well, your comments have been tainted with such traits throughtout if the comments are truly reflective of how you feel toward those on this board and there level of inferiority to you, might I suggest u not waste any more of your time dealing with such individuals thereby your frustration levels will be at a minimum.

Perhaps you may be able to lerk amongst those with the PHD's and glean more in terms of undesirable traits nonetheless I believe all of what you have shared up to this point becomes null and void largely because of your tenor and demeanor that came across, the addage stands "you get more flies with honey than vinegar" is apropo particularly in your case.

Now that you have polarized your self from this board. I will refrain from commenting on any matter that you bring up (which is futility anyway) I've said my peace I through with you!!!

There's always at least one in every group like you isn't there? What makes you think I'm interested in catching/attracting flies? If putting vinegar in a fire hose keeps the the loser ankle weight free lunch bunch <pests> at bay, I'm all for it. Having a lot of fecal matter lying around is usually what attracts the flies in the first place. Have you ever heard of having a sense of humor? Or was it lost in the rush when you picked up your season tickets for the free lunch bunch convention?

Ok Chumley, my feelings are this: If you could care less about this particular product/lubricant/technological breakthrough/b.s. or whatever catagorical metaphor that you would prefer to attach to it, then why are you defending your standpoint of chemistry mastery as agressively as you are?

I am NOT a tribologist, chemist, engineer, or blender of any lubricant product. I would like to think of myself as a overly-educated average consumer, that has a desire to learn more, but am NOT in the field itself, nor do I have the resources at hand to obtain that PhD degree that you seem to put so much emphasis on having.

I went to college, took some classes, decided to work for a while, went back to Pennsylvania Institute of Culinary Arts and received my Associates in Culinary Arts. Someday, maybe, once my family is fully grown and provided for, I might go back for my Masters. I used to tinker with cars in my earlier days, and became very interested in engines from a very young age.

I only started to scratch the surface of just how much knowledge, technology, additives, and chemical compounds go into a superior quality lubricant just recently, hence why I started to ask questions. Lots and lots of them. Sometimes they were answered, sometimes not, and sometimes I received too much information, meaning chemical terminologies and formulaes that I couldn't quite grasp at the time I was given them.

I'm no expert, I don't expect a "free lunch" buffet with all you can absorb oil appetizers. I just want to learn more than I know, be it by internet, library, research projects, or just asking questions of people that are willing to share there "hard earned and paid for" educations to someone who, maybe, just can't go and spend 20 years to go and learn it somewhere for an excessive amount of capital.

Now, why do I follow this topic? As I have asked in my past posts, and along with a very curious few other fellow members, I am curious about this product and wanted some data to prove that it may in fact be a terrific lubricant and worth the price of admission to the dance. Nothing more, no sales pitch, no hype, just information.

I guess that is just too much information, and I qualify as a fly on the wall...
Easy, guys. We don't need any more speculation (insert your choice of words in place of speculation). Where are the uoa's, particle counts, TBN on this Synlube stuff? If this web site can only attract one or two users of Synlube then what's the use? Steve Jobs of Apple (then), had it covered with the statement that a new and different product can't be just a bit better. It has to be a whole lot better to ever succed in the market place. If Synlube can't prove itself to be a lot better, and I mean real proof not just marketing hype, then Synlube's place in the market will be and remain, a very small slice that may never grow.

Now, where are those lab results, and when will the following lab results be comming, and how often? Anything else is just foreplay.

I do care a lot about people being smarter. As popular today as it might be, proudly displaying a badge of ignorance is only recognized/appreciated by those who also have one.

I appreciate your efforts in the culinary arts and as such, most likely, I wouldn't try to tell you about cooking, since clearly, chances are, if you did your homework, you know far more about it than me. Instead, I'd gladly pay a premium to eat at your restaurant, when/if you are tantalizing my taste buds (and continue to do so) with foods that I can't make at home.

Now if I, like Houkster regularly did/does in this thread made a comment like, "In every good cheesecake, you'll need to add at least a cup of SynLube. "What would you say? Clearly you KNOW that anyone who makes a comment like that has no idea what they are talking about. (you use local creamery fresh grade A butter at less that half the cost of Synlube) I rest my case.

Like Barkerman says, "I'm still waiting for the evidence about SynLube."

Of course, if you made a cheesecake with a cup of SynLube and I actually tasted it, (then promptly spit it out) performing my own taste test, chances are Houkster would have some twisted logic trying to explain to me that I don't know what I'm talking about and what tastes like crap to me actually "seems like" it would taste good to him, if he would actually taste (test) it. But, to date, he never has.

So far, Houkster hasn't provided any evidence better than that. And, to date, Houkster has no cognizance of that.

Last edited by chumley
Here is my take on Synlube.

1. They talk about usefull life of the vehicle. Someone mentioned on this site that they inquired about putting it into their vehicle with 150k miles on it and Miro said why bother with that old thing. So lets say Miro believes that 150k is the usefull life of the engine.

2. Lets say that through oil consumption and oil used for analysis accounts to one quart per 20k miles. At 20k miles the oil is 16k miles old. At 40k the oil is 28.8k miles old. At this point the consumption increases to 1 qt per 10k miles. Then the oil age at 50k = 31.1, 60k = 32.8, 70k = 34.4. At 1qt per 10k miles in a 5qt sump the oil will never reach 40k miles old.

3. It is "possible" that he has come up with a 40k OCI oil. Heck, Amsoil has a 25k oil. However, it will not get you a 500k engine. The internals will probably look like crap at 150k. But it will get you there. Hence, a lifetime oil.
I do care a lot about people being smarter. As popular today as it might be, proudly displaying a badge of ignorance is only recognized/appreciated by those who also have one.

WoW. Not a lot of tolerance here. I used to think that motor heads were like the guys on the Speed channel and NA-SCAR circuit -- backslapping, glad-handing, help anybody, jock talking, girl chasing good old boys...
Walk into the pits at your next local NASCAR event and start asking the winning pit crews lots of technical questions about their cars. Try taking lots of close up pictures too!

As you are thrown out of the pits on your XXX by the security team, you'll see how "friendly" the competitive winning teams really are. (with regard to divulging their trade secrets) Chances are you've been getting your info as filtered through the media circus rather than straight from the source.

Of course, if your looking for someone to autograph a promotional photo, give you a free hat, or pose for a photo while patting your son on the back, you've taken the bait, hook, line, and sinker. I bet you think the car you buy at the dealership is just like the car your sons favorite racing hero drives at the racetrack! Get a clue!

Last edited by chumley

Seriously, sorry to have ruined your day. (kinda like a kid who just learned that there is no Santa Clause?) That was not my intention. If you love NASCAR racing, by all means, go watch/enjoy it.

And I'm not apologizing for busting my butt for years to get an education when clearly there are many who don't, but expect the benefits for a lot less money/effort. There's a whole world out there waiting to take advantage of those who would rather get their information second hand rather that discover for themselves. "I heard that . . ., My friend said that . . . , My mommie told me that . . ., Over at http://www.blah,blah,, it says that . . . .

If that's your preferred information/education source, be prepared to get screwed on a daily basis. Good luck!

Sorry folks, I just can't bring myself to purchase anything from a company that advertises "synthetic water"


This system of coolant products includes:

SynLube™ Synthetic Prediluted 50% Coolant/Anti-Freeze,
a 50/50 mixture of coolant and synthetic water,
SynLube™ Synthetic 100% Coolant/Anti-Freeze,
a concentrate intended for freeze point adjustment
SynLube™ Coolant Life Extender,
a prescribed additive system recharge package.
SynLube™ Cooling System Flush,
a prescribed cooling system heavy duty flushing fluid.
SynLube™ Cooling System Cleaner,
a prescribed cooling system heavy duty cleaner (powder).
SynLube™ Ultra Pure Double Distilled Water,
a prescribed cooling system normal duty flushing fluid.
SynLube™ Synthetic Water,
a prescribed cooling system dillution fluid.
SynLube™ Cooling System Sealant,
a prescribed cooling system sealant (powder).
Synthetic Water is created by burning Hydrogen Gas in 100% Oxigen atmosphere (such as NASA used in spacecrafts before the fire incident) by high voltage ionic spark created by high frequency Tesla Coil.

Such water has unusual clarity, glows under ultraviolet light and is exceptional solvent that however does not cause acidic or caustic damage as other solvents might.

Also Synthetic Water DOES NOT CONDUCT electric current, that is it is INSULATOR !

Because most damage in cooling system is caused by electrolitic reactions, there is current flow between different engine parts, and different alloys - Use of synthetic water in coolant eliminates this process and thus coolant can be "Cool-4-Life" !!!

Since Syntehtic Water does not occur in nature, unless you have got it from us, you have never seen it !~

It takes 6 hours to make one gallon of it !

Miro Kefurt


Are ALREADY POSTED ON OUR WEB, Just take time to read it !
Cost of SynLube:

Seems that ALL of you have failed to include the 100% credit we give to anyone who sends back USED SynLube, any time !!!

So the cost of being a synner is the cost of the oil filter ($20 to $30 for Microglass) which is used from 2 to 10 years depending on vehicle application

Cost of magnets $12 usually good for 125 years

And the OIL your engine burns, which is as low as 35,000 miles to a quart of ADD oil ($20) in some new FORD an TOYOTA engines or as bad as 900 miles to a quart in 911 PORSCHE.

Ferrari and Maserati as well as Aston Martin have hard time to get more than 2,500 miles on quart of oil, and GEO Metro is in the same range.

SO the question is if you can afford $20 every time your engine needs 1 quart of oil ?

If you have GEO perhaps not, but is you just wasted 1/4 million on a fancy car, then shame on you if $20 is beyond you budget !

Cost or returning of USED SynLube usually is $7.00 to $12.00 for UPS Ground.

Now consider this AMSOIL, MOBIL, etc etc WILL NOT TAKE BACK EVEN FRESH UNUSED OIL they just sold you, I.e. It has absolutely NO value to them !!!

We take back SynLube even after 15 years or 150,000 miles or what ever, and give you back 100% of your money (by volume returned)...

To us Used SynLube has VALUE - it is reporcessed and sold to Government Fleets for $50.00 per Liter - and by mandate in some states Government vehicles have to use Reprocessed or Re-refined oil, and are prohibited to utilize lubricants made from fresh virgin oil - president Clinton signed that order few years back !

So there....
Oh boy, now he's talking about rocket fuel. My only thought is that he must have gotten an A in advertising (bovine scat) class. Hydrogen is hydrogen. The element is pure. There is no way for the molecules to combine, and have an attachment point for an impurity. Basic, high school chemistry stuff. And rocket fuel? The shuttle still uses Hydrogen and LOX, no changes. NASA also uses other hydrocarbon based fuels in other spacecraft as appropriate, but not because of "the fire incident", which was, BTW, a defect in the solid booster.
Add me and WC Fields to list of sceptics. "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance...."
Beanoil is correct and Miro is not. Pure ion free water is extremely agressive towards metals. The pure water prefers to be in solution with ions and will pick them up from any likely metallic donor.

If you want to see it in action, build a deionized water distribution sytem from copper tubing. It will last about 6 months before the copper is dissolved away and the pipe springs multiple leaks. I know this for a fact because I had to deal with this in a new lab I once moved into.

As was asked before, what exactly is the benefit from using pure water in the coolant? None of the benefits Miro mentioned hold up when examined.

Also, there are a lot of ultrapurification water processors out there for making reagent grade water for use in chemical labs testing ultratrace levels of metals in water samples. No one that needs ultrapure water is forced into reacting hydrogen with oxygen to make it.
Last edited by refrigguy
"To us Used SynLube has VALUE - it is reporcessed and sold to Government Fleets for $50.00 per Liter - and by mandate in some states Government vehicles have to use Reprocessed or Re-refined oil, and are prohibited to utilize lubricants made from fresh virgin oil - president Clinton signed that order few years back !"

Check your facts:

That is wrong no one is prohibited from using virgin oil, only that rerefined oil should be used if the quality and cost are the same as virgin with NO economic difference. If the rerefined costs more than the virgin supply the agency does not have to use it.

Source ILMA

Originally posted by Houckster:
I think I'm going to have to put BeanOil in the same category as Chumley: a troublemaker with nothing in the way of constructive comment. Of course, it might be Chumley under a new name.

Notoriety with anonymity. The best of both worlds.. Troublemaker, no. Fact finder, aggressive, creative thinker, not easily fooled, yes. You can continue to use whatever you please Sir Huckster, but don't come on to a chat board filled with intelligent people, parroting sales pitches from a web site filled with mispellings, unsupported data, and personal opinions, and expect others to follow like lost lambs because YOU believe the pitch. I call them as I see them, and I see a marketing pitch for the general public to encourage them to part with their dough. Don't get your internals in an uproar, I'm sure there will be plenty of folks who will buy the product. After all, didn't PT Barnum say there was one born every minute?
quote: won't have to change your coolant ever again. SynLube's coolant has a 300K mile service life.

Disregarding fact that this topic is about synthetic oil I would post a question: what would be noticeable difference between this service life and Amsoil's (non toxic and biodegradable) "Propylene Glycol Antifreeze and Engine Coolant" with seven years or 250,000 miles in passenger cars, light-duty trucks, vans and recreational vehicles and seven years or 750,000 miles in over-the-road diesel trucks? Additionally, it self-seals hairline cracks in welds and seams to prevent leaks, without additional stop-leak products or fibrous materials.
Answer is: "just" better priced!

Returning to topic - am I missing something or we (simply) are waiting for UOA analysis for two weeks? Don't you think that effectiveness like that is not recommending (and good enough)?
Last edited by djordan
Answer is: "just" better priced!

What are the respective prices US? Up here in the land of the outstretch palm, it's standard procedure to add between 40 to 60% to US prices, assuming both products are sold here in Canada. In this case, only Amsoil is available up here..

Returning to topic - am I missing something or we (simply) are waiting for UOA analysis for two weeks? Don't you think that effectiveness like that is not recommending (and good enough)? None of you guys are going believe the numbers, anyway.

What's the rush now that we are into pagce 14?
Sorry, the second part of the previous post should look like this:

Returning to topic - am I missing something or we (simply) are waiting for UOA analysis for two weeks? Don't you think that effectiveness like that is not recommending (and good enough)?

What's the rush now that we are into pagce 14?
Besides, none of you guys are going believe the numbers, anyway.
Is there an estimate, a date or something about when a uoa might be published? Can we get our Synlube user to make an estimate? I'm getting so excited, sitting here late at night, just thinking about a uoa from Synlube. Would a press release be in order? For something like this would Dan Rather come out of retirement? Oh, please, tell me it's comming, soon?
Posted Sat September 10 2005 06:36 AM
Originally posted by Houckster:
I sent in my oil sample to SynLube yesterday. I will post immediately upon receiving the results.

Posted Tue October 18 2005 11:18 PM
I sent in an oil sample about 2-3 weeks ago and SynLube has forwarded it the test lab they use. The testing facility has new owners and they are apparently having some problems with turnaround time. I will post the results as soon as I get them.

So you sent in the sample on Sept 9th?? or did you send it in "about 2-3 weeks ago"

Over 1 month for a UOA,s Id say the results are already suspect or at least the lab is.
I received a further communication from SynLube:

We finally got the results so I am mailing you the copy . . .

All is normal, at least within the "lab" error range.

The test guy is new and does not have clue, and they did not compare it to fresh oil like I asked them.

Any way the details about the results are on our web (I am sure you know about them).

Any specific questions e-mail me.

Because of the graphite the TBN comes about 6 to 7 points LESS than it is by chemical titration so again nothing to worry about and the real TBN is still way over 10.

They use electronic probe which conducts current through the sample and unless the result is at least 5 TAN the Syn is still OK to be used.

I have personally never seen more than TAN 0.5 which when compared by chemical titration was actually 5.8.
Unlike some of us I am not suspicious about (coming) UOA results. Lab is lab and has to do job (at least) properly (if they want to survive). But, I am really "wonderstruck" with all that dilation about analysis. With all other laboratories it takes 2 to 3 days (at most). With this one - more than month. (so) Special oil or extremely special lab?
If I were Miro Kefurt I would have them replaced immediately.
Because of the graphite the TBN comes about 6 to 7 points LESS than it is by chemical titration so again nothing to worry about and the real TBN is still way over 10.

They use electronic probe which conducts current through the sample and unless the result is at least 5 TAN the Syn is still OK to be used.

This is BS to infer the TBN test is low because of graphite interference with conductance is WRONG.

Folks Graphite has NO effect on a TBN or TAN test using either method, I know since I have run them on my own products which contain a lot of graphite and moly, BUT I'm sure the answer to that is they use secret graphite in a secret sauce and us normal lab guys can not figure it out

Here go the excuses already and NO report seen yet.

1 Lab tech is new = results may not be accurate
2 Lab ownership is new = Incompetence
3 Graphite throws off TBN test buy 7-8 numbers

First if you suspected this lab would have trouble with a simple basic test like a TBN and would make your product look bad maybe you should have asked them of there test procedures and discussed this with them now you look like you are making excuses.

And with out a "accurate" test how do you know the oil TBN is still 10??

Lastly as I remember this oil only has 7K or so on it big deal I thought this is never drain
oil? Is there more than 1 person who has used this and if so have any sent in a sample at any higher mileage? If this is so great there should be at least 1 or 2 100K samples NO?


With a high solid oil I would not expect any wear numbers out of wack but its conveient
That the lab did not run a VOA's what did they do lose the sample well send it again DUH.

If this lab is that incompetent then all the data is suspect.
Last edited by bruce381
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
That stuff is big time thick @ 40c . Looks like Pennzoil 15w-40 diesel oil does at 40c . If the engine is saying ouch , give me something thinner in October , I assume it will be screamingas morning ambient drops during cold starts Eek Or do you live on the Equator ?

I firmly beleive the Fe will continue to elevate but at an accelerated rate because of it .

Is it oxidative thickening or is it a just a straight weight formula ? Who knows , a baseline sample really needed to be sent in to see what the starting VI was and there's no doubt in my view that fuel mileage could be bettered .
there's no doubt in my view that fuel mileage could be bettered .
The EPA estimate for my truck is 15 MPG for the type of mileage that I drive about 85% of the time. I find it hard to believe that I could improve much more than the 20.4 MPG I'm getting now.
I firmly beleive the Fe will continue to elevate but at an accelerated rate because of it.
It would be beneficial to read the SynLube Services pages, you will see that high FE readings are due to the sacrificial FE additives. It is a mistake to judge the readings obtained from a sample of SynLube based on those obtained by conventional lubricants. I will not have any problems this winter with SynLube, nor have I had any during the previous four winters that I have used it. The engine starts right up and idles smoothly. While winters in Georgia are not akin to those of the northern states, we do have our cold snaps and I've had no problems during these periods.

Finally, the oil tested was SynLube 5W50 that was installed at 782 miles replacing the factory fill 5W30. BTW, the 5W30 is not a break-in oil. It was the oil that Ford recommends for the life of the vehicle. Most cars don't come with break-in oils any more.

With regard to TBN, SynLube states that the TBN is not important for engines using unleaded gasoline. SynLube can supply an additive to increase the TBN for those who wish it.
Last edited by houckster
Not wanting to play devil'e advocate here, but is it just my, or are those numbers not all that impressive for a lubricant that is supposed to last 150K miles?

I've seen better numbers on other oils, but I also realize that numbers aren't everything. The big concern here are those viscosity numbers: man, that is some THICK oil. I agree with Motorbike, that is equivalent to a 15w40 oil, and only after 15K miles.

By the way, where is the gold? At $32 per liter, I WANT gold in the mix, to make my engine sparkle!!! (Please don't attack my sarcasm, I just still can't find justification for the price, even after the UOA!!)

Anybody else feel this way?
By the way, where is the gold? At $32 per liter, I WANT gold in the mix, to make my engine sparkle!!! (Please don't attack my sarcasm, I just still can't find justification for the price, even after the UOA!!)

Anybody else feel this way?

I use a decongestant Nasal Spray which costs about $7.00 for a 30 ml bottle, but I continue to use it in spite of the ridiculous price of this stuff, because it does the job.

I'm keeping an open mind on Synlube. If it turns out it's superior to some of the other expensive lubricants available up here, I will give it a try.

Glad to see the posts are remaining civil.

Regards from Haliburton,

As per my previous post I would believe some interference with graphite on the TBN test even tho there is non if a VOA,s had been done since not I'd say TBN is very low.

Fe is very high and as such will not most likley stay under MY cap of 100PPM before it needs a change out which maybe in the 20K range FAR from what do they say 300K or some nonsense.

They say FE is sacrifical wear who cares wear is wear and comes off rotating parts DUH.

Again if a VOA's was done which would show FE as a makeup of this product I might bye it also.

But the sloppy lab work, dis ingenuious product info and exscuses all add up to a very unproffesional approach which makes me very suspect and the oil test to date IS NOT very IMPRESSIVE there is a 12K havoline on BITOG page (in a new low mileage car) and it is MUCH better across the board and I think that this oil will still look worse at 12k compared to the havoline.

Very sloppy in every way.

ALSO what???

"With regard to TBN, SynLube states that the TBN is not important for engines using unleaded gasoline. SynLube can supply an additive to increase the TBN for those who wish it."

First they say 300k now if you want you can add a TBN additive I though this stuff did not need anything added and was a NEVER change oil so now a TBN additive is needed??? Just more Cover your behind marketing blather.

And TBN control IS very important and is a limiting factor on engine life IT is needed anyone that thinks YBN not neeeded or improtant is Un informed or stupid.

Last edited by bruce381
Originally posted by Houckster:

It would be beneficial to read the SynLube Services pages, you will see that high FE readings are due to the sacrificial FE additives.

It would be more beneficial for you to learn about the metalurgy used in the 4.0 Ford , then you could better understand your analysis .

The OHC engine needs the oil pumped pronto when started and flowing well when pumped . Thinner equals better here and thats why your cam lobes which are made of sintered bronze are throwing off these high wear numbers . Even the Ford 4.6 engine shows elevated copper when using a certain brand of 5w-30 PAO synthetic thats known to thicken well into the 40wt range or other more viscous lubes . Also , Fe elevates as well but not only in the Ford modular engine series .

There something else of some concern I see with the analysis and how you think your fuel mileage to be but it seems defensiveness will stand in the way if I were to try and aid you any further .
The OHC engine needs the oil pumped pronto when started and flowing well when pumped . Thinner equals better here and thats why your cam lobes which are made of sintered bronze are throwing off these high wear numbers.
Sintered bronze produces high copper readings? I don't understand. I don't have a chemistry or scientific background so I can't argue these kinds of points. All I can say is that the solid lubricants are embossed into the wear areas and provide protection until the liquid lubricant starts circulating. Also, if the engine was not properly lubricated, I would hear some noise on cold startups and I never hear such noises. I never did on the other cars in which SynLube was used either so I am not ready to concede to your point of view.

With regard to my gas mileage, what's your point? The phrasing of that paragraph was confusing.

In any case, I do not think you are justified in claiming me to be defensive simply because I don't immediately accede to your point of view. I tried to answer logically and calmly. Like you, I refuse to led by lease.

In contrast, when faced with a customer like Bruce381, I simply remain silent as I gave up any hope of productive exchange with him almost from the beginning.
Last edited by houckster
Houckster, bronze is an alloy of copper and tin, hence the copper readings.

Bruce381 is a blender and chemist in is own right, so unfortunately, I would have a tendency to put more validity on his facts/figures/comments.

I said it in my last post, I'm not impressed with this lubricant so far. That's it, no bad mouthing, no more critiquing, just not impressed. Maybe I expected too much...
Maybe I missed it but what TBN number does this stuff start with? For fleet use a decline from say a 10, would be cause for an oil change pretty soon. And if the TBN continues to fall it might not make it to 300k miles. What is this additive package Synlube 'can' supply that will support the TBN. Is it something like Lube Control. I wonder how much it costs?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
Originally posted by Callisa:
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 ?


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
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 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 "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
Toyota Owners Unite for Resolution
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 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.


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

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.
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?
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
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.