Skip to main content

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

quote:
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?

bruce



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 .
Motorbike:
quote:
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.
Motorbike:
quote:
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?
quote:
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,

Paul.
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.

bruce
Last edited by bruce381
quote:
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 .
Motorbike:
quote:
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.
http://www.chalet-by-the-lake-b-and-b.com
I have never believed that SynLube was just another oil. "Another oil" would never have generated the amount of comment that SynLube has. Nor do I believe that the results I received provide enough information to allow a true perspective on the oil. One test, especially one that was inexpensive, does not really tell us what this oil can do. Frankly only time and miles (in the absence of substantial capitalization of the company) will tell and I don't have enough of either to really know how it's doing yet. According to Miro, the high copper reading for example, might have been a fluke and could disappear in the next test.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One last thing, I checked my Profile and I do have the option to send and receive private messages checked but the administrators have not granted me that permission. If they do, a icon will show up on my posts that should permit private messages.
Last edited by houckster
Very interesting and informative recap of the thread, Houckster. I'm driving a much newer Ford Focus now. I replaced the 2000 with a newer used 2005 ZXW which has the newer Duratec engine. I'm still running under warranty, but at this rate I'll be out of warranty next year. I've been using 5W20 synthetic oil for changes, whatever happens to be on sale at the time. I was going to change to a 5W30 oil, but was talked out of it at the Jiffy Lube cuz they say that Ford won't honour claims if you don't use the 5W20 oil. I'm pulling a trailor with lawn equipment and I don't feel comfortable using these thinner oils.
Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×