Skip to main content

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

It's ironic and unfortunate that the auto companies try to use the warranty meant to protect the customer against them. Frankly, though, if you use a 5W30 oil, I think there's about a 1% chance you will have a problem. If you can't see your way to using SynLube, you should use Amsoil 2000 until you leave the warranty period. The difference between 5W20 and 5W30 is a very large one.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What about acceleration? Is it sufficient?

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

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


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

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


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

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

What about acceleration? Is it sufficient?


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

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


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

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


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

Regards, Paul.
inHaliburton
www.chaletbb.ca
quote:
Originally posted by Callisa:
@PJD
Thank you. Smile The specifications they claim are funny anyway. With all ACEA test results they have, they could easily get some DC and VW Spec releases without any additional cost. All they would have to do is present these ACEA results to VW (Dr. Koßmehl) and DC (J. Schenk).

@ Houckster
I quoted this from your link Product description. The purple letters " Not for use in Diesel fueled engines ! -"

What do they mean? Roll Eyes


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

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

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

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

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

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

NO


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

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

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

Exxon got Mobil, FREE they just assumed their Debt !

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RESULTS -- LIMITS

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

See their press release on the home page

www.synlube.com

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

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

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

That is all I care about

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Correct it use to be Agip. It's been Shell for the past 8 years or so.
Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×