| Author | Message | ||
     Blake |
Richard, I've thoughtfully reconsidered my stance wrt John Kerry. I was wrong to call him a traitor. See? It's not that difficult to admit when you are wrong. You really should try it sometime. It can be very liberating to shed the feeling that one must always be correct, never in error. So much for Mobil-1, we are now talking about something much more interesting. Human psychology and philosophy. BTW, are you the one from whom I am to learn of this "tact" of which you speak?  Do you ever laugh at yourself? I do. Laugh at myself I mean, not at you. Well I do that sometimes too, but not out of malice.  People truly are funny. Jack, I'm no scientist. Applied science is my gig. That would be engineering. The real world side of science.  It's an interesting discussion. On the personal side, my view is that some folks get upset too easily. They read into words intent that is not there. I just enjoy the discussion and have a difficult time imagining how discussion devolves into personal commentary. I have a difficult time remembering that I should be walking on eggshells and spilling over with tact when discussing technical issues with some folks. Mobil-1 15W50 is a full synthetic lubricant. It was not in its prior "Tri-Synthetic" formulation nor is it now comprised of 100% PAO base stock. As it was before, it is now comprised partly of POA base stock(s). I'm not so quick to swallow the unsubstantiated naysaying of some unknown character posting on an internet discussion board. I have no personal stake in this issue. I'm now a loyal H-D Syn3 consumer. H-D Syn3 supports the Buell XBRR AMA FX racing effort, so I am happy to support them. I have a problem with folks unqualified to judge a techical issue, making public statements here on BadWeB maligning any product without proper supporting evidence. This kind of gossip is what leads to myths like "synthetic oil is too slippery and will cause roller bearings to flat-spot", or "air-cooled engines will soon be obsolete due to ever stricter anti-pollution regulations", or "humans are causing a change in the Earth's climate that will lead to global catastrophy." You are upset about the oil companies making record profits. Why? They are publicly owned companies that anyone can own. Where you upset when they were losing money? I don't recall anyone being upset when that was the situation for them. Oil companies operate at low profit margins, lower than just about any other for-profit venture. Big numbers are impressive. But big numbers in and of themselves do not accurately convey the state of a business' success. You do understand that a LOT of folks have ownership in the oil companies. You may own some yourself if you own mutual funds. Are you then still upset about the profits? Who do you imagine they go to? They go to the stockholders and to reinvestment in the business for the future. How many folks are gainfully employed by the big oil companies? Are wages good there? Just some stuff to think about. | ||
| Brucelee |
I've thoughtfully reconsidered my stance wrt John Kerry. I was wrong to call him a traitor. See? It's not that difficult to admit when you are wrong. You really should try it sometime. It can be very liberating to shed the feeling that one must always be correct, never in error. Actually, it is pretty easy to admit your wrong on this one since you have said at different times that he is a traitor and a then, a Patriot. You kinda have to choose, right? So, don't take TOO much credit for this admission. So much for Mobil-1, we are now talking about something much more interesting. Human psychology and philosophy. BTW, are you the one from whom I am to learn of this "tact" of which you speak? I don't know, teaching you is not my job! Do you ever laugh at yourself? I do. Laugh at myself I mean, not at you. Well I do that sometimes too, but not out of malice. People truly are funny. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Jack, I'm no scientist. Applied science is my gig. That would be engineering. The real world side of science. It's an interesting discussion. On the personal side, my view is that some folks get upset too easily. They read into words intent that is not there. I just enjoy the discussion and have a difficult time imagining how discussion devolves into personal commentary. I have a difficult time remembering that I should be walking on eggshells and spilling over with tact when discussing technical issues with some folks. No egg shells needed. Go back and check out your lecturing tone to me in your posts. If you didn't think that MIGHT provoke a response, you were not thinking very clearly. Mobil-1 15W50 is a full synthetic lubricant. It was not in its prior "Tri-Synthetic" formulation nor is it now comprised of 100% PAO base stock. Says who? As it was before, it is now comprised partly of POA base stock(s). Says who? I'm not so quick to swallow the unsubstantiated naysaying of some unknown character posting on an internet discussion board. You clearly did not read that Bob thread you asked the reference for. I have no personal stake in this issue. I'm now a loyal H-D Syn3 consumer. H-D Syn3 supports the Buell XBRR AMA FX racing effort, so I am happy to support them. I have a problem with folks unqualified to judge a techical issue, making public statements here on BadWeB maligning any product without proper supporting evidence. Go back and read my statement once again, and again. I stand by what I said, and did not say about M1. This kind of gossip is what leads to myths like "synthetic oil is too slippery and will cause roller bearings to flat-spot", or "air-cooled engines will soon be obsolete due to ever stricter anti-pollution regulations", or "humans are causing a change in the Earth's climate that will lead to global catastrophy." Actually, it does not. My posts have not moved in that direction at all and you know it. Disingenuous at best, Blake. Just some stuff to think about. Yes, thinking is good. | ||
| Rocketman |
What I object to is a company that has made its mark by distancing itself from Group 3 and now, backdooring it in without disclosure. Thanks Bruce. I understand your comment now. As for the oil itself, I think I just learned some interesting stuff. Interesting stuff that isn't worth three people at each others throats over, that is. Rocket | ||
| Bigdog_tim |
Brucelee - where can you buy a synthetic (or partially synthetic) for $4 a quart? And - for whatever it is worth - I have enjoyed the debate on this topic. As for me - I tend to change my oil every 2500-3K miles so both dinarour and synthetic work fine. I have several bikes in my stable (5 to be precise) and I have a mix of oils running (some with Syn3, some with Mobile 1, some with Castrol). I don't have a "singular favorite" - but am open to learn more. Thanks for the spirited conversation. We all benefit. | ||
| Sparky |
If Bruce doesn't want his T-shirt, I'll take it. I can always use a cool rag to clean up during oil changes, synthetic or not. If it's a BadWeb Tee shirt, that's gotta be a collector's item. Otherwise, whatever..., Sparky | ||
| Brucelee |
Interesting stuff that isn't worth three people at each others throats over, that is. So true Rman! Thanks | ||
| Brucelee |
Brucelee - where can you buy a synthetic (or partially synthetic) for $4 a quart? You can pick up Shell Rotella T Group 3 syn for about $3.50 per qt at Wallie World. Ditto, Chevron or Texaco Group 3 Syn. And - for whatever it is worth - I have enjoyed the debate on this topic. As for me - I tend to change my oil every 2500-3K miles so both dinarour and synthetic work fine. I have several bikes in my stable (5 to be precise) and I have a mix of oils running (some with Syn3, some with Mobile 1, some with Castrol). I don't have a "singular favorite" - but am open to learn more. Thanks for the spirited conversation. We all benefit. I enjoyed it too! Thanks | ||
| Blake |
"Says who?" Mobil. You no read good. | ||
| Firemanjim |
Wow,it must be winter as this much time wasted on a subject as this is wrong when riding needs to be done. | ||
| Rocketman |
In my defense Jim, it should be near enough winter here, but the weather's mild. Not warm though, lol. Then again, I'm not the one arguing. Which makes a change  Rocket | ||
| Hans |
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_oil : "The majority of oil lubricants, including many motor oils, are mineral oil distillates of crude oil. However, synthetic motor oils also have a share in the market. Technically, synthetic motor oils include the following classes of lubricants. Polyalpha-olefin (PAO) Synthetic esters In the USA however, certain Group III mineral oil base stocks are designated as "synthetic" for marketing purposes and for reasons of economics (although PAO's and esters may be included in a final blend). [edit] Automotive Use History Although in use in the aerospace industry for some years prior, synthetic oil first became commercially available for automobile engines when the French Oil company MOTUL first introduced commercial ester-based synthetic-oil in 1971. Other synthetics products included Amsoil introduced in 1972 and Mobil 1 which was introduced in 1974. (Mobil 1 is currently a group III base, not PAO, although it still contains 5% [1] PAO as part of the additive package. Amsoil is 85% - 95% 1-decene homopolymer base [2])" Snatched ever from an other source:  As far as I can see on this picture: Oil made from esters and PAOs with additives will be better than oil only from PAO with additives. It reminds me of the story of Cane sugar sirup. For the same purposes as elsewhere maple sirup is used, we do use that cane sugar sirup. For more than fifty years it was for sale in yellow cans with a picture of black men, harvesting cane, and the subscription: Pure cane sugar sirup. Till somebody took action and brought in the open that it was completely made from sugar beets. The factory said: Yes, it is, but fact is that the disaccharose is a sugar with the official name: Cane sugar. Identical stuff, made from cane or beets. I can imagine that you can refine dyno oil till such a degree that all wax and salts are completely gone. If you purify it then and make then some chemical modifications I can understand why it may be called "Synthetic" However: Oil tests must give proof if new blends are better. The source of the constituents is irrelevant IMO. Hans | ||
| Jlnance |
However: Oil tests must give proof if new blends are better. The source of the constituents is irrelevant IMO.  It is unfortunate that companies prefer to market their technologies rather than their results. | ||
| Brucelee |
Interesting post Hans. Thanks. The chart supports the use of Red Line, at least in my opinion. More importantly, UOA on Red Lines is uniformly excellent. Not so with M1 I am afraid, at least on their car oils of late. M1 M/C oils remain POA based as far as I can see. Certainly, this seems to be true for M1 Twin M/C oil. | ||
| Brucelee |
"Says who?" Mobil. You no read good. You actually don't read at all. Mobil saying their oils are fully synthetic is like Robert Blake saying he did not kill his wife. You have to look at the source of the statement and their motives. | ||
| Rocketman |
If this merry go-round doesn't stop turning I'm going to buy another Italian bike and be done with American oils altogether Rocket | ||
| Brucelee |
If this merry go-round doesn't stop turning I'm going to buy another Italian bike and be done with American oils altogether Rocket I agree. I HAVE to get a DUC once before I die. Wouldn't be right not to, right? | ||
| Brucelee |
Long but interesting read on base stocks. HISTORY OF ENGINE OIL Part 3 The rise and fall and rise of Synthetic Oil 3 litre V10 engines revving to 17,000rpm, developing more than 800 bhp and not a turbo or supercharger in sight! This is the equivalent to a 1000cc engine producing 270 bhp - a thought to stir the mind at the traffic lights - a power output of around three times that of a state-of-the art multi-valved electronic fuel injected production car engine of the same size. You can barely start to imagine the increased loadings involved inside a Formula 1 engine. What sort of oil is used? In the last article, we wondered where all the large oil pipes, tanks and coolers had gone from the Formula 1 cars of the late sixties. We discovered that, in order to keep the dry sump of a race engine clear of oil, the scavenge pump has to have a greater capacity than the feed pump and therefore sucks air into the system. Getting rid of the air from the oil before feeding it back onto the bearing surfaces was very often a headache. Discovered as a by-product of obtaining fuel from oil shale and waste oil, the chemical family of poly alpha olefins (PAO), used as an oil base, retain far less air than a mineral oil, therefore significantly reducing this problem. The PAO derivatives were the first lubricants derived indirectly from crude oil rather than directly, and became known as 'synthetic' oils. In physical characteristics they are very similar to their mineral equivalents, with generally better film strength for weight of oil and a noticeably better heat transfer capability. They also have a far higher temperature range than mineral oil and resistance to breakdown through ageing is far enhanced. By the early 1970s, the use of the PAO synthetic lubricants in competition engines was allowing reduction of the amount of oil carried on board race cars, combined with smaller de-aeration systems and reduction in cooler size. The Cosworth DFV Formula 1 engine could then rev to over 10,000 rpm with no fear of lubricant breakdown and the road car market for the first time had lubricant technology that was running ahead of engine development rather than lagging behind. For road car use, the viscosity modified mineral oils of the time, helped by the development of cheap high temperature detergents, gave adequate protection, if a little short lived. Brake horse power per litre of the average road car was around 55, compared to the 170 bhp/litre of the formula 1 engine, significantly, again around a third. Di-ester plastics were being used to strengthen mineral oils to make what the marketing men now call 'semi-synthetic' oils. During the enormous crude oil price rises of the 1970s, PAO manufacture began to become cost effective, as the waste products from which it is obtained became too valuable to throw away and the crude factions once used for mineral lubricating oil could now be cost effectively cracked into fuel. It is interesting to note that within this tale of the development of engine oil we have seen the plastics industry move away from the use of crude oil as raw material, to the use of syn gas and waste products and more recently to replenishable base sources as cost and availability demanded. It should give us all optimism that market forces are causing greater efficiency and environmental friendliness by some of the world's largest industries, rather than the deterioration caused in the earlier days of the industrial revolution. Party political speech over. Selling this now commercially viable product to the general public was not an easy task. The oil companies obviously like their profit margins, and with a perceived value added product there was the chance of being able to increase them. The man in the street could be persuaded that it was worth paying more for a lubricant that was better for his engine. The already coined term 'synthetic' did conventionally convey a sense of inferiority with regard to the original, but enormous advertising budgets were brought into action to cure that. There then followed two disastrous events, either of which should have signed the death warrant of synthetic oil. A high street oil company launched its major synthetic attack on the mineral oil market world-wide with a product containing an excellent anti-wear agent which as a sideline caused rubber oil seals to perish. At almost the same time, an equally famous name launched its own synthetic oil with a dreadful lack of EP protection, ironically lacking a decent anti-wear agent of which the other brand suffered too much. Both products suffered from very low viscosities at temperatures below 100°C, which did not suit older engine seals anyway, but, almost as an aside, were very good lubricants, far better than their mineral equivalents. Synthetics died an instant and frightful death. Twenty years later, oil salesmen across the globe, still wince as they are informed categorically that 'synthetics won't/can't/shan't go in my engine because they will blow it up/ruin the oil seals/fall out of every orifice.' After what can only be described as catastrophes, we should be amazed that even high street oil company marketing could bring the product back to life. Cynics amongst us might suggest that as PAO had become very cheap to produce, possibly even as cheap as mineral oil, that the profit element might just have made it seem an attractive business proposal. It is interesting to conjecture what might have happened if PAO based lubricants had been launched as the better and CHEAPER alternative to mineral oil! At least back in the mid seventies the oil companies could, with their hand on their heart, say that Formula 1 cars were running exactly the same oil in their engines as was the man on the street - if he could afford to buy it and if his motor didn't fall apart first! Meanwhile back in the aircraft industry a new breed of plastic lubricants called poly-ol esters had been developed for gas turbine use. Poly-ol ester lubricants are so strong that jet engines are filled with the lubricant when built and it remains in there for the life of the engine. Additive packages are replaced and renewed, but this base oil is so immensely strong that it can cope with the tremendous pressure and heat conditions without any degradation. The downside of this product is that it is expensive. For a lubricant to last the lifetime of an engine costing £1.0M, this is of no odds. Needless to say, oil company competition departments soon got hold of these products, although never in their wildest dreams would the accountants allow such a lubricant to be produced commercially - it actually cost something to produce, rather than being a free by-product of another process. The poly-ol esters are not only very very strong, but they replicate the viscosity change of the ideal engine lubricants with temperature, e.g. acting as a 20W50, without the addition of viscosity modifiers. The dream lubricant had arrived for race engine designers. This lubricant not only fits the required viscosity profiles perfectly without additives - long chain viscosity modifiers not only break down quickly, but in high compression engines cause varnishing and detonation problems, but is extremely slippery, causing wondrous reductions in power sapping friction losses. The oil is almost impossible to aerate, meaning small oil tanks are possible. It has phenomenal film strength, around five times that of an equivalent weight mineral oil, so that a far lighter weight oil can be used to further cut frictional losses, pump sizes and oil pipe diameters. Poly-ol esters also have magnificent heat transfer properties to cut oil cooler sizes. Just when the Formula 1 designer was desperate to fit every mechanical part into the slimmest possible tube to allow the maximum ground-effect undertray size, along came an oil which allowed down-sizing of every oil system component. Road oil and race oil had parted company again. Poly-ol ester lubricants really came into their own with the advent of the F1 turbo engine. 1500cc developing 1200 bhp. Maybe if the old adage 'The older I get, the faster I was.' is true, there really were 1500 bhp qualifying engines. Certainly the phrase '1000 bhp per litre' has a certain ring to it. Those of us who were stood at the Woodcote chicane for final qualifying for the 1985 British Grand Prix, when Keke Rosberg took pole position with an engine that melted its cylinder heads as he went across the line, have a sneaking feeling it might have been true. Gas turbine oil was well within its operating envelope in such conditions. The oil that lubricated that Honda engine in the Williams was called Mugen Oil and is spoken of in whispers in paddocks around the world, even today, as the answer to a fast lap in qualifying. It was produced by the Mobil competition department and still circulates at very inflated prices. (Indeed, I suspect that there is far more Mugen Oil in use now than was ever produced then, which is an interesting thought to folks who have paid big money for an unmarked can) In today's terms Mugen Oil is a fairly conventional 30 weight poly-ol ester, with the interesting addition of fish oil for certain applications. Yes, it does smell particularly dreadful, but there is a belief in the orient that it is a good slipperiness additive. Poly-ol ester lubricants are still the very best lubricants available. All oil company competition departments have their own particular variations for their own sponsored teams. A steady stream of poly-ol ester oils leave these departments and trickle down to all other levels of racing. The club racer who has a friend, who has a friend, who has got him a special from high street company X competition department, has probably got a poly-ol ester lubricant. The danger of course is that the friend has got a free sample of gearbox oil, designed to run with silicon oil seals. He then puts this magic oil in his engine and is surprised and amazed when the oil complete with dissolved rubber oil seals and a couple of pistons in kit form fall out on the road, closely followed by the camshaft. Be warned also: race oils do not contain detergents, another cause of detonation in high compression engines. With no detergent package in your oil you can soon block oilways with the sludge from a bunch of cold starts. Do you need a poly-ol ester oil for road use? If you are reading this, then you are interested in getting the best out of, and for, your vehicle, or you may be at the dentist. Poly-ol ester based lubricants have the advantage that your engine will never wear them out. They are as useful in a old wrecker with piston rings hanging off and bearing shells dropping out as in a multi-thousand pound race engine. Another useful property of the oil is that it does not break down in storage, as does a mineral oil. A vehicle may be left for years with the oil in the sump, and started up as fresh as a daisy when needed. Added to this is the extreme stickiness of the oil, which coats all parts with which it comes into contact and does not creep off, as do other 'synthetics'. For this reason many invaluable vintage, veteran and classic vehicles use nothing else. High street oil companies use poly-ol esters as additives - a very recent marketing exercise suggests that a wondrous new breakthrough in chemical engineering has developed this sticky oil additive, indeed magnet like, which when added to a mineral oil base produces a significant lubrication technology break-through! This semi-synthetic product retails at virtually the same price as poly-ol ester based lubricants! The synthetic brand leader, Mobil 1, is 'tri-synthetic', a mixture of PAO, di-ester and poly-ol ester and indeed brags on the can about jet engine technology. Unfortunately for the discerning motorist, the marketing men have decided that in the small UK market we only deserve one of the wide range of Mobil 1 synthetics available in the US, which cannot suit all engines. There is one company that produces nothing but poly-ol ester based lubricants. The ethos of the firm is that the best lubricant base combined with the best additive package will be produced, regardless of cost, as there will always be a market for the unqualified highest quality. Based in the competition market, and suppliers to all race championships from Formula 1 through to boat racing, and including even bar stool racing! Red Line® Synthetic Oil Corporation in California also produce a wide range of road oils for engines and gearboxes, all poly-ol ester based. You are unlikely ever to find Red Line oil in Halfords, but you will find it sold by the major competition and classic car parts suppliers; Demon Tweeks, for instance, being a typical mail order outlet for Red Line in Europe. Red Line supply product and technical support to race engine and gearbox designers to allow maximum advantage to be taken of the poly-ol esters' attributes and are in the forefront of lubricant development. Within the UK, the home of race car development, Delta Oil, the European distributor for Red Line run a technical sales department which is open to enquiries from anyone wanting advice on poly-ol ester lubricants - 01572 678311 or E-mail info@redlineoil.co.uk. Full product technical specifications are available on the Internet: www.redlineoil.com. I personally have taken a call from a gentleman suffering from a rattling Skoda engine, immediately followed by a call from a Formula 1 team - we were able to help both of them. © Gavin Scott, Delta Oil Ltd 1997 | ||
| Captpete |
If there were just some way to get that stuff into my 65 year old joints.  | ||
| Brucelee |
Fish oil might help. Be sure to buy the fully synthetic though!  | ||
| Court |
I'm comforted by the fact that, internet banter aside, it really makes very little difference. I just got rid of my Ford F-250 that had 161,000 miles and had been treated to Mobil 1, for better or worse, every 3,000 miles from day one. I'm curious as to how it would have held up if I'd used a top grade petro based oil and changed it, along with the filter, every 3,000. I'm putting Mobil 1 in the new 2006 unit and the wife's new wheel came with Mobil 1 so, be it right or wrong, I'm in the Mobil 1 camp. I don't know if it's "perfect" . . . but somehow I suspect, given the frequency of changes, that it'll be good enough. On the 1 - 10 scale of things I "worry" about, I'd give it a 2. Court | ||
| Brucelee |
Court, You are probably right. All things being equal, a change with Chevron Dino at $1.09 per quart would normally be fine for your truck using an OCI of 3K miles. So, you are likely wasting your money with M1 or any other syn or syn like oil. The great thing is, we are free to waste all the money we want. Ain't life grand.  | ||
| Djkaplan |
All this oil talk makes me wonder how we made it through all the years of Quaker State and Pennzoil. That's all I can remember seeing at the old mom and pop auto parts stores my father used to go to. To this day, Pennzoil is the only oil my father will use... mainly because it comes in a pretty yellow bottle. We didn't even know how bad we had it back then. | ||
| Sloppy |
The main reason I buy Mobil1 is because it is the best oil that is readily available in my local, heck, it's even at Costco! Cost is not an issue since I follow extendend drain intervals based upon the quality of oil that I run. I don't think Mobil1 hid the fact that they have changed their forumula -- I knew it on the day I saw their new package and broke out into the JASO market. Fact is, their oil still meets the API requirements per Buell specifications. Fact is, Mobil1 has been independently tested to be a superior oil compared to flat mineral base stock. Sure there are better oils, but for my driving conditions, Mobil1 fits the bill in spades... Redline, Amsoil, RP, BENKE, etc. are all superiour oils... the problem is that I can't buy them at my local store... and it's not worth the cost of mail order to use them. Mobil1 is still #1 in my book and I use it in all my vehicles... | ||
| Rocketman |
You are probably right. All things being equal, a change with Chevron Dino at $1.09 per quart would normally be fine for your truck using an OCI of 3K miles. So, you are likely wasting your money with M1 or any other syn or syn like oil. The great thing is, we are free to waste all the money we want. Ain't life grand. Yes it certainly is, and I suspect any Buell would be equally as well with an OCI of 3K miles. Even on goose fat! Say, how much oil does one of those 250's take coz I make that 56 oil changes and filters? Yikes, and all Mobil 1. That's about £1700 at trade money and probably £500 in filters over here. Rocket | ||
| Bomber |
I want Castrol to bring back Bean oil, dammit! I miss the aroma | ||
| Blake |
I agree with Hans. Not sure I trust the Wikipedia source though. But I still agree with Hans. | ||
| Brucelee |
However: Oil tests must give proof if new blends are better. The source of the constituents is irrelevant IMO. It IS a relevant if you lie about it. | ||
| Blake |
Just to be clear: Are you now accusing Mobil of lying? | ||
| Brucelee |
Just to be clear: Are you now accusing Mobil of lying? Mobil gives every APPEARANCE of lying. Whether they are lying or not at this point, is ONLY known to them. To wit: Mobil changes the "formula" of M1 by bringing out an entirely new brand of mileage based oils. In the process, they change the wording on their website specific to the question, "is m1 a fully synthetic motor oil?" The previous answer was unequivocal. The new answer refers to "high performance fluids." Reports of a GC indicate significant mineral oil in the formula. Customers call and email Mobil for clarification. What they get are very different versions of the "truth." UOA indicate a decline in the quality of M1. Are they lying? Who knows, I think they are. But at $7 per qt, I will simply spend a dollar more for the real deal, Red Line POE. For a contrast on how to answer the question, is my oil fully synthetic, study Red Line's answer. | ||
| Brucelee |
From Red Line's website. BTW-GC has verified that Red Line oil contains no mineral or PAO basestocks, only POE. Red Line Oil’s team of chemists and blenders formulate fully-synthetic oils and chemically-advanced additives using only the world’s finest base stocks. This makes Red Line Oil the premium product on the shelf. It’s not designed to be the cheapest—it’s built to be the best. Rather than cutting costs by blending into polyalphaolefin base stock for its motor oil, Red Line Oil only uses superior poly ester-based products—resulting in lubricants that are extremely stable at high temperatures while providing superior film strength at lower viscosities where more power can be produced. |
