The oil is thinner to get better mileage. Thicker oil protects your engine
more against heat. Thinner oil flows better when the engines cold.
Synthetics work better in extreme heat or cold. If synthetic oil , or
another spec. oil is required in your owners manual. You void your warranty
by using Dino oil. I have a magnetic drain plug in all my vehicles.
Unfortunately they don't attract Aluminum, or any bronze or brass bearing
material. I think they are better at protecting the oil pump from picking up
steel particles. The crud is in the engines because the filters can't
filter small enough particles without plugging up too fast. They don't
filter small enough. Manufactures aren't going to make filters that will
filter 1 micron for three months and cost 25 bucks ever three months to
change, under warranty. You get 10-20 microns and dirty oil for 3 bucks a
filter. Change it to get the crud out.
<pfjw (AT) aol (DOT) com> wrote

You didn't say we were only considering "0W" synthetics. Is that what
you're saying now?

Okay, fine. Let's consider them. How does that affect crud-loosening
ability?

Same question. How does considering these factors explain anything?
How about considering their color and odor?

That's not true, there's still resistance to acids and other
contaminants and a lot of other factors, but what do they have to do
with crud-loosening ability?

Okay, humor me. How do they suggest that?

What is the crud, and where is it? Do you mean metal particles from
friction wear? Are you saying that it builds up somewhere in the engine
with mineral oil, but not with synthetic? Can you offer any proof of that?

According to your position, it should be clean as a whistle if you use
mineral oil, because the crud is hung up in the engine somewhere. It
should only have metal particles on it if you're using synthetic oil,
because only synthetic can wash it all down into the pan. Is that what
you actually see, in the real world?

I have an open mind, I'll believe what you say if you can back it up
somehow, but just saying things such as, "Consider film properties and
film strength" doesn't mean jack.

Excuse the top-post, but note the interpolations.


Brian Running wrote:
No. What I am writing is about the fundamental differences between
mineral and synthetic oil, and the molecular properties that create
those differences.

Synthetic oil has a much greater film strength, and it penetrates into
metal surfaces more effectively than mineral oil. This is, in part, due
to its inherent molecular properties _and_ to the additives that it can
tolerate that mineral oil cannot. Put another way, its chains are less
fragile and more uniform than mineral oils. So, the oil will penetrate
into areas that mineral oil cannot and does not, removing associated
crud. And EXACTLY why many manufacturers require a mineral-based
break-in oil (including VW with its diesels quite recently) as it
happens. Because synthetic oils do not permit sufficient wear for parts
(especially rings) to settle.

Well, color and odor would be indicative of additives and volatiles
present, so I guess they could be a valid consideration as the two are
quite different in both. But the point is that synthetic oils are
'built' molecules, not cracked or combined. There are no 'loose ends'
(or vastly fewer), no incomplete bonds, and a uniform distribution of
weights. Not even a little bit so of mineral-based oils which have far
broader tolerances than synthetics.

It's the loose ends (again, quite literally) that are the first to go
with mineral-oil.

Resistance * to * acids * and * other * contaminants... no sh*t. Less
break down, less crud.

I will. You have a happy well-maintained engine that has say.... 60,000
miles on it, all on mineral-based oils. All the crud that is inherent
with the normal breakdown of mineral oils is settled in its place.
Mostly not doing any harm, mostly just hanging in where there is
nothing to push it around. Follow on..

The crud is carbon from carbonized oil, varnish from overheated oil,
bits of metal, residuals from cruddy gasoline that gets burnt but not
expelled, products of combustion from blow-by... there is always some,
or PCVs and crankcase breathers would be unnecessary. Foam from
hydrolized oil if lots of short trips are made without complete engine
warm-up. Crud. It is a reality. It exists. Crud will get to places
outside of the main oil flow and attract more crud. Look at the filler
cap of an engine with lots of hydrolized oil... it's a brown foam and
will be all over the cap in consistencies from vaseline to candle-wax
depending. And even brake-fluid from a slight leak in a master-cylinder
to a vacuum booster, or a very slight head-gasket leak... sources are
many.

With respect, not hardly. The magnetic drain plug typically is in the
sump and gets the oil before it hits the pump and is sent through the
filter (presuming the filter is not clogged). But it does reveal a
source of crud. And it will be *less* (not NONE) with synthetic oils
than with mineral oils... less wear, presumably.

Your oil filter is not terribly efficient, if it were, it would clog
quickly. So, crud too fine for the filter to catch must be suspended in
the oil or it will build up. And the inevitable sources for such crud
are listed above... really, only a few such sources, as there are many
more.

The film properties and film-strength of synthetic oils are much
greater than mineral-type oils. They will penetrate varnish, penetrate
foam accretions, even free up carbonized accretions around valve stems.
This load if taking on all that is there from a 60,000 mile engine will
be quite a (single) load of unwanted freight. MOST of which is already
known to be beyond the capacity of the filter to catch... or it would
have already. Why carry it beyond what is absolutely necessary if after
all the goal is to make the engine last essentially forever. Synthetic
oils do suspend crud more efficiently than mineral oils. They can be
tailored more specifically, again due to uniformity. But that capacity
is not infinite.

Now, a bit of a lesson in discussion.

Making a statement does not mean that anything but that absolute
statement renders it untrue, nor does it prove the opposite. William of
Occam put paid to that little theory some 600+/- years ago. That
something is not Black does not make it necessarily White. Just NOT
black. So, using 0W oils as an example does not even begin to imply
that the discussion is confined to 0W oils. Just that there are basic,
intrinsic, and fundamental differences between Oils, of which that
particular possibility forces the recognition of what such differences
require. That is Occam's Razor, as it happens.

Leaping to conclusions is a fallacy.
As is any attempt to prove the negative.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

Originally, what you said was that synthetic oil is thinner than mineral
oil, and therefore loosened crud more effectively. Looks like you
abandoned that position.

Because it has greater film strength, it can penetrate into metal
better? So, greater film strength means better penetration? Can any
oil penetrate into metal surfaces? And, what does any of that have to
do with loosening crud?

Give some examples, please.

I know this is what you're saying, but you still haven't provided any
supporting information. Simply saying it removes crud doesn't prove
anything.

And EXACTLY why many manufacturers require a mineral-based
That's not true at all. Lots of manufacturers, including VW, send the
cars out the door filled with synthetic oil. And those that advise
using mineral oil for the break-in period do so because synthetic oil
has greater film strength and might lengthen the break-in process, not
because synthetic will "remove crud" during break-in.

There's no doubt that synthetics are better oils than mineral oils, but
what does that have to do with crud loosening?

Okay, but you're saying that synthetics remove crud that mineral oils
allow to accumulate. Where's the connection?

This is an unsupported assumption. Show some support for the assumption
that mineral oil breakdown creates crud that accumulates and is removed
by synthetics, or your entire argument doesn't work.

Hanging where? You're just making baseless statements.

PCVs and crankcase breathers are not there because of blow-by, they're
there because crankcase volume changes as pistons move and there needs
to be relief of the alternating pressure and vacuum.

And every single one of those examples happens to synthetic oil just as
it does to mineral oil. I've got gobs of brown goo hanging on the
inside of my oil-filler cap right now, composed of synthetic oil and
water. Just like it would with mineral oil. None of that proves that
synthetic oil "loosens crud" better than mineral oil.

Yes, that is what you've been saying all along, and that is what I'm
disputing. Repeating it over and over does not make it true. I say
it's untrue. Now, prove me wrong. I will change my mind if I'm proven
wrong.

Tell you what, if you believe that simply repeating something over and
over without providing any supporting facts makes something true, then
you're not in any position to superciliously lecture someone on logic.
Your statement was that if you switch to synthetic oil after having used
mineral oil, you'd better change it again quickly, because it will have
loosened up all the crud that the mineral allowed to accumulate. I say
that's untrue. You haven't offered anything but your repeated
insistence that it's true to support your case. After several
back-and-forths, it's safe to say that you're not going to provide any
support for your position. It's untrue.

If this is what you have to resort to, then there's absolutely no doubt
in my mind that you have no support for your argument, and you know it.
When you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.

You might want to bone up on Occam's Razor again, too -- Occam's Razor
is the rule that says "All things being equal, the simplest solution
tends to be the best one." It's got nothing to do with your argument.

Yikes.

Hey, don't take it from me. Pepper to the right, fly poop to the left.

Just go to the API, SAE, ASTM or ANSI web sites and so forth. They say
it much better than I do, but with MANY more words. You do tend to
argue from a black-white standpoint, and it ain't nohow that way. Of
course, you may have to pay a buck or three to do it...

But to start you out on some commercial sites:

http://www.synthetic-motor-oil-chang...-to-synthetic/


http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/932838 This is a fascinating
article.

http://www.carbibles.com/engineoil_bible.html

There are many, some of them even reliable.

But they pretty much all agree with my contentions. Some in more detail
than others, and some more strident than others. But, pick your poison
and then make up your own mind.

Occam's principle of Parsimony was a codicil to the razor... which
became the principle of the "excluded middle".

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA