jmcgill <jmcgill (AT) email (DOT) arizona.edu> wrote:

So who here has had a B230F fail after regular oil maintenance with
regular oil?

Such reports are meaningless unless they are analyzed statistically.\

jmcgill <jmcgill (AT) email (DOT) arizona.edu> wrote:

Precisely, you can't say something does something like extend engine
life if there is no data. There is no data.

I can tell you one thing, Mobil 1 is not recommended for aviation
applications. That is straight from the Mobil 1 website. It does meet
API tests and ratings, but so does regular oil.

--
Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to rhodyman (AT) earthlink (DOT) net
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA
http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman

Stephen Henning wrote:

We're coming from different places. I'm looking for a compelling reason
*not* to use synthetic oil.

jmcgill wrote:

It's pretty clear that synthetic oil - maybe especially Mobil
1 - is more likely to cause leaks in older engines that have been
run on conventional oil. Japanese cars seem less prone to these
leaks, and Volvos more prone to them. I don't know about American
cars. If you drive a Volvo, the closest you will get to a
consensus (not very close!) is that turbos and early model 850's
will likely benefit, and it probably isn't worth the risk in the
other Volvo engines. The same seems to apply to synthetic blends.

"mjc13" wrote:

Regular oil changes with an oil that SH or current additives all you need to "keep
the lifters from sticking". Synthetic oil in and by itself is not needed to
prevent valves from sticking - and I have an 83 Volvo 240GL, an 83 Plymouth
Voyager, a 96 Volvo 850, and a 1954 Case D tractor to illustrate my point.

Ken, Canada

Ken Pisichko wrote:
I was referring to a specific, known issue with the first
couple of years the Volvo 850 was produced. The oil passages in
the head were/are very small, and for the first couple of years
there is a fairly high rate of failure for the hydraulic lifters.
But hey, this is usenet, so one has to expect gratuitous abuse!

jmcgill <jmcgill (AT) email (DOT) arizona.edu> wrote:

The one reason not to use it is the added expense with no real benefit.

I am looking for one reason to use it. Sure, it tests better in the
lab, but no one has translated this to real world benefits. Not one.

No one has mentioned that Volvo has permitted synthetic oils to be used
in its cars made in 1981 and later if they meet the API Service specs
listed by Volvo which in 1981 were SE-CC and SF-CC. However, Volvo has
never recommended synthetic oils.

This is per the owners manuals which are available on line.

--
Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to rhodyman (AT) earthlink (DOT) net
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA
http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman

Stephen Henning wrote:
I use synthetic because it flows better when cold - keep a bottle of
regular oil outside in the winter, beside a bottle of synthetic. My
synthetic 5W40 gurgles when I shake the bottle at my typical winter
temperatures, whereas the bottle of regular 5W30 does not.

Synthetic also has higher heat resistance, so in my turbocharged cars,
and air-cooled motorcycle, snow blower and lawnmower this higher heat
resistance makes me feel like I'm protecting them better, even if
regular oil has enough heat resistance for the temperatures reached.

So there's 2 reasons - better protection when cold and easier cold
starts, and it makes me feel like I'm doing something for high
temperature protection.

--
Mike F.
Thornhill (near Toronto), Ont.

Replace tt with t (twice!) and remove parentheses to email me directly.
(But I check the newsgroup more often than this email address.)

Stephen Henning wrote:

Synthetic oil is subjected to higher quality control standards; how's
that for a benefit?

I am looking for a reason not to use it. Sure it is met with
skepticism, but on one has translated this to real world risks. Not one.

mjc<DELETETHIS>13 wrote:

People can actually substantiate this, reporting leaks on their Volvo
motors, clearly caused by switching to synthetic oil?

Just how "clear" is it, and where are the data? Is it "clear" enough
for a class action suit?

jmcgill wrote:
There is a Mechanical Engineer in Bath, Maine who has rebuilt many Volvo
D24T engines. His experience with Mobil-1 in these engines after an
overhaul (using a 40,000 mile oil and filter change interval) is that
after 100,000 miles of operation there is _no measurable wear_. I
assume that his observations include crankshaft bearings and
pistons/cylinders, cam shaft and valve guides. If you want more
details, please let me know, and i will ask him.

Based on his observations i switched my 1989 Volvo 240 Sedan (250,000
km) to Mobil-1 about 5 years ago. I have seen _no_ evidence of leaking
seals. My son's 1986 Volvo 240 Wagon (465,000 km) likewise received
Mobil-1 about 4 years ago. There has been _no_ sign of oil leaks. I
changed the timing belt a month ago, and did not bother replacing the
three front oil seals as everything was completely oil free and dry.
The oil consumption of this engine was about 1 liter/1000 km. With
Mobil-1 it is down to 1/4 liter/1000 km. I recently changed the oil
after 40,000 km, and it was quite clean. More importantly, i also
checked the throttle body (TB). It was also clean. Before the change
to Mobil-1, i removed the TB and had to clean out a lot of gummy, brown
deposit.

In my experience, Mobil-1 is a superior product. The ability of the oil
to cling to metal surfaces better than conventional dyno oil is an
advantage during engine startups. Less wear will be the result.
Remember that startups cause a lot of the wear in an engine.

--
Regards / JCH