Limiting the discussion to wear reduction misses another key aspect where synthetic outperforms petroleum-based oil... sludge resistance.

There have been some famous (infamous) recalls over the past 10 or 20 years where manufacturers spec'd dino oil and change intervals and 3 or 4 years later had class action lawsuits from owners who had followed the recommendations and had major engine problems/repairs. Subsequently the manufacturers revised their maintenance recommendations to synthetic oil and/or shorter oil change intervals.

So this wasn't some reduce-wear benefit seen 10+ years down the road because a rebuild is pushed out a few years. These were people with relatively new cars that had to deal with extensive engine repairs and in some cases legal recourse due to an incorrect recommendation by the manufacturer. I'd bet those folks would say an extra $100 for synthetic oil over those few years would have been a small price to pay had they known.

 

Our testing here, on a bunch of lubricants, which includes dynomometer runs as well, apparently doesn't see a reduction in heat transfer as the engines all run a little cooler though that could be only from reduced friction. Next time we'll do some more instrumentation.
Incidently, you can expect up to 5% increase in hp and also 4% mpg from using synthetics like Mobil 1 in your engine and, perhaps more important, doulble the useful life of the oil. (that means twice as long before changing the oil AND FILTER.) Truth is, the filter gets more filled than the oil reduces viscosity and shear strength so filter life is the limting factor. There's a reason NASCAR and F1 use synthetic oils though F! uses stuff we'll never get our hands on, or want to.
As far as economics are concerned its a very slim margin for increased time between oil and filter changes and increased mpg compared to conventional, but good, oils. So the reason to use synthetics is pretty much just best running and longer engine life. We've seen so many Hondas with 250,000 miles on stnthetic oils running like a top its hard to argue. We don't have very cold temps here but the Army and ice road truckers say synthetics only for artic condition the cold start and run has to be much better.
cheers.

 

A 4% increase in MPG is more than 1 MPG for a car like the Fit. I'm pretty sure that if syn oil would lead to a 1 MPG increase in the gov'ts MPG reporting Honda would put it in the car, as the extra MPG would sell more cars. Yes, I know, everything's a trade-off and it'd cost them ten bucks per car to do that, but claiming higher mileage would be a big deal for a car like the Fit.

So I figure they probably studied it and it came to less than 1 MPG (i.e. no reportable difference when rounded to the nearest integer). Of course even a half MPG gain is a net savings over the life of the car (>$300 gas savings vs. $200 cost of syn oil).

The syn oil companies all talk about 'up to' some increase in mileage. Mobil 1 says 'up to 2%' but when you read the wording, which seems to have been written by lawyers, it implies the savings when you change viscosity (at least that's how I read it). In other words, going from 10W or 5W to 0W (if you read the pages for their oils they brag about fuel savings on the 0W pages but not the higher-viscosity pages).

That said, I don't know if there is 0W dino oil anyway...

 

I checked Penzoil, Mobil, and Quaker State, and their conventional oils all start at 5W-20.

The oil analysis I've seen from conventional oil doesn't look too bad, even following the MM, so it's certainly good enough (see for example https://www.fitfreak.net/forums/2nd-...es-09-fit.html).

I use synthetic oil in my Fit -- I change my oil myself, so the price difference is about $9 for a 5 quart jug (~$14 for conventional 5W-30 vs $23 for Mobil 1 0W-20). I change my oil about once a year, so an extra $9/year or so is worth it to me. My main reason is to deal with the cold.

Are there any tangible benefits? Who knows -- I've got 2 other Hondas in the family, one with 200,000 miles, and another with 150,000 miles, and before we got them, the previous owners used conventional oil. They're both still running, for what it's worth.

 

Where are you getting Mobil 1 that cheap?

 

Walmart

Most of the synthetics in 5 quart jugs are around that price at Walmart -- Penzoil platinum is $24.50, the rest of the Mobil 1 line up is $24.50, and I think the new Penzoil Ultra is $27 or $28.

I think the Mobil 1 5 quart jugs are only sold at Walmart though.

 

Letting your Fit drain at droplet size for more than a few minutes is a waste of time. A small amount of 'old'oil is actually beneficial. If that really concerns you why not flush a fresh quart of oil thru the engine after you drain the old oil .
Getting all the oil out is impossible and any sludge better be in the filter, not the oil draining.

 

What makes you think manufacturers don't do exactly that. When mpg tests are run the thinnest oil that can be used, is. Our tests compare a synthetic to our reference hydrocarbon oil of the same company.After all, do you see any ads that present mpg as city/highway, an average of the two, on any car? They know they're lying, but then, thats what advertising is. And 'up to' covers their butts.
Advertised mpg is merely a procedure to compare cars on the same test procedure. It has nothing to do with real world driving.

 

um, yea...Honda ended up doing exactly what you described.

https://www.fitfreak.net/forums/2nd-...20-2011-a.html

Regarding viscosity, yes, I agree, out of the bottle for the same viscosity, should be about the same for fuel use. For a pure operating cost analysis you need to change the viscosity as well.

But synthetic oil holds to it's specification better with wear and time. So at the end of your OCI at 12,000miles your dino oil maybe has degraded to something to a 12w-28, whereas your synthetic might be around 7w-29, so there is some small fuel savings benefit there.

If you're keeping the same viscosity spec, then you're mainly looking at the other benefits such as oil life, not necessarily fuel savings.

 

@ 30mpg, 4% is 1.2mpg... also the 2011's come with 0w20 syn.

You really need to stop pretending you know what you are talking about or that you have some sort of authoritative opinion on the matter.. mahout gave you actual figures and you are just making guesses. Just stop.

There are tangible benefits, because you do not understand them doesn't mean they do not exist.

Stop mucking up threads with your suppositions.

 

just had my 2nd oil change at 6k miles (as per oil life minder) with Mobil 1 0W20. will see how long it will last compared to dino.

 

BC is the same tool tried to tell me what's up when it comes to tuning and fuel.

Yet has never used anything but pump gas nor has he ever tuned a car....

 

Mahout said 'up to' and didn't provide details.

I believe in science. I don't believe in wasting people's time asking them to read the same re-hashing claiming I don't know what I'm talking about. I ask for statistics and in response I get no data or someone who claims to be an expert bashing me for not having the same alleged expertise. There's a word for that on the internet, I'm sure you all know what it is.

If you don't like my opinion, comment on what I said. Refute it with data. Attacking the messenger because you can't attack the message is, well, I'd rather not resort to name-calling. I don't come here to use big words and act smart, I come here to get and share information and have an informed discussion.

The gov't mileage numbers were changed a couple of years ago to be more real-world oriented. They're not exactly what anybody's driving is, but it's a better approximation than it used to be.

Yes, Honda switched to thinner oil for 2011. And yet their EPA mileage numbers haven't changed... that says something. I don't think it'd be legal for them to put thinner oil than stock in their engines and then run the tests, it's supposed to be an actual factory car. Otherwise they'd cut off the exhaust, remove the seats, the mirrors, the antenna...

 

I will not waste my time typing out a dissertation for you to ignore like you have so many times in the past only to go with your gut feeling.

You do not like science or you would listen to it.

Most all of your posts are based on guesses or feelings. Neither of which are very scientific.

You have in fact been given dyno data by mahout, I went to the trouble to explain the stribeck curve and the development of hydrodynamic lubrication in another oil thread and you just dismiss these things.

You also ignored damn near every word I had to say about tuning and fuel opting to go with your preconceived ignorance.

As far as the "claim" that you do not know what you are talking about? You demonstrate your complete lack of understanding with every continued post in this thread.

Explaining things to you is a waste of time as you choose to ignore the bits you don't agree with or understand.

You have provided no information, and you need to be educated to hold an informed discussion.

You are the same guy who tried to explain tuning from the economists point of view.

 

If you do not even understand the basics you cannot have a discussion as complex as oil grade vs. wear vs. fuel economy.

And you have thoroughly demonstrated you are far beyond your comprehension here.

You initially tried to pretend that syn oil is not "proven," which is laughable.

You then claimed there are no tangible benefits.. which is again dead wrong.

You didn't even notice that many manufacturers are switching to syn oils.

You couldn't be bothered to do the simple math to see that 4% is well within reason.

Why should we bother trying to explain this stuff to you when you choose not to see it.

 

Since you're not here you don't know what I've done. I've read almost everything you've posted, including links. And I've responded. I've tried to maintain a civil discussion, and almost everyone on this site has been the same way.

I've asked questions. I've discussed science. I've even been polite despite the rudeness I continue to suffer from someone who clearly doesn't understand that you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Frankly I've shown you more patience than almost anyone else would, considering your nastiness. So enough already with the personal attacks. You don't like how little you think I know? Respond with facts. Not with "We already told you and you ignored it." Stick to this thread, which is about oil. Not fuel. Not other prior discussions.

Mahout said 4% and 5%, with no explanation of where that came from, so I'm asking for details. Because others I've consulted have opted not to use syn oil and presumably they've done some research.

We don't want sludge in our oil pans and we don't need any in our discussions, either.

 

I'm not here to catch flies, I am here to dismiss your assumptions and BS.

You have been told and you choose to ignore it. It's like arguing with 9/11 truthers or birthers. You in particular have been an obstinate, ignorant waste of bandwidth since you created your account here.

What would the point be in writing a thorough essay for you to not understand it?

Like tuning, if you don't have the basics down you cannot progress into more complex areas.

You create posts and threads looking for conclusive sweeping statements. The fact is in the real world, nothing will be universal.

But you seem to go looking for outliers that fit in with your preconceived notions of how things should work, which are flawed to begin with because you don't have the preliminary underpinnings of the subject down well enough.

You tried to tell me in one of our first encounters that the Fit ECU would never be able to take advantage of anything more than 87oct because it wouldn't make economic sense for this type of car.

It is this style of reasoning that has me dismiss what you have to say and not care enough to waste time telling you the hows and whys.

The same thing goes for you trying to extrapolate fleet data for diesel package trucks out to privately owned gas passenger cars.

You should post less and read more before attempting discussions like these. You come off looking like a complete fool.

 

This is what I'm asking about, so thank you for replying. Of course if I ask if this is supposition or if there's analysis showing that's what happens with syn vs dino oil I'm sure someone will object to seeking actual, you know, facts.

I would be thrilled with a comparison of oils in passenger cars but apparently though I asked nobody has provided a comparison on the scale of a large fleet. I know that diesels and gas engines are different but there are plenty of similarities for which the comparison might offer some benefit to the discussion. I did read of a comparison using a taxi fleet but since they didn't show a benefit people here are quick to dismiss it since it doesn't support their conclusion.

 

agreed, this is a pointless/moot issue. Regardless of whatever discussion, oil changes are a personal preference, so things just go in circles without any effect.

Brian it appears you aren't really looking for info or knowledge, you're just looking for an argument to refute.

Unsubscribing from this thread now. I'd like to hope my time is spent to help people, not just to argue

go to bobistheoilguy if you want to discussion.

 

No, the opposite. I'm looking for information. Data. Rather than "Well, it's better and everybody knows that" (a lot of 'conventional knowledge' isn't right when people look into it) or "You have no technical background so you won't understand it" (so simplify it). I'm sure that Exxon studied it, since they make and market syn oil. They claim a fuel savings for their 0 weight oil so they must've done some research. They don't make the same claims with their 5 and 10 weight oils.

So, if someone can point me to a statistically valid test, I'd be thrilled to read it. But "I changed to syn oil and my engine sounds better and my car seems faster" isn't what I'm looking for.