Will switching from Synthetic to Dyno oil harm my engine?

"Steve" > wrote in message
...
> Philip wrote:
>
>
> All I can say is "duh." And that's my whole point... running an adequate
> oil BEYOND 3000 miles, beyond 5000 miles, or even beyond the manufacturers
> recommendation (given that you may use an oil that is up to the task,
> which might not have even been on the market when the manufacturer WROTE
> that recommendation) DOES NOT automatically lead to a ruined engine, as
> the post with the link to the destroyed BMW engine IMPLIED.
>
>
>> Sit back and shut up while Huw educates you ... if possible. I'll let
>> you have the last word.
>
> If your reading skills were up to your skills of pretension, you might
> have realized by now that Huw and I are in total AGREEMENT.
>

Yes indeed we are.
It's not often I agree with so many people in a string. It must be
Christmas.

Huw

Huw wrote:


> Indeed they do. However the 15000 to 30,000 intervals for cars do not depend
> on drivers being proactive and analysing their oil. The service interval is
> flexible and conditions are moitored automattically by the vehicle systems.
> This applies to both petrol and diesel systems.
> I believe Cummins have a similar system fitted called Sentinel or similar.


"Centinel," I believe <eyeroll.> Advertising types....


Also, nearly every General Motors product that comes down the pike these
days has *some* form of oil monitoring system even the Civic-competitor
dispose-a-cars with the Ecotec 4-cylinder engine. But rather than using
something optical to look at the oils actual turbidity and factor that
(or conductivity, or pH, etc.) into the equation, I think it just
monitors driving parameters (temperature cycles, speeds, throttle
settings, etc.) and concocts a time when it "thinks" the oil should be
changed based on assumed oil characteristics. As the guys that did the
long-term tests on the Pontiac LS-1 reported in the link posted earlier,
the monitoring system "thought" the oil needed changing well before
actual oil analysis indicated that it ws necessary.

Steve wrote:
> Philip wrote:
>
>>
>> Steve. This thread has evolved a bit higher than you can appreciate
>> right now. Sit back and learn the nuances of API oils having no
>> diesel designation, fleet oils, and European ratings.
>
> Cut the condescension and **** up a rope. I understand the difference
> perfectly.

I await the evidence.

>>> My entry into this discussion came about because a picture of a
>>> sludged-up GASOLINE engine was used to imply that the "reality" as
>>> opposed to the "theory" of extended drain intervals would inevitably
>>> lead to that kind of thing. It does not.
>>
>>
>> It does lead to sludged engines.
>
> No it doesn't. Neglect, mechanical failure, or inappropriate choice of
> the oil and drain interval CAN (but doesn't always). Extended drain
> interval alone DOES NOT.

Does too. The primary cause of sludge IS... leaving the oil in service too
long for conditions which ... comes under your heading of "neglect." That
you have some rigid definintion of what constitutes "extended" is your
sticking point.

>> The 'extension' is by degree. Is 25k
>> miles "extended"? How about 15k miles? Maybe 40k miles? Use
>> determines the interval ... not your abitrary choice.
>
> All I can say is "duh." And that's my whole point... running an
> adequate oil BEYOND 3000 miles, beyond 5000 miles, or even beyond the
> manufacturers recommendation (given that you may use an oil that is up
> to the task, which might not have even been on the market when the
> manufacturer WROTE that recommendation) DOES NOT automatically lead
> to a ruined engine, as the post with the link to the destroyed BMW
> engine IMPLIED.

Yes it does ... as stated a few lines up.

--

- Philip

Steve wrote:
> Philip wrote:
>
>>
>> BTW, I ran across this blurb on the Mobil website:
>>
>> -> Features & Benefits
>> Modern high output, *low* emission diesel engines generate *higher*
>> levels of soot and run at higher temperatures than older, naturally
>> aspirated engines, which significantly increases the demands on
>> engine lubricants. Current engine designs reduce oil consumption,
>> resulting in less fresh oil makeup to replenish depleted additives.
>> Top piston rings are located higher on the piston bringing the oil
>> film closer to the combustion chamber where higher temperatures
>> increase thermal stress on the lubricant. Higher fuel injector
>> pressure and retarded timing improve exhaust emission control, but
>> also increase engine temperatures and increase soot loads, including
>> those engines operating with Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR). ->
>
>
> Written (or edited) by someone other than an engineer, no doubt.

A recurring fact in evidence is that Steve discounts everything not
mirroring his own opinion (facts not withstanding). I'll accept Mobil over
you.

>The only thing that is not strictly true,

See ... here's an example of your rigidness ("strickly").

> however is the generalization
> that "...low emission diesel engines generate higher levels of
> soot..." Obviously they "generate" less soot overall, hence their
> lower emissions. However, raising the combustion pressure and temperature
> can EASILY result in more soot ...

Do reveal how higher combstion pressure and temperature result in more soot.

> (and other undesirable combustion byproducts)

The primary byproduct here is your vague reference to NOx?

> being pushed past the rings into the LUBRICANT, even though the total soot
> produced and sent out the tailpipe is much lower. Thus, poor
> wording aside, the statement is correct in the context of soot loading
> of the oil.

Are you aware that NOx contaminates the lubricating oil? I am not. If
less soot is being produced, then how is -more- soot being "pushed past the
rings into the LUBRICANT" when anecdotal evidence is current tech diesels
take longer to soot foul their oil than older design diesels. Soot has
intelligence to go past the rings instead of out the tail pipe? Ingenious.
--

- Philip

"Steve" > wrote in message
...
> Huw wrote:
>
>
>> Indeed they do. However the 15000 to 30,000 intervals for cars do not
>> depend on drivers being proactive and analysing their oil. The service
>> interval is flexible and conditions are moitored automattically by the
>> vehicle systems. This applies to both petrol and diesel systems.
>> I believe Cummins have a similar system fitted called Sentinel or
>> similar.
>
>
> "Centinel," I believe <eyeroll.> Advertising types....
>
>
> Also, nearly every General Motors product that comes down the pike these
> days has *some* form of oil monitoring system even the Civic-competitor
> dispose-a-cars with the Ecotec 4-cylinder engine. But rather than using
> something optical to look at the oils actual turbidity and factor that (or
> conductivity, or pH, etc.) into the equation, I think it just monitors
> driving parameters (temperature cycles, speeds, throttle settings, etc.)
> and concocts a time when it "thinks" the oil should be changed based on
> assumed oil characteristics.

I suspect, but do not know, that European Vectra and Astra vehicles have
their oil moitoring systems sourced from the same company as Mercedes and
BMW. Certainly the Mercedes has a real time oil condition monitor which I
found when I did an early first oil change [at around 7000 miles] and
observed the service countdown indicator actually counting the 'wrong' way
for a while and adding a couple of thousand miles to the next service over a
period of no more than 200 miles driving.

I would be surprised if GM did not fit such a physical condition monitor to
its vehicles considering that it, along with VW, now have the longest
intervals in the industry, about 20,000 for certain petrol engines and up to
30,000 for its diesels.





As the guys that did the
> long-term tests on the Pontiac LS-1 reported in the link posted earlier,
> the monitoring system "thought" the oil needed changing well before actual
> oil analysis indicated that it ws necessary.
>
>

They do build in a safety factor even with these systems but it is probably
far less than they build in for fixed service intervals generally.

Having said that, there were some teething troubles, as is the case with
most technology which stretches the envelope. The only one I can think of
though is where Mercedes found that 229.1 oil used in their petrol engines
in the US and serviced according to the monitor, did indeed suffer the very
occasional sludge incident. They were quick to revise the recommendation,
not shorten the service interval mind you, so that all 229.1 oils HAD to be
synthetic whereas previously some service centres used mineral oil that did
meet but not exceed 229.1.
My preference is always to use just one performance grade higher than
recommended when appropriate, and this is one appropriate use, in this case
I always used oil meeting the more demanding 229.3 specification.

I now use synthetic oil meeting 229.5 in a Vito 220 service van with fixed
14000 mile service intervals. In more demanding applications, including my
Toyota Land Cruiser diesel run to more than twice the manufacturers
recommended interval I use Ultra HPD oil meeting 228.5 which is the ultimate
specification for ultra long use. No doubt that with more efficient
filtration and oil analysis allowing, this oil would be good for almost
'sealed for life' engines.

Huw

Here in the UK there's no such thing as oil analysis - certainly I cant
find anyone local (i.e. in the north of the country) that does it, and the
only place i found in the whole country quoted £10 and 3 days wait. Whats
the point? It really is cheaper and less time consuming to change
over-regularly than to run tests and waste time that way - takes me 10 mins
to change oil at the most, i spend £50 a year more than most people, but i
know im running golden honey all year round, no matter how hard i've
thrashed the engine, and most particulates from an older engine are cleared
out with each oil/filter change.


> what you intent is good, but your method is not.
>
> http://theoildrop.server101.com/whatisoilanalysis.htm has good basic
> info on how to adopt a better approach to what you're trying to achieve.
> you're better off spending your money on oil analysis rather than
> excessive oil changes.
>

Huw wrote:
snip
> Although the use of the word 'extended' here can be
> confused and confusing.

The legalistic understanding of "extended" seems to suggest longer than
historic yet sanctified by some authority ... so long as ... the operator
also operates his vehicle in a manner that would allow the higher mileage.
Then we have the more "sophisticated operator" who readily prefers the
shorter service intervals because he has past experience.

>One thing is sure, it is not normal to have
> any lubrication or lubrication related issues if the oil is changed
> as per recommended by the engine or vehicle manufacturer.
snip
> For the more sophisticated operator then the manufacturers recommendation
> can be elastic to a greater or lesser extent.
snip
> Huw

USE ADJUSTED per Normal or Severe (in the simplest of terms) as mentioned in
most Owners Manuals.
--

- Philip

Coyoteboy wrote:
> Here in the UK there's no such thing as oil analysis - certainly I cant
> find anyone local (i.e. in the north of the country) that does it, and the
> only place i found in the whole country quoted £10 and 3 days wait. Whats
> the point? It really is cheaper and less time consuming to change
> over-regularly than to run tests and waste time that way - takes me 10 mins
> to change oil at the most, i spend £50 a year more than most people, but i
> know im running golden honey all year round, no matter how hard i've
> thrashed the engine, and most particulates from an older engine are cleared
> out with each oil/filter change.
>
>
>
>>what you intent is good, but your method is not.
>>
>>http://theoildrop.server101.com/whatisoilanalysis.htm has good basic
>>info on how to adopt a better approach to what you're trying to achieve.
>> you're better off spending your money on oil analysis rather than
>>excessive oil changes.
>>
>

wiley, you can do whatever makes you feel good, but here's some perspective:

1. it takes about 3 days this side of the pond too
2. you go ahead & change your oil anyway - you just send a sample of the
old oil at change time. the resulting report tells you whether you're
about to encounter a problem. or, and this is the whole point of this
conversation, whether you're changing oil ahead of it being necessary &
thus wasting money.

the analysis folks are not trying to rip you or sell you stuff you don't
need. they primarily help big fleets manage their maintenance costs -
and they can do that for you too. if you're environmentaly minded, you
can look at it as not wasting resources too or causing unnecessary
contamination. especially if you're using synthetic.

again, if analysis shows you can safely extend your maintenance
interval, it makes sense to do that. they will tell you if you need to
shorten your maintenance schedule too.

> 2. you go ahead & change your oil anyway - you just send a sample of the >
old oil at change time. the resulting report tells you whether you're
> about to encounter a problem. or, and this is the whole point of this
> conversation, whether you're changing oil ahead of it being necessary &
> thus wasting money.

I dont really want to know if I'm about to encounter a problem lol. Looking
at the things it can diagnose, I can diagnose most of them shortly before
they go critically wrong anyway by ear/feel etc. If they take out something
else when they go, they were probably wearing it excessively anyway and so
I'd replace that while i was changing it. If I were to know about it I'd
worry about when was the best time to change whatever was failing etc I
guess that since I do all my own work im less worried about the costs of
labour if things go wrong.

But a)I'm not too worried about environmental issues regarding a couple of
gallons of oil, b) I know 3K miles is a nice short interval on top Q synth
oil, c) my differing driving habits from one month to the next would mean I
couldnt really use one change's analysis results to predict the rest - which
nullifies the point of doing the test.

TBH it is just too much faffing to be bothered with, and with the fact that
the vehicle is sometimes thrashed, sometimes pampered, the cost of repeated
analyses would vastly outweigh the benefit. The oil testing companies *are*
out to sell you stuff - the next analysis - they dont do it for fun. I can
see its a great idea for a normal vehicle under fleet use conditions, and if
I were to be running 10 cars I'd consider it to reduce oil change costs, but
really its over-analysis for the normal user when all thats required is a
safety buffer of maybe 1 extra oil change.

Due to its long term racing/drag/street history the 3Sgte engine is well
documented, and the known 'good' change interval is accepted as 3K as per
the manufacturer specs, unless the car is track-abused.

I'm not saying its a bad idea, just that it doesnt suit all cases, and
really in my case its a waste of cash and simply serves to scare the hell
out of me warning me of the next failure - why worry about things you cant
alter. .

> again, if analysis shows you can safely extend your maintenance
> interval, it makes sense to do that. they will tell you if you need to
> shorten your maintenance schedule too.

As I say, since its not a daily driver, and is sometimes abused, sometimes
mollycoddled, it couldnt be used to predict extending/shortening the
schedule. Horses for courses.

J

Coyoteboy wrote:
>>2. you go ahead & change your oil anyway - you just send a sample of the >
>
> old oil at change time. the resulting report tells you whether you're
>
>>about to encounter a problem. or, and this is the whole point of this
>>conversation, whether you're changing oil ahead of it being necessary &
>>thus wasting money.
>
>
> I dont really want to know if I'm about to encounter a problem lol. Looking
> at the things it can diagnose, I can diagnose most of them shortly before
> they go critically wrong anyway by ear/feel etc. If they take out something
> else when they go, they were probably wearing it excessively anyway and so
> I'd replace that while i was changing it. If I were to know about it I'd
> worry about when was the best time to change whatever was failing etc I
> guess that since I do all my own work im less worried about the costs of
> labour if things go wrong.

personally, i'd rather know what's coming and have a chance to budget
both time & money for a fix that's convenient rather than be stuck in
the middle of 6 lanes of stop-go holday traffic waiting for a tow truck.

>
> But a)I'm not too worried about environmental issues regarding a couple of
> gallons of oil, b) I know 3K miles is a nice short interval on top Q synth
> oil, c) my differing driving habits from one month to the next would mean I
> couldnt really use one change's analysis results to predict the rest - which
> nullifies the point of doing the test.
>
> TBH it is just too much faffing to be bothered with, and with the fact that
> the vehicle is sometimes thrashed, sometimes pampered, the cost of repeated
> analyses would vastly outweigh the benefit. The oil testing companies *are*
> out to sell you stuff - the next analysis -

but they're not out to sell you more oil! and if they recommend a
longer change interval, they're not exactly forcing you into the next
analysis either.

> they dont do it for fun. I can
> see its a great idea for a normal vehicle under fleet use conditions, and if
> I were to be running 10 cars I'd consider it to reduce oil change costs, but
> really its over-analysis for the normal user when all thats required is a
> safety buffer of maybe 1 extra oil change.
>
> Due to its long term racing/drag/street history the 3Sgte engine is well
> documented, and the known 'good' change interval is accepted as 3K as per
> the manufacturer specs, unless the car is track-abused.
>
> I'm not saying its a bad idea, just that it doesnt suit all cases, and
> really in my case its a waste of cash and

VVVVV

>simply serves to scare the hell
> out of me

^^^^^

and there it is. personally, i think it's like using radar when flying
in fog vs. flying low & hoping i see the mountain in time.

> warning me of the next failure - why worry about things you cant
> alter. .

prevention better than cure...

>
>
>>again, if analysis shows you can safely extend your maintenance
>>interval, it makes sense to do that. they will tell you if you need to
>>shorten your maintenance schedule too.
>
>
> As I say, since its not a daily driver, and is sometimes abused, sometimes
> mollycoddled, it couldnt be used to predict extending/shortening the
> schedule. Horses for courses.
>
> J
>
>