Jump to content
TEAM SHELBY FORUM

Synthetic Oil


Recommended Posts

No I am not trying to reignite the synthetic v convention v synthetic blend argument (again). What I am curious about is a statement by a conventional oil sales rep about synthetic oil. A statement I had not heard before. He stated that synthetic oil does not conduct heat as well as conventional oil and does not transfer heat as efficiently as conventional oil. He also stated that synthetic oil does not suspend contaminants as well as conventional oil and that all the contaminants sink to the bottom of the oil pan and stay there. I would not think this is accurate as I have seen ads for mobil one showing a very clean oil pan on engines with over 100,000 miles. Any reason to believe either of the statements?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The oil rep is just trying to trash talk the synthetic oils. His statements are typical of dinosaur oil guys.

 

 

 

I agree!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting read. What oi and filter do you use?

 

I don't have a GT500, but if I did I'd use the Motorcraft 5W50 full-synth or one of the following: Roush Valvoline 5W50, Castrol 5W50, or Mobil1 5W50. If I was in hot climate or raced iand/or raced it and didn't run it below 35*F or so, I'd probably use one of the Royal Purple or other quality synth racing oil that come in higher viscocities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have a GT500, but if I did I'd use the Motorcraft 5W50 full-synth or one of the following: Roush Valvoline 5W50, Castrol 5W50, or Mobil1 5W50. If I was in hot climate or raced iand/or raced it and didn't run it below 35*F or so, I'd probably use one of the Royal Purple or other quality synth racing oil that come in higher viscocities.

 

Interesting in the article he stated the Castrol Syntec is not synthetic. Again, I am not trying to start the debate again. I was just curious about the negative claims about the synthetic not conducting/transferring heat and not suspending contaminants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting in the article he stated the Castrol Syntec is not synthetic. Again, I am not trying to start the debate again. I was just curious about the negative claims about the synthetic not conducting/transferring heat and not suspending contaminants.

 

Yeah, I sort of read that with his "owns 50-something oil-change locations" (that likely don't use Castrol) hat on (lol). I don't think it matters how you get to a base oil of a particular specification. My understanding is that all synthetic oil ultimately comes from organic sources as some stage in its sourcing, so whether you tear it apart into 'true' 'synthetic' building blocks and reform them into the specified base stock vs chemically (I think he mentioned that Castrol uses propane, if I recall) extract unwanted contaminants to purify to the same specification would seem to matter little beyond a technicality, but I'm no expert on this by any means and, apparently, he is. Notice that he didn't say Castrol was inferior in any way, just that it not *technically* a synthetic under some set classification rules that don't apply in the US (lol) ...that was my take ...thats why I inferred above that it's a red herring comment, but I don't know that for sure.

 

As far as heat transfer, he seems to say/imply it does it better, if I recall :shrug: ...was that your read too? He doesn't seem to say anything (that I recall) about synthetic actually generating less heat as well -- which I beleive it does (..less ash ..less wear, etc must produce less heat at some tangible level). Assuming a synthetic is not used so long, or under such conditions, that the level of contaminants becomes a factor (dilution, combustion byproducts, etc), I would think it is a distinct avantage over conventional oils just for its near zero ash content, all other things being equal, aside from its better lubricatuion under extreme conditions.

 

Years ago I noticed that Generac (generator brand) specifies use of only full synthetic oil in their gas generators. I called them and spoke to an engineer because I wanted to find out why. He told me that generators at rated-load sustain piston-wall loading and cylinder temperatures akin to racing engines and so they spec synthetic for it's ability to hold up under exceptional conditions and for long-term wear rates. Makes sense, I think.

 

I don't use full-synth in our older cars but I would in any high-peformance engine (and I do in the generator).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use Royal Purple syn in the Mustangs and in my race cars I use Schaefer's syn. Never had any problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting in the article he stated the Castrol Syntec is not synthetic. Again, I am not trying to start the debate again. I was just curious about the negative claims about the synthetic not conducting/transferring heat and not suspending contaminants.

 

Unless I am reading something wrong - the Castrol Syntec web site says it is synthetic :)

 

http://www.castrolsyntec.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless I am reading something wrong - the Castrol Syntec web site says it is synthetic :)

 

http://www.castrolsyntec.com/

 

Of course there are those who say Mobil One isn't actually "pure synthetic". I'll bet by that standard there aren't many pure synthetics out there.

 

I use Ford's "pure synthetic" whether it's pure synthetic or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless I am reading something wrong - the Castrol Syntec web site says it is synthetic :)

 

http://www.castrolsyntec.com/

 

I believe it is ...I think it's just symantics on how the base stocks are created. Apparently Castrol just does it differently and apparently some countries (if I'm reading Kit correctly) only let certain methods be called synthetic. If it meets/exceeds the specifications I don't think it really matters how it was made. That's why I jokingly inferred that he probably doesn't use Castrol in his oil-change shops (lol).

 

Dunno if it's true, but I was told (by Ford parts guy) that Castrol makes the Motorcraft 5W50 A- and B-suffix oils :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe it is ...I think it's just symantics on how the base stocks are created. Apparently Castrol just does it differently and apparently some countries (if I'm reading Kit correctly) only let certain methods be called synthetic. If it meets/exceeds the specifications I don't think it really matters how it was made. That's why I jokingly inferred that he probably doesn't use Castrol in his oil-change shops (lol).

 

Dunno if it's true, but I was told (by Ford parts guy) that Castrol makes the Motorcraft 5W50 A- and B-suffix oils :shrug:

 

Correct Dan. They use a slightly different method (not PAO) to create the long chains. I think the feedstock for the synthetics is methane not propane. Grossly simplified, the methane is put under temperature and pressure and placed in a catalytic reactor and the hydrogens are driven off and the carbon atoms start linking with double bonds this continues until chains of carbon atoms with the two remaining hydrogen atoms are formed. The rate is understood and the throughput for the reactor determines the chain lengths. There are several bases manufactured that vary in viscosity and shear resistance.

 

Back to Castrol - I think their base stock comes from the Canadian Syncrude plant and uses a hydrolization of bitumen technique to make the long chains. Those that know will translate bitumen to "tar sands". I didn't say that first because it will turn off most people. The important thing to remember about the base stocks are - how pure they are (contaminants cause problems over time) and how uniform the chains are. In addition, the base only makes up about 70% of the motor oil by volume. The other 30% are the surfactants, viscofiers and other additives used to control wear, maintain seals, resist chain breakage, etc. I choose my oil based on these additives, not the technique used to make the hydrocarbon chains.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
I believe it is ...I think it's just symantics on how the base stocks are created. Apparently Castrol just does it differently and apparently some countries (if I'm reading Kit correctly) only let certain methods be called synthetic. If it meets/exceeds the specifications I don't think it really matters how it was made. That's why I jokingly inferred that he probably doesn't use Castrol in his oil-change shops (lol).

 

Dunno if it's true, but I was told (by Ford parts guy) that Castrol makes the Motorcraft 5W50 A- and B-suffix oils :shrug:

 

I read that Conoco Phillips makes the Syn Blend Motorcraft 5w20 and 5w30 in the orange bottle. There is an article floating out there stating how Conoco uses a special Cracking method that results in a better form of molecule in its Base stock. I am not a fan of Castrol and would like to know for sure. Anybody have further info about Motorcrafts oils? Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always sworn by Mobile1, but I know opinion alone doesn't help out much. I use it in all my vehicles, except for the Shelby, seeing that Mobil1 5w-50 isn't available in the United States... I just use the Motorcraft stuff. I sent in a sample to BlackStone in Indiana and had them test it to see how it was holding up... nothing came up other than the normal break-in metals/etc. that are common for the first few oil changes.

 

So far, so good with Motorcraft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read that Conoco Phillips makes the Syn Blend Motorcraft 5w20 and 5w30 in the orange bottle. There is an article floating out there stating how Conoco uses a special Cracking method that results in a better form of molecule in its Base stock. I am not a fan of Castrol and would like to know for sure. Anybody have further info about Motorcrafts oils? Thanks

 

Yeah, I've read that too -- could very well be ...dunno. :shrug:

 

I see Roush also meets the Ford -B spec and is made by Valvoline. So at least there's a couple choices now ...probably will be more over time as other figure out how to meet the spec at a competitive price. Mobil-1 does not meet -B and I see Castrol (which also does not meet it) doing a lot of advertising that their latest chemistry produces several times *less* wear than Mobil-1 does. Mobil-1 was way ahead of the curve when it came out but clearly has fallen behind currency for these new formulations. I doubt that Moil-1 would cause damage as much as it would not combat wear under the specific conditions the Ford -B spec was designed to address in addition to API-SM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...
...