Well, I tried switching back over to Dino and me no likes.

Engine temps are a bit elevated especially after boost runs and noticed some leaks and burning oil smell. All of which were not present when running full syn.

So I am going back.

Just my personal experience, not trying to start 10 page oil debate. lol

 

I'd be curious if the oil leaks and burnt oil smell are still present after you switch back. I'm betting yes.

FWIW- elevated oil temps after a hard run typically mean the oil is doing it's job by pulling heat out of the hot parts like pistons.

 

Well, the burnt oil is what lead to my heavy degreasing which was discussed on another thread. I did that just to make sure it wasn't spillage from the oil change and it wasn't.

I will be sure ot post after going back, but I know I did not have this heavy of oil smell when right before when running syn.

Correct, that means it is pulling the heat, that was created, out. But with the syn, it did not have to pull that heat out because excess heat was not present. I assume to better lubrication.

 

I will have to switch my oil to a thinner oil for winter. Currently running 20w-50 VR1 love it except if my cars sits outside its just too thick to get moving in the morning. I hate to switch to syn for the risk of finding some leaks.

 

Yea, when the cold really comes in I will change it and go back to syn and lighter weight. Actually, for winter the best is to find a 5 or 10w-50. So it is light on start up but still heavy enough once it is up to temp. Even in the winter, hard boost runs it gets plenty hot. Only issues are start up temps.

The only issues I had with leaks before this most recent oil change, was running too thin and that happened regardless of syn or dino.

If you have no leaks or issues now I would stay with dino. I have heard the main philosphy for oil, regardless of syn or dino; STAY WITH WHAT IS WORKING. LOL

So for me the syn was working so I will go back. It seems problems only arise when we constantly change up the weights, brands, etc.

 

http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles...oil/index.html

"
But claims and talk are cheap, so Car Craft had Westech Performance run some of the new Mobil 1 0W-30 in Ford's prototype 392 small-block stroker crate engine. The Mobil 1 was compared to the generic (and recommended for this engine) 20W-50 factory-fill conventional oil, as well as 10W-30 conventional oil. All tests began with the oil temperature stabilized at 210 degrees F. The engine ran from 3,300-6,200 rpm, and several runs were made for each oil to ensure repeatability.

In terms of peak numbers, we found that the engine gained nearly 7 hp with the thinner conventional oil, and was up nearly 10 hp with the synthetic. No peak torque gains were observed by changing from 20W-50 to 10W-30 conventional; however, the synthetic was up 15 lb-ft of torque at the peak. Looking at average numbers helps explain where the gains occurred--both the thinner conventional and synthetic oils broadened the torque and power bands overall, but the thin Mobil 1 showed the greatest improvement under 4,700 rpm, indicating that the thinner oil provides less initial drag for the engine to overcome.

However, thinner oil also translates to lower oil pressure: The 0W-30 oil developed 10 psi less than the baseline 20W-50. Only 46 psi was on tap at 6,200 rpm--kind of shaky as most gearheads like to see at least 10 psi per 1,000 rpm. Still, the engine ran OK, and the bearings looked fine on teardown, seemingly verifying synthetic manufacturers' claims that their products' greater shear strength more than makes up for lower viscosity. Is 10 hp and 15 lb-ft worth paying two to four times more for a quart of oil? Or the potential for extended engine life? You be the judge. "

 

Horrible job by the magazine. Are they testing viscocity or synthethic/mineral oil? They should have had a range of viscocities in both types of oil. They saw 7 hp with thin oil, and another 3 hp with synthetic. That 3 hp falls within dyno variability. Furthermore, they claimed that the shear strength overcomes the lack of pressure with the Mobil 1. Then perhaps they should test the shear strengths.

Finally, the most laughable aspect was the visual inspection of the engine after a few dyno runs. YOu can't detect those differences visually, even after an incredibly strenuous durability test at the OEM level.

This kind of crap drives me nuts. Journalists should not be allowed to play the role of engineer. They put out all kinds of misleading or incomplete information out there, and folks are going to go run Mobil 1 0W-30 and blow their #2 rod bearing on the first warm up lap, and assume it was something else. As far as the quality of the "engineering" behind some crap magazines publish, the only difference between magazines and internet forums is the prodigous use of ink.

And Todd, this was not directed at you, please don't take it as such.

 

Hey King! Nope, I know its not at me.

Glad you really dug into the article and point the variables in their testing. which seems to happen more often than not. You need to have 1 variable and all other constants, but they are journalist not lab techs. lol

As you mention, it is almost impossible to find concrete, unbiased testing of oils.

Does or has Consumer Reports ever done any back to back testing?

I wanna say I rememeber a 60 Minutes episode years back where they put dino and syn in a bunch of NYC cabs. They ran the cabs 12 months (iirc) without changing the oil but ran tests on the oil periodically and motors, etc. and came to the conlusion that syn seemed to perform slightly better, however, the point of the testing was to show that even dino did not have to be changed every 3K etc.

I think it really does seem that problems only arise when you bounce around from different brands and weights, dino to syn, vice versa, etc. That is the only "constant" I can find. lol

 

I use Brad Penn (recommended by LN Engineering) and I do like it. If you can get it locally give it a try.

 

i contacted Mobil one website and they recommend 0w-40 year round and 15-50 only if you are tracking the car

 

I've used 0W-40 Mobil1 exclusively in my 996 for the last six years, and no problems whatsoever, so I'm going to finally switch over to it on the 951 (since I won't be tracking it for a while anyway) and see how it goes.

 

That's not even a "constant", really.
I mean if everything is good with your engine, you should be able to mix brands, viscosities, synthetic/dino, and none of that should matter, except for temp considerations.

 

^huh?

 

Mobil 1 seems to be the best for motors with VERY high tolerances, like a 996, etc.

But it seems on the 951 I have heard/read a lot of issues owner's have when they run Mobile 1.

I guess the 951 motor has a lot of "gaps" that Mobil 1 seems to find. LOL

 

I am using a 50/50 mix of Mobil 1 V Tech 20/50 motorcycle oil and Mobil 1 15/50 in the 951. The 911 and the 240Z run Mobil 1 20/50 V Tech oil only. I worry about ZDDP levels being correct in these 3 cars The 944 na gets Mobil 1 15/50 only due ti the cat being in place. Ive had no oil related problems in any of these cars ever. Its mild in the Bay Area during winter so I can get away with using the heavier oils in the winter.